DM here
Faggot in my campaign wants to do the following idea, should I let him?
>character is a fighter
>carries a large holster on his back full of 20 items
>some are weapons, some are novelty items like a rubber chicken or a whoopee cushion
>each of the 20 items has its own assigned number
>to draw a weapon he rolls 1d20 and picks the weapon corresponding to the number he rolled
I honestly think it's kinda dumb and not a fun idea at all, and will just get in the way. What do you guys think?
>>44549508
I'm sorry but talking about this makes your post the dumbest post on /tg/ right now.
>>44549508
Sounds like garbage
>>44549508
You sound like the dumb faggot for thinking he's having fun wrong because you don't like his idea, which seems to be RP related instead of another min-maxer.
>>44549546
>dumbest post on tg
And that, is a well-defended title.
>>44549593
That isn't rp.
>>44549612
How is a character quirk not roleplaying?
>>44549508
You have a man insane enough to pull out a rubber chicken in a life or death situation. Ask why any of your other players' characters are okay with trusting their life to this man. If they all agree with this then allow it, otherwise tell him to come back with a character that people can take seriously in a fight.
>>44549508
Tell him straight out that this is one of those ideas thought might sound funny "on paper" but when put into practice, nobody is going to give a shit. And the group will be especially exasperated when it comes time to fight, but he keeps pulling rubber chickens and whoopee cushions out of his magical holster because RNGesus feels especially dickish that night. He might be chortling the whole time but I guarantee you more than half the table is going to dismiss him as useless.
I feel like you should know if you want to run the kind of game where the fighter accidentally draws a rubber chicken more than any of us
>>44549631
>Ask why any of your other players' characters are okay with trusting their life to this man. If they all agree with this then allow it
You let your players vote on what they let each other play?
>>44549629
Not a quirk.
Its stupid.
>lol no sword. I pull out a rubber chicken.
Its rp, like naked gun is a police drama.
This depends on the tone of the game you want to run, OP
I mean, as >>44549686
and >>44549655
put it, this sounds like a joke that'll be funny for about 5 sessions before it just gets frustrating for the rest of the table.
>>44549508
Let him. Then when he pulls out a rubber chicken, let a gnoll eat his face.
>>44549664
>You let your players vote on what they let each other play?
Fuck yes. In fact, players should create their characters together as a cooperative exercise.
>>44549664
Not the guy you're responding to, but it's not a bad idea. If the other players vote to forbid That Guy from playing a hermaphrodite 3 dicked 9 tailed kitsune who is constantly in heat, this is actually a good thing.
And if they forbid a character concept because the PC wants to play a bard but the group has already got 3 other rogue-ish classes in the group, and they want him to fill a different role, this is still a good thing
>>44549508
That isn't a character, it's a joke. A joke that will be funny exactly once and then becomes an annoyance at the second time.
I played a character like this with a magical stone that would summon magic weapons with a few highly specific or useless ones thrown in. It was fun, but I only played as her twice. Let your player have fun.
>>44549508
let him and fuck him up real good for being autismo
>>44549740
Are you serious? Everything should happen in-character. Everything. Party generation should happen separately so they don't get together and say "oh well I wanna be a fighter so you be a thief and you be a wizard."
>>44549749
If they all want to play bards and rogues, let them. It's up to the GM to take care of That Guy's hermaphrodite 3 dicked etc. not the rest of the players. If they have a problem, they come to the GM with it.
>>44549847
>It's up to the GM to take care of That Guy's hermaphrodite 3 dicked etc. not the rest of the players. If they have a problem, they come to the GM with it.
So if the three dicked hermaphrodite tries to fuck my character in the ass, I should go to the GM about it instead of responding in charact-
>Everything should happen in-character
I'm getting mixed messages from your post here.
>>44549508
Does he wear a hockey mask?
If the campaign is about retarded shit, sure, let him.
If you plan on doing a normal campaign tell him to fuck off with his classroom clows chaotic stupid shit.
>>44549847
BZZZZZZT! WRONG!!!
All the players, including the GM, should cooperate into creating a party that will be able to work well with each other for the game. Allowing anybody to play their special snowflake who the rest of the party hates is going to cause friction and hurt feelings down the line. One guy's "fun" shouldn't come at the expense of everybody else's "fun" at the table.
>>44549890
They're not mutually exclusive at all. Do everything in-character throughout the session (undoubtedly the first session this character is introduced) and then afterwards go to the GM and ask him why that shit was allowed and if he's going to do anything about it because it had a negative impact on your experience. If he doesn't do anything, just quit playing with them.
>>44549847
>Are you serious? Everything should happen in-character. Everything. Party generation should happen separately so they don't get together and say "oh well I wanna be a fighter so you be a thief and you be a wizard."
Fite me.
I enjoy games like Ars Magica or InSpecters where the players & GM get together and create a collaborative entity of which PCs are a part.
I do not enjoy intra-party conflict and interaction during the character creation phase helps prevent it (unless you are playing Amber).
>>44549920
>One guy's "fun" shouldn't come at the expense of everybody else's "fun" at the table.
No shit, see
>>44549970
>>44549508
Sounds way more fun than the usualy weeabo fighter.
Just dont handicap him extensively for doing something silly with a class that is basically shit.
>>44549920
This is OK in principle but falls down when one person gets dumped on and has to play the boring class (in DnD it's whoever gets to tank).
>>44550002
>I enjoy games where my players just min-max as much as possible and never disagree in my magical realm
Whatever makes you happy, I guess.
>>44549508
Fighters are already shit
calm your Aspergers and let him have fun for a bit
If it doesn't work very well, let the party kick his ass until he ends up with one or two actually useful weapons.
Why are you so salty?
>>44550056
Dude, as another ars magica fan you simply can't roll a character batch alone. You're supposed to roll several characters each, all of whom should have a defined job in your covenant.
>>44550040
>This is OK in principle but falls down when one person gets dumped on and has to play the boring class (in DnD it's whoever gets to tank).
Then that person simply doesn't have to play. If they are there because they are with a group of friends, then they care more about the social aspect then game mechanics, so it won't matter. If the player is there because they care more about the game, then they are not a good fit with the group and should just go find another group.
>>44550040
>D&D
>needing a tank
>thinking you need a dedicated tank when you can have an aggressive hegemonizing ursine swarm
Mindsets like that are why the game's not fun. Cleric or druid tank is just fine to play and you don't even need to stick someone with a role they don't want to play.
>>44550002
>I enjoy games like Ars Magica or InSpecters where the players & GM get together and create a collaborative entity of which PCs are a part.
>I do not enjoy intra-party conflict and interaction during the character creation phase helps prevent it (unless you are playing Amber).
I dont think interaction during character creation necessarily prevents intra-party conflict.
However, I dont mind intra-party conflict as long as it doesn't detract too much from the story.
I do think that everybody should build their character together to get the party more interconnected though. It will also help with making the players feel that this is more of a cooperative game than a dick-measuring contest.
>>44550002
Oh, I should add something about players wanting "secret backgrounds," as in secret from the other players: fuck that noise.
There's nothing wrong with a secret or two shared only with the GM but wanting a secret-from-other-players background is essentially asking permission to fuck around with the party.
There's nothing wrong with
>>44550107
>Mindsets like that are why the game's not fun. Cleric or druid tank is just fine to play and you don't even need to stick someone with a role they don't want to play.
Even a pure wizard party has no problems with tanking. Between their summons and layers of magical defenses there's little benefit to even have someone to soak up hp damage.
>>44550145
>wanting a secret-from-other-players background is essentially asking permission to fuck around with the party
Do you really want every character to be 100% honest all the time and tell each other every single detail and event in their life?
>>44550106
Nah. This actually happened to me recently, I had to roll a fighter as post of a game in our established group. It's difficult to stay engaged when you could be replaced by a small catapult, a d20 and a d8. The issue is that fighters are boring to play but essential to party balance so essentially some poor sucker gets lumbered with it. How are you supposed to get into the character of an ambulatory road block that's only there for party balance?
>>44550015
But muh player agency.
>>44550193
Use your words, instead of just saying "muh x."
>>44549847
Yes because I have so much fun when I find out the other 3 characters do the exact same thing I do.
>>44549508
>I don't like faggot's idea
Well, you have to weight your butthurt against his fun in your decision process, and since we don't know either of you, only you have the answer to that question.
>>44550177
>>wanting a secret-from-other-players background is essentially asking permission to fuck around with the party
>Do you really want every character to be 100% honest all the time and tell each other every single detail and event in their life?
Read:
>>44550145
>There's nothing wrong with a secret or two shared only with the GM but wanting a secret-from-other-players background is essentially asking permission to fuck around with the party.
>>44550107
That was my argument actually, from what I can see a wizard or druid should be fine, but the DM insisted. So I got stuck with sergeant sword and board while everyone else got to play super intelligent characters or ones with out of battle abilities.
>>44550249
Maybe try roleplaying once in a while instead of pretending it's a video game.
>>44550276
Try cooperating with the rest of the table for once, instead of pretending you're acting out your own novel.
>>44550177
No, I don't.It's a matter of degrees.
The goal is avoiding the classic That Guy scenario of a PC fucking over the other PCs because "that's what my character would do in this situation."
>>44550295
I do, and a party of identically equipped fighters or rogues or anything can still be diverse because there is more to a character than his gear. This isn't a fucking MMO, it's a roleplaying game.
>>44550276
Although roleplaying 4 guys with swords and boards meeting up with no magic or other support could very well go like this:
Guy 1: So we are gathered to beat up some kobolds?
Guy 2: Yeah sure, so anyone with any special talents?
Guy 3: Uhh I'm good at fighting.
Guy 1: Me too
Guy 2: Yeah me too
Guy 4: Soo none of us can do anything about the kobolds traps? Not one of us can mend our wounds? Not one of us can use their knowledge of the arcane to blast fireballs out their ass?
Guy 1: Doesn't seem so nope.
Guy 4: This is suicide I'm out.
Guy 2: I dont wanna die screw this.
Guy 3: Yeah guys, it's not you, but I dont think this will work out that well.
Guy 1: Welp I ain't going alone.
And thus ends the grand adventure of the four warriors.
>>44550332
But if it actually is in-character, then it's not That Guy. It depends on the player.
>>44549596
Really? Who's the title holder for that?
>>44550040
I actually enjoy taking up the role of a tank every now and then. Warforged, dwarf, dragonborn, you name it. Lots of armor, big shield, big weapon. Or hell, drop the shield, go two-handed and cleave everything.
Actually, that reminds me I have yet to play as a cleric or paladin.
>>44550334
>This isn't a fucking MMO, it's a roleplaying game.
Except when you play a particular game with heavy "wargaming" aspects to it. Like, say, any fucking edition of D&D including Pathfinder.
>>44550367
Or it could turn into a tale of 4 guys with swords and boards forming a mercenary company after getting some money and experience together. Is that dialogue you posted an example of what you think roleplaying looks like?
>>44550375
Wait what?
No that guys can be completely in-character.
Their characters are just dicks usually.
>>44550419
>Except when you play a particular game with heavy "wargaming" aspects to it. Like, say, any fucking edition of D&D including Pathfinder.
Jesus Christ, I can't think of a single reason you would think that you have to use any combat in a campaign if the table didn't want to. Wargame my fucking ass.
>>44550401
>I actually enjoy taking up the role of a tank every now and then. Warforged, dwarf, dragonborn, you name it. Lots of armor, big shield, big weapon. Or hell, drop the shield, go two-handed and cleave everything.
>Actually, that reminds me I have yet to play as a cleric or paladin.
Really? I hate it. Especially that one time when the party got wiped and my tank had to stand around rolling dice for ~60 minutes before finally getting the last opponent down.
(Yeah it was a shit build for a tank because I could do nothing about the opposition blowign all their shit on my teammates)
>>44550423
More like a tale of 4 guys with swords and boards getting owned by kobolds. But oh well. that's D&D for you.
>>44550401
I can't stand it, fighters are so badly outclassed, you just end up hewing away at one enemy for eight rounds until the wizard casually shoots them. Outside of combat you're probably near useless too unless you pick a background that gives you a skill.
I quite like paladins, the smite and spell slots make them far more dynamic and their holy vows provide a good role playing hook.
>>44550216
'Kay.
I don't think the GM should be the only arbiter of character creation. The GM is not be the only source of entertainment at the gaming table. Giving players a role in each others character creation is a vector of fun that can be pursued in most games.
>>44550426
That's true, but I was saying that the neutral rogue that followed the party around on a bunch of adventures, even risking his life for them and being a bro, and then decided to rob them and leave them for dead isn't necessarily a That Guy for betraying them.
>>44550191
>>44549508
Depends on the group.
Ask them if they are ok with some REALLY goofy shit happening now and then that might actually lead to them getting killed in an encounter.
If they are ok with that, fine, if not, they are not.
>>44550486
>The GM is not be the only source of entertainment at the gaming table.
No shit, it's a community effort. I've been running games for twenty years, and I find that without exception there is more enjoyment at the table when I tell the players to generate the characters separately.
>>44550454
Except it's kind of expected as the "default" way to run most RPGs. The largest sections of any set of rules is usually going to be the combat section, and if it isn't it's probably a close second. People create characters expecting to get into a fight at a certain point, and only a rare few RPGs don't predominantly feature combat. If you were trying to take those types of games into consideration, that's fine, but they are far, far, FARRRRRRR away from the norm. And I'm surprised you're acting like you didn't know this was the case.
>>44550511
Well yeah but we were halfway through a campaign at the time, changing the system might about the DM a little.
>>44550458
I played a warforged fighter in 3.5 once. 160 hp at level 10 (my first time playing 3.5, might have made a mistake when rolling into the campaign). Anyway, we're fighting some baddies, I take a critical hit from one of them. -40 hp.
>Me: Oh, shit, I lost a fourth of my health.
>Monk: How much you got left?
>Me, laughing: 120.
>Monk, with a deadpan look: I have 25. MAX.
I kept giggling like an idiot throughout the entire encounter because I kept tanking like a fucking boss. Man, I miss that warforged fighter.
>>44550458
Are there any rules in D&D for one character to "take the bullet" for another?
>>44550565
>I'm surprised you're acting like you didn't know this was the case.
I'm not, but having rules for combat does not a wargame make.
>>44550191
Out of every group I've ever played, there should always be at least one guy who is cool with playing whatever. If you don't have a guy like that in your group, then you have shit luck.
>>44550367
>And thus ends the grand adventure of the four warriors.
No, thus begins the "we need a healer" side quest.
>>44550598
Make a reflex check.
>>44549508
Unless the rubber chicken has a +4 to strengh when used, it's fucking dumb
>>44550556
>I've been running games for twenty years, and I find that without exception there is more enjoyment at the table when I tell the players to generate the characters separately.
Then you are a shit GM who has not learned a damn thing in 20 years of gaming. And you kid yourself into determining how much fun your players actually had.
>>44550478
Why are you railroading these guys into fighting kobolds? Oh right, it's because you're a shit gm with no concept of roleplay.
>>44550644
What about the +1 rubber chicken of returning?
>>44549970
Dude, if someone was playing a three-dicked hermaphrodite or whatever, I would - in-character, of course - cut his head off for being an abomination.
>>44550659
If you were trying to be funny just then, you failed.
Miserably.
>>44550484
When you get confused at magic and you hate doors enough, with a little creativity, it can go a long way in the entertainment department. I only took part in the campaign a few times, so it was a short experience, but I made everyone laugh hysterically at least twice with a well-placed sentence and some good roleplaying. I think I earned something like 250 xp for being a good roleplayer. Even the dm was laughing! Unfortuneatly, it doesn't make for a good story time, as it was just a happenstance.
>>44550671
Especially if it was so obvious he was that. Meaning he muct me running around naked trying to fuck the village children or whatever.
>>44549508
A good DM with a decent group is a yes man. He says yes to his players and describes how it pans out. Wanna wrestlemania a Shardmind into submission? Go ahead. Wanna suplex a train? Why not? You aren't obligated to make it work. You aren't even obligated to make sure they survive the attempt. But as long as it doesn't actively obstruct the fun of the other players, you're obligated to let them try.
>>44550556
Have you been a forever-GM for 20 years?
That sucks.
>>44550645
That's a stupid statement to make without any kind of relevant info. My groups have always had a good time showing up for the first session and meeting each other in-character. What's the appeal of looking at another person's character sheet and saying "Oh you're a druid with 5 hp and leather armor, cool. I'm a wizard."
>>44550191
>fighter
>essential to party balance
See, you're just playing caster edition wrong. You don't NEED a tank. Your friends are just incorrect at doing things.
>>44550715
Yes. Every now and then I consider going to a game-finder thread as a player and then I realize that there are lot of people that just want to run murderhobo games with little roleplaying, as evidenced by this thread.
>>44549920
that's only good when you want to win
>>44550768
Really? Too bad, I have wanted to play an undead bardlock for ages, but need a group for doing so. Too bad, he isn't much for murderhoboing, as he's more a roleplay character. Oh well, maybe some other day.
Pointless post, OP. Depends entirely on the type of game. If its a goofy game, sure. If it's serious, probably not. I don't personally think it sounds very interesting or funny, but the value is in execution. Someone really talented and smart could probably make that a really fun, well thought out gimmick. I don't think I could, but I'm not the one trying to do it.
>>44550752
What if nobody has a summoning spell since the GM didn't bother to make those spells findable?
>>44550718
>That's a stupid statement to make without any kind of relevant info.
You've given me all the information I needed, provided you're the same guy I've been arguing with at length, by telling me your opinions on how a game should be run.
>My groups have always had a good time showing up for the first session and meeting each other in-character.
That first meeting, sure. Then no doubt things ground to a halt after that, or just outright fell apart.
>What's the appeal of looking at another person's character sheet and saying "Oh you're a druid with 5 hp and leather armor, cool. I'm a wizard."
Working together to construct a group that will be high-fiving each other after every successful encounter, combat or non-combat. I'll grant you that you might get an initial "wow" factor by keeping everyone's identity a secret and then introducing each other that first game. But beyond that is a total crap shoot that couldn't been constructed to run more smoothly.
>>44550718
What's the appeal of 4 strangers meeting in a tavern?
>>44550505
He is still a dick, even though he does it in-character.
Also it's a pretty weird move if he's bros with those guys
>>44550816
That's essentially the objective of table top RPGs: There's an objective, and you "win" by accomplishing it. Yeah you can dress it up all you like by pretending that improv theater is the true goal of table top RPGs, but it's not. It is an important thing to have to flavor the accomplishments, but the primary driving factor is to succeed at something. Not be a drama queen.
>>44549508
Sounds like it's the marital version of wild magic.
>>44550853
>Then no doubt things ground to a halt after that, or just outright fell apart.
No, my last campaign lasted two years and the current one is approaching the same mark. I think I just have a better group than you or something. Most of us have been playing together since high school, and that was a long time ago.
>>44550853
>couldn't
could've
>>44550871
Who says they have to meet in a tavern?
>>44550920
> I think I just have a better group than you or something. Most of us have been playing together since high school, and that was a long time ago.
I'll accept that. I've mainly had to cobble together my groups online.
>>44550587
That is fun, but in my case the baddies always hit the other guys first because the DM doesn't like the let down of hitting the guy that wont die.
And I can see why the opponent doesn't want to do that.
I can also see why the rest of the party got tired of my character.
>>44550943
Well, that makes what you've been saying about making everyone hold hands during creation a lot more sensible. It's probably like a form of preventative maintenance for you. All I can say is that I hope you find a great group one day, anon.
>>44550752
The fighter's role has always been "keep the wizard alive in between spells." That's D&D Basic stuff.
>>44550984
>It's probably like a form of preventative maintenance for you.
That's exactly what it is.
>All I can say is that I hope you find a great group one day, anon.
Thank you. Just heed my advice if you ever find yourself trying to build a group from complete strangers.
>>44550899
The goal of RPGs is to generate what humans call "fun" for all parties involved.
>>44551015
I will. And if you ever find yourself with a group of experienced players, maybe try the individual generation like I do. Hopefully it turns into a fun and interesting game for everyone, even if there are three people playing one class.
>>44551015
>Thank you. Just heed my advice if you ever find yourself trying to build a group from complete strangers.
Or new players, as I usually find myself doing.
>>44550920
>Most of us have been playing together since high school, and that was a long time ago.
Ah, that explains it.
Not all of us are lucky to have such a cohesive and coherent group of players. Collaborative PC creation is especially good for groups that have come together just for the game.
>>44551043
I agree with that, but you also have to manage expectations. And since all RPGs involve some sort of conflict resolution mechanic (with the lion's share of rules dedicated to combat), almost all players come in expecting a conflict to overcome.
>>44551137
Never hurts to get a consensus about what kind of campaign everyone wants to play.
>>44549847
Jesus Christ, I feel bad for the people you game with. You're the guy who wants to play the ork in the Dark Heresy game, the samurai in the western fantasy RPG, the Kender fucking ANYWHERE.
>>44551137
And there are only two stories in all the world:
1) Hero triumphs over adversity.
2) Hero succumbs to adversity.
When you're the hero, story #2 can be a downer.
>>44550401
It varies.
>>44551235
No, I'm not. Nothing I've said suggests that at all. I'm the guy who plays cohesive characters that make sense in the game (on the rare occasion when I'm not GM) and takes reasonable action to deal with unreasonable bullshit such as people playing 3 dicked hermaphrodites.
>>44550040
D&D isn't a video game, you don't need a "tank" dipshit
>>44551363
They're playing 4e
>>44551254
>2) Hero succumbs to adversity.
>When you're the hero, story #2 can be a downer.
It also sucks when you are the DM though.
>ranger asks if he can use only a boomerang
>>44549508
If he's a strong enough warrior, he should be able to kill with his bare hands. I think the idea is he tries to get his weapon and if he can't, he fights with his hands.
What's the problem? Sounds like he's putting a damper on his character on purpose to add some difficulty he otherwise won't find. Maybe you're just too cushy of a DM.
How often do your players die?
>>44551394
Unless they have a shit DM, nobody is forcing them to do fight after fight in a series of meaningless rooms and corridors
Even in a very combat heavy edition (or just D&D in general), you don't have to fight at all if that's not the story you want.
Inb4 "play another system"
>>44551426
Well can he?
>>44551394You don't need a tank in 4e. Literally the only role needed is Leader, and you can bypass even that with the right setup.
>>44551394
I never understood why 4e is so looked down upon. I think it was pretty ok. Lots of options and a nice intro for me who had been playing nothing BUT video games up until then.
>>44551446
no that's fucking stupid
why would you use a boomerang when you could use a bow?
>>44551443
>shit DM
>someone in the group uses the term "tank" applied to tabletop gaming
Sounds about right.
>>44551463
Because aboriginal boomerangs are hardcore as fuck?
>>44551478
Good point
>>44551456
>Lots of options and a nice intro for me who had been playing nothing BUT video games up until then.
That was the idea.
>>44551463
Because he wants to. You're going to tell him no because you don't like it?
>>44551463
Actually boomerang seems reasonable. It's not ultra useful but who cares? It's not exactly silly mcsnowflake either. I'd allow it, and I have a low tolerance for lolrandumb bullshit
>>44549508
>not loving this idea
you're the autistic one.
>>44551463
>why would you use a boomerang when you could use a bow?
Go fuck yourself
>>44550899
If you're choosing a category of game that runs on cooperation, imagination, and where the guy controling the entire world wants you to succeed as your outlet for highly competitive effort, you're a fucking retard.
It's like training all year to dominate at the parents vs kid softball game. If you want to powergame and focus on WINNING there are bajillions of better outlets for it, so doing it in D&D or whatever is a sign of some kind of retardation.
If you think you're "good" at D&D because you can do second grade math, pick the best skills and disconnect your humanity while designing your combatmonster, encounterwarping character, you're like a person who jumps into a sandbox, aggressively builds the tallest sandcastle and screams SUCK IT NERDS at the toddlers. Yes, congratulations, you won at sandcastle, but you're missing the point and you clearly hang out with other retards so much that you don't notice how silly you are.
On top of that you have that whole mentality of people who think that any kind of effort at immersion or role-playing is for faggots and that role-playing should be like world of warcraft without graphics, and I just feel like they have some kind of condition.
If you want to WIN, just play some videogame online against other people who are trying to win so there's an actual competition, don't inflict it on your happy fun time friends who want to roll dice and experience cool stories.
The fiction is the whole point of pen and paper role-playing, because that's it's strength, you can do ANYTHING. But it's a terrible outlet for competitive urges and the people who use it for that are clearly scared of actual competition and just use it to feel better at something irrelevant than their friends are. Like, congrats, you're slightly more effective at killing orcs fast than everyone else, we're so psyched to have you.
>>44551730
>The fiction is the whole point of pen and paper role-playing, because that's it's strength, you can do ANYTHING.
You keep chasing that dream, pal. Because every single fucking time I've tried to involve myself in games strictly focused on the fiction it's ended up as some horrific magical realm bullshit where all the players were more or less held a captive audience to the GM's world and whoever he decided to shine the spotlight on for an undeserved and excruciatingly long period of time, which was usually his girlfriend or his butt-buddy since kindergarten.
Combat doesn't have to be the sole means of "succeeding" at the game, but it can also take the form of social negotiations and puzzle solving that can be resolved by hitting something really hard. It makes for a good variety of fun during the course of a game. There is also the social aspect from just banter and conversation with all the other players at the table.
But to sit there and tell me that the one and only thing that matters is the fiction is being outright delusional. Because most players are just downright fucking BAD at it and can't come up with anything that gels well either with the GM's world or with each other. Or they just flat out don't come up with anything. It matters, sure, but there's plenty of other things to mix in there as well: Hence, conflict resolution and puzzle solving.
>>44551443
>Even in a very combat heavy edition (or just D&D in general), you don't have to fight at all if that's not the story you want.
I mean, this is technically true, in the same way that you can enter a tractor in a drag race if you really want. I mean, you don't have the rulebook to set drinks on, you have it to use the rules within, and the vast majority of those rules are dedicated to fighting. If you're using 4e's social system and never doing combat I question if you're actually playing 4e or if you're just freeform RPing with a thin veneer of mechanics.
>>44550837
>implying druids need to find summoning spells
>implying clerics need to find summoning spells
>implying both of the above cannot tank
They're just playing D&D badwrong by demanding someone play a fighter. I bet they force someone into playing a cleric only to heal mid combat, too.
>>44549508
If he can come up with a really solid rp reason as to why his character does that and the campaign is silly enough to allow it, I don't see what's wrong with it.
Judging by your reaction, though, that doesn't seem to be the case.
>>44549508
two choices:
1- all the items must be valid weapon choices that he can use somewhat proficiently in order to not fuck the party over
2- the moment he pulls one of the goofy items all your enemies rape his character to death
>>44550998
Thing is that that role can be easily fulfilled by a couple of summon X spells. You don't need a fighter to serve as a meatshield, because the wizard already comes with a meatshield built into the class.
>>44549508
It's on you, not us.
If it fits within your world and your campaign, then okay it at your digression.
Personally I would deny it, not because I don't like quirky characters, but because any odd quirk involving RNG is going to get old, fast, even serious rolls.
If he wants to be lolrandom, maybe have him fight with unconventional weapons? Like table legs and ham shanks.
>>44549631
this seems like the best solution
and make sure the players know that if they do agree to allow it at first they have every right to ditch him when they get sick of it
>>44549508
Make his best weapons be up to 10 times more powerful than a normal weapon with lots of special perks like being vorpal, creature specific extra damage, rage inducing, be throwable, makes user regenerates etc..
Makes his worst weapons heal enemies, spawn extra enemies, generate harmful area effects that affect allies, be ridiculously heavy etc.. and act as cursed weapons until the end of the fight.
>>44551463
I don't see why a ranger can't use a real world hunting weapon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DDHxOqFkAs
>>44549508
I mean humor can sort of deflect from the fact that playing a fighter means you're not much use anyway.
>>44550837
>spells findable
Assuming the edition in question is 3.PF, Wizards get free spells every level. Whether the DM lets them find the spell or not isn't a part of it, they just get it when they ding.
Let him do it. He'll either get fucked up or be amazing on a regular basis.
>>44549508
>DM here
>Faggot in my campaign wants to do the following idea, should I let him?
>>character is a fighter
No.
>>44549508
Give the appropriate penalties. Either the team straightens him out or he does it himself when he cant fight.
>>44549508
I see no inherent problems, but he's gonna need the improvised weapons feat, and instead of giving him +enchanted weapons, you should focus on utility items.
If the guy is comfortable being suboptimal in combat and enjoys his gag character, then why not. Means the other players can take the spotlight during combat.
>>44549508
Yes, just have the whoopee cushion and rubber chicken be secret minor magic items (not OP but not a TOTAL waste of a turn) so the rest of the party isn't screwed and the player gets to have their fun.
Or rather, let it be useless once or twice but the next time if he keeps doing it, throw the party a bone so.
If this is the only way in which this guy annoys everyone, then no big deal. If this is part of a pattern? Talk to him first and if it doesn't work, let him go.
This should be basic DM knowledge.
1) It's not yes or no, it's Yes, but...
2) If there's a problem, talk to the player.
3) Don't game with people who can't be reasoned with as friends.
Geez.
>>44549686
No rubber available, would he settle for a chicken made of leather and stuffed with feathers?
>>44549508
I honestly would. As I find that idea kind of amazing and with a lot of scope for a character. I mean my take on this would be something along these lines.
He stood alone as the fire dwindled. He knew something lurked in the shadows but he did not know what. "I know you are there." He called out. "Face me like a true warrior, if you are brave enough." All of a sudden, high pitched cackles echoed around him. Creatures wielding spears, swords and crude armour stepped forth. Sharpened teeth shone in the darkness, beady eyes gazed upon him, the flicker of his fire lit just enough for him to make them out.
"Your wares Warrior, and your belongings."
He smiled.
"Take them, I have no use for them. I would be leaving in the morning anyways."
The beings grinned as they moved around, they picked apart at the camp like vultures. They stuffed the scraps of food into their sacks (and in their mouths), they tore at the bedding, some wrapped it around them like a make shift trophy. When all was done, they circled around him.
"Your bag, gives us it."
"Ah, that would be a problem... this is the one thing you cannot have."
The swords and the spears draw up around him as if to strike.
"Everything, including your bag, give or face your death."
The warrior sighed and mumbled to himself. "What shall it be this time?"
With a swift motion his hands darted into the bag and drew the first weapon he could find... a whoopee cushion. The creatures laughed loudly, the warrior gritted his teeth but quickly resolved himself, in their distraction he filled the whoopee cushion with rocks and slung it hard over the face of the first creature, the impact was devastating, he knew its jaw was broke. Before the others had a chance to react, he rolled and gripped the end tight, forcing the weight of the rock to fly upwards, catching another underneath the chin. The battle was now underway and he fought for his life.
>>44557641
>cont
The fire flickered its last light, but from that tiny glow, eight creatures lay on the ground as a solitary warrior panted. His has hand held the makeshift weapon tightly. A whoopee cushion stained with blood that still dripped as the light went out.
It's a dumb idea for survival, but yes, of course let him
do it. But change the rubber chicken options to weird weapons (a scissor sword, chains, one shot rifle) which he doesn't necessarily have exotic weapon proficiency with. These weapons have strange and powerful effects, some might even be intensely magical. But he has to roll every time he draws a weapon. He can substitute weapons in, but can't choose to withdraw a specific weapon ( though he can take 20)
Maybe he wished for the ultimate weapon, and it's hidden three critical hits in (have a secret table of these weapons). Maybe the God of tricks is a jerk in your setting
Remove the comedy, make it cooler than he thought he could make in D&d
>>44549664
>Toward the end of a particularly tough fight
>All but the guy with the Bag 'o Random Shit (TM) have gone down due to a series of lucky rolls on the enemy's part
>Bag guy has time to draw one weapon
>Rolls
>...
>Oversized inflatable hammer
>TPK quickly follows
>"sorry guys, lol"
Do you see why the other players might have an issue with this character?
>>44549686
I'd take a parody of police drama I knew was going to be good over a straightforward police drama I wasn't sure about.
Anyway, the idea only sounds good if it doesn't disrupt the tone of the rest of the game. Either talk him down to something milder, or tell everybody else you're running a comedy campaign. Remind him that roleplaying systems are designed to work best within a certain range of tone and pace. That's why sometimes we play Call of Cthulhu, and other times we play Toon.
>>44550401
Whenever there's a good challenger for that title, virtoptim comes and makes a new post to recover his title
No, it's dumb and special snowflakey and it's obvious that the player is much less interested in playing the game than they are having a le ebin hilarious story to tell other people.
>>44549664
>guy makes a stupid character
>forced into the group ICly without any reason
>>44550478
>"We are 4 warriors, we should totally do that dungeon full of traps"
>>44560957
>meanwhile, post-apocalypse
>>44549593
It's not okay to join a gritty, crime syndicate-based game reminiscent of the Godfather and bring a fat, stupid Chris Farley-based buffoon to the table, complete with physical gags. It ruins the tone of the game. Role-playing is a team sport, and you don't get to decide to play badminton while everybody else is playing rugby.
