Ramble & Typecasting

[Angarma]

Hey there, new to the forums!

So my gaming group is going to be trying out 5e, our previous Pathfinder campaign fizzled out due to combat taking forever and general GM disinterest.
One of the players is taking over to run what should be a short campaign in the same world, he's fairly new to being a GM but he's done a couple of one shots with us. Everyone except one player has made their sheets, but here comes my annoyance, lets call him Bob.

Bob in the past has been the guy who shows up for the session and watches YouTube videos, only participating when someone nudges him for attention, but not being really aware of the situation (except to make joking remarks). His characters are designed to win, they have the best ability scores usually in the group (both GMs haven't bothered to moderate whether he's cheating or not, they just allow him to go with it) and he'll use every optimization available, up to and including using a third party class and saying his Elf is a Human gameplay wise in our Pathfinder campaign, because he still wants to be 'the prettiest'.

We tried to get him involved in the story build up twice in that campaign, as the GM was working with the stories that we were creating to further his narrative. His first escapade came down to robbing a magic shop in a city with his creative use of spells, which he figured he could get away with as the party was leaving via airship the next day. What he stole was a tome which gave about +5 to his ability score and was worth 100-200k in gold. Most of us wanted him to have some kind of repercussion for such an action, like having bounty hunters harassing him at every opportunity, but the GM never did anything with it.

The second time was when we tried to get him to play into the minimal background he had given us. His character was a photographer and a journalist, he had a missed a session and the party was too far away, so we tried to convince him to go to the local village where the airship was at (to take pictures and meet with the locals). The GM was even obliging to offer some opportunities there while the rest of the party finished up their tasks. What ended up happening was that Bob deemed it boring and that side quests were unnecessary, he skipped out on the next session, but by the end of it we needed to go there anyway.

Jump to the new campaign and I've given fair warning to the group and directly to the GM that I'm interested in playing a bard or a monk, but that I'll likely go for the former. Bob didn't bother to pay attention, "Bards are the best spellcasters in 5e" And he makes one anyway. I'm fairly busy during the week, but I managed to scrape together a background for my bard and gave it to the GM. Bob gets wind of this and changes his class to sorcerer, again his ability scores look 'adjusted' and with his new friend (who's very similar, both making Changelings) he wants to introduce into the game (who's playing a rogue) does everything I wanted to do with the character in-game better.

What bugs me is that I wanted to do something different, before in Pathfinder my character was the 'voice of reason', the Neutral Gandalf of the party. Bob always plays an insertion of himself (he's done so over about three different campaigns) which he believes is funny, great and charming, so he naturally chooses charismatically themed classes.

I've told the new GM about my feelings towards him, but they're attitude is complacent and I get the sense they want to be inclusive. They've wondered why I'm not playing a similar character to before. It's strange, there's another player in our group who usually plays big, burly melee fighters. His backgrounds are different, though the overall theme is the same.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, I just really wonder whether there's some self-fulfilling roles and expectations being carried on in our group. My question for people having read this far is whether they've ever had to deal with sticklers to their character designs/concepts and how they've worked around built up perceptions and falling into a group tradition? Of sorts. :smallconfused:

[Yora]

So, you feel there's a problem when some players always make very similar characters?

It's their characters and they can play whatever they enjoy playing within the limits of the game and the campaign. What the other players like to play doesn't get in the way of your fun unless they are disruptive, but that wouldn't be a matter of character choice.

[Max_Killjoy]

For starters, I'd say that "always plays the same sort of character" and "trying to one-up and thunder-steal other players" are two separate discussions, entirely.

[Stealth Marmot]

When it comes to any character ever made the question is "Does this character add to the narrative and/or game balance of the group?"

If the answer is "No" to both, then the character is not a good character for the group and the player should possibly be talked to and the character adjusted, or the player's managing of the character adjusted.

Keep in mind that "adding to the narrative" is not dominating the DMs time. in fact, spotlight hogs deduct from the groups narrative by focusing only on their own narrative or actions. The same is true about Uberoptimized characters. They destroy game balance by overpowering the creatures and making things either a walk in the park with no challenge, or potentially hazardous to the other, less optimized characters.

If however a character is dead weight on the party and dragging down party ECL, or not participating in the story to the point of invisibility, then they are definitely not adding to the narrative/game balance.

Now if a player is uncomfortable with roleplaying and wants to ease into it or just not participate, that's fine as long as you agree to it, but if a guy just out of the blue won't play ball, they don't have a reason to be there.

[Thrudd]

There are some players who definitely have a favorite type and always make similar characters. There's nothing particularly "wrong" about that. But you can't/shouldn't be forced to play that way. If you're in a group where all the other players are like that, they might have assumed you were the same way and would always make similar characters to your first one. Just tell them that you like to mix it up and will be trying different things from before. Work out what you all think the party needs and see if other people are willing to tweak their characters to provide for tactical areas you will no longer be covering.

The other issue is with a player who likes to build super optimized characters and doesn't really engage with the game except when it's combat/tactical time or it's about getting himself more powerful. If the rest of the group accepts him and this behavior, you may need to do the same. You can't force someone to be different or become interested in something they aren't interested in.
If he's not going to leave the group, then the DM can plan around his play style. Don't involve his character deeply in the narrative, accept that he's just going to "be there", let him take his turns in combat and give him his share of the loot. Don't ask or expect him to be involved in out-of-combat activities unrelated to improving his character.

However, the DM can't allow him to break the game for everyone else. Shenanigans like killing shopkeepers for extremely powerful magic items is something that never, ever should be allowed to happen. Powerful items like the tomes shouldn't be easily available anywhere, certainly not for sale in a shop. This is bad DMing. Especially in 5e, know that magic items other than the most common, consumable type should not be for sale anywhere. The only way for him to get more powerful should be by participating in whatever adventures the party is engaged in. Everyone else can be happy because they are developing a story and engaging their characters in the world - he will probably be happy as long as he gets some stuff his character can use by killing some things.

Most of how this player should be dealt with is on the DM's shoulders. It is within the DM's power to accommodate his preferences while not allowing his behavior to disrupt or overshadow the rest of the group. It is, in fact, the DM's duty to do this, or else ask the player to leave the game. If he's being allowed to break the game again, you and the other players need to address the issue to the DM and maybe give suggestions on how not to let this keep happening.

[Angarma]

When it comes to any character ever made the question is "Does this character add to the narrative and/or game balance of the group?"

If the answer is "No" to both, then the character is not a good character for the group and the player should possibly be talked to and the character adjusted, or the player's managing of the character adjusted.

I honestly wish I could talk to him about it, but he's usually set in mind to believe his view is best.



Keep in mind that "adding to the narrative" is not dominating the DMs time. in fact, spotlight hogs deduct from the groups narrative by focusing only on their own narrative or actions. The same is true about Uberoptimized characters. They destroy game balance by overpowering the creatures and making things either a walk in the park with no challenge, or potentially hazardous to the other, less optimized characters.

Any time we added to the narrative it was part of the story we had been given already, we just explored NPC backgrounds, investigated interesting items provided and did roleplay amongst ourselves. If the GM wanted us to move on he'd make it clear to us, but he was happy with most of our substories. Giving each other time to look into their character's interest was standard for our group, and it's never too drawn out.

The GM's eventual disinterest came down to real life commitments and wanting to put a lot of work into writing for future sessions. He set himself to do too much, so we compensated by doing our own thing in-game until he had things ready to move the plot.



If however a character is dead weight on the party and dragging down party ECL, or not participating in the story to the point of invisibility, then they are definitely not adding to the narrative/game balance.

Now if a player is uncomfortable with roleplaying and wants to ease into it or just not participate, that's fine as long as you agree to it, but if a guy just out of the blue won't play ball, they don't have a reason to be there.

He was comfortable with roleplaying, he just wasn't interested in it. I'm not exactly sure what his interest is, as he treats combat rounds the same.
The first sentence is what I'm more thinking about, with a rogue and a sorcerer in the party who cover all that I wanted to do with them, I'm relegated to a role that would be similar to my character in our Pathfinder campaign. It might be best for me to just go back to a monk and let things lie.

It's just I'd rather not be in the position where I've always got to play the same role, same theme or be adding something that's already there.


There are some players who definitely have a favorite type and always make similar characters. There's nothing particularly "wrong" about that. But you can't/shouldn't be forced to play that way. If you're in a group where all the other players are like that, they might have assumed you were the same way and would always make similar characters to your first one. Just tell them that you like to mix it up and will be trying different things from before. Work out what you all think the party needs and see if other people are willing to tweak their characters to provide for tactical areas you will no longer be covering.

The other issue is with a player who likes to build super optimized characters and doesn't really engage with the game except when it's combat/tactical time or it's about getting himself more powerful. If the rest of the group accepts him and this behavior, you may need to do the same. You can't force someone to be different or become interested in something they aren't interested in.
If he's not going to leave the group, then the DM can plan around his play style. Don't involve his character deeply in the narrative, accept that he's just going to "be there", let him take his turns in combat and give him his share of the loot. Don't ask or expect him to be involved in out-of-combat activities unrelated to improving his character.

I'll see what I can do to free up some breathing room, but as for his involvement, considering he's always in the best position to be the party face I can't exactly agree with that. We've had to make do with our own abysmal skills in the past or spend a few minutes explaining to him what just happened and why he's needed to talk for us. It does make me wonder whether he'd change his mind this time around if the GM rewarded XP for roleplay.


However, the DM can't allow him to break the game for everyone else. Shenanigans like killing shopkeepers for extremely powerful magic items is something that never, ever should be allowed to happen. Powerful items like the tomes shouldn't be easily available anywhere, certainly not for sale in a shop. This is bad DMing. Especially in 5e, know that magic items other than the most common, consumable type should not be for sale anywhere. The only way for him to get more powerful should be by participating in whatever adventures the party is engaged in. Everyone else can be happy because they are developing a story and engaging their characters in the world - he will probably be happy as long as he gets some stuff his character can use by killing some things.

Most of how this player should be dealt with is on the DM's shoulders. It is within the DM's power to accommodate his preferences while not allowing his behavior to disrupt or overshadow the rest of the group. It is, in fact, the DM's duty to do this, or else ask the player to leave the game. If he's being allowed to break the game again, you and the other players need to address the issue to the DM and maybe give suggestions on how not to let this keep happening.

I completely agree and I'll be making sure it'll be addressed again if anything else similar to that comes up.

[Thrudd]

I'll see what I can do to free up some breathing room, but as for his involvement, considering he's always in the best position to be the party face I can't exactly agree with that. We've had to make do with our own abysmal skills in the past or spend a few minutes explaining to him what just happened and why he's needed to talk for us. It does make me wonder whether he'd change his mind this time around if the GM rewarded XP for roleplay.

What's wrong with having two "party faces"? Especially since he doesn't seem to pay attention during the game, those of you who do pay attention should probably try to cover as many of the "bases" as you can between you, even though that means doubling up on some things that his character can do.

I'd say just make the character you want. If you want to play a bard, play a bard. It is very likely your bard won't be identical to his - you might select different subclasses, you could have very different spells. Even if you are mechanically similar, you will role play very differently. So just do it. If they don't like that there are two bards, that isn't your problem. You did tell them you wanted to play a bard right up front, the other guy's the one who wasn't thinking about the group. And if you stand your ground on the bard, maybe he will decide to play something else all on his own.

[Potato_Priest]

I've had "Bob" like players before, and my solution was simple: when it came around to my turn to DM, I stopped inviting them. Eventually, people forget that they ever came or realize that it's more fun without them. I hate people being on their phones at the table more than most, though, so perhaps you don't want to try such a draconian approach, and that's fine.

Since he doesn't pay attention, you will probably end up doing most of the talking anyways.

Additionally,when you get to level 3, you will be better at social skills than any sorcerer, with your proficiency bonus applied twice to the check. You can even cast eagle's splendor to give yourself advantage on the check.

Are you more worried about Bob or his friend taking over your role?

[Anonymouswizard]

There's no problem with having a certain type of character, mine tend to be relatively intelligent mage or engineer types (you do not want to see the fights between two engineers who both want to play the engineer), so big burly fighter MSN sounds cool, nothing wrong with having somewhere you're comfortable. I cannot play fighters myself because it just feels dull.

Now there is a similar problem here, on the 'limited range of personalities' problem, I have about 3 I tend to default to (causing a joke in one group that I wasn't trustworthy in game, my next character showed what happens when I try for lawful characters over chaotic ones and was just as fun).

For overshadowing MSN, it sounds like he's annoyed that you 'stole his class' or something similar, and is overreacting. Honestly if he and his friend aren't overly interested in the roleplay stuff I don't think the stealing of party face will matter (and if you roleplay better, as it sounds like you do, then your character will be better remembered). Don't feel like you should change your character when you have a fun one, I've been in a party with three faces before (those were great games, we had a tendency to talk our way out of almost every combat that the GM threw out way), any range of characters can work when the group isn't trying to overshadow each other.

On the note of ability scores, recommend that either point buy is used or rolls are eyeballed in future (make characters together if you want, it can be fun). It can be fun to play a weaker character for a bit, but it's not fun to play with one character better than the rest all the time (my enjoyment of D&D improved when I stopped trying to get as high stats as possible, I once got annoyed I was forced to use a method that trended to give high scores* because the party's shoes varied so much and if just rolled a fun set including a 7 with 4d6b3).

* 8d20, reroll any below 8, keep best 6. Yeah, lots of variance in the party, tending towards several scores of 14+, the GM then complained we were too powerful.