Quote from: Abyssal Maw;368308(I know I'll get shouted down for saying that, but I've been around long enough to see the silly little arguments).

Why would you get shouted down?  Most people aren't arguing for griefers that refuse to mesh with the group, they're arguing that not every group wants to play the same way.

Of course you don't believe in playstyles, so, mreh.  God-forbid some days the group wants to play some WoD and focus on horror instead of being little fantasy badasses, or that someone have a small preference for one over the other.

That, and the notion that people who refuse to mesh well with a D&D group would make any more effort to mesh with a Dogs group is just bullshit.  They're a social instigator, they don't care what the group wants to do.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;368308And "But that's my character!" is the second worst excuse ("but that's my alignment" being the worst) for sabotage.

I think the "Don't be dick" rule has long covered this problem since the days of the three booklets.

What rankles many when they read the issues as you put it that it obviously born of the MMORPG attitude that spawned from having to deal with the toughest content in the game. There the difference between success and failure require teamwork and there is no room for goofing around.

But tabletop is not like a MMORPG. It is a roleplaying game with an infinity of choices and a human referee to adjudicate the results. So you are going to have non-healing cleric because somebody is going to roleplay one for plausible reasons. And it the party fault if they don't take that into account in their choices.

If the 4e Dwarven Ranger I played encountered that problem I would hand out a little in-game attitude adjustment to that cleric.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;368308Players make suboptimal choices all the time, but D&D is a social team-oriented game. The player that intentionally sabotages the rest of the group for his own enjoyment (and there's a world of difference between that and making suboptimal choices) is not actually engaging the activity in a way that is productive.

Yes, absolutely.  The resources that a 'suboptimal' character denies the group are relatively negligible, and highly debatable (cf. Doom's argument in this thread).  However, a character that flat out denies the group the benefit of the resources that that character offers the group is significant and just player dickishness.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;368308And "But that's my character!" is the second worst excuse ("but that's my alignment" being the worst) for sabotage.

Again, I absolutely agree.  I hate that bullshit meme- "it's not personal, I'm just playing my character."

There is a certain amount of responsibility to the group activity when designing and creating a character.  Inter-character drama and strife is cool every so often in a game, but deliberately creating a character that is going to be a complete asshole to the group and screw them over every chance he gets is not being a responsible player IMO.

Quote from: Peregrin;368311Why would you get shouted down?  Most people aren't arguing for griefers that refuse to mesh with the group, they're arguing that not every group wants to play the same way.

Of course you don't believe in playstyles, so, mreh.  God-forbid some days the group wants to play some WoD and focus on horror instead of being little fantasy badasses, or that someone have a small preference for one over the other.

That, and the notion that people who refuse to mesh well with a D&D group would make any more effort to mesh with a Dogs group is just bullshit.  They're a social instigator, they don't care what the group wants to do.

Well, I thought was being very specific about D&D (and it's party orientation) as opposed other games (like say Amber, where player conflict is desirable and likely).

Quote from: Drohem;368313There is a certain amount of responsibility to the group activity when designing and creating a character.  Inter-character drama and strife is cool every so often in a game, but deliberately creating a character that is going to be a complete asshole to the group and screw them over every chance he gets is not being a responsible player IMO.

Aside from the PR, that is mostly why D&D has always discouraged 'evil' alignments.  It tends to mess up the session for the reasons already mentioned; continual backstabbing might be fun for a high intrigue WoD, Amber or Nobilis game, but it tends to get on the average D&D player's nerves fairly quickly.

Quote from: Peregrin;368311Why would you get shouted down?  Most people aren't arguing for griefers that refuse to mesh with the group, they're arguing that not every group wants to play the same way.

Of course you don't believe in playstyles, so, mreh.  God-forbid some days the group wants to play some WoD and focus on horror instead of being little fantasy badasses, or that someone have a small preference for one over the other.

That, and the notion that people who refuse to mesh well with a D&D group would make any more effort to mesh with a Dogs group is just bullshit.  They're a social instigator, they don't care what the group wants to do.

I'd say there're two different things here. One is the guy who's being a dick; he won't play well in any game. The other is the guy who's into PC on PC violence; he'll do poorly in a straight up 4e game, but will do better in a Dogs game and would do awesome in most Amber games. You could also run a 4e game with scope for party intrigue, if you wanted, just as you can run an Amber game in which everyone's bosom buddies.

I've seen AM's character remove all her armor and drop her gear for roleplay reasons, and stay that way for two fights running, as a side note.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;368303No, I mean, there's a leveling system for monsters. Your'e DMing, right? Those aren't "crap monsters" -- those are (I suspect..) the appropriately leveled challenges that you should be using, at least if you expect the party to be able to battle them. I personally have nothing against putting Umber Hulks and Neogi up against a level 1 party, but I am being realistic about the party's ability to fight such creatures. ie- It's not going to happen. That's going to be a social encounter if anything.. or perhaps even a "accidental glimpse into what the mysterious force behind these kobolds is..now..run for your lives!" type of encounter.

By 'crap monsters' I was referring to monsters that are irrelevantly easy to hit, eg, 4 levels below the party.

You keep assuming I'm being unfairly harsh, when that's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I don't consider a 'needs a 12 or better' to necessarily be an unfairly difficult roll to make. If having a 45% chance to hit is the kind of challenge that's too tough at your table, I can see why we're not exactly on the same page.

Anyway, I follow the guidelines as per the DMG, my players have never dealt with a level +4 monster, even, other than a beholder they've fought twice now (once it was tied down and couldn't fight back, and another it was carrying a burden and couldn't fight back).

They did fight a level +12 encounter, but those were mostly minions. Again, the minion rules are also broken, any suggestions there for what to do?

Quote from: Doom;368323That's a pretty odd assumption to make. I don't consider a 'needs a 12 or better' to necessarily be an unfairly difficult roll to make. If having a 45% chance to hit is the kind of challenge that's too tough at your table, I can see why we're not exactly on the same page.

Anyway, I follow the guidelines as per the DMG, my players have never dealt with a level +4 monster, even, other than a beholder they've fought twice now (once it was tied down and couldn't fight back, and another it was carrying a burden and couldn't fight back).

They did fight a level +12 encounter, but those were mostly minions. Again, the minion rules are also broken, any suggestions there for what to do?

But if you only need a 12 or better, how is everyone missing? I guess I'm confused where the issue is at this point. Are they able to hit or not? What level are we talking about? I can do a side-by-side comparison if you like. I admit, I'm not all up on the math, but it seems to work for me and the 10 or so other DMs at the weekly meetup.. where's the real issue?

As far as minions go! I dunno, I like  minions

Think of it this way:

4 minions = 1 monster.
Therefore
Using minions is a bit like using a monster that has 4 attacks per round and will require at least 4 separate attack rolls to kill. Not only that, but it is unaffected by critical hits or extra damage (from curses or quarry or whatever) or even extra damage beyond 1W. And you can split it into separate entities.

SO the real trick with minions is the players gamble: is it a waste to use my good attacks, my curse damage, my quarry on the minion? Well, it depends on whether or not you can absorb 4 attacks a round that do a consistent 4 or 5 damage each. And maybe the curse sucks for damage on a minion, but it lets a player use his curse boon pretty quickly.

Minions will take a character down quickly- especially if you let them have ranged attacks. If you have minions that simply can't hit.. then swarm them up on someone and have them use 'aid another' in order to boost up the to-hit for just a few of them.

Against a controller, though, they also die quickly. What then? Then you only have a few come out at a time, and be careful not to have them get to close together until they're almost on top of someone.

Quote from: StormBringer;368316Aside from the PR, that is mostly why D&D has always discouraged 'evil' alignments.  It tends to mess up the session for the reasons already mentioned; continual backstabbing might be fun for a high intrigue WoD, Amber or Nobilis game, but it tends to get on the average D&D player's nerves fairly quickly.

Man, I must be very lucky. I mean, seriously, while playing or running AD&D games, I've seen guys playing Assassins of course, including the classic Assassin actually trying to kill other people in the PCs group, I've seen a halfling thief pretending to be a Cleric (mimicking spells with sleight of hands and potions) and actually pull it off session after session for months (!), a Chaotic Neutral MU being the archenemy of another PC, a Paladin, with every adventure consisting of incessant insults and snide remarks between the two and culminating in a duel to the death (with each time, later on, a return of the killed character), and I've actually never seen someone take it badly. It was all the fun of the game.

I mean, these players generally collaborated to solve whatever problem the adventure presented, but in-between and after its resolution, the shit was hitting the fan between PCs constantly, and that was fun! The players weren't constantly at war with each other in the real world, though. Everyone had fun and had stories to tell after the game. Laughs were had, "Got-yas" and so on.

I don't know. Like I said, I must have been lucky.

Quote from: Drohem;368313Yes, absolutely.  The resources that a 'suboptimal' character denies the group are relatively negligible, and highly debatable (cf. Doom's argument in this thread).  However, a character that flat out denies the group the benefit of the resources that that character offers the group is significant and just player dickishness.




Again, I absolutely agree.  I hate that bullshit meme- "it's not personal, I'm just playing my character."

There is a certain amount of responsibility to the group activity when designing and creating a character.  Inter-character drama and strife is cool every so often in a game, but deliberately creating a character that is going to be a complete asshole to the group and screw them over every chance he gets is not being a responsible player IMO.

Not to mention, what possible motivation would the characters themselves have for continuing to travel with the trouble-some individual? Just from a pure RPing standpoint folks who might be forced to put their lives in each others hands are certainly entitled to be picky about with whom they are adventuring if they have any choice at all.

Quote from: Sigmund;368348Not to mention, what possible motivation would the characters themselves have for continuing to travel with the trouble-some individual? Just from a pure RPing standpoint folks who might be forced to put their lives in each others hands are certainly entitled to be picky about with whom they are adventuring if they have any choice at all.

Maybe they can't afford to be picky about it, though? What if you're playing in an AD&D game, with most of the world around you being constituted of 0-level non adventurers? Maybe you need to make a living, and don't have much of a choice in the people you can associate yourself with in order to benefit from a remote chance at survival?

Or maybe there's some off camera reason for it? Maybe the paladin is acting like the Chaotic neutral guy in the group is the ultimate test of his own faith, and will try to convert the guy during the whole campaign? Or maybe the evil mage is chased by interplanar beings and manipulating the naive idiots adventuring with him to take the blows for him when they come?

There are multiple reasons why you could end up with a group of mixed alignments.

Quote from: Benoist;368351Maybe they can't afford to be picky about it, though? What if you're playing in an AD&D game, with most of the world around you being constituted of 0-level non adventurers? Maybe you need to make a living, and don't have much of a choice in the people you can associate yourself with in order to benefit from a remote chance at survival?

Or maybe there's some off camera reason for it? Maybe the paladin is acting like the Chaotic neutral guy in the group is the ultimate test of his own faith, and will try to convert the guy during the whole campaign? Or maybe the evil mage is chased by interplanar beings and manipulating the naive idiots adventuring with him to take the blows for him when they come?

There are multiple reasons why you could end up with a group of mixed alignments.

Hence the "if they have any choice at all" part that I included

Quote from: Drohem;368313There is a certain amount of responsibility to the group activity when designing and creating a character.  Inter-character drama and strife is cool every so often in a game, but deliberately creating a character that is going to be a complete asshole to the group and screw them over every chance he gets is not being a responsible player IMO.

But honest, my awakened panda monk/drunken master won't be disruptive at all, I promise!



Drohem, the first sentence in your quote above belongs in every player's section of every rpg book.

Quote from: Drohem;368313Yes, absolutely.  The resources that a 'suboptimal' character denies the group are relatively negligible, and highly debatable (cf. Doom's argument in this thread).  However, a character that flat out denies the group the benefit of the resources that that character offers the group is significant and just player dickishness.

A couple thoughts to add to what others have said about this...

I think you need to ask if the character is using any resources, among other considerations. A crude approach: reduce their share of the treasure...and depending on DM perspective, this may also reduce their XP.* (This raises questions about "reward mechanics", though. In some non-D&D games, you might get a bonus for being a jerk!)

But the player might also be using resources even if the character isn't. Like: you've got one more person to schedule, you like playing with a limited # of players and if that person wasn't there, you could invite someone else. In that case, sure, why bother with someone who doesn't contribute?

*Hm, now I'm thinking of trying to cross D&D with the boardgame Junta, where El Presidente is the absolute arbiter of foreign aid distribution, but also subject to being toppled if the other players aren't happy.

Quote from: The Shaman;368360Drohem, the first sentence in your quote above belongs in every player's section of every rpg book.

"There is a certain amount of responsibility to the group activity when designing and creating a character."
True.