Can I keep playing a character who annoys other PCs?


Context

This question is about an online community campaign: we are around 20 players who play on a persistent universe where anyone can run a game as a GM. The system is Pathfinder 2e and players can have multiple character so that they can play on quests designed for different levels.

Among the 20 players the degree of participation is heterogeneous and usually only a handful of players are available for a specific session.

Issue

Recently I learnt other players didn’t want to play with my main character (the one of the highest level). I don’t know exactly how many of them nor exactly why, but the effect is that I basically can’t play this character: each time there is a session where I could play her, a player cancels their participation, which yields to the session being cancelled or delayed to oblivion.

After talking with one player specifically I understood he considered my character was too immature and getting on his character’s nerves for lacking respect.

The defendant

My character is actually a 25 years old gnome: so basically a child but who still has more life experience than many adventurers. She gets serious when she thinks it is needed, but keeps a playful face (for example when casting a spell she would add silly incantations to make it sound like a lullaby). She often disagrees with other characters but I am extra careful not to make it disrupt the game’s flow (I think I am doing well, even if that’s hard to tell).

She is about as respectful as one could expect a 10 yo human child with magic powers to be: not especially mean but not extra polite either.

She also has a secret identity, as a vigilante, who is way more serious than her. I use this as an excuse to justify playing this character in scenarios that wouldn’t look fun enough for the child gnome to engage in.

The victims

The player I talked to seems to consider it as impossible that his character ever ends up getting along with mine. Personally I don’t think he tried it at all since all the examples he presented to me were in my opinion very minor points of disagreement. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that he wants to play darker games but somehow retrains himself from playing "dark" when my character is around. As you can’t imagine bringing that up is not easy without being a douche, so I haven’t yet.

About the other players I only have suspicions. I think some simply don’t like that my character is not very powerful compared to their. They would be right: I haven’t optimized her build and on top of that some are simply more accustomed to the system and make a better use of their actions each turn.

As a side note none of those players seem to have any issue with my other characters (who are both more optimized and not annoying in the same way). Also my character is not the youngest nor the least mature of all the PCs, but she is the only one like that in her level range.

Solutions?

As of now I see two solutions, but none is very satisfying:

  • I could drop this character and make a new one. Pro: I am pretty sure I could make one nobody will hate. Con: I like this character, I don’t want to drop her.
  • I could focus on her vigilante alter ego. Pro: I still would be able to play her. Con: I suspect it might not be enough and other players won’t even try to play with the alter ego by association with the character they know.

There are probably more solutions yet to be found.

Players playing weird characters breaking the immersion of my group

I have an issue with two players in my very large gaming group that I would like some advice from people who have perhaps dealt with players like these. In terms of age and experience, we’re all between the ages of 18 to 21, and we’ve variously been playing the game for 2 to 10 years. This particular instance there were only 4 players, but our extended group is near 20.

To put it simply, they will only play weird characters that break the immersion for my self and the other players. An example being a recent pathfinder game where the party consisted of a human gunslinger, human fighter, elf wizard, and a flail snail. It was a one of these things is not like the others situation. No one could really get into the game because of having to imagine this fairly typical group, plus a snail.

There was one instance where one of the players demanded to play an aquatic elf in a land locked campaign. It slowed the group down mechanically when they had to keep finding water. Another example is when the GM was adamant that the campaign he was running was human only, the player still went on to nag the GM to let him play anything from various pixies, plants, and even a swarm. The arguing wound up delaying the campaign from starting for several hours.

I’ve asked the players why they play these types of characters and they say things along the lines of:

  • Its too hard to play a humanoid character because there is too much to think about when playing a neurotypical standard humanoid
  • I want to play characters that no one can relate too
  • I like playing with self imposed restrictions in terms of how I act.

We have asked them as a group to play more normal characters and there have been mixed responses from the two. One will keep asking whoever is the DM until they break down and allow something. The other will play a more normal character but is clearly not having fun.

If anyone has had experience with a situation like this, how did you resolve it?

Prevent Mathematica from playing an animation upon loading

When I load a notebook that I’ve previously saved containing lots of animations, Mathematica will automatically begin playing all of them. (Typically, I’m animating plots, so my code would look something like this:

Animate[Plot[f[x,n],{x,0,1}],{n,0,1}] 

This leads to a lot of lag and it is time-consuming to have to pause them all before I can continue working. Is there an option or method to prevent Mathematica from automatically playing animations when loading a notebook?

what is great fortitude or even fortitude specifically in rpg games, playing low magic age which has this

I find fortitude confusing, do not know whether or not it is good, bad whatever. I did look up what fortitude is and the explanation is more than confusing. I did also look up What happens if Fortitude sinks to 0? as well as https://rpg.stackexchange.com/search?q=fortitude . The game itself seems to be dnd-inspired, at least according to the developers and the people who are talking about it. Low Magic home page.

According to some it is more preferable that I talk or ask about fortitude in D&D. I haven’t ever played a paper-and-pen rpg so don’t really know.

From what I gathered from other people is that the game uses D&D 3.5e and uses ‘evolved OGL rules’ made by wizards of coast.

Is playing D&D 5e with two people feasible, particularly with the Starter Set adventure?

My girlfriend and I want to get into roleplaying games, we’ve both been interested in trying out Dungeons and Dragons. She has never played a pen and paper RPG before, I’ve played the Swedish Drakar och Demoner (DoD) once in school. We don’t have a group yet, so we thought we’d start out with just the two of us.

We’ve bought the D&D Fifth Edition Starter Set, but I’m not sure how well the game will work with one of us as the DM and the other as a player (I will probably be the DM for our first campaign). Is this feasible? Will the example campaign in the box work well enough for us to get started? How can we get started playing one-on-one 5e effectively?

Method for playing an online text-based RPG that doesn’t require everyone to be online at once?

I am contemplating starting up a web-based text game for my D&D group to be played alongside our weekly sessions. The idea would be to play through events related to the main storyline, but not so involved that the outcomes would directly affect our current adventure.

I don’t want to require everyone to be online at once (or else this is just another session), so IRC and chatrooms are out. I am looking for a method that allows us to play at a slow pace but gives everyone a chance to respond to what the GM says before moving onward with the story or the combat.

The only idea that comes to mind is a forum-based game with heavy restrictions (e.g. each player must post a response or opt out of responding before the GM posts again). For combats I would post maps with the position of all the monsters and characters between each turn.

Does anyone have any experience running a game like this?

What’s the best way to run a web-based text RPG in such a way that not all players need to be online at the same time?

Playing on a grid, is this situation 1/2 or 3/4 cover?

We have four medium creatures, blue (1), green (2), yellow (3), and red (4), positioned like so:

enter image description here

The rules for determining cover on a grid state:

To determine whether a target has cover against an attack or other effect on a grid, choose a corner of the attacker’s space or the point of origin of an area of effect. Then trace imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies. If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle (including another creature), the target has half cover. If three or four of those lines are blocked but the attack can still reach the target (such as when the target is behind an arrow slit), the target has three-quarters cover.

Following the instructions here, I have this diagram:

enter image description here

This appears to be 3/4 cover: all four lines are blocked, yet the attack should still be able to reach the target since these creatures do not occupy their entire spaces.

But I am not so sure this is 3/4 cover. The general rules for cover state:

If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies; the degrees aren’t added together. For example, if a target is behind a creature that gives half cover and a tree trunk that gives three-quarters cover, the target has three-quarters cover.

Considering green and yellow as individual sources of cover, we see:

enter image description here

Each only individually provides half cover. Do green and yellow combine to provide 3/4 cover as in the first cover diagram, or do they together still only provide 1/2 cover since degrees of cover do not add together?

What are the game playing impacts of allowing players to take turns out of initiative order? [duplicate]

As per a previous question I asked RAW do not allow players to go later in initiative order in 5E as they could in earlier editions of DnD and other roleplaying systems.

What are the potential things to consider if I choose to home brew changes to this behavior as part of my own rules?

The rule I am considering is as follows.

In a players turn they may either hold an action based on a trigger as per RAW or they can choose to delay there entire turn until after another stated players turn. A player may only delay once per round and cannot name a player Or NPC higher in initiative order to wait for. E G a 5 character combat 4 players and NPC roll initiative and are in order players 1 to 4(high to low) with the NPC sitting after player 3

Player 1 can choose to delay their turn and take it after players 2-4, or the NPC, they state they will go after player 3

On player 3 go they may choose to either go after player 4 or now, they cannot decide to go directly after player 1

Player 1 now takes their turn and must have a turn they may not choose to delay again.

Next round the players return to original initiative order.

In order to stick to stack guidelines I am looking for specific examples from players and GMs who have tried this rather then opinions.