Cool. Then we need a really good DMG, to teach DMs how to keep their players entertained, no matter what options they choose for their PCs. That's the only solution to preventing boredom, is good DMing.
OK, we have four players, as follows:
- Social Sue sells out all her combat and exploration abilities to be a 100% Social Butterfly. She zones out at even the mention of combat, and is bored to tears by exploration challenges, complaining her character is useless.
- Dora the Explorer sells out all her combat and social abilities to be a 100% Explorer Extraordinaire. She zones out at even the mention of combat, and is bored to tears by role playing social interaction, complaining her character is useless.
- Combat Claire sells out all her exploration and social abilities to be a 100% Combat Wombat. As soon as battle ends, she says “wake me when we’re rolling for initiative” , complaining her character is useless until then.
- Variety Val builds a character able to participate in all three, and enjoys a game where all three are represented. She does not like a game that features only a single type of challenge reoccurring repetitively – “variety is the spice of life”.
Tell me the advice the DMG should provide to keep this group engaged.
It won't happen, but the DMG should also put an end to the geek fallacy that everyone that wants to play in a given game should be accommodated. It should call out that not all play styles preferences are compatible as some people's preferences weight more more heavily towards extremes. Therefore, DMs should talk with players about what each is looking for and, if preferences are too diverse and would result in an unfun experience running with a specific player, it is perfectly fine not to include the player for the benefit of the players at the table as a whole.
That’s good advice – the four players I cite above may be incompatible. But if having some ability to contribute in their “not favoured” areas would keep the three specialists engaged, then we can actually have a gaming group if they are forced not to focus exclusively on a single area.
Yeah, I'd be quite surprised to see it in the DMG.
Without getting to that point, I'd love some emphasis on the pre-game discussion of what people want out of the game and setting expectations. So many of the problems people have are just not realizing there's a clash until they're already several sessions into the game.
Another good approach. Maybe Claire, Sue and Val can agree on a game with pretty much no exploration, but a balance of social and combat encounters, and we still have a group. Dora can play in a different game, with different ground rules.
You can have a game that includes all three aspects, but you can't insist on characters who do all three...because the players who control them may not want to do all three. All you can control is the world...not the players choices. No matter how much you prefer they fight, they may not want to fight. No matter how much you want them to explore, they may not want to explore. No matter how much you want them to engage in a social drama, they may not want to engage in that. There is no way, through the rules, you can make them do any of this. As a role playing game, all you can do as DM is give them opportunities and see what they choose to do with them.
I can discuss with them up front, openly and frankly, what I expect from the game (if I’m not having fun, why should I DM?) and what they expect from the game (if they aren’t having fun, why should they play?) so we can ensure we have a game everyone can enjoy, and that expectations are clear from the outset, as Kinak suggests. If Claire/Dora/Sue know up front the game will not be all combat/exploration/social, then they can plan their characters accordingly, or decide this game is not for them, rather than being bored and probably reducing enjoyment of the game for everyone.
As Greg says, I can remove poor fit players from the game before they become a problem, or at least make it clear that their style is not consistent with this game, and will not be catered to.
ANY character can "contribute" to combat. I gave a example earlier of using a little girl character to contribute as a scout and someone who lures foes into a party ambush. That's contributing...without ANY inherent fighting ability.
And once the ambush is sprung, the player does what, precisely, for the next hour or two as a major combat is resolved? While there can be a range of combat capabilities, my experience is that most players want to be able to meaningfully contribute (ie not need a 20 to hit and do 1-4 damage if they do hit against their opponent’s 3 digit hp; not bet able to not get tossed out of the banquet provided they can roll 18+ on their diplomacy check; not run down the hall to see if there are any traps we missed) to significant and lengthy aspects of the game.
Fortunately they got rid of that sort of mechanical social encounter issue. Now, if the PCs want to engage, even with an 8 charisma, they can still do OK.
They have that. Their mouths. The players tell you what their characters do, and you determine what happens based on what they do. It may involve a roll, or an opposed roll, and it may involve circumstance bonuses or penalties based on what they said they did. But nobody is useless in that encounter.
OK, so Social Sue has interaction skills she has dedicated character resources to, like a high Charisma and numerous skill ranks. She’s effectively got a +15 to the roll. Meanwhile, Dora and Claire have a -1 thanks to that 8 CHA. Val is somewhere in between. Can we realistically have challenges to Sue where Dora and Claire can meaningfully contribute?
BTW, Claire averages 20 hp damage per hit, Dora and Sue average 5 (and don’t hit nearly as often) and Val, again, is somewhere in between. At least Dora and Sue can do some damage. Part of the problem here is that combat has always been a lengthy, multi-stage process so small increments can still have some impact over time. Social skills and exploration have been “one roll, succeed or fail”.
We're talking about trading an existing combat ability (SA) for a non-combat one. We're not talking about trading an existing non-combat ability for a combat one. Raise the specific issue and we can talk about it.
I did. The specific issue is overspecialization, whether in combat or non-combat abilities, of any character.
There is no such issue in play here though. Nobody is saying the rogue can trade their ability to stab with a sword or shoot a short bow. Let's talk about the issue at hand, not an exaggeration for effect.
Ok, let us assume the baseline is that a character with no combat abilities at all hits on a roll of 16+ and does 1-4 damage, average 2.5.
A character focused on non-combat, with some combat skill, hits on a 13 or more and does, say, (rogue with 2d6 Sneak Attack plus a 1d4 + 1modifier) 10.5 average damage.
A character focused on combat, with some non-combat abilities, hits on a roll of 10+ and inflicts about 15 points damage (big weapon, say doing 2d6, plus 8 from STR, 2 handed weapon or multiple hits, or other bonuses).
A tricked out Combat Wombat can hit on a 6+, and will manage about 30 points on average.
If we put Combat Wombat (DPR 22.5) and Social Sue (DPR 0.625) in the same combat, does Sue contribute meaningfully? If they can focus, but not exclude, certain areas, now CW has 8.25 DPR and Sue does 4.2, which seems a lot more meaningful comparatively.
All figures are purely hypothetical, of course, and let’s not factor in spells at this stage.
