Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 crimfan07 Jan 19, 2015 8:06:04	Happened yesterday, satisfactorily ended, but it's a perennial problem:   We all play characters that suit us ,obviously. The Leeeroy Jenkins!!! type is hasty. Of course in 5E they take character traits like "Violence is my solution to everything." which provides "It's on the sheet!" justification for Leeroy Jenkins-ing. The problem is that it undermines other characters, who might be more deliberate. It also violates the social compact of the game because other players often feel pushed into backing up the hasty character's charge.    The over-planner is the flip side to this, of course, so it's not just Leeroy Jenkins here, but the propensity to jump first is very controlling.    Thoughts? Tips on handling it? Yes, I'm familiar with "handle it out of character"---that frequently doesn't work, so DMing around it is often helpful.
#2 iserith Jan 19, 2015 8:40:52	crimfan07 wrote:
#3 Noctaem Jan 19, 2015 8:54:54	Lots of things can be completely avoided by having a session 0 and discussing openly as a group what the expectations are, character concepts, etc..  It might not seem important but lots of problems posted online could have been solved by having one.
#4 bawylie Jan 19, 2015 8:58:36	Assuming OP can't time travel, what do you suggest they do now?
#5 iserith Jan 19, 2015 9:05:52	bawylie wrote:
(Reply to #5) CCS	iserith wrote:
#7 Noctaem Jan 19, 2015 10:14:24	CCS wrote:
#8 iserith Jan 19, 2015 10:18:56	CCS wrote:
#9 Coredump00 Jan 19, 2015 10:19:13	I think part of that conversation should be that the *player* is responsible for whatever traits he gives the character.  Thus when the character is  just 'following his personallity', iti s the players fault if that personality is not conducive to a group-play environment.
#10 Noctaem Jan 19, 2015 10:29:05	iserith wrote:
#11 pukunui Jan 19, 2015 10:47:30	Coredump00 wrote:
#12 Synjin Jan 19, 2015 11:38:14	Alignment be damned, I'd kick my friend's @$$ if he kept doing that to our group. In-game that is.   Your traits and bonds are your overall, general portrayals. The cautious cleric could absolutely pop the aggressive fighter in the jaw if he kept it up. Doesn't mean he's suddenly just as aggressive. Just means he's pissed at the stupidity. Likewise "Violence is always the answer" doesn't mean you have to LJ every encounter either. Throw something with a fear aura at them and don't tell him the DC. Just make him roll and tell him he fails while the other party succeeds and does it their way. :D
#13 Noctaem Jan 19, 2015 11:53:30	Synjin wrote:
#14 Synjin Jan 19, 2015 12:03:34	Noctaem wrote:
#15 Noctaem Jan 19, 2015 12:13:17	Sure, but you're advocating the cleric punching the fighter in the jaw.  That type of action in a group game like DnD doesn't solve anything and would only contribute to the problem.  Maybe I'm reading too much into your post but I want to make sure that people who read this thread understand my point.  Resolving problems like this in character by attacking another player's character WILL NOT SOLVE ANYTHING.  In fact it will only make things worse because you've now pissed off the other player with you passive aggressive bs.  Just talk to each other instead and explain why his behavior is causing you to be frustrated instead.
(Reply to #8) Coredump00	iserith wrote:
#17 Beldak_Serpenthelm Jan 19, 2015 12:34:39	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #5) crimfan07	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #18) Coredump00	crimfan07 wrote:
#20 AaronOfBarbaria Jan 19, 2015 22:44:46	If you have players that won't alter their game-related behavior for the purpose of helping everyone enjoy the game, which is the point of a page-settting conversation or a session zero, then what you have are players that I will not hesitate to say should be asked not to come back for next session.   No point in gaming with people that put their own enjoyment so far above others at the table - let them free into the world to find a group that they fit into without the alterations they refuse to make, and find yourself some players that fit your group better to replace them (even if you have to make the players in question from your non-gamer friends, family, or colleagues).
#21 Noctaem Jan 20, 2015 3:56:13	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #20) crimfan07	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#23 Noctaem Jan 20, 2015 7:23:01	crimfan07 wrote:
#24 iserith Jan 20, 2015 6:30:07	crimfan07 wrote:
(Reply to #24) bawylie	iserith wrote:
#26 iserith Jan 20, 2015 7:02:06	bawylie wrote:
#27 bawylie Jan 20, 2015 7:13:11	It's often best to deal directly. But if you won't or can't, there are other tools in the box that might do the job.
(Reply to #22) AaronOfBarbaria	crimfan07 wrote:
#29 Glimjack Jan 20, 2015 7:43:50	I'm currently playing a neutral evil warlock who is on a path of vengeance which justs so happens to be against the same evil group that the "good" PCs are trying to destroy. My PC is also extremely aggressive and the other PCs (and players) know this. We as players work together to find reasons for my PC to not go Leeeroy Jenkins when faced with his sworn enemy. In one situation they reminded my PC that they were facing a dangerous foe and that if died in a reckless attack, the final enemy would go unpunished and his vengeance would not be achieved. In another situation, I relied on my knowledge that one of my fellow PCs (a wizard) had counterspell and cast fireball into a crowded room filled with the enemy and innocent civilians, I casually reminded him that he could always counter which he did, then "let" the barbarian and the cleric hold him back and drag him from the room.   It is possible to roleplay to type without screwing over the rest of your party. It just depends on your group and takes a little team work. My particular group, like these kind of situations. We make taking each others weaknesses into account part of the game and role-play to it so that we don't get screwed over. When we pretended the barbarian was our captured slave and made him work the latrine pit whilst we investigated an enemy camp, we role-played up the intense time pressure we were under for the ticking time-bomb of the barbarian about to lose his cool. Meanwhile he role-played his time in the pit, testing the weight of the shovel and sizing up the guards. It let us do our thing and emphasised his characters flaws, whilst not necessarily screwing up our mission.   When entering a wizards laboratory, we all spread out about the room examing the experiments and made specific mention how we'd all become to engrossed in our search to really keep an eye on the tinker gnome wizard whose eyes lit up with curiosity at the sight of a huge demonic looking tome that sat on a pedestal glowing ominously. He took the cue and and went to special effort to say how he was awestruck and stepping forward carelessly and making his way slow and awestruck towards the tome. Just before he laid a hand on it the rogue let out a cry of warning and threw a dagger right in front of the gnome, to give the wizard PC an incharacter excuse to have the sense startled back into him.   In all these cases, we left the option for the player to do the stupid thing their PC would have done, but gave them an excuse to back off with proper in-character reasons. If the player goes ahead and does the stupid thing anyway, that's also cool, but sometimes it doesn't take doing the stupid thing to be a decent role-player, just a few moments to express how your PC is about to do something stupid.
#30 Synjin Jan 20, 2015 11:19:05	Noctaem wrote:
#31 Noctaem Jan 20, 2015 11:34:15	I think the issue we might be having is that you seperate IC and OOC conflicts while I follow the logic that the reasoning "It's what my character would do" or similar stuff is nonsensical.  For example, the rogue player who says this after stealing from the party because "I'm a rogue and that's what rogue's do".  That's not ok in the least.  You're the player and you're deciding that your character steals from the party.  Your character isn't doing anything.     So for me saying that there's a conflict IC, like the cleric being angry that the fighter rushes into combat too quickly for his tastes and who then takes out that frustration IC by attacking the fighter, or being verbally abusive is just passive aggressive bs from the player who controls the cleric.  All you're doing is using the character as a proxy to do something you can't do in real life (assault the player controlling the fighter) to vent your frustration.  The player controlling the cleric should simply communicate how he doesn't like the player controlling the fighter rushing into battle all the time.  At least that way you can potentially resolve the issue in a positive way.     And it's great that you've apparently done this in a group before and it worked out and everyone was laughing about it.  But in most groups and for most people this sort of thing will not solve the problem at hand and will only cause further anger/frustration.  Just look online at all the threads about this sort of thing.
#32 Synjin Jan 20, 2015 11:45:37	Noctaem wrote:
#33 Beldak_Serpenthelm Jan 20, 2015 12:04:32	Noctaem wrote:
#34 Noctaem Jan 20, 2015 12:59:07	Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
(Reply to #6) crimfan07	CCS wrote:
(Reply to #31) crimfan07	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #26) crimfan07	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #24) crimfan07	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #23) crimfan07	Noctaem wrote: