Problem Players and Problem DMs

Forked from: Fighters didn't matter after 11th level?

ProfessorCirno said:

Bingo.

Wizard/Cleric/Druid isn't the problem, it's a problem with the player. It's a problem that has and will be in every game since the dawn of time until the end of time. You can't pin it on edition.

Click to expand...

Submitted for your consideration:

Any "Player Problem" or "DM Problem" involving a player or DM that I want to play with is a problem with the system.

In my experience, not a chance. I've played with people and GMs who are system-independent jerks.

No, that's not quite fair. People who are friends of mine who act out during a game, and whose resulting behavior makes me not want to game with them anymore, have seemed to do this in multiple systems. I'm not sure a different rules system would matter, and I wouldn't want the original rules changing to accommodate these border cases.

There are people that I like that occasionally attempt to hijack a game via the rules. I want to play with these people, in a general sense. I consider their behavior the problem, not the rules. If they insist upon the behavior, they go, not the rules.

Piratecat said:

In my experience, not a chance. I've played with people and GMs who are system-independent jerks.

Click to expand...

If people are jerks independant of system, then I don't want to game with them even if they're my friends. Hence the my italics in the original post.

I don't mean this in specific reference to the problem being discussed in the thread I forked from. I'm just kind of sick of hearing people say "It's a player problem".

If a creates and plays a character in good faith, abiding by the restrictions and limitations of the campaign's tone, and still manages to cause problems in the way he plays the character, then that is most likely a failure of the system, not a failure of the player.

Sometimes, It doesn't particularly bother me when a system fails--If I'm trying to run a combat heaving sci-fi game with the L5R system, the game has failed to do something it wasn't really designed to do in the first place.

But if I'm playing a high-magic pseudomedieval game using an edition of D&D, it shouldn't fall apart simply because the players have too much (3e) or too little (4e) rules mastery.

I see what the OP is saying, and at times I've felt the exact same way. That the system was broken to allow such disparity between "builds".

I guess I've mellowed with age a bit. Now I feel that any system that includes rules can be exploited or manipulated because the rules just can't truly address player motivations.

In my career we try to train recruits about the difference between the "letter" of the law and the "spirit" of the law. Even after that training we can't, technically, stop an officer from writing a speeding ticket for 2 MPH over the posted limit. It makes that officer look like a tool to the public and his fellow officers and if it goes to court the judge will pitch it, but it is "technically" unlawful to exceed the posted speed limit; so Officer Tool was following the L(R)AW.

RPGs are like that too. If a player gets off on building a character that exploits the rules in order to "win", then he'll do that with any game he plays. I use to play WH40K, and there were always army builds that were considered "letter Vs. spirit", and they were commonly called "cheesey" or "beardy".

If the group isn't on the same page about the kind of game they want, then a player on either end of that spectrum can suck the fun out of the session for the group. When I started my 4E game, I had a group of people I had never played with before. I quickly learned that one of the players was an optimizer and it eventually caused some heartburn for the group.

This player made a cleric that was devoid of character beyond being dragonborn and having a name. The player set him up as a melee monster and created him as a greataxe wielder. He had almost no healing ability beyond the bare minimum clerics get just for being clerics. I don't have a problem with the build because I'm just trying to cultivate some players and have fun at the game table.

The other players(novices) started to make snide comments about the character when he was more effective in combat than the striker characters, and he never seemed to fail when the rest of the party struggled. Then the cleric player said something at the table that brought a lot of things into perspective for the other players. He said, in an annoyed tone "I can't look through a rule book and not pick the best options.". The other players seemed to feel if he was disparaging them for making "suboptimal" characters.

I personally don't think the thirst for optimization is a death penalty offense, even though it's not my bag, but if the group can't abide it then something has to give.

The group stopped even attempting to work as a team, and as a result they walked into a TPK. The Optimizer then made a halfling rogue that was as optimized as his cleric, but fit more within the new party. He happily rolls his fistfull of dice when he gets a sneak attack(which is often), and the rest of the party gets to shine in their roles.

I don't even worry about the system anymore, I just try to get the PLAYERS to function as a group. If the group doesn't mind adventuring CHEESOR THE CHAINFIGHTER, then I just try to make the adventure fun.

arscott said:

But if I'm playing a high-magic pseudomedieval game using an edition of D&D, it shouldn't fall apart simply because the players have too much (3e) or too little (4e) rules mastery.

Click to expand...

My experiences suggest to me that the problem comes mainly down to too little playing well with others skill mastery than rule mastery.

In the current games I'm running, I've got one main powergamer in each game. In both games, they're into getting into the characters' roles and how they fit into the campaign, even when not actually power-game-advantageous, because it's how they want the characters to be. They're also experienced DMs who have run successful games and understand how to cooperate with a DM and other party members.
Now, as it turns out, one of them is a bit better at the cooperation than the other. It happens that the latter happens to be one of those people whose personality follows Boyle's Gas Law - it expands to fit the space given to it. So he's a little hard to rein in at times, but that's more from a role-playing perspective.

Now, if these guys weren't such good players, able to anticipate and cooperate with the story of the campaign and help improve it, there might be more trouble. A single major powergamer at a table can be a hassle, particularly when your other players range from niche designers, half-distracted tag alongs, side-conversation jokers, and contented to just be contributing to rather than driving the action sorts of players.

arscott said:

If people are jerks independant of system, then I don't want to game with them even if they're my friends. Hence the my italics in the original post.

Click to expand...

I had a friend who was incredibly nice - unless he was gaming, at which point he'd become a jerk.

That being said, I understand what you're saying.

arscott said:

Any "Player Problem" or "DM Problem" involving a player or DM that I want to play with is a problem with the system.

Click to expand...

People are to blame when people are the problem. Games don't make people into problems. It doesn't matter if you want to game with them or not.

arscott said:

Any "Player Problem" or "DM Problem" involving a player or DM that I want to play with is a problem with the system.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I buy that. It basically means anyone I want to play with is, by definition, perfect and without flaws or problems, and any problems I think they might have are really problems with the system.

There's a guy who is a fine player and I want him at my table. Sometimes he does really irritating in-character voices. I have trouble blaming the system for that.



Cheers,
Roger

This reminds me of when I first started playing 2e. There was a guy in our group that would never, ever use a short sword cause it only did d6 damage. I think that there is a disconnect. I thought that roleplaying was more important than damage done or not done. Wouldn't you want to be a fighter because they are the classic hero? Isn't the mage classically the mysterious figure?

In my opinion Powergaming causes problems no matter what class you choose. If you want to hack and slash your way through the game, pick up Balder's gate or Champions of Norath. Powergame all you want.