D&D 5E Minor rant - y'ever just hate your players' characters?

[Herobizkit]

I said I wanted to run a quirky, Ghostbusters-style light-hearted fantasy adventure using the new 5e rules. I told them combat is going by 'comic book' rules - all enemies are KO'd instead of dead when they hit zero HP. I encouraged them to try a few different things and they were free to edit their characters as they saw fit until level 3, whereupon their concepts would be 'locked in'.

What I got:

- Drow Fighter with the Charlatan background whose family lost a House war and now wants to create a new empire on the surface with any and everyone who will follow him... especially Humanoids.
- (After changing ideas four times in three days) a Half-Orc priest of War [Hermit] who wants to become a necromancer and give the dead a second chance to battle.
- Halfling Sorcerer [Sage] who is terrified of everything and runs from every fight until pushed, then lays down the hurt with a power he has yet to understand.

They're all heavily combat-oriented and they don't want to die, which is nice, but when they can all do silly amounts of damage a turn... Fighter has 20 Dex and is two-weaponing Rapier and dagger (RAW he can't, but I allowed it). Half-Orc has 18 Str and is using a Greatsword; she also has the power to add additional attacks with her Domain power. And the Halfling has all-damage all the time, which is par for sorcerers anyhow.

In short, they made characters who are all social pariahs and they want to Kingmaker.

I guess... I guess I just miss the days when people made characters and you just enjoyed PLAYING them without worrying about DPS or "we're too weak, we need level three! We wanna be heroes!"

It makes me not want to DM at all.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So...it sounds like your central complaint is that your players are driven more by big bonuses than by interesting stories?

Or is it more that they seem to be skewing toward a different -- slightly darker -- genre than you intended?

The first...well, to be honest, all those sounds like solid character types to me. A drow who wants to establish a surface empire has a clear goal, and a half-orc war-necromancer has a clear path, and the halfling has a mystery you can explore at the table. Dig them into some world elements (who won that house war? where does one get necromancer training in your world? what might cause the birth of a halfling wild sorcerer?). So bonuses, schmonuses, it sounds like there's some good story grist there.

The second might be more tricky, but I can't tell from your description of your intended style and the characters how they are mutually exclusive. You might need to skew a little more "dark humor," but there's plenty of potential in cowards, smashy violence, and would-be overlords for some lighthearted goofiness (Ghostbusters itself had some darkly absurd stuff in it).

Anyway, I don't often hate my players' characters. Some of the most fun games I've had have been games where I've basically just decided to go along with the vibe the characters give me.

 

[Umbran]

I guess... I guess I just miss the days when people made characters and you just enjoyed PLAYING them without worrying about DPS or "we're too weak, we need level three! We wanna be heroes!"

I can understand the "we're too weak, we need level three!" stuff.

But, "we wanna be heroes"? This is a problem?

 

[Herobizkit]

So...it sounds like your central complaint is that your players are driven more by big bonuses than by interesting stories?

Or is it more that they seem to be skewing toward a different -- slightly darker -- genre than you intended?

Yeah, it feels like both of these things. I think it's also my fault, as I don't as yet have a central theme they can latch onto other than "build a town because Kingmaker".

The second might be more tricky, but I can't tell from your description of your intended style and the characters how they are mutually exclusive. You might need to skew a little more "dark humor," but there's plenty of potential in cowards, smashy violence, and would-be overlords for some lighthearted goofiness (Ghostbusters itself had some darkly absurd stuff in it).

I'm pretty sure I just need to relax and assume everything will go well.

 

[Herobizkit]

I can understand the "we're too weak, we need level three!" stuff.

But, "we wanna be heroes"? This is a problem?

The issue is they can't feel like heroes unless they can take some punishment. They're all coming off 4e's "larger than life" style of heroes, and when a good swrd hit can knock them out, they don't feel heroic. The feel like scared mice hoping they don't die in every fight.

To me, this is a good thing... but I guess their response to that feeling is to max their numbers so fights can be won quickly and decisively.

 

[Sadras]

Firstly, you should probably provide them with way more details about the setting than just 3 short lines.

Secondly, their background/ideas must tie in with the details you provide of the setting. Their character goals must align with the information you provide - hence you need to give more details of your setting.

Thirdly, you should limit the point-buy system to 27 and not let them roll (their scores look too good, unless they are complete min-maxers, which then I pity you).

Fourth, you state that any ability score above 16 (upon character creation - level 1) allows you, as DM, to encumber the character with a flaw, the higher the number the worse the flaw. (Similar to VtM, Vampire the Masquerade, where any maximum attribute instilled a flaw). For instance, for a character with 17 strength, have their movement speed drop by 10 feet due to a birth defect in their leg, not curable by magic.

Alternatively - ignore points 3&4 above, and provide them with pregen scores and allow them to allocate as they wish.

Fifth, don't give in to their rule-breaking desires, stick to RAW for now.

 

[Umbran]

The issue is they can't feel like heroes unless they can take some punishment.

Ah. So it isn't really "we wanna be heroes". It is "we wanna be powerful and tough!" Got it.

 

[jrowland]

I hate my player's characters!

/Characterquit

 

[innerdude]

Minor rant - y'ever just hate your players' characters?

I'm feeling ya, @Herobizkit.

For my last Savage Worlds fantasy campaign, I had a great background set up with intrigue, warring factions, rival crime syndicates, lost history and lost civilizations . . . .

And one of the main players comes to me and says, "I basically want to play the character 'The Tick' from the cartoon."

Like, not just a fighter who's not all that bright, and mostly focuses on muscle and "bringin' the pain!" . . . but he actually wanted the character's personality to BE the cartoon character's personality.

And for the first 4 months (6-8 sessions) it was okay, since we were still getting used to the group and general play style, and the rest of the group's characters were highly appropriate to the setting and motivated.

But maybe 6 months in, it started getting old and tired, FAST. All the previously funny, quirky things this character would do suddenly weren't all that funny anymore. Once we started getting into the "meat" of exploring the setting, and the key conflicts were established, the character increasingly stood out negatively in the game world.

For things completely unrelated to the game the player left the group a short time later, thus ending the pain, but it was definitely something I filed away into my GM memory banks. As a rule I find players that need to be "special snowflakes" to be generally more trouble than they're worth, but there's certain kinds of "special snowflakeyness" that work with the campaign, and then there's stuff that's just conceptually jarring, and should probably just be nixed outright.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The issue is they can't feel like heroes unless they can take some punishment. They're all coming off 4e's "larger than life" style of heroes, and when a good swrd hit can knock them out, they don't feel heroic. The feel like scared mice hoping they don't die in every fight.

To me, this is a good thing... but I guess their response to that feeling is to max their numbers so fights can be won quickly and decisively.

Okay, here's an idea that you might want to think about:

[SECTION]
Death Flag: In normal play, the PC's, being the center of the story, don't die. They can be knocked out, incapcitated, roughed up, beaten around, but when they get to 0 hp and fail 3 death saves, they're just in the DM's hands. You might wake up hours later naked and sore in a sun-baked inn room with no idea who is in bed next to you, or why they're bleeding so much. You might wake up in a goblin stew pot. You might find yourself groggily coming to as orcs pillage the village you failed to protect. It's up to the DM, but it'll probably be Bad News for your characters.

If you WANT to be able to die, you can raise the Death Flag when you fail a roll or get damaged. This instantly gives you a re-roll, or negates the damage, but it is a sign that for you, this is going to be Serious Business. Now, if you die, it will be permanent. But it's up to you to declare that.
[/SECTION]

....and then go for the jugular in a TPK.

When the party wakes up fine and just has to deal with the consequences of their TPK, you'll have established two things:

1 - The Worst Case Scenario is not a big deal, because it'll be fun on the other side. Failure is fun, too.
2 - This is a cinematic kind of game with movie/comic-book logic, not a gritty dungeon survival game.

You'll also have probably earned some trust as a DM who isn't just out to bone them.

And then you introduce the cult of the Gozarian, and all will be good.