You've Created A Bad Character. How, why and whose fault is it?

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
The purpose of this thread is to more broadly discuss something that came up in the Daggerheart thread.

It is possible for a player to create a "bad character" in most games. Here, we will define bad as "doesn't work with the intended method and focus of play" and leave it at that. I am not interested in talking about grizzled loners in ensembles or characters built to push against generally agreed upon limits of good taste etc...

First of all, how and why can this happen. There are a few ways, I think:

1. Intentional Traps: This is less common that it once was, but not gone. Sometimes designers decide they should include bad choices in characters creation/advancement, just to catch the newbs and "reward system mastery." (Looking at you, Monte.)

2. Too many options: This is the same as above, but without the intentionality. there are just lots of options, and not all of them are good, and some explicitly bad, but not because the designers intended it. Maybe they just weren't good at their jobs, or there are so many moving parts it is impossible to know until the game is in the wild.

3. Player unfamiliarity: This is probably the most common result. The player just doesn't know what works and what is good and picks stuff because it sounds like the thing they want to do.

4. Player intentionality: the player knows something is suboptimal or even bad, and picks it anyway -- probably because it fits their intended theme and character fantasy.

5. Randomization: This is very rare these days but still soem games keep it (and some call it a feature). Essentially, die rolls during character creation/advancement lead to a character that is just bad.

The more interesting question for me is "Who is responsible?"

One thing that came up in the Daggerheart thread is that it can be accidental. That is, no one is responsible. That is certainly possible, especially with character generation, but as time goes on and advancement happens over the course of a campaign, I think that is less and less likely. I think as the campaign goes on, the GM and other players have at least some role to play in mitigating the development of a bad character, since they are also invested in how "good" that character is. Especially if the player of the bad character is new to the game or the hobby, the weight of responsibility is on the rest of the group IMO.

But that is just my opinion. I am interested in hearing what other people think. How do you define a "bad character" from a mechanical perspective? What are the potential causes? Who do you think is responsible for making sure a character isn't "bad"? And what are some ways to mitigate the "bad character" if that is really what the player wants to play?

A side note: I think it is far easier to create a bad character with more open character generation and advancement rules. Hero, for example, allows the player a huge amount of freedom in creating a character. This means that masters of the system can created very powerful characters within whatever framework is established. But it also means that players can create something near useless (by spreading points to thin or otherwise not being efficient with points). Games with fewer choices tend to make it less likely a character is bad -- unless there are lots of random elements, in which case good or bad is a matter of chance.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
This sounds flippant, but it's true: A bad character is one that's not fun to play.

What that means varies per person and sometimes per group, but plenty of people will enjoy a "bad" character and that means, for them, it's actually a good character. And someone else's "good" character could be a terrible fit for a given player, and that makes it a bad character.
 

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
This sounds flippant, but it's true: A bad character is one that's not fun to play.

What that means varies per person and sometimes per group, but plenty of people will enjoy a "bad" character and that means, for them, it's actually a good character. And someone else's "good" character could be a terrible fit for a given player, and that makes it a bad character.
Sure, but I intentionally tried to set the standard for the purposes of discussion.
 

John Lloyd1

Rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty
I have two thoughts:

Synergies
It can be hard for new player of a system to understand how options work together. Now some choices are pretty stand alone, but others can either work against each other or fail to keep up with the expected power curve.

Lock in
Some choices are difficult to undo and have long lasting effects. For example, subclass in 5E.

To continue with a personal example. My first (edit) 5E character was a dex based fighter. When Xanathar's came out I leap at the Arcana Archer but didn't realise that INT was not a dump stat for that sub-class. The result is it felt really underpowered when I tried to use my cool stuff.
 
Last edited:

Richards

Legend
My nephew wanted to try playing a bard in our 3.5 game, and after 6 levels decided bards are boring to play - he spent most of his time using "inspire courage" to boost the other PCs' attacks, so they got to do the cool stuff while he just pretty much strummed his lute round after round. So he started taking rogue levels from that point on, and I gave him a magic sword that allowed him to "catch up to where he would have been" on the sneak attack damage front, at least. And he now he's a sneak attack powerhouse and has a bard NPC girlfriend who handles the "inspire courage" class feature the other PCs have all gotten used to.

So, to him, his bard 6 was an unintentional bad PC, but his bard 6/rogue 9 (and counting) PC is much better.

Johnathan
 



Synergies
It can be hard for new player of a system to understand how options work together. Now some choices are pretty stand alone, but others can either work against each other or fail to keep up with the expected power curve.
That can really rear its head in both categories 2 and 3 in the OP, with seemingly innocuous combinations of choices producing synergistic effects that perform far above or below expectations. Good game design can do a lot to offset the problem without having to remove the components of a possible combo outright. For ex, the 4th ed Champions book was much improved over earlier editions by adding "stop!" and "caution!" warnings and explanations in the sidebars next to choices that were most likely to break thing when used in certain combos.
 
Last edited:

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
I think I'd extend that by adding "...or play with." Some characters may fit their player's tastes fine but (unintentionally or not) spoil the enjoyment of others at the table - be it the GM or another player.
Yeah, I have a character that could easily dominate the game I'm in and I intentionally handicap him periodically, because I don't want the campaign to devolve into me and my sidekicks, which would be a crappy thing to do to my friends.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
My nephew wanted to try playing a bard in our 3.5 game, and after 6 levels decided bards are boring to play - he spent most of his time using "inspire courage" to boost the other PCs' attacks, so they got to do the cool stuff while he just pretty much strummed his lute round after round. So he started taking rogue levels from that point on, and I gave him a magic sword that allowed him to "catch up to where he would have been" on the sneak attack damage front, at least. And he now he's a sneak attack powerhouse and has a bard NPC girlfriend who handles the "inspire courage" class feature the other PCs have all gotten used to.

So, to him, his bard 6 was an unintentional bad PC, but his bard 6/rogue 9 (and counting) PC is much better.
Support characters definitely have niche appeal. Some people love them, but boy, if you are not that type of person, they're the worst. Every time I've tried to play them in MMOs, everyone ends up miserable as a result.
 

Remove ads

Top