The character dies in my head

[ShadowDenizen]

I had a curious experience recently. I am planning out a character with a particular concept and realized that it was sub-optimal. I asked for and received advice on how to optimize the character and then found that when I tried to make those changes the character lost something. It effectively died in my head, in the sense that I lost interest in playing it until I "reset" it to the original sub-optimal state.

You are not alone.
I've been toying with a Warforged Sorceress.

Now let me preface this by saying that we have a pretty cool DM, who isn't "KILLER" by any means.

Not terribly bad on it's own, as a concept, but I kinda envisioned this character ("Eldritch Ivy") as a failed Druid, so she had interest in nature. So I took "Knowledge:Nature" and some other "Nature-based" skills, and the "Heroic Companion" feat. For spells, I went more-or-less esclusively with spells from the "Spell Compendium."

Of course, everyone else in the group didn't quite realize what I was going for, and had suggestions of their own..."Take Feat X"! "Be a BattleMage!" or "WildMage!"

BUT, once I explained my idea, everyone got on board pretty quickly.

 

[jdrakeh]

I had a curious experience recently. I am planning out a character with a particular concept and realized that it was sub-optimal. I asked for and received advice on how to optimize the character and then found that when I tried to make those changes the character lost something. It effectively died in my head, in the sense that I lost interest in playing it until I "reset" it to the original sub-optimal state.

I don't know if I am even making sense, but do things like this happen to other people?

It's happened to me, more than a few times. One of my favorite characters from fiction is Jack Vance's Cugel who is, arguably, defined largely by his many shortcomings rather than any degree of physical or mental perfection. He's a barely literate, greedy, gullible, selfish, short-sighted, rogue with no innate understanding of magic and little (if any) skill with a sword. His adventures are, however, no less exciting than those of Sir Never Fails the Flawless (indeed, for me, they're far more entertaining). As a result, I tend to play characters cast in that same mold -- interesting and flawed, not flawless and two-dimensional.

 

[Cameron]

It's happened to me, more than a few times. One of my favorite characters from fiction is Jack Vance's Cugel who is, arguably, defined largely by his many shortcomings rather than any degree of physical or mental perfection. He's a barely literate, greedy, gullible, selfish, short-sighted, rogue with no innate understanding of magic and little (if any) skill with a sword. His adventures are, however, no less exciting than those of Sir Never Fails the Flawless (indeed, for me, they're far more entertaining). As a result, I tend to play characters cast in that same mold -- interesting and flawed, not flawless and two-dimensional.

Once again, this is the fault of the player, not the character. A "flawless" character can be as interesting as a flawed character. To say that an optimised character is not interesting is a fallacious. There is no correlation between the two. Optimisation and character idiosyncracies are mutually exclusive. Character idiosyncracies and player prejudice, however, are not.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

As a DM, I don't give much latitude to players for the same reasons as above (ie., their choices). I will help them with prc and feat suggestions, but that is as far as it goes. If they don't like it too much, they always have the option of starting a new character at a lower level. If they whine too much, they get booted.

FWIW, this seems a bit harsh to me.
Why should a player be penalized for making a character they like, even if it's not "optimized"? (GAH, I even hate that term.)

Simply because the modules as written assume a certain level of optimization?
As the DM, isn't it your job to tailor the challenges to your party,rather than have the players make a character they're not happy with, simply because "the party needs it"?

My group tends to make eclectic party mixes and concepts (we had an "All-Cleric"party run through the Shackled City path!!!), and the DM knows to adjust the challenges accordingly. (Though, in the SCAP cleric group, I think he adjuted the challenges UPWARD!)

 

[Cameron]

FWIW, this seems a bit harsh to me.
Why should a player be penalized for making a character they like, even if it's not "optimized"? (GAH, I even hate that term.)

Simply because the modules as written assume a certain level of optimization?
As the DM, isn't it your job to tailor the challenges to your party,rather than have the players make a character they're not happy with, simply because "the party needs it"?

My group tends to make eclectic party mixes and concepts (we had an "All-Cleric"party run through the Shackled City path!!!), and the DM knows to adjust the challenges accordingly. (Though, in the SCAP cleric group, I think he adjuted the challenges UPWARD!)

Where did I say I won't allow a sub-optimised character?

What I won't allow is whining about having a sub-optimised character. This will only happen if the player in question feels that he is being overshadowed by the majority of the other players. Well, it is his choice to be sub-optimal in terms of party power. He should be taking responsibility for that instead of trying to whine and by extension blame everyone else. That just ain't gonna happen in my games.

I have to put up with too many people like that in real life. I won't stand for it in a game where I am supposed to be having fun.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

Where did I say I won't allow a sub-optimised character?

Never said you said that.

I won't stand for it in a game where I am supposed to be having fun.

You mean a game where everyone is supposed to be having fun, right?

This will only happen if the player in question feels that he is being overshadowed by the majority of the other players. Well, it is his choice to be sub-optimal in terms of party power. He should be taking responsibility for that instead of trying to whine and by extension blame everyone else. That just ain't gonna happen in my games.

Again, you as a DM could help mitigate this problem very easily.
Sure a sub-optimal character MAY be less efficient in combat, but there ARE doubtless areas where he excels,right? Why not cater to that once in a while?

But there'd be less(or maybe no??) whining if the player felt engaged in the game, maybe BECUASE of his flaws?

Or maybe give him a magic-item tailored to his character?

Again, small things from the DM can do ALOT for player enjoyment.

(And please note that I'm not trying to be flame-y.
I don't know you,and I'm not saying you don't do any or all of these things I listed!
I just don't quite grasp the POV you seem to have in your posts. )

 

[Cameron]

Never said you said that.



You mean a game where everyone is supposed to be having fun, right?



Again, you as a DM could help mitigate this problem very easily.

Sure a sub-optimal character MAY be less efficient in combat, but there ARE doubtless areas where he excels,right? Why not cater to that once in a while?

(Note that I don't know you,and I'm not saying you don't!!)

But there'd be less(or maybe no??) whining if the player felt engaged in the game, maybe BECUASE of his flaws?

Everyone includes those who doesn't want to listen to the whiner's whines. The whiner is generally outvoted. He has an automatic vote against him (me), and almost everyone I know gets tired of it fairly quickly, whether they say something about it or not (from personal experience here).

I might be able to mitigate it, but I don't like the idea of changing an established style that the majority of the people at the table like just because of one loud-mouth.

In a world where the wrong word can get you executed by a tyrannical king, where a wrong move can get you incinerated by a dragon, and dangerous situations are the norm for PCs, flaws that end up getting PCs killed might make this particular player happy, but not everyone else who has to pay for *his* flaws. There is also the fundamental issue of fairness. Why should other players be punished for the flaws or idiocy of one particular player? That is what inevitably happens and would cause too much ill-feeling at the table.

As I said. I don't mind you playing the idiot. I do mind you whining because you created an idiot and would like everyone else to be at your level. Add to that, I do mind you spoiling it for everyone else by getting their characters killed.

So, no. My first course of action would be to boot you rather than to have the whole group fall apart on me.


And no, I don't take that as a flame. I am not that sensitive, unlike some others here

 

[jdrakeh]

Once again, this is the fault of the player, not the character. A "flawless" character can be as interesting as a flawed character.

Not for me. I never presumed that my opinions hold true for everybody. The OP asked if what had happened to him happened to others. I answered the OP and explained the 'why' as it pertained to me (and, apparently, as it pertains to some other people).

To say that an optimised character is not interesting is a fallacious.

Again, not for me. Thanks for trying to dictate personal taste, though! This seems to be your modus operandi here. What you say is fun is what everybody else must acknowledge as fun, othewise they're WRONG! That is not fun for me.

There is no correlation between the two.

The reality is that there will always be people who get enjoyment in different ways than you and that this does not make them fallacious or otherwise wrong-headed. Some people just won't and don't like the exact same things that you do.

 

[Cameron]

Not for me.



Again, not for me. Thanks for trying to dictate personal taste, though!



There absolutely is for some people, whether you choose to believe it or not. Deal.

A flawed analogy. Prove that there is a correlation. You might try the O U F method, but I doubt you'd get far.

It is not a personal taste to allow freedom of choice. It is when you try to restrict it. My view does not use "you *cannot* do/have this" as its main mode of argument. Does yours?

 

[ShadowDenizen]

And no, I don't take that as a flame. I am not that sensitive, unlike some others here

Cool.
Because this conversation is intersting, despite us being on opposite ends of the gaming spectrum.

In a world where the wrong word can get you executed by a tyrannical king, where a wrong move can get you incinerated by a dragon, and dangerous situations are the norm for PCs, flaws that end up getting PCs killed might make this particular player happy, but not everyone else who has to pay for *his* flaws.

SO, if your world is so deadly, in your opinion, (referencing the "Tyrannical King" bit specifically), would a PC with low Charisma and no Diplomacy ranks be sub-optimal? SHould he be punished by the King?

I might be able to mitigate it, but I don't like the idea of changing an established style that the majority of the people at the table like just because of one loud-mouth.

Tell me more about this "style"; what type of campaign do run?
Using RAW? Core Books only? Kitchen Sink style?
This might help me understand.

And throwing a bone a players way (Throwing a special item his way, digging into his background, having his flaw be a CATALYST for adventure, rahter than a punishment) doesn't seem it would change the style or tone of the game.

There is also the fundamental issue of fairness. Why should other players be punished for the flaws or idiocy of one particular player? That is what inevitably happens and would cause too much ill-feeling at the table.

Speaking for my group only...
We roll up characters togehter.
Typically, at least two of our characters know each otehr in a "friendly" manner.
And I typically tend to fill the "Vacant" role after everyone ele decides what to be. My new charcatre (Eldritch Ivy, Warforged Sorceress) is the first character where I KNEW what I wanted in advance,and made her accordingly.

As I said. I don't mind you playing the idiot. I do mind you whining because you created an idiot and would like everyone else to be at your level. Add to that, I do mind you spoiling it for everyone else by getting their characters killed.

Again, sounds like harsh DM'ing to me.

Just becase someone isn't optimitzed,doesn't make the PLAYER or the CHARACTER an idiot.
As I said, everyone excels at SOMETHING, and it doesn't have to be combat.(Referencing the Tyrannical King bit..Maybe this "Sub-Op"character is the one to parlay with the king?)