TTRPGs should punish people who play DMFs.

[Wrathzog]

Mechanically bad? Oh fuck yes. Inherently bad? To me that means inherently wrong, which is where I find the disconnect. Normally I wouldn't, but... when combined with the mindset that follows the rest of the quote about bad and stupid, I'm going to err on the side of bad meaning wrong when said this way.

It's bad as in it's a suboptimal choice. The Utility of a fighter maxes out at level 2 and pushing past that is kind of pointless. If you want to Axe Faces, there are classes better suited for it.

Now, people can totally play a straight fighter and that might be a totally legitimate play style for some gaming groups out there somewhere. And that's cool. I can dig that.
In my group's case, I would say playing an optimized fighter would be the Wrong thing to do.

[Mistborn]

Cause you know what? Having someone be a basic melee fighter isn't going to make or break the game.

Having somone be a basic melee fighter does break the game though. It breaks the game in every edition of D&D. If dumbfuck McMundane Swordguy is a 20 level class then that implies that playing him is an option for all 20 levels. If your making a game that even remotely mirrors D&D mundane swordguy is not an option past level 5.

You can't have a fighter class that gives level apropriate abilities after level 5 without alienating ~50% of the playerbase so fighters always fail to keep up in a D&D like game. Hell people scream like raped apes if you point out that high level D&D fighters are already superhuman.

A huge percentage of why 4e is such a un-D&D-like failure is that they decided to bring everything down to mundane swordguy levels. So take a good long look at 4e, ugly isn't it. That's what needs to happen for level 20 fighter not to suck.

[ishy]

Mechanically bad? Oh fuck yes. Inherently bad? To me that means inherently wrong, which is where I find the disconnect. Normally I wouldn't, but... when combined with the mindset that follows the rest of the quote about bad and stupid, I'm going to err on the side of bad meaning wrong when said this way.

It's bad as in it's a suboptimal choice.

No it's not. It is bad because if you play a fighter you're reducing the fun for everyone.
There are only 3 ways a non magic fighter can work in mid/high level dnd game.
A) you suck and everyone has to coddle you
B) everyone sucks
C) the fighter gains so much gear / other goodies that you could just replace the fighter with a housecat and do just as well.

+ the points I previously mentioned, that a fighter can't do much out of combat. And has the problem that fighting is something everyone is supposed to do.

[nockermensch]

No. It's not inherently bad. It's inherently LIMITING and a weak mechanical choice

Might as well change your avatar to a white flag if that's your argument.

Wow such an awesome argument.
Sounds a lot like the people on that other site.

I'm sorry but I don't ascribe to the One True Way™ that is the generally accepted way to play, nor do I ascribe to the One True Way© on that other board.

If someone wants to play something that is limited then you know what? If they're happy they're happy. In a perfect world things would be balanced so arguments like this wouldn't happen, but obviously this isn't a perfect world.

Until then, have fun, just know you aren't going to be as good as somebody with a stronger class

It's almost as if the Den thinks that every player has the duty (instead of the right) to contribute equally in every situation/scene. I find this an extreme and utopic position. Mostly because different players have different levels of energy they want to devote to the game.

Here, lets examine different situations:

1) Al makes a DMF and gets frustrated by level 8 because he notices he's basically useless except in very narrow situations. This sucks for Al and we should help him.

2) Bob makes a DMF and is happy by level 8 because he's useful exactly at the points he enjoys. This doesn't suck for Bob, but it does for the Den.

Ideally, I'd tell Al to play with a Tome Fighter (or I'd work with him to make a Tome Fighter Plus) so that he can be useful more of the time. As for Bob, there's no problem if everybody understands the limitations involved. He'd play just fine being saved most of the times and when he's occasionally useful it'll be awesome/hilarious.

---

I'm in total agreement with the Den's goal to have all the classes equally powerful and versatile. I think an ideal game should come out of the box with all the character options viable. The point where I disagree is when the Den starts telling people how to play. Fiction is full of "parties" with huge power disparities. In fact, right now I can't remember any party in books, comics, TV programs or movies, where all the members have the power equivalence the Den seeks. The normal situation is to have Gandalf and Pippin, or Thor and Hawkeye adventuring together.

The point I'm trying to make, is that D&D is still a RPG and then the actual role-playing can still be a factor bringing people to the table. This is not a MMO where you get to have DPS > X to play in certain areas. And since roleplaying is an attractive, I can affirm that not everyone wants to role-play the guy actively thinking and solving all the problems. I already played the weird party member who was in just for the combat. And I played it as a wizard, all the way back in the 2nd edition (back when evocation was actually viable).

So, when Frank says, "If someone insists on playing a commoner or an aristocrat, they are being disruptive." this is only true in the limited sense that everybody else on the table is in for "kick the door and stab monsters, in the face." Because in quite a lot of genre fiction, important characters are (or at very least start as) fop aristocrats or shit farmers.

Really, more and more I think there would be less discussions around the "right way" to play RPGs if the nomenclature was clearer. There are like four completely different games that we call "RPG" and sometimes (most of the times?) people come to play expecting a different game.

[Wrathzog]

Having somone be a basic melee fighter does break the game though.

No, it really doesn't. If people want to gimp themselves for whatever reason, they are free to do so. That is their choice and it doesn't actually affect me. If people don't want to recognize that fighters kind of suck, then that is their choice and it doesn't actually affect me.
It turns out that I don't have to play D&D with those people. Oh and neither do you. And neither does the rest of the Den.

No it's not. It is bad because if you play a fighter you're reducing the fun for everyone.
There are only 3 ways a non magic fighter can work in mid/high level dnd game.
A) ... B) ... C) ...

These are all perfectly legitimate play styles though. If a particular group of people think that one of those three scenarios is Fun then that's that. Only a complete and utter asshole is going to tell them that they're not actually having fun and that their fun is all based on some sort of lie.
(That's you, by the way.)

[ishy]

No it's not. It is bad because if you play a fighter you're reducing the fun for everyone.
There are only 3 ways a non magic fighter can work in mid/high level dnd game.
A) ... B) ... C) ...

These are all perfectly legitimate play styles though. If a particular group of people think that one of those three scenarios is Fun then that's that. Only a complete and utter asshole is going to tell them that they're not actually having fun and that their fun is all based on some sort of lie.
(That's you, by the way.)

I get that you didn't understand what I was saying and thus felt the need to insult me to hide your insecurities so I'll try to explain it for you in more detail why I think these solutions still show that a fighter is not a legitmate play style.

A) means that the fighter player either sits out every combat, unless she forces everyone else to deal with her flaws. You make other players weaker and prevent them from playing in anyway that doesn't aid you as the fighter. You severly restrict the other players because you chose to play a fighter.
B) means that you play the low level game. Which is a big problem when talking about a mid/high level 3.5 game. Which as you can see, is what I was talking about.
C) means that you're not playing a fighter anymore. Not to mention your DM has to do extra work in order to make you not a fighter anymore.

So you see with each option, the fighter makes everyone else have to do more and takes away options from all other players. And a playstyle that takes away the options from other players in such a severe degree is something I just cannot support in a ttrpg because I'm not that big of an asshole.

[Username17]

So, when Frank says, "If someone insists on playing a commoner or an aristocrat, they are being disruptive." this is only true in the limited sense that everybody else on the table is in for "kick the door and stab monsters, in the face." Because in quite a lot of genre fiction, important characters are (or at very least start as) fop aristocrats or shit farmers.

This is Dungeons and Dragons. There are fucking monsters and they are going to try to fucking kill you. Playing a character who is only half as effective is exactly like playing a character who performs explicitly useless actions while said monsters are eating the face of their party members.

If you play a Druid and spend a couple rounds "gazing at butterflies" while the trolls are ripping into your fellow players, you're being fucking disruptive. And if you play a deliberately shitty character like a useless aristocrat, you're being disruptive for the same reason.

In single author fiction you can have major characters who are useless save as comic relief because they are protected by author fiat. Being confronted with any amount of danger is not "real" because the author dictates that you succeed at all one in a million crap shoots. In D&D, you have no such protection and the dangers are "real". If you put the other party members in a position where the odds are a million to one then nine hundred and ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety times out of a million you have fucking killed them with your inane ass hattery.

And that's just combat. The fact is that you are going to be confronted with many other kinds of challenges in the quests you face, and your character had better put up some numbers in at least some of them. Because otherwise you are a drain on party resources. The player of the DMF is using up spell slots from the Wizard and Cleric to maintain his uselessness addiction. He is, simply by showing up at the table, being a passive aggressive leech. Measurably reducing the amount of things that the real characters are able to do because they are being asked to spend real resources on him while he contributes essentially nothing.

-Username17

[ModelCitizen]

Wow such an awesome argument.
Sounds a lot like the people on that other site.

I'm sorry but I don't ascribe to the One True Way™ that is the generally accepted way to play, nor do I ascribe to the One True Way© on that other board.

OGOD THE THING I LIKE CAN'T BE FLAWED OR IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT, MUST REJECT ANY POSSIBLE BASIS FOR STRUCTURED CRITICISM

[Mistborn]

I'm sorry but I don't ascribe to the One True Way™ that is the generally accepted way to play, nor do I ascribe to the One True Way© on that other board.

If someone wants to play something that is limited then you know what? If they're happy they're happy. In a perfect world things would be balanced so arguments like this wouldn't happen, but obviously this isn't a perfect world.

All right listen sunshine if people want to be gimps they'll be gimps regarless of system, you don't need comprehensive rules for that. Some people will also end up playing Dumbfuck McFightguy even if their class has noncombat powers because that is an issue of players not the classes.

There is no reason to cater to people who want to play gimps or DMFs, it encorages people to be anti-social, and it comes at the expence of the game. Like I said if you offer Mundane Swordguy at 20th level people will continue to belive that Mundane Swordguy is a viable option at 20th level

Mundane Swordguy is not a viable option at 20th level.

Mundane Swordguy can not be a viable option at 20th level, not without 4e style failure.

Deal with it Grognards.

[Mr. GC]

I think this discussion would be more entertaining if it were on that other board. That way, instead of it being a bunch of people beating up one idiot it'd be a few people beating up hordes of idiots.

[nockermensch]

So, when Frank says, "If someone insists on playing a commoner or an aristocrat, they are being disruptive." this is only true in the limited sense that everybody else on the table is in for "kick the door and stab monsters, in the face." Because in quite a lot of genre fiction, important characters are (or at very least start as) fop aristocrats or shit farmers.

This is Dungeons and Dragons. There are fucking monsters and they are going to try to fucking kill you. Playing a character who is only half as effective is exactly like playing a character who performs explicitly useless actions while said monsters are eating the face of their party members.

If you play a Druid and spend a couple rounds "gazing at butterflies" while the trolls are ripping into your fellow players, you're being fucking disruptive. And if you play a deliberately shitty character like a useless aristocrat, you're being disruptive for the same reason.

In single author fiction you can have major characters who are useless save as comic relief because they are protected by author fiat. Being confronted with any amount of danger is not "real" because the author dictates that you succeed at all one in a million crap shoots. In D&D, you have no such protection and the dangers are "real". If you put the other party members in a position where the odds are a million to one then nine hundred and ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety times out of a million you have fucking killed them with your inane ass hattery.

And that's just combat. The fact is that you are going to be confronted with many other kinds of challenges in the quests you face, and your character had better put up some numbers in at least some of them. Because otherwise you are a drain on party resources. The player of the DMF is using up spell slots from the Wizard and Cleric to maintain his uselessness addiction. He is, simply by showing up at the table, being a passive aggressive leech. Measurably reducing the amount of things that the real characters are able to do because they are being asked to spend real resources on him while he contributes essentially nothing.

-Username17

The need for a better nomenclature becomes more evident post by post.

Look, when you say "This is Dungeons & Dragons", all I hear "This this is not Diablo". In Diablo, if I'm exploring the sunken ruins of death or something, there will be amount X of monsters and they'll all use their deadliest attacks all the time. If my character is not tall enough to be playing there, it'll fucking die.

In such a setting, you're completely right that performing "role-playing" non-optimal actions is shorthand for a shitty time. If it's multi-player, the other players are completely right to think the non-optimized player is trolling and kick him out of the party. I know I already did exactly that.

Now, D&D can very easily be played exactly like Diablo. We know this is true because all these games started as D&D emulators. But fuck, there's a totally unwarranted leap of logic here when you say it HAS to be played like that. In fact, these days, when I want to play a merciless challenging game where I make the deadliest possible character and then try it against the world, I play a roguelike game. (right now, btw, I'm playing this one)

Since D&D is NOT Diablo, if a party is exploring the sunken ruins of death, the MC will eyeball the monsters to suit the characters. What this means, is that if you have a party of 5 competent murderers, the MC can like duplicate the amount of monsters so that everybody can have a good time. If the team is 4 competent murderers + Bozo the clown or Flowers the pacifist druid, the MC can put like 160% more challenge, and maybe throw a bone to bozo in the form of a wacky clown-based encounter.

So don't say without irony that "In D&D, you have no such protection and the dangers are "real"." They're not, and not even in the "just a game" sense that warranted your original quotes. The danger is even less real than that because it's not even Objective. It's always adjusted on the fly to keep everybody entertained.

Finally, the valid criticism you can make is that there are probably better RPGs to play if someone really wants to play Rincewind or Flowers the pacifist druid. I can't really argue against this except by pointing that not everybody wants to buy/learn more games. My group played D&D for like 90% of the time, we're used to it and I find it's suited to both Diablo-style and OotS-style play.

TL;DR:
>2012
>Still thinks D&D is best when it's trying to be Diablo
mfw

[Mr. GC]

Since when has Diablo ever been a synonym for difficult? No, D3 doesn't count. Gearchecks =/= difficulty.

[Mistborn]

Listen I'll say this one more time if people want to make joke characters the they can make joke characters If someone really, really, want's to be less powerful than the rest of the party thats fine I don't think we need to write a class for that.

People on other sites still think that swordguy is a valid concept for 20 levels the same way having magical powers is a valid concept for 20 levels. Their cognative dissonce knows no bounds. The best way to deal with it is to slap them right in the face and say sword guy is a 5th level concept so sword guy is a 5 level class and after that you start taking are class that actually is allowed to have high level abilities.

[nockermensch]

Since when has Diablo ever been a synonym for difficult? No, D3 doesn't count. Gearchecks =/= difficulty.

You're missing the point. I mentioned Diablo because it's a game that everybody knows and because it has an objective difficulty, that can be hard to someone expecting a casual game. But of course it's an EASY MODO roguelike.

The point is that while D&D can be played like these games, arguing we still should do this in 2012 it's not conductive to bringing more people to the table.

Seriously guys, stop trying to sell that D&D has "real danger" where only "optimized characters" can survive. This is not a selling point, this is a weakness. This is exactly where MMOs are right now delivering a better experience than D&D. In my opinion, the more D&D tries to capitalize its MMOish elements, the more it'll fail and become irrelevant. Today, the actual selling points for a RPG should be the things that computers still can't do: the world building, story creating, knot cutting, MTPing (yeah, even the MTP) aspects.

So, contact other planes, illusions and tome fighters are good to the game, because they bring actual knot cutting. The Den gets this, awesome.

But DMFs (which we already recognized, it's actually a mindset and can be actually played by all classes) and druids that sniffle flowers in combat are ALSO GOOD for the game, because by their mere presence they force people to treat the RPG less as a videogame and more like a shared world-building, story-telling game. I mean, there's that retard, sniffling flowers while the fire giant army is wailing on us. But he's also the wizard's little brother, or the only guy who can feel from where the Great Evil is coming from, so what? You can't have this kind of situation on other games currently, but you can in a RPG. And yet, The Gaming Den is all about telling that guy to stop that and please behave more like a druid. The thinking is exactly backwards.

There, I did it. After thinking enough about the space tabletop RPGs have to compete with other forms of entertainment today, I came to believe that DMFs can actually be good for the game, not bad. You may all hate me now.

[Leress]

If the team is 4 competent murderers + Bozo the clown or Flowers the pacifist druid, the MC can put like 160% more challenge, and maybe throw a bone to bozo in the form of a wacky clown-based encounter.

Why would increase the challenge when there are fewer competent murders? Also how would you go about making an encounter just for bozo without telling the other players stay and do nothing, without it looking like you are giving special spotlight time to bozo?

[Mr. GC]

MMOs have dumb enemies that behave in a scripted manner and that usually attack the person least capable of hurting them.

D&D has smart enemies with dangerous abilities.

Which of these is, and is not like a video game:

Enemies use what they believe are their best abilities.
Enemies act randomly/hold back/otherwise do not go all out and play smart?

[nockermensch]

Listen I'll say this one more time if people want to make joke characters the they can make joke characters If someone really, really, want's to be less powerful than the rest of the party thats fine I don't think we need to write a class for that.

This is true. The actual classes need to be solid. All the actual game rules need to be solid, and support the kind of kill-or-be-killed hard mode D&D gaming everybody already "expects". They need to be like that to make the actual wacky people and situations memorable. (there are no joke characters in Toon, for example. Everybody there is expected to be zany and crazy)

People on other sites still think that swordguy is a valid concept for 20 levels the same way having magical powers is a valid concept for 20 levels. Their cognative dissonce knows no bounds. The best way to deal with it is to slap them right in the face and say sword guy is a 5th level concept so sword guy is a 5 level class and after that you start taking are class that actually is allowed to have high level abilities.

NO U, this is false. What's "true" is that nobody wrote a level appropriate 20 level swordguy class up to now. The Tome Fighter is a good jab at that, but Foil Action needs to advance to a version where the Fighter takes control of the effect he interrupted and it needs all new powers, like a "defeat means friendship" one where he can leave an enemy he just killed alive, but now the enemy non-magically and permanently likes him.

[Mistborn]

The point is that while D&D can be played like these games, arguing we still should do this in 2012 it's not conductive to bringing more people to the table.

Seriously guys, stop trying to sell that D&D has "real danger" where only "optimized characters" can survive. This is not a selling point, this is a weakness. This is exactly where MMOs are right now delivering a better experience than D&D. In my opinion, the more D&D tries to capitalize its MMOish elements, the more it'll fail and become irrelevant.

What make D&D intresting to pople who would otherwise be playing Diablo is the enimes can be smart. I.E. not dumb mobs runing on a script

Today, the actual selling points for a RPG should be the things that computers still can't do: the world building, story creating, knot cutting, MTPing (yeah, even the MTP) aspects.

So, contact other planes, illusions and tome fighters are good to the game, because they bring actual knot cutting. The Den gets this, awesome.

This is mostly correct. Except about MTP, If MTP is the main attraction to your game your game is bad and you should feel bad

But DMFs (which we already recognized, it's actually a mindset and can be actually played by all classes) and druids that sniffle flowers in combat are ALSO GOOD for the game, because by their mere presence they force people to treat the RPG less as a videogame and more like a shared world-building, story-telling game. I mean, there's that retard, sniffling flowers while the fire giant army is wailing on us. But he's also the wizard's little brother, or the only guy who can feel from where the Great Evil is coming from, so what? You can't have this kind of situation on other games currently, but you can in a RPG. And yet, The Gaming Den is all about telling that guy to stop that and please behave more like a druid. The thinking is exactly backwards.

There, I did it. After thinking enough about the space tabletop RPGs have to compete with other forms of entertainment today, I came to believe that DMFs can actually be good for the game, not bad. You may all hate me now.

but here is where you collapes into bullshit and failure. The DMF is bad because they can't interact with what make RPG enganging. As for the Druid sniffing flowers in combat that's bad, the player is bad, and the DM is bad for not kicking him out of the game. Stormwind mother-fucking Fallacy retard, having somone weave baskes in combat under no cirumstance engages people in the game. When it's combat time and you win or you die, and if you think not trying to win is somehow roleplaying then go suck a barrel of cocks you basket weaving lowlife.

[CapnTthePirateG]

OK, nockermensch, I've been in parties where I have been carrying the damn party through combat. One of the last parties I was in, we had two effectives: myself as an incantatrix fire blaster (free metamagic yo) and my friend as a rogue/warblade. The rest of the party consisted of a sorceror using spectral hand and shocking grasp(at 5th+ level), an artificer, who, erm, was going to do something in a few levels, maybe (but at least made us shit), and a cleric who maybe cast spells or something and had no bearing on actual fights (He had DMM, and persisted...something?). Anyway, long story short, the rogue and I WERE the party in fights, which was extremely annoying. Could we handle it? Yes, but there's always that bit of resentment where "the fuck am I doing all the work for?" It's not a pleasant feeling. You can't justify it like you can in fiction - "Oh Princess Sandy never learned how to fight, please protect her," it's "oh these guys are playing characters that are shitty and useless despite supposedly having the ability to fight." Step up or shut up.

[hyzmarca]

This is mostly correct. Except about MTP, If MTP is the main attraction to your game your game is bad and you should feel bad

You need MTP, though, because you're always going to run into situations that the rules simply don't cover.

D&D, for example, doesn't do geopolitics well. Once your PCs start building castles, declaring themselves Kings and getting involved in global geopolitics, you need to MTP it.

And at higher levels it becomes worse, because the engineering feats go from castle building to sky-castle building to trans-dimentional time-traveling sky-castle building and the politics go from negotiating with the King of South Umpton over water rights to participating in high-level parleys with Asmodeus and Zaphkiel. Modeling that is exceptionally difficult.

[nockermensch]

If the team is 4 competent murderers + Bozo the clown or Flowers the pacifist druid, the MC can put like 160% more challenge, and maybe throw a bone to bozo in the form of a wacky clown-based encounter.

Why would increase the challenge when there are fewer competent murders? Also how would you go about making an encounter just for bozo without telling the other players stay and do nothing, without it looking like you are giving special spotlight time to bozo?

Sorry, that ended up confusing. I was using "competent murderer" for "optimized character that calls for more enemies to keep things challenging" so if 5 of them meant 200% more enemies, 4 of them means 160%.

Also, nobody should expect that the other guys do nothing during the bozo encounter. They get to participate if they want. As for the special spotlight to bozo, that's exactly what that encounter is, and the effort I'd make to hide that would be zero. If I'm playing with 3 guys, two who care about the combat minigame (one of them just about it), and the other is mostly interested on making combat ending quickly so that he can pursue RP, then what am I supposed to do? Hint, this is not a rhetorical question, this is my actual gaming group. It used to be greater, but two guys can't be arsed to stop playing MMOs to play D&D anymore and another one kind of "grew" out of pretending to be an elf.

MMOs have dumb enemies that behave in a scripted manner and that usually attack the person least capable of hurting them.

D&D has smart enemies with dangerous abilities.

Which of these is, and is not like a video game:

A. Enemies use what they believe are their best abilities.
B. Enemies act randomly/hold back/otherwise do not go all out and play smart?

A. This looks like a videogame (on hard mode, probably). The monsters just follow a script, that can be as merciless as the programmer wants.
B. This looks like how D&D usually ends being played. The enemies don't use focus fire (while the party IS using it), dragons and giants don't grapple, monsters don't aggressively stop spellcasters from casting and everybody acts as if the AC 28 fighter had some kind of aggro drawing power.

Here's the thing: If the DM "plays fair" the party fucking dies. "smart enemies with dangerous abilities" actually acting smartly do things like "not losing", using the same active tools the party has at its disposition to win.

In a traditional D&D game the party is like 5 guys, while the enemy is something like "Lich lord" or "Evil church". The 5 guys then proceed to win anyway because the genre conventions require the Int 28 Lich or the Wis 28 Evil Patriarch to sit on their thumbs and let them. Had any of these guys used PC-like proactive thinking, and the party would be crushed by overwhelming opposition right after they started their quest, and everybody would play Risk for the rest of the evening. So, again, "D&D has smart enemies with dangerous abilities." is not even a selling point, because the truth is that the DM will always tweak things to ensure an enjoyable playing experience.

[Stubbazubba]

Isn't this K's soapbox? Is he renting it out?

[nockermensch]

OK, nockermensch, I've been in parties where I have been carrying the damn party through combat. One of the last parties I was in, we had two effectives: myself as an incantatrix fire blaster (free metamagic yo) and my friend as a rogue/warblade. The rest of the party consisted of a sorceror using spectral hand and shocking grasp(at 5th+ level), an artificer, who, erm, was going to do something in a few levels, maybe (but at least made us shit), and a cleric who maybe cast spells or something and had no bearing on actual fights (He had DMM, and persisted...something?). Anyway, long story short, the rogue and I WERE the party in fights, which was extremely annoying. Could we handle it? Yes, but there's always that bit of resentment where "the fuck am I doing all the work for?" It's not a pleasant feeling. You can't justify it like you can in fiction - "Oh Princess Sandy never learned how to fight, please protect her," it's "oh these guys are playing characters that are shitty and useless despite supposedly having the ability to fight." Step up or shut up.

I guess my experience here is skewered because I only played with people who I was already friends with. If I, as a person, don't have reasons to like the person behind the zany useless character already, then I understand it can suck to carry their weight in a fight.

In any case, how was the actual party dynamics? The useless guys at least recognized you two were saving their lives encounter to encounter and gave you props for it? Did you guys created some substory about it, like the incantatrix teaching the sorcerer how to be more deadly or something?

Your shitty experience for me happened because people (including the DM) had different expectations about what game they were playing. Fundamentally, were you REALLY carrying the party? Suppose you were playing an incantatrix that sandbags all the time and the warblade had a shitty maneuver selection (stone dragon, whatever). What would actually happen when everybody, DM included, looked to a combat in course and noticed that "fuck, there's no way the party can survive this"? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm really wondering about this.

[Mistborn]

Well my expirence in an unoptimized party it's the wizard who carries all the weight. This was clear to me from the first time I played where we spilt the party and my character cleared content that was meant for the entire party and the other players just failed all over everything.

Once somthing like that happens a big question hangs over every session. Why exactly are the compotent party members bringing dead weight with them into a combat situation.

[K]

Isn't this K's soapbox? Is he renting it out?

Not exactly. While I do think that DMs sandbag encounters to make the game work at all, I don't see it as a good thing or a defense for things like DMFs.

Ideally, all PCs should have the potential to contribute equally to most encounters. If you don't do the that, many DMs are going to fail to adjust the difficulties and you are going to get a shitty game from otherwise competent DMs.