TTRPGs should punish people who play DMFs.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:57 pm

virgil wrote:It would assume that ooze isn't a lone wolf, but is a pawn to someone who is willing to negotiate.

Hmm your post didn't seem helpful at all at first, but then it got me thinking and now I know how to solve all those issues for my upcoming campaign, thanks.

Just have to figure out good retreat system.

Krusk · Post by **Krusk** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:56 pm

I'm basing my "That guy" experience exclusively off one of my players. He always plays a fighter, and basically not really. He pops in now and again during the session for like 20 min to do whatever RP he is into, or if he feels like participating in combat does that.

The majority of the time he is playing starcraft though. He is also the most avid to play DND and has talked about getting some people together to form a splinter group.

I have no idea what he gets out of DND, but apparently something.

If your that guy suddenly cares about combat only on his turn I can see it being annoying. Maybe my experience is not the norm.

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:58 pm

Krusk wrote:I have no idea what he gets out of DND, but apparently something.

I am playing with That Same Exact Guy right now. Just replace Starcraft with Angry Birds.

And like you, our group has no idea what he gets out of D&D. He doesn't like making characters. He doesn't like playing casters. He doesn't like actual roleplaying (he likes to play silent, brooding dudes with a dark past that is never defined). Combat doesn't interest him enough to keep his attention for longer than his turn (which requires him reevaluating the battlefield, asking questions, deciding what he wants to do, and then maybe making individual attack and damage rolls).

It's just frustrating.

violence in the media · Mon Sep 17, 2012 4:06 pm

My best guess is that some people "play" just to hang out with their friends. They may even kind of enjoy D&D or gaming in general. However, since the weekly (or whatever) D&D game is more reliable than the occasional pub outing or movie night, that's what they're going to do.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 4:18 pm

Wrathzog wrote:
Krusk wrote:I have no idea what he gets out of DND, but apparently something.
I am playing with That Same Exact Guy right now. Just replace Starcraft with Angry Birds.

And like you, our group has no idea what he gets out of D&D. He doesn't like making characters. He doesn't like playing casters. He doesn't like actual roleplaying (he likes to play silent, brooding dudes with a dark past that is never defined). Combat doesn't interest him enough to keep his attention for longer than his turn (which requires him reevaluating the battlefield, asking questions, deciding what he wants to do, and then maybe making individual attack and damage rolls).

It's just frustrating.

In my experience, this Same Exact Guy(TM) wants to be with his friends. If it's of some consolation, this kind of irrational gregariousness tends to disappear as people grow older.

Mr. GC · Post by **Mr. GC** » Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:18 pm

I was originally going to either ignore this thread or leave my contribution to it as a simple "It already does"...

But after seeing a few of the people that support dumbfuck melee fighters directly I'd like to cast my vote for making the rulebook physically fly out of your hand, smack the fool trying to play them, and then return, all on its own.

I think that's the only appropriate punishment.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:59 am

nockermensch wrote:In my experience, this Same Exact Guy(TM) wants to be with his friends.

Friends don't let friends play crap things (or be a hindrance at the table). You can either use positive reinforcement (chocolates) or negative reinforcement (spray bottle). Your choice.

mikal768 · Post by **mikal768** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:22 pm

Koumei wrote:
nockermensch wrote:In my experience, this Same Exact Guy(TM) wants to be with his friends.
Friends don't let friends play crap things (or be a hindrance at the table). You can either use positive reinforcement (chocolates) or negative reinforcement (spray bottle). Your choice.

Orrrr... make it so the system works for those who want to play the guy with the sword who kills shit with it instead of being all... elitist about it.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:39 pm

mikal768 wrote:
Koumei wrote:
nockermensch wrote:In my experience, this Same Exact Guy(TM) wants to be with his friends.
Friends don't let friends play crap things (or be a hindrance at the table). You can either use positive reinforcement (chocolates) or negative reinforcement (spray bottle). Your choice.
Orrrr... make it so the system works for those who want to play the guy with the sword who kills shit with it instead of being all... elitist about it.

If we are talking about "that guy" who spends more time playing with apps on their phone then playing the game you invited him to then no, nothing should be made for people like that TTRPG wise. There is already super smash brothers and Call of Duty. He can go play another game.

mikal768 · Post by **mikal768** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:45 pm

No. I'm talking about the poisonous opinion that just because someone plays something that you may not find to be "good" (see the odious DMF acronym) that they should be punished or condescendingly rewarded for not playing it is bad. Someone not actually playing the game is different.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:13 pm

mikal768 wrote:No. I'm talking about the poisonous opinion that just because someone plays something that you may not find to be "good" (see the odious DMF acronym) that they should be punished or condescendingly rewarded for not playing it is bad. Someone not actually playing the game is different.

If someone insists on playing a commoner or an aristocrat, they are being disruptive. How is playing a DMF any different? It's a character concept that is not only inferior according to the rules, but conceptually unable to contribute at an acceptable level.

-Username17

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:23 pm

Things like that can also be very subjective.
Playing a wizard with an int below 10 is obviously just being disruptive. But for some people starting a wizard with an int of 12 is also being disruptive because you choose to suck, while others have less problems with it.

And sometimes you have to make choices where either option might end up punishing someone if they play their character how they envision it. For example Skeletons, should they be evil or neutral. Should you hurt the good Skeleton summoner or should you hurt the I destroy all undead gal?

Mr. GC · Post by **Mr. GC** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:25 pm

Did I wander onto the RPGsite by mistake?

mikal768 · Post by **mikal768** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:44 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
mikal768 wrote:No. I'm talking about the poisonous opinion that just because someone plays something that you may not find to be "good" (see the odious DMF acronym) that they should be punished or condescendingly rewarded for not playing it is bad. Someone not actually playing the game is different.
If someone insists on playing a commoner or an aristocrat, they are being disruptive. How is playing a DMF any different? It's a character concept that is not only inferior according to the rules, but conceptually unable to contribute at an acceptable level.

-Username17

Because if we're talking about D&D it's a game based on classic fantasy tropes and the big sword wielding warrior is a classic staple of that?

And no, I don't see something playing that as disruptive. If they want to play it, and know what they're getting into, then you know what? Have fun! Enjoy yourself! Swing that motherfuckin sword all the live long day if you like!

It really just seems to me the whole argument has been twisted here from "fighters mechanically suck" to "fighters are inherently bad and you're an idiot if you would ever want to play like one".

And that's poisonous and something that happens a LOT when a discussion board starts becoming an echo chamber.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:00 pm

mikal768 wrote:Because if we're talking about D&D it's a game based on classic fantasy tropes and the big sword wielding warrior is a classic staple of that?

And no, I don't see something playing that as disruptive. If they want to play it, and know what they're getting into, then you know what? Have fun! Enjoy yourself! Swing that motherfuckin sword all the live long day if you like!

It really just seems to me the whole argument has been twisted here from "fighters mechanically suck" to "fighters are inherently bad and you're an idiot if you would ever want to play like one".

And that's poisonous and something that happens a LOT when a discussion board starts becoming an echo chamber.

That is because (assuming a D&D like game) this statement:
"fighters are inherently bad and you're an idiot if you would ever want to play like one"
is true.
Because what does a fighter do?
Fight. Nothing else. And everybody fights.
And you can't always fight outside of combat, so the fighter just doesn't do anything at all.

Now non-magical sword gal can work fine at low levels but in a high magic environment like D&D 3.5, the concept can't work at medium / high levels.

mikal768 · Post by **mikal768** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:10 pm

ishy wrote:
That is because (assuming a D&D like game) this statement:
"fighters are inherently bad and you're an idiot if you would ever want to play like one"
is true.
Because what does a fighter do?
Fight. Nothing else. And everybody fights.
And you can't always fight outside of combat, so the fighter just doesn't do anything at all.

Now non-magical sword gal can work fine at low levels but in a high magic environment like D&D 3.5, the concept can't work at medium / high levels.

No. It's not inherently bad. It's inherently LIMITING and a weak mechanical choice. But it's not inherently bad OR good. And you aren't inherently an idiot if you want to play one.

The fact that this place can't seem to understand that anymore is why it's just as bad here as it is on that other site. The only difference is they like fighters and nostalgia, and you go for straight mechanics.

Honestly, neither side is healthy or really works.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:15 pm

No. It's not inherently bad. It's inherently LIMITING and a weak mechanical choice

Might as well change your avatar to a white flag if that's your argument.

mikal768 · Post by **mikal768** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:21 pm

Whipstitch wrote:
No. It's not inherently bad. It's inherently LIMITING and a weak mechanical choice
Might as well change your avatar to a white flag if that's your argument.

Wow such an awesome argument.
Sounds a lot like the people on that other site.

I'm sorry but I don't ascribe to the One True Way™ that is the generally accepted way to play, nor do I ascribe to the One True Way© on that other board.

If someone wants to play something that is limited then you know what? If they're happy they're happy. In a perfect world things would be balanced so arguments like this wouldn't happen, but obviously this isn't a perfect world.

Until then, have fun, just know you aren't going to be as good as somebody with a stronger class

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:24 pm

And plucky children/peasants aren't also classic fantasy tropes? Playing such shows a fundamental lack of understanding in how the rules function, and no matter how fun the concept is, the end result is inevitably going to be fraught with frustration and disappointment that will be blamed on everyone but themselves. There are & will be exceptions, but they are the minority, and encouraging such will be detrimental on the whole.

I am opposed to the badwrongfun punishment Lago advocates, and more in favour of just not allowing the option for commoners or true DMFs. Something simple for use so the DM's girlfriend or grandmother can play & enjoy is fine, and I don't care if it allows That Guy (tm) to participate better.

mikal768 · Post by **mikal768** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:32 pm

virgil wrote:And plucky children/peasants aren't also classic fantasy tropes?

As heroes? Usually not. As secondaries, plot devices, breathing maguffins, and focuses for the main characters yes?

When they are the main character? Then they go on the journey to become the mighty warrior.

Playing such shows a fundamental lack of understanding in how the rules function, and no matter how fun the concept is, the end result is inevitably going to be fraught with frustration and disappointment that will be blamed on everyone but themselves. There are & will be exceptions, but they are the minority, and encouraging such will be detrimental on the whole.

And going from "plucky child as a fantasy trope" to "playing a plucky child" is a false analogy. Generally said child or peasant isn't the protagonist, and when they are they do the training journey of self discovery to become the standard protagonist.

I am opposed to the badwrongfun punishment Lago advocates, and more in favour of just not allowing the option for commoners or true DMFs. Something simple for use so the DM's girlfriend or grandmother can play & enjoy is fine, and I don't care if it allows That Guy (tm) to participate better.

Honestly, I do something similar. When I DM I usually make a fighter the NPC class and have the fighter type be warblades. But if someone is bound and determined to use a fighter, I let them. Cause you know what? Having someone be a basic melee fighter isn't going to make or break the game.

I won't coddle them, nor will I give them special rewards of punishments. But I'm not going to stop them from playing it.

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:35 pm

Mikal wrote:No. It's not inherently bad. It's inherently LIMITING and a weak mechanical choice. But it's not inherently bad OR good. And you aren't inherently an idiot if you want to play one.

While I admit that there's a lot of hyperbole on this board about what the Fighter brings to the table... it is very much a bad class. It has always been bad and will continue to be bad.

With that said, the idea that playing one makes you mentally deficient is definitely toxic to the hobby.

-e-

Having someone be a basic melee fighter isn't going to make or break the game.
I won't coddle them, nor will I give them special rewards of punishments. But I'm not going to stop them from playing it.

Stop being so fucking reasonable.

mikal768 · Post by **mikal768** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:40 pm

Wrathzog wrote:
Mikal wrote:No. It's not inherently bad. It's inherently LIMITING and a weak mechanical choice. But it's not inherently bad OR good. And you aren't inherently an idiot if you want to play one.
While I admit that there's a lot of hyperbole on this board about what the Fighter brings to the table... it is very much a bad class. It has always been bad and will continue to be bad.

With that said, the idea that playing one makes you mentally deficient is definitely toxic to the hobby.

It depends on how you use the definition of bad.
Mechanically bad? Oh fuck yes. Inherently bad? To me that means inherently wrong, which is where I find the disconnect. Normally I wouldn't, but... when combined with the mindset that follows the rest of the quote about bad and stupid, I'm going to err on the side of bad meaning wrong when said this way.

Having someone be a basic melee fighter isn't going to make or break the game.
I won't coddle them, nor will I give them special rewards of punishments. But I'm not going to stop them from playing it.

Stop being so fucking reasonable.

Don't worry, I'll start acting all histrionic soon enough

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:45 pm

virgil wrote: I am opposed to the badwrongfun punishment Lago advocates, and more in favour of just not allowing the option for commoners or true DMFs. Something simple for use so the DM's girlfriend or grandmother can play & enjoy is fine, and I don't care if it allows That Guy (tm) to participate better.

This. I'm all for people enjoying themselves and I'm not interested in turning class selection into some kind of morality play when I could just not support some concepts as PC classes. I just think Mikal style learned helplessness is pretty retarded and that such people have little to contribute to the conversation other than the presumed superiority that typically comes with staking out a centrist position. Sorry, but I'm not a moral relativism guy and I don't care about the ideal of playing a fighter when the grim reality of playing a fighter is currently squatting on so much conceptual space. Some character types are demonstrably playing a different sort of game than everyone else, and as often as not that is disruptive, if not for the person playing them, then for the people who play -with- them--see also: Fish Malks. If we're playing an Avengers game I think it's pretty OK to say that bringing your Ramona, Beezus or even Rambo character sheet is off-limits for PCs even if those characters could plausibly exist in the setting.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:01 pm

Big Trouble in Little China has a sample commoner hero, as is the protagonist in The Valiant Little Tailor, or Discworld's Rincewind (not commoner, but adept at best).

You run a Tome game, or even a normal game where you explicitly allow the Tome monk, and a player chooses to instead play a Core Monk because they feel it to be powerful (both cases have happened). Do you not see how this will end in tears, and how it might be a better idea to instead just not allow the weaker monk?

K · Post by K » Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:20 pm

Don't blame the player. Blame the game.

Skill levels are going to vary. People are going to want to try out an available concept for themselves instead of listening to someone else's opinion. Some people just want to be a character that doesn't look like someone else.

Blame DnD for having an Aristocrat and a Commoner class. Blame DnD for not letting fantasy fighters like we see in movies be represented in a game where movie wizards are represented. Blame DnD for offering things that are conceptually attractive while being mechanically bad and rewarding system mastery at chargen.

It's not "disruptive" to take bad choices off the list of available choices. It's sad.