Hey Veeky Forums, how exactly do you scale back a character's depth for when you realize that the GM is making a plot that's not nearly as complex as you thought it'd be?
Because I think my character is causing my GM stress and I don't want him to be burned out by my antics.
Just don't have antics. Simplify your thoughts and be as close to your base instincts as you can.
Alternative, talk to your DM about the situation? He'll probably be happy to talk to you about whatever is going on.
Why don't you describe, in as much detail as possible, exactly what you mean and what you're doing at the table? And then shut off your computer, go to your GM, and talk to him/her about it.
I did try talking to him and that's what ended up stressing him out.
To clarify what happened.
>We're playing in a 5e campaign.
>The GM hates multi-classing because of how 3rd edition handled it and associates it with power gaming.
>I'm playing a character whose arc would make sense for him to multi-class into a Barbarian.
>I talk to him about it and we come to a compromise, but it's clear that he still isn't happy with me multi-classing.
>Also, because of my character's flaw, me and another character got into PvP, which also stressed out the GM.
>Now I'm worried that my antics are causing him stress that may end up burning him out.
I would like to stress that I was wrong in this situation, I just don't know how to scale it back down after all the shit I pulled earlier.
First, you can go back to your GM and say, "Hey, I fucked up and I'm sorry. What can I do to ease your stress?". Or, simply not multi-class. If your GM doesn't like it, and it's causing a friend (i assume) stress, just don't do it. And going forward, never, under any circumstances, engage in PvP. It's the same reason you don't start fights at your workplace: you have to do a thing with these people that requires some amount of mutual respect, and fighting breaks down that respect.
>never, under any circumstances, engage in PvP
This guy is decently right about everything but this. You need some amount of mutual respect, but PVP is acceptable assuming both sides know the stakes and agree that this is the best way for things to progress, and you don't play with whiny bitches who agreed thinking that they would never lose themselves.
Or if they decide to be a cunt and,
hearing that you're playing a paladin, decide to play a CE Necromancer who wants to become a Lich at any cost. In which case, just do what comes naturally.
>going forward, never, under any circumstances, engage in PvP.
To be fair, the PvP happened because me and another player's characters have opposing ideals.
In a nutshell, my character doesn't like killing and their character has no problems with doing so and it came to a head when they killed some evil creatures that had attacked us earlier.
The GM gave us inspiration for it for playing to our flaws but at the same time, he was also a bit crossed about it so it was a bit of a wash.
Bump
No need for a bump, the perfect answer has been stated
race+class+background
that's all you need
Multiclassing and failing to work things out with other players isn't character depth. Try to bear in mind that you're playing a game with other people, the primary purpose of which is to play in such a way that you continue to be invited to the game and that other people look forward to your participation in future sessions.
>I'm playing a character whose arc would make sense for him to multi-class into a Barbarian.
Ignore this. Proceed with the rules the DM is comfortable with. Get angry sometimes in a manner that isn't disruptive to the other players.
>Also, because of my character's flaw, me and another character got into PvP
Make it clear that you and the other player are both cool with it, and PvP to the goddamned permadeath so one of you can reroll a character that can function in the group.
From your responses and explanations in this thread, I don't think it's your character that's causing your GM stress...
It's you. You sound difficult and awful to deal with even when you're trying to fix a mistake that you're seemingly blowing way out of proportion.
>Gets into PvP because you're a pacifist weiner who got angry when players killed EVIL monsters in self-defense.
You are the worst kind of busybody player. I'm 800% mad right now.
To be fair, just because a creature is evil doesn't necessarily mean it's righteous, virtuous, or even a good idea to put it to death. It's usually better to put it to death for DOING evil than BEING evil.
However, I'm pretty sure OP is just a massive faggot, and my nitpick is not at all relevant in this particular scenario.
He hasn't elaborated, but the way this usually works is the "no-killing" PC rolls nonlethal damage every turn and gets buttbothered when other players don't.
People forget Batman is a character who doesn't play well with others and you shouldn't emulate him in a team game.
Oh, I wasn't sperging about the pacifist part. Pacifism is a bullshit philosophy in D&D because there is no functional penal system and everything really is out to kill you.
I was sperging about the "killing an evil creature is always justified" thing, which isn't even what you said. Cause self-defense and all.
Actually, once upon a time Batman was really good at playing with others.
But we've had several decades of brain-damaged idiots writing comics while thinking that Alan Moore knew what the fuck he was doing, which has kinda ruined everything.
But sure, whine some more. And throw in more Overwatch chibis, that really sells the 'if you don't play the exact way I do, YOU'RE the problem' argument.
What I think is really weird is OP says he hates killing but also wants to multiclass to fucking barbarian because it "makes sense" for the character.
>And throw in more Overwatch chibis
You got it, user!
>How do I scale back my character's complexity guys
>the complexity is that he fits into more than one class archetype and got into a fight once
Jesus fucking christ. D&D babbies, everyone.
I don't get how you're simultaneously a pacifist and aiming for being a barbarian.
I also don't get what you expected the party to do to protect themselves from evil monsters that had attacked them earlier.
I also also don't get how you're fine with killing another party member but not an evil creature that attacked you before.
You seem super fun to game with.
This is now a D&Dtards hate thread.
Why the fuck are they so thin-skinned, boring, and generic?
I don't understand the multiclassing concern (besides, weren't straight casters the thing that broke 3.5?), but the PvP issue I can definitely see. PvP can quickly derail an adventure and lead to hurt feelings and an inability for the party to work together. That sucks, and because of this, I don't normally even allow non-meta PvP (and by meta PvP, I mean that the players are having their characters act hostile and maybe even exchange a few blows, but they are keeping the conflict from being "real" by finding excuses to defuse or divert things at the proper time -- "play-acting" the conflict, in effect). If and when it looks like PCs might break into combat with each other, I support pausing the game and agreeing on meta-parameters for how things are going to proceed. I don't know how your fight went down exactly, but I'd talk to your GM and the other player about it and come up with rules of behavior going forward.
>defends D&D
>uses boring and generic as insults
Oh boy.
>besides, weren't straight casters the thing that broke 3.5?
Full casters may have been the thing that originally broke 3.5, but if you were optimizing you'd go into a PrC at the earliest opportunity if full caster or multiclass possibly even earlier if you were a martial.
>In a nutshell, my character doesn't like killing and their character has no problems with doing so and it came to a head when they killed some evil creatures that had attacked us earlier.
If your campaign is anything like a standard D&D campaign (like, at all), then you have carefully designed a character to derail things. Role-playing is a team sport and it's your responsibility to create a character that will work with the group and further the adventure. If your character comes to blows with party members when they attack evil creatures who even assaulted the party earlier, you have created a problem character, and it's your responsibility to change your character, or to roll up a new one.
But assuming I'm misreading the situation, the thing to do when things come to a head is to call a time out and say something like: "The thing your character is about to do is something I can't see my character standing for, and this could easily result in them coming to blows. How do you want to handle this? Is there some way that things could turn out that wouldn't damage the party going forward? Maybe they could face off and yell at each other and shit, but they could both end up giving some ground or finding a way out? Maybe if somebody else intervened?" And so on.
Well, in any case, 3.5 is exploitably broken garbage.
Judging by everything you've posted this thread, I'd say your problems are from getting too far ahead of yourself as far as character development goes.
You shouldn't be plotting out your character's entire existence in the game's narrative, otherwise what's the point in playing a game instead of writing a book? Start your character off with a connection to the setting and a reason to band together with the rest of the party and you'll be well on your way to becoming the mythical "good rper"
Building off of this, your character seems to lack any reason to actually party up with the rest of the party, being a pacifist who doesn't even accept the self-defense exception in a party that at the very least has no qualms with defending themselves from bad shit with lethal force. Why is this guy going on an adventure to destroy the forces of evil if he's so opposed to harming anything?
>I don't understand the multiclassing concern
The concern doesn’t matter, the GM asked people not to do it and OP had to go and do it anyway, cause he is a massive faggot who can’t play well with others
I agree that the GM sets the rules, but that doesn't mean that you can't make an entreaty about something. It really all comes down to etiquette. I've certainly had players who constantly challenged any boundaries of the game and constantly argued with me over everything, and that shit is obnoxious and disrespectful. But I've also had players make a humble request for something, explaining where they're coming from, but not pushing too hard and ultimately respecting my decision on the matter, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that (provided they don't do it over and over, testing every boundary).
If the DM has accepted your multiclass thing, suddenly deciding not to do it might annoy him more. Tell him you're sorry and that you enjoy the game and ask him how you can be a better player.
>In a nutshell, my character doesn't like killing and their character has no problems with doing so and it came to a head when they killed some evil creatures that had attacked us earlier.
Is your character mentally deranged? If you live in a hostile world with evil creatures, you have to protect yourself against those creatures and if you let them live they will multiply and endanger others - innocents.
You fucking dummy, I'm not defending D&D I'm doing the opposite
aw shit i fucked up
let's retreat and regroup for now
>>>I talk to him about it and we come to a compromise, but it's clear that he still isn't happy with me multi-classing.
Go back and replace the Barbarian class with whatever you had before. Pick up an axe and say you get angry, talk about nature, and act like a barbarian without actually having the Barbarian class.
>>>Also, because of my character's flaw, me and another character got into PvP, which also stressed out the GM.
Stop fighting other players.
>>In a nutshell, my character doesn't like killing and their character has no problems with doing so and it came to a head when they killed some evil creatures that had attacked us earlier.
Have your character voice their complaints. have them help others who are weak and defenseless. Have your character leave in protest because they refuse to further associate with the player in question.
Don't fight other player's characters.
...
>I don't get how you're simultaneously a pacifist and aiming for being a barbarian.
The plan I was going for was like a choice where my character would've had to choose between being a pacifist and giving into his baser instincts and saying "kill 'em all!" So I only would've chosen Barbarian if it made sense for him to be less open about killing things.
>I also also don't get how you're fine with killing another party member but not an evil creature that attacked you before.
I wasn't going to kill the other party member. At worse, they would've been knocked out.
We both initiated PvP based off of our character's background and we both agreed that it was appropriate given who our characters are and how they viewed the situation.
You were only at that impasse in the first place because you played an obnoxious and retarded character concept.
"Pacifist" characters are always the fucking worst in these games. Not because they don't kill, but because they always argue and bitch when other players don't conform to their morals. They're the militant vegans of TTRPGs.
Which is why I admitted that I fucked up in the first place. It's not like I'm trying to justify it or anything so why the hostility?