DMing for One-Trick Ponies

[BRC]

Inspired by another thread, and my own experience, I pose the question, how should a DM respond to a one-trick pony character.

For the purposes of this discussion, the "Trick" can be something rather general, like "Fighting enemies vulnerable to mind-affecting spells". What's important is that the character is highly focused on the "trick" to the exclusion of much else.

When faced with such a character, the DM must either play to the character's strengths, and as a result have the encounter be almost trivial (unless they are willing to pump up the difficulty to the point of having the rest of the party be useless), or work against that strength, and as a result have the character totally useless and the player feel slighted.

In your opinion, what should a DM do when faced with such a character?

[Comet]

At first, say for the first three to five encounters, play to the character's strengths, throwing encounters at him that are, not easily but with a bit of effort, passable by relying solely on the aforementioned pony trick.

Then, when we've established that this character is good at what he does, proceed to throw encounters at him that are expressly designed to destroy him and bend the rules and the world until his trick is nearly useless, forcing him to scrape by with wits and adaptation.

That's the sort of game that I would expect, and enjoy, if I created my character to be a one-trick pony and the Game Master was aware of the fact.

[Saph]

I've got this problem in my campaign at the moment.

One of my players is playing a class from Libris Mortis called Master of Shrouds. Basically, it's a Cleric prestige class that with early entry tricks can be qualified for by level 3. It lets you summon a ton of Shadows much earlier than PCs are supposed to be able to. In exchange you heavily penalise your casting to the tune of two lost caster levels.

The result is that you have a character with a bunch of incorporeal Strength-damaging summons that are completely invulnerable to and can effortlessly kill somewhere around 75% of the level-appropriate opponents in the Monster Manual. On the other hand, if you're fighting undead, constructs, or anything with immunity to summons, the main feature of the class is completely useless.

Real pain in the neck to DM for, let me tell you.

[TurtleKing]

After having personal experience I would say give the player the warning of that trick may not always work. My DM did this to the one I built. He didn't survive long, but that was more me than him actively trying to kill my character. So warning the player to find some way of still being playable even if their trick no longer works. One famous example is the DM letting the group know that it will be an undead/construct/etc. heavy campaign were sneak attacks don't work. In that case the Complete Champion and Dungeonscape have an ACF for the rogue that lets them use some of their SA against undead.

[Silus]

After having personal experience I would say give the player the warning of that trick may not always work. My DM did this to the one I built. He didn't survive long, but that was more me than him actively trying to kill my character. So warning the player to find some way of still being playable even if their trick no longer works. One famous example is the DM letting the group know that it will be an undead/construct/etc. heavy campaign were sneak attacks don't work. In that case the Complete Champion and Dungeonscape have an ACF for the rogue that lets them use some of their SA against undead.

Or monsters with blindsight/mindsight and one guy constantly making Hide/Move Silently munchkin characters?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Design situations with their trick in mind.

Most of the time their trick should be helpful but not overwhelming. For the Master of Disguise, being able to impersonate a random guard will make it easy to get onto the Detention Level with "prisoners" but you'll still need something more (e.g. passwords) to get further or you'll have a fight on your hands.

Occasionally either make their tricks essential for a particular encounter (e.g. you need to impersonate the king to trick the assassin) or useless in an encounter. The "essential" ones are to make the One Trick Pony feel happy about their choice; the "useless" ones are to take pressure off the DM and to keep the other Players from getting jealous - and to perhaps encourage the One Trick Pony to diversify a bit

[Echoes]

I think the trick is to design dungeons with a "moment to shine" philosophy. At least once in every subplot, there should be a chance for each character to use their 'special trick' to solve a challenge. It shouldn't be painfully obvious, nor the only way to solve it, but it helps to give characters a chance to feel useful if they can make use of their specialization somewhere in the session.

However, by the same token, you should also make situations where that person's special trick just doesn't work. If your party's blaster mage has cleared the last five fights with empowered maximized expanded fireballs, when they walk into the next room have them see barrels of oil/gunpowder along the back wall which would explode and kill them all if set on fire. Just as no one should feel useless throughout an entire dungeon, likewise no one should be able to clear an entire dungeon solo with a single trick. However, make sure these impediments are at least hinted at beforehand - nothing sucks more than figuring out an awesome solution, then hearing the DM negate it with something that sounds completely contrived.

Most important of all, go with the flow. DMs who design the entirety of their plots before the session risk alienating their players. If the blaster above hasn't used his 'trick' all day and is about to walk into the next room guns blazing, do not make it the gunpowder room, even if that's the way you originally wrote it. Remember, your players never get to read your magical DM journal, so not only should you feel permitted to change things within it, you should be responsible for doing so to make sure your game stays consistently hard enough to give them a challenge without being TPK deadly. A good DM will never let their entire party die because they 'jumped off the rails' and solved a challenge non-conventionally, even if it means making up an entire new direction for your adventure on the fly.

[The Glyphstone]

There's always the option of mixed encounters - if you've got an enchantment specialist character, have the necromancer cultists leading a swarm of zombie minions that are ordered to ignore them, but that they can't control.

[Pigkappa]

If the situation is really problematic, as for the guy who can summon a lot of shadows at level 3, the only solution is speaking to the player (possibly before he becomes a one-trick pony) and resolving this out of character.


If the situation isn't so problematic, I think the DM shouldn't care about his players abilities while building dungeons and preparing adventures. The world doesn't know what they can do after all.
I had 2 rogues in the party dealing a lot of sneak attack damage and using poisons. When they were fighting humans they did a lot of damage, when there were undead involved the party was in big trouble, but nobody ever complained. Eventually a mummy killed one of them (and infected the other ).

[Sillycomic]

It depends on if the trick is game breaking or not.

If it isn't, then I would say as a Gm build your campaign normally. Maybe throw in some stuff that makes the one trick pony shine, and other stuff that they are completely useless against. But for the most part design the campaign without thinking too hard about this particular trick.

If it is game breaking? Yeah, then pull the player aside and say you as a GM really can't accommodate such a build. Thank him for being clever and awesome with his build, but it doesn't work in your game. Have him make another character that will be a little more in line with your skills as a GM.

Most of all make it feel like you as the GM can't do it, rather than he as a player made a mistake. It's not his fault for coming up with a good idea.

[Infernalbargain]

Make encounters multi-faceted. Let him shine in his expertise, but you can construct things so that he doesn't mop up. Got an enchanter in the party? Mix up the encounter by throwing having some undead approach from one end and trolls from the other. Important people have constructs or undead for some of their minions, but also complements of normal people / monsters.

[NichG]

I'd generally warn the player that on occasion, the trick won't work either because there are things that are just immune (like someone focused on mind-affecting spells), or because I have to house rule the mechanics to prevent this from being the win button for all situations (RAW diplomacy). After such a warning I'd let them do a free rebuild if they wanted, or otherwise give them some idea of how the trick might be limited.

I'd then generally expect him to absolutely curb-stomp a few situations with his trick and amplify those, flavoring it to make it seem more awesome than just numbers would suggest (e.g. he is a Bluff-o-mancer and ends up getting fanatical worshippers and a cult following from some of his best lies, rather than just having them succeed normally). However, when its down to the big thing that's supposed to be a challenge for the entire party, I'd try to preserve the feel of incremental success from his trick but prevent it from being a one-shot win button, possibly by introducing new mechanics or sub-goals or something along those lines.

For example, if someone were playing a Fear-based shut-down character (hit the enemy with three unresistable fear effects and they're unable to fight) I'd warn him that even if he's using Dread Witch or something, there are just some creatures who will be beyond his ability to affect with fear directly, and then have those creatures take Wis damage from the fear effects instead of actually having the fear statuses, or give them a special defense in that they have three minds simultaneously operating and fear can only shut down one at a time (reducing the effectiveness of their actions but not shutting them down completely) or whatever. But in the mean time I'd play up the fact that he's driving entire armies to flee from him, and try to make it awesome when it happens.

In other words, I think its more important to be fair to the enjoyment and participation of the party as a whole than to the one player. If that means making house rules to shut down the player's one trick, I'll warn them and try to let them have it occasionally but I absolutely won't let them end up making the other players irrelevant.

[Kiero]

At first, say for the first three to five encounters, play to the character's strengths, throwing encounters at him that are, not easily but with a bit of effort, passable by relying solely on the aforementioned pony trick.

Then, when we've established that this character is good at what he does, proceed to throw encounters at him that are expressly designed to destroy him and bend the rules and the world until his trick is nearly useless, forcing him to scrape by with wits and adaptation.

That's the sort of game that I would expect, and enjoy, if I created my character to be a one-trick pony and the Game Master was aware of the fact.

So you enjoy a GM doing a bait-and-switch?

[HappyBlanket]

Noticed you mentioned something about tailoring fights to the player. Don't. If I'm reading this correctly (other posts tell me otherwise), you might be worried about the player's build not working, which would result in grief for the player. If that's the case, it's not your fault. A player should be prepared for whatever threat he or she may face. You are no more obligated to tailor to the play styles of a one trick phony any more than you are obligated to give only combat orientated encounters to a group of blasters.

Basically: If all the players have is a hammer, you don't need to give them nails.


And... OK. That's it. I have to interject.

It's phony. A pony is a small horse. So unless the half dozen or so posters above me have unitedly and silently come to the conclusion that the player in question is playing a diminutive equine... I don't know. So long as the little horse's trick doesn't involve Anime Dead or something.

Sonofa-

[Infernalbargain]

Noticed you mentioned something about tailoring fights to the player. Don't. If I'm reading this correctly (other posts tell me otherwise), you might be worried about the player's build not working, which would result in grief for the player. If that's the case, it's not your fault. A player should be prepared for whatever threat he or she may face. You are no more obligated to tailor to the play styles of a one trick phony any more than you are obligated to give only combat orientated encounters to a group of blasters.

Basically: If all the players have is a hammer, you don't need to give them nails.


And... OK. That's it. I have to interject.

It's phony. A pony is a small horse. So unless the half dozen or so posters above me have unitedly and silently come to the conclusion that the player in question is playing a diminutive equine... I don't know. So long as the little horse's trick doesn't involve Anime Dead or something.

Well the issue is whether they thing you're not giving them something to hammer.

[Comet]

It's phony. A pony is a small horse. So unless the half dozen or so posters above me have unitedly and silently come to the conclusion that the player in question is playing a diminutive equine... I don't know. So long as the little horse's trick doesn't involve Anime Dead or something.

Yes, it's a small horse. A small horse that does one specific thing very well but cannot, for example, throw a teaparty for a group of friends. Unless she happens to be Pinkie Pie, but that's neither here nor there.

[Echoes]

I agree that it might make the game feel a bit 'phony', but really, I feel like authenticity should take the back-seat to enjoyability. If you have four players sitting down to play a blaster hack-and-slash gorefest and you give them a game of political intrigue where stealthy skill rolls are going to be called for more often than attacks and saves, you're going to have four aggravated players who are thrashing at the walls of the ill-shaped cage you have chained them within. Like I wrote in my previous post, you don't have to give them neon signs saying "This challenge is for player X to use his favorite skill", but in your adventure there should be things that players can meet with their favored tactics. They're their favorite for a reason - they like using them.

[Sillycomic]

It's phony. A pony is a small horse. So unless the half dozen or so posters above me have unitedly and silently come to the conclusion that the player in question is playing a diminutive equine... I don't know. So long as the little horse's trick doesn't involve Anime Dead or something.

I guess the Op wasn't clear on this.

A one trick pony is a character who's design concept is to do one thing in the game really really well. Better than any other character. Better than any of the bad guys. And it's nearly impossible for the average world of monsters and commoners to oppose said trick.

This could be something like bluffing, disguising or diplomacy. This could be something like tripping or disarming. This could even be something like a wizard that only casts metamagicked magic missiles. There's a bunch of different kinds of one trick pony builds.

One trick pony isn't literally a player playing a pony. It's just a character designed to do one thing so well that most of the time it's hard to oppose that action.

[The Glyphstone]

I agree that it might make the game feel a bit 'phony', but really, I feel like authenticity should take the back-seat to enjoyability. If you have four players sitting down to play a blaster hack-and-slash gorefest and you give them a game of political intrigue where stealthy skill rolls are going to be called for more often than attacks and saves, you're going to have four aggravated players who are thrashing at the walls of the ill-shaped cage you have chained them within. Like I wrote in my previous post, you don't have to give them neon signs saying "This challenge is for player X to use his favorite skill", but in your adventure there should be things that players can meet with their favored tactics. They're their favorite for a reason - they like using them.

If you promised them a gorefest and you instead delivered intrigue, sure. But if you told them it would be an intrigue game upfront and beforehand, and they brought four hack and slashers expecting to be able to murder their way to victory, let them wallow in their failure for deliberately ignoring your campaign premise. This sort of thing is very, very dependent on whether or not they knew what they were getting into.

[Zeofar]

And... OK. That's it. I have to interject.

It's phony. A pony is a small horse. So unless the half dozen or so posters above me have unitedly and silently come to the conclusion that the player in question is playing a diminutive equine... I don't know. So long as the little horse's trick doesn't involve Anime Dead or something.

Everyone has a blind spots, I guess.

Good luck with that.

[Echoes]

If you promised them a gorefest and you instead delivered intrigue, sure. But if you told them it would be an intrigue game upfront and beforehand, and they brought four hack and slashers expecting to be able to murder their way to victory, let them wallow in their failure for deliberately ignoring your campaign premise. This sort of thing is very, very dependent on whether or not they knew what they were getting into.

See, while on one front I agree with you that the players were really low in completely ignoring your directions, as someone who has been trained extensively in leadership techniques I can say that this is never a good idea. Every player's objective at a D&D table should be for everyone gathered to have a good time; therefore, no one should engage in actions which stand in direct conflict with this objective. If your players are ignoring you to the point that it is destructive to your own enjoyment, you should sit down with them for a sombre talk and, if they continue, find a new group. Everyone who has been a part of this forum more than a month has heard the advice 'find a new DM' at one point or another in threads where players lament bad DMs, but honestly, there are times when 'find new players' is just as sound.

[Kiero]

See, while on one front I agree with you that the players were really low in completely ignoring your directions, as someone who has been trained extensively in leadership techniques I can say that this is never a good idea. Every player's objective at a D&D table should be for everyone gathered to have a good time; therefore, no one should engage in actions which stand in direct conflict with this objective. If your players are ignoring you to the point that it is destructive to your own enjoyment, you should sit down with them for a sombre talk and, if they continue, find a new group. Everyone who has been a part of this forum more than a month has heard the advice 'find a new DM' at one point or another in threads where players lament bad DMs, but honestly, there are times when 'find new players' is just as sound.

Echoes speaks much wisdom.

[Infernalbargain]

See, while on one front I agree with you that the players were really low in completely ignoring your directions, as someone who has been trained extensively in leadership techniques I can say that this is never a good idea. Every player's objective at a D&D table should be for everyone gathered to have a good time; therefore, no one should engage in actions which stand in direct conflict with this objective. If your players are ignoring you to the point that it is destructive to your own enjoyment, you should sit down with them for a sombre talk and, if they continue, find a new group. Everyone who has been a part of this forum more than a month has heard the advice 'find a new DM' at one point or another in threads where players lament bad DMs, but honestly, there are times when 'find new players' is just as sound.

I prefer to think of it as them choosing to play it on "hard mode".

[Thurbane]

As others have said, let his trick work for a while. Then, once word has a realistic amount of time to spread around, throw a few enemies at him that are very specifically designed to turn his advantages into serious disadvantages.

If (when) the player cries foul, say that his exploits are so successful, that word has gotten around. Like a Wild West gunslinger with a big rep, contenders are coming out of the woodwork trying to topple the "top dog".

I think it's perfectly fair and reasonable.

[Amphetryon]

Interesting discussion. I've seen it explicitly argued elsewhere that to purposely expose the weakness(es) of a given group is Bad DMing and should be avoided. I've also seen it explicitly argued that purposely ignoring said weakness(es) is Bad DMing and should be avoided.

I look forward to the opinions on this forum.

[mobdrazhar]

i would definately agree with mixing upwhat is in each encounter. As others have said some encounters should be playing into his strengths and others should be exploiting his weaknesses.

remember that the BBEG wouldn't just keep throwing mooks at the players that he would destroy without a second thought. He would be planning ways to topple the party and exploiting anything they can. please rmember though that this is not metagaming per say as the BBEG would have seen what they can do or have had reports of thier abilities.

[Thurbane]

Interesting discussion. I've seen it explicitly argued elsewhere that to purposely expose the weakness(es) of a given group is Bad DMing and should be avoided. I've also seen it explicitly argued that purposely ignoring said weakness(es) is Bad DMing and should be avoided.

If it's done in a "meta" context, I agree. If there is a legitimate way some enemies will learn about the trick, I think it's all fair and above board.

The golden rule is generally that anything a player can cheese out, the DM can cheese out better. DMs don't have to worry about LA as much, only about CR...

...but, I hate to see games devolve into an "arms race" between DMs and players using "dirty" op-tricks. Once a game gets to this stage, I htink some frank discussions are in order.

[Echoes]

...but, I hate to see games devolve into an "arms race" between DMs and players using "dirty" op-tricks. Once a game gets to this stage, I htink some frank discussions are in order.

Yes. This. A DM has the power of an army of level 10^9000 divine wizards at his fingertips, while players are limited to whatever pun-punny shenanigans the latest optimization thread has dragged in. Though the DM is on the opposite side of the battlefield as the players, in many ways D&D is a cooperative endeavor; when it becomes a contest to see who can 'beat' the other side, your game will rapidly fall into a deadlocked death spiral.

[Infernalbargain]

Yes. This. A DM has the power of an army of level 10^9000

WHAT NINE THOUSAND!?!

[Akal Saris]

I've got this problem in my campaign at the moment.

One of my players is playing a class from Libris Mortis called Master of Shrouds. Basically, it's a Cleric prestige class that with early entry tricks can be qualified for by level 3. It lets you summon a ton of Shadows much earlier than PCs are supposed to be able to. In exchange you heavily penalise your casting to the tune of two lost caster levels.

The result is that you have a character with a bunch of incorporeal Strength-damaging summons that are completely invulnerable to and can effortlessly kill somewhere around 75% of the level-appropriate opponents in the Monster Manual. On the other hand, if you're fighting undead, constructs, or anything with immunity to summons, the main feature of the class is completely useless.

Real pain in the neck to DM for, let me tell you.

Saph, can I ask what your solutions as a DM have been so far? I'm a big fan of the Master of Shrouds, and I respect you as a poster, so I'm interested in how a competent DM would work to challenge one as part of a party.

Interesting discussion. I've seen it explicitly argued elsewhere that to purposely expose the weakness(es) of a given group is Bad DMing and should be avoided. I've also seen it explicitly argued that purposely ignoring said weakness(es) is Bad DMing and should be avoided.

I look forward to the opinions on this forum.

My own view is that a good DM writes encounters that will challenge a party, and sometimes that means playing off a PC's weaknesses or directly crippling one of the PCs for that encounter.

My next encounter in a 16th level game will include a spellcaster with Waves of Exhaustion, which will likely make the party's mounted ubercharger almost useless for the fight unless the party wizard succeeds on a dispel magic instead of casting another spell. But the charger PC has single-handedly won the last several encounters - this one will be a fight where ranged attacks and AOE damage (probably from the party's warlock and ftr/wiz) will be key to the fight.