Problem Players and Problem DMs

[jim pinto]

soapboxing…

I know I've covered this before in a lot of other threads, because so many problems (in my opinion) dovetail together... things are systemic. At least, I see patterns.

So. Even if I'm wrong…

Systems, designers, and gaming (in general) fail many times to take into consideration how the tool (the player's codex book you bought) is going to be used. Many publishers, don't care.

I have my reservations about those publishers… but let's not dwell.

The internet has taught me a few things about gamer behavior. Unless guided to do so through EXPLICIT examples and advice, gamers will play your new RPG the same way they play the other rpg they were just playing. For instance, some people enter gaming through Vampire and play in an event oriented manner… this happens, then this, then this. What do you do?

Dungeoncrawls play in a location-based manner. When you go here, this happens. What do you do?

Sandbox games play in a "I touch the red button. What does it do?" methodology.

Horror games play in a "I don't want to touch it. Please don't tell me what it does." style of play.

Independent of system, these games play stylistically and methodically on the precepts and assumptions of the players/GM. So, while the system itself can impact the players (allowing min-maxers to find broken combos and so on), the designers ability to convey what you can do with it is an essential ingredient. And one that is sorely overlooked in the majority of products released.

White Wolf's player's guides were always very good at this actually. But by the time these books are released, players and GMs have found their "groove" for how to play the game.

Another idea is the concept of utility. Why is this game even being made and what does it offer that game X couldn't just offer with 1 or 15 minor edits. Example: If an heroic fantasy RPG doesn't have a list of adventure plot lines that is greater than D&D's list of plotlines, why is it even being made? What can your game do that D&D can't? Are you inventing a new system because rolling a d20 bothers you?

So. There's some merit to the idea that a book or game is part of the problem. But the tools for improving any system or game are available, regardless of the players coming to the table. Sadly, you can't force people to pick up a tool and use it.

I'm engaged in a number of conversations at the moment about this topic and how it impacts the hobby, but not the industry. And because it affects our FUN, but not our ability to BUY games, you'll unlikely not see much response to the question of whether or not the game you just bought is really a game, or just a toolbox for you to figure out on your own.

 

[Kask]

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?

I sometimes get this with a new player. They want to play a cleric or druid because of the power but refuse to actually play the role of a cleric or druid then, get upset when their powers start to disappear... They eventually learn.

 

[Ourph]

I do find it a problem that the rulebook tells a Cleric, Wizard or Druid player "you can do this" but it somehow becomes a social faux pas to do it, because that option overshadows other characters in the party. And we're not talking about some tweeked-out uber-combination of PrCs and broken 3rd party spells either, we're talking about D&D staples like Charm Monster, Animate Dead, Geas and the Druid's animal companion. Using any of those core options can easily make the party "tank" near-obsolete with the caster expending only minimal (if any) resources.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

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

Every system has its flaws, broken stuff, whatever; no system is perfect. Once combo xyz has been identified as being problematic, then it's up to the players to act responsibly (e.g., perhaps use it occasionally, but don't abuse it). If the players can't handle that responsibility, then the DM should step in. Sure, you can call this a system problem; but since every system has these problems, and many problems aren't really problems if not blatantly abused, I think it's more accurate to call it a player problem.

 

[arscott]

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.

But how is it a bad thing that this player seeks to be effective in combat? And in what way does his decision not to use a shortsword run contrary to role-playing. If there are better weapons available, choosing to use those weapons instead parallels the actions of nearly every historical and fictional warrior. And if there aren't better options, your so-called power gamer is intentionally making a tactically inferior choice for the sake of a previously established character trait.

 

[Nimble Goodbarrel]

But how is it a bad thing that this player seeks to be effective in combat? And in what way does his decision not to use a shortsword run contrary to role-playing.

Sorry I should have been more specific with what I said. He wouldn't ever select a character race, like a halfling, because they generally used short swords because of the size. He only tricked out characters to do as much damage as possible. I remember him leaning back in his chair, using the PHB to look for loop holes in the system. The only time he would ever do anything, and I literally mean anything, is when he would roll his dice. Then it was back to the book. No roleplaying at all.

I might have a very skewed view of power gamers because I believe that this guy was the worst. It really affected the game and everyone around the table.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

If I understand this correctly, the problem is:
When one character overshadows/is overpowered compared to the others.

Then the question that follows is:
Who is to blame, the player or the system?


Naturally, if the system could not be "misused", then this would not be possible. So, a perfect system would "take care of" problem players.

Naturally, if the player did not abuse the rules, then this would not be possible. So a perfect player would "take care of" problem systems.


The answer is either/or. No player is perfect and no system is perfect. It is a matter of degree in both cases. The perfect player who finds "uber broken option in splat book #417" and fails to realize that it is broken is no different from the perfect player who finds "uber broken option in core rulebook 1". The system, though, is more shaky at its very core. The opposite is true as well. The nearly perfect system with the "uber jerk power gamer" who finds its one hidden flaw is no different from the nearly perfect system with the "hey I found this one powerful thing that seems cool this one time" player. The player results in the same disruption of game, despite being less of a power gamer.


So there are some players who are better and worse and some systems that are better and worse for this.


How do you fix it? I see three main options. The one I like best is to have a "player pow-wow" to determine the power level of the game. They self enforce through good communication what they're shooting for. The next best one IMO is the "DM fix". When some players get overpowered, the DM catches the others up. This is easily done with specific magic items, story based allies, drinks from magic fountains, etc. The final, and worst option is to trap the players with a cage of rules. Polymorph too powerful? No longer an option. No more splatbooks except what the DM approves, etc. This last one only encourages those with a predisposition to powergame to find the loopholes in the new DM rules and exploit those.


Regarding 3e versus 4e, both systems are problematic.

3e had infinite options, especially at the end. The more you deviated from core, have power creep, etc. the more explioitable options there were. Even in core there were some, and I believe that is what the OP is getting at. (Druids, teleport, etc).

4e has a "tighter" core to begin with. However, the "everything is core" philosophy will cause it to quickly catch up to 3e in terms of being able to be exploited. If the splatbooks are core, then it is less understandable that they be "broken".

So, while the core of 3e was looser than the original core of 4e, both systems, at their core have a number of exploits, and the core of 4e continues to expand, eventually (potentially) overtaking 3e despite the 4e system being more balanced as a whole.

 

[Kask]

Then the question that follows is:
Who is to blame, the player or the system?

At first is 3.5 this was a problem. After a while as a DM it was fairly easy to make fixes needed to the system. Since a DM has TOTAL control over items, spells and what not, I had no more "problem" players, even if someone tried. In the beginning it was usually a player stumbled onto something that was broken with the system rather than looking to make a problem.

 

[Mallus]

It's everyone at the tables responsibility to keep the game running smoothly. Viewed in that light, the problem is ultimately with the people playing, not the system.

 

[arscott]

It's everyone at the tables responsibility to keep the game running smoothly. Viewed in that light, the problem is ultimately with the people playing, not the system.

But doesn't this sort of thinking let the game off the hook for practically any flaw? "It doesn't matter if there aren't rules for character creation--A good DM can compensate for that."