|
Okay.
I'm going to get on my soapbox for a little while. If you don't like what I have to say, or feel like arguing against me, then you can make your own thread about it. As for me, I simply wanted to say this and get it out of my system.
I love playing D&D with my family. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the members of my family all try to make characters they really enjoy playing. It's always a lot of fun to hear them talking about their characters and hear how awesome they're either going to be or are. However, they don't really understand character creation or the 3.5/Pathfinder system very well, so it usually falls to me to sit with them, as a DM, and either help them with the mechanical aspect of creating a character, or just make their characters for them.
While I may not agree with the direction that Wizards of the Coast has taken with D&D, I still enjoy 4th edition, and have learned a lot from things they have published. However, there is one lesson that I have taken away from them that I read in the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide II, and which still permeates their material. And that lesson is this:
The player's should be having fun.
As a DM, it is my job, nay, duty, to ensure that my players are having a blast. I design my encounters, adventures, NPCs, and worlds all with the idea that my players should be having fun. However, there is one problem with this notion. The math doesn't always work out.
I've often wondered about how cool it would be to DM for a party consisting entirely of “Gish” variants (Eldritch Knight, Dragon Disciple, Arcane Trickster, Arcane Archer), and am currently DM'ing a game for an entire party of melee characters set in Eberron. And it pains me when I go to the Pathfinder and Wizards boards and see posts and people berating others for subpar character concepts. While I can ignore statements like these with relative ease, there is one statement that pops up that does irk me. It regards DM's having to pull punches.
Now, don't get me wrong. If you are the kind of player who enjoys being mechanically challenged, that is okay with me. I get that. I'm actually a bit of a min/maxer myself. However, when it comes to insulting other players or character builds because they don't hold up to others standards of fun, I get annoyed. I shrink at the thought of pointing my players to any of the online forums for advice on character building, because I'm certain that someone at some point would insult them, or tell them that they were playing an ineffective character.
I suppose if I'm going to ever get close to making a point, I'll make it now and have said my peace. If my players make an party consisting entirely of unoptimized characters, I will never let them know it. If my players make characters that are just BIZARRE, I will make them feel normal. I do all this, because they should be having fun. If I need to put them against monsters 3 CR's lower just so they can live, I'm okay with that. If I have to remove some monster Damage Reduction because the PC's can't pierce it effectively, I'm okay with that. If it means that players will be smiling, and laugh at the table, and look satisfied after a good game, I'll do whatever it takes.
And to all the naysayers out there who would berate me for pulling punches and allowing my players to play suboptimal characters, I have only this to say.
They're still having fun.
OP: Totally agreed.
The only catch I know of is player masochism, but that's more art than science. Sometimes you need to make them moan and groan so that they can look back with a sense of accomplishment.
I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.
You're doing it wrong.
Oh. Right. That too.
|
|
Yes Fun and uh Game..
although i still hate it when players meta game sorry to ruin your "fun" buuut it has to be fun for everyone. That is where being the DM kinda sucks since you tend to be the fun creator or presenter and police at the same time.
In the end though yes fun wins...
yay for not having players storm away from the table in disgust
I think a lot of people who post forget to keep in mind that YMMV. I think you can give good advice, tell people what to expect with the builds they are proposing, all the while remembering that their game may not run like your game does. Instead we often get posts like "that character will be holding the party back!" , which might be true except ... YMMV. It is possible as the game progresses to higher levels for the scale of power to shift wildly on some character concepts, but its not a forgone conclusion aaaaand, THAT IS WHAT A DM IS FOR, to make corrections to the game when its warranted. But since we don't all have the same DM we sometimes forget that people play this game very differently, and then make declarative statements like "monks are the weakest class..." or whathaveyou.
|
|
I agree with the crux of your statement, but there is one small thing you might want to keep in mind.
You very likely aren't the only GM your kids will have. Your wife, sure, she may be your player for life, or at least generally be in shared games with you, but your kids will at some point find games of their own.
Modifying your encounters to suit the characters is a great thing to do, but at the same time you should let them know that in some games such characters would be likely to die without accomplishing much.
Not everybody is the kind of GM who adjust encounters like that. Some favor throwing stuff of equal CR at their players during their plots, others don't have the time to modify their material or even handle their own adventures and thus run published adventures instead.
Having fun is the most important thing in the game, but I would feel terrible if I'd grown up having fun with wacky concepts and went to my first non-family game only to have my character that I thought was fine in all cases die in the first fight.
A couple of things in response to this statement:
First of all, I understand what you're saying. I understand that responsibility does not always rest entirely on the DM's shoulders. Responsibility also falls on the players if the DM isn't able to run his own game for them, as players will have to contend with pre-made encounters which, obviously, have a set standard of difficulty.
Secondly, I also understand that the DM wants to have fun. Believe me, I've had those moments where I want to cackle maniacally because I just threw a Mind Flayer with 5 levels in Psion (Telepath) at a 5th level party in a room of floating hunks of land it could levitate over. [Okay, I wasn't that mean, but wouldn't that be awesome?] Like I said, it's nice for the DM to do that kind of thing, but I feel that, if you are DM'ing for a group of people, family or not, and are running things yourself, then the DM needs to ensure that the party is enjoying themselves, even if that does mean scaring them every now and again.
Thirdly, and I don't know how funny or ironic this will be, but when referring to my family, I was actually referring to my wife and in-laws >_>
|
|
Okay.
I'm going to get on my soapbox for a little while. If you don't like what I have to say, or feel like arguing against me, then you can make your own thread about it. As for me, I simply wanted to say this and get it out of my system.
I love playing D&D with my family. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the members of my family all try to make characters they really enjoy playing. It's always a lot of fun to hear them talking about their characters and hear how awesome they're either going to be or are. However, they don't really understand character creation or the 3.5/Pathfinder system very well, so it usually falls to me to sit with them, as a DM, and either help them with the mechanical aspect of creating a character, or just make their characters for them.
While I may not agree with the direction that Wizards of the Coast has taken with D&D, I still enjoy 4th edition, and have learned a lot from things they have published. However, there is one lesson that I have taken away from them that I read in the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide II, and which still permeates their material. And that lesson is this:
The player's should be having fun.
As a DM, it is my job, nay, duty, to ensure that my players are having a blast. I design my encounters, adventures, NPCs, and worlds all with the idea that my players should be having fun. However, there is one problem with this notion. The math doesn't always work out.
I've often wondered about how cool it would be to DM for a party consisting entirely of “Gish” variants (Eldritch Knight, Dragon Disciple, Arcane Trickster, Arcane Archer), and am currently DM'ing a game for an entire party of melee characters set in Eberron. And it pains me when I go to the Pathfinder and Wizards boards and see posts and people berating others for subpar character concepts. While I can ignore statements like these with relative ease, there is one statement that pops up that does irk me. It regards DM's having to pull punches.
Now, don't get me wrong. If you...
+1.
I have seen several variants of "Well, that build sux, noone would EVER want to play a lvl 5 Oracle/4 Wizard! Thats just ghey!"
Its not always about the min/max power house that deals 8 trazillion points of damage per melee round with +9000 to hit using his vorpal keen flaming flying returning ghost battle axe +9.
I have continued to maintain that a well played farmer with straight 10's and a rusty hoe can be as fun and effective as the above mentioned powerhouse.
And frankly, I'd rather DM for and play with the guy and his hoe.
Are you not entertained?!
|
Y'know, I often find myself wanting to play with a group of non-optimizers because this group optimizes (for battle) to the point that role-playing (you know, the part that comes right before the word "game"?) becomes a complete afterthought, if it was a thought at all. No offense to them, they can take on encounters with a CR 3 higher than their level. It's just, they speed right on past any and all RP encounters, usually with a "I hit him with my [insert weapon or spell here]" in the middle of the NPC's sentence. Practically nobody ever has a background for their character, sometimes they don't even think of a description past the equipment covering the character, and even then there's no mention of the mundane, only magical because it's what affects their stat-blocks...
It's enough to make one long for a good RP session
The problem with unoptimization is not in of itself the weakness of a character, but rather how that character then compares to the game or the rest of the party.
If you have a party and none of the characters are optimized, then it works out great. Likewise, if everyone in the party is pretty good with the game mechanics, it's fantastic.
The problem is when all 10's farmer plays with 20 int wizard and 16 strength/charisma paladin. Or when the party is all 10's farmers and the DM doesn't scale to their level. Or when the party is all 20 int wizards and the DM doesn't scale to their level. What happens with disbalanced groups is that you either get one person that the group thinks is so ungodly stupidly powerful, or you get one person that the group thinks they have to carry along because he can't do anything on his own.
Actually, let me amend that - the bigger problem is when all 10's farmer makes all 10's farmer and then complains about how weak he is, or the DM doesn't scale either way and complains that the game is broken.
|
|
ProfessorCirno makes a good point, and I understand where he's coming from.
Allow me to add something, because I notice a lot of people saying that it isn't all about the numbers, and that "rolepaying" (emphasis on "role") is so amazing.
For some groups and players, it IS about the numbers... And that's okay. There is nothing wrong with that, and I endorse any game where a group tries to beat the crap out of Level+5 CR encounters.
That said, when it comes to the group, it is the DM's job to allow each player to stand out in their own way. Many people complain that certain classes or builds or only effective in certain scenarios, but, at least to me, that is entirely the point.
If a character builds an Eldritch Knight for melee combat/casting fun, put him against enemies against whom he can fight! If someone builds a farmer to... do whatever he wants to do with a farmer, let him do it! Make the other players WANT to have a level 5 farmer around.
|
ProfessorCirno makes a good point, and I understand where he's coming from.
Allow me to add something, because I notice a lot of people saying that it isn't all about the numbers, and that "rolepaying" (emphasis on "role") is so amazing.
For some groups and players, it IS about the numbers... And that's okay. There is nothing wrong with that, and I endorse any game where a group tries to beat the crap out of Level+5 CR encounters.
That said, when it comes to the group, it is the DM's job to allow each player to stand out in their own way. Many people complain that certain classes or builds or only effective in certain scenarios, but, at least to me, that is entirely the point.
If a character builds an Eldritch Knight for melee combat/casting fun, put him against enemies against whom he can fight! If someone builds a farmer to... do whatever he wants to do with a farmer, let him do it! Make the other players WANT to have a level 5 farmer around.
GM: "The crops appear slightly undernourished, roll Profession (Farmer)"
Wizard: "8"
Fighter: "18"
Rogue: "13"
Cleric: "24"
Farmer: "You called me MAD for wanting to play a farmer! But who's mad now!! *rolls*... DAMMIT! Rolled a 1! Okay with bonuses. ... 5. *sigh*."
GM: "Cleric you explain an advanced irrigation technique to the people of dirtfarmville, saving their village from poverty and starvation. You gain the adoration of the people and they offer to erect a temple in the name of your god."
Farmer: "Rassemfrassumdirty..."
I predict that this thread will be optimized!
|
|
Actually, the incident I was thinking about was when they came across an un-statted NPC, and the monk immediately grappled, pinned, and hog-tied him without any warning. Then I think they asked a question or two, then knocked him out and left him in a corner. He was supposed to accompany them for awhile, offering amusing anecdotes and morbid jokes, but they tied him up and left him unconscious in the corner.
Incidentally, I like both numbers and roleplaying. I prefer to make characters that are both interesting and three dimensional, and are mathematically sound and optimized, at the same time :D
Who says the farmer can't be a fighter with high strength and constitution (Seriously, he's a farmer, he's going to be good at physical labor) who uses a scythe, after all? ;)
|
|
Actually, the incident I was thinking about was when they came across an un-statted NPC, and the monk immediately grappled, pinned, and hog-tied him without any warning. Then I think they asked a question or two, then knocked him out and left him in a corner. He was supposed to accompany them for awhile, offering amusing anecdotes and morbid jokes, but they tied him up and left him unconscious in the corner.Wow... I think I would have been tempted to have him get free and somehow become a major bad guy later in the story. "YOU SHALL RUE THE DAY YOU HUMILIATED ME FOOLS!"
Party: "Who are you again???"
Y'know, that's a damned good idea. I think that being knocked out just made him gain like 15 levels of fighter out of pure determination.
::Raises hand::
|
|
GM: "The crops appear slightly undernourished, roll Profession (Farmer)"
Wizard: "8"
Fighter: "18"
Rogue: "13"
Cleric: "24"
Farmer: "You called me MAD for wanting to play a farmer! But who's mad now!! *rolls*... DAMMIT! Rolled a 1! Okay with bonuses. ... 5. *sigh*."GM: "Cleric you explain an advanced irrigation technique to the people of dirtfarmville, saving their village from poverty and starvation. You gain the adoration of the people and they offer to erect a temple in the name of your god."
Farmer: "Rassemfrassumdirty..."
I'm not gonna lie... the evil DM in me laughed a little bit inside.
Also:
By level 5, the cleric has 0 ranks in Profession (Farmer), and probably about a +5 at most from Wisdom, while the farmer at this point should have:
5 Ranks
+3 class skill
Skill Focus: Profession (Farmer)
Masterwork Farming Tools (Adamantine Hoe)
So an OPTIMIZED Farmer (Hey, that's how I'd play it) will have AT LEAST a +13 to his Profession (Farmer) skill check. Plus, the cleric should be buffing the group! Guidance the Farmer. Even better, we can get a bard to sing about how awesome he is at farming, giving another +2. Then, the rest of the party can use Aid Other to give him another +6
So, +22 to my Profession (Farmer) check. /rolls d20
16+22
Eat a 38 Profession (Farmer) check, Cleric.
DM: O_O Your unflinching knowledge of Farming attracts the attention of Erastil himself, who bestows a divine blessing upon you, allowing you to use your Profession (Farmer) skill in place of all modifiers to dice rolls.
Okay, that's a little over-the-top... but still :D
*Edit: Actually, the cleric can Aid Other after the Guidance Casting, so that's actually a 40.
::Raises hand::alas, you missed my "Real Genius" reference. Its ONLY the best Val Kilmer role EVAR!!!1111one1!
What? Val Kilmer made a movie other than Willow?
Wait, was that the one where he was the smart rebel kid causing trouble in the science school?
Just can’t resist sharing this one...
One of my favorite moments as a DM occurred with a player who had put a few ranks into Profession (Farmer) solely because it represented her background before she became a rogue.
The party came across an empty clearing where robbers had ambushed someone recently. The party saw animal excrement beside the road, at which point I gleefully said, “Roll a Profession (Farmer) check!” After the initial surprise, our rogue (who of course never expected to actually roll a Profession (Farmer) check) enthusiastically identified the excrement as coming from 4 light horses, which turned out to be an important clue. Everybody at the table loved it!
I agree with the OP, which is why “Roll (Obscure Skill) check!” is one of my favorite phrases.
The problem for me always comes if the group has two different kind of players, some optimizers, others not. The optimizers normally end up building characters which are mechanically far ahead of the others, with much higher AC and saves, or the like.
Which makes encounter design completely skewed towards challenging the optimized characters, while the non-optimized have to struggle even more to contribute meaningfully or avoid being crushed by monsters which are statted to beat the optimized defenses of the other half of the group.
|
Who says the farmer can't be a fighter with high strength and constitution (Seriously, he's a farmer, he's going to be good at physical labor) who uses a scythe, after all? ;)
To become a 'farmer' in the days of the Roman Empire, you're best route of advancement was to spend a decade in the Roman Legion, so that you could retire with a land grant from the outer territories.
Don't mess with the farmers, they're all veterans of a half-dozen successful campaigns of expansion!
The problem for me always comes if the group has two different kind of players, some optimizers, others not. The optimizers normally end up building characters which are mechanically far ahead of the others, with much higher AC and saves, or the like.
Which makes encounter design completely skewed towards challenging the optimized characters, while the non-optimized have to struggle even more to contribute meaningfully or avoid being crushed by monsters which are statted to beat the optimized defenses of the other half of the group.
This. I'm living this, though after we converted our group from 3.5 to Pathfinder I made some 'suggestions' to the other players about what was/wasn't effective. It got a bit ugly at first, but they DID HAVE MORE FUN doing twice as much damage (Fighter and ranged Rogue) because I got them to change 1-2 feats (and the conversion gave them more feats, so hey). My point being there's a happy medium between role-playing and roll-playing; it is possible to do both. My character is NOT super-optimized (and never was) but was totally dominant because the rest of the group was -horribly- constructed.
You CAN build to character concept AND be reasonably effective at the same time - and you should, because you're part of a team, and dead weight can reduce fun for the rest of the group as well.
... Its not always about the min/max power house that deals 8 trazillion points of damage per melee round with +9000 to hit using his vorpal keen flaming flying returning ghost battle axe +9.
Are you NUTS?!?!? Battleaxe +9? You wanted to say +1 and use the GMW, didn't ya? :D
Aside from that +1
Actually, the incident I was thinking about was when they came across an un-statted NPC, and the monk immediately grappled, pinned, and hog-tied him without any warning. Then I think they asked a question or two, then knocked him out and left him in a corner. He was supposed to accompany them for awhile, offering amusing anecdotes and morbid jokes, but they tied him up and left him unconscious in the corner.
You can't force roleplaying.
In all fairness people on the boards get hung up on the rules so much is because it is a lot easier to argue rules. I know I always try to make my PCs as well as I can but PC and NPC interaction, story and RP is why I play this game.
However, when it comes to insulting other players or character builds because they don't hold up to others standards of fun, I get annoyed. I shrink at the thought of pointing my players to any of the online forums for advice on character building, because I'm certain that someone at some point would insult them, or tell them that they were playing an ineffective character.
I think everyone's game is a little different. In fact, they can be quite different. In your particular game, it may not be a requirement to play an optimized character. That's fine -- you, as the GM, can make your game work that way. No one will fault you for that.
However, other people play in games where optimized characters are required. If you make a tactical error (in combat -- or in roleplaying), you're simply dead. These are brutal, hard games. And in these particular games, designing an ineffective character concept will draw much ire from the party.
So while I understand the irritation from your post, I understand the irritation that your players get from players in these other games. It's really more of a communication breakdown between people. I'd recommend to your players that they take everyone's opinion with a grain of salt -- they don't play in your game, so they don't know any better.
|
|
** Ah... I have finally felt the sting of having a post eaten by the forum monster.
That said, I'll keep it short and sweet this time.
First, I would like to say that I LOVE Treantmonk's guides. If I ever have a player that needs help with a class that he has a guide on, I ALWAYS point them to his guides (if they're interested in that kind of thing).
Second...
+1 for you, Meabolex. It is my hope that we can all come to understand that not everyone plays the same game, and we should be THRILLED that that is the case! If we can make steps towards eliminating communication barriers, we will just be that much closer to truly helping our fellow gamers.
Actually, the incident I was thinking about was when they came across an un-statted NPC, and the monk immediately grappled, pinned, and hog-tied him without any warning. Then I think they asked a question or two, then knocked him out and left him in a corner. He was supposed to accompany them for awhile, offering amusing anecdotes and morbid jokes, but they tied him up and left him unconscious in the corner.Wow... I think I would have been tempted to have him get free and somehow become a major bad guy later in the story. "YOU SHALL RUE THE DAY YOU HUMILIATED ME FOOLS!"
Party: "Who are you again???"
Love this! I'm stealing it. Very like the bad guy in The Incredibles.
Just can’t resist sharing this one...
One of my favorite moments as a DM occurred with a player who had put a few ranks into Profession (Farmer) solely because it represented her background before she became a rogue.
The party came across an empty clearing where robbers had ambushed someone recently. The party saw animal excrement beside the road, at which point I gleefully said, “Roll a Profession (Farmer) check!” After the initial surprise, our rogue (who of course never expected to actually roll a Profession (Farmer) check) enthusiastically identified the excrement as coming from 4 light horses, which turned out to be an important clue. Everybody at the table loved it!
I agree with the OP, which is why “Roll (Obscure Skill) check!” is one of my favorite phrases.
Heh. I actually had a Shadowrun game with a REALLY dumb troll that was a farmer. His name was Korn, and he wore a 'Korn' (the band) cap because he thought he was promoting 'corn.'
Anyways, he dumped points into the equivalent of profession (farming) just for character concept. And, no lie, in a published adventure, he got to roll to identify a pesticide that terrorists or other bad guys were going to use as a weapon. It was awesome.
I think that one of my frustrations (and things I love) about 3rd edition D&D in general was the change to a static level advancement. Wizards, fighters, rogues, etc. all leveled up on the same numbers. In past editions, the primary 'balancer' was different experience tables, meaning that characters advanced at different rates, even at different levels. i.e. Fighters were steady and a bit quick. Rogues were quick. Wizards were slow, FAST, really slow, and so on. It helped to balance out classes nicely without needing to dramatically change the power levels of the characters. It seemed to work fairly well (and I'm not hoping to open a can of worms).
In 3.5/PF people try to make every level equal, and they just can't. Some 'builds' are suboptimal, and usually, people dip levels or do other unrealistic things just to snag an advantage or two. As someone said, if Frodo had been a 3.5 character, he'd be a dual-kukri wielding rogue/fighter/shadowdancer. Sometimes, it's nice to just play Frodo.
But still, I agree with the OP. It's a game, and you know all the 'suboptimal' characters out there are probably played and relished all the time, no matter what the internet folks say.