Has Another Player’s PC “ruined” the Tone of a Game for you?

[MrStabby]

Yup. Theres a reason everyone groans when someone announces they brought a Bard. Its not a halfling (kenderlike) rogue or a CN half orc barb or tiefling/aasimar anything, but its so often done eyerollingly badly that it def has a rep. D&d Bards started off as a great concept, a Fighter/Rogue who gets initiated into Druidic mysteries, a la pop culture celts. And then 2e brought the troubadour to the table and it was all over.

5e tried to rectify this, with brave warrior viking Skalds and knowledgable scholarly celtic bards as the model for the subclasses again. But then left in all that jazz in the class intro about troubadours. 🙄

I love the potential of Bards.

Not just the Skalds but art and performance as magic.

I love books like Witches Abroad where there is a powerful magic to stories
I love the idea of enchanting music of being caught up in art.
I love the idea that the fluid form of a dance or a poem can change the nature of reality.
I love the potential of bards as a theme.

I just hate the way so many of turn out.

[Amnestic]

I just hate the way so many of turn out.

I blame Volo.

[Unoriginal]

I blame Volo.

Volo's not a bard, though. He's a wizard.

[Amnestic]

Volo's not a bard, though. He's a wizard.

Sure, officially, maybe. Wouldn't think it looking at him though.

[HappyDaze]

Have I ever had my enjoyment of a game ruined by one (or more) player(s)? Oh hell yeah. Way too many that love goofy stuff that nobody else cares for. Way too many that won't invest any time learning one bit of fluff text (but boy will they read every bit of crunch that they can to get an advantage). Way too many that want to play an entirely different game that the others at the table but won't just come out and say it. These days, I kick them to the curb. Not gaming is better for me than crap gaming, and I have recently found myself immersed in artists of the fecal smearing variety.

[Lord Raziere]

I blame Volo.

Yeah, there is so much potential for bards to be more but so often they are not. some of the more creative may do the rock star or skald thing but yeah.

like imagine a conductor bard who has a little wand to magically make orchestral music depending on how well he "conducts" an orchestra that isn't there, or a violinist, or a bard who references old legends for his spells: "When the Knight stabbed the eye!", or someone who just paints their spells, or even a historian who painstakingly makes sure the stories he tells are true, or y'know the dirge-singers from Eberron? yeah that is the potential of bards.

and then there is things like Dwemer from Elder Scrolls, where they are technically an entire race of bards since their technology/magic is all about tonal manipulation to achieve certain reality-warping effects, but they view it completely scientifically rather than an art, because they view everything that way, so a hypothetical bard would just be someone who has distilled it down to the certain notes or sound waves needed to change reality this way or that and thus produce those without any or much musical accompaniment (but then again that might just be wizards)

and of course, there are examples like Link and Kvothe who demonstrate you can do bards without being silly about it.

there is an idea I just came up with: what if we reverse the bard fluff so instead of their magic coming from song, they learn magic then learn how to hide that magic inside of whatever music or performance they want to do, and that they are just very versatile adventurers who learn the music thing as a cover. I think this would solve a lot of problems because it removes the need for the bard to love the performance for its own sake and instead use art for their own ends. this would explain why the performer background as not being populated by bards exclusively.

[Aussiehams]

What only truly bothers me is when the player is That Guy. There are two kinds - the one who plays despite the party and the one who plays against the party.

The first one does his own thing regardless of campaign plot or other players' consideration, and I mean players not just characters. They will run off to do their own thing to have their own private mini-adventure. They like passing secret notes with the DM. They smirk when the rest of the party gets into a jam. When they learn important information they never share it with the party. They refuse to tell other players their character's class, name, background, or other minutiae information. If they find it they keep it. They go out of their away to avoid being in melee against bad guys. They will never buff or otherwise help party members in combat. At best they'll attack a bad guy really putting the pain on another party member but sigh about it and boast how they're saving the character's life, again.

The second kind actively hurts party members. They steal from fellow PCs. Keep all party treasure found. Don't care if party members are in the area effect of their spells. They do not buff or heal others unless yelled at by the other players to do so. They will flee combat if it goes badly in their view. It's wise for a party to retreat if it's not going well, but they're the first to run and if they have to hurt or hamper other party members to escape they'll do so. They do not help party members also retreat. Once they're out of combat they're happy. As for the campaign plot they will purposely do something that disrupts the status quo. If there's a party plan they won't do it. They will make the combat harder than it would have been. They will start fights interrupting dialogue if they have to.

Luckily I have only ever played D&D with IRL friends and friends of friends, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would actually play that way.
Why would the group let that person come with them for more than 1 encounter? If you are combat ineffective, or even worse, a hindrance, I won't go and kill dangerous monsters with you. End of story.

Why do people play, or put up with crap like that?

[Jophiel]

I’ve played on multiple AL tables and a couple of long running printed campaigns. My preference is to envision a world my character inhabits as a little gritty and have a “real” dark ages feel to it.

I enjoy a serious game but, in my experience, I need to be in a continuing, non-AL campaign to get one. AL characters always seem fairly disposable, perhaps because of how fast the leveling works, and I see "clever" or farcical characters all the time there. Personally, I've never seen a "funny" character that was a quarter as amusing as its creator thinks but, when it comes to AL, I just inwardly roll my eyes and get through it. In a non-AL campaign, I'd be cutting that off in Session Zero. If someone thinks I'm a boring stick in the mud, well, that's what Session Zero is for -- so we can all find/run the games we want to play in.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Sure, officially, maybe. Wouldn't think it looking at him though.

You wouldn't think it spending time with him either, if ToA, WD:Dragon Heist and his appearance in BG3 are any indication. He tells you he's a Wizard, but I don't think any of my characters would give him that much credit.

In fact, his stats seem to reflect Bard more than Wizard as well. He's got a plethora of skill proficiencies (with what seems to be Expertise in Persuasion and Performance) and a higher Charisma than Intelligence.

I'm going to also throw out "edgy dark lord" because I've just remembered an attempt at DM'ing that involved a hugely confrontational Necromancer player who tried to con me into allowing them to play it. My one stipulation was that as long as they played for then team I'd try to ignore my discomfort at having an edgy evil mcguy in the party.

Not one session deep and questions about "okay, how do I become a lich and rule the world" or "I'm seriously considering killing X players character, can you set that up for me" float in my direction. Taught me that there are times where it's okay to say no.

[Tanarii]

Luckily I have only ever played D&D with IRL friends and friends of friends, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would actually play that way.
Why would the group let that person come with them for more than 1 encounter? If you are combat ineffective, or even worse, a hindrance, I won't go and kill dangerous monsters with you. End of story.

Why do people play, or put up with crap like that?

Usually because they're friends or friends of friends.

[sithlordnergal]

I enjoy a serious game but, in my experience, I need to be in a continuing, non-AL campaign to get one. AL characters always seem fairly disposable, perhaps because of how fast the leveling works, and I see "clever" or farcical characters all the time there. Personally, I've never seen a "funny" character that was a quarter as amusing as its creator thinks but, when it comes to AL, I just inwardly roll my eyes and get through it. In a non-AL campaign, I'd be cutting that off in Session Zero. If someone thinks I'm a boring stick in the mud, well, that's what Session Zero is for -- so we can all find/run the games we want to play in.

Yeah, AL allows for some fun stuff. Case in point, I have a Goblin Fighter/Rogue. That Goblin is a Noble from Waterdeep, he literally has the Noble background and the Noble Background feature that lets him get into big, important affairs. I doubt any DM that wants a serious game would allow a Goblin to be a legitimate Waterdeep Noble, but its not banned by AL so I have it anyway. Add to that he also has a Story Reward where he's married to a Goblin Chieften's daughter, and said daughter is a Goblin Princess, and well...That's not gonna fit into most campaign worlds at all.

[RifleAvenger]

there is an idea I just came up with: what if we reverse the bard fluff so instead of their magic coming from song, they learn magic then learn how to hide that magic inside of whatever music or performance they want to do, and that they are just very versatile adventurers who learn the music thing as a cover. I think this would solve a lot of problems because it removes the need for the bard to love the performance for its own sake and instead use art for their own ends. this would explain why the performer background as not being populated by bards exclusively.

This is good idea, but it can also still work if the performance itself is the source of the magic. Especially if said performances can be codified and don't need spontaneous creativity.

The bard I'm currently playing learned his craft in an actual college with the motivation being magic and not art. His magic is performance by rote, and he's not for adding his own creative touches. He does have the entertainer background, but this is more a cover than the multi-layered truth.

On the surface, he's yet another troubadour. If you actually ask, he'll reveal that he's a historian from Sherring University who's traveling the nation to write a new edition of the explorer's guide to the region (the PC is a foreigner). The truth is that he's a spy for his college and the lords who support it. In his heart of hearts, he despises his employers, and operates as a thief of magical knowledge that he might one day proliferate it among the masses.

So his interest in magic is ultimately mostly practical, and he only specialized in music and performance based magic because he had an easier time learning it. He does also have legitimate love for history, which involved him taking part in theater (historical dramas) and learning performance based historical traditions.

I'm only going into so much detail to argue for how even something very close to the stereotypical "troubadour bard" on the surface can still be interesting with a few levers tweaked. Heck, I'd bet someone skilled enough could play a "troubadour" straight and still have a PC the whole table can enjoy instead of wanting to strangle.

--------------------------------------

To the thread's more general point, I agree with everyone who's said something along the lines of "differences in expectations is what usually ruins a game's tone" and "nearly any PC could into the right game."

I sometimes think people develop a problem where they expect TTRPGs, or a specific TTRPG, to suit only a certain type of mood. i.e. people who believe their specific way is how to "play D&D" (or insert system here). This occurs, I think, because a given system (lets say D&D) is a single product. Thus, for these people, the reality that every game is more like its own unique show that could be any genre of any tone is obscured.

Everyone has their own preferences and prior experience with the game, and Session 0 is critical to figuring out if a common ground can be reached and what it will be. The problem comes either in open-play environments where Session 0 cannot exist, differences in perspective on the game that carry past Session 0, or people who fall into the mental trap discussed in the previous paragraph.

My tolerance for tonal and group dynamic dissonance is pretty low. Hence why I'd never consider going to organized play or an online pick-up group. Frankly, I don't think I'd enjoy playing with many of the people in this thread. In nearly every gathering place for the hobby I look, I find that most people strongly differ from me on exactly what they want in a game. I'm incredibly lucky to be in a group that fulfills my niche combination of tastes; it means I can appreciate the other ways people play without having to sit at a table with them.

[Porcupinata]

there is an idea I just came up with: what if we reverse the bard fluff so instead of their magic coming from song, they learn magic then learn how to hide that magic inside of whatever music or performance they want to do, and that they are just very versatile adventurers who learn the music thing as a cover. I think this would solve a lot of problems because it removes the need for the bard to love the performance for its own sake and instead use art for their own ends. this would explain why the performer background as not being populated by bards exclusively.

The thing is, there's nothing in the PHB to say that bards have to be musical in the slightest. All of their abilities talk about oration or song...

Spellcasting Ability
Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your bard spells. Your magic comes from the heart and soul you pour into the performance of your music or oration.

Bardic Inspiration
You can inspire others through stirring words or music.

Song of Rest
Beginning at 2nd level, you can use soothing music or words to help revitalize your wounded allies during a short rest.

Countercharm
At 6th level you gain the ability to use musical notes or words of power to disrupt mind-influencing effects.

And while their default magical focus is a musical instrument they can always use a component pouch instead.

My current character is a lore bard who is a sage, not an entertainer. He's currently 8th level, and he's never played music in his entire career. In fact he doesn't even own a musical instrument (he uses a component pouch instead of a focus).

Actually, he's doubly suitable for this thread since he was also created as a one-joke character. The whole idea of the character was the joke of having an Aarokocra Bard who was a big humanoid canary and would wake people up every morning with piercing singing like a real-world canary does. The fact that he never actually sings to use his class abilities, only in the mornings, is part of the joke. But that aside (and we don't roleplay it each in-game morning, we just occasionally make a comment about it or reference to it) he's entirely sensible as an accomplished scholar and wielder of magic and doesn't fall into either the "horny bard" cliche or the "tra-la-la prancing minstrel" cliche. His spell casting and other bardic abilities are all based on speech rather than music.

To me, that's a joke character done right. The joke is there in the background for anyone who wants to reference it as a running gag, but isn't forced into everyone's faces constantly and doesn't interfere with serious moments or scenes.

[da newt]

I agree - differences in expectations is often the issue.

For me, when another player/PC rubs me wrong it's usually because the PC is a ****ty adventuring team member. The sort of 'person' you'd fire if you were the boss or unfriend if you were in a social group, and certainly not someone you'd want to rely on in life and death situations.

I'm good with a foolish PC and yucking it up, IF when it counts they are a good teammate. But it ruins my fantasy if my PC or any level headed real world person would vote that guy off the island at the very first opportunity (or frag them in order to increase the rest of the team's chance at survival).

I want to adventure with problem solvers, not problem creators.

[KorvinStarmast]

Just remember what you consider to be “fun hilarious characters” someone else may consider “annoying, derivative little butthead”

This. So much this.

... But this has happened every time I've been in a group and someone has asked to play a Kender. Both have them insisted that it's a legitimate character, both of them said they won't be a bother and will just bring it up when it's appropriate, and both of them said that they're just doing it to give them an archetype to roleplay with. And then both immediately started with the silly childish voices, interrupting NPCs to ask them about a piece of string/their favourite frog/whatever, and both of them ended up with the usual "it's just what my character would do!" when they inevitably started going through other PC's pockets or walking off with plot items. One of them tried doing this in Tomb of Annihilation, for God's sakes.

Yeah, Kender is a lot of what's wrong with Dragonlance. But that's a separate topic ...

I was a high school teacher for 7 years. Angst isn't compelling at all anymore.

Yeah. And then there are the drama queens (my daughter's peer group when she was in high school was loaded with that character type).

incompetent PCs - the old deaf man, the monk who tripped and fell every turn, the mage in a wheel chair, the alcoholic, the multiple personality PC, ...

Chaotic Stupid Half Orc Barbarian who would attack allies or foes in the middle of a negotiation or investigation or travel etc

the Selfish PC - I only care about me, I don't team (most often a Tabaxi Rogue)

the LE Fallen Assimar Oath Breaker who openly follows Asmodius, wore a magic helm that made their head look like Ghost Rider but with green flames, who collected DM points to outfit their PC with OP magic weapons, memorized the mods, and bullied everyone in game and out including the DM (the player has issues, the DM was far too kind)

While I understand AL trying to incentivize the DMing angle, that little item right there (and certs ) can have some negative consequences ...

Yup. Theres a reason everyone groans when someone announces they brought a Bard.

5e tried to rectify this, with brave warrior viking Skalds and knowledgable scholarly celtic bards as the model for the subclasses again. But then left in all that jazz in the class intro about troubadours. 🙄

Yeah, almost as though they didn't talk to each other during the draft phase of the PHB.

Way too many that want to play an entirely different game that the others at the table but won't just come out and say it. These days, I kick them to the curb. Not gaming is better for me than crap gaming, and I have recently found myself immersed in artists of the fecal smearing variety.

Sound advice: not gaming beats a bad experience in one's free time.

Why would the group let that person come with them for more than 1 encounter? If you are combat ineffective, or even worse, a hindrance, I won't go and kill dangerous monsters with you. End of story.

Why do people play, or put up with crap like that?

There's a pretty famous article about "The Five Geek Social Fallacies" that may not be pure science, but puts its finger on some of the reasons why that happens in a given social group.

[Doug Lampert]

So the character tried killing something they didn't believe existed?

If I don't believe that gods exist, and something claims to be a god.... That doesn't mean I don't think that the claimant exists, it means I think someone is trying to scam me.

If I'm an adventurer who regularly kills things, killing a scam artist seems fine.

Now: I might want to be aware that my fellow adventurers have been taken in by the scam and will be on the other side of any fight, and that this is bad, but trying to kill something that claims to be a god if you're an atheist in D&D land is fine.

I will add, that atheism in D&D land is bizarre in that you know that there are things that claim to be gods, but believing that the so called gods are just some sort of powerful outsiders running a scam is perfectly reasonable.

[Randomthom]

When I'm DM'ing I have a few loose rules/guidelines regarding player characters.

First, I set the tone before anyone starts talking about what their character is going to be. Light/Dark, low/high-magic, political/dungeon-crawl/exploration/save-the-world, humano-centric etc.
Second, I remind them of the tone if I feel like their idea is going to jar with what I'm aiming for.

As a group, we establish a group identity, even if we're starting with the PCs not knowing each other, we know that's where we want to end up so we want all the PCs pulling in roughly the same direction. Are you all mercenaries? Do-gooders on a mission to do good? Are you collectively inquisitively minded and care-free? Do you all have beef with the current ruler of this land?

Off the back of this, perhaps I'll ask that they all have backstoried negative experience with authority or slavers or Dwarves or magic.

I ask people to steer clear of obvious derivatives, or to at least mix their obvious derivative with another obvious derivative so they get some sort of hybrid character. Basically I want them to be asking themselves "what would MY character do?" rather than "what would R.A. Salvatore/Stan Lee/Joss Whedon's character do".

I ask that their character has motivation to adventure toward the collective goal and, if the campaign design allows for it, towards a personal goal.*

*I may need to remind them that the personal goal not be too wild and fanciful if that jars with the overarching theme.

[Unoriginal]

If I don't believe that gods exist, and something claims to be a god.... That doesn't mean I don't think that the claimant exists, it means I think someone is trying to scam me.

If I'm an adventurer who regularly kills things, killing a scam artist seems fine.

Now: I might want to be aware that my fellow adventurers have been taken in by the scam and will be on the other side of any fight, and that this is bad, but trying to kill something that claims to be a god if you're an atheist in D&D land is fine.

I will add, that atheism in D&D land is bizarre in that you know that there are things that claim to be gods, but believing that the so called gods are just some sort of powerful outsiders running a scam is perfectly reasonable.

It's perfectly reasonable to claim that the divine entities don't deserve worship/obedience/to be treated any differently than any other powerful planar power, but it becomes bizarre to claim that they're not gods/that they are not miracle-makers who grant those miracles to some.

Then again some actual gods *are* scam artists pretending to be other gods, so...

[Tvtyrant]

It's perfectly reasonable to claim that the divine entities don't deserve worship/obedience/to be treated any differently than any other powerful planar power, but it becomes bizarre to claim that they're not gods/that they are not miracle-makers who grant those miracles to some.

Then again some actual gods *are* scam artists pretending to be other gods, so...

Also Warlocks get miracolous powers from a wide variety of what-its, as do Druids. A God doesn't do much that a Demon or flying Spaghetti Monsters doesn't, except be self-righteous about it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's perfectly reasonable to claim that the divine entities don't deserve worship/obedience/to be treated any differently than any other powerful planar power, but it becomes bizarre to claim that they're not gods/that they are not miracle-makers who grant those miracles to some.

Then again some actual gods *are* scam artists pretending to be other gods, so...

I agree. It's even a thing in my setting--there are cultures who accept that the gods are, in fact, gods. They just don't care. They consider the gods to be the universe's middle management, and you'd never worship the second assistant-undersecretary for red tape compliance. They venerate ascended ancestors and nature spirits. And other ascended beings who aren't gods (they make warlock pacts, usually celestial) instead.

[GloatingSwine]

Interesting coincidence. I am running Curse of Strahd right now. One of the PCs is a Paladin named Vegeta in the group and we are tracking how many times they nearly die. It is now near the end of the campaign and it is still funny. (To be clear, they did not ruin the tone of the game for us)

If they do manage to die are you going to take their character sheet, cross out the name and write Krillin instead?

[Pex]

I blame Volo.

When I played Dragon Heist one of the randomly chosen keys to the Vault was a beardless dwarf. We got Volo to shave in revenge for setting us up into this mess.

Usually because they're friends or friends of friends.

I've experienced them also with strangers first coming together to start a new group. I have learned to no longer tolerate it. It's highly dependent on if the DM enables it. If no, That Guy leaves. If yes, I do. One time Player Peer Pressure got one to stop despite DM enabling.

[ProsecutorGodot]

When I played Dragon Heist one of the randomly chosen keys to the Vault was a beardless dwarf. We got Volo to shave in revenge for setting us up into this mess.

Strange that this would work... Volo isn't a Dwarf.

Or it didn't work, and you simply convinced him it could.

[Tawmis]

I am not a fan - for myself - of "intentionally" silly or clearly offensive names.

For example, I had a co-worker tell me how he had been playing D&D - but they weren't very serious - like one of the players was a sprite and flew up someone's rump.

I'd said, if I was the DM - the sprite would then be restrained and begin suffering suffocation until he did a strength check vs clenched cheeks or if someone pulled him out (not likely, I'd imagine).

And he was like, "Man, I wish you would DM a game." So I checked with some co-workers and discovered several had never played D&D - and so I offered to DM.

The player complaining about his Sprite friend... named his Wizard "**** Poop." And no. I am not kidding.

I tried to convince him to change the name - but he was pretty adamant, explaining that's what he used for all the CRPGs. I could have enforced a name change or say, "Naw, not welcome" - but I said, "Let's see how this goes."

Despite the name, he actually played his Wizard quite well. So I just got used to simply referring his character as "****."

But I have had other people, who play over the top quirky characters, with silly names or quirks, that take me out of the game mentally. I won't - especially as a player say anything. If it gets to be too much, I'd excuse myself. But usually I overcome it and just realize everyone is there for fun - and gets it differently - and occasionally being yanked out of the game mentally for someone else's fun - is all right.

EDIT: Interesting, censors **** - which I understand - because the male sexual organ - but it's also people's name, like **** Grayson being Robin.
(So that should tell you if you know Batman lore the censored name) :)

[Pex]

Strange that this would work... Volo isn't a Dwarf.

Or it didn't work, and you simply convinced him it could.

News to me. He was a dwarf in our game.

[Tanarii]

News to me. He was a dwarf in our game.

Probably because he typically looks like a dwarf in a troubadour outfit.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Probably because he typically looks like a dwarf in a troubadour outfit.

Disguise Self is also one of the few spells he's able to cast, it's possible for him to present as a Dwarf easily.

In retrospect, I recall one of our key's being a unicorn, and being low level adventures we went for the stuffed option and hoped for the best. That working here could very likely mean that a outwardly facing beardless "Dwarf" is probably good enough and if not the DM could easily rule otherwise.

[Samayu]

Has Another Player’s PC “ruined” the Tone of a Game for you?

I guess I've been lucky, because the answer is no, not really. Not in the last couple of decades, anyway. But I don't do AL, and my group has been going on for a long time, with a few additions and subtractions over the years. We kicked one guy out because he was a horrible person, but that's beside the point.

Evil characters bother me, but they don't go against the tone of our games, they're just tiring to deal with. The sex-obsessed ones drive me crazy. So juvenile. And the joke gets old. I guess I'd say that messes with the tone of the game a little, but it doesn't bother me enough to say the game is ruined. I just go on with things while that guy does his own thing.

Oh, we did have that one guy whose character wanted to kill or mate with pretty much anyone or anything he met. After a while it started getting bad enough to interfere with our missions. There was a point where he would have died if he hadn't toned it down. My cleric had his eulogy already planned. But that didn't really mess with the immersion, it just messed with our plans and our success rate.

[rel]

There isn't anything inherently wrong with a game where the PC's are ground down by an uncaring universe and the best possible outcome is a phyric victory with doom postponed just one more day. Nor is there anything wrong with Captain Kirk, Harry Potter and Alita the Killing Angel assaulting the armies of Johnny Evilguy with light sabers.

The problem occurs when players showed up expecting one game and get the other.
The solution is communication, make sure everyone knows the games theme and tone and is on board with playing in that style.
And if someone seems to not be on the same page a good solution is a frank discussion out of game.

But ultimately, its impossible to run a game that pleases everyone. If a campaign is looking like something you won't enjoy, bowing out and waiting for the next one is often the best move.

[Unoriginal]

Also Warlocks get miracolous powers from a wide variety of what-its, as do Druids. A God doesn't do much that a Demon or flying Spaghetti Monsters doesn't, except be self-righteous about it.

Depends what you call "miraculous". Divine Intervention is something only gods can do, for example, and that stuff is a notch or two above what Warlocks and Druids can put on the field.