We have been played multiple campaigns all pretty much the same group of people for the last 2 years and at no point did we have an issue of conflict in playstyle. We're all very heavily into the RP, it's actually an inside joke that we take 25 minutes to cross a normal door.
I've played multiple games with this particular player and this problem is unique to the character he's chosen to play, his other characters are perfectly fine and we all prefer having lots of RP :).
I'm definitely not looking to restrict his playstyle but rather find a way to keep the game moving without having the NPCs or PCs have to explain how a door works, how to buy something, how to drink from a mug, etc. It can provide a lot of great RP moments but I'm afraid it'll turn tiresome at length.
We have been played multiple campaigns all pretty much the same group of people for the last 2 years and at no point did we have an issue of conflict in playstyle. We're all very heavily into the RP, it's actually an inside joke that we take 25 minutes to cross a normal door.
I've played multiple games with this particular player and this problem is unique to the character he's chosen to play, his other characters are perfectly fine and we all prefer having lots of RP :).
I'm definitely not looking to restrict his playstyle but rather find a way to keep the game moving without having the NPCs or PCs have to explain how a door works, how to buy something, how to drink from a mug, etc. It can provide a lot of great RP moments but I'm afraid it'll turn tiresome at length.
Have a discussion. Because no person real or fake would need a door explained everytime they see one. If he is playing it that way then he is playing a -5 intelligence and not a Monk with no understanding of society. You should have to worry about an Inn and room anymore because they have experienced that now. Like wise the carriage. Part of that conversation should be the small skills they picked up traveling to session 1. If they were able to somehow understand a notice looking for freelancers, they should not have no concept of a door. It seems like a bigger disjoint between where the player is starting the character, and where you expected the characters to start.
But if his character is not from normal society, you should expect "new" things to be confounding. Think of it like trying to show your foreign friend around your hometown when they have never visited or spoken the language. But IMO you should not be throwing his character to the curb, and neither should the PCs UNLESS this has been an issue for say 10x sessions that spanned hundreds of hours in game time. I'm sorry but the idea that characters just drop "dead weight" at the first conflict is frankly silly. And if adventuring parties did that always (like these people suggest) than every party would be a party of 1.
As the doctor would say "everybody does what they're always going to have to do from the very beginning -- sit down and talk!" - I'll broken record until people stop telling you to throw out a character without talking first. When you do and things don't improve THEN we can discuss nuclear options!
If the other players would RP with him instead of just trying to move on, that player would not be getting any more attention than anyone else. The fir bolg who takes him in hand and shows him how to use a cart or mount a horse, is also RPing, isn't he?
That still requires them to have all their roleplaying revolving around the one character instead of dealing with whatever backstory things they might have come up with for themselves. That gets old really fast. The player is the one who created the extra drama, the onus to fix it should be on him, not the rest of the party. Yeah, the fir bolg's player is RPing, but did they want to be the babysitter for the bird? Maybe they have something else that they'd actually rather have their character doing, but they can't because they feel like they're stuck in this role now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I will also repeat the importance of speaking to this player about how he plans to role play his character and how he sees his character adapting to the world, and let him know your concerns. If this is the first time this sort of issue has come up and this player has been fine to play with up until this point, then it stands to reason that he will be open to speaking on the concerns and work with you on a compromise.
He is a monk, which tend to translate to being a wisdom character. So while he might not be knowledgeable of the civilized world, he should be wise enough to pick up on typical and acceptable behaviors by observing the world around him and retaining knowledge he has gathered. As Kotath has stated, if he has been shown how to open a door or what a cart is, he should be wise enough to be aware of there functions in the future.
While I can see all points, if this thread alone is an indication of how much effort and attention is being paid to ONE player/PC I can only imagine the flow of things at the gaming table.
Take that as you will, but best of luck either way.
First off, muteness is a disability and disabilities should never be character gimmicks. Characters can have disabilities obviously but making them a gimmick is insulting to people who might be disabled. I flat out would not allow this character to be ran at my table. It creates unnecessary headaches for everyone involved except the one player who might be having fun but at everyone else's expense. Secondly, as others have pointed out, a mute character with no knowledge of anything going on is unlikely to be down to go adventuring. Why are they there in the first place? How can they justify caring about the plot of the story? Seems to me like this player designed a character they think will be good for some laughs but not one that is fully fleshed out.
First off, muteness is a disability and disabilities should never be character gimmicks. Characters can have disabilities obviously but making them a gimmick is insulting to people who might be disabled. I flat out would not allow this character to be ran at my table. It creates unnecessary headaches for everyone involved except the one player who might be having fun but at everyone else's expense. Secondly, as others have pointed out, a mute character with no knowledge of anything going on is unlikely to be down to go adventuring. Why are they there in the first place? How can they justify caring about the plot of the story? Seems to me like this player designed a character they think will be good for some laughs but not one that is fully fleshed out.
Just a note, The char description in the original post isn't actually mute, just has limited knowledge of common so they don't often speak.
Being mute isn't the problem, the lack of communication is. It doesn't matter if the character is mute, unable to speak common, or just really sullen and doesn't want to talk to people.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We have been played multiple campaigns all pretty much the same group of people for the last 2 years and at no point did we have an issue of conflict in playstyle. We're all very heavily into the RP, it's actually an inside joke that we take 25 minutes to cross a normal door.
I've played multiple games with this particular player and this problem is unique to the character he's chosen to play, his other characters are perfectly fine and we all prefer having lots of RP :).
I'm definitely not looking to restrict his playstyle but rather find a way to keep the game moving without having the NPCs or PCs have to explain how a door works, how to buy something, how to drink from a mug, etc. It can provide a lot of great RP moments but I'm afraid it'll turn tiresome at length.
Have a discussion. Because no person real or fake would need a door explained everytime they see one. If he is playing it that way then he is playing a -5 intelligence and not a Monk with no understanding of society. You should have to worry about an Inn and room anymore because they have experienced that now. Like wise the carriage. Part of that conversation should be the small skills they picked up traveling to session 1. If they were able to somehow understand a notice looking for freelancers, they should not have no concept of a door. It seems like a bigger disjoint between where the player is starting the character, and where you expected the characters to start.
But if his character is not from normal society, you should expect "new" things to be confounding. Think of it like trying to show your foreign friend around your hometown when they have never visited or spoken the language. But IMO you should not be throwing his character to the curb, and neither should the PCs UNLESS this has been an issue for say 10x sessions that spanned hundreds of hours in game time. I'm sorry but the idea that characters just drop "dead weight" at the first conflict is frankly silly. And if adventuring parties did that always (like these people suggest) than every party would be a party of 1.
As the doctor would say "everybody does what they're always going to have to do from the very beginning -- sit down and talk!" - I'll broken record until people stop telling you to throw out a character without talking first. When you do and things don't improve THEN we can discuss nuclear options!
That still requires them to have all their roleplaying revolving around the one character instead of dealing with whatever backstory things they might have come up with for themselves. That gets old really fast. The player is the one who created the extra drama, the onus to fix it should be on him, not the rest of the party. Yeah, the fir bolg's player is RPing, but did they want to be the babysitter for the bird? Maybe they have something else that they'd actually rather have their character doing, but they can't because they feel like they're stuck in this role now.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I will also repeat the importance of speaking to this player about how he plans to role play his character and how he sees his character adapting to the world, and let him know your concerns. If this is the first time this sort of issue has come up and this player has been fine to play with up until this point, then it stands to reason that he will be open to speaking on the concerns and work with you on a compromise.
He is a monk, which tend to translate to being a wisdom character. So while he might not be knowledgeable of the civilized world, he should be wise enough to pick up on typical and acceptable behaviors by observing the world around him and retaining knowledge he has gathered. As Kotath has stated, if he has been shown how to open a door or what a cart is, he should be wise enough to be aware of there functions in the future.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
While I can see all points, if this thread alone is an indication of how much effort and attention is being paid to ONE player/PC I can only imagine the flow of things at the gaming table.
Take that as you will, but best of luck either way.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
First off, muteness is a disability and disabilities should never be character gimmicks. Characters can have disabilities obviously but making them a gimmick is insulting to people who might be disabled. I flat out would not allow this character to be ran at my table. It creates unnecessary headaches for everyone involved except the one player who might be having fun but at everyone else's expense. Secondly, as others have pointed out, a mute character with no knowledge of anything going on is unlikely to be down to go adventuring. Why are they there in the first place? How can they justify caring about the plot of the story? Seems to me like this player designed a character they think will be good for some laughs but not one that is fully fleshed out.
Just a note, The char description in the original post isn't actually mute, just has limited knowledge of common so they don't often speak.
Being mute isn't the problem, the lack of communication is. It doesn't matter if the character is mute, unable to speak common, or just really sullen and doesn't want to talk to people.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.