You've Created A Bad Character. How, why and whose fault is it?

[Richards]

I once created a "bad" PC on purpose - if we agree that "bad" in this instance meant "purposefully underpowered." We were trying to get my nephew to try out D&D, so my son offered to run a D&D campaign based on the Skylanders console games, of which my (10 year old at the time) nephew was a big fan. It was just the three of us playing, so my son and I jointly decided this was going to be a campaign which starred my nephew's PC and mine would just be a sidekick. So while he created and ran a kickass baabarian/cleric sheepman named Baabby, I rolled up a cowardly ranger/rogue humanoid crow named Sam Crow whose battle cry was "Help me, Baabby!" when I ran into trouble I couldn't handle (which was often). I purposefully chose non-flashy spells once I could cast spells, and when I got an animal companion I chose a snail that just sat on my shoulder and did nothing to contribute to our fights.

But the ploy worked: my nephew had a blast and joined our D&D 3.5 game shortly thereafter (we'd been offering for years but he had kept turning us down), after having seen how much fun TTRPGs could be. And he's been gaming with us for seven years now, through several different campaigns.

Johnathan

 

[Starfox]

Problem characters are those that don't work with the group. Rarely, this can be a power issue, usually that a certain build is just too powerful. As a DM, it is much easier to help a weak character than it is to rein in a powerful one.

The other category of problem characters are those that are too egotistical. The player makes a flippant decision and makes a kobold or goblin character, traditionally evil races that are pretty universally considered evil in a typical human-dominated DnD setting. As long as they are willing to accept the social effects of this its just annoying, but if they want to be treated like everyone else, it harms the verisimilitude of the setting. I agree that discrimination is a bad thing RL, but the game world is not RL.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Problem characters are those that don't work with the group. Rarely, this can be a power issue, usually that a certain build is just too powerful. As a DM, it is much easier to help a weak character than it is to rein in a powerful one.

People are not always a fan of having to account for a character who just isn't lifting his load, and there's often social reasons (in or out of game) not to just dump them. Yes, the GM can theoretically account for that, but if you want to talk about something that kicks verisimilitude in the teeth sooner or later, and/or can look an awful lot favoritism, that's where you are.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Its the fault of both the player and the designer, the designer should do their utmost to create a game where as many builds as possible are viable, but the player should do their utmost to design and play a character they'll have fun with.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Its the fault of both the player and the designer, the designer should do their utmost to create a game where as many builds as possible are viable, but the player should do their utmost to design and play a character they'll have fun with.

The problem is that it can be far less than obvious if the design is a bit opaque whether or not that's true. I just got done playing a PF2e Gunslinger, and there were elements of it I didn't internalize when I started doing so; among other things, its a class you need to have some patience with in terms of feeling like you're contributing something.

 

[Starfox]

Its the fault of both the player and the designer, the designer should do their utmost to create a game where as many builds as possible are viable, but the player should do their utmost to design and play a character they'll have fun with.

This is important. In addition, players should make characters that want to participate in the story as explained at session zero. Games that failed around here mostly did so because the GM did not get his setting ideas across at session zero, which led players to make characters that were not engaged in the fiction.

Few things are more irksome as a GM than having to cajole your PCs into participating in the story.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is important. In addition, players should make characters that want to participate in the story as explained at session zero. Games that failed around here mostly did so because the GM did not get his setting ideas across at session zero, which led players to make characters that were not engaged in the fiction.

Few things are more irksome as a GM than having to cajole your PCs into participating in the story.

And in some cases are actively resistant to it.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm converting this old AD&D adventure (several of them, actually) for an upcoming 5e game. And one I really want to run basically spells out that:

*Only Good, heroic characters need apply.
*Their motivation should be to help the NPC's and do the right thing.
*They don't lie, cheat, steal, or attempt to barter for a better reward.

Now, that's pretty much how I play- even if I'm not strictly Good-aligned, I generally feel helping communities is important and showing compassion for others. But the whole time I'm writing it, I'm thinking "what if one of my players decides this isn't what they would do?".

Sure, there's the fact that if they don't want to go on the adventure, I don't have a game session for them, and yes, one should generally play characters that want to adventure, but at the same time, it's a roleplaying game, and you shouldn't have to be Dudley Do Right to go on an adventure!

I've had to grin and bear my reservations about situations that seemed hinky to me in the past, because otherwise, we wouldn't be playing at all. Heck, just recently, this NPC we encountered was all "there's an evil that must be dealt with, but I will help you do it", and something about the lack of information he was giving us seemed very suspect. But when I tried to ask questions, he just got annoyed and said "take my help or leave it."

So, frustrated, I said fine, let's do it. Cue the next session: "thank you for helping me achieve my evil goals, you fools!". /sigh

 

[Starfox]

I'm converting this old AD&D adventure (several of them, actually) for an upcoming 5e game. And one I really want to run basically spells out that:

*Only Good, heroic characters need apply.
*Their motivation should be to help the NPC's and do the right thing.
*They don't lie, cheat, steal, or attempt to barter for a better reward.

Now, that's pretty much how I play- even if I'm not strictly Good-aligned, I generally feel helping communities is important and showing compassion for others. But the whole time I'm writing it, I'm thinking "what if one of my players decides this isn't what they would do?".

Sure, there's the fact that if they don't want to go on the adventure, I don't have a game session for them, and yes, one should generally play characters that want to adventure, but at the same time, it's a roleplaying game, and you shouldn't have to be Dudley Do Right to go on an adventure!

I've had to grin and bear my reservations about situations that seemed hinky to me in the past, because otherwise, we wouldn't be playing at all. Heck, just recently, this NPC we encountered was all "there's an evil that must be dealt with, but I will help you do it", and something about the lack of information he was giving us seemed very suspect. But when I tried to ask questions, he just got annoyed and said "take my help or leave it."

So, frustrated, I said fine, let's do it. Cue the next session: "thank you for helping me achieve my evil goals, you fools!". /sigh

Just be sure to tell your players beforehand.

 

[James Gasik]

Just be sure to tell your players beforehand.

Yes, it's either that or I have come up with a better explanation for "why adventure" than the module writer did, lol.