PDA

View Full Version : Player Help DM Dismay



Malapterus
2018-08-27, 09:07 PM
I'm part of a 5E group. I'm the odd one out in a group of lifelong friends, so I'm still making my way in. The people are all cool, though, and there's no jerks or terribly abrasive people.

My problem is with the DM. He's a great guy who would give you the shirt off his back I'm sure, and he's smart and creative and generally supportive of good character background - so long as they fit in the world he has built.

The problem is he seems to have developed some opinion of me in particular as a powergamer or min-maxer and I have no idea why. I'll bring up whatever idea and he always jumps to the worst conclusion, and even if I try to explain it's not what I meant, the correction doesn't seem to register and the conversation is over.

I recently suggested a background idea for a minor character and upon hearing a detail he said 'you don't need to be the most powerful character ever, just make a guy'. This was in response to a harmless and relevant background detail that I have to assume he misconstrued.

Anyway, it's very frustrating to feel like I have this black cloud over my head for no reason. I've never done anything to deserve it, that I can think of. I like more 'unique' characters & it's a bad habit but it's not a min-max thing, I just like to explore **** like kobold monks and half-orc sorceresses to see what I can come up with.

I really don't know what to do. I have fun about half the time, but this combined with some inexperience on the DM's part tend to swoop in from one side or the other and harsh my mellow.

Any advice?

Pex
2018-08-27, 10:00 PM
Try playing a so-called normal character. Play a stereotype. Play the human devotion paladin or elf evocation wizard or dwarf life cleric. If the DM still gets on your case, confront or quit. He's not liking you. If he gets off your back then you know he has a paranoia (my word) against the unusual, and you are dealing with a clash of tastes. Since he won't compromise decide if you're willing to continue the stereotype character and play or quit because you can't have fun with it. You need the unusual and will find a game that will allow it.

Malapterus
2018-08-27, 11:37 PM
Try playing a so-called normal character. Play a stereotype. Play the human devotion paladin or elf evocation wizard or dwarf life cleric. If the DM still gets on your case, confront or quit. He's not liking you. If he gets off your back then you know he has a paranoia (my word) against the unusual, and you are dealing with a clash of tastes. Since he won't compromise decide if you're willing to continue the stereotype character and play or quit because you can't have fun with it. You need the unusual and will find a game that will allow it.

My main in the game is a half-elf ranger, with levels of fighter because he is pushing multiclass. The temp char is just going to be some sort of human rogueish arcanist.

One initial problem is that my first attempt to make a character kept being shot down for this reason and that reason and I worked and worked to make it useable, but then he eventually told me that the race I was trying to use canonically did not exist in the game (not made-up, a major history feature). Why not tell me that on the first attempt?

I've got no problem with a more basic character, especially since the game is 5E and I really do not like 5E. He likes a lot of my ideas and is supportive of a lot of stuff but when it comes to character building there's this idea that I'm trying to make Pun-Pun every time I bring up a background idea. He doesn't even know who Pun-Pun is!

VincentTakeda
2018-08-28, 12:03 AM
I must be confused. He shut down your idea for a human arcanist because the race doesnt exist in this world's canon? Humans?

Hard to make a call on this kinda thing without more detail on what part of the background was in contention. In a zombie campaign for example a player could say they didnt want to play a zombie, but they wanted to play, say, that little bald kid from world war z. He's got some terminal illness so the zombies ignore him because he's not a healthy viable target. Interesting narratively, but functionally way overpowered.

DeTess
2018-08-28, 01:51 AM
Have you considered talking to him about this? Not after he's panned a character idea, but as a seperate conversation?

If you do go and talk to him, keep an open mind and don't be defensive. You might not think you're a minmaxer, but assuming the dm is a sane, reasonable person, there's obviously some reason he thinks you are a minmaxer.

If this is something that bothers you, don't try to stealthily figure out what he wants by playing a character you don't want to play, just talk like fellow human beings do.

Knaight
2018-08-28, 04:21 AM
This seems like a very solvable problem - stop bringing characters that don't fit the setting, and the issue goes away. Sure, the reason you're bringing characters that don't fit the setting isn't the assumed reason, but doing that is still a problem, and your reasons aren't somehow better.


I must be confused. He shut down your idea for a human arcanist because the race doesnt exist in this world's canon? Humans?

You are confused - the arcanist is an established backup character, and presumably accepted. It was a different (presumably non-human) character who was rejected.

Pelle
2018-08-28, 04:28 AM
Maybe the GM wants you to focus more on the in-game fiction, than obsessing over 'build' and creating characters in isolation? Can't really tell if it's the case here, but I think being mainly invested in levels and mechanical stuff can come off as powergaming, although you are playing suboptimal characters.

Not sure whos fault it is, but it seems like there's a communication problem in what kind of tone the GM wants, and what kind of PCs that would be appropriate. Try to get the GM to better explain what he is going for, and make an honest attempt to make a character that meshes better with the setting.

Malapterus
2018-08-28, 06:34 AM
The first one was a half-orc. Got shot down about 4 times before he bothered to tell me the main problem is that all the orcs and half-orcs were genocided a few decades prior to the campaign. I came in halfway through so maybe he thought I already knew, but then why would I ask to play one? Why wouldn't he still lead with 'no orcs'?

The second was "Your NPC is the only character who knows the boss NPC of the criminal organization you are both in is an imposter who is much more dangerous than the original." So, I'm making an older member of the organization who has been there a long time but hasn't leveled up quickly. For the background I suggested that he's a survivalist and a manipulator and has been manipulating the leader and others slightly here and there; this has kept him from getting actual experience to level up but also kept him far away from the consequences of whatever actions were done, so he is alive. He's been unable to manipulate this imposter like he could the original, and that's what made him look closer and find the truth. (Him knowing the truth is an established part of this role).

The responses were "You can't be manipulating boss NPCs" and "You don't have to be the super best at everything".

Do you guys get that impression from the backstory idea? That's literally all there was, no discussion of build or anything. I was talking about him having some subtle psycho-political sway over a background NPC who is long dead and gone, and explicitly NOT having this over the imposter who is the real villain & the boss of this chapter.

Is it just me? it's frustrating.

DeTess
2018-08-28, 06:53 AM
The first one was a half-orc. Got shot down about 4 times before he bothered to tell me the main problem is that all the orcs and half-orcs were genocided a few decades prior to the campaign. I came in halfway through so maybe he thought I already knew, but then why would I ask to play one? Why wouldn't he still lead with 'no orcs'?

The second was "Your NPC is the only character who knows the boss NPC of the criminal organization you are both in is an imposter who is much more dangerous than the original." So, I'm making an older member of the organization who has been there a long time but hasn't leveled up quickly. For the background I suggested that he's a survivalist and a manipulator and has been manipulating the leader and others slightly here and there; this has kept him from getting actual experience to level up but also kept him far away from the consequences of whatever actions were done, so he is alive. He's been unable to manipulate this imposter like he could the original, and that's what made him look closer and find the truth. (Him knowing the truth is an established part of this role).

The responses were "You can't be manipulating boss NPCs" and "You don't have to be the super best at everything".

Do you guys get that impression from the backstory idea? That's literally all there was, no discussion of build or anything. I was talking about him having some subtle psycho-political sway over a background NPC who is long dead and gone, and explicitly NOT having this over the imposter who is the real villain & the boss of this chapter.

Is it just me? it's frustrating.

I can actually kinda see where your DM is coming from, but it requires a very distrusting reading of what you've written (you might have been setting yourself up as a Gary Tzu strategist and chessmaster), but on the face of things nothing is wrong. One thing I note is that you only list things your character is good at, and not about what he's bad at. Your DM might in fact be expecting you to include both real strengths and real weaknesses in your write-up.

Seriously, talk to your DM. Its obvious neither of you are used to the others style, and that is causing friction and miscommunication.

MoiMagnus
2018-08-28, 07:14 AM
Here is a piece of advice:

If your character is interesting and autonomous, then you've build a good character for a solo adventure, but not that much for team adventure. "Lone wolf", "psychopath", and a lot of other stuff make good heroes but not good team-mates.

Your character should not have a "brilliant past" nor a "tragic past". Because its past is only relevant for giving him a personality (and some stuff for the DM to work out some quest), but should NOT be the interesting part of its life. The interesting part of its life will be the adventures with its team-mates. And that's the main mistake of your characters. They have a past that will most likely be more interesting that your campaign, and that will be invasive in the campaign more than the background of all the other players.

The problem with min-maxer, power gamer & co is that they usually fight for the spot-light, because it is rewarding to be in the spot-light, and because they LIKE to fight for the spot-light. And they expect other peoples to do so.
While some other people utterly despite having to fight for the spot-light, or will just give-up.
And if only one or two player have the spot-light, then you end up with a main character, which mean less fun for everyone except the main character.

So:
1) Work your relation-ship with the other character of the team. They are the important guys of the story of your character (but avoid love or hate, prefer friendship or rivalry instead).
2) Try to make a "secondary character", or a "side-kick" of another player. (You don't need to succeed at that, but if you try, you will probably "not end up with a main character", which is the goal)
3) As a background, no great plot of any kind by you. If you want some "big background" like that, put it on your father/mother/grand-father/..., and have them die from something and you run-away. You want your background to give you a personality, and after a lot of time with your team, some secondary quest and NPC from your past appearing, IF the DM find an interesting way to do so.

PaladinX
2018-08-28, 11:57 AM
I've got to agree with the other playgrounders. If you setup your character in the back story as a Grand this or master of that; what happens when the character inevitably fails at the task the character if "supposed" to be so great at? I my experience it leads to either 1) an argument about how the character could not have fail since in the backstory X, Y, and Z. 2) The player resenting the character they ruled because the character is not living up to the expectation of the player.

If your DM has been frustrated by that in the past he's probably trying to nip this in the bud.

MeimuHakurei
2018-08-28, 12:27 PM
Reading the background, I literally don't see any greatness in it, only a plot hook in that you have some connection to the imposter you're after (even if the starting sentence is confusing to read).

Honestly, at this point I'd want to run a useless character who, while working with the group, is nothing but a liability to the party's success just to prove the point that to an extent, making your character able to contribute and solve problems is good, actually.

Malapterus
2018-08-28, 02:37 PM
Reading the background, I literally don't see any greatness in it, only a plot hook in that you have some connection to the imposter you're after (even if the starting sentence is confusing to read).

Honestly, at this point I'd want to run a useless character who, while working with the group, is nothing but a liability to the party's success just to prove the point that to an extent, making your character able to contribute and solve problems is good, actually.

Fortunately, the NPC doesn't know how to tell who else is an imposter, and will be paranoid, assuming that even the heroes are more imposters trying to lure out people in-the-know. I should look up some fun curse-type spells to hit the party members with, ha!

Arbane
2018-08-28, 07:28 PM
I've got to agree with the other playgrounders. If you setup your character in the back story as a Grand this or master of that; what happens when the character inevitably fails at the task the character if "supposed" to be so great at?


The same way we handle it when a level 20 character rolls a 1, I suspect.

Keltest
2018-08-28, 09:12 PM
The same way we handle it when a level 20 character rolls a 1, I suspect.

Cover your dice and start jeering?

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-28, 09:19 PM
The "problem" of competent characters looking like morons when they fail is entirely a problem of framing, and entirely fixable too. There's nothing in the game that says the character has to look like a moron when the roll fails. The rule is the thing doesn't work. Take two instances of the the same master swordsman, fighting the same opponent, and rolling a natural 1 in both cases.

1) As you go to lift your sword and hit the goblin you forget to keep your hands closed and the sword goes flying out of your hands. The goblin hoots and laughs at you while you scramble around and recover it from the ground."

2) As you lunge forward to impale the goblin through the heart its little goblin foot slips on a patch of mud and it falls backwards to the ground, barely avoiding the killing stroke through sheer luck. It scrambles backwards away from you and readies itself to launch one last desperate attack.

Now realistically you'll probably go with an approach somewhere between those two, but the point is, failure doesn't have to mean incompetence, and probably shouldn't, most of the time, unless the PC has been established as being bad at the thing they're doing.

Malapterus
2018-08-28, 09:50 PM
The "problem" of competent characters looking like morons when they fail is entirely a problem of framing, and entirely fixable too. There's nothing in the game that says the character has to look like a moron when the roll fails. The rule is the thing doesn't work. Take two instances of the the same master swordsman, fighting the same opponent, and rolling a natural 1 in both cases.

1) As you go to lift your sword and hit the goblin you forget to keep your hands closed and the sword goes flying out of your hands. The goblin hoots and laughs at you while you scramble around and recover it from the ground."

2) As you lunge forward to impale the goblin through the heart its little goblin foot slips on a patch of mud and it falls backwards to the ground, barely avoiding the killing stroke through sheer luck. It scrambles backwards away from you and readies itself to launch one last desperate attack.

Now realistically you'll probably go with an approach somewhere between those two, but the point is, failure doesn't have to mean incompetence, and probably shouldn't, most of the time, unless the PC has been established as being bad at the thing they're doing.

One time my friendo was in a game, yah, and they were underground trying to get past a door. The Barbarian rolled a Strength check to just force the door, and he got a crit. The DM (not the one this thread is about) ruled that he hit it so hard he destroyed a structural wall and the dungeon collapsed and killed everyone.

Bull. ****.

denthor
2018-08-28, 10:55 PM
Don't feel to badly. I had a DM I did not know.

Ask "So what type of character do you play?"

I said any of them. Most recently a wizard.

"There you go breaking games" came the reply.

I am not an overpowering player. Smart yes. Capable yes. I will run a thief and never steal. But the personality will have you question your abilities.

I can not stand blaster wizards. At the table I play at it has been remarked that the spells I take are way out of the norm for PC more like a utility NPC. With a strong Necromancy bent as 20% of my spells are Necromancy.

It happens.

Kyrell1978
2018-08-29, 10:31 AM
One time my friendo was in a game, yah, and they were underground trying to get past a door. The Barbarian rolled a Strength check to just force the door, and he got a crit. The DM (not the one this thread is about) ruled that he hit it so hard he destroyed a structural wall and the dungeon collapsed and killed everyone.

Bull. ****.

That's just stupid.

mephnick
2018-08-29, 11:21 PM
The second was "Your NPC is the only character who knows the boss NPC of the criminal organization you are both in is an imposter who is much more dangerous than the original." So, I'm making an older member of the organization who has been there a long time but hasn't leveled up quickly. For the background I suggested that he's a survivalist and a manipulator and has been manipulating the leader and others slightly here and there; this has kept him from getting actual experience to level up but also kept him far away from the consequences of whatever actions were done, so he is alive. He's been unable to manipulate this imposter like he could the original, and that's what made him look closer and find the truth. (Him knowing the truth is an established part of this role).

The responses were "You can't be manipulating boss NPCs" and "You don't have to be the super best at everything".

I can sort of see where he's coming from...sort of, but I think he's probably a bad communicator.

He gave you a simple hook: "You know the boss NPC of your organization is an impostor." Probably expecting you to just be some regular member of the organization with a unique insight.

You took it to the next level: "My character has been manipulating everyone, including organization leadership, for years."

So...what if the DM had planned on using this organization as an important part of the story? What if the leadership are the ultimate foes? A player backstory making this entire group of NPCs seem foolish and incompetent probably wouldn't sit well with me either. I'm not saying that's what's in his head with the limited information I have, but you have to be careful with defying worldbuilding with a backstory and be willing to drop it if the DM says "Sorry, that doesn't work for me, just make a regular dude."

BRC
2018-08-30, 12:43 AM
I think he's probably reacting to your use of the word "Manipulating", which usually implies some form of Mastery. "My Character has been Manipulating the Big Bad" comes across as "my character is smarter than the Big Bad, and is the puppet master who has been pulling the strings".

From your description, it sounds like the "Manipulation" you had in mind was more about keeping your head down so the Big Bad didn't notice you. "Manipulating" him through the cunning scheme of doing your job with just the right amount of acceptable mediocrity, such that you neither attract scorn nor praise.
Instead of "Manipulated", try "Tricked"?"Make it clear that your character's biggest achievement has been surviving while knowing the Big Bad's secret.

Ronnocius
2018-09-16, 07:51 PM
This is probably not the case, however it brings to mind a situation I had in a recent 5e game I had started as a DM.

One of the players kept wanting to make 'special' characters. All of these characters had some kind of 'edgy/outcast' background and were unoptimized to an outrageous degree. Among this handful of characters was a human wizard with an extremely low constitution (I forced him to use point buy but he actually requested to roll specifically so he could give constitution the lowest result) who was abandoned as a child because of his sickly nature (his father was a noble as well...)

Another was a genderfluid dark elf Dexterity-based paladin of Eilistraee in a campaign I repeatedly told him was primarily going to be in the sunlight.

Finally he made a human monk whose mentor had been murdered before his eyes. This was the character he decided to go with and after a mere two sessions requested a character change because 'the character was too edgy and wasn't performing well'.

A friend of mine in real life made a min/maxed 'murder hobo' half orc barbarian, who was received well by myself and the other players. Oftentimes a vanilla character is more enjoyable then a subversion of the stereotypes (orc wizard, elf barbarian etc)

I realize this probably isn't relevant to your scenario but just an insight from my point of view as a DM. There is plenty of great advice offered by others as well.