Changing the Players' Mindsets

[SixthDeclension]

Our group (besides myself and TheWordSlinger) fails at making decent, varying characters. We have one player who only plays malconvokers/rogues, one who only plays barbarians, and one who is very insistent on playing things that suck. Do you have groups with similar problems? How have you gotten players to change their concepts and get them to try new things?

[RobbyPants]

I haven't had too much problem with people rolling up the same type of PC repeatedly.  The closest I've had to that is someone who rolled up a very similar PC to one that had just died, but aimed for a new PrC.

What I have had in one long-standing group is several players who would always play chaotic-aligned loner types.  This could be problematic for some plot hooks and keeping the group together at one place at any given time.  I never found a good way around that.  I didn't want to force them to play a different alignment. 

I guess one of my players did like rolling up rather sucky PCs for the most part, but that was because she would always get odd little ideas and she wasn't much for thinking if it was mechanically viable; she'd just go with it.  I was able on one character to get a base concept ahead of time and I helped her build it.  When she was toying with taking a level of this versus that, I'd explain the effects of each, and say why one might really suck a few levels down the road.  It turned out to be one her her best PCs yet.  Her next PC was a druid.  She grabbed the Complete Divine and asked me what a good PrC for a druid was, to which I responded "Druid".  She was a bit taken aback, but I talked her out of PrCing out of a very solid class.

So, as for the players who like playing malconvoker/rouges and barbarians, I don't think I'd worry about it.  As for the player who rolls up sucky PCs, see if you can get involved in the character creation project to turn a crappy concept into a less-crappy execution.

[AfterCrescent]

So, as for the players who like playing malconvoker/rouges and barbarians, I don't think I'd worry about it.  As for the player who rolls up sucky PCs, see if you can get involved in the character creation project to turn a crappy concept into a less-crappy execution.

This.

You don't want to force (or even appear to) people to play something they don't like. I mean the whole point is getting people together to game and have fun.  If someone likes playing characters that get angry and Hulk-smash, let them play barbarians.

If something they're playing is absolutely detrimental to the game, from a mechanical standpoint, try offering to help them make their idea more concrete and solid. A lot of flavor is mutable.

For instance, BimR loves nature-focused classes in D&D. Animals galore and all that. For the longest time she'd always play the druid. However, she doesn't like the bookkeeping associated with spells, so she often didn't prepare ones as thoroughly as she could have. It wasn't her style.  So that's when I got involved and offered to help her make her focus more solid. Enter Wildshape Ranger -> MoMF.  Much better for the party overall, especially since people didn't want to play divine casters and step on her toes, so someone else was able to step up to the roll.

Just talk to the one that makes mechanically inferior concepts, ask him what he likes to play (concept-wise). Offer pros/cons of differing classes. Also, make sure to explain that some things (concept-wise) are difficult in D&D, and others require time to build up to, so he may have to 'evolve' his character concept as you play. With any luck he'll take it as an RP challenge and it'll be fun for all.

[Sinfire Titan]

Midge. Just... Midge.


From a DFA with nothing but Dragonic Heritage feats (namely the ones that grant energy resistance) and NO Metabreath abilities or Invocations that actually matter (Scalding Gust over Endure Exposure?), and the worst possible skill selection he could make (Spot and Listen are important skills in our group, but not over UMD ranks, something our Warlock learned very quickly) to a Warblade Chain Tripper that I made for him and explained how to use, the little bastard has managed to fuck up everything when it comes to character creation.

He's made that DFA build 4 times. He's made 2 Sorcerers and 1 Wilder, neither of which were effective or viable (and all of which ended up being killed off or under another creature's Mind Control). The Warblade I fucked up with Eisin, as shown in my Totemist Diary (Gleemax), and one of the DFAs ended up being killed by the party's resident Psion due to a really bad comment about the Swordsage (inappropriately timed due to the Swordsage's untimely death of AWESOMENESS).

He's also made a Psion/Pyrookinetist that multiclassed immediately upon qualifying for the PrC. The party Psion had a field day using him for sparring practice, something that proved rather effective at teaching him the power of Spellcasting advancement (because one Mind Thrust was enough to TKO his ass 9 times in a row thanks to him dumping Wisdom). That particular character fought a Lomarru (sic) and nearly died (and I even overlooked the energy immunity to Fire!) before dying at the hands of the party's NPC Archivist (don't worry about him, they loved that particular NPC) thanks to a very bad tactical decision and a Suggestion-type spell (note: Flame Strike>Pyro).

[Dan2]

I have found that when people make the same character type over and over it's usually for one of a few reasons.
They may be most comfortable acting out their view of that character.
They may feel that they really haven't gotten to play it out yet.
 - This was a consistent problem for some people around, because games always ended with each semester.

AC is absolutely right in that you want the people in your game to have fun.
If you, as a DM aren't having fun, mix up the campaign world.  Create a different game feel by having NPCs interact with the characters very differently than you usually would.  (deference / obstinancy)

AC also gave great suggestions for helping them identify why they like the class, and allowing them to grow out from that.
I would reiterate that you want to be careful not to appear like you're forcing new information or concepts onto them.  If they feel pressured, they may just hunker-down in the build they feel familiar with (even if they aren't great at it).

In my games, I haven't had problems with people making the same types of characters over and over, even though each person's characters have been similar.  For me, it seems like they each found characters that they actually do well with and have fun with.

The only problems I've had are characters with stale/repetitive character attitudes/motivations.
(Ex: always suspicious of everything or sneaky, thieving loner)
When it looked like they weren't comfortable playing differently, I just wove it into my story differently.
I used the suspicious character to lead the party to investigate a new area (to get information on an NPC).
I used the thieving character to drive the plot forward (stole the royal/magical/plot-device item).

I hope these help

[Lakira]

For the person who makes things that suck, I'm assuming by "suck" you mean that the character is constantly dying due to crappy build. Does the player seem to enjoy the death? Conversely, does the player seem to get an inexplicable amount of glee whenever the character, by sheer luck, does something really amazing? If the player is constantly making these crappy characters and (I don't know if this second is true) chooses not to play more effectively built characters, that implies there's a pretty hefty payout that overcomes the constant dying/whiffing. Figuring out what that payout is might be useful.

[veekie]

Masochism maybe.
Some may consider it a principled mark of honor not to optimise, and then go for the character concepts which the system supports poorly(meaning you'd need optimisation to make an effective build). Some just believe everything class descriptions say, see...well, nearly half the classes ever published. Some traditionalists would pursue tradition and nostalgia, they had good experiences before using that sort of build, and never realise their fun came from inter-player chemistry.

Some are just ignorant. Of the lot, this can be easiest to fix, if it didn't come attached to one of the others.

[Shewolf]

I used to be one of those people who would make the same class type over and over.  Barbarians are fun and no one can tell me any differently.  But what I realized I liked about those characters was making something feral, wild, and maybe even a little naive about civilization and society.  I wanted to make an outsider, but one who wanted to learn about these backwards people she was surrounded by, not the dangerous loner who wants to go off on her own...Why even form a party if that's the case?

It really is important to help the players identify what exactly it is that they like.  Thematically, what links this persons character builds from campaign to campaign?

Once I found out what linked all of my character builds, I was even able to make a Monk that was feral!  (ok, she was a catfolk fist of the forest, but you get the idea)  Once they explore the similarities, the players will find they can start exploring the differences and branch out into character builds they may have never considered before.

[Lakira]

'Nother question: why is it "bad" that the player who makes sucky characters makes sucky characters? Is it because the party is really relying on what the player says their character can do, and they consistently fail to live up to their promises? Is it because the player gets frustrated? Is it because you get frustrated?

[McPoyo]

Mostly because they fail to live up to pulling their share of the party load. If I'm running around risking my life, I'll be damned if I'm going to let some useless weight that I'm always pulling their ass (and consequently mine) out of the fire run around with me. It's just not worth the risk, no matter how good of a friend I am with them. It's like being in law enforcement. If you cannot explicitly trust your partner to have your back, and know they are competent enough to not get you killed by their inadequacies in their job, you aren't going to want them as your partner.

On that note, I've been in parties where the PCs kicked out one of the DM's NPC party members because they didn't fill the role we "hired" them on for, and because they mechanically sucked. The DM started learning how to build effective contributors to parties at that point, and everyone has enjoyed having him as a player in games now, too, in addition to DMing.

[Lakira]

The "pulling the party load" thing is one I get. It's hard to manage, though, if the payout is "I suck so every once in a while I do something uber cool and it's a complete fluke!" If that happens to be the setup, then I'd suggest min-maxing like mad so that one aspect of the character is really really good and some other thing is ridiculously bad. The ridiculously bad part can be played up for the payout while the good bit can ease party frustration.

To pick a random example, like a barbarian who hasn't the charisma of a corpse.

[Endarire]

If one player makes an especially sucky character, you may be in trouble.  If half the party insists on playing sucky characters, hope your DM compensates.

[Josh]

Mostly because they fail to live up to pulling their share of the party load. If I'm running around risking my life, I'll be damned if I'm going to let some useless weight that I'm always pulling their ass (and consequently mine) out of the fire run around with me.

That's the "in game" rationalization.

Here's something to think about: The premise of the game is to kill monsters and take their stuff (and look cool while doing so).  If you are not doing that and everyone else is, then you have a problem. 

And before you bring it up, yes I know some people do not play that way.  You are actually missing the point.  The lesson is not how poorly you understand how to play a game, the lesson is how poorly you get along with the other players. 

[Cromarty]

If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, perhaps one session simply run a one-off, low-level adventure with pre-generated characters. Maybe make the players pick randomly from the pre-gens, or have them switch characters in between battles. In my experience, a lot of the reason why players refuse to broaden their horizons is because there's pressure to carry their share of the weight in the party and there's often a steep learning curve (especially with casters/manifesters/initiators/etc.) Maybe taking that pressure off will give your players some incentive to experiment.

In the same vein as above, perhaps one evening run Rappan Athuk or Tomb of Horrors. For those, each player makes two or three characters to switch in when their active one dies. That way they get to experiment briefly.

Finally, I've had some fellow players who were only interested in one kind of playing style-I have a friend who refuses to play anything that wears armor. She played three different Fighter/Swashbuckler mixes. She wasn't really interested in the swashbuckler mechanics, and clearly recognized there were more optimal things she could do, but only wanted to play Errol Flynn-type, dashing characters. We convinced her (the rest of the party and I) that she could roleplay that kind of character even as a wizard or especially sorcerer. Maybe that's the reason that your characters don't want to branch out.

In any case, that's my 2 cp. Hope it helps.

-Cromarty

[Radijs]

In the tomb of horrors they will get to experiment very briefly.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Make him play a warmage.  He can't make the class any worse than it already is.  

Or a binder1 hellfire 'lock.  Can't mess that up.

[Josh]

If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, perhaps one session simply run a one-off, low-level adventure with pre-generated characters. Maybe make the players pick randomly from the pre-gens, or have them switch characters in between battles. In my experience, a lot of the reason why players refuse to broaden their horizons is because there's pressure to carry their share of the weight in the party and there's often a steep learning curve (especially with casters/manifesters/initiators/etc.) Maybe taking that pressure off will give your players some incentive to experiment.

In the same vein as above, perhaps one evening run Rappan Athuk or Tomb of Horrors. For those, each player makes two or three characters to switch in when their active one dies. That way they get to experiment briefly.

Finally, I've had some fellow players who were only interested in one kind of playing style-I have a friend who refuses to play anything that wears armor. She played three different Fighter/Swashbuckler mixes. She wasn't really interested in the swashbuckler mechanics, and clearly recognized there were more optimal things she could do, but only wanted to play Errol Flynn-type, dashing characters. We convinced her (the rest of the party and I) that she could roleplay that kind of character even as a wizard or especially sorcerer. Maybe that's the reason that your characters don't want to branch out.

In any case, that's my 2 cp. Hope it helps.

-Cromarty

Both really good ideas:
1) Sample adventure
2) Function does not have a single form.

[officeronin]

So, why is this whole thread a problem?

I like playing wizards.  Searching through my spellbook, second guessing the world (the gm) as to what I will need that day, and searching musty tomes for new spells are my favorite parts of the game.  It's like I get to make a new character every day.  Nerf wizards left and right, and I will still be pretty likely to play one.

I've played every other class (except Sorc -- it's a wizard, without the fun.  Why bother?), and done so very competently (at least per the groups I have been in).  That said, about the 15th time my barbarian/fighter has done the rage, pounce, bullrush, improved trip routine, I am bored out of my skull, and probably resorting to playing solitaire on my blackberry.  Some folks really like that game, and get excited about beating their last record damage on a crit -- and would likely be bored trying to pick out spell lists.  I appreciate those folks, because they allow me to play the character I like to play.

Now, I agree that having exposure, and perhaps even a level of competence, to all of the classes makes for a good, well-rounded gamer.  But that does not diminish the fact that players have favorites, and will play their favorite classes if given a chance to do so.  And, I disagree that this a bad thing that needs to be changed...

[Alea_Iacta_Est]

What is wrong with playing the same type of character? One of my friends likes to play dwarf/stubborn fighters/clerics, another likes to play odd casters and another likes playing opposites of what they played last. I like to run indie grim and gritty games. One player in our group likes to run SotC. People have genres and styles that they like, and that is how it is.

If you want to try new things, mention "Hey, try playing a 'blank', it is really fun." If you are playing 4e the player likes playing rogues, push for a sorcerer. It is still a striker, but arcane. If you are playing a fun game, mention a different lifepath section, or different aspects they could take, or different traits they could be interested in. If they don't go for it, then leave it for a while. Don't force it. That could put them off.