Don't give me that 'It fits my character'! Crap

[fbmf]

1162329610[/unixtime]]Yeah, the character that can't manage the appropriate EL is annoying - but sometimes it fits into a larger party; there's more room there.
-Crissa

You intrigue me, madam. Can I have an example?

The only way I can picture this working is a large group of useful characters being able to spread the misery of an unuseful character around so the group isn't dragged down as much. Is that what you meant?

Game On,
fbmf

[Fwib]

In one of the games I play in, we have a player who has a tendency to play really weird and often very weak characters (both by mechanics and by play-style).

His characters usually die within a session or two.

None of us complain about xp-leeching - several of the deaths are worthy of bardic retelling.

[fbmf]

Okay, I can see that. Hell, back in 2e we had a player like that, too.

Game On,
fbmf

[power_word_wedgie]

1162421942[/unixtime]]In one of the games I play in, we have a player who has a tendency to play really weird and often very weak characters (both by mechanics and by play-style).

His characters usually die within a session or two.

None of us complain about xp-leeching - several of the deaths are worthy of bardic retelling.

That's cool that you let him play in your group. That's great.

However, my experience has been that it has far more to do with the player than it has to do with the class. I've gamed with players that have played fighters and survived quite well, and I've played with guys that have played optimized wizards and get wasted. So, we're all in agreement that the player has an impact on character's mortality - I'm just saying it has way more impact than the class selected. YMMV.

So with that in mind, I would never say, "Hey, you're not at a sufficient level of proficiency to play in our group so hit the road." Thus, I'd never say, "Hey, you want to play a fighter - hit the road." The former has more issues of player (and thus group) survivability, so if I'm not going to kick him out of the group for the former, I'm not going to dwell on the latter.

[Crissa]

In a larger group, screen-time is spread more thinly, and any one player's actions don't impact the overall game as much. The fact that you, personally, cannot take down a Storm Giant doesn't allay the fact that a group of you can.

Also, just because a Bard sucks in a small group doesn't mean that he wouldn't be really useful just for Inspire in a larger group.

On the other hand...

...People who want to play Arcane Archers and then suck because they won't allow the Cleric to cast Greater Magic Weapon on them and then complain that the Cleric is being a min-maxer really cheese me.

Classes are not Roles. Not in D20, not in any game which allows for more than character build.

-Crissa

[User3]

When I run or play in games, the biggest problem with people making mechanically "bad" choices, is that it causes really bad party dynamics, because the characters that really sucks ass, have their spotlight stolen by the characters that don't. And that just isn't fun.

The way I look at it is that everyone, at some fundamental level, wants to do "cool stuff" and if your chances to do cool stuff is constantly overshadowed by someone elses way cooler stuff, then we have a problem. Some people get pissed off, there is bad feeling, etc. While not everyone wants to be picard, no-one wants to be a redshirt

So trying to keep some even keel on the awesome level of the various party members seems important to me, just to keep the party socially functioning in real life, game performance totally aside.

So it's fine if the experinced tactician power gamer guy plays a core sorcerer, and the rper with less of a head for numbers, as it where, plays a million source book powered druid, because the power gamer is going to bilk as much awesome out of the sorcerer as the RPer is going to get out of the druid - giving them an equal share of both cool factor and spotlight time.

And if the roles are reversed, it becomes an imperative to me to make sure that the RPer gets as much awesome out of the sorcerer as he can, so he can keep pace with the powergamer.

I find that if you don't have that balance in awesome levels, you get the situation that PWW is saying just avoid. On some level the level 20 fighter guy, or 10 levels of blind arcane archer, or whatever completely suboptimal choice with what *seemed* like a cool shtick at the time, is going to be pissed off because he never gets any awesome time, and will end up accusing the powergamer of being a munckin, which is just going to start a slagging match or cause more insidious ill will - and thats just no fun for *anyone* (unless, like me, you enjoy other peoples pain) so fixing the imbalance by hook or by crook seems important to me.

So when I DM people and I can see a disaster coming (vis a vis a game I started recently where one guy said "I want to play 20 levels of monk!") I break out the house rules from the word go

[ObiWayneKenobi]

(First post here... thanks to Dragon Child for pointing this board out to me)

I have encountered this in experience.. I actually left my last group because two of the prominent people there were of this sort and routinely got into arguments with me (well, that and I moved out of state).

I am inclined to say, however, that a player has the right to play anything they want in the group.. and choosing skills/feats/classes for flavor reasons makes just as much sense as choosing them for optimization. A player who spends skill points on "useless" skills because it fits his character's background is not *wrong* for their choice.

That being said, however, I've had several experiences where I am seen as being in the wrong for optimizing my PCs and/or suggesting to the others what would make their characters more efficient. For example, one person I gamed with had a Necromancer (and almost always played Wizards), by which I mean the specialist Wizard (Dread Necromancer was too limited in spell selection for her; she wanted to use Fireballs and such). Well, she refused to multi-class or pick any prestige classes to help her out, because she didn't see the need for them and felt she could be a good enough Necromancer as a straight Wizard.

Another player routinely got upset with me for playing classes that were powerful, for example the Duskblade. When my group started a campaign and I mentioned I was going to play a Duskblade (mind you this was before he knew what it was) he sent out an email saying, and I quote, "Oh great, another pumped up class from a sourcebook." while he was content to use only the PHB for his characters. This person routinely got into words with me because I said I would refuse to make useless choices based on "background" while he (and the other player, the Necromancer) enjoyed doing this but then felt "useless" compared to my optimized character.

[power_word_wedgie]

1162654065[/unixtime]]I find that if you don't have that balance in awesome levels, you get the situation that PWW is saying just avoid. On some level the level 20 fighter guy, or 10 levels of blind arcane archer, or whatever completely suboptimal choice with what *seemed* like a cool shtick at the time, is going to be pissed off because he never gets any awesome time, and will end up accusing the powergamer of being a munckin, which is just going to start a slagging match or cause more insidious ill will - and thats just no fun for *anyone* (unless, like me, you enjoy other peoples pain) so fixing the imbalance by hook or by crook seems important to me.

Not if, as a player, you know that as a suboptimal choice you know you aren't going to be the spotlight and are willing to accept it to get the benefits that "suboptimal" provides. (don't want to keep track of the power-ups and the flexibility that the optimal has) I know, as a 20th level fighter that I'm not going to have the same flexibility that a 20th level cleric will have, and I'm ok with that.

Now one is saying that if a player takes a sub-optimal class, then he has the right to blame the other characters for being better. No one is saying that it's wrong to take a optimal class. No one is saying that if a character wants to get some house rules to make his fighter character optimized that this is wrong. All I'm saying is that I'd prefer to not be treated like a 4-year old at the gaming table whenever I want to play a 20th level fighter by getting the response, "Sorry - no go - I'm going to house rule your character's class to death for your own good."

[RandomCasualty]

1162658116[/unixtime]] All I'm saying is that I'd prefer to not be treated like a 4-year old at the gaming table whenever I want to play a 20th level fighter by getting the response, "Sorry - no go - I'm going to house rule your character's class to death for your own good."

I don't find that situation as getting treated like a 4 year old at all. You should play a character concept that you like. If that concept is mechanically weak, it's a good practice by the DM to boost up that concept mechanically so that it's fun to play and competitive. So long as the DM isn't changing your base concept, that's cool.

I don't find the DM saying "this character class is too weak, I'm going to boost it." and different from the DM deciding the class is too strong and nerfing it to get it inline with everyone else. Neither of those is wrong, and generally what I see a good DM doing. With all the unbalanced crap being produced by WotC, there's nothing wrong with modifying the rules.

[power_word_wedgie]

There's nothing wrong with modifying the rules as long as the player also wants to modify the rules for his character class. If a player wants to have a class boost because they believe they need it for it to be fun to play, and the DM goes along with it, that's fine. If a player wants to play a fighter at its WotC power level, but you still want to boost up its power level despite the player's wishes, you're in essence saying, "You don't know what is fun for yourself, so I will make you play this modified class if you want to play this character concept." That's not good DMing - that just lame.

And frankly, if a DM did that to my character, that would be the last time I'd game with that DM. If the DM wants to nerf my character because I'm too powerful: fine. If the DM want to nerf my character because I'm not powerful enough and I'm really not desiring it: out of bounds.

[Tokorona]

Actually, I hold that if you want to outright play something too weak to contribute, you should expect the DM to power it up. While it is a bit of presumption on his part, I doubt it is right to expect that your party members will continually reserrect you, take your share. IT's not fair to them, either.

[power_word_wedgie]

Actually, it's a lot of presumption on his part. For example, who said that the person playing the fighter was expecting the party to continually resurrect his character?

The other problem is that you really can't force a player to play a certain nerfed-up class if they don't want to either. Let's say that you give the class a healing ability: the player can just have his character never take advantage of the healing ability and just take advantage of his feats. Also, they could just play a cleric who never casts spells and turns undead. All you've done is have the character trade d10 hit points for d8 hit points and much less feats. And that's the point about the whole game: a player plays what they want to play as a character. This isn't monopoly where when they roll a "3", they *have* to move three spaces.

That's why I noted earlier that it has more to do with group dynamics. Really, if you're *forcing* a player down a narrow path to play a certain character concept, even if the intent is "for the betterment of the player", all you're doing is prolonging the inevitable result that the guy/gal is just eventually going to ditch your group. If you really think that a player needs to pidgeonholed to a concept which is against their will, your best bet to save everyone some time is to just tell the player, "Please leave."

I understand that being a "fighter" is just not being a fighter. However, if the player is really wanting to play a fighter the way that the fighter is designed, just let them play a fighter. Forcefeeding never works.

[Crissa]

If a player is willing to take the less screen time, so be it.

If a player wants to take levels in a class that isn't available (more than two levels of Fighter, Dragon Disciple), why is it up to the DM to adapt? Forcing the DM to play with classes they didn't offer is no better than forcing the Player to play a class they didn't choose.

Either way, allowing something which is not level appropriate to the group will cause tension. Hand-waving that there some players can deal with it and therefore it's not a problem - when most players cannot - is the Oberoni Fallacy all over again.

-Crissa

[User3]

1162676137[/unixtime]]
If a player wants to take levels in a class that isn't available (more than two levels of Fighter, Dragon Disciple), why is it up to the DM to adapt? Forcing the DM to play with classes they didn't offer is no better than forcing the Player to play a class they didn't choose.

Either way, allowing something which is not level appropriate to the group will cause tension. Hand-waving that there some players can deal with it and therefore it's not a problem - when most players cannot - is the Oberoni Fallacy all over again.

In a way, we're now saying the same thing. If a DM has a list a classes that they want to only have in their campaign, fine. But you've got to understand that if a player really doesn't want to play a class that isn't on the listing, if you really think that a sub-optimal class is going to seriously disrupt your gaming group, then the best bet is to just tell the player to find another group. Trying to put a house-rule conglomeration of a fighter, when the player just wants to play a basic fighter and really doesn't want to play some house-rule conglomeration of a fighter, doesn't work. As I said earlier, if you're getting to be a stickler about the classes, I'm sure as time goes on the players selection of feats, skill, and tactics are going to converge with the rest of the group and, if class selection is that much of an issue with your group, it's only the tip of the iceberg and thus you're only prolonging the inevitable.

My only suggestion is that if you are willing to play with inexperienced players, then there's no big deal with playing with sub-optimal characters since the former is much more deadly to a group of characters than the latter. If you're not willing to play with either, then show the player the door and save you both a lot of time and potential misery. Let them find a group that is in line with them and you can keep to your group with your rules.

[PhoneLobster]

Just to interject an odd point on the role/class different/same thing.

Not only are role and class the same for many people all sorts of people end up associating all sorts of crazy dumb CRAP role stuff to certain classes and acting like its the word of god.

I recently overheard this from some other gaming group, ostensibly playing a vanilla setting 3.5 type game...

"Well I'm just warning you now that I'm playing a rogue and rogues are allowed to kill anyone in the party if they like."

Theres a place that role=class takes you, that place apparently seems to be crazy town.

edit: It encourages me once again to put together a fun D&D farce game of some form for some of my players.

[Imban]

I always thought it was the opposite way:

"You're playing a rogue, and anyone in the party is allowed to kill you if you think that means you're allowed to be a dick."

[User3]

1162667686[/unixtime]]There's nothing wrong with modifying the rules as long as the player also wants to modify the rules for his character class. If a player wants to have a class boost because they believe they need it for it to be fun to play, and the DM goes along with it, that's fine. If a player wants to play a fighter at its WotC power level, but you still want to boost up its power level despite the player's wishes, you're in essence saying, "You don't know what is fun for yourself, so I will make you play this modified class if you want to play this character concept." That's not good DMing - that just lame.

And frankly, if a DM did that to my character, that would be the last time I'd game with that DM. If the DM wants to nerf my character because I'm too powerful: fine. If the DM want to nerf my character because I'm not powerful enough and I'm really not desiring it: out of bounds.

I agree with you, that if the player knows what he's getting into, fine, we can all be happy, and there will be kittens, but, and it's a big but, when I've encountered this problem, people aren't actually actively making the decision to suck. What they are doing is saying "Hey cool, that sounds like an awesome shtick" and trying to get that together.

The problem is it basically doesn't work, because while some shticks sound cool, WoTC decided they cannot have any shines - and when it doesn't work out people (to me, in my experience, blahblahblah) seem disappointed - which is what causes the problems/tensions.

[User3]

Adding power to a character is wildly easy for a DM, and there are easy ways to do it so that a player can't object, like...

Don't change class features....add magic items.

If a DM thinks that a longsword fighter is a little short in the pants, then just add in an artifact longsword. Problem solved, and with a happy player.

--------------------

I've played in incredibly deadly campaigns with newbies, and generally they want bad things.....like Monks. As an experienced player, I built a tactical control Sorcerer. The beauty of the build is that it looks weak since it has few direct damage spells or flashy BS like Polymorph and its built on a Sorcerer chassis, but if you are walking around with 3-4 mooks (also known as weak-ass PCs), it makes for a very powerful party.

The thing to remember is that in a cooperative storytelling game like DnD, you actually have to cooperate. Powergamers have to make characters that compliment the other PCs, and not just make the most powerful individual character that they can.

PS. We wrote the Tome of Necromancy and the Revised Necromancer Handbook because there are no good published Necromancer PrCs. I would totally support a Necromancer Wizard not using PrCs if he was stuck with published material, since most PrCs require feat and/or skill investment and there are now enough good Necromancer feats to make you cringe at losing even one.

[RandomCasualty]

1162667686[/unixtime]]
And frankly, if a DM did that to my character, that would be the last time I'd game with that DM. If the DM wants to nerf my character because I'm too powerful: fine. If the DM want to nerf my character because I'm not powerful enough and I'm really not desiring it: out of bounds.

Well, first, it's not a nerf, it's a power boost in this case, and I'm really not sure why you'd be objecting, assuming the DM stuck with the original flavor of your class. It's one thing if he's giving your swordsman all kinds of magic spells as a buff and changing your character concept, but if you play the same concept just with some bigger numbers and other useful abilities, how can you possibly take offense at that?

I mean so what if your monk has fighter BaB instead of cleric BaB? Most people would be glad if the DM is boosting their character.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

You have to realize not everyone realizes that classes like Fighter are underpowered. In fact, I'm willing to go so far as to say most people don't realize that classes like fighter are underpowered. Some people don't like taking boosts to a class they don't see as underpowered, and some people will look at others getting class upgrades when as far as they are concerned, they don't need them, and cry favoritism.

This is why I preferr to handle most situation like this in game on a case-by-case basis when it becomes an issue.

-Desdan

[Crissa]

...Actually, I remember talking to a GM who insisted their problems were all with the single-classed fighter using the Profession skill rules...

Aparently they dominated non-combat by making stuff, and dominated combat by having... I dunno.

But this GM thought Miatas were the shiznit and did a few things of dubious moral, ethical value...

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

1162897062[/unixtime]]
Well, first, it's not a nerf, it's a power boost in this case, and I'm really not sure why you'd be objecting, assuming the DM stuck with the original flavor of your class. It's one thing if he's giving your swordsman all kinds of magic spells as a buff and changing your character concept, but if you play the same concept just with some bigger numbers and other useful abilities, how can you possibly take offense at that?

I mean so what if your monk has fighter BaB instead of cleric BaB? Most people would be glad if the DM is boosting their character.

Because you're really not asking for the power boost via change in class. Look, there are times that I just like to play a class with basic abilities which is something that I've played in the past so I know what to expect. Frankly, taking somebody Frankenstein of a class isn't something that appeals to me that often since (a) it's extra abilities that no I have to keep track of and I really never asked for in the first place and (b) it's some hombrew class that I never asked for in the first place. It would be different if I was asking for this homebrew class - alas, I wasn't.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, it would ring sirens in my head that the DM has some sort of game control issues that I don't want to get myself wrapped up in. It is different if you think that the player is going to be overpowering to the point of making the adventure too easy, but to freak out because I think I may consider the adventure via my character selection too hard? Unreal. And like I said, if they're getting freaked out by my choice in class, rest assured he's going to freak out about my selection of feat, skills, and magic items if the DM thinks that they will be "unbalancing." Thus, I'd haul out of there and find a group that doesn't freak out on things like that.

And, finally, it gets to the concern that is being avoided: players having hard feelings that their class selection didn't work. Honestly, I look at this and scratch my head since the groups I've normally gamed with have never had this problem. For example, there was this one player that tried to make a melee wizard using Tensor's Transformation. Well, we fought a dragon and he got slaughtered early. Basically, he just said, "Well, that didn't work, did it?" and we all got a chuckle out of it. There wasn't any tension filling the room or animosity involved. We just rolled up new characters and did a new campaign. No big deal.

Now, if you were having a "concern" with a character either due to character archetypes or unfamilarity to the game, K brings up an excellent point: just give the character in question some sort of magic item. You're not banning the character and normally people are more accepting of getting an extra magic item like a +2 sword than for you to butcher or ban the class they want to take.

[RandomCasualty]

1162960260[/unixtime]]
And, finally, it gets to the concern that is being avoided: players having hard feelings that their class selection didn't work. Honestly, I look at this and scratch my head since the groups I've normally gamed with have never had this problem. For example, there was this one player that tried to make a melee wizard using Tensor's Transformation. Well, we fought a dragon and he got slaughtered early. Basically, he just said, "Well, that didn't work, did it?" and we all got a chuckle out of it. There wasn't any tension filling the room or animosity involved. We just rolled up new characters and did a new campaign. No big deal.

Well, there's a difference between bad choice of tactics for one battle and a bad character. Choosing poorly in one battle and getting screwed for it generally doesn't make people upset. After all, they can just adjust their strategy next time. Figuring out your character totally sucks and is inferior in every way is different. That problem won't just go away with better planning next time. You're stuck wtih that character until he dies or you abandon him. Now suppose you like the character personality and don't want to just send him packing for a new min/maxed character, then what? That's where the ill feelings come from.

It feels to the other player that sometimes (especially in a group of optimizers), that the other PCs have pushed out his character and are draining the fun from the game.

The other situation tends to arise when you've got one optimized character of the same class as a non-optimized character. So like if one guy is the fighter and is playing a straight fighter 15, and the toher guy is a fighter/barbarian/dervish with better feat selection, the straight fighter is probably going to feel slighted, because he's inferior in every way.

[power_word_wedgie]

1162980638[/unixtime]]
Well, there's a difference between bad choice of tactics for one battle and a bad character. Choosing poorly in one battle and getting screwed for it generally doesn't make people upset. After all, they can just adjust their strategy next time. Figuring out your character totally sucks and is inferior in every way is different. That problem won't just go away with better planning next time. You're stuck wtih that character until he dies or you abandon him. Now suppose you like the character personality and don't want to just send him packing for a new min/maxed character, then what? That's where the ill feelings come from.

A couple of points:

1) The player intentionally made his character so it was a solely melee wizards and thus didn't have spells in other areas. That was his character concept, and it tanked. After the combat, we talked about it and realized that it wasn't really all that effective. It wasn't that they took a bad strategy or anything like that.

2) Like I said, in that situation, I would want to be "stuck" with my character concept and if he dies, it's no big deal. Trust me, there would be for more "ill feeling" if you outright banned a class to me rather than having a character concept die in the game. And, like I brought up in my previous post, the banning of a class due to it being underpowered would send up red flags to me about the DM that would cause me to want to leave the group.

It feels to the other player that sometimes (especially in a group of optimizers), that the other PCs have pushed out his character and are draining the fun from the game.

Like K said, if your group is freaking out about that, you can always as a DM give the character a magic item via storyline. The moral of the story is that it doesn't need to blow up into an outright banning/houseruling of a class just because you think it is underpowered.

And, as I said earlier, really a new player is more damaging via "balance" than a class selection. (ie. A player making bad choices is most likely going to kill the group than playing a fighter.) Thus, do you kick out the new player? With that mentality, getting you character killed off because the guy is new to the game is probably more "fun-draining" than anything else.

The other situation tends to arise when you've got one optimized character of the same class as a non-optimized character. So like if one guy is the fighter and is playing a straight fighter 15, and the toher guy is a fighter/barbarian/dervish with better feat selection, the straight fighter is probably going to feel slighted, because he's inferior in every way.

In that situation, I'd be fine with it - I wouldn't feel slighted. I understand that getting a character with simplicity in mind doesn't mean that I would have the most powerful character. Also (well, I don't have any other way to put it so I will just say it), I'm an adult: I don't freak out if someone is getting more pie than I am. And frankly, most groups I've gamed with usually have the same mentality.

[RandomCasualty]

1162990479[/unixtime]]
2) Like I said, in that situation, I would want to be "stuck" with my character concept and if he dies, it's no big deal. Trust me, there would be for more "ill feeling" if you outright banned a class to me rather than having a character concept die in the game. And, like I brought up in my previous post, the banning of a class due to it being underpowered would send up red flags to me about the DM that would cause me to want to leave the group.

Well yeah, as a DM I wouldn't outright ban the class, I'd just pretty much give the PC a warning that in my opinion that class sucks. If he still wants to play it, that's his perrogative. I don't see the point in outright banning a bad class. Though I do often offer PCs power boosts if I think they're underpowered, if they don't want em, that's fine I guess.

Like K said, if your group is freaking out about that, you can always as a DM give the character a magic item via storyline. The moral of the story is that it doesn't need to blow up into an outright banning/houseruling of a class just because you think it is underpowered.

Well, magic items are a rather tough situation to handle in 3rd edition, mainly because almost anyone can use any item. Fighter types often don't need combat power as much as they need versatility and utility abilities. It isn't just "I need a sword that does more damage", it's about finding ways out of a forcecage and stuff like that. And when you hand out a utility ring, you're really not sure which party member will end up getting it. If you as a DM directly hand it to the character in some fashion, then you're better off just outright buffing the character and letting the group know why, as opposed to a painfully obvious "stealth" buff.

I've always beleived that when you make a change for game balance, you should let everyone know about it. If they agree with you, fine, if they don't, okay, you're the DM, hopefulyl they can learn to accept it and move on. But at the very least, they know you're not doing it because of favoritism but rather because you feel a certain way about game balance.

In that situation, I'd be fine with it - I wouldn't feel slighted. I understand that getting a character with simplicity in mind doesn't mean that I would have the most powerful character. Also (well, I don't have any other way to put it so I will just say it), I'm an adult: I don't freak out if someone is getting more pie than I am. And frankly, most groups I've gamed with usually have the same mentality.

Well, it's not necessarily someone throwing a temper tantrum. They may just not be having much fun and decide to quit the group because their character sucks.