Sharing is caring and venting is healthy. Your player do something frustrating? Share it here instead of taking it out of them.
Here's one from yesterday.
Me: welcome new player, it's a city adventure, set in Waterdeep, here's how I can work you in, the other PCs are about to head to Waterdeep, you could know this one, or that one (gave options).
Player: how about, instead, I'm an arsonist that burned down a nobles house in Waterdeep, killing him in the fire. The other PCs could be escorting the guards that caught me and are taking back to Waterdeep for trial.
Me: ... (Internal sigh and pull out rest of hair). Ok...you get to figure out how to get out of it, but if that's what you want...
(This player has already played thru the first part of Dragon Heist so knows about Waterdeep's legal system)
Now, having vented, I can go into "yes, and" mode tonight. 😁
It seems to me that your next session is going to be all about trying to bail out the new character. Perhaps having them escape then bounty hunters assigned to hunt them down.
"Waterdeep is a city of firm laws and swift justice. Adventurers hell-bent on slaughter and plunder won't fare well in the City of Splendors. The punishments for assault, arson, theft, and murder are severe, regardless of the reason for the crime."
"Murder of a Lord, official, or noble: death"
"Arson: death or hard labor up to 1 year, with fines and/or damages covering the cost of repairs plus 2,000 gp."
Arson+murder in Waterdeep = death penalty. Which means the character will always be a fugitive, likely with a bounty.
The big issue is that a lot of your play time is going to revolve around this character. If I was running this, then the character would be arrested, arraigned, judged and executed. Zone of Truth, charm and other spells pretty much guarantee accuracy in testimony and there is no 5th amendment in Waterdeep. Then I would ask the player to make up a new character and please listen next time when the DM suggests that the backstory is not a good fit for the campaign.
It seems to me that your next session is going to be all about trying to bail out the new character. Perhaps having them escape then bounty hunters assigned to hunt them down.
"Waterdeep is a city of firm laws and swift justice. Adventurers hell-bent on slaughter and plunder won't fare well in the City of Splendors. The punishments for assault, arson, theft, and murder are severe, regardless of the reason for the crime."
"Murder of a Lord, official, or noble: death"
"Arson: death or hard labor up to 1 year, with fines and/or damages covering the cost of repairs plus 2,000 gp."
Arson+murder in Waterdeep = death penalty. Which means the character will always be a fugitive, likely with a bounty.
The big issue is that a lot of your play time is going to revolve around this character. If I was running this, then the character would be arrested, arraigned, judged and executed. Zone of Truth, charm and other spells pretty much guarantee accuracy in testimony and there is no 5th amendment in Waterdeep. Then I would ask the player to make up a new character and please listen next time when the DM suggests that the backstory is not a good fit for the campaign.
For my 10-year old son and his friends first game I told them that if they go around breaking the law they will face swift medieval justice - namely a hanging. But they were ok to kill evil creatures. Seems to have curbed the typical 'I can do anything' excesses.
Me: welcome new player, it's a city adventure, set in Waterdeep, here's how I can work you in, the other PCs are about to head to Waterdeep, you could know this one, or that one (gave options).
Player: how about, instead, I'm an arsonist that burned down a nobles house in Waterdeep, killing him in the fire. The other PCs could be escorting the guards that caught me and are taking back to Waterdeep for trial.
me: how about, instead, you just go home...
i've very new to DMing so I don't have DM gripes yet... but soon I'm sure lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Gash- Lvl14 Goblin Wizard - The High Court of the Aasimar Queen
I'll let it pass this time. The player who initiated the naming had only the experience of playing in a gonzo game before. The other player changed his name next session.
If it is an experienced player, I would say no. Well, I would say, sure I have no problem with that, but start creating a second character because this one will not escape and is getting hung. Sorry, did I ruin the suspense?
If it is a new player, or someone I've played with before and trust, I would allow it but caution them.
I’m having a similar problem with a player. I specified a heroic campaign with no evil alignments or chaotic neutral alignments. So the first thing he had his PC do was act like a bully towards a town elder. I responded with, “You hear the click of several crossbows being loaded.”
What I cant stand is that player who wants the campaign to be about them and the rest of the party are just along for the ride. Another player type I will not deal with is the player that insists on doing their own thing and not working with the group. I wont get into details but it can be a real pain in the ass. I could go on but I wont.
One thing that always makes my heart sink is when a discussion starts like this:
Me: "Alright gang, what basic character ideas have you been thinking for the upcoming campaign?" Player: "So I was thinking about playing my build as a dwarf, they get +2 to this and +1 to that. Or maybe a Yuan-ti so I can get +2 to this as well as advantage on magic saves. And if I can buy a magic so and so that would make my build perfect!"
One thing that always makes my heart sink is when a discussion starts like this:
Me: "Alright gang, what basic character ideas have you been thinking for the upcoming campaign?" Player: "So I was thinking about playing my build as a dwarf, they get +2 to this and +1 to that. Or maybe a Yuan-ti so I can get +2 to this as well as advantage on magic saves. And if I can buy a magic so and so that would make my build perfect!"
With a little help even min/maxers can become good roleplayers :)
There is also nothing inherently wrong with building a mechanically effective character. However, after hearing the build plan the DM might want to guide them into creating the character rather than the build by asking questions about where they are from, what their views are on some subjects, how do they react to other folks. Sometimes all it takes is a few questions to get the player to switch tracks. They still have a build they are happy with but can then work on the character that the DM will be satisfied with. They aren't mutually exclusive.
One thing that always makes my heart sink is when a discussion starts like this:
Me: "Alright gang, what basic character ideas have you been thinking for the upcoming campaign?" Player: "So I was thinking about playing my build as a dwarf, they get +2 to this and +1 to that. Or maybe a Yuan-ti so I can get +2 to this as well as advantage on magic saves. And if I can buy a magic so and so that would make my build perfect!"
With a little help even min/maxers can become good roleplayers :)
There is also nothing inherently wrong with building a mechanically effective character. However, after hearing the build plan the DM might want to guide them into creating the character rather than the build by asking questions about where they are from, what their views are on some subjects, how do they react to other folks. Sometimes all it takes is a few questions to get the player to switch tracks. They still have a build they are happy with but can then work on the character that the DM will be satisfied with. They aren't mutually exclusive.
I don't have time for that... I've already raised my children, not looking to raise anyone elses. Was with the same group for 25 years until two years ago when I moved. I miss my group of "character players"... not what I have here with the video game mindset of "build players". To each their own though... this thread was about venting... and I don't feel like writing a story for "builds". I'm sure I'll get a table of adults soon enough.
I rejoined D&D in the 3.5 era and found the was a lot of min/max build players in the online community. It got as extreme as some people just spent their time doing extreme character builds instead of playing the game. 4e kind of nerfed that, and I do not allow feats in my 5e game because it encourages this mindset.
Luckily at the table, I find min/maxers to not be that common in my demographic group. The 'secretly evil' player who is not out to help the team I find is much more common.
Min maxers can defiantly be frustrating. I do get the reasoning behind it though. Some players just want to get the maximum out of their characters. This can cause issues within the game at times and I find its usually with combat encounters from what I have seen. Thought it can cause issues with skill checks and even saving throws. In the end if the players play well together and get along I dont worry to much about it. I just have to factor in a few things when creating encounters to match the group. This can still be a challenge because it seems like Min Max groups ride that fine line between being to powerful and getting wiped. Honestly as of now days I think that Min Maxing is just how people play their characters. I just go with it as a DM if the group gets along. With that said though, Min Maxing can be somewhat put into check before a game campaign gets going as long as the DM points it out. I do think its only natural for players to want to get the full potential of their characters. Do I see that video game mentality in D&D? Yep, sure do. That whole Min Max thing has been around for a long time but I think it really hit with 4e then poured over into 5th with an eventual flood of min maxers. Its defiantly something that has been brought on by the younger gen of players. I would like to think that those who grew up with video games before playing D&D has had the biggest effect. I guess they cannot help it in a way. Its something that video games teaches if you think about it. It also brings that special build mentality into the game too considering the amount of freedom offered. It is what it is.
I find that min-maxing comes in with my new players who believe that I as DM am out to beat them at D&D like we are in competition, once they learn to trust that I want to see all their character's shine regardless of build it tapers off a little. That doesn't mean I don't get players who just want to see the build do its one specific mighty thing then it's done, I tell them to save it for a Battle Royal one shot and then everyone can go crazy.
I do think the video-game mindset doesn't help but I don't think its exclusive to new/younger gen players - I've had some old school players throw a strop at me when I point out that playing their super specific Yuan-Ti is gonna cause them role-play problems.
Honestly, video games may make min/maxing more common ... but min/maxing has been a part of D&D since the very beginning.
18/00 strength for your martial character ... either by rolling or by acquiring a Manual of Gainful Exercise. 18+ wisdom on clerics for the bonus spells. However, build optimization in 1e relied more on finding the right magic items and good luck at the beginning since ASIs didn't exist. You were generally stuck with the same stats throughout the game unless you found something cool (e.g. Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Belts of Giant strength). One popular optimization was creating human characters and dual classing them. Some non-humans could multi class but if folks used the level restrictions then dual classed humans were above every other option at high level. 1e bards were a great example.
Anyway, min/max is not a symptom of the current D&D era. The 3e/3.5e rule set went a long way towards making min/max a required game element since there was so much choice and some of those choices were MUCH less effective than others and it might not be obvious until well into a campaign that there was an issue. In comparison, the min/max issues in 5e are pretty modest and, in my experience, mostly come down to Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter in terms of combat optimization especially for tier 3+.
Finally, I don't see any conflict between character optimization and role playing. A player may talk about a build and all of its cool features all they like but when they come to sit down at the table they are playing a role playing game and they will either get involved to a greater or lesser degree or go looking for a different game. Role playing is how character's progress in D&D whether that is combat, social or exploration encounters - what features your build has or can do may affect one or more of the encounter types but actually playing the game involves role playing and most folks I have met learn to role play since everyone else at the table is doing it.
As a player, I am min/maxer. Not that it takes away from my roleplaying. I create a character concept, then I look to maximize that. I enjoy going through the rules and finding synergies that make my character more survivable, either offensively or defensively. I also find it challenging to DM min/maxers, especially if there is only one in the group. Personally, I find that aspect equally as fun as creating an good story. I'll settle for both.
As a player, I am min/maxer. Not that it takes away from my roleplaying. I create a character concept, then I look to maximize that. I enjoy going through the rules and finding synergies that make my character more survivable, either offensively or defensively. I also find it challenging to DM min/maxers, especially if there is only one in the group. Personally, I find that aspect equally as fun as creating an good story. I'll settle for both.
Yeah, I think my dislike for min/maxers at my table isn't so much the min/maxing, it's the player who has found an overpowered exploit and brings a character that does that 'one thing' over and over and over again, because it's better than doing any other action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sharing is caring and venting is healthy. Your player do something frustrating? Share it here instead of taking it out of them.
Here's one from yesterday.
Me: welcome new player, it's a city adventure, set in Waterdeep, here's how I can work you in, the other PCs are about to head to Waterdeep, you could know this one, or that one (gave options).
Player: how about, instead, I'm an arsonist that burned down a nobles house in Waterdeep, killing him in the fire. The other PCs could be escorting the guards that caught me and are taking back to Waterdeep for trial.
Me: ... (Internal sigh and pull out rest of hair). Ok...you get to figure out how to get out of it, but if that's what you want...
(This player has already played thru the first part of Dragon Heist so knows about Waterdeep's legal system)
Now, having vented, I can go into "yes, and" mode tonight. 😁
That would set off warning bells that this player may not have his PC integrate well into the team.
It seems to me that your next session is going to be all about trying to bail out the new character. Perhaps having them escape then bounty hunters assigned to hunt them down.
"Waterdeep is a city of firm laws and swift justice. Adventurers hell-bent on slaughter and plunder won't fare well in the City of Splendors. The punishments for assault, arson, theft, and murder are severe, regardless of the reason for the crime."
"Murder of a Lord, official, or noble: death"
"Arson: death or hard labor up to 1 year, with fines and/or damages covering the cost of repairs plus 2,000 gp."
Arson+murder in Waterdeep = death penalty. Which means the character will always be a fugitive, likely with a bounty.
The big issue is that a lot of your play time is going to revolve around this character. If I was running this, then the character would be arrested, arraigned, judged and executed. Zone of Truth, charm and other spells pretty much guarantee accuracy in testimony and there is no 5th amendment in Waterdeep. Then I would ask the player to make up a new character and please listen next time when the DM suggests that the backstory is not a good fit for the campaign.
For my 10-year old son and his friends first game I told them that if they go around breaking the law they will face swift medieval justice - namely a hanging. But they were ok to kill evil creatures. Seems to have curbed the typical 'I can do anything' excesses.
me: how about, instead, you just go home...
i've very new to DMing so I don't have DM gripes yet... but soon I'm sure lol
Gash - Lvl14 Goblin Wizard - The High Court of the Aasimar Queen
Me: Ok, guys, what's your characters' names?
Player 1: Bob the Chicken Who Eats Toes
Player 2: Bobby McBobface
Me: Okay.....
Hazards of playing with kids. I've called the campaign 'A Tale of Two Bobs'
I would of said no.
saying no is okay.
I'll let it pass this time. The player who initiated the naming had only the experience of playing in a gonzo game before. The other player changed his name next session.
If it is an experienced player, I would say no. Well, I would say, sure I have no problem with that, but start creating a second character because this one will not escape and is getting hung. Sorry, did I ruin the suspense?
If it is a new player, or someone I've played with before and trust, I would allow it but caution them.
Everyone is the main character of their story
I’m having a similar problem with a player. I specified a heroic campaign with no evil alignments or chaotic neutral alignments. So the first thing he had his PC do was act like a bully towards a town elder. I responded with, “You hear the click of several crossbows being loaded.”
Professional computer geek
What I cant stand is that player who wants the campaign to be about them and the rest of the party are just along for the ride. Another player type I will not deal with is the player that insists on doing their own thing and not working with the group. I wont get into details but it can be a real pain in the ass. I could go on but I wont.
One thing that always makes my heart sink is when a discussion starts like this:
Me: "Alright gang, what basic character ideas have you been thinking for the upcoming campaign?"
Player: "So I was thinking about playing my build as a dwarf, they get +2 to this and +1 to that. Or maybe a Yuan-ti so I can get +2 to this as well as advantage on magic saves. And if I can buy a magic so and so that would make my build perfect!"
...cryptographic randomness!
With a little help even min/maxers can become good roleplayers :)
There is also nothing inherently wrong with building a mechanically effective character. However, after hearing the build plan the DM might want to guide them into creating the character rather than the build by asking questions about where they are from, what their views are on some subjects, how do they react to other folks. Sometimes all it takes is a few questions to get the player to switch tracks. They still have a build they are happy with but can then work on the character that the DM will be satisfied with. They aren't mutually exclusive.
I don't have time for that... I've already raised my children, not looking to raise anyone elses.
Was with the same group for 25 years until two years ago when I moved.
I miss my group of "character players"... not what I have here with the video game mindset of "build players".
To each their own though... this thread was about venting... and I don't feel like writing a story for "builds". I'm sure I'll get a table of adults soon enough.
...cryptographic randomness!
I rejoined D&D in the 3.5 era and found the was a lot of min/max build players in the online community. It got as extreme as some people just spent their time doing extreme character builds instead of playing the game. 4e kind of nerfed that, and I do not allow feats in my 5e game because it encourages this mindset.
Luckily at the table, I find min/maxers to not be that common in my demographic group. The 'secretly evil' player who is not out to help the team I find is much more common.
Min maxers can defiantly be frustrating. I do get the reasoning behind it though. Some players just want to get the maximum out of their characters. This can cause issues within the game at times and I find its usually with combat encounters from what I have seen. Thought it can cause issues with skill checks and even saving throws. In the end if the players play well together and get along I dont worry to much about it. I just have to factor in a few things when creating encounters to match the group. This can still be a challenge because it seems like Min Max groups ride that fine line between being to powerful and getting wiped. Honestly as of now days I think that Min Maxing is just how people play their characters. I just go with it as a DM if the group gets along. With that said though, Min Maxing can be somewhat put into check before a game campaign gets going as long as the DM points it out. I do think its only natural for players to want to get the full potential of their characters. Do I see that video game mentality in D&D? Yep, sure do. That whole Min Max thing has been around for a long time but I think it really hit with 4e then poured over into 5th with an eventual flood of min maxers. Its defiantly something that has been brought on by the younger gen of players. I would like to think that those who grew up with video games before playing D&D has had the biggest effect. I guess they cannot help it in a way. Its something that video games teaches if you think about it. It also brings that special build mentality into the game too considering the amount of freedom offered. It is what it is.
I find that min-maxing comes in with my new players who believe that I as DM am out to beat them at D&D like we are in competition, once they learn to trust that I want to see all their character's shine regardless of build it tapers off a little. That doesn't mean I don't get players who just want to see the build do its one specific mighty thing then it's done, I tell them to save it for a Battle Royal one shot and then everyone can go crazy.
I do think the video-game mindset doesn't help but I don't think its exclusive to new/younger gen players - I've had some old school players throw a strop at me when I point out that playing their super specific Yuan-Ti is gonna cause them role-play problems.
Honestly, video games may make min/maxing more common ... but min/maxing has been a part of D&D since the very beginning.
18/00 strength for your martial character ... either by rolling or by acquiring a Manual of Gainful Exercise. 18+ wisdom on clerics for the bonus spells. However, build optimization in 1e relied more on finding the right magic items and good luck at the beginning since ASIs didn't exist. You were generally stuck with the same stats throughout the game unless you found something cool (e.g. Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Belts of Giant strength). One popular optimization was creating human characters and dual classing them. Some non-humans could multi class but if folks used the level restrictions then dual classed humans were above every other option at high level. 1e bards were a great example.
Anyway, min/max is not a symptom of the current D&D era. The 3e/3.5e rule set went a long way towards making min/max a required game element since there was so much choice and some of those choices were MUCH less effective than others and it might not be obvious until well into a campaign that there was an issue. In comparison, the min/max issues in 5e are pretty modest and, in my experience, mostly come down to Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter in terms of combat optimization especially for tier 3+.
Finally, I don't see any conflict between character optimization and role playing. A player may talk about a build and all of its cool features all they like but when they come to sit down at the table they are playing a role playing game and they will either get involved to a greater or lesser degree or go looking for a different game. Role playing is how character's progress in D&D whether that is combat, social or exploration encounters - what features your build has or can do may affect one or more of the encounter types but actually playing the game involves role playing and most folks I have met learn to role play since everyone else at the table is doing it.
As a player, I am min/maxer. Not that it takes away from my roleplaying. I create a character concept, then I look to maximize that. I enjoy going through the rules and finding synergies that make my character more survivable, either offensively or defensively. I also find it challenging to DM min/maxers, especially if there is only one in the group. Personally, I find that aspect equally as fun as creating an good story. I'll settle for both.
Everyone is the main character of their story
Yeah, I think my dislike for min/maxers at my table isn't so much the min/maxing, it's the player who has found an overpowered exploit and brings a character that does that 'one thing' over and over and over again, because it's better than doing any other action.