PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] DM wanting tactical and challening combat, players with bad builds



TheFallenOne
2010-09-18, 05:10 PM
So, three days ago I started a new campaign with me as DM(first time in a long time, I once started a campaign years ago, but unfortunately it didn't get far because we were in that age when people start moving for jobs, university and stuff)

I'll give a summary of the session, if you want just the gist of it and what I'm asking advice for scroll down. I'll also talk about the campaign at large, maybe people also have comments or tips for that as well

We were playing Iron Kingdoms before, since one of our regulars is gone for a while we started something new with a replacement player. After a one-shot with our regular DM, we agreed on me DMing a new campaign.

I chose Faerun, told everyone to make a level 3 character, 34 point buy, 2 extra skill points per level(only for craft, profession and knowledge), 3000 GP. Campaign will play in Ravens Bluff, a thriving city in The Vast.
I explicitedly told them flaws and any WotC book they might have access to are allowed(I knew they have the books, but not how familiar they are with them). I didn't fear that anything overpowered might turn up; I'm by a good margin the one most knowledgeable in the rules. Our former DM knows his stuff too and the other two are at least proficient in Core, if nothing or not much else.

Now, in D&D I like both the roleplaying and the many options character building and combat gives you. I like tactical combat where characters make the best use of the options they have at hand(and are built to have said options) to overcome the opposition. I planned the encounters to give an impression of that and show them how I intend to have a dynamic and challening encounter work out.

The characters were
Dorn, Dwarfen cleric of Moradin. Pretty nondescript, though he got quite interested when I mentioned Dwarfen ruins beneath The Vast, so I think I can do something with that
Kerri, a female human fighter, evil. Carries a scythe where the blade can be folded down so it appears more like a strangely formed stick when the blade is somehow covered(I let him have it, it's not anywhere gamebreaking and gives the character something unique).
Dilaan, a halfelven rogue2/cleric1 of Mask. He's the only one who gave me a good piece of background. A former slave of the Zhentarim in a mining colony in the Earthspur Mountains, he managed to flee a couple weeks ago and tries to outrun his past(and potential pursuers, the character is quite paranoid).

Given this background, I decreed he can only have mundane equipment, a single magic item(stolen from an officer) and his wealth wouldn't be money, but a bag of gems that was part of the caravan he was accompanying when he fled.
He doesn't know the value of the gems yet. In fact, I don't either, it will be 1d100x50 GP. And he'll roll openly :smallamused:

I quickly incorporated his backstory into my opening plot to introduce them to the intrigues of Ravens Bluff. I went a bit off-canon; Charles O'Kane is major, but after the Lady Amber desaster the office holds way less authority than once before. Instead, the noble families and merchant houses, organized in the noble council and merchant council, run most things and vie with each other for influence and power. I planned to throw them right into one of these conflicts.

To do that and bring the PCs to work together, the thought was the following: they are bound to arrive per ship in Ravens Bluff, and one of the noble families has an interest in one of them. A spy from an opposing merchant house(Ambrath) learns about this, but doesn't know which of the three they want. So the simple solution: capture all three of them and bring them before Embro Ambrath to learn more.

Here, I made use of Dilaans backstory: a Zhentarim mining colony in the Earthspur Mountains seems far-fetched, it's a good way from their main base of operations. So I decided the mining is just a facade, in truth they're searching for a lost artifact(maybe Dwarfen or hidden in Dwarfen ruins to give the cleric a connection too). A psionic spy learned about this, but was mortally wounded before he could make it out. Desperate, he grabbed the next slave passing by, implanted the knowledge of what he'd learned in his mind, gave him a subconscious desire to flee to Ravens Bluff and altered his memory then to forget this episode. Unfortunately, he was pretty weakened by then, so he screwed up, messing up Dilaans short term memory(which lead to the blackouts he started having in our first session, his reaction was quite interesting :smallbiggrin:).

Anyway, so much for my planning. The day of playing came, we met, I took a look at their sheets.
Their builds were horrible for the most part.

The Dwarf actually took a feat for martial weapon proficiency, the other was in Quicken Spell. And since I bet he never even heard about metamagic reducers it will be four more levels before he can quicken a zero level spell.
None of them had Flaws even though I sent them the SRD link for them. I thought I had accounted for them not making the strongest of characters, but I suspected combat would be tougher than planned when I made the encounters.

Anyway, they meet in Calaunt. Kerri and Dorn arrived there by ship, the Arianna of Cali****e merchant Dar Al Asam who will bring them to Ravens Bluff as well the next morning. They go into the tavern Fresh Breeze, a quite ironic name(Calaunt is famous for the stink of it's tanneries).
Dilaan arrives with some rafters down the Vesper and looks for a ship to Ravens Bluff. Because of the unusually stormy weather, only two will leave port there the next day, the Arianna and the warship O'Kanes Hammer, so naturally he takes passage on the Arianna. Lacking money, he pays with the smallest gem in his bag, no idea what it might be worth. Dar Al Asam, always looking for profit, gets quite interested and introduces the PCs to each other. They have some talk with each other, Al Asam and the barman, try the local black beer etc. Dilaan, always conspicious, wants a locked cellar room. Everyone goes to sleep.
That's when he has his first black out; one moment in the bar, the next in a cold stone room, door locked from the inside. Insecure, he goes to sleep.

Some unusual morning rituals later(Kerri, to overcome her hangover, devoured a cold hering, which led to the barmaid fleeing sick. After that, Kerri walked out without paying for the room), they set sail. Al Asam invited them for a parting meal and drink(the ship has an exceptional cook, unfortunately all he can do is fish, even the potatoes taste like pike). Dilaan wants to cast Detect Poison, but when I point out that somatic and verbal components won't go unnoticed, he decides against it. To my luck, because the wine was poisoned.
They drift off sleeping; the dwarf last, but he's so captured in conversation about Dwarfen ruins he doesn't notice what's happening to the other two until it's too late(spot 3).

They wake up in the hold, manacled, without weapons and armor. An empty chair before their barred compartment and noises the deck above betrays that there was supposed to be a guard down here, but it grew boring and he joined the other guards above to play cards and dice(once they hear YAHTZEE!). Dilan still has his thieves tools because they were hidden, so they manage to get rid of their manacles and out of the compartment. Searching the hold for equipment, they find leather, studded leather and a single scale mail, small shields, alchemist fires, javelins, a heavy crossbow, woodaxes and a club(the last two were improvised weapons, but I only gave them -2 attack for them).

Kerri has trapmaking and makes a tripwire and greasy floor at the stairs, then, pretending to be just waking up, they try luring the guards down. Once they start smashing vases(their compartment had trade goods too), it works.
The guards were three first level warriors(human, half elf, halfling) and a fighter 1 leader with improved disarm. The elf goes down and gets instantgibbed by a heavy crossbow sneak attack and falls down over the trip wire. Since the shot was fired while he still was on the stairs, the other guards notice, but don't storm down as the PCs hope. Instead, the pause to deliberate if they should handle it alone or inform the rest of the ship. That's when the PCs go on the offensive themselves, taking the stairs.

Since they're in the middle of a storm, the ship as swaying, giving alternating high ground bonus to each side of the ship, with one round of level ground in between. The fight takes quite a toll on them because of some good rolls on my part and bad luck on theirs(the 12 HP leader only went down after four hits). They capture the halfling alive after he tries to open a locked door, pleading to be let in. They interrogate him and learn there are others hidden on the deck and they retrieve their equipment after some healing. They break into the kitchen(that's where the halfling wanted to flee) and capture the cook, but ignore the other rooms for too long, so thr guys hidden there fled on deck and raised alarm.

I had planned for a climatic showdown on the deck in the middle of a storm, using the Stormwrack rules for that, but the PCs decide to barricade below. There's some attempt at negotiating, but no solution is found. That's when smokesticks are thrown down.

The final encounter I had planned was Tirosh, Al Asams bodyguard, an Azurin Warblade 3. He was supposed to be on one hand Mr. Exposition, introducing them to the concepts of Soulmelds and Martial Maneuvers with some Knowledge checks, on the other hand a good challenge. I wanted to pit the three of them against a single decently built character of the same level to showcase what can be done in D&D, but still weak enough to be defeated after a lengthy battle(I built him more for staying power, his feats were Stone Power, Shape Soulmeld: Mantle of Flame, Martial Study: Crusaders Strike. In retrospect, he may have been a more than decent build I guess), they had advantage in numbers, equipment and Tirosh had no flaws and lower point buy(didn't know yet they don't have flaws either when writing him). Also, he would have dropped a lesser version of the White Raven Crown, a headband giving access to a single level 1 maneuver per encounter.
Anyway, Dorn and Kerri retreat to the kitchen, Dilaan stays longer for some reason. Failing his listen check, he is found by Tirosh thanks to Hunters Sense and knocked unconscious with a nonlethal crit.
Cue second blackout: he's suddenly standing before Al Asam, expecting answer to a question Dilaan can't remember.
After some diplomacy, he learns Embro Ambrath offered 20.000 GP for the three of them delivered alive, and only alive. He is ready to negotiate surrender with the others.
Brought down to the kitchen by Tirosh, Kerri taunts the latter, knowing through Knowledge Local that Azurins often act rash because of their shorter life span. She gets him into a duel, which the dwarf suddenly joins, ganging up on the Warblade. It doesn#t go well for them, they score some hits, but take more themselves and Mantle of Flame does the rest; Kerri is in the negatives, Dorn let's his hammer sink. Tirosh stuffs a potion down Kerris throat to save her. That's when Dilaan, who silently removed the ropes binding him, sneak attacks with a dagger, narrowly missing thanks to Uncanny Dodge. Dorn resumes the fight, but is too battered and play ends with all three unconscious and stable, to be delivered to Embro Ambrath next session.

The gist of it
Everyone had a lot of fun, but in the end I think they got frustrated because they had the impression of not being able to win against the Warblade 3 I presented them with. I wanted to give them an impression of my personal favourite Tome of Battle and show them what you can do with a well built character in combat(I particularly like ToB because you can always do something interesting, instead of just alternating throwing d20s with the same modifier again and again until one side is left standing). Instead, it seemed they regard what they witnessed now as inherently overpowered and powergaming(it's more like they are underpowered if you ask me) and when I explained how I'd prefer combat to play out and that they should make better use of the many options given to them, Kerris and Dorns players said they don't want to read through a dozen books to learn powergaming.
Which is a false dillemma I think, first, I'm not asking for powergaming, just that their characters are halfway competent at combat so I don't have to pull my punches anytime they run into an encounter their CR o higher and because tactical and clever combat is an important part of D&D for me. Second, I don't ask them to read through whole books, it's enough if they look at the feat sections in the Complete book corresponding to their class and Complete Adventurer. Looking at the summary tables and sorting out the ones they won't qualify for in a reasonable amount of time that's just a couple pages I ask them to go through(though I failed to make the latter point in our after-session talk).

So, given my situation - I, a DM with a favour for well-built characters, tactical and tough combat and players who know the rules well enough, but rather weak at character building and questionable interest to learn more about it - what should I do? Settle for low power, throw encounters below their level at them or play the monsters purposefully bad? Or stand my ground, trying to clear up what to me seem to be misconceptions about what is and isn't powergaming and the amount of work I want them to invest?

Saph
2010-09-18, 05:21 PM
I think the mistake you're making is that you're confusing "tactical and challenging" with "high power level". Fortunately, you seem to have a basically good group and I don't think the problem's going to be hard to fix.

Tactics and build optimisation are completely different things. You can have an involving, challenging tactical encounter between two utterly unoptimised characters. Likewise, you can have players with hideously powerful characters who play them with all the subtlety and finesse of a rabid wombat.

Your players don't seem interested in optimisation; don't try to force them into it, they'll just be unhappy. Instead, build characters on the same power level as them and then play them tactically. ToB characters are among the top 5 most powerful base classes in the game at low levels; of course a well-built Warblade is going to own a bunch of badly built PCs! But you can have just as much challenge and tactics in a battle with a Fighter, or a Barbarian, or even a Warrior. Set the power level to your players and then you can get into the tactics. You get to have challenging and tactical fights; they get to have winnable challenges. Everyone's happy.

WarKitty
2010-09-18, 05:21 PM
How experienced are your players? It sounds like you have at least one fairly new character. I've had good luck running 2 or 3 sessions or so at just the level to scare them good, maybe capture them once or twice. Then offer them a chance to rebuild.

Aotrs Commander
2010-09-18, 05:57 PM
Frankly, I'd be a little concerned about three level three characters not being able to defeat a single opponent of equal level, regardless of class, assuming they were in a reasonable state to start with. That's barely more than an even-CR, so they should be able to handle three of those per day! If a Warblade 3 is going to run them ragged, how do they expect to stand up to a Cleric or Wizard (which are fairly frequent among character classed enemies?) Their tactics in that encounter seemed rather poor, to be honest. Bad luck is a contributing factor, but only so far.

That said, there is also the point that a 3-man party is actually a lot more vulnerable when thing go south than a four- or six- man group, since the proportion of your capability that goes down is much higher and things can snowball fast; and low-level parties are much more vulnerable than higher level ones (particularly multiclass characters). So bear that in mind.



I find the best solution for an optimisation is generally to offer to help the players with their builds; give them a few good suggestions on what to go for; a few is better than one, as then they still have some choice, obviously. If they don't want to learn the books themselves, that's fine; you as DM (or even as just a more rules-savy player) should be offering suggestions from the best options available. They only have to learn the bits relevant to their characters then. (Making people have to learn the whole system as well as you is kinda harsh, and not everyone has that time or inclination.) My experience has generally been that if you offer helpful and friendly advice, most people will accept it. (Be it about rules or roleplaying.) And you can hopefully try and meet them halfway.

If, on the other hand, they flat-out refuse to follow any of your advice and deliberately make themselves weak, them I would feel no obligation to go easy on them to any large degree. I, as DM, have to put in a hell of a lot of time and effort to run my games, so I expect some effort from the players too, to at least TRY to meet me halfway.



Tactically, nothing is better for encouraging tactics than having the party completely run around by opponents way below their weight range. (That might be even your first bet. Throw encounters with low-level clerics at them, and show them the better cleric spells in practise.)

One party I had once was not working as a team at all. Every fight, they were scattering all over the place, doing their own thing. So I had them run into a mixed encounter of enemies quite a bit below their level. The PCs were a very strong group, fully rested, about 8-10th level, I think, and there were, like, eight of them, verses about two dozen level four fighters, rangers and anti-paladins and four 5th level casters (I tend to run large encounters). They won the encounter, but only because they had the level advantage. (By rights, they should have pretty much creamed the opposition.)

After the combat, I looked at the players and said. "Right. Now imagine what would have happened if there had actually been anyone with any ability there. You'd have been toast. They split you up and totally out-manouvered you. If any of them had been above level 5, you'd all be dead. You guys are going to have to start working together, or you're going to get slaughtered next time." And then they sat down and came up with some plans and starting working as a party, not a collection of individuals, and butchered the rest of the adventure.

You might have similar success with a handful of intelligently-played first level characters. Six-to-eight intelligently played NPCs (or maybe less) could run rinsg round them. Heck, if all else fails, level three is still a viable point to have them get sand kicked over them by 1st level commoners, if you want! The point is to give them an encounter where they are totally and utterly out-manouvered, but one they survive, because well, they are simply higher level than the enemy. Hopefully, the blow to the collective egos (in and out of character) at being schooled by Tim, Fred and Bill the peasent might make them start to improve.

Or, if not, you'll know you either have to not bother running for them or just set up some training dummies to knock down every combat.

gomipile
2010-09-18, 06:08 PM
I don't know Saph. I think I'm with the OP on part of this at least. The combat options that a ToB character has are much more interesting to play out than the options available to an unoptimized Fighter.


Also, to the OP: I think you need to draw a distinction between the players' use of options in character optimisation, and the use of all the options available to them on the spot when combat starts.

The latter seems to be where your players are really lacking. If you want to play tactically interesting combats, then your players need to learn to think on their feet and actually use their strengths.

Also, if they really think that ToB is overpowered now, try throwing some optimized druids, clerics, and wizards at them. To rub it in, use core only.

You'd need to break them of the notion that ToB is overpowered, if you want them to ever consider using options from it and similar books.

Aotrs Commander
2010-09-18, 06:18 PM
Actually, as a very last resort, if you're confident in your abilities (and feeling a bit mean!), use a Mirror of Opposition and whomp them with their own characters. If that doesn't motivate them to work together (when their mirror-selves do) nothing will!

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-09-18, 06:29 PM
So basically, the party consists of:

A Cleric of a race that has a Charisma penalty...
A Rogue2/Cleric1. Not Cloistered Cleric with Knowledge Devotion, not a Scout2/Cleric1 with Travel Devotion. A rogue2/Cleric1.
A character who has more than two levels in Fighter. Who uses one of the worst weapons in the game, barring CDG shenanigans

And this wasn't a hint that the players would not be able to fight their way out of a wet paper bag?

Honestly, I'm surprised they fared as well as they did. I don't think they could get more sub-optimal if they actively tried...

mikau013
2010-09-18, 06:50 PM
The thing you need to do is just sit down with your players and tell them that you wanted to run a mid - high powered campaign and tell them that their current chars are low powered in your opinion.

And then you seek a solution together with them.

For example:
A) they rebuild their chars to be stronger / make new chars
B) you turn down the encounters more to their lvl
C) you give them magic items that improve them

Stuff like that will probably be the best solution. I'd advise against throwing optimized chars against them it will just ruin their fun and will to play, unless of course it is part of a get captured plot which may or may not be fun - :P

Keep in mind though tactical fighting doesn't just have to be about char options. Things like setting traps, using different terrain types to your advantage, stall tactics or just using diplomacy can make things tactically interesting as well.

TheFallenOne
2010-09-18, 07:05 PM
Tactics and build optimisation are completely different things.
...
But you can have just as much challenge and tactics in a battle with a Fighter, or a Barbarian, or even a Warrior. Set the power level to your players and then you can get into the tactics. You get to have challenging and tactical fights; they get to have winnable challenges. Everyone's happy.

Yes and no. A Warblade has way more options than a fighter with Weapon Focus, Thug, and the rest of the feats I don't even remember, any round. He can select between maneuvers. He has tumble, so he can move around the battlefield without eating AoOs. He has many options, that gives him tactical depth. A fighter like that on the other hand can't do much besides attack, attack, attack, occasional 5 foot step to get into a better position. I want the PCs to have many options avaiable to them and use them wisely; be it a Warblade, a diverse caster or a fighter with Improved X feats



I find the best solution for an optimisation is generally to offer to help the players with their builds; give them a few good suggestions on what to go for; a few is better than one, as then they still have some choice, obviously. If they don't want to learn the books themselves, that's fine; you as DM (or even as just a more rules-savy player) should be offering suggestions from the best options available. They only have to learn the bits relevant to their characters then. (Making people have to learn the whole system as well as you is kinda harsh, and not everyone has that time or inclination.) My experience has generally been that if you offer helpful and friendly advice, most people will accept it. (Be it about rules or roleplaying.) And you can hopefully try and meet them halfway.


I offered them some advise and will continue to do so(maybe send them the crystalkeep feat summary pdf too). After seeing the clerics sheet and seeing he had the Earth and Protection domain and martial weapon prof as feat, I suggested two things:
War domain. Gives him weapon prof AND weapon focus, if he really wants a martial weapon that's the way to go
Protection Devotion since it fits the theme he had in mind. He didn't know the Devotion feats, so I explained how it works

He declined both



Also, to the OP: I think you need to draw a distinction between the players' use of options in character optimisation, and the use of all the options available to them on the spot when combat starts.

The latter seems to be where your players are really lacking. If you want to play tactically interesting combats, then your players need to learn to think on their feet and actually use their strengths.

Also, if they really think that ToB is overpowered now, try throwing some optimized druids, clerics, and wizards at them. To rub it in, use core only.

You'd need to break them of the notion that ToB is overpowered, if you want them to ever consider using options from it and similar books.

Regarding beating them with optimized high-Tiers, that would only further alienate them from whatever I use to do that, they'd just think I'm a show-off who loves powergaming. So I can show them Core has nasty broken stuff too, what does that accomplish? The problem isn't that they think ToB is broken, the problem is that they regard what I consider normal power-level as powergaming and either they don't try to build playable characters or they are bad at it.
And the feats they select don't even give the characters... well, character, which would justify a weaker choice. MPW and Quicken Spell doesn't give the cleric a profile, but out there are many feats that both give flavor and power

And their combat performance wasn't bad. The RP was nice, they had some good ideas, executed the trap well and the fight against the guards had some nice action too; the Dwarf actually moved to get use of the high ground bonus. Halfling vs Kerri was funny; the halfling hid under the table after Kerri cut down the human guard, Kerri jumped on the table. When the floor was slanted again, the halfling gave it a push and with a good strength-check threw it over, crashing Kerri down. Kerri, on lower ground, then kicked the table into the halflings face(got a 20 on strength check), doing d6 damage and throwing him prone.
The problem isn't that they don't use options, the problem is that they don't have many options at all. If I throw a CR3 or 4 creature at them(no, not the damn crab) I predict good chances of a TPK.

And the options they made use of I described here were only possible because I ingored RAW for the table kicking idea and because I set up a battlefield with the changing High Ground


So basically, the party consists of:

A Cleric of a race that has a Charisma penalty...
A Rogue2/Cleric1. Not Cloistered Cleric with Knowledge Devotion, not a Scout2/Cleric1 with Travel Devotion. A rogue2/Cleric1.
A character who has more than two levels in Fighter. Who uses one of the worst weapons in the game, barring CDG shenanigans

And this wasn't a hint that the players would not be able to fight their way out of a wet paper bag?

Honestly, I'm surprised they fared as well as they did. I don't think they could get more sub-optimal if they actively tried...

Cloistered Cleric is definitely something I'll mention to the player, yeah
And I got the hint, that's why my immediate reaction when I saw their sheets shortly before play was Ohoh. They had trouble with 2 first level warriors and a fighter, even with improvised weapons(and only -2 for it) that's bad. It was supposed to rough them up, but way less than it did(rogue/cleric used all his spells, cleric almost all his healing)

darkpuppy
2010-09-18, 07:24 PM
I've gotta admit, that this is partly a communication problem (for example, if the guy turned down War domain, he has to have a reason, but you didn't specify what that was) and partly the fact that most players really don't want to read new books unless they a) already know it will benefit them, and b) Have a copy already. There also appears to be a bit of a difference in styles, because at least two of the roleplayers took roleplaying like options, and the third took the new player option of "whatever works for me".

The problem, as stated, seems to me to be one of differing playstyles. You're there asking for a ToB tactical game, and they just wanna get right in and play core. Okay, so core is broken, but the fact is, they see ToB as overpowered, and you're not going to convince them otherwise by next session... especially after they had their asses handed to them by a single warblade of their level. There's also the fact that you explained to the only dude who had a detailed background, a feat in terms of its mechanical benefit, not how it would fit his character and be cool with his background. Also, walking him through Quicken Spell might have been a good idea.

In the end, both parties (the party, and the DM) have differing opinions, and somebody's gotta give, or at least compromise. And, being the one running the game, that sadly means you have to ease them into it. Also, you told them anything goes, but didn't tell them you mainly wanted ToB used? sorry, Fallen One, but that was a bad move, right there. ToB, sad to say, is a book that most DMs need to specify, just like they occasionally have to specify beforehand "no"...

TheFallenOne
2010-09-18, 07:32 PM
There's also the fact that you explained to the only dude who had a detailed background, a feat in terms of its mechanical benefit, not how it would fit his character and be cool with his background. Also, walking him through Quicken Spell might have been a good idea.

In the end, both parties (the party, and the DM) have differing opinions, and somebody's gotta give, or at least compromise. And, being the one running the game, that sadly means you have to ease them into it. Also, you told them anything goes, but didn't tell them you mainly wanted ToB used? sorry, Fallen One, but that was a bad move, right there. ToB, sad to say, is a book that most DMs need to specify, just like they occasionally have to specify beforehand "no"...

um, the rogue/cleric was the one with detailed background, my feat suggestions were for the Dwarfen cleric. I don't think I needed to explain War domain since it's core, and I chose to explain Protection Devotion from all avaiable options not because it's really good, but because it fits the characters theme and the domain he selected

And as I already said before, the problem isn't that they think ToB is overpowered; there are enough threads like that already. The Warblade was Mr. Exposition to introduce them to ToB and drop an item giving them access to level 1 maneuvers to ease them into it and either get interested in the book or not, their choice

darkpuppy
2010-09-18, 07:36 PM
Then why did he turn down War domain? as a cleric of Moradin, the option is open, but these things must always be asked. Anyways, as far as ToB is concerned, I think they made their choice, considering the concerns they voiced. Which is a shame, because, while I don't personally think it's overpowered (as the DM, I can use it just as easily to tone people down as players can to build their characters up, so I see no problems), they obviously do, and that's cramping your own style.

Saph
2010-09-18, 07:42 PM
I want the PCs to have many options avaiable to them and use them wisely; be it a Warblade, a diverse caster or a fighter with Improved X feats.

Then I'd say you've got a problem. If your enjoyment of the game requires the players to play their PCs to a high level of optimisation, then you're going to find it difficult to have fun as a DM unless you're in a very specific type of gaming group.

As someone who's DMed a lot, my advice would be to try to get away from the "I want the PCs to . . ." mindset. It's very easy to get frustrated because the players aren't doing what they're supposed to, but the thing to remember is that the whole point of a RPG is that the players are supposed to be the ones who decide what to do. If they don't want to focus on optimisation and combat effectiveness, it's a bad idea to try to force them.

I think one of the most important skills for a DM to pick up is the ability to run games at all optimisation levels. After all, if you can only handle games in a specific power band, you're effectively limiting yourself to a minority of the playerbase. So think of it as the opportunity to learn a new skill. Once you get used to scaling down the power levels a bit, you'll find that you don't really lose anything very much from the game. :smallsmile:

WarKitty
2010-09-18, 07:51 PM
It can always get worse. I've had to play a game with 1 player who thought like that...out of 6. Then he got frustrated because he felt useless.

Edit: I do sympathize. There is a certain set of players that just don't seem to want to bother with the rules, so they take whatever choice looks sort of good and stick to it. The player I referenced above was like that; he had Toughness for all but 3 or 4 of his feats as a level 7 fighter, because he didn't want to look through the rules for them.

However it sounds like you aren't going to win this one. It really depends on your players. If they don't want to bother, you're going to end up having to tone it down. I make encounters like that fun for me (as the DM) by starting with a REALLY sub-par option and then optimizing it. Like I'd start with core kobold warriors, and then see how powerful to make them.

TheFallenOne
2010-09-18, 07:58 PM
Then why did he turn down War domain? as a cleric of Moradin, the option is open, but these things must always be asked.

beats me, I'll ask next time


Then I'd say you've got a problem. If your enjoyment of the game requires the players to play their PCs to a high level of optimisation, then you're going to find it difficult to have fun as a DM unless you're in a very specific type of gaming group.

I thought I made it clear I don't insist on them optimizing, I want them to be(yes, I said it again) reasonably competent. There's a big gap between "a high level of optimization" on the one end and the powerlevel of the characters I described on the other end. I say I don't want the latter, you hear that I want the former.


I think one of the most important skills for a DM to pick up is the ability to run games at all optimisation levels. After all, if you can only handle games in a specific power band, you're effectively limiting yourself to a minority of the playerbase. So think of it as the opportunity to learn a new skill. Once you get used to scaling down the power levels a bit, you'll find that you don't really lose anything very much from the game. :smallsmile:

So, what's your suggestion, throwing single CR1s and 2s on a third level party, never let them fight an NPC of equal level and call it a day? That doesn't seem right(that's a serious question in case it seems passive aggressive. Is this what you would do, if not what then?)

I think it's at least reasonable to expect that they can deal with an equal CR creature. Because that's what the CR system says, wrong as it is in some cases. If their PCs can't do that, it's a good sign that something is wrong with the PCs and not my playstyle

And they have a lot of options, if they don't want to focus on combat, well, they can get into a game of intrigue, I'm prepared for that. But I know they want fights too(because I asked beforehand what they expect of the campaign), it's just that they're not used to the encounters using their abilities to the fullest(previous DM tended to scale down monsters or forget - intentional sometimes, unintentional othertimes I guess - some of their abilities)

Dralnu
2010-09-18, 09:11 PM
Okay, I admit I actually had a similar situation to you:

When I read and understood ToB, I thought to myself, "OMG BEST THING EVARRRR!" I was convinced that my players, especially the one that always plays a fighter or barbarian, would fall in love with it just like I did. Even moreso because our group also had someone who always played a druid (albeit as support with Entangle, summons, and heals). Nay, I'd make them love it.

The result? They didn't want to try it. It was new and had funky mechanics. They were happy with their PHBs and it was enough for them. They didn't see balance issues. If they were having fun, why change? Sound familiar? So I didn't force them. Remember, you're running a campaign so your players have fun! If they're not having fun, you already know that you won't have fun either. Such is the life of a DM.

But here's how I solved this problem: The one time that I actually got to be a player in a campaign, I was a swordsage. I rocked house and looked super cool doing it. I intentionally picked swordsage over (yawn) warblade because I intentionally wanted to be stylish and not just rock the damage charts. They loved it. Now they wanted to learn ToB. DING DING SUCCESS!

Now, if that's not an option for you, here's one: load them up with phat lewt. Now the characters as SUPER STRONG (so you can throw optimized NPCs at them) and you're happy, and they don't have to read stuff that they don't want to so they're also happy. Everyone wins!

Ernir
2010-09-18, 09:31 PM
Now, if that's not an option for you, here's one: load them up with phat lewt. Now the characters as SUPER STRONG (so you can throw optimized NPCs at them) and you're happy, and they don't have to read stuff that they don't want to so they're also happy. Everyone wins!

I have actually had that option fail.

I dropped an artifact weapon into the hands of the party. I was going to use this as a fix-everything for the party Barbarian, who was starting to lag behind the party casters powerwise at that point (ECL 10-11ish).

Well, the Barbarian didn't use it. Every time initiative was rolled, she instinctively looked at the same attack/damage bonus block she had been using for a while - the damage block for her old greatclub. She never used the artifact in battle.



TL;DR: Players are very strange creatures. And there's not much that can be done about that. :smalltongue:

Urpriest
2010-09-18, 09:54 PM
Reading through your post, here's what I gather:

1. The players fought through an interesting, fun battle, in which they fought tactically and creatively despite their low optimization and only got hurt more than you expected because of the luck of the dice, and

2. You split up the party and sicced a 3rd level NPC on what the game considers to be half a party (game is balanced around a party of four, your fight was vs. two of them). Furthermore, it was an enemy designed to win by attrition, and the designated "damage dealer" was out of the room. As such, they got trounced, and the late appearance of the guy that they would otherwise rely on to hit the guy every round didn't turn things around.

And you're worried they'll be squished in future? Don't be. Try out giving them CR-appropriate challenges when their party is together to fight them. They'll do fine, even though they threw most of their feats into the rubbish bin. And they and you certainly know how to have tactical fun with the characters at hand.

Saph
2010-09-19, 05:35 AM
There's a big gap between "a high level of optimization" on the one end and the powerlevel of the characters I described on the other end. I say I don't want the latter, you hear that I want the former.

I don't think it matters. Here's the issue:

a) You want the players to play at power level X.
b) The players want to play at power level Y.

Someone is going to have to adjust. Since you're the DM, that someone is probably going to have to be you.


So, what's your suggestion, throwing single CR1s and 2s on a third level party, never let them fight an NPC of equal level and call it a day? That doesn't seem right(that's a serious question in case it seems passive aggressive. Is this what you would do, if not what then?)

I'm saying that you should tailor the power level to the players, instead of expecting them to tailor their power levels to you. How you do it is up to you, but I don't think it's a difficult problem.

I mean, do you really need suggestions on how to scale encounters to the party's power level? This is DMing 101 here, and as the group's DM, you ought to have a better grasp on what would be a suitable challenge than me. I can easily think of multiple ways to reduce encounter difficulty, but they're so basic that I'm not sure there's any point me writing out a list.

Psyx
2010-09-19, 08:08 AM
I wanted to give them an impression of my personal favourite Tome of Battle and show them what you can do with a well built character in combat


Erm...you're the GM. It's not really your job to 'show them what a well-built character can do'. It's your job to tell interesting stories and involve them.

What you did has probably put a bit of a barrier between you and your players, and frankly does strike as something that would annoy me as a player. Think about it from their perspective: You essentially thumbed your nose at them and said 'I can play this game better than you'. You might think otherwise, but the only perspective that really matters on the matter is your player's.

Imagine that someone has a Ferrari. And that they drive up to you at the lights, lean over to tell you how great their car is, and how fast it is, and how much it cost, and proceed to leave you standing in a cloud of stinking rubber fumes and exhaust blare, waving as they went. Would you think 'he's just showing me what that great car can do' or would you think 'what a jerk'?

If your players don't care about optimising, then don't make them. Don't EVER start a GM vs. Player arms race, because it ruins games. If the players seem happy enough to bimble around in general ignorance of optimising, and are still having fun: Let them. This is a RPG, not a wargame, and you shouldn't be GM to essentially wargame against the players.

And how about this for a scenario: Two of your players think your ideas are great and become massive min-maxxers. They now have characters that far outshadow others in the group. You've just made your game a lot less fun, and your job as GM a lot harder and less fun too, because you now have 2 PCs who trounce everything, and anything that will threaten them will turn the others into meat paste. Not fun.



Kerris and Dorns players said they don't want to read through a dozen books to learn powergaming.


Good on 'em. Don't ever tell players what kind of characters they should make, or how to play them.

Not every player wants to become a rules encyclopaedia and to have a better character than everyone else. Some just want to enjoy the game. Better characters just move goalposts anyway: They all build better characters, you build better monsters. Why real dull rulebooks and spend hours agonising over feats to essentially achieve nothing?



Settle for low power, throw encounters below their level at them or play the monsters purposefully bad? Or stand my ground, trying to clear up what to me seem to be misconceptions about what is and isn't powergaming and the amount of work I want them to invest?

This isn't even something that should be a question that you should need to be asking yourself. You do what your players want.

TheFallenOne
2010-09-19, 08:40 AM
I don't think it matters. Here's the issue:

a) You want the players to play at power level X.
b) The players want to play at power level Y.

Someone is going to have to adjust. Since you're the DM, that someone is probably going to have to be you.


You're implying here I'm not flexible with the power level we play at; I am. All I'm saying is that I want the power level to be above "You suck".

Answer me this: is it inreasonable to expect that 3 PCs should be able to beat an equal or +1 CR monster(straight out of the monster manual, nothing I built myself)?



Imagine that someone has a Ferrari. And that they drive up to you at the lights, lean over to tell you how great their car is, and how fast it is, and how much it cost, and proceed to leave you standing in a cloud of stinking rubber fumes and exhaust blare, waving as they went. Would you think 'he's just showing me what that great car can do' or would you think 'what a jerk'?


Thank you for demonstrating how easy it is to display someone as a jerk using a metaphor that leaves out important facts.
1) I showed them what the Warblade Ferrari can do, then told them how they could have something similar or upgrade their own cars with Ferrari parts. Or not, I just wanted to show them it's there and avaiable.
2) I wanted to drop them a lesser version of a White Raven Crown so they can try maneuvers themselves; going with your metaphor, that's like handing them the keys and offering them a free test drive instead of leaving them coughing in the exhaust blare. It only didn't work out because they lost and I couldn't fudge the rolls since I lacked a DM screen that evening and so decided to roll openly


And how about this for a scenario: Two of your players think your ideas are great and become massive min-maxxers. They now have characters that far outshadow others in the group. You've just made your game a lot less fun, and your job as GM a lot harder and less fun too, because you now have 2 PCs who trounce everything, and anything that will threaten them will turn the others into meat paste. Not fun.

Not every player wants to become a rules encyclopaedia and to have a better character than everyone else.

I've said it several times now, I don't ask them to become MinMaxers, I don't demand optimization, I don't expect them to be familiar with all the books out there(a point I made right in the OP; Core and maybe one or two dozen pages from the Complete series are enough).

This is the last time I respond to someone taking "I want their characters to be reasonably competent at combat" as "I want them to go to town with Uberchars and optimization". I made that point clear enough several times now I think

Saph
2010-09-19, 08:50 AM
Answer me this: is it inreasonable to expect that 3 PCs should be able to beat an equal or +1 CR monster(straight out of the monster manual, nothing I built myself)?

In a word? Yes.

Not all players are interested in increasing the power or combat effectiveness of their characters. D&D is a game; players play it for fun, not as a job. It is unreasonable to expect players to do something they don't enjoy unless you have a very good reason.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-09-19, 09:20 AM
Another solution is to put in 'alternative victory conditions'.

Okay, so your party can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Fine. So change things up. Make it a 'whodunit', create scenarios in which the players can take advantage of the environment in order to defeat their opponents, create diplomacy victory conditions (based on roleplay, not on dice rolls), permit victory in situations in which they can avoid combat.

Look back to Metal Gear games. In most of them, your character is one-shottable. And way outnumbered. Getting into combat is a sure-fire way to die horribly. So, Snake avoids combat to achieve his mission goals.

Look back to the old Super Mario Brothers game. If you didn't have firepower, you couldn't 'kill' Boswer. But, if you could get past him, you could hit the key which would drop the bridge.

This can turn into a tactical battle, where you lead your opponent into defeating himself. I remember in one iteration, you had one of the bowser kids try to jump up and land on you. But the bricks underneath were breakable, and he would break a layer of bricks when he landed. So you dodged around and made him blow through the layers of bricks until he broke the last layer... sending him to his certain doom.

Tactics have little to do with character optimization. Tactics is using what you*do* have to your advantage.

Jayabalard
2010-09-19, 09:25 AM
So, given my situation - I, a DM with a favour for well-built characters, tactical and tough combat and players who know the rules well enough, but rather weak at character building and questionable interest to learn more about it - what should I do? Settle for low power, throw encounters below their level at them or play the monsters purposefully bad? Or stand my ground, trying to clear up what to me seem to be misconceptions about what is and isn't powergaming and the amount of work I want them to invest?As a GM, your job is to run a game that your players will enjoy playing, not force them to play the way that you want to. If you can't enjoy running the game the way that they want to play, then have someone else GM.

So I struck out the thing above that isn't a reasonable option for you... that doesn't mean that you're stuck with the first option (you have some other choices but I don't have time to get into them right now)

Vangor
2010-09-19, 09:59 AM
Worry less about the CR. The party has no notion of what a CR= or CR+1 encounter is, only what a simple, capable, challenging, or deadly encounter was.

Play the monsters intelligently, create tactical encounters, etc., but simply adjust statistics for lowered saves, fewer spells, fewer obvious win spells, and similar. As long as they feel the relative power level of the encounter, who cares? Eventually, convince em of better options which do not compromise the character, such as the War Domain you suggested which makes perfect sense for the Cleric investing a feat into Martial Weapon Proficiency (clearly intending to be a warrior).

WarKitty
2010-09-19, 10:05 AM
If you want to show them power, here's my little trick. Find the WORST race you can for the job. The optimize it as a character of their level. It'll come out (with a little work) as a completely appropriate encounter.

Psyx
2010-09-19, 10:13 AM
1) I showed them what the Warblade Ferrari can do, then told them how they could have something similar or upgrade their own cars with Ferrari parts. Or not, I just wanted to show them it's there and avaiable.

Not everyone wants one. 90% of the population are happy to drive an old beater.

And are you sure that you're thinking about it from your player's perspective enough? Put yourself in their shoes and imagine how it felt to them.

I would be quite delighted to have players who had no interest in the numbers, to be honest: It means that they're interested in the game and the story. That's gold, right there.

Also: When introducing new threats that are untried, always bring a GM screen. You need to accept that this is your own mistake. Don't get narked about it; just learn and ensure that it doesn't happen again.




All I'm saying is that I want the power level to be above "You suck".
Answer me this: is it inreasonable to expect that 3 PCs should be able to beat an equal or +1 CR monster(straight out of the monster manual, nothing I built myself)?


Yes, if they don't want to play that kind of game. There are more players than there are of you. Their opinion matters more than yours on the subject. Do you actually think that your players suck?

You've said that this is only your second campaign. That makes you the rookie, not automatically them. You need to start listening more to the players and adapting to them, instead of trying to make them change to adapt to you.

BeholderSlayer
2010-09-19, 10:48 AM
Knock them out with a bunch of core MM house cats. Make sure they know you didn't change them in any way....

Mikal
2010-09-19, 11:50 AM
In a word? Yes.

Not all players are interested in increasing the power or combat effectiveness of their characters. D&D is a game; players play it for fun, not as a job. It is unreasonable to expect players to do something they don't enjoy unless you have a very good reason.

Except the game also seems to find it reasonable that such a group could defeat an opponent at that level.

DnD is a game of overcoming challenges. Usually through combat. If your characters are unable to do so then they're not playing the game well. It's like playing monopoly with a person who "likes the colors of the properties" and has a strategy of only getting 1 property per group so they can have the colors.

Are they having fun? Sure. Is that how the game is supposed to be played?
Not really.

DnD is similar.

I don't play easytype dnd. The dice will fall where they may, nothing is fudged. Real roleplayers would appreciate that, as changing the gameworld because your character may suck isn't real roleplay. It's pandering.


Not everyone wants one. 90% of the population are happy to drive an old beater.

And 66% of all statistics are made up on the spot.



And are you sure that you're thinking about it from your player's perspective enough? Put yourself in their shoes and imagine how it felt to them.

I would be quite delighted to have players who had no interest in the numbers, to be honest: It means that they're interested in the game and the story. That's gold, right there.

Someone who is interested in the game is interested in the numbers. The numbers make up a large part of the game. Ignoring the numbers is ignoring that aspect. If you just care about the story, then why use the rules at all? Just throw out the dice, sheets, books, and save yourself cash as you make your interactive story.



Also: When introducing new threats that are untried, always bring a GM screen. You need to accept that this is your own mistake. Don't get narked about it; just learn and ensure that it doesn't happen again.

Wrong wrong wrong! Let the dice fall where they may! GM Screens should be there for notes, not dice! The group could easily retreat if a challenge proves to be too strong. Fudging dice is cheating. Specifically, cheating the players out of a real roleplaying experience. Unless the game you play is specifically designed so that the players win no matter what, then sometimes bad luck will befall them.

Again, if you aren't going to use the dice or the rules, why bother playing the game designed around those dice and rules?


Yes, if they don't want to play that kind of game. There are more players than there are of you. Their opinion matters more than yours on the subject. Do you actually think that your players suck?

If they are unable to make tactical decisions and specifically make their race/class choices like that knowing that such choices are bad then yes.

Just like in monopoly I'd think a player who choses one property of each group and never buys anything else sucks. This is a game. That means some people will be good, some won't.

You can play Candyland DnD if you want. I'll play a rich experience in both mechanics and story rather then be spoonfed a story.


You've said that this is only your second campaign. That makes you the rookie, not automatically them. You need to start listening more to the players and adapting to them, instead of trying to make them change to adapt to you.

I disagree. It's a two way street. If the DM has said that he expects a level of competency in his game, then the players should try to exhibit it. Yes, that means the DM may be without players for awhile, but that happens.

Instead of trying to mollycoddle the players, he should work with them to help find a happy medium.

Is that min/maxing? No, not really. It's realizing that "roleplaying" choices such as being a war priest and not taking a war domain is kind of silly, especially when you waste a feat on martial weapon proficiency anyway, or taking only 3 levels of fighter is essentially wasting a level when you could use that on another class much more easily while keeping the flavor of the character.

The classes are guideline niches. They aren't meant to stranglehold you.

And there's nothing wrong with making the optimal choice when you have two different routes to an objective. Nor with teaching others how to recognize that optimal choice.

Psyx
2010-09-19, 12:12 PM
Are they having fun? Sure. Is that how the game is supposed to be played?
Not really.


Does it matter? RPGs can't be 'won'. They are about having fun with friends.




The dice will fall where they may, nothing is fudged. Real roleplayers would appreciate that...

...Wrong wrong wrong! Let the dice fall where they may! GM Screens should be there for notes, not dice!

...Fudging dice is cheating. Specifically, cheating the players out of a real roleplaying experience.


There is another thread where this was being discussed. It is a matter of style and opinion. There is no 'right' or 'wrong'. Your opinion is no more valid than mine, but I do believe it is preposterous to claim that 'real' roleplayers never want fudged dice.




Someone who is interested in the game is interested in the numbers.


Demonstrably untrue. I have had several players who are bad at maths and not interested in rules. They have been some of the most involved, keen and enthusiastic roleplayers that I've ever met.

Aotrs Commander
2010-09-19, 12:20 PM
This isn't even something that should be a question that you should need to be asking yourself. You do what your players want.

Right up until the point where you yourself are bored or not enjoying the game. At which point, you have to simply stop, because a bored DM is bad DM.

If your players really aren't willing to even try to meet you half way, then simply give up. It's not worth it and the game wil suffer for it.

(I have to utterly disagree with Saph, I'm afraid. I think it is entirely unreasonable for your players to be so uninvolved with the game they are incapable of making characters of even low effectiveness; which is all out-of-the-book = CR monsters are. Quite frankly, I would consider it flat out rude if my players weren't even prepared to make the effort (considering the amount of time, I as a preparation-based DM, have to sink in). My players don't have to be good optimisers, but they are very much expected to take advice on the subject if they aren't when it is offered (and it is offered freely); and if not, they lose all right to complain when they suck and die.)

Ultimately, if the players aren't prepared to play the game you're prepared to run (and a reasonable compromise cannot be made), then don't try to run one. How flexible you want to be on this issue is up to you.

(I, I am afraid, am a hardcase on this, myself. I say "we're going to be doing this next/I'm going to be running this", and the players can either like it or lump it! However, as I have been playing with broadly the same set of people for twenty years, I have only had one camapign in that time that was a sort of failure - ironically the one time I tried doing something more freeform!)



Best bet is to talk to your players and find out if you can find a reasonable compromise. You don't throw too mcuh optimisation at them, and they in return, listen to your advise when required.

Hell, they don't have to learn the whole rules, book by book, not if you simply point out the best feats (and the ones to avoid). You don't have to go crazy with Tob or psionics or something to be reasonable effective (especially at level 3!) If they geninuiely refuse to learn anything outside of core, and you don't want to limit yourself to it, then then have two options: stop playing with them or tell them that it's their problem and your not going to go easy on them. (The former is probably the best option, though, if they are really going to be that unreasonable. But I would be a bit surprised if the people you play - who I assume are your friends - are going to be that obstreperous.)

Urpriest
2010-09-19, 12:30 PM
In any case, we haven't even demonstrated that these players can't handle appropriate challenges tactically. They've built their characters badly, but that shouldn't actually matter that much in this situation. And indeed, we see them tactically foiling interesting encounters and only getting their asses handed to them via bad luck. So I don't think there's actually anything to worry about in this situation.

Mikal
2010-09-19, 12:36 PM
Does it matter? RPGs can't be 'won'. They are about having fun with friends.

RPGs are about overcoming challenges while roleplaying a character.
If RPGs were only about having fun with friends then there wouldn't be tournaments during Cons were people win prizes.

This is not to say you can't have fun with friends. All games can be played socially. But that doesn't mean the point of the game is social. And RPGs are no different, when one actually looks at the mechanics of it. It's just a less competitive game than others.



There is another thread where this was being discussed. It is a matter of style and opinion. There is no 'right' or 'wrong'. Your opinion is no more valid than mine, but I do believe it is preposterous to claim that 'real' roleplayers never want fudged dice.

Real roleplayers are those who truly play their characters in a world created by the gamemaster. Unless that world is specifically made to always skew things in favor of the person, then a real roleplayer would not be happy with it. They'd essentially be Truman from the Truman show. And we saw how that turned out.



Demonstrably untrue. I have had several players who are bad at maths and not interested in rules. They have been some of the most involved, keen and enthusiastic roleplayers that I've ever met.

I never said they were bad roleplayers. I said they were bad players.
One can be an awesome roleplayer while sucking at the game itself. This is called strawmanning, as I never once said anything about the persons roleplay abilities. Only their play abilities. Two different things.

DnD is not just about roleplay. If you want a game where that occurs, play Amber.

Aotrs Commander
2010-09-19, 12:42 PM
In any case, we haven't even demonstrated that these players can't handle appropriate challenges tactically. They've built their characters badly, but that shouldn't actually matter that much in this situation. And indeed, we see them tactically foiling interesting encounters and only getting their asses handed to them via bad luck. So I don't think there's actually anything to worry about in this situation.

With that said:


I have to utterly disagree with Saph, I'm afraid. I think it is entirely unreasonable for your players to be so uninvolved with the game they are incapable of making characters of even low effectiveness; which is all out-of-the-book = CR monsters are.

I should perhaps clarify that part of my last post; I don't think I have enough evidence to indicate that your players are actually that bad, I was merely speaking to address a hypothetical situation where players might be. (Though to manage that you'd nearly have to TRY to suck that much, to be honest.) Warblade is on the upper end of the power curve at level 3, and with fights at that level being especially swingy, I don't think you should panic yet. However, you should keep an eye on things (some of my suggestions in my first post are something to take under advisement, because then you can see how they do react, hopefully without pulverising them.) As usual, the most important thing is to talk to your players.

snoopy13a
2010-09-19, 12:44 PM
RPGs are about overcoming challenges while roleplaying a character.
If RPGs were only about having fun with friends then there wouldn't be tournaments during Cons were people win prizes.

This is not to say you can't have fun with friends. All games can be played socially. But that doesn't mean the point of the game is social. And RPGs are no different, when one actually looks at the mechanics of it. It's just a less competitive game than others.

Real roleplayers are those who truly play their characters in a world created by the gamemaster. Unless that world is specifically made to always skew things in favor of the person, then a real roleplayer would not be happy with it. They'd essentially be Truman from the Truman show. And we saw how that turned out.
I never said they were bad roleplayers. I said they were bad players.
One can be an awesome roleplayer while sucking at the game itself. This is called strawmanning, as I never once said anything about the persons roleplay abilities. Only their play abilities. Two different things.

DnD is not just about roleplay. If you want a game where that occurs, play Amber.

Look at it this way:

If the players are extremely optimized and are tearing through "level-appropriate" encounters then the DM will ramp up the difficulty of the world. This would essentially be Truman from the Truman show and a "real" roleplayer would not appreciate the world specifically changed to disfavor the players.

The_JJ
2010-09-19, 12:57 PM
... and my problems with the Stormwind Fallacy just kicked in. And I was really getting to like some optimizers.

First point. Generally, if I'm DM, I consider it my job to keep people entertained. Partly because I know the plot, I know the NPC's, and though I can generally rely on the PC's to throw me for a loop dramatic irony works less well for the author. On the other hand if I get invested, either in the characters or the story I fail. Whether it's the roleplayers hopping the rails or the powerplayers eating my favorite NPC alive,* I have to let them. I think you (OP) actually run like I do. NPC's act logically. You messed with the story to make it work, but within reasonable contexts. You just have to remember a few things:
1. NPC's don't know everything you know. I didn't see much evidence of that here but... whatever. Keep it in mind.
2. If you have an idea of 'and this is what the PC's should do here...' e.g.... lose it. Ever seen two people play chess and totally seen how white could've checkmated black in two moves? Unless they were grandmasters, you were probably right, but the players are looking at things totally differently. They don't know the lay out of the deck, what NPC's are where, or how trustworthy their captive is. Holing up is a perfectly sane option here. I'm not saying you shouldn't punish them for it, but they are going to some bat**** crazy things. That's part of the fun of being a DM. Avoid having a set 'solution' to any given situation the PC's face, or you will start subconsioucly punishing them for not knowing the they could have name dropped the Lord of Asheradonia to the magistrate and so scared him that he would've been a whimpering wreck and accidentally mentioned the bribes he's getting from 'the man in black!' who they should of course recognize from the farmers description of the man that stole his sheep and from there realize that the Cult of Nazerah thinks that the end times are nigh. Because they're probably just going to stab him. Or fearfully surrender to his outnumbered outleveled thugs. You have to be ready to roll.

Honestly I think you're doing well. Changing high ground: awesome. Roleplay: awesome. Traps and table shenanigans: awesome from your players. They tried tactics.

You have two options:
1. Optimize to their level. I know, it sucks. Deal.
2. Beat them fair and square with a CR 3 monster. Open terrain, not a stupid under CR'd monster, and do it first thing in the morning so they have all their spells. Have it hit the tank first, then move on. Win. Stop. Explain what just happened.

Do not expect them to go for ToB or flaws. ToB is not something you need to drop on them just yet and I personally dislike flaws. (Mostly from the DM position I admit, but even as a player many are just unflavorful, needlessly crippling, or not 'flaw' at all.) Flaws are an optional rule, expect them to play with what is 'standard.' Don't expect them to go running for extra books just to keep up.

All you can do is run it by the book, play fair, and show them a few flaws in their planning. And for the love of god if you do get them rerolling don't say I told you so and don't tell them what to make. Otherwise you might as well fill the sheets out for them, push the mini's around to your liking, and roll the dice for them.

Also, to Mikal: Argh on no why agh no not at all whywhywhywhy... soooo not how or why I play at all. I don't care how you play, but don't tell us how we 'do' play or 'should' play. Don't use the term 'Real' Roleplayers when you aren't one because there isn't one.

*... in both literal and metaphoric terms. I've had some weird campaigns

Gavinfoxx
2010-09-19, 01:02 PM
"Hi guys, I was thinking about what I want to get out of DMing. I want a game where you guys challenge me, and where I challenge you and your characters. I mostly like running very interesting tactical combat with lots of options available on both sides, so I am going to be running games that are challenging for powerful-for-their-level, versatile-for-their-level characters. If you guys tell me the themes of what you want your characters to be able to achieve in and out of combat, I could give you some very important pointers about how to achieve those themes and not die horribly in the game I want to run. Remember, I don't want to pull punches in a way that makes the opponents act under their capabilities. What do you guys say?"

The_JJ
2010-09-19, 01:26 PM
"Hi guys, I was thinking about what I want to get out of DMing. I want a game where you guys challenge me, and where I challenge you and your characters. I mostly like running very interesting tactical combat with lots of options available on both sides, so I am going to be running games that are challenging for powerful-for-their-level, versatile-for-their-level characters. If you guys tell me the themes of what you want your characters to be able to achieve in and out of combat, I could give you some very important pointers about how to achieve those themes and not die horribly in the game I want to run. Remember, I don't want to pull punches in a way that makes the opponents act under their capabilities. What do you guys say?"

Me? I'd probably walk out. You want to phrase it better. And preferably have an object lesson.

Also, learning the mechanics is a process. I'd shoot for 'reasonably powered for their level' and 'reasonably versatile for their level.' Also, powerful-for-their-level includes PunPun. What exactly are you looking for here?

Oh, and remember CR are designed with four players in mind. Thought I should mention that.

Gavinfoxx
2010-09-19, 01:37 PM
Me? I'd probably walk out. You want to phrase it better. And preferably have an object lesson.

Well how would you phrase it then?

WarKitty
2010-09-19, 01:40 PM
Right. We have 4 people here. If all 4 aren't having fun the game's not going to go that well. Unless you're paying the DM, the players have a certain obligation to make sure the game is fun for the DM as well.

So, yeah. Honestly I wouldn't do in-game stuff. In-game solutions to out of game problems rarely work. Just sit down with them.

"Look, I think you're doing a really good job roleplaying your characters. However the system we're playing expects a certain level of optimization, and it's going to be really hard for me to send monsters at you if you're way below that level. I'm going to have to redo a lot of my planning and that's going to eat up a lot of time and energy on my part. Can we try to work your characters out so they're better optimized? I think it will actually enhance your roleplaying because you'll be able to do more with those characters."

The_JJ
2010-09-19, 01:52 PM
You say: "Hi guys, I was thinking about what I want to get out of DMing."
They hear: "Hi guy's I was thinking about what I want memememememememe."
Could be... "Hey, this is my DM style."

You say: I want a game where you guys challenge me, and where I challenge you and your characters.
They hear: More mememe also what I expect you guys to want.
Could be... actually, just cut and skip to the next bit:

You say: I mostly like running very interesting tactical combat with lots of options available on both sides, so I am going to be running games that are challenging for powerful-for-their-level, versatile-for-their-level characters.
They hear: I'm a munchkin powergamer be like me or get out.
Could be... I'm going to run the encounters to the extent of their abilities.

You say: If you guys tell me the themes of what you want your characters to be able to achieve in and out of combat, I could give you some very important pointers about how to achieve those themes and not die horribly in the game I want to run.
They hear: Here, gimme that character sheet. I'll make you something stupid.
Could be... If your characters start struggling, we can maybe work out some compromises.

You say: Remember, I don't want to pull punches in a way that makes the opponents act under their capabilities.
They hear: Remember, mememe me munchkin.
Could be... I think the NPC and monsters should be smart.

You say: What do you guys say?
They hear: A token offer of patronizing 'as if you have a say in this.'
Could be... Yeah, not really needed, since I mentioned compromises earlier.

And that's important. They play up, but you're going to have to play down. There's going to have to be some give and take.

Re Warkitty: the game does not expect a certain level of optimization, the, in this case, DM does. [/berserk button]

WarKitty
2010-09-19, 01:59 PM
You say: "Hi guys, I was thinking about what I want to get out of DMing."
They hear: "Hi guy's I was thinking about what I want memememememememe."
Could be... "Hey, this is my DM style."

You say: I want a game where you guys challenge me, and where I challenge you and your characters.
They hear: More mememe also what I expect you guys to want.
Could be... actually, just cut and skip to the next bit:

You say: I mostly like running very interesting tactical combat with lots of options available on both sides, so I am going to be running games that are challenging for powerful-for-their-level, versatile-for-their-level characters.
They hear: I'm a munchkin powergamer be like me or get out.
Could be... I'm going to run the encounters to the extent of their abilities.

You say: If you guys tell me the themes of what you want your characters to be able to achieve in and out of combat, I could give you some very important pointers about how to achieve those themes and not die horribly in the game I want to run.
They hear: Here, gimme that character sheet. I'll make you something stupid.
Could be... If your characters start struggling, we can maybe work out some compromises.

You say: Remember, I don't want to pull punches in a way that makes the opponents act under their capabilities.
They hear: Remember, mememe me munchkin.
Could be... I think the NPC and monsters should be smart.

You say: What do you guys say?
They hear: A token offer of patronizing 'as if you have a say in this.'
Could be... Yeah, not really needed, since I mentioned compromises earlier.

And that's important. They play up, but you're going to have to play down. There's going to have to be some give and take.

Re Warkitty: the game does not expect a certain level of optimization, the, in this case, DM does. [/berserk button]

Sorry, but if you're going to use the CR system, the game does expect a certain level of optimization. Even if you try to use under-CR'd monsters, the game expect characters to be optimized enough to not be one-trick ponies. And I'm usually not willing to throw out the CR system because it's my only good handy guide to what I can throw at them. I don't have infinite time to evaluate and customize every single monster when I have to come up with them on the spot half the time (because planning where they will go never works).

If they want a game where optimization isn't as important, they should look into 4e or another system.

Anyways, my main point: if the DM can't have fun as well something needs to change somewhere. And for everyone who's going to say don't DM, well, usually no one else wanted to, so...

The_JJ
2010-09-19, 02:05 PM
You can use 3.5 however you want to, and the CR system is pretty borked anyway. The game expects nothing, the DM/players do. You should really stop telling people to go blow another $100+ bucks on another system/new books just because 'they r doin it rong.'

Monopoly does not 'expect' crazy Free Market (not Parking) shenanigans or ludicrous out of game trades, but Christmas wouldn't be nearly so fun without them.

WarKitty
2010-09-19, 02:11 PM
You can use 3.5 however you want to, and the CR system is pretty borked anyway. The game expects nothing, the DM/players do. You should really stop telling people to go blow another $100+ bucks on another system/new books just because 'they r doin it rong.'

Monopoly does not 'expect' crazy Free Market (not Parking) shenanigans or Ludicrous, out of game trades, but Christmas wouldn't be nearly so fun without them.

I may be biased; every time I've had a player that had that bad a level of optimization the root problem was that they didn't want to be playing the game. They simply didn't want to put any work into building a character; they essentially wanted to be playing free-form. But we could argue all day about that. There's plenty of free systems out there for people to try though.

Still, my main point is that the DM has as much right to have fun as the players. And if the DM has put in a lot of prepwork the players should try not to completely ruin it.

Mikal
2010-09-19, 02:19 PM
Look at it this way:

If the players are extremely optimized and are tearing through "level-appropriate" encounters then the DM will ramp up the difficulty of the world. This would essentially be Truman from the Truman show and a "real" roleplayer would not appreciate the world specifically changed to disfavor the players.

...This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about regarding what a real roleplayer shouldn't like. A world doesn't change because it has someone of exceptional ability in it just because he is exceptional. Nor does it become easier if you're a chump.

You're suggesting doing that.


Also, to Mikal: Argh on no why agh no not at all whywhywhywhy... soooo not how or why I play at all. I don't care how you play, but don't tell us how we 'do' play or 'should' play. Don't use the term 'Real' Roleplayers when you aren't one because there isn't one.


I see you get the point I was trying to make regarding real roleplayers (hence the added emphasis on it throughout). Thank you.

As for why you play, I never once made a mention on why you play, except to say that the system allows people to play more socially then not.
But if you can't make an effective character, then you fail the mechanics portion.

And the mechanics are a part of the game. If you're having fun, good for you. But as a player you still suck.

Just like the scrawny kid who loves playing football but can't catch a ball, throw a ball, kick a ball, block, tackle, or run.


I may be biased; every time I've had a player that had that bad a level of optimization the root problem was that they didn't want to be playing the game. They simply didn't want to put any work into building a character; they essentially wanted to be playing free-form. But we could argue all day about that. There's plenty of free systems out there for people to try though.


I've actually not seen this. For me, most people seem to have been scared off any sort of optimization due to the overuse of min-maxing, munchkin, power gamer, and etc. (see this thread for a few examples, for example).

Anything that reeks of usefulness that can easily be adapted into a concept isn't chosen because choosing it is power gaming.

Of course I'm sure there are those who don't work on a PC due to the reasons you stated, but I've not seen them myself.

And you also have those who are so wedded to their one true vision of a concept that even when you point out something better (say... OA Samurai vs. CW Samurai) they instantly shut down.

I've been there, myself.

The_JJ
2010-09-19, 02:35 PM
I may be biased; every time I've had a player that had that bad a level of optimization the root problem was that they didn't want to be playing the game. They simply didn't want to put any work into building a character; they essentially wanted to be playing free-form. But we could argue all day about that. There's plenty of free systems out there for people to try though.

Still, my main point is that the DM has as much right to have fun as the players. And if the DM has put in a lot of prepwork the players should try not to completely ruin it.

Well, I think you can have a perfectly fun character no matter the optimization, but I certainly agree on the second statement. Just because the DM expects something he isn't wrong. But the game isn't wrong, and there isn't a right way to play it so long as everyone has fun.



...This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about regarding what a real roleplayer shouldn't like. A world doesn't change because it has someone of exceptional ability in it just because he is exceptional. Nor does it become easier if you're a chump.

You're suggesting doing that.

Yeah, that's the real world. If we were playing realistically I'd be LARP with real swords. And the police tend to get involved around the third delimbing. There's always a certain escapism in anything that isn't, you know, real life, the matter of degrees is a personal preference. So back off, you do your thing I'll do mine and he can do his.



I see you get the point I was trying to make regarding real roleplayers (hence the added emphasis on it throughout). Thank you.

Any True Scotsman would've seen the point I was making. You're welcome.


As for why you play, I never once made a mention on why you play, except to say that the system allows people to play more socially then not.
But if you can't make an effective character, then you fail the mechanics portion.

Why I play is inextricably tied to what I want out of the game, and how I play it. You apparently regard it as a sport; fine. But when I go out to play football with my friends I'm not going to hire a pro ref, get out the pads, and piledrive my girlfriend into the turf and do a little dance while her teammates lead her off to the sidelines so she can be checked for concussions.

Now, do I fail at football when I play two hand touch? No, not really. So no, I don't fail at DnD when I play something other than PunPun.


And the mechanics are a part of the game. If you're having fun, good for you. But as a player you still suck.

I played game. I had fun. Mission Accomplished. I went to play, and I played. And... I suck? Seriously, you've got some weird conceptions of success.


Just like the scrawny kid who loves playing football but can't catch a ball, throw a ball, kick a ball, block, tackle, or run.

But I went out to play. And I played. And I had fun. I completed my objectives, in high style I might add. And I got to meet with my friends at the same time, and they had fun. I did what I set out to do.

WarKitty
2010-09-19, 02:38 PM
And this is a hot-button issue on this forum. I've been attacked for not trying to tone my game down for two players (out of 6) that didn't want to put any time into character creation. I've also had a player who refused to play an unarmed swordsage because "it's a class about swords and she wants to use her fists."

Personally it still reeks of a player that either doesn't care or doesn't get roleplaying (stormwind fallacy). Did the one guy give a reason why war domain wouldn't fit his character?

The_JJ
2010-09-19, 02:45 PM
They're players that don't care... about the things you do.

And if they suck, and you've got 6 players, let it ride. I assume you've talked to them, and if they won't come around, let them accept the consequences. Same with the monk. I like monk flavor. I like the extra tidbits they get. They suck, but, eh, you gave fair warning.

Saph
2010-09-19, 03:04 PM
(I, I am afraid, am a hardcase on this, myself. I say "we're going to be doing this next/I'm going to be running this", and the players can either like it or lump it! However, as I have been playing with broadly the same set of people for twenty years, I have only had one camapign in that time that was a sort of failure - ironically the one time I tried doing something more freeform!)

Heh. That's the difference between you and me - I mostly play at a gaming club, and I have a varying pool of players. It teaches you to be flexible.

I frequently get cases where I get players showing up at my table who are nice people and interested in roleplaying, but either aren't interested in optimisation or tactics, or just really, really suck at them (it happens more often than you'd think).

So I have two choices. I can say "You have to optimise to level X, or get out" - and they'd have to get out, because I'm running the game and I call the shots. But I'd also lose out on the company of quite a few very nice players.

Or, I can adjust my campaign so that players who aren't very interested in the optimisation game can still play and have fun, even if they won't be as effective in combat as the powergamers. Over time, my group would become limited to only a certain subset of the gaming club, and everyone else would be excluded.

I've found that the second choice leads to a more enjoyable game for everyone in the long term, even if it can sometimes seem like a little more work.

Gavinfoxx
2010-09-19, 03:13 PM
Have you given them something LIKE the message I suggested, maybe with a few more changes for your group and to make it more palatable?

"Guys, I can only have fun if I have interesting tactical options to do in combat as a GM. As such, I am going to build encounters that are fun for me to run. I might limit myself to, oh, maybe one or two challenge rating' above the average party level, but I'm going to be giving the creatures or npc's that you all will be fighting tactically interesting and useful abilities, which means that it's going to be deadly for you all unless each of the characters are competent, useful, versatile, and they all plan ahead and work as a team. Many of those tasks require optimization, an open mind, and rules mastery. Alternately, you could get used to your characters dying and being replaced a lot, I guess, which would work fine..."

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-09-19, 03:19 PM
...This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about regarding what a real roleplayer shouldn't like. A world doesn't change because it has someone of exceptional ability in it just because he is exceptional. Nor does it become easier if you're a chump.

You're suggesting doing that. This is not the real world. The real world does not include the possibility of Pun-Pun. This is a game. The goal of a game is to have fun. If people have fun, then it's fun for them.



I see you get the point I was trying to make regarding real roleplayers (hence the added emphasis on it throughout). Thank you.

As for why you play, I never once made a mention on why you play, except to say that the system allows people to play more socially then not.
But if you can't make an effective character, then you fail the mechanics portion.

And the mechanics are a part of the game. If you're having fun, good for you. But as a player you still suck.

Just like the scrawny kid who loves playing football but can't catch a ball, throw a ball, kick a ball, block, tackle, or run. But if that scrawny kid who loves playing football can't do any of these things, does it make things any less enjoyable for him? If not, then what is the problem? It's not like he's trying to try out for the Redskins or something.


I've actually not seen this. For me, most people seem to have been scared off any sort of optimization due to the overuse of min-maxing, munchkin, power gamer, and etc. (see this thread for a few examples, for example).

Anything that reeks of usefulness that can easily be adapted into a concept isn't chosen because choosing it is power gaming.

Of course I'm sure there are those who don't work on a PC due to the reasons you stated, but I've not seen them myself.Just because you haven't seen them is not a valid reason for their lack of existence. In all odds, those players who feel that way would rather chew ground glass than play with a person you have shown yourself to be. This isn't intended as an insult on anyone, just pointing out that people don't generally like to play with people who have dramatically and radically different play styles.


And you also have those who are so wedded to their one true vision of a concept that even when you point out something better (say... OA Samurai vs. CW Samurai) they instantly shut down.

I've been there, myself.

I'm sorry, but what part of OA Samurai contains DC 47 level check or be Cowering, as a move action? Look at my sig for what a level 13 CW Samurai did to Fistbeard Beardfist, a fairly optimized build. And that's the old version.

The point is, with sufficient skill and resources, ANYONE can break a game with ANY class. What you fail to realize is that this does not always make for a fun game. If you completely dominate every encounter, what is the fun in that? That would be no better than what you call 'candyland D&D', where you simply win, and get loots.

The_JJ
2010-09-19, 03:24 PM
Have you given them something LIKE the message I suggested, maybe with a few more changes for your group and to make it more palatable?

"Guys, I can only have fun if I have interesting tactical options to do in combat as a GM. As such, I am going to build encounters that are fun for me to run. I might limit myself to, oh, maybe one or two challenge rating' above the average party level, but I'm going to be giving the creatures or npc's that you all will be fighting tactically interesting and useful abilities, which means that it's going to be deadly for you all unless each of the characters are competent, useful, versatile, and they all plan ahead and work as a team. Many of those tasks require optimization, an open mind, and rules mastery."

See, I'd still avoid this wording. 'I can only have fun...' is hopefully untrue, and implies an unwillingness to compromise. If it is true you might be totally SoL until you find a more compatible group. Aiming for 'fun for all of us' is much better than 'fun for me.' I'd avoid telling our poor little underoptimizers that you think expecting them to beat +2 CR is going easy on them. And the rest is just... bad? Demanding 'the characters are competent, useful, versatile, and they all plan ahead and work as a team' is actually a pretty subjective meter stick. It would also immediately tell me that I might be better off in a different game. 'Require optimization, an open mind, and rules mastery...' sounds like a lot of no fun and slightly sanctimonious at the same time. I demand you to play my way and like it, dammit.

You want to convince them, not drive them away.


But if that scrawny kid who loves playing football can't do any of these things, does it make things any less enjoyable for him? If not, then what is the problem? It's not like he's trying to try out for the Redskins or something.

To be fair... they are the Redskins. Scrawny kid might actually do them some good. :smallbiggrin:

(Sorry, my Dad was a big 'skins fan. Reflex insult instincts die hard.)

Gavinfoxx
2010-09-19, 03:47 PM
So how would YOU say it to them?

The_JJ
2010-09-19, 03:57 PM
Could be... "Hey, this is my DM style... I'm going to run the encounters to the extent of their abilities... If your characters start struggling, we can maybe work out some compromises... I think the NPC and monsters should be smart.

Pretty much this. Don't require, don't demand, only lay out as facts your own preferences, and hedge that with a recognition that you are not the center of the universe.

Possibly, do this after whomping them, fairly, when they have all their spells etc. with a by the book CR their level monster. So they can see that they do have room to improve, even within their current concepts and book choices.

TheFallenOne
2010-09-19, 04:10 PM
guys, settle down, I think some see here a way bigger problem than there actually ever was. We all were having fun, we had some disagreement after the final encounter and like I suspected it was mostly because of false assumptions what I'd like them to do, I just wanted some tips on how to resolve the issue and whether or not my expectations were unreasonable. On that, at least here opinion differed.
Anyway, I send them an email today, both Dilaans and Kerris players responded now. I explained where I saw the problem(me not knowing beforehand how strong their characters are, their suboptimal choices) and we agreed that they would take a look at some stuff I recommend, I'll give them tips for useful feats and options that fit the character theme(Kerri likes intimidating and has an unusually high charisma for a fighter, so I mentioned Daunting Presence and Intimidating Strike. Dilaan wants to be skillfocused and make use of Knowledge, so I mentioned Cloistered Cleric and Knowledge Devotion). I in turn will now be able to tailor the challenges to the actual abilities of the characters and tone it down where necessary(the Mantle of Flame really got to Kerris player, I rolled well for the damage and getting more damage back than dealing herself with her own attack wasn't nice). So all is well on the western front :smallsmile:

By the way, starting next time an old friend of mine will join the group. He is a truly great roleplayer and while his Optifu isn't impressive, he does try to build something competent and interesting. He has a sorcerer with Draconic Heritage feats planned and I look forward to see him in action, both in combat and out of it.

Anyway, you can keep discussing the general issue in this thread, though now this is mostly resolved some comments about the play and plot would be welcome. I'm still hashing out what kind of artifact the Zhentarim are mining for, how people knew to look for Dilaan(I think he'll be having some dreams soon remembering things like meeting the mortally wounded spy, telling him to flee, or looking at a sheet of parchment, instructing to meet him in Ravens Bluff. The ink is still fresh and the handwriting his, but it is signed with another name...


They don't know the lay out of the deck, what NPC's are where, or how trustworthy their captive is. Holing up is a perfectly sane option here. I'm not saying you shouldn't punish them for it, but they are going to some bat**** crazy things.

Honestly I think you're doing well. Changing high ground: awesome. Roleplay: awesome. Traps and table shenanigans: awesome from your players. They tried tactics.

Yeah, I'm quite satisfied how it turned out. I had hoped for the climax on deck because I prepared a changing battlefield with interesting rules for it(waves over deck, balance checks, moving barrels and chests... The changing high ground up to eleven basically), but I was prepared for other ways they might handle it, I don't want to railroad them. They could have tried escaping with a liefe boat(bit suicidal in the storm, but not impossible), capture the ship, just go with them without resisting and then meet Embro Ambrath right away, plan a break only once they touch solid ground again... Apart from the holing up(or down) they took the options I had in mind as preferrable.

The_JJ
2010-09-19, 04:16 PM
Coolio. Have fun!

Kyeudo
2010-09-19, 04:44 PM
Not every player wants to become a rules encyclopaedia and to have a better character than everyone else. Some just want to enjoy the game. Better characters just move goalposts anyway: They all build better characters, you build better monsters. Why real dull rulebooks and spend hours agonising over feats to essentially achieve nothing?


Better characters vs. Better monsters = more interesting fights.

A fight like this is not interesting.
"I attack with my sword. I got a 4."
"You miss"
"I cast magic missile."
"The goblin takes 2 damage. Now it attacks you with a spear. It hits you for 5 damage."
etc.


A fight like this IS interesting:
"The last orc charges you. It gets a 19!"
"I activate Shield of Blades! My AC is now 23 against the attack."
"I take a five foot step to here and then hit the orcs with Glitterdust. Save DC 16!"
"Most of the orcs fail their saves."
"Great, I now move in and sneak attack the orc trying to kill the wizard."

In the first, they treat combat like a slugfest and just stand there trading damage until one side is dead. In the other, both sides can use options and dynamically the circumstances of combat every round.



You do what your players want.

This is perhaps the most offensive idea that I have ever heard. Why must the GM be the one to cater to his player's whims at every turn? We RUN the game! We put in the time to create plots and characters and interesting encounters! All they have to do is bring a believable, competent character to the table and roll some dice. The GM has a right to have fun too.

That doesn't mean we can't compromise, but the GM does so much for the players that they should be willing to read a dozen pages from a sourcebook and pick some half decent feats and spells. It takes the same amount of effort to choose Power Attack over Weapon Focus, but it results in so much difference in playability.

TheFallenOne
2010-09-19, 04:52 PM
hey Boss :smallbiggrin:


Better characters vs. Better monsters = more interesting fights.

While I agree with your elaboration below, I'd go with another wording here. The fight doesn't necessarily get more interesting or tactically challening because the characters are stronger. A One Trick Pony who is able to throw the same nuke/Save or Die time and time again may be strong, but boring. Tactical depth comes from the monsters and players having a multitude of useful options avaiable. A good example of this are Martial Adepts with Strikes, Counters and Boosts opposed to a charger or tripper build who can do one thing really well and then do this one thing over and over again because they can't do much else

Thatguyoverther
2010-09-19, 04:57 PM
It looks to me like the players do think tactically. They set up traps and tried to lure the enemy in. They also refused to go on deck were the enemies numerical superiority could come to play.

They might not be as optimized as you'd like but that doesn't mean they don't know how to use the resources they have available to them.

Starbuck_II
2010-09-19, 05:15 PM
It looks to me like the players do think tactically. They set up traps and tried to lure the enemy in. They also refused to go on deck were the enemies numerical superiority could come to play.

They might not be as optimized as you'd like but that doesn't mean they don't know how to use the resources they have available to them.

I agree. They are tactically good. They just aren't built good. That could be improved, but only if players realize there are trap feats, spells, and classes.

Most people don't expect PHB, etc to have traps for players only chatacters.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-19, 06:00 PM
...This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about regarding what a real roleplayer shouldn't like. A world doesn't change because it has someone of exceptional ability in it just because he is exceptional. Nor does it become easier if you're a chump.

You're suggesting doing that.

Agreed. I get annoyed when, as a result of players pulling off something clever, the world suddenly gets tougher. Sure, scaling challenges does exist to a degree, but it needs to make sense in game. As in, you're more powerful now, so you can elect to take on greater challenges if you wish.

If it feels like the difficulty setting got turned up on a first person shooter(ie, no in game justification whatsoever), it breaks immersion.

There is no need for players to optimize lightly, or heavily...but they should seek out challenges in proportion to their power level. As a DM, ensure that at least some of the challenges out there are things they can take on. Not all, sure. The world doesn't exist merely as a way for them to level up. But at least some, or the game sucks.

Psyx
2010-09-20, 04:42 AM
RPGs are about overcoming challenges while roleplaying a character.
If RPGs were only about having fun with friends then there wouldn't be tournaments during Cons were people win prizes.

Competition games during cons have always been a bit of a joke though. They're like yoga competitions.



Right up until the point where you yourself are bored or not enjoying the game. At which point, you have to simply stop, because a bored DM is bad DM.

Concur.
If I -as GM- am not will to run the type of game that my players want, then I'm more than happy for someone else to take a turn. It avoids wasting everyone else's time.



It's just a less competitive game than others.

Errr... competitive? I disagree. But it's a matter of play style. As I said: People can turn anything into a competition if they're competitive people.


(Wow. Only 2 pages in, and the words 'strawman' and 'stormwind' have cropped up. Oh dear.)


Aside:

I personally dislike flaws.

I don't know a single GM who wouldn't laugh at anyone who asked to use them. I also don't ever consider the CR system something that's worth paying too much attention to, because it's... not very good, really.
/Aside


Why must the GM be the one to cater to his player's whims at every turn?

Because you are one person and several players. I hate to break it, but that makes their opinion more valid than yours. Of course, if you don't want to run the kind of game that the players want to play, then the best thing to do is not to run one. You are running a game, and you can make certain demands, but one of them shouldn't ever be heavily compromising their enjoyment of the game in favour of your own. I don't consider my own time and fun more important than 4-7 of my friend's combined time.

Ozymandias9
2010-09-20, 05:26 AM
DnD is a game of overcoming challenges. Usually through combat. If your characters are unable to do so then they're not playing the game well. It's like playing monopoly with a person who "likes the colors of the properties" and has a strategy of only getting 1 property per group so they can have the colors.

Actually, collecting one property per color in the game of Monopoly is a valid strategy: it gives you a significant amount of leverage in trading. Essentially, you can control who gets to build where and when.

It requires a fair bit of luck to start out though: in you have to happen upon a fair bit of the properties in question before it makes sense to actively pursue the strategy.


I don't play easytype dnd. The dice will fall where they may, nothing is fudged. Real roleplayers would appreciate that, as changing the gameworld because your character may suck isn't real roleplay. It's pandering.

Whether or not "your character may suck" relative to the game world is completely within the control of the DM. As the DM, it's your job to present a game world that is appropriate and engaging for you players. If you do that job well you won't want, much less need, to fudge rolls.


And 66% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The fact that he argued his point poorly doesn't mean that it's not a valid point. Not everyone wants to play the game like you do, nor like I do (I would go so far as to say that most don't want to play the game like I do).

But when you DM, you are essentially playing host. You have taken on the responsibility of entertaining guests in your game world. And if you find that a guest is unengaged by what you have presented, as a good host you should try to accommodate them rather than trying to push your tastes upon them.


Someone who is interested in the game is interested in the numbers. The numbers make up a large part of the game. Ignoring the numbers is ignoring that aspect. If you just care about the story, then why use the rules at all? Just throw out the dice, sheets, books, and save yourself cash as you make your interactive story.

There is a difference between wanting the numbers to be present and wanting them to be a significant focus. At its basis, the use of dice in role-playing games functions to introduce "randomness" to the proceedings. That can be an important element, even if your goals are primarily in collective story telling


Just like in monopoly I'd think a player who choses one property of each group and never buys anything else sucks. This is a game. That means some people will be good, some won't.

And as a matter of sportsmanship, when you are playing a game in a friendly setting against someone of lesser skill, you handicap yourself. In golf and bowling, this takes the form of a formal handicap. In darts and rings, it takes the form of having them stand closer. In Monopoly, it can take the form of not leveraging your full capacity when trading.

In D&D, you can pull your punches in any number of ways. Not doing so is usually poor sportsmanship.


I disagree. It's a two way street. If the DM has said that he expects a level of competency in his game, then the players should try to exhibit it. Yes, that means the DM may be without players for awhile, but that happens.

I do think that both DMs and players should try to seek out others who want to play the game in a similar manner to them.

I don't think that a DM, having invited players to a game, should insist on playing it in a way that they find enjoyably. Seeing to the needs in wants of your guests is basic hospitality.

TheFallenOne
2010-09-20, 07:46 AM
pity, seems this is becoming a debate on principles, I had hoped I could get some comments and hints for my campaign :smalltongue:

Anyway, the Dwarf player answered, he didn't take as much time to make the character as he would have wished, he'll most likely take the War domain. Quicken Spell he in fact already changed for Bullheaded in our session, it just wasn't marked on the sheet when I looked at it and the feat never came up in play(in the session I only discussed the futility of MWP, I didn't want to hold off play by talking about another bad feat choice)

Game will resume in two weeks, let's see if they solve the mystery and how I get the draconic sorcerer to meet the group

Psyx
2010-09-20, 08:30 AM
Hospitality and hosting are two very good words used as regards GMing 'ethics and manners'.

I would not be too keen to pin hopes of having someone with great min-max-fu at the table. It might improve things. Alternatively, the players may see that a 'powergamer' (especially one in T1!) is completely dominating play and outshining them all, which is going to make them hate 'powergaming' even more, annoy them, and lessen their own interest in the game.

'Here's my friend who owns a Ferarri with an aftermarket supercharger. He's going to join your Honda Civic car club and race next to you. Won't that be great?'

If he is brilliant at making great characters, then he can outshine them regardless of base class. I would seriously recommend asking him not to play a high-tier character, because otherwise everyone else is going to be second fiddle. We all know that a well-played Sorc or wizard can utterly dominate play without any min-maxing at all. So putting that tool in the hands of the only optimiser is probably not the best idea for your game, to be honest.

Let him play something 'rubbish' and optimise it. That would be a better, safer way of perhaps teaching your players without making them feel like they are being punished. Racing closely alongside a 50cc Honda moped which is tuned is more motivating than being left in the dirt by a works-team Ferarri.

WarKitty
2010-09-20, 08:33 AM
Hospitality and hosting are two very good words used as regards GMing 'ethics and manners'.


I would not be too keen to pin hopes of having someone with great min-max-fu at the table. It might improve things. Alternatively, the players may see that a 'powergamer' (especially one in T1!) is completely dominating play and outshining them all, which is going to make them hate 'powergaming' even more, annoy them, and lessen their own interest in the game.

'Here's my friend who owns a Ferarri with an aftermarket supercharger. He's going to join your Honda Civic car club and race next to you. Won't that be great?'

If he is brilliant at making great characters, then he can outshine them regardless of base class. I would seriously recommend asking him not to play a high-tier character, because otherwise everyone else is going to be second fiddle. We all know that a well-played Sorc or wizard can utterly dominate play without any min-maxing at all. So putting that tool in the hands of the only optimiser is probably not the best idea for your game, to be honest.

Let him play something 'rubbish' and optimise it. That would be a better, safer way of perhaps teaching your players without making them feel like they are being punished.

Alternately build a more stand-back-and-help type character that will bring the overall party level up.

Psyx
2010-09-20, 08:35 AM
A more support based character would indeed be better, if sensibly played. Care would also need to be taken in order to make it not seem 'patronising'.

Garwain
2010-09-20, 08:37 AM
I share your opinion that a battle where the odds can swing sides due to clever tactical decissions is very fun to play as well as a DM and player.

However, most of the time my players overrun my mooks by applying their most obvious and straightforward strength. My group does not care for tactics, but are reward driven. I use all my options, and the battle is entertaining. And at the end, they will cheer over the loot and not learn from my tactics. Unless I can point out how the battle would have been over sooner, then they might try it next time.

I take my pride in challanging them with lower CR encounters. They are happy to get more action and more lewt. Oh well... It's not like we're ever going to tackle something epic.

TheFallenOne
2010-09-20, 09:24 AM
um, the friend I mentioned is great at roleplaying, but not so good at optimization. I've seen his WIP sheet, pretty sure he won't overshadow the other characters

WarKitty
2010-09-20, 09:31 AM
Sounds like it's getting to be fairly under control. I'd still say if you want to optimize (and there's people like me that just enjoy that more), try giving them, say, a core-only optimized monk.

TheFallenOne
2010-09-20, 09:34 AM
I can just let them fight a troup of Mutated Commoners (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=214453), I love to play that build in Arena. Switch around races and Aberrant Feats(some with Starspawn etc) a bit to get diversity and them let them fight a couple of those :smallbiggrin:

Psyx
2010-09-20, 09:37 AM
Sorry: I misread your prior post. I thought you'd said he was a good roleplayer AND a good optimiser.

Kylarra
2010-09-20, 11:16 AM
Here's a suggestion that should at least ramp up their base abilities, even if they don't want to "optimize" a lot. Let them run gestalt characters, possibly with ToB characters so they can either just have the good chassis added to their own, even the fighter will benefit from 1hp/level and more skills, and they'll have the maneuvers available to use as well. This solves your problem of letting them try out ToB classes without forcing them to deviate from the classes they wanted to play. If nothing else, they get the pretty good chassis and ignore the fact that they have maneuvers too.

If they're as bad at optimizing as you say, then the gestalt should put them about where you want them to be in terms of power level.

TheFallenOne
2010-09-20, 09:26 PM
I'm pretty sure Gestalt wouldn't be a good idea, it would only give them more to think about. I'm happy as it is; all are about equally competent in the base rules(the new guy a little less, but he can keep up), good at roleplaying and fighting tactically clever and they're ready to get counsel from me regarding what are useful choices regarding the crunch. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Especially if the cure is Gestalt

Valameer
2010-09-20, 10:24 PM
Would the players be insulted if you "retooled" their characters? As in, you keep their fluff and capabilities intact, but remake their character sheets for them so that they can also do *that much more*?

That said, I've played under a DM who was all about optimizing with players who weren't. DMPCs were running the show, specifically a raptoran clericzilla. It felt more like he was belittling the players by 'bailing them out again, gosh' rather than letting us have fun without learning lessons. I came in with a fairly Op'd BuffBard so I was doing fine, but I only stayed half a session before bailing. It was like school. It sucked.

I'm not saying that this is you - in fact, your session sounded well thought out and exciting. I especially like the rocking boat encounter.

If the players are comfortable at their current Op level - that's fine so long as everyone is having fun. If this isn't fun for you, but is fun for them, perhaps you should try finding new ways to enjoy crunching without feeling like you have to teach them how.

No player likes being the underdog for long - that's why we hate powerful DMPCs and recurring villians. If they won't Op to your level, why not give each one some sort of interesting magic item to compensate? Then you can crunch-fu to challenge them, but they won't have to familiarize themselves with many different books. Also it won't cause the game to come to a screeching halt as everyone retools their characters.

A Ring of Telekinesis is not a great item for it's cost, but having one for free at level 3 could add tons of dimension and options to Joe Fighter. Same with those ridiculously priced Rings of Elemental Command. Heck give the party 3 of the 4 elements and make it a plot device.

Zany magic items would be the way to go here, if you don't mind violating WBL a lot. I would give one equally interesting item to each player. Introduce them subtly, and let them decide in character which one they end up with. Just make sure no one hoards all three - especially the evil rogue (cause she'll probably WANT to). Suddenly everyone has a bunch more options in combat.

Also, more dynamic encounters with changing battlefields encourages tactical thinking. Keep cinematic outs if things turn south for the party. Just as they start the fight on the boat, they notice all those explosive ballistae bolts stacked up on the fo'c'sle (forecastle). Duelling in the desolate bell tower with severe wind blowing the ropes around (a convenient escape for hero or villian). Luring the bad guy into a nasty trap they bypassed earlier, etc.

Players will usually find a way to use fire to be destructive, so they rarely need much of a nudge ;)

But if they are having fun - then you're doing fine!

Psyx
2010-09-21, 05:40 AM
Would the players be insulted if you "retooled" their characters? As in, you keep their fluff and capabilities intact, but remake their character sheets for them so that they can also do *that much more*?


I certainly would be.

TheFallenOne
2010-09-21, 07:20 AM
Would the players be insulted if you "retooled" their characters? As in, you keep their fluff and capabilities intact, but remake their character sheets for them so that they can also do *that much more*?

nothing I want to do myself. I still want it to be their characters. So I'll give them recommendations where to look and which feats/options to take, but I make it a point to always give them multiple suggestions and not force them into something so the choice still is theirs. I'll just narrow the field they're choosing from down to exclude the really bad ideas

TheFallenOne
2010-10-04, 05:56 AM
so, play continued yesterday, it was fun and the combats were great.
To my surprise, two of them picked up Tome of Battle after all(Kerri is a Warblade now, Dilān Swordsage/Rogue). After taking a look at ToB they noticed that the new melee options offered there were quite to their liking. The cleric just changed feats, which is good enough because, well, cleric.

The only bad news was: the fourth player had no time after all(short time work offer for that day), so I played through his part per ICQ beforehand and controlled him myself in the session.

Short summary up to that point: the PCs were on their way to Ravens Bluff per ship when the captain decides to kidnap them. They learn Embro Ambrath, one of the richest merchants there, offered 20.000 GP to have the three of them delivered alive. Since they are trounced in the final encounter this is exactly what happens.

Prelude: There's a new man in town

Vandroy, a sorcerer with draconic blood, just arrived in the Bluff and tried to make contact to the underworld after hearing about the Four Ravens, the cities former and supposedly destroyed Thieves Guild.
Unfortunately, his plans for doing so aren't the wisest.
First, he purposely tries to get robbed to capture the would-be thief and interrogate him, so he just wanders through dark alleys waiting for something to happen. With a 5 spot though he gets robbed without noticing in time, so now he's broke and none the wiser.
Next, he goes into the Rats Nest, a quite shady tavern, trying to make some new money with cons. Here he learns an important lesson: if you bet money on being able to guess te top card and cheat by superimposing the card you say with Prestidigitation, don't do it if you haven't played with said deck before. His Ace of Hearts looked wrong and now everyone in the room was quite angry with him.
This is where plot kicks in: one of the important NPC factions in town is an order of Gray Guards(paladins with less moral restrictions; they're willing to do evil acts for the "greater good"). One of them was in the tavern as spy and they needed a new guy a sacrificial piece, so Vandroy came at the right time: he uses Detect Evil on him(Vandroy identifies it), winks, and then punches him down with a nice nonlethal strike, saying "I'll handle this, you've seen nothing" while dragging him out. The others, assuming the would-be con artists to be disposed of, turn the other way.
Vandroy is brought to a storehouse and interrogated in a Zone of Truth. He agrees to deliver a message for them.

At this point, the player is utterly convinced to be dealing with a thieves organization. His reaction to learning they are Gray Guards will be so priceless :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, to the session:
Dilān has a dream: after running from the Zhentarim, he is in a tavern room at night, sitting in front of a piece of parchment. On it is written his real name, a physical description, and "Meet me in Ravens Bluff to exchange vital information.
Signed, N".
The ink is fresh and the handwriting his own, but he can't remember this happening.
Afterwards, the three captured PCs are brought before Embro Ambrath, a ridiculously fat and rich man(he bought the title of Lord for 2 million GP, so now he's the only one in the Bluff with a seat both in the merchant and lords council). The PCs show little cooperation, not even telling their names(not considering Dar Al Asam knew them, so Ambrath will as well). Dilān even manages to bluff them, with -10 penalty, into believing he's called "the Shadow Knave"(Ambrath looked questioningly to his wizard advisor, who just shrugged his shoulders. Both rolled a 5 on Sense Motive).
After some long talk the following is revealed:
Ambrath knows nothing about them. He brought them here because one of his adversaries, Lord Blacktree, has an interest in one of the three. Unfortunately, his spy didn't learn more, so simple solution: capture all three of them and try to find out what's important about them. He knows Blacktree has some powerful allies in the city and suspects he may have had something to do with the murder of acting mayor Kothonos during the war(reminder: Lady Amber, one of the leading figures during the war, became mayor afterwards until it was revealed all had been a ploy as she was the leader of the attacking force as well; Kothonos is said to have been killed for finding out. Blacktree, the other hero of the war, profited from the whole thing as well, so Ambrath has certain suspicions).
They agree to play decoy after they are let go to capture whoever tries to contact them.

Said person is Vandroy after the PCs wandered through the misty streets in the evening; the Shadow Guardians needed someone new who wasn't assiciated with them to make contact, so they picked him up in the chance encounter in the Rats Nest. Vandroy delivers the message("Hilan(Dilans real name), if you are an enemy of the Zhentarim and seek answers, come with me". Cue ambush: swordfighter behind the PCs, crossbows on the rooftops. Vandroy stalls them until half a dozen Shadow Guardians appear from the other side.
So now we have: the four PCs in the middle of the street, left and right three story buildings with fast-closing doors and windows(they had a short time frame to make a break, but were too perplexed what to do), behind them Ambraths guards, in front of them the new guys of Blacktree. Both groups want them to come with them and are eager for blood, the PCs in between the front.
After some IC and OOC debate(their "We are doomed" expressions were great :smallbiggrin:) the mexican standoff finally breaks, they decide to side with the Shadow Guardians. They fight for a while and finally make a retreat, managing to get away.

They meet up with the leader of the Shadow Guardians, a man in his late fourties named Barristan(I shamelessly steal names or part of names I like; I also stole his physical description from how the punisher is described in the Shocker:Legit). He clears up why they wanted Dilān and some insight into his messed-up memory: they had a psionic spy with the Zhentarim and he implanted some invaluable information into Dilāns head. Unfortunately, Dilān has some mental wards from the Zhentarim and their only other psion is rather weak, so they need a McGuffin from the Zhentarim embassy to break through. The PCs are to retrieve it since the Shadow Guardians don't want to operate openly against the embassy(the mayor O'Kane knows of their presence and has some quasi-alliance/look-the-other-way going, but rather wouldn't spawn an international conflict). The embassy should be lightly guarded; since the Zhentarim sided with the attackers in the war, serious restrictions were placed; their embassy can't have more than half a dozen guards, no non-humanoid guard creatures or magical protections. The PCs are to break in with a Passwall wand, coming from below throw the ruins of lost Sarbreen, the dwarfen city below Ravens Bluff.
They also manage to deduce who they are dealing with thanks to some hints(during the fight they witnessed some healing by touch, later on they also used Detect Evil on the three of them; afterwards their demeanor towards Kerri got noticably worse) and good Knowledge Religion rolls.
Before the break in, they shop a little and Dilān sells his bag of gems. I inform him they're worth 50*1d100 GP, he was quite nervous about the roll, but was rewarded with a 79.

Sending them through the ruins of Sarbreen was fun; they almost took a shorter route instead of the one outlayed on the map given to them. There would have been flooded corridors and other nasty stuff.
On their way, they break open one of the steel doors instead of going on, which makes an ugly and loud sound. They come into an old guard room; Dorn opens a chest, gets some dexterity poison, but a 97 on a luck d100 gives him several masterwork axeheads, the handles rotten off, and one adamantine dwarfen waraxe with the handle intact(Darkwood). Nice loot there.

Continuing, the happen across the corpse of an ogre in a sideway and decide to investigate. When Dilān tips his foot against it, they learn what their bad spot rolls were about: the corpse was shifting a little before, and now things get ugly(no, no ogre zombie, I'm meaner than that): out of the cuts that killed the ogre and other holes, a flood of fist-sized, fiery red spiders pours over them, leaving the visibly flatter husk of the ogre they hatched inside behind :smalleek:
With maneuvers and alchemist fires they take out the Tomb Spider Broodswarm(MMIV), though they get battered a good deal and poisoned, their veins turning black from the negative energy the spiders were infused with. The effect gets apparent soon enough: Dorn tries to heal Dilān, who suddenly cries in pain, the positive energy of healing instead harming him :smallbiggrin:

Finally, they come to their destination and break into the cellar of the embassy. A featureless(except one door), plain room, clinically clean and empty - except for three dog-sized mechanical cockroaches(clockroach - yes, very very horrible pun. I bet someone came up with the pun and then designed a monster around it instead of the other way around). These things are used for cleaning, problem is they often consider creatures as refuse to be disposed of. That's how the Zhentarim circumvented the restrictions mentioned earlier: they simply declare the clockroaches as "cleaning personal" instead of guards.
They dispose of the three with remarkable ease(I even had to fudge rolls a little so Kerris Punishing Stance Steel Wind didn't take out two at once), the roaches didn't get close to recharging their acid breath.
That's where we had to stop unfortunately, next room brings the McGuffin and a (hopefully if they don't manage to kill him) recurring villain I'd like to introduce as their nemesis, Darius Nerei, Red Wizard and liaison to the Zhentarim. Secretly, he has sorcerous blood as well(going for Ultimate Magus in time), something he understandably doesn't wish the other Red Wizards to learn about. Things are starting to get interesting and the players enjoyed their more competent and flexible selves