D&D 5E The "Powergamers (Min/maxer)" vs "Alpha Gamers" vs "Role Play Gamers" vs "GM" balance mismatch "problem(s)"

[ClaytonCross]

You are indeed wrong.
If, for whatever reason, characters end up being powerful to the point where it's making the game less enjoyable if it's not taken into account, it makes the game more difficult to run.

If you find yourself making the game more difficult to run, you should stop doing whatever it is that's causing the problem.

That doesn't mean you need to create incompetent characters. It just means don't play like an arse.

In what way is hand-crafting every encounter to take each character's statistics and capabilities into account somehow just as easy as not having to do that because everyone is more-or-less balanced?

So if a player uses creative and effective tactics which cause that player to succeed they are playing like an "arse". I have had my GM get mad at the same thing because he wanted a player fall unconscious or inflict major damage to the party as a whole with out a TPK. Then we beat it like a minion because of good use of tactics. After all when a player becomes good at something its usually not them who see the game as less enjoyable. It also doesn't make it more difficult for them. I never said it was easy for the GM... I said more rewarding for everyone. Usually hard work on the GMs part equals more fun for everyone during the game. That said, if a GM is finding the work too much usually the better GMs just move the games further apart so they have more time to prep. If a GM finds to the work of GM a pain and uninteresting it kind of seems like they would be happier as a player assuming they can get someone else to step up. I personally enjoy building for sessions and I enjoy seeing what players do each session. The more work and better prepared I am defiantly seems to make a difference, though I usually spend about 4 times the number of hours we play setting up for each session. As a result I am glad let another GM do the work sometimes.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Well, literally, what the players spot is some fellow players, dice, books, perhaps snacks, etc.

What I asked about, though, is why the GM establishes a fictional situation to which the players only have one reasonable response if they're not to suffer a TPK.

I have seen it as much an accident as a story point. Which is part of my point about GMs having to provide that out. Because players don't get to know which it is before hand and sometimes the GM just makes a mistake. The issue I see is when a GM does this but then considers it a mater of "thats just how the world is and the dice rolled" resulting in a TPK and the GM blaming it on the players. "Well you should have run" ... Maybe they didn't see that as an option. Maybe the danger was not clear. Maybe they fight was too fast and they wanted to save their friend. ... But usually when this happens to me we just think the GM was being a jerk. The GM usually sees it as the players dealing with consequences of their decisions. Since I am a player character in one campaign and I GM another, I just make it appoint not to be that GM. It is my fault if I over scale a fight and wipe a party. Sure I believe in player choose but I am keenly aware that sometimes GMs think they are giving players a choose and letting the dice fall where they may but ... they are really just killing of their players. This will cause a lot of player hate and discontent but at the same time players may come back again if their is not another game around which makes some GMs feel justified even though they were wrong.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That is a black and white view on a gray topic.

And interesting response from someone that said a TPK is always on the DM.

What I mean is the GM does effect and control almost everything. At the same time a GMs job is to ALLOW the player to do something to kill himself. But your point is the same as Lanefan's that a GMs power to interfere and control everything doesn't mean he should, also never means he can't. So in a case of player vs player combat if GM intervenes he is stopping free will and invading on the choices of the players. At the same time he could have a guard run into the middle of the fight and get shot... that would not be. What I am talking about is that if a group is going to TPK because events the GM controls its his fault. If he allows one party member to die based on his decisions and dice roles that one thing but a TPK pretty much means the GM went too far unless all the players decided to jump of a cliff. If for some reason they thought they were going to get a free wish if they jumped the GM should add some saves or something so hopefully at least one player lives. ...A thought the story of the time the party all died trying to make a wish would likely not be one they forgot.

You're still removing agency. For instance, the last TPK I ran had the players extending their day because they chose to press on and find the source of their current crisis. I foreshadowed a dragon heavily, and they even talked out the possibility of a dragon before entering the dragon lair. The dragon was level appropriate, single deadly for their level, in lair, no legendary actions (young adult black). The dragon began the encounter by talking to the party (it had become accustomed to tribute from the forces in the area trying to bribe the dragon to 1) not eat them and 2) help their side. The party decided to insult the dragon and directly challenge it. The dragon responded violently. The party made some crucial tactical mistakes that allowed the dragon to divide them and attack from darkness. The party had a clear line of retreat, but chose to press the fight hoping to overwhelm the dragon before their losses went to high. Didn't work out.

So,
1) threat foreshadowed
2) threat began with parley
3) party chose to engage
4) party chose to not retreat through clear lines of escape
5) party chose to keep fighting hoping to win
6) threat was appropriate to party level -- ie, not an unwinnable fight, but a challenging one

Your argument is that I, as DM, allowed that TPK to happing because I could have stopped it. I reject that idea wholly. My job as DM is to frame situations that the players then engage, and be an honest referee of the outcomes. If I changed that encounter or added something else to it just to save the party, I'm invalidating their choices, choices made with full understanding of the situation and consequences. I don't DM to provide a safe space for characters, I DM to provide a fun game for my players -- and part of that is allowing their choices to have meaning, good and bad.

Yes, I can DM unfairly and place challenges far above party capability. Yes, I can DM unfairly and not provide clear descriptions or use gotcha gimmicks. Yes, I can DM unfairly and use deus ex machina to rescue characters from the poor decisions their players make. But I don't do those things, and so, TPKs are not on me.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sunseeker]

I would think that the tree canopy would create lots of places a large dragon can't easily access while flying, and a denser tree population would hinder it on the ground.

I wanted to get back to this point because I did some light googling on the subject:

There are certainly some pockets where a dragon could land, and others where the dragon might catch sight of you, but if we look across the river, we can dramatically denser growth where even if the dragon spotted you, there's not much it could do about it. So if we're looking for a challenge for the PCs it's fairly simple:

We show the PC's this picture and tell them the dragon is in this little opening at the bottom of the image. If it spots them (perception on the part of the dragon) and gives chase (personal decision on the DM's side, does the dragon care?) we can tell them something like: "Across the river you were near earlier, you recall the trees were much denser and you wager if you could make it across, the dragon would be unable to follow." The dragon would be limited to landing in the openings we can see in the image, while the players could dodge in and around the trees.

 

[nswanson27]

So, looking back at this thread, I'm noticing a certain ... trend. Which I tried to illustrate by adding emphasis to certain words in that quote.

Let's take two classic examples of the extreme ends of running a game. The meatgrinder, and the Monty Haul campaign.

In the meatgrinder, deaths happen frequently. Players are assumed to have backup PCs ready to roll into the campaign. Difficulty is set insanely high, and survival is not only not assured, but often unlikely.

In the Monty Haul campaign, it's not a question of survival; it's a question of how much more awesome can you PC be? How much more treasure, how much more magic, how much power can the PC (with, ahem, the DM's assistance) acquire?

Both of those serve different needs, and both can be fun. But they tickle different parts of the brain. People that are very attached to particular characters probably won't enjoy a meatgrinder (because they won't know which character will make it), and people that enjoy challenges won't enjoy a Monty Haul campaign.

TBH, you are extrapolating your particular views as to what is, and isn't, appropriate gaming to a universal view as to what is and isn't appropriate for DMs in general. There seems o be some element of an adversarial view - and perhaps you've had an adversarial DM in the past (in which case, I'm sorry, that's terrible). But that's not how all table work.

For example, some tables prefer a series of challenges (combats) that are carefully calibrated to the abilities of the party.

Other tables prefer more free-form, open world, campaigns, where the party chooses whether to engage in combat. But they don't have the safety net of knowing with certainty that the world has been set up to their level.

There is no right, or wrong, in this. Different tables are run differently. When I run intro tables for kids, I calibrate all combats to "easy/medium" status, because I want it to be fun! OTOH, when I'm running for grognards, they know that the combats aren't calibrated, and they have to choose when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, when to walk away, and when to run. Because that's how they like to play.

They key is that the expectations of the players are met. To the extent that it's a new table, it should be session 0. If the DM is planning on running an OSR-style meatgrinder, and the players are expecting heroic fantasy, then everyone will be unhappy. But this isn't an issue of blame, or fault, so much as it is an issue of communication.

I've also seen the Monty Python variety - where the more humorous, satirical, and outrageous decisions made get rewarded by the DM. Most of the scenarios involves much rejoicing. And your point applies here as well.

 

[Satyrn]

I wanted to get back to this point because I did some light googling on the subject:

There are certainly some pockets where a dragon could land, and others where the dragon might catch sight of you, but if we look across the river, we can dramatically denser growth where even if the dragon spotted you, there's not much it could do about it. So if we're looking for a challenge for the PCs it's fairly simple:

We show the PC's this picture and tell them the dragon is in this little opening at the bottom of the image. If it spots them (perception on the part of the dragon) and gives chase (personal decision on the DM's side, does the dragon care?) we can tell them something like: "Across the river you were near earlier, you recall the trees were much denser and you wager if you could make it across, the dragon would be unable to follow." The dragon would be limited to landing in the openings we can see in the image, while the players could dodge in and around the trees.

That is exactly what I talking about. Thank you for providing the visual aid and a more complete explanation.

Then, for extra awesome, later in the campaign you present the same scenario - except that the charactere are on the green dragon's turf, and the trees move aside for him.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I didn't say every encounter should be hand-crafted. I didn't say it was easier either.

I said "Regardless of who causes the problem, having a big power differential makes it harder to involve everyone in the game". You appeared to contradict that.

Since it's a fairly broad statement, in order to contradict it, you're effectively stating "Having a big power differential never makes it harder to involve everyone in the game".

If that isn't actually your argument then you aren't actually disagreeing with me.

I agree with both of you...and I don't think you need to make a caricature of his claim in order to defend yours.

See above.

So if a player uses creative and effective tactics which cause that player to succeed they are playing like an "arse".

No.
If a player uses creative and effective tactics which cause that player to succeed and it makes the game unenjoyable they are playing like an "arse".

Now the bar for 'unenjoyable' will vary from table to table... but I think you'll find it hard to make a convincing argument that it's impossible for a player to ruin a game.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I wanted to get back to this point because I did some light googling on the subject:

There are certainly some pockets where a dragon could land, and others where the dragon might catch sight of you, but if we look across the river, we can dramatically denser growth where even if the dragon spotted you, there's not much it could do about it. So if we're looking for a challenge for the PCs it's fairly simple:

We show the PC's this picture and tell them the dragon is in this little opening at the bottom of the image. If it spots them (perception on the part of the dragon) and gives chase (personal decision on the DM's side, does the dragon care?) we can tell them something like: "Across the river you were near earlier, you recall the trees were much denser and you wager if you could make it across, the dragon would be unable to follow." The dragon would be limited to landing in the openings we can see in the image, while the players could dodge in and around the trees.

If your point is that I give a bad examples and/or your showing how a GM could create and out for the players... sure. The GM giving ensuring the players have a way out was my original point too. Combine with the GM needing to provide enough information for the players to know they need to run before the ancient dragon wipes them all out with a single breath attack. Alternatively we could say the scenario was in a dessert or that an ancient dragon is big enough to knock down trees. YOU ARE NOT WRONG. But I really was not trying to focus on the finer points as to whether a forest is a good place to hide from a dragon or not. More to the point do the players have the impression they can escape? If they believe they are trapped the GM should give them a possible way out. If they become aware of the ability to escape based on GM narration or explanation. Example: PLAYER - We can't hide from the dragon in that forest, it's to thin, the Dragon can just push the trees down, and it breaths fire so it could burn the whole forest down killing us anyway. GM - Actually you would know the forest is too dense for the dragon to follow and despite its size would only be able to push a few trees down before loosing it momentum to pursue, plus it rained here yesterday so the whole place is water logged and not likely to catch fire and continue to burn. Then if they fight the dragon the GM allows the dice to fall where they may choose to allow them to die having provided the opportunity.

 

[ClaytonCross]

No.
If a player uses creative and effective tactics which cause that player to succeed and it makes the game unenjoyable they are playing like an "arse".

Now the bar for 'unenjoyable' will vary from table to table... but I think you'll find it hard to make a convincing argument that it's impossible for a player to ruin a game.

It varies more than table to table, it also varies person to person. The "it makes the game unenjoyable they are playing like an arse" is subjective, so if one player does something who and how many players does the player have to annoy before the GM forces them to change? Is just the GM enough? If all the players are fine with it because it helped them survive the encounter but GM doesn't like does the player have to change? That's the one I see the most. Generally, as long as players aren't attacking other players only "Alpha Games" cause problems over another player doing functional/cheesy tactics in combat. I am sure there are exceptions but I have generally seen more players complaining about a player "playing like an arse" when the play against the class/skills/role they selected. I had this problem with a healer that would only heal with healing word after players went unconscious and was using spells to DPS, a wizard research specialist who did not want to investigate in dungeons "because that was not book related", and a strength based fighter with athletics skill who did not want to do manual work for the party. A player that did too well with a skill or in combat? That I have only ever heard form GMs because they were breaking the GMs plans.

Not really disagreeing that a player who hurts fun may need to reconsider choices. This is more of a comment on how I have personally seen it in games I have played with 4 different GMs. I am just raising the concern that sometimes the one stopping the fun is not the one being forced to change.