PDA

View Full Version : What is a GM to do when a player makes an ineffective character?



Talakeal
2016-01-28, 03:36 PM
I have had a problem come up in several games, one of the players makes one or more very un-optimal choices in character creation and the result is a character who can't perform the way they expect it to, let alone keep up with the rest of the party or more adventures.

If I see this coming as a GM I have two choices, neither of which work out.

If I make a big deal about it they often get defensive and accuse me of trying to take away their agency, and sometimes they even seem to get really stubborn continue playing the character as is just to "prove me wrong".

If I don't make a big enough deal about it they continue playing the character and then get frustrated at the inability to do what they want to do, and then they stop having fun as a result of their frustration and then either abandon the character or leave the game entirely.

Anyone else have this problem? What do you do?

BootStrapTommy
2016-01-28, 03:39 PM
For a creative enough GM, "accidentally" killing characters is pretty easy.

Necroticplague
2016-01-28, 03:41 PM
For a creative enough GM, "accidentally" killing characters is pretty easy.

This. Simply keep the challenges fixed to the level of the party, not the level of the useless character. Eventually, this will end up with that character getting killed. The replacement will usually be more competent. If it isn't, keep letting them die until the player removes cranium from rectum.

Geddy2112
2016-01-28, 04:15 PM
I am not 100% clear on what is happening? Have you gone through those two options before, or those are what you think will happen?

Some players enjoy building and playing suboptimal characters- they know it might flop, but they don't mind. And if they somehow work, the success is even sweeter. I assume this is not the case.

You should never tell another player how to play their character, even if they are sucking. I second the above- a competent challenge and/or encounter will eventually kill off the weakest party member, and they get another chance to build something that does not suck.

The player also might not know how to build well-if this is the case, they also might be too stubborn to accept help. Tread lightly, but help show them and teach them to be a better player.

What I do? I talk to them first, ask them if they meant to do this-I usually offer them a chance for the PC to die or bow out, and they can cook something new. Maybe an easier class or concept, or I offer them help. Sometimes it is just that they misread how to build a class, or mismatch the character to the campaign.

Talakeal
2016-01-28, 04:21 PM
This. Simply keep the challenges fixed to the level of the party, not the level of the useless character. Eventually, this will end up with that character getting killed. The replacement will usually be more competent. If it isn't, keep letting them die until the player removes cranium from rectum.

I do keep the challenge set to the level of the party, although again this only leads to increased frustration for the player who can't keep up (and to a lesser extent everyone else, who gets frustrated at them for not pulling their own weight, which then makes them even more frustrated as they are taking crap from their fellow players).

My goal is actually to keep player turnover down. I like running games where the player characters have ongoing plots centered around them and it is very low lethality. Trying to kill of a character just doesn't work with my style, and would actually create more problems than it solves as my goal is to keep players characters in the game.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-28, 04:23 PM
Yes - much depends upon the player in question.

Many players, especially greenhorns, will be more than willing to get help making their basic character concept work better.

BootStrapTommy
2016-01-28, 04:28 PM
My goal is actually to keep player turnover down. I like running games where the player characters have ongoing plots centered around them and it is very low lethality. Trying to kill of a character just doesn't work with my style, and would actually create more problems than it solves as my goal is to keep players characters in the game. You're complaining about rats, but refuse to use rat poison.

Present the players not with a leveled challenge, but with a real challenge. Something that challenges the other members. If the weak link survives, they're not the weak link you think they are. If they don't, they get to make a new character. Hopefully that one won't be as bad.

Telok
2016-01-28, 04:30 PM
As always the truism 'Player > build > class' applies here (assuming a class based game, but a non-class game just drops the last third of the equation). Where exactly is the problem?

Weak classes can usually be fixed by putting class specific uber-loot into the game. Ramp up the loot one item at a time and stop when the character reaces parity.

Build faults can usually be retconned, retrained, psychically reformed (D&D specific, usually), or fixed by the aforementioned uber-loot.

Fixing a player is... a definite maybe.

Squibsallotl
2016-01-28, 04:30 PM
Either use an act of god to buff the character, or find challenges that will allow them to shine.

E.g. in my last group I had a halfling rogue who didn't really do much damage as he kept forgetting his abilities and never really remembered to get combat advantage.

On one game when the party were fighting out in the open, he rolled a 1 on an attack and I had him accidentally eat a bee. The bees' venom triggered some sort of adrenaline reaction and caused him to rapidly fire 3 more bolts in procession with eagle-eye accuracy.

Since then, no matter the environment, every time he rolls a 1 a bee appears from somewhere and gets eaten. His paragon path was renamed "bee seeker".

Red Fel
2016-01-28, 04:31 PM
I do keep the challenge set to the level of the party, although again this only leads to increased frustration for the player who can't keep up (and to a lesser extent everyone else, who gets frustrated at them for not pulling their own weight, which then makes them even more frustrated as they are taking crap from their fellow players).

Frustration leads to one of three outcomes.

1. Rage. The player in question, unable or unwilling to improve, simply rages out. Frankly, that's not a good attitude to have anyway. And it suggests a temperament that would not have been amenable to your help. So there's really nothing you could have done.

2. Nothing. The player makes a new character, gets it killed, and seethes. Repeat. In this case, it's still up to the player to make a move. Crap or get off the pot, as it were.

3. Progress. The player either learns to improve on his own, or asks for help making a more effective character. This is the only stage where you're allowed to step in - if a player asks you for help, by all means offer it. This is also the best outcome.

In other words, if the player keeps making ineffective characters, or playing them ineffectively, there is nothing for you to do (short of offering, but not forcing, assistance) until and unless the player decides to improve.


My goal is actually to keep player turnover down. I like running games where the player characters have ongoing plots centered around them and it is very low lethality. Trying to kill of a character just doesn't work with my style, and would actually create more problems than it solves as my goal is to keep players characters in the game.

This isn't within your control unless you're willing to give the PCs plot armor. Barring that, you don't get to decide how suicidal the PCs are. That's up to the players. This one is clearly not operating at the level of the rest. You don't get to decide to keep his character from turning over every time he messes up. He either needs to improve or get used to PC death.

Jornophelanthas
2016-01-28, 04:36 PM
When you notice a player is building a character that will not be able to pull its own weight, and the player is not receptive to character creation advice, I would give the player a general warning.

By this, I mean to say to warn the player that the character may not work out, but not give any specifics as to why you think that is.

That way, the player has the option to ask you what is wrong with the character according to you. If he does ask, ONLY say what you think is wrong, and do NOT give concrete suggestions. (e.g. say "According to the rules, your wizard will be unable to cast any spells with such a low intelligence score," and not "you should raise your intelligence by this amount, and don't forget to pick these specific spells".)

Only give actual tips when the player asks for them.

If the player does nothing, give him one more warning that you will not pull any punches and that you adjust the difficulty of the campaign to the entire group. And that you believe this is the cause that he lost interest before.

If he still refuses to change anything, forget about the issue. If he gets frustrated, you did warn him in advance. And he may still surprise you.

Talakeal
2016-01-28, 04:39 PM
You're complaining about rats, but refuse to use rat poison.

Present the players not with a leveled challenge, but with a real challenge. Something that challenges the other members. If the weak link survives, they're not the weak link you think they are. If they don't, they get to make a new character. Hopefully that one won't be as bad.

The goal is to keep both the player and the character content and in the game, killing them off is actively detrimental to both goals.


Also, you are making some weird assumptions, essentially that combat ability (and only defensive combat ability at that) is a measure of an effective character.

A monk who is built for pure avoidance and has a bajillion points of armor class and +elventy billion to all saves isn't going to be the first one to die, but he also won't contribute anything to the party's success either if he can't also deal out damage and pass active skill checks.

For example, in my current party the weakest link is the team healer. He might cause a death in the party, but it almost certainly won't be HIS death.

johnbragg
2016-01-28, 04:49 PM
I have had a problem come up in several games, one of the players makes one or more very un-optimal choices in character creation and the result is a character who can't perform the way they expect it to, let alone keep up with the rest of the party or more adventures.

If I see this coming as a GM I have two choices, neither of which work out.

If I make a big deal about it they often get defensive and accuse me of trying to take away their agency, and sometimes they even seem to get really stubborn continue playing the character as is just to "prove me wrong".

So you've warned them that their character might not be pulling his or her weight


If I don't make a big enough deal about it they continue playing the character and then get frustrated at the inability to do what they want to do, and then they stop having fun as a result of their frustration and then either abandon the character or leave the game entirely.

At this point, give them the opportunity to re-build their character with some advice and guidance.

johnbragg
2016-01-28, 04:51 PM
For example, in my current party the weakest link is the team healer. He might cause a death in the party, but it almost certainly won't be HIS death.

What's the healer's build, and what's wrong with it? How is he going to get someone killed?

Jornophelanthas
2016-01-28, 04:54 PM
What's the healer's build, and what's wrong with it? How is he going to get someone killed?

I can imagine a healer with more than enough healing ability, but with a player too scared to get anywhere near the enemies to be able to heal the player characters who need healing the most. (I actually know a player with such a playstyle.)

However, such a healer will always be able to heal himself if he would be on the receiving end of any damage.

Douche
2016-01-28, 04:59 PM
What if - instead of making a big deal about it - you just calmly explain to him that, from your position as DM, you can see that he made some sub-optimal choices and he's probably not performing as well as he'd like. Then you can give him an opportunity to remake his character - with your help if he wants it.

If not, then tell him you're not going to tune down any encounters to suit him, and if he gets himself or one of his party members killed, it's not your fault. Don't do it on purpose though, that'll just make him think you're a douche.

icefractal
2016-01-28, 05:03 PM
Kind of surprised by all the "don't ever offer any advice, let them learn by dying repeatedly" suggestions in this thread. Sure, don't keep pushing them if they choose not to follow it, and don't be rude about how you phrase it - "This character seems fragile, what's your plan to survive combat?" rather than "You made a Barbarian with Con 8 who doesn't wear armor?! GTFO dumbass!"

But "trial by fire"? The purpose here is to have an enjoyable game, not to be a system-mastery boot camp.

Squibsallotl
2016-01-28, 05:18 PM
But "trial by fire"? The purpose here is to have an enjoyable game, not to be a system-mastery boot camp.

I also disagree with most of the advice given in this thread, but then I run mostly narrative-driven games where I can "fix" suboptimal characters through targetted challenges and story-activated power boosts.

A hack'N'slash dungeon may be different, and require discussions with the player. If you're worried about making their choices seem invalid or the player feeling like the DM is taking over their character, offer them a buff or two instead. "I see that you're playing an honourable fighter from a noble family, in addition to your starting gear you also have a special sword, which is your family heirloom..." etc.

Faily
2016-01-28, 06:51 PM
one of the players makes one or more very un-optimal choices in character creation and the result is a character who can't perform the way they expect it to


let alone keep up with the rest of the party or more adventures.


The two are actually a bit different problems, imo, and I'll adress them accordingly.

1. A character not performing how a player envisions it most often stems from lack of system mastery. This is why I as both a GM and a player encourage the group to talk and discuss character creation, so that others could provide input on how to pull something off.
Like if I told my Pathfinder group that I wanted to play a "Knight in Shining Armor"-type of character but didn't like the spellcasting of the Paladin, they could suggest Archtypes like the Warrior of the Holy Light (literally Shining in my armor). Is it an optimal choice? Of course not, because spells are way superior to the abilities Warrior of the Holy Light gets. However, it fits what I wanted to play and thus, makes me a happy player.


2. This is also lack of system mastery, but one that is more about letting create characters the way the want. Trust me, in the different groups I play in, with wildly differing levels of optimization skills, I know that there are players who are much more interested in playing a certain type of character, rather than wanting to be optimized in relation to the rest of the group.
One Pathfinder group have a guy playing a Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer, who has spent feats on Skill Focus: Spellcraft, and at least two other feats that give bonuses to Skills. It took quite some time before he even considered picking up Metamagic Feats or anything of the sort. Atrocious character build on the mechanic-side all around, I could get into quite a rant on how horribly unoptimized this character is in so many ways.
However, the point is that THIS was the character he wanted to play. He had an idea of what he wanted, and didn't really care whenever input was provided because it "didn't fit what he wanted".



So on one hand, you have lack of knowledge on the mechanics, which can lead to disappointment when things don't work out the way you want. The solution is to let his/her fellow players help with giving input of "hey, I saw this Spell/Feat/Prestige Class/Whatever and thought it could fit well for the character you're playing".
On the other hand, you have someone who is way more interested in playing a vision of a character, and isn't really interested in learning how to optimize the character.

All my 2 cents from experience though.

Segev
2016-01-28, 06:54 PM
In a D&D-style game, there's always the option of handing out bonus goodies. A magic item that shores up a specific weakness, or a boon from some powerful NPC or monster that gives him an ability he's lacking.

As long as you've got a tacit understanding from the other players that this "favoritism" is meant to pull a weaker character up to parity, and is not an effort to let him shine more than they do, it probably won't cause problems. And he'll become more effective.

nedz
2016-01-28, 07:28 PM
In a D&D-style game, there's always the option of handing out bonus goodies. A magic item that shores up a specific weakness, or a boon from some powerful NPC or monster that gives him an ability he's lacking.

As long as you've got a tacit understanding from the other players that this "favoritism" is meant to pull a weaker character up to parity, and is not an effort to let him shine more than they do, it probably won't cause problems. And he'll become more effective.

I've tried this - the item invariable ends up being grabbed by another player or the ability gets ignored.

Also some characters peak early in power — others later — so it's hard to be sure about the long term power levels.


For example, in my current party the weakest link is the team healer. He might cause a death in the party, but it almost certainly won't be HIS death.

One trick you could try is have an NPC healer accompany the party for a while - we'll call him Fred. In Combat Fred steps all over what should be the PC healers toes, dashes into danger, and saves the day. Once the point has been made, and you should be able to tell this from the player's reactions, Fred exits stage left.

TL;DR: Show don't tell.

Thrudd
2016-01-28, 07:56 PM
I don't see any problem.

When a character isn't performing how their player wants, they can add things at level up. At most, if they are a new player and didn't know what they were taking in the beginning, maybe offer them a chance to replace a previously chosen ability with something else, if the other players are ok with that.

If they aren't new, the player made the character they want. The party should deal with the strengths and weaknesses of each member however they want, this is part of the game.

If you insist all characters don't die so you can tell a story, then their mechanical abilities are ultimately irrelevant anyway, why does it matter how optimized they are? You're just going to fudge things if the combat is going towards characters dying anyway, right?

If you insist on challenging the players strategically and tactically and expect a certain level of mechanical ability, then you shouldn't be unwilling to let characters die. Choosing a character in such a game should be a strategic decision as much as it is a narrative decision. Poor strategy might understandably result in dead characters and maybe even TPK, and in this sort of game that is ok. That is how players learn what doesn't work, and they can make better decisions on their next character.

You need to decide what sort of game is being played. If you want players to build characters for efficiency and effectiveness intending to test them tactically, you are undermining that by keeping them alive at all costs: they should have the chance to live and die by their decisions. If you are committed to a narrative, then work the characters into the narrative, and let them have narrative moments. Don't sweat the mechanics.

The only compromise I see here is to change death rules, so that failure in combat results in narrative-affecting consequences but not character death. Then, the players can succeed and fail by their choices, but your story doesn't end, it just goes off in a different direction. The under-performer won't die or cause a TPK, but they may make things increasingly difficult for the party by losing advantages or giving the enemy advantages they would not have had otherwise.

BootStrapTommy
2016-01-28, 08:51 PM
The goal is to keep both the player and the character content and in the game, killing them off is actively detrimental to both goals.

Also, you are making some weird assumptions, essentially that combat ability (and only defensive combat ability at that) is a measure of an effective character.

A monk who is built for pure avoidance and has a bajillion points of armor class and +elventy billion to all saves isn't going to be the first one to die, but he also won't contribute anything to the party's success either if he can't also deal out damage and pass active skill checks.

For example, in my current party the weakest link is the team healer. He might cause a death in the party, but it almost certainly won't be HIS death.You're the one who's making a strange assumption. Where did I say anything about combat? You are aware people can die in situations that don't involve things purposely trying to make them dead? That monk can be can be tanky all he wants. It isn't gunna do him any good when he fails the Jump checks to escape the crumbling building. And when he can't make the checks to get those pesky piles of rubble off him....

Seriously, a creative enough GM.

Also, a dead character can be a great spring board for a story. Just because a character died, doesn't mean they are no longer having an effect on a story. I've had a number of dead PCs whose presence continued straight through to the fight with BBEG.

Jay R
2016-01-28, 08:55 PM
Throughout the history of the world, there have been people who play games poorly.

Football. Chess. Monopoly. Mancala. Poker. Whist. Bridge.

It doesn't matter what the game is. If the player can make choices, some players will choose better than others. It therefore follows that the others will choose less well.

In virtually all games, including D&D before 3e, people who play games poorly lose. That's normal, and natural, and what "playing a game poorly" always meant.

But in D&D from 3e forward, there is a new notion, alien to all game-playing for the last 5,000 years, that nobody should ever lose the game.

It's a nice idea, and lots of people want to play that way. But as noble as the motives are, it still means that player choices are no longer determining whether or not they will survive.

So in this situation, the DM has to make a choice:
1. The player can make stupid choices that can perhaps kill the character, or
2. The character cannot make meaningful choices that affect whether their characters live or die.

If you choose option 2, I recommend that you not tell the players that you will keep them alive no matter how poor their choices. If you choose option 1, they need to know that their choices can affect their character's lives.

I know this sounds cruel and heartless. It's not. It's just the simple truth - either their choices can affect whether their characters live or die, or their choices cannot affect that. Some people like one type of play; others like the other.

But if their choices have life-or-death consequences, they should know that.

Eisenheim
2016-01-28, 10:29 PM
There is an entirely different solution to this problem, which is likely not for you, but I really like.

Play something where optimization is not a major factor and all PCs are necessarily at about the same level of power and effectiveness over the course of the game.

fate is a great example of this. You can't really build a weak fate character. You can get some situational synergies from careful stunt choice, but by-and-large, everyone's on the same level.

Segev
2016-01-28, 11:03 PM
To avoid an item meant for one player being snatched up by another, discuss it OOC with the players, first. Explain who it's for.

Or give the item explicitly to that PC, as a gift, boon, reward, or loan. Or make it not an item, but a blessing or the like. Something akin to the touchstone feats in concept, though not paid for with a feat. "Magic item locations" that only that PC gets access to.

Talakeal
2016-01-28, 11:38 PM
To avoid an item meant for one player being snatched up by another, discuss it OOC with the players, first. Explain who it's for.

Or give the item explicitly to that PC, as a gift, boon, reward, or loan. Or make it not an item, but a blessing or the like. Something akin to the touchstone feats in concept, though not paid for with a feat. "Magic item locations" that only that PC gets access to.

Are you sure that is a good idea? Every time I have suggested something like that in the past this forum has given me a resounding "It is never the GM's place to get involved in loot distribution."


There is an entirely different solution to this problem, which is likely not for you, but I really like.

Play something where optimization is not a major factor and all PCs are necessarily at about the same level of power and effectiveness over the course of the game.

fate is a great example of this. You can't really build a weak fate character. You can get some situational synergies from careful stunt choice, but by-and-large, everyone's on the same level.

Yeah, that seems like a bit of a large solution to a relatively minor problem.


You're the one who's making a strange assumption. Where did I say anything about combat? You are aware people can die in situations that don't involve things purposely trying to make them dead? That monk can be can be tanky all he wants. It isn't gunna do him any good when he fails the Jump checks to escape the crumbling building. And when he can't make the checks to get those pesky piles of rubble off him....

Seriously, a creative enough GM.

Also, a dead character can be a great spring board for a story. Just because a character died, doesn't mean they are no longer having an effect on a story. I've had a number of dead PCs whose presence continued straight through to the fight with BBEG.

I will admit, I didn't think of traps, so that is a bit of an assumption on my part. But in all my years of gaming I can only think of one non-combat fatality, and most DM's I know haven't used traps in years.

Still, I stand by my initial point; you can still be dead weight on the party while not ending up dead.. Combat (or other life threatening situations) is not very commonplace in all games, and even if it is, just because a character is tough doesn't mean they actually contribute anything.

Imagine a character who is the equivalent of a lead weight, he just sits there all day without accomplishing anything. Sure he is damn near indestructible, but that still doesn't justify his existence or give the party a reason to drag him around, and it isn't going to be any fun for his player.


If you insist all characters don't die so you can tell a story, then their mechanical abilities are ultimately irrelevant anyway, why does it matter how optimized they are? You're just going to fudge things if the combat is going towards characters dying anyway, right?

As I said in my last thread, it is very easy to assume all DM's are railroading like crazy, but that really isn't my problem.

No, I don't fudge anything. If you look at my posting history you will see that I am rather staunchly on the side of not fudging.

Also, I believe a story is an emergent property of the game rather than something that is best plotted out beforehand. If the characters DIE and the story ENDS that sucks, but if they get beaten up, captured, and then need to escape or raise a ransom, that might make for an even more interesting story in the end.


What's the healer's build, and what's wrong with it? How is he going to get someone killed?

We aren't actually playing D&D, but to put it in D&D terms he is trying to play a multi class monk / wizard / cleric who is also the party face. Dividing his attention between too many rolls means that he can't do any of them well, and he doesn't have enough healing ability to go around, which means the front line member of the party has to go into battle wounded all the time.


This isn't within your control unless you're willing to give the PCs plot armor. Barring that, you don't get to decide how suicidal the PCs are. That's up to the players. This one is clearly not operating at the level of the rest. You don't get to decide to keep his character from turning over every time he messes up. He either needs to improve or get used to PC death.

I am using a system similar to 5e where attacks are extremely unlikely to kill someone outright and there is a fair bit of a buffer between up and fighting and dead. As long as I don't have the enemies make a concerted effort to finish off wounded PCs and instead either try and capture them or continue to fight their active comrades it isn't really an issue.

BootStrapTommy
2016-01-29, 12:12 AM
I will admit, I didn't think of traps, so that is a bit of an assumption on my part. But in all my years of gaming I can only think of one non-combat fatality, and most DM's I know haven't used traps in years.

Still, I stand by my initial point; you can still be dead weight on the party while not ending up dead.. Combat (or other life threatening situations) is not very commonplace in all games, and even if it is, just because a character is tough doesn't mean they actually contribute anything.

Imagine a character who is the equivalent of a lead weight, he just sits there all day without accomplishing anything. Sure he is damn near indestructible, but that still doesn't justify his existence or give the party a reason to drag him around, and it isn't going to be any fun for his player. Kobolds are my spirit animal. Maybe it is time to resurrect your own inner kobold?

And traps aren't the only thing that can take players out of commission. You'd be surprised how many simple interaction with the environment you can use to mur... retire a PC.

That being said, I can think of plenty of uses for said lead weight. Do you know how quickly I'd have that party strapping bombs to me? Because you basically described an intelligent bomb delivery device.

Mutazoia
2016-01-29, 01:43 AM
Blah, blah, blah

So....

Have you actually tried sitting down with this player during character creation and helping him with his build?

Have you asked what kind of character he had in mind and then pointed out choices that would work both with his concept and with the rest of the party?

Have you offered any suggestions during level-up that would help him stick with his character concept and still allow him to keep pace with the rest of the party?

If not, and all you do is sigh and let the other players gripe at him, then I would say that a good chunck of the fault lies in your lap, not your players. You can't assume that everybody knows how to build the super-optimal character, or understands concepts like tiers. Obviously the player in question doesn't, and is making choices that would make for a great character in a group of people that are not, for lack of a better term, power gamers. (And yes, if your idea of character creation is picking out skills/feats/class combinations that maximize your DPS output in favor of everything else, your a power gamer.)

How is your player at the role playing aspect of the role playing game? Does he get into character? Does he contribute to the party in other areas besides raw combat damage? If so, I would say you need to tailor your games to give him more time to shine in those areas. Not everybody that plays an RPG plays for raw combat number crunching...some people play for the "story" and combat is only one small part of it. Those types of people would be easily frustrated when the rest of the party is min-maxing like crazy, and letting your other players bitch at him because he didn't hop on the min-max band wagon is not something a responsible GM should be doing.

LokiRagnarok
2016-01-29, 02:41 AM
Have you tried... crazy suggestion... discussing the problem with him?
It can be as simple as "I feel you feel unhappy with your character recently. Why do you think that is?" Keep asking "why" until you get him to either recognize the source of the problem (or maybe you yourself realize you made a wrong assumption somewhere!)

Then discuss how you can solve it. You received plenty of input for possible solutions already.

A possible discussion could go like this:
"I feel you feel unhappy with your character recently. Why do you think that is?"
"I just am not as effective at anything I do as other characters!"
"Why do you think they perform better?"
"I dunno"
"Well, what makes their fighter different than your monk/healer/paladin/face?"
"...maybe I am trying too many things"
"Yeah, that might be it. How do you think we can solve this?"
"I dunno" (*)
"Well, there is option1/option2/option3/... Would you enjoy any of them?"

(*): at this point the player might also suggest an option you had not anticipated. Evaluate if they would enjoy whatever they suggested.

Talakeal
2016-01-29, 03:10 AM
So....

Have you actually tried sitting down with this player during character creation and helping him with his build?

Have you asked what kind of character he had in mind and then pointed out choices that would work both with his concept and with the rest of the party?

Have you offered any suggestions during level-up that would help him stick with his character concept and still allow him to keep pace with the rest of the party?

If not, and all you do is sigh and let the other players gripe at him, then I would say that a good chunck of the fault lies in your lap, not your players. You can't assume that everybody knows how to build the super-optimal character, or understands concepts like tiers. Obviously the player in question doesn't, and is making choices that would make for a great character in a group of people that are not, for lack of a better term, power gamers. (And yes, if your idea of character creation is picking out skills/feats/class combinations that maximize your DPS output in favor of everything else, your a power gamer.)

How is your player at the role playing aspect of the role playing game? Does he get into character? Does he contribute to the party in other areas besides raw combat damage? If so, I would say you need to tailor your games to give him more time to shine in those areas. Not everybody that plays an RPG plays for raw combat number crunching...some people play for the "story" and combat is only one small part of it. Those types of people would be easily frustrated when the rest of the party is min-maxing like crazy, and letting your other players bitch at him because he didn't hop on the min-max band wagon is not something a responsible GM should be doing.

This thread isn't about one particular player per se, more of a trend.

In my current game yes I asked him what kind of character he had in mind and offered him advice during both creation and level up. I am more concerned about that player himself getting frustrated than with anyone else griping at him. Also, my group is hardly "super-obtimized power gamers who min-max like crazy", I doubt any of them would crack tier 4.


Also, I don't believe I ever specified that it was "combat number crunching" where the player was deficient. Indeed, it usually isn't. Someone who wants to be the party face but has a 6 charisma and no ranks of diplomacy or bluff but still expects to be able to talk themselves out of anything is going to be a much larger problem than someone who is "not optimized for combat."

On that note, I am really curious about why you link damage and power gaming. Are you using "damage" as a short hand for "winning combat" overall? Or just as short hand for being good at anything?

Like, going by what you wrote a blaster wizard would be more of a power gamer than a battlefield control wizard despite the latter being much more powerful. Likewise it seems that you are saying that an offense based warrior with nothing else going for them would be more of a power gamer than a warrior who is good all around, even if the latter would defeat the former in a duel (or contribute more to the party in a fight.)

Heck, in my long running game the "weak-link" in the group, as far as combat goes, is actually the character with the highest damage output simply because they are all offense, draw attention to themselves, and then spend the second half of the fight bleeding out in the dirt as they have no defense.

For that matter, what do you even mean by "power-gamer?" My current PC is fairly optimized, but the areas I am good at are resisting magic and healing others, neither of which is going to give me "power" over anyone. The last time I did play a character who was optimized for damage she was a brain washed assassin who literally never spoke up for herself and obeyed orders without thinking, that's someone who is power-less if you ask me. Heck, the most "powerful" characters imo are those who are optimized for social situations.

gooddragon1
2016-01-29, 03:53 AM
It's interesting to see this from the other side. I would hope that those suggesting letting the character sink or swim would let players know what level of optimization they expect from their players to survive. I can see the reason for that strategy, I just wonder if it's without notice.

Mutazoia
2016-01-29, 04:19 AM
In my current game yes I asked him what kind of character he had in mind and offered him advice during both creation and level up. I am more concerned about that player himself getting frustrated than with anyone else griping at him. Also, my group is hardly "super-obtimized power gamers who min-max like crazy", I doubt any of them would crack tier 4.

What, exactly is frustrating him? In what way is he not "keeping up with the other players"? Before you can solve a problem, you must define it. You cannot simply tell your doctor "I feel sick"...he has to diagnose your symptoms before he can treat the underlying cause.

Your OP stated that your player makes an "un-optimized" character, and gets frustrated, as does your other players because he "can't pull is own weight."

To me..that's a flag that people may be concentrating more on dice mechanics and statistics (whether it be combat related or not) than the "role playing" part of the role playing game.



Also, I don't believe I ever specified that it was "combat number crunching" where the player was deficient. Indeed, it usually isn't. Someone who wants to be the party face but has a 6 charisma and no ranks of diplomacy or bluff but still expects to be able to talk themselves out of anything is going to be a much larger problem than someone who is "not optimized for combat."

Usually, when I hear people complain about other players "not pulling their weight", I assume that the problem is combat related, as there is little else in an RPG that requires "pulling weight". Unless the player in question is just filling a seat a the table like a vegetable and not interacting at all unless poked with a stick....

Now, when I hear people with a 6 Charisma trying to be the face, I see that more as a good role playing opportunity. We all know some one like that....a total a-hole who thinks he's God's gift to the universe.


On that note, I am really curious about why you link damage and power gaming. Are you using "damage" as a short hand for "winning combat" overall? Or just as short hand for being good at anything?

Like, going by what you wrote a blaster wizard would be more of a power gamer than a battlefield control wizard despite the latter being much more powerful. Likewise it seems that you are saying that an offense based warrior with nothing else going for them would be more of a power gamer than a warrior who is good all around, even if the latter would defeat the former in a duel (or contribute more to the party in a fight.)

Certainly.

I tend to link damage with power gaming when people start worrying more about "tiers" (or even worrying about them at all) than the general experience of the game. IMHO, if you are more excited about the highest number you can potentially roll than you are about what you can do with out dice involved...when you put more effort into getting the best possible dice rolls for a situation (be it in or out of combat) than you do a personality, or any other detail of your character for that matter.

Now, I'll admit....I'm an old dog. I've been gaming since D&D was a 8.5x5.5 folded and stapled pamphlet. The entire concept of "Tiers" just makes me shake my head and sigh. Ranking classes in order of power/ability, IMHO is a bunch of useless tripe when it comes to a role playing game. The most powerful character is, to me, the one you have the most fun with, despite, or perhaps even because of, his weaknesses.


Heck, in my long running game the "weak-link" in the group, as far as combat goes, is actually the character with the highest damage output simply because they are all offense, draw attention to themselves, and then spend the second half of the fight bleeding out in the dirt as they have no defense.

For that matter, what do you even mean by "power-gamer?" My current PC is fairly optimized, but the areas I am good at are resisting magic and healing others, neither of which is going to give me "power" over anyone. The last time I did play a character who was optimized for damage she was a brain washed assassin who literally never spoke up for herself and obeyed orders without thinking, that's someone who is power-less if you ask me. Heck, the most "powerful" characters imo are those who are optimized for social situations.

Semantics.

In this instance you could interchange "power gamer" with "min-maxer" or possibly (in extreme cases) "munchkin".

Your "brain washed assassin" was, mechanically speaking, probably one of the strongest of the group, was she not?

goto124
2016-01-29, 06:41 AM
Talakeal was asking for solutions for deadweight characters when their players think these deadweight characters are competent in the exact same stuff they're deadweight in, while you just went on about 'roleplay' and 'powergaming'.

Funny thing about fluff: it can be adjusted to fit nearly everything. A mechanically strong character =/= less interesting/'roleplaying'/whatever.

----

Considering the kind of groups and DMs that Talakeal's been with, I'm not surprised Talakeal has chosen to stick with something that's at least spelled out in the rulebooks and obvious when changed or not followed, as opposed to another thing that isn't really written anywhere.

Where do you get your players from nowadays, by the way?

Mutazoia
2016-01-29, 07:51 AM
Talakeal was asking for solutions for deadweight characters when their players think these deadweight characters are competent in the exact same stuff they're deadweight in, while you just went on about 'roleplay' and 'powergaming'.

Funny thing about fluff: it can be adjusted to fit nearly everything. A mechanically strong character =/= less interesting/'roleplaying'/whatever.

----

Considering the kind of groups and DMs that Talakeal's been with, I'm not surprised Talakeal has chosen to stick with something that's at least spelled out in the rulebooks and obvious when changed or not followed, as opposed to another thing that isn't really written anywhere.

Where do you get your players from nowadays, by the way?

Well, if you read my original response, you see that I ask what he has tried as far as solutions, i.e. has he tried working with the player during the creation process, and commented that I could understand players getting frustrated if the other players are getting pissy at him because he's not "pulling his weight." That's a bit different from what you just said.

With little else to go on, the problem that stood out to me in the OP was that the player in question was "not optimized", which to me reads as "not designed perfectly from a pure mechanics standpoint". Power gaming, IMHO.

Characters that think they are good at something and are not (or players who think their characters are good at something when they are not), is nothing new. Learning the difference, or learning to cope with the difference is all part of growing, both as a person, and as a gamer. When a GM allows not only the player to be frustrated with his character, but allows the other players to be openly frustrated with said character, he's not really taking charge of the situation. And naturally, all the comments about "just kill him off" are just the type of response I would expect from...well power gamers,(or worse) to be honest. If the fact that some one else's character doesn't meet YOUR standards bothers you that much, you need to step back and re-evaluate things a bit.

There are several ways to deal with the problem....

For example, I could point out that, to use one of the OP's examples, a character with a charisma of 6 trying to be the face, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Because you don't always have to let the dice decide for you.

Example: Thief with a Chr of 6 get's caught skulking about on the roof top of a money-lender's house in the middle of the night.

Letting the dice decide:
Guard: Halt! what are you doing up here?
Thief player: I convince the guard to let me go.

Okay...in that instance you could use a dice roll. The player isn't doing much role playing here...he's roll playing.

OR

Guard: Halt! What are you doing up here?
Thief player: I WAS chasing a thief who just tried to rob my boss down the street. I lost sight of him and stopped to listen for his footsteps when you showed up.

There is a player who is role playing. In this, or similar cases, I would argue that good role playing would negate the need for a dice roll, unless the player is trying to convince the guard to do or believe something unreasonable, such as that the player is an undercover member of the city watch or to let him in to the money-lender's for a cut of the take.

The thing is...too many GM's let the dice decide more than they should. They focus on the mechanics of the game and have trouble knowing when to use RAW vs. RAI for example.

Raimun
2016-01-29, 08:40 AM
What to do? It's pretty simple, there are two options. I assume we are talking about a situation in an ideal world:

1) The player is invested in the character and thus keeps playing it. I've seen plenty of people who have actually been happy about their wildly inffective characters, even if I've been sometimes openly concerned that my own character stole their spotlight to advance the story with his highly relevant, even plot crucial capabilities. This is because, just like in other media, a well crafted and entertaining character is not necessarily defined by their efficiency. And never solely by it.

2) The player is more bored of than invested in the character and thus changes character. You don't even need to kill the character, just ask your GM (who should generally agree) and make an exitus that makes sense. I've done it, other people have done it. At the worst, I've been merely given a delay, because my current, soon to be ex-character is kind of needed for plot and story related purposes.

Communication, people.

Hmm...



On that note, I am really curious about why you link damage and power gaming. Are you using "damage" as a short hand for "winning combat" overall? Or just as short hand for being good at anything?

Like, going by what you wrote a blaster wizard would be more of a power gamer than a battlefield control wizard despite the latter being much more powerful. Likewise it seems that you are saying that an offense based warrior with nothing else going for them would be more of a power gamer than a warrior who is good all around, even if the latter would defeat the former in a duel (or contribute more to the party in a fight.)

Heck, in my long running game the "weak-link" in the group, as far as combat goes, is actually the character with the highest damage output simply because they are all offense, draw attention to themselves, and then spend the second half of the fight bleeding out in the dirt as they have no defense.

For that matter, what do you even mean by "power-gamer?" My current PC is fairly optimized, but the areas I am good at are resisting magic and healing others, neither of which is going to give me "power" over anyone. The last time I did play a character who was optimized for damage she was a brain washed assassin who literally never spoke up for herself and obeyed orders without thinking, that's someone who is power-less if you ask me. Heck, the most "powerful" characters imo are those who are optimized for social situations.

Like the Friendly, Neighborhood Lich said: "Power equals power." Power has many forms, depending on the situation at hand. What is power in one situation, might not be in an another.

For example, I would normally agree that optimizing for social situations is pretty damn powerful but I once played in a campaign as a socialite, with supernatural power over people's minds. Normally, that would be a powerful combination but all the opposition were mindless, shapeless monsters and machinery. Needless to say, my character didn't feel powerful, because he simply wasn't that in those situations. That guy would have totally rocked in the same system with a more standard scenario.

Damage is highly useful in many games but it's not the end all, be all of power. For example, if you die before or even after you've done your damage, can you really claim to be powerful? Or if the situation at calls for abilities other than high damage out put?

Segev
2016-01-29, 09:00 AM
Are you sure that is a good idea? Every time I have suggested something like that in the past this forum has given me a resounding "It is never the GM's place to get involved in loot distribution."As general advice, that's good. But when you have a specific meta-game purpose of making a specific character who is underpowered more relevant, explaining ahead of time that you're giving him something to make him able to contribute is not inappropriate.

But you can also, as I said, have the item be given explicitly to him, possibly with strings attached that make taking it from him not a realistic option (outside the most murderhobo PvP-obsessed bunch of psychopaths that ever somehow managed to stay together at the same table).

For instance, if the healer gets a blessed holy symbol from a high-ranking priest of his religion, it's unlikely it'd be useful to the rogue, and even if it were, the rogue taking it for himself would earn wrath from NPCs without the DM having to contrive a thing. The holy symbol, as a mechanical magic item, could do whatever it is you think the healer is deficient in.

If he's just not able to keep up in the healing action economy, it could auto-quicken a healing spell each round. OR it could raise his CL for purposes of healing, making some spells more effective. Or, if he's too fragile and wading into combat to heal but getting so badly hurt he can't afford not to heal himself, it could have a high-save-DC Sanctuary effect.

Grim Portent
2016-01-29, 09:01 AM
If a player has made a character that isn't able to perform up to their expectations it is not your responsibility to deal with beyond informing them that the option to change their characters build is on the table at the start of the game. If they reject this offer then it's on their head if the character isn't living up to their expectations. It's the responsibility of the player to make a character they enjoy playing, all you have to do is allow them to change if they decide they don't like what they made.

Talakeal
2016-01-29, 03:04 PM
To me..that's a flag that people may be concentrating more on dice mechanics and statistics (whether it be combat related or not) than the "role playing" part of the role playing game.

That's certainly true. I am perfectly content with gaming sessions where we just sit around talking IC, and the aesthetics of my character are always more important to me than their abilities. But I appear to be an exception in the circles I hang out with.

Still, while they enjoy combat and problem solving and character building, they are not what I would call power gamers, at least by the standards of this forum. Half the advice I read on here just makes me roll my eyes and shake my head because it is so far out of the scope of anything in my campaign world.


Now, when I hear people with a 6 Charisma trying to be the face, I see that more as a good role playing opportunity. We all know some one like that....a total a-hole who thinks he's God's gift to the universe.

Yeah, its fun. But when the players (and their characters) are interested in solving a problem rather than goofing around it gets old pretty quick. That sort of character works as a protagonist in Dumb and Dumber, not so well in Star Trek. And it especially doesn't work if the player thinks wants to be a silver tongued devil but the mechanics don't back it up.


I tend to link damage with power gaming when people start worrying more about "tiers" (or even worrying about them at all) than the general experience of the game. IMHO, if you are more excited about the highest number you can potentially roll than you are about what you can do with out dice involved...when you put more effort into getting the best possible dice rolls for a situation (be it in or out of combat) than you do a personality, or any other detail of your character for that matter.

Now, I'll admit....I'm an old dog. I've been gaming since D&D was a 8.5x5.5 folded and stapled pamphlet. The entire concept of "Tiers" just makes me shake my head and sigh. Ranking classes in order of power/ability, IMHO is a bunch of useless tripe when it comes to a role playing game. The most powerful character is, to me, the one you have the most fun with, despite, or perhaps even because of, his weaknesses.

IIRC tiers measure the class' versatility rather than power and don't apply to individual characters. I am told they are a useful tool in understanding just how badly WoTC borked the balance and the extra steps a DM has to take to compensate in designing the adventure.

Also, wasn't old school gaming about solving problems and overcoming challenges and less about acting in character?


Semantics.

Yes, it absolutely is semantics. You made the statement "And yes, if your idea of character creation is picking out skills/feats/class combinations that maximize your DPS output in favor of everything else, your a power gamer," which is a rather extreme black and white view, and I was trying to ask questions to get a better picture of exactly what you meant by it.


Your "brain washed assassin" was, mechanically speaking, probably one of the strongest of the group, was she not?

Again, it depends on what you mean by strongest. If you mean "can inflict the most damage in combat," then yes. If you mean more likely to win a combat on her own or against another PC then no. If you mean most likely to influence success or failure of the mission, then again no. And if you mean has the most ability to impact the world, then once more no.

This was Shadowrun, and do to the way the rules worked in that edition we all started out super specialized in our area of expertise. The party consisted of me for stealth and melee combat, a troll heavy weapons guy who handled ranged combat and who could soak up as much damage as I could inflict, a computer expert who could hack just about anything, and an elven diplomat who could more or less mind control anyone she talked to.


Example: Thief with a Chr of 6 get's caught skulking about on the roof top of a money-lender's house in the middle of the night.

Letting the dice decide:
Guard: Halt! what are you doing up here?
Thief player: I convince the guard to let me go.

Okay...in that instance you could use a dice roll. The player isn't doing much role playing here...he's roll playing.

OR

Guard: Halt! What are you doing up here?
Thief player: I WAS chasing a thief who just tried to rob my boss down the street. I lost sight of him and stopped to listen for his footsteps when you showed up.

There is a player who is role playing. In this, or similar cases, I would argue that good role playing would negate the need for a dice roll, unless the player is trying to convince the guard to do or believe something unreasonable, such as that the player is an undercover member of the city watch or to let him in to the money-lender's for a cut of the take.

The thing is...too many GM's let the dice decide more than they should. They focus on the mechanics of the game and have trouble knowing when to use RAW vs. RAI for example.

Its kind of funny, that's usually the exact opposite of my problem.

When I DM the players always insist that their characters are so much better at speaking than they are that it is unfair for me to expect the player to come up with a coherent argument.

On the other hand when I play my DM insists that it would be cheating if he allowed me to make an eloquent argument on a character who hasn't spent the points in social skills to back it up.

CombatBunny
2016-01-29, 03:49 PM
I think that the main problem relies in expectations.

Once I heard that character sheets are like a menu that reflect what kind of adventures do each player expects to play. If a player creates a character with a high “Playing piano” ability and a low combat ability, he is expecting that the adventure will tend to put him in situations where performing is important to the story while combat is not.

Thus, you should talk to all and each of your players so that they explain why did they create their characters as they did and what do they expect from the game.

If you deny their decisions just because they aren’t optimal for the game or else they will get killed, you are basically trying to play a chessboard game in which player A gets to be the white queen, player B gets to be a black knight and player C gets to be a black bishop. Player’s are encouraged to role-play all that they want and scream and speak out dialogues whenever they feel like doing it (for example when their “character” attacks), but the mechanics and objectives will still be surviving and capturing the opponents king.

In fact, that’s pretty much how D&D systems behave. They are basically board-games in which players get to role-play if they feel like, but they could as well be played out of character all along and still accomplish every objective of the adventure.

Talakeal
2016-01-29, 03:58 PM
I think that the main problem relies in expectations.

Once I heard that character sheets are like a menu that reflect what kind of adventures do each player expects to play. If a player creates a character with a high “Playing piano” ability and a low combat ability, he is expecting that the adventure will tend to put him in situations where performing is important to the story while combat is not.

Thus, you should talk to all and each of your players so that they explain why did they create their characters as they did and what do they expect from the game.

If you deny their decisions just because they aren’t optimal for the game or else they will get killed, you are basically trying to play a chessboard game in which player A gets to be the white queen, player B gets to be a black knight and player C gets to be a black bishop. Player’s are encouraged to role-play all that they want and scream and speak out dialogues whenever they feel like doing it (for example when their “character” attacks), but the mechanics and objectives will still be surviving and capturing the opponents king.

In fact, that’s pretty much how D&D systems behave. They are basically board-games in which players get to role-play if they feel like, but they could as well play out of character all along and still accomplish every objective of the adventure.

Normally the problem arises when a player wants to do something but can't, usually as a result of their character being spread too thin, whether it be by multi-classing frequently without any synergy in a class based game or by purchasing a whole lot of low levels of unrelated abilities without any real specialty.

For example, in my long running Heart of Darkness (see Signature for more info /plug) campaign one of the players is simultaneously:

A gunslinger
A craftsman
An alchemist
A techomancer
A priest
and to a lesser extent a scholar.

She is really good in all of them, but as a result of trying to split her focus between so many different roles she had to neglect her physical abilities. She isn't strong enough to carry around all the tools she needs for the various roles, and cannot wear armor or invest in a good constitution or stealth skills, so, as I said above, she deals a lot of damage and draws attention to herself, but can't take any damage in return and spends the second half of every fight bleeding out in the dirt.



As general advice, that's good. But when you have a specific meta-game purpose of making a specific character who is underpowered more relevant, explaining ahead of time that you're giving him something to make him able to contribute is not inappropriate.

But you can also, as I said, have the item be given explicitly to him, possibly with strings attached that make taking it from him not a realistic option (outside the most murderhobo PvP-obsessed bunch of psychopaths that ever somehow managed to stay together at the same table).

For instance, if the healer gets a blessed holy symbol from a high-ranking priest of his religion, it's unlikely it'd be useful to the rogue, and even if it were, the rogue taking it for himself would earn wrath from NPCs without the DM having to contrive a thing. The holy symbol, as a mechanical magic item, could do whatever it is you think the healer is deficient in.

If he's just not able to keep up in the healing action economy, it could auto-quicken a healing spell each round. OR it could raise his CL for purposes of healing, making some spells more effective. Or, if he's too fragile and wading into combat to heal but getting so badly hurt he can't afford not to heal himself, it could have a high-save-DC Sanctuary effect.

Basically I can recall three times where loot distribution threw off the balance of my game.

One time we were playing a point by system and a "gadgeteer" hero entered the party, played for one session, died, and then left the game in a huff. The other PCs wanted to loot all his gadgets, which he spent the majority of his BP on, which majorly threw off their own power.
Another time the party wizard convinced the group that rather than dividing up treasure it should all go to buying him more spells, as spells in his book were far more valuable than magic items in the hands of lowly tier ones.
And another time a player refused to chip in for party expenses and refused to use any form of consumable item, which meant the rest of the group had to buy more to pick up his slack even as he amassed a larger and larger wealth advantage over them.

All three times this happened it knocked campaign balance out of whack, and made it impossible to stick to the "recommended WBL", but when I asked for advice on the forum the response was almost unanimously "Let the players handle it. Loot distribution is completely outside of the DM's hands, and you are a bad person for even thinking about it,"

Frankly I am kind of scared to introduce something like this as it might throw game balance further out of whack, or might make the other players upset and jealous. Hell, they might even demand he sell the item and give him a share of the money. And yes, this absolutely is a thing that might happen; One time I gave a big epic plot relevant sword that only the PC who was lagging behind in power could use, and the other players calculated its value, divided it evenly into shares, and then insisted that the player who got to use the sword owed them each that much gold as compensation.

Segev
2016-01-29, 04:01 PM
On the subject of the Cha 6 thief... heck no, the player coming up with a great line shouldn't let him get away without a roll.

Would you let somebody with a brilliant sword maneuver they could demonstrate in person kill a foe without having to roll to hit?

Letting people obviate their stats by having good IRL conversation skills isn't role-play. It's not "playing" at all. Good RP involves actually playing the character you have. And a witty, convincing rejoinder out of a player's mouth is probably not so witty nor convincing out of the mouth of the unlikable clod with Cha 6.


Imagine if you have two players: Silver Tongue and Foot Enmouth. Foot wants to play a charismatic rogue. Silver Tongue wants to play a powerfully-built thug. Foot builds himself a character with a high Cha and all the social skills, letting his physical abilities and the like suffer to be really good at what he does. Silver neglects and even dumps all the social stuff to be more physically powerful.

If Silver is allowed to never have to roll social stuff because he is just that witty in real life and says his character says whatever witty and persuasive stuff Silver says, then Silver is at least as good as Foot at social stuff in the game...while being far superior in physical challenges (e.g. combat). Foot, meanwhile, gets glared at for being a "rollplayer" for daring to hope that his charismatic rogue might be able to exploit his high social stats to win people over when his IRL clunky phrasing and failure to read a room makes his character - if it's assumed his character says what Foot said - sound totally unlikable and unbelievable.

So no, do NOT allow social rolls to be bypassed just because the PLAYER gave a good speech.

Talakeal
2016-01-29, 04:06 PM
On the subject of the Cha 6 thief... heck no, the player coming up with a great line shouldn't let him get away without a roll.

Would you let somebody with a brilliant sword maneuver they could demonstrate in person kill a foe without having to roll to hit?

Letting people obviate their stats by having good IRL conversation skills isn't role-play. It's not "playing" at all. Good RP involves actually playing the character you have. And a witty, convincing rejoinder out of a player's mouth is probably not so witty nor convincing out of the mouth of the unlikable clod with Cha 6.


Imagine if you have two players: Silver Tongue and Foot Enmouth. Foot wants to play a charismatic rogue. Silver Tongue wants to play a powerfully-built thug. Foot builds himself a character with a high Cha and all the social skills, letting his physical abilities and the like suffer to be really good at what he does. Silver neglects and even dumps all the social stuff to be more physically powerful.

If Silver is allowed to never have to roll social stuff because he is just that witty in real life and says his character says whatever witty and persuasive stuff Silver says, then Silver is at least as good as Foot at social stuff in the game...while being far superior in physical challenges (e.g. combat). Foot, meanwhile, gets glared at for being a "rollplayer" for daring to hope that his charismatic rogue might be able to exploit his high social stats to win people over when his IRL clunky phrasing and failure to read a room makes his character - if it's assumed his character says what Foot said - sound totally unlikable and unbelievable.

So no, do NOT allow social rolls to be bypassed just because the PLAYER gave a good speech.

I try and appease both styles. I ask the player what they are saying (I don't care how well they act it out or how eloquent they are) and then I will set the difficulty of the charisma check based on the merits of their argument.

Sith_Happens
2016-01-29, 04:06 PM
I do keep the challenge set to the level of the party, although again this only leads to increased frustration for the player who can't keep up (and to a lesser extent everyone else, who gets frustrated at them for not pulling their own weight, which then makes them even more frustrated as they are taking crap from their fellow players).

1. Tell the player in question in specific terms that the reason for their frustration is due to their building a less effective character than the rest of the group.

2. Point out some possible ways in which they could improve their character and thereby make things less frustrating.

3. MOST IMPORTANT STEP: Make it clear that while they are free to ignore your advice, any continued frustration resulting from such is Not Your ProblemTM.

CombatBunny
2016-01-29, 04:18 PM
Normally the problem arises when a player wants to do something but can't...

...She is really good in all of them, but as a result of trying to split her focus between so many different roles she had to neglect her physical abilities...

Oh, I misinterpreted your problem.

No, in that case I’m afraid your player is the one with the problem.

You should talk to her but not in terms of mechanics. Ask her what’s her character’s “high concept”; Why is she choosing so many and diverse areas of expertise? Don’t mention the rules, talk in terms of what does an author expects his character to be.

Once you have that, now then talk in rules term so that in conjunction you can come with a character that both fulfills her high-concept and works for the game.

“Having all classes available” is not a high-concept. “Having a jack-of-all-trades” character, “James bond like spy” or “MacGyver like storekeeper” is in fact a character concept that can be adapted in terms of a playable character.

If your player isn’t opened to that kind of discussion, I would be puzzled as to what kind of game is she expecting to play at all.

You can always rule things like “no, you can’t have more than three classes due to game balance”, but always try to negotiate until you have a character that makes happy both the player and the GM.

LnGrrrR
2016-01-29, 05:35 PM
I have had a problem come up in several games, one of the players makes one or more very un-optimal choices in character creation and the result is a character who can't perform the way they expect it to, let alone keep up with the rest of the party or more adventures.

If I see this coming as a GM I have two choices, neither of which work out.

If I make a big deal about it they often get defensive and accuse me of trying to take away their agency, and sometimes they even seem to get really stubborn continue playing the character as is just to "prove me wrong".

If I don't make a big enough deal about it they continue playing the character and then get frustrated at the inability to do what they want to do, and then they stop having fun as a result of their frustration and then either abandon the character or leave the game entirely.

Anyone else have this problem? What do you do?

I'd go with the "make the player leave the game entirely" option since he/she seems like a jerk anyways.


A monk who is built for pure avoidance and has a bajillion points of armor class and +elventy billion to all saves isn't going to be the first one to die, but he also won't contribute anything to the party's success either if he can't also deal out damage and pass active skill checks.

For example, in my current party the weakest link is the team healer. He might cause a death in the party, but it almost certainly won't be HIS death.

Actually, there's a perfect use for that character. Send him in to fight all the enemies by himself. After they all attack him, have the rest of your party shoot them from afar.


For that matter, what do you even mean by "power-gamer?" My current PC is fairly optimized, but the areas I am good at are resisting magic and healing others, neither of which is going to give me "power" over anyone. The last time I did play a character who was optimized for damage she was a brain washed assassin who literally never spoke up for herself and obeyed orders without thinking, that's someone who is power-less if you ask me. Heck, the most "powerful" characters imo are those who are optimized for social situations.

No, no no. DnD is at heart not a "social" game, it is a combat based game with some light social RP. There are a lot more DnD games that focus on combat than there are social skills. This is also evidenced by the fact that there are discrete XP points for monsters, and none for "talked well to someone". Your assassin was likely min/maxed, I'm assuming. Creating some "social disadvantages" can be admirable, but it doesn't really have any mechanical downfall. The fact that you are trying to argue around the "power gamer" term implies you might be one. This whole thread is about a "sub-optimal" build... if you understand there are levels of optimal build, then you should also understand that there are "optimal" builds out there. Sure, it may not play into your current game, but overall, some builds are obviously more optimal than others.

Necroticplague
2016-01-29, 05:59 PM
Er, this looks like a bad case of trying to eat your cake and have it. If the problem is that the character is horrible, the solution is for them to either get a new character, or change the current one. If the player refuses to do either, then they must be fine with the consequences, and thus there's no problem. If the aren't fine with the consequences, then they should fix the problem. If they refuse to either fix the problem or accept the consequences, they're a whiny *******.

Knaight
2016-01-29, 06:27 PM
So in this situation, the DM has to make a choice:
1. The player can make stupid choices that can perhaps kill the character, or
2. The character cannot make meaningful choices that affect whether their characters live or die.

If you choose option 2, I recommend that you not tell the players that you will keep them alive no matter how poor their choices. If you choose option 1, they need to know that their choices can affect their character's lives.

This is an oversimplification in so many ways. Even if the characters can't be killed due to pure stupidity, there are a whole host of other ways in which they can end up dying that can have meaningful choices attached, starting with calculated risks and deliberate self sacrifices. Similarly, in option 2 the players absolutely still affect their character's lives, as in most games said lives are a little bit more complex than a dead or not-dead boolean.

Talakeal
2016-01-29, 07:07 PM
Er, this looks like a bad case of trying to eat your cake and have it. If the problem is that the character is horrible, the solution is for them to either get a new character, or change the current one. If the player refuses to do either, then they must be fine with the consequences, and thus there's no problem. If the aren't fine with the consequences, then they should fix the problem. If they refuse to either fix the problem or accept the consequences, they're a whiny *******.

I would agree with you if people were purely logical.

The problem is that people rarely analyze their own feelings. The player will just know they are frustrated and not having fun, and they will probably look for excuses that blame the other players, the DM, the game rules, or even the dice rather than actually making the connection between their own actions and the outcome.

Very rarely do people actually come to me when they have a problem with a game. Usually they don't even make a scene and tell me off or formally quit, they just kind of make excuses to stop showing up and then fade away.

Coidzor
2016-01-29, 08:38 PM
OP: "Playing on hardmode, eh? Are you sure?"

LnGrrrR: Yes and no. You need at least a modicum of the players and the GM being able to be civil with one another in order to play, and it generally works better when relations are better than merely civil.

Talakeal
2016-01-29, 09:08 PM
No, no no. DnD is at heart not a "social" game, it is a combat based game with some light social RP. There are a lot more DnD games that focus on combat than there are social skills. This is also evidenced by the fact that there are discrete XP points for monsters, and none for "talked well to someone". Your assassin was likely min/maxed, I'm assuming. Creating some "social disadvantages" can be admirable, but it doesn't really have any mechanical downfall. The fact that you are trying to argue around the "power gamer" term implies you might be one. This whole thread is about a "sub-optimal" build... if you understand there are levels of optimal build, then you should also understand that there are "optimal" builds out there. Sure, it may not play into your current game, but overall, some builds are obviously more optimal than others.

Yeah, I might be a power-gamer. I don't believe it is my primary focus, and it is a spectrum rather than an absolute, but I am certainly not opposed to playing a character who is "the best" at something, if I don't have to sacrifice character concept or aesthetics to do so.

Optimal means nothing in a vacuum, you have to be optimized for something. I am just curious why someone who is optimized towards damage automatically makes you a power-gamer when other forms of optimization, even combat optimization, do not.

Necroticplague
2016-01-29, 09:52 PM
Optimal means nothing in a vacuum, you have to be optimized for something.

Also with something as well. Optimization means nothing without limits on resources you can use.

Mutazoia
2016-01-30, 12:47 AM
On the subject of the Cha 6 thief... heck no, the player coming up with a great line shouldn't let him get away without a roll.

Would you let somebody with a brilliant sword maneuver they could demonstrate in person kill a foe without having to roll to hit?

Letting people obviate their stats by having good IRL conversation skills isn't role-play. It's not "playing" at all. Good RP involves actually playing the character you have. And a witty, convincing rejoinder out of a player's mouth is probably not so witty nor convincing out of the mouth of the unlikable clod with Cha 6.


Imagine if you have two players: Silver Tongue and Foot Enmouth. Foot wants to play a charismatic rogue. Silver Tongue wants to play a powerfully-built thug. Foot builds himself a character with a high Cha and all the social skills, letting his physical abilities and the like suffer to be really good at what he does. Silver neglects and even dumps all the social stuff to be more physically powerful.

If Silver is allowed to never have to roll social stuff because he is just that witty in real life and says his character says whatever witty and persuasive stuff Silver says, then Silver is at least as good as Foot at social stuff in the game...while being far superior in physical challenges (e.g. combat). Foot, meanwhile, gets glared at for being a "rollplayer" for daring to hope that his charismatic rogue might be able to exploit his high social stats to win people over when his IRL clunky phrasing and failure to read a room makes his character - if it's assumed his character says what Foot said - sound totally unlikable and unbelievable.

So no, do NOT allow social rolls to be bypassed just because the PLAYER gave a good speech.

We all know ( or at least know of ) that one person. He's a total a-hole, a sleeze, not the most pleasant person to be around. The guy who manages to get a girl, and cheats on her constantly. And every time he's caught, he talks his way out of it, and his girl keeps taking him back every time. Or how about the school bully who gets caught in the act of bullying another kid and gets nothing more than a slap on the wrist at best. It IS possible for a un-charismatic person to talk his way out of trouble.

Now if your Chr 6 thief is trying to pass of something that is obviously total bull, or convince some one to do something that would get them in trouble, or some other situation that would be a hard sell, sure...make them roll. But simple things, where benefit of the doubt would be reasonable, a roll isn't always necessary.

As for combat, there is a lot more going on that just talking. All involved parties are ducking, dodging, parrying, wearing armor...so naturally you roll to hit.


No, no no. DnD is at heart not a "social" game, it is a combat based game with some light social RP. There are a lot more DnD games that focus on combat than there are social skills. This is also evidenced by the fact that there are discrete XP points for monsters, and none for "talked well to someone"

I can see that argument being more true with 3.X + versions of the game. In earlier versions, combat wasn't always the answer to every problem. Hell, a lot of the times you tried to avoid combat as much, if not more, than you charged in, swords swinging. You got experience for killing the monster, you got experience for getting the treasure (admittedly the "cash for XP" system was kind of silly and was cut from from the rules when AD&D came about). 3.X grants XP for disarming traps, which is not technically a combat function, and also the 3.X DMGs talk about granting "story XP".

The reason that there are so many combat related rules, is because that is the one thing that a set of written rules can quantify. Social interactions, not so much. Look at Diplomacy. If you get your Diplomacy skill high enough, you can convince a LG Paladin that sacrificing babies to the god of pure evil and chaos is just what the goddess of love and fluffy kittens wants him to do, because it's a simple opposed skill check.

Darth Ultron
2016-01-30, 12:58 AM
Anyone else have this problem? What do you do?

All the time.

Most of the time I just ignore it. After all the vast majority of ''optimized'' characters are ineffective too.

If the player really needs help, I'm all for altering the game reality to make their character effective. I will always do so ''secretly'' and not tell any of the players.

Segev
2016-01-31, 11:55 AM
We all know ( or at least know of ) that one person. He's a total a-hole, a sleeze, not the most pleasant person to be around. The guy who manages to get a girl, and cheats on her constantly. And every time he's caught, he talks his way out of it, and his girl keeps taking him back every time. Or how about the school bully who gets caught in the act of bullying another kid and gets nothing more than a slap on the wrist at best. It IS possible for a un-charismatic person to talk his way out of trouble. No, it's possible to be somebody that people don't like, but can't help but be charmed by. High charisma doesn't make up for the fact that you ran over her dog yesterday. It only lets you make her feel more rotten for not feeling more forgiving. She still wants nothing to do with you; she just isn't doing anything specific for revenge. Right now.

Being a jerk still makes you somebody nobody wants to be around. High charisma just lets you weasel your way out of trouble when you ARE around.

If you have 6 Cha, you're not getting out of it just because your player came up with a good lie, where I would force a less witty player with a higher Cha to roll. With 6 cha, your PC didn't come up with that smoothe line. Or if he did, his delivery was utterly flat. "Er, um, there was this guy, and I was...chasing him? Yeah, go tell your boss, and let me go after him. 'cause I'm not the thief, that other guy was!"

The PC might forehead-slap at the stupidity stumbling out of his mouth a moment after he says it, but it's how his brilliantly-thought-out lie gets twisted by his utter lack of talent for performance, lying, BSing, and smooth-talking.

ericgrau
2016-01-31, 12:03 PM
I have had a problem come up in several games, one of the players makes one or more very un-optimal choices in character creation and the result is a character who can't perform the way they expect it to, let alone keep up with the rest of the party or more adventures.

If I see this coming as a GM I have two choices, neither of which work out.

If I make a big deal about it they often get defensive and accuse me of trying to take away their agency, and sometimes they even seem to get really stubborn continue playing the character as is just to "prove me wrong".

If I don't make a big enough deal about it they continue playing the character and then get frustrated at the inability to do what they want to do, and then they stop having fun as a result of their frustration and then either abandon the character or leave the game entirely.

Anyone else have this problem? What do you do?
If they don't want to change their character that's up to them. If they abandon their character and start a new one later I don't really see the problem. Seems like a solution. You can also offer a partial rebuild where he keeps the same character and backstory but changes a little of the build.

I'm in favor of partial retraining for all characters. Plus that way the player of the weak character feels less singled out. Every level let them retrain 1 of each level, feat, 1 skill point and/or other character option. That way he can say this ability was a mistake, I want this one instead. And this way you aren't the one telling him what to play or that his character is bad.

If you want to give a gentle nudge then offer to boost the character's feats to something more on par with the rest of the group. If you give me a character and one of his allies for comparison I can sort through the weak feats and so on (relative to the ally) and offer you boosted versions. He might still refuse and say his build doesn't need a boost, but he might be tempted to accept a little bit. Especially if you boost a couple obviously weak abilities and don't overdo it.

PoeticDwarf
2016-01-31, 01:46 PM
This. Simply keep the challenges fixed to the level of the party, not the level of the useless character. Eventually, this will end up with that character getting killed. The replacement will usually be more competent. If it isn't, keep letting them die until the player removes cranium from rectum.

Could be a solution. There will be even more chance they don't want to play tho.

I would say suggesting some better options. Not that it is like you want to put the concept away or something. Say it works better for fluff

Mordar
2016-02-01, 04:25 PM
Throughout the history of the world, there have been people who play games poorly.

Football. Chess. Monopoly. Mancala. Poker. Whist. Bridge.

It doesn't matter what the game is. If the player can make choices, some players will choose better than others. It therefore follows that the others will choose less well.

In virtually all games, including D&D before 3e, people who play games poorly lose. That's normal, and natural, and what "playing a game poorly" always meant.

But in D&D from 3e forward, there is a new notion, alien to all game-playing for the last 5,000 years, that nobody should ever lose the game.[SNIP]

I know this sounds cruel and heartless. It's not. It's just the simple truth - either their choices can affect whether their characters live or die, or their choices cannot affect that. Some people like one type of play; others like the other.

But if their choices have life-or-death consequences, they should know that.

I feel like you have the timeline a little reversed. I didn't play the black and white box version of the game, but I have played from Basic D&D through 4e (not yet any 5e), in an array of groups and situations. Very *very* seldom pre-3e was it a high-mortality game. Even though we were in the learning stages of RPG development there was a lot of focus on not wiping parties (even though that was nowhere near a term yet) and lots of mulligans or DM modifications on the fly. Sure, playing modules with pre-constructed characters was a different matter entirely, but that was the rarity. The influx of MMO game styles (and perhaps players) into RPGs I think changed the dynamics greatly. Now, around the 3e time there were also a number of other games by other companies that discouraged character mortality (while also making it scary since not every party had "rez plz" as shorthand)...like Vampire, for one.

Of course, your mileage may vary...but D&D games seem to have become much more win/lose since 3e.

How does this impact the question at hand? Well, I guess it boils down to this...is the group playing with a motif that suggests you can win D&D, or are they playing with the goal of creating the shared story? Perhaps too reductionist...are they playing with the goal of maintaining characters over the long run? (This is achievable and without rendering character ability irrelevant or living in a world of railroads and plot armor.) Then consider the same questions with "player" in place of "group". If there is a mismatch in answers, that will greatly complicate the process.

I guess the answers really determine the likelihood of successful resolution - but in all cases I think it does come down to a one-on-one conversation about the player's expectations of the game and the character, and an offer of well-intentioned help. Unless they are playing a pink ninja. Then just keep killing them off...

- M

AMFV
2016-02-02, 12:13 PM
I have had a problem come up in several games, one of the players makes one or more very un-optimal choices in character creation and the result is a character who can't perform the way they expect it to, let alone keep up with the rest of the party or more adventures.

If I see this coming as a GM I have two choices, neither of which work out.

If I make a big deal about it they often get defensive and accuse me of trying to take away their agency, and sometimes they even seem to get really stubborn continue playing the character as is just to "prove me wrong".

If I don't make a big enough deal about it they continue playing the character and then get frustrated at the inability to do what they want to do, and then they stop having fun as a result of their frustration and then either abandon the character or leave the game entirely.

Anyone else have this problem? What do you do?

It depends on why the character is ineffective. Is it because their mechanical planning is horrible, or because they can't conceptualize how to actually get from a concept to mechanics? If that's the case then maybe you should be more involved with them as they create the character to try to get things to match more what they're imagining, with gentle nudges. You can also build encounters around their strengths (occasionally) this will give them the spotlight, and then they'll enjoy themselves even if their character is subpar the rest of the time. I've found balance disputes in gaming have more to do with sharing the spotlight than anything else, and that's easier to fix.

Pex
2016-02-02, 02:22 PM
There are several ways to deal with the problem....

For example, I could point out that, to use one of the OP's examples, a character with a charisma of 6 trying to be the face, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Because you don't always have to let the dice decide for you.

Example: Thief with a Chr of 6 get's caught skulking about on the roof top of a money-lender's house in the middle of the night.

Letting the dice decide:
Guard: Halt! what are you doing up here?
Thief player: I convince the guard to let me go.

Okay...in that instance you could use a dice roll. The player isn't doing much role playing here...he's roll playing.

OR

Guard: Halt! What are you doing up here?
Thief player: I WAS chasing a thief who just tried to rob my boss down the street. I lost sight of him and stopped to listen for his footsteps when you showed up.

There is a player who is role playing. In this, or similar cases, I would argue that good role playing would negate the need for a dice roll, unless the player is trying to convince the guard to do or believe something unreasonable, such as that the player is an undercover member of the city watch or to let him in to the money-lender's for a cut of the take.

The thing is...too many GM's let the dice decide more than they should. They focus on the mechanics of the game and have trouble knowing when to use RAW vs. RAI for example.

Then the player who is a smooth talker in real life can always dump CH, put no ranks in Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate, and have his way with NPCs because the DM likes what he says. Meanwhile, the more introverted player or one who can't think fast in the excitement of the moment never has helpful NPCs despite having 18 Charisma and lots of ranks in Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate because the DM hates what he says.

This is not an either/or situation. A player should make some effort to roleplay his character, say something his character would say to convince the guards to let him pass, but investing in ability score and skill ranks, the game mechanics, the "rollplaying", should also mean something. That's the "game" part of a "roleplaying game".

Talakeal
2016-02-02, 02:26 PM
It depends on why the character is ineffective. Is it because their mechanical planning is horrible, or because they can't conceptualize how to actually get from a concept to mechanics? If that's the case then maybe you should be more involved with them as they create the character to try to get things to match more what they're imagining, with gentle nudges. You can also build encounters around their strengths (occasionally) this will give them the spotlight, and then they'll enjoy themselves even if their character is subpar the rest of the time. I've found balance disputes in gaming have more to do with sharing the spotlight than anything else, and that's easier to fix.

Usually its a lack of focus. They say "I want to do this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this!" And I try and tell them that they are spreading themselves too thin and maybe they should focus on just two or three of those things, and then they get defensive and / or stubborn, tell me that its their character and that I can't tell them what they can't do, and continue making a character who is bad at a dozen things and good at nothing.

AMFV
2016-02-02, 02:34 PM
Usually its a lack of focus. They say "I want to do this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this!" And I try and tell them that they are spreading themselves too thin and maybe they should focus on just two or three of those things, and then they get defensive and / or stubborn, tell me that its their character, and continue making a character who is bad at a dozen things and good at nothing.

That's more a problem of a specific game system than other things. There are many game systems where spreading yourself out is a good idea. Also I would argue that with sufficient optimization most combinations can be made viable in most systems that are geared towards that customization. I wouldn't tell them that they're spreading themselves too thin... I would look at why they are building that sort of character, what do they want to get out of it? Do they want to be a jack-of-all-trades, do they want to steal the spotlight, do they want to play Batman? Knowing what they want is more important for helping the situation than knowing what they've built.

Segev
2016-02-02, 02:53 PM
Yeah, in the case of, "My character does this, and that, and this other thing, and that also, and also some other stuff," what I would do is not tell them "you're spreading too thin" (even if they are), but instead look at what common themes there are, or ask them to describe what they picture as possible scenes their character might shine in.

Then offer suggestions for builds that can do one or more of those things. Don't say "but you can't also do this;" instead emphasize what they CAN do. Suggest priorities, rather than suggesting giving something up. Maybe you can find a build that does more of that stuff together. Maybe you can recommend something like Totemist going into Chameleon so they can switch it up between the things they want to be good at.

Talakeal
2016-02-02, 03:30 PM
That's more a problem of a specific game system than other things. There are many game systems where spreading yourself out is a good idea. Also I would argue that with sufficient optimization most combinations can be made viable in most systems that are geared towards that customization. I wouldn't tell them that they're spreading themselves too thin... I would look at why they are building that sort of character, what do they want to get out of it? Do they want to be a jack-of-all-trades, do they want to steal the spotlight, do they want to play Batman? Knowing what they want is more important for helping the situation than knowing what they've built.


While I agree that one shouldn't make a character who is completely useless outside of their specialty (or lacks defensive abilities), I am conceptually having a hard time thinking of a game that discourages specialized characters. Most RPGs are played as team games, and ideally everyone on the team should have a "role," something that they can do better than anyone else on the team which the team needs to function effectively. Otherwise, from a tactical perspective, what is the point of even bringing them?

For example, I am currently a player in a Mage game with five players. In mage there are 9 spheres of magic, and a starting character has 6 points to spread amongst them, with a maximum of 3 in any given sphere. If we all have two different spheres at 3, that means there is no magic spell which we can't pull off (at least that is available to starting players). If one of us had instead decided to have 1 point of six different spheres, our team would be lacking access to 2 and 3 point spells in at least one of the spheres, and that player wouldn't be able to do anything that someone else in the group wouldn't also be able to do.




Anyway, so the example that inspired me to post this thread:

I am currently running a game of my own system Heart of Darkness (link in the sig), which is a point buy gothic fantasy game. One of the players wanted to play a "Charismatic priest of the god of the sky who is also a martial artist,".

That was, in my mind, a fine concept, so I helped him build a character who was a chosen one raised in a monastery who could inspire and bless others, fight in unarmed combat, banish evil supernatural energy, and had the god given supernatural ability to control the weather.

However, late in character creation, he informed me that to him the term "Priest" meant someone with supernatural healing abilities.

I tried to explain to him that unless you are a dedicated "wizard" type character it is nearly impossible for a starting character to be good at two unrelated realms of supernatural powers, and that if he wanted to be good at supernatural healing he would need to cut out another aspect of his character, at least wait until he had enough experience under his belt to make it work.

He told me that this was his character and he wouldn't sacrifice anything, so I did my best to help him make his character concept work. In the end we got someone who was bad at both weather magic and healing magic and mediocre at unarmed combat and diplomacy.

He spent most of the game trying, and failing, to fry enemies with lightning bolts, and then not having enough magic left over after the fight to heal anyone, and I could tell that he was getting frustrated with his character (and the other players were a little miffed that he signed on as a healer who didn't actually heal anyone), and the resulting frustration seemed to be causing him to think badly of my game (both the rules and the campaign) as a whole.


Now, this is far from a lost cause, and hopefully he will stick with the character long enough for him to earn enough experience points to shore up the defects in his character and make it work, and it hasn't been a big issue yet.

But it is a problem I have seen repeatedly over the years in both games I have ran and games I play in, where a player either just doesn't understand how the system works or because they are trying to put too much on the plate, and the players invariable get frustrated and leave the game.

AMFV
2016-02-02, 03:38 PM
While I agree that one shouldn't make a character who is completely useless outside of their specialty (or lacks defensive abilities), I am conceptually having a hard time thinking of a game that discourages specialized characters. Most RPGs are played as team games, and ideally everyone on the team should have a "role," something that they can do better than anyone else on the team which the team needs to function effectively. Otherwise, from a tactical perspective, what is the point of even bringing them?

For example, I am currently a player in a Mage game with five players. In mage there are 9 spheres of magic, and a starting character has 6 points to spread amongst them, with a maximum of 3 in any given sphere. If we all have two different spheres at 3, that means there is no magic spell which we can't pull off (at least that is available to starting players). If one of us had instead decided to have 1 point of six different spheres, our team would be lacking access to 2 and 3 point spells in at least one of the spheres, and that player wouldn't be able to do anything that someone else in the group wouldn't also be able to do.


I disagree, the roles are usually fairly easy to fill and can often be filled by multiple characters. Furthermore YOU are the one who is setting the challenges, YOU are the DM, you're the one that decides if they need a rogue with trap-sense, or if they need to have a super competent healer. There's a lot of reasons to bring somebody who is a jack-of-all trades, if he has a limited amount in all skills he can supplement the others. In 3.5 Bards are useful because they can assist the other characters with their roles and improves them, they can switch roles, they're versatile, that's why you might spread things out.



Anyway, so the example that inspired me to post this thread:

I am currently running a game of my own system Heart of Darkness (link in the sig), which is a point buy gothic fantasy game. One of the players wanted to play a "Charismatic priest of the god of the sky who is also a martial artist,".

That was, in my mind, a fine concept, so I helped him build a character who was a chosen one raised in a monastery who could inspire and bless others, fight in unarmed combat, banish evil supernatural energy, and had the god given supernatural ability to control the weather.

However, late in character creation, he informed me that to him the term "Priest" meant someone with supernatural healing abilities.

I tried to explain to him that unless you are a dedicated "wizard" type character it is nearly impossible for a starting character to be good at two unrelated realms of supernatural powers, and that if he wanted to be good at supernatural healing he would need to cut out another aspect of his character, at least wait until he had enough experience under his belt to make it work.

He told me that this was his character and he wouldn't sacrifice anything, so I did my best to help him make his character concept work. In the end we got someone who was bad at both weather magic and healing magic and mediocre at unarmed combat and diplomacy.

He spent most of the game trying, and failing, to fry enemies with lightning bolts, and then not having enough magic left over after the fight to heal anyone, and I could tell that he was getting frustrated with his character (and the other players were a little miffed that he signed on as a healer who didn't actually heal anyone), and the resulting frustration seemed to be causing him to think badly of my game (both the rules and the campaign) as a whole.


Now, this is far from a lost cause, and hopefully he will stick with the character long enough for him to earn enough experience points to shore up the defects in his character and make it work, and it hasn't been a big issue yet.

But it is a problem I have seen repeatedly over the years in both games I have ran and games I play in, where a player either just doesn't understand how the system works or because they are trying to put too much on the plate, and the players invariable get frustrated and leave the game.

Well I hate to say it, but if you're seeing the problem over multiple games, with multiple different people, then the commonality is you. I would attempt to shift the thinking about what they can do better, which you've went into a lot of detail about, and focus more on what you can do to mitigate and resolve the situation. Maybe you're pitching too many different concepts at creation and they get boggled, maybe there's too much going on in your games and they want to be involved in everything.

Talakeal
2016-02-02, 03:51 PM
I disagree, the roles are usually fairly easy to fill and can often be filled by multiple characters. Furthermore YOU are the one who is setting the challenges, YOU are the DM, you're the one that decides if they need a rogue with trap-sense, or if they need to have a super competent healer. There's a lot of reasons to bring somebody who is a jack-of-all trades, if he has a limited amount in all skills he can supplement the others. In 3.5 Bards are useful because they can assist the other characters with their roles and improves them, they can switch roles, they're versatile, that's why you might spread things out.



Well I hate to say it, but if you're seeing the problem over multiple games, with multiple different people, then the commonality is you. I would attempt to shift the thinking about what they can do better, which you've went into a lot of detail about, and focus more on what you can do to mitigate and resolve the situation. Maybe you're pitching too many different concepts at creation and they get boggled, maybe there's too much going on in your games and they want to be involved in everything.

Maybe; I will say that I have never much liked GM's who go out of their way to tailor every challenge to the party as it robs the players of agency and the setting of verisimilitude imo.

However, I have also seen this problem in a lot of games where I am just one of the players or where I wasn't even involved except as a spectator, so I don't really see how it could be entirely my fault.


Hell, the problem is REALLY bad in MMOs, and I certainly don't have any authority in those.

Segev
2016-02-02, 04:00 PM
I will say this: from your description, it sounds like he's saying "My concept is being better than any other starting character," if you boil it down. And he can't. Sometimes, sacrifices must be made.

Perhaps he's a Chosen One whose legend says "he will be a mighty healer," and his inability to do it (yet) frustrates him greatly. Explain to him that he can do it well enough later, but that for now, he really needs to focus if he's going to contribute meaningfully. Otherwise, it unbalances the game.

"I can't do everything I want to from chargen" is not a valid complaint nor criticism of a set of rules. "I can't do anything I want" or "the primary thing I want" is, but even that's just a sign that the system isn't built to allow it at low levels.

Coidzor
2016-02-02, 05:25 PM
Also with something as well. Optimization means nothing without limits on resources you can use.

Yes and no. Optimizing for a role is possible even if you're playing with the entirety of rules(that aren't mutually contradictory) for that game on the table. It does not require lack of access to some aspect of the rules set or arbitrary restrictions.

It's not possible if you don't yet know what game you're playing and what the rules are.

nedz
2016-02-03, 09:02 AM
Anyway, so the example that inspired me to post this thread:

I am currently running a game of my own system Heart of Darkness (link in the sig), which is a point buy gothic fantasy game. One of the players wanted to play a "Charismatic priest of the god of the sky who is also a martial artist,".

That was, in my mind, a fine concept, so I helped him build a character who was a chosen one raised in a monastery who could inspire and bless others, fight in unarmed combat, banish evil supernatural energy, and had the god given supernatural ability to control the weather.

However, late in character creation, he informed me that to him the term "Priest" meant someone with supernatural healing abilities.

I tried to explain to him that unless you are a dedicated "wizard" type character it is nearly impossible for a starting character to be good at two unrelated realms of supernatural powers, and that if he wanted to be good at supernatural healing he would need to cut out another aspect of his character, at least wait until he had enough experience under his belt to make it work.

He told me that this was his character and he wouldn't sacrifice anything, so I did my best to help him make his character concept work. In the end we got someone who was bad at both weather magic and healing magic and mediocre at unarmed combat and diplomacy.

He spent most of the game trying, and failing, to fry enemies with lightning bolts, and then not having enough magic left over after the fight to heal anyone, and I could tell that he was getting frustrated with his character (and the other players were a little miffed that he signed on as a healer who didn't actually heal anyone), and the resulting frustration seemed to be causing him to think badly of my game (both the rules and the campaign) as a whole.

Now, this is far from a lost cause, and hopefully he will stick with the character long enough for him to earn enough experience points to shore up the defects in his character and make it work, and it hasn't been a big issue yet.

But it is a problem I have seen repeatedly over the years in both games I have ran and games I play in, where a player either just doesn't understand how the system works or because they are trying to put too much on the plate, and the players invariable get frustrated and leave the game.

So he made a Jack of all trades and a Master of none type character. This is a valid archetype and was as effective as anyone should expect - except the player it seems. If you explained this to the player, as you seem to have, you can do no more.

Necroticplague
2016-02-03, 09:20 AM
Yes and no. Optimizing for a role is possible even if you're playing with the entirety of rules(that aren't mutually contradictory) for that game on the table. It does not require lack of access to some aspect of the rules set or arbitrary restrictions.

It's not possible if you don't yet know what game you're playing and what the rules are.

By resources, I mean things you spend in order to increase you utility. In 3.5, this would be things like feats, levels, and races. If your trying to maximize X when you have infinite things to work with is a pointless exercise. In most games, experience/character progression is the primary resource being spent (Whether it be BP cost of nwod, XP and BP in exalted, levels in dnd, points in mnm, ect.)

Jornophelanthas
2016-02-03, 02:30 PM
Anyway, so the example that inspired me to post this thread:

I am currently running a game of my own system Heart of Darkness (link in the sig), which is a point buy gothic fantasy game. One of the players wanted to play a "Charismatic priest of the god of the sky who is also a martial artist,".

That was, in my mind, a fine concept, so I helped him build a character who was a chosen one raised in a monastery who could inspire and bless others, fight in unarmed combat, banish evil supernatural energy, and had the god given supernatural ability to control the weather.

However, late in character creation, he informed me that to him the term "Priest" meant someone with supernatural healing abilities.

I tried to explain to him that unless you are a dedicated "wizard" type character it is nearly impossible for a starting character to be good at two unrelated realms of supernatural powers, and that if he wanted to be good at supernatural healing he would need to cut out another aspect of his character, at least wait until he had enough experience under his belt to make it work.

He told me that this was his character and he wouldn't sacrifice anything, so I did my best to help him make his character concept work. In the end we got someone who was bad at both weather magic and healing magic and mediocre at unarmed combat and diplomacy.

He spent most of the game trying, and failing, to fry enemies with lightning bolts, and then not having enough magic left over after the fight to heal anyone, and I could tell that he was getting frustrated with his character (and the other players were a little miffed that he signed on as a healer who didn't actually heal anyone), and the resulting frustration seemed to be causing him to think badly of my game (both the rules and the campaign) as a whole.


Now, this is far from a lost cause, and hopefully he will stick with the character long enough for him to earn enough experience points to shore up the defects in his character and make it work, and it hasn't been a big issue yet.

But it is a problem I have seen repeatedly over the years in both games I have ran and games I play in, where a player either just doesn't understand how the system works or because they are trying to put too much on the plate, and the players invariable get frustrated and leave the game.

This player made several bad assumptions:

1. "My character can do X, so that means he is extremely good at X."

2. "My character can be specialized in A and B and C, and D too."

3. "The DM is not allowed to say that something is not allowed. The player is Always right."

This player misunderstands how game balance works (or has no conception of it at all). You need to explain that there are limitations on character creation, and that he is free to choose within those limits.

Knaight
2016-02-03, 03:36 PM
So he made a Jack of all trades and a Master of none type character. This is a valid archetype and was as effective as anyone should expect - except the player it seems. If you explained this to the player, as you seem to have, you can do no more.

There's a system-side effect here though. In a system like D&D, the rate of power growth within an area on a per level basis is generally monotonically increasing, where you just keep getting more and more. Taking resources away and putting them elsewhere thus gets really expensive really fast, and leads to broad ineptitude. In a lot of other systems (e.g most skill based systems) the rate of power growth within an area is monotonically decreasing, so you can get a lot by giving up relatively little. Under this sort of system, a jack of all trades is generally more effective.

None of us know the system in question, but how it handles costs in character creation and how the mechanics work in play could effectively cut off a jack of all trades.

nedz
2016-02-03, 04:00 PM
None of us know the system in question, but how it handles costs in character creation and how the mechanics work in play could effectively cut off a jack of all trades.

Well the OP does, and he has a link. (If the OP wants some feedback Red on Black and Blue on Black are very hard to read — the pdfs look fine though)

It seems you have 150 build points to buy attributes and skills, with character development being by spending more points. This would mitigate against jack of all trades characters.

Knaight
2016-02-03, 04:40 PM
Well the OP does, and he has a link. (If the OP wants some feedback Red on Black and Blue on Black are very hard to read — the pdfs look fine though)

It seems you have 150 build points to buy attributes and skills, with character development being by spending more points. This would mitigate against jack of all trades characters.

Right then. With the obvious exception of the OP, and hypothetically the people who went and read the very long .pdf and started using it (probably nobody else here), no-one else knows the system. I had though that was essentially implied, but apparently not.

nedz
2016-02-03, 05:11 PM
Right then. With the obvious exception of the OP, and hypothetically the people who went and read the very long .pdf and started using it (probably nobody else here), no-one else knows the system. I had though that was essentially implied, but apparently not.

Hmm, I got your meaning, but then, well, I went and read it and it's not that long.

endur
2016-02-04, 10:21 AM
1. If ineffective characters are a recurring issue, then be flexible about allowing rebuilds. If the player wants to trade out some lightning for more healing, allow it.

2. Don't help the player build the character. Let the player build the character themselves. They will always be more invested in a character they built themselves than a character someone else helped with.

3. Attitude is important. Don't act like one character is less effective than others.

If the healing sky martial artist doesn't feel like his abilities are being used, create a situation where the abilities can be used.

Talakeal
2016-02-04, 11:49 PM
There's a system-side effect here though. In a system like D&D, the rate of power growth within an area on a per level basis is generally monotonically increasing, where you just keep getting more and more. Taking resources away and putting them elsewhere thus gets really expensive really fast, and leads to broad ineptitude. In a lot of other systems (e.g most skill based systems) the rate of power growth within an area is monotonically decreasing, so you can get a lot by giving up relatively little. Under this sort of system, a jack of all trades is generally more effective.

None of us know the system in question, but how it handles costs in character creation and how the mechanics work in play could effectively cut off a jack of all trades.

To elaborate on how my system works, basically your base value in a skill is equal to one of your ability scores. Then you can increase it by spending additional character points, +3 for the first increase, +2 for the second, then +1 until you reach 15, at which point it becomes 1/2 beyond that. The increasing costs are to try and give generalist characters a bit of a leg up on specialists.

Magic has no base ability score modifier, however a character can spend 2 character points to give themselves a +1 to all magic skills essentially replicating the ability score.

The idea is that people who merely dabble in the occult will buy a single school of magic, while dedicated wizards will raise all of their magic skills. The problem is that this player didn't want to play a wizard, he wanted to play a warrior type who wanted to dabble in two separate schools of magic, as well as being a priest and the party face. Which isn't an impossible character archetype for the system, its just a bit rough right out of the gate.


Well the OP does, and he has a link. (If the OP wants some feedback Red on Black and Blue on Black are very hard to read — the pdfs look fine though)

It seems you have 150 build points to buy attributes and skills, with character development being by spending more points. This would mitigate against jack of all trades characters.

Thanks for the advice, web design is not my strong suit, and thanks for taking the time to actually look at my game!

While the character generation section is relatively brief, I agree with Knaight that the entire rulebooks would be needed for full context of what those abilities entail, which is rather more than someone should have to do to give advice about a general RPG problem.


1. If ineffective characters are a recurring issue, then be flexible about allowing rebuilds. If the player wants to trade out some lightning for more healing, allow it.

2. Don't help the player build the character. Let the player build the character themselves. They will always be more invested in a character they built themselves than a character someone else helped with.

3. Attitude is important. Don't act like one character is less effective than others.

If the healing sky martial artist doesn't feel like his abilities are being used, create a situation where the abilities can be used.

Thanks for the advice. I have never denied a player a rebuild.

I am curious about where you draw the line at helping a player. You probably don't actually mean I should do nothing and just toss new players a copy of the rules and let them sink or swim, right?

There are plenty of situations where his abilities can be used, the problem is that he isn't good enough to succeed when using his abilities in a difficult situation. If I put in hard tasks that "only he can solve" he is just going to get frustrated and use up all his resources trying to bypass them, while if I throw in a lot of very easy tasks "only he can solve," it is going to make the campaign world seem very artificial and repetitive, not to mention how I will need to find ways to "shoot down" the other players attempts to solve said problems, which we can all agree is a potential minefield.

Lorsa
2016-02-05, 05:47 AM
The largest problem, to me, seems to be that your player's wishes are not realizable within the game system, or at the very least not as a starting character.

It is very important to communicate clearly the constraints of the system used, what can be accomplished at certain skill levels, and how many points are available.

If your player has decided upon a concept before being aware of the system constraints, and refuse to change concept once informed, instead demanding that the system change to fit his wishes, this is not a player you should have in your game.

Basically, you should make it clear to your player that the system does not allow for his concept, that he can either choose to accept it and alter his concept, or not accept it and go home. If the player is extremely new to roleplaying, I suggest you instead sit down and explain how you want things to work and perhaps play some solo games with him to get him used to it. It takes time to become a decent roleplayer after all.

Clistenes
2016-02-05, 07:46 AM
I have had a problem come up in several games, one of the players makes one or more very un-optimal choices in character creation and the result is a character who can't perform the way they expect it to, let alone keep up with the rest of the party or more adventures.

If I see this coming as a GM I have two choices, neither of which work out.

If I make a big deal about it they often get defensive and accuse me of trying to take away their agency, and sometimes they even seem to get really stubborn continue playing the character as is just to "prove me wrong".

If I don't make a big enough deal about it they continue playing the character and then get frustrated at the inability to do what they want to do, and then they stop having fun as a result of their frustration and then either abandon the character or leave the game entirely.

Anyone else have this problem? What do you do?

Don't kill the character. If he wants to play an ineffective character, it is his problem.

Give the party combat challenges appropiate to its average level, and give them non-combat challenges that allow many different creative solutions.

If he can't fight, it is his job to fix it.
If he can find creative ways to use his character in non-combat situation, good for him.
If he can't fight and doesn't know how to make his character useful in non-combat situations, that's his problem and it is his job to ask for other people's advice.

Earthwalker
2016-02-05, 08:32 AM
As I know you have designed the system. Can I ask a question about that. Related to the topic on hand.

Why is the system designed in such a way that spending (numbers made up here)

2 points on healing magic
and
2 Points on weather magic

such a great disadvantage over spending

4 points on healing magic.

The OP seems to be saying that spending points in this way makes the character ineffective ?
I would have hope that all things being equal if two players spend 4 points in different ways then they end up about the say effectivness ?

goto124
2016-02-05, 09:13 AM
Wild guess: a better analogy for the player's situation would be:

0.5 point in healing magic
0.5 point in water magic
0.5 point in sneaking magic
0.5 point in sword magic
0.5 point in fireball magic
0.5 point in cat magic
0.5 point in basketweaving magic
0.5 point in coffee magic

Earthwalker
2016-02-05, 10:10 AM
Wild guess: a better analogy for the player's situation would be:

0.5 point in healing magic
0.5 point in water magic
0.5 point in sneaking magic
0.5 point in sword magic
0.5 point in fireball magic
0.5 point in cat magic
0.5 point in basketweaving magic
0.5 point in coffee magic

My question still stands even with this being the case. Why is that an option in the system to make an ineffective character.
If 0.5 in a skill in ineffective why is it an option. If its not ineffective why is it a problem ?

If you are spending your four points above why are you always worse then just having healing 4 ?

Can't having both stealth and health magic work together so you can heal ithout being detected something with pure healing magic can't do.

Healing + sword can give you a buff to heal when you hit
Healing and water magic allows you to make potions
healing and coffee magic allows you to remove exhaustion from not sleeping
healing and basket weaving allows you to feed life force (healing) into baskets so they still grow a little after you complete them.
Cat and healing magic allows you to cast a buff spell on cats not just healing them.

Of course the answer to my question could be, I want to people to specialize so the system rewards that by making points spent down one area better. If your goal is that just say you arent allowed more than 4 skills. No trap option people that choose to have 8 skills.

nedz
2016-02-05, 10:17 AM
While the character generation section is relatively brief, I agree with Knaight that the entire rulebooks would be needed for full context of what those abilities entail, which is rather more than someone should have to do to give advice about a general RPG problem.

I read the character generation section and then looked at one of the sample character. That seemed adequate for answering the questions raised. Of course, looking at all of the skills/spells/etc. would take far longer.

Knaight
2016-02-05, 10:38 AM
To elaborate on how my system works, basically your base value in a skill is equal to one of your ability scores. Then you can increase it by spending additional character points, +3 for the first increase, +2 for the second, then +1 until you reach 15, at which point it becomes 1/2 beyond that. The increasing costs are to try and give generalist characters a bit of a leg up on specialists.

That's exactly backwards from how this mechanic work - it favors specialists, as breaking into a new skill is substantially more expensive than increasing the best skill by the same amount. There's a reason it generally works the other way, where subsequent increases cost more.

Talakeal
2016-02-05, 10:57 AM
That's exactly backwards from how this mechanic work - it favors specialists, as breaking into a new skill is substantially more expensive than increasing the best skill by the same amount. There's a reason it generally works the other way, where subsequent increases cost more.

Oh poop, I didnt phrase that right. The first character point spent gives a plus three bonus, the second point spent gives a plus two, and the third and subsequent a plus one.

Segev
2016-02-05, 11:33 AM
Query: If you can spend 2 points to raise "all magic" by +1, how many points does it cost to raise a single magic by +1?

If he's "dabbling" in two magics, and it costs him (say) 6 points to have +3 in each of them (3 spent in each), could he also have spent 6 points to get +3 to all? Or how do the points spread out?

Maybe he DID want to play a "wizard" and just not call himself that?

Mordar
2016-02-05, 11:41 AM
My question still stands even with this being the case. Why is that an option in the system to make an ineffective character.
If 0.5 in a skill in ineffective why is it an option. If its not ineffective why is it a problem ?

If you are spending your four points above why are you always worse then just having healing 4 ?

Can't having both stealth and health magic work together so you can heal ithout being detected something with pure healing magic can't do.

Healing + sword can give you a buff to heal when you hit
Healing and water magic allows you to make potions
healing and coffee magic allows you to remove exhaustion from not sleeping
healing and basket weaving allows you to feed life force (healing) into baskets so they still grow a little after you complete them.
Cat and healing magic allows you to cast a buff spell on cats not just healing them.

Of course the answer to my question could be, I want to people to specialize so the system rewards that by making points spent down one area better. If your goal is that just say you arent allowed more than 4 skills. No trap option people that choose to have 8 skills.

This is an accurate reflection of reality, I believe. If you have diverse interests, all other things being equal you will be less capable at any of them than someone who is focused on just one or two. It isn't that those combinations couldn't be useful...it is that the person trying to have ALL of them can't be as good at them as someone who is only working 1 or 2 combos, all other things being equal.

And that is as it should be. Flip your question. Is the person who can do ALL of your examples able to do any of them better than someone who has really focused on doing just two of them? If they can, is that fair to the person who spent all of their time and effort to perfect healing and coffee that the person who also can do sword, cat and basket weaving is just as good as they are at coffee?

As an employer I do want people who have a balanced set of skills tightly related to the job for which they are hired. It is of greater benefit to my business that I have people who are very good at the deliver of clinical services. I do want them to be able to relate well to people, to have better than basic math skills and at least basic IT skills. They are not of any greater value to the business, though, if they happen to have a lot of knowledge about astrophysics, 15th century art, welding, race car driving and acrobatics.

All of those are useful things, but not all of them are useful in one person, particularly to an employer or adventuring party. Particularly if it results in someone who only has a little bit of knowledge/skill in each of them. I know the analogy is imperfect, but consider what people with "General Studies" majors in college end up with as a career versus those who "specialized" in mechanical engineering, secondary education or biochemistry.


To elaborate on how my system works, basically your base value in a skill is equal to one of your ability scores. Then you can increase it by spending additional character points, +3 for the first increase, +2 for the second, then +1 until you reach 15, at which point it becomes 1/2 beyond that. The increasing costs are to try and give generalist characters a bit of a leg up on specialists.

Magic has no base ability score modifier, however a character can spend 2 character points to give themselves a +1 to all magic skills essentially replicating the ability score.

The idea is that people who merely dabble in the occult will buy a single school of magic, while dedicated wizards will raise all of their magic skills. The problem is that this player didn't want to play a wizard, he wanted to play a warrior type who wanted to dabble in two separate schools of magic, as well as being a priest and the party face. Which isn't an impossible character archetype for the system, its just a bit rough right out of the gate.


That's exactly backwards from how this mechanic work - it favors specialists, as breaking into a new skill is substantially more expensive than increasing the best skill by the same amount. There's a reason it generally works the other way, where subsequent increases cost more.

I read this as saying a character gets +3 to their base ability score for their first increase in a skill, then 2 for the next and so on, rather than it costs 3 character points for the first bump, then 2 for the next bump and so on. I think my interpretation supports the idea of getting a bigger bonus when you are first learning, but taking more and more effort to master. The second interpretation does present the idea of it being difficult to gain useful understanding of a skill, and then being better able to build on the basics.

If interpretation 1 is correct, this does benefit generalist over specialist. If interpretation 2 is correct, then you are right and it favors specialist.

- M

Talakeal
2016-02-05, 06:14 PM
I read this as saying a character gets +3 to their base ability score for their first increase in a skill, then 2 for the next and so on, rather than it costs 3 character points for the first bump, then 2 for the next bump and so on. I think my interpretation supports the idea of getting a bigger bonus when you are first learning, but taking more and more effort to master. The second interpretation does present the idea of it being difficult to gain useful understanding of a skill, and then being better able to build on the basics.
- M

You are correct.


Query: If you can spend 2 points to raise "all magic" by +1, how many points does it cost to raise a single magic by +1?

If he's "dabbling" in two magics, and it costs him (say) 6 points to have +3 in each of them (3 spent in each), could he also have spent 6 points to get +3 to all? Or how do the points spread out?

Maybe he DID want to play a "wizard" and just not call himself that?

That is correct, two points for plus one to all schools and one point for plus one to one school.

If he wanted to play a wizard that is fine, but he also wanted to be a priest, a diplomat, and a martial artist, and that is just too many things for a starting character to be good at all of them.


My question still stands even with this being the case. Why is that an option in the system to make an ineffective character.
If 0.5 in a skill in ineffective why is it an option. If its not ineffective why is it a problem ?

If you are spending your four points above why are you always worse then just having healing 4 ?

Can't having both stealth and health magic work together so you can heal ithout being detected something with pure healing magic can't do.

Healing + sword can give you a buff to heal when you hit
Healing and water magic allows you to make potions
healing and coffee magic allows you to remove exhaustion from not sleeping
healing and basket weaving allows you to feed life force (healing) into baskets so they still grow a little after you complete them.
Cat and healing magic allows you to cast a buff spell on cats not just healing them.

Of course the answer to my question could be, I want to people to specialize so the system rewards that by making points spent down one area better. If your goal is that just say you arent allowed more than 4 skills. No trap option people that choose to have 8 skills.

That sounds good in theory, but it is almost impossible in practice. Some skills need more dedication than others, and other skills work better in combination with other skills. It is simply impossible for a game designer to imagine and assign a value to every possible combination of abilities, let alone find an elegant way to write down which combinations are allowed and which are arbitrarily banned for being too weak or too strong.

Also, depending on the rest of the party, something might not be over or under powered. For example, a character with a lot of party effecting buffs will be invaluable in a large group but next to worthless in a small one.

Segev
2016-02-05, 11:05 PM
That is correct, two points for plus one to all schools and one point for plus one to one school.

If he wanted to play a wizard that is fine, but he also wanted to be a priest, a diplomat, and a martial artist, and that is just too many things for a starting character to be good at all of them.

Agreed, that is too much for most games' starting characters. What does being a priest entail?

I also suggest that he just put his points in straight "magic." It may only be breaking even on what he WANTS right now, but it will let him be a better jack of all trades overall.

Talakeal
2016-02-05, 11:37 PM
Agreed, that is too much for most games' starting characters. What does being a priest entail?

I also suggest that he just put his points in straight "magic." It may only be breaking even on what he WANTS right now, but it will let him be a better jack of all trades overall.

He did go with generic magic once I explained that it was the same cost for more benefit.

Being a priest allows him to bless people, which allows them to reroll dice that fall within his god's domain. In addition he can use mana to create holy water, sanctify weapons or ground, destroy undead, dispel enchantments, or banish spirits, although as a wizard / priest he is probably going to be saving his mana to cast actual spells.

Segev
2016-02-07, 11:27 AM
So it's the "diplomat + martial artist" that really pushes it into "too many things" territory, it sounds like. Though "priest" and "mage" feed on the same resource without actually increasing said resource individually, so they're in competition rather than complementary.

Yeah, your job is just to inform him that he's trying to do too much and that the system doesn't support that many areas of focus. Not to tell him not to do it, but to let him know that he should probably pick 1-2 areas to start with and then work outward from there. If he doesn't want to...that's on him. If he's down on your system for it, there's nothing you can do about it. "Your game sucks and this system sucks because I can't play a level 5 gestalt character at level 1" isn't a valid criticism of a system.

Talakeal
2016-02-07, 03:26 PM
So it's the "diplomat + martial artist" that really pushes it into "too many things" territory, it sounds like. Though "priest" and "mage" feed on the same resource without actually increasing said resource individually, so they're in competition rather than complementary.

Yeah, your job is just to inform him that he's trying to do too much and that the system doesn't support that many areas of focus. Not to tell him not to do it, but to let him know that he should probably pick 1-2 areas to start with and then work outward from there. If he doesn't want to...that's on him. If he's down on your system for it, there's nothing you can do about it. "Your game sucks and this system sucks because I can't play a level 5 gestalt character at level 1" isn't a valid criticism of a system.

Basically. Mystical priest is a great character concept, with martial artist and diplomat as minor abilities. Wizard is also a great character concept, with diplomat (and to a lesser extend martial artist) as minor abilities works fine. But mystical priest and wizard with minor abilities in martial arts and diplomacy is just too much.

He is a priest of the god of the sky, so his blessings actually enhanced his weather magic, cancelling out the fact that they were competing for the same resources. Likewise if he was a priest of a god of healing his blessings would amplify his healing magic. But if you are just playing a generic priest and a generic wizard those don't really complement each other and are competing both for your character points during creation and your mana during the game; although it still could have worked if he had spent his extra character points on additional mana or shoring up his priestly and wizardly abilities rather than spending them on martial arts and diplomacy.

As I said though, I might be worrying over nothing. He hasn't expressed strong complaints yet, I just have a feeling they are coming, as this has been a recurring problem in a lot of games over the years.

Templarkommando
2016-02-07, 06:06 PM
I think I agree with several of the posters here that you shouldn't bring down the level of the dungeon just to please the one player, but as a DM I like being able to give characters a chance to shine, so there's definitely some give and take when I DM.

What I would do is look specifically at what makes a character sub-optimal (which it's a little absurd to expect your party to be perfectly optimal, but I digress) and explain specific things about it to the player. If you have a fighter put ranks into disguise for example you might point out that 1. a skill point is worth half of what it normally is for a character with disguise as a class-skill, 2. Disguise isn't a skill that really helps fighters per se unless you intend to use it a tremendous amount in-game, and 3. Fighters don't really have excess skill points to put on other things that might fail to make the character more effective.

One of the things that I have discovered over time is that several classes that I once thought of as useless are actually much better than I first believed. Give the player a chance to prove you wrong, and on the off-chance that you're wrong roll with it, otherwise point out how an optimized character might have been able to handle a situation, but don't point this out in the middle of the game. You don't want to be having optimization arguments right smack in the middle of a session.