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

[zinycor]

Well, it’s Curse of Strahd, that approach is kind of the point. It is also why I will not run CoS for my groups.

I did run CoS, it was super fun, I had Strahd become increasingly frustrated as the party curbstomped his machinations at every moment.

[Doug Lampert]

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.

1) About 1980 I decided that writing a note to a player was more than I could be bothered to do when running a game, it slows things down for everyone else.

You pass me a note, I'll respond verbally if at all, and I'll give any context other players need, because it's a group game. You pass me a note, and I find it funny or hard to read, I WILL give it to another player to read.

I don't use a screen, I don't pass notes, both true since the 70s. Live with it. I have never regretted this, and seeing other GMs run with a screen or passing notes has only reinforced this.

2) There are two iron hard rules for making a character, if you can't follow them, then you can't game with me: A) Make a character who could plausibly have survived to the age of five in this setting. B) Make a character who wants to be a member of the adventuring group.

3) If your character is annoying or steals from others or is useless in combat. Do not expect anyone else to respect these choices.

Use impaired in combat, if the rest of the party wants to drag you along, they need no more reward you than they do an NPC torch holder; and that assumes you are at least holding a torch or otherwise that useful. (I've had games with an explicit in world party contract written by the PCs, which included NPCs as full members and treated some PCs as hanger on hirelings).

Steal from the party: Well gee, this is a group of adventurers, when someone does stuff they strongly object too, they KILL THEM and TAKE THEIR STUFF, it's what they do. Stealing from the party, that is PvP, no ifs, ands, or buts. I won't let you PvP and then stop the other players from doing so because they want to use swords rather than stealth. And note the stuff about no secret notes. We have people steal from the party semiregularly, but it's done when the CHARACTER is in a good position to do so and the other characters will have no way to know. The players all know every time.

[Composer99]

Just thought I'd put this here:

Is this a webcomic?

[Waterdeep Merch]

Well, it’s Curse of Strahd, that approach is kind of the point. It is also why I will not run CoS for my groups.

I did run CoS, it was super fun, I had Strahd become increasingly frustrated as the party curbstomped his machinations at every moment.

In Zinycor's defense, there's nothing wrong with having a different take if it's what your group likes. Mine liked dark fantasy and horror, so I leaned into it. Tailoring written adventures, settings, or even core rules to suit your players is a smart call.

[OldTrees1]

Is this a webcomic?

Unfortunately no. You can find the deviantart page via a google reverse image search. But it seems to be a one off joke.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Ask a cashier what they think when an item fails to scan and the customer says "haw haw, must be free!". Look them in the eyes. See the burning hate. That is your bad one note joke character spread across a campaign. Save it for a one shot if you must.

I felt this. Going a day without hearing it twice is a blessing.

I haven't actually played in that many campaigns, I've been fortunate to have a steady group that mostly plays regularly, though recent events have really made it difficult. We've had only two characters I'd consider a joke.

One was in a one shot, where a player made a deliberately loud and obnoxious PC because he wasn't all that interested in playing the one shot. We didn't make it very far, and this being the DM's first attempt, he hasn't really tried to DM since. That was bad.

I made a Warforged Rogue named Brakan Enturin (a play on Warforged sometimes being nicknamed for their purpose, his being breaking and entering) just because I had a lightbulb go off in my head giving me the idea. I never played him as a joke and he's still a very dear part of our mad mage campaign as an NPC now.

[Amnestic]

They refuse to tell other players their character's class, name, background, or other minutiae information.

I think you can have some backstory elements that you want to keep hidden from other players (though not the DM) for surprise moments that give a 'wow' factor but a) chances are even if the 'hider' think it's a wow factor, the rest of the party may not be as invested (for, hopefully, obvious reasons) and b) most of the time it's not actually important enough to keep hidden from the *players* to begin with. It's usually not worth the effort in my experience.

[RogueJK]

Is this a webcomic?

It's by TrickysWizard, who has a webcomic, but it's not specifically D&D-related, nor do these characters appear more than that once.

https://www.tricksywizard.com/

[Mikal]

I don't believe making fun hilarious characters is a problem at all. The problem is only when players aren't clear on their wants from the very start and wants end up crashing into each other.

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

[Mikal]

Am only glad I don't play at your games, it seems very tiresome.

And if I was in the game I’d be glad you don’t play in it either since you seem very disruptive. Different strokes

[sithlordnergal]

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 dislike when another player creates an obvious joke PC or the often used person from the present sent through time and space to dnd land. When I see someone playing Mr Fart-a-lot or someone trying to play a political candidate wrapped up in a paladin shell, I try to hind my eye rolls and focus on what I can control.

Am I some sort of role playing snob or stick in the mud?

Lol, you and I would not do well in a table together. My latest AL PCs have been:

Goblin Noble from Waterdeep, I actually wrote out a full backstory for how he was adopted into a the Noble House of Anteos. AL doesn't restrict Race and Backgrounds, so he's 100% a Noble, and follows those laws from Waterdeep. He also has a story reward where he married a Goblin Princess, so not ONLY do you have a Goblin Noble, but he's married to a Goblin Princess.

Lizardfolk Monk, he's a friendly fellow but he collects the fingers of those he kills, turns them into jerky, and offers them as snacks for people. Its his way of being polite, he has collected Goblins, Humans, and even Demons, but likes Halfling the most.

A Bard/Warlock who entertains people through song and dance. Her usual routine is her singing while using the Disguise Self At Will Invocation to turn into audience members and such.

Heck, I'm currently playing a Half-Orc Wild Magic Sorcerer in RotFM. They started out as a male Tiefling, but got Reincarnated into a female Half-Orc by their Wild Magic. No seriousness to be found there.


And finally, I'm literally building Abserd. Only gonna take 4 levels from any class I have, so that I have 5 different classes by the time I'm level 20.

That said, to answer your question, I wouldn't call you a stick in the mud. You just like more serious games. Personally I'd get bored with a serious, gritty game, and would be a poor fit for it since I tend to play non-serious characters, but to each their own. I've never been annoyed by PC's unless they actively attack party members, and I don't mean attack as in "A wild magic surge happened and now we're dead". I mean attack as in "Hey, party is low on HP, I cast Sleep to take the gold without them knowing."

[clash]

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

I have been there. One of my first d&d character was a chaotic evil necromancer. It was a novelty being able to do whatever you want in a game rather than always playing within the predefined lines set by video games or other media. Unfortunately, my party was less evil and far less chaotic. I realized after probably 2 years of playing him that I had not been the best player and some of my teamates had been very annoyed at times.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I feel like this is going to be a long thread, as I think anyone who has played this game for any length of time has run into this. One current campaign we had a player join after the fact and as the DM I should have done a better job of helping this player develop his character. We had a good group but when this guy showed up with 'Jimmy Blonde' the sense of immersion in the world we had all created took a big step back. I'm thinking that all the hard work we all do to create that realism can be undone by someone who is not working in the same universe.

[zinycor]

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

And what you consider to be a cool character others will consider a boring edgelord.

Tastes are like that, everyone has different tastes and the trick is to find a group where there is enough overlap.

[sithlordnergal]

I will say this does bring up interesting points of view on immersion and such...Personally I don't really care about immersion, my games usually feature things that could, conceivably, break immersion, be it from players, in game jokes, or the encounters I design as a DM. I've tossed the Flood at players, as well as Predators and Aliens, in a magical world. Why? Cause planes were breaking and I could.

I do find it interesting how much people concern themselves with immersion though.

[Danielqueue1]

Had a player play an atheist character in the party with a cleric. Could have been a nice oportunity for some jabs, jibes, and jokes turned out to be way worse than anyone expected. Eventually At one point the party entered the domain of one of the setting's gods. The player insisted that because their character didn't believe in gods the only logical thing for her to do was to kill it, Pulled out a bow and started shooting. The rest of the party didn't interfere with the consequences. the player took it as a personal insult. When the campaign fell apart the player was not invited to the next one.

In another campaign had another character with similar thoughts, never caused undue issues and even made the party stop and think about what they were doing a few times. (What's the difference between a church to the gods that needs to be protected and a cult to some patron to be exterminated?)

It is often more about how a character is played than the concept behind it.

[Amnestic]

The player insisted that because their character didn't believe in gods the only logical thing for her to do was to kill it,

Attempting to convert everyone to atheism by killing all the gods is certainly one approach I suppose.

[Unoriginal]

Had a player play an atheist character in the party with a cleric. Could have been a nice oportunity for some jabs, jibes, and jokes turned out to be way worse than anyone expected. Eventually At one point the party entered the domain of one of the setting's gods. The player insisted that because their character didn't believe in gods the only logical thing for her to do was to kill it, Pulled out a bow and started shooting. The rest of the party didn't interfere with the consequences. the player took it as a personal insult. When the campaign fell apart the player was not invited to the next one.

In another campaign had another character with similar thoughts, never caused undue issues and even made the party stop and think about what they were doing a few times. (What's the difference between a church to the gods that needs to be protected and a cult to some patron to be exterminated?)

It is often more about how a character is played than the concept behind it.

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

[Danielqueue1]

Attempting to convert everyone to atheism by killing all the gods is certainly one approach I suppose.

Heh true. Now if the player PLAYED it that way I could get behind it.

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

That sums up the way they played it yeah.

[EggKookoo]

In another campaign had another character with similar thoughts, never caused undue issues and even made the party stop and think about what they were doing a few times. (What's the difference between a church to the gods that needs to be protected and a cult to some patron to be exterminated?)

Handled maturely, that's a worthwhile storyline to follow.

That sums up the way they played it yeah.

Ha, maybe you should have told the player he believed he killed the god...

[Wraith]

*I* know that the lore supports alternatives and that what there is of it is really only a guidance than an instruction... 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.....

I like silly plots and randomly adopting unsuspecting NPCs as much as anyone, and I've been known to bring a character with a silly gimmick to a table that wasn't expecting it, but I always try to contribute to the game rather than distract from it. Yet, though I won't ban Kender from my games, they're now permanently on my list of stuff that will immediately get such a Player Red Flag'd, along with the usual Chaotic Stupid or Lawful Douchbag archetypes that by default don't play well in a group of supposed peers.

[Tanarii]

I once had a player who showed up with something like Vlad Bloodbane the Vengeance Paladin, who's parents were murdered by vampires and he'd sworn vengeance.

It wasn't a serious campaign, very beer and pretzels and orc slaying, it was specifically set in Mystara's Traladara (Karameikos) in which a large portion of the population is modeled on Slavic and even Gypsy themes, and explicitly has had historical werewolf and vampire problems in their thick dark forests ... but I still rolled my eyes a little on the inside.

[Azuresun]

It isn't too bad a mismatch, but my best friend in setting is avenging his dead family and gathering relics of power to save the world while I eat sandwiches made of garbage and choke on plastic bags.

I agree Edgelords are way worse. I want to have fun on my days off not watch an adult brood vicariously.

Edgelord characters can work....so long as the player actually has an interest in developing them past that stage, and not making them too annoying as they get there. If it's just an excuse to be mean to other PC's and ignore the plot because their character is navel-gazing, less so. If you look at edgy characters people actually like, they usually have more going on than being brooding and antisocial 24/7.

It's important to remember that fictional angst is less compelling than real angst, because....well, the character and their problems are not real and easier to ignore.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's important to remember that fictional angst is less compelling than real angst, because....well, the character and their problems are not real and easier to ignore.

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

On the main topic: I've lived a charmed RPG life. Only one bad group (on which I bailed half-way through session 1, and I was the DM). I'm sorry, but when the party decides to do the following after arriving in a town that already had a bad outlook on adventuring:
* Have public sex
* Buy up all the liquor they could and start trying to get the kids drunk (for reasons not ever explained)
* Carry a keg off to the forest on your own, the forest they were supposed to be exploring to find the source of some weird things.

Yeah, that game wasn't going anywhere interesting. But other than that, I've always had people who bought in to the world and made good characters (thematically). Some minor comic relief, but never over the top. No edgelords.

[Tanarii]

I'm sorry, but when the party decides to do the following after arriving in a town that already had a bad outlook on adventuring:
* Have public sex
* Buy up all the liquor they could and start trying to get the kids drunk (for reasons not ever explained)
* Carry a keg off to the forest on your own, the forest they were supposed to be exploring to find the source of some weird things.

Sounds like every college-age dorm-room game I ever played with when I was that age.

College-age kids in game stores are a different matter.

[Rynjin]

Why would a weird name make an entire game fall?

Lancelot's name is a sex joke. A knight's lance is a common medieval euphemism/sexual metaphor.

I have no idea why an halfling called "Lances-a-lot" would ruin a game, either. Unless they like insisted that everyone all the time call them that and would disrupt other people's roleplay to insist it.

A combination of factors, to be fair. The name and concept was just the last straw, and more the fact that they refused to even bend a little bit on it.

He was the GM of the previous game, and had just ended it (prematurely) with the notion that our characters were too powerful and were going to to easily blow through the last content of the Adventure Path (Way of the Wicked) which he was running; we were about level 16 and going into the final book at this point, the home stretch of a looong campaign. This is the same campaign that for about 12 levels we'd been getting our asses kicked in every single combat because he was one of those people that feels the need to force a near TPK in every combat or it wasn't challenging enough. So we were all kind of sick of him anyway.

One of the other players decided to start up a new campaign, and we were all brainstorming character concepts, and "Lances-a-lot" comes up. Nobody had any issue with the Halfling Cavalier concept; it's a pretty common one in Pathfinder since Small characters can actually effectively use mounted combat indoors. But the name was a sticking point. Everyone, including the GM, asked him to please just change the name.

He would not.

Everyone basically just ****ed off after that.

[da newt]

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

YES - I played quite a bit of AL (pre-COVID).

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)

the PC who sleeps with everyone/thing

There are many different ways to bring a game down.

[elyktsorb]

Tone of a game? Eh, maybe? The only dnd game I ever walked away from was one where it seemed like one PC in particular was basically getting most of the attention, like, to the point the plot basically revolved around them. And this wasn't something that we'd agreed on going into the game, we went from doing an established module to doing a homebrew one, and then just all of a sudden that PC's character was what the plot was revolving around. In that regard I guess the tone was ruined for me, since it became less like an adventure for the entire party, and more like I was in this specific characters story.

[MrStabby]

There have been a few. Group was going to try Decent to Avernus and three out of the 5 players rolled up with a character called Virgil. That kind of game.

Then there have been a few jokes and a few Baron Von Moonshadow - "everything I do is mysterious" type annoying characters. Or the Dancypants McFartbritches - LOL I rolled up ANOTHER Bard LOL type characters.

[Tanarii]

Or the Dancypants McFartbritches - LOL I rolled up ANOTHER Bard LOL type characters.

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. 🙄