DM's: Focusing on character weaknesses ethical?

[Sound of Azure]

I think it's quite OK to focus on the weaknesses from time to time, as long as it isn't the only challenging that goes on. In RL things challenge us from every direction, regardless of what we're good at, so why not fantasy characters, too?

I was disappointed a few years ago when I had a PC who was chronically short on breath an couldn't exert herself for long periods of time before getting fatigued due to a degenerative disease. But the DM didn't emphasise that in any way, and ended up being an ignored part of my PC background. (mostly travel/jumping/climbing was glossed over in that campaign)
Granted, I wouldn't have liked it if it was concentrated on all the time, but it would have been nice to show that weakness from time to time, apart from my own RPing.

So, as long as it's not a "punishment", it's all good in my book.

 

[Glyfair]

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.

Yes & no. Having come from a Champions background, I realize it's important to challenge a character's weaknesses. Otherwise, you are just rewarding min-max playing.

However, I don't focus on that. I don't send the strongest attack against their weakness just to make sure they are likely to die because they left a weakness. I likely won't intentionally set up a save-or-die will save against the low will save fighter. I might, on the other hand, have him dominated and used against the party.

I think it's just as important to challenge a characters weaknesses as it is to allow him to play to his strengths. Playing to his strengths allows him to be in the spotlight, playing to his weaknesses allows him to occasionally be the goat.

 

[sam500]

Gunning for your characters is fine with the right group. It depends how people have fun.
On a related note, try killing a monk. They are impossible to off once they reach mid to high levels. They've got high saves, high AC, are fast, and have all the balance, jump, climp, specialist fighting feats they need to survive. Damn those monks

 

[Ao the Overkitty]

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

Would that system be unisystem?

Yup. Our Exalted characters also have some Flaws. My one eyed character has yet to effectively see anything and our Eclipse is currently married to his sworn enemy (who has turned into an annoyance for the entire group). The Exalted GM often attacks our weakspots with hilarious results.

 

[reanjr]

I do the same. As a DM I have tendencies such as large numbers of humanoid encounters and little in the way of aberrations and undead. If I find someone exploiting this by creating a character who rocks against humans but has left themselves open, then I'll throw in some undead for good measure.

This is just an example. Anytime players create single-focus characters they better realize that I'm not going to make the campaign play into their hands every damn encounter like some of them expect.

 

[reanjr]

On a related note, try killing a monk. They are impossible to off once they reach mid to high levels.

Fighter with a ring of flight.

 

[Numion]

I wouldn't do that. Well, I mostly wouldn't do that. If we (DM and players) had agreed to a game of courtly intrigues, then anyone who creates a frenzied berzerker is screwed.

But in 'standard' D&D I would not hose them for weaknesses, unless there was an ingame reason for their enemies to know about their weaknesses.

 

[wayne62682]

I never do it, and I would refuse to play with anyone who does. Punishing me for playing a particular type of character is far beyond being a "Rat Bastard DM", it's being a total jerk. The game should be about the players IMO, they're the stars of the show.

 

[reanjr]

Yes, and the DM's job is to make sure all the players have fun. So if one character is outshining all the others because of a specific build, it is better for the game and enjoyment of the players to attack that player's weakness sometimes.

 

[Merkuri]

I heard once (I think it was in the DMG2) that the character a player comes up with is a good indication of what type of game that person wants to play. If he creates a cleric that beefs up his turning ability with feats and a high charisma, he probably wants to fight undead. If you create a rogue who maxes out his hide/move silently abilities and doesn't put many points into trap- and open-skills, he probably wants to play a scout and/or a sneak-attacker. A good DM should try to give the players what they want by playing to their character's strengths.

That's not to say you should always play to their strengths. Personally, I think it's realistic that not every situation will be tailor-made for this group of PCs. The character's weaknesses don't mean anything if they're not exploited. Right now in our group we have an orc barbarian with something like a 24 STR, but his mental scores (all three of them!) are all 6.* Every once and a while I try to figure out what might be the best way to bring him down, should he decide to turn around and start hacking at us due to a well-placed dominate spell. He's got a huge chink in his armor, and he knows it. We're running through the WLD, so the DM isn't really tailoring the campaign for us anyway, but we're all waiting for Thugdar the barbarian to start failing some really important will saves. Were we go to through a game where we knew that wouldn't be a risk, Thugdar wouldn't be as much fun (IMO).

That said, you shouldn't always play to their weaknesses, either. Thugdar also wouldn't be as much fun if he started attacking us at every encounter because he keeps failing his save against charm and dominate spells. Whatever you do, you have to try to maximize the fun for all involved, whether that involves charming the barbarian or letting him cleave through a pile of mooks.

*The player made up the character quickly when his backup character (original charcter was killed the session before) was petrified in his first session and he didn't have a backup for the backup. He tried to make the most absurd character he could just so he'd have something to play while the party tried to find some way to turn him and another PC back to flesh. When the two petrified PCs were finally released, the player decided he was having fun with Thugdar and decided to keep going with him, rather than using his old PC who, like I said, never even got in a full gaming session. I think he was petrified in the first half-hour of a three-hour game.