The purpose of this thread is to more broadly discuss something that came up in the Daggerheart thread.
It is possible for a player to create a "bad character" in most games. Here, we will define bad as "doesn't work with the intended method and focus of play" and leave it at that. I am not interested in talking about grizzled loners in ensembles or characters built to push against generally agreed upon limits of good taste etc...
First of all, how and why can this happen. There are a few ways, I think:
1. Intentional Traps: This is less common that it once was, but not gone. Sometimes designers decide they should include bad choices in characters creation/advancement, just to catch the newbs and "reward system mastery." (Looking at you, Monte.)
2. Too many options: This is the same as above, but without the intentionality. there are just lots of options, and not all of them are good, and some explicitly bad, but not because the designers intended it. Maybe they just weren't good at their jobs, or there are so many moving parts it is impossible to know until the game is in the wild.
3. Player unfamiliarity: This is probably the most common result. The player just doesn't know what works and what is good and picks stuff because it sounds like the thing they want to do.
4. Player intentionality: the player knows something is suboptimal or even bad, and picks it anyway -- probably because it fits their intended theme and character fantasy.
5. Randomization: This is very rare these days but still soem games keep it (and some call it a feature). Essentially, die rolls during character creation/advancement lead to a character that is just bad.
The more interesting question for me is "Who is responsible?"
One thing that came up in the Daggerheart thread is that it can be accidental. That is, no one is responsible. That is certainly possible, especially with character generation, but as time goes on and advancement happens over the course of a campaign, I think that is less and less likely. I think as the campaign goes on, the GM and other players have at least some role to play in mitigating the development of a bad character, since they are also invested in how "good" that character is. Especially if the player of the bad character is new to the game or the hobby, the weight of responsibility is on the rest of the group IMO.
But that is just my opinion. I am interested in hearing what other people think. How do you define a "bad character" from a mechanical perspective? What are the potential causes? Who do you think is responsible for making sure a character isn't "bad"? And what are some ways to mitigate the "bad character" if that is really what the player wants to play?
A side note: I think it is far easier to create a bad character with more open character generation and advancement rules. Hero, for example, allows the player a huge amount of freedom in creating a character. This means that masters of the system can created very powerful characters within whatever framework is established. But it also means that players can create something near useless (by spreading points to thin or otherwise not being efficient with points). Games with fewer choices tend to make it less likely a character is bad -- unless there are lots of random elements, in which case good or bad is a matter of chance.
It is possible for a player to create a "bad character" in most games. Here, we will define bad as "doesn't work with the intended method and focus of play" and leave it at that. I am not interested in talking about grizzled loners in ensembles or characters built to push against generally agreed upon limits of good taste etc...
First of all, how and why can this happen. There are a few ways, I think:
1. Intentional Traps: This is less common that it once was, but not gone. Sometimes designers decide they should include bad choices in characters creation/advancement, just to catch the newbs and "reward system mastery." (Looking at you, Monte.)
2. Too many options: This is the same as above, but without the intentionality. there are just lots of options, and not all of them are good, and some explicitly bad, but not because the designers intended it. Maybe they just weren't good at their jobs, or there are so many moving parts it is impossible to know until the game is in the wild.
3. Player unfamiliarity: This is probably the most common result. The player just doesn't know what works and what is good and picks stuff because it sounds like the thing they want to do.
4. Player intentionality: the player knows something is suboptimal or even bad, and picks it anyway -- probably because it fits their intended theme and character fantasy.
5. Randomization: This is very rare these days but still soem games keep it (and some call it a feature). Essentially, die rolls during character creation/advancement lead to a character that is just bad.
The more interesting question for me is "Who is responsible?"
One thing that came up in the Daggerheart thread is that it can be accidental. That is, no one is responsible. That is certainly possible, especially with character generation, but as time goes on and advancement happens over the course of a campaign, I think that is less and less likely. I think as the campaign goes on, the GM and other players have at least some role to play in mitigating the development of a bad character, since they are also invested in how "good" that character is. Especially if the player of the bad character is new to the game or the hobby, the weight of responsibility is on the rest of the group IMO.
But that is just my opinion. I am interested in hearing what other people think. How do you define a "bad character" from a mechanical perspective? What are the potential causes? Who do you think is responsible for making sure a character isn't "bad"? And what are some ways to mitigate the "bad character" if that is really what the player wants to play?
A side note: I think it is far easier to create a bad character with more open character generation and advancement rules. Hero, for example, allows the player a huge amount of freedom in creating a character. This means that masters of the system can created very powerful characters within whatever framework is established. But it also means that players can create something near useless (by spreading points to thin or otherwise not being efficient with points). Games with fewer choices tend to make it less likely a character is bad -- unless there are lots of random elements, in which case good or bad is a matter of chance.
