100% agree! My biggest pet peeve! I'm so glad you mentioned it. I thought I was the only one who is aggravated by that. It is SO rude and disrespectful to everyone else at the table. I even left a campaign once because three of the six players were exactly like that. Noses in their smart phones (unless it was their turn), not paying any attention to what's going on in the game. Unbelievable. I don't miss that group. 🙄
Got some shady looks from my DM cause I was frequently on my phone during combat. He got a lot happier when I showed him I'd taken pictures of every spell my character had and was refreshing my memory on how the spells I was planning to use work. Only acceptable reason I've found to be on your phone.
I would say that depends on the context, as someone who has done that the reasoning was that we had a single player in the party that, while very good at the game, was very bad at including the other players at times. If my character doesn't get to be involved in this half hour long conversation between player one and the GM why should I pay attention?
The type of player I dislike playing with the most is the “I’m there also” player. This PC will be talking to the shop keeper with the Bard one minute and then suddenly will be next door talking to the blacksmith with the Paladin. They enter every secret room or opens every drawer. I think this is indicative of a person with FOMO (fear of missing out) in real life. If your DM allows this behavior it can lead to that PC taking up time and important character moments away from other characters.
Yes that happens all the time! Usually, from my experience, due to a lack of awareness. It's pretty easily solved with a simple "You're not there" or something along those lines!
I think this one depends on why they do it. If they do it because in a pervious group players were always keeping something from them or doing shady stuff, I don't really blame them. Stuff like that can really suck as a player sometimes and really take away from the fun, so in that case a simple conversation should solve the problem. On the other hand, if the player just wants to be involved in everything...yeah, they can be _super_ annoying. The DM needs to have a talk with them in that case too, because they really sound like that "spot light"/ "single player" also mentioned.
Had a player… er sort of still have a player like this. We’re a group that met through university so there were constraints at first for how dm could confront problem behavior. Girl means well but doesn’t put the same investment plus I think looks at a session as “hanging out” so aside from her constantly shattering immersion with “LOLZ MEME” and Lotr and marvel references she would suddenly appear where she wasn’t or insert herself in shit she had no part in being despite doing NOTHING for hours. Out of nowhere, she fucked off from party, engaged with my backstory, ended up getting involved and fucking that up and later getting killed then mad we didn’t save her and not understanding we wouldn’t have known she snuck off in game. Since we still play but no longer attached to school dm has clamped down a lot harder which is helpful but doesn’t negate everything…. Like the not doing anything for hours then trying to lay claim on every magic item even though she’s a ranger Witt no purpose for all but one of them while my casting player has zero magic items at 10th level sort of shit.
I once had a player who was the Metagamer, the Robot (a really bad one at that), AND the Boss. That tied in with an extra aspect of meta-gaming you didn't bring up, and that's what I like to call Backstory Exploitation. Where they use their backstory as an excuse to have knowledge they otherwise wouldn't have. Now this would be okay if the player talked with their GM about what they did and did not know about beforehand. This player did none of that and would instead say he knew X because of X and therefore he also knew Y. It got so bad that the other players even have to tell him to stop it.
As a forever DM, I've never really understood people's issue with minmaxers. A player can min max and still have a wonderful backstory, clear goals and be a great teammate. I always hear people claim that they like having characters with weaknesses but then complain when a minmaxer has a badass for a character. I've never had issues with it and I try to never shame anyone for how they like to play the game. That said, good video!
There is a paladin chaotic good that just won't stop putting me on critical conditions whenever I do something questionable and even when Im creating a funny comedy like playing the role of a peeping tom just for the laugh only for him to come and SMITE the living shit out of me AFTER missing 3 roles in a row. Even to the point where after last session he basically gave me an ultimatum where if I don't stop doing my chenanigans he is 100%done and will kill me for real. Am I the issue here for just having fun and making others have fun?
The most destructive type of player is the Chaotic Evil Barbarian player. My Warforged or Robot called it before He Suicuide jump a hole with 1 HP left did 2 knowledge check, 1. To check what knowledge she would have of Sirens (ended up helping the male party members). 2. Wanna to know what god(ess) our Twilight Cleric was following, I as player knew it wouldn't be Lolth/other evil god(ess) but my character didn't know and won't have anything to do with people who serve Lolth (outside killing them ofc and yes that includes children). My Grung backstory is that he went on a travel to learn why his clan leader had upgraded him from a Green Grung (Solider) to a Red Grung (scholar and Magic) and when he came back his entire clan was wiped out by monster and his goal is now to kill all the bad monster so no one will have to suffer like he did. Don't think I'm a boss type since while the Wizard in Campaign 3 selection of spell and Stats placement anoyes me (higher Str than Con), I acknowledge that he is either new to the game or have some fun idea, instead of telling him for half an hour that he is shit wizard because he should Have pick this spell and place his skill point here
The worst player to me is the one that can't get off the boundaries of the rules (or adapt to a new DM/party). Always remembering or stating a rule to another player or DM. I was once playing with my common party and 2 new players (one was completely new to DnD the other had experience with another group (the rule addict)). We where looking to expend the party for future campaign. So let's say we where playing a scene and at some point my character did something SUPER AMAZING in the scene. It was THAT good. Just some pure roleplay. It was 100% in character, 100% in the theme of the campaign (we where playing a very dark campaign and I was a fallen angel wizard turning more and more into darkness) and could have lead to some great story development. So it seemed everyone had enjoyed that RP moment. DM finds it amazing, other players as well until what? Yes you guessed it: that rule freak states ''you can't do this! It's against the rules! To do X action you must do X skill check and this implies rule Y and Z and bla bla bla bla bla''. What came after was a heated argument between me and this other guy because guess again he was ALWAYS doing this. It ended with the DM not wanting to lose any player ruling my action illegal and therefore missing some great roleplay moments. So yes there has to be rules in the game. Otherwise it wouldn't work. But the rules CAN be break sometimes if it leads to greater content. We aren't talking about major rules. We're talking about minor rules where Roleplay should be stronger than stated rules (yes it's a bit part of the Meta-gaming point in this video)
I only played D&D once and it was with a group at a comic book shop. One of their regulars was absent so they decided to play a one off and invited me. They helped me create a lvl 14 wizard. I learned about meta gaming and how to make choices that my character would make, not me. I don't think I was one of those robot players but I remember in one part of the campaign, we had to enter a secrete passage thru a crypt in a graveyard but we needed a key. I'm sure there was a way to get the key by talking to the grounds keeper but I used a spell that I had that allowed me to pass thru walls, totally bypassing the need to find the key. Looking back at that, it may have been a missed opportunity for story telling. Plus I wasted a spell slot for something trivial that could have been better used for something like evading a strong enemy about to kill me. In any case, if I do ever get to play D&D again, I actually plan to play a classless character just for fun. I don't even know if that's a thing. But I think it might make for interesting story telling, being a regular vanilla guy traveling with people who have special powers.
How can a MIN-maxer be a robot that's good at *everything* ? Actually, how can one character be good at *everything* ? Eventually something has to get dumped to be good at other stuff.
Warlock, Fiend Patron, Pact of the Tome. Will be good at everything (not great, but good). High charisma for RP, Eldritch blast with agonising blast and hex for dealing consistent damage, and pact of the tome for out of combat utility spells. It's very easy to min/max without even trying too hard.
@@zyonchaos1818 not good at everything. There's a myriad of skills they won't be good at. They won't be good in melee, defense, strength, grappling, long combats, sustained battlefield control, utility spells if the DM isn't overly nice...
The best thing to do for something like deception is to just tell the player they don’t know if they get a low roll from my experience, there’s no way they can metagame that.
Admitedly, I have a bit of a metagaming issue. I DM a lot, and homebrew monsters, so I learned the stat and number mechanics inside and out. So when I'm playing, and a guy deals 8 damage to me with a dagger, I think "Oh shit! He has a +4 in Dex (probably)", or I might vaguely keep track of damage done. Tho in my defense, I think it's justifiable to think "Well it's not unrealistic to notice the opponent's skill or durability during a fight". And it actually came in handy that time, because I asked the (newbie) DM: "Does he seriously have a +4 in Dex?" (we were level 3, and these were generic trash mobs) . To which he replied "No, I added the 'to-hit' bonus instead of damage bonus by mistake. So 6 damage"
Yeah I don't think things like that are problematic at all. A trained adventurer could certainly notice a more dexterous enemy or a muscle-laden Constitution/Strength enemy. Nothing wrong with basing your decisions on that, in my opinion!
I think the real indicator of a situation becoming a problem would be if they say you in a room and made you listen to this video's Napolean Dynamite back ground muzak all by yourself the whole night.
If I'm the DM, I usually ask the players to avoid assuming things like: "Well it's not unrealistic to notice the opponent's skill or durability during a fight". If you are supposed to assume anything related to game mechanics, ask the DM if you can roll some sort of history/nature/arcana/religion check to see if you know information about the adversary, alternatively, ask the DM things like "Does it move fast? / does it carry some sort of magical focus?". The DM may allow some perception check to get to conclusions which you then, AND ONLY THEN, could use to destroy that enemy. The main reason why I defend this approach is because it allows for the opportunity to players to exploit weaknesses but also protect some specific class traits that could and should make these classes (or even some specific spells) to feel great
I am a GMing a group of friends and with my first exposure to 5e, we have come pretty far, but I have two players that are killing me and the party as a whole. First is a meta-gamer who plays their character very well, but is getting frustrated with another character who clearly wants to play their character their own way. Second is the target of the first, and almost OP character that rarely engages in combat or the game, and when they do it is usually doing their own thing and has no benefit to the party. They are also a dice lawyer and argues everything that goes against them. I have been working on the meta-gamer letting him know it is my responsibility to reign in the other characters. I am at a loss on how to bring the other one around, I have handed out homework, for people to study their characters, prevented mid-combat look-ups on abilities, even had one on one conversations. I am getting to the point of just a random attack that will guarantee a kill to make him re-think his character. Any input is welcome.
Ya know, I used to min max. But I usually made my characters so stupid it almost crippled them. It made for a fun RP experience because they were all so gullible. I mean, one of my dudes failed an intelligence check and ate a bar of soap because someone else in the party continually pranked him. Yes, he was that dumb. *le sigh* those were the days 😂
Love this insightful and solution-oriented thinking. Is there a forum somewhere that I can learn more about types of D&D players? I'm over here generating D&D player character driven plot-lines and need more information!
please make more videos!! subbed. excellent advice in here. I've played with a boss and it get's old quick. the single player was the worst to play with though, once spent four hours listening while he and the DM rp'd a scene with him talking to his god. this is not an exaggeration, I got up and left. I think i'm the robot of my current group. it's quite low rp so it's not a big deal but i've defintely played a sorlock simply so I could eldritch blast the land of barovia into submission.
Thanks so much for your comment! OOF 4 hours would certainly be enough to convince me to leave a campaign. The Robot is pretty situational for certain campaigns. Some groups really just want to play combat, which is totally cool! Just not my personal style. :)
@@Jetpack7 We are currently running Dungeon of the Mad Mage after doing Waterdeep Heist (which took ages playing once a month). Out of the party there is only me and two others that started with the Heist and two new players. We lost our Barbarian (one of the original 3) to a Zombie Beholders disintegration ray, within the first 5 minutes of the session, he sat there for 3 and a half more hours until we found his backup character. DM offered to let him control some NPCs in fights, he settled for making spooky ghost noises as his old character. It was brilliant, I did feel sorry for him though. I play a Warlock and all through the Heist campaign, I felt a bit like the Boss and a Min/Max as I always took the lead in RP (face) and could lay down a lot more damage consistently than others (fiend patron) and also had pact of the tome so out of combat I had the utility. This was my first character I ever made, having never played before. I have held back a bit with this campaign as I wanted others to do more, and I am discussing with the DM a way out for my Warlock (that doesn't involve him dying) to bring in another character. Loving the videos, thanks
I'm starting a campaign soon with my friends, who are all new to D&D (I am too, the only experienced one is our DM) and as such, we aren't the best at the whole roleplaying and getting into our characters yet, but from what i've seen in the one shot we did, we're all pretty good when it comes to not doing any of these! so that's reassuring hahaha
Super late to this, but in 5e it's very difficult to be the Robot as you defined them in this. Just by the nature of the game it's impossible to be good at everything, so making the player be worse at things for a fix doesn't really seem to make sense. If someone is the best Melee Fighter, Spell Caster, Utility, Investigator and Party Face, their character itself is likely completely broken at Creation. Now, I get the whole "a player's character is only defined by mechanics" point, but is that _really_ an issue? For some players, that's what is fun to them, so I don't really have a problem with it. If someone wants to take a 1 level dip in Hexblade because they want to play a certain "build" they found on Reddit, as long as it's not broken who really cares? I always ask that any multiclassing just make some sense from a story telling perspective, but as long as the player can meet me halfway at that, it's okay.
Flim Film yeah, that can really suck if it happens. All you can do to start is talk to them about it and explain that D&D is a “team game” and go from there
Re: Metagamer and Robot. Rather than look at the player as some spontaneous generation thing, you might want to change you POV to "what caused them to be this way". If you see someone with red splotches on their skin and you shun them before you find out there's a patch of Poison Oak under their bedroom window that's a rush to judgement. It could very well be they've had all too likely a serial spate of adversarial DMs who think bouncing the 3rd level party with 3:1 CR 5 creatures is "balanced", is it any wonder why that player developed the way they did, it was a survival technique. Children are the product of their parents and players are the product of the first DMs they ever play with, and as such they grow up to spawn even more nonsense like themselves. It's hard to change those players attitude but it is possible, it just takes patience and understanding, treat them like PTSD veterans.
you might want to ask why that is, if it is becuas you do it all then try to get them involved, if they just want battles, might suggest the Adventurers legue which is mostly encounters :)
@@lurkingsockpuppets I try and give them chances. I have talked over them a few times but I tried to let do most of the talking and just back then up with my 18 charisma bard.
@@cyborglion4179 I find myself in the same exact situation (also a Bard with high charisma). Often I take the lead, because otherwise an awkward silence installs itself. So, from time to time, I try to ask them what they wanna do. But I worry I am becoming a single player, that's why I took a look at this video :)
Your example on metagaming is terrible. This is a role playing game indeed. I'm playing the character, not the dice. That's the reason I really dislike the insight (and sense motive in previous editions). If I'm not role playing a character well that means I'm not good at role playing but if dice are making the decisions for me I'm not role playing at all
I certainly could have been more specific. Say you as a player recognize this evil NPC, let's say Jarlaxle Baenre, but your character doesn't know who they are. If you play in a way that implies your character knows who they are despite failing any insight/whatever checks, I'd consider that some problematic metagaming. To each their own, however. 😁
By that logic, if you failed to break down a door because of a bad roll, should your character just break it down anyway because "you're playing the character, not the dice"? Of course not. The example wasn't perfect, a better example might have been: you are looking for a hidden door and you fail your checks, so you don't find it...you can't just keep looking more and more because you know as a Player that there's a hidden door there because you saw it on the map the DM laid out. Same with this case, unless you have previous experience with the NPC, the fact that you as a _Player_ knew that you rolled low shouldn't change the way your _character_ feels about the NPC's story. Part of what makes this game fun is _not_ always knowing everything and getting everything wrong.
Totally distracted, on the phone, only there for their turn players. Hate that so much.
100% agree! My biggest pet peeve! I'm so glad you mentioned it. I thought I was the only one who is aggravated by that. It is SO rude and disrespectful to everyone else at the table.
I even left a campaign once because three of the six players were exactly like that. Noses in their smart phones (unless it was their turn), not paying any attention to what's going on in the game. Unbelievable. I don't miss that group. 🙄
Got some shady looks from my DM cause I was frequently on my phone during combat. He got a lot happier when I showed him I'd taken pictures of every spell my character had and was refreshing my memory on how the spells I was planning to use work.
Only acceptable reason I've found to be on your phone.
I would say that depends on the context, as someone who has done that the reasoning was that we had a single player in the party that, while very good at the game, was very bad at including the other players at times. If my character doesn't get to be involved in this half hour long conversation between player one and the GM why should I pay attention?
The type of player I dislike playing with the most is the “I’m there also” player. This PC will be talking to the shop keeper with the Bard one minute and then suddenly will be next door talking to the blacksmith with the Paladin. They enter every secret room or opens every drawer. I think this is indicative of a person with FOMO (fear of missing out) in real life. If your DM allows this behavior it can lead to that PC taking up time and important character moments away from other characters.
Yes that happens all the time! Usually, from my experience, due to a lack of awareness. It's pretty easily solved with a simple "You're not there" or something along those lines!
I think this one depends on why they do it. If they do it because in a pervious group players were always keeping something from them or doing shady stuff, I don't really blame them. Stuff like that can really suck as a player sometimes and really take away from the fun, so in that case a simple conversation should solve the problem.
On the other hand, if the player just wants to be involved in everything...yeah, they can be _super_ annoying. The DM needs to have a talk with them in that case too, because they really sound like that "spot light"/ "single player" also mentioned.
Had a player… er sort of still have a player like this. We’re a group that met through university so there were constraints at first for how dm could confront problem behavior. Girl means well but doesn’t put the same investment plus I think looks at a session as “hanging out” so aside from her constantly shattering immersion with “LOLZ MEME” and Lotr and marvel references she would suddenly appear where she wasn’t or insert herself in shit she had no part in being despite doing NOTHING for hours. Out of nowhere, she fucked off from party, engaged with my backstory, ended up getting involved and fucking that up and later getting killed then mad we didn’t save her and not understanding we wouldn’t have known she snuck off in game. Since we still play but no longer attached to school dm has clamped down a lot harder which is helpful but doesn’t negate everything…. Like the not doing anything for hours then trying to lay claim on every magic item even though she’s a ranger Witt no purpose for all but one of them while my casting player has zero magic items at 10th level sort of shit.
I always had a dream of writing multiple backstories for one character, then just rolling for it to see which story I go with during a new campaign!
So you wanted to play Joker?
I did that with my character, a paladin, I rolled a dice to see which oath I took. I rolled devotion.
I once had a player who was the Metagamer, the Robot (a really bad one at that), AND the Boss. That tied in with an extra aspect of meta-gaming you didn't bring up, and that's what I like to call Backstory Exploitation. Where they use their backstory as an excuse to have knowledge they otherwise wouldn't have. Now this would be okay if the player talked with their GM about what they did and did not know about beforehand. This player did none of that and would instead say he knew X because of X and therefore he also knew Y. It got so bad that the other players even have to tell him to stop it.
As a forever DM, I've never really understood people's issue with minmaxers. A player can min max and still have a wonderful backstory, clear goals and be a great teammate. I always hear people claim that they like having characters with weaknesses but then complain when a minmaxer has a badass for a character. I've never had issues with it and I try to never shame anyone for how they like to play the game.
That said, good video!
Well said.
some minmaxers are able to get away with some bs and then dms let them kinda do some home brew
"So when there's one character that can do everything" So a Warlock, Fiend Patron, Pact of the Tome then lol
There is a paladin chaotic good that just won't stop putting me on critical conditions whenever I do something questionable and even when Im creating a funny comedy like playing the role of a peeping tom just for the laugh only for him to come and SMITE the living shit out of me AFTER missing 3 roles in a row. Even to the point where after last session he basically gave me an ultimatum where if I don't stop doing my chenanigans he is 100%done and will kill me for real. Am I the issue here for just having fun and making others have fun?
The most destructive type of player is the Chaotic Evil Barbarian player.
My Warforged or Robot called it before He Suicuide jump a hole with 1 HP left did 2 knowledge check,
1. To check what knowledge she would have of Sirens (ended up helping the male party members).
2. Wanna to know what god(ess) our Twilight Cleric was following, I as player knew it wouldn't be Lolth/other evil god(ess) but my character didn't know and won't have anything to do with people who serve Lolth (outside killing them ofc and yes that includes children).
My Grung backstory is that he went on a travel to learn why his clan leader had upgraded him from a Green Grung (Solider) to a Red Grung (scholar and Magic) and when he came back his entire clan was wiped out by monster and his goal is now to kill all the bad monster so no one will have to suffer like he did.
Don't think I'm a boss type since while the Wizard in Campaign 3 selection of spell and Stats placement anoyes me (higher Str than Con), I acknowledge that he is either new to the game or have some fun idea, instead of telling him for half an hour that he is shit wizard because he should Have pick this spell and place his skill point here
The worst player to me is the one that can't get off the boundaries of the rules (or adapt to a new DM/party). Always remembering or stating a rule to another player or DM. I was once playing with my common party and 2 new players (one was completely new to DnD the other had experience with another group (the rule addict)). We where looking to expend the party for future campaign. So let's say we where playing a scene and at some point my character did something SUPER AMAZING in the scene. It was THAT good. Just some pure roleplay. It was 100% in character, 100% in the theme of the campaign (we where playing a very dark campaign and I was a fallen angel wizard turning more and more into darkness) and could have lead to some great story development. So it seemed everyone had enjoyed that RP moment. DM finds it amazing, other players as well until what? Yes you guessed it: that rule freak states ''you can't do this! It's against the rules! To do X action you must do X skill check and this implies rule Y and Z and bla bla bla bla bla''. What came after was a heated argument between me and this other guy because guess again he was ALWAYS doing this. It ended with the DM not wanting to lose any player ruling my action illegal and therefore missing some great roleplay moments. So yes there has to be rules in the game. Otherwise it wouldn't work. But the rules CAN be break sometimes if it leads to greater content. We aren't talking about major rules. We're talking about minor rules where Roleplay should be stronger than stated rules (yes it's a bit part of the Meta-gaming point in this video)
I only played D&D once and it was with a group at a comic book shop. One of their regulars was absent so they decided to play a one off and invited me. They helped me create a lvl 14 wizard. I learned about meta gaming and how to make choices that my character would make, not me. I don't think I was one of those robot players but I remember in one part of the campaign, we had to enter a secrete passage thru a crypt in a graveyard but we needed a key. I'm sure there was a way to get the key by talking to the grounds keeper but I used a spell that I had that allowed me to pass thru walls, totally bypassing the need to find the key. Looking back at that, it may have been a missed opportunity for story telling. Plus I wasted a spell slot for something trivial that could have been better used for something like evading a strong enemy about to kill me. In any case, if I do ever get to play D&D again, I actually plan to play a classless character just for fun. I don't even know if that's a thing. But I think it might make for interesting story telling, being a regular vanilla guy traveling with people who have special powers.
How can a MIN-maxer be a robot that's good at *everything* ?
Actually, how can one character be good at *everything* ? Eventually something has to get dumped to be good at other stuff.
Warlock, Fiend Patron, Pact of the Tome. Will be good at everything (not great, but good). High charisma for RP, Eldritch blast with agonising blast and hex for dealing consistent damage, and pact of the tome for out of combat utility spells. It's very easy to min/max without even trying too hard.
@@zyonchaos1818 not good at everything. There's a myriad of skills they won't be good at. They won't be good in melee, defense, strength, grappling, long combats, sustained battlefield control, utility spells if the DM isn't overly nice...
The best thing to do for something like deception is to just tell the player they don’t know if they get a low roll from my experience, there’s no way they can metagame that.
Admitedly, I have a bit of a metagaming issue. I DM a lot, and homebrew monsters, so I learned the stat and number mechanics inside and out. So when I'm playing, and a guy deals 8 damage to me with a dagger, I think "Oh shit! He has a +4 in Dex (probably)", or I might vaguely keep track of damage done.
Tho in my defense, I think it's justifiable to think "Well it's not unrealistic to notice the opponent's skill or durability during a fight". And it actually came in handy that time, because I asked the (newbie) DM: "Does he seriously have a +4 in Dex?" (we were level 3, and these were generic trash mobs) . To which he replied "No, I added the 'to-hit' bonus instead of damage bonus by mistake. So 6 damage"
Yeah I don't think things like that are problematic at all. A trained adventurer could certainly notice a more dexterous enemy or a muscle-laden Constitution/Strength enemy. Nothing wrong with basing your decisions on that, in my opinion!
I think the real indicator of a situation becoming a problem would be if they say you in a room and made you listen to this video's Napolean Dynamite back ground muzak all by yourself the whole night.
I'm a DM too and can't help but run the numbers. It's automatic after looking at stat blocks and character sheets so much
If I'm the DM, I usually ask the players to avoid assuming things like: "Well it's not unrealistic to notice the opponent's skill or durability during a fight". If you are supposed to assume anything related to game mechanics, ask the DM if you can roll some sort of history/nature/arcana/religion check to see if you know information about the adversary, alternatively, ask the DM things like "Does it move fast? / does it carry some sort of magical focus?". The DM may allow some perception check to get to conclusions which you then, AND ONLY THEN, could use to destroy that enemy. The main reason why I defend this approach is because it allows for the opportunity to players to exploit weaknesses but also protect some specific class traits that could and should make these classes (or even some specific spells) to feel great
I am a GMing a group of friends and with my first exposure to 5e, we have come pretty far, but I have two players that are killing me and the party as a whole. First is a meta-gamer who plays their character very well, but is getting frustrated with another character who clearly wants to play their character their own way. Second is the target of the first, and almost OP character that rarely engages in combat or the game, and when they do it is usually doing their own thing and has no benefit to the party. They are also a dice lawyer and argues everything that goes against them. I have been working on the meta-gamer letting him know it is my responsibility to reign in the other characters. I am at a loss on how to bring the other one around, I have handed out homework, for people to study their characters, prevented mid-combat look-ups on abilities, even had one on one conversations. I am getting to the point of just a random attack that will guarantee a kill to make him re-think his character. Any input is welcome.
Sorry that no one gave you an input. I'm curious, how did it go?
I try to avoid being the robot by never changing my gear. Use the base equipment to my advantage.
Ya know, I used to min max. But I usually made my characters so stupid it almost crippled them. It made for a fun RP experience because they were all so gullible. I mean, one of my dudes failed an intelligence check and ate a bar of soap because someone else in the party continually pranked him. Yes, he was that dumb. *le sigh* those were the days 😂
Low intelligence characters create simultaneously the best and worst situations. Same thing with low wisdom. I love it.
Love this insightful and solution-oriented thinking. Is there a forum somewhere that I can learn more about types of D&D players? I'm over here generating D&D player character driven plot-lines and need more information!
please make more videos!! subbed. excellent advice in here.
I've played with a boss and it get's old quick. the single player was the worst to play with though, once spent four hours listening while he and the DM rp'd a scene with him talking to his god. this is not an exaggeration, I got up and left.
I think i'm the robot of my current group. it's quite low rp so it's not a big deal but i've defintely played a sorlock simply so I could eldritch blast the land of barovia into submission.
Thanks so much for your comment!
OOF 4 hours would certainly be enough to convince me to leave a campaign.
The Robot is pretty situational for certain campaigns. Some groups really just want to play combat, which is totally cool! Just not my personal style. :)
@@Jetpack7 We are currently running Dungeon of the Mad Mage after doing Waterdeep Heist (which took ages playing once a month). Out of the party there is only me and two others that started with the Heist and two new players. We lost our Barbarian (one of the original 3) to a Zombie Beholders disintegration ray, within the first 5 minutes of the session, he sat there for 3 and a half more hours until we found his backup character. DM offered to let him control some NPCs in fights, he settled for making spooky ghost noises as his old character. It was brilliant, I did feel sorry for him though.
I play a Warlock and all through the Heist campaign, I felt a bit like the Boss and a Min/Max as I always took the lead in RP (face) and could lay down a lot more damage consistently than others (fiend patron) and also had pact of the tome so out of combat I had the utility. This was my first character I ever made, having never played before. I have held back a bit with this campaign as I wanted others to do more, and I am discussing with the DM a way out for my Warlock (that doesn't involve him dying) to bring in another character.
Loving the videos, thanks
I'm starting a campaign soon with my friends, who are all new to D&D (I am too, the only experienced one is our DM) and as such, we aren't the best at the whole roleplaying and getting into our characters yet, but from what i've seen in the one shot we did, we're all pretty good when it comes to not doing any of these! so that's reassuring hahaha
Super late to this, but in 5e it's very difficult to be the Robot as you defined them in this. Just by the nature of the game it's impossible to be good at everything, so making the player be worse at things for a fix doesn't really seem to make sense. If someone is the best Melee Fighter, Spell Caster, Utility, Investigator and Party Face, their character itself is likely completely broken at Creation.
Now, I get the whole "a player's character is only defined by mechanics" point, but is that _really_ an issue? For some players, that's what is fun to them, so I don't really have a problem with it. If someone wants to take a 1 level dip in Hexblade because they want to play a certain "build" they found on Reddit, as long as it's not broken who really cares? I always ask that any multiclassing just make some sense from a story telling perspective, but as long as the player can meet me halfway at that, it's okay.
You don't need to be the best, just good enough. Enough to stomp on everyone else's toes and piss them off.
@@DAEDRICDUKE1 that's a different issue entirely, anyone can try and hog the spotlight regardless of how their character is built.
@@andrewshandle cuts deep as I'm experiencing that right now :(
Flim Film yeah, that can really suck if it happens. All you can do to start is talk to them about it and explain that D&D is a “team game” and go from there
Re: Metagamer and Robot. Rather than look at the player as some spontaneous generation thing, you might want to change you POV to "what caused them to be this way". If you see someone with red splotches on their skin and you shun them before you find out there's a patch of Poison Oak under their bedroom window that's a rush to judgement. It could very well be they've had all too likely a serial spate of adversarial DMs who think bouncing the 3rd level party with 3:1 CR 5 creatures is "balanced", is it any wonder why that player developed the way they did, it was a survival technique. Children are the product of their parents and players are the product of the first DMs they ever play with, and as such they grow up to spawn even more nonsense like themselves. It's hard to change those players attitude but it is possible, it just takes patience and understanding, treat them like PTSD veterans.
I think i might be a bit of a single player but none of the other players in my group really attempt to roleplay at all.
you might want to ask why that is, if it is becuas you do it all then try to get them involved, if they just want battles, might suggest the Adventurers legue which is mostly encounters :)
@@lurkingsockpuppets I try and give them chances. I have talked over them a few times but I tried to let do most of the talking and just back then up with my 18 charisma bard.
@@cyborglion4179 I find myself in the same exact situation (also a Bard with high charisma). Often I take the lead, because otherwise an awkward silence installs itself. So, from time to time, I try to ask them what they wanna do.
But I worry I am becoming a single player, that's why I took a look at this video :)
yes
Why i am Getting Dnd recommendations
Timestamp the player types or by subject.
Lol no. I played DnD because i wanted to play an rpg where i could do anything. Safe to say it was terrible.
Your example on metagaming is terrible. This is a role playing game indeed. I'm playing the character, not the dice. That's the reason I really dislike the insight (and sense motive in previous editions). If I'm not role playing a character well that means I'm not good at role playing but if dice are making the decisions for me I'm not role playing at all
I certainly could have been more specific. Say you as a player recognize this evil NPC, let's say Jarlaxle Baenre, but your character doesn't know who they are. If you play in a way that implies your character knows who they are despite failing any insight/whatever checks, I'd consider that some problematic metagaming. To each their own, however. 😁
By that logic, if you failed to break down a door because of a bad roll, should your character just break it down anyway because "you're playing the character, not the dice"? Of course not.
The example wasn't perfect, a better example might have been: you are looking for a hidden door and you fail your checks, so you don't find it...you can't just keep looking more and more because you know as a Player that there's a hidden door there because you saw it on the map the DM laid out. Same with this case, unless you have previous experience with the NPC, the fact that you as a _Player_ knew that you rolled low shouldn't change the way your _character_ feels about the NPC's story.
Part of what makes this game fun is _not_ always knowing everything and getting everything wrong.