Buddy Characters

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I was playing in a campaign (2e) years ago, and one player was
playing a dwarven fighter with exceptional strength. His best
friend joined the campaign as another dwarf fighter, and the
characters were best friends.

They teamed up inside of the party and eventually took it
over. They simply threatened the other PCs with violence
if you did not listen to them. Because everyone else was
invested in their characters, and did not want to quit, we
had to put up with their idiotic ideas ( and there was no
discussing anything with them ) for several weeks.

Eventually, the campaign fell apart as people got sick of
these two running the show. Some of the members wanted to
leave the party and keep playing, but the DM insisted that
it would have been too difficult to run. People just
stopped showing up.

I realize now that the DM was a little weak on this and
should have explained to the buddies that they were ruining
the game for everyone else. Also, the other four players
could have banded together and insisted that these two
change their tune.

Has anyone else experienced this sort of disruption? What
did you do to deal with it?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"decalod85" <decalod85@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1116468888.049353.316450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I realize now that the DM was a little weak on this and
> should have explained to the buddies that they were ruining
> the game for everyone else. Also, the other four players
> could have banded together and insisted that these two
> change their tune.
>
> Has anyone else experienced this sort of disruption? What
> did you do to deal with it?

We had a problem like that once. The players in our campaign are "strong
willed" to say the least, stubborn and pigheaded would be a better
descriptor. A new player joined the campaign, a friend of one of the
players, and he began an attempt to take over the game. He basically ran
into a brick wall of personality, and was eventually invited to find games
elsewhere, mainly because I didn't want a fistfight to break out in my
dining room, and have a game of D&D broken up by the cops.

Although that would have been somewhat of a geek badge of honor, I suppose.
Imagine the geek cred you get from playing a game of D&D that gets so wound
up that the cops have to break it up... I'd love to hear that
arraignment...

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

decalod85 <decalod85@comcast.net> wrote:
> I realize now that the DM was a little weak on this and should have
> explained to the buddies that they were ruining the game for everyone
> else.

Why wait for the DM to speak up?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> >>Has anyone else experienced this sort of disruption? What
> > >>did you do to deal with it?

Ahem. Imagine you are an adventurer, and you have this dwarven
companion. His friend comes along, and between the two of them, they
begin taking over. If you disagree, they threaten your life. What
would you do?

<Shakes head> The other characters _do not_ have to associate with
these two dwarves. If they really hate these two dwarves, they can
kill/arrange to have killed these jerks, or they can (some night, or
other downtime) just leave the two dwarves behind.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, decalod85 hastily scrawled:
<snip a gaming problem that doesn't really have anything to do with
"buddy characters">
>Has anyone else experienced this sort of disruption? What
>did you do to deal with it?

I refuse to play with jerks.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> Mere moments before death, decalod85 hastily scrawled:
> <snip a gaming problem that doesn't really have anything to do with
> "buddy characters">
>
>>Has anyone else experienced this sort of disruption? What
>>did you do to deal with it?
>
> I refuse to play with jerks.

I refuse to play with people who are incapble of discerning
between the players and the characters.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

peter@sagatafl.invalid wrote:

> >>Has anyone else experienced this sort of disruption? What
> >>did you do to deal with it?
> >
> > I refuse to play with jerks.
>
> I refuse to play with people who are incapble of discerning
> between the players and the characters.

I refuse to play with people who pretend that the player intentionally
choosing to play a character who is a jerk so he can act as a jerk is
being anything other than a jerk.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Peter Knutsen (usenet) hastily scrawled:
>
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> Mere moments before death, decalod85 hastily scrawled:
>> <snip a gaming problem that doesn't really have anything to do with
>> "buddy characters">
>>
>>>Has anyone else experienced this sort of disruption? What
>>>did you do to deal with it?
>>
>> I refuse to play with jerks.
>
>I refuse to play with people who are incapble of discerning
>between the players and the characters.

Those people are jerks.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> decalod85 <decalod85@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I realize now that the DM was a little weak on this and should have
> > explained to the buddies that they were ruining the game for
everyone
> > else.
>
> Why wait for the DM to speak up?

I was younger then, and felt it was the DM's place. I know better
now...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> Mere moments before death, decalod85 hastily scrawled:
> <snip a gaming problem that doesn't really have anything to do with
> "buddy characters">

Well, it did. The fact that these two were best friends
in and out of character meant that they planned and worked
together to make the game fun for them, and boring for
everyone else. They teamed up against the rest of the
party not because of what their characters would have
done, but because of how they wanted to treat the other
players.

We would have killed them, but all our characters were
good and they were neutral (with some definate evil
tendencies). The DM would not let us split off, so it
all just fell apart (it was a shame too, he as a good
DM in all other aspects).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:
> Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> Mere moments before death, decalod85 hastily scrawled:
>
>> <snip a gaming problem that doesn't really have anything to do with
>> "buddy characters">
>>
>>> Has anyone else experienced this sort of disruption? What
>>> did you do to deal with it?
>>
>> I refuse to play with jerks.
>
> I refuse to play with people who are incapble of discerning
> between the players and the characters.

Ahh, Peter, you're different: unlike people who like to put the enjoyment of the
communal gaming experience over verisimilitude in action and characterisation,
you would be able to cope with a person playing a jerk simply by killing the
jerk PC. When intraparty conflict is frowned upon by the group for the sake of
the communal experience of the *players*, problem players who deliberately play
jerks to *be* jerks within the protection of that covenant have to be dealt with
as players. That's necessary when the problem isn't so much their character as
it is the player using their character to debase the game.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same in any country.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, decalod85 hastily scrawled:
>
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> Mere moments before death, decalod85 hastily scrawled:
>> <snip a gaming problem that doesn't really have anything to do with
>> "buddy characters">
>
>Well, it did.

No, really it didn't. You had a couple of jerks who played buddy
characters. The problem wasn't that they were playing buddy
characters, it was that they were jerks. Saying the problem was the
buddy characters is like faulting gun manufacturers for gun violence.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

decalod85 wrote:
> We would have killed them, but all our characters were
> good and they were neutral (with some definate evil
> tendencies).

I don't get this (even given that this was 2E years ago).
Two characters are acting in an evil way, dominating the party and
threatening to kill dissenters, and the rest of the part can't act
because they are "good".

Yet, I assume that the same party would have no compunction against
fighting and killing, say, an evil overlord, who dominates the kingdom
and threatens to kill dissenters?

> The DM would not let us split off, so it
> all just fell apart (it was a shame too, he as a good
> DM in all other aspects).

I don't get how the DM could stop you from splitting off. You simply
tell the DM that while they are sleeping (or shopping or visiting the
taverns, whorehouses, whatever) the rest of the party leaves.

This would be the only way to keep the _rest_ of the party together. If
their next two characters acted the same way, leave them behind (or
kill them). Eventually, these two will either get a message or leave,
so it's a whotcha-callit, win-win sitchoo ayshun.

What were your other options? Continue to buckle under, bring it to a
final deadly confrontation? Unless a clear message is sent, this whole
party was doomed anyway.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Christopher Adams wrote:
> Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:
> > Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> >> Mere moments before death, decalod85 hastily scrawled:
> >
> >> <snip a gaming problem that doesn't really have anything to do
with
> >> "buddy characters">
> >>
> >>> Has anyone else experienced this sort of disruption? What
> >>> did you do to deal with it?
> >>
> >> I refuse to play with jerks.
> >
> > I refuse to play with people who are incapble of discerning
> > between the players and the characters.
>
> Ahh, Peter, you're different: unlike people who like to put the
enjoyment of the
> communal gaming experience over verisimilitude in action and
characterisation,
> you would be able to cope with a person playing a jerk simply by
killing the
> jerk PC.

I think that Peter would argue that the enjoyment of the communal
gaming experience is enhanced by his character's action in killing
the other PC.

Doing so is almost sure to be in character, and it eliminates a
game-killing unfun disruptive influence. I have trouble seeing the
downside from a communal gaming experience valuing PoV.

If another player's PC threatens mine the player has no buiseness
getting upset if his character wakes up dead one fine morning.

I think he would further argue that versimilitude in action and
characterization in general do more to enhance enjoyment of the
gaming experience than metagaming inputs to the action intended to
make things more "fun".

This is IMOA arguable (depends on the genre and tone the group wants),
but some of the best communal gaming experiences I have had were run
simulationist style.

> When intraparty conflict is frowned upon by the group for the sake of

> the communal experience of the *players*, problem players who
deliberately play
> jerks to *be* jerks within the protection of that covenant have to be
dealt with
> as players. That's necessary when the problem isn't so much their
character as
> it is the player using their character to debase the game.

The Jerks are already in violation of any such group contract (assuming
it actually exists in the game). Once the other party is in clear
breach of a contract I am no longer bound to fufill my full obligations

to them under that contract. As a player my maximum obligation is to
point out that consideration for other characters PC glow is not a one
way street. If the problem persists then it is easily dealt with by
killing the two problem PCs, and THEN the GM needs to inform the
players that they can find another game. The GM needs to act earlier
only if he wants to keep everyone in the game.

DougL

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>
> No, really it didn't. You had a couple of jerks who played buddy
> characters. The problem wasn't that they were playing buddy
> characters, it was that they were jerks. Saying the problem was the
> buddy characters is like faulting gun manufacturers for gun violence.

Your analogy is flawed. Their buddy character behavior
was used to dominate the party, like a gun could be used
to commit a crime. You don't need it, but it makes it
a lot easier.

If any one player had tried to take over the group, he
would have been laughed out of there.

Yes they were jerks, but the real problem was the amount
of power that their little alliance let them wield.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

alordofchaos@yahoo.com wrote:
> decalod85 wrote:
> > We would have killed them, but all our characters were
> > good and they were neutral (with some definate evil
> > tendencies).
>
> I don't get this (even given that this was 2E years ago).
> Two characters are acting in an evil way, dominating the party and
> threatening to kill dissenters, and the rest of the part can't act
> because they are "good".
>
> Yet, I assume that the same party would have no compunction against
> fighting and killing, say, an evil overlord, who dominates the
kingdom
> and threatens to kill dissenters?

The game was being played at work, after hours, and these
guys worked with us. The DM didn't want to kick anyone
out of the game, and he didn't want us chopping each other
up. Trying to keep peace for business reasons, I guess...

The group I run now is comprised of people who all work
together, but this group is a much more laid back group.
These guys actually work together as a party...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

alordofchaos@yahoo.com wrote:
> decalod85 wrote:
> > We would have killed them, but all our characters were
> > good and they were neutral (with some definate evil
> > tendencies).
>
> I don't get this (even given that this was 2E years ago).
> Two characters are acting in an evil way, dominating the party and
> threatening to kill dissenters, and the rest of the part can't act
> because they are "good".
>
> Yet, I assume that the same party would have no compunction against
> fighting and killing, say, an evil overlord, who dominates the
kingdom
> and threatens to kill dissenters?

The game was being played at work, after hours, and these
guys worked with us. The DM didn't want to kick anyone
out of the game, and he didn't want us chopping each other
up. Trying to keep peace for business reasons, I guess...

The group I run now is comprised of people who all work
together, but this group is a much more laid back group.
These guys actually work together as a party...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, decalod85 hastily scrawled:
>
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>
>> No, really it didn't. You had a couple of jerks who played buddy
>> characters. The problem wasn't that they were playing buddy
>> characters, it was that they were jerks. Saying the problem was the
>> buddy characters is like faulting gun manufacturers for gun violence.
>
>Your analogy is flawed. Their buddy character behavior
>was used to dominate the party, like a gun could be used
>to commit a crime.

How can you say it's a flawed analogy and then repeat it yourself as
though you're imparting some sort of wisdom?

>You don't need it, but it makes it a lot easier.

That's my point. Can you read?

>If any one player had tried to take over the group, he
>would have been laughed out of there.

No, he would just have been more subtle, or directly destructive.
After all, he's a jerk.

>Yes they were jerks, but the real problem was the amount
>of power that their little alliance let them wield.

No, the real problem was that they were jerks.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin