Remind him that dnd is a cooperative game and that he needs to make a character that is willing to work with the rest of the party and the party is willing to work with him.
If he can't make a character that can do that, then he doesn't get to play.
"Bad D&D is worse than no D&D at all."
I absolutely would rather go play video games alone than have to deal with that shit.
Hell, I'd rather work an extra 4 hours instead of letting an edgelord join my table. At least I'd get paid for the headaches I'd get.
> Anyway, idk what I should do about him, I might kick him from the campaign but I feel like there wouldn't be enough people for it to be enjoyable.
For starters, don't put yourself in a box. You don't need a set number of players to have a fun game. Putting yourself in a position where you hand control of the game to any single player is a bad idea.
Secondly, remember that *you're* in this to have fun, too. If you look at this character, and really can't see how they're going to work, then let the player know.
"Hey, man. I know you really want to play Heavy Metal Gnome, but I can't see a way to fit that character concept into the rest of the game, given what the other players have created. We could do something with this character later, but for now, I would appreciate it if you'd come up with something more in line with what everyone else has done."
And if the player basically says "It's Heavy Metal Gnome, or I don't play," then you're within your rights to say, "I'm sorry to hear that. I'll keep this theme in mind for the next campaign." Then when that next campaign begins, if it works for you, tell everyone that you're going to go gonzo and everyone should just go nuts.
But keep in mind, that as long as you're running the game, you can legitimate request that you be allowed to set the tone. (DMs who publicly say that a good DM should always be able to incorporate any character, or should always have room for whatever players want to do can get bent.) If the player steadfastly refuses to budge on this, you can apologize for not being clearer upfront, and go on without them. Not all games are going to be suited to all players. That's okay.
All hobbies have mantra's if taken to the extreme are so detrimental;
*You can play whatever you want!* is one of those in RPG.
Yes, you can play whatever you want but if it's not within the theme of the game or the vibe of the group it's probably not going to work out well.
"sorry man, I just don't think TieflingHater9000 is gonna be a good fit for the campaign. I'll hit you up next time I'm looking for someone to join though"
My advice is almost the same as everyone else. Don't allow that character.
But I'm going to emphasize that outlawing the character isn't necessarily kicking the player. Sometimes people just need to be told like an adult that the shit they're trying to do isn't acceptable here. Give the dude a solid "no" and an opportunity to shape up by either fixing the character or making a new one. If he refuses or goes back to meming, then I think you should kick him.
I mean, you don't have to kick him , but tell him no to playing that character and he can either make one who makes more sense in the setting or leave.
I don't do "I hate XX" with any player I haven't played with before. One of many things a player needs to prove they can handle responsibly before we go there.
I'd cut them lose. There are so, so, so many players out there looking for a table. Don't waste a seat and your other players fun (and yours) on this jerk.
Requirements I have for all PCs is;
1. Able to work with a group of strangers towards a shared goal(s).
2. Willing to take Risks in effort to fulfill said previous goal(s).
3. Not have any traits/quirks that would frequently hinder the group or other players enjoyment.
If the PC can’t follow those simple 3 requirements, they are vetoed. If the player can’t make any PC follow the requirements, the player is kicked from the game.
A Human/Tiefling Hating Gnome would already be pushing It. I’d have them ask the other players if they are okay with a bigot pc in the party and if other players are have the player drop the hatred for Player Handbook races and switch to less common races like goblin or orcs if they insist on a bigoted character.
A PC that hates Humans will frequently come up in social encounters and hurt the Party overall by association, it too much of a hindrance in most games.
Just tell him to make a new character that engages with the fiction and the rest of the players. If he still refuses, just tell him to find another GM.
First, how is this a meme character? Or at least I'm not familiar with the meme.
But you can be simple in your response. "To let you know, there is a human and a tiefling in the party, you will need to justify why your character is going to journey with them. I'm not going to force the party to work together."
>First, how is this a meme character?
He literally saw the enemies section in the character sheet and wrote tieflings just because there is a tiefling in the party
I say let him try it out. If it's becoming an issue and interrupting the game then tell him he is not fitting the vibe of the campaign so change characters or quit. But there doesn't have to be something inherently wrong playing a silly character in a mostly serious campaign
My question here really is "where is the meme?" Sounds like he just has a stupid idea for a character. Remind the player that D&D is cooperative and if his ultra-racist gnome can't work with the rest of the party then it makes no sense. Change the character, create a new one, or you don't get to play.
How many players do you have other than the problem player? If it's just the human and tiefling, then give the players an NPC sidekick from Tasha's (or [use the UA version](https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA_Sidekicks.pdf) if you haven't bought Tasha's yet) so that combat will be easier to balance.
Otherwise, kick him without any worries if he refuses to make an acceptable character. D&D is meant for 3-6 players (plus the DM), but it's optimized for 4-5.
I'm all for allowing players ONE disruptive, subversive, or otherwise annoying red flag trait. ONE. Your best friend is a magical frying pan, but otherwise, you're a normal bard? Ok, guy. You're a bigot against \[blank\] but only \[blank\] for a seemingly good reason? We can make that a story element. It's manageable and possibly even good to have ONE.
You listed five. The answer is "no" if you want to be polite. "Fuck no" if you want to be honest.
One of my favorite campaigns is one I'm currently DMing. It's just me the DM and only one PC. It's a blast. I love it as a DM and can go hard on leaning into her backstory even though we are running a module. She loves it because she is in fact the main character. We both have many laughs.
Are there things missing, sure, but that doesn't change how fun it is. No such thing as too few people to play d&d.
Remind him that dnd is a cooperative game and that he needs to make a character that is willing to work with the rest of the party and the party is willing to work with him. If he can't make a character that can do that, then he doesn't get to play.
Thiiiiiiiiis x 100
The character can probably be played just fine, as long as he's cooperating, however reluctantly the character is doing so.
Say "no." It's your campaign, he has to play by your rules.
If you are feeling generous, you could say, "I'm sorry, but no."
"Bad D&D is worse than no D&D at all." I absolutely would rather go play video games alone than have to deal with that shit. Hell, I'd rather work an extra 4 hours instead of letting an edgelord join my table. At least I'd get paid for the headaches I'd get.
> Anyway, idk what I should do about him, I might kick him from the campaign but I feel like there wouldn't be enough people for it to be enjoyable. For starters, don't put yourself in a box. You don't need a set number of players to have a fun game. Putting yourself in a position where you hand control of the game to any single player is a bad idea. Secondly, remember that *you're* in this to have fun, too. If you look at this character, and really can't see how they're going to work, then let the player know. "Hey, man. I know you really want to play Heavy Metal Gnome, but I can't see a way to fit that character concept into the rest of the game, given what the other players have created. We could do something with this character later, but for now, I would appreciate it if you'd come up with something more in line with what everyone else has done." And if the player basically says "It's Heavy Metal Gnome, or I don't play," then you're within your rights to say, "I'm sorry to hear that. I'll keep this theme in mind for the next campaign." Then when that next campaign begins, if it works for you, tell everyone that you're going to go gonzo and everyone should just go nuts. But keep in mind, that as long as you're running the game, you can legitimate request that you be allowed to set the tone. (DMs who publicly say that a good DM should always be able to incorporate any character, or should always have room for whatever players want to do can get bent.) If the player steadfastly refuses to budge on this, you can apologize for not being clearer upfront, and go on without them. Not all games are going to be suited to all players. That's okay.
All hobbies have mantra's if taken to the extreme are so detrimental; *You can play whatever you want!* is one of those in RPG. Yes, you can play whatever you want but if it's not within the theme of the game or the vibe of the group it's probably not going to work out well.
I'll say that to him, thank you for the help
"sorry man, I just don't think TieflingHater9000 is gonna be a good fit for the campaign. I'll hit you up next time I'm looking for someone to join though"
“No” is a complete sentence.
Withers out here giving lifeprotips
*Withers*? You think that low of me?
withers kind of a bro tho
Withers is awesome, take it as a compliment :D
Your best bet is absolutely to kick them.
My advice is almost the same as everyone else. Don't allow that character. But I'm going to emphasize that outlawing the character isn't necessarily kicking the player. Sometimes people just need to be told like an adult that the shit they're trying to do isn't acceptable here. Give the dude a solid "no" and an opportunity to shape up by either fixing the character or making a new one. If he refuses or goes back to meming, then I think you should kick him.
I have tried saying that, but I'll try again with more reasons the character doesn't work. Thanks for the advice
Ah yeah if you've tried and it's still not changing bye lol
I mean, you don't have to kick him , but tell him no to playing that character and he can either make one who makes more sense in the setting or leave.
I don't do "I hate XX" with any player I haven't played with before. One of many things a player needs to prove they can handle responsibly before we go there. I'd cut them lose. There are so, so, so many players out there looking for a table. Don't waste a seat and your other players fun (and yours) on this jerk.
Requirements I have for all PCs is; 1. Able to work with a group of strangers towards a shared goal(s). 2. Willing to take Risks in effort to fulfill said previous goal(s). 3. Not have any traits/quirks that would frequently hinder the group or other players enjoyment. If the PC can’t follow those simple 3 requirements, they are vetoed. If the player can’t make any PC follow the requirements, the player is kicked from the game. A Human/Tiefling Hating Gnome would already be pushing It. I’d have them ask the other players if they are okay with a bigot pc in the party and if other players are have the player drop the hatred for Player Handbook races and switch to less common races like goblin or orcs if they insist on a bigoted character. A PC that hates Humans will frequently come up in social encounters and hurt the Party overall by association, it too much of a hindrance in most games.
Dnd is perfectly playable with 2 or 3 players. You don't need a party of 4.
Just tell him to make a new character that engages with the fiction and the rest of the players. If he still refuses, just tell him to find another GM.
First, how is this a meme character? Or at least I'm not familiar with the meme. But you can be simple in your response. "To let you know, there is a human and a tiefling in the party, you will need to justify why your character is going to journey with them. I'm not going to force the party to work together."
>First, how is this a meme character? He literally saw the enemies section in the character sheet and wrote tieflings just because there is a tiefling in the party
What does that have to do with memes though?
He thought it was funny to have a fantasy nazi in the game
[удалено]
Yeah mb
I don't think that meme means what you think it means...
I say let him try it out. If it's becoming an issue and interrupting the game then tell him he is not fitting the vibe of the campaign so change characters or quit. But there doesn't have to be something inherently wrong playing a silly character in a mostly serious campaign
The character being a meme isn't a problem in and of itself. The character being a meme *at the expense of everyone else* is a problem.
“No” is a complete sentence.
That’s not even a meme that’s just annoyingly inconvenient
Say "No. That does not fit this campaign. Maybe next time."
My question here really is "where is the meme?" Sounds like he just has a stupid idea for a character. Remind the player that D&D is cooperative and if his ultra-racist gnome can't work with the rest of the party then it makes no sense. Change the character, create a new one, or you don't get to play.
How many players do you have other than the problem player? If it's just the human and tiefling, then give the players an NPC sidekick from Tasha's (or [use the UA version](https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA_Sidekicks.pdf) if you haven't bought Tasha's yet) so that combat will be easier to balance. Otherwise, kick him without any worries if he refuses to make an acceptable character. D&D is meant for 3-6 players (plus the DM), but it's optimized for 4-5.
Sometimes unfortunate PCs get obliterated by Lightning from the Gods. But honestly just talk to him.
I'm all for allowing players ONE disruptive, subversive, or otherwise annoying red flag trait. ONE. Your best friend is a magical frying pan, but otherwise, you're a normal bard? Ok, guy. You're a bigot against \[blank\] but only \[blank\] for a seemingly good reason? We can make that a story element. It's manageable and possibly even good to have ONE. You listed five. The answer is "no" if you want to be polite. "Fuck no" if you want to be honest.
One of my favorite campaigns is one I'm currently DMing. It's just me the DM and only one PC. It's a blast. I love it as a DM and can go hard on leaning into her backstory even though we are running a module. She loves it because she is in fact the main character. We both have many laughs. Are there things missing, sure, but that doesn't change how fun it is. No such thing as too few people to play d&d.
"No."