Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6177807" data-attributes="member: 6681948">OK, we have four players, as follows:-    Social Sue sells out all her combat and exploration abilities to be a 100% Social Butterfly.  She zones out at even the mention of combat, and is bored to tears by exploration challenges, complaining her character is useless. -    Dora the Explorer sells out all her combat and social abilities to be a 100% Explorer Extraordinaire.  She zones out at even the mention of combat, and is bored to tears by role playing social interaction, complaining her character is useless.-    Combat Claire sells out all her exploration and social abilities to be a 100% Combat Wombat.  As soon as battle ends, she says “wake me when we’re rolling for initiative” , complaining her character is useless until then.  -    Variety Val builds a character able to participate in all three, and enjoys a game where all three are represented.  She does not like a game that features only a single type of challenge reoccurring repetitively – “variety is the spice of life”.Tell me the advice the DMG should provide to keep this group engaged.  That’s good advice – the four players I cite above may be incompatible.  But if having some ability to contribute in their “not favoured” areas would keep the three specialists engaged, then we can actually have a gaming group if they are forced not to focus exclusively on a single area.Another good approach.  Maybe Claire, Sue and Val can agree on a game with pretty much no exploration, but a balance of social and combat encounters, and we still have a group.  Dora can play in a different game, with different ground rules.I can discuss with them up front, openly and frankly, what I expect from the game (if I’m not having fun, why should I DM?) and what they expect from the game (if they aren’t having fun, why should they play?) so we can ensure we have a game everyone can enjoy, and that expectations are clear from the outset, as Kinak suggests.  If Claire/Dora/Sue know up front the game will not be all combat/exploration/social, then they can plan their characters accordingly, or decide this game is not for them, rather than being bored and probably reducing enjoyment of the game for everyone.As Greg says, I can remove poor fit players from the game before they become a problem, or at least make it clear that their style is not consistent with this game, and will not be catered to.And once the ambush is sprung, the player does what, precisely, for the next hour or two as a major combat is resolved?  While there can be a range of combat capabilities, my experience is that most players want to be able to meaningfully contribute (ie not need a 20 to hit and do 1-4 damage if they do hit against their opponent’s 3 digit hp; not bet able to not get tossed out of the banquet provided they can roll 18+ on their diplomacy check; not run down the hall to see if there are any traps we missed) to significant and lengthy aspects of the game.OK, so Social Sue has interaction skills she has dedicated character resources to, like a high Charisma and numerous skill ranks.  She’s effectively got a +15 to the roll.  Meanwhile, Dora and Claire have a -1 thanks to that 8 CHA.  Val is somewhere in between.  Can we realistically have challenges to Sue where Dora and Claire can meaningfully contribute?BTW, Claire averages 20 hp damage per hit, Dora and Sue average 5 (and don’t hit nearly as often) and Val, again, is somewhere in between.  At least Dora and Sue can do some damage.  Part of the problem here is that combat has always been a lengthy, multi-stage process so small increments can still have some impact over time.  Social skills and exploration have been “one roll, succeed or fail”.I did.  The specific issue is overspecialization, whether in combat or non-combat abilities, of any character.Ok, let us assume the baseline is that a character with no combat abilities at all hits on a roll of 16+ and does 1-4 damage, average 2.5.A character focused on non-combat, with some combat skill, hits on a 13 or more and does, say, (rogue with 2d6 Sneak Attack plus a 1d4 + 1modifier) 10.5 average damage.A character focused on combat, with some non-combat abilities, hits on a roll of 10+ and inflicts about 15 points damage (big weapon, say doing 2d6, plus 8 from STR, 2 handed weapon or multiple hits, or other bonuses).A tricked out Combat Wombat can hit on a 6+, and will manage about 30 points on average.If we put Combat Wombat (DPR 22.5) and Social Sue (DPR 0.625) in the same combat, does Sue contribute meaningfully?  If they can focus, but not exclude, certain areas, now CW has 8.25 DPR and Sue does 4.2, which seems a lot more meaningful comparatively.All figures are purely hypothetical, of course, and let’s not factor in spells at this stage.</blockquote>

Verification