How Can You Politely Say, "Your Character Sucks?"

[Raven Crowking]

Well, at least your opinion is clear.

 

[outsider]

It can be applied to many things aside from powergaming/optimisation as well. Take, for example, a campaign where the DM sets out no alignment guidelines. 4 players decide to play good, and one insists upon playing evil. By the logic some people have presented in this thread, the 4 players should give up their good characters so the 1 player can play evil.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. It's unfair to expect a group to conform to you, rather than the other way around. If you're in a group of heroes, don't try to play a villian. If you're in a group of powergamers, don't deliberately set out to make a weak character. If you're in a group of Actors, don't try to turn every situation into a fight.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

I don't follow the "DM decides everything" philosophy. While the DM has the authority to decide what is appropriate for the setting/theme of the game, the player group has the authority to decide what is appropriate for the pc group(within the campaign limits set out by the DM).

I'll chime in to disagree with this.

While I won't say "The DM decides everything"....

I will say that each player, has the ability to decide, for themselves, what class, background, array of stats, etc., to choose. Sure, IME, there's typically some limited cross-talk to determine general party makeup, but no-one [at least in my group] would cast aspersions on someone for (Heaven Forfend!) putting a lowly 14 in their prime requisite, or choosing an "unoptomized" feat.

And the DM has the right to discuss his views on the group and the characters, and/or to tailor the encounters accordingly so everyone has fun.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I am of two minds about this.

On one hand, in a game where the players do not all play together (an open sandbox ala the Westmarches), then the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Sure. The players determine who is in what group.

On the other hand, the film that quote comes from was followed by Search for Spock, where the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the few. If you have one group, playing on only one day, some level of reasonable accomodation is....er....reasonable.


RC

 

[pawsplay]

I don't follow the "DM decides everything" philosophy. While the DM has the authority to decide what is appropriate for the setting/theme of the game, the player group has the authority to decide what is appropriate for the pc group(within the campaign limits set out by the DM). The conflict described above is why I and the people I played regularly with came to this conclusion.

What RC was pointing out, as I understand it, is that everyone in the group has to decide to participate, and the GM is the one defines the setting, design challenges, and narrates the game overall. The GM has neither more nor less power than any other player to object to a character, although they may have more influence, but simply by allowing the character, they have warranted that the character is acceptable for the setting, the planned challenges, and the game dynamic.

The other players may simply refuse to have a certain PC in their group, but as they have only one two options (leave the group, or convince the group to veto the character), I think as a practical matter players should get used to the idea that each player has great lattitude to make the choices they prefer. Unless and until a character becomes a game-stopper, I don't think anyone has a a right to object, although they may state their own opinions and preferences (identifying them as such, and not as a gold standard for optimization, "sanity," fulfilling their responsibilities to the group, and so forth).

Generally combat-optimized characters is *far* from universal as a prerequisite to role-playing, and in fact, many games and campaigns are built around PC incompetence. D&D has only one basic position; PCs should be "adventure-ready" as it is an adventuring game full of physical danger. It is really up to the player how they want to face that premise. Certainly, if I were draggd into a 4e game, I would be far more concerned about stamping a personality on my character than aspiring to a degree of mechanical effectiveness, since my motivation would be almost entirely social and narrative related (hang out with my friends, play a character I find amusing), since the mechanical aspects of 4e are unappealing to me.

Since some players find mechanics in general far less appealing than others do, "sub-optimal" character design is not only a fact of life, but a necessary consequence of player choice. If you want to talk about tactical, winning-oriented play alone, Magic or tournament bridge might be more appropriate venues. D&D, and other RPGs, are about slaying dragons, finding treasure, rescuing ogres, and so forth. There are a number of entirely reasonable approaches to such things that place numerical superiority very low in priority. Some people, for instance, like elves, so they will play them, however high or low in effectiveness they are in the game chosen, and regardless of how well their preferred archetype agrees with the elf as written for that game. Some people will pick characters from other media and adapt them, however much or little they resemble a typical D&D Special Ops Treasure Extraction Team member. If it were not for such facts, hobbits/halflings would never have made it at as a playable race in D&D, as their original presentation was "a fighter, but with limited advancement."

 

[outsider]

but no-one [at least in my group] would cast aspersions on someone for (Heaven Forfend!) putting a lowly 14 in their prime requisite, or choosing an "unoptomized" feat.

Most powergamers wouldn't cast aspersions over an unoptimized feat. A single feat makes very little difference. A 14 in your attack stat has a far greater effect. In 4e, at least. In most previous editions of D&D, at some point you had an attack roll high enough you were guaranteed to hit pretty much everything you encounter. Or you had stuff that you didn't need to roll attacks for(ie magic). In 4th edition, you need to roll attack rolls for pretty much everything, and if you're not careful, your chance to hit(and thus your chance to provide on hit effects which can include everything from buffs, debuffs, healing, extra movement, etc) can dip really low.

 

[Nifft]

I did it because the stats reflected the PC concept.

Of course! Choosing stats to suit a concept is a time-honored --

I'm not playing silly buggers. It was a 2Ed campaign with rolled stats.

-- but you didn't choose stats, you rolled them. The stats preceded the character concept.

You are playing silly buggers, again.

9 was the minimum Str for fighters, and my PC had a 10. While Dex was the primary attack stat, you realize that he was giving up huge amounts of damage by not placing Str to at least 2nd rank.

And, point in fact, his stats were Int & Dex (both 17's), Con15, Wis 12, Cha10, Str10. He was a warrior whose strength was cunning plans and battlefield command, not wading in to battle and swinging an axe.

Right, you were a high-Dexterity archer. That's a fine character.

It's just that it's not really the same as:

Not only would I play a PC with a 10 in the primary stat, I have done so.

... since your primary attack stat as an archer is Dexterity.

Cheers, -- N

PS: Perhaps you meant "Prime Requisite"? Not the same as primary attack stat, but the root word "prime" does appear in both.

 

[Kinneus]

MMOs and 4e are just showing that people are less considerat of others...just look at the thread title, it isn't "How do I politely say I think you need help" It says "Your character sucks"

I can't believe I have to say this, but I feel like it needs to be said. The thread title was a joke, people. I do not believe this person's character sucks (or sucked, as our game has since fallen apart). I don't believe the player sucks, his intelligence sucks, or even that his build sucks. If you hooked me up to a polygraph, you might get me to admit that his build had a higher chance of sucking than most builds. My only issue was 1) he seemed like a new player and 2) he made what I consider to be the questionable decision of putting only a 14 in his Intelligence.

This thread was about how to tactfully ask him why, how to tactfully offer a new player help on building a fun and effective character, however he personally defined that. At no point was I going to sit this person down and say, "Your character sucks, and I'm going to fix it for you because you're too much of a newb to do it yourself." I'd never do that, and it's frankly irritating that other people think I would. Reread my first post- I specifically said I was trying to avoid giving him the impression that I thought his character sucked.

The thread title is a joke. I make an effort to be a polite and tactful person, particularly online. I'm not interested in being your 4e scapegoat. And, finally, for the record, I've never played World of Warcraft.

 

[outsider]

The other players may simply refuse to have a certain PC in their group, but as they have only one two options (leave the group, or convince the group to veto the character), I think as a practical matter players should get used to the idea that each player has great lattitude to make the choices they prefer.

Right, I agree with this. However, it's reasonable to expect that every player at least tries to create a character that will fit in. If they are deliberately trying to not fit in, I think it's reasonable to give them the boot.

I don't mean "well, I just created my guy organically to match my concept, and he came out a little weak". That happens, is totally innocent, and the player is usually willing to work with the group a bit to fix things up. I mean "I deliberately created this character to be weak. Now change your characters' concepts and personalities to justify my character's presence in the group". That second guy is being a jerk.

 

[pawsplay]

Right, I agree with this. However, it's reasonable to expect that every player at least tries to create a character that will fit in. If they are deliberately trying to not fit in, I think it's reasonable to give them the boot.

I think that begs the question of whether they're not trying to fit in. If you are referring to the character, I'm not sure what "fits in" means besides "adventures with," which does not presume any particular competence in any particular area, except the minimum qualifications to be an adventurer.

If however we turn this around to the player fitting in, you may have a point, but again, that has not been established. Maybe the problem is group plus X player, and you are the one not fitting in. Not everyone agress on combat optimization, but I think it's near-universal that squabbling at the table is suboptimal.

I don't mean "well, I just created my guy organically to match my concept, and he came out a little weak". That happens, is totally innocent, and the player is usually willing to work with the group a bit to fix things up. I mean "I deliberately created this character to be weak. Now change your characters' concepts and personalities to justify my character's presence in the group". That second guy is being a jerk.

I'm not sure the second guy exists. I'm not going to criticize or justify that person without context. I do know that in the case of the OP, we were talking about a 14 instead of a 16-20, with the character basically functional if not ideal in some respects, so I am taking that as the benchmark for discussion. Again, nothing you have said dissuades me from the advice I just gave; people design their characters for a variety of reasons. If you cannot accept that, it is likely you who has the attitude problem.

Every character has to be justified. Why does Magey McMage, the Intelligant Mage of Intelligence get a pass, while someone's plucky farmboy-turned-swordmage is offensive? You are presuming a negative intention. In my experience, almost every character is an attempt to do something the player thinks will be positive, however dysfunctional their approach.