I saw a thread yesterday that resonated a bit with me. It was from a DM who was explaining how it’s the DM’s job to make sure the players are playing their character’s ‘right’. As in “Don’t let a player play a paladin if they want to heal, they have to be playing a cleric.” and points along that line where the DM should make sure that the player isn’t using a class that’s at odds with their playstyle. “Don’t let a player take a balanced set of stats, no class needs a balanced set of stats, a negative in one or two stats won’t have any game impact and that +1 they’re missing out on in a primary stat is a big deal.”
I’m don’t agree, perhaps a tiny bit I can understand the basis of it but over all no. But I’m looking at this as roughly a 99.9999% DM role of 25+ years viewpoint. Â I think players should play their characters the way they want and build them the way they want (outside of high end power gaming builds).
If a player wants to play a ranged rogue for instance, I don’t have a problem with that. Sure a ranger would make more sense, perhaps a lot more sense, but if that’s not what the player wants, it’s fine with me. It’s the characters who can deal 49d6 at level 5 because they’ve found all the loopholes in the rules that I have a problem with.
Now the DM though should be aware there are other players at the table. If one player is horribly sub par and the DM doesn’t take this into account when designing encounters then yes that can impact the other players entertainment but that’s on the DM to adjust to the players, not force the players to adjust to the game.
I put a lot of onus on the DM (and I’ve rarely played as a player) to insure that the game is fun for everyone and to adjust things, fudge encounters, dice rolls, add extra waves or dynamically add hit points or subtract them etc to make sure it is. But I don’t believe it’s the DM’s job to ‘fix’ a player who’s playing a class in a manner that’s not ‘optimal’.
But I’ll give you an example of where a DM IMO should intervene – A cleric that decides he won’t heal or want’s to ‘charge’ the other characters for healing, that’s when the DM steps in and say, “No you can’t do that in the middle of this session while they’re in the dungeon. Once they’re in a position, i.e. town, to make alternate arrangements for healing then yes what you decide is between you but you have to realize they’ll probably just get rid of your character one way or another under such an arrangement. But right now you need to keep healing.” <- True story.
But DM’s, just let the players play, as long as they’re not cheating, being assholes or disrupting game play by playing their Chaotic Psychopath alignment, if they want to play a wizard that fights with a sword or a rogue that uses a bow all the time (without the Combat Advantage at Range feat), or just a warrior who only uses a staff, far from the most ‘DPS’ build in the world, then let them. They’re there to have fun too and until their fun seriously impacts the groups fun then it’s all okay.
At the very least, if their style of character building doesn’t fit your style of DM’ing then let them know that another group might work better if you or the group as a majority isn’t willing to make allowances.
Or that’s my opinion. But then opinions are like assholes… 
5 comments
Anonymous
July 24, 2009 at 10:51 am (UTC -5)
I agree in essence with you, I dont think its the DMs job to intervene for the most part. However it is the DMs job to intervene when a sub-par character is detracting from the enjoyment of the game.
Sure that one person may really love his Wizard who nukes everything (including his allies), but if one of the players at the table doesnt like being targetted its down to the DM to put a stop to it, for the enjoyment of all.
An example of one of the things you may not agree with is this:
We play 4e LFR (Living Forgotten Realms) and one of our players repeatedly plays defenders, however the said player rarely ever marks anything, and their paladin tends to spend 90% of the comabt at range throwing javelins.
Fortunatly their paladin is in a group with 3 other defenders (and 2 leaders, we are like a brick wall), however their swordmage is in a group with 4 strikers and no leader. This leads to problems, everyone at the table expects them to act like a defender, marking things and generally taking the heat off the other characters so they can do their job. This is the time when the DM(s) need to step in and try and steer the player toward acting more like a defender, as their current behaviour is detrimental to the group.
Dennis
July 24, 2009 at 11:11 am (UTC -5)
That’s where we both hit a gray area perhaps. I can see where it would cause group strife with some, most perhaps groups especially perhaps today’s groups which for better or worse do have some influence from MMOG’s and Raiding where you HAVE to perform your role or wipe. And a player causing real issues for the other players should be an issue for the DM.
But as a DM if a group as a whole was performing under par, I’d try adjusting the encounters before I started to enforce a play style. Make them challenging based on the groups ‘real’ ability, not their expected ability if that makes sense?
One could play devil’s advocate and say that in the last example the DM might need to ask one of the other players to play another role? The groups are ‘imbalanced’ in both examples from the classic group make up.
Or in the end simply tell the player their play style isn’t a good fit, tell them why, and move on.
But it’s all good, every group should play in a way that works for them and the DM should be and is responsible to make it fun for them all as equitably as they can.
Anonymous
July 24, 2009 at 11:20 am (UTC -5)
Oh indeed, the groups arent classic groups, but that often occours at an RPGA table.
I also agree that if the whole group is sub-par the DM should scale things down to compensate for inexperienced players/poor characters; and vice-versa the DM should scale up for experienced/optimal characters. Otherwise there is no challenge, and the enjoyment of the game (generally) is from overcoming challenges.
I think the most memorable RPG moments are when a character escapes from a really tight situation through the narrowest of margins. I know the majority of my favourite RPG moments are like that.
Dennis
July 24, 2009 at 11:40 am (UTC -5)
Definitely. Although the most talked about ones decades later are things like when the wizard saw deamons coming up out of some stolen necromatic books and fireballed the books, the wagon, the tents and the other players in fear.
But yes the close escapes either by running or just barely squeaking an win out of a bad situation are way up on the memorable list.
Anonymous
July 24, 2009 at 2:17 pm (UTC -5)
I agree with all this. I’d much, MUCH rather have players who play characters which go against the grain – the pacifist ex-fighter, the honest Rogue (who is trying *so* hard to become a Paladin) or the clueless Ranger who couldn’t track a herd of wildebeast. Give me all of them, and more, over Yet Another Fighter with Greatsword and STR 20, please!