Purposly self-sabotaging player?

[Zancloufer]

You ever have that ONE player who is like "Screw optimization, I make what sounds cool at the moment!"?


I understand that everyone doesn't try to make a mechanically good character but what do you do when a PC is all over the place trying to make a hot mess of a character build? They want to build a character for the "fluff" and not the "crunch". Is there a way to guide a player to make a better functioning PC? Should you even try? Is it even the right thing to convince them to make a semi-functioning PC?

I'm not saying make CODzilla or a Godwizard but when they are taking flaws in order to pick up feats that make their character weaker because "it makes sense from my character's narrative" I feel somewhat frustrated.


Also this entire situation get's even worse when they ask you for character help/advice as much as the entire party 3-4 times over.

[noce]

Just don't be lenient, if he dies say "I told you".

[Crake]

They want to build a character for the "fluff" and not the "crunch".

Sit them down and explain to them that the two are not mutually exclusive.

[Florian]

Why should you do anything? Ok, the Stormwind fallacy is a thing and you could help that player match fluff and crush, but only if there's a pressing need to do that.

[zlefin]

are they enjoying their character?
is the amount of work you have to do to help them out with their build getting tiresome?
are they a lodestone weakening the party/being useless? (and do others in the party mind that)

the answers to those will mostly determine whether you should do anyhting or not. sometimes it's just not a problem, sometimes it is.

or is the problem more along the lines that your own neuroticism (as would mine quite likely) gets upset/annoyed at their very suboptimal choices?

[XionUnborn01]

As long as they're not causing an issue in the party I dont see why you need to do anything other than maybe telling them that they're less optimized than the other players so they could be at a higher risk of death.

I've played plenty of characters that didn't always do the most powerful thing in favor of a less powerful but more flavorful or more fun option.

Just ask yourself if its bothering YOU or if it's actually a problem.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I'm not saying make CODzilla or a Godwizard but when they are taking flaws in order to pick up feats that make their character weaker because "it makes sense from my character's narrative" I feel somewhat frustrated.Wait, what? I'm assuming you mean that the person takes major character flaws that weaken him at the one thing he's supposed to be good at "for the story." A blind fighter with no means of overcoming his blindness (like always-on touchsight, blindsight, Mindsight, or similar) or an Int 9 wizard would not make for a good party member. Why would anyone take such a person into life-or-death situations when they depend on him for their survival? That's like having a music composer who has been deaf since birth trying to write compositions when he's never actually heard music before, or taking an unmodified Nerf gun to a gunfight.

I would not take such a millstone with me when I'm risking my life unless I have no choice, and even then, I'd be doing everything I could to keep the person away from dangerous situations, maybe in a bag of holding or something.

It makes no sense, on any level.

[GrayDeath]

YOu have to ask yourself the following questions.

1.: Does he actually drag the Party down? If yes, go to 1A, if not, 1B

1A: What role would he fulfill if the character was functional? If it is central to the party, tell him that the other players will suffer if he does not change enough to be basically competent.
if its NOT central (like say him building an at most semieffective Bard in a 5 Player group), let him be but tell him that he has to expect to feel useless rather often. If that does not detract from his fun, well...its OKish.

1B: Ask yourself if he only offends your sensibilities or if its a REAL problem. Ideally by comparing his characters level of comp0etence to the other Player characters. If its the first, bear with it. Some differences in taste are unavoidable.


2.: Are you the only one who (already) has a problem with the character, or did the players also notice the problem?

2A: Youa re the only one who notices. Combined with 1B this means youa re probably overreacting.

2B: You all notice. Sit together with all players and explain to him WHY you want him to up his game. And if he does not, well, he does not fit the group. Its never a good idea to mix players with TOO wildly different play styles in a group....


On a more anecdotical point: We have one such player. Kind of.
However he knows hes no good at making his stuff work, so normally (after we explained a lot of stuff^^) he makes the fluff, then we mostly build him the most easy to paly character that achieves his role and fits the fluff.

Everybody is happy. :)


Edit: Does he also PLAY ... shall we say less than well, or is it only his Builds?

[Particle_Man]

Sometimes special design magic items (where you add the fluff that makes the player want to use it and the crunch that makes the player useful) can make up the deficit. Assuming the other players don’t mind once you explain to them that it is less favouritism and more training wheels.

[5crownik007]

Allow natural selection to take its course. It's the best way.
If he dies, so be it. You warned him, and he faced the consequences.
If he lives, that's excellent. A lot of interesting story stuff happens when a character who is weaker than usual manages to live.

Just make it clear to him that he's taking all the consequences that come with his choices. Don't target him unfairly, just let the dice fall.

[Andor13]

I'm not saying make CODzilla or a Godwizard but when they are taking flaws in order to pick up feats that make their character weaker because "it makes sense from my character's narrative" I feel somewhat frustrated.

I remember we once had to spend an hour explaining to a player why it was not a good idea to make a fighter with no thumbs. We actually had to pick up shinai and spar with him to get it across.

Also, just because a stupid build makes sense for his characters narrative does not mean that bringing him along makes sense for the other characters narratives. Once I was doing the "Bring the party together scene' in a tavern and the last player had made a fighter, so they looked at each other, decided they wanted a combatant and looked around the bar. I put in a big, mean, dumb ogre merc just to make the PC look good by comparison. After they talked to the ogre they spoke to the PC, who was so ... unpersonable, that they went back, hired the ogre, and left.

Likewise if your players are putting together a stealthy party and he insists on bringing a fighter with a dex of 8 who wears armour made from bells and angry cats, they are under no obligation to pretend it's reasonable to bring him along.

[RoboEmperor]

what can you do. Some people don't give a **** about mechanics.

Now if everyone is bothered by his utter worthlessness then you need to talk to him and tell him to spend some time optimizing because he's ruining the fun of others.

If no one is bothered by his utter worthlessness then just let him be worthless. Personally I don't mind completely trivializing entire party members with my build so if they just want to do random funny worthless **** in combat then so be it. I get to kill things, he gets to get a few laughs off, everyone wins.

If he feels bad because he's absolutely worthless in combat then that's his fault and the rest of the party members should not stoop to his level and instead tell him to get good or go home.

[Red Fel]

are they enjoying their character?
is the amount of work you have to do to help them out with their build getting tiresome?
are they a lodestone weakening the party/being useless? (and do others in the party mind that)

the answers to those will mostly determine whether you should do anyhting or not. sometimes it's just not a problem, sometimes it is.

or is the problem more along the lines that your own neuroticism (as would mine quite likely) gets upset/annoyed at their very suboptimal choices?


As long as they're not causing an issue in the party I dont see why you need to do anything other than maybe telling them that they're less optimized than the other players so they could be at a higher risk of death.

I've played plenty of characters that didn't always do the most powerful thing in favor of a less powerful but more flavorful or more fun option.

Just ask yourself if its bothering YOU or if it's actually a problem.


what can you do. Some people don't give a **** about mechanics.

Now if everyone is bothered by his utter worthlessness then you need to talk to him and tell him to spend some time optimizing because he's ruining the fun of others.

If no one is bothered by his utter worthlessness then just let him be worthless. Personally I don't mind completely trivializing entire party members with my build so if they just want to do random funny worthless **** in combat then so be it. I get to kill things, he gets to get a few laughs off, everyone wins.

If he feels bad because he's absolutely worthless in combat then that's his fault and the rest of the party members should not stoop to his level and instead tell him to get good or go home.

These. The fact is...


You ever have that ONE player who is like "Screw optimization, I make what sounds cool at the moment!"?

Yup, it's called playing for fun.


I understand that everyone doesn't try to make a mechanically good character but what do you do when a PC is all over the place trying to make a hot mess of a character build?

Let them.


They want to build a character for the "fluff" and not the "crunch". Is there a way to guide a player to make a better functioning PC?

There is. But...


Should you even try?

Yes and no.


Is it even the right thing to convince them to make a semi-functioning PC?

Yes and no.

Here's the thing. You can tell a player that their character won't work. You can tell them that the character will constantly be outshone by other, more optimized PCs. You can tell them there are more effective ways to do what they're trying to do.

But unless you're running a game with pregenerated characters, or unless the player asks you to, you can't make the character for them. That's the player's job, not yours. And you can't be frustrated if they constantly fail. Again, that's the player's job - to get frustrated at their own failures, or not - not yours.


Also this entire situation get's even worse when they ask you for character help/advice as much as the entire party 3-4 times over.

This, on the other hand, is a red flag for me. To this, I can offer a solution.

You sit the player down. You explain to them, as others have mentioned, that "concept" and "optimization" are not mutually exclusive. And then you offer them, once and only once, the opportunity to rebuild the character or have a total do-over. You make clear that this is a one-time offer and will not happen again. The player takes that opportunity, or not.

And thereafter, if the player asks for help because he decided to bork his build, you shut that down. If he asks other players for help, you say, "Not during sessions. Ask before or after if you want help." If he needs help using his abilities, hand him a book and tell him that if he doesn't know how to play his character, he can skip his turn until he's ready.

It is one thing if a player wants to play an unoptimized or ineffective character. That is every player's right. It is not every player's right to bog down the table with complaints and questions. If you ask for help, take the help. Everyone needs help sometimes, and it's both acceptable and encouraged to ask for it, but you have to take it when it's offered, and you have to learn from it. If you refuse to take help, or keep asking the same questions over and over again, it is not the table's obligation to offer it, or to put up with you slowing everyone down because you refuse to learn.

That's a big pet peeve for me. You can be ineffective, but you cannot be willfully ignorant to such a degree that it intrudes on everyone else's time and fun.

[Draconi Redfir]

optimization is not the name of the game. having fun is.

let the player play how he wants without question. Eventually he may start to realize he's not contributing a whole lot during combat, and seek to rebuild his character.


i tried to make a bard / sorcerer hybrid with three archteypes. That went horribly. So i dropped two archtypes, still went horribly. other party members were casting 3rd level spells while i still only had 1st level ones. Eventually i gave up on my dreams and made a full-on bard with the eldritch heritage feat-chain to maintain the character's sorcerer bloodline. (Still salty that i couldn't keep the Arcana) and while i'm a bit feat-starved at the moment, i'm doing fine now and contributing properly.


Your player will probably figure this out on his own, just let him make small or big changes to his character when he realizes it.

[denthor]

Can you give an example of the build?

I frequently take things that help for the moment not for the long haul.

An example my 11th level wizard (pathfinder look at 6th level spells) is going to take Legend lore as one of his two.

Why you ask?

In the game a ancient dragon has had a theft from his private vault. He does not know who did it. Is ready to declare war on the world to get it back. He does not know we do we helped the theft to save our lives and 10,000 others from an army. We got a magic item from another vault we could access due to a magic ring that was the key. It contained an 8th level spell amulet the rendering the wearer immune to scry magic.

So I take a spell to cast where this being stood when we made the deal. Before it got the amulet. Legendary creature should come up in the casting. Wasting a spell slot that I only get one a day of.

Again look at the spells would you ever take that one as your free spell? I must.

[16bearswutIdo]

The game is supposed to be fun. If what he's doing is fun for him, and it isn't actively ruining the other players' fun, who cares?

My party right now has a morbidly obese rogue PC and a PC sorc who opted to take negatives in every stat other than Cha. They're both having a blast.

[Peat]

I'm with everyone else saying this is only a problem if its effecting the group's enjoyment. I agree with what Red Fel said about constant asking for help though.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Once I was doing the "Bring the party together scene' in a tavern and the last player had made a fighter, so they looked at each other, decided they wanted a combatant and looked around the bar. I put in a big, mean, dumb ogre merc just to make the PC look good by comparison. After they talked to the ogre they spoke to the PC, who was so ... unpersonable, that they went back, hired the ogre, and left.
That's the way to do it! If someone argued that it makes sense for their character to be weak (or annoying, not a team player, a potted strand of kelp), the other players can argue that it makes sense for the PCs to ally with a strong fighter (nice person, team player, a flying elephant). Crucially, it's the party making the decision, not just the DM.

[Zancloufer]

So I appreciate the responses thus far and after avoiding the issue for a day to cool down I have some responses:


( snip )

or is the problem more along the lines that your own neuroticism (as would mine quite likely) gets upset/annoyed at their very suboptimal choices?

I admit this is not an a non-issue here. I understand "challenge builds" in single player games but I don't quite see the appeal of purposely shooting yourself in the foot in a team game like D&D.


As long as they're not causing an issue in the party I dont see why you need to do anything other than maybe telling them that they're less optimized than the other players so they could be at a higher risk of death.

The first few sessions has had them not exactly playing well with the party from a pure character perspective and I don't see it getting better if the PC is also mechanically incompetent and not just RP'd bad.


YOu have to ask yourself the following questions.

1.: Does he actually drag the Party down? If yes, go to 1A, if not, 1B

1A: What role would he fulfill if the character was functional? If it is central to the party, tell him that the other players will suffer if he does not change enough to be basically competent.
if its NOT central (like say him building an at most semieffective Bard in a 5 Player group), let him be but tell him that he has to expect to feel useless rather often. If that does not detract from his fun, well...its OKish.


Okay, some story about the group here. 3/5 of the players are new to 3.x or D&D entirely. They area a friend of a long time player of the group and where all interested in playing D&D. They formed a 5 man band : Paladin, Druid, Bard, Wizard and Rogue. Not 100% staple party but it's close enough. The "problem" player is the rouge. Who now sounds like they don't want to do any of the rogue specific shticks. Probably. Their build makes no sense, more on that later.



Edit: Does he also PLAY ... shall we say less than well, or is it only his Builds?


Oh gawd. The level of articulate play. It literally swaps between accidentally being fairly competent and being so bad they might as well add to the CR and experience gained for the rest of the PCs.

Probably their best character was essentially a "dumb paladin' but without the Paladin. Point somehow unstoppable juggernaut at CR appropriate enemy. Watch fireworks.




This, on the other hand, is a red flag for me. To this, I can offer a solution.

You sit the player down. You explain to them, as others have mentioned, that "concept" and "optimization" are not mutually exclusive. And then you offer them, once and only once, the opportunity to rebuild the character or have a total do-over. You make clear that this is a one-time offer and will not happen again. The player takes that opportunity, or not.

And thereafter, if the player asks for help because he decided to bork his build, you shut that down. If he asks other players for help, you say, "Not during sessions. Ask before or after if you want help." If he needs help using his abilities, hand him a book and tell him that if he doesn't know how to play his character, he can skip his turn until he's ready.

It is one thing if a player wants to play an unoptimized or ineffective character. That is every player's right. It is not every player's right to bog down the table with complaints and questions. If you ask for help, take the help. Everyone needs help sometimes, and it's both acceptable and encouraged to ask for it, but you have to take it when it's offered, and you have to learn from it. If you refuse to take help, or keep asking the same questions over and over again, it is not the table's obligation to offer it, or to put up with you slowing everyone down because you refuse to learn.

That's a big pet peeve for me. You can be ineffective, but you cannot be willfully ignorant to such a degree that it intrudes on everyone else's time and fun.

They mostly just bother me via text or messenger in my free time. Or not free time. Usually I'm okay with it but it get's troublesome trying to track their thought processes on what they want to actually end up doing and them being seemingly allergic to stuff that makes practical sense and just doesn't sound cool.

I do appreciate the in-depth response.


Can you give an example of the build?



Well they started with a rogue that emphasized attack count and sneak attack. So basic D&D 101 stuff. Now they want to be an artificer. Who happens to be a rogue on the side. Except they are going to spend all their time and resources trying to sneak attack and skill monkey as well as a rogue. While spending all their feats on archery. Also they seem allergic to optimizing their crafting side of the artificer. I don't get where they are going with it other than "crit and sneak attack everything always with my dex weapons and 1-3d6 sneak attack once per round". Also crafting all the BoEF spells onto scrolls. Because reasons.

I also might have brow beat them out of taking multiple general purpose "you suck" flaws in exchange for Tomb Tainted Soul and Tomb Born Vitality. As a rogue and/or artificer. In a party with mostly divine spell casters. Also they keep wanting some homebrew flaws except these flaws are way more handicapping than the normal approved official flaws.


( . . .)
Also, just because a stupid build makes sense for his characters narrative does not mean that bringing him along makes sense for the other characters narratives. Once I was doing the "Bring the party together scene' in a tavern and the last player had made a fighter, so they looked at each other, decided they wanted a combatant and looked around the bar. I put in a big, mean, dumb ogre merc just to make the PC look good by comparison. After they talked to the ogre they spoke to the PC, who was so ... unpersonable, that they went back, hired the ogre, and left.

At first they met together well enough. It's not until well into the session and the player's ideas for further advancement did things seem, wrong. The character might not from a RP perspective mesh with the party and the build sounds like it's going to become incompetent not that it's starting so.



That's the way to do it! If someone argued that it makes sense for their character to be weak (or annoying, not a team player, a potted strand of kelp), the other players can argue that it makes sense for the PCs to ally with a strong fighter (nice person, team player, a flying elephant). Crucially, it's the party making the decision, not just the DM.

I feel the party might try to, get rid of, the character in question if they continue to be a mess mechanically and RP wise. Maybe I'm just overreacting.

[GrayDeath]

OK, so he is new and after the game went a while he decided he didnt want to be a real rogue any longer.

check.

You need to clearly explain to him that in a class system ala D&D it is not easily possible to retrain, and changing direction midswing will elad to his character being very ineffective.

Tell him he can play an Artificer once youa re satisfied with his system mastery (a few players I have are once set on a target unable to be derailed, but competetive enough to fall for this, amyhap it will ehlp you too?).

As a new player he ahs taken the easiest class toa ctually paly with the rogue, so help him to focus on being stabby mcstabpants the trap disabler for this group. Until he doesnt paly horribly any longer, and will hence enjoy it more? :smallconfused:

[Telonius]

Also crafting all the BoEF spells onto scrolls. Because reasons.

I also might have brow beat them out of taking multiple general purpose "you suck" flaws in exchange for Tomb Tainted Soul and Tomb Born Vitality. As a rogue and/or artificer. In a party with mostly divine spell casters. Also they keep wanting some homebrew flaws except these flaws are way more handicapping than the normal approved official flaws.

I think this just peeled back another layer of the onion. I'm assuming that wasn't a typo for BoED, but either way, both books can be a serious can of worms to open. For either one, I'd want to make sure the entire group is on board for including material from it. BoEF in particular is third party, and has a whole lot of, "What on earth were they smoking" mechanical things in it. The ratio of mechanically balanced to respectful is not favorable. Not to say it's entirely worthless; I allowed an Artificer character who focused on crafting jewelry to use some of the alternate item slot suggestions in a game a few years back, and it worked well for everybody concerned. But the good stuff is buried under a lot of pervy weirdness. (Again, if everybody at the table is okay with the pervy weirdness, it's not a problem; but I suspect this might not be the case). You're perfectly within your rights as a DM to say no to anything unbalancing, to limit the availability of materials, and deny homebrew and third-party content.

Are the divine casters Good-aligned? If they can spontaneously cast Inflict spells, Tomb-Tainted Soul would actually help things out, but otherwise it's making it harder for the rest of the team to help him. This, combined with the other stuff, really suggests to me that he's being disruptive in general, and probably deliberately. (Sometimes people just do stuff to get on other people's nerves). I'd talk to the other players separately to see if it's an issue for them.