How to Handle A Min-Maxer

[David knott 242]

By the classic definition of "Min-Maxer", that player who is better at combat than the others must be minimizing something -- and since whatever that is has not been brought up, it clearly does not matter to you as the GM and he knows it. So there are really two things you might want to consider doing:

1) Making his weakness, whatever it is, matter by targeting it occasionally, or

2) Let the other players know that you won't be focusing on that particular area so that they can also neglect it safely.

[Aranna]

In case people are wondering about the roots of "min/maxing" it was born from the earliest point buy systems or game that allowed things like flaws and perks. You would take the maximum amount of drawbacks allowed BUT select those drawbacks in such a way as to either generate NO harmful effect for your character Or generate a hidden benefit instead of a drawback. This allowed you to maximize the points or perks to build your character with without any real negative consequences.

Examples included: Taking "blindness" as a flaw and then building the character around some other sense allowing him to see just fine with the other sense. OR Buying down a stat into negatives that had little or no effect on your combat stats or skills (like buying Charisma to 7 in pathfinder). Or even taking an enemy as a drawback and then customizing that enemy to make your character the main protagonist in most of the groups fights while making the enemy weak enough not to be a serious threat.

[Trogdar]

You know, you'd think a group of people like all of us, who are interested in a game like this would be more careful about our pejoratives and general bashing that we probably got enough of in high school.

Using the mechanics of the game to your advantage is not something that you ought to be singled out and called names for. It's a friggin game people.

[CBDunkerson]

Trogdar wrote:

You know, you'd think a group of people like all of us, who are interested in a game like this would be more careful about our pejoratives and general bashing that we probably got enough of in high school.

Using the mechanics of the game to your advantage is not something that you ought to be singled out and called names for. It's a friggin game people.

Wait...

You mean "Min-Maxer" isn't a compliment?

Weird.

[Chess Pwn]

Aranna has the right definition of Min/Maxing. I'm not sure what the term is for one who only cares about one aspect and disregards all the others. Like Maxing damage while sacrificing defense.

@David knott 242
Your #1 option really isn't much of an option, because likely it's something that is a weakness for most of the party. Especially if it's combat related.

[Aranna]

Chess Pwn I believe the term you are looking for is "Overspecialized": Someone who specializes one feature to the extent that they ignore most if not all other build options.

Example: Mr Perfect once created a character SO devoted to doing damage that he could usually one shot the BBEG in every fight. He did this with stacked templates on top of an already powerful race and then used a lance I think. The reason it was "overspecialized"? Because most of those options cost him a LOT of LA leaving his hit points very very low. He retired the character after he started dying in every fight that had more than one bad guy.

[pjackson]

Aranna wrote:

In case people are wondering about the roots of "min/maxing" it was born from the earliest point buy systems or game that allowed things like flaws and perks.

The term is older than that. It was used when programming computers to play chess and at some stage transferred to players using similar techniques to design characters.

In chess programs it meant looking for the maximum score on your turns and minimizing the opponents score on their turns as the program looks ahead.

Applied to character design it orignally meant maximizing your character's strength whilst minimizing its weaknesses.

[Chess Pwn]

Aranna wrote:

Chess Pwn I believe the term you are looking for is "Overspecialized": Someone who specializes one feature to the extent that they ignore most if not all other build options.

Example: Mr Perfect once created a character SO devoted to doing damage that he could usually one shot the BBEG in every fight. He did this with stacked templates on top of an already powerful race and then used a lance I think. The reason it was "overspecialized"? Because most of those options cost him a LOT of LA leaving his hit points very very low. He retired the character after he started dying in every fight that had more than one bad guy.

Right, the character is overspecialized. But what do you call the player that makes such? An Overspecialist?

[Aranna]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Aranna wrote:

Chess Pwn I believe the term you are looking for is "Overspecialized": Someone who specializes one feature to the extent that they ignore most if not all other build options.

Example: Mr Perfect once created a character SO devoted to doing damage that he could usually one shot the BBEG in every fight. He did this with stacked templates on top of an already powerful race and then used a lance I think. The reason it was "overspecialized"? Because most of those options cost him a LOT of LA leaving his hit points very very low. He retired the character after he started dying in every fight that had more than one bad guy.

Right, the character is overspecialized. But what do you call the player that makes such? An Overspecialist?

~laughs~

There is no name for the player beyond Power Gamer or Optimizer. It isn't really something a numbers guy keeps doing. He learns from overspecialization and adopts a better way of building characters leaving his days of overspecialization behind. It's just a common mistake made by power gamers, learned from and moved on.

[Saldiven]

Min-maxing, overspecialization, beardy-builds, whatever....

They are neutral on their own (neither good nor bad from a gaming perspective).

The only time there is an issue with them is when a playgroup isn't all on the same page with the style of play expected. If all the players are designing high-powered characters, and the GM is prepared to run such a campaign, everything should be hunky-dory. If the players prefer making sub-optimal, but thematically appropriate choices, that lead to less "effective," but more "flavorful," characters, and the GM is prepared for that, then that's all good, too.

Problems arise when everyone is not on the same page where expectations for the campaign are concerned. The guys who love role-playing but don't really care about combat get bored if there is too much combat, especially if their characters are particularly bad at it. Conversely, the guy running the combat monster character with little to no out of combat utility will feel the same way if the amount of RP time seems to be "too much." {Obviously, these examples are on the extreme ends of the spectrum, but it's just to illustrate my point.}

[dysartes]

MrCharisma wrote:

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.

Please tell me that the villains of the campaign were able to figure this out, and had Mr. Johnson hire you to execute the rest of the group while they were in the matrix...

[Suthainn]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Aranna wrote:

Chess Pwn I believe the term you are looking for is "Overspecialized": Someone who specializes one feature to the extent that they ignore most if not all other build options.

Example: Mr Perfect once created a character SO devoted to doing damage that he could usually one shot the BBEG in every fight. He did this with stacked templates on top of an already powerful race and then used a lance I think. The reason it was "overspecialized"? Because most of those options cost him a LOT of LA leaving his hit points very very low. He retired the character after he started dying in every fight that had more than one bad guy.

Right, the character is overspecialized. But what do you call the player that makes such? An Overspecialist?

Honestly, foolish is what you call them.

Someone so overspecialised as to make it redundant, who has put so many resources into one aspect of their character leaving them with glaring weaknesses that result in death, loss of control, etc frequently isn't optimising their overall character or minmaxing in any common sense at all, they're just utterly focused on one aspect to the detriment of the whole, which never ends well.

[The Sword]

One simple piece of advice is to take down the key stats of each player when they level up and make it clear no character can have 5 higher in AC, to hit, max save, Spell DC etc than the next best player. That prevents combats that unfairly challenge everyone else but one character is able to cakewalk.

Set this expectation out right from the start, so that he can focus on optimising choices rather than sheer power. You may need to tinker with this if he is playing a fighter in a party of sorcerers or if he has several abilities that allow him to boost these core stats (arcane accuracy for instance).

It's a simple solution that doesn't penalise him retrospectively.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

I really don't think ensuring that the players are equivalent to each other or can choose from narrow point spreads is helpful; it's just limiting and less fun.

Manage your games in-game, there is no need to impose caps or arbitrary limits on characters. GMs can do whatever they want; but it doesn't mean they should. Just let your players build what they want and make sure there's a diversity of combat, action economy, role play, etc.

The other players' expectations should have nothing to do with how you treat each individual. Help them actualize their vision and create a fun adventure for everyone.

[Quandary]

Dude, this player is an antisocial tool.
He's played a bunch, so if there is a fun engaging side of his characters/playstyle,
he has already had ample chance to advertise that to other players, and proselytyze for
how it improves the game either for others to join his playstyle, or that it plays well with others.
He has done just the opposite of that. That the GM and other players are complaining tells all.
He did not proactively ask "gee this isn't quite working for everyone, what can change? me? the game?"
When somebody acts unlikeable, and then nobody likes them, the problem isn't the group.
If a group likes playing a limited game, more power too them. Neo-victorian all-Halfling game? OK.
Fixed stat array? OK. MOST games in the world in fact work that way, exact same rules apply to all,
you don't "custom build" your own personalized rule chassis as 3.x char design allows you to do.
Modern RPG had developed to where "char optimization/design" is in itself it's own mini-game.
But guess what, not everybody likes that game... Especially when it has strong repurcussions on the real game they like.
Of course others LIKE that fact, and the strong interaction between both games is the attraction for them.
But not every position and preference is fully compatable. Deal with it.
That this player has continued so long in incompatable play style either indicates that
he enjoys the distance and non-parity with other players, or has social problem finding similar style group.
(it could be that in a group with similar play style, optimization, etc, he no longer feels superior or whatever)

The other players/GM have no obligation to keep a negative influence in their game and disrupt THEIR fun.
If the group decides enough is enough, then it's Adios Amigo. Maybe there was some solution,
and I guess it's a shame if that was overlooked, but people make their own decisions what's best for them,
they are under no obligation to continue on with negative situation because by idealised perfection everybody can be happy.

[The Sword]

Within 5 points is not equivalent, in some case it can mean 5 x the likelihood of success. Having a range of abilities in no way makes a group equivalent. However having one character with AC 30 and the rest with AC 20 is not good for the game. Neither is having one player with +20 to hit and the rest with +10. It makes designing encounters much harder for the GM and to be frank why should they need to jump through hoops because one player wants to break the game at odds with the rest of the party.

In game solutions for out of game problems are rarely effective in my opinion. In fact they can be openly destructive and lead to the distrust and frustration described above. The general party's expectations and likes should have everything to do with how you balance and run the game. One player's desires, if at odds with the rest of the party, can be extremely damaging.

The OP has identified a relevant, unambiguous problem that is not uncommon to some extent in many parties. At this point, before the campaign starts, having had the discussion, and had the response he has received he is very sensible to try and reach some accommodation.

Limitation is not a dirty word if that is what the majority of the party wants. We see limitation to power all the time - not least of all with stat points. Rather if the odd player out is dissatisfied and won't change they should find another group. I would say the same to the single exclusive roleplayer that slows down play for the party that predominantly enjoys combat and prefers the tactical elements of the game.

[Ryan Freire]

Or, again, you can manage it entirely behind the screen without telling anyone and if you do it at all with subtlety everyone gets to play what they want without feeling constrained by the gm.

[The Sword]

I'm not a fan of rolling behind a screen. I find it helps with adversity if the players see how the dice fall. When that crit kills a character, I don't want "that look" that questions if it was real or fudged. Just my personal preference.

Like I said I have a natural suspicion of in game solutions for out of game problems.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

If he's a problem player you should talk to him. If he's a jerk tell him to stop or drop him from the game. I have no problem with an out-of-game resolution that tries to fix his in-game behavior without limiting his build or character choices.

I think lying and fudging dice is basically GM malpractice. And artificial caps are lazy, boring, and minimizing their experience. But the bad behavior should lead to a discussion. Punishing or limiting him in game is a weak way to deal with it and won't solve the problem.

[The Sword]

Well it absolutely will solve the problem, one way or another. Either he walks or has a character that while substantially better is still on a level with the rest of the party. Sometimes people just need reigning in - a nuclear "don't play with us" solution isn't always possible if he's a mate!

I find that limitations actually encourage imagination and creativity rather than inhibiting it. We are about to start a Northlands campaign with restricted classes, a fixed array, no archetypes, dark ages equipment only and limited races. I find it more interesting and challenging designing characters with those limitations not less.

[Charon's Little Helper]

The Sword wrote:

One simple piece of advice is to take down the key stats of each player when they level up and make it clear no character can have 5 higher in AC, to hit, max save, Spell DC etc than the next best player.

That sounds horrible.

If nothing else - what if there's only one primary caster - he's not allowed to get get decent DCs?

What if there's only 1 full BAB character?

What if one character is a monk and everyone else practically ignores AC?

etc.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Or, again, you can manage it entirely behind the screen without telling anyone and if you do it at all with subtlety everyone gets to play what they want without feeling constrained by the gm.

That also sounds horrible - as it means that you're a liar.

[The Sword]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

The Sword wrote:

One simple piece of advice is to take down the key stats of each player when they level up and make it clear no character can have 5 higher in AC, to hit, max save, Spell DC etc than the next best player.

That sounds horrible.

It's a group choice suitable for particular groups. Though I'm surprised that anyone would want to play a character that was so substantially better than any other character in the party at such key attributes. The complaints smack of one-upmanship.

[Ryan Freire]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Or, again, you can manage it entirely behind the screen without telling anyone and if you do it at all with subtlety everyone gets to play what they want without feeling constrained by the gm.

That also sounds horrible - as it means that you're a liar.

And yet it works, and has resulted in at least 2 decade long campaigns that are still reminisced about fondly by the half dozen players involved who ranged from people who literally fell asleep when combat wasn't going on to the mostly combat useless social butterfly player.

[CWheezy]

What if the game was better so this wasnt a problem

[Sundakan]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Or, again, you can manage it entirely behind the screen without telling anyone and if you do it at all with subtlety everyone gets to play what they want without feeling constrained by the gm.

That also sounds horrible - as it means that you're a liar.

And yet it works, and has resulted in at least 2 decade long campaigns that are still reminisced about fondly by the half dozen players involved who ranged from people who literally fell asleep when combat wasn't going on to the mostly combat useless social butterfly player.

Bet it would have worked better in a game less reliant on build and dice instead of deceitfully shaving the corners off this square peg to shove it in a round hole.

[Endoralis]

The Sword wrote:

One simple piece of advice is to take down the key stats of each player when they level up and make it clear no character can have 5 higher in AC, to hit, max save, Spell DC etc than the next best player. That prevents combats that unfairly challenge everyone else but one character is able to cakewalk.

Set this expectation out right from the start, so that he can focus on optimising choices rather than sheer power. You may need to tinker with this if he is playing a fighter in a party of sorcerers or if he has several abilities that allow him to boost these core stats (arcane accuracy for instance).

It's a simple solution that doesn't penalise him retrospectively.

I have to point this out. If you take any advice DO NOT take this one. It is one of the worse things you can do as it basically sets the limit at the worse possible player and makes them have control over others while penalizing anyone who uses a modicrum of intelligence differently. A Fighter should not be within bounds of a Magus nor should a Monk to say a Evocation focused wizard.

A Paladin Will have outstandingly better saves than a Rogue, the examples go on. DONT DO THIS.

[Ryan Freire]

Unfortunately (or fortunately if you actually enjoy the game, as most on this board seem not to) You work with what you have.

[Sundakan]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Unfortunately (or fortunately if you actually enjoy the game, as most on this board seem not to) You work with what you have.

Finding another game system isn't too terribly hard. What's the point of playing a game based around rules and dice if you disregard the rules and fudge all the dice?

[Ryan Freire]

Sundakan wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Unfortunately (or fortunately if you actually enjoy the game, as most on this board seem not to) You work with what you have.

Finding another game system isn't too terribly hard. What's the point of playing a game based around rules and dice if you disregard the rules and fudge all the dice?

Nice strawman.

Fun, fun is the point of the game based around the rules, and when the rules get in the way you fudge it for the sake of fun, so that a player gets to play his high powered concept and still be high powered without ruining the campaign for everyone. So that he gets to do so without feeling shamed for liking a high powered character by the gm.

And secondly because the primary and singular job of the gm is to provide a narrative framework and fun gaming session for the people at the table, not randos on an internet forum, the whole "integrity of the rules" arguement is ass. It isn't a competition, it is from beginning to end about fun and its more fun playing with all your friends, even if it involves the gm fudging things than it is to tell a friend "sorry your playstyle conflicts too much, go do something else while we all hang out and have fun"

[Charon's Little Helper]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Fun, fun is the point of the game based around the rules, and when the rules get in the way you fudge it for the sake of fun, so that a player gets to play his high powered concept and still be high powered...

Except... he doesn't. You try to convince him that he's still high powered, but you're lying because you're really sandbagging his character to bring him down to the other characters' levels.

[Ryan Freire]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Fun, fun is the point of the game based around the rules, and when the rules get in the way you fudge it for the sake of fun, so that a player gets to play his high powered concept and still be high powered...

Except... he doesn't. You try to convince him that he's still high powered, but you're lying because you're really sandbagging his character to bring him down to the other characters' levels.

And he doesn't ever even have to know it, amazing how that works isn't it?

I mean you're going to have to work REALLY hard to overcome the 2 decade long campaigns worth of experience i have WATCHING this work and watching the player be super stoked about how badass his character and the campaign was.

Edit: and frankly i think its time people really put the "he should just find another group" advice in the context of people who are actually friends with one another and the kind of effect crap like that has on friendships (protip: maintaining friendships, also more important than some imaginary "integrity of the rules dice fall as they may" attitude toward rpging for fun)

[graystone]

Ryan Freire: People where happy with BMW's emission tests for years until they figured out they'd cheated the tests...

[Ryan Freire]

graystone wrote:

Ryan Freire: People where happy with BMW's emission tests for years until they figured out they'd cheated the tests...

And thats a pretty crap comparison given that one is a matter of law and the other is the equivalent of money on free parking in monopoly.

[Firewarrior44]

Ryan Freire wrote:

graystone wrote:

Ryan Freire: People where happy with BMW's emission tests for years until they figured out they'd cheated the tests...

And thats a pretty crap comparison given that one is a matter of law and the other is the equivalent of money on free parking in monopoly.

Hey you know all that awesome stuff you're characters have done over the years? Yea you can now never be sure if it was on your own merits or a handout.

[graystone]

Ryan Freire wrote:

graystone wrote:

Ryan Freire: People where happy with BMW's emission tests for years until they figured out they'd cheated the tests...

And thats a pretty crap comparison given that one is a matter of law and the other is the equivalent of money on free parking in monopoly.

Nope, it's a pretty on point comparison. Both are situations where people have been lied to for years and where happy until they found out about it. You're the one that keeps bringing up how your groups is perfectly happy being lied to...

[Ryan Freire]

Firewarrior44 wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

graystone wrote:

Ryan Freire: People where happy with BMW's emission tests for years until they figured out they'd cheated the tests...

And thats a pretty crap comparison given that one is a matter of law and the other is the equivalent of money on free parking in monopoly.

Hey you know all that awesome stuff you're characters have done over the years? Yea you can now never be sure if it was on your own merits or a handout.

And it doesn't matter because its just a game and my self esteem is not tied into the successes of my PC. What i can say is that I look back on a lot of good times with good friends who all enjoyed the time we spent together and reminisce about the days before we all had responsibilities that keep us from getting together to play more often.

[Firewarrior44]

It's a violation of trust. It Has nothing to do with my self esteem and EVERYTHING to do with my agency as a player.

[Sundakan]

Ryan Freire wrote:

graystone wrote:

Ryan Freire: People where happy with BMW's emission tests for years until they figured out they'd cheated the tests...

And thats a pretty crap comparison given that one is a matter of law and the other is the equivalent of money on free parking in monopoly.

Considering that's one of the widespread houserules that makes people hate Monopoly (you know how everyone complains the game takes too long to play? That's a major reason why) perhaps that isn't the best analogy.

[Sundakan]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Firewarrior44 wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

graystone wrote:

Ryan Freire: People where happy with BMW's emission tests for years until they figured out they'd cheated the tests...

And thats a pretty crap comparison given that one is a matter of law and the other is the equivalent of money on free parking in monopoly.

Hey you know all that awesome stuff you're characters have done over the years? Yea you can now never be sure if it was on your own merits or a handout.

And it doesn't matter because its just a game and my self esteem is not tied into the successes of my PC. What i can say is that I look back on a lot of good times with good friends who all enjoyed the time we spent together and reminisce about the days before we all had responsibilities that keep us from getting together to play more often.

If that's the case why did you feel the need to lie at all? If the circumstances and successes don't matter, there should be no need to tweak anything.

[FrozenLaughs]

I feel like there's a lot of particularly bad advice going on in this thread right now. The goal of the game is not to Nerf the one player who's built to do one thing exceptionally well. The goal is to entertain everyone as close to equally as possible by providing the different facets of the story that everyone is looking for. I'm going to throw down a long wall of text for a viewpoint to consider. I won't quote the source, but many who played prior to Pathfinder have probably read it:

Some sage Storytelling advice wrote:

Accumulating cool power

One of the games central incentives, the pursuit of even mightier powers is also the easiest to put into play because the accumulation of experience is central to the game. Powers can be anything that increases a PCs effectivenes, from increased attributes, to feats, to spells and magic items.
Almost all players enjoy adding these goodies to their character sheets. They plan ahead, carefully weighing their options, deciding what they will pick next. New abilities are a gift that keeps on giving: players feel a sense of reward when they gain experience points. They get the sense of reward all over again when the experience points garner them new abilities. When they actually get to use their abilities in a game situation? You guessed it- they experience that sense of reward again.
This incentive appeals to one of the most reliable human motivators: ambition. The instinct to collect valuables has been hardwired into the human brain since Homo sapiens first roamed the grasslands searching for nuts, berries, and the occasional tasty Mastodon. Throughout history people have been awarded status according to the desirability of their possessions. Players who love to pump up their characters are simply taking this principle and translating into game terms
Because pumping up is so straightforward and popular, some storytellers deride it. But there's nothing inherently wrong with seeking more power for your character. Do Monopoly™ players feel guilty about putting hotels on Park Place? Of course not.
As a storyteller, realize that "power gamers" are your ally because motivating them is always straightforward. Any encounter offering experience points contains a rock-steady incentive to draw them in. Almost any scene you devise to appeal to any other players case can also be made into a power gamer's delight by dangling an alluring treasure, a generous experience award, or a coveted magic item.
More so than other kinds of players, power gamers can be self-entertaining. They can derive great enjoyment from the game even when they're not at the table. They're dreaming up future variations on their characters and pouring over supplements looking for new options.
All that time mastering the nuances of their character means that the power gamer might know the rules concerning their own abilities even better than you do. A player who has this trait won't be shy about expressing his opinions about how the rules out to work. Don't look for ways to say no to him- find ways to say yes. Create encounters where he's meant to gain powers and show off his current abilities. As long as you make him work for his power-ups there's no problem in doling them out.
though most storytellers think of power accumulators as those players who seek out the abilities that give them the biggest bang for the smallest cost (min-maxers) this isn't necessarily the case. Players whose characters methodically acquire the requirements for a Prestige class for storytelling reasons can be just as focused in pursuing their goals, so they are just as easy to motivate with another batch of experience points

Combat also fosters the game's biggest sense of jeopardy; never are the players at greater risk for more sustained periods then when the fighting starts.
Understand that players who enjoy combat come to the table specifically for this heady mix of feelings. You don't have to convince them to get as excited about other aspects of the game to consider yourself a good Storyteller. If you and your group love skirmishes and want to run them all night long, you are playing the game as well as anyone else. Some combat fans are dedicated rule crunchers who comb the rulebooks and other supplements for the perfect combination of weapons, feats, and Maneuvers. Other players just want the simplest character sheets possible, so they can get to the bashing right away.
At first glance, butt-kickers are at least as easy to please as power gamers. Players who have this trait tend to stay happy if you keep the enemies coming. However, supplying lots of fights is no substitute for running battles that are truly exciting. As you run combats, keep in mind the excitement and sense of vicarious mastery fight lovers are looking for. Make your scenes come alive. Supply a bone-crunching description when a player, especially a combat fan, dishes out a particularly mighty blow. Keep the focus on the characters engaged in the fight and not just on the dice that are rolling in front of you.
The Challenge in dealing with action-oriented players is keeping their attention between battles. If you let them go too long without a good scrap, they might find one you weren't planning on. Tavern fights are always a popular Trope of choice for bored smiters of evil. They might surprise you by attacking non-player characters who are supposed to provide them with resources or info, or by launching sudden frontal assaults on superior foes. This syndrome is easily cured: always have a quick, fun battle in your back pocket- villains ready to kick down the door and attack- fir times when the fight fans began getting restless.

Communication is especially important here. You need to be communicating with all of your players and making sure that not only do they understand the type of game you want to run, and the type of story you want to tell; but that you understand the roles that each player is looking to fulfill in their enjoyment of the game. There should never really be a situation where you have to take any one player aside (short of perhaps some secret storytelling) and hash things out one-on-one. Everybody should be on the same page, because they're all playing the same game together.

It's not hard to cater specific combat encounters specifically to highlight the abilities of your combat specialist player. It's a common Trope for the enemies to all have that one big power hitter that nobody wants to fight or that nobody's been able to beat; and of course the adventuring party has their own heavy hitter that no one's been able to beat. It's okay to let some combat scenarios literally come down to a one-on-one battle, with the other players mopping up the garbage and keeping them off of the power hitter. If that is the party dynamic then that's perfectly fine: run with it! Highlight it and make it a fun element of the story. It adds that much more to the story when he finally does go down- when he's injured and the rest of the group doesn't know what they're going to do and have to pool their resources and pull extra weight. It adds tension to the story because now one of their greatest strengths is also one of their greatest weaknesses: if he's removed, how do they handle the situation? It's a classic storytelling element we've all seen it and hundreds and hundreds of movies and books.

And of course, you will want to highlight his weaknesses. Point out his shortcomings in subtle ways: skill checks that are easy for the group but difficult for him, role playing and character development that he may fall short on. Highlight how the other players are excelling in areas that he has chosen not to consider or has completely ignored. Design areas that are easy for the rest of the group: role-playing situations and story interactions that the rest of the players can handle. Don't make him feel like you're picking on him, simply illustrate why his style of character isn't necessarily the best choice. Toss in situations that he can only get through with the assistance of the rest of the group.

The game should never be about outright penalizing players because they have a character that doesn't fit the story or doesn't quite fit the group. (barring evil just to be evil and similar examples) The Soul of the game is about adapting and overcoming adversity. Let each player shine in the way that they are most comfortable, but still encourage them to play and think outside of their usual comfort zone. Remember you're all together to have fun, and the Players will actually tell you 50-75% of the story for you, if you give them the chance, and the right nudges when they need it.

[Ryan Freire]

Firewarrior44 wrote:

It's a violation of trust. It Has nothing to do with my self esteem and EVERYTHING to do with my agency as a player.

Yeah see this is the kind of overdramatising the game that makes me wonder how many of the prolific posters on this board actually enjoy the game.

A violation of trust? The GM isn't buying booze for your underage kid (i hope) or kicking your dog when you aren't looking. Agency as a player? Which screws with your agency as a player more? Being told you cant play your chosen build because it outperforms the other players too much (thereby taking your agency as well), being told you're not a good fit for the group and go do something else (now you're not a player) or having the gm manage your combats when necessary to keep you from blasting through content the other pc's need to be able to face when you're not around?

[Charon's Little Helper]

To me it's not really about the player agency thing.

It's the lying thing.

I simply don't like liars. I don't associate with them if at all possible. I don't see anything good coming from lying to your friends.

[Ryan Freire]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

To me it's not really about the player agency thing.

It's the lying thing.

I simply don't like liars. I don't associate with them if at all possible. I don't see anything good coming from lying to your friends.

Thats your hangup. The reality is its a COMMON gm tool and your choice to associate that tool with the stark phrase "lying to your friends" is a poor rhetorical attempt to erase both context and scale.

[Chess Pwn]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Which screws with your agency as a player more? Being told you cant play your chosen build because it outperforms the other players too much (thereby taking your agency as well), being told you're not a good fit for the group and go do something else (now you're not a player) or having the gm manage your combats when necessary to keep you from blasting through content the other pc's need to be able to face when you're not around?

3 is the worse, as you're giving false agency. "Yes you can take weapon focus to get a +1 to hit, but secretly all monsters will gain +1 AC only for you." This is telling the player they have agency to effect the game and then removing it.

1 is completely fine and the best route. If a GM has a problem better to ban it and let the player choose to play something that is allowed rather than to do 3 and give the false agency.
2 is if it's ruining fun for others and there's no compromise. In which case it again is better to stop playing together. I have a group of friends that was one of my first groups and we were roommates and some friends. After finding out that I was a very poor match for the group and failing to find a compromise that worked (largely cause the GM was doing #3 and cause I was expecting rules to be followed while they wanted more magical story time) I left and have been much happier and they have been too.

Agency isn't about having all the choices. Agency is having your choices mean something.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

To me it's not really about the player agency thing.

It's the lying thing.

I simply don't like liars. I don't associate with them if at all possible. I don't see anything good coming from lying to your friends.

Thats your hangup. The reality is its a COMMON gm tool and your choice to associate that tool with the stark phrase "lying to your friends" is a poor rhetorical attempt to erase both context and scale.

It's one thing if you're upfront and tell them that you may fudge occasionally. Then it's not lying.

If you told this player that you were nerfing all of his actions behind the screen, that wouldn't be lying either, but I'm rather dubious that he'd be okay with it.

[graystone]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

To me it's not really about the player agency thing.

It's the lying thing.

I simply don't like liars. I don't associate with them if at all possible. I don't see anything good coming from lying to your friends.

Thats your hangup. The reality is its a COMMON gm tool and your choice to associate that tool with the stark phrase "lying to your friends" is a poor rhetorical attempt to erase both context and scale.

No, it's really not just his issue. I don't know anyone that likes to be lied to on a constant basis. It's one thing to nudge things once in a while but quite another to alter every roll as you suggest. If my rolls don't matter, why am I rolling them? The GM might just as well just let me know how the fight went if he's just going to make stuff up as opposed to using the rules we all agreed on. I'm not playing the game for 'magic tea party' time.

[Ryan Freire]

Actually sociologically agency is pretty specifically about the ability to make choices, how effective those choices are doesn't really come into it.

You're confusing Structure for Agency. Structure (the gm) is that which seems to influence or limit those choices.

[Firewarrior44]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

To me it's not really about the player agency thing.

It's the lying thing.

I simply don't like liars. I don't associate with them if at all possible. I don't see anything good coming from lying to your friends.

Thats your hangup. The reality is its a COMMON gm tool and your choice to associate that tool with the stark phrase "lying to your friends" is a poor rhetorical attempt to erase both context and scale.

It's one thing if you're upfront and tell them that you may fudge occasionally. Then it's not lying.

If you told this player that you were nerfing all of his actions behind the screen, that wouldn't be lying either, but I'm rather dubious that he'd be okay with it.

If you feel the need to lie in order to take an action because you .don't want to deal with the repercussions of being upfront about it Then it's probably not an action that you should be taking.

[Ryan Freire]

Firewarrior44 wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

To me it's not really about the player agency thing.

It's the lying thing.

I simply don't like liars. I don't associate with them if at all possible. I don't see anything good coming from lying to your friends.

Thats your hangup. The reality is its a COMMON gm tool and your choice to associate that tool with the stark phrase "lying to your friends" is a poor rhetorical attempt to erase both context and scale.

It's one thing if you're upfront and tell them that you may fudge occasionally. Then it's not lying.

If you told this player that you were nerfing all of his actions behind the screen, that wouldn't be lying either, but I'm rather dubious that he'd be okay with it.

If you feel the need to lie in order to take an action because you .don't want to deal with the repercussions of being upfront about it Then it's probably not an action that you should be taking.

Omission isn't the same as lying, and frankly this isn't even lying, its a gm actively managing the story.