DM's: Focusing on character weaknesses ethical?

[Breakdaddy]

I would never go after the characters weaknesses for no other reason than that I have the power to do so and to try to force a balanced build on them. However, the character's enemies, when intelligent and cunning enough to do so, would happily focus on any flaws that they could manage to ascertain.

 

[Emirikol]

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.* 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.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. There's two problems here:
1) The DM should have said, "sorry bub, try to make your character a little better balanced"
2) He needs to fit into the rest of the group

A character with a 24 strength and mental's all 6's is probably fine in a group of all fighters, clerics and evokers, but would be a pretty stupid thing to put in a group of bards, rogues, and rangers. This is an example of one player not considering that even though he can completely outshine all the other characters in the group, maybe it's not such a MATURE thing to do.

Making a character like that is akin to making an openly chaotic evil rogue in a group of paladins, good clerics and knights. It's just immature and the DM and other players need to step in and say, "no, not such a good idea. Try again."

jh


...

 

[stevelabny]

Of course.
You should have some encounters that cater to the PC's strengths, some that cater to their weaknesses and some that are neutral.

Over the course of a campaign there should always be at least one if not more super-intelligent bad guy who will know and exploit every weakness and tendency the PCs have.
And remember that every wizard is highly intelligent, and every mid to high level fighter is battle-hardened so they will be ready to take advantage of obvious weaknesses.

This prevents players from finding one or two tactics that work and using them constantly.
And nothing can put a DM to sleep faster than a player who has a tactic vs magic and a tactic vs melee and brings absolutely nothing else to the table.

So if you're a small-sized creature with a negative strength... they'll be monsters with grapple. If you're a rogue, there will be some undead and constructs. If you're a tank there will be will saves, etc etc.

Sure its fun to fight favored enemies, but its also fun (and in my never humble opinion MORE fun) to overcome a challenge that youre not perfectly prepared for.

Purposely avoiding encounters that would take advantage of PC weaknesses and playing bad guys stupidly is downright insulting to everybody involved, the players, the DM, the PCs and the monsters.

 

[Abraxas]

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.

As a DM I don't feel its my responsibility (or business) to force players to make well rounded characters. As such I don't go out of my way to target their character's weaknesses to train them to make their character into what I think is well rounded.

IME, players of focused characters make better team players - their characters rely on the other players characters to cover any weaknesses.

I design encounters and challenges that I think are appropriate to the game world and my players fun - if those happen to hit a characters particular weakness or strength, great, but that isn't a consideration in the design.

 

[awayfarer]

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.* 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.

In my defense, I banged out this character in a half an hour after the much more interesting character I took a week to flesh out, died in his first session. I'd rather have played the purple skinned, aberration blooded sorcerer without mental stats under 10, but after such a quick go round it didn't make much sense to spend that much time making a character if they were going to bite it so quickly.

He has his weaknesses. Like the time he set himself on fire to prevent the beetle swarm from attacking him

 

[Merkuri]

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. There's two problems here:
1) The DM should have said, "sorry bub, try to make your character a little better balanced"
2) He needs to fit into the rest of the group

A character with a 24 strength and mental's all 6's is probably fine in a group of all fighters, clerics and evokers, but would be a pretty stupid thing to put in a group of bards, rogues, and rangers. This is an example of one player not considering that even though he can completely outshine all the other characters in the group, maybe it's not such a MATURE thing to do.

I don't know if I said it already, but we're playing in the WLD. The whole idea of the party is "ragtag group of adventurers, just trying to get out." Personally, I think it would be fun to put an openly chaotic evil rogue in with a group of paladins to see how they'd react. They have to stick together for the whole "safety in numbers" thing.

But this character actually gets on quite well with our group. None of us are very inteligent, and we're of a very "smash first and ask questions later" mindset, perhaps because not many things in the WLD will stop to talk to us. The orc barbarian is in a group with a human favored soul (me), halfling paladin/monk, and a halfling rogue. We've also included an evoker, a warmage, and a fighter, but for one reason or another they've all dropped (or have been kicked) out. Two of us are good, two of us are neutral. I believe Thuggy here is the only chaotic character, but he has so little willpower that he takes any "suggestions" we give him (i.e. he follows our orders, usually to the letter, which can sometimes get him in trouble) so he's not likely to disagree with the group.

The character in question been TONS of fun, for us and the player in question. Like I said earlier, the player created him quickly, but ended up liking him, so stuck with it. Whether we have fun or not is really all that matters, and we all seem to be having fun.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The way you have described? No, I do not think that it is ethical. 'Make characters that I want you to play or I will smite thee, for I am like unto a GOD!!!'

Bleah. Writing your games to target the PCs just seems like punishing them, and making your fun at the expense of their fun.

I prefer a more balanced group of characters myself, so I design what I consider well balanced encounter areas, where each style of character will have a chance to shine, if not in this encounter then in another later on.

I am also perfectly willing to tell a player 'that is a one trick pony, you may want to round it out a bit more.' Then I might have an encounter or two that shows the weakness of the design. But frankly, I have not had to do that in a while, maybe because my players are older. (I did have an exception to that about 2 years ago, a person who would want to play an Oozemaster in the Iron Kingdoms for example...)

The Auld Grump

 

[Merkuri]

He has his weaknesses. Like the time he set himself on fire to prevent the beetle swarm from attacking him

In his defense, fire seemed to be the only way of getting rid of these things. The evoker of the group (or was it the warmage, I don't remember) ended up dropping a fireball in the middle of everyone, which saved our butts. Plus, Thugdar had a ring of fire resistence, which he forgot about until after he set himself on fire.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Emirikol
As a fellow RBDM.. I kindof agree. I make my adventures with some of an eye to the players desires and most of an eye to what makes sense in game. This means skill checks and other things are a common issue in my games. My players know that being a one trick pony will make them have issues with certain encounters.. but the other players might have one trick ponies that can cover for them.

The biggest area I disagree with your post is the apparent attempt to train the players in what way you think is best for their characters. I often enjoy playing highly specialized characters who get far out of thier comfort zone. I also expect a DM to challenge a characters weaknesses... Bad things can happen when you dont...

An example of this was a not so recent game where my hyper-specialized Mounted Combat guy got the shaft during dungeon adventures, as should be expected, then while in his environment, the other characters in the party got to have thier weakness ignored.. the DM tossed all the riding in combat rules out the window. My one-trick pony had his trick stolen by the Mage who didn't even spend 1 point in the Ride skill.
That really sucked. Up to that encounter I was quite enjoying playing my character even tho his mounted combat abilities were not being used. After that point.. well, I quit the game.

So.. as a GM, cater to your players choices of strengths and weaknesses. Make sure that each has a chance to get highlighted as some point. But do no try to 'train' or 'punish' your players for making choices you think shouldn't be made....

Of course, alot of this could be avoided by honest communication about character choices before the game. In the above example if the DM had told me he didn't understand or use the mounted combat rules when I asked about playing a mounted combatant..... no, he waited until after 5 game sessions...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If a player designs a PC that is superoptimized to fight something that isn't going to make a major appearance in my campaign (for instance, a Ranger with FE: Orcs in a virtually Orcless world), I'll let the player know. If they insist on that design after the heads up, that's their business.

And I do think that targeting PC weaknesses is a fair thing to do- after all, the foes have all the same options as the PCs, so if they see a weakness, they are going to try to exploit it. However, like all things, it should only be done IN MODERATION. Making tanks in plate have to make like SuperMario to engage the opposition every time is just wrong.

Both flexible and specialized PC archetypes have their place- both in fiction and in the real world- and neither should be overly rewarded or penalized.