When players suck

[Frostthehero]

You hear a lot about players who optimize heavily and manage to break a campaign, and DMs come here for help. I have the opposite problem. My players suck. They have managed to kill each other previously, (not using AoE) and consistently lose to things below their EL. What do I do to help them, after I have already fudged numerous die rolls in their favor. The part is a group of level 11s of varying size, usually consisting of a fighter6/master thrower 5, a cleric 12 (shouldn't that be a t1), a druid 11 (again, t1?), a ranger 11, and a wizard 4/ arcane archer 4/ ranger 4 .

[Blackhawk748]

You hear a lot about players who optimize heavily and manage to break a campaign, and DMs come here for help. I have the opposite problem. My players suck. They have managed to kill each other previously, (not using AoE) and consistently lose to things below their EL. What do I do to help them, after I have already fudged numerous die rolls in their favor. The part is a group of level 11s of varying size, usually consisting of a fighter6/master thrower 5, a cleric 12 (shouldn't that be a t1), a druid 11 (again, t1?), a ranger 11, and a wizard 4/ arcane archer 4/ ranger 4 .

Wow i dont know man. Firstly that Arcane Archer should drop 2 levels of Arcane Archer and get two more of Wizard. Secondly they seriously need to start thinking tactically. The druid is a walking BFC machine and the cleric can cover pretty much anything. Not knowing what the Ranger is built for i cant really say much, but the fighter should be able to machine gun throw like nobodies business, which meshes beautifully with the druids entangle.

Honestly they just need to work together better, and thats something they need to learn through trial and error.

[Red Fel]

You hear a lot about players who optimize heavily and manage to break a campaign, and DMs come here for help. I have the opposite problem. My players suck. They have managed to kill each other previously, (not using AoE) and consistently lose to things below their EL. What do I do to help them, after I have already fudged numerous die rolls in their favor. The part is a group of level 11s of varying size, usually consisting of a fighter6/master thrower 5, a cleric 12 (shouldn't that be a t1), a druid 11 (again, t1?), a ranger 11, and a wizard 4/ arcane archer 4/ ranger 4 .

I can think of several options. Stop fudging. Let their actions have consequences. Let them die a bit more, hopefully they'll wise up. Offer to tutor them. Go over their character sheets with them. Come up with productive suggestions, allow them to retrain, discuss tactics. Step down as DM for awhile. Maybe you need a break. Let one of them take the reins. And perhaps, from the DM's seat, they'll gain new perspective on tactics. Find a new group. If their play style really doesn't suit you, it might be time for a civil break.
Before you do any of this, though? Talk to your players. Maybe they're unaware of their lack of skills. Maybe they'd like to improve if given the chance. Or maybe they don't care; maybe they're just there for the social fun, and being less-than-effective at the game isn't a particularly important thing for them. You won't know until you ask.

As an aside? Phrases like "my players suck" tend to denote an antagonistic attitude towards the aforementioned players. Is it possible that the fail isn't entirely on their side?

[ThisIsZen]

A bit more detail on how they killed each other without AoE would be nice. And perhaps some examples of how they play in general - class lists are great but only really scratch the surface of how a character actually plays in a game.

[sideswipe]

i suggest keeping them at low levels, set up scenarios in which they fight a group of level 3's vs their level 11's, but have the 3's use amazing tactics. teach them buffs and teamwork by throwing low level teams against them until they learn!

[Faily]

Is it lack of character-building skills? If so, perhaps try to give them premade characters for a short module. With some cheat-sheet with tactics (like you often see on monsters or enemies in adventures), that can point out how the character works the best.

Are they more interested in choosing things for fluff, rather than for power, and focus only on such things? Then maybe it's time to switch gears and try different sort of games, that are more focused on socialising, roleplay-challenges, and intrigue, rather than dungeon-crawling...?

Just ideas though, as it's hard to tell what seems to be the problem.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Cleric has a fairly low floor, so a cleric 12 doing poorly is not surprising. The druid managing to botch the animal companion, wild shape, and his spells seems a little trickier, but it can be done.

[sideswipe]

Cleric has a fairly low floor, so a cleric 12 doing poorly is not surprising. The druid managing to botch the animal companion, wild shape, and his spells seems a little trickier, but it can be done.

i honestly disagree with the cleric low floor, but the point stands. if they are all played poorly and optimised poorly and you use standard variety challenges they will find cr appropriate a challenge. and especially if you use the known under cr'd creatures

[Frostthehero]

I can think of several options. Stop fudging. Let their actions have consequences. Let them die a bit more, hopefully they'll wise up. Offer to tutor them. Go over their character sheets with them. Come up with productive suggestions, allow them to retrain, discuss tactics. Step down as DM for awhile. Maybe you need a break. Let one of them take the reins. And perhaps, from the DM's seat, they'll gain new perspective on tactics. Find a new group. If their play style really doesn't suit you, it might be time for a civil break.
Before you do any of this, though? Talk to your players. Maybe they're unaware of their lack of skills. Maybe they'd like to improve if given the chance. Or maybe they don't care; maybe they're just there for the social fun, and being less-than-effective at the game isn't a particularly important thing for them. You won't know until you ask.

As an aside? Phrases like "my players suck" tend to denote an antagonistic attitude towards the aforementioned players. Is it possible that the fail isn't entirely on their side?

This seems like a pretty comprehensive post. I do know that they know they suck, they just don't care. We play a long running campaign that everyone is pretty invested in, so stepping down isn't really an option. I'll try to help them get into shape.

fyi, the way they killed each other without AoE involved a wizard and a homebrew dungeon rule. The rule went that it cost hit points to use magic (just for one dungeon mind you). HP costs were based off the power of the spell. The party wizard decided that it was a good idea to kill the approaching lich with shivering touch, drawing the blood from other players in the group, instantly killing them.

as an explanation of the playstyles. The arcane archer is actually the best member of the group. He deals decent damage and has a reasonable understanding of tactics. The fighter uses a magic item that only allows him to throw one javelin a turn (but they're force javelins... wee?), and understands tactics well. The druid is just a mess, and admits it. The cleric is not optimized, but can still have a significant effect some of the time, and the ranger does close to nothing because all of her money went to making her longbow speed, meaning that it deals 1d8+1 damage.

[GreyBlack]

This seems like a pretty comprehensive post. I do know that they know they suck, they just don't care. We play a long running campaign that everyone is pretty invested in, so stepping down isn't really an option. I'll try to help them get into shape.

fyi, the way they killed each other without AoE involved a wizard and a homebrew dungeon rule. The rule went that it cost hit points to use magic (just for one dungeon mind you). HP costs were based off the power of the spell. The party wizard decided that it was a good idea to kill the approaching lich with shivering touch, drawing the blood from other players in the group, instantly killing them.

as an explanation of the playstyles. The arcane archer is actually the best member of the group. He deals decent damage and has a reasonable understanding of tactics. The fighter uses a magic item that only allows him to throw one javelin a turn (but they're force javelins... wee?), and understands tactics well. The druid is just a mess, and admits it. The cleric is not optimized, but can still have a significant effect some of the time, and the ranger does close to nothing because all of her money went to making her longbow speed, meaning that it deals 1d8+1 damage.

What about skill challenges? Combat is not the only method to challenge your players.

As to spells used, what do the normal spell lists look like for these guys? Do they need help picking spells? Maybe help by providing some scrolls or staves to help them out?

[Tohsaka Rin]

fyi, the way they killed each other without AoE involved a wizard and a homebrew dungeon rule. The rule went that it cost hit points to use magic (just for one dungeon mind you). HP costs were based off the power of the spell. The party wizard decided that it was a good idea to kill the approaching lich with shivering touch, drawing the blood from other players in the group, instantly killing them.


If your players make poor tactical decisions, the path to success is not paved with graffiti explaining how to murder each other quicker.

This is why I wince in reflex every time I see the word 'homebrew'.

I'm honestly not sure how to help with your current campaign, but I do suggest sticking the group to low-levels from now on, until they learn to improve.

Perhaps sit them down at the end of each session, and ask them what mistakes they think they made, and what they think they can do to improve. Don't be heavy-handed, just ask them where they think they fall short, and what they think would go towards making up for that.

If they don't care, there's not much you can do.

[(Un)Inspired]

Uhhhh aren't Lichs super immune to shivering touch? Also, isn't it impossible for shivering touch to actually kill anything?

You say they know that they are low power? Do they want to change or are they happy being that way? Maybe they just want a super low power game?

[SethoMarkus]

If your players make poor tactical decisions, the path to success is not paved with graffiti explaining how to murder each other quicker.

This is why I wince in reflex every time I see the word 'homebrew'.



To be fair, it seems that the homebrew "spell costs HP to cast" thing was only present as a gimmick in one dungeon.



I would suggest asking the players what they are looking for in the campaign; do they want to be the powerful heroes with nary an actual challenge before them? Do they want to be the gritty underdogs overcoming insurmountable odds, making sacrifices along the way? Maybe they just expect to be able to plow over anything that stands against them and underestimate the enemy's strength? Or, maybe they underestimate their own abilities and fall short because they don't even try?

I'll also suggest that in the mean time, alter your style of play for the NPCs and enemies to reflect the level of skill and tactical decision making of your players. Have the villains make dumb decisions or sporadically attack each PC, whittling their HP down rather than focusing on one target at a time. Spreading out the damage should help with their survival and give more time to make a proper plan of counterattack.

[eggynack]

This seems like a pretty comprehensive post. I do know that they know they suck, they just don't care.
If they don't care, then there's not much you can do. Can't force not sucking on people. Let them suck, and let them fail, and if they don't mind failing then more power to them. Not everyone can be full of the meat of D&D talent. As for the query about the cleric and druid being tier one, they are, but their power level is reliant on at least some level of proper decision making. If you want them to start living their tier for some reason, teach them more about spell selection. If they're just playing poorly in game, then again, can't force people to think tactically.

[Telonius]

cleric 12 (shouldn't that be a t1), a druid 11 (again, t1?),

They're both t1's. What you're running up against is the lesson that a weapon is only as dangerous as the hand that wields it. You could have just about anything short of a Pun-Pun; if the player truly has no idea what they're doing, it's going to lose to a t5 run by a player with an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules and a good grasp of tactics. (I know of a certain 13th-level Samurai (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=153726) who would probably make short work of that group).

What makes a t1 a t1, is the amount of options available. It's theoretically capable of solving just about any encounter that's thrown at it. But it still needs a player to pick out the spells, figure out when to turn into a fleshraker, or remember to add in all their bonuses when they've got Recitation and Heroes' Feast and a half-dozen other buff spells up.

As for helping them out ... a lot of good advice so far. I'd just put in that the point of the game is to have fun. That includes you. If the DM isn't having fun, that's as much of a problem as a player not having fun.

[RoboEmperor]

Suggest some appealing fluff to them. Maybe they'll start playing in a "better" way.

"Do you want to have demons fight for you? It's just a spell away~"
"Do you want to become a monster who just slaughters everything with its 12 heads? It's just a spell away~"
"Do you want to create robotic dragons that can fly and smash everything into a bloody pulp? Grab the craft construct feat or become an effigy master.

[Vhaidara]

Yeah, someone has a quote in their sig to the effect of
T1s and T2s can suck far more than T5s and T6s can even dream of. The worst a Fighter or a Commoner can do is die. A Sorcerer could end up stuck in a parallel dimension having his soul endlessly flayed and chewed up by unspeakable eldritch horrors.

That was highly paraphrased, but it gets the point across.

[BWR]

I do know that they know they suck, they just don't care.

I'd say this is pretty clear evidence that it's your problem, not theirs. If they are fine playing at their level of optimization and game mastery, maybe you shouldn't try to push them to play at a higher level. It's the GM's job to make it fun. If everyone else wants it less difficult than what you want it, you should seriously consider making things easier even if this is not as fun for you. If, as seems to be the case from your post, they are fine with the way things are then the problem isn't really a problem.

If you really need to change things, communicate. Make sure you communicate your position and expectations clearly and get them to communicate their expectations clearly. Say you want them to up their game a bit and will stop fudging for them. If they dislike this idea, just nerf your own encounters from now on. Don't make them more challenging than you expect them to handle and then cheat to let then survive, make them challenging for what you expect them to be able to handle.

[Just to Browse]

That's flicker's sig, quoting JaronK I think.

As a general rule, players like cool powers and they like earning stuff. So if they don't want to invest IRL resources into getting better (that's reasonable) have them perform a quest and then reward them with some badass artifact equipment/enchantment that allows their current strategies to work successfully. If the ranger is bad dps but likes shooting arrows, give him bonus damage or status effects. If the cleric is a healbot, let him turn heals into holy lasers and team buffs.

[atemu1234]

Are you encouraging the players to think tactically? To pick spells that work? If so, I recommend just letting them die, and then asking them if they know what they did wrong.

[Barstro]

Are you encouraging the players to think tactically? To pick spells that work? If so, I recommend just letting them die, and then asking them if they know what they did wrong.

While I agree with the above statement, I'm pretty sure it isn't actually the correct path to take.

Many people have pointed out what I consider to be the root causes;
1) Players not understanding their class (mainly the cleric and druid). Personally, I don't play Druid because I don't want to take the time to learn the nuances.
2) Lack of decent strategies. Not sure if this is inherent in their build choices, or if the PCs are fine and just being played poorly.
3) Lack of knowledge. Not much you can do if the players are smart but ignore what they know. If the players are ignorant on some things, you can "secretly roll" knowledge checks and remind them that, for instance, the wizard remembers an old lesson that a particular spell would not work against that creature.
4) Seemingly disinterested players. This could be their fault, it could be yours. I've been in particular games where it barely felt like playing. Could be due to other players making certain choices, could be due to DM forcing things a certain way or leaving things so open that nobody can make a decision.

Best option at this point is to tear up all the sheets and start over. But, that's probably not going to happen. Instead, get a couple good side quests in based on the PCs themselves. Get the fighter on a quest for a better weapon or something and have that magic item destroyed along the way. Have a thief steal the wizard's spell book but (through some task) obtain a different one. If the Cleric is so far gone because of poor Feats, have a divine task grant him some additional ones that you choose. Maybe that's railroading, but I think of it more as resetting the stage.

The biggest struggle here is that you cannot teach enthusiasm. If they don't want to get better optimization and don't care about tactics, you cannot do much to change that. If part of the issue is trying to teach them tactics; have them fight enemies with all sorts of damage reduction and/or hit points so that the fights can be long drawn out affairs where they get the chance to figure out how to play off each other.

[Scipio_77]

You can resolve in the meta or ingame. In the meta you just tell them that they are playing suboptimally. Ingame you can point out things to them that their characters would realize (a character with 16 int might realize that you shouldn't stand close together when fighting an invoker and so forth) or by introducing an NPC who teaches them about battle tactics. More forcefully you could run an adventure/module that can't be resolved without tactics... like some ancient puzzle dungeon or whatnot.



Fudging die rolls is always terribad. If you want to save them, just run lower level challenges.

[Barstro]

(a character with 16 int might realize that you shouldn't stand close together when fighting an invoker and so forth)

Nah, that's wisdom. 16 int will say "you are going to love the blast that this guy does; fills a large area with all sorts of painful lights" (or whatever an invoker does).

But you are absolutely correct. I always think that DMs should make sure that players become aware of what their characters are supposed to know. Kind of the opposite of meta-gaming. As a player, I think it's annoying to keep saying "I sense motive", but a DM should point out an instance when my character would simply know something is off. I had a DM save a TPK I would have caused by pointing out information my character had so I didn't try to antagonize an entire platoon.

[Magesmiley]

A question: have they always had trouble playing? The lower levels are very useful for learning how classes work and how to use them well. You mentioned fudging rolls - have you always been doing that? (Which can potentially instill very bad habits in players.) How long has it taken the players to reach this point? Long-running has very different meaning to different people too.

Is this their first time playing at that level? Assuming that they haven't had problems throughout, there is a transition in play that happens at roughly these levels. Some groups which can handle lower-level play well have a very tough time keeping things together as they push into the low teens. This may be one of those cases.

If the same players and characters have been together since level 1, they really should've meshed and built a team style by now. They aren't going to make it too much further if they don't. TBH, if they can't pull this together soon, it might be just as well to warn them that you're going to let the chips fall where they may and if that means a TPK and starting back at level 1, so be it. (I've seen this kind of announcement push players into working together better too.)

[Scipio_77]

Nah, that's wisdom. 16 int will say "you are going to love the blast that this guy does; fills a large area with all sorts of painful lights" (or whatever an invoker does).

But you are absolutely correct. I always think that DMs should make sure that players become aware of what their characters are supposed to know. Kind of the opposite of meta-gaming. As a player, I think it's annoying to keep saying "I sense motive", but a DM should point out an instance when my character would simply know something is off. I had a DM save a TPK I would have caused by pointing out information my character had so I didn't try to antagonize an entire platoon.

I agree with this to some extent, but the DM is at the end of the day "just a person" and won't be able to keep track of everything (at least if the game is to progress at a reasonable rate) - I think good players cooperate with their DM on this. Still a good DM will keep an eye on the basics; the group cleric with 15 ranks knowledge religion might realize what that ancient shamanic totem in the middle of the forest is for, the wizard with 20 spellcraft and 20 knowledge nobility is probably up to speed on the capabilities of the royal mage, it would be unreasonable that the (social) bard should be completely ignorant to the idea of court intrigue and so forth.

I think it makes players feel good about their characters if their DM just rolls with it and includes this in descriptions. It sort of includes them in the game world mythos. In game terms I think a DM should assume players "take ten" in non-hostile situations on the key mental abilities that define their characters.

[Gabrosin]

I'd say this is pretty clear evidence that it's your problem, not theirs. If they are fine playing at their level of optimization and game mastery, maybe you shouldn't try to push them to play at a higher level. It's the GM's job to make it fun. If everyone else wants it less difficult than what you want it, you should seriously consider making things easier even if this is not as fun for you. If, as seems to be the case from your post, they are fine with the way things are then the problem isn't really a problem.

If you really need to change things, communicate. Make sure you communicate your position and expectations clearly and get them to communicate their expectations clearly. Say you want them to up their game a bit and will stop fudging for them. If they dislike this idea, just nerf your own encounters from now on. Don't make them more challenging than you expect them to handle and then cheat to let then survive, make them challenging for what you expect them to be able to handle.

This is where I'm at. If your players are enjoying where they are, with no optimization or anything, then let them stay there. If they profess a desire to improve, you can help; if one or two players are dominating all the time and others need to catch up, you can help; if they're just struggling to win basic fights, you can always send weaker enemies. If the table is full of smiles and laughter, don't ruin it by forcing them to think optimized.

[Scipio_77]

This is where I'm at. If your players are enjoying where they are, with no optimization or anything, then let them stay there. If they profess a desire to improve, you can help; if one or two players are dominating all the time and others need to catch up, you can help; if they're just struggling to win basic fights, you can always send weaker enemies. If the table is full of smiles and laughter, don't ruin it by forcing them to think optimized.

I think this is good also. And also I would like to add that "style always trumps maxxing".

The larger-than-life and larger-than-a-half-orc human invoker invoker who lazily blasts the 2HD goblin shaman out of the sky with a meteor swarm while hardly interrupting his discussion with the group bard regarding the finer qualities of fey wine might not be using his powers optimally, but heck... it's memorable.

[Sith_Happens]

The fighter uses a magic item that only allows him to throw one javelin a turn (but they're force javelins... wee?)

If you're thinking of the Gloves of Endless Javelins from the Magic Item Compendium, they make as many javelins per turn as you want.