Quote from: MGuy;589894There's a big difference between "Does not have skills relevant to the task" and "is not the best they could be at various tasks((AKA is not optimized)". I'd never really say that an unoptimized character should just stay home but I would tell someone who couldn't keep up at all on the adventure to stay home. I'd say the same to someone who could only barely do anything on the adventure. My character isn't going to put his life in the hands of someone who so clearly is not capable of handling the responsibility. Not being able to participate in combat isn't what is going to get you kicked off of team adventurer not being able to adventure is.

What about if the other PC was your brother? Son? Lover? The guy with all the money? There are lots of In game reasons why a character might put up with a character that can't help much in terms of in game skills.
There is also the meta reason that the charaacter is fun to play with and the player is a good mate.

Quote
....climbing mountains disappear and I willingly paid into having a high climb and jump check. Now I know that climb gets useless fast and that jump is pointless considering his height (and because flight/teleport dominates the game at higher level play) but I paid into them because that's what he did.

what's odd in your examples is that though you pick Jump for a mountaineering adventurer, which is totally in character, you still need to justify it by saying that you realise that it is an unoptimised choice. If you are picking a PC focusing on background and role paly there is no need to justify choices.

QuoteI'm gonna tackle this part here to avoid the risk of skipping over it later. Diplomacy (in that you use it to convince others to do stuff/like you/etc is so far away from worthless I would not be able to comprehend why anybody would think little of the ability to be able to manipulate others. If you MTP diplomatic scenarios all the time or the world is mostly filled with stuff you can't talk to/reason with would be the only situations I can think of that would warrant making those "useless". If your GM is doing the former then it is justified to lower the cost of getting them since they mean dick anyway. If its the latter then I'd seriously consider playing another game first but second the reduction in cost is similarly justified. If it isn't one of these two things (or some form of it) I would cally explain to that GM why he is mistaken about the worth of Diplomacy. Etiquette and singing I can easily see being tossed into the giveaway bin though.

I picked diplomacy becuase most DMS woudl say its really useful, maybe too useful, but a small hardcore group, whether those that insist on doing all social stuff though direct roleplay and don;t allow diplomacy checks or whether you have a DM that dirves everything to combat.
Ettiquette increases reaction checks so is much like Diplomacy. Singing can do all sorts of thing from gettign you into teh Lord's hall to stopping the trolls from eating you to giving you a chance to learn somethign of the Castle of Dreams because of a lost song about it ... so just trying to stress how different playstyles woudl affect the relative use of skills.  

QuoteWell if I were to be concerned about it as a designer then I'd institute limits. Personally though, I'm not overly concerned because I seriously wouldn't care if a PC had 2, 3 or all of the skills you listed. It doesn't unbalanced the system or have any significant effect on game play. For the sake of keeping people from making all characters experienced in everything all the time I'd probably say up to 2 occupations or make it some kind of weird 1 + Int mod (minimum 1) occupation limit.

 If the system specifically relies on the GM to arbitrate it then the GM will have to use their own judgment. I suppose my distaste for heaping that on the GMs shoulders is reason enough for me to go along and put a limit on it in the rules.

You need to be careful because without limits there is a chance that abusive players could wrangle a thng out of skills you think are useless.
then there is immersion. So if your PC fighter is also an expert basket weaver and an expert tailor and an expert carpenter then how does that compare to a professional in those fields how can your PC be an expert in 3 when the typical professional NPC is a professional in just one.

Again this is all a play style thing. If your games are narrow in scope then it won't matter cos this stuff won't come up but if they are broad like a lot of my games tend to be (and here I am not being elitist my games are broad but maybe aren't deep) then the players will ensure they come up. If I hire a valet to tend to my noble fighter's wardrobe needs it makes a difference if he is just a valet or if he is Jeeves.



I honestly haven't been keeping up on 5e stuff to be honest so whether it works out or not is unknown and I'm going to just wait for the final product to come out before I attempt to mine it for ideas.[/QUOTE]

Quote from: jibbajibba;589897What about if the other PC was your brother? Son? Lover? The guy with all the money? There are lots of In game reasons why a character might put up with a character that can't help much in terms of in game skills.
There is also the meta reason that the charaacter is fun to play with and the player is a good mate.

If I care about them then I'd definitely leave them home because I don't want them getting hurt. You might as well be asking why I wouldn't let my grandma adventure with me. Now there may be some trumped up situation as to how I might end up adventuring with someone that couldn't handle themselves (McGuffin character, VIP I have to guard, etc) but usually NPCs are the ones who fill in that role. Special case scenarios are special indeed but not generally what you build a game around.

Quotewhat's odd in your examples is that though you pick Jump for a mountaineering adventurer, which is totally in character, you still need to justify it by saying that you realise that it is an unoptimised choice. If you are picking a PC focusing on background and role paly there is no need to justify choices.

Jump is bad because there's a solid ceiling for characters that sayz you can't jump all that high. After a point there is no reason to put more ranks into it or practice it any more in character. More importantly I note it because it being "suboptimal" is not some kind of word of curse that means it should never be done. I want to emphasize that there is nothing wrong with looking critically at what you enjoy.

QuoteI picked diplomacy becuase most DMS woudl say its really useful, maybe too useful, but a small hardcore group, whether those that insist on doing all social stuff though direct roleplay and don;t allow diplomacy checks or whether you have a DM that dirves everything to combat.
Ettiquette increases reaction checks so is much like Diplomacy. Singing can do all sorts of thing from gettign you into teh Lord's hall to stopping the trolls from eating you to giving you a chance to learn somethign of the Castle of Dreams because of a lost song about it ... so just trying to stress how different playstyles woudl affect the relative use of skills.

And as I said, if a GM is playing a "real role play" game who doesn't actually use Dip rolls might as well give it away for free. It would be a kick in the balls to allow someone to assume that they need it so they spend resources on it just to not use it.  

QuoteYou need to be careful because without limits there is a chance that abusive players could wrangle a thng out of skills you think are useless.
then there is immersion. So if your PC fighter is also an expert basket weaver and an expert tailor and an expert carpenter then how does that compare to a professional in those fields how can your PC be an expert in 3 when the typical professional NPC is a professional in just one.

I don't mind PCs being better professionals than NPCs but I am on board with instituting limits if just to give the GM a rules backed reason to say "no you can't be all three of those".

QuoteAgain this is all a play style thing. If your games are narrow in scope then it won't matter cos this stuff won't come up but if they are broad like a lot of my games tend to be (and here I am not being elitist my games are broad but maybe aren't deep) then the players will ensure they come up. If I hire a valet to tend to my noble fighter's wardrobe needs it makes a difference if he is just a valet or if he is Jeeves.

This one is lost on me. Clarification please? What is the difference between being just a valet or being jeeves?

Quote from: MGuy;589902If I care about them then I'd definitely leave them home because I don't want them getting hurt. You might as well be asking why I wouldn't let my grandma adventure with me. Now there may be some trumped up situation as to how I might end up adventuring with someone that couldn't handle themselves (McGuffin character, VIP I have to guard, etc) but usually NPCs are the ones who fill in that role. Special case scenarios are special indeed but not generally what you build a game around.

Its quite common for me to tie a party together with stuff like relationships. If a party don't look like they will gel them i might pick up a coupel of PCs with similar backgrounds and tie them together brothers cousins etc. When i have a very weak stat PC that a player wants to run I often make that PC a child as it explains some of the low stats.

You didn't tackle the possiblity that the player is a good mate who adds enjoyment to the games and the character is fun.

QuoteJump is bad because there's a solid ceiling for characters that sayz you can't jump all that high. After a point there is no reason to put more ranks into it or practice it any more in character. More importantly I note it because it being "suboptimal" is not some kind of word of curse that means it should never be done. I want to emphasize that there is nothing wrong with looking critically at what you enjoy.

but you don;t have to look at or mention the optimal or sub-optimal nature of it here. It's like you picked something but you can't stand people to think that you didn't realise it was a sub-optimal choice. "Just in case you guys think I picked this cos it makes me tough I need to popint out that I know the limitations of it".
You don't need to make the statement we aren't going to call you on your optimisation chops just becuase you picked jump

QuoteThis one is lost on me. Clarification please? What is the difference between being just a valet or being jeeves?

Jeeves is the Super valet he can do anything that comes up. Gives the player a super out for any thing that shows up . You know like um ...Jeeves.....

Quote from: jibbajibba;589905You didn't tackle the possiblity that the player is a good mate who adds enjoyment to the games and the character is fun.

Mostly because this is more complicated and I've only ever encountered it when I play games, never in a game I ran. As a GM I'm pretty laissez faire when it comes to dealing with player's character choices. Unless it is something that doesn't fit for the game (playing most Monsters), something that offends me (No Gungans in any game of Star Wars I run), or something I don't think the player can handle (my gf wanted to be a wizard but I talked her out of it because it is a bit too complicated) then I mostly let people do what they want. Usually, when someone plays something like what's being described here, it is some kind of special scenario game where the players are either all in (everyone is going to play children starting off) or special case scenario where the condition of being unable to contribute meaningfully is temporary.

If pressed I'm not sure how I'd handle it other than try to see if it'll work out. I'm up for trying new things (like when my friend insisted on playing a Kender for the first time) so I'd probably permit it and gauge how I react based on the results. It has happened when I played games instead of ran them a number of times and generally those characters are given some kind of arbitrary importance and I do my best to ignore the GM favoritism and seeming plot warping to incorporate those kind of characters.

Quotebut you don;t have to look at or mention the optimal or sub-optimal nature of it here. It's like you picked something but you can't stand people to think that you didn't realise it was a sub-optimal choice. "Just in case you guys think I picked this cos it makes me tough I need to popint out that I know the limitations of it".
You don't need to make the statement we aren't going to call you on your optimisation chops just becuase you picked jump

I feel like I do on this board because it seems as though me pointing out certain inadequacies in a game or design is constantly misunderstood as me attacking someone's playing style.People go on to make tirades about how "denners" don't understand how real role play works and must not be able to have fun without char op. This is honestly the first and only place where I've felt the need to clarify that this is not true. I suppose when talking to the more reasonable posters here it is not necessary.

QuoteJeeves is the Super valet he can do anything that comes up. Gives the player a super out for any thing that shows up . You know like um ...Jeeves.....

I got what you're saying now.

Quote from: MGuy;589878That took very minor editing and that is what you have been arguing for. You've been arguing that player4 should be allowed to participate.

The point I made is that what at first glance might seem like a stupid decision in creating a PC might not be so stupid after all. There could be a method to the madness.

QuoteHow is "basket weaving" a strawman in a thread with that as the title? I have a feeling at this point that you might've lost touch with what was being talked about.

Name a system where basket-weaving is an actual skill that can be selected.

QuoteHow is this significantly different from someone choosing a PC who refuses to get useful abilities then expecting that PC t go on expeditions?

Because in most systems, acquiring a stick, a bag of flour, glass beads, etc is easy, while acquiring extra skill slots or points is not. Any 0-level man-at-arms can use them, and in a world where deadly dungeons and monsters are a regular feature of the landscape, would use them if possible. There's no excuse for being unprepared unless physically prevented.

QuoteWhy do you think it is worth ensuring that a person can make a completely useless character? Why do you think it is bad to make the distinction between skills that are purely background things and skills that have a wide range of uses/applications?

You don't know it's useless PC until it has actually been played and even then it's not so clear. Many PCs created the "right" way die in humiliating fashion, after all. If you're going to have a game where PCs can be custom-built one of the inherent risks is that you'll have some PCs who excel at things that are of no use in the campaign. Get over it.

If a PC is actually being a hindrance to the rest of the party then it should be up to the PCs to decide how to deal with the offender, not the GM/DM.

AD&D 2e has Weaving as a general NWP. Not wholly restricted to baskets, but relevant. But then there's no such NWP as Spot or Listen, which as 3e skills I find just insipid.

And weaving is pretty damn useful anyway. Turn all that dangerous monster fur into luxury garments, tapestries, and drapes. Immortalize your victories for your castle walls, or just save on medieval cooling and heating bills. Be a medieval fashionista. It's also a fantastic way to disguise spun gold for smuggling. And everyone knows the juiciest gossip in town will be with the seamstress/tailors and weavers...

Oh wait, that's right, the role playing game doesn't exist beyond combat for you guys. I forgot about your myopia. Well then I guess all languages beyond Common are stupid wastes of points, too! All beings in all fantasy worlds speak Esperanto, instead of a limited mutually intelligible pool of gestures for 'hunger,' 'thirst,' etc. -- because otherwise the GM is "de-protagonizing you," *cough* I mean, "not following the rules." Awww, there there, punum.

Quote from: Elfdart;589911The point I made is that what at first glance might seem like a stupid decision in creating a PC might not be so stupid after all. There could be a method to the madness.

A method to deliberately making a character that cannot function cohesively with the rest of the party? I'm sure who ever does that can come up with a reason for doing it no doubt but it seems like you're against such a thing based on what you said following this.

QuoteName a system where basket-weaving is an actual skill that can be selected.

I'm fairly sure you can take up Craft: Basketweaving in 3rd because of the way the Craft skill is supposed to work and I'm half sure its in 2e in some form.

QuoteBecause in most systems, acquiring a stick, a bag of flour, glass beads, etc is easy, while acquiring extra skill slots or points is not. Any 0-level man-at-arms can use them, and in a world where deadly dungeons and monsters are a regular feature of the landscape, would use them if possible. There's no excuse for being unprepared unless physically prevented.

In most systems it is also easy to acquire relevant skills. It would also make sense that any would be adventurer daring to travel into what they know is a dangerous and unpredictable dungeon or going on a wild adventure would know to not do that unless they have the relevant skills. There is no excuse to be unprepared unless physically prevented. There is also no excuse for taking unnecessary risks when you now that you are highly unlikely to succeed.

QuoteYou don't know it's useless PC until it has actually been played and even then it's not so clear. Many PCs created the "right" way die in humiliating fashion, after all. If you're going to have a game where PCs can be custom-built one of the inherent risks is that you'll have some PCs who excel at things that are of no use in the campaign. Get over it.

You'd be wrong on multiple counts here. I can gauge what would be a useless, or at least close to useless PC based off knowing what they are capable of. You should be able to do the same. You don't go up to random NPCs who are obviously not adventurers and ask them to go dungeon delving. Well, that is unless you use the meta knowledge and whenever you know a character is a player character that crap covered dirt farming character is obviously more trustworthy than random crap covered farmer NPC #28.

QuoteIf a PC is actually being a hindrance to the rest of the party then it should be up to the PCs to decide how to deal with the offender, not the GM/DM.

This is perhaps a preference thing but I'd like to do that kind of shit before I'm actually gaming. Kicking a person's character out of the group mid game would be a douche bag thing to do. It also is equally douche baggy to just plop that kind of shit in the laps of everyone else that is playing at random. You are either forcing people to be mean and say "no you're not tall enough to adventure" or forcing them to begrudgingly accept your shenanigans just to be sociable. Personally I've never run a game where someone tried to pulled that kind of shit but I've played in games like that and I know that I get pretty damn offended if not at least informed beforehand that I'd have a character on the team that intends to be babysat.

Quote from: Opaopajr;589917Oh wait, that's right, the role playing game doesn't exist beyond combat for you guys. I forgot about your myopia.

This is what I was talking about jibba.

Quote from: MGuy;589918I'm fairly sure you can take up Craft: Basketweaving in 3rd because of the way the Craft skill is supposed to work and I'm half sure its in 2e in some form.

You can! In fact, it is specifically mentioned in the Monster Manual II as one of the two methods used to create a Bogun - the other being Craft (weaving). A bogun can actually be fairly useful to a druid as it is telepathically linked to the druid at a range of up to 1,500 feet; the druid perceives anything that the bogun perceives.

Quote from: Elfdart;589911You don't know it's useless PC until it has actually been played and even then it's not so clear. Many PCs created the "right" way die in humiliating fashion, after all. If you're going to have a game where PCs can be custom-built one of the inherent risks is that you'll have some PCs who excel at things that are of no use in the campaign. Get over it.

There is an analogy with computer operating systems that is instructive:  UNIX/Linux permits unlimited access to the operating system, including the ability to modify the kernel or the core of the operating system.  The sublime control this confers allows for subtle manipulations of the environment to gross changes in how information is read from the hard drive, if desired.  Along with that, however, is the ability to totally fuck your system up, sometimes accidentally.  You can feasibly lose every scrap of data and have to start over with a clean install.  The similarities to the C programming language are not accidental; C allows for such control as well, and C++ even moreso.  The UNIX/Linux kernels are written in C and are available to anyone installing the operating system, which includes a C/C++ compiler.

OS X, on the other hand, is practically a black box.  You can get to a terminal, but it's not particularly easy, and the Darwin version of FreeBSD is not quite as open.  Although, it's nigh impossible to say how much is open and how much is closed.  Apple keeps the 'training wheels' on, no matter what; there is no way to use OS X except how Apple wants.  Sure, you can whip up a script or two, but nothing terribly complicated.  There is a reason 'Apple' starts with 'app'.  Consequently, tech support is a fricking breeze with Macs.  You know they can't really do much to the system, so it's usually just a matter of shutting down some errant process or zapping the PRAM (and I am not sure that is done anymore either).  So, little chance to fuck up your system, but little chance to do anything interesting either.

Microsoft falls somewhere in the middle, of course, but more on the Apple end.  Not that it isn't still fairly easy to hose your system, but that is a factor of security issues rather than access to the operating system.

So, you can have a huge range of skills that includes ethnoentomology, 14th century Norman Poetry, Rocket Surgery and every weapon skill and martial art known to man; the ability to create any character means there is the possibility of creating a character with no skills applicable to the adventure at hand, or possibly any adventure the players would be interested in.  Of course, the critical clue for the entire mission could revolve around the behaviour of Asian cockroaches in a dockside warehouse.

Or, you can have characters that are moderately to severely constrained in the categories of skills they are permitted to take.  There will be no SEAL Team Six dragging around a moderately qualified sous chef, but then again, their infiltration disguise options will be limited to 'SEAL Team Six in civvies' and negotiations tend to be more intimidation than cutting a deal.  Then again, storming a fortified enemy emplacement isn't something best accomplished by translating Beowulf.

For myself, I prefer to have the options available, even if they are never actually used.  Not having the options available at all means the rules have already decided how to handle any given situation for you.  Naturally, neither of these are the optimal or best play style; it entirely depends on what a given group expects or enjoys.

QuoteIf a PC is actually being a hindrance to the rest of the party then it should be up to the PCs to decide how to deal with the offender, not the GM/DM.

And it shouldn't be up to the rules, either.  If it's mostly a boardgame like HeroQuest, then no problem.  B/X or AD&D as a series of dungeon crawls and nothing in between; also no problem.  But if the intent is a fully immersive RPG with a fleshed out milieu, then those kinds of skills should be expected and they should be expected to find some use.  Handwaving skills that have a measurable level of quality associated with their execution in such a game is unsatisfying at best.  This could be where some of the dissonance arises; 3.x expanded the skill selection significantly, but the dominant paradigm (at least online) seems to be MMORPG style raids.

In Old School D&D, you can't choose to have basket-weaving, though you might roll it randomly on a Secondary Skill table.

RPGPundit

Quote from: MGuy;589918This is perhaps a preference thing but I'd like to do that kind of shit before I'm actually gaming. Kicking a person's character out of the group mid game would be a douche bag thing to do. It also is equally douche baggy to just plop that kind of shit in the laps of everyone else that is playing at random. You are either forcing people to be mean and say "no you're not tall enough to adventure" or forcing them to begrudgingly accept your shenanigans just to be sociable. Personally I've never run a game where someone tried to pulled that kind of shit but I've played in games like that and I know that I get pretty damn offended if not at least informed beforehand that I'd have a character on the team that intends to be babysat.

This attitude however, is 100% metagame.  It's coming from the point of view of D&D as a sports team, where if I ask if you want to be the Wide Receiver(insert character role here), I expect you to only say yes if you can run fast and catch.

Take a look at WFRP1, The Enemy Within Campaign.  The Pregen characters all had their own lives, different reasons for being in a certain place at a certain time, but something happens that brings them together.  The "bringing together" part of a game can be the toughest, especially in a game where the players may not like or trust each other at all.   You have the "bringing together" done amongst the players during chargen.

Completely different attitude.  Yours has a 4th wall awareness where everyone is going to fill a niche and be able to support a role because "we're all D&D characters who are going to be dungeoneering."  Rich Burlew has made a whole lot of money exploring that attitude amongst 3rd edition players (and I hope he has a full recovery).

I hope you can see that obviously, not everyone plays that way.

Quote from: CRKrueger;590025This attitude however, is 100% metagame.  It's coming from the point of view of D&D as a sports team, where if I ask if you want to be the Wide Receiver(insert character role here), I expect you to only say yes if you can run fast and catch.

I like this analogy a lot. Wide Receiver is a role that you find in organized teams, but how often would you find it in your backyard?

Both games are 'football'. Nobody would mock you for going outside with the kids and scrimmaging a bit after Thanksgiving dinner.

But try it in an RPG and suddenly someone gets offended.

Excellent analogy!

Quote from: CRKrueger;590025This attitude however, is 100% metagame.  It's coming from the point of view of D&D as a sports team, where if I ask if you want to be the Wide Receiver(insert character role here), I expect you to only say yes if you can run fast and catch.

Two things, yes it is metagame because only the meta happens before the game starts. It wouldn't make any sense if that was in game because no part of the game exists before the game gets started. For two your analogy only works to help my point both in game and out.

In game I know I'm putting my life on the line to do whatever and I know that if I'm going to do so with other people I expect them to be somewhat capable because if they aren't I fail and die. Their failure is directly related to my own failure and death and thus I am going to avoid putting my life on the line with incapable people. I'd do that in real life and I'd imagine any sane person would do so as well.

In your "sports team" example it works even better because while note every NFL team has the best of the best players on it every player is pretty damn good at what they do. I mean they'd have to be or they wouldn't get paid. The stakes aren't "very high" in a given NFL game but being capable is still the barrier to entry.

Now the only way your analogy can hold at all is if we're talking about backyard football and we're being incredibly meta about our view on people that shouldn't be adventuring. In backyard football there are no real stakes and most of the time you accept shitty people on your team just to fill the roster. If you have a choice/more people than you need, you would not be surprised that the shittiest and/or most unliked people don't get on anyone's team. In RPGs usually your characters are trying to do something of importance so they are going to want and seek out capable people if they can. It is incredibly meta to have the team ok a random mothafucka with no applicable skills.

QuoteTake a look at WFRP1, The Enemy Within Campaign.  The Pregen characters all had their own lives, different reasons for being in a certain place at a certain time, but something happens that brings them together.  The "bringing together" part of a game can be the toughest, especially in a game where the players may not like or trust each other at all.   You have the "bringing together" done amongst the players during chargen.

Cool so no one had a choice in who they were, what they could do, and they were railroaded into being together.

QuoteCompletely different attitude.  Yours has a 4th wall awareness where everyone is going to fill a niche and be able to support a role because "we're all D&D characters who are going to be dungeoneering."  Rich Burlew has made a whole lot of money exploring that attitude amongst 3rd edition players (and I hope he has a full recovery).

This was already addressed earlier but I just want to point out that again this is completely wrong as:

1: There is just the meta before the game starts.

2: It makes complete logical sense why anybody would avoid having an incapable person on their team if given the choice.

3: It is incredibly meta for characters to ok random, incapable people, to be on their adventuring team. People do not task random NPC civilian types to be on their team constantly but for some reason they will thoughtlessly ok a PC type civilian despite the danger that having the person on their team elicits.

QuoteI hope you can see that obviously, not everyone plays that way.

I would certainly hope that not a lot of people would show up to a game with a character not fit for the game everyone else wants to play. Having a character almost completely incapable of being useful to the team is just as bad as someone bringing a completely minmaxxed god character to a game where everyone else does not have a character that can possibly keep up. Its just like bringing an east asian vagabond into a game of Western European intrigue and repartee. It is just like bringing a paladin to a game about thieving. In all these instances you have to either turn their character away right at the start or you are forced to take extra considerations to get the game running smoothly.

So yea, I'm offended when someone does that shit for the lulz.

Quote from: MGuy;5903271: There is just the meta before the game starts.

Actually this and several other threads make it pretty clear it is constant and ongoing, unless you're not going to feel offended if I go full CharOp during generation and then start picking up random skills later.  You may however be talking about going Full Retard with CharOp and have my 1-20 plan pre-laid out, in which case I'd all say it's not defined to chargen since the plan is ongoing.

Quote from: MGuy;5903272: It makes complete logical sense why anybody would avoid having an incapable person on their team if given the choice.

and of course you always have the choice in life, and indeed you also always have perfect in-character information about your teammates. :rolleyes:

Quote from: MGuy;5903273: It is incredibly meta for characters to ok random, incapable people, to be on their adventuring team.

I agree, however, the key is the interview process needs to be handled in-game, not during chargen.  If the player is a backstory-whore and comes up with some special snowflake that's not going to pull his weight, you need to find that out in game and dump his character.  If the character tells you he's a {insert class} though and looks the part, how the hell are you going to know differently?

Quote from: MGuy;590327I would certainly hope that not a lot of people would show up to a game with a character not fit for the game everyone else wants to play.

So in the end it comes down to a per-table basis.  I agree.  I never have a problem with you wanting to run your table your way, why the fuck would I care?  Unfortunately, jackasses like LM and GC are willing to shit out 1000's of posts arguing it's the best way to play.