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

[Lanefan]

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.

Agreed to both; and yet the character that a player might have the most fun with could still be, in the grander scheme, as sub-optimal as hell.

The best character I've ever played was like this: almost certainly the weakest member of her party in terms of mechanics and what she could do at any given time, but for seven real-world years she just kept going like a little Energizer bunny and ended up - for a time - being the longest-serving member in the party.

The thing that needs to go is the attitude of thinking a sub-optimal character shouldn't be played, and that adventuring parties have to operate like Navy SEAL teams.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, the fact that its a roleplaying game does not (counter to some people's perceptions) mean that every character logically fits within every situation. The idea that the only--or even most common--setup should be "bring whatever character you want and then do whatever you see fit." Outside the D&D sphere a lot of games would consider that ludicrous from the get-go.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The thing that needs to go is the attitude of thinking a sub-optimal character shouldn't be played, and that adventuring parties have to operate like Navy SEAL teams.

While perhaps extremes of optimization shouldn't be expected, there's a rather large number of situations where the proper response of many character groups to some characters should perfectly legitimately be "We're not going to go into a situation where you not only won't hold up your end, you may well actively make the rest of our jobs harder." The only reason that doesn't happen is this assumption that because someone came in with a PC, you're required to work with them.

 

[Lanefan]

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!

More to the point, are the players going to be OK with your taking away their agency to play the characters they want to play, in the way they want to play them?

I mean, if I'm playing a character who is quite willing to go and do these Goodly Deeds but who is primarily motivated by the monetary rewards involved and doesn't care too much how said rewards are achieved, then even though I ain't no Dudley Do-Right I'm still on board with the adventure: let's gear up and git at 'er.

But I get the sense that, even though it has reason and motivation to go on these adventures, such a character wouldn't fly. Am I right in that?

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

Which means both in and out of character you learned a lesson: you can't trust every NPC you meet. Question everything; and if the answers don't add up, walk away.

You're allowed to turn your back on an adventure hook.

 

[Lanefan]

While perhaps extremes of optimization shouldn't be expected, there's a rather large number of situations where the proper response of many character groups to some characters should perfectly legitimately be "We're not going to go into a situation where you not only won't hold up your end, you may well actively make the rest of our jobs harder." The only reason that doesn't happen is this assumption that because someone came in with a PC, you're required to work with them.

If someone doesn't hold up their end, I'm fine with the party booting them out...but only after it's been shown that said character can't (or won't) get it done.

I actively discourage treating PCs any different from NPCs just because someone is playing them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If someone doesn't hold up their end, I'm fine with the party booting them out...but only after it's been shown that said character can't (or won't) get it done.

I actively discourage treating PCs any different from NPCs just because someone is playing them.

I might be okay with this the first time. But bluntly, if someone has a habit of doing this, I don't feel obliged to wait around for them to leave me holding the bag repeatedly just because of some sense of verisimilitude. I've got better things to do with my time that put up with that repeatedly, and if it requires metagame thinking to avoid it, so be it.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The thing that needs to go is the attitude of thinking a sub-optimal character shouldn't be played, and that adventuring parties have to operate like Navy SEAL teams.

I thought Skilled play in the Gygaxian mindset was highly valued in these parts???

 

[James Gasik]

Never underestimate the power of a player to come up with a bizarre build that doesn't work no matter how well designed the game is. A lot of games have what I like to call "developer bias" on certain things. You can quickly tell if someone is a fanboy of a certain weapon or not. Or if they thing two-weapon fighting is awesome or ridiculous. But that doesn't stop players from failing to notice this, and trying to build characters around something they think is cool.

A lot of my early AD&D characters (especially in 2e) were tragically flawed because the books might say "play what you want, there are no bad characters" and next thing you know, your Simon Belmont character is next to worthless because whips are a terrible weapon, and holy water, oil, daggers, and throwing axes start getting expensive when you keep chucking them at people, lol.

Or one of my favorite bugbears, how absolutely terrible crossbows were in AD&D (and how bad slings pretty much continue to be). I watched a special talking about how absolutely terrifying Balearic slingers were during the Punic Wars and then I looked at a sling in D&D and was like "maybe someone thinks it's a slingshot?".

 

[Starfox]

Or one of my favorite bugbears, how absolutely terrible crossbows were in AD&D (and how bad slings pretty much continue to be).

I have returned to Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 recently. In the version of AD&D there, slings always get damage equal to your full Strength bonus. Pretty impressive!

This is just a tangent, not relevant to the greater thread.

 

[James Gasik]

I have returned to Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 recently. In the version of AD&D there, slings always get damage equal to your full Strength bonus. Pretty impressive!

This is just a tangent, not relevant to the greater thread.

Oh yes, slings do get Strength bonuses in AD&D, but note how BG1 nerfs bows so they can't get them. : )

I played a Half-Orc Sling Fighter in the Extended Edition of BG1 with 19 Strength, and that was hilarious.