Alright, so I'm starting a new campaign in the summer with me and a few friends. It's basically a horror campaign with undead and mind-messing ups. Standard fun and hurt/comfort.
Aside from my biggest issue with working on the first level 1 encounters to build up to the horror is one player I have. He is a min-maxer. From his stats, to feats, to skills, everything has to be min-maxed so he ramps up in strength pretty fast. He's even taking on TWO archetypes which I didn't know you could do until I looked deeper into the rulebooks. Now, I'm not saying this is a bad thing or the wrong way to play. The issue lies with.
He's the only min-maxer in the group.
Everyone else plays how they want even if it's not the optimal or best way. Heck, one wanted to be a healer but didn't want to be a cleric so they're a witch. Which is perfectly fine.
Now, I've had issues with this player before by being a PC with him in the group with me, and him when he DMed. He values the rulebook ABOVE the what the DM says and tries to FIGHT the DM on the rules. He zeros in on the wording and will try to break games and find loopholes. "Well, it's worded like this which means I can't NOT do that." Now, I understand rules are important but the DM is GOD in their campaign. If they don't want a certain rule they can through it out. I had a DM who hated confirm crits so he just go rid of them and changed how one adds their stuff to attack rolls.
I want to have combat be fun, but adding in that there's this level 1 who is already PRIMED and above everyone else in adding things to die rolls and will only get stronger (I mean duh) it's a bit daunting.
He only finds fun in combat. So when planning this campaign I asked each player what they love the most and what they hate the most so I could find an even ground for everyone. 4/5 love the roleplaying and learning about each others characters and any NPCS. They also said while combat is fun they don't value it too highly as long as there is some for each session, doesn't have to be fancy or anything. 1/5 said they're not a strong roleplayer and don't care much for NPCs ar all but they love combat and being able to wreck things and being the strongest they can be.
So you see my issue. A min-maxer who loves combat and dislikes roleplaying. And four who don't min-max, neutral about combat, and love roleplaying.
How can I deal with him? I know if I bend or remove or deny any rules he'll fight me on them to the point it might ruin the game for the others. And in order to make combat and future combat challenging for him it could spell certain death for the other four who aren't min-maxing. When the other players are enjoying chatting up NPCs and learning about them he'll be bored out of his mind.
What do I do to prevent any conflicts and make him understand I'm the DM my word is law even if it's written a certain way in the rulebook? Please help.
Either you can talk to him yourself and say exactly what you said here, or you can silently deduct 15 to 20% from the damage he does every time he hits depending on how much harder he hits
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
-Point him here for "the forums" to tell him.
-Stop playing with him, If 5 people like to play one way and 1 likes to play a different way then it's just not a good fit.
-Just let him stomp the encounters, if the others aren't good nor care for combat let him just obliterate everything in combat to get the others where they can roleplay again.
I have talked to him about this. In fact, he told me that he wouldn't try to 'actively break my game'. Which from knowing him for about two years actually means something scarily enough. I even talked him out of playing a race that was more monster than anything else, and talked him out of stacking three archetypes.
As for Chess Pwn, I don't want just one person to stomp the encounters. The others are good, just don't optimally build or have the best build, it's just not their play style. They like combat but that's not the thing they *LOVE* about D&D. All five enjoy combat and all five like to feel useful during it. I don't think it's fair to have him be the only one who can take out things in combat.
Ryan, I really do like your idea. I never thought of secretly deducting some of the damage players do before. It could make it much more balance until they all hit that stage of evenness. One of his archetypes will allow him to get an intelligent weapon at some point, and I could factor in how the weapon itself 'feels' or 'thinks'.
I guess it will all depend on how things play out. You're both right I should make sure before we start to talk to him so he understands.
I have talked to him about this. In fact, he told me that he wouldn't try to 'actively break my game'. Which from knowing him for about two years actually means something scarily enough. I even talked him out of playing a race that was more monster than anything else, and talked him out of stacking three archetypes.
As for Chess Pwn, I don't want just one person to stomp the encounters. The others are good, just don't optimally build or have the best build, it's just not their play style. They like combat but that's not the thing they *LOVE* about D&D. All five enjoy combat and all five like to feel useful during it. I don't think it's fair to have him be the only one who can take out things in combat.
Ryan, I really do like your idea. I never thought of secretly deducting some of the damage players do before. It could make it much more balance until they all hit that stage of evenness. One of his archetypes will allow him to get an intelligent weapon at some point, and I could factor in how the weapon itself 'feels' or 'thinks'.
I guess it will all depend on how things play out. You're both right I should make sure before we start to talk to him so he understands.
I should emphasize that it was how a gm of mine dealt with a cheater, if you're going to take that route, inform the party that you aren't going by average monster manual hp and are rerolling each individual monster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
TheRikuUzumaki: If the player is at good at the math of the game as you suggest, he's likely to notice you tinkering with the damage. So I think it's a poor idea to do that. He's likely to think you're cheating him and in a way you would be. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out something's up when you keep doing double the damage of others but they keep killing monster monsters at the rate you are...
I think a better way to work it is to avoid single creatures and work with multiple ones. They works out better in various ways. Say you have a bunch a creatures that are 4hp a piece, does the fact that one character does 5 and another does 20 matter?
Another is have different sets of creatures. Encourage the buff player to fight the 'boss' while the others take on the bodyguards so each does something useful feels like they added something. Use tactics so that monsters come from different directions so that they HAVE to split their attention and the buff character can't deal with it all.
A bit of set-up will have everyone feel good in fights even with uneven combat potential. And every once in a while toss that single foe to make the buff guy feel awesome. After all, you say he's not interested in the roleplay so why not let him shine a bit since the others are going to shine in roleplay.
TheRikuUzumaki: If the player is at good at the math of the game as you suggest, he's likely to notice you tinkering with the damage. So I think it's a poor idea to do that. He's likely to think you're cheating him and in a way you would be. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out something's up when you keep doing double the damage of others but they keep killing monster monsters at the rate you are...
I think a better way to work it is to avoid single creatures and work with multiple ones. They works out better in various ways. Say you have a bunch a creatures that are 4hp a piece, does the fact that one character does 5 and another does 20 matter?
Another is have different sets of creatures. Encourage the buff player to fight the 'boss' while the others take on the bodyguards so each does something useful feels like they added something. Use tactics so that monsters come from different directions so that they HAVE to split their attention and the buff character can't deal with it all.
A bit of set-up will have everyone feel good in fights even with uneven combat potential. And every once in a while toss that single foe to make the buff guy feel awesome. After all, you say he's not interested in the roleplay so why not let him shine a bit since the others are going to shine in roleplay.
As I said before the game you say "I'm not using average monster hp, im rolling them individually and tinkering with their feats"
Hey, TheRikuUzumaki:
I've been DM-ing for a group of power-gaming-min-maxers for nine years now, so I can understand some of your fears haha.
However, where I differ is that none of my friends at the table challenge my rulings as a DM to generate such a potentially hostile environment. (I know they enjoy playing that way so I tailor my DM-ing to them. They're my friends!)
(I know this is easier said than done): The problem could be settled by being completely open and honest with your friend. Be open and honest about your reservations about his particular play-style and how that may be disruptive to the other four. Be open and honest that it's not a personal attack, but a genuine outreach of communication and consideration. You could even angle it so that you're speaking to everyone individually before the campaign and not just singling him out.
(As for the horror campaign): A lot of the horror, mood, and atmosphere (which is the best friggin' part of a horror game!) arises from the roleplaying elements and the in-between moments of combat. It would be important for your combat-oriented friend to keep that in mind as his four fellow adventurers may want to linger on out-of-combat scenarios.
Also, he should not be so selfish as to deny his four friends the opportunity of what they love to do in a tabletop RPG: roleplaying. Of course, the other imperative inverse is that the four friends should not deprive him of what he loves in a tabletop RPG: combat. He enjoys the number-crunching tactical dominance of "min-maxing." He should be able to play like that if he so desires (so long as it's not at the cost of others' enjoyment). It's a two-way street of understanding and communication.
TL;DR: Openly and honestly communicate with your friend about your feelings and potential apprehensions. Being open and honest makes everything easier in the long-run ;)
|
I tend to min-max (although it can depend on the class I'm playing - Inquisitors, for example, do very well with an even spread, whereas Witches are shoes-in for min-maxing). It comes with its own benefits and costs, like everything. I don't see why it should be inherently more powerful than any other character - and if that player's doing it because they expect that to be the case, they'll only wind up punishing themselves. "Min-Max" = "beware your Achilles Heel" at best, or "Idiot Savant Power-Tool Rather Than Proper Character Who Falls To Pieces At The First Circumstance They'd Never Expected" at worst (but then you're talking about much more than simply min-maxing).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well you COULD be passive-aggressively petty and tweak his numbers behind the scenes.
Or you could act like an adult and just talk to the guy.
An extra tiny tidbit of advice (as a slight tangent): Houserules always, ALWAYS go over better if you determine what they are BEFORE the game starts. Springing a houserule (especially a major one) on someone mid-game (particularly mid-combat) is a no-no.
Most players, even hardcore rules lawyers understand that rule 0 is a thing, but once the game starts they expect the rules to be consistent throughout the game, or as much as is possible in a ruleset that sometimes requires individualized interpretations of rules. You should make two things clear:
1.) What your houserules are at the start of the game. If you don't think of something until later, put it to a group discussion. Discuss BEFORE it comes up potential ramifications. Your players might see consequences you don't.
2.) Make it very very clear that any challenging of rules interpretations happen AFTER the session. Sometimes you'll be right, sometimes you'll be wrong, sometimes you'll be wrong but prefer your interpretation to the official rule. Regardless of which, holding up the game to argue about it is fun for nobody.
If it results in the death of a character, try to be accommodating (and this may act as an exception if the problem is lack of clarity and a solution is easily found like via a FAQ), but s&#$ happens.
----------------------------
Also if he likes combat, but nobody else does, doesn't that mean him steamrolling combats is good for the table as a whole? He gets his power fantasy, everyone else gets minimum amount of time out of "pure RP time" as possible. Win-win?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a lot of ways you have already sort of answered yourself. Different people enjoy different things from the game. It's not wrong that he enjoys playing a more by the rules game than a DM Fiat one. Neither one is more intrinsic to telling a good story or better fun.
A lot of times that players/DMs min/max, it's because they enjoy the challenge of working within the rules to test themselves or because it helps tem to learn and experiment. From their perspective when GM's let anything go, throw out rules on a whim, or things like that, it ruins the game just like using cheat codes. It takes out the challenge and experimenting. The only reason I really mention all this is maybe seeing things from their perspective might help you (and others) to find some middle ground, or maybe by understanding what may be their goal or motivation in playing, might see things from their side a bit.
Now, as for suggestions and ideas, the biggest things I can think of would be to try to incorporate Role Playing with Combats, or threats. Most likely it isn't just straight up combat that one player likes as danger and challenge. Things like Chase Scenes, traps, and tactical set-ups are probably just as fun than just combat.
There could be a set up where an important NPC is locked up in a magic prison that requires certain steps to get out, and the NPC isn't really sure they want out, (needing a little convincing). But, while that's going on, there is a small horde trying to break in through the one door leading into the room, needing someone to defend it and the others who are trying to deal with the NPC.
You could also try something like 4E Skill Challenges, where rather than each player rolling for a single task, the entire group rolls multiple times over the course of a short time period working towards an overall goal. So, for example lets say they are piloting a ship that is suddenly ambushed, you could have one player focusing on piloting the ship, one or two fighting off pirates trying to board, and another casting spells to buff and fix the ship, and each round someone needs to dedicate their action to one of these important tasks). Or, for Skill Challenges, you can instead have everyone roll against a set DC, then describe, round by round how they are trying to contribute towards the overall goal of fighting off an ambush. The group, as a whole might need to attain a total of 10 successes, but it's less important what exactly they do as long as they can explain why their action is contributing in some way. There are two benefits to doing something like this. Firstly, if you want to, it is a "Rule Set", and while it's not really a Pathfinder Rule, it's something that that one player might find challenging and interesting to try out. And secondly, you do not have to tell that player that their Attack and Damage Rolls do not matter so much, but let them think that their combat actions are really combat actions rather than just part of the skill challenge. Let them do tactical movements, roll crits, and the like and enjoy it while everyone else finds their own way to contribute, because in the end, it really is just all the players contributing to a single pool of successes, and less important about ho exactly they do so, as long as it's reasonable overall.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said before the game you say "I'm not using average monster hp, im rolling them individually and tinkering with their feats"
Yeah, but like I said it "It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out something's up when you keep doing double the damage of others but they keep killing monster monsters at the rate you are..." It may take a few fights but it'll be clear the fix is in when he consistently sees the damage imbalance and figures out either the DM is boosting their damage or nerfing his. It's a shell game that only works if the character doesn't care about the numbers but this player does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something that could keep him happy and alleviate problems for you:
Suggest to him playing a very bizarre, niche character, that would normally be horrendously bad. Then, let him optimize to his hearts content, by the end of it he should have a character that's roughly at the same level as everyone elses characters.
If I notice that a group i'm playing with is significantly less optimised, I also play significantly more recklessly, roleplaying my character as a think-before-he-acts sort of guy to a greater extreme, "fortgetting" to check for traps etc. (believe me, if he's dumped a stat to optimise, such as wis or int, this is very easy to explain away.)
That usually evens things out and makes it feel as though everyone is at equal power. OR it kills the character, in which case i roll up something that should really be suboptimal as per my first suggestion.
One final suggestion: you could even suggest that he's not allowed to go below 10 or 12 in any stat, but otherwise can play whatever he likes, generally forcing him to be a little MAD to even things out.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
i would be very upset if a GM magically nerfed my damage. much better to ban something outright then to essentially ban something in a game.
i would be very upset if a GM magically nerfed my damage. much better to ban something outright then to essentially ban something in a game.
I agree, many homegames i play outright ban archetypes or classes that they consider to be "too powerful", which suits me just fine, because I dont see the point in playing a character that steamrolls all challenge.
There's nothing worse than customising your feat choices and tailoring yourself to combat, sacrificing other stuff, just for your GM to decide that investment was pointless. Sure its a solution, but it's not one that promotes enjoyment for anyone involved.
Though neither of these options are particularly ideal.
I see the problem with him trying to find loopholes and abuse the rules to be the issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see the problem with him trying to find loopholes and abuse the rules to be the issue.
To be honest, if that's the player's issue, then he should probably rethink why he's playing the game in the first place. As anyone that has played the all powerful "because i'm batman" type in a game before will tell you, its hardly a rewarding experience.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its not even hard to be powerful in comparison to someone else and if you go the banning route it will end up something along the lines of " Alright you can play Base Fighter, Rogue and Monk " because anything else would cause a rift due to capabilities.
As far as advice, make sure you are well versed in the rules so that issues can be solved quicker, have any house rules established beforehand, do NOT adjust damage as it is very easy to figure out. Get on him about loopholes and 'abuse' . Simply ask what books a feat, spell or ability comes out of so you are aware anytime anyone wants something.
This is another of those situations where the rule of "Dont be a dick" would help the player, and before you go ban happy, sit down and talk through some of the suggestions I mentioned, help him in making his character more rounded, emphasize to him flavor over power.
He SHOULD be able to come to these conclusions on his own, but sometimes people need a little prodding.
If he does heed your advice, and he exhibits signs of making an effort to play it more through roleplay, reward him for doing so, train him like a puppy basically. Be permissive with requests to attempt certain role-playish aspects when interacting with the world, this may require some improvisation on your part, but it'll help reinforce the idea that you dont NEED to be an unholy god of war to feel empowered in the game.
I say just tell him no power gaming this time around. You just want to run a lower powered game so the monsters feel more powerful and dangerous... and ask more or less "Do you think you can handle this?" Also ask him to pretend to be scared of all the bad stuff because if he is then everyone will be. Then ban the use of whatever stuff you don't want him to do for everyone.
I banned the use of everything but core classes and races in my latest game because of new player involvement. I can see where some might have a problem with that but no one at my table objected and now doing the third part of home pathfinder modified Desert of Desolation series... so from first to eighth level no problems. This is including a guy who wanted to Min/Max a new race to go along with his Min/Maxed class.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no such thing as flavor over power. Some of the most 'flavorful' choices are also powerful as all get out. [Insert Video of Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit]
Don't be a dick should be always prescribed but suddenly placing focus on one player is quite noticeable and may not make the best response. Whatever rules that are made should be universal, if people dont want to amp up for combat, then they will look inferior and accept that, if he doesnt want to do the same in RP situations the same will be true.
There is no such thing as flavor over power. Some of the most 'flavorful' choices are also powerful as all get out. [Insert Video of Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit]
Don't be a dick should be always prescribed but suddenly placing focus on one player is quite noticeable and may not make the best response. Whatever rules that are made should be universal, if people dont want to amp up for combat, then they will look inferior and accept that, if he doesnt want to do the same in RP situations the same will be true.
There are factors to consider, I once played a fetchling oracle / sorcerer / rogue, that was woefully bad. But his class choices reflected his path through life and various stages of his life. This GMs "non-power gamers" could be doing the same thing. I never intended that o/s/r to be terrible at combat compared to every other player, but of course he lacked the same power, and he didnt gain utility or anything other than cool points to replace the lost power.
If you've got 3 players in a group doing that, then one guy that's rolling up a synthesist summoner death machine with dumped stats and everything AND has an AC higher than asmodeus from level 1, you should probably talk to the one guy to get him to tone it down a little.
He's well within the rules to roll up that death machine, but compromise can make sessions run a little smoother, the GM really shouldnt outright ban anything, or have to scale attack rolls against him differently either. Sure it might not be his fault that the rest of his party are choosing odd choices and therefore cant keep up, but it's easier to teach one guy moderation than it is 3 people optimisation.
I would err on the side of the Min part of the Min-Maxer. A min-maxed melee fighter, throw in flying or magical creatures and skill checks. min-maxed rogue, throw in their natural enemy higher level barbarians (they don't like not getting their sneak attack). Min-Max wizard, throw some reflex saves at him.
Another thing I would drop in on a houserule, only allow an archetype on one class, the one that they build at level 1, that way the dips into other levels will not be able to pick and choose specific abilities as much.
I think the way I would handle it, or like to have it handled if I was him is to try to tailor parts of the combat to his abilities.
If he's a ranged attacker then have enemy spellcasters / archers flying above or other harder to reach areas so that he has to take them out before they harm the party too much while they deal with the regular encounter.
If he's a stealthy character have an alternate route for him, or a thing that he needs to reach and deal with (trap / hostages about to be lowered into lava ect).
Of course not every encounter needs or should be tailored this way but maybe 1/3 or so. Muliple weaker enemies can give the rest a chance to deal with some of them and yet let him slaughter and be awesome.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see the problem with him trying to find loopholes and abuse the rules to be the issue.
The problem is that there is a fine line between "finding loopholes" and "rules abuse" and being experienced with the rules interactions and enjoying using the rules and different books to build things just right.
I've seen different DM's ban things "because they are cheese" that I'd consider perfectly fine. I myself have banned Improved Initiative and things like the Reactionary Trait because just about everyone at the table went straight for them. Not because I thought they where too strong as much as because I wanted to avoid a game where most of the combats where binary initiative orders/rocket tag.
I just mean that the implication of how bad or problematic a player is due to how much they find loopholes is very subjective. It could just as easily be an implication that they like heavier, more complex games while the others want lighter, more simple games.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
loopholes and rules abuse is quite subjective.
OMG scout rouges get sneak attack on a charge, that's a loophole cause normally they need flanking.
Brawlers can use their flurry to qualify for 2wf feats, loophole/rule abuse.
He went bloodrager paladin cause he couldn't be a barbarian paladin, loophole to get rage on a paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps let him build a character before telling him what he can't play or how he can play it?
|
|
Another idea might be to, before the game is even started, have a collaborative character creation session. It might be difficult, but it might be an opportunity for both sides to help sway the other a little bit, with the rules guy getting to offer suggestion to the others about how to do some things more effectively and the RP guys getting to see what all is being brought to the table and work to shore up some of those missing pieces without the DM needing to ignore or invent rules to compensate.
The DM would just be there to answer questions, offer advice (about what they plan to do, but without actually telling anyone what they plan on doing), learn about the group as they all build together, and make some up front calls on how certain rules or builds are probably going to work.
The real key here is to make sure no one tries to force anything on anyone else, and that goes for everyone. DM and "RPers" just as much as the min/maxer. Instead, everyone should make an honest effort to work together to build characters that tell the DM exactly what sorts of things they want from the game.
Another tactic you can try, less to hamper the "I love combat" player is to try to invent ways that make combat more difficult, and require everyone to work together more. But, look for obstacles that are less skill or chance based and rather more time consuming to overcome. Have them do a medium length dungeon crawl where the entire dungeon is flooded with 2 or 3 feet of water, making everything difficult terrain and things like Charge impossible. Reiterate that if the combat guy tried to rush in, eventually some enemy is going to get luck and down him, and he would then both risk drowning when he gets knocked out, but also it's going to take the rest of the party that much longer to get to him, and it might be best to try and focus on a more defensive posture. Things like this can allow you to do combats a little bit less for the rest of the players, but hopefully might also make those combats more meaningful when they do happen.
Another idea you could try might be to try to invent some rules that allow the combat focused guy to participate in the RP with NPCs in a sort of Social Combat Sense. Maybe allow him to make attack rolls based off of Wis and Cha rather than Diplomacy, Bluff, or Sense Motive, while perhaps using his CMB to avoid becoming socially trapped, painting himself into a corner with his foot in his mouth, or whatever. Just an idea, and he might take to it or might not as a GM Fiat style guideline. The other risk here is that you would be essentially doing to everyone else what you may have been doing to that one guy the whole time, (if you did), and they might not like it if most of their build and character focus is sort of neutered to allow another character to be able to play that way, too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First the rules clearly place GM judgement at the very TOP in importance, yes, above even the rules themselves. If he argues against this then it ISN'T the rules he loves but rather CERTAIN RULES he favors over others. Perhaps make a "Rule 0" placard and if he tries to argue a rule past the point where you've already decided then place the placard on the table facing him and ask him not to break the rules any more.
As for house rules there are two things I like to keep in mind with them:
-Less is More: Every change is going to have a host of both expected and unexpected consequences so by changing the fewest number of things you limit the number of changes that could break your game.
-House Rules are a Numbers Game: The FIRST player to figure out how to use your house rule to break the system IS going to be the numbers guy... NOT you, NOT the role players... the numbers guy. Lets face it the creator of a house rule typically is blind to any bad things that may come from it. He thinks it's totally awesome and will be shocked three sessions later when the optimizers have figured out how to smash his game with his own house rules; yes even if the GM is a numbers guy too.
Oh and to be fair to people who are building characters please let the players know the house rules before playing.
--==+==--
As for dealing with the power gamer... it already sounds like he has compromised on a couple items already. So just talk to him. Be willing to toss him a bone; by placing one challenging fight per session to get him going, but pace the game toward the 4 others who want role play. Let him know you intend to do this and you might have an ally at the table rather than an enemy.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a bunch of things named here and there in this thread that I absolutely wouldn't do. I don't think they'll work out well, and in fact I think they're close to being foul play.
- Telling the players they're all playing by the same rules, but reducing one guy's damage secretly. That's dishonest at best. If anyone finds out you'll lose the trust of your players. And if you do it to a degree where it actually equalizes unequal PCs, they will notice.
Telling people they're all playing by the same rules and then not doing that, I would say is basically cheating. Yes, the GM can cheat, if he breaks the rules he himself pronounced.
- Adding all kinds of complications to combat intended to tackle the min/maxer.
If they're indiscriminate problems, he'll probably be better at dealing with them, so you only increase issues. Like difficult terrain: someone who understands the rules will be able to work around it better than someone who doesn't.
If they're targeted at his build, he's gonna feel singled out. Because that's what you're doing. That's fine if there's an open agreement that because he's better than the rest, you're giving him a hard time. But if you tell everyone that you're fair and impartial, and then start targeting one player, that's gonna look like foul play.
Instead, try to go for a more constructive and open approach. Think about what kind of game you want to run. Discuss it with everyone. If everyone (else) is happy with your ideas, ask the min/maxer if he wants to play in that campaign.
If the game you want to run doesn't appeal to him, then he's just not gonna be part of this campaign. Which doesn't reflect badly on him; bowing out of a game that's not your taste is the mature thing to do.
If he does, he's welcome, but he has to act in the spirit of the game when building his character. If you're running a horror/mental game, that means not making a character that's completely insulated against any kind of mindf#~@ing.
Now, when setting out what kind of game to run, it's useful not to do this too unilaterally. Give your outline, then get feedback from players. Maybe they'd like some different emphases, or some additions that you hadn't thought of. If they like some things, see if you can fit in more of that.
If the min/maxer joins in, fit in a bit more combat. Get him talking with the rest of the players about what sort of combats he likes, and what sort of combats they like; which ones do they agree were awesome?
I think combat can serve multiple tastes at the same time. If you come up with good reasons why there is combat, and what the stakes are for the players, your story-driven players will be more interested. A combat with clear Why-issues will also open up alternate "win conditions" for the combat, which you can use to engage your min/maxer. If it's clear that to "win" this combat, it's important to kill all enemies, but that the hostage has to survive, he'll be much more challenged. If the goal of the combat is complex, it'll often require multiple PCs acting at the same time to pull off. For example, someone distracting the enemy while another closes in on the hostage. Thus, you have a combat that the min/maxer can't just solo with superior stats, because he just can't be everywhere at once. Everyone gets to feel valuable; the other players for achieving the story aims of the combat, and the min/maxer because he gets to be the party's "big gun" that they use to smite the wicked.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I see a lot of assumptions being made about this player, so I'd like to take a step back, because min/maxer is a very subjective term.
By your admission, you didn't even know you could have multiple archetypes (which is pretty basic, even if you're not min/maxing), so I'm not actually sure what you consider to be min/maxing to mean what a lot of the other posters here are taking it to mean.
The thing to figure out here, is if you have a min/maxer, a Power Gamer, a Tactitian, or a Butt-Kicker. (I'm referring to the player archetypes laid out in Robin D. Laws' book, Robin's Laws of Great Game Mastering.)
If this player enjoys combat, but doesn't have an issue with the fact that the other players enjoy their roleplaying, that's not really a problem. It's okay to like different things.
I'd love to hear an example about what kind of loopholes he's finding - trust me, you don't have to dig through these boards very hard to find people doing some really exploitative stuff with game mechanics.
*I'm* wondering if it's not that he just has a much better grasp and understanding of the rules and wants them applied consistently in a way that makes sense. I'll argue with the GM too if I take an action that doesn't provoke and the GM arbitrarily decides it provokes because they don't understand the rules. Or if I have cover and the GM says I don't. Or if am enemy takes more actions than they're allowed. Or, or, or.
Now, if he immediately jumps to a hostile tone, that's one thing, but if he says, "Huh? No, that doesn't provoke per this table," or "Don't forget, I have cover," or "Actually, I don't provoke for this move because I'm moving from a square with cover relative to the enemy," then the same people backing you right now are going to be calling you a terrible GM that doesn't understand the rules when he comes to complain about his GM in a couple months.
Furthermore, if you've got a player who's very knowledgeable on the rules but recognizes that it's neither yours nor your group's strong point, and says he's going to put the kid gloves on for you, that's again leaning me away from calling him a Power Gamer - he strikes me more as a Tactitian. Comprehensive understanding of the rules is extremely important to a Tactitian-type player - we have one in our group, and he's awful at roleplaying, but wonderful in combat.
What class is he thinking of playing? You told us about the Witch, but I'm half-expecting you to reply with Fighter, Monk, or Rogue, in which case, he's really *not* Power-Gaming at your table, even if it seems that way relative to the rest of your players.
I wonder if you can't collaborate with him and utilize him as a resource at your table - if you turn to him and say, "Does this provoke, I can't remember?" you might find him beam with validation and appreciation - our whole table utilizes our Tactitian's understanding of the rules.
Of course, I could be completely misreading things, here, but ultimately my point is that I'm not sure there's a problem...
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you see my issue. A min-maxer who loves combat and dislikes roleplaying. And four who don't min-max, neutral about combat, and love roleplaying.
If that's an accurate description then I don't see the issue.
Allow him to stomp through combats as overwhelmingly (and quickly) as he can. That makes him happy, shouldn't bother the people who don't care much about combat, and swiftly gets things back to the RP that the others enjoy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm at work so I've only read like 2 posts coz I don't have time (I'll read them when I get home).
I agree with Chess Pwn's first post, don't play with him.
Not in a mean way, but he's obviously looking for something different, he'd be happier in a different group.
ALTERNATIVELY
I played a Shadowrun game where I was the only player without implants (Can't remember the exact wording, but I was the only one who couldn't enter the "matrix"). This meant that I couldn't actually participate in half the game. So I played my character as the bodyguard. While my team were infiltrating the online world, I was standing guard over their unconscious real-world bodies.
You could play a similar concept - The other characters are all built around social encounters, and since they're not that good in a fight they've hired a mercenary. He hangs around with the rest of the guys & looks mean (helps them with intimidate) but otherwise doesn't do much ... till the S*** hits the fan and that great-axe he's been carrying all week finally sees some use.
... just my 2 cents
Edit: Just read the post above mine by CBDunkerson, pretty much exactly that, nicely said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Give out a lot more XP's for roleplaying and not combat. Maybe that would make him realize what you and the other players value more in a game, and maybe he'd act accordingly. I had combat heavy players once and when I started handing out individual XP's for roleplaying, their tunes changed, soon they were chatting up every beggar they could find in town.
|
|
By your admission, you didn't even know you could have multiple archetypes (which is pretty basic, even if you're not min/maxing), so I'm not actually sure what you consider to be min/maxing to mean what a lot of the other posters here are taking it to mean.
While I do agree that it is all subjective, to be fair they might have been referring to not knowing that the two (or three) specific Archetypes could be done together rather than taking more than one Archetype at all.
What class is he thinking of playing? You told us about the Witch, but I'm half-expecting you to reply with Fighter, Monk, or Rogue, in which case, he's really *not* Power-Gaming at your table, even if it seems that way relative to the rest of your players.
I'm suspecting the original idea was a Tiefling Bladebound, Kensai, Spellblade Magus.
As I said before the game you say "I'm not using average monster hp, im rolling them individually and tinkering with their feats"Yeah, but like I said it "It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out something's up when you keep doing double the damage of others but they keep killing monster monsters at the rate you are..." It may take a few fights but it'll be clear the fix is in when he consistently sees the damage imbalance and figures out either the DM is boosting their damage or nerfing his. It's a shell game that only works if the character doesn't care about the numbers but this player does.
You'd think so, but ive seen gms do it for campaigns that have run YEARS without people ever catching on. You overestimate the ability of people who havent actually been told it was happening to notice it. Its just easy for forumgoers to get all up in arms over something stated plainly than it is for someone mid game to realize their monsters have 10 to 20% more hp. People with no reason to look aren't going to find.
That depends on the numbers guy Ryan, lovable munchkin can usually tell me my monsters stats within a couple rounds of combat.
I'm suspecting the original idea was a Tiefling Bladebound, Kensai, Spellblade Magus.
Yes actually, that's what he's doing. I got him to drop one of those, though at the top of my head I can't remember what it is.
Also, a lot of you are assuming the others don't even like combat. They do enjoy it, it's just not what they LOVE THE MOST ABOUT THE GAME.
The main thing I'm worried about is not the fact he is a power gamer (which is the term I should have used). It's that I fear I won't be able to cater to his and the other combat wants and needs at future levels. In order to make combat challenging for him a tougher monster would be needed, but this monster if the others tried to go against would die outright and might not even damage it. I don't want to make it so the other players don't even want to engage in combat knowing that there is only one player who can handle it.
I'm not talking a boss. I'm talking normal encounters.
I want to repeat. THE OTHER FOUR DO ENJOY COMBAT.
Ah, he dropped the Spellblade part.
You'd think so
LOL I KNOW so, as I've seen it in action. It took me two combats to think something was up and maybe 4 before I was sure. It's not as sneaky as you seem to think it is...
Monsters having +20% hp vs one person IS noticeable. If it hasn't been noticed in "YEARS" then those aren't number's 'guys' or it's not done consistently.
TheRikuUzumaki: I don't see a "Tiefling Bladebound, Kensai, Spellblade Magus" as overpowered myself. They get nice things but they also trade away nice abilities. No Spellstrike, less spells [and uses spells for Force Athame], less pool points, no armor proficiencies, no spell recall. On top of that, he's two weapon fighting on a 3/4th bab class.
What are the others playing that makes him seem super strong?
I guess it might not be as strong as I think it might be. I might just be nervous about combat in general as I know it's the thing he loves and I already feel as if combat is my weakest area as a DM. Thank you all for the help. I should just plan basic level one encounters to test waters and see how things go and if I need help again.
If he's created a really strong thing then he's maybe not looking for a challenge.
And you're correct, if you make something challenging for him it'll be really hard for the rest of the party.
That's why the simplest solution is just let him stomp the combats. Other option is to make the rest of the party equal to his combat abilities.
Last option is to not play with him. You can't challenge a combat guy when the rest of the party is bad at combat. You can't balance that consistently.
|
...He's the only min-maxer in the group...
...He only finds fun in combat...
You should be honest with him, and let him know that you are going to run the campaign a certain way, as you and 4/5 players want it that way. Then apologize for needing to ask him to either find a group that he would enjoy (one that fits his min-max play style), or to adopt the preferred play style of the group. You would be doing 5 players and one DM a favor by being this straightforward...as, unless he simply likes being a big fish in a little pond, he would have more fun with a group of similar players...and you owe it to the majority...and him.
You could ask him if he has ever had a desire to play a build that he might have thought of that would be fun to play, but that he hasn't as it wasn't "optimized" enough. If he seems sincere in wanting to try, let him, as sometimes min-maxers find odd combinations of class/ability interactions that aren't really overpowered number crunching, but are instead just weird and possibly fun situational builds. If he hesitates in any way, or if during the game session he starts powergaming...again apologize for not being the proper group for him, and go all Spock on him with "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.".
Yeah, strongly agree that you should talk it out over with him. Don't ask him to limit himself with preset boundaries, just ask him if maybe he could hang back to let the other kids have some fun sometimes.
One thing I DON'T agree with is that he shouldn't play with your group. People who like different things about PF can absolutely play together, the key is communication. If after you communicate he is still ruining combats, then you have a problem.
-One idea I have is that maybe this would be an opportunity where splitting the party would actually be useful. Have opportunities for the min/maxer to essentially end up fighting another monster/set of monsters than the other party. Try to have it still one "encounter" (ie both teams would be fighting at the same time) so that it doesn't slow things down, but that way you can have some encounters specifically balanced for each group of players.
- Obviously the guy doesn't like roleplaying that much, but if you could tie him into the plot then his strength wouldn't be as much of a problem. If it becomes clear that he's the "experienced veteran" and acts like a team mentor, then it doesn't become a problem that he's the strongest character.
-If you do artificially limit him, ask him about this- something weakens him, some curse. He needs to complete a quest. Promise him that you'll give him some long term power boost if he weakens his character for awhile for the sake of the plot. I'm talking like, at least one mega-quest's worth. This will give him a mechanical reason to be interested in RP as well. But again, make sure you ask him if he's ok with that.
I'm just saying, there's a lot of room for creatively working this out. The key is communication.
|
|
Also, a lot of you are assuming the others don't even like combat. They do enjoy it, it's just not what they LOVE THE MOST ABOUT THE GAME.
The main thing I'm worried about is not the fact he is a power gamer (which is the term I should have used). It's that I fear I won't be able to cater to his and the other combat wants and needs at future levels. In order to make combat challenging for him a tougher monster would be needed, but this monster if the others tried to go against would die outright and might not even damage it. I don't want to make it so the other players don't even want to engage in combat knowing that there is only one player who can handle it.
I'm not talking a boss. I'm talking normal encounters.
I want to repeat. THE OTHER FOUR DO ENJOY COMBAT.
Your original post did sort of paint the picture that you had an issue with the player and their play style, but I did try to focus on offering solutions or options to help.
With a bit more of an idea of what the problem seems to be, I'd suggest a few things. The Magus tends to dominate single, powerful opponents, but isn't as strong against multiple weaker ones. If you want to present more of a challenge for the entire party, I would look at utilizing more weaker or moderately powerful enemies rather than one or two stronger ones. This would allow the other party members to still contribute and not be at a great deal of risk but still enough threat for the Magus to be challenged.
Another thing you could try, if you feel that your encounters end too quickly is to have another enemy or two show up after the have killed the others. What I mean here is if you planned on have 5 orcs be a threat and they go down in two rounds, have another orc or two come in, maybe getting a surprise round, just to keep things going a little while longer and not seem as anticlimactic. Or maybe add in an orc summoner hiding in the background calling on reinforcements.
Thought of another way. This is another option that requires EVERYONE's agreement, but you could give all the other characters a boost in power- buff everyone else, instead of nerf the problem player. I'm not sure what would be best here, it really depends on your players builds, but either free feats, a special ability, or maybe even a Mythic Rank if you feel the problem is severe enough. Make them work for it of course, give each player a player specific quest that involves roleplay. Make it on your end- they don't have to do anything except remember to apply the feat/special ability, but you tell them how it works, that way it's pure reward for them. And because these guys like role play potential, make it as flavorful as you can.
The trick is making the last player not feel ripped off. You could give him something really cool that doesn't actually buff his statistical combat potential, but does give him some sort of mechanical effect- like, if he's a Magus, you could give him something like the Enduring Blade magus arcana - it makes life easier to have it, but it's not going to boost his damage output significantly. Or you could make his quest a meta quest that takes longer- tell him that you expect significantly more out of him, he'll probably take that as a compliment.
So reading this over.
You have talked with him, do not take the advice to cheat, it is very obvious when dms cheat with the dice. I nearly walked out of a game when a dm started cheating dice then lied to my face about it. Which was made better by other players noting they noticed it too.
If talking to him doesn't work then ask him for solutions or have a group talk about it if it is a problem, find a comprimise, resorting to fiat and rule 0 constantly will just make your player feel targeted and will ruin their enjoyment if you use it to nerf what they want to do so heavily it becomes impossible to do.
Also, specifically for the magus, if he has to move to attack he can not full attack, this lowers his damage progression a lot.
Don't play against the player should be the core thing, once you start an arms race with your players you will win and they will lose interest because it is not ment to be us vrs them.
More smaller enemies was a good suggestion since he will have trouble being able to attack them all at once and will give everyone something to do in combat. Or even do one or two big guys will little guys to encourage him to not go all out 100% of the time. Also use multiple combats in a day, it will force him to not want to use all his goodies in one combat.