So I play a Bard in a a game that is being held at a local game store that started a few weeks ago. I was iffy about being in the group I'm in because of a few reasions one being that a group of four friends refused to be split up and demanded they all be placed in the same group, so we have 7 to 8 people in our group. So most of the game is everyone having one turn.
Being the Bard they all start saying how I am not even needed as everything I can do the four of them are all better at, Bluff, Sneak, Ranged , Buff and Heal.
As smart as my Bard is trying to come up with a logical plan the four of them all shoot me down and run head first into battle and each time almost causeing the death of my bard and the onther charetors who aren't in their group.
My last starw was last night wqhen during the game I atempted to use some of the tricks I learned over the years and they all shot me down and to me to just make myself usefull and provide background music ( Elevator Music)
I am so annoyed with these four basicly turning Our story into Their story with the rest of the party as their back up just in case they take a hit.
The Dm sees what they do and even agress that my bard should get in their way and just sit in the back and Sing.
Am I just being a cry baby? should swith to the 2nd group as they have less people and I might have more chances to Role play?
If you have the option to play another game; then just do that. (most people, like me, are lucky to find one game going in their area)
If not then..
7-8 people groups are Doable, even though it does stretch it out (I enjoy larger groups though)
My suggestion (Which I know lots won’t agree with) is fight fire with fire; if these four guys just run off and do something, you and the other two players should just not support them. Sit back and watch them try to handle it all themselves, when they start dying their tone won’t be the same.
As long as you and the other two players just “suck it up” and go along with them, there is no incentive on their part to change; However once they see that if the keep this up they are going to have to fight all the monsters and do all the challenges themselves they will be more inclined to play as a TEAM
Don’t enable them; let them pay the price for their arrogance, if this means that a couple games you and the other two (really need to get them on board) just fold your arms are say “do it yourselves” to the other four , they WILL get the point.
Also, just do what you want; you throwing out an idea and them saying No DOESN’T MEAN YOU CAN’T DO THAT IDEA; and since they are not acting as a team you mise well do what you want anyways.
Get some of their characters killed and they will play ball.
PS- Sounds like you have a d!ck DM, I’d call him out on it and remind them this is everyone’s game to enjoy, not just some of the players.
But what happens when the four succeed even without the rest of the party support? Wouldn't that only embolden them more?
I know it does not translate perfectly, but three friends and I played the MMORPG Everquest for several years. We created characters with the specific intent on grouping together and we had the perfect quad-fecta of characters for that game:
- tank: warrior - THE desired tank class
- healer: cleric - the ONLY healer desired in that game
- crowd control: enchanter - THE best combination of stunning mobs and slowing them down
- damage dealer with back up healing and crowd control ability: druid - THE best hybrid class: can do everything but not great at any one thing
We quickly discovered that we could invite any two other damage dealers to our group (EQ groups were six members) and do whatever we wanted without any difficulty.
If estoyawesome's group of four is anything like my friends and I playing EQ1, chances are they will succeed without the rest for support.
As others have said on these forums, in game solutions to out of game problems rarely succeed.
@estoyawesome,
If your DM and these four are on the same page, and you have to option to leave the group, then do so. I would go so far as to recommend to the others outside the four to join you. Let the four and the DM have their fun. You go have yours.
In any event, it appears an out-of-game conversation is in order. Express your frustration calmly and ask for their help in coming up with a solution. If they don't offer to change in a way that allows you to get back into enjoying the game, you at least did the mature thing by treating them like adults and having an out-of-game conversation. Then find yourself another group.
@Clive,
But what happens when the four succeed even without the rest of the party support? Wouldn't that only embolden them more?.
If four players can fight/destroy all the monsters a DM prepared for a 8 person party; then the DM has either made the monsters way to weak or simply didn’t put enough of them on the field.
The encounters a DM should prepare for a table of 8 people should take the efforts of 8 people to finish; if you have 8 people and only 4 are necessary for your combat encounters, you have screwed up as DM. It seems like the DM isn’t leveling his/her encounters to match the table.
The encounters a DM should prepare for a table of 8 people should take the efforts of 8 people to finish; if you have 8 people and only 4 are necessary for your combat encounters, you have screwed up as DM. It seems like the DM isn’t leveling his/her encounters to match the table.
That seems obvious, but it speaks to one of the issues in the original post, which is common to these kinds of posts: The DM can't figure out how to make encounters that challenge the optimizers, but doesn't just kill the rest of the party.
This stems absolutely from the traditional approach to encounters, in which the enemies only want to nullify the PCs, and the only way to win the encounter is to nullify the monsters. Even when optimization isn't an issue this approach has serious problems, but optimization makes everything worse.
And I doubt that this player wants to be challenged, so even if the DM did figure out a way to challenge the player, that would probably just cause more problems as the player optimized even further, or claimed that the DM was picking on him.
@Centauri
I understand it can be hard for DM’s when you have Op. players mixed with non-Op., and I also understand a good DM could find ways outside of killing all enemies to end an encounter, but it doesn’t seem like the DM is super great (especially if he is telling a player to sit back and do nothing).
Could one solution be that the DM drops a few extra solos that only target the Op. players? If this makes them want to Op. more than he can just keep dropping solos; this way those four players can focus on taking out some mini-boss while the other players can fight the horde or minions and regular monsters.
Would give the 4 Op. players something challangeing to do, as well as give the non-Op. players a vital role as well (keeping the horde at bay while the Op.s kill the solos)?
I understand this is iffy, and can easily backfire (what if the non-Op. guys try to fight the solo, or the Op. guys are downed leaving the non-Op. virtually screwed)
Is this really a case of optimized vs. non-optimized characters though? I didn't pick that up from the OP's post. Sounds like he's playing a 3.5 bard which if I remember correctly is fairly useless outside of social situations. What it really sounds like is there is just not enough challenge to go around for so big a party, and that's on the DM to up the ante or downsize the group.
I think I got my threads confused. Once again, Centauri is dead wrong.
The Dm sees what they do and even agress that my bard should get in their way and just sit in the back and Sing.
Bad form on the part of the DM there. Since you say that there's a second group I'd say the easiest thing to do would be to just switch groups. It seems clear that your character/style of play just doesn't mesh with these 4 players and the DM seems more than willing to help them marginalize you and/or other players & PC's. Find out if you can indeed move to the other group, then let the DM of your current group know WHY you're changing groups. No need for hostility about it. Just think of it as presenting him with the opportunity for improvement of his DMing.
For the record, if that's really how things are going down, they're violently breaking Wheaton's Law here.
@Centauri
I understand it can be hard for DM’s when you have Op. players mixed with non-Op., and I also understand a good DM could find ways outside of killing all enemies to end an encounter, but it doesn’t seem like the DM is super great (especially if he is telling a player to sit back and do nothing).Could one solution be that the DM drops a few extra solos that only target the Op. players? If this makes them want to Op. more than he can just keep dropping solos; this way those four players can focus on taking out some mini-boss while the other players can fight the horde or minions and regular monsters.
Would give the 4 Op. players something challangeing to do, as well as give the non-Op. players a vital role as well (keeping the horde at bay while the Op.s kill the solos)?
I understand this is iffy, and can easily backfire (what if the non-Op. guys try to fight the solo, or the Op. guys are downed leaving the non-Op. virtually screwed)
As has been said many times on these forums, in game solutions for out of game problems rarely succeed and usually only make matters worse.
In other words, if they don't like how you play your bard, that's their problem. If they feel so strongly about it and want to discuss it further, only THEN does it become an out-of-game problem for you. What are they going to say? "Your character should do this. Your character should do that." And what response does that lead to? "Duly noted".
I don't think you owe them an explanation. Nothing you're doing sounds really detrimental to their characters and I assume you're not playing to support their fragile egos. If you feel like doing a good deed and telling the bunch of them what jerks they are... they're probably not going to appreciate your help no matter how much you sugarcoat it. Again... it's THEIR problem to solve, not yours.
Still... sounds like you've got some vested interest in this game and in this bard you're playing. It also sounds like sooner or later, all their griping and moaning and whining and complaining is going to get annoying, though. Sounds like it already has. AND it sounds like even if you tell them that their griping about how you play your character is out of line, that telling you your character is essentially useless dead weight can only mean one thing... one or two of them might need to leave the group in order to make your talents seem more valuable. Or that they can play their characters in the manner they see fit while you do the same. Since you came to play a game and have fun, your objective is to play the game and have fun. They may be shocked at this concept and actually prefer to have long out-of-game conversations justifying their asinine behavior and making attempts at changing the way you play your character. They will probably try to pull you into that conversation. You could move tables, but they may have the same problems or worse. Good last resort option, though.
Instead of all that, ask them if the character they are playing can convince the character you are playing to do things differently. It gets the game moving quicker and I assume you came to play a game not give these jerks free therapy.
--
“The moon does not fight. It attacks no one. It does not worry. It does not try to crush others. It keeps to its course, but by its very nature, it gently influences. What other body could pull an entire ocean from shore to shore? The moon is faithful to its nature and its power is never diminished.”
― Deng Ming-Dao, Everyday Tao: Living with Balance and Harmony
You can solve the problem one way or another right now by being direct. Or you can continue playing unhappily, hoping that they change maybe at some point. Life's too short for that sort of approach in my opinion and nowadays there are a lot of options and ways to find groups that suit your style.
Is this really a case of optimized vs. non-optimized characters though? I didn't pick that up from the OP's post. Sounds like he's playing a 3.5 bard which if I remember correctly is fairly useless outside of social situations. What it really sounds like is there is just not enough challenge to go around for so big a party, and that's on the DM to up the ante or downsize the group.
Ya know, i got that impression too (mainly from the singing comments).
But the title is "4e game", *shrug* who knows.
Regardless of edition, if there are 8 players and a dm (9 total), you could probably split the group.
Leave that DM and those 4 players. Then take yourself and the other 3 and start a new game. You may need to grab a new dm, or 1-2 other players, but you're already most of the way there...
My read on your description is that they are going out of their way to pick on you, not your bard. As such, nothing you change about your bard or do differently with him will fix the issue. Have a conversation about how they are coming off and ask them to tone it down. If not, deal with them like normal bullies.
It's good to know I am not the only one who sees a problem w\in t\what they are doing. 4th Ed is so strange to me it almost doesn't evenn play like DnD anymore, The other player ( T\One of the 4 firends) said how I choes a stupid meaning less class and I chose to be human insted of something cool. I just came from a time when It wasn't about picking the best race or being able to take out any thing you see with no porblems.
So when the next game starts I will let the other dm know that if he has room I would like to change groups,
you guys are awesome thank you all so much
I talked to the dm and one of the other players and they both swear that what I'm doing isn't DnD, aparently at somepoint Dnd became a Table top war game and not a rpg. As i am the only one who thinks we should be role playing and not just killing everything that moves.
It's good to know I am not the only one who sees a problem w\in t\what they are doing. 4th Ed is so strange to me it almost doesn't evenn play like DnD anymore, The other player ( T\One of the 4 firends) said how I choes a stupid meaning less class and I chose to be human insted of something cool. I just came from a time when It wasn't about picking the best race or being able to take out any thing you see with no porblems.
So when the next game starts I will let the other dm know that if he has room I would like to change groups,
you guys are awesome thank you all so much
The edition has nothing to do with the situation. You simply value different aspects of the game than they do. Kudos for having an out-of-game conversation and finding a solution.
I talked to the dm and one of the other players and they both swear that what I'm doing isn't DnD, aparently at somepoint Dnd became a Table top war game and not a rpg. As i am the only one who thinks we should be role playing and not just killing everything that moves.
It's good to know I am not the only one who sees a problem w\in t\what they are doing. 4th Ed is so strange to me it almost doesn't evenn play like DnD anymore, The other player ( T\One of the 4 firends) said how I choes a stupid meaning less class and I chose to be human insted of something cool. I just came from a time when It wasn't about picking the best race or being able to take out any thing you see with no porblems.
So when the next game starts I will let the other dm know that if he has room I would like to change groups,
you guys are awesome thank you all so much
In the early stages of 4e, it was a BIG complaint that the game leaned too far away from role-playing. Many akinned it to an MMORPG - roll a character and kill stuff over and over and over again. This is the primary reason why my friends and I did not adopt 4e; we continue to play 3.5e. That being said, it is my understanding (no actual experience) that 4e has at least somewhat shifted back toward role-playing through various revisions.
I am gonna get reemed for this (because of another thread on these forums) but if that is how that DM and those players are having fun then it is not wrong for them to play that way. But they limit their pool of additional players and they are closing themselves to other possible styles of play.
In the early stages of 4e, it was a BIG complaint that the game leaned too far away from role-playing. Many akinned it to an MMORPG - roll a character and kill stuff over and over and over again. This is the primary reason why my friends and I did not adopt 4e; we continue to play 3.5e. That being said, it is my understanding (no actual experience) that 4e has at least somewhat shifted back toward role-playing through various revisions.
Mechanics have very little to do with how much "roleplaying" is in your game, if anything at all. If you want your 4e game to be full of in-character interaction, the rules aren't stopping you. If you want it to be less about in-character interaction and more about other things, the rules aren't stopping you there either. How much of that sort of content you have in your game is your choice, not the mechanics.
In the early stages of 4e, it was a BIG complaint that the game leaned too far away from role-playing. Many akinned it to an MMORPG - roll a character and kill stuff over and over and over again. This is the primary reason why my friends and I did not adopt 4e; we continue to play 3.5e. That being said, it is my understanding (no actual experience) that 4e has at least somewhat shifted back toward role-playing through various revisions.
Mechanics have very little to do with how much "roleplaying" is in your game, if anything at all. If you want your 4e game to be full of in-character interaction, the rules aren't stopping you. If you want it to be less about in-character interaction and more about other things, the rules aren't stopping you there either. How much of that sort of content you have in your game is your choice, not the mechanics.
Honestly, my friends and I have never actually played 4e. A few of us read the 4e PHB decided that it was not for us (again too much akin to an MMORPG) and went back to 3.5e. We never talked about it again /shrug. I know a lot has changed, but let's not discuss that here.
Honestly, my friends and I have never actually played 4e.
Well at least that doesn't stop you from making unfounded assertions. The hobby definitely needs more of that.
I've played games that were pure hack n slash that were considered to be "More Roleplay" like White Wolf where we just fought all day.
I've also run a 4e game that spent 2-3 sessions at a time out of combat.
The rules have nothing to do with the style of game you run. All they do is adjucated the situation when it is warranted.
As far as 4e being an MMO, by that you mean "the classes are balanced by roles" at least compared to older editions where wizards, clerics, and druids just facestomped at later levels (and could arguably fulfill all roles) compared to fighters, rangers, paladins et al.
Honestly, my friends and I have never actually played 4e. A few of us read the 4e PHB decided that it was not for us (again too much akin to an MMORPG) and went back to 3.5e. We never talked about it again /shrug. I know a lot has changed, but let's not discuss that here.
This is a personal gripe of mine. When people use the "MMORPG Excuse" it usually means that they have never played the game, nor have they actually read the rules. For almost every RPG, specifically in the D&D line, reading is all well and good, but you cannot actually judge the merits or lack thereof of an edition until you play it. Book knowledge is good, but it is meaningless without the in-game experiences.
How is 4e an MMO? It isn't massively multiplayer or online. (If you want to talk about the various virtual tables online for D&D play, you have to include all editions in that, and even then, it isn't the majority.) The last half of the acronym is correct, however, it is an RPG, or role-playing game.
4e is no more of an MMO than 3.5 or AD&D or oD&D. If you want to attack or poo-poo 4e, please at least read the rules before doing so. If you were arguing from an informed opinion instead of making uninformed and unfounded assertions, I would be more likely to address your gripes.
If you are comparing 4e to having defined class roles and that being MMO-ish, then we can address that. Class roles are well-definied in 4e. I'll give you that. But just because they are mechanically defined in 4e doesn't mean they didn't exist in prior editions. What is the role of the Fighter in 3.5 or 2e or oD&D? Big guy or gal in heavy armor in the front lines taking hits to protect their party members and buy them time to cast spells and sneak attack/backstab their foes. So 3.5 and 4e Fighters do the exact same thing, but it is codified in 4e by calling them Defenders. Guess what, 3.5 Fighters are Defenders, too. They just lack the mechanics to truly be effective in that role. Wizards in each and every edition have been Controllers. They do AoE damage, they control and shape the environment of the battlefield. They are versatile in many ways. This isn't new in 4e, 4e just has the mechanical codification. So the roles argument isn't quite valid either.
/rant.
If you want to talk down about 4e, you are welcome to do so. But please do so from a position of being informed. Read the books, play the game, then make your judgments and arguments.
I played for like 3 years. (Through PHB 3 release and a good bit after). (ignore this post if you don't want to derail into edition wars)
Its got a lot in common with MMOs and Mearls (IIRC) said he cribed some ideas from them in some of the preview blogs. Its not the end of the world, some people enjoy that.
Combat in 4e is MMO like in that your powers can be macro-ed and outside of weird/rare circumstances you know exactly which powers to use every combat without thought.
Its MMO like in that your powers don't affect the real world. I can shoot fireballs at paper fortresses, and it won't ignite them. (per the rules, house rules arent the rules)
Its MMO like in that you constantly trade loot out for better and better versions of the same thing. (My plate becomes dragonscale plate). (other editions do this too).
Its MMO like in that skill challenges don't work, and so the only thing that exists is combat. (Many MMOs claim vibrant roleplaying communities, but I don't see many people arguing its their main selling point, rather the exception to the rule)
Its MMO like in that there are a very small number of builds. (relative to 3.X, and why would you step backwards from your previous edition) You pick your class, and then make a few choices that differentiate you from others, but by and large you are the same as others.
I played for like 3 years. (Through PHB 3 release and a good bit after). (ignore this post if you don't want to derail into edition wars)
Its got a lot in common with MMOs and Mearls (IIRC) said he cribed some ideas from them in some of the preview blogs. Its not the end of the world, some people enjoy that.
Combat in 4e is MMO like in that your powers can be macro-ed and outside of weird/rare circumstances you know exactly which powers to use every combat without thought.
Its MMO like in that your powers don't affect the real world. I can shoot fireballs at paper fortresses, and it won't ignite them. (per the rules, house rules arent the rules)
Its MMO like in that you constantly trade loot out for better and better versions of the same thing. (My plate becomes dragonscale plate). (other editions do this too).
Its MMO like in that skill challenges don't work, and so the only thing that exists is combat. (Many MMOs claim vibrant roleplaying communities, but I don't see many people arguing its their main selling point, rather the exception to the rule)
Its MMO like in that there are a very small number of builds. (relative to 3.X, and why would you step backwards from your previous edition) You pick your class, and then make a few choices that differentiate you from others, but by and large you are the same as others.
What he said
ICombat in 4e is MMO like in that your powers can be macro-ed and outside of weird/rare circumstances you know exactly which powers to use every combat without thought.
Compared to Spells in every edition ever?
OR how is this for macro'ing a single button and being a barbarian who's only option is to decide whether or not to Power Attack?
Fighters, Rogues, anyone in melee, all had a very specific pattern of: hold still (get a flank if you can and your edition mechanic support it) stab until its dead, and move to the next target. I agree that the 3.5 "move and stab' style of play isn't indicative of MMO's; I could do that just fine on my Atari 2600 joystick that had one button.
I think that we can all agree that being able to 'macro' 20-something powers is indicative of computer gaming circa 2010, and we can still agree that having a move and a single stab (or shoot) is indicative of arcade and console gaming circa 1980.
As someone that has played in every edition (except the original white box which i now have on pre-order
), i am really not trying to get into or propagate an edition war. What i am trying to do is get everyone to realize how silly the 'mmo' trope is.The games are different, and appeal to different people for different reasons, it's really that simple.
EDIT - for the record, I still have my Atari too.
Ok Some back story
So I play a Bard in a a game that is being held at a local game store that started a few weeks ago. I was iffy about being in the group I'm in because of a few reasions one being that a group of four friends refused to be split up and demanded they all be placed in the same group, so we have 7 to 8 people in our group. So most of the game is everyone having one turn.
Being the Bard they all start saying how I am not even needed as everything I can do the four of them are all better at, Bluff, Sneak, Ranged , Buff and Heal.
As smart as my Bard is trying to come up with a logical plan the four of them all shoot me down and run head first into battle and each time almost causeing the death of my bard and the onther charetors who aren't in their group.
My last starw was last night wqhen during the game I atempted to use some of the tricks I learned over the years and they all shot me down and to me to just make myself usefull and provide background music ( Elevator Music)
I am so annoyed with these four basicly turning Our story into Their story with the rest of the party as their back up just in case they take a hit.
The Dm sees what they do and even agress that my bard should get in their way and just sit in the back and Sing.
Am I just being a cry baby? should swith to the 2nd group as they have less people and I might have more chances to Role play?
Doesn't sound like you're having fun. I'd go to the other group. What do you have to lose?