Should you have a trump card?

[danzibr]

The title is fairly clear. I'll give an example.

Suppose you're the only person who optimizes in your group (though this doesn't have to be the case). You and your party go through most encounters just fine, then one day your DM throws something which will surely result in a TPK unless someone does something big. So you pull out your trump card, encounter goes well, gg.

But then the DM knows of your trump card and makes the battles even harder than the one which would've caused the original TPK. So you're forced to use your trump card all the time, making your unoptimized teammates next to useless.

In this case is it bad to have a trump card?

[NichG]

Thats a little different than a trump card - its an arms race. Arms races can be fun when everyone is on board with it, but it tends to strongly hedge out players whose play style doesn't tend towards that kind of thing - the game becomes about the two most powerful PCs, or worse it becomes about PC vs DM.

Inter-PC arms races can be hard to deal with, but PC vs DM can be dealt with by having very open communication with your DM (and hopefully vice versa). If, before the event, you actually say 'I think this is cheesy, but it is something that I could take, so I'm letting you know that its there', then the DM has a better chance of interpreting the meaning when you do finally bring it out. I mean, you know that your trump card is a trump card, but without that communication the DM has no way of knowing that you're just going to use it in emergencies - if you intend to use it all the time, then of course the DM has to adapt the difficulty to keep things challenging.

Of course this also requires trust and honesty on both sides. If you say 'this is just a trump card and I'll only use it when things are dire' and then use it for the next three games in a row, possibly in less-than-dire circumstances, then the DM is not going to believe you the next time you say that you're going to hold back. And then you have what you're currently describing, no matter how open you try to be about things.

[hymer]

The story you wrote requires a trump card to carry through to the end, or it ends with the TPK.
in 3.5, trump cards usually don't last so long. Two levels later, you have the next level of spells and a new (brace of) trump card(s).

[Zanthy1]

I think having something up your sleeve is always a good thing, however I also agree that it will always change. What was a trump card at level 4 is not so trumping at level 6 (with some exceptions im sure). Think back to most anime when the heroes are fighting something. There is always some "new technique" that they have that saves the day. As a result, the next villains are usually always stronger than the previous ones. If they weren't the show would get fairly boring. Thats why leveling up occurs, to keep things paced and exciting.

Not all players keep special things in reserve though, which can cause some disgruntlement as you suggested due to them sorta being useless as the encounters get tougher. Open connection to the DM is always encouraged, however if you are a wizard and your party member is a fighter, eventually he will become a meat shield, holding off the enemy long enough for you to drop them. As the party level increases, some characters are bound to get left behind based on what options they took. Its unfortunate, but always happens in a mixed party.

[Shining Wrath]

Nothing is worse than TPK. So whatever you have to do to avoid TPK is worth doing at the time.

Talking privately to your DM and saying "You see that thing I did? Don't make me do that again because it makes the rest of the party look like feebs" is an excellent follow up.

Everyone in the group should have the DM's email address or phone number for private communication.

[Psyren]

"Trump cards," so long as they are not cheesy, are a good thing. DMs make mistakes too - many times, an encounter that looks tough but doable is in reality nearly impossible, whether due to overestimation of the PCs capabilities, underestimation of the monsters', a string of unlucky rolls, mistakes from the players, missing important details about the battlefield, or even a combination of the above. Sometimes, a high-tier class just needs to whip out a big gun and save the day; invariably, this event is more satisfying for the group than the DM dropping in a deus ex to do the same thing.

[Vastly]

TPK's really are the worst thing that can happen to a group, not just because you all have to remake characters but it can severely demoralize the group and even ruin desire to play. It's not fun. And outside mega dungeons specifically designed to destroy parties, the DM should never be gunning for a TPK.

So a "Trump Card" used to save the party, is always a good thing IMO. Now, if you find yourself constantly having to resort to your big guns and out shining your group mates, then I'd do as several others have suggested and talk to your DM. Lack of good communication is often the reason things escalate and get out of hand, gaming is no different.

There's no shame in saving the day! :smallwink:

[Invader]

I don't think there's anything wrong with playing a trump card now and then. I was playing a planar shepherd in an otherwise pretty unoptimized campaign (without the usual cheesy shenanigans) so I had a lot of trump cards to play. Generally it wasn't a problem but I always tried to use them in a way that supported the other characters so it didn't look like I was overshadowing anyone sense in the group.

[danzibr]

Hmm, thanks for all the responses.

To be more clear I was a Psion/Constructor who could get out massive AC's. In reality I wasn't cheesily optimized, but I was optimized enough so that... well, my AC could easily outshine the entire party.

So what happened is we almost wiped, brought out the large version, almost wiped with the large version, brought out the huge version, then every battle was ridiculously hard. In order to hurt my AC the guys had to do tons of damage, one-shotting the party's Sorc.

[nedz]

The problem with this approach is that it makes a TPK more likely.
This is because the party is unbalanced.
The DM then has a choice of throwing weak challenges at the party, which you pass easily — which gets dull fast — or encounters which will challenge your character but over power everyone else. In the latter case one mistake, or just one bad roll, from one player and you can have a TPK.

A better approach is to take a low tier class and optimise that.
Then you get to do your charop, the party is more balanced, everyone gets to be challenged, and you shouldn't have the TPK.

[Gnaeus]

My biggest problem with the "trump card" is that it strains believability. It is metagaming. The very best kind of metagaming, the kind which is done with the interests of the game at heart, but still metagaming.

The problem becomes, if this trick is so good, why IC would your character not use it more? OOC: I'm not casting I win spell so that my teammates can feel useful or because the DM worked hard on this encounter makes a lot of sense. IC: I'm not casting this spell so that my teammates can rush into dire peril and maybe be injured or killed or because I want the fight to be challenging really makes a lot less sense.

The responses as I see them are:
1. Ignore it. Maybe you don't care, but some people do.
2. Find an IC reason why the character wouldn't use the I win button. Like you fear that using your magic will attract a powerful enemy, or you are hiding your true power from your teammates. The problem then becomes: after you have used it, why IC would you not use it again?
3. Rather than optimizing towards an I Win encounter power, optimize towards party buffing, so that your teammates win the encounter because of your help. In a case of major opti-fu disparity, this would be my solution.

Then make the I Win button something you can't use at will. Like a scroll or an elemental gem. Then you have a real IC reason to save it and the DM won't be factoring it into every fight.

[Fyermind]

I played a kobold articifer 2 with three scrolls of cloudkill he'd crafted (caster level 2) If things started to look really bad, he could pull one of them out to save the day. Usually I was a pretty simple crossbow archer with infusions and some scrolls of silent image (level 0) and grease. The rest of the party were sorcerer, psion, crusader. I was on par or slightly weaker than them most of the time. But when my DM threw five CR 2s at us and almost dropped the crusader round one, I played cloudkill.

The players all went OMFG!!!!! Where did that come from? They'd all thought I was basically a waste of space archer illusionist. With a few scrolls of lesser vigor. I explained that it was a scroll and I didn't have enough to use it if we weren't about to die. They understood. Credibility of the challenges was not broken. We were stronger than some of the party believed, but when the crusader wanted to charge in against the odds relying on cloudkill to save him, I explained I wouldn't waste one of them if I didn't have to.

The DM knew this was coming. I'd talked with her about it at length beforehand. It was her first time DMing. We were optimized to the point most CRs were pretty meaningless. It was her first time DMing. She had already almost broken the game giving us an item of at will mass lesser vigor at level 2.

My question to you is why don't you do this all the time? What resources does outshining your party cost you? Your reasoning could be non-mechanical. Is it really painful? Do you feel sick afterwards?

Work something out so there is a clear reason why you don't summon a celestial horde every time there is a bad guy.

[hymer]

A fourth suggestion, especially with spells, could be that you have to manage your resources so you still have your ace in your sleeve when you really need it.

Edit: Ninja'ed by a Huge ninja.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Thats a little different than a trump card - its an arms race. Arms races can be fun when everyone is on board with it, but it tends to strongly hedge out players whose play style doesn't tend towards that kind of thing - the game becomes about the two most powerful PCs, or worse it becomes about PC vs DM.

Interesting point to be made here: it's a trump card which evolves into an arms race once it's out in the open. That's because it's not an expendable trump card. And that's where the analogy falls apart.

In cards, trump cards are a limited resource. You use them, and then you lose them. That's why you keep them up your sleeve. As people have pointed out, exploits or supertricks are different: because you don't use them when you lose them, that's the impetus behind the DM planning for them.

One could note that the "expenditure" of the trump card is the knowledge of it. However, there's the fact to be had that in this case, because the trump card is all-around useful, that expenditure does nothing but make things harder for everyone.

Interesting concept here (that'd be fun to model in a game): trump cards as a very specific exploit which is super-effective against one particular tactic or enemy. You stash a lot of them, and whip the appropriate one out against an enemy. Once it's known, enemies prep against it, and you have to find a different one. Ideally, it doesn't make things harder for the other players, it just makes things harder for you to use exploits.

[Invader]

My biggest problem with the "trump card" is that it strains believability. It is metagaming. The very best kind of metagaming, the kind which is done with the interests of the game at heart, but still metagaming.

The problem becomes, if this trick is so good, why IC would your character not use it more? OOC: I'm not casting I win spell so that my teammates can feel useful or because the DM worked hard on this encounter makes a lot of sense. IC: I'm not casting this spell so that my teammates can rush into dire peril and maybe be injured or killed or because I want the fight to be challenging really makes a lot less sense.

The responses as I see them are:
1. Ignore it. Maybe you don't care, but some people do.
2. Find an IC reason why the character wouldn't use the I win button. Like you fear that using your magic will attract a powerful enemy, or you are hiding your true power from your teammates. The problem then becomes: after you have unedited it, why IC would you not use it again?
3. Rather than optimizing towards an I Win encounter power, optimize towards party buffing, so that your teammates win the encounter because of your help. In a case of major opti-fu disparity, this would be my solution.

Then make the I Win button something you can't use at will. Like a scroll or an elemental gem. Then you have a real IC reason to save it and the DM won't be factoring it into every fight.

I disagree, having a trump card isn't metagaming at all unless it wins every situation you encounter and I don't think anyone here is talking about anything like that.

[Gnaeus]

I disagree, having a trump card isn't metagaming at all unless it wins every situation you encounter and I don't think anyone here is talking about anything like that.

I'm not sure exactly, but I think that is exactly what everyone here is talking about.

If the "trump card" is a spell, power, or tactic, that you COULD use every day, and you choose not to use it because you do not want to overshadow party members or trivialize encounters, that is Metagaming. Using OOC knowledge or motivations to make your character act in a way that is implausible IC. For example: If your wizard knows Polymorph, but chooses never to use it (or to use it in underpowered ways) because OOC you know that the spell is very strong, so he only uses it to avoid TPK's, when he could, and reasonably would, use it 3 encounters per day to curbstomp them, that is metagaming.

If you have an IC reason not to use the power (as we discussed fully), then it is no longer metagaming.

[Psyren]

It might be metagaming to not use these abilities, but so what? Ultimately it's a game and everyone is there to have fun. In-universe, it might be silly for a Wizard who knows Polymorph or a Cleric with DMM Persist or a Druid with Natural Spell to not simply take over the Fighter's job when they clearly have the means and knowledge to do so. But just come up with a reason why your character wouldn't use those tactics unless it's totally necessary. Maybe your cleric knows full-well how to use her morningstar, but finds bashing skulls in to be abhorrent except as a last resort; maybe your druid hates the taste of blood (or even loves it while wildshaped, then finds it horrifying once they change back); maybe your wizard never quite got used to the weird feeling of having multiple heads/tentacles and likes to avoid it if possible. "It's what my character would do" should never be used to limit the party's fun or marginalize other members of the group.

Basically, the relationships you have with the people sitting across the table from you are much more important than the relationship the bundle of stats on your piece of paper has with the bundle of stats on their piece of paper. If your DM hasn't reined in your power (for whatever reason) it's up to you to exercise that self-control and not have the lower-tier members of the party feel useless. Besides, in 90% of cases, there's plenty of ways you can contribute without treading on anyone else's toes; I consider finding those ways to be just as rewarding a thought exercise as finding all the ways you can overshadow them to be.

[Gnaeus]

It might be metagaming to not use these abilities, but so what? Ultimately it's a game and everyone is there to have fun. In-universe, it might be silly for a Wizard who knows Polymorph or a Cleric with DMM Persist or a Druid with Natural Spell to not simply take over the Fighter's job when they clearly have the means and knowledge to do so. But just come up with a reason why your character wouldn't use those tactics unless it's totally necessary. Maybe your cleric knows full-well how to use her morningstar, but finds bashing skulls in to be abhorrent except as a last resort; maybe your druid hates the taste of blood (or even loves it while wildshaped, then finds it horrifying once they change back); maybe your wizard never quite got used to the weird feeling of having multiple heads/tentacles and likes to avoid it if possible. "It's what my character would do" should never be used to limit the party's fun or marginalize other members of the group.

Basically, the relationships you have with the people sitting across the table from you are much more important than the relationship the bundle of stats on your piece of paper has with the bundle of stats on their piece of paper. If your DM hasn't reined in your power (for whatever reason) it's up to you to exercise that self-control and not have the lower-tier members of the party feel useless. Besides, in 90% of cases, there's plenty of ways you can contribute without treading on anyone else's toes; I consider finding those ways to be just as rewarding a thought exercise as finding all the ways you can overshadow them to be.

1. So what? A game where characters, me or others, are blatantly metagaming is not fun for me or my group. It is a constant failure of suspension of disbelief. So your conclusion "It doesn't matter if everyone has fun" is false. For many people, the metagaming precludes the fun. I would rather play a boardgame than a RPG where people do not act in character.

2. You can come up with an IC reason. Yes. I said that earlier. Please read the entire thread before arguing about points that people haven't made. However, IC justifications only work for so long before you start hitting suspension of disbelief again. Yes, a cleric who does not like using a morningstar or a wizard who hates to polymorph himself makes sense. But if that same character also hates using all their OTHER tier 1 abilities, you begin to wonder WTF they are adventurers and why the party members don't replace them with a cleric or wizard who isn't afraid to use their powers.

3. The relationship you have with people at the table is more important than your stats. Yes. But if you are unable to play a roleplaying game (which involves, you know, playing a role and acting in character) maybe heroclix or arkham horror might be a better game for you.

And if this sounds like "Psyren, you are playing wrong" it is. And it is phrased that way because you implied that people who don't metagame to make the game run better are playing wrong. Your suggestions would not fly at my table. You would be dismissed as a cheater. A person who uses metagame reasons to determine character actions. The group I game with comes from a WoD background, where power disparity and PC conflict are seen as normal, and metagaming is regarded very poorly, and that works better for us. Your strategy may work better for your game.

[Agincourt]

I don't think it's metagaming at all if you don't bring out your best weapon in every combat. It's a natural choice to try to get something done with the least amount of effort. If you know you are going to win anyway, there's no need to waste energy bringing out your highest level spells. It's easier in character to buff the fighter and let him do the work, instead of mentally taxing yourself, and possibly getting hurt, polymorphing into a hydra.

[Aegis013]

1. So what? A game where characters, me or others, are blatantly metagaming is not fun for me or my group. It is a constant failure of suspension of disbelief. So your conclusion "It doesn't matter if everyone has fun" is false. For many people, the metagaming precludes the fun. I would rather play a boardgame than a RPG where people do not act in character.

And if this sounds like "Psyren, you are playing wrong" it is... You would be dismissed as a cheater...Your strategy may work better for your game.

Wait, so if everyone has fun, they aren't having fun at your table? I think his qualifying clause makes your first point moot. To expound: if metagaming for his group increases fun, then it's alright, because it's their goal to have fun. You're saying that he's playing it wrong for trying to have fun the way his table does, as if your table's way is simply, objectively better. Which it isn't. (Edit: Different but equal, is the intended meaning, not that it is worse)

Secondly, be careful as you're treading awful close to the insult line.

[Invader]

I feel like our definitions of metagaming are different. To me it sound like you're saying if I have the power to blow up every encounter and I don't I'm meta gaming and I'm a bad player because of it.

[ericgrau]

Games should be challenging, so no.

In generally you shouldn't optimize more than the rest of the party so that you fight to survive like the rest of them. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make an effective character, but it should be within bounds that are similar to everyone else, such as knowledge of books and tricks. That's part of the challenge.

It's also possible to make a support build that, while stronger than the other party's builds, distributes the power evenly. Then it's simple enough for the DM to up the challenge without worrying about what will happen to the other party members. That's another way to play nice.

[Person_Man]

I think that players often forget that surrender is an option, as is retreat. If an enemy force seems overwhelming, run away, or just deal with being captured for a game session or two while you figure out how to escape. Enemies can be defeated outside of combat, via roleplaying, poison, magic, recruiting allies/pawns, etc. TPK should only occur when players roll very very poorly and/or the DM rolls very very well (and is unwilling to fudge dice).

Having said that, when playing a caster, I will always try and have at least 2-3 trump cards which I will never pull out unless TPK is imminent. Polymorph, Celerity, Wish, Time Stop, etc. But the DM is always well aware of my spell list, and is well aware of my play style ("Try and help everyone in the party have a fun time, only pull out crazy combos when there's absolutely no other option but death), so I assume that it's already been factored into the "arms race." If I intentionally hide stuff from the DM, then the party deserves to die.

Also, from an "in character" perspective, a smart adventurer knows that greater his accomplishments, the greater his enemies will be. So it makes sense to keep a low profile and hide your most powerful abilities, lest you attract very powerful enemies.

It's also worth mentioning that for non-casters/psion, it's much harder to have a real trump card. A Wildshape Ranger with the right Feats might have some crazy creature that he can pull out of his back pocket, and if you can get access to Alter Self early enough it can act like a low-grade Polymorph. But there's really not that many "I do this, I win combat" resources available to Tier 3 or lower classes. So if you're ever worried about this ruining your game, just have everyone play on Tier 3.

[MrLemon]

Not using your trump card even though you totally could is not necessarily metagaming.

First of all, just because you know OOC how powerful/broken it is, does not mean that your character realizes it.

Also, while it might be new to some people, there's a fun little concept that keeps getting itself forgotten.
That's right, I'm talking about FLUFF.

Maybe polymorphing is a pain in the ***. Like apparating in the Harry Potter universe.
Or being filled with Divine Power all day taxes your body in some way. I mean the spell is called Divine Power, is it so hard to justify NOT using it all day?

[Psyren]

1. So what? A game where characters, me or others, are blatantly metagaming is not fun for me or my group. It is a constant failure of suspension of disbelief. So your conclusion "It doesn't matter if everyone has fun" is false. For many people, the metagaming precludes the fun. I would rather play a boardgame than a RPG where people do not act in character.

If everyone is playing high-op/high-tier characters, great. But if not, and controlling yourself is so immersion-breaking for you, I strongly suggest you play a lower-tier class. Then you can go all out and still let the weaker characters have their time to shine as well.

If your goal is simply to overshadow everyone else at the table, I'm not sure team play is right for you.



Please read the entire thread
...
But if you are unable to play a roleplaying game (which involves, you know, playing a role and acting in character) maybe heroclix or arkham horror might be a better game for you.
...
And if this sounds like "Psyren, you are playing wrong" it is.

Really, this tone is completely unnecessary.


I feel like our definitions of metagaming are different. To me it sound like you're saying if I have the power to blow up every encounter and I don't I'm meta gaming and I'm a bad player because of it.

That's exactly what he's saying. (And if he didn't intend to say that, he's communicating his intent very poorly.)

[nedz]

Well there is the Pharnum doctrine: A wizard who still has some of his spells left is more powerful than one who doesn't

You could use something like this to justify keeping something in reserve I suppose. Normally though casters just keep a get-out: Teleport ideally, though there are other options.

[Spuddles]

Trump cards as an item with limited use can work pretty well.

Even T6 can spring for a candle of invocation.

[NichG]

To say outright that any particular course of action is 'unjustifiable IC' or 'will always hit suspension of disbelief' is a real failure of imagination. Even beyond that, and even at a table that is utterly paranoid about metagaming, its generally really bad form to tell someone else 'your character wouldn't do that'. You don't know what they know. Maybe they secretly want the party to fail and to be the only survivor. Maybe they know what's coming up ahead. Heck, maybe they don't want you to know all of the powers they have because one day they might need to use them against you! And if you don't know what they can do in character, you have no justification to complain when they don't do something that 'some character buildable in the system' could theoretically do. You don't know that they have Cloudkill, or that next level they could take some feat that would double their AC (and there's no reason to say that they would know this IC either!)

If you convince yourself that they're doing something for metagame reasons and then can't stay involved in the game, you've no one but yourself to blame. Instead you could get paranoid in character, play it up, do all sorts of things with it.