D&D 5E Characters are not their statistics and abilities

[pemerton]

Here is a little narrative about three characters. Under the hood, there are several skill checks going on, some successful and others not. Can you tell, just from the narrative, what the characters' stats were? Or is the outcome not very dependent on the precise numbers?

From the narrative you can't tell what produced the outcome. For instance, if it's all via GM fiat over outcomes then whether or not it is a satisfying instance of play may be very table dependent.

 

[Sunseeker]

There's no joy to be had in exploring a world that was specifically tailored for you to explore, or at least, exploring the Matrix is not nearly as meaningful as exploring the real (in-game) world. You lose a lot in authenticity, when the DM contrives obstacles for you; whether the DM intends for those obstacles to be trivial or difficult, or perfectly tailored for your level, simply knowing that it was set up for you makes it hard to care about the result. Your success isn't your own, in such a case, but a result of the DM's bias that you should or should not succeed.

I'd argue that's 100% a table call. There can certainly be a lot of fun in exploring a world that completely tailored for your party. Take for example, this post in another thread:

For my group, we one time decided to go around the table giving one word each which symbolized what they really wanted from a campaign. it ended up being one of the most enjoyable campaigns we ever had. We told the whole story and it was satisfying.

A world designed for your players is certainly an approach that some people enjoy. Some folks enjoy the thinks they like a lot more than things they are unfamiliar with or dislike. I mention this now and then but I'll take a moment again to talk about "The Box". Inside the Box is everything we know, everything we enjoy, everything we understand. We are comfortable with these things. But not everyone is. Some of those things may be outside the Box, some of them may be in high-orbit away from their Box, some of them may have been purposefully shot into the nearest black hole. Playing what is known, understandable, relatable and certain can be what a lot of players are looking for. On top of that, some people look for a much lower level of challenge and even roll-play from a game.

I wouldn't want to run every game this way. But for certain tables, the fact that everything is contrived and designed for your specific enjoyment can be a source of great fun.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Is it possible to build 5e PCs who don't meet this floor?

Maybe, I guess, but you'd have to work pretty hard at it, wouldn't you? Would a party of Rufus's be below this floor.

@Hemlock, you are following along and have excellent 5e build/resolution intuitions. What do you think?

It depends on the Easy encounters. Obviously it's possible to build Easy encounters which will wipe the floor with any level of PC party--e.g. a bunch of glass cannon CR 1/8 creatures, all of them with Flyby, Incorporeal Movement, and 100' of flying movement. Even if you increase the challenge level by one level per DMG guidelines to represent terrain favoring the enemy, that just bumps them from "not even Easy" up to "Easy." The lesson there is that "the DM can always cheat (but shouldn't)," or in other words "don't fool yourself into thinking you're building a fun game just because you're following DMG guidelines."

However, you were asking a question about PCs, so let's say we're discussing Easy encounters constructed randomly and not tailored to the players, e.g. Easy encounters from kobold.com or a module (Curse of Strahd) that are Easy because you're playing a module with higher-level PCs than expected. Furthermore, by "at least 51% of the time" I'm going to assume that you don't mean "can't get past a single Easy encounter 51% of the time," but rather "can't get past a full days' worth of Easy encounters at least 51% of the time," because obviously even a party of Rufuses played by ignoramuses could beat a single Easy encounter.

Furthermore, I think we have to set aside Combat As War techniques, thinking outside the box, winning through roleplay/negotiation/making alliances/etc., and talk purely about combat challenges. Your question then is, is it possible for me (as an adversarial PC-creator) to create a party of four PCs so bad that I (as a player) couldn't use them to win a DMG-specified adventuring day full of straight-up Easy combat at least 51% of the time?

I believe the answer is "Yes, I could." It takes some fairly extreme measures, along the lines of creating a PC without any Extra Attacks or attack cantrips and whose best combat spell is Witch Bolt. I don't think a party full of Str 6 Barbarians would qualify, but a party full of Str 3 Dex 3 Gnomish Barbarians might. Edit: huh. On reflection, and after doing some quick kobold.com checks of the Easy encounter threshold, those Gnomish Barbarians might very well be unable to beat a single Easy encounter 51% of the time after all. They're really quite bad.

 

[pemerton]

Take for example, this post in another thread:

For my group, we one time decided to go around the table giving one word each which symbolized what they really wanted from a campaign. it ended up being one of the most enjoyable campaigns we ever had. We told the whole story and it was satisfying

<snip>

A world designed for your players is certainly an approach that some people enjoy.

<snip>

But for certain tables, the fact that everything is contrived and designed for your specific enjoyment can be a source of great fun.

I would guess, though, that none of those words that framed the campaign involved stating DCs.

Burning Wheel is a game, for instance, in which the fiction is absolutely shaped around the PCs - that's the whole point and driver of the game - but DCs are "objective".

Even in 4e, where DCs are often set by reference to character level, if a PC is relatively numerically weak compared to level expectations then the game might produce more failure than D&D is really set up to handle.

 

[pemerton]

those Gnomish Barbarians might very well be unable to beat a single Easy encounter 51% of the time after all. They're really quite bad.

The new Rufuses!

Thanks for the response.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The new Rufuses!

Heh.

Now I have to propose a new standard: is there any PC build so bad that three of them in the same party with a normal PC will render the party unable to beat Easy encounters 51% of the time? After all, even the Str 3 Dex 3 Gnomish Barbarians are bad mainly because they can't do damage. If you have even one guy in the party who can Eldritch Blast the enemy Shadow Demon to death while the gnomes keep him grappled, the PCs will still win.

In other words, is there any PC who can actually ruin another PC's fun (from a challenge perspective)? Or is Rufus-ing always a self-inflicted wound?

 

[Sunseeker]

I would guess, though, that none of those words that framed the campaign involved stating DCs.

Burning Wheel is a game, for instance, in which the fiction is absolutely shaped around the PCs - that's the whole point and driver of the game - but DCs are "objective".

Even in 4e, where DCs are often set by reference to character level, if a PC is relatively numerically weak compared to level expectations then the game might produce more failure than D&D is really set up to handle.

I don't see how any of these comments are relevant to the point that I was trying to make: That a D&D game can be created specifically for the people (and their characters) currently playing and produce a high level of fun. Counter to Saelorn's position that such a game would feel contrived.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't see how any of these comments are relevant to the point that I was trying to make: That a D&D game can be created specifically for the people (and their characters) currently playing and produce a high level of fun. Counter to Saelorn's position that such a game would feel contrived.

Tailoring a game to the players' interests as stated at campaign creation time is quite different from tailoring a game to the PCs. For one thing, PCs don't predate the campaign world under normal circumstances.

 

[Yunru]

As far as pulling one's weight, that's actually an issue with min/max players vs. normal players. I've seen one poster on the WotC forums who claimed that every one of his characters wouldn't adventure with anyone that isn't min/maxed. That's pretty extreme IMO, but I could also think of reasons why you wouldn't adventure with a character..

I can see that though. A min/max'd character will often excel at what it's min/max'd for, and in a low-optimisation party that risks overshadowing the rest of the party in those situations (which is more likely to be remembered than when the character didn't do well in a different area).

And I know "not min/maxing" is a valid counter-argument, but speaking personally, it's haaard. I want my character to be the best at what (s)he does, and to make decisions that don't further that hurts. That said, I've recently dragged myself away from combat optimization. Now I'm running a much more challenging Tiefling Charlatan Actor who's trying to play shadow politics.

Although from how you word it, I doubt it was for such sympathetic reasons.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Translated into miniatures-combat-oriented-playstyle-language: "Great story - we wiped cuz Mikes character sucks - thanks Mike for contributing massively to that story!"

Translated: "No guys - I know it would be cool to fight that dragon, but we can't cuz Mikes character sucks!"

Translated: "Hey guys - Mikes fighter goes down in combat like a glass pea-shooter, so we're gonna have to buy 20 healing pots instead of that cool new weapon for Al's GWM PM killing machine! Now I know you guys are p___ed, but consider how the theme of Mike sucking really contributes to the story.."

At some point however, that level of social bullying is likely to cause Mike to pull out of the game, either through lack of enjoyment or emotional breakdown.

Then your players get to do stuff without worrying about Mike's character holding them back.
That was your aim in saying those things wasn't it?

Thus you can proceed to start working on the player of the next least-optimised character.

Yes, if you use encounter guidelines as they are D and D is super easy and you can beat the game w/1 or more suck PCs, true. But my players would yawn at that. They like to be challenged, and I dial up the difficulty.

Having a less optimised party-member only increases the challenge. Taking the capabilities of your group into account is all part-and-parcel of the tactics of a combat. There are more factors and objectives to consider compared to a bunch of fully-min/maxed characters just crushing stuff.