How do you make your players feel special, unique, and a useful part of the group, without making them overpowered?
>>46023037
>special, unique, and a useful part of the group
You can make them special, unique and useful at a setting or storyline level. The 'Chosen Ones' theme is probably overdone but there are ways of doing the same basic thing without bashing your players over the head with prophecies, sacred bloodlines or divine intervention.
You can ask the players to specialize their characters so that each one has a distinct role. Shadowrun has this built in to both setting and class rules. It's usually possible with other games, except maybe highly narrativist ones.
You can work that from the other end (or in conjunction too) by offering challenges specifically targetted at individual players, or a larger challenge with sub-parts specifically targetted at individual players. This can be based on player background, not just mechanics, so there's a way around hyperflexible classes like 3.PF's Tier 1 Casters.
>>46023037
Let them be themselves (in character I mean).
there is this inexplicable feeling when you are roleplaying and have to deal against something your own way.
>>46023037
Give them something that stirs a little conflict in the party.
Not like, intra-party fighting. But something that player A and player B don't quite react the same way to, in-character, and cues a little bit of in-character back and forth to properly handle. Stuff to play their character over, basically.
>>46023466
But don't do this if one of those characters is That Guy, or if That Guy has any excuse to get involved.
>>46023466
So maybe a point in the story comes up where there are multiple options, and one player wants to go one way and another wants to take a different route?
How do I set this up so that it doesn't just lead to the players arguing for an hour out of character, instead of the in-character back and forth that I want? Do I make the choice not immediate?
>>46023888
Actually, the more immediate the better. Warn them that if they spend too long discussing this circumstances are liable to change.
>>46023037
I just play balanced systems. Often balanced by being rules-light. Problem melts away.
If I was going to run D&D 3.5 again, I'd just use the character optimization boards' tier list and say "tier 3 only" or something. And help the players keep their characters lightly optimized.
>>46023037
>useful part of the group
That's on the player to not be a retard when making their characters, the GM can try to help them but some people are beyond help.
>without making them overpowered
Don't play 3.5
>special, unique
Don't know about either of those, but actually read their backstories and include them in the game in a way that isn't just "oh you have a family? well my bbeg murders them all". Having the characters in it actually show up is a good way to engage players and make them feel like part of the world.
>>46023037
That should be what classes are for, they just fall ingloriously shy of the Mark.
>>46023037
Make sure the entire session isn't centered around one or two skill checks, or conversely, nothing but battle.
>>46023961
This too--some systems are so hellbent on combat that more complex rules create a "really capable guy and his backup crew" scenario.
Aside from that, some people just don't want to take charge of things. The more instigative members of the group will always find a way without them so they don't feel that compelled to contribute.
>>46023228
I actually find the whole "chosen one" cliche to be offputting. I'd rather start as a normal person who ascends the echelons of power. I'm ok of there's something inherently different about my character compared to the average person, such as being a half-elf, etc. but if I was predestined to be better than everyone else from birth, achievements lose their satisfaction, for me.
>>46026610
Rather than the concept of being "chosen", I like it when the party just happens to be the only ones in the right place at the right time and the only ones with the knowledge necessary to stop the bad guys. There might be people far better suited to the task, but they're not here, so it's up to the party to save the day.
>>46023037
Each class has the specialties that they shine at. As you plan each session, think of the specialties of one of your players and build around those specialties. It gives that player a "spotlight week". Next week it may be another classes spotlight. It prevents the whole party from overthrowing your world and lets them feel like they are special.
>>46023037
Anal.
I focus less on making my players feel special in a game than making them feel useful.
When the sorcerer decided to stay in camp while I had meant for everyone else to go and find their first encounter, I brought the encounter to the camp instead and let him be an awesome defender with illusions and shit.
When our party's cleric didn't get to do much in a fight where they were trying to protect a bunch of bedouin traders, I was sure to include a scene where the cleric helping with first aid prevented many painful deaths or potential cripplings.
It's the little things that count when in a game. Not everyone's the chosen one and not everyone should be, but anyone can have the capacity to do amazing things.
>>46023037
Give them mini storylines, listen to and include their ideas, let them take an active hand in coming up with NPC stuff.
Mechanically, I hook them up with items that help if they're lagging and/or just do cool shit.
Really, just showing that you're paying attention to them and their characters personally goes a long way
>>46027424
This
>>46023037
Honestly? The most effective way to do this without worrying about them getting overpowered is to give them choice, and to let those choices have consequences, (Whether they're good or bad.)
The reason why players sometimes make their character to be a special snowflake is because they don't always know how to assimilate their creation into the narrative of the game world. By giving them all of these stupid traits, they think they are making their character memorable. But it becomes apparent really quickly that their characters ARE special once they start to effect the game world.
Characters are defined by what they do and how they do it. Not what they look like or where they come from.
Suppose I have a monk and a barbarian in my group, both pure melee. One is leagues more powerful than the other (take a wild fucking guess which) because his player is a rules-lawyering cunt and for some reason how hard you hit determines how likely you hit, eliminating the concept of a tank from the game.
How would you even the playing field?
>>46027561
Allowing huge power gaps between players is a major flaw on the GM's part, only encouraging resent and jealousy.
You can also consider that the first mistake was to play D&D in the first place, which is a fertile soil for this kind of bullshit.And of course for the raging reading impaired among you, i'm only talking about HUGE power gaps
>>46023037
by letting them special unique and useful to the group before throwing OP shit at them to smack them around and let'em know they ain't shit
>>46027753
It's weird. I always have everyone make characters together but this one guy insists on rolling at his house or a different table. He always has at least two stats above 18 at 1st level. WHAT ARE THE FUCKING ODDS?
>>46027918
Use point buy.
Or an array if that's too grognardy for you.
Rolling for stats hasn't made sense since before AD&D existed.
>>46028124
I like it for the randomness of it - sure, I get to chose where I put the numbers, but I can't just make myself with no defects, and unless my rolls are all really shitty, I'll at least be good at something.
Use a good system
Don't have more than 4 players
>>46028324
Why so few? You'd think 5 would be the perfect number.
>>46023037
Don't focus too much on just combat. Make them feel like their characters idea's and opinions matter to the party.
If you focus too much on "power level" stuff all you're doing is making everyone roughly equally good at killing things, which is usually the least interesting thing about the party.
It's totally okay to have a princess or scientist in the group even if they suck in fights compared to the knight or the mercenary, as long as doing science stuff or princess stuff is relevant to the stories and adventures they have.
I ran a campaign where a major part of the plot was driven by the scientist getting all psyched by the chance to make an important discovery, it made them go places and explore abandoned facilities and get into all kinds of trouble. The scientist wasn't better in that campaign than usual, he didn't get to do science puzzles or fight science enemies all the time. But he felt like the most important character in the party anyway.
Also, keep in mind that combat is usually like the least interesting part of role-playing. A lot of systems just trick you into thinking it's important because it has a lot of rules for it.
