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

[Reynard]

This is why, by the by, secondary power capping systems can serve two purposes; to prevent excess, and to set expectations. In the version of Rule of X I used in my last Hero campaign (a good two decades ago now) and the cap was set to 24, in a superhero game where combat can be expected with some frequency it probably could suggest if you have a total of 16 there might be a problem.

I discovered that you need lower bounds, too. M&M does a better job of this.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why does it matter who is to blame? Who is "responsible"?

To me, this just seems like purposefully looking for ways for one player to feel superiority over another for an issue within the game. "I didn't cause the problems! It was X's fault! Blame them!"

If there's a problem within the game, rather than wasting time assigning blame everyone should just be working out how to solve or mitigate it. To me, it's no different than people who throw around "RAW" as a defense against fixing issues. "I know you are having problems, but I'm just using what WotC wrote in the books. It's not my fault, it's theirs! Until WotC changes the rules, there's nothing I can do to help you."

It's all a waste of energy in my opinion. Just fix it. It's not a big deal.

 

[Reynard]

Why does it matter who is to blame? Who is "responsible"?

To me, this just seems like purposefully looking for ways for one player to feel superiority over another for an issue within the game. "I didn't cause the problems! It was X's fault! Blame them!"

If there's a problem within the game, rather than wasting time assigning blame everyone should just be working out how to solve or mitigate it. To me, it's no different than people who throw around "RAW" as a defense against fixing issues. "I know you are having problems, but I'm just using what WotC wrote in the books. It's not my fault, it's theirs! Until WotC changes the rules, there's nothing I can do to help you."

It's all a waste of energy in my opinion. Just fix it. It's not a big deal.

Your games must be very hostile and weird.

The reason i included "fault" as a part of the discussion is because it opens the door to talking about how we interact at the table regarding our characters, character development, campaign direction and GM oversight.

 

[James Gasik]

On the flipside, you can also create a good (or even too good) character by accident. An example of this is the 3.5 Druid. Player says "oh wow, I can turn into an animal? Neat!". Hits level 6, looks around for good feats, see this Druid-only one called Natural Spell and suddenly not only is there almost no need to ever not be in Wild Shape, they can use short duration buffs and the like without wasting uses of the ability.

Soon the DM is tearing their hair out (what's left of it in some of our cases) and all because of core options that seem intended to go together like chocolate and peanut butter.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Your games must be very hostile and weird.

The reason i included "fault" as a part of the discussion is because it opens the door to talking about how we interact at the table regarding our characters, character development, campaign direction and GM oversight.

On the contrary. If a player has a problem, we fix it. It doesn't matter why. We just do it. What more do we need?

 

[KYRON45]

Your games must be very hostile and weird.

The reason i included "fault" as a part of the discussion is because it opens the door to talking about how we interact at the table regarding our characters, character development, campaign direction and GM oversight.

Acknowledge the problem.
Solve it.
Move on.
What is hostile about "not" placing blame?

 

[Reynard]

Acknowledge the problem.
Solve it.
Move on.
What is hostile about "not" placing blame?

I was responding to the part about players feeling superior and rampant rules lawyering.

But, you know, if you don't want to talk about the thing, that's cool. I am just not sure what the benefit to discourse these short, dismissive posts have.

 

[KYRON45]

I was responding to the part about players feeling superior and rampant rules lawyering.

But, you know, if you don't want to talk about the thing, that's cool. I am just not sure what the benefit to discourse these short, dismissive posts have.

I did talk about the thing.
You don't like your character....figure out why and then fix what you don't like.
What is the value in "whos fault is it?"

 

[Reynard]

What is the value in "whos fault is it?"

I answered that.

 

[Krachek]

If a character's not working out, and assuming it survives, I'll retire it at the first opportunity (usually the next time we're on a break between adventures), and come back with something different.

Once I make a character runaway and never come back, the DM made an encounter to test the morale of the party, and I use this occasion to retired my character.
Another unfun character turn into an outlaw. But the campaign end before it get worse.

For what I see around, most unfun character are those who have no flaws and rely on optimized game features. We rarely used rolled stats, but once we did it, and surprisingly those who roll below average produced the most flavorful characters.