Imret said:
As far as the magic issue Nac mentioned that you weren't clear on, let me see if I can capture the essence of it.
You're invited to play in a new campaign, and you lovingly craft an interesting wizard, whose character is somewhat wrapped up in his ability to use magic. This is fair, he's a wizard. You've got your typical spells worked out, some flavor changes to the appearance of a couple spells you want to check with the DM, and all in all a PC you really want to play, to contribute to the team. Then, the DM reads a setting intro that starts with "For two hundred years the Great Dragons of Oogada have locked magic away from the world..."
You've got every right to be choked, and I've seen it happen.
Absolutely - it's incumbent on the GM to give the players some idea of what the world is like before character generation begins, if for no other reason than to give the players an opportunity to tie their characters' backgrounds into the game-world. However, that may include the example I presented above: mountain peaks and dark caverns, cloud castles and ocean deeps, and so on and so on - in other words, if you create a character optimized for fighting in heavy armor and you encounter a situation where heavy armor isn't optimal, save your griping 'cause I aint interested in hearing it. The life of an adventurer is supposed to be hard - not impossible, not
always stacked against you, but genuinely difficult much of the time. That's why you get paid the big, big bucks.
Optimizing a character to do one thing really well, and then expecting most everything you encounter to play to that strength, is boring as
to me, and in the games I run, it
will get you killed or maimed, or sometimes leave you whining on the shore while everyone else goes after the fortune and glory.
Imret said:
However, with all that said, telling a player "Well, I know you're gonna be absolutely no help in this series of adventures because it's the antithesis of the situation you shine in, but stuff it and get on board with my plan or you can just sit there for the rest of the session/we'll call you when they get back" is a little...unfun.
Remember, it's not my plan: it's the players. I present the situation, and leave it to them to figure out how to handle it. When a player creates a character that is gimped by being overly specialized or because of some 'charming personality quirk' that in fact steals the thunder of the rest of the party, that's disruptive IMHO - it means the rest of the party is left holding the bag because the knight in shining armor is too much of a pantywaist to get on a
ing boat, or because a player decided on some eccentricity that brings the game to a screeching halt.
Imret said:
Some of this does fall to the players...if they say "To hell with you, we're going to the undersea city" and leave the embermage on land, they deserve to be torn to shreds by whatever's down there. If they pool their cash and buy him a wand of 3rd-level magic missile so he can contribute, well, that's a party I'd like to join.
Not some - all of it is on the players to adapt to the circumstances with which their characters are faced, rather than expect the world to serve up encounters tailored to their abilities.
In my humble opinion.
Is that 'unfun?' Maybe for some players. They're welcome to look for a different GM - my experience tells me their seat at the table won't grow cold.
Cintra said:
And I think a couple of the responses you've gotten have been because a couple of people are reading your comments with an assumption already made that you're "min-maxing" - so they're reading into your examples something that I don't think is there.
And how exactly would you interpret something like, "If I am a full plate kind of warrior, I am not goign to accept a job sailing the seven seas hunting down pirates, I will step aside for the faster more lightly amred adventurers, or ask for a crap load of cash to re-buy my gear that more appropriate," or "I dont tihnk so, so if I am on the wrong job, I quit it, and get a character more suitable to the task," or "Many poeple can design adpative characters, but a lot of us do put a focus somewhere, you have the choice of being Jack of all trades, master of none, or having a viable use in a party," or my favorite so far, "And as for min maxing, what are you expecting in D&D?"
Seems pretty explicit to me. What am I missing here?
Cintra said:
Shaman - Nac's use of "campaign" isn't referring to a single adventure, even one that lasts several sessions. It refers to the entire career of this character. If the GM creates Waterworld, and never intends to have the PCs be anywhere other than on ships and floating raft-towns, then having a character who is afraid of water would be actively crippling for the entire campaign. If the DM plans to have 90% of the encounters and activities the PCs face involve undead, then a rogue is pretty much useless.
While I don't necessarily agree that a rogue is "useless" in that circumstance, I agree with what you're saying - in fact, I agreed without several hours ago, too.
The GM should let the players know in advance what the game-world is like. Got it. You've achieved buy-in. Let's move on.
Cintra said:
And it isn't min-maxing or power-gaming to want to have a character that can contribute to the team and accomplish something.
I agree that characters should be effective in order to pull their share of the party's load - again, no disagreement.
What I take exception to is the repeated suggestion that if a...hrrrmmm...let's call it a "series of adventures" to make sure that there's no confusion regarding terminology...if a series of adventures includes elements for which a character is not 100% optimized, or is gimped by poor roleplaying choices, then the player should be able to (1) bring in another character or (2) bow out of the adventure because, "S/he wouldn't do that."
To me, in my experience with players like this over the years (a mercifully small number, thank goodness), this is just selfish behavior that disrupts play while everyone caters to this one player's idea of not only how his character should be played, but how the rest of the party should choose what adventures to pursue
and how the game-world is supposed to work.
That is, again, disruptive, IMHO.
Nac_Mac_Feegle said:
Why is my playing a half orc afraid of water being dsiruptive, if I dont kne before hand its a high seas adventure? If I knew I owuld choose something a little more playable, but again, you seem to see it as MY fault I didnt know somethign that was unknowable.
I as a PC, expect to run into water during characters career, therefore what is disruptive about Hydrophobia? its just a roleplaying angle, completely innapropriate to a high seas adventure granted, which is why a hydrophobe would not be in one. I fail to see how thats me being desruptive.
Go back and reread the sentence I highlighted.
This "roleplaying angle" can bring the entire game to an abrupt stop. In the course of exploring the tomb of a long-dead king, the characters find a map leading to a shipwreck off a tropical island - the map alludes the fabulous wealth in the ship's hold. After leaving the tomb, the rest of the characters decide to hire a ship and head for the island.
And at that point, you say, "No,
my character won't do that."
Your "roleplaying angle" in this case becomes an obstacle to the other players and the gamemaster. It's a selfish choice, IMHO.
It's one thing to say, "My character doesn't like water, will avoid it if he can, and will complain about it quite a bit if he can't" - it's another thing entirely if you use this aspect of the character's personality to bring the game to a crashing halt.
Nac_Mac_Feegle said:
And as for min maxing, what are you expecting in D&D?
What I read in your posts, over and over again, is not minmaxing to create an effective character, but rather minmaxing to play a character that is good in one dimension and refuses to participate in an adventure in that doesn't cater to that strength.
Nac_Mac_Feegle said:
A warrior hits things, he doesnt get a lot of skills, but he can use every martial weapon and every armour, so you play to your strengths, is that min maxing?...
A rogue/assassin is a natural progresion of a class, is that min/maxing?...
I dont want to come across as a powergamer, but the game has classes, and most poeple play to those classes strengths, and this idea thats to utelise a class strength is min/maxing is ludicrous in the extreme.
Please forgive my trimming the excess from your quotes above.
I hope by now I've made clear that what I'm talking about has nothing to do with playing to class strengths, but rather gimping the party and being a royal pain in the ass to the GM.
If I'm a Rogue and I'm faced with a non-stop barrage of undead, I'll take points in Use Magic Device and fight from afar, or try some other inventive ideas. I would appreciate knowing this stuff ahead of time, but the onus falls on the DM to advise the players what he would like to see in his world. If that's not what the players had in mind, the DM can either kowtow to the player majority and run something else, or find a new gaming group. Again, the onus is on the DM.
