The DM is an adult in his mid-thirties, and one of the players is actually his dad (early sixties). The dad--we'll call him Sam--is a retired attorney. He's smart and funny, he has good taste in books, he's a good cook, and until very recently he was the host for our game. In addition to being the DM's father, he's also very good friends with another player; it's clear that the tone and character of the table would be very different without him.
Here's the problem (and I'll say beforehand that it's entirely possible that I'm being a massive jerk here, and if so, I need someone to talk me down): Sam's PC is an absolute mess, and in combination with his poor tactical play the group's effectiveness is reduced even against routine challenges.
The PC is a dragonborn bow ranger who prefers Careful Shot to Twin Strike. I don't know exactly what feats he has, but his paragon path contributes absolutely nothing to his combat prowess. Sam doesn't focus fire, and doesn't make use of Prime Shot. He forgets which powers require what kind of actions, and how many of each kind of action he gets per turn. He has five encounter powers including his dragon breath, but rarely uses more than one per encounter. When he does use encounter or daily powers, he frequently mis-reads or otherwise misunderstands them. His turns reliably take longer than those of any other player.
I feel like it's a problem--or, rather, a related set of problems--for the group, but I also think I might be the only one who is bothered by it. Can I do anything about this, should I do anything about it, and if so, what? I've been primarily a DM for the past few years; if it were my table, I'd know exactly how to handle it. As a player, it would be easier if Sam was a jerk (because then I wouldn't feel bad about confronting him). If the game weren't extraordinarily rewarding in every other way, it would be easier (to walk away, if nothing else). If Sam wasn't the DM's father, it would be easier to risk talking the issue over. If I weren't the youngest person at the table by five years, I wouldn't feel quite so hamstrung in criticizing another player face-to-face.
As things stand, I'm at a loss about how to even broach the subject, let alone how to fix any of these issues. What do I do?
I doubt very much that you will be able to change Sam's style either directly or indirectly. Also, that bringing up the subject with him will do very little for you other than risk damaging a friendship.
I suggest you speak to the DM about you concerns, not in terms of "fixing Sam", but in terms of the style of game the DM wishes to run, and how your desire to play a stronger tactical and dice game fits in with it.
If the DM simply adjusts the power level and creature abilities slightly so that the challenge is there for you (and the rest of the group), then it doesn't matter if Sam's character isn't pulling its weight. This could be as simple as counting Sam's character as only half its value when calculating encounter xp budgets. Then he can go off and do inefficient things, and enjoy the game his way, whilst you enjoy it your way.
Also, nothing prevents you asking in-character for a bit of specific help now and then, just don't hold this other player to your standards and style.
Have to +2 slobo on this. I don't think you're being a jerk at all, I'd probably be going nuts in the situation as well, but I doubt you could do anything that improve the situation for you, and there's a lot you could do to make things worse for you. It's probably best to mostly hold your words, and try to resolve it in character. Maybe when you bloody a guy, take a free action to ask the archer for a little artillery support.
It's also worth noting that, the way Sam is playing the character, careful shot may well be the best power for him to use, as that +2 is actually helpful since he's not optimized to hit very well (arguments about value of +2 to atk vs two rolls aside).
You're right. You are being a massive jerk.
How "Sam" opts to make & play his chartacter isn't really any of your concern.
There's no mandate that a player must achieve x efficiency, make optimal use of each & every ability, etc etc etc.
So his turns take longer than the other players, so what? There isn't any set amount of stuff that you have to get accomplished per session.
You're not being graded or judged on how fast/efficiently you play this game. It NOT a competition.
Oh, and as your headed into 17th lv? Apparrently "Sam" hasn't hindered you very much....
But if you really do have a problem with someone not playing this game as seriously as you'd like? Then you should drop out of this group & go play with people who do.
So his turns take longer than the other players, so what? There isn't any set amount of stuff that you have to get accomplished per session.
It feels like you lack perspective. I'm not saying this is the OPs experience, but I've had experiences where all but one player had a relatively decent level of system mastery, and that one player's turn took as long as at least two other player's turns, even longer than the DMs turn with multiple monsters.
And before you say "maybe he was new" it was my very. first. 4th edition game, so being new isn't something I consider an excuse.
What I'm saying is that if there's one player who, from an objective look at the mechanics, is holding the group back, it's a bit frustrating. The OP is allowed to be frustrated, and is not a jerk simply because he is frustrated. Moreover, the fact that, instead of grinding at the guy, he came on here to share his experience and ask for alternate opinions, he's definitely not a jerk.
He's just frustrated. He's in a frustrating situation, so it's not surprising that he's frustrated.
I've been primarily a DM for the past few years; if it were my table, I'd know exactly how to handle it.
How would you handle it? Curious mostly as to what you think an ideal resolution would be.
Sam does have every right to play how he wants to, and from the sounds of it, the group isn't all the interested in optimization. It comes across as you being the odd one out in terms of playstyle and character building, but that might actually be your chance at success. I would approach the group as a whole with the idea of working more tactically as a team. This is something that can be done in character, if that's the type of PC you are running, but it also works OoC. Talk about sticking together, about positioning, what abilities can be used to benefit the group and how they should be used. Suggest that everyone learn each other's big hitting powers and be able to ask for them in game, in character("AHhg he's going to shoot me with his death ray! Somebody DISRUPT[ive] his STRIKE!!!"). Ask your DM if you can have a tactical meeting at some point, or just bring it up during an extended rest.
Good luck.
Sam sounds like the kind of guy that'd be right at home in the game I run. We play to have fun. In our case, having fun has nothing to do with being killing machines, and everything to do with roleplay. Sometimes months go by without any dice geting rolled. I'm guessing most of the people on this forum would hate it.
This helped a lot actually because the fast players have something they can do in between turns, and it speeds up the slower players.
Have to be careful with the fast players so they don't pressure the slower players to make the "optimal" choice. Bottom line is, as long as the slower player understands the choices he/she is making, he or she has the right to play however he or she wants. Often times, it's just that they don't know what they can do. The focus is help the slower players understand the finer points of combat, so eventually they know their characters well enough that they don't need help anymore.
Our game now runs a lot smoother. We only needed to do the combat buddying a couple sessions. Now players just talk amongst themselves anyway to strategize without any formal structure.
Generally, calling out which player's coming next also helps. People are slow a lot of times because they start to think about what they want to do when it's their turn. If they decide in between turns, it's much faster.
I've been primarily a DM for the past few years; if it were my table, I'd know exactly how to handle it.
How would you handle it? Curious mostly as to what you think an ideal resolution would be.
Sam does have every right to play how he wants to, and from the sounds of it, the group isn't all the interested in optimization. It comes across as you being the odd one out in terms of playstyle and character building, but that might actually be your chance at success. I would approach the group as a whole with the idea of working more tactically as a team. This is something that can be done in character, if that's the type of PC you are running, but it also works OoC.
The game is structured around the H1-E3 series of WotC adventures. As written the modules are pretty firmly combat-based, but the preferences of the players have brought the DM around to including a fair amount of RP as well. That's not a problem for me, but I do enjoy my tactical dice game as well: when combat is how the group decides to resolve a conflict, I want to be good at it.
I feel like the playstyle at the table is a little bit unusual: as individuals, most of us (the DM plus three other players) are within shouting distance of my playstyle. As a group, though, the party has dialed down the optimization--mostly to accomodate one person (not Sam) who has a strong preference for RP and story-based play. Slobo nailed it: Sam is a casual player, and is definitely the person at the table who is least invested in his PC's success or failure. I think he derives most of his enjoyment from the social aspect of the game.
If I were running the table I would take a two-pronged approach. First, I'd offer to sit down with Sam to build a cheat-sheet, outlining the very basic rules to keep in mind (i.e. standard/move/minor) and breaking down the PC's powers by action type and trigger (I always do this for my own PCs). Second, I'd work with him to either simplify the character using some house rules, and/or suggest that we re-cast him as class which keeps a similar feel while reducing the number of tactical choices to make in play--that is, a Hunter.
I'm not doing those things now because the power dynamic as a player is substantially different. It's the DM's job to pay attention to the big picture and the flow of the game, and help iron out any kinks--not mine. I've accepted that I'm a power-gaming rules-lawyer, because it's a hazard of being a DM for years--and because I try to use my powers for good, to help keep the game fun and fast-paced. Telling another player how to build his PC and what to do in-game, even by implication, is the Dark Side: it makes me into the sort of person that even I wouldn't want to game with.
Having slept on it another night, I think Cohen is right: there's not a lot I can do to make things better, and most of the available remedies (other than leaving, which is unacceptable) would make things worse for everyone. I think I'm just going to have to suck it up.
@CCS
First, a PC who fails to perform to the game's assumptions is a drag on the narrative of the game: "We're the Heroes of Fallcrest, and our great deeds are legion. Please don't ask about our multiple TPKs." It bothers me to watch our group fail, or nearly fail, due to bad tactics and confused play. It bothers me to try to RP a confident hero, knowing that the horrible tentacle monster that ate the group's previous defenders is probably still digesting them. It's implausible to continue to project confidence, rather than crippling self-doubt and paranoia, when in the last three combat encounters my PC has been unconscious eight times. It bothers me, and because it bothers me it's a problem--for me, although of course not necessarily for the group. That distinction is one I explicitly acknowledged in the OP, and is fundamentally what I showed up here to ask about.
Second, you're right that there is certainly no mandate about a PC's performance, no numbers he or she must hit in order to function--but of course I didn't state or imply that there was. The issue at hand is not some set of inappropriately concrete benchmarks, but my admittedly subjective reaction to this particular PC. He's happy as things are, but if there's a way for me to be happier without having a negative impact on him, that would be a net gain for the group.
Third, Sam's turn frequently takes as long as any two or three other players put together. That matters, particularly given that we have short sessions. I want (and when I'm DMing, strive to construct) a sweeping, narrative play experience, rather than one that proceeds at the staccato pace of one combat encounter per session.
Finally, I mentioned multiple times in the OP that playing with this group is very rewarding, and that I'm not interested in leaving over this--but I am concerned enough to find out whether I've missed some clever and polite way to iron out the problem.
You're right. You are being a massive jerk.
How "Sam" opts to make & play his chartacter isn't really any of your concern.
There's no mandate that a player must achieve x efficiency, make optimal use of each & every ability, etc etc etc.
So his turns take longer than the other players, so what? There isn't any set amount of stuff that you have to get accomplished per session.
You're not being graded or judged on how fast/efficiently you play this game. It NOT a competition.
Oh, and as your headed into 17th lv? Apparrently "Sam" hasn't hindered you very much....
But if you really do have a problem with someone not playing this game as seriously as you'd like? Then you should drop out of this group & go play with people who do.
First, a PC who fails to perform to the game's assumptions is a drag on the narrative of the game: "We're the Heroes of Fallcrest, and our great deeds are legion. Please don't ask about our multiple TPKs." It bothers me to watch our group fail, or nearly fail, due to bad tactics and confused play. It bothers me to try to RP a confident hero, knowing that the horrible tentacle monster that ate the group's previous defenders is probably still digesting them. It's implausible to continue to project confidence, rather than crippling self-doubt and paranoia, when in the last three combat encounters my PC has been unconscious eight times. It bothers me, and because it bothers me it's a problem--for me, although of course not necessarily for the group. That distinction is one I explicitly acknowledged in the OP, and is fundamentally what I showed up here to ask about.
Second, you're right that there is certainly no mandate about a PC's performance, no numbers he or she must hit in order to function--but of course I didn't state or imply that there was. The issue at hand is not some set of inappropriately concrete benchmarks, but my admittedly subjective reaction to this particular PC. He's happy as things are, but if there's a way for me to be happier without having a negative impact on him, that would be a net gain for the group.
Third, Sam's turn frequently takes as long as any two or three other players put together. That matters, particularly given that we have short sessions. I want (and when I'm DMing, strive to construct) a sweeping, narrative play experience, rather than one that proceeds at the staccato pace of one combat encounter per session.
Finally, I mentioned multiple times in the OP that playing with this group is very rewarding, and that I'm not interested in leaving over this--but I am concerned enough to find out whether I've missed some clever and polite way to iron out the problem.
If I were running the table I would take a two-pronged approach. First, I'd offer to sit down with Sam to build a cheat-sheet, outlining the very basic rules to keep in mind (i.e. standard/move/minor) and breaking down the PC's powers by action type and trigger (I always do this for my own PCs).
Do this. Take him aside and say "Hey I noticed your turns take forever and are sort of holding us up. Would you mind if I gave some pointers that could speed you up?
Second, I'd work with him to either simplify the character using some house rules, and/or suggest that we re-cast him as class which keeps a similar feel while reducing the number of tactical choices to make in play--that is, a Hunter.
Introducing house rules is a DM territory, but you can totally suggets house rules to the DM. "Hey DM I noticed Sam takes forever. Wouldn't this speed him up some? Can we do that?"
It's the DM's job to pay attention to the big picture and the flow of the game, and help iron out any kinks--not mine
Thats not true at all. Any and every DM would appreciate a player helping to iron out kinks in the game, and to make it run smoother. Some would prefer you go about it in different ways than others, but every DM wants a smoother game. If a player sees a way to smooth things out and doesn't speak up they are hurting the game. Possibly even more so than the players who slow things down but don't realize it, because they are doing it consciously.
Its your game too, don't rely on the DM to magically know what would make it more fun for you. Take a proactive approach, tell them, and make suggestions to other players.
If he's slowing things down at the table, that's a different issue, but one that the table can and should help him with. If he doesn't use most of his powers, the ones he does use should be easy for others to remember and to help him find his dice and total his numbers. Sounds like he's not that tactical, so each round should be pretty similar for him.
There's a good chance that Sam won't ever change his ways, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't make tactful suggestions. You might even be surprised to learn that the other players would like his turn to go quicker too. Just be diplomatic about it, and if he turns down your advice just drop the issue.
Its likely Sam is the type of casual player I am. Laid back about combat issues, but wanting to have fun. Would that flaming gout of dragonbretah be cool right now? Lets go for it. My advice would be find a middleground, offer ic nudges, and ooc tips, but dont be obnoxious about it. He may be willign to change a bit, if you give a little too, and focus a bit elss on the tactics, and a bit more on rule of cool.
1. What would the character do?
and
2. What would look cooler?
I can say for each 4e character I've ran, Ive used most powers at least once. But not every round, or every encounter. Unless, of course, spamming that ranged magic attack like a magical macross missile massacre seemed an excellent suggestion for the combat.
I also tend to pick powers I can have fun with vs most effective ones. So using everytime possible isn't that much different. Sometimes doing an alpha/nova strike is awesome..othertimes I want to pick them off one at a time.
Now, don't think just because I'm not uberoptimizing that I'm sinking the party though. I may not make top of the line, but I also don't purposely ruin any synergy. I don't try to be the 'main' character- rather more like Autolycus in Hercules with Kevin Sorbo. When he did soemthing big, you noticed, but he was happy being in the back most of the time.