What is a GM to do when a player makes an ineffective character?

[Talakeal]

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

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

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

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

Anyone else have this problem? What do you do?

[BootStrapTommy]

For a creative enough GM, "accidentally" killing characters is pretty easy.

[Necroticplague]

For a creative enough GM, "accidentally" killing characters is pretty easy.

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

[Geddy2112]

I am not 100% clear on what is happening? Have you gone through those two options before, or those are what you think will happen?

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

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

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

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

[Talakeal]

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

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

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

[CharonsHelper]

Yes - much depends upon the player in question.

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

[BootStrapTommy]

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

You're complaining about rats, but refuse to use rat poison.

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

[Telok]

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

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

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

Fixing a player is... a definite maybe.

[Squibsallotl]

Either use an act of god to buff the character, or find challenges that will allow them to shine.

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

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

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

[Red Fel]

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

Frustration leads to one of three outcomes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jornophelanthas]

When you notice a player is building a character that will not be able to pull its own weight, and the player is not receptive to character creation advice, I would give the player a general warning.

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

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

Only give actual tips when the player asks for them.

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

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

[Talakeal]

You're complaining about rats, but refuse to use rat poison.

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

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


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

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

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

[johnbragg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[johnbragg]

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

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

[Jornophelanthas]

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

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

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

[Douche]

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

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

[icefractal]

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

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

[Squibsallotl]

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

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

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

[Faily]

one of the players makes one or more very un-optimal choices in character creation and the result is a character who can't perform the way they expect it to

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

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

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


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



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

All my 2 cents from experience though.

[Segev]

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

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

[nedz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

TL;DR: Show don't tell.

[Thrudd]

I don't see any problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BootStrapTommy]

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously, a creative enough GM.

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

[Jay R]

Throughout the history of the world, there have been people who play games poorly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eisenheim]

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

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

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

[Segev]

To avoid an item meant for one player being snatched up by another, discuss it OOC with the players, first. Explain who it's for.

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

[Talakeal]

To avoid an item meant for one player being snatched up by another, discuss it OOC with the players, first. Explain who it's for.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously, a creative enough GM.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BootStrapTommy]

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

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

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

Kobolds are my spirit animal. Maybe it is time to resurrect your own inner kobold?

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

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

[Mutazoia]

Blah, blah, blah

So....

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

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

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

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

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

[LokiRagnarok]

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

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

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

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