Good form and bad PCs

[Greenfield]

I think everyone who DMs eventually ends up witht at PC you wish you'd said "No" to. (Not just no, but Hell No!)

It's bad form for a DM to target a particular PC, trying to get rid of them.

Now normally the DM can just pull the player aside and the two of them can agree on a little PC revision. Yet, while that seems like a good idea, I've never actually seen it work. Personalities get in the way.

We currently have such a "problem child", a character that was built using several disallowed sources, and equipped almost entirely from a disallowed source.

The current DM keeps trying to talk to me about ways to kill the PC off, but then keeps backing off because he knows that's very bad practice.

How do you handle this type of situation?

 

[N'raac]

Well, it's too late to just enforce the disallowed sources...

Maybe a discussion of the fact that the disallowed sources were discussed up front, and the player still used them for the character build. The GM accepted them tentatively to see how they would fit, but it has become obvious they are not fitting, so the character will need to be changed. Of course, the personalities will then come into play.

 

[Greenfield]

A good answer.

The character wouldn't just have to be "changed". He's 100% gimick build, and if we retroactively disallow his gear, or his feats, or his race, the whole build collapses.

And this is where the "personalities" come in. From what I've seen, it's the gimick build that appeals to the player, and that's the exact problem that the DM has with it.

Because of the people involved, and because of the multi-DM nature of our campaign, I don't see our own situation as actually being resolvable. No single DM really feels comfortable laying the smackdown on him, and if we have a group vote it will look like we're ganging up on him.

I could have asked how to get rid of the character in play, I suppose. I mean, I could detail his build and ask you good folks to pick it apart, to show me where he's conveniently misinterpreting rules or where his seemingly unstoppable tricks get stopped. That, however, is trending towards the "bad form" of a DM targeting a particular PC.

So, to be clear, I wasn't asking for a game/PC specific solution. I was just trying to stimulate some thought and maybe wring out a bit of our shared wisdom on the topic in general.

 

[Nagol]

I dislike getting into that situation. So I very carefully make certain the players understand the character creation constraints. Then I review the character prior to play and reject any character that violates the published limitations.

Once in play, if I notice a new problem, it gets a bit trickier. If I notice a failure to conform to the rules in play, I let the player know and suggest alternatives to correct it.

If instead I find my initial constraints were too loose/too tight/undesirable in some other way, I let the table know what I'd like to change and my reasoning. If the table agrees then the new rules come into effect otherwise I suck it up.

In your case, it sounds like there is no good solution. I suggest a frank discussion about how that player built something completely outside the expected scope of characters for this campaign and see if the group can't come up with a workable solution. That could range from retiring the character, including additional sources for everyone to draw from, or revamping the character to be less illegal.

Trying to target a specific character in play is problematic on a few levels and even is successful won't fix the underlying problem that the player ignored the campaign constraints -- if he did it once, he's likely to do it a second time.

 

[Greenfield]

Well, I've had a string of PCs come to the table who ignored/bent the rules. When called on it the universal answer is, "Oh, I didn't hear that."

Even when I sent the rules via e-mail.

So I'm kind of calling my own campaign a lost cause in this regard. We, as a group, simply have to say "no", loudly and firmly, when asked to approve characters that are built outside the rules.

Some are hard to catch though. Our current problem child shared a copy of his character with me, but said it was "preliminary". It included a number of items that I was unfamiliar with, and that had no source cited. Several of these items weren't even listed under magic items, and it turns out they were magic. We got so lost in policing his outrageous stats that we got distracted from his understated but equally outrageous gear.

I guess I'm just tired of having to constantly ride herd on players, checking their every stated action to see if they can actually do what they say their character is doing.

No Dm should have to be on edge all the time, and it's wearing our current DM down. But for some players, it's exactly that thing, the moment when they can slip one by the DM, that makes them smile.

In this, I'm not just referring to my current campaign, but to all of the players and campaigns I've played in over the years. While the rules gimicks may change over time, the mentality is last century's news.

I guess the universal answer to this question is, have what it takes to say No and mean it. No decent DM wants to stomp on a players' fun, but if you don't say No and make it stick, you end up throwing a damper on the fun of everyone else at the table.

 

[cross ofth carpenter]

I think if you detailed the build of the PC we'd be able to better help you since we'd know what kind of build it was.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm not big on mixing the in-game and metagame. If you want to kill a PC because it's dramatic, or because you think a high threat level is important to your game, do it.

If you want to ban the mechanics of a particular character, ban them.

 

[Crothian]

Sure, I've had this happen. We have had builds, items, spells, all kinds of in game things that have turned out to not work out the way we thought. Sometimes they are too powerful other times they are really weak. In all instances either the DM talks to the player about changing it or in some cases the Player has bought it to the attention of the DM or group asking if it should be changed. Sometimes character concepts get killed with the changed so instead of trying to recreate it the player has to come up with something new. Don't just kill the character, that's a bad solution that doesn't solve anything. Talk it out with the player and if you don't think you can do that then maybe you shouldn't be DMing or in a group with people you can't have a real discussion with.

 

[Celebrim]

Yeah, it's bad form.

But you have a player using an non-approved character???

No one plays in my game unless the character is approved.

No one uses any rules source other than those specified in my rules document.

No player ever has a right to equip their character except with mundane adventuring gear from my mundane adventuring gear list. If you are entering the campaign at higher than first level, I'll assign some magic items to your starting character as I see fit.

Any player whose enjoyment comes from getting one past me in the rules isn't welcome at my table. I don't have time for that crap.

I don't understand how this happens? Are you so beat down and desperate for players that you'll let one come and walk right over you? Are you not playing with friends that you've got players that want to cheat you, and if you aren't playing with friends why are you hesitant to toss them problem out on his ear?

Am I a dictator? Absolutely and unrepentantly. Any player that questions that is asked whether they are putting 10-20 hours a week into preparing the campaign. Depending on the campaign, I've got 5-8 players that its my responsibility as DM to keep entertained. If that means tossing the jerk out that can't play by the rules and insists on cheating to gather spotlight to himself, then that's what happens.

I don't usually have this problem though. I think the reason I don't have this problem is I've seen so many bullied and tormented DMs and I crack down on it hard and inflexibly.

 

[Ragmon]

Just some thoughts on the issue.
- If the character made it trough character creation to the initial start without the DM saying "no" to the character then he either allowed the it or just did not care.
- Gimmick builds should never an issue to a DM, they are the ultimate counters to silly players.

I don't see any problems with gimmick builds, if I'm the DM.
If I am the player and the gimmick is out shining me, I do extra role-playing and out of combat stuff and smart solutions to problems, to limit the gimmick build (unless if its an out of combat gimmick then I would say go with the gimmick as a player).