I'm sure that if I get a "build optimiser" to make me a "balanced" party in 3e+ all the PC's would be as functional as each other during a game. In 4e (at least at the moment) it seems that you don't require a guru to end up with the same balanced (meaning everyone contributes) group.
I can agree with that.
We ran into a similar situation when I ran Savage Tide. We had one player, a guy who was somewhat new to the game, who decided to play a druid. He didn't really understand how to optimize his feats very well, and wasn't really interested in the complexity of a prestige class, so in the end, his character just ended up weaker than everyone else. Because of that, the other party members didn't bother healing him during battles ("why would I heal the useless druid when I can heal the Warblade instead?") Thus, he died over and over and over again.
See now, while I agree that it sucks when that happens you have to stop and realize that new people who don't have system mastery need a few pointers in any game even as basic as sorry or monopoly. There is a big difference in someone who knows the value of park place and someone who is new to the game. Same thing applies here, if your new guy druid sucked and the experienced players basically went "Way to suck, sorry you can die now useless" then they are part of the problem regardless of game. Someone could have taken 5 minutes to suggest better stuff and have a stronger player, not really a bug of the system IMHO, your mileage as always will vary.
There's also a big difference between sucking for one night of Monopoly and 18 months of D&D night.
|
There's also a big difference between sucking for one night of Monopoly and 18 months of D&D night.
I think one can expect a willingness to learn the rules or at least a willingness to be helped with the development of the PC.
18 months is time enough to read through the PHB sections that contain Druid stuff or get another player to look over his PC.
He obviously built a crappy character, the Druid is a powerful class, even for a novice player.
|
Well, if he wasn't helped before play and he wasn't helped during play, I would put that as a collective responsibility of the group (and in particular the DM), not just on this guy. If he was totally disinterested and just showing up for the social aspect, maybe I would agree with the posts above, but by-and-large treating a PC as baggage is rude to the player.
I have a player in my group who has never played this type of game before, and she built a cleric. Now, access to your whole spell list at any given level can be daunting, and she does sigh from time to time, but she LOVES it.
You just have to be very patient with a new player, and expect your first several sessions to focus on teaching this player how to play. When I have a new player, the campaign always starts off like a tutorial, I introduce the basics, then build on them, in an organic "in-story" way. You really have to glaze-over alot of the more "advanced" mechanics to make the game flow, until the player(s) are ready.
You also have to throw some fun stuff down for the more experienced players to have fun with, and use some complex bits on their chars first to give the newbie an example, and give the other players a chance to explain what they are doing. Of course, this has to be minimal enough as to not interrupt the feel of the game, but D&D is always a balancing act. If I hear groans from the more experienced players, when I'm trying to explain a rule or mechanic to a newbie, then I just throw that rule or whatever out the window and tell them I'll explain it later, but here is how it works for now.
If a new player builds a really crappy character on accident, then they most likely don't understand the mechanics of the class. If the other players don't want to help this person be more effective, then the DM needs to sit-down with them, and help them, there is no excuse for not doing this, D&D is not a fraternity, and we do not need to haze new players or make them uncomfortable before they even learn the game!
I always take time to sit-down with a new player before we play to make sure they are ready, I will even help them build their whole character, if they need me to. I'm in no way saying you need to hold your players hand, but you don't want to come off as arrogant, or turn someone off to the game for no reason. I find that given time anyone will become proficient enough to play an effective character, they just might need help at first.
I've found that if the players are jerks to the newbies, then those new players either become timid, or jerkish in return. No one needs to walk on eggshells, afraid of saying the wrong then, using the wrong spell, or taking the wrong feats, just 'cause they are new, it ruins their fun. Some people grasp the mechanics right-away with little intervention, and to some people it's like learning a new language. Give new players time to get their feat wet, and be forgiving in letting them retrain and give them an "undo" button for a while.
|
If a new player builds a really crappy character on accident, then they most likely don't understand the mechanics of the class. If the other players don't want to help this person be more effective, then the DM needs to sit-down with them, and help them, there is no excuse for not doing this, D&D is not a fraternity, and we do not need to haze new players or make them uncomfortable before they even learn the game!
Therein lies the problem. If a new player picks up the rulebook and understands Class X then any options presented in the book for Class X should be valid. By valid I mean not lead to a sucky character. I have seen new players crest fallen when their "cool idea" which looks "doable" is not after someone mentions that if they don't take "Feat A" it means in 16 levels they won't get "Feat B" with means they will suck. Either the choices presented need to be in the form of "skill/feat trees" so a new player can see what ends up giving what OR each skill/feat must have roughly equal use in game (i.e. balanced with respect to each other).
S.