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

[Thrudd]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

[False God]

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]

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.

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.