Pardon my English.
I'm not particularly sure how to address a particular fracturing situation which seems to be developing in my particular gaming community and the trend of character optimization that seems to be a breeding ground for inter-player hostility.
The arguments usually goes something along the line of
"A Cleric/Cloistered Cleric/Druid is able, by synergistic application of class abilities, domains and spells, to outperform a Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin. You should play a Cleric/Cloistered Cleric/Druid."
"But I have a really cool character concept and background for my pure class fighter. Look... I have 20+ strength, hit stuff regularly and still contribute to the party."
"But this is far superior and your inferior class is a drain on party resources. This is a far more broken build."
"I DON'T want to play a Cleric..."
Needless to say, this gets even worse when someone plays a Cleric/Druid and doesn't follow the supposedly optimized builds. Meanwhile the players with optimized builds determine they have a point to prove and go around in games flaunting their outright superiority over the supposedly inferior builds. Clerics which cast Detect Traps and rub it in the rogue's face, Druids which maul the opposition and point it out to the fighter.
I mean, I can see one side of it; a more 'optimised' class build will work better and ensure smoother progress than a supposedly inferior class and I've always advocated responsible character generation (a supposedly great role-playing opportunity is still rubbish if you mechanically become an albatross to the rest of the group... someone once thought an Con 8 low AC melee bard was a spectacular idea... don't ask.) and even with much of Pathfinder's fixes, the old fundamental of magic means that at high levels, a caster can still produce a performance spike that far exceeds a high level fighter's capacity to work.
Yet there's the other side. A pure fighter/etc might not be the biggest baddest thing in the party, but he/she's contributing. And most importantly they're having fun in the group (and pretty much everyone else doesn't mind) and I don't begrudge a player having fun especially when they are contributing to the overall story (albeit at a reduced rate compared to earlier levels).
It's just I'm not sure how to respond in such situations when another player in the group basically tells the pure class fighter they're not pulling their weight and to shape up.
Honestly, I wish the two could reconcile their perspectives. The character optimisers argue that if everyone just built their characters better mechanically with their various tweaked and 'broken' builds, things would just work out more efficiently. The other players have started referring to character optimisers in terms that are not usable in polite company.
It's spectacularly getting annoying to the point where the community is fracturing into two groups with a great deal of animosity between players who are otherwise great people.
Does for anyone have a solution for a GM which is getting the brunt of getting stuck between groups?
|
There are many solutions to these problems. It all depends on your ability, as the DM, to discuss the problem with the players.
If you are all good friends and/or you have some reason to believe that a frank discussion will do the trick this is the one I always try to use first and foremost. A good discussion where everyone gets their points across and heard can go a long way in solving many problems and this is no exception.
The DM also has the option (assuming that the above solution is doomed to failure) to point out certain things. For instance, in my games not all of the encounters are designed to kill outright as many PC's as possible. In fact, occasionally I throw out encounters designed to make one type of PC or another Shine. Also I tend towards running the opponents as the story dictates. That some times means that a Fighter who is not optimized by game mechanics but is optimized to his character concept can dominate the field.
If your Players just don't get the hint, there is also the strong arm method (however this method can break up a group quickly so use it carefully) First you get yourself a base ball bat and a can of Cheezewhiz...oh wait sorry wrong game. No next time PC creation comes up use 3d6 take 'em where they land (This will seriously crimp the plans of anyone who wants to min/max). Classes are from a set list (DM provides the list ahead of time). Character Backgrounds must be submitted before Character creation begins. There will be no multiclassing unless you can convince the DM that it fits the character you have built. And of course PRC's are always under perview of the DM.
Good luck.
P.S. the other option is that you could just let it run it's course. Sooner or later everyone get's board with playing the same character over and over again...
There's nothing wrong with a few helpful suggestions on how to make a character, but telling someone they're playing the game wrong is very rude, in my opinion.
I would probably tell the rude folks something like:
"I'm the GM, and I think that the fighter will be able to contribute to the encounters I have planned. If you are unable to make suggestions to other players in a helpful and positive way, please don't say anything at all."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to say it, but if any one character is outperforming another, then the DM is mostly at fault.
As a bunch of friends sitting around a table, hopefully you can arrive at your own personal, out-of-game discussions to smooth over the situation, so I'll focus only on in-game solutions - besides, these are more fun.
Clearly, some base classes are weaker than others.
For example, no monk will ever compare in raw damage output to a fighter - given that they both receive equal amounts of optimization (poor, good, awesome, or whatever, as long as they're equal).
It's hard to balance fighter and monk.
But your situation is easier.
You have a cleric who only ouperforms the fighter when he has favorite buffs up.
He can only buff a few times each day, then he's out of buffs.
His buffs only work in areas where magic works.
His buffs only work when he has time to cast them before a fight.
His buffs only work when enemy casters don't dispel them.
So start having monsters attack in the middle of the night when the cleric is sleeping.
Uh oh, now he has to fight unbuffed, or spend the first few rounds casting - make it a short fight, so about when the cleric is done buffing up, the fighter has killed the small encounter. The fighter will laugh his buttocks off at the cleric over this one.
Or start having 8 small encounters a day, at least sometimes. The cleric will only be buffed for the first few encounters, then after that, the fighter will blow him away.
Start finding liberal uses of antimagic and Dispel Magic. By the time you've reached levels where a cleric has the kinds of buffs to outshine a fighter, many enemies should be able to have this kind of defense. You can even justify it with "Hey, you've proven how deadly clerics can be, and it's a well-known fact in this world. Lots of clerics do it. And lots of bad guys prepare to handle it."
And if all else fails, hook that fighter up with some kind of really sweet weapon. Something only he can use. If your cleric is chaotic but the fighter is not, then have the group find an axiomatic weapon with really high plusses or abilities. That will help equalize things quite nicely.
Sure, maybe if you do that, the cleric will still lord it over the fighter that the poor fighter needs an artifact weapon to keep up - but at least he'll be keeping up.
Another thing I do is I almost always have my intelligent monsters (that's anything with an intelligence higher than 2) go after the biggest threats.
The evil boss guy sees two men in armor (fighter and uber cleric) coming his way (with more mages/rogues/rangers/whatever backing them up) and he knows it's the fight of his life. But, which armored guy should he kill first? (We'll assume he has separate plans for the mages that are already in place, so we'll only worry about the two armored guys).
Well, one of them looks like an armadillo and is dishing out moderate damage with ordinary weapons and feats. He's hard to stop.
But the other guy is dishing out more damage, but our intelligent bad guy can readily see that he's doing it with multiple divine buffs. Suddenly, the armored guy doing the most damsge (and therefore is the biggest threat of the two) is also the easiest to stop - all we need is a dispel magic or two and the biggest threat is nearly neutralized.
This is by far the smartest thing an intelligent villain can do.
And if he cannot do it, then the next most intelligent thing he can do is throw his biggest, toughest bad guys (the ones with really high AC and other defenses) against that uber cleric, while throwing only cannon fodder at the lesser threat - he has to stop that scary guy, right?
This results in the fighter hacking his way through and reaching the villain while the uber cleric is still fighting for his life against the minions.
Who looks cool now?
So there's lots of things a DM can do to equalize in-game in this situation - use this stuff liberally.
Is it fair?
Sure it is - that uber cleric is using his uberness liberally, isn't he?
Well, my first comment is more in response to the other comments that you have gotten here rather than just your questions. Optimization by players is NOT a bad thing. It isn't necessarily good either, it is just another way of playing. Some people will enjoy it more than others. Any solution crafted purely to penalize those people who optimize with the base assumption that they are having bad fun is frankly a bad solution. It has to be recognized that those players enjoy crafting a well made character to perform well and taking away what people enjoy in the game just because it is not your thing is a HORRIBLE way to DM.
That said, my response to the initial post is that you don't have an optimization problem, you have a player problem. The fact that some PCs can out perform others is not really the problem here, rather the fact that the players of those characters are demanding that their way is the only fun way to play and causing issues in the game group. This is exactly the same problem as having an ultra hard core role-player who demands that anyone who doesn't have a crazy indepth character is playing wrong, or the hack and slasher who demands that the solution to any encounter you put in front of him is "roll initiative."
I don't believe that any fix in game will help with this. No matter how you change the game the optimizer will be better equipped to deal with it in short order (after all optimizing is analyzing the game and building a character that be highly effective in that environment). You are going to have to bring this up out of game and work on an interpersonal solution.
Each of the players is going to have to be willing to accept that other people enjoy other things about the game and that they HAVE to allow people to enjoy those things if they are going to play in a group game. It doesn't matter which side is telling the other that they are wrong.
I would look for opportunities for people on both sides to work together though. Optimizers enjoy building characters, even if they are building a character within certain constraints. Ask if the non-optimizers would be willing to give the optimizers a character concept and then optimize within those constraints.
Anyway... I can't emphasize enough that this has to be dealt with outside of the game. If it comes to it you may need to remove people from the group in order to allow people to still have fun. It sucks and is a hard process, but afterwards it is amazing how much more fun a game can be.
Sean Mahoney
Optimization by players is NOT a bad thing.
Any solution crafted purely to penalize those people who optimize with the base assumption that they are having bad fun is frankly a bad solution.
That said, my response to the initial post is that you don't have an optimization problem, you have a player problem.
I don't believe that any fix in game will help with this.
You are going to have to bring this up out of game and work on an interpersonal solution.
I took snippets from your post and grouped them together.
I halfway agree with all those snippets - the attitude that the OP characterized for his optimized ubercleric player is definitely a player problem.
But having a group where some characters are optimized and some characters are weak (I believe the OP colorfully used the term albatross - very nice) is a big problem.
It makes the encounters lopsided.
But worse, the players of non-optimized characters feel useless, feel like they aren't contributing, and often don't know how to change tht (or they would be optimized).
No matter how much you handle this out of game, unless you strictly forbid certain levels of high optimization, or strictly mandate a minimum amount of required optimization, which is very domineering and probably out of place for a group of friends, then you will still have lopsided, wild, wonky, and unpredicable encounters where some players/characters take all the spotlight and other characters/players feel useless.
It's not fun to feel useless.
It has to be recognized that those players enjoy crafting a well made character to perform well and taking away what people enjoy in the game just because it is not your thing is a HORRIBLE way to DM.
Absolutely.
I would never suggest taking away the aspect of the game that optimizers enjoy.
I'm an optimizer myself.
Heck, look at me! I'm a tarrasque for pete's sake - can't get much more optimized than that!
My suggestions were for ways for the DM to equalize the situation, and should not necessarily be applied to every encounter. Just to enough of them level the playing field for everyone.
I probably failed to make that point clear.
But if, in-game, the optimizers always shine and the rest always feel worthless, then the DM is not handling the encounter design properly.
There must be times when the optimizer is "teh suck" and the other guys get to shine.
Everyone needs to shine sometimes.
I have to mostly agree with DM_Blake here. Your problems could be your own making.
The DM decides what is, and what is not, allowed in a game. The more you allow, the more problems you will have.
As for dealing with the current game problems, just re-read Mr. Blake's post, it is full of excellent ways to "even" things up.
Personally, I would go for a mass Dispel Magic effect after the Cleric buffs but before the real threat arrives!
It's not fun to feel useless.
The original poster didn't (directly) say anything about players feeling useless. It's quite possible that the unoptimized players would be having fun, if not for the rude comments from the optimizers.
I agree with Sean; it sounds like a rudeness problem to me, not an optimizers vs. suboptimizers problem.
|
|
There was once this Dungeon adventure that had an excellent place to ambush a minor bad guy who was coming to pick up some tribute (somthing about goblins taking over an old outpost).
The PC's knew what time the bad guy was supposed to show up and prepared all of their buff spells a few minutes before the ambush was supposed to occur.
Wouldn't you know it, the bad guy was a few hours late! All of the buffs were gone with no hope of recovery, so the fight depended more on the classes who needed no magical upgrades to deal with the challenge effectively.
Throw stuff like that at them occasionally, and you'll start to see a change in attitude.
But first, I'd talk to the players about the problem and work it out OOC, talk about respecting other player's descisions etc...blah...blah...blah.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I hate to say it, but if any one character is outperforming another, then the DM is mostly at fault.
As a bunch of friends sitting around a table, hopefully you can arrive at your own personal, out-of-game discussions to smooth over the situation, so I'll focus only on in-game solutions - besides, these are more fun.
Clearly, some base classes are weaker than others.
For example, no monk will ever compare in raw damage output to a fighter - given that they both receive equal amounts of optimization (poor, good, awesome, or whatever, as long as they're equal).
It's hard to balance fighter and monk.
But your situation is easier.
You have a cleric who only ouperforms the fighter when he has favorite buffs up.
He can only buff a few times each day, then he's out of buffs.
His buffs only work in areas where magic works.
His buffs only work when he has time to cast them before a fight.
His buffs only work when enemy casters don't dispel them.
So start having monsters attack in the middle of the night when the cleric is sleeping.
Uh oh, now he has to fight unbuffed, or spend the first few rounds casting - make it a short fight, so about when the cleric is done buffing up, the fighter has killed the small encounter. The fighter will laugh his buttocks off at the cleric over this one.
Or start having 8 small encounters a day, at least sometimes. The cleric will only be buffed for the first few encounters, then after that, the fighter will blow him away.
Start finding liberal uses of antimagic and Dispel Magic. By the time you've reached levels where a cleric has the kinds of buffs to outshine a fighter, many enemies should be able to have this kind of defense. You can even justify it with "Hey, you've proven how deadly clerics can be, and it's a well-known fact in this world. Lots of clerics do it. And lots of bad guys prepare to handle it."
And if all else fails, hook that fighter up with some kind of really sweet weapon. Something only he can use. If your...
These are awesome suggestions!
DM Blake, we may not always see eye to eye, but you always provide great advice and food for thought. Kudos!
These are awesome suggestions!
DM Blake, we may not always see eye to eye, but you always provide great advice and food for thought. Kudos!
Thanks, that's all I ever hope for - that I inpire some people to new ideas, and I never expect that anyone will see eye-to-eye with everything I say, or that everyone will see eye-to-eye with anything I say.
I'm always glad to provide food for thought.
Of course, you can repay me with food for tarrasque...
(not you though; you're too bony)
It's not fun to feel useless.The original poster didn't (directly) say anything about players feeling useless. It's quite possible that the unoptimized players would be having fun, if not for the rude comments from the optimizers.
I agree with Sean; it sounds like a rudeness problem to me, not an optimizers vs. suboptimizers problem.
I second this.
It is possible to play a 20th level character among a group of 1st level characters without the 1st level characters feeling useless.
I certainly wouldn't recommend this as a game set up... But forcing "equalness" (however you want to define that) doesn't fix the problem at this table, just disguises it.
All fair points, DM_Blake, but I still think the issue of game balance (which is decent in D&D but not a perfect balance) is far smaller than the underlying rudeness issue in this case.
Btw, sorry if I came across as harsh. Reading my response over it was harsher than I intended. (and not just focused at you, but the collection of advice I was seeing).
Sean Mahoney
All fair points, DM_Blake, but I still think the issue of game balance (which is decent in D&D but not a perfect balance) is far smaller than the underlying rudeness issue in this case.
Btw, sorry if I came across as harsh. Reading my response over it was harsher than I intended. (and not just focused at you, but the collection of advice I was seeing).
Sean Mahoney
I didn't find it harsh, and you're probably right, which is why I briefly addressed and then dismissed the out-of-game approach first (in my first post, I was more interested in in-game balance, and a previous poster had hit the out-of-game angle).
Apology accepted - so I won't bite you.
Besides, I'm still coughing up hairballs from biting that cat over on the other thread...
It is possible to play a 20th level character among a group of 1st level characters without the 1st level characters feeling useless.
I certainly wouldn't recommend this as a game set up... But forcing "equalness" (however you want to define that) doesn't fix the problem at this table, just disguises it.
Now THIS sounds like an interesting idea . . . how to be the 20th level legendary warrior/archmage/etc. without overshadowing the 1st level neophytes.
Now THIS sounds like an interesting idea . . . how to be the 20th level legendary warrior/archmage/etc. without overshadowing the 1st level neophytes.
It is possible to play a 20th level character among a group of 1st level characters without the 1st level characters feeling useless.
I certainly wouldn't recommend this as a game set up... But forcing "equalness" (however you want to define that) doesn't fix the problem at this table, just disguises it.
Nah, it's easy...
.
.
.
wait for it...
.
.
.
Just play a bard!
Bada-boom, baby!
OK, that's not exactly a dig at bards.
Well, it really is a dig at bards. Bards suck. But in this instance, the 20th level bard will inspire so much freaking courage that those little level 1 lowbies will want to take me on! The tarrasque!
They'll lose of course.
But they sure will be tasty little highly-inspired snacks.
But they sure will be tasty little highly-inspired snacks.
The bard idea has merit.
Blake, I don't think you should be allowed on the messageboards before you've eaten. Unless there are trolls to dispose of, in which case dinner is served. I just keeping have this image of the tarrasque doing tricks while a guy stands on the top of a cliff with a treat.
Man: Good tarrasque! Here's your treat!
Tarrasque: ROOOOOOOOAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry for being off-topic, y'all. Please continue.
I hate to say it, but if any one character is outperforming another, then the DM is mostly at fault.
I tend to agree with this. I have a group going through RotRL right now. The ranger is a damage machine, the rogue does his part in damage but his stealth and over all skills are winning battle after battle, the cleric though ok in a fight hardly does much damage but the player built him to be a social leader and healer, and he does it will. In a fight healing is about all he does, but his skills with conversation has him leading because he can get NPCs to react well to him and to help the group when he needs to. Every class can be built to find a special part for themselves, if a player isn't doing well maybe they are new, maybe the DM just isn't giving them a chance to shine.
Now THIS sounds like an interesting idea . . . how to be the 20th level legendary warrior/archmage/etc. without overshadowing the 1st level neophytes.
It is possible to play a 20th level character among a group of 1st level characters without the 1st level characters feeling useless.
I certainly wouldn't recommend this as a game set up... But forcing "equalness" (however you want to define that) doesn't fix the problem at this table, just disguises it.
Gandalf...
Just a suggestion, but use a similar strategy to what Tolkien used with Gandalf in The Hobbit and most of The Fellowship of the Ring: mostly a source of advice and assistance, while using just the bare minimum of force to help the neophytes succeed through their own actions. Granted, this can be a tough role to play without turning it into a deus-ex-machina, but when done correctly, the DM can throw the neophytes into the main plot more quickly (where they'd normally be overwhelmed).
Just play a bard!
A suggestion that works well with the Gandalf style. In many respects, the bard is the ultimate party support character. The bard is limited on direct offense, but excels at lore (Bardic Knowledge, 6 + Int skills) and buffs (Bardic Music, spells). The healing spells available to the bard are just icing on the cake.
A Simulacrum might be another option for a player with a higher level wizard. If it dies you don't really lose anything but while it's around you have a lower level you (that doesn't gain exp so the party can level a little faster) to help the other players out with. Even makes sense if you don't have much magic items or a huge spell book.
Well... as much as I will take into consideration my own DMing style is as fault, I'm going to use the tired old Mea Culpa that as much as I do honestly try, it's hard to balance an encounter in a manner that doesn't seem forced...
Especially in a party where a the Cleric and Druid have taken it upon themselves to be everything else but a Cleric and Druid.
In a sense, as a DM, I have problems catering to player reactions. The issue I have here is that players actually enjoy the spectacular flashy light shows and want each other to have fun. They (including the fighter) often wait for spellcasters to prepare and are quite happy being a supporting character in a tac-nuke friendly environment.
So I am admittedly guilty of the resultant 15 minute working day, but so far the players are happy... or were previously. Some people might cringe watching a fighter beat away at single Nightwalker for multiple rounds just to keep it exactly 20ft away from of the Wizard who just incinerated a half-dozen more (and would have passed the concentration check anyway) but in my group the two high-five each other afterwards and both parties feel vindicated, so I'm not complaining about that. This has been going on for a while and has in a sense become a paradigm and I'm loathe to break it.
The issue arose after one of the older players started trying to build a better *INSERT CLASS HERE*. Now I'm seeing some internet builds at my table and min-maxed characters but I never really stopped it as a DM because my players either didn't care about someone else's 5 minutes of fame or thought it was hilarious.
The thing is now the language and attitude of some of the more elitist optimisation forums have started floating in and I'm seeing a polarisation along lines of 'substandard character builds' and 'fighter-hate' and some of these guys are spreading this mentality with almost missionary zeal. Instead of the laid back attitude, amongst some players it's changed to a competitive "I have a 'broken' build which is so much better than yours. Why don't you try to keep up?" and the previous gaming attitude which encouraged 'spellmageddon' is feeding this trend dangerously.
I think you guys are right and I have a mentality clash.
----------------------
Btw... Admittedly, I've never had a Monk/Fighter problem (generally because half the group here knows one form or the other and accept that a trained guy with a weapon will probably beat them senseless in a straight fight) and concentrate on doing wacky things like disarming, grappling, tripping, etc.
I've honestly never seen any of the "fighters can't do anything" stuff at the table or the "Spell casters can do everything all day and better than anyone else" at the table either.
I think it's the "Build in a vacuum" syndrome rearing its head again.
People often have different play styles even within a group that's developed together for a long time. Some people really enjoy reading every single book, reading every internet forum and optimizing their character progression.
Others really enjoy getting a quirky character concept, building a story and seeing how this flawed character interacts in the world.
Cater to the power gamer by letting them play whatever they want, but limit their power by ensuring you are sticking to the Rules As Written. Don't take their word for it, audit their ideas and check the rules and character sheets yourself.
If something is in the Rules As Written, and a Power Gamer is getting too far ahead of the other characters, then think about your gaming world. In a recent game with a Half Ogre with a spiked chain, he got to start off being relatively awesome, and as the game progressed and word of our great deeds spread, the enemy army started to first engage more and more giants in their number. Then those giants began to awkwardly swing huge chains at us, but usually missed because of their non-proficiency. By the end of the campaign we were fighting chain specialists who were just as good or better than our half-ogre. In this way the cheese-factor of the maxxed out character was met head on, but the gradual way it was introduced made it feel like we were having a real effect on the world, not like our DM was out to get us.
If the good guys have twinked out Clerics, then certainly the bad guys would start to find some to oppose you, right?
A final way would be to try and challenge these players a little. Shake them up and say hey, any goofball can google Cleric and play an optimized caster. A real pro would be able to play any class and make it work. Why not try a Monk and show me what you can do.
The second part is the real Character Specialist. For these guys maybe encourage some dialogue around the table as they develop their character. Maybe they want to play a Warforged Paladin in Eberron and have all this background and future character development planned out in their head. Your Power Gamers can look at that and say, well you're the weakest fighter and barely a healer, but if you insist on playing it, hey the best weapon for you is the Scythe and take these feats so you can have Devastating Criticals and suddenly the Character Specialist is all "OMG a Paladin with a Scythe, that's such an awesome image, I have all new ideas on how scarey and crazy this will be".
The key is cooperation and dialogue. If the mood is antagonistic, or one player things he's totally superior and his way is the One Right Way, then their attitude needs to be adjusted.
The ONLY thing that is important is that everyone at the table is having fun. Everything else is just suggestions on how you get there.
Good luck!
Stuff
Solid advice.
|
The notion that anyone displays such behavior at the table rather than on the internet(which increases anti-social behavior anyway due to GIFT) makes my mind scream. Are people who go crazy with OneTrueWay-ism(from either side of the spectrum) really that common or have I just been extraordinarily lucky?
The notion that anyone displays such behavior at the table rather than on the internet(which increases anti-social behavior anyway due to GIFT) makes my mind scream. Are people who go crazy with OneTrueWay-ism(from either side of the spectrum) really that common or have I just been extraordinarily lucky?
I'd say you have gotten lucky. I find these types more often as GMs than players...
Now THIS sounds like an interesting idea . . . how to be the 20th level legendary warrior/archmage/etc. without overshadowing the 1st level neophytes.
It is possible to play a 20th level character among a group of 1st level characters without the 1st level characters feeling useless.
I certainly wouldn't recommend this as a game set up... But forcing "equalness" (however you want to define that) doesn't fix the problem at this table, just disguises it.
It isn't as difficult as it sounds. Assuming the GM doesn't try to tailor encounters to the 20th level character at all, and possibly alters the XP system to make sure the presence of a 20th level character doesn't kill the advancement of the 1st level characters. After that, all it takes is the player of the 20th level character trying not to steal the show.
Use only normal equipment. Use only the lowest level of abilities. Use the Aid Another action frequently. Stuff like that.
Depending on the group, it may be necessary to keep the rolls of the 20th level character secret... (Declaring a 30+ to hit roll among 1st level characters might get the players to cry foul...)
But it is certainly possible. Of course it is quite likely to break down fast, which is why I wouldn't recommend it.
I have zero experience with this, so please take my advice with a pinch of salt.
It seems to me the problem is one of different expectations - if it's a group of four friends who want to play together you're probably going to have to resolve it in some way. If not though I really think the 'best' solution is for the optimisers to play together and the cool-character people play together. It's hard to play a feeble, clumsy fighter if your companions are judging you against some hypothetical ideal. Similarly, it would be frustrating to carefully optimise your character so as to efficiently fill the niche you feel has been assigned to you by the party, whilst others seem to make choices deliberately sabotaging or failing to fulfil their role.
If keeping everyone in the same game is necessary/desirable then I'd approach it by pointing out to the optimisers that playing an RPG involves telling a story - some people like to tell stories involving flawed characters, not just heroes. Merry and Pippin were suboptimal builds. If it was good enough for Tolkien, then maybe there's a good story in it after all. I'd also point out to the players choosing a suboptimal build the alternate approach to an RPG (the game as a puzzle-solving/challenge-meeting exercise) and encourage them to at least bear in mind what they are good at (plus give them opportunities to shine as per many of the suggestions above).
I've always felt the best demonstration of where a fighter is superior to a spellcasting tank/hitter is in a protracted adventure. If you're behind enemy lines with lots of wandering monsters interrupting your rests and disrupting your spell preparation - I'd much rather have a fighter than some guy who has to power up for a fight and then beg the party to rest after one or two battles.
Ultimately though - it's different expectations. If you have two groups who think there's a "right way" to play DandD then they will always be dissatisfied with the other mob. It seems to me the question is whether they're grown up enough to play together nicely.
It isn't always about optimization. In some PBP post games I've been in I've seen some characters overshadow others by quite a bit...and it's not intentional.
I can say the same for myself, the most powerful characters I've ever made I made for fun. I've never once taken an ability because I thought "Wow, that makes my character so much more powerful!", I only go for feats/class features which I feel make my character unqiue and/or fit the theme of my character.
I'll give an example...
..I once had a fighter who could, due to a combination of feats, attack on touch armour for a few attacks per combat. When I first looked at the feat I thought "Well...it's not that useful, my fighter isn't strugling at all to hit his foes". I took it anyway because the theme of the feat fitted my characer pefectly. I used it a few times in combat, and my initial thoughts seemed to be bang on the money, until we fought an easy-to-hit foe. I used the ability on the first round, then on the second round I fought normally, but hit this foe so easily. So I figured that on the third round, I'd power attack like crazy to finish him off...and thats when it hit me "Maybe, if I'm hitting foes alot easier when I'm hitting touch AC, I should be power attacking then?". And it proved to be one of the most powerful combinations I've seen IG, and I found it completely by accident. It was the first time in my pen'and'paper game that my group really felt overshadowed, since this fighter was one-shotting bosses with ease now.
The reason why I always jump on those "certain classes are overpowerd" arguments is because I can see why, and it can be a factor in some games. As soon as a player tries to do a character that's out of the ordinary you face the possibility of having an overpowering character in the group.
You're getting great advice here, and you should probably just speak with people out of game to work things out. Especially jerky casters.
That said, I usually wear my heart on my sleeve when it comes to this kind of behavior. Just once I would say: "Stop being a **** to Tom."
I realize that the comments are being made by players, not necessarily characters. But typically role-players are willing to use the same words in character as out. Try asking him, "are you saying this crap in character?" Betcha he says, "sure! stupid fighter is nothing compared to the power of my god!"
After that?
Disjunction the party.
Slap the fighter with a mind effect to destroy his "friend" who has been taunting him. Give him a penalty to the will save because of buried resentment (you don't need it, you're just getting the point across). Distract the other players with fodder.
After the murder, I mean battle, invite them to a one-time-only reset button if everyone plays nice. Unless they didn't really lose much in the way of items, then just leave the cleric/druid/whatever cooling on the floor and let the party decide if it's worth paying for the return of their stellar company.
I know it sounds way too harsh and contrived, but the fact is some people need a smack.
I know it sounds way too harsh and contrived, but the fact is some people need a smack.
Ingenious. But it won't solve the problem.
You shouldn't resort to punitive measures because a player likes a style of play that isn't jiving the with GM players.
The first step is to try and find a way the player can play the game he wants without disrupting the party.
Failing that, you need to explain to the player what kind of game your trying to run, and that it will be no fun if the two of you are butting heads the whole time.
If neither of these works, then it is more likely you have a personal issue between you and the player. That takes more than GMing advice to solve.
Heck, look at me! I'm a tarrasque for pete's sake - can't get much more optimized than that!
Please, non casters are the optimization loose. :)
After all this stuff that's been said, I want to say something related but maybe not helpful:
My play style (when I'm not in my 80' tall incarnation of teeth and scales and world-wrecking badness!):
I like to imagine my character exists somewhere out there. On a real world in some far flung corner of the fantasy universe.
(No, I'm not crazy, and I do know where to find the line between fantasy and reality - but make-believe is fun).
On this imaginary/real world, the rules of whatever gaming system we use are the actual laws of physics. My character is just as aware of his laws of physics as you and I are aware of real-earth laws of phyiscs.
Here on earth, a single arrow can kill you or me. On my character's world, for example, a single arrow is almost never fatal, and then only to youngsters who have no experience in the world.
Here on earth, a nearly fatal wound (sharp force trauma) takes weeks or months to heal and leaves a nasty scar. On my character's world, he can drop to unconsciousness near death and, if he doesn't die, he can heal back to his full HP in 4 days of bed rest with a doctor (no magical healing needed).
Physics, physiology, psychology, biology - all of this stuff is different in his world but he knows these differences because he lives there.
He also wants to survive, explore the world, destroy some parts of it, get rich and famous and powerful, and live a long and glorious life.
With all that said, he makes the best choices he can possibly make to ensure his survival.
If he knows a longsword does more damage than a dagger, he won't become a dagger specialist (and believe me, he knows that is true on his world just like we know it on our world).
If he knows that many successful soldiers and adventurers learn powerful attacks that cleave many foes, but few of them learn to hone their combat reflexes, and the ones who do don't live as long, then he'll take Power Attack and Cleave and he won't take Combat Reflexes.
And so on.
Further, he can test things. If he finds a +1 flaming longsword, and wonders if it will do more damage on average than his +3 longsword, he'll chop down entire forests until he figures out the balance, swings, and damage potential.
All of this equates to me, the player, crunching numbers and making character selections that enable my character to survive in his imaginary/real world.
No, this isn't exlusive. I make many decisions because they're fun, or because they're in character, or for other RP reasons.
All I'm saying is I feel perfectly justified in stacking the best feats, gear, skills, spells, etc., on my character, because in that imaginary/real world, that's exactly what he would do to survive.
That's how I see it.
All fair points, DM_Blake, but I still think the issue of game balance (which is decent in D&D but not a perfect balance) is far smaller than the underlying rudeness issue in this case.
Btw, sorry if I came across as harsh. Reading my response over it was harsher than I intended. (and not just focused at you, but the collection of advice I was seeing).
Sean Mahoney
I didn't find it harsh, and you're probably right, which is why I briefly addressed and then dismissed the out-of-game approach first (in my first post, I was more interested in in-game balance, and a previous poster had hit the out-of-game angle).
Apology accepted - so I won't bite you.
Besides, I'm still coughing up hairballs from biting that cat over on the other thread...
I certainly hope you're not talking about me? As far as I know, we've never chomped on each other.
As big as a Tarrasque is, I'd probably leap down the throat when you tried to chomp and start digging my way out from the inside with the claws. No armor on the inside, automatic hits, you get the idea. :) Just gotta hold my breath and claw out of the esophagus before I hit the stomach. Then dig for the heart. :)
Apology accepted - so I won't bite you.
Besides, I'm still coughing up hairballs from biting that cat over on the other thread...
I certainly hope you're not talking about me? As far as I know, we've never chomped on each other.
As big as a Tarrasque is, I'd probably leap down the throat when you tried to chomp and start digging my way out from the inside with the claws. No armor on the inside, automatic hits, you get the idea. :) Just gotta hold my breath and claw out of the esophagus before I hit the stomach. Then dig for the heart. :)
Nope, it wasn't you.
And you've heard wrong.
Armored on the inside too.
And what's not bone and muscle and armor is just about all mouth and belly, almost like a beholder, though not quite that gastronomically overdeveloped. Not much of an esophagus to slide through.
You shouldn't resort to punitive measures because a player likes a style of play that isn't jiving the with GM players.
No, I was suggesting punitive measures because the player was being a jack*** to other players.
|
|
Here is how I handle this at my game. I don;t know your players, but this works for mine. I focus completely on the story. I focus on the character personality, and their background, and the cool stuff they try. I have had a few players who loved to make bad boys. Especially when they are new to my game. They get in to combat, and find that they kick butt, but no one really seems to care much, as they are more concerned with getting on with the story. The combats are fun, and a good way to get the blood pumping, but the real fun comes after when they find out what is going on, how it connects to them, and what they can do about it.
It sometimes means that I have to make the combats really easy for a while, so that I give the normal character some kills too, but in the end the players with the bad boy realizes that there is more to the game than being big and bad. Their next character is usually one that is much less bad boy and much cooler to play.
Now this only works, if you have a group that plays for the Roleplaying and story. if you are with a group that just enjoys the fights and challenge then you might want to think about playing 4th ed. (Not slamming or anything, but that game, from what I hear, is much more suited to balance and challenge than 3.5/prpg is going to be.) I always look at d&d as just the system that help facilitate the story. Because of that people who really don't care about the story and just want the action end up not enjoying my game. Those that do love the story, find that once they try being "flawed" or sub-optimized, it can be a blast.
|
|
As someone who likes Character Optimization, I have to say that I would never think of telling other players how to play their characters, or what characters they should play. Building an effective character for yourself is one thing. Lording it over everyone else and trying to spoil their fun is something else entirely.
I would talk to your player, and let him know that he needs to change his behavior, or he's no longer welcome at your gaming table.
If you're not comfortable with that, there were a host of great suggestions for annoying him as much as he's annoying everyone else towards the top of the thread. Let me also add the Silence spell which, when cast on a couple of non-caster enemies can be quite annoying (of course, you've dispelled his buffs first...and now you've shut down any further casting) I'm betting he doesn't have Silent Spell among his meager feat selection.
Also, I would take a close look at everyone's characters, and find out what they excel at. Give each of your players their moments in the spotlight, and at the same time show this guy that he can do a lot, but there are some things that others can do better.
Lastly, if your player is annoying you, remember that his god is actually an NPC that you control. Gee, I wonder what happens to clerics that annoy their gods...
That's a really good point actually, and a very elegant solution.
Random god: "You're very proud of yourself using MY power." YOINK!
Ex-cleric for a few sessions!
I keep hearing 4e mentioned as this kind of game or that kind of game, so I decided to give it a shot. Unfortunately, I'm behind a firewall and I couldn't log on to World of Warcraft's servers.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh snap!
Cleric/Cloistered Cleric/DruidThat isn't a valid concept, since you can't take Cleric twice.
In this case, the slash means "or", not "and". For instance, "his/her" means "his or her", not "his and her".
Your problem isn't optimization, it's asshattery.
Regardless of whether it's an optimization jerk, a Stormwind Fallacy farisee, a rules lawyer, or a RP nazi, an asshat is an asshat. Throw an ultimatum, and if he keeps being a jerk start applying XP penalties and filling monsters' loot with things he can't use (that ought to hit him where it hurts).
Having said this, it's not a crime being skillfull at making solid character builds. We have this joke here at Mexico where this guy is selling crabs in two buckets, a bucket has the lid on and other doesn't; a potential customer aproaches and asks why only one of the buckets has a lid, it was like this:
"I put a lid on this bucket because this one has japanese crabs, and if I leave the bucket open they'll climb on top of each other and start escaping."
"And this other one...?"
"Oh, this one has mexican crabs."
"Why no lid on this one?"
"No need, if one attempts to climb his way out the others pull him back down."
There are games oriented to freeform design, full of options, and where there can be such thing as 'good builds' and 'poor builds'. On the other hand, there are games oriented to uniform design with only enough options so the player doesn't feel he's playing the same character over and over, but that have the blessing that 'everyone is equal'. The moment you start penalizing players for being skillful and making solid character builds it will be time to ponder whether you're GMing the right game.
Your problem isn't optimization, it's asshattery.
it's not a crime being skillfull at making solid character builds.
There are games oriented to freeform design, full of options, and where there can be such thing as 'good builds' and 'poor builds'. On the other hand, there are games oriented to uniform design with only enough options so the player doesn't feel he's playing the same character over and over, but that have the blessing that 'everyone is equal'. The moment you start penalizing players for being skillful and making solid character builds it will be time to ponder whether you're GMing the right game.
Nope, not a crime at all. And no player should be punished for game mastery.
But sometimes game mastery among a group of players where everyone isn't so skilled can create a great deal of imbalance. Might even be game breaking.
So, while I don't support punishing such a player solely on the grounds of making a good character, I do suggest evening the playing field.
Your expert player won't be so pushy and arrogant if the other characters are keeping up better, and your other players won't be too dissatisfied with their inferior characters if their characters are not excessively inferior.
Punish him or not for being a jerk (I prefer reasoning to punishing myself), and then level (mostly) the playing field by narrowing the gap between the optimized character and the non-optimized.
But sometimes game mastery among a group of players where everyone isn't so skilled can create a great deal of imbalance. Might even be game breaking.
It's only game breaking when the GM gets to the point of becoming -afraid- of his players, case is which the problem is not an "empowered player", but a scaredy-cat GM. When this happens gaming tables degenerate into one of two things: either a nerf fest or a war of escalation.
I constantly find myself GMing to at least one player at a time who is far more experienced than myself. What do I do? Easy, I -learn from them-. I thank them every time they turn tables on me, I welcome every overpowered build that challenges my GMing ability to deal with "supercharacters" and, every time I commit a mistake, I welcome corrections. Feel free to ask Montalve if any of my games is ever a 'cakewalk'.
If one or more characters are lagging in performance, however, then all you have to do is poke their ribs with challenges they (and only them) can overcome:
a) There are only two ways around traps, either disarm them or spring them and trust your Ref save and/or Evasion. Clerics and Druids have neither, and while clerics may be able to Detect some traps, limited spells/day ensures it will still be insufficient in a -dungeon-.
b) CoDzillas aren't exacly known for their high social graces or acute detective skills, you -have- been using enough non-combat challenges for your Bards and otherwise Charisma-based characters, haven't you?
c) Unless you're either a Rogue with Uncanny Dodge or a Sor/Wiz with a Silent/Still spell up his sleeve, it's highly unlikely you can fire that bow before the villain can cut his hostage's throat.
d) Can your CoDzilla run fast enough to save his NPC sweetheart from that crumbling building -in heavy armor-?
e) Fighters still work just as well after targetted Dispel Magic, contrary to Clerics or Druids.
g) Few things make you regret your character has no athletic talent like an extended swim or a run filled with perilous jumps.
If a single character keeps stealing the spotlight that means the GM's adventure design has been clearly insufficient to say the least.
To be honest, I may be misreading this, but I am almost tempted to take offense at the 'scaredy-cat' honorific...
I can say that apart from the odd new player who trickles in, the deviance in system proficiency between the members of the group is actually fairly small. On hindsight, I don't think it's really a character or even adventure design problem so much as a player starting to believe his own posturing and number crunching and becoming accustomed to overlooking the non-combat support (and even combat support) he receives from the rest of the group. Now that I think about it, the last time I had a swim fest, the fighter actually carried the cleric.
There's nothing dysfunctional about any player's character build and there are no albatrosses this time (besides someone's Sorceress sounding like Fran Drescher, but that's a different problem altogether...).
I'm not in any way intimidated by players pulling off spectacularly flashy shows, merely that I'm getting annoyed that from several players finally finding about the joy of character optimization forums and then adopting the same toxic stance as a penguin with an air pump up its rear.
I believe I shall need to host a private meeting.
To be honest, I may be misreading this, but I am almost tempted to take offense at the 'scaredy-cat' honorific...
No, it wasn't directed at you, I apologize if you took it that way. Actually I was thinking of my last bad experience with a bad GM.
On hindsight, I don't think it's really a character or even adventure design problem so much as a player starting to believe his own posturing and number crunching and becoming accustomed to overlooking the non-combat support (and even combat support) he receives from the rest of the group.
So this player is not only a pompous ass, but also neglects the other players' involvement? Ugh! Boy, have I suffered people like that. Take him down a peg, or two, give every single enemy Dispel Magic and Disdain the Divine (useful little spell from BoXM) until he learns to apreciate his party members. You'll be doing the world a favor.
To be honest, I may be misreading this, but I am almost tempted to take offense at the 'scaredy-cat' honorific...No, it wasn't directed at you, I apologize if you took it that way. Actually I was thinking of my last bad experience with a bad GM.
Meh. No fault on your part... sometimes I take offense at things too easily...
So this player is not only a pompous ass, but also neglects the other players' involvement? Ugh! Boy, have I suffered people like that. Take him down a peg, or two, give every single enemy Dispel Magic and Disdain the Divine (useful little spell from BoXM) until he learns to apreciate his party members. You'll be doing the world a favor.
Sad really... he wasn't always like that until he found out about the wonderful world of optimized characters, which while no sin in itself, is home to some fairly obnoxious class elitists whose apparently world view he has adopted.
Shame really. Every class has points it excels at... yes the spell casters can do a lot to fill multiple roles... but only for so long. After a frustrating day of dispel magic and a few anti magic fields, keep that cleric up all night, and right when he is going to pray for new spells... attack. Oops you missed your pray time no spells for you.