DM's: Focusing on character weaknesses ethical?

[Emirikol]

I'm a rat-bastard DM, but I actually focus on all characters' weaknesses instead of their strengths. Do any of the rest of you manipulate players into creating more well-rounded characters instead of min-maxing? Many new players in my campaigns simply min-max their characters. Over time, they realize that a well-rounded character is more useful.

It's not that I don't want players to have a good time, I just like warning them that one-trick pony characters are not going to have it easy..because there ARE other players afterall. ( NOTE: I ALWAYS WARN PLAYERS AHEAD OF TIME NOT TO OVERSPECIALIZE)

Example methods
fighter tank - adventures have lots of running, jumping and climb checks to be able to engage an enemy. You can't have enough of these anyways.

barbarian berserkers with high hits and massive damage - adventures with more willpower saves and diplomacy.

rogue wanders off ahead to steal treasure - kill them once with monsters that 'sense' instead of see, never fooled again

generic wizard specialist evokers - adventures have lots of opportunities to use divine magic, lots of things to read on the walls and hints about illusions. Wizard forced to make saves against their opposed schools

charismatic bard/rogue with diplomacy 23 - warned ahead of time that several adventures with undead, constructs, and elementals will be there, but not exclusively.

clerics - allow your campaign to have herbal shops where healing potions are ALWAYS available. it forces clerics to assume roles other than healer (which is probably what they want anyways)

You know you're succeeding when players start taking wierd feats instead of the typical min-max trees.

Thoughts? Experiences?

jh

..

 

[Corsair]

So you're saying you want to punish a player for picking to play a certain character type you don't like?

I mean you actually admit that it isn't a "well this is how the adventure was written regardless of the characters", but its a "wow the fighter wears full plate and uses a tower shield... lets make them fight on THIN ICE over a FROZEN LAKE so he'll have to BALANCE and SWIM". You're actively trying to annoy your players?

 

[Greg K]

I think occassionally targeting a weakness can be fine especially if it allows another character's strength to be emphasized (of course, every character should have a chance to shine throughout the campaign). However, targeting weaknesses on a routine basis to punish players, imo, is adversarial DMing and, therefore, wrong.

 

[smootrk]

While I don't personally like 1-trick-ponies myself, I set aside my own preferences when it comes to game time. I endeavor to actually cater to character's strengths, so that the players can actually shine every now and then.

Now then, do I occasionally look for some loophole/weakness in the party and exploit it? Of course, but I do not do any longterm exploitation. I would never take a character who has specialized in Frost Magics (as in Frostfell book mechanics), and suddenly decide that the campaign focus shall be desert-based (ala Sandstorm) because a character seems 'too good' at dealing with the current campaign environments. Essentially Nerfing characters will never be fun for all (as in the Rule Zero) for long.

 

[frankthedm]

Focusing on the weaknesses might feel churlish. A True rat bastard make those situations where PC weaknesses become evident feel like they belong in the world. They definitly should be used and not avoided. Be sure to include a few in every adventure and foreshadow them slighty.

Cracks and crevases in a dungeon floor a while before rooms where the floor has fallen out and jumping across pits of death will be needed to progess.

Unlooted and uneaten bodies laying in areas where constructs patrol.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I like it when DMs purposefully create variety in the encounters. Focusing on both weaknesses and strengths of different PCs is a good thing in my book.

But if you are only focusing on weaknesses, you are inviting a Player vs. DM dynamic which may not be what you want.

Does not matter a whit if I am a one trick pony or not. If I am a two trick or three trick pony, you are still going to try and come after me. Regardless of my Intelligence, if I dare play a knight in shining armor you can always hose me with the right mix of skill checks. Ditto for other PC concepts.

 

[shilsen]

What both frankthedm and Ridley's Cohort said.

I think I'm a little bit of a RBDM too, especially when it comes to challenging my PCs, but I would never intentionally pick on a character's weaknesses. I try to include a wide variety of challenges in any given session, which means that some characters will have their strengths catered to and some have their weaknesses challenged, but which characters fall in which category changes from session to session and sometimes within the same encounter.

 

[Ao the Overkitty]

The RPG system we use for my game has qualities and drawbacks. I make it clear that, if you take a drawback, expect it to come up sometime.

If i'm stumped on what to include when writing the base for the session, I look at their character sheets to see if they've got anything in their qualities or drawbacks that would help flesh it out a little.

I do try to alternate which character is focussed on. Some are more adept at avoiding their problems for others.

For example, the ship's doctor had a brother in the Alliance that was stationed at the planet they were at. He would have been a very useful person to have on the crew's side. But, since the ship's doctor had faked her own death, she didn't want her family finding out she was alive. She managed to stear the crew away from using her brother as a resource, thus avoiding that potential problem.

*Shakes fist*

I'll get her yet.

 

[Rel]

As a GM (and a RBDM to boot), I never focus solely on the weaknesses of the characters. I DO offer a variety of challenges for them and some might be tougher than others. Some might cater to their strengths and some exploit their weaknesses.

The one instance in which I'd pick on their weaknesses is a smart BBEG who has met or observed the party for a while and gotten a sense of what they can't handle. If that happens then he'll try to strike where they are weak. If they survive (and they usually scramble around and do) then they'd better do something to cover that weakness or expect that next time things will be worse.

 

[Greg K]

The RPG system we use for my game has qualities and drawbacks.

Would that system be unisystem?