How to prevent one of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories: PC Edition

[Excession]

Currently I would rather (both in and out of character) rather work as a dockhand than a pirate.

Them your character does that.

For your new character choose someone that can work with the rest of the group. As I said before, either be the best player you can be, or leave the game politely.

[zinycor]

No, we aren't friends. That's the problem. At this point we are all strangers with no reason to work together, and as everyone in the group is Evil and / or chaotic and suffering from numerous psychological disorders I don't think trust and loyalty are going to be high on anyone's list of motivations, at least at the start.

My character has no criminal history, nor any reason to become a common criminal. I guess I could see circumstances forcing me down that path, but that would take a lot of input / buy in from the DM. Currently I would rather (both in and out of character) rather work as a dockhand than a pirate.

No reason to become a common criminal?

I am playing a LE human fighter. My build is focused around playing the "defender" roll and protecting my allies, has no out of combat skills to speak of except for sense motive. I am a dishonored ronin, last survivor of my clan, currently working as a mercenary and looking for a chance to be part of something larger.

I am playing a character who was raised as nobility and trained to fight at the exclusion of all else, with a team of servants to provide and maintain her equipment for her. I do not feel that it makes sense for such a character to have either the skills or the temperament to engage in manual labor.

Your character is a fugitive, who doesn't have either the skills or the temperament for manual labor. As I see it, becoming a common criminal is a great option for it.

And, the game hasn't even started, why would you not be able to bend your character concept in order to fit in the party?

Besides, what is the problem with being a pirate?

[Jay R]

Play a character who will do what the party is doing, and be a player who will accept the DM's rulings. Otherwise, the game will become dysfunctional, and you are headed for a horror story.

This advice isn't particularly aimed at one person. For any player, at any table, play a character who will do what the party is doing, and be a player who will accept the DM's rulings.

[zinycor]

Play a character who will do what the party is doing, and be a player who will accept the DM's rulings. Otherwise, the game will become dysfunctional, and you are headed for a horror story.

This advice isn't particularly aimed at one person. For any player, at any table, play a character who will do what the party is doing, and be a player who will accept the DM's rulings.

Very good advice.

[Tajerio]

Them your character does that.

For your new character choose someone that can work with the rest of the group. As I said before, either be the best player you can be, or leave the game politely.

Play a character who will do what the party is doing, and be a player who will accept the DM's rulings. Otherwise, the game will become dysfunctional, and you are headed for a horror story.

This advice isn't particularly aimed at one person. For any player, at any table, play a character who will do what the party is doing, and be a player who will accept the DM's rulings.

Agreed emphatically. The game is fundamentally cooperative. Playing characters who won't cooperate requires explicit buy-in from everybody else in order to work, and even then is only really a good idea with an experienced DM and a group of players who trust each other. As far as I can tell, you have none of those things. So you're likely best served by tweaking your character to be one who can cooperate with this group, or making a new character who can.

[patchyman]

Agreed emphatically. The game is fundamentally cooperative. Playing characters who won't cooperate requires explicit buy-in from everybody else in order to work, and even then is only really a good idea with an experienced DM and a group of players who trust each other. As far as I can tell, you have none of those things. So you're likely best served by tweaking your character to be one who can cooperate with this group, or making a new character who can.

I would add “and recognize there are things you cannot change”. Talakeal could do everything right, be a supportive and cooperative player, and the game could still fall apart if the other players are paranoid and argumentative.

It seems to me that the campaign is off to a poor start if before the first session, the players are already having trouble making a team that can work together.

[GrayDeath]

It seems to me that the campaign is off to a poor start if before the first session, the players are already having trouble making a team that can work together.

That implies they actually are TRYING to do that, of which I am not convinced.
SO maybe they are succeeding at building 4 independant Character concepts with cool backstories/Mechanics? ^^


Edit:
More serious:
Not even Talakaels Character seems a great Teamplayer if seen on its own.
Did someone mention in session 0 that you were actually building a TEAM and not 4 Characters?(I mean obviously the DM said "how you get together mis your problem" to get free of the hassle, but that is almost always a shot in the foot unless the players are both experienced and work well together...so yeah...^^).

Not to say an adventure of "How we all got here and why" cant be fun, but it does not seem the pöan either....

[Lord of Shadows]

So, anyone have any advice for me, Brian, or my fellow players on how to avoid the looming pitfalls before we actually start the campaign?

We had a session zero. Its just that people were too headstrong during it.
...
It works. But why would we stay together?
...
Brian very clearly told us that getting the party together and coming up with a motivation to stay together was our responsibility, not his. Good or bad, that's what it is.
...
The problem is, nobody else in the party has a direction in mind either.
...
He decided on it mid-session zero. I absolutely told him it would make it really difficult at the time, he shrugged and did it anyway.
...
We absolutely had a session zero. I think the DM was trying to be hands off and let us come up with a direction before he started working on adventures or anything.

There are no mechanical effects related to alignment, I don't actual use any of the D&D terms or definitions, and the section about it in the book is entirely in the section about creating a cohesive party.
...
I asked the rest of the party about their character's long term goals. Dave and Sarah shrugged, Bob told me that his goal was to establish an empire of the undead... It wasn't until after our characters were finished that he (Bob) decided he was going to be an outcast street urchin.

I could not find a section in the Heart of Darkness book specific to creating a cohesive party, but the following passages did pop out at me:

All of the player characters need to be able to work together and with the Game Master. They need to be compatible with one another and must have a compelling reason to work together; a common goal or allegiance, a shared history, or some similar bond. Although a small amount of tension between the characters will spice up the story, out and out conflict can ruin the game, especially if the characters actually come to blows or refuse to work together on a regular basis. Likewise, the characters must have a reason to agree with and care about the missions that the Game Master wishes to put before them. - Heart of Darkness Public Playtest Version, Fall 2019, Pg 106, "Playing the Game"

If the characters do not have any reason to stay together, it is effectively the end of the game. - Heart of Darkness Public Playtest Version, Fall 2019, Pg 517, "Team Composition"

Have Brian, Bob, Sarah, or Dave actually read the Heart of Darkness book? Have any of them read the "section in the book about creating a cohesive party"? Maybe you could make copies of the relevant passages for them (or e-mail it).

I do have one suggestion specifically regarding character creation and party cohesion.. Move the relevant text from pg 517 and merge it with the text on pg 106. Pg 517 is awfully deep into the book, and some readers may be in skimming mode or will have given up by then. It all could probably be moved to even earlier in the book. With the experiences you have had, I am surprised it's not at the very beginning.

You absolutely need to consider revisiting a Session Zero, you never finished the first one. You can use the above passages as justification...

[MrSandman]

I am an ex-noble. I have no living kin and am half the world away from my family's lands.

Hardly a unique thing. There have been plenty of nobles throughout history who have lost about everything, had to flee to exile and still managed to create and use a network of contacts. Some even came many many years later to reclaim what had been theirs.

The character also has horrible survivor's guilt and is actively avoiding any positions of power.

Wouldn't avoiding positions of power include avoid having a host of servants and so learn to do things by herself?

Maintain, sure. But learning how to actually repair or craft gear seems kind of wasteful when you can just hire an expert metalworker.

Unless for some reason you want to stay low. Usually when you hire someone to make or repair nice weapons and armour you increase your chances of getting noticed.

But why are you playing a high wisdom character then? I assume you get to benefit from it in some way. But if I felt that my character was crippled due to not wanting to do any downtime activities, I would either review my character concept and see how I can tweak it to allow for some downtime or take points off wisdom and put them somewhere more useful.

[Quertus]

@Talakeal - OK, you don't want skills to have balanced downtime impact. Instead, you want downtime / uptime use be balanced. My mistake.

The thing is, if I'm a master craftsman, who built the walls of force around every castle, the infinity gauntlet, and that small moon, I think that, realistically, I ought to be able to translate that into something outside of downtime.

-----

You don't want "jobs" to be mechanical / subject to optimization? Yet isn't "crafter" the clearly optimal choice in your current system? Aren't you kinda upset, feeling that you've "failed at character creation" by taking someone with high wisdom, yet not taking crafting skills - so much so, that you feel you ought to get "rewarded" for having done so? Wouldn't your character - sans flaw (and pursuant benefits) - be more optimal if you had a crafting skill? Isn't just how optimal crafting is why "cannot craft" is a valid flaw?

-----

Personally, I think that your character could just as easily be described as "low wisdom" as they could as "high wisdom". Usually, I equate wisdom with a "broad view", not the narrow view and single-mindedness your character holds. Shrug.

-----

Bob said it was on y'all to make a working party. You don't have that yet. Therefore, you haven't completed session 0 yet.

Get to it!

------

You and Bob are "goal-oriented"? So am I. My goal, in your shoes, would be to have fun playing an RPG, help others have fun in the RPG, and to try to understand / break the curse of Bizarro World. And probably try to generally improve the group dynamic. And a few more goals, including optimize the data gained by play testing your baby.

Point is, the goal of an enjoyable RPG may be facilitated by you running a character who is herself not goal oriented.

Regardless, for any character trait your PC has, if you know that it is disadvantageous the current game, you need to justify (to yourself, at least) why you are bringing this suboptimal character, or bring someone else.

-----

How does Flight + Invisibility create problems with "party cohesion"?

-----

Does spending your downtime actions "training" in any way benefit your character?

-----

I differentiate "class" and "role". My class is Fighter; my role is diplomat & PR agent.

-----

I was suggesting abstracting a "grow the horde" roll. Maybe interspersed with "craft reagents" rolls.[/QUOTE]

Play a character who will do what the party is doing, and be a player who will accept the DM's rulings. Otherwise, the game will become dysfunctional, and you are headed for a horror story.

This advice isn't particularly aimed at one person. For any player, at any table, play a character who will do what the party is doing, and be a player who will accept the DM's rulings.

Very good advice.

Mostly strongly agree. Being me, I have to include caveats against GMs who "make rulings" on things that there already are rules for.

I've already made my ruling: GMs who "make rulings" rather than give players the opportunity to quote the rules first are idiots.

That said, different tables have different ideas about rules, rulings, and rules lawyering. Any player+ (including the GM) who is unwilling to discuss with and adapt to the table is wrong.

Otherwise, I agree, that's some really good, general advice.

[zinycor]

You and Bob are "goal-oriented"? So am I. My goal, in your shoes, would be to have fun playing an RPG, help others have fun in the RPG, and to try to understand / break the curse of Bizarro World. And probably try to generally improve the group dynamic. And a few more goals, including optimize the data gained by play testing your baby.

Point is, the goal of an enjoyable RPG may be facilitated by you running a character who is herself not goal oriented.

Regardless, for any character trait your PC has, if you know that it is disadvantageous the current game, you need to justify (to yourself, at least) why you are bringing this suboptimal character, or bring someone else.

I believe that Talakeal meant to say that his character and Bob's character are goal oriented

As I said, Bob and I are both very goal oriented; I can't see us putting up with an incompetent captain for very long.

Aren't you all friends? that's the reason to keep on going even with an incompetent captain... Is that not enough? If not, then look at it this way, Bob's character is a beggar, your character is a fugitive, You both can't get any better than this disfunctional crew to accept you.

No, we aren't friends. That's the problem. At this point we are all strangers with no reason to work together, and as everyone in the group is Evil and / or chaotic and suffering from numerous psychological disorders I don't think trust and loyalty are going to be high on anyone's list of motivations, at least at the start.

My character has no criminal history, nor any reason to become a common criminal. I guess I could see circumstances forcing me down that path, but that would take a lot of input / buy in from the DM. Currently I would rather (both in and out of character) rather work as a dockhand than a pirate.

[ko_sct]

For the team staying together part, I suggest talking to your group and either adjusting the characters or simply agreeing as a group that everyone will stay together for their own in-charater reasons.

The ogre (or the fey) could take a liking to the orphan. Finding the dancing dead men to be absolutly hilarious.
The fey could want to protect the orphan, finding it's story a tragic, or it's reaction to pranks enjoyable. Or simply liking it's magical power.
The necromancer could absolutly use some protection from the ogre and you. As well as simply seeking friends or going along with what you guys are telling them.
Your character can see how usefull this strange group is in the short and long term (The physical prowess of the ogre, the unparalled scouting abilities of the fey, the potentially world-conquering powers of the young necromant...). That and simply strenght in number.

You should simply all agree to it and suggest starting the game a few weeks after you first all met for the first time. If the DM want to roleplay the first encounter, you all agree to metagame sligthly to make sure that you all end up forming the party.


On the question of the flaw.... well......... I think the DM is right here, several others have expressed their agreement and not to be an ass and quote your words back at you but...

Irrelevant Flaws:
If the Game Master believes that a flaw will almost never come up or provides no real disadvantage to a given character, they can declare it to be worth no character points. The character can, however, still take on such a flaw to pay for an equally useless merit. The Game Master might need to look at the team as a whole to decide whether a flaw will be relevant; for example ineptitude in medicine is no big deal if your doctor teammate will treat your wounds, but if the entire group is inept in medicine it is a serious drawback indeed.

Your character has no crafting skills and wont be doing any crafting. As such, a flaw reducing it's crafting speed isn't a relevant one and isn't worth points.

[Talakeal]

I think some people are getting an incomplete impression of how are session zero went. To paraphrase, it was something like this:

Bob: I want to play a mad scientist necromancer with the goal of establishing an undead empire.
Sarah: I want to play a fairy healer.
Dave: I want to play an ogre rogue.
Me: Well, I really wanted to play an alchemist, but it looks like that will step on the toes of both Bob and Sarah, and since everyone is super squishy I will play a tank instead. I'll give me character a very lawful bent and a tragic / disturbed backstory so they will be cool with helping establish an undead empire.

Then we started making characters and Dave decided his character was a pirate rather than a rogue, Sarah decided she wanted to play a sprite trickster instead of a fairy, and Bob decided to play a 13 year old orphaned outcast street urchin. I informed all of them that these changes would make it really hard to form a cohesive party, and was ignored.

Them your character does that.

For your new character choose someone that can work with the rest of the group. As I said before, either be the best player you can be, or leave the game politely.

Three questions:

One; why is it a binary choice? Aren't there a host of options between "pirate" and "unskilled laborer"?

Two; why is allowing one player to dictate everyone else's character a good thing?

Three; isn't that a huge nirvana fallacy? Nobody will ever be the best player they can be, and telling them to leave as a result will just end up filling the gaming pool with jerks and force considerate people to miss out on otherwise fun but imperfect games.

Your character is a fugitive, who doesn't have either the skills or the temperament for manual labor. As I see it, becoming a common criminal is a great option for it.

And, the game hasn't even started, why would you not be able to bend your character concept in order to fit in the party?

Besides, what is the problem with being a pirate?

I know English isn't your first language, but my character isn't a fugitive in any ordinary usage of the word; she has committed no crimes, is not on the run from anything, and not in hiding. I suppose if I returned to my homeland and announced my intent to claim my birthright I could be in trouble, but other than that...

I can bend my character concept to fit the party. Nobody in the game (least of all the DM) is actually interested in running a pirate game.

I personally do not enjoy playing "thug" type characters. I can do chaotic good or lawful evil, but "chaotic evil" just seems petty, mean, and pointless, and just doesn't hold my interest. The only way I would want to do a pirate game is if we are doing something like Pirates of the Caribbean which doesn't actually involve any piracy and is really just a treasure hunt featuring pirates in name only.

Play a character who will do what the party is doing, and be a player who will accept the DM's rulings. Otherwise, the game will become dysfunctional, and you are headed for a horror story.

This advice isn't particularly aimed at one person. For any player, at any table, play a character who will do what the party is doing, and be a player who will accept the DM's rulings.

There is a difference between "accept" and "follow unquestionably". DMs are human and they make mistakes as well, and you can just as easily ruin a game by not letting the DM know when they are making it unpleasant for others.

, it is effectively the end of the game.[/I] - Heart of Darkness Public Playtest Version, Fall 2019, Pg 517, "Team Composition"

Have Brian, Bob, Sarah, or Dave actually read the Heart of Darkness book? Have any of them read the "section in the book about creating a cohesive party"? Maybe you could make copies of the relevant passages for them (or e-mail it).

Brian yes. Bob has read the crunchy parts only. Dave and Sarah no.

But they idea of making a cohesive party was explained to them, and honestly should be pretty self evident.

Hardly a unique thing. There have been plenty of nobles throughout history who have lost about everything, had to flee to exile and still managed to create and use a network of contacts. Some even came many many years later to reclaim what had been theirs.

But those are probably people who wanted to be in power. Also, probably not people who dumped their charisma.

Wouldn't avoiding positions of power include avoid having a host of servants and so learn to do things by herself?

Yes, absolutely.

But she does not have the training, inclination, or natural aptitude to become a skilled craftsman.

Why would she start a (hypothetical example) apprenticeship as a blacksmith when she has a family to support instead of using her existing skills to, say, become a bodyguard, mercenary, or even a bouncer.

Unless for some reason you want to stay low. Usually when you hire someone to make or repair nice weapons and armour you increase your chances of getting noticed.

Why would the nobility want to stay low?

But why are you playing a high wisdom character then? I assume you get to benefit from it in some way. But if I felt that my character was crippled due to not wanting to do any downtime activities, I would either review my character concept and see how I can tweak it to allow for some downtime or take points off wisdom and put them somewhere more useful.

It isn't "crippled" per se, just weaker than it would otherwise be in a party where I am going to need to optimize my butt off to keep everyone else alive.

I could tweak the character to get more out of it, but doing so would actually feel exploitive and munchkiny.

The thing is, if I'm a master craftsman, who built the walls of force around every castle, the infinity gauntlet, and that small moon, I think that, realistically, I ought to be able to translate that into something outside of downtime.

Sure. There are things craftsmen could do during uptime, just not as much.

You don't want "jobs" to be mechanical / subject to optimization? Yet isn't "crafter" the clearly optimal choice in your current system? Aren't you kinda upset, feeling that you've "failed at character creation" by taking someone with high wisdom, yet not taking crafting skills - so much so, that you feel you ought to get "rewarded" for having done so? Wouldn't your character - sans flaw (and pursuant benefits) - be more optimal if you had a crafting skill? Isn't just how optimal crafting is why "cannot craft" is a valid flaw?

Yes. Point?

Personally, I think that your character could just as easily be described as "low wisdom" as they could as "high wisdom". Usually, I equate wisdom with a "broad view", not the narrow view and single-mindedness your character holds. Shrug.

This line of conversation is becoming increasingly semantic and off topic, but out of curiosity, take the following character:

They are a monk. Of all who train at their monastery, they are the most dedicated and determined. They train from sun rise to sunset, ignoring exhaustion, and breaking boards well beyond the point where their hands are bloody. They spend all of their free time reading the teachings of the masters and meditating upon their lessons.

How would you stat this character in 3.X? Or is it a character that the system simply cannot (or should not) be able to make?

You and Bob are "goal-oriented"? So am I. My goal, in your shoes, would be to have fun playing an RPG, help others have fun in the RPG, and to try to understand / break the curse of Bizarro World. And probably try to generally improve the group dynamic. And a few more goals, including optimize the data gained by play testing your baby.

Point is, the goal of an enjoyable RPG may be facilitated by you running a character who is herself not goal oriented.

So, you are saying that I should have fun by doing something that I don't find fun? That's very philosophical of you.

Regardless, for any character trait your PC has, if you know that it is disadvantageous the current game, you need to justify (to yourself, at least) why you are bringing this suboptimal character, or bring someone else.

Because the DM demanded it. Done.

How does Flight + Invisibility create problems with "party cohesion"?

We don't know where she is. We can't target her. We can't reach her. I can't get to her to help her or protect her if she gets in trouble.

Does spending your downtime actions "training" in any way benefit your character?

In a normal game I would get additional martial techniques to represent the extra time spent training.

I was suggesting abstracting a "grow the horde" roll. Maybe interspersed with "craft reagents" rolls.

I believe that Talakeal meant to say that his character and Bob's character are goal oriented

For the team staying together part, I suggest talking to your group and either adjusting the characters or simply agreeing as a group that everyone will stay together for their own in-character reasons.

The ogre (or the fey) could take a liking to the orphan. Finding the dancing dead men to be absolutely hilarious.
The fey could want to protect the orphan, finding it's story a tragic, or it's reaction to pranks enjoyable. Or simply liking it's magical power.
The necromancer could absolutely use some protection from the ogre and you. As well as simply seeking friends or going along with what you guys are telling them.
Your character can see how useful this strange group is in the short and long term (The physical prowess of the ogre, the unparalled scouting abilities of the fey, the potentially world-conquering powers of the young necromancer...). That and simply strength in number.

If I were to play a manipulative character, that would invariably lead to conflict. They are explicitly not "safe" or "well-behaved", and I can't imagine such a character wouldn't dispose of them as soon as they became a liability, which I imagine would happen very soon.

On the question of the flaw.... well......... I think the DM is right here, several others have expressed their agreement and not to be an ass and quote your words back at you but...

Your character has no crafting skills and wont be doing any crafting. As such, a flaw reducing it's crafting speed isn't a relevant one and isn't worth points.

I am not saying that a pointless flaw should be worth points.

I am saying that a character with a high willpower is entitled to a ton of crafting actions, and that not being able to use them IS a disadvantage.

Requiring a character to then invest in crafting skills on top of that is just forcing the player to throw good money after bad, and results in a less powerful character. Now, if I truly wanted to game the system, I would just invest points in craft: giving the DM the slip, and then take the flaw anyway, but I don't, I am just trying to play to the normal balance point.

[NichG]

This line of conversation is becoming increasingly semantic and off topic, but out of curiosity, take the following character:

They are a monk. Of all who train at their monastery, they are the most dedicated and determined. They train from sun rise to sunset, ignoring exhaustion, and breaking boards well beyond the point where their hands are bloody. They spend all of their free time reading the teachings of the masters and meditating upon their lessons.

How would you stat this character in 3.X? Or is it a character that the system simply cannot (or should not) be able to make?

In 3.5, this would be high Constitution, which is the stat corresponding to the Concentration skill.

[Fable Wright]

I think some people are getting an incomplete impression of how are session zero went. To paraphrase, it was something like this:

Bob: I want to play a mad scientist necromancer with the goal of establishing an undead empire.
Sarah: I want to play a fairy healer.
Dave: I want to play an ogre rogue.
Me: Well, I really wanted to play an alchemist, but it looks like that will step on the toes of both Bob and Sarah, and since everyone is super squishy I will play a tank instead. I'll give me character a very lawful bent and a tragic / disturbed backstory so they will be cool with helping establish an undead empire.

Then we started making characters and Dave decided his character was a pirate rather than a rogue, Sarah decided she wanted to play a sprite trickster instead of a fairy, and Bob decided to play a 13 year old orphaned outcast street urchin. I informed all of them that these changes would make it really hard to form a cohesive party, and was ignored.

Neat. So... now you have an infinite horde of tanks, courtesy Bob, and an ogre tank, courtesy Dave. Looks like the healing and buffing roles of an alchemist are wide open, and you can respec into a party leader type hiring this ragtag bunch of misfits.

[alfredspence]

Play a character who will do what the party is doing, and be a player who will accept the DM's rulings. Otherwise, the game will become dysfunctional, and you are headed for a horror story.

This advice isn't particularly aimed at one person. For any player, at any table, play a character who will do what the party is doing, and be a player who will accept the DM's rulings.

Like+++!
Good advice.

[AMFV]

Then we started making characters and Dave decided his character was a pirate rather than a rogue, Sarah decided she wanted to play a sprite trickster instead of a fairy, and Bob decided to play a 13 year old orphaned outcast street urchin. I informed all of them that these changes would make it really hard to form a cohesive party, and was ignored.

That's exactly what is SUPPOSED to happen at a session zero, you hash out and figure out what your character concepts are. You aren't bound to something you initially come up with, it's not like you're chiseling your first idea into stone. I'll tell you that my D&D campaigns would be much worse if I was forced to always go with the first idea that had popped into my head.

Thing is when everybody else was creating different things your job was to figure out a way to alter your character concept so that they'd fit into the party, you had your first concept, got p-ed off and then refused to budge, that's the start of the horror story. You have to be flexible to some degree. I mean you could definitely have kept most of your concept with some slight alterations.

Three questions:

One; why is it a binary choice? Aren't there a host of options between "pirate" and "unskilled laborer"?

Depends, if you're playing a game where you all play teamsters, then not really. If you're playing a game where you all play as pirates, not really. Basically anything that isn't a pirate or a dockhand (in the other example) and has no reason to hang around with them is the same as playing something that is completely antithetical to them. I mean there are other options for the pirate (or dockhand) for the pirates you could play as a stowaway, some kind of mercenary whose working with the pirates, a captive who later winds up with the same interests as the pirates. There are a lot of options here, but you have to pick one that works at all. That's on you. If they're playing pirates and you make a dockhand, then that dockhand better have a reason to turn pirate or you're screwing the game up.

Two; why is allowing one player to dictate everyone else's character a good thing?

The thing is that one player made a character that would be interesting for a campaign with all kinds of useful threads. You made one that might be, but it wound up not working with any character concepts. If it's just one person that isn't fitting with the group, that person should alter.

Three; isn't that a huge nirvana fallacy? Nobody will ever be the best player they can be, and telling them to leave as a result will just end up filling the gaming pool with jerks and force considerate people to miss out on otherwise fun but imperfect games.

No, the point was that if you aren't willing to adapt to the group and show basic courtesy to what they want you should leave and find a group that's more to your tastes. It's the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. If you're playing with a group, then you should subsume some degree of your own wants to work with that group.

I know English isn't your first language, but my character isn't a fugitive in any ordinary usage of the word; she has committed no crimes, is not on the run from anything, and not in hiding. I suppose if I returned to my homeland and announced my intent to claim my birthright I could be in trouble, but other than that...

She's a person whose primary source of income is gone and they have no training at all in anything else, that's pretty common for criminals, whether they are actually fugitives or not. And especially if they have training that would work well for combat.

I personally do not enjoy playing "thug" type characters. I can do chaotic good or lawful evil, but "chaotic evil" just seems petty, mean, and pointless, and just doesn't hold my interest. The only way I would want to do a pirate game is if we are doing something like Pirates of the Caribbean which doesn't actually involve any piracy and is really just a treasure hunt featuring pirates in name only.

Being a pirate doesn't mean that you are inherently CE. Hell, most actual pirates where Privateers and were working for a country against another country, you could even have an LG pirate in that framework. Actual piracy involved theft of goods, that's not necessarily chaotic or evil, depending on where you're coming from. Murder was more optional, you don't want the people on the other boat to fight, you want them to surrender and give up their goods so you don't have the possibility of getting killed.

[Quertus]

Talakeal, as I use the words, "party cohesion" is more "the group gets along, has shared goals, doesn't try to kill one another".

If the Pixie bleeds out because the party cannot find them, then the problem solved itself; otherwise, IME, it's not really a problem. I say don't worry about it - you've got bigger issues to solve.

-----

Your group failed at session 0. But, as has been pointed out, you could make "the character you wanted", switching to an alchemist healer, creating both a seemingly more tactically cohesive unit, and giving the party a reason to work together in the process.

-----

Taking a crafting skill is the optimal way to "win at downtime" in your system. So, while you're rebuilding your character anyway, take a crafting skill, call it a day.

Also, consider whether you want your game to say "take a Craft skill or be suboptimal".

-----

You cannot enjoy playing characters who are not goal-oriented?

OK, ask the GM to give your new alchemist a goal that is conducive to this party working with you in your session 0 continuation.

-----

The GM did not mandate that you had to waste your downtime actions. The GM did not mandate that you had to have no reason to work with the party in various ways. Granted, apparently the "pirates" idea wouldn't be fun for the players, so that particular path may be a moot point.

[zinycor]

As others have said, now you have the chance to play the crafter character that you originally wanted, and it would fit the party better.

I don't get how a dishonored ronin, last survivor of his clan isn't a fugitive... Do you mind to clarify? I assumed that your character's clan was exterminated by a rival clan, and you were hiding from them... But I guess the circumstances could be different.

Now, in regards to party cohesion, I would just ask any of the players: "hey, how do you think we know each other?" And go from there.

Btw, it might be that English is my second language, but you seem to be too defensive in your posts, even though people on the thread are just trying to help you.

[MrSandman]

Why would she start a (hypothetical example) apprenticeship as a blacksmith when she has a family to support instead of using her existing skills to, say, become a bodyguard, mercenary, or even a bouncer.

. . .

It isn't "crippled" per se, just weaker than it would otherwise be in a party where I am going to need to optimize my butt off to keep everyone else alive.

I could tweak the character to get more out of it, but doing so would actually feel exploitive and munchkiny.

I don't suppose you could take something like Profession: Bodyguard to use for your downtime activities?

[ko_sct]

...

If I were to play a manipulative character, that would invariably lead to conflict. They are explicitly not "safe" or "well-behaved", and I can't imagine such a character wouldn't dispose of them as soon as they became a liability, which I imagine would happen very soon.

But a character isn't manipulative just because they seek strength in number. The game hasn't started yet, you could add to your backstory that a few week before meeting the other player your character almost died in an ambush against weaklings because they had an overwhelming number advantage and now she is all in for joining a group of misfit.

Then she doesn't want to be alone against the world again and choose to stick to this group even if they are a bit (or a lot) dysfunctional.


The game hasn't started yet. Overall the group would benefit from re-doing a session 0, deciding a common concept and making an already formed party where everyone know each other. Failing that we cannot address directly the other player to give them advice and from the other threads you've made it seems like telling them to rework their character wont give a positive outcome. So we are left with giving you advice on how to make your character better fit the group.
From a mechanical perspective, why not keep the same character and lower the wisdom, put in more dex and make some kind of archer ? Not everyone is high wis, you don't waste your crafting potential, the team has better ranged attacks.
Or go with your initial alchemist idea and the team has a crafter. You can give that character a ranged attack if you so desire.


The initial party creation and formation is, in my opinion, an iterative process. You've went through one and a half iteration and then stopped. It's going to take a bit more if you want to have a nice, cohesive group that work well together on both an rp and mechanical level. If you don't want to be the one to change your character, then you can simply tweak a bit her personality so that she'll work with the group and call it a day. Something like :

1. Character is highly loyal to her allies.
2. She has no allies right now (whole clan is dead).
3. Is happy/Eager to join this ragtag group.
4. Highly loyal to the members of this group that she now consider her allies.

[Talakeal]

That's exactly what is SUPPOSED to happen at a session zero, you hash out and figure out what your character concepts are. You aren't bound to something you initially come up with, it's not like you're chiseling your first idea into stone. I'll tell you that my D&D campaigns would be much worse if I was forced to always go with the first idea that had popped into my head.

Thing is when everybody else was creating different things your job was to figure out a way to alter your character concept so that they'd fit into the party, you had your first concept, got p-ed off and then refused to budge, that's the start of the horror story. You have to be flexible to some degree. I mean you could definitely have kept most of your concept with some slight alterations.

What are you talking about? I completely scrapped my first character and made a new one which would fit in with the sort of characters they pitched to me.

The only thing I am "P-ed off" about is that everyone made completely disparate characters with no reason to ever work together and then telling me it is my responsibility to come up with a reason why they would, including the DM.

Depends, if you're playing a game where you all play teamsters, then not really. If you're playing a game where you all play as pirates, not really. Basically anything that isn't a pirate or a dockhand (in the other example) and has no reason to hang around with them is the same as playing something that is completely antithetical to them. I mean there are other options for the pirate (or dockhand) for the pirates you could play as a stowaway, some kind of mercenary whose working with the pirates, a captive who later winds up with the same interests as the pirates. There are a lot of options here, but you have to pick one that works at all. That's on you. If they're playing pirates and you make a dockhand, then that dockhand better have a reason to turn pirate or you're screwing the game up.

But it isn't "everyone". One person decided they wanted to play a pirate after everyone else had already built their characters. And again, the DM absolutely hates pirates for some reason.

The thing is that one player made a character that would be interesting for a campaign with all kinds of useful threads. You made one that might be, but it wound up not working with any character concepts. If it's just one person that isn't fitting with the group, that person should alter.

Agreed. But again, that isn't what happened. I made a character that had a reason to work with everyone, and then everyone introduced a character trait that would make them unable to work with any of the other party members.

Talakeal, as I use the words, "party cohesion" is more "the group gets along, has shared goals, doesn't try to kill one another".

If the Pixie bleeds out because the party cannot find them, then the problem solved itself; otherwise, IME, it's not really a problem. I say don't worry about it - you've got bigger issues to solve.

-----

Your group failed at session 0. But, as has been pointed out, you could make "the character you wanted", switching to an alchemist healer, creating both a seemingly more tactically cohesive unit, and giving the party a reason to work together in the process.

-----

Taking a crafting skill is the optimal way to "win at downtime" in your system. So, while you're rebuilding your character anyway, take a crafting skill, call it a day.

Also, consider whether you want your game to say "take a Craft skill or be suboptimal".

-----

You cannot enjoy playing characters who are not goal-oriented?

OK, ask the GM to give your new alchemist a goal that is conducive to this party working with you in your session 0 continuation.

-----

The GM did not mandate that you had to waste your downtime actions. The GM did not mandate that you had to have no reason to work with the party in various ways. Granted, apparently the "pirates" idea wouldn't be fun for the players, so that particular path may be a moot point.

As others have said, now you have the chance to play the crafter character that you originally wanted, and it would fit the party better.

How so? Mechanically, the character is totally redundant and we are all going to die without anyone who can take a hit or hold the monsters' attention, and narratively we still have completely disparate goals and alignments. Although I suppose the redundancy does give us common ground to bond over.

I don't get how a dishonored ronin, last survivor of his clan isn't a fugitive... Do you mind to clarify? I assumed that your character's clan was exterminated by a rival clan, and you were hiding from them... But I guess the circumstances could be different.

I don't have all the details yet because the DM hasn't finished world-building. Essentially I am the young heir to the noble warrior family of a region on the far side of the world who had grown up primarily in a monastery and was currently having an affair with one of her servants. The fiefdom was under attack by a horde of foreign raiders and she was fighting them on the front lines. There was a famine followed by a harsh winter, and the leadership made the tough decision of feeding the army rather than the peasants as the invaders would kill (or atleast rob) the peasants anyway if the army fell, but this triggered a revolution and the commoners overthrew the nobility. My character was oath bound to fight to the death in defense of these lands, against both the rebels and the invaders, but it would have been a hopeless battle, and though she really wanted to die she, she couldn't do that to her lover, so instead the two of them simply left to start a new life in distant lands.

At least, that's what I have so far, its still a work in progress.

So really more of a refugee than a fugitive.

Btw, it might be that English is my second language, but you seem to be too defensive in your posts, even though people on the thread are just trying to help you.

I didn't mean it as an insult, and I am sorry if I offended you.

I don't suppose you could take something like Profession: Bodyguard to use for your downtime activities?

No. There are no mechanical effects for "day-jobs" or "living expenses" because I don't want to turn the characters lifestyle into a game that can be one or lost and thereby stifle creativity.

I can still make untrained crafting roles, so its not completely useless, but that still goes against my character concept and will make the game less fun for me.

The initial party creation and formation is, in my opinion, an iterative process. You've went through one and a half iteration and then stopped. It's going to take a bit more if you want to have a nice, cohesive group that work well together on both an rp and mechanical level. If you don't want to be the one to change your character, then you can simply tweak a bit her personality so that she'll work with the group and call it a day. Something like :

1. Character is highly loyal to her allies.
2. She has no allies right now (whole clan is dead).
3. Is happy/Eager to join this ragtag group.
4. Highly loyal to the members of this group that she now consider her allies.

That is exactly the character I did make.

[zinycor]

I don't believe that your character is looking forward to join a ragtag group, since you have shown that your character wouldn't follow a stupid ogre as a captain.

And isn't the ogre tanky enough already?

[patchyman]

That's exactly what is SUPPOSED to happen at a session zero, you hash out and figure out what your character concepts are. You aren't bound to something you initially come up with, it's not like you're chiseling your first idea into stone. I'll tell you that my D&D campaigns would be much worse if I was forced to always go with the first idea that had popped into my head.

Thing is when everybody else was creating different things your job was to figure out a way to alter your character concept so that they'd fit into the party, you had your first concept, got p-ed off and then refused to budge, that's the start of the horror story. You have to be flexible to some degree. I mean you could definitely have kept most of your concept with some slight alterations.

The “you” there should refer not just to Talakeal, but to every member of the group. The fact that the other members of the party don’t seem to care about characters that can work together, suggests that this group will be as dysfunctional as the others.

[Talakeal]

I don't believe that your character is looking forward to join a ragtag group, since you have shown that your character wouldn't follow a stupid ogre as a captain.

Why does ragtag mean incompetent?

And isn't the ogre tanky enough already?

Not at all. He has a fair number of HP, but is really easy to hit and has no means to make the enemies focus on him.

[zinycor]

Why does ragtag mean incompetent?

It doesn't have to, it just can mean that, and it happens to be the case that it is.

[AMFV]

The “you” there should refer not just to Talakeal, but to every member of the group. The fact that the other members of the party don’t seem to care about characters that can work together, suggests that this group will be as dysfunctional as the others.

Well Talakeal much as they would like to, cannot alter the behavior of others, only their own. And people have suggested the only things that might work: Changing their character to fit the now more absurd party, and walking away from the game.

[Arbane]

This is why I don't allow any sort of drawbacks in my games. Turns out, if you tell people 'you cannot take any drawback that doesn't actually come into play' - no one wants them.

So I just hand out bonus feats. Keeps everyone happy.

I like the way some recent games do it - you PAY to have a disadvantage, but whenever it comes up in play, you get XP/luck points/a cookie.

[Talakeal]

Well Talakeal much as they would like to, cannot alter the behavior of others, only their own. And people have suggested the only things that might work: Changing their character to fit the now more absurd party, and walking away from the game.

It doesn't have to, it just can mean that, and it happens to be the case that it is.

Which is why I am so frustrated.

Everyone else has made such a dysfunctional character that my only choices are to play a character I don't want to play in a game I don't want to play in, or leave. Basically, the campaign is already a train-wreck no matter what happens.

[zinycor]

Which is why I am so frustrated.

Everyone else has made such a dysfunctional character that my only choices are to play a character I don't want to play in a game I don't want to play in, or leave. Basically, the campaign is already a train-wreck no matter what happens.

nah, you just have too high expectations, just play a nora character, with no particular flaw, and focus on having a good time, make it so people are comfortable at the table. Joke around, kill some bad guys whatever...

Your group isn't suited for deep roleplaying, but since you have said they are your friends, treat it as such, just hang out while rping in the mean time.