How Can You Politely Say, "Your Character Sucks?"

[outsider]

back in the 80's and 90's there were jerks who said things like "That isn't good enough," or "Why are you playing a suboptimal character on MY team"

Funny. Pretty much every group I've ever played in would have said "Why are you playing a deliberately gimp character in OUR group?". Who's the jerk there?

I remember my second D&D group. Every player but one wanted to play what amounted to professional dungeon looting butt-kickers. That one player insisted on playing absolutely wussy and weak characters, and threw up the typical arguments "It's my character, I can make him how I want", and "Roleplaying is more important to me than combat"(never mind there were at least 2 people in the group that were clearly better rpers than he was). If you ask me, there was only 1 jerk in that group, not 5.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Funny. Pretty much every group I've ever played in would have said "Why are you playing a deliberately gimp character in OUR group?". Who's the jerk there?

who ever said it was the jerk in my mind...

I remember my second D&D group. Every player but one wanted to play what amounted to professional dungeon looting butt-kickers.

I highlighted the intresting part... becuse if everyone agrees no fight... but you go on to say...

That one player insisted on playing absolutely wussy and weak characters,

ok, so not everyone agreed... but one group (weather bigger or smaller, majority or minority) tried to bully the other into doing it there way...

and threw up the typical arguments "It's my character, I can make him how I want", and "Roleplaying is more important to me than combat"(never mind there were at least 2 people in the group that were clearly better rpers than he was).

so just to recap... he made a character you didn't like, so you wanted him to change it, he did not want to change it, BUT some how when you could not compramise it was his fault...

If you ask me, there was only 1 jerk in that group, not 5.

From the sound of it you were all being jerks... he could be the weak younger brother you guys are always looking aout for. He could still be his character, but you guys just have a soft spot for saving his bacon...

guess what happens then, (I assume the 5-1 thing means 5 pcs 1 DM) you have 4 above average characters, and one below average character that still makes your team way above average, but you alll got to play what you wanted.


tell me again how does me being below average effect you if you are above average? at best we work out to be average by my math...if more people are above or below (Or like your example 4-1) then it bearly matters...

 

[jinnetics]

You don't. Not your place. Just have fun

 

[GMforPowergamers]

notice how with a slight change

I remember my second D&D group. Every player but one wanted to play rangers. That one player insisted on playing a cleric, and threw up the typical arguments It's how I will have fun, I don't want to have fun your way right now. If you ask me, there was only 1 jerk in that group, not 5.

the whole thing becomes a joke... let him play what he wants... it is just a game...

 

[outsider]

I highlighted the intresting part...

Actually, you didn't. You highlighted "Every player", when what I actually said was "Every player but one". Pretty poor form there.

And, yes. When 1 player goes against the desires of the group on a consistent basis, he is the problem, not the group. Doesn't matter if the 1 guy is "weakness is the height of rp!" guy or "I want to play Punpun!" guy.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Actually, you didn't. You highlighted "Every player", when what I actually said was "Every player but one". Pretty poor form there.

ok, what is poor form... I was poiinting out that if you all agreed there would be no fight, but becuse one person wanted to go a diffrent rout you thought you could bully him with some sorta peer presure to do things your way...

And, yes. When 1 player goes against the desires of the group on a consistent basis, he is the problem, not the group. Doesn't matter if the 1 guy is "weakness is the height of rp!" guy or "I want to play Punpun!" guy.

Um... no not even close. If person A makes a character that contributes to the game, but is not as powerful as others in the game in a group full of pver powers that is not a problem...

a guy who wants to be more powerful then other players IS a problem...

it doesn;t matter who is the majority and who is the minority PUN PUN is always the wrong answer in a real game.

tell me again why your butt kickers would not be able to have a less powerful memeber? tell me again why everyone MUST be optimized... I am yet to hear you say even once what you lose from this... as long as everyone contributes to fun at the table what diff does anything else make???

 

[outsider]

tell me again why your butt kickers would not be able to have a less powerful memeber? tell me again why everyone MUST be optimized... I am yet to hear you say even once what you lose from this... as long as everyone contributes to fun at the table what diff does anything else make???

What we lose:
Resources. More resources are required to keep the weak character alive.

Success probability. Clearly a more powerful character is likely to lead to sucess for the group than a weak one.

Rewards. I contribute more to the success of the group, yet the expectation is that those who contribute less get an equal share of the loot. I'm not overly anal about this, but there comes a point in power difference where this becomes an unreasonable expectation.

Combat Speed. With a weaker character, the combats take longer. Shorter combats allow more time for RP/exploration in between, or alternatively, more combats.

Versimilitude. The presence of an incompetent in a group of professional butt-kickers makes no RP sense. Unless of course you come up with an excuse to justify it. But why is it more acceptable to force 5 players to change their rp to accomodate 1 player than to force 1 player to change their rp to accomodate 5 players? It defies logic.

 

[outsider]

a guy who wants to be more powerful then other players IS a problem...

As is a guy who wants to be weaker than the other players.

 

[malraux]

I am going to chime in here and say, IME, that is not correct. There has always been different levels of character building - but the attitude that everything else sucks compared to the optimised way or the attutude that you are playing the game wrong has increased dramatically since MMOs. IME, it is a direct relation to MMO raids where everyone has to be optimized a certain way, or you can't play. This very thread is filled with people saying how wrong it is to play that character. IME, that did not exist before - especially when the default assumptions was that you ROLLED your stats. IMO, the stat arrays and point buys have contributed somewhat to these attitudes.

If I had to theorize, I'd say that the issue came to the forefront because of 3e's move to unify the stat bonus progression. As near as I can tell, in 1e and 2e, the differences between most stats is almost always a +1, at least till you get to the 18 ability score. A greater strength would affect skills like bend bars or carrying capacity, but not as much your attacks. In that case, a STR 10 fighter just isn't a major hinderance. Whereas, in d20, there is a very quantifiable difference between STR 12 and STR16. In that kind of rule set, its isn't the MMO influence that will drive powergaming, its the fact that the system itself lends itself to powergaming and optimization. The basic truth is that stats in d20 are very dissimilar to stats in older edition. Comparing the two is a dishonest tactic because the differences at just too great.

 

[fuzzlewump]

tell me again why your butt kickers would not be able to have a less powerful memeber? tell me again why everyone MUST be optimized... I am yet to hear you say even once what you lose from this... as long as everyone contributes to fun at the table what diff does anything else make???

Not everyone will agree on what constitutes "fun at the table." You're right, that's all that matters. But if the power-gamers want to defeat challenges as a well-oiled and powerful machine (as most of my players do) then having someone who either doesn't do it well or worse for them, someone who is intending not to fit in well, can be a source of un-fun.

For instance, a bloodied melee glass canon is on the cleric, and he needs help. The roleplayer character playing a halfling rogue decides to go check out the treasure and leaves the cleric to die. The player of the halfling might be having a great time, laughing at the role he has chosen. But the rest of the party could be completely frustrated. It may not be the kind of game you are used to, but it's not badwrongfun. Similarly, if that halfling has a 10 in his dexterity, and missed because of the -4 he is suffering from the well built halfling it can also be frustrating, even if the halfling is still having fun despite missing a bit more often.

The way I see it, my players become attached to the roleplaying aspect of their characters and thus do not wish their characters to die, so, they will min/max those characters to a point. If someone came in saying I want to play the intelligent fighter and dumps strength for intelligence, we would either say NO or basically calculate him as a 1/10 character or something for encounters. In our group, at best, he contributes not much nor takes away much, but at worst that character is a detriment to the party's fun as a whole.