"Hey user, can I play a character that is not combat-oriented?"

...

Actually the opposite. If the players and GM are on the same page for the type of game they want to play much of the angst can be avoided.

Jesus Christ...

I get that some people have more fun doing combat stuff and rolling die. But even these people should understand that pen and paper roleplaying games usually come with roleplay and out of combat stuff besides looting dead enemies.

You enjoy it as a whole, as a packet of different things.

I dont get the pathfinder hate on this board. Been playing it for years as a follow up to dnd 3.5 and im having a blast as a player or DM.

My GF is kinda like that... shes real passionate about anything martial and combat oriented, be it magic or fighting prowess. But she just phase out whenever nothing needs to be killed.

You're right that they shouldn't ask for permission, but there should be some player-GM communication on what the idea behind the campaign is and what kind of characters people will be playing. Most campaigns will be formed by the types of players and characters in it, and then just about everything is fine, but sometimes people play campaigns that have an intended focus. And it's important that everyone is aware of that. You can still play a combat character in a heavy-social campaign, but both player and GM can benefit from knowing beforehand.

So yes, asking for permission is sort of daft, but good communication is great.

>He spent so much time writing a setting-friendly backstory and asking questions about everything and in he completely shits the bed on the last encounter of the session?
That sucks, it's always a shame when someone who looks promising spergs out like that. But it does still sound like he's a moron.

Have you played with him before? Do you feel like you properly made it clear that this vampire was a strong foe?

Yeah, it's weird. It's not a huge problem, as I said the GM really tries, and the player isn't an unpleasant guy.
He will roleplay (though it's all in the style of: "I'm Brute McCleaver, and I want to fight and be honourable and shit"), he just won't do it unless addressed directly.
He just doesn't really interact with the game, he just kind of reacts to it.

Because it took a lot of players during the shift from 3.5e to 4e and toxic members of both communities have kept up the argument ever since. 5e has lessened it a bit since a lot of old players who move to it recognize that 4e wasn't as grand as they thought, but there's still disagreements about designing and such along with the rep of the pfg being a bunch of furries that hold back both groups from ending their fighting.

Essentially, bickering that's needless, because we're all here to have fun, not to argue over systems.

Ah, now I get it. Ty for the TL;DR.

Not OP, but if you've already discussed being a non-combat character with the DM, then you say you want to attack something, and the DM says "Are you sure?" chances are it's probably a strong thing you're about to attack. If the DM asks for verification on an action as simple as "I attack him" I always interpret that as the DM giving the player a chance to rethink a mistake they're about to make.

Not a lot of good players in Hell, Satan?

It's not even that any of them are particularly bad when they're played the way they were designed to be.

3.5e and Path are number-crunch games which, while punishing at times to certain ideas if improperly built, can get the job done for making a character reality once you learn the ins and outs of the system. Just remember to watch out for wacky combinations from the infinite deluge of sourcebooks that break the game, and you're set.

4e is a combat-heavy game, near purely combat. It's even more rules-heavy than 3.5 and Path in my mind, and it tried to make every class be able to survive in combat without the support of others. You're locked down to a grid and numerous obscure rules that, while able to realistically portray combat, eventually leads to burnout for players seeking a more freeform and social-focused game that has mechanics for playing a face rather than relying on a GM's goodwill.

5e's a very simplistic game in my mind, meant to be taken in parts and pieces that players are comfortable with like with Pathfinder and 3.5e. Unlike them, it doesn't have a deluge of extra sourcebooks and definitely focuses more on quality than quantity to help ensure great stories without exponential growth in mod numbers, and also unlike them and especially unlike 4e, it doesn't rely on a grid and such for gameplay. It's probably the most narrative-friendly game of the trifecta, and it's a good way to get new players involved in tabletop games.

if your DM asks "are you sure" and you aren't seriously reconsidering your life choices, you have messed up somewhere along the line

I don't get the Pathfinder comment in general. It was such a non-sequitur that it just makes me laugh when I'm thinking about it, but it still doesn't make any sense to me. Is it a thing in Pathfinder for NPCs to be completely overpowered or something?

It was the first time he ever came to one of my games. Still, there was no warning sings on him at all. Friendly and polite dude, knew the system, got acquainted with the other players, all the good stuff. As for the vampire, I think that after it took the rest of the party to get badly hurt just to get it winged and run in fear of incoming reinforcements, I thought it was pretty clear that it was a dangerous foe. In fact, just him going after the bloody thing instead of healing the rest of the group surprised me a lot.

How do you miss a OGRE?

>it tried to make every class be able to survive in combat without the support of others.

You haven't played 4e, like, at all.

How IS 4e less narrative-friendly than 3.5 or 5e? They both have the same amount of rules for such things.

So there's really no excuse then. I can't imagine how he expected to not get beaten up. Sounds like he's just a shit player, unfortunately.

Or, for that matter, there really isn't any excuse for anyone who gets that worked up over in-character issues.

You'll get good players, I promise. You just have to keep searching and assemble a wide enough player-base. Players are a dime a dozen. Man up and get rid of bad ones, keep the good ones and be on good terms with them.

I finally ditched my shit players after two years of self-delusions, got a new party of those I considered decent, and started a game. I didn't know it would feel so great. It just feels like so much relief and freedom, like I'm new to RPGs and enthusiastic about them all over again.

>"Send character sheets and a bit of backstory before the game, please"
>they actually send it, and the stats are actually consistent with backstories, and it looks like the stats were adjusted according to backstory and not the other way around

>"This system isn't really combat centered and very lethal, and-"
>"Yeah, you already warned us like 4 times, about everything, we accounted for that."
>combat starts sometime after
>they actually try to use tactics, consider retreating, and in general try to achieve their goal without getting hurt instead of trying to just kill everything and bitching when their bullshit plan told me with a shit-eating grin doesn't work

>"Since we're playing Delta Green, and you're a federal agent, I'd advice reading up on how alphabet agencies work, just in case"
>he actually reads up and uses the techniques in the game
>I mean holy shit, I didn't think it was possible to make players read something

>not a single incident of bitching, going ACKSHUALLY, or OOC-nonsense

I finally feel alive. I maybe even will try to fix my other life problems and finally deal with depression. Wish me luck anons.

I didn't play too much 4e myself, but compared to 3.5 there's a lot less rules for out of combat stuff and it seems like there's less emphasis on social interactions

I am very interested in 5e though, after playing rogue trader and iron kingdoms for a long time

>Now that's just goddamn ineptitude.
You'd be surprised how many players I've encountered that refuse to do anything more advanced than "I attack".

It's less 'There is less rules' and more 'They have consolidated the rules'.

In 3.5 there was a heap of non-combat stuff that was completely without function and didn't remotely work. It also suffered heavily from 'What a skill can do, a spell can do better'. 4e went to the standard of 'Skills are the baseline'. Rituals do things that skills can't do, rather than replacing skills.

>made a non combat npc
>so you trapped him in a 1v1 scenario
fucking 10/10 dming

To be fair, you could've described the ogre attack as something more eloquent than "swings".

I thought about that after I wrote it, but the point was that many a player has described their character as a master tactician, only to be reduced to a robotic batting machine once initiative is rolled.

sounds great user, I hope it works out for you and your group

Yes, that's true.

Have you considered having a master tactician NPC and showing what a true master tactician looks like?

>actions have conseqences? RAILROAD!

Describe your monster attacks, its half of getting into it. You feel retarded if youre the only one blessing your weapon and saying prayers while you swing if your response is a fat pile of shit rolling a d20, coughing, then saying miss, rolling and saying you take half your hp in damage. If you had said the ogre wildly swings his club in a sweeping arc he would have been able to say someting like I roll under the swing and strike at the ogres dick. Your scenario presents a battle machine killbot ogre with no openings in his attack patterns.

Sorry I made you change your perspective to see how fucked up the scenario was for the non combat guy. You singled him out for not having a murderhobo npc because youre a sadist.

...

Thats only assuming the guys only option was to fight. Instead, it was the only option he, the player, considered.

There's a world of difference between those two.

Im not going to assume his class and stats, but if he was a 2 str cleric I can see it from your perspective, but honestly it sounds like he was a noob that you just felt the need to remove from your game. Make the fleeing vampire break his leg, not rip out hos throat. Remind him gently before killing off what might be his first character.

You sound autistic mat.

"Less rules" does not mean "less support." 3.5 has charts upon charts for useless shit. 4e simplified lots of those rules so people actually bothered to use them.

I'm not really sure how you came to the conclusion that there's "less emphasis on social interactions" because a game is only as social as the DM and players allow it to be.

I don't understand how you can interpret OP's greentext as cornering the player and killing him. He was chasing a vampire and it wounded a hostage in order to escape, at which point the player willingly chose attack the vampire.

you did read the greentext right?

I'm not the DM in that campaign, i'm just saying you are assuming. Part of that DM's premise was that he'd asked the player "Are you sure". Someone even made a quip about it right afterward.

when a DM asks if you are sure about something, that means you are headed for an assumed forced loss scenario of your own volition.

Who is mat? Im just trying to help you dm better and look from other peoples perspectives. That is literally the opposite of autistim, which is a spectrum you seem quite familiar with if you needed to start a thread to vindicate you killing a noob.

I'm not OP. I'm just laughing at "You have the guy cornered after chasing him" as forcing a 1v1.

Op here, I'm not I gave the guy repeat warnings, if you took 2 more seconds to read what I wrote, I even begun giving him a way out of the combat and if you read my clarifications on what happened, the guy was very familiar with the system and knew what he was doing during chargen. Even with the obvious warning of "the rest of the party can't take the vampire on a 1v4", he insisted on chasing the vampire. Then he got knocked out, not killed, and threw this horrendous bitchfit.

Actually reading the thread is highly recommended.

It could, for example, tell you that the guy was familiar with the system, and chose to follow the vampire alone instead of staying with his party. And that he could just have let the vampire go, or attempted to stall it by talking. Or try to talk it down. Or anything.
Fighting a demonstrably stronger enemy alone was a choice.

He chased after the monster, its a noobz mistake. If a plauer wants to be nomcombat you can gently remind them what they wanted to do intead of instantly destroying their character. Perhaps he would have become a great party member for thag group if you crippled him to remind him that his character was weak instead of going LOL GOTEM!

you're just being willfully obtuse at this point.

good day sir.

I did read the story, just because somebody appears familiar with a system doesnt mean they are. If he was he probably wouldnt have tried to suicide into a vampire with his shitty weak character.

What kind of a game supports master strategist characters?

I see you're keeping to the habit of not really reading what you're responding to.
Have a nice day.

Im just saying you have to be impartial as a GM, its not about being able to decide when to be vindictive or making players fall into your traps. You're trying to set up a pleasurable game with entertaining story elements. You should be making their characters grow not hunting for chances to rack up kills, thats for the people on the other side of the table.

Do you always coddle your players when you DM?

>My reading comprehension is worse than a fourth graders.

Okay, i'll bullet point it for you
>The player asked if he could be a non-combatant
>the player did know what he was doing with the system
>The DM Warned him this was a bad idea
>the DM said that even the party couldn't beat this thing
>He continued forward anyways
>The player, despite every reason to NOT attack the thing, attacked the thing, willfully knowing he had no chance.

Thus, he's fucking retarded and takes what he gets.

Learn the difference between a trap and sheer stupidity. There's only so far a player goes before you just let them take the hit you've been saying will kill them.

...

Yeah, modern gamers arent like gamers from 20 years ago. Theres no need to make people keep rerolling, eventually they learn their limits and begin to actually roleplay within the system.

Impartiality is a vampire taking advantage of an idiot chasing him and straight up murdering him, because that's what a vampire would do.
It's not impartial to baby a player who makes stupid decisions.

t. Castrated DM

>As you're chasing the vampire, he cuts a nurse's throat and tells you that you're either saving her or-
Should have just been strong enough to prevent this from happening. Too bad, but it's your loss for not making a combat character. I bet the system you used didn't even have social mechanics so you spent your resources on literally nothing.

No one to blame but yourself.

He might be a retard, but he obviously doesnt know that. You can teach him or piss him off for your own amusement.
Thats simply just an attempt at rationalising what you've done, he had a potential to not be a baby and you decided to remove the chance for him to learn from his mistakes.

Y'know what teaches a player not to chase a vampire with a non-combat character?

Dying.

Major permanent injury is better.

It teaches the player to not make a non-combat character.

of course you would say something like that, satan
it is right, tho

Did you even read the fucking thread? It was made obvious again and again that the fucking thing is too powerful for a party, let alone a fucker that can't fight. Seriously, stop fucking posting until you read the thread. All your horseshit points have been clarified already.

Unless it's actually you, Michael. In that case, keep whining like the little bitch that you are.

It also makes people quit sessions forcing the non retarded players that were his teammates to continue playing the game, now minus one player. You can keep killng players in your sessions right away but just remember that every person thats quitting was trying to learn and you were the one who drove them from the hobby.

I'm not the DM. If I was a player at the table, I would support it. You keep addressing multiple different people as if it's just the DM replying to you.
Keep being a castrated DM who holds his players' hands though, it's much easier to just not have balls huh? With you as DM, it's always a safe journey where nobody dies!

Well if user is playing D&D ( which is assumed ) there's not much he can do without shattering immersion
"The ogres fist swings into you, catapulting you into a wall"
>Wait, does that mean I move?
"That's no in the rules and isn't balanced around, so no. It was just flavor"
>Then why did you say it, DM?

It's D&D. What the fuck do you expect him to do?

>I died in-game so I quit the entire hobby
Remind me again why anyone would want a crybaby like that in their group

I thought I was mat? And I did, your response to his inability to resist a player kill is not my failure.

They were basically down a player to start with. No harm no foul and all that.

I dunno, maybe they should read less Dracula if they are thinking non-combat people can engage vampires.

life has many doors, ed boy.

First, those answers sound autistic as fuck.

Second,

"The ogre's club comes down on you, catching your shoulder with a nasty thund. You feel something crack, and pain shoots through your arm."

>durr you killed him
>said before I knocked him out
Okay, at this point you're just baiting. My congratulations and fuck off.

To be fair, bull rush is a thing, and if the situation seems right for it, the DM can fiat some damage.

I SAID GOOD DAY SIR

>Does that mean my arm is broken DM?
Still not good as a description user.

>First, those answers sound autistic as fuck.
No, I've actually have asked similar questions as a player and have been asked when I've DM'd

Thats when you nut up and say one of two things.

"No, your arm is still usable, if barely"

or "Yes, yes it is. You can't dual weild or use two handed weapons anymore"

I'm glad grognards are gradually getting phased out and not even considered by RPG makers anymore.

Players die, but its not because they tried to save the innocent
The more that person plays they better they will get.
adeu

>Players die
I've called the police.

to be fair, one should never assume for the absolute lowest common denominator. Thats just stupid by itself.

near it, maybe. But not at the actual lowest point.

So basically
>I don't do descriptions well for fear my players will ask questions
Is that basically it?

Grognards aren't anywhere close to the lowest common denominator. They are the Westboro Baptist Church of gamers.

They won't get here in time.

Have a player that made a strict combat character, but every time combat doesn't go perfectly their way they throw a bitchfit. Plus we play online and he practically bragged about falling asleep IRL because the other PCs talking to an NPC was "too boring".

>Is it a thing in Pathfinder for NPCs to be completely overpowered or something?
I suspect it is just that angry idiots say idiotic things.
I knew a guy who was a festival of idiocy:
>"No, if we're not roommates, we're not friends. The two go hand in hand!"

Ogres can actually do that if they have Awesome Blow.

I've been the combat character in those games. I normally don't bitch but when it's been a solid 2 months without a fight, I get itchy

What's worse?

>player says "I attack it" at everything
or
>player takes 5 minutes looking at what he can do

asking because I'm the second one

He just wanted a character that gets laid...
You should tell him to play a Sorcerer or something like that.

>They should just be able to play what they want and create the action (or lack of it) themselves.

"I ATTACK THE TOWN GUARD CAPTAIN! XD"

That's where that leads, user. That Guy starting trouble for no IC reason. Players who are only interested in combat should only play with their own kind.

This. 4e was exactly the opposite.

Subjectively, I would dislike the "I attack it" player more.

Objectively, the "5 minutes" player would be taking time away from other players so therefore worse.

Unless, the five minutes starts while other people are deciding and taking their actions.
Plan your turn during other people's turns and the wait time is lessened.
Have an idea of what you want to do next turn so you only need to change it if some related dynamic was changed since your last action.