PDA

View Full Version : Opinion: Is it "wrong" to build your character to counter the GMs favorite tactics?



Necrosnoop110
2022-07-25, 10:03 AM
By wrong I mean in any major sense, whether that is by breaking the rules of fair-play, meta-gaming, making things harder on the GM who already has the major work load, breaking an unwritten gentlemen’s agreement, all-around bad practice, or other issue.

By building you character to specifically counter your GM’s favorite tactics, I’m not talking about outright cheating, I’m talking about: if your DM loves spellcasters you build a counterspeller or suddenly everyone in the group adds this ability; or if your GM loves night time attacks everyone is warforged and the caster uses Tiny Hut every night; or if your GM loves natural survival challenges – you build a ranger/druid/cleric that never gets lost and can endlessly find/make food & water; etc.


Q: Is it in someway wrong to build your character to specifically counter your GM’s favorite tactics? Where is the line you draw in this kind of thing? When is it too much GM countering?

Batcathat
2022-07-25, 10:11 AM
No, I don't think so, mostly because I don't think GMs should be limited enough that countering a single tactic would be very noticeable. In some circumstances it might be a little metagamey, but probably not in a very noticeable way. If there are plenty of spellcasters in the setting, it makes sense that some people would specialize in fighting them, for example.

That said, individual campaigns might be an exception. For example, if I had announced I'd be running a campaign where wilderness survival would be a big part, I might be annoyed if someone showed up with the aforementioned ranger/druid/cleric. :smalltongue:

(Though I'd probably just take it as a challenge and/or blame myself for not making clearer rules).

OldTrees1
2022-07-25, 11:21 AM
Sometimes, but only sometimes. Consider the following as the litmus test.

As a player, I care about all the players (including the GM) having fun. With that mindset, would I still want to make this choice?



General rule of thumb: If a player (including the GM) loves XYZ, don't negate the part they love about XYZ.
Example: If the GM loves surprise attacks for the unpredictable need to be prepared when ambushed, then making a character that bypasses the encounter will be less fun than making a character that is prepared to engage with the encounter.


Advanced rule of thumb: Can you counter the tactic in a way the GM loves more than the default outcome? If the GM likes ambush mechanics then is it better to have a Rogue circle the camp with traps or have the Wizard cast Tiny Hut?

Kurald Galain
2022-07-25, 11:31 AM
if your DM loves spellcasters you build a counterspeller or suddenly everyone in the group adds this ability
You building a counterspeller is not wrong. However, everyone in the group building a counterspeller does sound like a major jerk move, not to mention making for rather boring gameplay.


if your GM loves natural survival challenges – you build a ranger/druid/cleric that never gets lost and can endlessly find/make food & water; etc.
Likewise, buiding a ranger/druid/whatever that is well-skilled at survival, no problem. Building one that automatically succeeds at survival for the whole party, yeah that's a jerk move. This is why settings like Dark Sun automatically ban spells like Create Food.

(ETA) This goes both ways, of course. If a player really enjoys building a fire blaster, then for the GM to include some enemies immune to fire is fair game; for the GM to declare that most or all enemies are immune to fire, yeah that's a jerk move (and I've had a GM in the past that declared that all enemies would henceforth be immune to Flaming Sphere, of all things...)

meandean
2022-07-25, 11:50 AM
I don't think it is at all, but also think about whether you're "playing along with" something you ideally wouldn't have to. If you know for instance that this GM doesn't enjoy social encounters, and thus make a character that minimizes those skills in favor of maximizing others, I think that's 100% fine. To require otherwise would be like asking you not to take the best spells because your character wouldn't necessarily know that those are the good ones. It'd be unworkable to have non-meta-knowledge character creation.

However, in this example, if you don't like that there are few social encounters, then you should be discussing it with the GM. Building a character who's well-suited for the game you're presented with, isn't a substitute for actually playing in the type of game you want to be in.

Xervous
2022-07-25, 11:55 AM
If the GM tactic is dull, I can’t convince them of this fact, and I’m somehow shackled to the group?

It’d be self preservation at that point.

KorvinStarmast
2022-07-25, 12:20 PM
Q: Is it in someway wrong to build your character to specifically counter your GM’s favorite tactics? No, but sometimes a Player versus DM climate isn't healthy for the game.

Vahnavoi
2022-07-25, 01:11 PM
Depends what kind of game you are playing.

Are you playing a game of skill against a game master or another player & honest about it?

If yes, then trying to answer a known opponent's favorite tactic is basic gameplay. Not doing so means you probably aren't all that good in the game. An honest opponent will likely question why you aren't trying to counter if you keep falling for the same trick.

But a lot of roleplayers either aren't playing such a game or aren't honest about it.

People who aren't playing a game of skill might think that letting the game master get away with their favorite tactic serves some other aesthetic of gameplay than challenge of skill. A counter-tactic may exist in the game ruleset, but using it would be a false pass. To such people, there is one simple advice: if you intent to co-operate with your nominal opponent to create their dream scenario, state it.

People who aren't honest about it just want others to think using the counter-tactic would be a false pass so that they're left with more wiggle room. Keep an eye out for underexplained double standards where a thing is fine when they do it but worse than the Devil when it's done to them. Think of someone who always throws rock in rock-paper-scissors, because rock is the best, and gets upset when someone else throws paper.

One complication that might trip you up is that common rule sets are often crap, in the way that if a player is given free hands to build a character by-the-book, they might end up trivializing the challenge or cause some other dysfunction. There are a lot of solutions to this, many of which boil down to not giving players free hands. But in the odd case that your game master has not made it clear what their stance is towards dysfunction rules, there's two questions you can ask:

1) is the counter-tactic you're thinking of obviously dysfunctional?
2) is the tactic you're trying to counter itself obviously dysfunctional?

If the answer to the first is "yes", don't use that counter and look for another. If the answer is "no", you're good to go.

If the answer to latter is "yes", then you can suspect foul play - doubly so if the dysfunction would be caused by not using a counter.

False God
2022-07-25, 02:42 PM
I don't think so. If your DM is overly reliant on a specific tactic, that's a DM problem and they should learn to diversify. Ideally the DM will use many tactics and any single player could only build to counter a limited number of them, so even if every party member specifically built to counter 3/5 of his tactics, you'd wind back up with a good old "party".

HOWEVER

If the DM is presenting a specific style of game, such as a highly exploration-based game, or a gothic horror game or something of that nature, creating a character who by design invalidates the nature of the game is IMO poor sportsmanship.

When I ask my players for "buy in" on a specific campaign idea, I'm not giving them a heads up on what they should prepare for and be awesome at defeating. I'm asking them to "buy in" to the concept, to "buy in" to the inherent tropes of the concept, to "play along". Because we're all in this together, and I can't present a fun and exciting experience for them if they're more concerned with "winning".

MoiMagnus
2022-07-25, 03:08 PM
Q: Is it in someway wrong to build your character to specifically counter your GM’s favorite tactics? Where is the line you draw in this kind of thing? When is it too much GM countering?

It depends on the GM's personality.

With some GMs, you might be starting a weapon race: e.g. the GM likes murder mystery, you build a character with every possible divination magic to destroy any mystery, the GM retaliate by making mysteries that are somehow immune to your divination, etc. GMs that tend to houserule might also follow the path of nerf your build instead. Generally, it's a bad idea to start a weapon race against the GM.

With other GMs, you might end up just ruining their fun and progressively making them bored of the game. Or the additional work from having to adapt to your group rather than using their intuition to improvise stuff might ruin their enjoyment of GMing.

But it's not always negative. Some GMs might learn from it and diversify their tactics (hence more varied sessions, which is fun). Some GMs might find the challenge interesting and answer with a in-universe weapon race: enemies that don't know you might still use the tactic you countered, but enemies that studied or heard about you are prepared with countermeasures.

Gnoman
2022-07-25, 07:50 PM
I think a big determiner is if you're doing this IC or OOC. If you have a character state "look, we keep running into this, so I'm going to start making preparation for it", it is an organic part of the game. If the player goes "Oh, we've got zappius the pyromaniac running, so we need to start with maxed fire resist" it is a inter-player thing that is much less pleasant.

Jay R
2022-07-25, 08:16 PM
As a GM, I have no problem with a player designing a character to counter what their current enemies are doing.

But I don't have a favorite trick. The orcs in this cave may have one, and you may see it several times. But you won't be facing orcs forever, and the Ogres you face a couple of levels from now will have a different favorite trick.

But that's my answer. I've been playing since the 1970s, and have lots of tricks. I've also studied game theory, learned to fight with swords, spears and other medieval weapons, and am perfectly comfortable facing whatever (rules-legal) design you put together.

I once designed a custom goblin race that were semi-bestial. When fighting by themselves, they just swarmed in with no tactics, and ran away at the least resistance. They only fought with a plan when led by non-goblins. A third-level party rescued a town under siege by an army of 200 goblins by slaying the three ogres who were leading them. They became the "great heroes" at third level by specifically by countering the "favorite tactic". I wasn't upset; that's what I was hoping for.

Countering your enemies' tactics is superior D&D play.


But let's assume the worst possible situation: you have a GM who wants to "win" (whatever that means), has a single "favorite trick", and will get upset if you discover a way to counter it.

In that case, it seems pretty likely that your design will fail to counter it.

Never play against the referee. That's a losing strategy.

Mechalich
2022-07-25, 08:36 PM
If the DM is presenting a specific style of game, such as a highly exploration-based game, or a gothic horror game or something of that nature, creating a character who by design invalidates the nature of the game is IMO poor sportsmanship.


While this is true, in general a GM intending a run a specific style of game should utilize a system where it is not possible to create a character who can invalidate the nature of the game. And generally, most games that are designed to do a specific thing, like exploration, or gothic horror, are designed in such a way that this is mostly true unless the player optimizes to the hilt (which is a different problem).

D&D, because it is a kitchen sink, has the problem that there's always build somewhere that can invalidate pretty much any type of game the GM intends to run, including the classic dungeon crawl it's actually designed to run.

Saintheart
2022-07-26, 01:12 AM
Q: Is it in someway wrong to build your character to specifically counter your GM’s favorite tactics?

No, but if you're going to do this, be content to have the DM targeting your character similarly.

What's that? It's not fair for a DM to tweak his monsters to attack the party's specific weaknesses, or a character's specific weaknesses? Well, if you wouldn't take that from a DM, why is it right for a player to do it to the DM?

LudicSavant
2022-07-26, 05:25 AM
By wrong I mean in any major sense, whether that is by breaking the rules of fair-play, meta-gaming, making things harder on the GM who already has the major work load, breaking an unwritten gentlemen’s agreement, all-around bad practice, or other issue.

By building you character to specifically counter your GM’s favorite tactics, I’m not talking about outright cheating, I’m talking about: if your DM loves spellcasters you build a counterspeller or suddenly everyone in the group adds this ability; or if your GM loves night time attacks everyone is warforged and the caster uses Tiny Hut every night; or if your GM loves natural survival challenges – you build a ranger/druid/cleric that never gets lost and can endlessly find/make food & water; etc.


Q: Is it in someway wrong to build your character to specifically counter your GM’s favorite tactics? Where is the line you draw in this kind of thing? When is it too much GM countering?

Speaking as a DM:
Please, by all means, be my guest. Do your very best to counter my tactics. If you succeed you shall be generously rewarded!


I’m talking about: if your DM loves spellcasters you build a counterspeller or suddenly everyone in the group adds this ability; or if your GM loves night time attacks everyone is warforged and the caster uses Tiny Hut every night; or if your GM loves natural survival challenges – you build a ranger/druid/cleric that never gets lost and can endlessly find/make food & water; etc.

If I wanted to play spellcasters and you made a counterspeller... I would just play around it the same way I play against anti-mages when I'm a PC caster. There's like a hundred different ways. No problem.

If I wanted to play night attacks and you were all warforged using Tiny Hut... heck that wouldn't even work against many of the night attacks I've pulled on players in recent memory, each of which used a different strategy (For example, one involved a local harpy tribe that was hired by a rival adventuring party that was racing the PCs to find a lost pyramid in the middle of a gigantic desert. They tracked them for days through the desert, and would sing and harass the party every time they tried to sleep, then fly away immediately).

If I wanted gathering food to be a challenge in the game, I would have houseruled Goodberry before the game even began, and let you know. If you found some way to make food a non-issue I hadn't anticipated, congratulations, obstacle solved. There will be more.

Martin Greywolf
2022-07-26, 05:46 AM
Q: Is it in someway wrong to build your character to specifically counter your GM’s favorite tactics? Where is the line you draw in this kind of thing? When is it too much GM countering?

Look at it this way: the game has certain rules. Those are the rules that the game has, and the rules you all agreed to follow - maybe you decided to ban or add some things, but that still leaves you with a ruleset everyone at the table agrees to. If you then use those rules that everyone agrees to to create a character, the DM has no business being a salty sailor about it. By that, I mean both that the DM should be fine with it and that the DM shouldn't decide to go on a revenge warpath worthy of a wuxia book.

There are some edge cases here - if someone decided to run a survival campaign in DnD (for... whatever reason) and then forgot to ban Goodberry, it is perfectly fine for him to say that this is banned now for following reasons, but if that is done, everyone must have an opportunity to change their character builds. Yes, even the people who didn;t have the banned thing, because now the party tactics are disrupted.

However, the reason shouldn't be "I didn't think of it and refuse to devote 5 minutes of thought and/or googling to handle it". I've had a DM who banned familiars using aid another, scouting or doing pretty much naything useful, because it broke the game balance. Instead of, y'know, having the enemy shoot the annoying raven or having doors in the dungeons. This attitude is usually going hand in hand with DMs who refuse to put in even an hour or two of prep time, read the module description 10 minutes before game start and then try to run a game that way. Not a good experience.

Alcore
2022-07-26, 07:30 AM
Q: Is it in someway wrong to build your character to specifically counter your GM’s favorite tactics? Where is the line you draw in this kind of thing? When is it too much GM countering?

If they are so predictable, so bland, as to being able to build a character to effectively counter them... why not? It'll liven the game up. If there is a favorite tactic then it is likely being used either thematically (which means it is just good IC sense to learn counters) or without rhyme nor reason (which means I'm playing a tabletop video game and I can go without IC thinking entirely).

Easy e
2022-07-26, 09:31 AM
Never do things to spoil the fun of others.... this is cooperative game with the goal of having fun. If one of you fails to have fun, you have lost the game.

Keltest
2022-07-26, 09:39 AM
No, but sometimes a Player versus DM climate isn't healthy for the game.

I think this is the only relevant point. Best case scenario here, eventually one side or the other starts getting bored with the game because its always the same. Worst case scenario, the DM responds to you building a bunch of anti-caster characters by hitting you with a bunch of archers hidden behind cover next time, and it only escalates further from there as each side starts trying to "win."


IMO just build a well rounded party, and if it starts to get boring ask the DM to mix it up a bit.

Xervous
2022-07-26, 10:20 AM
Never do things to spoil the fun of others.... this is cooperative game with the goal of having fun. If one of you fails to have fun, you have lost the game.

That which is integral to the fun of others is not often clearly labeled. Something perceived as an obstacle by players is something they will try to overcome, because the game is all about overcoming obstacles.

OldTrees1
2022-07-26, 10:34 AM
That which is integral to the fun of others is not often clearly labeled. Something perceived as an obstacle by players is something they will try to overcome, because the game is all about overcoming obstacles.

I agree it is not often clearly labeled, however life did not promise to be easy.

Is it wrong to build your character to counter the GM's favorite tactic ? Well it depends on how it negatively impacts the enjoyment of each player (including the GM). That, in turn, depends on what you mean by "counter" and the exact nature of why the GM favors that tactic.


If a GM favors a tactic because they enjoy that type of gameplay and want to see it included in the game, then a counter that removes the gameplay would likely be a bad idea. However a counter that engages with the gameplay in an advantageous manner might improve the GM's enjoyment.

If one of you fails to have fun, you have lost the game. Would this specific counter to this specific favored tactic of this specific GM fail that test? Or not?

Lemmy
2022-07-26, 10:37 AM
If the guy with literally unlimited power in the game world can be countered by a character build, then he deserves to be countered.

truemane
2022-07-26, 10:41 AM
I think it's a bit like cheating in a romantic relationship: if you feel the need to hide it, something's going on that merits more discussion. And, similarly, it doesn't matter what we think. It matters what you and your DM think.

If you know the DM loves night raids, presumably they know they love night raids. So there shouldn't be anything wrong with saying, "What about I make a character great at night raids? What do you think?" And then you can have a conversation about it.

Ideally the relationship between the players and the DM isn't adversarial and doesn't require secretive resource marshalling and surprise tactics.

Also much like in a romantic relationship, it's not you vs. the DM, it's you and the DM vs. the problem ("the problem" in this case is whatever a fail state looks like at your table).

Thrudd
2022-07-26, 12:34 PM
It should be fine to build any character that the game rules allows to be built. The caveat is, the GM gets to determine the game and also restrict options to fit the style and theme of their game. If the GM allows you to make a character that can exploit some mechanical loopholes, for example, they can adjust the rules and close the loopholes- maybe now, maybe in the next campaign. I'm not suggesting that a GM always should simply restrict rules and powers they don't like dealing with, and they certainly should get approval from the majority of the players. But they absolutely should insist on characters that will be suitable for the type of game they want to run. At the end of the day, the players can't "defeat" the GM. You're making characters to defeat the GM's challenges, and if the GM isn't able to provide difficult enough challenges for their taste, they have the ability to adjust things, either through tactics or rules changes.

LudicSavant
2022-07-26, 01:13 PM
If the guy with literally unlimited power in the game world can be countered by a character build, then he deserves to be countered.

This. If you can't think of something to do with literally unlimited power you deserve to be countered.

icefractal
2022-07-26, 01:31 PM
No, but sometimes a Player versus DM climate isn't healthy for the game.Also quoting this, because it gets to the root of the issue. Whether a tactic is legitimate is secondary to whether the effect said tactic will have is desirable.

If you prevent the GM from having fun, they'll either burn out, escalate, or fiat around what you did - none of which seem like a desirable outcome. So while it's fine to base your choices off what you expect to see, doing so to such an extent that you negate the intended gameplay is probably counterproductive.

That said, it can be tricky to draw the line between "counters" and "engages with" when the premise isn't specific enough. Take, for example: "You're defending a town from a zombie apocalypse". What should the characters look like?
A) Normal people with no particular combat skill, because that's usually how zombie movies go - the zombies are a threat to flee or barricade more than fight.
B) Mercenaries, used to combat, but not to zombies in particular - because this is D&D and combat-ready characters are the norm, but the zombies remain a menace.
C) An anti-undead party with RSoPs and undead-slayer Rangers and such - because this is D&D and anti-undead specialists are who you'd expect to be send on this kind of mission. The normal zombies won't be much threat, but the scarier undead controlling them might be (if those exist).

Between three different GMs, there could be three different correct answers. Which is why I'd recommend digging in and asking for more detail, and specifically what the intended play style is.


Sidebar: the ultimate goal of optimization is simply - "What should I put on the character sheet in order to produce the results I desire in play?" To the extent that if you know the GM really likes the 'cursed with awesome' trope, then putting that in your backstory is optimization (or vice-versa, avoiding it because you know the GM dislikes it). That level of table-specific optimization isn't usually discussed because it doesn't translate well online, but in practice it's the most important.

Mastikator
2022-07-26, 03:45 PM
I haven't read the whole thread but consider that if the GM is tactically minded and enjoys thinking about tactics then countering their tactics will put them on their toes, they will have to fire up those neurons. It's more enjoyable when it's a little bit challenging.

If someone has a favorite tactic that they rely on to such an extent that it becomes predictable then you ought to challenge it. And give them a chance to grow.

Easy e
2022-07-26, 03:56 PM
That which is integral to the fun of others is not often clearly labeled. Something perceived as an obstacle by players is something they will try to overcome, because the game is all about overcoming obstacles.

Yes and..... what is your point exactly?

Are you sawing that the players should be trying to spoil the GMs fun? I do not think that is what you are trying to say, but it sounds a lot like Non-GM Player Entitlement. I am not sure that is where you are going though, so I am probably jumping the gun.

Help me understand?

GloatingSwine
2022-07-27, 04:42 AM
No. It's not wrong to build a character to counter a GM's favourite tactic. If you can build a single character among a party of however many that *invalidates* the GM's favourite tactics then the GM is playing the wrong system for the challenges they want to build.

Xervous
2022-07-27, 08:20 AM
Yes and..... what is your point exactly?

Are you sawing that the players should be trying to spoil the GMs fun? I do not think that is what you are trying to say, but it sounds a lot like Non-GM Player Entitlement. I am not sure that is where you are going though, so I am probably jumping the gun.

Help me understand?

That, in the absence of clarification provided by the GM-Player whose job is mainly about clarification, the Non-GM players are not to be treated as transgressors on first brush. The intent is often lacking, it’s a simple matter of miscommunication. To borrow from your terms the GM would continue to lose (at having fun) until they addressed the misalignment in understanding and expectations.

Thrudd
2022-07-27, 09:39 AM
If the GM doesn't account for character abilities and tactics that are completely within the rules of the game they are running, that's a problem for them. If the GM's "fun" depends on presenting challenges they think will give their players a hard time, then they should probably avoid using the same enemies and tactics all the time, especially across multiple campaigns. The players will get wise to it and start learning how to defeat their challenges more and more easily, both through in-game tactics and also choosing character options that help them against the GM's "favorite tactic". The idea of a GM having a "favorite tactic" is sort of weird, for starters. It's a lack of imagination. The players are actually doing the GM a favor by countering an overused tactic, in forcing them to expand their repertoire of challenge design. Everyone's game gets better when you challenge each other.

RazorChain
2022-07-27, 10:04 AM
Nah I don't think so. I mean if the GM is using surprise attacks all the time and I as a player hate being surprised all the time then I think it would be pretty valid to make a character that can't be surprised.

As for counterspelling the GM is always going to out do you if he wants to. Now his mages will counterspell your counterspell (which is a valid tactic) and you are going to blow most of your spell slots on counterspells when the GM can just add another caster to the encounter if they need to.

I've Game mastered enough to understand that the GM has to do something to keep the game challenging. If you get better armor, the enemy shows up with a bigger gun.

But that being said a GM should have variety of tactics at their disposal and not only be a one trick pony.

Psyren
2022-07-27, 01:24 PM
I think it's a bit like cheating in a romantic relationship: if you feel the need to hide it, something's going on that merits more discussion. And, similarly, it doesn't matter what we think. It matters what you and your DM think.

If you know the DM loves night raids, presumably they know they love night raids. So there shouldn't be anything wrong with saying, "What about I make a character great at night raids? What do you think?" And then you can have a conversation about it.

Ideally the relationship between the players and the DM isn't adversarial and doesn't require secretive resource marshalling and surprise tactics.

Also much like in a romantic relationship, it's not you vs. the DM, it's you and the DM vs. the problem ("the problem" in this case is whatever a fail state looks like at your table).

All of this.

Like, if the DM loves ambushing the party, you should feel perfectly free to say "I'm going to build a character that can't be surprised." And if the DM is somehow upset by that, that's grounds for an out-of-game conversation, ideally before the next session.

Lemmy
2022-07-27, 04:56 PM
All of this.

Like, if the DM loves ambushing the party, you should feel perfectly free to say "I'm going to build a character that can't be surprised." And if the DM is somehow upset by that, that's grounds for an out-of-game conversation, ideally before the next session.

Not to mention that it's perfectly in character for PCs (and NPCs) to learn and prepare for situations that they see all the time.

Vahnavoi
2022-07-28, 03:41 AM
People keep confusing adversarial play with adversarial interpersonal relationships.

The former is not the latter & the former is completely ordinary and a non-issue between people who are honest about what they're doing. See my earlier post to this thread.

At more depth, the game master's characters having an adversarial relationship with a player's characters is completely ordinary and, indeed, default for most games. This set-up does not have to any different, in terms of interpersonal relationship, from any casual competitive board game or indeed a martial arts sparring match. Co-operation in such a relationship only means that the involved parties agree to follow a common set of rules. It doesn't mean anything else. Hidden information, surprise tactics etc. can be codified parts of such rules and, indeed, often are.

There is no general rule across the category of roleplaying games that a player has to co-operate to create their game master's dream scenario. Again, if you intent to do it, state it.

Quertus
2022-07-28, 11:52 AM
So, my opinion is, it’s complicated.

So, to start, let’s remove all the emotional rhetoric, like “favorite” and “loves”.

Let’s start by looking at a neutral version of the question, where you, as a player, happen to know that the content will be rather samey.

So, for example, the GM has told you that they are running “Necrophilia on Bone Hill”, and there’s going to be a lot of undead.

And you choose to bring a DPS / Striker / glass cannon SA Rogue, who is useless against those undead.

Um… that’s pretty dumb, right?

Well, maybe. It depends. Is it ok for your character to be useless? Is everyone else useless, or does your table not care about such balance? If so, then you’re fine.

The same with bringing in a Cleric specialized in controlling or destroying those undead. Balance to the table. Bring a character whose contribution is in line with the expectations of the group, within the range that is acceptable to the group.

So, again, still ignoring emotional rhetoric of “love” or “favorite”, what if it’s not unique to one set of content, but actually endemic of the GM’s style?

Well, if that’s what the characters can expect from the world, and they grew up in the world, it’s really bad roleplaying for them to be so ignorant of their world that they *don’t* take such things into account. “Gee, I live in a world where, in all the stories of the heroes of old, they always got tricked by the fey, so I’m just gonna blindly trust this fairy.” That makes for a good, believable story with a good, believable protagonist, right?

Otoh, if, as is my preference, the character is “not from around here”, then it makes perfect sense for them to have different life experiences, to have learned different lessons, and to fall for what everyone native to the area sees as obvious, to be unprepared for things like rain making things wet, or rations from centuries ago having gone bad.

One last time of still ignoring charged rhetoric like “favorite” or “loves”, what if the GM’s content is samey?

Well, I guess, ask yourself if you care, if you want or need them to improve. If it would increase your fun if they upped their game, improved their skills, then there’s two basic approaches to the problem, two basic tools you can use: talk to them like mature adults, or force them to grow by negating their samey content. Or both - both is a valid option, too.

It is left to the reader to determine which strategy will be optimal for improving their particular GM.

——-

Ok, enough with this samey “no rhetoric” stuff. Let’s mix things up a bit.

——-

Suppose it’s not the GM. Suppose it’s the player who is/appears samey. Should the GM work to counter them?

Well, it depends. “One character” is generally a lot less noticeable than “the world”. So it’s usually bad roleplaying / unrealistic / bad metagaming / improbable potentially to the point of killing suspension of disbelief to do so.

Otoh, if every BBEG in the history of the world has been defeated by a party containing Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named? Well, then, yeah, by all means, have BBEG #42 act like he fears my useless Wizard. It’ll be a hoot!

——-

The next variable I want to look at… is actually at least two variables:

“Poor predictable Bart, always chooses Rock.”

“Good old Rock. Nothing beats Rock.”

There’s several things going on there, but the big one is that I’ve changed the complexity of the system, how much impact a foolish consistency has on the core gameplay loop.

If left in the GM’s hands, they’ll most likely start complaining about how “OP” paper is, and try to house rule it, ban it, or kick players who pick it as “munchkins”. If they’re really toxic, they’ll even boast about how they leave paper in as an option, so they know which players to kick.

And… so much more to say, but I’m bored of my own example. Moving on.

——-

So, suppose Bart actually understands how rock scissors paper works, but he just *loves* playing rock, and doesn’t know how to run a game he’ll enjoy when you’re playing paper Mario?

Well, if the GM can only enjoy a game where everyone is as dumb as a rock - or, worse, can only enjoy a game where he’s crushing your scissors? Then it’s probably time for the GM to go home and rethink their life, or to seek professional help.

——-

What if the gameplay loop is more complex? Or if the “sides” aren’t as absolute?

Well, Bart always playing Rock in Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock isn’t any better. And if Rock doesn’t always beat Scissors, Paper doesn’t always beat Rock, either.

So I’m not seeing an argument for “the GM gets to have their fun, to the detriment of the game” beyond “the GM is a narcissist, who believes that only their fun matters”.

And that’s not much of an argument.

——-

However, if their samey content doesn’t hurt anyone’s enjoyment of the game, but does give them joy? Then, uh, does you picking “paper” hurt *their* enjoyment of the game? If so, don’t do that.

EDIT: realized it was unclear, but “them” and “their” intentionally could refer to player or GM here.

——-

This all seems pretty basic. Yes, there’s a lot of possible scenarios, but no *individual* scenario seems particularly a hot topic of debate, filled with extreme nuance of resolution. Why are we talking about this? What did I miss? :smallconfused:

EDIT: I’ve got a guess: am I missing the idea of not *knowing* which scenario one is in?

False God
2022-07-28, 02:31 PM
Not to mention that it's perfectly in character for PCs (and NPCs) to learn and prepare for situations that they see all the time.

I think it's important to distinguish between a character who evolves from their initial build to be really good at countering the DM's usual tactics after they have been experienced, and a character who is built to counter the DM's usual tactics before ever hitting the table.

---

To some extent I think low-level play often resolves these issues. Characters can only be built for so much in the early levels. And if a DM starts everyone high-level and provides plenty of room to fee-build, well, then they should expect to experience the potential issues high-level characters may bring.

Quertus
2022-07-28, 04:12 PM
If the GM tactic is dull, I can’t convince them of this fact, and I’m somehow shackled to the group?

It’d be self preservation at that point.


That which is integral to the fun of others is not often clearly labeled. Something perceived as an obstacle by players is something they will try to overcome, because the game is all about overcoming obstacles.


That, in the absence of clarification provided by the GM-Player whose job is mainly about clarification, the Non-GM players are not to be treated as transgressors on first brush. The intent is often lacking, it’s a simple matter of miscommunication. To borrow from your terms the GM would continue to lose (at having fun) until they addressed the misalignment in understanding and expectations.

Wow. I think I not only agree with every word you’ve said here, but have to state that I’m impressed that what IMO are the best posts in the thread all came from the same poster. Kudos!

I mean, I guess that I could quibble that maybe not all games are about overcoming obstacles? But, even so, because of my personality, most of my characters will, when presented with an obstacle, at least consider how one might overcome such. So it’s close enough to true for me.


That said, individual campaigns might be an exception. For example, if I had announced I'd be running a campaign where wilderness survival would be a big part, I might be annoyed if someone showed up with the aforementioned ranger/druid/cleric. :smalltongue:

(Though I'd probably just take it as a challenge and/or blame myself for not making clearer rules).

lol. At most of the tables I’ve seen, if the GM said, “wilderness survival game”, and then someone brought something other than a Ranger / Droid, brought someone who failed at the stated main gameplay loop, the response would most likely be somewhere between confused and hostile. (At some of the best tables, the response would be more “are you sure?”)

Communication is hard. Especially when core unstated expectations differ.


Sometimes, but only sometimes. Consider the following as the litmus test.

As a player, I care about all the players (including the GM) having fun. With that mindset, would I still want to make this choice?



General rule of thumb: If a player (including the GM) loves XYZ, don't negate the part they love about XYZ.
Example: If the GM loves surprise attacks for the unpredictable need to be prepared when ambushed, then making a character that bypasses the encounter will be less fun than making a character that is prepared to engage with the encounter.


Advanced rule of thumb: Can you counter the tactic in a way the GM loves more than the default outcome? If the GM likes ambush mechanics then is it better to have a Rogue circle the camp with traps or have the Wizard cast Tiny Hut?

So, what about the various common versions of this where what the GM loves is toxic? Like, “I love my DMPC bailing the useless PCs out of trouble”, or “I like the PCs to wear their pants on their heads”?

Or what about nontoxic cases, where what the GM loves is opposed to / mutually exclusive with what the player(s) would love in this scene?

I don’t think I can agree to carte blanche optimize the GM’s fun without considering the other players’ fun.


You building a counterspeller is not wrong. However, everyone in the group building a counterspeller does sound like a major jerk move, not to mention making for rather boring gameplay.

Dagnabbit, I want to disagree with this, but IME with team games of MtG, one person on a team playing counter / control is fine; a whole team doing so is boring.

Of course, in the context where the “decks” need not be limited to MtG, but could be Battletech mechs, or Star Wars / Star Trek ships and crews, or Pokémon, or superheroes, or street fighters, or Shadowrun, or a NI number of other things? Everybody playing counter / control, that’s highly suboptimal to useless against most of those, and one team only ever playing monochrome decks to make that viable? Yeah, that sounds like a boring missed opportunity, but I’m not sure I’d blame only one side there.


This goes both ways, of course. If a player really enjoys building a fire blaster, then for the GM to include some enemies immune to fire is fair game; for the GM to declare that most or all enemies are immune to fire, yeah that's a jerk move (and I've had a GM in the past that declared that all enemies would henceforth be immune to Flaming Sphere, of all things...)

Wow. … what edition?


To require otherwise would be like asking you not to take the best spells because your character wouldn't necessarily know that those are the good ones. It'd be unworkable to have non-meta-knowledge character creation.

However, in this example, if you don't like that there are few social encounters, then you should be discussing it with the GM. Building a character who's well-suited for the game you're presented with, isn't a substitute for actually playing in the type of game you want to be in.

Although I strongly agree with the second paragraph, I’ve gotta ask, is roleplaying really so dead that the first paragraph is true? Are forum optimizers so optimized in their real lives, and so exclusively playing with other optimizers, that they can no longer even imagine a character built in any way besides optimally?

I mean, sure, one game, set in the future, I straight up told the GM that my character was going to have “trivia” knowledge that I wasn’t paying the points for, because I was certain that, as soon as he started using that knowledge to make ancient movie quotes in character, that the other PCs (especially the one played by one player in particular) would start doing so, too, despite their lack of such skills (and, sure enough, I was proven correct immediately).

But is such lack of roleplaying chops so common now as to render expectations of creating a knowingly suboptimal character “unworkable”, because the character’s knowledge and perception being different from that of the player’s is truly such a foreign concept?

OldTrees1
2022-07-28, 04:46 PM
So, what about the various common versions of this where what the GM loves is toxic? Like, “I love my DMPC bailing the useless PCs out of trouble”, or “I like the PCs to wear their pants on their heads”?

Or what about nontoxic cases, where what the GM loves is opposed to / mutually exclusive with what the player(s) would love in this scene?

I don’t think I can agree to carte blanche optimize the GM’s fun without considering the other players’ fun.

Remember, I said "all the players (including the GM)". Not only does this advice apply to everyone involved, it also cares about everyone involved.

When there is a conflict, things get complicated. Real life is not always simple, and sometimes taking everyone into consideration gets messy.

meandean
2022-07-28, 05:03 PM
is roleplaying really so dead that the first paragraph is true? Are forum optimizers so optimized in their real lives, and so exclusively playing with other optimizers, that they can no longer even imagine a character built in any way besides optimally?Well, the knowledge and the act are two different things. You can act in contravention of the knowledge, but you can't not have the knowledge, because you the real-life person do have it.

If I know the GM hates roleplaying social situations, then that's knowledge that I have about how I could optimize my character. It's no different than knowing that Hexblade is generally a better Warlock than Undying, or that shield is generally a better spell than burning hands. I may very well decide to play a Bard in that campaign anyway, because that's the character I feel like playing, even though he'll be worse in this campaign than he would be in most others. Or, I may feel like min/maxing and playing an anti-social Wizard. Am I obligated to play the Wizard because it'll be particularly good in this campaign? No. Am I obligated to play the Bard because I "shouldn't know" that some of his abilities will be wasted? Also no. I'm not obligated either to optimize, or not to optimize. But if I do decide to optimize, this is something else I know about how to do it.

In this sense, character creation is different than in-game roleplaying, where you can tell someone things like "you didn't hear your teammate say that, so you don't have that knowledge." Characters may not have in-character knowledge, but players inevitably have game mechanics knowledge.

Quertus
2022-07-29, 08:17 AM
Well, the knowledge and the act are two different things. You can act in contravention of the knowledge, but you can't not have the knowledge, because you the real-life person do have it.

If I know the GM hates roleplaying social situations, then that's knowledge that I have about how I could optimize my character. It's no different than knowing that Hexblade is generally a better Warlock than Undying, or that shield is generally a better spell than burning hands. I may very well decide to play a Bard in that campaign anyway, because that's the character I feel like playing, even though he'll be worse in this campaign than he would be in most others. Or, I may feel like min/maxing and playing an anti-social Wizard. Am I obligated to play the Wizard because it'll be particularly good in this campaign? No. Am I obligated to play the Bard because I "shouldn't know" that some of his abilities will be wasted? Also no. I'm not obligated either to optimize, or not to optimize. But if I do decide to optimize, this is something else I know about how to do it.

In this sense, character creation is different than in-game roleplaying, where you can tell someone things like "you didn't hear your teammate say that, so you don't have that knowledge." Characters may not have in-character knowledge, but players inevitably have game mechanics knowledge.

Ok, I’m pretty sure I get and strongly agree with the first paragraph. It ties strongly into why I attempt to minimize OOC information in a game.

In the second paragraph… I guess I just look at it differently? Balance to the table. If you need to make a weak build stronger, or a strong build weaker, knowing that certain abilities are all but useless under the GM can help with this. Similarly, knowing the GM’s habits will help you to correctly gage how much spotlight time a given character might get.

So, yeah, if you’ve got Knowledge:GM, you’ve got that information… and that’s a good thing. Well, unless you enjoy being surprised when your Bard Diplomancer is useless, I guess?

Willie the Duck
2022-07-29, 11:10 AM
I'll voice support to the notion others have made that there's nothing 'wrong' with countering a strategy (particularly of someone with unlimited options). I will also voice support for the notion voiced that if there's something that keeps happening in-game that one feels the need to significantly shift behaviors in an attempt to counter, that it may be better to discuss the practice instead (or at least first).

JNAProductions
2022-07-29, 08:51 PM
I'll voice support to the notion others have made that there's nothing 'wrong' with countering a strategy (particularly of someone with unlimited options). I will also voice support for the notion voiced that if there's something that keeps happening in-game that one feels the need to significantly shift behaviors in an attempt to counter, that it may be better to discuss the practice instead (or at least first).

Yeah, I feel that's a good summary.

IC issues can be solved with IC actions, but when it's an OOC issue, that needs a conversation without the PCs.