Quote from: jibbajibba;665667You are mixing players and PCs. I as a player might not care but Neflin Sandeman my NE fighter is an envious greedy little bastard.
If you don't straight jacket your players to only play goodly fellowes, which is a play style choice as I said, then you will occassionally get evil PCs who if they are actually being roleplayed at all will covet stuff.

I think it's important to bear in mind that there are two memes which have risen to particular prominence in RPG circles:

(1) The PCs shalt remain together forever
(2) The PCs shalt not be allowed to die

Now, I would argue that these are shitty memes which serve little or no purpose except to limit the flexibility of the table while enabling destructive behaviors. But these memes are very prominent. And once these memes are in play, asshole PCs are far more problematic because there's no way to escape them.

I mean, I basically just described Sartre's version of Hell in No Exit: Welcome to eternity. You'll be spending it with assholes.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;665671I think it's important to bear in mind that there are two memes which have risen to particular prominence in RPG circles:

(1) The PCs shalt remain together forever
(2) The PCs shalt not be allowed to die

Now, I would argue that these are shitty memes which serve little or no purpose except to limit the flexibility of the table while enabling destructive behaviors. But these memes are very prominent. And once these memes are in play, asshole PCs are far more problematic because there's no way to escape them.

I mean, I basically just described Sartre's version of Hell in No Exit: Welcome to eternity. You'll be spending it with assholes.

Yeah, those Are really shitty memes.

Some of my funnest Memories involving d&d involve split parties and character Death (not necessarily together ).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;665668This just might be me, and I understand that, but in my experience, players who play evil characters more often than not do so only as an excuse for their own dickish behavior.  Only rarely have I seen players play an evil PC and not be super disruptive.  Largely because they realize that evil does not equal stupid, and that a strong party is better for him or her than a weak party where the evil character has all the good stuff.

However, that's the rarity, and it's far more common to play evil characters as you describe: screw everyone else, it's all about me and what I want.  Too often there's a lot of projection going there.

I'll also note that you said your character was a fighter, and then later a thief.

No I posited a character who was a fighter as we had been talking about figthers and used the name of an old PC who was actually a thief. I knew when I described his actual actions I shoudl go back and edit.
Neflin killed a Wizard named The Wicked Grin because the wizard had been given the party's cache of magic items that no on elese understood but Neflin had seen him use a cloak that turned into bat wings and had used listen to catch the command work so asked The Grin to give him the cloak. The Grin would not so Neflin pressed the issue. The Wizard cast a phantasmal force making Neflin think he was at the bottom of a 20 foot pit as a way of preventing Neflin from stabbing him. Sadly Neflin threw his dagger got a natural 20 and killed The Grin and took all his stuff. Like I siad after the event he went off and became an NPC becuase he was no longer a viable party member. I had no issue with that.

Anyway it's a game style. I have played other Evil PCs who stick with the party becuase it's the logical choice. I played a CN character whos main ally was a LE thief who he felt great kindred with and protected etc, even to the point of carry his chopped up body in a belt of many pouches until he coudl find a priest powerful enough to Resurrect him.

The point is that characters take on a life of their own they do things that are stupid vain, arrogant, loving, generous, naive because that's what the game is all about.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;665615Here's the thing -
When something CAN happen, given enough chances, it WILL.  

If something happening really bothers the players, than that thing is a problem.

It's common for players to feel 'jealous'.  When the 18/63 STR fighter finds gauntlets that give someone 18/00 STR, and they give it to the Cleric with a 12 STR (but who has an 18 Wis and 15 Chr) it's totally possible that the Fighter will feel like a chump.  If he had put his 8 in STR instead of Charisma, he'd now be just as strong as he was, but he'd be a lot more successful when carousing.

Having gauntlets that grant +4 Strength neatly avoids that problem.  The Fighter would go to a 22 (super) or the Cleric would go to a 16 (good).  Either way, they both get the same relative benefit from the item.

This kind of jealousy shouldn't be an issue in adult games. A game full of 12 year olds quite possibly would have these sorts of problems but not games played by adults that I would want to hang out with.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;665739This kind of jealousy shouldn't be an issue in adult games. A game full of 12 year olds quite possibly would have these sorts of problems but not games played by adults that I would want to hang out with.

But what about in character jealousies?

When a bunch of actors do Hamlet the guys that play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern still talk to the bloke that plays Hamlet after the play is over.

Same with RPGs. You play a character not all characters are nice and loyal and honest and tactically astute.

Quote from: jibbajibba;665741But what about in character jealousies?

When a bunch of actors do Hamlet the guys that play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern still talk to the bloke that plays Hamlet after the play is over.

Same with RPGs. You play a character not all characters are nice and loyal and honest and tactically astute.

In character interactions and attitudes can be fun and add to the atmosphere of the game. No problems there.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;663913I certainly resent people telling me that the elements I like from AD&D are only because of nostalgia.

So sue them.  Why tell us about it?

I've played with plenty of mature adults, and the 'jealousy' issue (between players) can still pop up.

If you're playing because you want to slay some orcs, and you never get a chance because one player can kill them all without help, it's hard to have fun.

There's lots of ways it can happen.  If you're a low-level fighter and the wizard gets a wand of fireballs, there's pretty much no threat that you're necessary for.  

If all you care about is making it to the next room of the dungeon and don't mind tagging along while other characters do the actual work, obviously that won't be an issue.

Quote from: stuffis;665638trying to match up your own gaming experiences to, say, the rpg.net *mods'* experiences is impossible, because they don't go there to share re: games, they go there to peacock for other neuroatypicals.

The issue some players have with being too strong or too weak compared to another character also depends a lot on the niche the character fills.

A 'weak' wizard can learn many more spells than a 'powerful' Sorceror, and that creates moment where the wizards broader knowledge is useful.

A cleric that if frail and horrid at melee, weaker than the other charcaters, might be the only one who can heal or cast divine spells. Useful.

But if you have two thieves, one with 18 dex and near max hp, the other with a 12 dex and near minimum hp, and even worse, the 'better' thief has a more clever creative player...well...some people will not enjoy that.

So as a gm I try to pay attention to mainly; are the players having fun?

If a charcater is 'eclipsed' by another, AND any players are unhappy about it, I have found ways to mitigate it.

Some players obviously don't have a problem with characters being overly effective or overly useless.

Quote from: Bill;666030The issue some players have with being too strong or too weak compared to another character also depends a lot on the niche the character fills.

A 'weak' wizard can learn many more spells than a 'powerful' Sorceror, and that creates moment where the wizards broader knowledge is useful.

A cleric that if frail and horrid at melee, weaker than the other charcaters, might be the only one who can heal or cast divine spells. Useful.

But if you have two thieves, one with 18 dex and near max hp, the other with a 12 dex and near minimum hp, and even worse, the 'better' thief has a more clever creative player...well...some people will not enjoy that.

So as a gm I try to pay attention to mainly; are the players having fun?

If a charcater is 'eclipsed' by another, AND any players are unhappy about it, I have found ways to mitigate it.

Some players obviously don't have a problem with characters being overly effective or overly useless.

This is why OD&D is so wonderful. One character of a given level isn't going to be that much out of whack with another. No futzing around with keeping characters from pulling way ahead of others due to superior option picking.

You actually CAN have two fighters, one with all 16s and the other with all 13s adventure together without problems with either of them just as likely to survive 1st level.

Quote from: Bill;666030The issue some players have with being too strong or too weak compared to another character also depends a lot on the niche the character fills.

A 'weak' wizard can learn many more spells than a 'powerful' Sorceror, and that creates moment where the wizards broader knowledge is useful.

A cleric that if frail and horrid at melee, weaker than the other charcaters, might be the only one who can heal or cast divine spells. Useful.

But if you have two thieves, one with 18 dex and near max hp, the other with a 12 dex and near minimum hp, and even worse, the 'better' thief has a more clever creative player...well...some people will not enjoy that.

So as a gm I try to pay attention to mainly; are the players having fun?

If a charcater is 'eclipsed' by another, AND any players are unhappy about it, I have found ways to mitigate it.

Some players obviously don't have a problem with characters being overly effective or overly useless.

People play for different reasons.
I do find it funny that my players with the best stats seem to have a lower survival rates.  Almost as if they depend on them more?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;666041This is why OD&D is so wonderful. One character of a given level isn't going to be that much out of whack with another. No futzing around with keeping characters from pulling way ahead of others due to superior option picking.

You actually CAN have two fighters, one with all 16s and the other with all 13s adventure together without problems with either of them just as likely to survive 1st level.

Yeah, that seems to be a point a lot of folks keep missing, no matter how many times you point it out to them.  Heck, just yesterday there was a person comparing D&D Next with an MMO he beta tested, implying that WoTC should be using the same design approach of MMOs.

These people just can't grasp the concept that tabletop RPGs aren't MMOs, and aren't constrained by which button combination maximizes DPS, and that level scaling doesn't, and shouldn't, mirror that of an MMO.

What I mean by that is that an MMO by it's very nature is just a grind fest of ever increasing DPS percentage bonuses.  In that kind of play, you have to have very tight level scaling so that each level and every class improves by the same amount.  A tabletop RPG is nothing of the sort.  You have one key advantage with a TTRPG: your imagination.  You don't have to have exact level scaling with it.  And the game should NOT be designed solely around level scaling numbers.  It SHOULD be designed to enhance the face to face interaction between players.

Why this keeps getting lost on this crowd is beyond me.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;666045Why this keeps getting lost on this crowd is beyond me.

Because for most of them, their ratio of theory-wank to playing is 10:1 or greater. In a lot of cases, they don't play at all.

The elephant in the room that nobody mentions on RPGnet (probably for fear of banning) is that for tabletop RPGs there's no correlation between mathematical system balance and sales. The best designed games, according to the theory-wanks on RPG and other design-focused sites, sell in the hundreds. I mean, does anyone actually play Burning Wheel? While games that are 'broken' or 'cater to nostalgia' sell in the tens and hundreds of thousands. It's too perilous to their sense of self-worth to acknowledge that all the stuff they fret about endlessly matters very, very little out in the marketplace and at the table.

Quote from: Haffrung;666054Because for most of them, their ratio of theory-wank to playing is 10:1 or greater. In a lot of cases, they don't play at all.

The elephant in the room that nobody mentions on RPGnet (probably for fear of banning) is that for tabletop RPGs there's no correlation between mathematical system balance and sales. The best designed games, according to the theory-wanks on RPG and other design-focused sites, sell in the hundreds. I mean, does anyone actually play Burning Wheel? While games that are 'broken' or 'cater to nostalgia' sell in the tens and hundreds of thousands. It's too perilous to their sense of self-worth to acknowledge that all the stuff they fret about endlessly matters very, very little out in the marketplace and at the table.

Amen. Even counting only more modern games the "broken" ones seem to outsell the carefully balanced.

3.0 sold like hotcakes even though it was (to theorywankers) a horrible caster dominated mess.

4E, which was advertised as much more balanced, sold like crap so WOTC shitcanned the edition after only a few years.

Meanwhile, Pathfinder (which detractors say didn't fix all the broken stuff from 3.5) was a huge success.