...crap, my anime knowledge is failing me. What anime is this?

Eureka Seven.

the movie. In the TV show, the crew aren't psychotic.

...Do I know you from somewhere? I'm pretty sure your name and/or avatar are familiar.

Bay12 forums, probably.

I think we've all been in that place before, especially when we were new. The group doesn't have to be good at the game if it wants a punching bag badly enough...

I think Nat was wrong about this being a group of DMs. I think even DM would find these people abhorrent.

...Then again it did seem like she almost did that to Phil, though perhaps not as harsh and she was at least still role playing.

And DM has grown out of it; chances are she used to be worse about being like this. I've got a feeling Nat doesn't choose to spend too much time reflecting on this, normally...

Man, what a bunch of dogturds.

I joined a group kind of like that once. They were using an older version of a system I already knew, so although I was "the new guy" I actually had a better knowledge of a lot of things than some of them. (Though other things had been changed so much I didn't know them at all). The group also had their own interpretations of certain rules that just didn't make sense. (They banned neutral-alligned characters because "if you're neutral, then you would act against the party if they did something good, to try to balance it out to neutral"). They also equalized player LEVEL at start, rather than XP or ECL (So one player had effectively twice as much XP as another at start), and a few other things besides. All of that I was willing to put up with, but when one of the other players tried to attack me in character, over something as trivial as not speaking to him as if he were my master, I knew I had a problem. To the group's credit, another player did step in and draw his attention before he actually rolled an attack, but the player then attacked THAT player- so I stepped in to stop THAT, since no one else was going to. I cast a spell to knock him out temporarily, so that he wouldn't harm anyone. No damage, just put him out for a minute or so. THEN someone else finally decides to step in, and casts a spell of his own to put me to sleep for a couple hours. Then everybody stops paying attention, so the guy who attacked me gets up- somehow is aware that I knocked him out despite my having blindsided him- ties me up- which nobody interferes with, even though his character was not able to use a rope to effectively restrain someone. Then he throws me over his horse, and rides away to get me thrown in prison using his character's backstory to explain how nobody would question him if he said I needed to be locked away for life. Then I woke up, and since I was trained in escaping binds, and since he was not trained in binding people, I untied myself, and slid off the back of his horse- which he realized despite not seeing or hearing it, then he turned the horse around to charge me- and the GM decided that despite my skill at escape, and his lack of skill at binding, that even though I'd gotten free of the ropes, it would still take a couple rounds before I could finish freeing myself- and the player charged me, and miraculously missed, then he turned around again and charged me again, and missed again, then I was able to act- but he asked the DM if his horse could also have attacked me- so he was allowed to make two retroactive attacks with the horse, which added onto the damage I had taken before the whole fiasco which nobody had been willing to heal, meant I was dead.

My character had not survived the first session, for the most assenine of reasons. I did not return for a second session.

Wow.

To be fair, I'm more used to people just being jerks and metagamers, but... Wow. I've also god kind of the feel that they weren't particularly skilled players themselves, but it was very much a closed circle. I mean, seriously, the GM allowed retroactive attacks from the horse?

I often think one of the downsides, especially among groups that have been playing tabletop games for some time, is that there's often this belief we need to 'weed out' the new players. I don't even ever understand whut will this, grammar is correct. Good call on not returning.

Yeah, well, retroactively applying things that a player forgot on their turn is something some of the GOOD GMs I've gamed with have allowed, but when you put it in context with all the other stuff that happened alongside it, yeah, not the best first impression.

I hate that this is something that actually happens.

It's one thing if you're frustrated with someone being new to the game. Still say "deal with it." You were new at one point too. I've come across groups that leave me feeling like these people have been "new" for decades.

I really don't understand this kind of behavior. And it's probably because it's actually incomprehensible. Emotionally immature jackasses that aren't following trains of thought as to what their actions actually mean.

Hate this so much.

As if this medium wasn't intimidating enough to get into. The books are big and expensive. And the mechanics are convoluted. It's a serious investment!

Turns out there's people out there that think memorizing tables and having high stats makes them a better person than you are.

I despise toxic games. For so many reasons.

Now, as long as we're clear; character optimization- within reasonable limits- is perfectly fine, and hack-and-slash type gameplay is fine if the group is on the same page.

Bringing a hack and slash type gameplay to a group that enjoys the storytelling and political intrigue or vice versa isn't necessarily a bad thing- if the group is okay with it.

The problem isn't with the type of player, but the type of person. Minmaxers can be some of the most fun people to play with- but I'd rather do without tabletop games altogether than play with a group of assholes.

To be fair, I like to minmax, and I'm an asshole about it, but not the way these guys are. I have made a professional chef who can kill a T-Rex in one turn. As a commoner. Armed only with a paring knife.

But that's where people realize where I've been a gigantic prick by creating a broken character, and didn't bother to inform anyone he was broken.

I don't hate on new guys just for being new, though. That's bad.

Exactly - and like DM versus Luke, if you've got friends doing it - it can be damn fun. The problem isn't minmaxing, or being in love with the rules, or knowing the setting better then anyone else - it's when people use these things as some sort of 'credentials' that set up a hierarchy with them at the top.

On that note, one of the reasons that I like DM as a character, and hell, think she'll probably join up as a certain archaeologist later, is that she combines roleplaying with minmaxing. Nerdvana, right there, is having ridiculous stats... That support a ridiculous(ly detailed) backstory!

Heh, necropost, but since we still aren't anywhere near Robin's introduction, I can totally see that.

"'Severe Trauma - Buster Call. Dead Parent (x3). Enemy - Entire World.' You realize I'm going to *totally* use this against you, right?"

Funny how much of an issue this strip raised.

I could spend hours (I often do) talking about game design.

There are many ways of playing a table top roleplaying game. I like a game that is engaging and immersive. Where I can step back and think about problems from the perspective of "what would my character do?"

Metagaming is a funny thing. The more arbitrary your game is, the less you are able to have a character.

And sometimes there's a series of decisions that means you aren't playing a game at all.


Here's another way of looking at things. If you really are so much better at this game than other people and it is that important to you for whatever reason? It will show in how you play, and others will recognize it.

And the ONLY way others will recognize that you have a lot of experience with roleplaying games is if you are playing with others.

It'd sure be nice if that was actually the line of reasoning. There's a lot of different kinds of toxic players, so it can be hard to make general statements. But I'm of the opinion that even if your life is horrible doesn't mean you need to actively seek to traumatize others.

Metagaming, to a certain extent, is part of the game with most tabletops. Ever play Blood Bowl? If you don't take a fair step back from your role as Head Coach to look at the game from a strictly-rules-and-matagame perspective, you don't stand a chance. The same thing happens in chess, monopoly, checkers, poker. Part of playing a game is understanding the rules, and playing within them to the best of your ability- in a game like, say, D&D, this includes character creation and progression, and what decisions your character makes.

In hand with that though, is that a lot of tabletop games, like D&D, are Role Playing Games, where in addition to the mechanics and such, you are expected to stay in character as much as possible.

Balancing the two parts of the game together can be tough. On the one hand, you have to be aware of the line of player knowledge vs character knowledge, but on the other hand you'd be playing the game WRONG if you walked up and attacked a great wyrm dragon at level 1 because your character has a hatred of dragons, and doesn't have a good enough knowledge skill to know that it's dangerous.

So the line blurs a bit, and each person will have their own balance that they feel is acceptable. To some, knowing the general dangers of common enemies is just something an adventurer should know. To others, their characters should have a general feel for how dangerous each different attack of each different enemy is, their defenses, and weaknesses, and what tactics are most effective.

Managing this "metagaming", from a GM's perspective can be frustrating, impossible, or simple, depending on the group. Let it go too rampant and your job as GM might be impossible- police it too strictly, and your players won't be willing or able to take any risks at all.

Even in arbitrary systems, this holds. The question isn't one of "Is optimization or metagaming bad?" it's a question of "How MUCH optimization or metagaming is bad?"

Would you bring a level 5 Squirtle to the elite four, and make it fight, because your character had faith in it? Hopefully not, because even if the concept of "levels" isn't something your character is aware of, you know better. That's not a bad thing.

That's basically the reason I'm giving up on MtG for the time being. :/ I can't find anybody to play who isn't tournament level, and I'm too lazy and too broke to put in the time and effort required to be worth beans in a game.

Worst I've ever had was somebody robbing my character while he was unconscious, but then again, I've only ever played Encounters. :/

I built a charecter for shadowrun that can move a couple hundred meters per turn. He's deacent at hand-to-hand but can do nothing else. I just wanted to play him to see how he handled, good backstory and everything. For some reason my GM wouldn't allow him :P something about being able to outrun nearly every vehicle in the PHb and crossing the largest mat we own in a simple action.

New speech bubble colour! Perhaps Gordon will join the group at some point. Maybe the new Sanji.

More likely to be Chopper, in my opinion. Someone who's newer to games would fit him better.

I dunno! With that speech bubble color, shouldn't he wind up as Franky?

Based solely on colour he seems like he'd end up as Sanji. Maybe Brooke?

Given his name's Gordon, if he joins the group, the party would force Sanji on him simply because the voice Sanji's been given would make it hilarious to them.

Gonna call it. Gordon's gonna join them, and it will be all good.

Instead, it reminds me of the meaner MMO players I've encountered. My wife joined a raiding guilt on Rift, and they were like this all the time. They didn't pick on my wife, but she got real fed up with them and joined another guild that wasn't so intense. We're both happier for it.

Gordon's Chopper. I mean, considering Nami's connection to Chopper, his nervousness around the crew at first, yeah Gordon's Chopper.
It has to happen, it's too perfect.

not sure how relevant this is months later, but in the cast section it highlights Sanji in the same coloring.

Blue bubble? SO this guy will join them and play Sanji as his PC?
i thought Sanji would be GMPC but since he tend to be involved in battle a lot, it'll make sense that he be a PC, too.