I'm sorry, your character is too good

[Rechan]

Let's say that a player comes in, drops a character sheet in front of you, the DM. You look it over, and the sheet is min/maxed to the hilt. We're talking the guy has 8s in all his other ability scores. He's contorted and twisted the system to 1) be above and beyond the other PCs in capability, or 2) potentially breaking anything you can legitimately throw at him. But it's all legal by RAW.

Is it OK for you to say to him, "No" or "Dial back the optimization"?

A player has been playing a character, and it becomes clear that his character is overpowered. Due to whatever combination of choices he's made while leveling up, or whatever, it's just far too lopsided in one direction.

Is it OK for you to say to him, "Change your character" or "Dial back your rules choices"?

You have handed a player out a magical item. After a session of play, it's clear that it's over-powered, you didn't forsee the significant consequences, or it's being abused.

Is it OK for you to say, "I made a mistake handing that item out, I'm going to have to take it back."

Basically, what rights does a DM have in addressing the level of optimization at his table? I not speaking of "well you've made a competent character, and everyone else couldn't build a strong PC if they had help, so sucks to be you" but the char-oppers out there.

Part of the reason I ask is, I presented a houserule elsewhere on the forum, and got the response that "A player could abuse this by taking X class with Y supplemental material and be more potent due to your rules adjustment". My reaction to that is, "Well then I tell that player that he just can't do that, or can't do it to the degree he is. I created that rule to offer more options for non-min/maxers, be simpler and multi-classers. He's taking advantage of my generosity."

 

[S'mon]

Well, I think the GM should explain what the limitations are that he expects the player to stick to. If he can't explain why or how this PC is unacceptable, that's not good.

Personally I prefer to limit options in my games - (1) It makes broken characters less likely and (2) It tends to deter the sort of powergamers I don't want.

Re overpowered magic items - if the GM has created a unique item, he can have a unique solution too. Anything from it breaks, teleports away, corrodes, develops sentience and tries to eat the PC, has limited charges, is tied to a power source that is fading, has some horrible drawback... Whatever you want and that makes sense. Something that keeps the item 'special', makes for a cool game, and gives the player compensatory 'story time' is probably best, eg the powerful weapon that gives the owner terrible nightmares, then slowly starts to change him... he has the choice to discard it at any time, but can he bear to do so?

I'm a big believer in compensation: the GM screws over the PC, he should give something nice in return.

 

[Ranes]

I'm no stranger to this. There are sources I don't allow in my games. Players don't always pay attention to them before bringing a character to the table. More common, however, is something I don't disallow but is so obviously min-maxed beyond randomness it's painful. I allow these character builds but I then re-engineer NPCs along the same principles. I then introduce the player to the other side of whatever it was he thought was a winning optimisation build.

The player might have been pushing what I allowed to the hilt, introducing me to a game mechanic combo I allowed without having been able to see all possible ramifications. No problem: if this happens one week, I learn to modify the appropriate NPC or creature the next. The result is either a group that doesn't think it's clever to look for exploits or a group that's happy to have raised my game and is prepared for the potential consequences.

If a player sees a rule combo and thinks, "If I add this to that, I win," he's an idiot who doesn't realise that the thing he's introduced to you is the thing that you can now have your monsters and NPCs exploit. You must not be afraid to employ the same tactics your cleverest players use.

If a player comes to me and asks if I will I allow prestige class x or optional rule y, while I am not inclined to try to think through every possible abuse, if I could see a problem with the idea from the outset, I would either give a ruling that allowed it (having attempted to engage as many intelligent and/or experienced players as possible in that process) or I'd rule it out (and leave open an appeal channel).

 

[Oryan77]

I prefer to handle things in-game as much as possible. If I gave out an overpowered item, I just wouldn't say anything about it. Eventually, something would happen in the game that got rid of that item. I'd try to be fair about it and I would also reward the PC with something else in return.

Sometimes it's not good to talk things over with your players. They'll complain either way. Keeping it in-game at least lets you play innocent. Keeping it in-game could also spice up the campaign and cause players to react in a way that provides you with all kinds of new material for the adventure.

As for min/maxing or powergaming, my patience has run out. I will no longer DM anyone that does either. I hate powergaming. Min/maxing is more tolerable, but I want to spend my free time making the adventure more fun story wise. I don't want to spend even a second trying to balance encounters because of a min/maxed PC that is a bit more powerful for his level.

I don't have a problem asking a player to tone it down. If he won't, I also don't have a problem parting ways.

 

[El Mahdi]

For the most part, in games that I run, a min/maxed character won't do anybody any good, and likely won't last very long. That's because the problem with a min/maxed character is the "min" part. Sure, it may be uber-powerful in certain aspects, but that makes them incredibly vulnerable in others. I'm not saying that I'm going to specifically target those vulnerabilities. But just through the course of running a relatively balanced game with a large variety of threats, the odds are that those vulnerabilities are going to be the min/maxed characters demise.

A min/maxed character can only win big...and lose big...nothing in between.

Explain the reasons why you offered the things you did. Explain why his character won't be worthwhile for him in the long run of your campaign. And then give him some guidance on what may be a more appropriate and balanced character for what you are running.

 

[Crothian]

Yes, in all cases the DM has the right to control the power of the PC's if it feels that it is getting out of hand or a player is abusing the rules. If the players don't like it they can talk to the DM about it and hopefully the DM and players are willing to have an open dialogue about the situation.

 

[Greg K]

Let's say that a player comes in, drops a character sheet in front of you, the DM. You look it over, and the sheet is min/maxed to the hilt. We're talking the guy has 8s in all his other ability scores. He's contorted and twisted the system to 1) be above and beyond the other PCs in capability, or 2) potentially breaking anything you can legitimately throw at him. But it's all legal by RAW.

Is it OK for you to say to him, "No" or "Dial back the optimization"? .

Yes, it is ok to tell them "No" or dial them back.

The other option is to hit the character in its weak spots (the player decided the character was weak in those areas, correct?).

Personally, I don't like playing with powergamers or min/maxers.

My preference is to tell players upfront what I expect. I give them a handout of house rules and campaign rules.

I also don't allow players to just show up with a character

I discuss their concepts/backgrounds with them before characters are generated and encourage discussion during the generation portion when the player is building the character mechanically.

I'll look over characters after generation

For longtime players it is more of a cursory glance. I know that that they are not going to min/max or it was taken care of during discussions. They are also good about asking if they think something might be questionable in the campaign. Primarily, I want to see if they missed anything or if I have a suggestion to help them better meet the character we agreed upon.

For new players, I look over the sheet, pretty, intently.

 

[Rechan]

I personally feel it's far more constructive to address any problem with the player, away from the table, than try to deal with it in-game. It leads to less arms-races, less derailment and potential loss of fun for everyone, and avoids potential miscommunication/mixed messages. Also it's faster and more direct.

Doing otherwise feels too passive-aggressive for my tastes.

 

[DragonLancer]

The DM has the right to say no to anything. I have had (only once or twice) have had to ask a player to stop powergaming and bring his character back down in line with how myself and the rest of the group prefer to play but it was necessary in order for the group to continue having fun.

 

[Ahnehnois]

There's two angles that I saw immediately.

The first is that if that kind of min/maxing actually works, it's evidence that the game itself is pretty unbalanced. I've tried to massage the rules to make all ability scores meaningful and all options useful so that isn't feasible. For example, I do charisma-based action points, so the usual charisma dump makes the PC less able to perform heroic feats under pressure. I also try to throw a variety of challanges at the players; diverse combats and equally diverse noncombat situations. If everything is in balance, it's very hard to game the system.

The second is that if one PC is simply dominant, I'll almost always correct for it, in-game or out-of-game. If a particular ability is overpowering, I'll take it away. If one PC is lagging behind, some crazy bonus ability or special magic item is headed their way. I also try to counsel the other players on exactly what options best suit their stated concept, and I do a lot to power up everyone's character, which balances things out a bit.

***

Of course the big thing here is intent. If the player is simply very gung-ho and very detail-oriented, work with that. If he's actively trying to "win" the game or otherwise mess it up, he gets a clear but stern talking to, followed by the boot if he doesn't start playing the game with fairness in mind. I don't have room for that kind of foolishness.