Conflicting Player wants/styles? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-09, 01:16 AM

Please no one reply with "Won't work, should find a different group". I recognize that may need to happen, but I do not want all the answers filled with people just saying that, it really doesn't help the situation.

Basically though what do you do when players have a different desires out of the campaign and the DM is giving mixed messages?

I'm a big optimizer, and two others in the group are now starting to optimize and want to start the next campaign we're going into as optimized characters. And the DM had given us open permission to Optimize how we wanted saying he could take it.

However one of the players in our group is new. This will be his first ever experience with D&D. And he's reaction to us trying to optimize is that the point of D&D to face difficult trials, and by optimizing we're basically playing D&D on easy mode and taking the fun out of it.

And the DM start's agreeing with him as if we wishes we wouldn't optimize so much, even though he openly challenged/dared us to do so.

We have a fifth player who doesn't care too much one way or the other. He doesn't optimize himself, but he's normally fine with us optimizing and helping him do it (as long as he can understand the optimization, he has trouble understanding the mechanics).

And honestly I'm kind of stuck on how to solve this.
I considered trying to tone down on the Optimization since it is his first time playing D&D (and for me, not-optimizing just feels totally unnatural now and I still end up Optimizing somehow), but the other two players who want to Optimize don't want to tone it down saying the DM basically has it coming by giving the challenge out and that they think an Optimized campaign would be a lot of fun.

I really just want to find a solution that makes everyone happy... But I'm stuck. Help? :/

Greenish

2013-12-09, 01:19 AM

Well, most of you want to play higher OP, and the one who doesn't wants challenge. So, play higher OP, that should let him face difficult trials.

OldTrees1

2013-12-09, 01:20 AM

1) Your DM did not challenge you to optimize. They said they could accommodate optimizing. Big difference. Luckily it helps your situation.

2) Since you are optimizing I assume this means that your goal is to be powerful/competent. The other player wants difficult trials.
Simple solution (requires DM cooperation): Balance out the party optimization level and then design difficult trials with that party in mind.

More detail:
The optimizers should tone down the optimizing a bit
The DM should slightly bias loot towards the weaker characters
The DM should evaluate the party abilities, figure out fair encounters, and then increase the difficulty by +1 to +3 CR.

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-09, 01:21 AM

Well, most of you want to play higher OP, and the one who doesn't wants challenge. So, play higher OP, that should let him face difficult trials.

Concern there is him getting overshadowed by all the optimized players. Plus if 4/5 players are Optimized, the encounters will probably be fairly easily won anyways unless if the DM brings out the big guns.

Big guns that would most likely end the non-optimized player.

Greenish

2013-12-09, 01:22 AM

Big guns that would most likely end the non-optimized player.Sounds like a difficult trial.

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-09, 01:23 AM

1) Your DM did not challenge you to optimize. They said they could accommodate optimizing. Big difference. Luckily it helps your situation.

2) Since you are optimizing I assume this means that your goal is to be powerful/competent. The other player wants difficult trials.
Simple solution (requires DM cooperation): Balance out the party optimization level and then design difficult trials with that party in mind.

1) He actually did challenge us at some point as well.

2) How exactly do you mean? Limit the Optimizing level? Cause atm they're all going total Cleric Persistent Divine Metamagic Chaos Shuffle optimizing level.

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-09, 01:25 AM

Sounds like a difficult trial.

For him specifically. But something difficult (but still do able) for the kind of character he wants will most likely be something the optimized characters can do completely easily.

Which really means he only will ever get his challenge if the rest of us stay back and do nothing, and that really just becomes "Ok, let's let the weak cripple get his chance, be nice" and I can't see that being fun for anyone.

eggynack

2013-12-09, 01:27 AM

Totema

2013-12-09, 01:29 AM

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-09, 01:30 AM

So, this player is accusing you folks of wanting to play the game on easy mode, but if the challenges are too rough, he'll be displeased? Seems rather illogical. Tell the player that there is no such thing as optimization produced easy mode, and that the challenges can be increased in response to increased player power. If he really wants challenge, then he can remain in his suboptimal form, and die a lot. If he complains about how much he's dying, point out the hypocrisy inherent in that sort of complaint, as he claimed that he wanted a hard game. In fact, such a situation would produce a game where he gets to play on hard mode, while you lot get to play on ordinary mode. Everyone wins.

He's not complaining about rough challenges. He's complaining that us optimizing will make the adventures too easy.

I had told him already that the DM can increase the challenge in response to Optimization and his response was basically he still find's a normal campaign (non-optimized) to be a fun one.

OldTrees1

2013-12-09, 01:32 AM

1) He actually did challenge us at some point as well.

2) How exactly do you mean? Limit the Optimizing level? Cause atm they're all going total Cleric Persistent Divine Metamagic Chaos Shuffle optimizing level.

2)
I edited in a bit of an answer above but I will elaborate with this new information.

You will need to limit the optimization level as one of the major steps. Partially because your DM is not capable of balancing encounters for Chaos Shufflers and the New Player. However your DM does sound confident in their ability to balance encounters for some power gap. Try to figure out what power gap your DM is capable of handling. Then treat that as a limit on your optimization. You will still have strong characters but they will not be Tippyverse strong.

Your DM should employ every tool available for handling as large a power gap as they can. This involves biasing the loot as mentioned above. It involves shaping the encounters so that they are less threatening to the weak character (based on mechanics from the weak character's build). It involves designing encounters that challenge each character in different ways.

(Sidenote: I have only tried this with a power gap of Dwarven Defender --- The Mailman so YMMV)

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-09, 01:33 AM

If the DM openly challenged you to optimize, the newer player shouldn't feel like he shouldn't. It's clear that the DM is going to play hardball and that the newer player will get mulched in short order. There's a difference between wanting to be challenged, and being unprepared for the challenge.

Personally? I would let him play the way he wants to play, but warn him that he's just sealing his own fate. But if I were the DM, I would take it a little easy on him - just long enough for him to see that his self-righteousness isn't doing him any favors and decides to retire the character for someone a little bit more fit for the challenge.

It's not that he feels like he shouldn't. He doesn't want to optimize thinking that it takes the fun out of D&D.

Also I'm bit more sympathetic to his point because he is brand new. It does seem kind of unfair to throw a new guy into a ton of optimization (or to simply be around a ton of far more capable optimized character's) when he's just started and is still learning how to play.

cakellene

2013-12-09, 01:33 AM

He's not complaining about rough challenges. He's complaining that us optimizing will make the adventures too easy.

I had told him already that the DM can increase the challenge in response to Optimization and his response was basically he still find's a normal campaign (non-optimized) to be a fun one.

But it's not fair of him to ask you to stop having fun just because he likes it that way. Especally if he's the new kid on the block.

OldTrees1

2013-12-09, 01:39 AM

But it's not fair of him to ask you to stop having fun just because he likes it that way. Especally if he's the new kid on the block.

1) The Hyperbole is not helpful. The New player wants everyone to have fun, just like the OP wants everyone to have fun, just like the DM wants everyone to have fun.
2) Asking to be considered is polite in a cooperative environment like a reasonable gaming table.

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-09, 01:41 AM

2)
I edited in a bit of an answer above but I will elaborate with this new information.

Noted, will reply to it now.

More detail:
The optimizers should tone down the optimizing a bit
The DM should slightly bias loot towards the weaker characters
The DM should evaluate the party abilities, figure out fair encounters, and then increase the difficulty by +1 to +3 CR.

I agree, hell earlier I made a "How not to Optimize" thread to get advice on how to for the sake of other group members.
(Then I stopped trying cause it seemed for a time everyone else wanted to Optimize too, but it looks like it's not everyone which can be an issue).

Fair enough. Though this the kind of group where if they feel they aren't getting enough treasure they'll rob/raze a city to the ground to get what they want.

Reasonable enough.

You will need to limit the optimization level as one of the major steps. Partially because your DM is not capable of balancing encounters for Chaos Shufflers and the New Player. However your DM does sound confident in their ability to balance encounters for some power gap. Try to figure out what power gap your DM is capable of handling. Then treat that as a limit on your optimization. You will still have strong characters but they will not be Tippyverse strong.

Your DM should employ every tool available for handling as large a power gap as they can. This involves biasing the loot as mentioned above. It involves shaping the encounters so that they are less threatening to the weak character (based on mechanics from the weak character's build). It involves designing encounters that challenge each character in different ways.

That's one of the things... I don't know how good he is now.

Last campaign he ran I was the only Optimizer (and my Optimizing was a fluke. I was still learning the game then and was testing a theory) where I simply had an Orc Fighter/Barbarian with a Strength in the mid 30's by campaign end dealing out around 250-500 damage per turn.

This character on his own gave the DM a massive run for his money who was unable to stop him. I did tell him to just use ranged and/or flying opponents but his concern there was that it would also kill the rest of the players.

This time around he's claimed to do his research, and is learning a good amount.
Like one time we went into a "What if I did this" "Well then I do this" scenario to see if he could out smart me in D&D and for the first time he won.

But he's mostly keeping it hush-hush what he's learning, wanting to keep it a surprise for when we play. So I have no idea if he's capable of handling a group of Optimizer's or not now.

eggynack

2013-12-09, 01:42 AM

But it's not fair of him to ask you to stop having fun just because he likes it that way. Especally if he's the new kid on the block.
Basically this. It looks like he just prefers something different from the rest of the group, and in an issue of preference the majority generally takes precedence. You don't necessarily have to accommodate him on this issue, especially if your desires and his are mutually exclusive.

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-09, 01:44 AM

But it's not fair of him to ask you to stop having fun just because he likes it that way. Especially if he's the new kid on the block.

It should be noted he did show interest in an earlier campaign we had. But he didn't end up joining since he had other commitments and the group that time was already a bit too large (6 players at the time) without him.

So it's not like a random person just shows up and wants to join all the sudden. He's wanted to play for a long time now and just now are we getting a chance to actually let him play with us.

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-09, 01:46 AM

Basically this. It looks like he just prefers something different from the rest of the group, and in an issue of preference the majority generally takes precedence. You don't necessarily have to accommodate him on this issue, especially if your desires and his are mutually exclusive.

Our group is already on shaky enough grounds from past conflicts in D&D.

Examples I detailed on the forum in the past:
-Player D and the violence/tantrums (He's not a player this time though, don't worry)
-Spot & Listen Check penalty DM (Not the DM this time, he's one of the optimizing players)

So I really don't want to do anything that could cause more conflict in the group and/or make a person feel unwelcome and unwanted.

OldTrees1

2013-12-09, 01:48 AM

eggynack

2013-12-09, 01:51 AM

So I really don't want to do anything that could cause more conflict in the group and/or make a person feel unwelcome and unwanted.
That's a logical thing to want, but it's not always a thing that's possible to have. I mean, it's ultimately less about you not wanting him as it is him not wanting your group's current play style. Some sort of compromise could theoretically be possible, but it can be really tricky in this game, and it looks like your group wants to actually go all out and test the limits of the system. It seems to me to be a fundamental incompatibility.

cakellene

2013-12-09, 01:54 AM

Would he be willing to play a more optimized character if the DM scaled up difficulty to keep it a challenge?

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-09, 01:59 AM

@Gwazi Magnum
Well it sounds like your group has the basic fundamentals (Good communication, cooperative and willing to adjust) so it will eventually have a good balance.

What is the new player keen on playing (build and OP level)?
What categories of characters do the optimizer want to play (gish, mage, ...)?

I'm hoping it turns out well. I mean the campaign will still function and go ahead if he ends up leaving, but I'd rather we not lose any more players. :/

I honestly have no idea what kind of character he wants atm, he hasn't said yet.
Granted, he hasn't even looked at the books yet so it could just be because he has no idea what the options even are.

As for other players...

Just asked him and he states he wants to play an archer. A stealthy archer that prefer's tactics and staying hidden. Would rather be a normal race, and apparently he must have a top hat. :P

One of them want's to be the party face. Basically a ranged combatant who can handle most of the social encounters. Combined with lots of skill points.

One of them want's to be a very sneaky rogue like character, stab in the back and built as much as possible to be an evil bastard through in slaving and world domination.

One of them, as long we give him a homebrew humanoid fox race he's happy. But his play style involves a lot of alchemy and setting things on fire.

As for me? I jump idea's and motivations too often. I've already played a melee focused character though and my last character was very blunt and to the point Orc style in dialogue and RP. So I'm tempted to make a social character this time. Not the face, but someone who can easily bluff, disguise past situations and have clever and creative solutions to problems encountered.

That's a logical thing to want, but it's not always a thing that's possible to have. I mean, it's ultimately less about you not wanting him as it is him not wanting your group's current play style. Some sort of compromise could theoretically be possible, but it can be really tricky in this game, and it looks like your group wants to actually go all out and test the limits of the system. It seems to me to be a fundamental incompatibility.

I know... it looks like one of those almost impossible to fix situations unless if middle ground is given. :/
That's why I'm asking for advice. The other optimizer's (my apprentices in a sense) don't want to stop and push it to the limits. While the new player wants a typical old fashioned D&D campaign.

And to be honest? As much as I Optimize and like to Optimize I also half want a typical fashion D&D campaign like he's talking about. But I don't want a character I'll end up hating due to so many restrictions and lack of stuff to do either.

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-09, 02:07 AM

Would he be willing to play a more optimized character if the DM scaled up difficulty to keep it a challenge?

I'm not sure.

He seems to just want it be a more traditional D&D game, which with it being his first time ever playing makes perfect sense.

OldTrees1

2013-12-09, 02:25 AM

No matter what the new player builds, it is likely to be less optimized than the rest of you. As such it will have weaker defenses and fewer solutions relatively.

Now you can balance out the number of solutions by having the new player play a high tiered class than the rest of the party. They might not use the solutions available but it cuts that problem off at the bud.

The bigger problem is the defenses. Here the DM can step in and hand out items that improve defenses that would conflict with some of the items the optimizer have gone out to buy. (Say a Cloak of Resistance when the optimizer has a Cloak of Charisma) In general have resources available for the weak character to improve their defenses. Also the DM should bias saves/attacks to the weak character's stronger points. If they play a Rogue, make Evasion valuable. If they play a Paladin, suddenly there was going to be disease. If they wear fullplate, the party faces brutes. If they wear no armor, the party faces ghosts.

Last but not least, the DM needs to increase difficulty. Remember when I said target the weak character's strong points? Yeah, they should not look strong anymore. If the new player is playing a Barbarian then the DM should be throwing Fort saves that the Barbarian usually but not often passes. This will make it feel difficult for the new player but simultaneously be a stronger fight for the stronger characters.

Cleric is a good class suggestion for the new player but ToB classes and Rogue and Wizard are also up there.

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-09, 02:38 AM

eggynack

2013-12-09, 02:40 AM

You should point him towards factotum. Those fellows can probably handle themselves decently in a high op environment. Also, maybe beguiler, swordsage, or possibly even a rogue style cleric.

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-09, 02:44 AM

You should point him towards factotum. Those fellows can probably handle themselves decently in a high op environment. Also, maybe beguiler, swordsage, or possibly even a rogue style cleric.

Maybe.

Factotum sounds decent, but if archer and stealth is the main things he wants I'm not sure if this class is the most appropriate fit.

With Cleric do you mean with the feat that lets Cleric levels stack up on sneak attack dice? In which case maybe, though he'd also have to go cloistered cleric to still have decent skills. Plus sneak attack is pretty awful on a ranged person... Though Zen Archery cover's accuracy at least.

OldTrees1

2013-12-09, 02:45 AM

Very true, a lot of good and solid advice here.
Though a lot of it looks like I need to get the others to tone down on Optimizing in order to make it work.

Though I did just talk to him briefly, and he shows interesting in being a rogue.
And I doubt the whole party wants to be Tier 4 or lower.

If he is a rogue(and other skill monkeys) then it helps a lot. The DM can adjust encounters/adventures to take advantage of the skill points the Rogue invests. By doing so the DM makes the Rogue seem like it has more solutions than it otherwise would.

Play Tier 3 with toned down optimization aside the new Rogue.
Reflex Saves (especially Evasion applicable ones), Touch AC and Skills would be the defenses to focus enemies against.

Oh an it would be very well done if the DM manages to make the Rogue's skills useful in combat.

eggynack

2013-12-09, 02:46 AM

With Cleric do you mean with the feat that lets Cleric levels stack up on sneak attack dice? In which case maybe, though he'd also have to go cloistered cleric to still have decent skills. Plus sneak attack is pretty awful on a ranged person... Though Zen Archery cover's accuracy at least.
I was thinking more along the lines of the whole kobold/trickery thing to pick up the skill list. Clerics aren't all that great at the sneak attack half of the rogue package. Tippy's tossed out some excellent ranged factotum builds in the past, so it's definitely possible.

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-09, 02:51 AM

If he is a rogue(and other skill monkeys) then it helps a lot. The DM can adjust encounters/adventures to take advantage of the skill points the Rogue invests. By doing so the DM makes the Rogue seem like it has more solutions than it otherwise would.

Play Tier 3 with toned down optimization aside the new Rogue.
Reflex Saves (especially Evasion applicable ones), Touch AC and Skills would be the defenses to focus enemies against.

Oh an it would be very well done if the DM manages to make the Rogue's skills useful in combat.

Optimized or not, isn't at least one Wizard and Cleric almost needed though to keep the group alive later on?

As for skills in combat. That would be bloody awesome, but it sounds like a lot of homebrew. Any ideas?

I was thinking more along the lines of the whole kobold/trickery thing to pick up the skill list. Clerics aren't all that great at the sneak attack half of the rogue package. Tippy's tossed out some excellent ranged factotum builds in the past, so it's definitely possible.

No offense to Tippy meant here, but I don't think his stuff would work well for him.
Tippy makes insanely complicated and powerful build, both of which I don't think is appropriate for a new player whose already voiced concerns over people who optimize too much.

Totema

2013-12-09, 02:55 AM

If Complete Scoundrel is available to the campaign, perhaps he would be interested in skill tricks? The skill set available to rogues gives them access to quite a few cool and useful ones.

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-09, 02:58 AM

If Complete Scoundrel is available to the campaign, perhaps he would be interested in skill tricks? The skill set available to rogues gives them access to quite a few cool and useful ones.

Once he get's the basics of character creation down I'll be sure to suggest it to him. This campaign is a "every book is allowed" version.

eggynack

2013-12-09, 03:12 AM

Tippy makes insanely complicated and powerful build, both of which I don't think is appropriate for a new player whose already voiced concerns over people who optimize too much.
Yeah, probably. One of the relevant builds is hereabouts (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=19176), if you're interested. It doesn't look too horrifically complicated.

OldTrees1

2013-12-09, 03:13 AM

Optimized or not, isn't at least one Wizard and Cleric almost needed though to keep the group alive later on?

As for skills in combat. That would be bloody awesome, but it sounds like a lot of homebrew. Any ideas?

A full caster is not needed IF the DM is able to screen out/downplay monsters with spell-like abilities that would require them. Even items can cover that some of the way. A Beguiler(<-Works better for the next section) or Cleric with Roguish Domains would be a good idea though.

Terrain, Traps and Tricks (houserules in these)
There are a bunch of movement skills. For each skill the Rogue is competent in, the DM has yet another difficult terrain type that hoses the power more than the weak. The trick is to make the skill more efficient than the relevant spell.

Skillmonkeys are the best able to handle neutralizing or commandeering traps in combat. (Have less time intensive checks) They also are best able to notice an ambush an act in both Surprise and First rounds.

Let the new player be creative. If they want to do something weird in combat the DM might want to say "Yes, make a ___ check". Distracting gibberish? Sand in the eyes? Trying to fight back to back with the enemy? "Bluff check, Dex based Reflex DC and Tumble check in that order please." (Perhaps allow 1/2 of these for free per attack/full attack)

NichG

2013-12-09, 03:58 AM

What about breaking the rules for him and throwing lateral-thinking problems at the group to maintain challenge?

I've been in a group where the power gap was, one guy couldn't be bothered to level up his character and was Lv4 when the rest of the party had long-since entered post-deific levels of power. Granted, this was somewhat of an extreme case and the Lv4 guy was a pacifist who stayed out of fights. One ability that the DM eventually gave him was basically - you have no character sheet aside from hitpoints; instead, you have a flat 50% chance of success on all saves, attacks, skill checks, etc. This is of course a very extreme example (the most extreme disparity I've experienced), so you don't need to go quite so far.

The result though, was that he could participate in the game without getting tangled up in the part of the game that he really didn't like (building complex, high-level characters). At the same time, it didn't diminish the stuff the rest of us could do with those high-end characters or really adjust the range of what was challenging for us.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-12-09, 04:05 AM

Is it just me, or does the OP's description of his group sound remarkably like a special forces strike team to any one else?

I'll second (more like fourth or fifth) the suggestion of the optimizers working with T5 and T6 classes and "suggesting" that the newb build on a T3 or higher chassis. I understand a cleric can make a bitchin' archer.

theIrkin

2013-12-09, 04:06 AM

Also, OP, have you said everything you put in your first post to your group? It seems like you, and by corollary your group, have good communication, and the best way to improve everyone's game experience is to have everyone's expectations out in the open.

That said, here's what I've seen that tends to work:

High op characters can always hold back some. They don't sit there and take hits (unless that's their shtick), but they also don't go nuclear every game session and one shot an encounter. I'm sure you've seen this, but it's sometimes good to hear. Heck, as long as you aren't ruining anyone else's fun, who cares how optimized your character is? Just because you can diplomancy away every encounter and swindle the kingdom from the king doesn't mean you will.

Make sure that the new character understands that in a mechanics heavy game like DnD, system mastery comes with experience, and usually leads to optimization of some sort. To see a game that's light on mechanics, you can check out 3:16 Carnage (whose mechanics can be mastered by a 5 year old in an afternoon) or Fiasco, both of which depend on players getting into character and interacting with each other socially. When you look back at DnD in since at least 3rd was first released, it's much easier to see why so many people optimize their combat potential.

What kind of game does he want to play? Combat, while oft the center of attention, is not the only avenue of power in DnD. Does this new player want to be a combat beast? Do you? Is a mystery in order, or a puzzle? Heck, I have an RP'er in my group who basically zones out with "I full attack, then lay on hands myself or whatever" all through combat, but really gets into the game as soon as she can interact with a member of her character's church or castigate an evil outsider. She doesn't ever reach for her dice either, and it's a totally different kind of game.

Sorry for all the rambling, but hopefully you can pull something useful out of all that.

Totema

2013-12-09, 04:07 AM

NichG

2013-12-09, 04:12 AM

I'd hardly say that this really teaches him how to play D&D, which is what I think he wants to do above all else.

In some sense, you have to decide what goal to sacrifice in a situation like this. A new player will not be able to keep up with Dark Chaos Shuffle/etc characters. Even if you build their character for them and hand it to them, they won't be able to keep up.

So if you want to have that stuff going on in the campaign, while at the same time allow the new player to enjoy themselves, and challenge both sets, the way to do it is to give the new player an advantage over the experienced players that is easy for them to use and actually covers the important things.

A game like the OP described is not appropriate for teaching someone D&D, and also if they aren't interested in learning how to optimize to that degree, trying to force them to is likely to be unproductive and just make them dislike D&D. But thats not to say they can't play in a high-OP game happily, it just takes a willingness to meet them halfway.

Helcack

2013-12-09, 06:04 AM

Maybe see if he'll play a ranger/scout with the multiclassing feat for it? Go into Order of the Bow Initiate maybe?(I know it's not a great class, but he might like it from the sound of it) It's not too complex and it's better than Sneak Attack. It also only uses one feat and two-three classes, not too optimized at all. Then see if the DM will throw him an actually good bow and allow him to make up his own arrows with crafting, so he'll be like green arrow.

Harlot

2013-12-09, 04:20 PM

Couldn't the real reason he doesn't want to optimise be that he is a newbie and doesn't know how to do it? I would think that the problem lays here?

In that case the real simple solution is to help him optimise his build. Sit down between games, ask him what he wants to be able to do and then spend a day or more helping him improve it.

I am a player in a fairly optimised game atm, but only two of us can actually go beyond core books (access, knowledge of the English language, time) so the solution was for the two of us to help the rest build quite simple characters (monk(!!!), fighter, halfdragon fighter) and then hunt for cooler feats, skills, gadgets etc. while staying true to their concept. So not hardcore optimising, but definately improving the build beyond what they could do without help.

Thus it's still fairly simple characters to play (no fancy moves, no crazy magic) but they can dish out a lot of damage fast, and they're not too complicated.

And if that is not his problem then ... well, I understand where you're coming from. Most of our games are simple, only core, lowlevel games and it is SUCH a rush to actually, finally be allowed to optimise. Don't let the newbie spoil the fun.

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-09, 06:19 PM

It seems some of the players weren't fully honest in their intentions originally.

One of the two other optimizers now says he's neutral and will optimize or not depending on how the group goes.
So now it's just one player who insists on optimizing and me who optimizes unconciously but also half wants to be in a more casual campaign.

A full caster is not needed IF the DM is able to screen out/downplay monsters with spell-like abilities that would require them. Even items can cover that some of the way. A Beguiler(<-Works better for the next section) or Cleric with Roguish Domains would be a good idea though.

Terrain, Traps and Tricks (houserules in these)
There are a bunch of movement skills. For each skill the Rogue is competent in, the DM has yet another difficult terrain type that hoses the power more than the weak. The trick is to make the skill more efficient than the relevant spell.

Skillmonkeys are the best able to handle neutralizing or commandeering traps in combat. (Have less time intensive checks) They also are best able to notice an ambush an act in both Surprise and First rounds.

Let the new player be creative. If they want to do something weird in combat the DM might want to say "Yes, make a ___ check". Distracting gibberish? Sand in the eyes? Trying to fight back to back with the enemy? "Bluff check, Dex based Reflex DC and Tumble check in that order please." (Perhaps allow 1/2 of these for free per attack/full attack)

True, I'd have to ask the DM about how much magic and such he plans to throw into this campaign.

As for skills, so basically it's improvising when someone wants to do something fancy with their skills?

What about breaking the rules for him and throwing lateral-thinking problems at the group to maintain challenge?

I've been in a group where the power gap was, one guy couldn't be bothered to level up his character and was Lv4 when the rest of the party had long-since entered post-deific levels of power. Granted, this was somewhat of an extreme case and the Lv4 guy was a pacifist who stayed out of fights. One ability that the DM eventually gave him was basically - you have no character sheet aside from hitpoints; instead, you have a flat 50% chance of success on all saves, attacks, skill checks, etc. This is of course a very extreme example (the most extreme disparity I've experienced), so you don't need to go quite so far.

The result though, was that he could participate in the game without getting tangled up in the part of the game that he really didn't like (building complex, high-level characters). At the same time, it didn't diminish the stuff the rest of us could do with those high-end characters or really adjust the range of what was challenging for us.

That's just as bad if not worse. That's basically saying "You want a normal campaign? Well for complaining you can't use the mechanics at all!".

Also, OP, have you said everything you put in your first post to your group? It seems like you, and by corollary your group, have good communication, and the best way to improve everyone's game experience is to have everyone's expectations out in the open.

That said, here's what I've seen that tends to work:

High op characters can always hold back some. They don't sit there and take hits (unless that's their shtick), but they also don't go nuclear every game session and one shot an encounter. I'm sure you've seen this, but it's sometimes good to hear. Heck, as long as you aren't ruining anyone else's fun, who cares how optimized your character is? Just because you can diplomancy away every encounter and swindle the kingdom from the king doesn't mean you will.

Make sure that the new character understands that in a mechanics heavy game like DnD, system mastery comes with experience, and usually leads to optimization of some sort. To see a game that's light on mechanics, you can check out 3:16 Carnage (whose mechanics can be mastered by a 5 year old in an afternoon) or Fiasco, both of which depend on players getting into character and interacting with each other socially. When you look back at DnD in since at least 3rd was first released, it's much easier to see why so many people optimize their combat potential.

What kind of game does he want to play? Combat, while oft the center of attention, is not the only avenue of power in DnD. Does this new player want to be a combat beast? Do you? Is a mystery in order, or a puzzle? Heck, I have an RP'er in my group who basically zones out with "I full attack, then lay on hands myself or whatever" all through combat, but really gets into the game as soon as she can interact with a member of her character's church or castigate an evil outsider. She doesn't ever reach for her dice either, and it's a totally different kind of game.

Sorry for all the rambling, but hopefully you can pull something useful out of all that.

I'm assuming more RP than combat based.

But combat won't be an ignored factor for him either.

I'd hardly say that this really teaches him how to play D&D, which is what I think he wants to do above all else.

What I want most is for everyone to play a campaign that they enjoy.

Maybe see if he'll play a ranger/scout with the multiclassing feat for it? Go into Order of the Bow Initiate maybe?(I know it's not a great class, but he might like it from the sound of it) It's not too complex and it's better than Sneak Attack. It also only uses one feat and two-three classes, not too optimized at all. Then see if the DM will throw him an actually good bow and allow him to make up his own arrows with crafting, so he'll be like green arrow.

Perhaps, I'd have to ask how far out of core he wants to go though.

Couldn't the real reason he doesn't want to optimise be that he is a newbie and doesn't know how to do it? I would think that the problem lays here?

In that case the real simple solution is to help him optimise his build. Sit down between games, ask him what he wants to be able to do and then spend a day or more helping him improve it.

I am a player in a fairly optimised game atm, but only two of us can actually go beyond core books (access, knowledge of the English language, time) so the solution was for the two of us to help the rest build quite simple characters (monk(!!!), fighter, halfdragon fighter) and then hunt for cooler feats, skills, gadgets etc. while staying true to their concept. So not hardcore optimising, but definately improving the build beyond what they could do without help.

Thus it's still fairly simple characters to play (no fancy moves, no crazy magic) but they can dish out a lot of damage fast, and they're not too complicated.

And if that is not his problem then ... well, I understand where you're coming from. Most of our games are simple, only core, lowlevel games and it is SUCH a rush to actually, finally be allowed to optimise. Don't let the newbie spoil the fun.

No, the reason is he want's a normal power level campaign. He find Optimizing to kill the point of it being challenging.

Our campaigns though are never core only, so it's not as if Optimizing a rare treat for us. We got access to all the books for every campaign we do.

OldTrees1

2013-12-09, 06:55 PM

As for skills, so basically it's improvising when someone wants to do something fancy with their skills?

Half of it is prep work making encounters rich in opportunities for skill use.
Half of it is encouraging creativity and rewarding it by improvising.

NichG

2013-12-09, 07:16 PM

That's just as bad if not worse. That's basically saying "You want a normal campaign? Well for complaining you can't use the mechanics at all!".

Its only bad if its true that the player in question actually wants to use the mechanics. In my example, that player absolutely did not want to be bothered to learn the mechanics necessary to participate evenly in the high-end game.

For the new player, you have to identify the real reason why they don't want a high-op game. If its because they want to work only with simple uses of the mechanics and not convoluted builds based on careful interpretation of RAW, then why not give them a way to use those simple mechanics and be on an even playing field with people doing Dark Chaos Shuffle and Tainted Scholar?

You didn't want advice that amounted to 'the player should find another game' so I'm giving you lateral solutions you might not have considered. The solutions are not 100% pleasant because the real answer is 'if the player's wants are really that different, they should find another game'. But if you're willing to compromise on some principles like 'everyone should be playing by the same rules' and if they're willing to compromise on some of their goals like 'I want to learn D&D' (which, is this really true or are you just assuming it?), then it should be possible to make a game that is at least somewhat enjoyable for everyone, even if it doesn't fully satisfy their goals.

Schizek

2013-12-09, 07:21 PM

From what I understand. He is a type of player that is to lazy to optimize but he don't want to overshadowed by others and is too proud to ask for help ??

Then give him something with high floor and low celling type of class. Type that is good with simple optimize or none.

A: Barbarian 1/Warbladle X(Can be pure Warblade)
Simple martial build, doesn't need to prc or fancy feats to work with simple tactic- charge.

B: Casters with predefined spell lists: Beguiler, Dread Necro,Duskblade
Easy to build and not so many spells to remember. There not many ways you can make them bad beside taking low casting stat.

C: Ranger Wildshape 5/MoMF X
Flexible and help you get to know system very well by going into MMs books.

D: Warlock
He will suck but not that hard as figther

Don't give him these options. Present him a handbooks for these classes/builds like:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176968
http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=363.0

Just present him only a good options and let him choose. Also trying to persuade him in term of flavor. " You know this fighter have nothing but only feats, not very intereting, Look at Warblade he have stances and sh.. "

The problem is also from DM. IMO this is ideal to introduce a Tier System. Lets everyone decide on with power lvl they want to play and as democracy is ruled by idiots lets see what happens, maybe secret voting an such.

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-09, 10:37 PM

I didn't want people saying "Won't work, find another group" cause it's a lazy answer, that contributes nothing when other solutions could still work.

And the issue with the player isn't laziness. He is new, he has not played the game before. He see's Optimizing as killing the challenge.

The overshadow bit is a concern of my own. Him being new to D&D (doesn't know any mechanics yet) probably doesn't realize how over shadows he can get by playing low power level along side optimized players.

And he's not too proud to ask fro help. He wants help in making his character and learning the game. But he doesn't want optimizing help, he wants help in learning the system. That's it.

I know everyone on this forum is extremely used to optimizing so this might be a hard concept for some people to grasp, but he is not being lazy, he is not too proud to ask for help, he simply doesn't see optimizing as fun, he see's it as the equivalent to using cheat codes in a video games to beat it.

NichG

2013-12-09, 10:52 PM

And the issue with the player isn't laziness. He is new, he has not played the game before. He see's Optimizing as killing the challenge.

...

I know everyone on this forum is extremely used to optimizing so this might be a hard concept for some people to grasp, but he is not being lazy, he is not too proud to ask for help, he simply doesn't see optimizing as fun, he see's it as the equivalent to using cheat codes in a video games to beat it.

There must be some implicit, unstated thing that he actually wants, instead of what he's actually told you. He said he wants a challenge but believes that other players optimizing will act like 'cheat codes' - even after the DM has said 'don't worry, I'll optimize too/build things to challenge optimized characters'. Clearly there's still something about this that he thinks will not work or will be un-fun.

I would guess that his actual problem is that there are certain thematic expectations about what kinds of scenarios the party will do which are inconsistent with high optimization levels. E.g. he wants to be fending off an orc army or going through a trap-infested kobold dungeon, and is worried (rightly so) that the high optimization level of the group will make those challenges inappropriate for characters of the group's level due to e.g. divinations, flight, teleportation, scrying, etc.

But since we only have second-hand information about the player, its hard to say one way or another on that.

Totema

2013-12-09, 10:59 PM

I'll stand by what I said earlier; it's pretty clear that this guy wants to learn to play D&D the "old fashioned way". And there's nothing wrong with that. Everyone wants to have those fond memories of starting to learn a new system, and the fear of being completely overshadowed from day 1 is totally legitimate.

It might be a good idea to point him in the direction of an RP-heavy class. Truth be told, I think the bard might be a great fit for him. They are pretty decent skillmonkeys, can thematically and mechanically work as good party faces, and are even pretty versatile in combat. He'll get to have a good sampling of what the game has to offer.

Particle_Man

2013-12-09, 11:30 PM

Have everyone watch The Avengers. Then note to your players how the Avengers have members at wildly different power levels and yet it all seems to work. Tell the DM that all he has to do is be like Joss Whedon. :smallsmile:

Alternatively, maybe try alternating two campaigns at both "power levels" and see which one is more fun for the group as a whole. Maybe one side will surprise itself and find it enjoying the other playstyle more.

OldTrees1

2013-12-09, 11:40 PM

There must be some implicit, unstated thing that he actually wants, instead of what he's actually told you.

-snip-

But since we only have second-hand information about the player, its hard to say one way or another on that.

"Must"? Listen to your own advise. Stop assuming that you understand the new player more than the OP (who has talked IRL with the new player in a group with good communication).

If you merely wanted to emphasize that the OP should keep up the good communication they have had at their table, then that is fine but your posts implied the opposite (it implied your disbelief must mean the OP was mistaken).

NichG

2013-12-09, 11:54 PM

"Must"? Listen to your own advise. Stop assuming that you understand the new player more than the OP (who has talked IRL with the new player in a group with good communication).

If you merely wanted to emphasize that the OP should keep up the good communication they have had at their table, then that is fine but your posts implied the opposite (it implied your disbelief must mean the OP was mistaken).

'Must' because as the OP is representing the player at least, there is an inconsistency between what we are being told that the player has said he wants and what we are being told will go over well or not.

And he's reaction to us trying to optimize is that the point of D&D to face difficult trials, and by optimizing we're basically playing D&D on easy mode and taking the fun out of it.

This is what we are being told that his view is.

He's not complaining about rough challenges. He's complaining that us optimizing will make the adventures too easy.

I had told him already that the DM can increase the challenge in response to Optimization and his response was basically he still find's a normal campaign (non-optimized) to be a fun one.

But this statement seems like the initial problem was answered, and the player came up with a new, unspecific reason to be dis-satisfied. When someone's stated desire is answered by something but they still hold on to being unsatisfied, it indicates that what they have said they want is not what they actually want.

There are basically two factors here that make this difficult - possibly the player is not fully aware of what they want (likely - most people aren't), and possibly Gwazi is making certain assumptions based on his own knowledge of the player about what they would or would not like that may or may not be true and could be confusing the issue even further.

Its not that I'm saying Gwazi should communicate more with the player (though thats rarely bad advice), but rather that we, as the third-party advice givers, are basically forced to guess at what the player really wants here because we do not have direct contact with the player to verify or falsify whether our suggestions would be satisfactory.

To give a concrete, useful suggestion at the end of this: get the player on this thread and lets just talk with him directly.

OldTrees1

2013-12-10, 12:01 AM

'Must' because as the OP is representing the player at least, there is an inconsistency between what we are being told that the player has said he wants and what we are being told will go over well or not.

I am not seeing the inconsistency.
1) Challenge
The new player wants to have a certain ECL to True CR* ratio.
The new player realizes that optimization alters the ECL to True CR ratio with this DM. (magnitude of the alteration decreases as DM experience increases)
*True CR is my term for the actual objective difficulty of the challenge. (correcting for the fact that WotC messed up when estimating CR from time to time)

2) Learning
The new player wants to experience normal/classic D&D in order to learn its rules.

NichG

2013-12-10, 12:48 AM

I am not seeing the inconsistency.
1) Challenge
The new player wants to have a certain ECL to True CR* ratio.
The new player realizes that optimization alters the ECL to True CR ratio with this DM. (magnitude of the alteration decreases as DM experience increases)
*True CR is my term for the actual objective difficulty of the challenge. (correcting for the fact that WotC messed up when estimating CR from time to time)

I think we're coming to the same conclusion but in different ways. We're both basically saying 'the player has something that they truly want, but is expressing it in ways that don't quite mean the same thing'. I agree that this particular set of constraints appears to model the player's reactions, but its certainly not what the player has actually explicitly asked for. We also don't know if this really is the player's 'true' internal model - for example, I could technically satisfy this by optimizing low-CR opponents so that their CR is formally unchanged but so that they are a challenge for a highly optimized group of PCs, but it might still be unsatisfying to the player for all we know.

Beyond being able to write a function that is satisfied/unsatisfied consistently with the player's statements, we have to understand the 'why' behind it too. The reason is that basically, we can't satisfy the constraint as you've written it while also satisfying the desires of the other players (e.g. to play a game in which ECL/True CR is much lower due to the high degree of optimization). So we have to seek to understand the core 'why' in order to come up with a useful compromise.

I've phrased my particular hypothesis in terms of thematic constraints, you've phrased yours in terms of ECL/CR ratios, but in both cases we're basically guessing at what is really motivating the player's tastes.

2) Learning
The new player wants to experience normal/classic D&D in order to learn its rules.

As far as I can tell, this came out of thin air though. Nowhere in the original set of posts did Gwazi say 'the player wants to do X in order to learn', just '(I think) the player wants a traditional D&D game'. I'm trying to be very careful about these kinds of statements, because they need not be true. The player I mentioned in my example, for instance, absolutely didn't want to learn D&D and was self-aware enough to be able to point this out to people who tried to help him optimize (and not many people are that self-aware)

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-10, 12:49 AM

To start I'd like to apologize for the last post.

I get annoyed and ill tempered for a bit there feeling as if people were just saying "You're problem isn't X, it's Y" and I felt like what I was saying was being tossed aside and ignored.

So sorry if the last post seemed rather hateful or aggressive.

There must be some implicit, unstated thing that he actually wants, instead of what he's actually told you. He said he wants a challenge but believes that other players optimizing will act like 'cheat codes' - even after the DM has said 'don't worry, I'll optimize too/build things to challenge optimized characters'. Clearly there's still something about this that he thinks will not work or will be un-fun.

I would guess that his actual problem is that there are certain thematic expectations about what kinds of scenarios the party will do which are inconsistent with high optimization levels. E.g. he wants to be fending off an orc army or going through a trap-infested kobold dungeon, and is worried (rightly so) that the high optimization level of the group will make those challenges inappropriate for characters of the group's level due to e.g. divinations, flight, teleportation, scrying, etc.

But since we only have second-hand information about the player, its hard to say one way or another on that.

Perhaps. I can imagine him wanting typical encounters instead of optimized encounters.

I'll stand by what I said earlier; it's pretty clear that this guy wants to learn to play D&D the "old fashioned way". And there's nothing wrong with that. Everyone wants to have those fond memories of starting to learn a new system, and the fear of being completely overshadowed from day 1 is totally legitimate.

It might be a good idea to point him in the direction of an RP-heavy class. Truth be told, I think the bard might be a great fit for him. They are pretty decent skillmonkeys, can thematically and mechanically work as good party faces, and are even pretty versatile in combat. He'll get to have a good sampling of what the game has to offer.

If I can find a way to make archery work on a Bard then maybe.
But we already have a player who wants to be the face.

Have everyone watch The Avengers. Then note to your players how the Avengers have members at wildly different power levels and yet it all seems to work. Tell the DM that all he has to do is be like Joss Whedon. :smallsmile:

Alternatively, maybe try alternating two campaigns at both "power levels" and see which one is more fun for the group as a whole. Maybe one side will surprise itself and find it enjoying the other playstyle more.

That's a movie though, they have writing privileges to make anything work because it's what the script says. In D&D there's states, builds and mechanics to consider.

To give a concrete, useful suggestion at the end of this: get the player on this thread and lets just talk with him directly.

That would probably scare him right off if as a new player who can't even play yet he's being dragged onto D&D forums to resolve a problem in the group.

I am not seeing the inconsistency.
1) Challenge
The new player wants to have a certain ECL to True CR* ratio.
The new player realizes that optimization alters the ECL to True CR ratio with this DM. (magnitude of the alteration decreases as DM experience increases)
*True CR is my term for the actual objective difficulty of the challenge. (correcting for the fact that WotC messed up when estimating CR from time to time)

2) Learning
The new player wants to experience normal/classic D&D in order to learn its rules.

He has no idea what ECL and CR are yet in practice.

But yes, in practice it's seems to be something like this that he's afraid of.

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-10, 12:53 AM

As far as I can tell, this came out of thin air though. Nowhere in the original set of posts did Gwazi say 'the player wants to do X in order to learn', just '(I think) the player wants a traditional D&D game'. I'm trying to be very careful about these kinds of statements, because they need not be true. The player I mentioned in my example, for instance, absolutely didn't want to learn D&D and was self-aware enough to be able to point this out to people who tried to help him optimize (and not many people are that self-aware)

To be honest, it was something he had said before I posted this thread.

It's just something I had forgot to mention in the opening post. That how I described his stance originally was:

"However one of the players in our group is new. This will be his first ever experience with D&D. And he's reaction to us trying to optimize is that the point of D&D to face difficult trials, and by optimizing we're basically playing D&D on easy mode and taking the fun out of it".

Which I figured was basically the same thing as saying "He want's a typical/normal d&d campaign". But I can see how it might be interpreted as two separate things.

NichG

2013-12-10, 01:16 AM

Other ideas then:

- He plays the wizard, everyone else plays Tier 5/6. Except he doesn't want to play a wizard, he wants to play a bow/roguey/etc guy.

- His character starts 6 levels ahead of everyone else and gains half xp until they catch up (the idea being that by then he'll be used to the optimization level of the group). Challenges are set based on his level, not the level of the rest of the group. This one might work, assuming he doesn't want to play low level AND traditional. Phrase it as 'other players take an LA handicap for being high-end optimizers' rather than 'you get a +6 level boost'.

- If he wants to play low level and traditional, its going to be pretty tricky. You might be able to do it by encouraging the DM to use things that are normally considered bad form, like omnipresent anti-teleportation effects, anti-magic fields, wild magic zones, dungeons entirely made of unbreakable materials, etc - things that are usually considered uncreative DM responses to higher-than-normal optimization levels in the group, designed to railroad the party in keeping with 'traditional' D&D structures. Basically, there's still a dungeon because each room is on a different plane, the walls are all made of riverine, and everything is 'a highly magical location that scrambles teleportation', so the basic themes can be retained.

Gwazi Magnum

2013-12-10, 01:33 AM

OldTrees1

2013-12-10, 01:38 AM

I think we're coming to the same conclusion but in different ways. We're both basically saying 'the player has something that they truly want, but is expressing it in ways that don't quite mean the same thing'. I agree that this particular set of constraints appears to model the player's reactions, but its certainly not what the player has actually explicitly asked for.
I still do not see the inconsistency however since a simple paraphrasing made you reach ^that conclusion, I think the initial inconsistency was a difference in word/phrase use between you and the new player. And possibly between us too. (Number 1 cause of disagreement on the internet)

We also don't know if this really is the player's 'true' internal model - for example, I could technically satisfy this by optimizing low-CR opponents so that their CR is formally unchanged but so that they are a challenge for a highly optimized group of PCs, but it might still be unsatisfying to the player for all we know.

This is the default solution. However this particular DM has had problems with a smaller magnitude of power difference that the group is currently experiencing. As such this solution would be augmented with some toning down of the optimized characters, and tailoring the encounters to maximize the power difference that the DM can handle in the group.

Beyond being able to write a function that is satisfied/unsatisfied consistently with the player's statements, we have to understand the 'why' behind it too. The reason is that basically, we can't satisfy the constraint as you've written it while also satisfying the desires of the other players (e.g. to play a game in which ECL/True CR is much lower due to the high degree of optimization). So we have to seek to understand the core 'why' in order to come up with a useful compromise.

I did not get the impression the other players wanted a ECL/True CR ratio that was easier. Like most optimizers, I assumed they wanted to have a high Personal Power/ECL ratio. I believe this is supported by the OP's previous threads and further comments about the optimizers. While high challenge (ECL/True CR) and high power (Personal Power/ECL) have some conflict, the solution is as we both said above.

As far as I can tell, this came out of thin air though. Nowhere in the original set of posts did Gwazi say 'the player wants to do X in order to learn', just '(I think) the player wants a traditional D&D game'. I'm trying to be very careful about these kinds of statements, because they need not be true. The player I mentioned in my example, for instance, absolutely didn't want to learn D&D and was self-aware enough to be able to point this out to people who tried to help him optimize (and not many people are that self-aware)
A player that is new to D&D and wants a traditional game? The first part gives a huge chance towards wanting to learn how to play D&D. The second part made it even more likely.

NichG

2013-12-10, 01:57 AM

I still do not see the inconsistency however since a simple paraphrasing made you reach ^that conclusion, I think the initial inconsistency was a difference in word/phrase use between you and the new player. And possibly between us too. (Number 1 cause of disagreement on the internet)

Basically I'm pointing at the fact that the player asked for 'a difficult game', was told 'the DM can give you that even if the players optimize, don't worry', and then said 'actually I just don't think optimized play will be fun'.

The former thing is a concrete request. The answers to that request have been given, but the fact that the player is still expressing discontent means that basically the player actually has a problem with something else and they just don't know how to express it concretely. Maybe they don't trust the DM, or they don't like rules lawyering, or they want a reasonable ECL/CR ratio, but these are all things we have to understand the player to tease out since the player basically can't directly tell us something of the form 'if you give me this, I will be happy' - the player tried that, Gwazi gave it to them, and they still weren't happy.

I did not get the impression the other players wanted a ECL/True CR ratio that was easier. Like most optimizers, I assumed they wanted to have a high Personal Power/ECL ratio. I believe this is supported by the OP's previous threads and further comments about the optimizers. While high challenge (ECL/True CR) and high power (Personal Power/ECL) have some conflict, the solution is as we both said above.

This seems like a math error rather than a fundamental misunderstanding. When I say 'small ECL/CR' I mean 'high-op'. Basically each point of ECL is 'doing more' to offset each point of CR in a high-op game, so a higher CR is needed in order to result in a balanced, challenging campaign. High ECL/CR means that for fixed challenge, the party is low-op (or for fixed optimization, it means low challenge).

A player that is new to D&D and wants a traditional game? The first part gives a huge chance towards wanting to learn how to play D&D. The second part made it even more likely.

I wouldn't necessarily say this is true. I've met many players coming from e.g. a LARP/World of Darkness background who basically don't want to be bothered with fiddling around with D&D mechanics beyond the blaster-wizard level of things - they're more interested in the RP aspects. Even outside of RP-focused players, I've met players who just want to be powerful and aren't really interested in learning the mechanics - they tend to quickly get labelled as munchkins because they have a tendency to only read the parts of the rules that seem like awesome powers, and miss things like prerequisites, LA, RHD, and the like (but in my experience, such players are often just people with short attention spans and strong 'cool!' reactions, not actually trying to cheat or pull something).

The assumption of 'everyone who plays the game wants to learn the game' is a dangerous one. There's an even worse one that tends to crop up a lot 'everyone who doesn't optimize well would like it if they learned to optimize better'. But really, there are many players who don't actually want to do these things.

In general I think tournament-style modules with pre-gen characters can be a good solution for players that e.g. want to play a difficult, tactics-heavy D&D but don't want to be bothered with char-gen optimization. The pregens make sure everyone is on the same page, and it makes it so the game is all about how well you play with those characters, not how well you can dive into sourcebooks. Obviously though this wouldn't be a good fit for Gwazi's group for many reasons.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-10, 02:10 AM

Yeah, probably. One of the relevant builds is hereabouts (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=19176), if you're interested. It doesn't look too horrifically complicated.

Hmm, I remember that thing. It was for some DM who wanted a decent crossbow using assassin to mess with his players. It's really pretty crappy actually. I should see what other character sheets I have lying around on the various profiler's.

No offense to Tippy meant here, but I don't think his stuff would work well for him.
Tippy makes insanely complicated and powerful build, both of which I don't think is appropriate for a new player whose already voiced concerns over people who optimize too much.

...most of my Factotum builds aren't insanely complicated.

For an Archer/scout,

Rogue 1/ Invisible Fist Martial Monk 2/ Targetteer Fighter 1/ Factotum 8/ Mindbender 1/ Assassin 1/ Ranger 6

Grab Weapon Supremacy and any other Fighter Bonus Feat that you want from Martial Monk (Dragon #310), get Dex to Damage with ranged attacks next level from Targetteer Fighter (Dragon #310).

Factotum 1 gives a nice boost to your attack and damage rolls thanks to Cunning Insight while Factotum 3 kicks up your relevant skills and Initiative significantly. Factotum 4 is where you really pick up truly significant damage thanks to Cunning Strike. Factotum 8 is where you damage and combat versatility really hits its peak thanks to Cunning Surge.

Mindbender 1 gets you Mindsight, which is great for a scout.

Assassin 1 picks you up a bit more sneak attack but most importantly it picks you up first level Assassin spells. More specifically Sniper's Shot from Spell Compendium. That lets you make ranged sneak attacks at any range and not just within 30 feet, allowing you to really snipe.

Ranger 6 gets you BAB and feats for the Chaos Shuffle engine but most importantly it gets you Guided Shot and Hawkeye. The first eliminates the to hit penalty from range increments and lets you ignore everything less than total cover and total concealment while the second increases your bows range by 50%.

Feat wise you want Craven, Darkstalker, the relevant archery feats, Kung Fu Genius, and lots of Font of Inspiration. If he goes human then Able Learner and if he goes Gray Elf then Faerie Mysteries Initiate until he can afford Hide Life before Chaos Shuffling it away.

Ability score wise he wants maxed Int with a Dex secondary and Wis tertiary.

In play that is a very not complicated Archer. Power wise it is a decently optimized tier 3 Archer/scout.

That build also gives him exposure to most of the basic parts of D&D 3.5 (spell casting, feats, skill use, ranged attacks, and even melee attacks) and is very easy to learn to play decently while also rewarding players with a deeper understanding.

eggynack

2013-12-10, 02:18 AM

Hmm, I remember that thing. It was for some DM who wanted a decent crossbow using assassin to mess with his players. It's really pretty crappy actually. I should see what other character sheets I have lying around on the various profiler's.

Yeah, probably. I think you said as much in the post I took it from. I just went with the first one I found, and didn't mind the build being suboptimal, as I figured that excess complexity had a chance of driving the player away.

OldTrees1

2013-12-10, 02:22 AM

Basically I'm pointing at the fact that the player asked for 'a difficult game', was told 'the DM can give you that even if the players optimize, don't worry', and then said 'actually I just don't think optimized play will be fun'.

I missed being informed of this conversation. Nor could I find it via Ctrl+F.
The player might have not trusted the assertion. But it does suggest investigating the interests of the new player more.

This seems like a math error rather than a fundamental misunderstanding. When I say 'small ECL/CR' I mean 'high-op'. Basically each point of ECL is 'doing more' to offset each point of CR in a high-op game, so a higher CR is needed in order to result in a balanced, challenging campaign. High ECL/CR means that for fixed challenge, the party is low-op (or for fixed optimization, it means low challenge).

We are having different word/phrase usage again. I will be concrete in order to be clearer.

A party of 4 players is 6th level. 3 of the players are optimizer and built characters that are really strong for their level. (High Personal Power/ECL ratio). The final player is new and barely optimizes. They end up being weak for their level. (Low Personal Power/ECL ratio). The DM is still using monsters with a difficulty of CR 6-9. However the party is stronger than the average 6th level party so the encounters feel like ECL 7 vs CR 6-9. For the most part these are easy battles. (High ECL/CR ratio). The DM decides to increase the difficulty by using monsters with a difficulty of 8-10. Now the battles are harder than traditional even taking the optimization of the party into consideration. (Since it feels like ECL 7 vs CR 8-10).

However we now have a CR 10 boss fight against a party of 3 6th level (feel like 7th) and 1 6th level (feels like 5th) characters. This takes finesse and tailored encounter design to make work even with the weak character wanting the lower ECL/CR feel. [Tips described in several previous posts]

I wouldn't necessarily say this is true.
Agreed. It was merely an educated guess. Although I think our definitions of learning are different in that I was talking about the minimum amount needed.

No offense to Tippy meant here, but I don't think his stuff would work well for him.
Tippy makes insanely complicated and powerful build, both of which I don't think is appropriate for a new player whose already voiced concerns over people who optimize too much.
...most of my Factotum builds aren't insanely complicated.

-sniped relatively complicated and heavily optimized build being suggested for the new player that voiced concerns over optimization.-

I am not sure you meant to suggest the kind of build the OP was worried about. That looks more like a build for a returning player that has shown a liking to optimization. Not a new player that had concerns about optimization making it too easy.

NichG

2013-12-10, 02:39 AM

I missed being informed of this conversation. Nor could I find it via Ctrl+F.
The player might have not trusted the assertion. But it does suggest investigating the interests of the new player more.

That was a paraphrase of:

I had told him already that the DM can increase the challenge in response to Optimization and his response was basically he still find's a normal campaign (non-optimized) to be a fun one.

We are having different word/phrase usage again. I will be concrete in order to be clearer.

A party of 4 players is 6th level. 3 of the players are optimizer and built characters that are really strong for their level. (High Personal Power/ECL ratio). The final player is new and barely optimizes. They end up being weak for their level. (Low Personal Power/ECL ratio). The DM is still using monsters with a difficulty of CR 6-9. However the party is stronger than the average 6th level party so the encounters feel like ECL 7 vs CR 6-9. For the most part these are easy battles. (High ECL/CR ratio). The DM decides to increase the difficulty by using monsters with a difficulty of 8-10. Now the battles are harder than traditional even taking the optimization of the party into consideration. (Since it feels like ECL 7 vs CR 8-10).

However we now have a CR 10 boss fight against a party of 3 6th level (feel like 7th) and 1 6th level (feels like 5th) characters. This takes finesse and tailored encounter design to make work even with the weak character wanting the lower ECL/CR feel. [Tips described in several previous posts]

This interpretation is not consistent with the player's actual behavior when presented with various solutions. The former interpretation was actually more accurate.

The player has basically said 'I want the game to be challenging' as the reason why he dislikes optimization. However, when it was pointed out that the GM can simply throw harder monsters at the group to take this into account, the player was not satisfied (though undoubtedly this would make for a challenging game for the player).

My hypothesis is that the player doesn't want the gameplay itself to be challenging per se, but wants certain hallmarks of traditional D&D to remain relevant. Relevant is the key word here. It isn't that there should be lots of PC death, but things like walls should actually function like walls, not like blocks of butter to be carved through with an adamantine dagger; picking a lock should remain a useful skill, not be made irrelevant by Knock; jumping over pits should still be an important thing, not made irrelevant by Levitation or Fly. Basically the 'type' of challenge should be traditional, regardless of the actual 'feasibility' of the scenario. However this is just a hypothesis on my part, but its consistent with the behavior so far (and its a difficult thing to vocalize, so it makes sense that a new player wouldn't be able to put their finger on it).

The way I read your ECL/CR argument is that the player doesn't want to be fighting Great Wyrm Red Dragons at Lv5, even if the party is perfectly capable of doing so without any trouble. This is actually somewhat matched with my hypothesis - that the player has some thematic associations 'this challenge is what we should face when we're epic heroes, because dragons should be impressive; we should be facing kobolds and orcs when we're just off the farm'. It's just a very weird way for a person to phrase it - I don't think most people think of 'thematically appropriate challenges' in terms of ECL/CR ratio, but you can of course get to the same point via that method.

Agreed. It was merely an educated guess. Although I think our definitions of learning are different in that I was talking about the minimum amount needed.

The thing is, we're both (and Gwazi) making assumptions about this player, assumptions which are very dangerous because they are not as generally true as we might like to believe. I won't deny that my hypothesis is based on my own biases; I think a lot of the ideas of 'the player wants to learn to optimize', 'the player just wants to be as powerful as the other players', etc are not as broadly true in the actual player base as they are on these forums. If we're dealing with a player for whom it isn't true, following those assumptions will just make things worse.

eggynack

2013-12-10, 02:47 AM

I am not sure you meant to suggest the kind of build the OP was worried about. That looks more like a build for a returning player that has shown a liking to optimization. Not a new player that had concerns about optimization making it too easy.
I think his point was about the fact that it plays pretty easily. It's a bit complicated on the back end, but you're not really pulling off much in the way of shenanigans. It's just a stealth based archer with options, which is exactly what the player in question needs. The fact is, if you want to play an archer that can compete with high tier classes, this is the kinda stuff you have to do.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-10, 02:54 AM

I am not sure you meant to suggest the kind of build the OP was worried about. That looks more like a build for a returning player that has shown a liking to optimization. Not a new player that had concerns about optimization making it too easy.

1) That is not a complicated build. Complicated builds are when you have to do things like gain extra HD, Psychic Reformation your skills, and then loose your extra HD so that you can get into a PrC early. This build has the majority of its levels (14) spread over two classes without variants or ACF's (Factotum and Ranger). Then it dips a DMG PrC for 1 level, another PHB class for one level, and two more PHB classes with variants.

The only sources beyond core needed for all of the classes are Dungeonscape, Exemplars of Evil, and Dragon #310. All of the listed spells are from the Spell Compendium. IIRC the feats add maybe one or two more books.

2) That build doesn't make anything "too easy". It's a decent archery build, that's all. Yeah, it keeps you competitive from levels 1 to 20 as an Archer but that is all.

3) This isn't even close to "heavily optimized". Heavily optimized would actually involve dropping this down to three classes total.

OldTrees1

2013-12-10, 02:57 AM

My hypothesis is that the player doesn't want the gameplay itself to be challenging per se, but wants certain hallmarks of traditional D&D to remain relevant.

Thanks for correcting me and bringing me to the same page. I think this is a good hypothesis to test. I believe that the desire for hallmarks to remain relevant is likely regardless of the opinion about challenge. (Based on words like "traditional")

I think his point was about the fact that it plays pretty easily. It's a bit complicated on the back end, but you're not really pulling off much in the way of shenanigans. It's just a stealth based archer with options, which is exactly what the player in question needs. The fact is, if you want to play an archer that can compete with high tier classes, this is the kinda stuff you have to do.

The back end is relevant unless the player does not have control over the mechanic of their PC.
High OP options are unlikely to be welcomed if the player was concerned about optimization.
This group is cooperative and has good communication, they do not need to use High OP in order to enable the new player to have fun.

@Tippy
You need to recognize that the word "short" mean something different to a human than it does to a giant. You might consider recalibrating your expectations when people outside your Tippyverse use words like "complicated", "High OP" etc.

eggynack

2013-12-10, 03:06 AM

The back end is relevant unless the player does not have control over the mechanic of their PC.
The player has control of the actions of the character, but if we're using an internet build, then he doesn't have control over the build. All he has to know is how the actual abilities work.

High OP options are unlikely to be welcomed if the player was concerned about optimization.
This group is cooperative and has good communication, they do not need to use High op in order to enable the new player to have fun.
What do you mean by high op here? Sure, it's an optimized archer, but an optimized archer in a party of optimized casters is a tiny fish in a very large pond. If the group wants to optimize, and he wants to play an archer, then this is what's required. If he doesn't want to optimize like this, then he can play a tier one class and not touch a bit of complexity. The fact is, something has to give here. If the party of super-casters is running up against an appropriate challenge, then the player can't play a low optimization rogue with archery leanings. He just can't. He can play an optimized character based on an idea that isn't that optimized, or he can play a suboptimal character that's up there in tier, but this crappy rogue he apparently wants to play isn't going to survive a play session without hand holding.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-10, 03:10 AM

The back end is relevant unless the player does not have control over the mechanic of their PC.
High OP options are unlikely to be welcomed if the player was concerned about optimization.
This group is cooperative and has good communication, they do not need to use High OP in order to enable the new player to have fun.
This is not High Op. It's about medium practical optimization. As in it is a practical, viable, archery build that is about middle of the road power wise.

And the back end mechanics are only particularly relevant if and when the party reaches that level. This is also a build that even at ECL 20 can pretty much be taught to someone who has never played D&D before cold in less than 20 minutes with said individual having a good understanding of what the build does, how it does it, and how to use its capabilities effectively.

@Tippy
You need to recognize that the word "short" mean something different to a human than it does to a giant. You might consider recalibrating your expectations when people outside your Tippyverse use words like "complicated", "High OP" etc.
Not really. Frankly, for me, this build rates as simple, low op, drivel that would die fast in higher level play and rarely contribute much of anything. This is the kind of crap thrown onto a disposable NPC scout.

Other people need to stop underselling what "high op" and "complicated" means. A good third of the stuff I see posted as "high op" is nothing of the sort. And another third of the stuff actually qualifies but its all lifted pretty much wholesale from other peoples builds.

The idea that the Chaos Shuffle is high op amuses me, frankly it rates as fairly minimal optimization unless you combine it with one of the ways of getting infinite feats. This is especially true if you aren't using one of the methods to get it totally for free.

Zrak

2013-12-10, 05:31 AM

I think that having a pretty serious conversation about what optimization means with the player is a pretty good idea. As the preceding exchange indicates, the concept of "high op" is not universal. I feel like a lot of new players get the idea that there is somehow more optimization inherent in a build that uses five classes than in just going wizard 20 and calling it a day. Somehow, because it looks more convoluted on paper, a basically competent archer like Tippy made is seen as "cheesy," while simpler but much more powerful options are readily accepted.

Really, I'd try talking to the new player about the kind of game he wants without using vague, loaded terms with which he isn't too likely to be particularly familiar. In other words, don't ask him what he wants in terms of an "optimization level," ask him what kind of encounters he's interested in having, what he's interested in his character being able to do, and so on. Figure out the things he actually wants in his game. So far, we know he wants a challenge. It seems like he wants "classic" encounters to some extent, but does that just mean orcs and goblins, or are things like dragons and beholders on the table? Does he want a stealth archer who is remotely capable of remaining hidden after firing his bow? Does he want to be able to sneak attack from a distance? &c.

If he really is new to this system, there are probably some things taken for granted here that he is totally unaware of. I mean, it's pretty reasonable to assume that a decently efficacious sniper should be pretty simple to make. Given the problems by which archery is beset, this is simply not the case, but there's a pretty good chance he's not really aware that this isn't the case, or doesn't understand the full extent to which vanilla archery is a basically non-functional combat style. He might be a lot more willing to accept the idea of "optimizing" his character when he realizes that informed, thoughtful character building doesn't have to be about a mad rush for power, it can be about making a functional build around a poorly supported concept, like Tippy's archer in this thread.

Xerlith

2013-12-10, 09:21 AM

Throw this class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14192508) at him. Ask the DM to rule that it deals double Skirmish damage against flatfooted/denied Dex to AC opponents.

The class is basically Scout4/Ranger16 + Swift Hunter feat. Except it's Tier 3.

Red Fel

2013-12-10, 10:01 AM

Okay. I'm going to chime in now, not that I think I have anything particularly novel to add, but it's early and the work hasn't started to pour in yet.

Point the first: Communication. It sounds like your group communicates reasonably well. I would sit them all down, and civilly discuss the following points. Optimization: Optimization is not a crime. Optimization is building a character with a particular goal in mind, with the intent of "optimizing" (hence the name) around that goal. Making a sneaky archer is no different, and we (this being you and the other players) would be happy to help you (being this player) make the best sneaky archer you could be, if you'll let us. Difficulty: Difficulty varies, but is likely to increase based on the relative power of the characters. Right now, you're thinking about optimization as the Konami Code: you enter it and the game becomes easy. You should instead be thinking of it as New Game +: You start with more power, but everything is harder. If the other players are optimizing, the game will be harder, and we just want you to not feel overshadowed. Acceptance: One way or another, this game will be played, and hopefully everyone will be playing it. So let's talk about what it is specifically that we want, how we can get there, and then - and this is key - accept it. If Player A wants a high-op character and Player B wants low-op (don't use these terms, by the way, that will only increase the perceived differences - use terms like "extremely detailed" or "fairly straightforward," as they carry less stigma) then we will accept that.Point the second: Accommodation. Someone will have to accommodate here. Fortunately, you are a self-aware optimizer and can attempt to pare yourself back, and one of the other players has been neutral about the issue. So either the remaining optimizer will be the sole high-op in a low-op party, or this player will be the low-op in a high-op party. Towards that end, the rest of you need to be willing and able to make accommodation such that whoever is the odd man out doesn't feel like the odd man out.

As a matter of personal taste, I would lean towards accommodating the new guy. I don't recommend bending over backwards for him, but I do recommend making his first experiences with D&D easy, understandable, and fun. Challenging him to optimize or grossly overshadowing him with high-op characters is likely to leave a sour taste in his mouth and discourage him from playing again. By contrast, lightly optimizing will enable him to enjoy the game, and may even give him an appreciation for the nuances of optimization.

Point the third: With regard to his character, I would keep it relatively simple. As Xerlith suggested, (sort of) I would go for a Scout/Ranger combo with Swift Hunter and archery combat style, and grab some ACFs. This will give your new player a taste of just about everything - skirmish damage, archery, animal companion, light spellcasting. If you want him to be even sneakier, add some Rogue and toss on Swift Ambusher. You could even house-rule a feat, call it Woodland Stalker or something, that stacks all three classes (requiring the other two feats as prereqs).

Doing it this way is a sort of light-op - it doesn't carry the heavy dips and tricks that are the hallmark of high-op, but contains little tweaks that make it better than the average build, in such a way that your player can appreciate.

As an aside, I would also suggest waiving the multiclass xp penalty for him, if you use it at all - give him the chance to dip as he likes and take what he wants to try.