PDA

View Full Version : Let me play my character !!



Earthwalker
2015-10-01, 04:09 AM
In a party we have a fighter, cleric, thief and mage.
Bob is playing the mage. Now normally at the start of the day a mage chooses what spells to memorize. Bob thinks it would be more fun if his mage had a curse, so Bob decides that instead of choosing his spells daily he will randomly get spells.
Bob has 6 spells in his book and gets two spells a day. So each morning Bob rolls 2D6 and gets two random spells for the day. This will make Bob less powerful.
So here are some of my questions.

Is what Bob is doing wrong ? He has made up some rules for himself and limiting his character.

Does the fighter have a right to complain about Bobs actions ? Should the fighter be telling Bob how to play ?

Should the GM get involved and just tell Bob, no that’s not how it works ?

Lets say instead of being curse Bob decides his player is just mad and does this random spell learning. This closes down the possibility of a quest to remove the curse, is Bob now doing something wrong ?

GloatingSwine
2015-10-01, 04:26 AM
Is what Bob is doing wrong ? He has made up some rules for himself and limiting his character.


Not if the GM is OK with it (and pitches encounter challenge appropriately).


Does the fighter have a right to complain about Bobs actions ? Should the fighter be telling Bob how to play ?

Not really. He's not making you RNG your weapon every morning, is he?


Should the GM get involved and just tell Bob, no that’s not how it works ?

That's the GM's call. (I'd probably encourage him to RNG some but not all of his spells so he can still have the character flavour of the curse but gets a little more control)


Lets say instead of being curse Bob decides his player is just mad and does this random spell learning. This closes down the possibility of a quest to remove the curse, is Bob now doing something wrong ?

Not if he plays the character appropriately.


(You could have introduced Bob to the wild mage and see if that tickled his RNG fancy)

Regitnui
2015-10-01, 04:47 AM
In a party we have a fighter, cleric, thief and mage.
Bob is playing the mage. Now normally at the start of the day a mage chooses what spells to memorize. Bob thinks it would be more fun if his mage had a curse, so Bob decides that instead of choosing his spells daily he will randomly get spells.
Bob has 6 spells in his book and gets two spells a day. So each morning Bob rolls 2D6 and gets two random spells for the day. This will make Bob less powerful.
So here are some of my questions.

Is what Bob is doing wrong ? He has made up some rules for himself and limiting his character.

Does the fighter have a right to complain about Bobs actions ? Should the fighter be telling Bob how to play ?

Should the GM get involved and just tell Bob, no that’s not how it works ?

Lets say instead of being curse Bob decides his player is just mad and does this random spell learning. This closes down the possibility of a quest to remove the curse, is Bob now doing something wrong ?

There are two different types of player idea; one that adds to the game, and one that inconveniences everyone else. I think this is the second type. Adding unnecessary dice rolls hurts a game more than any 'fun' it might generate. Just think about if this campaign lasts long enough. Is 'Bob' going to roll randomly every day for every spell level?

Also, a mage's strength is also having the right magical trick at the right time. I can see variations on the following conversation happening a lot; (party at chasm) "we need feather fall. I know you learned it." "Sorry, randomly rolled water breathing and ray of frost today." (Next day, party pursuing sahuagin villain) "He's getting away! We need a water breathing spell." "Sorry, I randomly prepared feather fall and prestidigitation today."

Thirdly, is there not an alternative 'curse' like lowered spellcasting stat or disadvantage on will saves that makes equal sense and hinders the character without hamstringing both the GM and the rest if the party's combat ability?

Mr.Moron
2015-10-01, 04:56 AM
Sounds fun. If was the GM I'd probably want bob to pitch this to me and come up with some more defined behavior for it than just something bob does on his own. Always neat to see an idea that's a bit non-standard without it being spotlight-stealing or just for metagame numbers.

Ninja_Prawn
2015-10-01, 05:03 AM
Sounds fun. If was the GM I'd probably want bob to pitch this to me and come up with some more defined behavior for it than just something bob does on his own. Always neat to see an idea that's a bit non-standard without it being spotlight-stealing or just for metagame numbers.

Yeah, I'm the same. The DM should approve this and help to make it work within the game*, possibly making it semi- or pseudo-random. Maybe mix in some wild magic flavour?

As a DM, it annoys me when one player tries to optimise everyone else's characters against their wishes. Not everyone wants to be a finely tuned winning machine!

*Or rule it out if it clearly won't work within their game. Basically I'm saying the DM should have a say, one way or the other.

oxybe
2015-10-01, 05:06 AM
Note that at the end of the night, you still spent an evening playing a game with a group of people, even if you're all pretending to be dwarves and elves during that period.

If this act of randomly rolling your spells is causing issues with the group, as in "bob is nigh useless again since all he rolled was enchantment spells for our undead adventure" or "bob, you're making it hard for me to throw encounters your way", and forcing the party to pickup your slack or unwanted work the GM, it's one of the few instances of doing D&D wrong.

"It's what my character would do" is never an excuse for behavior that disrupts play or causes unwanted problems for other players.

If the GM and the other players are alright with it, it's fine. If not remember: in any other situation with these people, would you do something equivalent?

Mastikator
2015-10-01, 05:46 AM
Frankly I don't even see why the fighter should even be privy to the method of selecting spells. He might complain that the mage is unreliable and not pulling his weight, but that's another matter.

The GM technically has the right to intervene, but there are no grounds for it.

Earthwalker
2015-10-01, 06:08 AM
This is just theory by the way I am niether BOB or the fighter.


There are two different types of player idea; one that adds to the game, and one that inconveniences everyone else. I think this is the second type. Adding unnecessary dice rolls hurts a game more than any 'fun' it might generate. Just think about if this campaign lasts long enough. Is 'Bob' going to roll randomly every day for every spell level?

I honestly have been in groups where a random method of getting spells would speed up the process. Of course you are right, time taken to do this is an issue. (Can be overcome with technology).

Also, a mage's strength is also having the right magical trick at the right time. I can see variations on the following conversation happening a lot; (party at chasm) "we need feather fall. I know you learned it." "Sorry, randomly rolled water breathing and ray of frost today." (Next day, party pursuing sahuagin villain) "He's getting away! We need a water breathing spell." "Sorry, I randomly prepared feather fall and prestidigitation today." [snip]

A Mage can prepare the wrong spells for the day when choosing spells as well. It is an issue when the next day the group needs spell X and BOB can’t prepare it. On the same token the figher cant prepare spell X either. Is the fighter not worth a spot in the group ?


[snip]
As a DM, it annoys me when one player tries to optimise everyone else's characters against their wishes. Not everyone wants to be a finely tuned winning machine!
*Or rule it out if it clearly won't work within their game. Basically I'm saying the DM should have a say, one way or the other.

I also find it annoying when one player is trying to optimize the others, or control the other players for the sake of effency. Like in this example the fighter telling BOB what spells he needs to learn the next day as it will help the group. I always feel if you want to know spels x,y and z play a mage and learn them yourself then you can choose. I would feel the same way if BOB started to tell the fighter, you need to pick up these skills the next time you level.
Also I agree the GM should be told. The GM can even say BOB you can’t do this, but if I was BOB I would want to know why. Same two mages are in the group, SAM and BOB. Now SAM chooses his spells and BOB randomly rolls his. BOB is still choosing to randomly roll.


[snip]
If this act of randomly rolling your spells is causing issues with the group, as in "bob is nigh useless again since all he rolled was enchantment spells for our undead adventure" or "bob, you're making it hard for me to throw encounters your way", and forcing the party to pickup your slack or unwanted work the GM, it's one of the few instances of doing D&D wrong.
"It's what my character would do" is never an excuse for behavior that disrupts play or causes unwanted problems for other players.
If the GM and the other players are alright with it, it's fine. If not remember: in any other situation with these people, would you do something equivalent?

If BOB was usless then I can see it’s a problem, if you are talking something like DnD then BOB is still going to have some use even with random spells. I do agree if it makes it impossible for the GM to run encounters then things need to change.

Not sure I am ok with the line of this disrupts play, the fighter is complaining he can’t tell BOB what spells he should have. I mean should the fighter be picking BOBs spells ?

Earthwalker
2015-10-01, 06:12 AM
Frankly I don't even see why the fighter should even be privy to the method of selecting spells. He might complain that the mage is unreliable and not pulling his weight, but that's another matter.

The GM technically has the right to intervene, but there are no grounds for it.

Oh with this BOB certainly is unreliable. No one in the party can know what his spells are going to be the next day.
By the same token if SAM the mage choose to always put foxs cunning in his second level spells slot, to up the DCs of all his debuffs.
The fighter can say SAM is unreliable, every day he asks for bulls strength but SAM doesnt cast it, he is always just casting fox's cunning on himself. Is the problem here the fighters or SAMs ?

Lvl 2 Expert
2015-10-01, 06:29 AM
Is the problem here the fighters or SAMs ?

It's the group's.

I wholeheartedly believe, even in real life, in the concept of "not my problem". There are only two types of problems, and while some of them are mine, some are not. In this case, whether I'd be the mage or the fighter, this would be my problem.

As the fighter I have a problem that the mage apparently insists on not contributing. If he came up with this curse and then found creative ways to still be of use that would be fine. We could have used fireball against that troll, but telling everyone to run of a cliff and casting feather fall works too, as does running down a hallway and stoneshaping it, scaring the troll of with an illusion of its mother in law or giving the thief a bonus to his bluff and letting him dare the troll that they'll jump into that acid pool over there on three, ready? But apparently, in this scenario, the mage does nothing like that, leaving the fighter and the thief as a party of two. If they had known it'd be like that one of them would have rolled up a magic user.

As the mage this would be my problem because I'm being the problem. I'm not just choosing to be underpowered, I'm choosing to put the party at extra risk by not participating, and hiding behind "but I couldn't prepare the right spells". Getting the party in danger is the GM's job. If I choose to fight with one hand behind my back that's no reason to do that and then fight badly using it as an excuse. Because that's how this whole scenario sounds.

nedz
2015-10-01, 06:37 AM
Not if the GM is OK with it (and pitches encounter challenge appropriately)

It's very hard to pitch encounters with this much variability.

Wizards have a low floor and a high ceiling regarding optimisation levels — and this is mainly due to spell selection.

Even with this scheme you have the possibility of a low optimisation Bob and a high optimisation Bob. A low optimisation Bob would fill his spell book with lots of relatively weak or situational spell; whilst a high optimisation Bob would know, possibly fewer, spells which had more flexibility. Basically a high optimisation Bob's spell list would look very much like a Sorcerer's spell list whilst a low optimisation Bob would likely look more like a Batman Wizard's spell selection.

From the information presented we have no idea as to the optimisation level Bob is playing with given the range of possible Bob optimisation levels. It's likely too early to tell given that Bob is still at a very low level.

Earthwalker
2015-10-01, 07:24 AM
It's the group's.
I wholeheartedly believe, even in real life, in the concept of "not my problem". There are only two types of problems, and while some of them are mine, some are not. In this case, whether I'd be the mage or the fighter, this would be my problem.
As the fighter I have a problem that the mage apparently insists on not contributing. If he came up with this curse and then found creative ways to still be of use that would be fine. We could have used fireball against that troll, but telling everyone to run of a cliff and casting feather fall works too, as does running down a hallway and stoneshaping it, scaring the troll of with an illusion of its mother in law or giving the thief a bonus to his bluff and letting him dare the troll that they'll jump into that acid pool over there on three, ready? But apparently, in this scenario, the mage does nothing like that, leaving the fighter and the thief as a party of two. If they had known it'd be like that one of them would have rolled up a magic user.
As the mage this would be my problem because I'm being the problem. I'm not just choosing to be underpowered, I'm choosing to put the party at extra risk by not participating, and hiding behind "but I couldn't prepare the right spells". Getting the party in danger is the GM's job. If I choose to fight with one hand behind my back that's no reason to do that and then fight badly using it as an excuse. Because that's how this whole scenario sounds.

You mentioned Sam and the Fighter, Sam was the hyperthetical mage that was using his own spell slots to increase his potential as opposed to the fighters. SAM would contribute to the party he would just use his spells to make himself look better, not make the fighter look better.
As to the second point. BOB may have random spell selection but he will do all he can to use those spells to help the group. Your example of the troll is just as it would work out. If he has fire spell he would use it to finish the troll off, if not and had haste he would use that to buff the group to either fight or run. If he got dispell magic then that might not work here but could be used elsewhere.
Try to think that BOB is not trying to be usless. Just he noticed last time he played a mage he dominated the game, so he now gets random spells. He has alot more fun working out how to use the tools he has to help, then automatically just having a I win button.
Of course alot of people compare this with thier groups, in some groups a wizard with random spells is not effective. I can say in my group a wizard with random spells would still manage to do ok, we have very low levels of optimization. I can see where people are coming from tho.


It's very hard to pitch encounters with this much variability.
Wizards have a low floor and a high ceiling regarding optimisation levels — and this is mainly due to spell selection.
Even with this scheme you have the possibility of a low optimisation Bob and a high optimisation Bob. A low optimisation Bob would fill his spell book with lots of relatively weak or situational spell; whilst a high optimisation Bob would know, possibly fewer, spells which had more flexibility. Basically a high optimisation Bob's spell list would look very much like a Sorcerer's spell list whilst a low optimisation Bob would likely look more like a Batman Wizard's spell selection.
From the information presented we have no idea as to the optimisation level Bob is playing with given the range of possible Bob optimisation levels. It's likely too early to tell given that Bob is still at a very low level.

Well asume that BOB pitches his optimization level to match the group. Also asume that he stays the same level at all levels. So from lvl 1 up to 10.
His lower level spells start lean and he adds more in as he levels up, so at the start of the game he doesn’t have identify (for example) but when he gets more spells he might waste some slots on identify, but his higher level spells make up for it.
BOB is not trying to go against the optimization level of the group. He is just doing something different (maybe he is bored, or just tired of being a group resource)

Delta
2015-10-01, 07:24 AM
It's very hard to pitch encounters with this much variability.

This, and that's why I'd never allow it if I were GMing a D&D game. Now, if this game isn't very encounter- or combat-oriented, it's another matter (I'd just question using D&D for that kind of game, but that's another discussion entirely), but it would be completely impossible for me as a GM to design encounters for this group, because I have no idea whether the group's wizard will be a completely useless appendix with a crossbow or a walking demigod rewriting the laws of reality at will on any given day.

Earthwalker
2015-10-01, 07:58 AM
This, and that's why I'd never allow it if I were GMing a D&D game. Now, if this game isn't very encounter- or combat-oriented, it's another matter (I'd just question using D&D for that kind of game, but that's another discussion entirely), but it would be completely impossible for me as a GM to design encounters for this group, because I have no idea whether the group's wizard will be a completely useless appendix with a crossbow or a walking demigod rewriting the laws of reality at will on any given day.

I do feel the central concept I am using to get my point across seems flawed as there is more focus on optimization level. I can see your point here about not allowing it as it changes the wizard power level on a daily basis.
It is possible for BOB the player to make sure his spell book is lean enough to always get a usful spell on some level to keep a certain minimum power level. Its just he wont know what spell he might have each day.

I do find it odd how this works in DnD.
Like say you have a wizard with 2 level 3 spells.
One day he learns 2 dispell magics.
The next day he learns 2 fireballs.
Because he is switching out the GM cannot make an encounter for him. He has to learn the same thing every day so the GM knows what to use as an encounter for him.

Thrudd
2015-10-01, 08:02 AM
As far as I'm concerned as the DM, Bob can decide what spells his wizard memorizes any way he wants, and other players can't force him otherwise.

I would not be surprised if the other players complained and asked Bob to knock it off with the random spells if they were hoping for more consistency from their wizard, but I wouldn't feel that I need to get involved unless people are really upset OoC.

I also can't force the other players to take Bob on their adventures, and if the wizard becomes really annoying, useless, or a liability, then they would probably be justified in asking the character (not the player) to leave the party. Then Bob can roll up a new character that hopefully isn't "cursed".

Delta
2015-10-01, 08:21 AM
Because he is switching out the GM cannot make an encounter for him. He has to learn the same thing every day so the GM knows what to use as an encounter for him.

But that's not true. I can make an encounter for him because I can make reasonable assumptions on the spells he will have on a given day. For example, if the adventure calls for them to sneak into a bandit camp and I know the PCs will have a day to prepare for that, I can assume the wizard will use an invisibility spell or something similar. I know the player, I know the character, yes, he could theoretically decide to one day get up and memorize nothing but Feather Fall on a day where they know they'll be invading the undersea kingdom of mermaids, but in reality, I know he'll be preparing some underwater breathing for this even if there's no law that says he must.

PersonMan
2015-10-01, 08:40 AM
But that's not true. I can make an encounter for him because I can make reasonable assumptions on the spells he will have on a given day.

No.fffffffffffffffff


Now normally at the start of the day a mage chooses what spells to memorize. Bob thinks it would be more fun if his mage had a curse, so Bob decides that instead of choosing his spells daily he will randomly get spells.

Earthwalker
2015-10-01, 08:46 AM
But that's not true. I can make an encounter for him because I can make reasonable assumptions on the spells he will have on a given day. For example, if the adventure calls for them to sneak into a bandit camp and I know the PCs will have a day to prepare for that, I can assume the wizard will use an invisibility spell or something similar. I know the player, I know the character, yes, he could theoretically decide to one day get up and memorize nothing but Feather Fall on a day where they know they'll be invading the undersea kingdom of mermaids, but in reality, I know he'll be preparing some underwater breathing for this even if there's no law that says he must.

Hmm lets take the first example.
BOB asumes that even with invisiblity Fighty McFightyson will be clanking around and alert the whole camp to the group. Instead he decides he may as well memorize one extra blasting spell for when trouble kicks off.
Does that ruin the encounter you planed ?
Is that better or worse becuase its based on an asumption of the player as opposed to he rolled 5 instead of 6 on spell selection ?


The second example
This one I find really interesting. Presumably there is a reason to invade the underwater kingdom, and presumably this is a reason the GM has created. So the GM has put what the players need there.
It then becomes the job of one member in the part to expend his resources to get the party there (spell slots for underwater breathing)
Of course if there was no wizard would the adventure end at this stage ?

Delta
2015-10-01, 08:47 AM
No.fffffffffffffffff

Um, you're making my point. I was talking about the difference between your usual Wizard (about which I can make such assumptions) and Bob's character (about which I cannot)

Logosloki
2015-10-01, 09:14 AM
Is what Bob is doing wrong?
Not enough information. All we know is that Bob is a mage, has six spells known and can only prepare two. We don't know what spells Bob knows and how often Bob can cast a spell in a given day. We don't know the setting or how long the group is expected to be playing the campaign. At a guess Bob is level one, a DM might ask if Bob is going to continue doing this as the game progresses and if Bob is then a DM might ask Bob to ensure Bob has at least one or two spells of each level Bob is capable of casting.

Does the Fighter have a right to complain about Bob's actions?
Nope. Unless Bob is also playing russian roulette with Bob's spell list then nobody has a right to complain about anything. A DM might ask Bob to choose spells when Bob levels up still rather than allowing Bob to fully indulge in Bob's worship of RNGesus.

Should the Fighter tell Bob how to play?
Unless Bob is having troubles that Fighter can help with and Bob asks for help, Fighter shouldn't tell anyone how to play.

Should the DM get involved and tell Bob, no that's not how it works?

As I stated in the previous queries, unless Bob is playing russian roulette with his spells known, there is nothing really for the DM to get involved with. This question I find odd. Unless the query was meant to be "As the" rather than "Should the". The use of third person throughout the statements makes it seem that we are observers rather than actors. As a DM, you should build your set pieces to challenge the players with the question "how do you react", not building set pieces around the statement "this is how you react". Never assume anything, because when you make assumptions you leave yourself blind to creativity or in this case, chance.

Lets say instead of being curse Bob decides his player is just mad and does this random spell learning. This closes down the possibility of a quest to remove the curse, is Bob now doing something wrong ?

This final query is a bit of a mess. The opening sentence is about alt-Bob who is simply mad rather than cursed. If by "random spell learning" it is intended to mean that Bob prepares spells by random roll then nothing is different to what I previously wrote. If Bob is now also randomly learning spells when Bob levels up then as a DM you may wish to talk to Bob about this. Bob may accidentally or deliberately set up a bad spell list then a DM or a player might raise the issue.

If Bob is mad rather than cursed it doesn't necessarily close down a quest to cure Bob but a question to this is, does Bob want to be cured? At worse, even if Bob is mad and Bob decides that Bob will cease random rolls then Bob can state that Bob's character had an epiphany and Bob will behave differently.

Again, Bob is not doing anything "wrong". Unless Bob is deliberately sabotaging the randoms rolls or spell selection then while Bob isn't playing optimally Bob isn't playing wrong.

Earthwalker
2015-10-01, 10:25 AM
[snip]
As a DM, you should build your set pieces to challenge the players with the question "how do you react", not building set pieces around the statement "this is how you react". Never assume anything, because when you make assumptions you leave yourself blind to creativity or in this case, chance.
[snip]


You have managed to put forward ideas I was thinking far better than me.
Sorry if I have been unable to get my point across in the original and other posts.



Lets say instead of being curse Bob decides his player is just mad and does this random spell learning. This closes down the possibility of a quest to remove the curse, is Bob now doing something wrong ?

This final query is a bit of a mess. The opening sentence is about alt-Bob who is simply mad rather than cursed. If by "random spell learning" it is intended to mean that Bob prepares spells by random roll then nothing is different to what I previously wrote. If Bob is now also randomly learning spells when Bob levels up then as a DM you may wish to talk to Bob about this. Bob may accidentally or deliberately set up a bad spell list then a DM or a player might raise the issue.

If Bob is mad rather than cursed it doesn't necessarily close down a quest to cure Bob but a question to this is, does Bob want to be cured? At worse, even if Bob is mad and Bob decides that Bob will cease random rolls then Bob can state that Bob's character had an epiphany and Bob will behave differently.

Again, Bob is not doing anything "wrong". Unless Bob is deliberately sabotaging the randoms rolls or spell selection then while Bob isn't playing optimally Bob isn't playing wrong.

The main question here was wondering if people felt differently between a curse that drives the plot (to get BOB cured) and just if the condition could not be cured and was only used for BOBs amusment.

Clearly my example works in most DnD settings but the question was posted on these forums to be system neutral. (As opposed to one of the DND sub forums)

The question is more about a player being able to choose what spells he memorizes (in this case going with the RNG) as opposed to other players or the GM telling him how he can play.

I find it odd if you choose the title Mage. Then your spell slots are of group concern. If you choose Thief are you skill / feat choices the groups concern. Is it becuase spell slots come back daily where as feat / skill choices last forever.

Mr.Moron
2015-10-01, 10:32 AM
I do feel the central concept I am using to get my point across seems flawed as there is more focus on optimization level. I can see your point here about not allowing it as it changes the wizard power level on a daily basis.
It is possible for BOB the player to make sure his spell book is lean enough to always get a usful spell on some level to keep a certain minimum power level. Its just he wont know what spell he might have each day.

I do find it odd how this works in DnD.
Like say you have a wizard with 2 level 3 spells.
One day he learns 2 dispell magics.
The next day he learns 2 fireballs.
Because he is switching out the GM cannot make an encounter for him. He has to learn the same thing every day so the GM knows what to use as an encounter for him.

We could also just accept that things won't always be tactically balanced. I mean it's not like this is Warmachine or something. If we were talking a competitive tabletop experience yeah I'd want less RNG factor hell that's why Blizzard's Hearthstone can be so frustrating a times. In an RPG though? Something like this will just serve to create situations that neither I as the GM or the players could foresee ahead of time, it's uncertainty. Uncertainty creates tension, demands improvisation and these things can really drive engagment.

In my last 5e game we had a wild magic sorc with some modifications that really made the effects quite random. Many of the best moments were when a random result cropped up that entirely changed the momentum of events unfolding.

Thrudd
2015-10-01, 10:55 AM
You have managed to put forward ideas I was thinking far better than me.
Sorry if I have been unable to get my point across in the original and other posts.



The main question here was wondering if people felt differently between a curse that drives the plot (to get BOB cured) and just if the condition could not be cured and was only used for BOBs amusment.

Clearly my example works in most DnD settings but the question was posted on these forums to be system neutral. (As opposed to one of the DND sub forums)

The question is more about a player being able to choose what spells he memorizes (in this case going with the RNG) as opposed to other players or the GM telling him how he can play.

I find it odd if you choose the title Mage. Then your spell slots are of group concern. If you choose Thief are you skill / feat choices the groups concern. Is it becuase spell slots come back daily where as feat / skill choices last forever.

First, I don't think this curse is a good plot-driver. Maybe if it is already an established party and the wizard has been acting normally for a long time, and then becomes struck by the curse (at DM direction, not the player's). Then it would make sense that the other chatacters want to help their friend and restore his established abilities to full capacity.

If the character just starts out this way, at level one, why should anyone else care about getting him cured? The curse does nothing except make him a crappy wizard. It would make more sense for the other characters to simply look for a different wizard for their party, rather than take on a guy that they know is a liability right from the start. Also, how did this guy even complete his apprenticeship to become a wizard in the first place?

If the character is mentally ill instead of "cursed", the above concerns still apply. There is no reason for other characters to accept him as a companion, and it begs believability that he could have made it as a wizard in the first place.

This would be a fun gimmick for a character in a goof/comedy campaign where everyone is silly and jokey. In a campaign with a more serious tone (I know it's never really serious, it's a game), this random spell guy may not be so well received.

Personally, I would encourage the player not to do this, but I would not stop them from playing however they want and selecting spells however they want. I would let them know that the "curse" doesn't actually exist, and the character can stop acting that way any time the player wants.

Mr.Moron
2015-10-01, 12:34 PM
First, I don't think this curse is a good plot-driver. Maybe if it is already an established party and the wizard has been acting normally for a long time, and then becomes struck by the curse (at DM direction, not the player's). Then it would make sense that the other chatacters want to help their friend and restore his established abilities to full capacity.

If the character just starts out this way, at level one, why should anyone else care about getting him cured?


1) Maybe the group are all Childhood friends.
2) Maybe the force that put a curse on the wizard has wronged all the other players in some way.
3) Maybe the players are a member of a group witch hunters and one of them got cursed before the game started
4) Maybe the group is in a setting where curses are commonplace and uncursed wizards are the exception rather than the rule.
5) Maybe the group just likes the guy.
6) Maybe the wizard's guild has it in the for the party, and cursed wizard was the only one they could get.
7) Maybe the group are travelers from a far away land, and are happy to have a local guide regardless of how cursed he is.
8) Maybe the curse also binds the group together
9) Maybe the curse hides itself, and nobody actually notices the spells going arwy akin to a high-level illusion of the consequences playing out naturally from the environment.
10) Maybe the curse is seen as a mark from the god of magic, that will bring good fortune to those that overcome it and those that help them
11) Maybe the group is just curious to see what comes of it.
12) Maybe the curse is also the key to a great ancient treasure, where also lies the cure.
13) Maybe the curse is part of something bigger and if the wizard isn't cured without dying a drought will befall the land, taking down the kingdom as it does him.
14) Maybe the curse is something that travels from person to person, growing greater each time it transfers. The only way to keep the curse contained is to travel and use your magic in novel ways, lest jump to others grow more powerful and take more lives.
15) Maybe the curse occasionally produces more powerful spells, and they see the risk as worth the reward.
16) Maybe the curse is the fault of the group itself and they wish to right their wrongs.
17) Maybe the curse is on all of them, but only affects his magic. Unless they get cured as group they'll start showing symptoms too 1 by 1.
18) Maybe the curse is a marker for some crime. All the players are criminals, local religion demands they make repentance together which among other things will lift the curse.
19) Maybe the curse is what powers a bunch of sweet loot the others players get handed at the start of the game. Until the wizard is cured, they can't leave him without their toys de-powering and they'll power up as a bonus when he is cured.
20) Maybe there are no other wizards. Maybe his ability to read and use magic comes from the curse, an ability long since lost to humanity otherwise.

I dunno, should I keep going? I mean there is a lot of potential material here once you go beyond seeing the PCs as disconnected pieces in tactical board game.

Keltest
2015-10-01, 12:55 PM
from my perspective, what spells the wizard memorizes is his own business, but when he starts becoming a hindrance to the party, it is everyone's business. The fighter doesn't have the right to tell him how to pick his spells OOC, but he does have the right to tell the wizard to fix his curse or whatever before he continues to party with them In Character and Out.

MrZJunior
2015-10-01, 01:07 PM
Why does combat have to be balanced or winnable?

Thrudd
2015-10-01, 01:15 PM
1) Maybe the group are all Childhood friends.
2) Maybe the force that put a curse on the wizard has wronged all the other players in some way.
3) Maybe the players are a member of a group witch hunters and one of them got cursed before the game started
4) Maybe the group is in a setting where curses are commonplace and uncursed wizards are the exception rather than the rule.
5) Maybe the group just likes the guy.
6) Maybe the wizard's guild has it in the for the party, and cursed wizard was the only one they could get.
7) Maybe the group are travelers from a far away land, and are happy to have a local guide regardless of how cursed he is.
8) Maybe the curse also binds the group together
9) Maybe the curse hides itself, and nobody actually notices the spells going arwy akin to a high-level illusion of the consequences playing out naturally from the environment.
10) Maybe the curse is seen as a mark from the god of magic, that will bring good fortune to those that overcome it and those that help them
11) Maybe the group is just curious to see what comes of it.
12) Maybe the curse is also the key to a great ancient treasure, where also lies the cure.
13) Maybe the curse is part of something bigger and if the wizard isn't cured without dying a drought will befall the land, taking down the kingdom as it does him.
14) Maybe the curse is something that travels from person to person, growing greater each time it transfers. The only way to keep the curse contained is to travel and use your magic in novel ways, lest jump to others grow more powerful and take more lives.
15) Maybe the curse occasionally produces more powerful spells, and they see the risk as worth the reward.
16) Maybe the curse is the fault of the group itself and they wish to right their wrongs.
17) Maybe the curse is on all of them, but only affects his magic. Unless they get cured as group they'll start showing symptoms too 1 by 1.
18) Maybe the curse is a marker for some crime. All the players are criminals, local religion demands they make repentance together which among other things will lift the curse.
19) Maybe the curse is what powers a bunch of sweet loot the others players get handed at the start of the game. Until the wizard is cured, they can't leave him without their toys de-powering and they'll power up as a bonus when he is cured.
20) Maybe there are no other wizards. Maybe his ability to read and use magic comes from the curse, an ability long since lost to humanity otherwise.

I dunno, should I keep going? I mean there is a lot of potential material here once you go beyond seeing the PCs as disconnected pieces in tactical board game.

This is all implying buy in from the other players and the DM, making this one player's character idea into a driving feature of the setting or campaign.
It seems to me like a player saying: "I have this wacky idea, please build a game around my special character." As the DM, I don't do that. You can play your wacky character, but I'm not designing the game just for you. If I'm running a game, I've usually designed it and the setting it takes place in rather carefully, and the players create characters to enter that setting.

If the DM is doing collaborative world building with the other players, and designing the campaign and world around their character ideas, then great. But again, the topic does not imply this to be the case.

If the random wizard player was able to convince the DM and the rest of the players that this should be a "thing" and to build the game around this curse, then there would be no problem. If the group just doesn't care or thinks it's fun or interesting for the wizard to act this way, then again no problem.

Mr.Moron
2015-10-01, 01:28 PM
This is all implying buy in from the other players and the DM, making this one player's character idea into a driving feature of the setting or campaign.
It seems to me like a player saying: "I have this wacky idea, please build a game around my special character." As the DM, I don't do that. You can play your wacky character, but I'm not designing the game just for you. If I'm running a game, I've usually designed it and the setting it takes place in rather carefully, and the players create characters to enter that setting.

If the DM is doing collaborative world building with the other players, and designing the campaign and world around their character ideas, then great. But again, the topic does not imply this to be the case.

If the random wizard player was able to convince the DM and the rest of the players that this should be a "thing" and to build the game around this curse, then there would be no problem. If the group just doesn't care or thinks it's fun or interesting for the wizard to act this way, then again no problem.

Why not buy in? Bob wants to do this, and folks are bob's friends find a way to make it work. Find an idea that you're all comfortable with, that hasn't be counteracted by the game so for (or that you're fine retconning in) and roll with it. What's the point in getting all final destination/no items/fox only over it?

Setting expectations and getting everyone on the same page is vital, but that doesn't have to imply total inflexibility unless what they want really specifically conflicts with the central premise of the game.

nedz
2015-10-01, 01:42 PM
Why does combat have to be balanced or winnable?
It doesn't, though aiming for this is a valid play-style and TPKs are dull.

In an RPG though? Something like this will just serve to create situations that neither I as the GM or the players could foresee ahead of time, it's uncertainty. Uncertainty creates tension, demands improvisation and these things can really drive engagement.
Serendipitous spell selection FTW.
I have seen this happen but it's unusual at level 1, when you only have two spells.

Knaight
2015-10-01, 03:13 PM
This sounds entirely reasonable. As a GM I'd probably recommend a different randomization method just because dice rolls are on the slower end (e.g. decks of cards), but that's about it. If the group is specifically after maximally efficient problem solving as a play style there's a play style conflict, but that's the extent of things.

Mr.Moron
2015-10-01, 03:41 PM
This sounds entirely reasonable. As a GM I'd probably recommend a different randomization method just because dice rolls are on the slower end (e.g. decks of cards), but that's about it. If the group is specifically after maximally efficient problem solving as a play style there's a play style conflict, but that's the extent of things.

This is a really good way of going about it. You might also even be able to put in effects/modifiers along with the spells to act as small upsides, risk management opportunities, or particularly harsh drawbacks.

prufock
2015-10-01, 04:25 PM
Honestly it sounds like a flaw that should be worth some sort of extra benefit. I don't dislike the idea, but maybe an extra spell known or spell slot each level would be fair game for this.

Deophaun
2015-10-01, 06:06 PM
Is Bob a problem for the other characters? Yes.

Is Bob's problem insurmountable? As long as the curse is reasonable (spells are randomized, but we aren't learning cantrips in level 5 slots), no.

There are steps the group can take to limit the randomness, such as custom spellbooks.

"Hey Bob, we have a stealth mission coming up, so we're going to swap out your blasty book with the sneaky book. Remember, randomly memorize from sneaky, not blasty."

Is Bob going to be 100% effective? No. But if the party has its act together, Bob will still be valuable.

Now, the real problem is, this puts Bob at the center of attention. The party has to devote resources to working around Bob's problem. Unchecked, the story of how they rescued the princess can become the story of how they got Bob into condition to help them rescue the princess. As long as that doesn't happen, as a DM, this would just be the party's problem, and not my problem. If Bob's curse starts hogging the limelight, then it's time for the DM to step in.

Keltest
2015-10-01, 06:42 PM
Is Bob a problem for the other characters? Yes.

Is Bob's problem insurmountable? As long as the curse is reasonable (spells are randomized, but we aren't learning cantrips in level 5 slots), no.

There are steps the group can take to limit the randomness, such as custom spellbooks.

"Hey Bob, we have a stealth mission coming up, so we're going to swap out your blasty book with the sneaky book. Remember, randomly memorize from sneaky, not blasty."

Is Bob going to be 100% effective? No. But if the party has its act together, Bob will still be valuable.

Now, the real problem is, this puts Bob at the center of attention. The party has to devote resources to working around Bob's problem. Unchecked, the story of how they rescued the princess can become the story of how they got Bob into condition to help them rescue the princess. As long as that doesn't happen, as a DM, this would just be the party's problem, and not my problem. If Bob's curse starts hogging the limelight, then it's time for the DM to step in.

Bob's problem is actually incredibly easy to solve. Wizards can have multiple spell books, so just scribe several that have different selections of spells. Prepare a blaster spellbook, and a divination spellbook, or what have you. Sure, he still cant pick exactly what he wants every time, but he can at least make sure he doesn't get useless stuff like Hold Portal when you need to do something that isn't that.

Thrudd
2015-10-01, 07:57 PM
Bob's problem is actually incredibly easy to solve. Wizards can have multiple spell books, so just scribe several that have different selections of spells. Prepare a blaster spellbook, and a divination spellbook, or what have you. Sure, he still cant pick exactly what he wants every time, but he can at least make sure he doesn't get useless stuff like Hold Portal when you need to do something that isn't that.

The problem is, Bob isn't going to do that, because his whole concept is to never know what spells he will get. He doesn't want to solve the problem, he wants to play a lolzrandom character with a funny flaw. His concession is giving the DM and the other players a way to end his annoying flaw by focusing the campaign around him for a while, while acting like that is a gift he is giving them, for providing a plot idea.

Keltest
2015-10-01, 07:59 PM
The problem is, Bob isn't going to do that, because his whole concept is to never know what spells he will get. He doesn't want to solve the problem, he wants to play a lolzrandom character with a funny flaw. His concession is giving the DM and the other players a way to end his annoying flaw by focusing the campaign around him for a while, while acting like that is a gift he is giving them, for providing a plot idea.

In which case one of the players should suggest the above, and enjoy watching Bob struggle for an explanation as to why he cannot do that.

Mr Beer
2015-10-01, 08:08 PM
I don't view this as something for the fighter to complain to the mage about, it's something for the fighter's player to complain to the mage's player about.

It's annoying for someone to hobble themselves in a group endeavour, because they weaken the entire party. So the player can go ahead and do this if they like and if the GM doesn't want to stop them, fine. But it is something that I would find irritating and I would explain why.

EDIT

Also, it sounds like a lame attempt to be zany as opposed to an interesting character background. I find 'lol I'm so random! xD 111 #crazy #mental' shenanigans annoying though, so maybe it's just my perception on this.

Mr.Moron
2015-10-01, 08:13 PM
In which case one of the players should suggest the above, and enjoy watching Bob struggle for an explanation as to why he cannot do that.

The curse does not allow itself to be circumvented, if one attempts to maintain multiple spell books it shuffles the spells across the book.
The curse does not allow itself to be circumvented, if one attempts to use different spell books it forces you to read from different books without realizing it.
The curse does not allow itself to be circumvented, when one tries to write in additional spell book one finds one hands do not write.
The curse does not manifest as reading the wrong spell, it manifests as reading the spell incorrectly. Regardless of what you attempt, your mind interprets randomly from the sum total of spells it's memorized before.

Just off the top of my head. I doubt I'm all that much more creative or intelligent than anyone else, including bob.

Jay R
2015-10-01, 08:57 PM
If I were the DM, I would probably insist on the following:

1. Bob should prepare lists of random spells written on sheets of paper or 3x5 cards, so the process of randomizing the day's spells is choosing one card, not rolling lots of dice.
2. I reserve the right to occasionally choose one or more of the spells that come up on a given day. [I would do this primarily to convince the fighter that I will prevent the randomness from destroying the party.]
3. There are experience points or other rewards for really clever uses of poor randomly chosen spells.
4. I will decide why this is happening, and Bob will not know at the start of the game.

That gives me enough control to ensure that the weird situation enhances the game, rather than detracting from it.

NichG
2015-10-01, 09:37 PM
This has nothing at all to do with Bob's optimization or power level or contribution or the ability of the DM to balance encounters or things like that. This is an OOC issue.

You can be 'right' and be 'inconsiderate' at the same time.

Bob has the right to pick his own spells.
The fighter has the right to complain - that's the basis of communication.
Bob has the right to ignore the complaint.
The fighter has the right to decide that Bob is a jerk OOC for totally ignoring his complaint.
Bob has the right to not care.
The fighter has the right to stop hanging out with Bob.

Just because everyone had the right to do all of these things doesn't mean that it was the best way to handle the situation.

JusticeZero
2015-10-02, 01:48 AM
Is Bob being clever with his spells? We had a character like that at one point. Just removed the spells per day completely, but every time they wanted to cast a spell, it was random. Specifically, they had a spell deck and could draw and hold one card out of it, and had to cast it or permanently forget the spell to be able to get another spell. Had the game gone on they might have eventually gotten a bigger hand or whatever. It worked out okay.

Milodiah
2015-10-02, 02:55 AM
As soon as I read about Bob, I just rolled my eyes. I mean, sure, this idea could have some incredibly redeeming moments, as evidenced in the comic itself (i.e. Vaarsuvius as the lizard), but most of the time it's just going to be annoying for everyone, both in and out of game.

As a character, I don't think I'd be willing to bring this wizard along when there are almost certainly enough normal, reliable wizards around. A majority of the "explanations" I've seen strike me as contrived, and on both sides of the table I genuinely believe in ensuring there's a bloody reason the party is composed of the people it is. If people are asking out-of-character why they're even bringing Bob along, their characters would damn sure be asking that, and I refuse to accept "because we're the player characters" as the reason the party exists if it's the only reason the party exists.

As a player, I don't see why this curse is the way it is. I'd see the point of suddenly dropping a minor arc on a magic player that he's been hit with a curse that bars him from the use of magic as a particularly nasty trap or something, or a cursed item that has a bad habit of popping dispel magic on the user, but this just seems ridiculous...especially with the way the wizard class works in this game. I don't see how a curse could force him to prepare random spells short of full-on possessing him every morning when it's time to do it.

Bob will probably tire of this character very soon, but almost certainly not before everyone else. I would try to discourage him from it if at all possible, and from my experience, having to tell the people you share a table with that "you can't make me not play this character, you're not the GM!" is a sign that things are about to get really bad...

ahenobarbi
2015-10-02, 08:31 AM
In a party we have a fighter, cleric, thief and mage.
Bob is playing the mage. Now normally at the start of the day a mage chooses what spells to memorize. Bob thinks it would be more fun if his mage had a curse, so Bob decides that instead of choosing his spells daily he will randomly get spells.
Bob has 6 spells in his book and gets two spells a day. So each morning Bob rolls 2D6 and gets two random spells for the day. This will make Bob less powerful.
So here are some of my questions.

Is what Bob is doing wrong ? He has made up some rules for himself and limiting his character.

Does the fighter have a right to complain about Bobs actions ? Should the fighter be telling Bob how to play ?

Should the GM get involved and just tell Bob, no that’s not how it works ?

Lets say instead of being curse Bob decides his player is just mad and does this random spell learning. This closes down the possibility of a quest to remove the curse, is Bob now doing something wrong ?

It would waste a lot of everyone's time on rolling wizard rolling spells. It would make wizard either a fifth wheel (if he learns a lot of spells and thus is likely to get poor spell selection) or a cripled sorcerer (if he choses few spells)(why not simply play handicaped sorcerer instead?).

I would refuse to play in game with such character (sure I can't force Bob to play character I want but he can't force me to play with character I don't want to play with). Or I would play and insist on Bobs PC leaving the party (they're liability / they are my friend and I don't want to watch them getting killed). Or I would arrange for the character to be killed in-game.

Mr.Moron
2015-10-02, 10:02 AM
It would waste a lot of everyone's time on rolling wizard rolling spells. It would make wizard either a fifth wheel (if he learns a lot of spells and thus is likely to get poor spell selection) or a cripled sorcerer (if he choses few spells)(why not simply play handicaped sorcerer instead?).

I would refuse to play in game with such character (sure I can't force Bob to play character I want but he can't force me to play with character I don't want to play with). Or I would play and insist on Bobs PC leaving the party (they're liability / they are my friend and I don't want to watch them getting killed). Or I would arrange for the character to be killed in-game.

The fact one acceptable solution is supposedly uninvited PvP is very telling to where this position is coming from.

Earthwalker
2015-10-02, 10:43 AM
from my perspective, what spells the wizard memorizes is his own business, but when he starts becoming a hindrance to the party, it is everyone's business. The fighter doesn't have the right to tell him how to pick his spells OOC, but he does have the right to tell the wizard to fix his curse or whatever before he continues to party with them In Character and Out.
I didn't specify a system in the original post but its DnD enough. I wanted to say there was a difference to not being 100% helpful to a party and being a hindrance.
I also choose fighter and mage for a reason, a well played mage operating at 50% is still miles away above a fighter.
It would seem completely odd if a two weapon fighter turned up and the mage player basically goes. "You need to spend the rest of your time picking up two handed fighting styles or you are out of the group. You are a hindrance you aren't using the maximum of your capabilities."


I don't view this as something for the fighter to complain to the mage about, it's something for the fighter's player to complain to the mage's player about.
It's annoying for someone to hobble themselves in a group endeavour, because they weaken the entire party. So the player can go ahead and do this if they like and if the GM doesn't want to stop them, fine. But it is something that I would find irritating and I would explain why.
EDIT
Also, it sounds like a lame attempt to be zany as opposed to an interesting character background. I find 'lol I'm so random! xD 111 #crazy #mental' shenanigans annoying though, so maybe it's just my perception on this.

Again the mage tries to make sure his curse does not push him below the effective level of the group. He just might not have the perfect spell for the situation every time. I mentioned a fighter and a thief in the group. In DnD terms that's two classes that are not Tier 1 and so the argument of you are hobbling yourself would take them out of the game too.


As soon as I read about Bob, I just rolled my eyes. I mean, sure, this idea could have some incredibly redeeming moments, as evidenced in the comic itself (i.e. Vaarsuvius as the lizard), but most of the time it's just going to be annoying for everyone, both in and out of game.
As a character, I don't think I'd be willing to bring this wizard along when there are almost certainly enough normal, reliable wizards around.
[snip]


This is Bob is not playing to a level I find acceptable. So I will take him out of the game. Also Carl choose to a play a fighter, no room for you. Here is the build you have to play if you want to game with me. Is that how it work?, you review all builds if they don't measure up there not in the game ?
I am saying a Random spell draw mage is comparable to a fighter in power. (this example was not DnD just the way it works in the system Bob and Fighter are playing in)


It would waste a lot of everyone's time on rolling wizard rolling spells. It would make wizard either a fifth wheel (if he learns a lot of spells and thus is likely to get poor spell selection) or a cripled sorcerer (if he choses few spells)(why not simply play handicaped sorcerer instead?).
I would refuse to play in game with such character (sure I can't force Bob to play character I want but he can't force me to play with character I don't want to play with). Or I would play and insist on Bobs PC leaving the party (they're liability / they are my friend and I don't want to watch them getting killed). Or I would arrange for the character to be killed in-game.

Lets assume -
Its ok BOB has written a program to choose his spells a day it takes a second to run.
BOB will keep his current spell level clean when learning spells, but fill in utility at lower levels. He is less effective than a choose spell wizard but above the fighter and thief.
So is it still the same that BOB should not be allowed to play this character because it doesn't follow the same rules as a regular wizard ?

This is not a DND game, the example was close but I tried to change a few things. I know there is a DnD bias here its all good.
It is not really a question about power level if we assume after random selection Bob is still an acceptable power level he just doesn't have the ability to call forth powers on demand (something a fighter doesn't have either, a fighter cant change glass cannon one day, debuffer then next, tank the next, buffer the next. Yet the fighter is not dead weight like BOB is. I find that an odd conclusion)
It is also just hypothetical this is not a game in progress I am just asking the question. I find the answers very interesting. Certainly gives me different insight on it all.
Like starting off I didn't even think of planning encounters.

Earthwalker
2015-10-02, 10:44 AM
The curse does not allow itself to be circumvented, if one attempts to maintain multiple spell books it shuffles the spells across the book.
The curse does not allow itself to be circumvented, if one attempts to use different spell books it forces you to read from different books without realizing it.
The curse does not allow itself to be circumvented, when one tries to write in additional spell book one finds one hands do not write.
The curse does not manifest as reading the wrong spell, it manifests as reading the spell incorrectly. Regardless of what you attempt, your mind interprets randomly from the sum total of spells it's memorized before.

Just off the top of my head. I doubt I'm all that much more creative or intelligent than anyone else, including bob.

I was going to list some things BOB would say but I don't need to, thank you.

Or just say the example wasn't DnD. Mages are only ever allowed one spell book in made up system BOB is using.

Thrudd
2015-10-02, 11:13 AM
I was going to list some things BOB would say but I don't need to, thank you.

Or just say the example wasn't DnD. Mages are only ever allowed one spell book in made up system BOB is using.

So is this hypothetical question really an attempt to limit the mage's power so it doesn't outshine the fighter? If that is the case, I think it is unnecessary. Instead of the player randomly memorizing spells, the DM can run the game such that the mage doesn't become all-powerful by controlling how the mage learns spells in the first place. At first level, the mage's spellbook has spells selected by the DM (aka the character's teacher), perhaps randomly determined. No spells for sale, scrolls are discovered in loot determined randomly. Only one spell per level selected by the player. Now the mage has an unoptomized spellbook, but he can make the most of it in creative ways by memorizing what he wants each day.

Also, we can't talk about this hypothetical scenario without knowing exactly what game it is taking place in. Everything you've said, regarding tiers and mages being significantly more powerful than fighters and memorizing spells, implies D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder. You can't just claim it isn't this system now because you disagree with the answers people are giving. If it isn't D&D, then what is it? Exactly what are the rules for mages, how do spellbooks and memorizing work, what are the spells Bob will have available to choose from. That makes all the difference in how this character would operate and be seen by other players. If this is a hypothetical character in a hypothetical homebrew game designed specifically for this hypothetical scenario, then it was pointless to discuss.

Unless you are trying to design a game in which this is how mages operate, in which case you should have just come out and said that up front instead of introducing this whole thing about curses and other players trying to tell you how to play.

Sacrieur
2015-10-02, 11:23 AM
Lmao.

The GM can't tell a player what spells to prepare. If he wants to roll dice and randomly select them he's more than welcome to do so.

This is more about wanting to control everyone else than it is about other characters. I think it's a problem you even think it's okay that you feel you have a right to tell another person what to do.

PrincessCupcake
2015-10-02, 02:09 PM
Is Bob doing anything wrong? Not inherently, no. However, Bob's character has the potential to be disruptive. There should probably be some mitigating factor to the randomness.

Something like "no more than half his slots are decided randomly, and spells rolled up are divided by spell level". Creating or obtaining scrolls/potions/wands would do a lot to mitigate the damage to himself and others.


Does the fighter's player have the right to complain? Yes.

Does the other player have the right to tell bob how to play? This answer boils down to a big NO.
Each player ultimately has control of only one character- their own. You should not tell a player how to play their character unless
a) they are asking you to do so
b) they are fundamentally misunderstanding their class or abilities

tl,dr:
I do not think he should entirely give up the random aspect to his character just because another player does not like it, but there should probably be some concessions made for the sake of everyone's fun.

Sacrieur
2015-10-02, 02:21 PM
I do not think he should entirely give up the random aspect to his character just because another player does not like it, but there should probably be some concessions made for the sake of everyone's fun.

No concessions need to be made. People should stop trying to tell Bob what to do and how to play his character. It's his choice and not yours. He's not breaking any rules so there's nothing wrong with it, end of story.

Earthwalker
2015-10-02, 02:22 PM
So is this hypothetical question really an attempt to limit the mage's power so it doesn't outshine the fighter? If that is the case, I think it is unnecessary. Instead of the player randomly memorizing spells, the DM can run the game such that the mage doesn't become all-powerful by controlling how the mage learns spells in the first place. At first level, the mage's spellbook has spells selected by the DM (aka the character's teacher), perhaps randomly determined. No spells for sale, scrolls are discovered in loot determined randomly. Only one spell per level selected by the player. Now the mage has an unoptomized spellbook, but he can make the most of it in creative ways by memorizing what he wants each day.

Also, we can't talk about this hypothetical scenario without knowing exactly what game it is taking place in. Everything you've said, regarding tiers and mages being significantly more powerful than fighters and memorizing spells, implies D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder. You can't just claim it isn't this system now because you disagree with the answers people are giving. If it isn't D&D, then what is it? Exactly what are the rules for mages, how do spellbooks and memorizing work, what are the spells Bob will have available to choose from. That makes all the difference in how this character would operate and be seen by other players. If this is a hypothetical character in a hypothetical homebrew game designed specifically for this hypothetical scenario, then it was pointless to discuss.

Unless you are trying to design a game in which this is how mages operate, in which case you should have just come out and said that up front instead of introducing this whole thing about curses and other players trying to tell you how to play.

The Hypothetical situation and my reasoning behind it was to address players and GMs telling one player what to do and what was allowed.
Powerlevel and Optimization had nothing to do with the original reason I posted. It has been brought up on the thread so I have replied to it.

Of course we can talk hypotheticals without knowing exactly what the game is. We have been doing that.
You can still form opinions based on the information you have and assumptions you make.

You can state things like. I am assuming that this is going to cause a problem with balancing encounters and if it does I would not allow it.
I can then state, oh I see that, lets say that BOBs spell selection means he will always having some use and is in power level of the rest of the group, would you have another problems with this situation ?

I am not trying to push an agenda here I am curious as to what people think. Mostly on the nature of group dynamics and players controlling others characters, and GMs controlling other players.

Its ironic you are telling me its pointless to discuss while at the same time presenting a point of view different to my own where I am learning how someone else would see the situation.

Thrudd
2015-10-02, 05:02 PM
The Hypothetical situation and my reasoning behind it was to address players and GMs telling one player what to do and what was allowed.
Powerlevel and Optimization had nothing to do with the original reason I posted. It has been brought up on the thread so I have replied to it.

Of course we can talk hypotheticals without knowing exactly what the game is. We have been doing that.
You can still form opinions based on the information you have and assumptions you make.

You can state things like. I am assuming that this is going to cause a problem with balancing encounters and if it does I would not allow it.
I can then state, oh I see that, lets say that BOBs spell selection means he will always having some use and is in power level of the rest of the group, would you have another problems with this situation ?

I am not trying to push an agenda here I am curious as to what people think. Mostly on the nature of group dynamics and players controlling others characters, and GMs controlling other players.

Its ironic you are telling me its pointless to discuss while at the same time presenting a point of view different to my own where I am learning how someone else would see the situation.

It makes a difference what the specifics are, is what I mean. We keep moving the goalposts, so to speak, from the specific situation described in the first post to more and more generic and hypothetical. Responses to one may not apply to the other.

Is it ok for other players to direct how someone plays their character, in general? No. Discussion over.

We started out the thread with a question about a very specific situation heavily implying D&D, regarding a mage and random spell selection, and whether a curse or a mental illness would be a better excuse for this behavior.

Is it ok for a player to voluntarily hobble his own character to the possible detriment of the rest of the party? I would say yes, but don't be surprised if the others complain if they feel you are purposely sabotaging them, regardless of what excuse you are using. You may create OoC resentment.

Using a cureable curse as a concession to let the DM and party "fix" your character at some point strikes me as a move to get more spotlight, as the DM I wouldn't consider it a favor. It's more like holding them hostage, "I'm going to be a problem until you make me the focus of your campaign."

A mental illness makes more sense than a curse for this specific behavior. However, both curses and mental illness can be cured by clerics in D&D. Since we would presume the character wants to be cured, and his friends want to cure him, the situation shouldn't last long. Since the DM, not the player, gets to dictate the setting, spell availability and rules of the game, the player can't declare his illness uncurable by any means nor decide how easy or hard it will be to cure. If the DM has bought into the curse or illness idea and given you an uncurable curse or designed an adventure to find your cure, then the point is moot whether or not anyone else can tell you how to play: your chosen play style has been embraced.

Are you obligated to optimize your character to the standards of another player? Of course not. You can select nothing but obscure niche spells for your spellbook if you want to.

Can the DM veto a character concept that won't fit their game? Yes. So in this way, the DM has some manner of control over how you play. If I say this is a game of serious tone, so no overtly goofy comic characters, I am justifiably limiting your choices for how to play. If you insist on being goofy anyways, you should expect a discussion about that.

If the behavior is not causing problems for the other players, is performing perfectly well, and isn't breaking the rules of the game, then nobody should care what you're doing. If other players are complaining about it, then there's a good chance it is causing problems regardless of how you feel about it. A discussion needs to happen where either you convince them to accept your play choices, or they convince you to change. Otherwise there is just brewing discontent between people which isn't healthy.

Cluedrew
2015-10-02, 06:02 PM
What is this thread actually about? Is it about this particular situation? Is it about people playing less than optimal characters?

As far of the particular situation a lot has already been said, a lot of good things that could probably help you answer that. But I've never actually played a wizard in D&D (I was surprised when that occurred to me, I always play some sort of spell caster but never a straight wizard) but I have played an "underpowered" character. In my case it was a pure melee character in a setting that was dominated by guns. Everyone else had some form of fire arm but my character stuck to hidden blades.

In terms of optimization I should have just slapped on some holsters and moved on, but I didn't. Was I letting the party down? No. This isn't, as mentioned earlier in the thread, Warmachine (some of use played that too), a verses game. This is a role-playing game, you win by playing a role, telling an interesting story and having fun doing it. We did that and we won. We actually won both ways, we beat the villain and by some twist of fate, my character was the only one to land a decent hit.

icefractal
2015-10-02, 06:31 PM
If we're talking strictly IC, then it's up to the character what spells they prepare, and other characters probably wouldn't even know what the reason for the odd choices is unless he reveals it.

However, if we're talking strictly IC, then there's no mandate for the other characters to accept "Rando Wizard" as a member of the party, trust him to watch their back, or give him a share of the treasure. After all, imagine if it was an NPC - some random Commoner 1 wants to join your group, but can only contribute his skills at basket weaving. Would you sign that guy up as a full party member?

In most games, there's an unofficial agreement that the PCs all get to be in the party, because they're PCs. Making a PC with useless or antagonistic behavior strains that agreement.

That said, you can definitely play a Wizard less than 100% optimally and have them still be a contributing member of the party. Whether the OP's example fits that category depends - if you're randomly selecting from spells that are decent enough to likely still be good for something, there's no problem. If you're ending up mostly hiding in the back not helping ... it's your character, so your decision, but it's the other players' decision whether they want to work with said character.

Nightcanon
2015-10-02, 06:51 PM
No concessions need to be made. People should stop trying to tell Bob what to do and how to play his character. It's his choice and not yours. He's not breaking any rules so there's nothing wrong with it, end of story.

Bob the wizard can choose his spells however he wishes to. That's his prerogative.
Mike the fighter can choose whether he wants to adventure with Bob, or whether he'd rather try to find someone more reliable to work with.
If the players want to roll with it, that's fine, but I think there's a risk that the game quickly becomes about Bob and his wacky choices (especially if the DM has to modify adventures on the fly so Bob can contribute, in which case Bob's player is running a different game and making the DM play it).
If you want to limit the power of wizards, why not restrict their spell choices in other ways? Only allow a free choice of spell once per spell level, not per wizard level. Run a world where wizards are no more likely to swap spells than they are to swap wives, and where finding a scroll with new magic is a rare and wonderous thing, rather than just popping to the village shop to stock up on high power magic.

Knaight
2015-10-02, 08:19 PM
Bob the wizard can choose his spells however he wishes to. That's his prerogative.
Mike the fighter can choose whether he wants to adventure with Bob, or whether he'd rather try to find someone more reliable to work with.
If the players want to roll with it, that's fine, but I think there's a risk that the game quickly becomes about Bob and his wacky choices (especially if the DM has to modify adventures on the fly so Bob can contribute, in which case Bob's player is running a different game and making the DM play it).
We're still talking about a wizard with a large collection of spells available. The amount of modification needed for them to contribute is nothing.

Cipher Stars
2015-10-03, 02:10 AM
I haven't read the topic, just the first post and a couple following it. But I just wanted to say that it should be more than fine. The rules are there to support those who want to play the game, not confine them/us. It's a roleplaying game after all, governed by imagination. It isn't a hard-coded game where you're stuck to what the developers programmed.


That said though, some people aren't so big on the imagination side or at least believe in -strict- adherence to core rules and can be opposed to homebrewing/houserules of any sort. It's up to the DM and player agreement in the end to decide how everyone wants to proceed.


What Bob the Wizard is trying to do is something fun and special that could end up with a more memorable experience and is something that should be encouraged in playing this sort of game, but if people have problems with it then unfortunately it may cause more grief than it is worth (though it's more a problem with the individuals than the idea itself).


It's what makes Tabletop (Even if online "tabletop") unique from other forms of games.

Nightcanon
2015-10-03, 04:08 AM
We're still talking about a wizard with a large collection of spells available. The amount of modification needed for them to contribute is nothing.

It depends a bit on what spells are available in the wizard's spellbook I guess- "sorry guys, I don't have sleep memorised today, will a color spray do instead?" is fine, and having slept on it, it's not a terrible way for an experienced player to avoid playing Bob the wizard exactly the same as Ann the wizard last time. But if you have someone who frequently sets off to fight skeletons and zombies armed with sleep, Tenser's floating disc, identify and knock, you risk having the Bob and his crazy spell selection be the centre of attention just as much as if Bob was played as godwizard. Either the DM has to subtly modify the game to introduce situations where those spells are useful, or the party have to look after the guy who otherwise contributes very little.

I haven't read the topic, just the first post and a couple following it. But I just wanted to say that it should be more than fine. The rules are there to support those who want to play the game, not confine them/us. It's a roleplaying game after all, governed by imagination. It isn't a hard-coded game where you're stuck to what the developers programmed.


That said though, some people aren't so big on the imagination side or at least believe in -strict- adherence to core rules and can be opposed to homebrewing/houserules of any sort. It's up to the DM and player agreement in the end to decide how everyone wants to proceed.


What Bob the Wizard is trying to do is something fun and special that could end up with a more memorable experience and is something that should be encouraged in playing this sort of game, but if people have problems with it then unfortunately it may cause more grief than it is worth (though it's more a problem with the individuals than the idea itself).


It's what makes Tabletop (Even if online "tabletop") unique from other forms of games.
The issue that I have with this (apparently shared with several others upthread) isn't that we lack the imagination or are too hidebound by the rules (thanks very much :smallwink:), it's that Bob the Wizard (already a member of a class that gets plenty of spotlight and options in any game in which it appears) risks making the game even more about him. Low level wizards have to be protected but are worth protecting because they can be decisive in an encounter or two a day; higher level wizards can end up shaping the whole party around their abilities. The risk with Bob is that even at low level, the whole game becomes about how well Bob's player can use his imagination to make use of his wacky random spell selection: "watch me play with this handicap". If Bob's player wants to limit him in some way, there are more imaginative ways than randomising spells. Have Bob be mortally afraid of fire or have a strong ethical stance against compelling others to act against their will, or go for a lower tier caster class altogether. Like I say, fine if all the others a fine with it, but for myself playing the exasperated fighter or rogue in "the crazy adventures of Bob" would get old pretty quickly, and I think it's asking a bit of the DM too.

Templarkommando
2015-10-04, 12:55 AM
I'd have to see this in action before I got angry about it. I've been in several parties that have had characters that were essentially worthless for at least some of the average session. The biggest beef that I have with this style of play is when it makes gameplay completely impossible or leads to focusing on a single player soaking up play time. It reminds me of a quirky character that I've spent a good portion of the last 10 years playing with. In 2.0 rules, rogues had an ability to climb walls. He used this ability in random places frequently. Places where it was of no help. It was annoying, but it didn't soak up large portions of game time, and he was still generally able to fill his role without killing the party.

It also reminds me of a game that I DMd that made me a little frustrated. I had a special snowflake character that would find out where a dungeon was and try to recon the place before any other party members showed up. While this doesn't sound like it would take a lot of time, there was one session in particular that had a recon session that soaked up 2 hours of game time just for the sake of this character. This habit went on for some time, but as time went on my player started to realize that soaking up so much attention really bored a couple of the other players.

Raimun
2015-10-05, 06:27 PM
If someone wants to do that sort of thing, s/he is welcome to do it, no matter how unoptimal it would be.

Of course, if this bothers you (in or out of character), you can always suggest (in or out of character) more sensible tactics. If the other player still decides to carry on with the spell lottery, I'd leave it at that and just try to find out ways to off set the tactical weakness of an unrealiable mage.

downlobot
2015-10-05, 07:56 PM
Did bob talk to anyone else about the idea before play (e.g. at session 0)? That seems like the polite thing to do. Not because he might be underpowered or overpowered or spotlight or encounter design, but because I think people tend to expect (hope?) that the person sitting next to them will generally act rationally, and this introduces irrationality into the core of what bob does. It could be fun, it could wind up with everyone dead, either way it would be polite to talk about before hand.

erikun
2015-10-05, 08:36 PM
Would everyone in the party be fine if the Fighter randomly rolled on a table to determine the one weapon they would be capable of using each day? Would they be fine with going to fight a dragon while the party Fighter is stuck with a -8 penalty due to some nonproficiency two-handed requirement, or can barely hit because it is a ranged weapon, or cannot even damage anything in the adventure because they rolled a whip that morning?

Would everyone in the party be fine if the Rogue randomly rolled which skills they would be proficient in as the beginning of the day? Would they be fine if the party Rogue went one day from fully trained in Disarm, Search, and Listen over to having half-ranks in Concentration and Knowledge (Local)? Would the party be fine if the Rogue's Track feat would suddenly turn off over half the time, or the Rogue's ability to search for and disarm traps hardly worked, because of the luck of the dice?

Would everyone in the party be fine if the Cleric was unable to cast any spells 2/3rds of the time because they randomly rolled their alignment every morning, and an incompatable alignment prevented them from casting anything?

This is what the party Wizard is asking the group.

It could work as a silly idea for a campaign, if everyone is on board, but I think it would just generate frustration and everyone at the table feeling like the party Wizard is worthless because of their concept. How well the table handles this will vary, of course. Some groups are perfectly fine with that and will just progress as if they didn't even have a Wizard; others will become frustrated. I think it might just be more fun to randomize everything in the game and play it off as rather silly, as opposed to one character either intentionally being useless or at least, only useful in exceptionally rare situations.

Sacrieur
2015-10-05, 09:50 PM
Would everyone in the party be fine if the Fighter randomly rolled on a table to determine the one weapon they would be capable of using each day? Would they be fine with going to fight a dragon while the party Fighter is stuck with a -8 penalty due to some nonproficiency two-handed requirement, or can barely hit because it is a ranged weapon, or cannot even damage anything in the adventure because they rolled a whip that morning?

Would everyone in the party be fine if the Rogue randomly rolled which skills they would be proficient in as the beginning of the day? Would they be fine if the party Rogue went one day from fully trained in Disarm, Search, and Listen over to having half-ranks in Concentration and Knowledge (Local)? Would the party be fine if the Rogue's Track feat would suddenly turn off over half the time, or the Rogue's ability to search for and disarm traps hardly worked, because of the luck of the dice?

Would everyone in the party be fine if the Cleric was unable to cast any spells 2/3rds of the time because they randomly rolled their alignment every morning, and an incompatable alignment prevented them from casting anything?

This is what the party Wizard is asking the group.

That's some strawman you have constructed there.

Those things aren't even close to being analogous to what's happening.

Raphite1
2015-10-06, 12:37 AM
Bob's actions are no problem at all. He's a weaker version of an existing class, and is still probably more powerful than the fighter or rogue. As the DM, I'd find it MUCH easier to balance encounters around a Bob-wizard than a normal wizard.

Even if Bob wasn't playing such a powerful class, it'd still be easy to balance encounters around a party with one weaker character; it happens all the time. Sure, sometimes Bob would roll exactly the right spells for an unexpected encounter, but that's not exactly campaign-breaking.


Would everyone in the party be fine if the Fighter randomly rolled on a table to determine the one weapon they would be capable of using each day? Would they be fine with going to fight a dragon while the party Fighter is stuck with a -8 penalty due to some nonproficiency two-handed requirement, or can barely hit because it is a ranged weapon, or cannot even damage anything in the adventure because they rolled a whip that morning?

Would everyone in the party be fine if the Rogue randomly rolled which skills they would be proficient in as the beginning of the day? Would they be fine if the party Rogue went one day from fully trained in Disarm, Search, and Listen over to having half-ranks in Concentration and Knowledge (Local)? Would the party be fine if the Rogue's Track feat would suddenly turn off over half the time, or the Rogue's ability to search for and disarm traps hardly worked, because of the luck of the dice?

Would everyone in the party be fine if the Cleric was unable to cast any spells 2/3rds of the time because they randomly rolled their alignment every morning, and an incompatable alignment prevented them from casting anything?

This is what the party Wizard is asking the group.

It could work as a silly idea for a campaign, if everyone is on board, but I think it would just generate frustration and everyone at the table feeling like the party Wizard is worthless because of their concept. How well the table handles this will vary, of course. Some groups are perfectly fine with that and will just progress as if they didn't even have a Wizard; others will become frustrated. I think it might just be more fun to randomize everything in the game and play it off as rather silly, as opposed to one character either intentionally being useless or at least, only useful in exceptionally rare situations.

The straw-est of all straw men!

Seward
2015-10-06, 01:34 AM
If he's a strong player, he'll find good uses for whatever spells he rolls. The challenge of finding a situation for each spell is kind of the point. Yes, even tenser's disk and knock.

If he's not a strong player, he might take longer to pick spells than by rolling dice, and might do dumb things with his actions anyway. Seriously, you don't want a wizard played by a weak player unless he or she is getting help in daily spell selection from somebody (like a template of "prep most of your slots this way when traveling, this other way in town, this third way if we're hitting a hard target like a tomb/castle/etc")

Frankly, most prep casters have a standard spell mix with only a few spells varied from day to day depending on expected challenges, and maybe a variant or two for days where you have to be extra sneaky, or do a lot of divination or travel magic. If they don't, play grinds to a halt every time they need to prep spells and agonize over which ones might be best.

A random spell selection probably isn't bad, as long as the random list consists of interesting spells. As a wizard, he can avoid scribing spells into his spellbook that utterly suck (such as Erase, Hold Portal, a few others). This sort of thing would be safer as a cleric or druid, as they can spont cast any real duds into healing or summoning or similar. If the wizard has any kind of spontaneous casting this is totally safe, but if not, just provide the wizard with a wand or some scrolls or something fora day when the dice come up bad for the situation (ok, mostly enchantment today in an all undead tomb, guess I need to bust out the wand of magic missile caster level 5 or my scrolls of web, grease, glitterdust, haste etc)

Actually if the wizard has scribe scroll, all the more reason to spend a little downtime covering his butt for a bad day of die rolling.

icefractal
2015-10-06, 05:42 PM
Bob's actions are no problem at all. He's a weaker version of an existing class, and is still probably more powerful than the fighter or rogue. As the DM, I'd find it MUCH easier to balance encounters around a Bob-wizard than a normal wizard.Wizard has a very low floor. Have you seen a Wizard with really bad spell usage in play? They make a sword-n-board Fighter look like a god.

Although much depends on how the hypothetical player is setting up their spellbook. If they're randomly picking from spells that are mostly multipurpose and broadly useful, then sure, it's probably fine. If the spells they learn are also randomized, or intentionally niche, then they could end up pretty useless.

Ruslan
2015-10-06, 06:34 PM
Lets say instead of being curse Bob decides his player is just mad and does this random spell learning. This closes down the possibility of a quest to remove the curse, is Bob now doing something wrong ?Depends on the party composition and the outlook of the other players toward the game, but for most D&D groups I know the response would be:


Yes, Bob is doing something wrong. He's playing a joke character when his fellow players want a serious game. Thus he forces their hand to participate in his joke "look at Bob being random" mini-game.

Again, this is true for most D&D groups I know. YMMV.

Rusvul
2015-10-06, 08:46 PM
It all depends on the game and the other players. If everyone's level one, the game is D&D 3.5, and the party is a Rogue, a Fighter, and Bob? I think it'd probably be pretty crippling. Bob would be at a huge mechanical disadvantage- While a high-level wizard might be pretty good regardless of their exact spells for the day (as long as their spellbook is reasonably well constructed), a first level wizard isn't lightyears ahead of a fighter or a rogue. They have a few spells they can cast, and after that, they're like a worse <anything else.>

I've seen a comparison drawn here multiple times- The Fighter can't have a spell ready for anything, so why should he expect Bob to? Expectations have a lot to do with why this seems like a bad idea- You expect a fighter to hit things well, you expect a wizard to be versatile. If your wizard can hit things, great, if your fighter can be versatile, great. But you're not being a 'bad' fighter just because you can't Feather Fall everyone- And you're not being a 'bad' wizard just because you can't melee an Owlbear. While Erikun's examples are rather strawish, he makes a point- Perhaps a better comparison would be 'Is the group fine with a fighter who dumped his physical stats so he could be a party face?'

I think there's a reasonable expectation for someone to play a reasonably strong character that can contribute in fights. If everyone's cool with you not doing that, then there isn't a problem. If the party gets mad at you, then there is. If you can work with them to build a character that everyone's happy with, then there isn't a problem. If you insist on playing the character you want to play to the detriment of everyone else's enjoyment, you are the problem. If the party insists on you playing a specific character to the detriment of your enjoyment, they are the problem.

Da Beast
2015-10-06, 10:00 PM
That's some strawman you have constructed there.

Those things aren't even close to being analogous to what's happening.


The straw-est of all straw men!

People need to learn their logical fallacies. Erikun isn't misrepresenting anyone's stated position but rather suggestion analogous behaviors, so it's not a straw man. It could be argued that he's committed a fallacy of weak analogy since some of his examples (rogue skills and cleric alignment) don't normally change from day to day, but in all cases his analogy centers around a party member being unable to fulfill their expected role because they've randomized their abilities for the day so you'd have trouble making the accusation stick.

Sacrieur
2015-10-06, 10:25 PM
People need to learn their logical fallacies. Erikun isn't misrepresenting anyone's stated position but rather suggestion analogous behaviors, so it's not a straw man. It could be argued that he's committed a fallacy of weak analogy since some of his examples (rogue skills and cleric alignment) don't normally change from day to day, but in all cases his analogy centers around a party member being unable to fulfill their expected role because they've randomized their abilities for the day so you'd have trouble making the accusation stick.

The situation described:


Bob is playing the mage. Now normally at the start of the day a mage chooses what spells to memorize. Bob thinks it would be more fun if his mage had a curse, so Bob decides that instead of choosing his spells daily he will randomly get spells.
Bob has 6 spells in his book and gets two spells a day. So each morning Bob rolls 2D6 and gets two random spells for the day.

Erikun's analogies:


Would everyone in the party be fine if the Fighter randomly rolled on a table to determine the one weapon they would be capable of using each day? Would they be fine with going to fight a dragon while the party Fighter is stuck with a -8 penalty due to some nonproficiency two-handed requirement, or can barely hit because it is a ranged weapon, or cannot even damage anything in the adventure because they rolled a whip that morning?


Would everyone in the party be fine if the Rogue randomly rolled which skills they would be proficient in as the beginning of the day? Would they be fine if the party Rogue went one day from fully trained in Disarm, Search, and Listen over to having half-ranks in Concentration and Knowledge (Local)? Would the party be fine if the Rogue's Track feat would suddenly turn off over half the time, or the Rogue's ability to search for and disarm traps hardly worked, because of the luck of the dice?

He then proceeds to use these distorted positions to discredit any argument that Bob is perfectly justified.
---

In erikun's first example, he insists that the Fighter would pick a nonproficient weapon. This suggests that the fighter would, rather incompetently, add weapons that he isn't proficient with to a random table. This would be like selecting to know a spell from an opposition school. In fact you have no reason to believe that Bob selects what spells he knows randomly (quite the opposite, since he's a prepared caster). This is a distorted position because Bob never said he would add spells that he couldn't effectively use to his spellbook.

In his second example, he insists that a Rogue would pick which skills they are proficient in at the start of the day. Hilariously this can't even be done without altering the rules. This makes it a very distorted position, since Bob hasn't suggested doing anything that changes the rules of the game.

---

In short, I have no trouble making the accusation stick; it's a strawman.

Da Beast
2015-10-07, 12:18 AM
...
He then proceeds to use these distorted positions to discredit any argument that Bob is perfectly justified.
---

In erikun's first example, he insists that the Fighter would pick a nonproficient weapon. This suggests that the fighter would, rather incompetently, add weapons that he isn't proficient with to a random table. This would be like selecting to know a spell from an opposition school. In fact you have no reason to believe that Bob selects what spells he knows randomly (quite the opposite, since he's a prepared caster). This is a distorted position because Bob never said he would add spells that he couldn't effectively use to his spellbook.

In his second example, he insists that a Rogue would pick which skills they are proficient in at the start of the day. Hilariously this can't even be done without altering the rules. This makes it a very distorted position, since Bob hasn't suggested doing anything that changes the rules of the game.

---

In short, I have no trouble making the accusation stick; it's a strawman.

It would only be a straw man if he was distorting Bob's stated position, ie his position regarding his wizard. EG:


Bob thinks its okay to determine his spells randomly, but this is insanity. We can't have a coherent game in which a player's every action is determined by random dice rolls. Will the party be happy when they die because instead of casting spells Bob used disable device on a piece of cheese? This is what happens when your every action is randomized by the dice.

Notice how this argument concerns itself entirely with Bob's approach to playing a wizard. Since it expands randomizing one aspect of your characters abilities, which is Bob's actual intent, to randomizing every action, something that was never supported by Bob, it is a straw man. However, Erikun never attributes any particular position to Bob, but rather suggests ways that other classes could be played in an analogous way. An argument from analogy is not a straw man argument because you are not changing the other persons stated position but rather comparing it to a similar thing. If these positions are not actually analogous then the arguer has committed a fallacy of weak analogy, but not a straw man. Now, with that in mind, lets reexamine your analysis of Erikun's post.


In erikun's first example, he insists that the Fighter would pick a nonproficient weapon. This suggests that the fighter would, rather incompetently, add weapons that he isn't proficient with to a random table. This would be like selecting to know a spell from an opposition school. In fact you have no reason to believe that Bob selects what spells he knows randomly (quite the opposite, since he's a prepared caster). This is a distorted position because Bob never said he would add spells that he couldn't effectively use to his spellbook.

Emphasis mine. Erikun has not directly destorted Bob's position, only indirectly by comparing it to something that it's (arguably) not actually like. A corrected version might be


In erikun's first example, he insists that the Fighter would pick a nonproficient weapon. This suggests that the fighter would, rather incompetently, add weapons that he isn't proficient with to a random table. This would be like selecting to know a spell from an opposition school. In fact you have no reason to believe that Bob selects what spells he knows randomly (quite the opposite, since he's a prepared caster). This is a weak analogy because Bob never said he would add spells that he couldn't effectively use to his spellbook.

Much better. Now then, lets examine the accusation of weak analogy. In order for the analogy to hold, they have to be similar in ways that are important to the main point of the argument. Adding a non proficient weapon is unlike picking random spells from your book in that you're specifically adding a bad choice to your list rather than just a situational one, but that doesn't necessarily mean the whole analogy is bad. The meat of the argument focuses on letting randomized choices make your character ineffectual in combat. If Bob's wizard randomly rolls mostly fire damage evocation spells and decides to go with it even though he knows the party will fight a red dragon that day, he has allowed his randomization to make him useless in a way that a fighter who randomly selects a weapon he doesn't have weapon focus in (or some similar minor thing) has not. However, a fighter with no ranged combat specialization or appropriate exotic weapon proficiency who allows himself to be randomly limited to a hand crossbow for the day could be said to have made himself useless in a way similar to the wizard bringing fireballs to a fight with a red dragon has. Since the point of Erikun's analogies was not to construct a situation that was mechanically identical to Bob's wizard but rather to show how other players could similarly restrict their character in some arbitrarily random way I think the analogies are somewhat relevant even if exactly how they are randomizing doesn't match up.

Of course, a fallacy of weak analogy is an informal fallacy so determining when exactly it applies is subjective. That being said I don't think the analogy is to weak to hold water in this argument.

Sacrieur
2015-10-07, 12:50 AM
It would only be a straw man if he was distorting Bob's stated position, ie his position regarding his wizard.


Notice how this argument concerns itself entirely with Bob's approach to playing a wizard. Since it expands randomizing one aspect of your characters abilities, which is Bob's actual intent, to randomizing every action, something that was never supported by Bob, it is a straw man. However, Erikun never attributes any particular position to Bob, but rather suggests ways that other classes could be played in an analogous way. An argument from analogy is not a straw man argument because you are not changing the other persons stated position but rather comparing it to a similar thing. If these positions are not actually analogous then the arguer has committed a fallacy of weak analogy, but not a straw man. Now, with that in mind, lets reexamine your analysis of Erikun's post.


Erikun has not directly destorted Bob's position, only indirectly by comparing it to something that it's (arguably) not actually like.



This is what the party Wizard is asking the group.




Much better. Now then, lets examine the accusation of weak analogy. In order for the analogy to hold, they have to be similar in ways that are important to the main point of the argument. Adding a non proficient weapon is unlike picking random spells from your book in that you're specifically adding a bad choice to your list rather than just a situational one, but that doesn't necessarily mean the whole analogy is bad.

Yes it does, since the analogy isn't equivalent. An analogy that fails to be analogous is by definition a bad analogy.



The meat of the argument focuses on letting randomized choices make your character ineffectual in combat.

Right, so even if his argument wasn't fallacious it would still be completely irrelevant.



If Bob's wizard randomly rolls mostly fire damage evocation spells and decides to go with it even though he knows the party will fight a red dragon that day, he has allowed his randomization to make him useless in a way that a fighter who randomly selects a weapon he doesn't have weapon focus in (or some similar minor thing) has not.

Done by choosing to play the character in a consistent way that he wants.


However, a fighter with no ranged combat specialization or appropriate exotic weapon proficiency who allows himself to be randomly limited to a hand crossbow for the day could be said to have made himself useless in a way similar to the wizard bringing fireballs to a fight with a red dragon has.

Unlike a wizard, there's no mechanic stopping a fighter from simply picking up a different weapon. But let's say for some reason there was. He has every right to do it.

In other words, whether or not his player's choices are effectual or not is irrelevant to whether or not he should be permitted to do it.



Since the point of Erikun's analogies was not to construct a situation that was mechanically identical to Bob's wizard but rather to show how other players could similarly restrict their character in some arbitrarily random way I think the analogies are somewhat relevant even if exactly how they are randomizing doesn't match up.

The second and third analogies he used required altering the game's rules.

The point of his argument was to make you believe since you don't think it's okay to do these other equivalent things, then you shouldn't think it's okay to do the first thing. In this instance, equivalency and having a strong analogy is the utmost importance. Just because I let Bob randomize his spells doesn't necessarily mean I should let the fighter randomly choose a weapon he's not proficient in (even if I personally believe that to be the case). The circumstances are different.

I'll even use an analogy to make the case. Just because you like to be outside doesn't necessarily mean you like to be outside when it's raining.

Da Beast
2015-10-07, 02:18 AM
This is what the party Wizard is asking the group.

I'll admit I was looking more at your post than Erikun's when writing and missed this. That being said, this is simply a rhetorical flourish and doesn't change his argument from an argument from analogy to a straw man.


Yes it does, since the analogy isn't equivalent. An analogy that fails to be analogous is by definition a bad analogy.

Does it? The relevant factor isn't how mechanically permissible something is but rather the degree to which it, if theoretically used, inconveniences the group. If a rogue with randomly distributed skill points every day inconveniences the group in the same way that a wizard with randomly chosen spells does then the argument is analogous even if one isn't actually allowed under the mechanics. This isn't a discussion about what you can change about your character from day to day under RAW, its a discussion about whether or not a group should put up with a player who wants to randomize some key aspect of his character's power from day to day.


Right, so even if his argument wasn't fallacious it would still be completely irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I follow you here. How would his argument be irrelevant even if the analogy wasn't being disputed as weak?


Done by choosing to play the character in a consistent way that he wants.

And? No one is disputing that Bob wants to play his character this way. That he wants to play this way implicitly underlies the fact that it's even being discussed. No one was accusing Bob of only partially randomizing his spells or being inconsistent in some other way, so I'm not sure I follow the point here either. The argument isn't about whether or not Bob wants to play this way but to what extent the group should accommodate it.


Unlike a wizard, there's no mechanic stopping a fighter from simply picking up a different weapon. But let's say for some reason there was. He has every right to do it.

In other words, whether or not his player's choices are effectual or not is irrelevant to whether or not he should be permitted to do it.

There's no mechanic forcing either of these characters to play with randomized abilities. It is entirely on the player to decide whether or not they intend to stick with it. The fact that a wizard has to wait till after an 8 hour rest to stop and a fighter need only take a move/free action to draw another weapon is irrelevant, in both cases the player is hampering their ability to contribute to the party by choosing arbitrary randomization in a way that may not be so charming to the rest of the party who has to pick up his slack. Group dynamics are important to a game like DnD and if one player makes choices that harm that dynamic its perfectly fair for the rest of the group to ask them to stop. Obviously this issue is going to change from group to group and some might have no problem with a wizard being played like this. However, if OP's group didn't have an issue with it they wouldn't have made this topic begin with, so clearly playing an ineffectual character for the heck of it doesn't sit well with the rest of the group. With that in mind, why should OP's ineffectual role playing choices be irrelevant? Everyone is entitled to enjoy the game and if OP detracts from that for the rest of the group they have every right to say something about it. To suggest that a player should be able to do anything they want with their character even if it means being a drag on the rest of the group is selfish.


The second and third analogies he used required altering the game's rules.

The point of his argument was to make you believe since you don't think it's okay to do these other equivalent things, then you shouldn't think it's okay to do the first thing. In this instance, equivalency and having a strong analogy is the utmost importance. Just because I let Bob randomize his spells doesn't necessarily mean I should let the fighter randomly choose a weapon he's not proficient in (even if I personally believe that to be the case). The circumstances are different.

I'll even use an analogy to make the case. Just because you like to be outside doesn't necessarily mean you like to be outside when it's raining.

But what is and is not permissible under RAW is beside the point, the analogy was supposed to show how a different class could be similarly useless if they were allowed to randomize things. To illustrate, lets restate the argument as simply as possible and make some comparisons.

A wizard with randomized spells risks being mechanically useless
A group should not have to put up with a wizard who is mechanically useless
Therefore, a group should not have to put up with a wizard with randomized spells.

There's the argument against Bob's wizard, laid out as simply as possible. Since this is a deductive argument, the conclusion must be true if its premises are true. Unless the wizard has limited his spell book to very broadly applicable spells I doubt anyone will dispute the first point. A wizard with nothing but comprehend languages prepared will be unable to contribute to many encounters and so on. The second premise is the point of this topic. Erikun attempts to prove it with a series of analogies that can be simplified to:

If you wouldn't want a member of class x to run the risk of being useless by randomizing ability key to the classes mechanical effectiveness y then you shouldn't approve of Bob's approach to playing a wizard.

So long as class x is similarly hampered by the theoretical randomization of ability y as a wizard randomizing his spells, the analogy holds true regardless of the RAW legality. Lets use the template to look at examples with different levels of legality to further illustrate the point.

If you wouldn't want a swordsage to run the risk of being useless by randomizing prepared maneuvers then you shouldn't approve of Bob's approach to playing a wizard.

If you wouldn't want a rogue to run the risk of being useless by randomizing trained skills then you shouldn't approve of Bob's approach to playing a wizard.

Obviously, under RAW prepared maneuvers can be changed frequently and therefore randomized regularly and skills cannot. However, maneuvers being mostly fancy ways to do damage with an added bonus tend to be broadly applicable and therefore rarely useless (a few exceptions such as most desert wind maneuvers against fire immune creatures exist, but for the sake of argument we'll that the sword sage in question specialized in more generally useful schools such as diamond mind or tiger claw). A swordsage walking into every fight with a randomly prepared complement of maneuvers could still be expected to contribute to every fight and never be useless, unlike our wizard who can comprehend languages all day but not hold his own in a fight. Skills on the other hand tend to be much more like spells in that some have broad combat applications but a great many are only useful in a particular situation. A rogue who is allowed to randomize her skill point distribution (by DM fiat of course) runs the risk of being simply useless in a lot of situations where she'd normally be expected to shine, just like a wizard who randomly has several castings of tiny hut or illusory script but no fireballs or haste spells. Since the argument focuses around the party member ability to contribute the rogue analogy is strong but the swardsage analogy is weak, even though the swordsage shares more similarities when it comes to RAW. The fact that the Rogue requires DM fiat is immaterial, house ruling is always possible in pencil and paper games and what Bob should be allowed to do within the game by the rest of the group is the whole point, what RAW allows be damned.

Earthwalker
2015-10-07, 03:23 AM
A wizard with randomized spells risks being mechanically useless
A group should not have to put up with a wizard who is mechanically useless
Therefore, a group should not have to put up with a wizard with randomized spells.


A wizard that chooses the wrong spells for a day risks being mechanically useless.
A group should not have to put up with a wizard who is mechanically useless.
Therefore, a group should not allow wizards in your groups unless the player can predict with 100% certainty what is going to happen in the next gaming session.

Da Beast
2015-10-07, 03:40 AM
A wizard that chooses the wrong spells for a day risks being mechanically useless.
A group should not have to put up with a wizard who is mechanically useless.
Therefore, a group should not allow wizards in your groups unless the player can predict with 100% certainty what is going to happen in the next gaming session.

A wizard who did his best to pick the best spells but fell short has simply committed a human error. A wizard who intentionally prepares spells that will most likely be useless is throwing his obligation to contribute to the group out the window. The first premise could maybe use some rephrasing but these are hardly the same thing.

Edit: in fact, lets go ahead and fix that


A wizard with randomized spells intentionally risks being mechanically useless

Now the problem becomes clear, don't you think?

Knaight
2015-10-07, 03:47 AM
A wizard who did his best to pick the best spells but fell short has simply committed a human error. A wizard who intentionally prepares spells that will most likely be useless is throwing his obligation to contribute to the group out the window. The first premise could maybe use some rephrasing but these are hardly the same thing.

The wizard did, the player didn't. Which just gets into playing characters that haven't been optimized sufficiently, while deeming optimization an "obligation to contribute to the group". What Bob is doing is playing a character that is less powerful than some other hypothetical character, which is pretty much always done by everyone.

Da Beast
2015-10-07, 03:52 AM
The wizard did, the player didn't. Which just gets into playing characters that haven't been optimized sufficiently, while deeming optimization an "obligation to contribute to the group". What Bob is doing is playing a character that is less powerful than some other hypothetical character, which is pretty much always done by everyone.

How are you getting that the wizard did but the player didn't? The player decided to go with the arbitrary restriction of randomized spells, not the wizard. In game the wizard is suffering from a curse and has no choice in the matter. This goes beyond not being fully optimized, this is intentionally being unprepared for the challenges you're facing. To suggest that expecting your prepared casters to prepare appropriately instead of bringing a hodgepodge assortment of random spells to the table is demanding optimization is silly.

Earthwalker
2015-10-07, 04:26 AM
A wizard with randomized spells intentionally risks being mechanically useless[
Choosing to play a character that has resources to choose from is intentionally playing a character that risks being mechanically useless.
Does that mean no wizards at all.
I do not think that 100% of the time in 100% of games characters need to be at maximum effectivness.


How are you getting that the wizard did but the player didn't? The player decided to go with the arbitrary restriction of randomized spells, not the wizard. In game the wizard is suffering from a curse and has no choice in the matter. This goes beyond not being fully optimized, this is intentionally being unprepared for the challenges you're facing. To suggest that expecting your prepared casters to prepare appropriately instead of bringing a hodgepodge assortment of random spells to the table is demanding optimization is silly.

You say prepared caster so being a sorcerer it s acceptable to not have the correct spells for an encounter and so should suffer no flak. Even tho the player has intentionally choosen to not play a prepared caster that could change his spells ?
Oddly Bob in the first example is a Mage not a Wizard. That was done on purpose.

Keltest
2015-10-07, 06:49 AM
Choosing to play a character that has resources to choose from while deliberately using them poorly is intentionally playing a character that risks being mechanically useless.

This is significantly more accurate.

Playing a wizard comes with a certain amount of difficulty to play to your full potential. What Bob is doing is going in the opposite direction, deliberately lowering the value of his wizard day to day.

If you don't like the above analogies that were being argued over, how about a fighter who has some sort of physical condition where his off hand arm will randomly become completely useless for a day, thus preventing him from using a shield, 2h weapon, or dual wielding for the entire day.

Earthwalker
2015-10-07, 07:07 AM
Thing that Earthwalker bloke should have said -
"Choosing to play a character that has resources to choose from while deliberately using them poorly is intentionally playing a character that risks being mechanically useless"

This is significantly more accurate.

Playing a wizard comes with a certain amount of difficulty to play to your full potential. What Bob is doing is going in the opposite direction, deliberately lowering the value of his wizard day to day.

If you don't like the above analogies that were being argued over, how about a fighter who has some sort of physical condition where his off hand arm will randomly become completely useless for a day, thus preventing him from using a shield, 2h weapon, or dual wielding for the entire day.

I do agree that is more accurate.
How poorly Bob is using them also depends on his spells known. If ever spell he has is usful just in different ways there is no issue.

Oddly I would not find a problem with the fighter if he is in a group with a fighter that already just does one handed fighting style that has no real optimization in one handed fighting. More so if the rest of the group is a few other noobs who can't optimize.

The thing with optimization its not a case of being the best you can be, its a case of fitting in with the group.

Rusvul
2015-10-07, 07:12 AM
I do not think that 100% of the time in 100% of games characters need to be at maximum effectivness.

I absolutely agree. However, one can build a Wizard with a very thematic build and run at, say, 50% effectiveness. You can be a decent, well-rounded character that's fun to roleplay without dropping yourself to 0%. If you drop your power level through the floor intentionally, then you're at risk of being mechanically rather useless- Not because you were going for a strong theme, because 'lolrandom.'



You say prepared caster so being a sorcerer it s acceptable to not have the correct spells for an encounter and so should suffer no flak. Even tho the player has intentionally choosen to not play a prepared caster that could change his spells ?
Again, there's a difference between a thematic character and an intentionally crippled one. The Sorcerer class is generally considered weaker than wizard (In 3.5), but I'd much rather play in a game with a thematic and/or mediocre Sorcerer than an intentionally crippled wizard. And the intent really is the important thing here, if building a character that's intentionally useless is lightyears away from building an accidentally below-par character.



Oddly Bob in the first example is a Mage not a Wizard. That was done on purpose.
The more system-neutral you are, the harder this debate is. Spellcasting has different implications in different systems, and it is impossible to have a system-neutral discussion about what makes someone mechanically useless- The mechanics vary widely from game to game, after all.

Mr Beer
2015-10-07, 07:26 AM
Again the mage tries to make sure his curse does not push him below the effective level of the group. He just might not have the perfect spell for the situation every time.

Randomised spell selection is quite suboptimal, that's all I'm saying. The mage can't ensure his curse doesn't push him below anything, since what he has available is random, although I didn't mention effective level.


I mentioned a fighter and a thief in the group. In DnD terms that's two classes that are not Tier 1 and so the argument of you are hobbling yourself would take them out of the game too.

There's a difference between picking a class that might not be the most powerful available to you and deliberately hobbling your character's abilities in a significant manner.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what I think it about, it's down to your group. If these wacky shenanigans annoy them, I can see why, but it's them that need to be convinced, not me.

Earthwalker
2015-10-07, 07:30 AM
I absolutely agree. However, one can build a Wizard with a very thematic build and run at, say, 50% effectiveness. You can be a decent, well-rounded character that's fun to roleplay without dropping yourself to 0%. If you drop your power level through the floor intentionally, then you're at risk of being mechanically rather useless- Not because you were going for a strong theme, because 'lolrandom.'
[snip]


To try a system specific example then. I will tell you what I am not understanding.

Bob gets lvl 5 as a wizard. He chooses to learn two new spells.

Fireball
Lightning Bolt

And puts them in his book.

He then rolls randomly for his spells of the day.

2 fireballs
or
2 Lightning bolts
or 1 of each.

Here is what I arent understanding. How is any of those combinations 0% effective ?
How is it different from a Sorcorer that only gets fireball but can cast it 3 times ?

Rusvul
2015-10-07, 08:21 AM
I could point out the various differences between having a random chance of two good spells or the ability to consistently cast one good spell, but that's largely besides the point. No, Fireball and Lightning Bolt are not ever going to be 0% effective. But the more spells you know, the more lolrandom it gets and the more of a hindrance it would become. (Actually, I think that if the curse allowed a set of different spellbooks geared towards different things, it would be a creative and fun character, as long as the whole party is on board.) But if Bob's spellbook looks anything like a traditional wizard's spellbook, then he'll be wildly ineffective- Sure, his higher level slots will be fairly consistent, but his lower level slots that he has more spells for will mess things up. Let's continue with your example of 5th level bob

1st level spells: Magic Missile, Shield, Mage Armor, Summon Monster I, Silent Image, Sleep, Benign Transposition, Feather Fall
2nd level spells: Scorching Ray, Mirror Image, Darkness, Flaming Sphere
3rd level spells: Fireball, Lightning Bolt

Assuming Bob has 16 INT, he has 4 first level slots, three second level slots, and one third level slot. Pretty much all of the spells on Bob's list are good in many situations- A few are slightly situational, but not extremely so. The problem is, Bob is denied the versatility of a Wizard and the consistency of a Sorcerer. He's the worst of both worlds. He's not completely unplayable. I don't see a very compelling reason to play Bob, though... He's gimmicky and an inconvenience to the rest of the party. I don't know, playing an intentionally bad character just for lolz seems disrespectful.

Earthwalker
2015-10-07, 08:47 AM
I could point out the various differences between having a random chance of two good spells or the ability to consistently cast one good spell, but that's largely besides the point. No, Fireball and Lightning Bolt are not ever going to be 0% effective. But the more spells you know, the more lolrandom it gets and the more of a hindrance it would become. (Actually, I think that if the curse allowed a set of different spellbooks geared towards different things, it would be a creative and fun character, as long as the whole party is on board.) But if Bob's spellbook looks anything like a traditional wizard's spellbook, then he'll be wildly ineffective- Sure, his higher level slots will be fairly consistent, but his lower level slots that he has more spells for will mess things up. Let's continue with your example of 5th level bob

1st level spells: Magic Missile, Shield, Mage Armor, Summon Monster I, Silent Image, Sleep, Benign Transposition, Feather Fall
2nd level spells: Scorching Ray, Mirror Image, Darkness, Flaming Sphere
3rd level spells: Fireball, Lightning Bolt

Assuming Bob has 16 INT, he has 4 first level slots, three second level slots, and one third level slot. Pretty much all of the spells on Bob's list are good in many situations- A few are slightly situational, but not extremely so. The problem is, Bob is denied the versatility of a Wizard and the consistency of a Sorcerer. He's the worst of both worlds. He's not completely unplayable. I don't see a very compelling reason to play Bob, though... He's gimmicky and an inconvenience to the rest of the party. I don't know, playing an intentionally bad character just for lolz seems disrespectful.

I am still not seeing it I am sorry.
To use the example in place for a lvl 5 wizard. His random spell selection means he keeps hitting the sweet spot where he does not over shadow the group nor is he usless. He has some spells to cast in each encounter that helps overcome the foe.

Sure he could be more powerful but he is pulling his weight.

I don't see how that inconveniences the party ?
He starts a day, hits a button on his program and gets his spells for the day in less than a second.

He is of a lower power scale but he is not intentionally bad, he is of a powerscale equal to the rest of the group.

Imagine Bob and friends had been playing for like 10 sessions. Bob has just been hiting his programs and playing the spells he has. No one has noticed he is doing the random thing. If asked about a spell he just says I didn't memorize that spell today.

He has been able to contribute to every fight, he has helped numerous times with the spells he has.
Is he still being disrespectful for how he gets his spells ?

(personally I think BOB should be open about how he is selecting his spells so that is at least one level of disrespect)

Jay R
2015-10-07, 09:28 AM
I don't think anybody - including the players in the game - can form a reasonable opinion without seeing how the game goes with Bob in it.

If it turns out that he is worthless, then people can have a discussion on the consequences of him being worthless.

If it turns out that any combinations of the spells in Bob's book are always pretty useful, but on average less useful than a chosen set, then people can have a discussion on the consequences of him being less useful than a standard wizard.

If it turns out that the combination of the spells in Bob's book, plus Bob's inventiveness and creativity makes a wizard that is extremely useful as often as a standard wizard usually is, and frustratingly unhelpful about as often as a wizard who made the wrong choices sometimes is, then we can have a discussion on the consequences of Bob's great new approach to the game.

But until we know, not what we expect will happen, but what really happens, we can't have an informed discussion at all. We're just making things up.

Rusvul
2015-10-07, 10:36 AM
The place where you and I disagree is that you expect Bob to still be useful. Whenever you play a Wizard in 3.5 you're definitely running the risk of outshining the party... And there's a few ways to avoid that. The first is to play a heavily thematic build- especially one focused on a less powerful aspect of wizard-dom. You could be a blasty fire-wizard who takes joy in destroying everything with the most commonly resisted energy damage. You could be an Enchanter, who falls short against enemies with strong Will saves. You could be a Diviner, who doesn't do a great deal in combat but has exceptional out of combat utility.

The second is to play a buff-style wizard. This is my favorite solution, really. You leave the flashiness to everyone else- Forget Fireball, you've Hasted the fighter and the rogue, mirror imaged them both, Enlarged and Bull's Strength'd the fighter, and hidden the Rogue with Greater Invisibility. This kind of wizard makes everyone else feel awesome too- He's extremely effective, but not through his own hands. This guy is great fun to have in the party- While he is still more powerful than anyone else in the party, he doesn't seem like it because he raises others up to his level.

The third is to play a wizard who is bad at wizarding. I guess you could do this... But why? This kind of wizard is essentially a joke character- And if you're playing a silly campaign where everyone has some strange quirk, then they probably fit in just fine. But I think nine parties out of ten would rather have a Johnny Fire McArson or Allen of the Animalistic Ability Enhancements in their group than Jack of the 14 INT. This is really the category that Bob falls under- Intentionally underpowered. He'll be less useful at low levels than the S&B fighter or the sneaky rogue. At high levels, he'll be more powerful but equally unreliable. And again, I'd rather have a wizard who is consistently mediocre than wildly random. I just don't see Bob's concept being fun for anyone else at the table with the vast majority of groups.

warper
2015-10-07, 11:24 AM
To try a system specific example then. I will tell you what I am not understanding.

Bob gets lvl 5 as a wizard. He chooses to learn two new spells.

Fireball
Lightning Bolt

And puts them in his book.

He then rolls randomly for his spells of the day.

2 fireballs
or
2 Lightning bolts
or 1 of each.

Here is what I arent understanding. How is any of those combinations 0% effective ?
How is it different from a Sorcorer that only gets fireball but can cast it 3 times ?

Your missing what everyone's so assuming. Bob appears to be the guy who might learn say water breathing. But let's say he picked one of these and fireball. While sometimes he will be fine, what about when he only prepares waterbreathing. In and out of game he is putting the other characters at extreme risk intentionally. The OP is obviously concerned about the player making poor choices, that's what this thread is about. While I agree with careful selection this can be ok, it seems really likely that bob is doing it for lulz at the expense of his fellows in the group. I feel like some people are throwing the tiers around without understanding this. If a wizard only has useless spells like waterbreathing in a dungeon, then he is not just unoptimized. The fighter of his tier becomes outrageously better than a level 5 wizard with just a crossbow, regardless of a normal wizard's tier's capabilities

Again, this is based on a assumption of Bob in OP.

Sacrieur
2015-10-07, 12:50 PM
I'll admit I was looking more at your post than Erikun's when writing and missed this. That being said, this is simply a rhetorical flourish and doesn't change his argument from an argument from analogy to a straw man.

It makes his argument from analogy also a strawman, since the two aren't mutually exclusive.

1) Creates three analogies.
2) Attributes analogies to Bob, thus creating a distorted position.
3) Discredits this distorted position.



The relevant factor isn't how mechanically permissible something is but rather the degree to which it, if theoretically used, inconveniences the group. If a rogue with randomly distributed skill points every day inconveniences the group in the same way that a wizard with randomly chosen spells does then the argument is analogous even if one isn't actually allowed under the mechanics.

How could that possibly be analogous? They inconvenient the group in completely different ways. Even if it weren't, the argument is to argue that since you won't allow these other guys to do these other things, you shouldn't allow this Bob guy to do this one thing. Since two of the examples involve breaking the rules of the game, which Bob doesn't do, it simply reinforces how bad the argument is.



I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I follow you here. How would his argument be irrelevant even if the analogy wasn't being disputed as weak?

Because Bob has a right to play his character the way he wants regardless of the impact on the party.



And? No one is disputing that Bob wants to play his character this way. That he wants to play this way implicitly underlies the fact that it's even being discussed. No one was accusing Bob of only partially randomizing his spells or being inconsistent in some other way, so I'm not sure I follow the point here either. The argument isn't about whether or not Bob wants to play this way but to what extent the group should accommodate it.

The point is that the group has no room to even assume they have the authority to accommodate it; since it's not up to them.



There's no mechanic forcing either of these characters to play with randomized abilities. It is entirely on the player to decide whether or not they intend to stick with it. The fact that a wizard has to wait till after an 8 hour rest to stop and a fighter need only take a move/free action to draw another weapon is irrelevant, in both cases the player is hampering their ability to contribute to the party by choosing arbitrary randomization in a way that may not be so charming to the rest of the party who has to pick up his slack.

D&D isn't a strategy game where you need to optimize the party dynamics. It's a roleplaying game.



Group dynamics are important to a game like DnD and if one player makes choices that harm that dynamic its perfectly fair for the rest of the group to ask them to stop.

Not nearly as important as respecting another person's right to roleplay.



Obviously this issue is going to change from group to group and some might have no problem with a wizard being played like this. However, if OP's group didn't have an issue with it they wouldn't have made this topic begin with, so clearly playing an ineffectual character for the heck of it doesn't sit well with the rest of the group. With that in mind, why should OP's ineffectual role playing choices be irrelevant? Everyone is entitled to enjoy the game and if OP detracts from that for the rest of the group they have every right to say something about it. To suggest that a player should be able to do anything they want with their character even if it means being a drag on the rest of the group is selfish.

Each and every person has a right to roleplay their character. The group's total happiness is secondary to this. You have no more right to tell Bob to not randomly select his spells than you have telling him he should play a Cleric instead of a Wizard because the party needs one of those more.

Apparently this is common in groups. I just had a new player join mine and one of his questions was, "What is everyone else playing?" and I told him it doesn't matter and he should play what he wants to play. I think it's insane to try to force a group dynamic when working with what you have is part of the game.

How would you feel if the DM told you that you couldn't play a character the way you wanted to because of the group dynamic? We have more than enough threads pop up about similar scenarios occurring and how much it upsets them.



But what is and is not permissible under RAW is beside the point, the analogy was supposed to show how a different class could be similarly useless if they were allowed to randomize things. To illustrate, lets restate the argument as simply as possible and make some comparisons.

It was supposed to show that this is impermissible. Since it's not even allowed in the rules, of course the reaction of most people is that it's not permissible.



A wizard with randomized spells risks being mechanically useless
A group should not have to put up with a wizard who is mechanically useless
Therefore, a group should not have to put up with a wizard with randomized spells.

I don't believe that's a valid argument because of the factor of what's an acceptable risk, but it could be altered to be valid. This doesn't mean it's a sound argument.



There's the argument against Bob's wizard, laid out as simply as possible. Since this is a deductive argument, the conclusion must be true if its premises are true. Unless the wizard has limited his spell book to very broadly applicable spells I doubt anyone will dispute the first point. A wizard with nothing but comprehend languages prepared will be unable to contribute to many encounters and so on. The second premise is the point of this topic. Erikun attempts to prove it with a series of analogies that can be simplified to:

If you wouldn't want a member of class x to run the risk of being useless by randomizing ability key to the classes mechanical effectiveness y then you shouldn't approve of Bob's approach to playing a wizard.

Position X.
You wouldn't allow similar position Y.
Therefore, you shouldn't allow position X.

That's his argument. And it's bogus because there are reasons why to not allow position Y that don't apply to position X.



So long as class x is similarly hampered by the theoretical randomization of ability y as a wizard randomizing his spells, the analogy holds true regardless of the RAW legality. Lets use the template to look at examples with different levels of legality to further illustrate the point.

If you wouldn't want a swordsage to run the risk of being useless by randomizing prepared maneuvers then you shouldn't approve of Bob's approach to playing a wizard.

If you wouldn't want a rogue to run the risk of being useless by randomizing trained skills then you shouldn't approve of Bob's approach to playing a wizard.

I wouldn't want the rogue to run that risk because that would be breaking the rules, but not because of the risk.



Obviously, under RAW prepared maneuvers can be changed frequently and therefore randomized regularly and skills cannot. However, maneuvers being mostly fancy ways to do damage with an added bonus tend to be broadly applicable and therefore rarely useless (a few exceptions such as most desert wind maneuvers against fire immune creatures exist, but for the sake of argument we'll that the sword sage in question specialized in more generally useful schools such as diamond mind or tiger claw). A swordsage walking into every fight with a randomly prepared complement of maneuvers could still be expected to contribute to every fight and never be useless, unlike our wizard who can comprehend languages all day but not hold his own in a fight. Skills on the other hand tend to be much more like spells in that some have broad combat applications but a great many are only useful in a particular situation. A rogue who is allowed to randomize her skill point distribution (by DM fiat of course) runs the risk of being simply useless in a lot of situations where she'd normally be expected to shine, just like a wizard who randomly has several castings of tiny hut or illusory script but no fireballs or haste spells. Since the argument focuses around the party member ability to contribute the rogue analogy is strong but the swardsage analogy is weak, even though the swordsage shares more similarities when it comes to RAW. The fact that the Rogue requires DM fiat is immaterial, house ruling is always possible in pencil and paper games and what Bob should be allowed to do within the game by the rest of the group is the whole point, what RAW allows be damned.

The fact that you can build a good argument is beside the point, as I've presented my position earlier. I don't want anyone to be persuaded into thinking otherwise by bad arguments.

Da Beast
2015-10-07, 01:23 PM
Choosing to play a character that has resources to choose from is intentionally playing a character that risks being mechanically useless.
Does that mean no wizards at all.

True, a prepared caster always runs this risk. All that the group can really expect is that the player do their best to remain useful. Is a player picking spells at random doing their best to live up this expectation? Clearly not.


I do not think that 100% of the time in 100% of games characters need to be at maximum effectivness.

This is an example of an actual straw man. I have never stated a position that players are duty bound to build characters for maximum mechanical effectiveness so stating that as my position is a clear straw man. It also reeks of false dichotomy as there is a vast middle ground between maximum effectiveness and intentionally crippling your character with silly out of character decisions.


You say prepared caster so being a sorcerer it s acceptable to not have the correct spells for an encounter and so should suffer no flak. Even tho the player has intentionally choosen to not play a prepared caster that could change his spells ?

Actually, I said nothing about sorcerers. If I specified prepared spell casting it was because that's the mechanic being discussed. No conclusion can be drawn about playing a sorcerer from it, making this another straw man, a baseless assertion that someone's position is something other than what they've stated it to be.


Oddly Bob in the first example is a Mage not a Wizard. That was done on purpose.

My mistake. I suppose I looked at your post and saw a "mage" who prepares spells from a spellbook at the beginning of the day and simply assumed wizard. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with a mage base class; can you elaborate on the relevant differences between the wizard and mage classes?

I'd also like to point out that I haven't really stated a position so far, only examined the cogency of the logic used by other posters. I'll go ahead and do that now to clear things up. I'm on the same page as most other people, it really depends on what the group is going for in their game. If Bob's party members are Tipsy Steve the fighter who's only goal in life is to drink a dwarf under the table and regularly forgets his weapons and has to fight with whatever improvised weapons he can find and Dooseldorf Gnarfogler the gnome bard who literally wants to paint the world, as in he begins every fight by pulling out a brush and scribbling on the monsters, then Bob's wizard should be fine and no one has a right to complain. If the party wants a more serious game and expects everyone to make a reasonable effort at filling their character's role in the party then they have every right to ask Bob to do something else. Bob could severely limit the spells in his book to ones with very broad applications but then why not just play a sorcerer? If your group doesn't want to put up with this than the polite thing to do is shelve the character concept for a game where it's more appropriate.

I suppose you could talk to your DM about making a side quest for your character to be cursed with randomized spells and the party needing to cure him some how. The DM could specifically design a few encounters so that the rest of the party isn't in real danger if you're randomly useless and curing the curse at the of the adventure would give everyone a laugh or two at it while making sure the gimmick doesn't overstay its welcome. Expecting the entire group to put up with this gimmick session after session when they aren't interested in it seems selfish though.

Rusvul
2015-10-07, 01:41 PM
@Sacruier: I agree with you on some points and disagree on others. A group dynamic is a good thing, if someone wants to play a character in accordance to what the party has then that's great. If they don't want to, that's fine too. And I'm also inclined to agree that a group should be open to letting a player play whatever character they like... But if the character makes the game unpleasant for everyone else, the group absolutely has the right to tell the player to change his character or leave the table. In short, I strongly disagree with this statement.


Each and every person has a right to roleplay their character. The group's total happiness is secondary to this. You have no more right to tell Bob to not randomly select his spells than you have telling him he should play a Cleric instead of a Wizard because the party needs one of those more.

As an example, I play a Half-Elf Wizard in a campaign. The only other player is a Dwarven Cleric. The cleric's player gets upset over little things sometimes, and he's sometimes overdramatic sometimes, but he's pretty cool other than that. Now, my character is very haughty. He sees pretty much everyone as being beneath him- At the beginning of the campaign, that included the cleric. The cleric, on the other hand, is essentially a CG follower of Kord- Not that Kord exists in that world, but that's more or less his mentality. Serve the greater good.

A little ways into the campaign, the cleric got kind of tired with my character's antics. He was mad at me out of character because he (player) didn't like me (character.) I altered my character slightly, so as to not make the game unpleasant for him. I decided that my character sees his as an equal, since the cleric has saved my life multiple times. I still get to play my snooty elf and be a jerk to NPCs, cleric still gets to have fun. Problem solved.

On the other hand, I could have refused to change my character, insisted that he get over himself, and caused the campaign to crash and burn. That would have been inconsiderate, rude, and would have caused out of game problems. I think in situations where a character makes the game less fun for others, a compromise must be made.

I realize that my example is a role-playing one and the topic at hand is mechanical, but I think it still has a degree of relevancy.

Da Beast
2015-10-07, 02:16 PM
It makes his argument from analogy also a strawman, since the two aren't mutually exclusive.

1) Creates three analogies.
2) Attributes analogies to Bob, thus creating a distorted position.
3) Discredits this distorted position.

It does no such thing but rather states that the examples are meant to be analogies. The analogies are not attributed to Bob, saying Bob plays his rogue this way would be attributing them to Bob. What Erikun says is that these are fundamentally the same as what Bob is doing, just with different classes. Thus an argument from analogy.


How could that possibly be analogous? They inconvenient the group in completely different ways.

How so? In both cases characters are randomly unable to do what the party expects from one another because they didn't bother picking effective options for their classes main strength.


Even if it weren't, the argument is to argue that since you won't allow these other guys to do these other things, you shouldn't allow this Bob guy to do this one thing. Since two of the examples involve breaking the rules of the game, which Bob doesn't do, it simply reinforces how bad the argument is.

I've pointed this out several times by now, this isn't an argument about what is and is not RAW legal. All the analogies need to do is suggest a theoretical character that inconveniences the party in a similar way to how Bob's wizard might. At this point I'm not sure how to make that more clear and I think you're simply missing the point.


Because Bob has a right to play his character the way he wants regardless of the impact on the party.

I suppose in a free country sense of things Bob does have that right. I'm very glad I don't play with anyone this inconsiderate though.


The point is that the group has no room to even assume they have the authority to accommodate it; since it's not up to them.

Is this a serious statement? The rest of the players have no say in what goes on in their own game? Are they Bob's slaves who have to bend to his every whim? I don't see how else they would be forced to simply put up with anything Bob wants with no say in the matter.


D&D isn't a strategy game where you need to optimize the party dynamics. It's a roleplaying game.

Its a pen and paper game with whatever sort of focus the group wants it to have. If the group wants to have a purely roleplaying focused game where everyone gets to make and play their own little special flower then that'd be one thing. It's perfectly fine to have a more strategy focused game or anything in between the two. Its reasonable to assume from the fact that this topic exists that OPs group is not purely RP focused and that the Bob wizard is an unwelcome drain on everyone else's experience.


Not nearly as important as respecting another person's right to roleplay.

Giving one person the experience they want is more important than the entire group having a good time? Is this no longer a group activity? How does the group decide who's turn it is to selfishly take control of everyone else's free time?


Each and every person has a right to roleplay their character. The group's total happiness is secondary to this. You have no more right to tell Bob to not randomly select his spells than you have telling him he should play a Cleric instead of a Wizard because the party needs one of those more.

This seems amazingly selfish. If you want to have special snowflake time that focuses solely on your vision of an interesting character you can write a story. If you want to be part of a group activity you should be conscientious of the other group members' feelings. And don't try to tell me that the rest of the group is being equally selfish, expecting one person to play nice with the group is not the same as one person expecting a group to put up with something they'd rather not for that one person's amusement.


Apparently this is common in groups. I just had a new player join mine and one of his questions was, "What is everyone else playing?" and I told him it doesn't matter and he should play what he wants to play. I think it's insane to try to force a group dynamic when working with what you have is part of the game.

How would you feel if the DM told you that you couldn't play a character the way you wanted to because of the group dynamic? We have more than enough threads pop up about similar scenarios occurring and how much it upsets them.

I'd be fine with that. I'm considerate enough to try and make something that works with the group instead of expecting everyone else to accommodate something that doesn't fit into their game.


It was supposed to show that this is impermissible. Since it's not even allowed in the rules, of course the reaction of most people is that it's not permissible.

Close, but not quite. It was supposed to show that this is impermissible specifically because of how it would be an inconvenience to the rest of the group, not because of how RAW legal it is. You're simply missing the point and I'm not sure how it can be made clearer.


I don't believe that's a valid argument because of the factor of what's an acceptable risk, but it could be altered to be valid. This doesn't mean it's a sound argument.

Do you understand what logical validity and soundness mean? Validity simply means that the conclusion follows from the premises

A is B
C can reject B
Therefore, C can reject A

Please explain to me how this form is logically invalid. How does the factor of "acceptable risk" even figure into such a thing? I've also said nothing about any arguments being sound, only that Erikun's argument is an argument from analogy and therefore not a straw man and that the analogies aren't weak.


Position X.
You wouldn't allow similar position Y.
Therefore, you shouldn't allow position X.

That's his argument. And it's bogus because there are reasons why to not allow position Y that don't apply to position X.

No, his argument is specifically that you'd be frustrated by a character being unable to fulfill their expected role because of silly, self imposed limitations. I really don't know how to make this clearer.


I wouldn't want the rogue to run that risk because that would be breaking the rules, but not because of the risk.

Thanks for the input. What liberties you are and are not comfortable with players taking with the rules is outside the scope of this topic.


The fact that you can build a good argument is beside the point, as I've presented my position earlier. I don't want anyone to be persuaded into thinking otherwise by bad arguments.

You have yet to demonstrate that anything is bad argument, only that you've missed the point.

Jay R
2015-10-07, 02:25 PM
Your missing what everyone's so assuming. Bob appears to be the guy who might learn say water breathing. But let's say he picked one of these and fireball.

Again, this is based on a assumption of Bob in OP.

You're right - this is based on an unsupported assumption. There is therefore no basis for using this argument, until we learn what the actual spells in Bob's book are.


YIn and out of game he is putting the other characters at extreme risk intentionally.

That's called "adventuring". Any character unwilling to be put at extreme risk stays home.

And the word "intentionally" needs some consideration. He is leaving it up to the dice to decide if they are at extreme risk (and only if there are some unhelpful spells in his book).

There is no way to have an informed opinion without knowing the spells in Bob's book.

It's also worth noting that the joker in the deck, still unconsidered, is the DM. If I were DMing this game, I might arrange that the spells were worthwhile - a pool appears on their path if he has water-breathing, for instance. I might also simply arrange that the poor choice only affects Bob. Perhaps the ogres are out to kidnap somebody who can let them breathe underwater.

We don't know how the game is going, so we have no right to an opinion about how the game is going.

Nobody is hurt until somebody gets hurt.

Sacrieur
2015-10-07, 02:37 PM
I'm going to consolidate the relevant points and disregard irrelevant arguments.


I suppose in a free country sense of things Bob does have that right. I'm very glad I don't play with anyone this inconsiderate though.

I think there's a difference between being inconsiderate and playing the game like you want to play it, the same way there's a difference between harassment and acting how you personally choose.



Is this a serious statement? The rest of the players have no say in what goes on in their own game? Are they Bob's slaves who have to bend to his every whim? I don't see how else they would be forced to simply put up with anything Bob wants with no say in the matter.

It goes both ways.

Bob can no more tell another player how to play than they can tell him. And yes, you would be "forced" to put up with anything Bob wants for himself. That's a strange way of putting decisions that other people make for themselves. The idea that you're being "forced" to do anything is laughable, since the only thing you're being "forced" to do is not forcing someone to do what you want.



This seems amazingly selfish. If you want to have special snowflake time that focuses solely on your vision of an interesting character you can write a story. If you want to be part of a group activity you should be conscientious of the other group members' feelings. And don't try to tell me that the rest of the group is being equally selfish, expecting one person to play nice with the group is not the same as one person expecting a group to put up with something they'd rather not for that one person's amusement.

Bob isn't telling anyone else what to do. That's the difference.

You have no right to tell someone what to do because you feel differently, regardless of how many people agree with you.



I'd be fine with that. I'm considerate enough to try and make something that works with the group instead of expecting everyone else to accommodate something that doesn't fit into their game.

Nobody has to accommodate you. I'm not sure why you would think they have this obligation. If you make a character that all the other characters hate, then if he ends up getting the short end of the stick he can't complain.



Do you understand what logical validity and soundness mean? Validity simply means that the conclusion follows from the premises

I think we both have formal education in logic.



@Sacruier: I agree with you on some points and disagree on others. A group dynamic is a good thing, if someone wants to play a character in accordance to what the party has then that's great. If they don't want to, that's fine too. And I'm also inclined to agree that a group should be open to letting a player play whatever character they like... But if the character makes the game unpleasant for everyone else, the group absolutely has the right to tell the player to change his character or leave the table. In short, I strongly disagree with this statement.

As an example, I play a Half-Elf Wizard in a campaign. The only other player is a Dwarven Cleric. The cleric's player gets upset over little things sometimes, and he's sometimes overdramatic sometimes, but he's pretty cool other than that. Now, my character is very haughty. He sees pretty much everyone as being beneath him- At the beginning of the campaign, that included the cleric. The cleric, on the other hand, is essentially a CG follower of Kord- Not that Kord exists in that world, but that's more or less his mentality. Serve the greater good.

A little ways into the campaign, the cleric got kind of tired with my character's antics. He was mad at me out of character because he (player) didn't like me (character.) I altered my character slightly, so as to not make the game unpleasant for him. I decided that my character sees his as an equal, since the cleric has saved my life multiple times. I still get to play my snooty elf and be a jerk to NPCs, cleric still gets to have fun. Problem solved.

On the other hand, I could have refused to change my character, insisted that he get over himself, and caused the campaign to crash and burn. That would have been inconsiderate, rude, and would have caused out of game problems. I think in situations where a character makes the game less fun for others, a compromise must be made.

I realize that my example is a role-playing one and the topic at hand is mechanical, but I think it still has a degree of relevancy.

It's not like I don't understand there's a line; I just want to be clear that I think the line is drawn whenever someone starts creating a character with the intention on being a burden to everyone else.

I certainly do not think that any single person is beholden to fit into the group dynamic.

Da Beast
2015-10-07, 02:51 PM
I think there's a difference between being inconsiderate and playing the game like you want to play it, the same way there's a difference between harassment and acting how you personally choose.

At a point the two overlap. Bob seems to have reached this point and wants to go full steam ahead anyway.


Bob can no more tell another player how to play than they can tell him. And yes, you would be "forced" to put up with anything Bob wants for himself. That's a strange way of putting decisions that other people make for themselves. The idea that you're being "forced" to do anything is laughable, since the only thing you're being "forced" to do is not forcing someone to do what you want.

No one group member aside from the DM can tell another player how to play. From the sound of things the entire group doesn't want to deal with Bob's wizard, which is another matter than a disagreement between two people.


Bob isn't telling anyone else what to do. That's the difference.

You have no right to tell someone what to do because you feel differently, regardless of how many people agree with you.

He sort of is, he's telling people to put up with this particular oddball character. I don't really see how the rest of the group has no right to tell him what to do, they as a group have every right to determine what behaviors they will and will not put up with from one another.


Nobody has to accommodate you. I'm not sure why you would think they have this obligation. If you make a character that all the other characters hate, then if he ends up getting the short end of the stick he can't complain.

How did we get here? This is what I've been saying while you insist that the rest of the group does indeed have to accommodate weird and potentially dead weight characters.


I think we both have formal education in logic.

I'm sorry, but I find that hard to believe. The meaning of logical validity is something you should learn within the first week of a logic class. The fact that you don't seem to understand that a straw man and an argument from analogy are different things no matter how (in)accurate the analogy is also rather telling.


I certainly do not think that any single person is beholden to fit into the group dynamic.

They are only beholden to fit into that dynamic in so far as the group is beholden to put up with them at all.

Keltest
2015-10-07, 02:52 PM
You're right - this is based on an unsupported assumption. There is therefore no basis for using this argument, until we learn what the actual spells in Bob's book are.


The fact that this thread exists supports the assumption, however even in the scenario you described it is not at all difficult to come up with a scenario where Bob's actions are detrimental to the party.

And frankly, in your scenario, Bob is still deliberately playing his character at a level below what is expected of him, because a wizard who can only memorize fireball or lightning bolt for his 3rd level spells is missing a fantastic amount of utility at that spell level. It isn't like those are the only spells he can get; The moment he levels, he can start scribing 3rd level spells to his book. He doesn't even have to wait to start collecting them.

Sacrieur
2015-10-07, 03:07 PM
At a point the two overlap. Bob seems to have reached this point and wants to go full steam ahead anyway.

By randomizing his spells?

Not even close.



No one group member aside from the DM can tell another player how to play. From the sound of things the entire group doesn't want to deal with Bob's wizard, which is another matter than a disagreement between two people.

So more than one person is wrong.



He sort of is, he's telling people to put up with this particular oddball character. I don't really see how the rest of the group has no right to tell him what to do, they as a group have every right to determine what behaviors they will and will not put up with from one another.

Not when they determine behaviors that would be unreasonable, like expecting someone to contribute what they deem "enough" to their party dynamic.



How did we get here? This is what I've been saying while you insist that the rest of the group does indeed have to accommodate weird and potentially dead weight characters.

If I gave that impression I apologize.



I'm sorry, but I find that hard to believe. The meaning of logical validity is something you should learn within the first week of a logic class. The fact that you don't seem to understand that a straw man and an argument from analogy are different things no matter how (in)accurate the analogy is also rather telling.

You believe I don't understand it. I dropped the argument because I didn't think it would have any fruition on the current discussion, rather than conceding that you were right.

To answer your question, a valid argument is one that so long as the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. A sound argument is a valid argument with premises that are actually true. I admitted the argument could be a valid one, but not a sound one because I don't think the second premise is true.

I've been attempting to remain civil, but if you want to climb up on a high horse and declare me as ignorant, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Jenerix525
2015-10-07, 03:23 PM
Do you understand what logical validity and soundness mean? Validity simply means that the conclusion follows from the premises

A is B
C can reject B
Therefore, C can reject A

Please explain to me how this form is logically invalid. How does the factor of "acceptable risk" even figure into such a thing? I've also said nothing about any arguments being sound, only that Erikun's argument is an argument from analogy and therefore not a straw man and that the analogies aren't weak.

It is not logically invalid (note: don't remember exact logic terminology, but it's pretty simple).
The problem is that that logic does not represent the argument you made earlier.


To illustrate, lets restate the argument as simply as possible and make some comparisons.

A wizard with randomized spells risks being mechanically useless
A group should not have to put up with a wizard who is mechanically useless
Therefore, a group should not have to put up with a wizard with randomized spells.

There's the argument against Bob's wizard, laid out as simply as possible. Since this is a deductive argument, the conclusion must be true if its premises are true.

If this matched the theoretical form you presented, it would start "A wizard with randomized spells is mechanically useless".
Essentially, we are reading an unwritten additional premise here: "Someone who risks being mechanically useless is equivalent to someone who is mechanically useless".

That is where "acceptable risk" comes in. It is explicitly the idea that risking something and actively doing it are not the same.

Da Beast
2015-10-07, 03:45 PM
It is not logically invalid (note: don't remember exact logic terminology, but it's pretty simple).
The problem is that that logic does not represent the argument you made earlier.

If this matched the theoretical form you presented, it would start "A wizard with randomized spells is mechanically useless".
Essentially, we are reading an unwritten additional premise here: "Someone who risks being mechanically useless is equivalent to someone who is mechanically useless".

That is where "acceptable risk" comes in. It is explicitly the idea that risking something and actively doing it are not the same.

Perhaps I could have been more careful with phrasing but I don't think the forms are different. Let's try this again

A wizard with randomized spells risks being mechanically useless
A group should not have to put up with a wizard who is mechanically useless
Therefore, a group should not have to put up with a wizard with randomized spells.

A wizard who randomizes spells (is a character who intentionally) risks being mechanically useless
A group should not have to put up with a character who intentionally risks being mechanically useless
Therefore, a group should not have to put up with a wizard who randomizes spells

I think this version is worded a bit more clearly but without any of the meaning being different. "Should not have to put up with" being functionally equivalent to "can reject" and so on. The problem is that the second premise moves on from the first by combining terms A and B since premise 1 already states them to be equivalent. You are right that clarity of terms is very important in formal logic though, so thanks for the catch.

As for the idea of "acceptable risk", it is never relevant to the statements logical validity. Validity means that the conclusion follows properly from the premises, it is unconcerned with the truth value of those premises. "Acceptable risk" may very well figure into the truth of those premises but that's an issue of soundness, not validity.

Jay R
2015-10-07, 06:12 PM
I think both of your premises are, if not untrue, at least not proven or supported.


A wizard with randomized spells risks being mechanically useless.

First of all, let's deal with, and get past, the silly exaggeration. A character with a throwing knife or a staff or a rope is not "mechanically useless". I will assume that this is simply exaggeration on your part, and assume that you mean "not as effective as she might otherwise be".

Secondly, at best, she is only risking being occasionally under-powered, since the random process will pick the best spells sometimes.

But once we get past those minor objections, how under-powered the character is at any given moment depends on what spells are available for the randomizing process. A wizard rolling between several attack spells does not risk being mechanically useless, or even significantly under-powered.

It also depends on what magic items the character has. With the right items, a wizard might go through a whole adventure not using one of her own spells.

Finally, it depends on the player's wit and ingenuity. In my group, I would cheerfully travel with an "under-powered" character of Wil's, or Dirk's, because I'm sure that they will be more successful than most others.

Since we don't know the spells to be chosen from, the magic items involved, or Bob's skill, we have no way to conclude how under-powered this character is risking being occasioanlly.


A group should not have to put up with a wizard who is mechanically useless.

Please cite the rule or principle in the rules which states that "A group" has the right to insist on a certain level of optimization. I have often recommended more optimal choices for my fellow players, but I've never asserted that I "should not have to put up with" a character design that is not optimized to my satisfaction.

In the game I play, Kevin's character is under-powered because he isn't good at optimization, Isaac's character is under-powered because he has a sentient item which doesn't always function, Victor's character is under-powered because he falls asleep and therefore often misses crucial details, and Wil's character is under-powered for our purposes because he often can't show up, and we have to play without his abilities.. And in all cases, that's none of my business. Note also that a character who uses her most powerful spells in the first encounter is also choosing to be "under-powered" temporarily, and that's the player's choice, not mine.

I don't see how playing a character who is sometimes under-powered because of a role-playing choice is my business, either.

But I'm willing to be convinced, so show me some sort of citations to indicate that this is a generally established role-playing principle, rather than your personal preference.

Keltest
2015-10-07, 06:25 PM
Please cite the rule or principle in the rules which states that "A group" has the right to insist on a certain level of optimization. I have often recommended more optimal choices for my fellow players, but I've never asserted that I "should not have to put up with" a character design that is not optimized to my satisfaction.

It is up to the group to decide at what power level their game is going to be played at. They are not obligated to accommodate those who disagree with the group decision. If the group cant decide that, then maybe they shouldn't all be gaming with each other, but in general you are going to have some sort of general consensus that "This power level is what we expect."

And in case you missed it, I would like to re-state that any given gaming group is under no obligation to accommodate someone who does not want to play the game in the way it is currently being played. So yes, the group does have a right to expect a certain level of optimization, because to do otherwise is to negatively affect everybody's gaming experience, which is pretty much the only way to play tabletop games wrong.

oxybe
2015-10-07, 07:03 PM
Please cite the rule or principle in the rules which states that "A group" has the right to insist on a certain level of optimization. I have often recommended more optimal choices for my fellow players, but I've never asserted that I "should not have to put up with" a character design that is not optimized to my satisfaction.

Rule -1 of every tabletop game: Don't be a jerk.

This is defined as not being disruptive to the group play. As a player, you should be making characters that fit the powerlevel the group find acceptable as making them too weak or powerful can cause issues. This also includes actions the character takes, as not all groups are comfortable with all subject matter.

If a character is causing problems for the group or GM, as a player you should probably re-evaluate your mechanics and ask the GM to rework them so they fit the group better.

D&D is first and foremost a social activity: you're playing a game with other people, even if that game is pretending you're a magical elf. Refusing to play at everyone else's level is being disruptive, IE: a jerk.

I refuse to play with jerks personally and have quit groups because of them. If you don't want to play at their level they are in no way forced to accommodate you or your style and you are free to find another group: this is something I have done time and time again and will continue to do.

Da Beast
2015-10-07, 07:40 PM
I think both of your premises are, if not untrue, at least not proven or supported.

Well that's fine since all I was trying to do was correct the improper accusations of logical fallacies. To do so required laying things out plainly so they could be easily examined, it didn't require them to be proven true.


Please cite the rule or principle in the rules which states that "A group" has the right to insist on a certain level of optimization. I have often recommended more optimal choices for my fellow players, but I've never asserted that I "should not have to put up with" a character design that is not optimized to my satisfaction.

Being conscientious of the group is just basic manners, it shouldn't have to be spelled out in the rules. That being said I personally am fine with people playing less than optimal choices. Like you, I would probably recommend some better options and leave it at that. If they really want to play something so weak that I worry that it'll ruin the game in the long run I'll maybe talk to the DM but I personally am not in a position to demand the game run in any particular way. The issue here seems to be that Bob's entire group has a problem with it, not just one other player.

I'm getting tired of rehashing basic points like "be considerate of other peoples' feelings when playing in a group." I really just wanted to correct the accusations of straw man being thrown about and didn't even post my personal feelings till I was several posts in. Allow me to repost them here:


I'd also like to point out that I haven't really stated a position so far, only examined the cogency of the logic used by other posters. I'll go ahead and do that now to clear things up. I'm on the same page as most other people, it really depends on what the group is going for in their game. If Bob's party members are Tipsy Steve the fighter who's only goal in life is to drink a dwarf under the table and regularly forgets his weapons and has to fight with whatever improvised weapons he can find and Dooseldorf Gnarfogler the gnome bard who literally wants to paint the world, as in he begins every fight by pulling out a brush and scribbling on the monsters, then Bob's wizard should be fine and no one has a right to complain. If the party wants a more serious game and expects everyone to make a reasonable effort at filling their character's role in the party then they have every right to ask Bob to do something else. Bob could severely limit the spells in his book to ones with very broad applications but then why not just play a sorcerer? If your group doesn't want to put up with this than the polite thing to do is shelve the character concept for a game where it's more appropriate.

I suppose you could talk to your DM about making a side quest for your character to be cursed with randomized spells and the party needing to cure him some how. The DM could specifically design a few encounters so that the rest of the party isn't in real danger if you're randomly useless and curing the curse at the of the adventure would give everyone a laugh or two at it while making sure the gimmick doesn't overstay its welcome. Expecting the entire group to put up with this gimmick session after session when they aren't interested in it seems selfish though.

Ultimately this is a group issue. We can sit here and argue about whether or not basic manners should be expected in a gaming group but at the end of the day if OP's group doesn't want a silly character in it then that's fine, they should be able to play the game they want to play. If the game they want to play isn't quite the game OP wants to play he can either deal with it or find another game. It would be selfish of him to expect the entire group to change their expectations for his sake though.

cucchulainnn
2015-10-07, 08:24 PM
Rule -1 of every tabletop game: Don't be a jerk.



to me being a jerk is entirely personality based. if i enjoy some ones company i will put with anything, and if i don't i don't play with them.

i don't care how well some one plays a game, bottom line is, do i enjoy their company? then again i predominately play with friends. when new people come into the group eventually we become friends, or eventually they stop being invited.

Sacrieur
2015-10-07, 08:33 PM
D&D is first and foremost a social activity: you're playing a game with other people, even if that game is pretending you're a magical elf. Refusing to play at everyone else's level is being disruptive, IE: a jerk.

You're not allowed to be a magical elf becuase the group needs you to be a dwarf fighter.

Keltest
2015-10-07, 09:09 PM
You're not allowed to be a magical elf becuase the group needs you to be a dwarf fighter.

So, if the party has 3 wizards and no warriors... yeah. Suck it up.

oxybe
2015-10-07, 09:11 PM
You're not allowed to be a magical elf becuase the group needs you to be a dwarf fighter.

At that point it's my choice to make: do i make a dwarf or find a new group?

Oh look, human interaction.

Rusvul
2015-10-07, 09:20 PM
Then if you don't want to be a dwarven fighter, and they just can't be convinced? Don't play. You're not obligated to.

...Though, there is a significant difference between the party telling you to be a fighter or leave, and the party telling you that your character is significantly and intentionally below the optimization level of the rest of the group, and if you wouldn't mind, to step it up a little please.

Sacrieur
2015-10-07, 09:26 PM
So, if the party has 3 wizards and no warriors... yeah. Suck it up.

But not TWF, because they think using a two-handed weapon is better. Also your Con and Str scores have to be top notch, so no Dex-based fighting either. The group wants you to be a big strong fighter and not a swift one.



At that point it's my choice to make: do i make a dwarf or find a new group?

Oh look, human interaction.

I'd read a book, since those also have characters I didn't create. At least I can choose the book.

And the group with control issues can have fun playing who has to play the dwarf between the three of them.

---

As a DM though, I could just create a new group. Or just tell them to quit telling another person what to do. I've never had to do that though since they're all on my side, having experienced playing it that way, and infinitely prefer it to whatever they were doing in the past.

Keltest
2015-10-07, 09:27 PM
But not TWF, because they think using a two-handed weapon is better. Also your Con and Str scores have to be top notch, so no Dex-based fighting either. The group wants you to be a big strong fighter and not a swift one.


Then if you don't want to be a dwarven fighter, and they just can't be convinced? Don't play. You're not obligated to.

...Though, there is a significant difference between the party telling you to be a fighter or leave, and the party telling you that your character is significantly and intentionally below the optimization level of the rest of the group, and if you wouldn't mind, to step it up a little please.


Why are you treating it as unreasonable that a person is expected to participate at the same level as the rest of the group? They aren't forced to game with them, hopefully, so if they don't like it they can look for a different group that's more their speed.

Jay R
2015-10-07, 09:30 PM
Rule -1 of every tabletop game: Don't be a jerk.

Exactly. And telling people that they have to play your way instead of their way is being a jerk.

I's much rather play with Bob than with any of the people who want to veto other people's character conceptions.

Sacrieur
2015-10-07, 09:31 PM
Why are you treating it as unreasonable that a person is expected to participate at the same level as the rest of the group? They aren't forced to game with them, hopefully, so if they don't like it they can look for a different group that's more their speed.

Because it is unreasonable and just because you can find a new group doesn't make it any less unreasonable.

Keltest
2015-10-07, 09:45 PM
Because it is unreasonable and just because you can find a new group doesn't make it any less unreasonable.

What is unreasonable about it? If your group is facing the demon lord Imakillyouwithfire, youre going to want someone who pulls their weight.

oxybe
2015-10-07, 10:09 PM
Because it is unreasonable and just because you can find a new group doesn't make it any less unreasonable.

If i go to any other social function and start demanding people accept my behaviour and find it "unreasonable" that they don't allow me to do whatever I want, I'm pretty sure I'm the one being unreasonable and they are under no requirement to keep me around.

D&D is a social activity. you're just playing pretend instead of watching football or eating scones or whatever.

NichG
2015-10-07, 10:20 PM
Would you rather play the non random wizard or not play?

Would you rather play with the random wizard, or not play with that player at all?

The only unreasonable thing would be to issue an ultimatum when the other side calling you on it and leaving makes things worse for you than if you had just compromised.

This goes for both sides.

Da Beast
2015-10-07, 10:33 PM
Then if you don't want to be a dwarven fighter, and they just can't be convinced? Don't play. You're not obligated to.

...Though, there is a significant difference between the party telling you to be a fighter or leave, and the party telling you that your character is significantly and intentionally below the optimization level of the rest of the group, and if you wouldn't mind, to step it up a little please.

It seems there are straw men in this thread after all, they're just being set up by the guy accusing others of making them.

Rusvul
2015-10-07, 10:48 PM
My apologies, I'm not the most familiar with logical fallacies. I likely mislabeled Erikun's post because someone else had and I took their argument at face value rather than evaluating it. I tried to be succinct in my most recent post, perhaps that went awry and I did not represent myself clearly enough, leading to its misinterpretation. It's also entirely possible that I have constructed a straw man unintentionally... Would you mind illustrating for me where my post became fallacious?

Sacrieur
2015-10-07, 11:10 PM
What is unreasonable about it? If your group is facing the demon lord Imakillyouwithfire, youre going to want someone who pulls their weight.

I can grant that. I think our goals are different. While I am advocating enjoying the experience, you're advocating "beating" the game.

I think I'd have to concede that some people do want to win the game, because there are players who do get their kick off of that. I think I should recant and state my position athat just because you want to play a certain way doesn't mean you should expect other people to play the same way.

In DM theory, there are several different archetypes of players. The two groups that have the most trouble playing together are method-actors and strategists. While method-actors intend to build a character to enjoy the thrills of pretending to be someone else (like having a cursed wizard), strategists get their kick by overcoming encounters and "winning" the game. While this isn't iron-clad templates that you can apply to just anyone and more of a generalization than helpful; I think it can help illustrate why I have the position I do.

The DM's perspective means that I have to consider what all players want to do and can't let one person's enjoyment be drained by the wishes of another. So yes, I take offense to anyone telling Bob what he can't do because others want to play the game differently.



If i go to any other social function and start demanding people accept my behaviour and find it "unreasonable" that they don't allow me to do whatever I want, I'm pretty sure I'm the one being unreasonable and they are under no requirement to keep me around.

D&D is a social activity. you're just playing pretend instead of watching football or eating scones or whatever.

Possibly, at least in a general sense. I've had to kick out a player before.

I do still believe it's unreasonable to expect people to optimize their character. And just because it's their group doesn't change the fact what they're expecting of you is unreasonable.



It seems there are straw men in this thread after all, they're just being set up by the guy accusing others of making them.

That's twice.

Becoming passive aggressive won't help you. But sure, point out where exactly I made a strawman and let's go from there.

Raphite1
2015-10-07, 11:56 PM
This debate is insane. It doesn't matter if Bob's character is completely useless. It doesn't matter if he decided that he'd prepare ZERO spells every day.

If Bob is in a four person party, and if Bob was totally useless in combat, the DM would just balance encounters around three PCs instead of four. Of Bob was slightly useful, the DM would bump it up a bit.

Everyone seems to be thinking of the game world like the real world - that it has some reality outside of the participants' experience of it. That's not the case in D&D, where the world is, to some greater or lesser extent, built around the players. Party balance is irrelevant in D&D (unlike a MMO, or real-world tasks). Individual character strength is irrelevant in D&D (unlike a MMO, or real-world tasks). The DM makes the game match the characters who are present; it's one of the primary parts of his/her role in the game.

goto124
2015-10-08, 12:09 AM
A Wild Mage class is designed to be mechanically strong even when spells are randomised. A Wizard class, not so much.

As usual, a character must be reasonably strong to contribute to the group. It doesn't have to be 100% optimized. How well, or how poorly, a randomised-spell Wizard will perform can depend on system and/or creativity of the player (or the GM!)

Also, is it alright for a GM, in the Session 0, to say "No, please don't randomise your spells, it's a huge headache to design the world and balance encounters etc, and I really hope I don't have to do those things all over again"?

Da Beast
2015-10-08, 01:56 AM
Becoming passive aggressive won't help you. But sure, point out where exactly I made a strawman and let's go from there.


You're not allowed to be a magical elf becuase the group needs you to be a dwarf fighter.

What people are saying is you should be aware of the fact that your're part of the group and that unusually strange characters may occasionally need to be toned down. No one is saying Bob can't even play his intended race or archetype, but you're stating this far more extreme and easier to argue against position as being you're opponent's. This is not presented as an analogy, it is a clear straw man. Look, its taken a beer or two to realize that I just don't care to teach logic on the internet. I think I'll go actually work on writing some adventures or something. Earthwalker, if you're still checking this, maybe try a tamer version of your gimmick like randomizing your bonus spells or something. If you're group really doesn't want to put up with it though maybe you can find some other way to role play a memorable cursed/mad wizard. In the end this is a mater of group dynamics and I don't think anyone in this thread really knows about your's.

oxybe
2015-10-08, 02:09 AM
This debate is insane. It doesn't matter if Bob's character is completely useless. It doesn't matter if he decided that he'd prepare ZERO spells every day.

If Bob is in a four person party, and if Bob was totally useless in combat, the DM would just balance encounters around three PCs instead of four. Of Bob was slightly useful, the DM would bump it up a bit.

Everyone seems to be thinking of the game world like the real world - that it has some reality outside of the participants' experience of it. That's not the case in D&D, where the world is, to some greater or lesser extent, built around the players. Party balance is irrelevant in D&D (unlike a MMO, or real-world tasks). Individual character strength is irrelevant in D&D (unlike a MMO, or real-world tasks). The DM makes the game match the characters who are present; it's one of the primary parts of his/her role in the game.

if i was thinking of the game world like the real world magic wouldn't be some supposedly rare thing because it would effectively replace technology.

if i was thinking of the game like the real world "adventurers" wouldn't exist as we know them because the concept is laughable. you'd have soldiers but NOTHING on the scope of D&D PCs

if i was thinking of the game like the real world traditional D&D would not work on a conceptual level because wizards would be crazy people in bathrobes yelling "lightning bolt" while being escorted away by a couple of nurses.

D&D is a game and as such there are rules you play by and social constructs you agree to when you sit down and play. Making a character that fits with the game world presented is one of them and power level is part of that agreement.

As a DM I have enough work on my plate, if you can't adjust your one guy and want to force me to adjust all of mine, you can feel free to leave: door's to the right. Everyone has to be on board to get the game to work, and that includes players making characters that fit the powerlevel of the group. I do tech support for a living. I spend 8-9 hours talking to a bunch of primadonnas who are requesting the world and above that we cannot give them. If I can't make your TV work from across the country, I can't magically make a tech apparate at your door if there are none in your area... Bumblefudge, Alberta is a remote location. I'm sorry you can't watch your programming but them's the breaks.

I deal with these people for 40+ hours a week. I get full right as GM to tell the one in front of my face to bugger off if he's not going to play nice and make my job harder and the rest of the party's harder too.

that is 100% that guy behavior and I'm not going balance an encounter for 3 competent people and a fourth who's liable to kill himself with safety scissors. it's "it's what my character would do". If you don't want to play at the group's level or interact with what they're doing, why are you even playing with them?

Keltest
2015-10-08, 05:18 AM
that is 100% that guy behavior and I'm not going balance an encounter for 3 competent people and a fourth who's liable to kill himself with safety scissors. it's "it's what my character would do". If you don't want to play at the group's level or interact with what they're doing, why are you even playing with them?

Exactly this. When you join a group you are obligated to contribute to the overall enjoyment of the group. Ideally, that includes your own enjoyment as well, but if your fun comes at the expense of the group's, you don't have magical protection from the negative consequences that arise, namely being told to knock it off or leave.

Knaight
2015-10-08, 09:28 AM
Exactly this. When you join a group you are obligated to contribute to the overall enjoyment of the group. Ideally, that includes your own enjoyment as well, but if your fun comes at the expense of the group's, you don't have magical protection from the negative consequences that arise, namely being told to knock it off or leave.

On the other hand, when the only reason your fun would come at the expense of the group is because of control freaks within the group that want to control everything, this is significantly less valid.

Keltest
2015-10-08, 10:13 AM
On the other hand, when the only reason your fun would come at the expense of the group is because of control freaks within the group that want to control everything, this is significantly less valid.

There is a significant difference between "Please play your character in a way that we can work with" and "I am going to play your character for you, go sit in the corner."

Raphite1
2015-10-08, 10:15 AM
that is 100% that guy behavior and I'm not going balance an encounter for 3 competent people and a fourth who's liable to kill himself with safety scissors. it's "it's what my character would do". If you don't want to play at the group's level or interact with what they're doing, why are you even playing with them?

In every game you have X number of players, with an average power level of Y. The DM balances the game according to that value. This is true in a game of four tier 2 characters, or a game of one tier 1, two tier 3s, and one tier 5. It's what the DM always has to do, and imo encounter balance is the easiest part of DMing, at least in the editions I've DMed. The weakest character will be at the highest risk of dying, but so what? That's what they wanted to play, and it doesn't really hurt the other players.

Now, things are totally different if the character/player is uncooperative rather than just weak. If they're stealing from other party members, deliberately sabotaging plans, not engaging in the game, etc, those are all causes for concern. That doesn't sound like what Bob is doing, though. His character just isn't going to be a combat whiz most of the time, so as a result combat encounters won't be balanced around having an additional strong combatant present.

Sacrieur
2015-10-08, 10:47 AM
What people are saying is you should be aware of the fact that your're part of the group and that unusually strange characters may occasionally need to be toned down. No one is saying Bob can't even play his intended race or archetype, but you're stating this far more extreme and easier to argue against position as being you're opponent's. This is not presented as an analogy, it is a clear straw man.

A strawman requires three parts. First, a distortion of the original position. Second, an argument that shows this new position to be faulty. Third, a denouncement of the original position.

I asked you to point out where, exactly, I did these three things.

NichG
2015-10-08, 11:30 AM
On the other hand, when the only reason your fun would come at the expense of the group is because of control freaks within the group that want to control everything, this is significantly less valid.

It doesn't matter if its valid or not. You can do whatever you like, but people will feel however they feel about it whether it can be successfully rationalized and defended or not. If the end result is that you're not playing and you've alienated your friends, whether you've made a compelling argument about whether your views were valid or not doesn't really matter. You're still not playing and you've still alienated your friends. You may be able to convince yourself that those people were jerks and you shouldn't have been friends with them in the first place, but thats between you and yourself to hash out.

Its a useful thing to be able to hold both 'I think you're being unreasonable' and 'but maybe it doesn't actually matter enough to make a big deal about' in your head at the same time.

Mr.Moron
2015-10-08, 12:02 PM
If one should not have to adventure with wizard that risks being useless, it's fair to generalize we should not adventure with anyone who risks being useless.
Since these spells would be random per day, we can see the scale of the intolerable risk: That is, we should not have to tolerate adventuring with someone who risks being useless in any day-sized set of encounters.
Since the set of all encounters possible in a day includes all encounters, and no risk of uselessness can be tolerated in it we can say that any adventuring partner that risks being useless in any encounter is intolerable.
The only tolerable adventure partners are therefore those that run no risk of being useless in any possible encounter.
The only tolerable adventuring partners are those that are guaranteed to be useful in every encounter.
The only acceptable adventuring partner is Pun-Pun.

Jay R
2015-10-08, 01:22 PM
Back in the 1970s, I played a single game with a Jester - a near-useless character class from an early issue of The Dragon. Nobody in the party asked me not to play him. Nobody.

In a current game of 3.5E, somebody not used to the game is playing a Thief/Cleric, which is a poor design, much less useful than a well-designed character. Nobody in the game, including me, has told him not to play that way. Nobody.

I have never told a player that he had to design or play their character the way I want them to, rather than the way they want to.
I never will.

Nobody has ever tried to tell me to design or play my character the way they want me to, instead of the way I want to.
If anybody tries, they will fail.

oxybe
2015-10-08, 01:58 PM
@Jay R
I sure will. If I'm going to ask the people that are sitting at my table to make characters appropriate to the game I'm running, I am going to hold veto power over those that don't fit the theme or power level.

If you're not going to give me the courtesy of following those instructions, I see no reason to let your character into the group.

Rusvul
2015-10-08, 02:14 PM
There's a distinct difference between your examples and Bob- a rogue/cleric is a suboptimal build with some advantages. Sure, you'll probably be less effective than either a rogue or a cleric, but one, you have some unique advantages that neither a single-class rogue nor a single-class cleric will have. Also, the player in question is inexperienced... Bob, though, has no advantages over a non-random wizard- He's a straight downgrade, not a trade off. And by the way this thread is framed, it seems like Bob is an at least moderately experienced character intentionally building an underpowered character just for the heck of it.

I, think that it all depends on the attitude of Bob and Bob's party. If the party is pretty casual and relaxed, I don't think anyone is likely to care if Bob is being underpowered- especially if Bob is a good role player who can really sell the idea of his curse. Could make a fun plot hook. On the other hand, if the campaign is more serious, has a high optimization level, and Bob is playing an underpowered character because it'll annoy the party/ because he wants to be lolrandom in a serious game, I think that's kind of disrespectful of Bob.

I don't think it's right to say that telling someone they can't play a specific character is always a terrible thing- if Bob's player is being a jerk about it, then it doesn't seem unreasonable for the group to tell them to knock it off.

But really, if the group gets along reasonably well, it shouldn't be hard to find a compromise of some sort.

Knaight
2015-10-08, 04:40 PM
If the end result is that you're not playing and you've alienated your friends, whether you've made a compelling argument about whether your views were valid or not doesn't really matter. You're still not playing and you've still alienated your friends. You may be able to convince yourself that those people were jerks and you shouldn't have been friends with them in the first place, but thats between you and yourself to hash out.

Alienation seems overblown here. The worst case scenario is more along the lines of "you realize that you and your friends enjoy a particular hobby in fundamentally different ways, and don't do that one hobby together".

NichG
2015-10-08, 05:26 PM
Alienation seems overblown here. The worst case scenario is more along the lines of "you realize that you and your friends enjoy a particular hobby in fundamentally different ways, and don't do that one hobby together".

Well, with some of the ultimatums flying around this thread...

oxybe
2015-10-08, 07:43 PM
Someone on reddit linked to this (http://i.imgur.com/EwiChyD.png). Seems appropriate and follows pretty much how I deal with thing.

Earthwalker
2015-10-13, 07:53 AM
I have been away a while and the thread still is going. I thought I better post.


This is an example of an actual straw man. I have never stated a position that players are duty bound to build characters for maximum mechanical effectiveness so stating that as my position is a clear straw man. It also reeks of false dichotomy as there is a vast middle ground between maximum effectiveness and intentionally crippling your character with silly out of character decisions.


You are correct and I apologize.


The fact that this thread exists supports the assumption, however even in the scenario you described it is not at all difficult to come up with a scenario where Bob's actions are detrimental to the party.
And frankly, in your scenario, Bob is still deliberately playing his character at a level below what is expected of him, because a wizard who can only memorize fireball or lightning bolt for his 3rd level spells is missing a fantastic amount of utility at that spell level. It isn't like those are the only spells he can get; the moment he levels, he can start scribing 3rd level spells to his book. He doesn't even have to wait to start collecting them.

We have here a comment about spells known. So if a Mage that isn’t Bob was to choose his spells a day and only had two spells known for lvl 3, the same two as Bob. Would he not be a problem to the group ?
Is wasting potential for your character bad ?
I understand perfectly that not performing to the groups level is bad (optimization or power level whatever you call it) but surly if you are helping the group and staying within the power level of the rest of the group then missing out on potential isn’t an issue is it ?


I read the whole thread up to this point and don’t think I should post quotes and replies to each which as you can see is what I started doing. Instead I will try to sum up (probably a mistake) and post what I think.

Reasons why Bob should not do random spells.

1) Bob intentionally increase the risk of being mechanically useless.
I think Bob can reduce this risk with keeping utility out of his highest tier of spells know. So he always has useful spells. I think he can also balance things more with magic items so he counteracts being mechanically useless. I also think that he will never be mechanically useless, just mechanically weaker.

2) Bob is not going to be the same power level as the rest of the group.
If this is true for your group then I don’t think Bob should be doing this. He might want to have this fun concept but he needs to same within the same power level or optimization level as the group. (Unless the group don’t mind vastly different power levels, I would say that wasn’t the norm) I can see this as being a sticking point for some groups.

3) Bob should be expecting the GM to make the game for his special snowflake character.
I am not sure this is what Bob is doing. In fact it could be possible that the GM doesn’t even notice Bob is choosing random spells.
If Bob does declare he is using random spells because of a curse, he isn’t forcing the GM to have a quest to fix the curse, if Bob is happy with random spells (which you have to guess he is) and in the right power level of the group then Bob is making no demands.
For myself I also always prefer it is Players have hooks for their characters. I can see how some people play different. Like one guy I play with has no idea who his character is till he has played like 5 sessions.

4) If Bob is playing a wizard there is an expectation that he will be versatile. Using random spells breaks this expectation.
While this is true I am not sure it is a problem with how Bob is playing. Bob can and I think should tell people this is how he is playing his wizard. This should break the expectation. If this changes what people want to play in the group so be it.


Thank you everyone for posting here, it has certainly has shown me different more complex outlooks at something I thought was much simpler.

For myself I can say in at least one of my Pathfinder groups I could play like Bob and it would cause issue with one out of the 5 players (4 PCs and 1 GM) . The issue with the one player would not be with power level. If I use numbers to represent power approx.
Me and the other guy can play about 6. The two other players are about 3. So I normally drop down to 3 to match the lowest, maybe 4. Droping to 3 doesn’t upset any players or the GM.
What would upset the player is not having on call the spells he needs for the buffs he wants. For my part his approach annoys me, not because his plans are bad but mainly because it turns my character into a piece in a chess game he is playing.

Seward
2015-10-14, 10:22 PM
A wizard that chooses the wrong spells for a day risks being mechanically useless.
A group should not have to put up with a wizard who is mechanically useless.
Therefore, a group should not allow wizards in your groups unless the player can predict with 100% certainty what is going to happen in the next gaming session.

A fighter who chooses to not buy a golfbag of weapons risks becoming mechanically useless (at level 1 with starting gold he could have a blunt, slashing, piercing (for underwater), cold iron, silver and ranged weapon, plus some flasks of oil and a way of making fire in case of swarms. A reach weapon is also a pretty good idea.).

Therefore a fighter who sticks to his racial preferred weapons should not be allowed to play, because (for example) her slashing greataxe and slashing falchion suck against skeletons or underwater, and she can't do anything to harm a bat swarm

That's a bad attitude. The fighter will still be of some use, just less so than if fighting zombies or humans. Even against the bat swarm, the hit point total can be helpful to draw it off as bait away from characters that can affect the swarm. Such a fighter will likely prefer buying a potion of fly over buying a composite longbow+arrows to fight flying opponents too, which has a cost and will sometimes fail (multiple flying encounters before she can repurchase a potion when his party provides no support)

The wizard's choice is only a problem if the spellbook mostly contains useless spells - and if that is the case the wizard will probably suck most days anyway because the decision to scribe useless spells indicates that the player doesn't know what spells are useful. Note that a spell is only useless if the player can't apply them to most combats.

The wizard also gets scribe scroll for free. If any spells in the spellbook are useful, they can be scribed into scrolls for minimal gp cost as a hedge against a bad random selection for the actual situation (indeed, it's a good idea anyway because with the best of intentions, wizards often guess wrong on what kind of day they're going to have).

Seward
2015-10-14, 10:31 PM
Your missing what everyone's so assuming. Bob appears to be the guy who might learn say water breathing. But let's say he picked one of these and fireball. While sometimes he will be fine, what about when he only prepares waterbreathing.

I have seen lack of water breathing kill characters more often than lack of fireball or lightning bolt. And fireball is useless in the encounter with a Devil, Lightning bolt equally useless against the demon encounter.

The 5th level character starts with (assuming 16-18 intelligence and some kind of school specialization) 5 first level spells, 4 second level spells and 3 third level spells. One of those spells at each tier is going to be chosen only from a single school, which should help quite a bit in keeping a few consistently useful spells in the day.

If, out of 12 spells, you can't find a good use for your standard action, you either have an extremely bloated spellbook filled with mostly useless spells or you're not trying very hard to be creative. The longer the day goes, the more chance you'll have a few stinker spells, but that's true of a wizard who didn't know how the day would progress as well. Also give the character some credit. If the party has anyone else that can cast water breathing (eg, a cleric or druid of level 5), don't scribe it in the spellbook. Stick to scribing generally useful spells, at least in your top tier slots, only add niche-spells into your more numerous and less critical lower level spell levels.

Finally, I'm going to say it again. Any 5th level wizard who hasn't scribed an encounters worth of scrolls is wasting the bonus feat they got at first level. If this randomization really causes problems on anything like a regular basis, it is 12.5gp*caster level*spell level to get a few good options no matter what.

If a cleric or druid wanted to randomize spells, their huge spell lists might cause a problem, but the fact that one can spont healing and the other can spont summons lets them get rid of any clunkers.

Hell, this actually sounds kind of fun. If I wasn't already playing an "arcane archer" (a wizard who has a bonded bow and focuses primarily on single target damage spells) I'd probably do something like that for my next Pathfinder Society character. But I've already done a wizard. Maybe I should try it with a cleric or druid and their stupidly large spell lists. Might be fun :). I bet nobody at the table would notice, except when I did something cool by having an odd or weirdly specialized spell handy for the current situation.

goto124
2015-10-14, 11:11 PM
I'm just sitting here thinking: Random spell wizards would work well in episodic games, where you have no idea what spells you need to prepare anyway.

ahenobarbi
2015-11-05, 08:11 PM
It would waste a lot of everyone's time on rolling wizard rolling spells. It would make wizard either a fifth wheel (if he learns a lot of spells and thus is likely to get poor spell selection) or a cripled sorcerer (if he choses few spells)(why not simply play handicaped sorcerer instead?).

I would refuse to play in game with such character (sure I can't force Bob to play character I want but he can't force me to play with character I don't want to play with). Or I would play and insist on Bobs PC leaving the party (they're liability / they are my friend and I don't want to watch them getting killed). Or I would arrange for the character to be killed in-game.


The fact one acceptable solution is supposedly uninvited PvP is very telling to where this position is coming from.

None of options I listed ("refuse to play", "make PC leave the party", "arrange to have the PC killed") is PvP. So it seems like you misunderstood something, mate.

Mr.Moron
2015-11-05, 09:55 PM
None of options I listed ("refuse to play", "make PC leave the party", "arrange to have the PC killed") is PvP. So it seems like you misunderstood something, mate.

of options I listed "arrange to have the PC killed"is PvP.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.