[DMs] Dealing with player's who have "ineffective" builds...

[shilsen]

The DM needs to provide a world that the PC's can count on. If he's constantly tweaking and modifying, players never know what direction to take their characters. For example: if you're a high-combat DM with no diplomacy or role playing and it's a well-known fact, then players need to understand that and not create characters of high diplomatic skill. The opposite is true in other campaigns.

The DM needs to stick to HIS guns so the players can figure him out.

Interesting idea, and to me, extremely limited. While I expect my players to adapt to some extent to my tastes (after all, I'm the one running the campaign), I also expect to adapt to some extent to their tastes (after all, they're the ones playing in the campaign). To use your example, the high-combat DM needs to cater at least somewhat to his players and try to create diplomacy and roleplaying situations so that they can enjoy them too.

As a DM, I personally like heavy roleplaying, dislike dungeon crawling and have maybe one fight or two per session. And I told my players about that when they were creating characters. But since many of them like combat and dungeon crawling more than I do, every few sessions or so I have a session or two which is heavy on the combat. At one point, we were in the middle of a city-based intrigue-laden series of sessions, when the PCs decided things were getting too hot for them and left for an entirely different continent. Since the players evidently needed a bit of a change in pace, I had the next half a dozen sessions focus on wilderness travel, exploration and multiple combats. And I catered to my own tastes by throwing in a few interesting NPCs for roleplaying interactions and a bunch of plot hooks, some of which got picked up and are still alive and kicking. My players thoroughly enjoyed the change. I enjoyed the fact that they were having fun and also had fun with what we were doing. Would I have been a better DM if I had stuck to my guns and forced them to play exactly what I wanted them to and nothing else? HELL, NO!

 

[Piratecat]

Let the dice fall where they may. If you nerf encounters because the PCs have all "dabbled" in multiclassing and therefore don't have spells that would otherwise be appropirate to their levels, you've just taken away the trade off that is supposed to be inherent in multiclassing: versitiltiy for power.

True, but you'd also be sacrificing fun.

For me, it works best to peg the threat level to the anticipated strength of the party -- whether they're stronger, or weaker, than normal. If you don't, you're penalizing them for not min-maxing, and that's not something I choose to do.

 

[ForceUser]

I would TPK them just for the Bbn/Brd alone...

Are you kidding? The Barbarian/Bard (i.e., the Norse Skald) is a wicked cool character idea!

As for the OP, let the dice fall where they may. My design ensures appropriate challenges for the party's power level, as roughly gauged by CR, and not the specific mix of classes. Watching how the various character combinations overcome specific threats is a lot of fun for me as a DM.

 

[Tsillanabor]

It depends on why the character(s) are ineffective. I design encounters with an eye towards what my players are capable of. We have several multiclassed characters, one wizard, and one paladin.

Since the multi-classed characters fit their respective stories, I don't penalize them in adventure design. We have one weak link though-a Drow half-dragon. With his massive LA (and I did warn him) he is MUCH weaker than the rest of the group. Since he was trying to powergame (though not very good at it) I show him no mercy.

 

[cmajestic]

I have separate views on both of the topics presented. As near as I can tell, there are two issues here.

Issue 1 - Should a DM tailor encounter level to party power level; and

Issue 2 - Should a DM fudge rolls in order to effect the tailoring of said encounter level.

Regarding the first issue, I think that the DM should try to tailor the level of encounter to the relative power level of the party. If the players created their characters within the framework that the DM intended them to create their characters, they should not be punished for creating characters that were sub-optimal in combat. Any pre-planned encounters should be tailored to the PCs. CRs are simply a guideline that a DM can use to choose appropriate encounters for the PCs; they are a time-saving device, so that a DM does not have to page through every page of the MM in order to find a level appropriate encounter. Random encounters, if you use them in your game, are more random by nature. Occasionally throwing a random encounter that is above or below the party's power level does help to preserve verisimilitude.

Notwithstanding the above, I don't think that the DM should fudge rolls in order to make the encounter easier. This is the sort of situation where a slightly longer adventure preparation time would help prevent. I do not like fudging rolls, personally. I agree with BlueBlackRed's sentiments about fudging rolls - once you begin fudging rolls, you are in a downward spiral that will end in the PCs becoming extremely overconfident (mouthy captain of the guard - I will show him - I know that I can't die anyway). Once they are overconfident, there are two possible endings for the campaign. A., the campaign dissolves because the player characters lose interest because there is no sense of accomplishment whatsoever when overcoming challenges (properly titled "speed bumps on the way to the pie") or B., player characters die a horrible death because they took on an encounter that was far too tough for them because their assumption was that the DM would simply fudge the rolls (and they wanted the pie).

If you do find your PCs in a situation that looks like it will end in a TPK, there are some ways out of it without fudging on the rolls. Something more powerful shows up and drives both parties away. Something more powerful shows up and helps the PCs (be hesitant to use this one - nothing is more frustrating than playing in a game where the DM puts in NPCs that consistently outshine the PCs). The players are all knocked to negative hit points and left for dead (ala Conan rpg). The players are all knocked to negative hit points and used as bargaining chips with another entity in the campaign world. Etc., etc.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I find the whole question extremely hypothetical. Why design a specific encounter that can only be handled with abilities beyond those of the player characters? Surely there is some point to the exercise?

Just went through such an adventure last night- the solution was for the party to enable the person who COULD avert the approaching disaster to act freely. In our case, that person was a mighty mage who had accidentally knocked himself out with a magic item that had to be removed from his person.

Spells can be acquired on scrolls, and it is possible to cast spells of a higher level than you normally could. Therefore requiring a certain spell X to pass obstacle Y is not beyond the capabilities of the players. Surely it is the DM's job to make things challenging, on occassion?

In our case, there were no such scrolls to be found- the DM thought that at least one of the party's arcane casters had the spell, so didn't even consider that there was a need for such scrolls. Basically, while we were trying to puzzle things out, he was sitting on the other side of the screen thinking we were idiots.

If things go poorly for the party in combat, surely it is up to them to decide when to turn tail and flee, or press on? Should the DM hand them the victory? Fudging, if apparent to the players, is really, really bad, IMO. Fudge often enough, and it becomes apparent. I roll dice in front of players so they see how easily that Blackguard struck the Paladin. It provides an indication of how skilled their opponent is.

It depends. Currently, I'm in a campaign that is 2 adventures old. My PC bit the dust last night- he didn't get outside of a fireball's blast radius in time, so took some damage (it was not immediately apparent that what he was standing next to was a form of delayed blast fireball). 2 rounds later, he took a nearly maxed out hit from an 8HD water elemental (that had been hiding), rendering him dead. I played the PC in character, doing what he would have done, so I felt no remorse.

The being the party rescued raised him from the dead while I was in the middle of contemplating my next PC design. AFAIK, that was a total fudge.

Sometimes you (or I and some of my gaming buddies, at least) fudge because fun demands that fudging occurs. Other times, the dice rule absolutely. My rule of thumb on fudging is to reward intelligent play & good roleplay, and punish stupidity.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Example 1 (Planning Encounters):
Say the party consists of all multiclass characters. A Sorcerer 2/Fighter 2, a Cleric 2/Monk 2, and a Rogue 2/Wizard 2, Barbarian 2/Bard 2. When planning an encounter that a stragiht caster would have the spells for, should that encounter be "nerfed" to take into account the only spellcasters the party has are half as effective? These characters are 4th level, but they are not 4th level casters and do not have 4th level spells. Should a DM take this into consideration when planning an encounter that perhaps a 4th level Wizard would be able to deal with easier than a 2nd level Wizard/2nd level Rogue?

No, I don't think so. The players made their beds, and now they get to lay in them.

Example 2 (Combat):
Say combat has begun, and it is going poorly for the party. Should the DM maybe fudge a little since the characters aren't really up to par with the creatures the DM has thrown at them?

No. If you're going to set aside the results of the dice, why bother rolling them in the first place?

 

[green slime]

Just went through such an adventure last night- the solution was for the party to enable the person who COULD avert the approaching disaster to act freely. In our case, that person was a mighty mage who had accidentally knocked himself out with a magic item that had to be removed from his person.

Except that the situation was then not beyond the capacity of the characters to deal with at all. All it required was assisting someone else. The characters were able to provide this assistance, no?

In our case, there were no such scrolls to be found- the DM thought that at least one of the party's arcane casters had the spell, so didn't even consider that there was a need for such scrolls. Basically, while we were trying to puzzle things out, he was sitting on the other side of the screen thinking we were idiots.

This case, isn't really a case, as it wasn't designed by purpose to defeat the PCs and render them incompetent, without having any other purpose.

The OP questions whether a DM should take into account specific character abilities when setting up encounters. IMO, the question is placing the cart before the horse, as encounters are not isolated, separate entites, with a life of their own. As the co-operative story of an RPG unfolds, the DM provides the backdrop and dressing, encounters provide substance and meaning. Players choose, in co-operation, to find their own meaning, goals, and purpose. Using this guideline, the story is paced, idiotic choices lead to short (or adventuresome) character lives, and everyone enjoys the game.

A story needs telling, and there is more than one way to skin a beast.

 

[Cutty Sark]

If a player makes an "ineffective" build...

Well, you'd try to design a variety of encounters at a variety of difficulties for a party of combat-optimized characters, right? They'd be good against the large group of mooks, have to use sound tactics against the trolls, and have trouble convincing the magistrate to look the other way. Or something. Overall, the session would have nice variety and everybody would have some fun. Why would that be any different with your example party? Take their combat prowess into consideration by using some encounters that play to their strengths and some that really challenge them to use tactics and abilities to their full potential, rather than watering down all the combats or ignoring the party's weaknesses.

Say combat has begun, and it is going poorly for the party. Should the DM maybe fudge a little since the characters aren't really up to par with the creatures the DM has thrown at them?

Games benefit, I think greatly, when players and the DM have an understanding about how dangerous the situation is. Rather than having to fudge when they get in over their heads, just make sure they understand that they are, in fact, in over their heads.

 

[Janx]

Hmm...

First of all, there are no ineffective characters, period. What you refer to as "ineffective" is really just the in-play results of a person choosing to play a jack-of-all-trades type of PC instead of one specialized in one area. Being able to do multiple things to a lesser degree than being able to do one thing really well is not ineffective.

This statement is begging to be proven wrong...

Never say never, and never say there's no such thing.

the char gen rules include a "reroll" clause for when your stats you just rolled are too low. Clearly, the designers envisioned that having low stats would lead to an ineffective character.

It's a fact that some players can build a PC that outshine the others, making the other players feel ineffective. You can be the best sailor, but when you're in the desert, it's a useless skill.


In a new campaign I'm in, we were all assigned character-class combinations (DM wanted to get us out of ruts). We all hoped not to get the Half-Orc Bard....which would be a poor combination for a bard.

I got the Human Paladin. I rolled two 9's. I decided to put them on str and int. I made a Paladin that wears light armor and fights exclusively with a crossbow (17 dex). I've got the same to-hit as the Barbarian and Fighter in the party, but my damage isn't as good. Thus, I've made an ineffective PC (didn't help rolling low all week, either). If I had free reign, I would not have chosen Paladin unless I rolled really good stats. Instead I would have done a fighter, and focused a bit more (more feats) on archery. by designing the PC against archetype, I limited myself.