Some players don’t want to build characters…

[Wraith-Hunter]

I'm one of those type of people who is smart but gets overwhelmed at the choices and with all the sources out there. I'm not always sure how a feat choice will impact a character etc. But I want an effective character.

So do you know what I do?

I get on the Rules board here ask questions, I get on the charcater optimization board at wizards etc. I find builds that fit the concept I like and I go from there. They conceal this information on the internet . The guy who doesn't optimise his character getting ticked that someone else gets help on theirs PULEZE!!! He really needs to take a chill pill.

Players helping players out leads to characters helping characters out. Unless you are playing a CE backstabing campagin this is a very good thing. If he has a problem and has an under optimised character he can ask for help or find it online. Never have I gotten made fun of or treated badly asking questions online. People that are good at and like doing builds are usually HAPPY to help out they LIKE doing it. I would not cater to one person who has a problem. It is impossible to make everyone happy all the time. This person as the EXCACT SAME OPPORTUNITY everyone else at the table does. If he is not good at char building and wishes he was but doesn't do anything about it then WHY cater to him? Really HE is the problem. I would nicely (1st time) tell him he has the same opportunity to get an effective character as every one else. It is not like your group is saying you hvae to stick with bad choices even though you are not happy playing. If he continues to be a problem about it treat it like any other player problem accordingly.

This guy really seems like he is more angry at himself than he is at other players. And some people refuse to ask for help, kind of like asking for directions. If he can't lower his pride, and is not good he can play a crappy character. It's not like it is a big secret the problem is between is ears.

You can also house rule the "Timmy Feats" to something better. Like make toughness be improved toughness instead. If a feat is too week house rule a small powerup.

As far as base classes go there are lots of good posts on the house rule boards for alternate versions of the class. Like the sorcerer for instance.

Your problems seem like a people not a game problem. The people who are not good at it get help and the DM's are fast and free with rebuilds so it really isn't a problem.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Your best bet IMO is to play a simpler game. I had this problem. I fixed it by not playing a rules heavy game like 3.x anymore. Look into one of the other D20 variants like True20 or Castles & Crusades maybe. The guys I game with are not interested in studying a rules heavy system like 3e to gain mastery of it in order to make "optimal builds" and stuff like that. They don't study the rules outside of the game sessions, where they don't study them either, they don't go on forums, they don't do RPG stuff outside the actual game sessions. 3.x isn't a game for them we've determined.

If you still want to play 3.x but don't want the landslide of feats and PRC's etc, just play a core only game. That is probably the only way I'd ever run another D&D game. Well I still run a D&D game, I just don't run it with the D&D rules.

 

[shilsen]

I've dealt with this and it's hardly a problem. The DM and the players who are better at 9and more interested in) building characters should make suggestions to the others and help them building their PCs so that they're all in the same ballpark of effectiveness.

 

[Obergnom]

Prestige Classes:

I really think they are a great Idea, but to me it looks like they are a must have, rather than a possible way to specialize your character. There are so many “gain something for nothing” PrCls (Playing a wizard at the moment, the Master Specialist and the Abjurant Champion from Complete Mage come to my mind.) We played Arcana Ecolved for a year, and it is different in that game

Are the players of inferior characters upset?

In a way, yes, they are. At low levels it does not really come up, because the die rolls are more important than the build, but the higher the level gets, the more rebuilding is done. It is actually a mixture of the “better” gamers not wanting to loose a battle because they have to team up with characters who seem to be 1-3 levels below their own and the less capable gamers getting a feeling of uselessness.

Do the players know which material is available and have they got access to it?

Both yes. We have a message board where we manage our group, and there always is a houserules/character gen threat where the current DM posts what is in the game and what not. As I said, at the moment it is Core + Completes + PHB2. We started the campaign Core only, in a way, it was a catastrophe, I did not even now it is possible to mess up a core only cleric...

One part of me also thinks that the players unwilling to invest time and attention don't need to complain that much. If I do nothing while a friend of mine takes the time to learn how to make meatloaf correctly, then I have no real reason to complain about how I can't make good meatloaf. I think that the process could be streamlined somewhat but the fact remains that the people who take the time to learn how things work will always be better at certain tasks than those who don't.

Thats exactly the reason why one of my players complained when I rebuilt a character.

Playing C&C/Simpler Games instead:

Yes, I tried that. The weird thing is, the players worst at character building are the ones most strongly opposed. It really goes up from there. The builders are all for it, the ones in the middle are like so-so.

Getting help from the Internet:

There is a huge cap in investment of time into the hobby in our group. Not surprisingly, the ones not very good at building chars are the ones who do not spend time at message boards about things like that. Another problem is, there are good places to ask, but we are from Germany, and not all in our group are comfortable posting at foreign language boards.

Helping each other out...

It is what we are doing at the moment, and in a way, it works. But it begins to be tiresome, as it really is a lot of work, planing your own character or designing the encounters and creating the characters for some of the players. What I dislike the most is, I want to see the creativity and ideas of other players when I game. Maybe someone else will have a completely different take upon the Tank than I have, if I build his character, I will never know.

 

[el-remmen]

Stop "optimizing" your characters and make characters the way the other players do. It is more organic and satisfying that way anyway; at least to me.

-- el "Let the events of a game, not some pre-determined plan determine the direction of your character" remmen

 

[Umbran]

The problem is, we all like to play characters that can contribute to the game, and while the gap between type 1 and 2 is can be filled with allowing an occasional rebuild...

If that really is the problem, then the solution is simple. However, I think it is probably more complicated than you state here. It sounds like you're facing the basic problem of differing playstyles. You've got some people who like playing with the rules, andothers who don't. How do you mix them in the game?

This is an old problem, but it has not been solved, because the solution depends very much on the players involved. Different solutions work for different groups. For some groups, there is no good solution.

In my game, I have one player who is far more a master of the rules than others. He could, if he chose, build a character that would far outshine all the others. But he doesn't. He chose, instead, to play a bard (and one that wasn't optimized, at that). He has a great time, but leaves his min-maxing at the door. This won't work well if a main part of the fun for some players is optimizing.

In other games (ones in which balance among the PCs is even less assured than D&D) I've spent some extra time and work in adventure design. This can be a burden for the GM.

In yet other games, I've more strongly enforced the "party role" aspect of things. It does not matter if the character is optimized - if he's the only party cleric, he'll have stuff that only he can do. This doesn't work well with larger parties, unless the players agree to play along and restrict their character types a bit.

Yet another solution is to decide that the work required to deal with the disparity is too great, and split the large group into two smaller ones of more similar players.

Or, you can have the DM and/or other players help those who are not so rules-minded. Sometimes the rules-minded folks feel this is "cheating". Sometimes the less rules-minded ones feel like their character is being imposed upon them. Or, even more commonly,the player who isn't so into the rules will find the resulting character confusing, because they don't grasp the fine details that make the efficient build work, and they need to be told what actions to take each and every time...

In the end, what you probably ought to do is bring this up to the group in a neutral way. No accusations of fault (because there is no fault - they just like to play a little differently), but a discussion of the ways to help deal with the situation.

 

[Obergnom]

Actually, really everyone wants to contribute. Thats why I think D&D is among the best games for our group, as it has strong archetypes telling you what your role is... or at least older editions did that, but I begin to get the impression, D&D 3.5 is not really like that.

Stop "optimizing" your characters and make characters the way the other players do. It is more organic and satisfying that way anyway; at least to me.

Well, thats hard to do, isn't it? My own character is in a way anti-optimized. I know how to make him the best for his job (IMO). It`s a wizard (conjurer) doing the battlefield control thing. Instead of going Master Spec and Incantatrix I stayed pure wizard and will even take an improved familiar because I want a pseudo dragon, for character reasons. It is easy to do that, if you are a mage. You do not have as much to win from a good build as a fighter has, if you choose your spells carefully. (Avoid saves and SR an it does not really matter, as long as you have he basics covered)
A fighter can hardly do that, feats are his only class ability.

 

[BSF]

My first thought echoes Umbran. You have an issue with differing playstyles. Do you have access to the DMG II? If so, read through the section that describes different playstyles. You also need to acknowledge that there isn't anything inherently right or wrong with a different playstyles. Differing playstyles just create different challenges in managing the game.

 

[prosfilaes]

One part of me also thinks that the players unwilling to invest time and attention don't need to complain that much. If I do nothing while a friend of mine takes the time to learn how to make meatloaf correctly, then I have no real reason to complain about how I can't make good meatloaf. I think that the process could be streamlined somewhat but the fact remains that the people who take the time to learn how things work will always be better at certain tasks than those who don't.

The problem is, there are games where I'm not willing to invest the time and attention to play well. I don't play them. For example, I'm not willing to invest the time in chess to learn all the opening books and fancy plays. So I don't play chess, because there's too much of a chance I'd get stomped quickly.

Popular games, like Taboo and other party games, don't require study. So you can get a bunch of random people around a table and play them. A number of very popular games are hugely random; Monopoly comes to mind. Even popular strategic games like Settlers of Catan are random enough that a little practice and study isn't going kill the enjoyment of other players.

Which type of game do you want your D&D games to be? If it's a game where people have to take the time and study to play well, many of those people are not going to quit complaining; they're going to quit playing. If it's a big enough deal to you that you'd rather play without them, then that's fine. Otherwise, you're going to have to find a way, like some of those suggested above, so that people don't have to take the time and study to enjoy playing.

 

[sjmiller]

In our group, we have a simple problem, which lacks a simple solution. While some of us invest a lot of time into character building, other do not.

All of us like to play useful characters appreciated by the rest of the group as worthy team members, but that’s just not possible if not all at the table invest the same amount of time into building their characters.

Umm, it's a game. It is supposed to be fun. Maybe the other players don't think "character building" in the manner you prefer is fun. Maybe they don't want to plan out their character all the way to 20th level. Maybe they don't want to "optimize" or dare I say "min/max" their character. There are those who do not find that fun. I know, because I am one of them.

If I were to make a first level character right now I would have no idea what it would be like at twentieth level, or fifth level for that matter. The character's experiences help determine what the character will become.

Besides that, I just don't have the time to spend hours mulling over every last bit of the character. I have lots of other things to do.