# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games >  Talakeal's Pre-Horror Story Jitters (Rambly)

## Talakeal

Finally, after a more than two year hiatus, I am going to get a chance to be a player again.

We started this campaign back in early 2020, did a couple of rocky sessions, and then put the whole thing on hold due to Covid lockdown.

We are finally ready to start up again in January, but since that time both the group composition and the game rules have changed, and so this weekend we met up to discuss our plans for the game and to build / rebuild characters.

Overall, I am optimistic toward the game, but a few things are getting me down.


First issue, my character is a sword sage type. My highest skills is in resolve (the equivalent of D&D 3E's Will Save), and my character has a detailed backstory about how I learned all of my skills and abilities.

So, when we remake characters, for some reason everyone in the party really min-maxes, and EVERYONE decides to max out their resolve skill. So, we are in a situation where my highest skill is actually the lowest in the entire party. This makes me grumpy for three reasons:

1: It makes me feel kind of useless and the opposite of special, when I am the worst in the party at my one thing.
2: It kind of makes me feel like Vesuvius when Elan decides to become a wizard; I actually gave my character skills appropriate to my background, while everyone else just kind of maxed out their score for... reasons?
3: Tactically, it is just dumb for everyone to focus on the same type of defense, as encounters which rely on will saves are basically trivial, but every encounter that relies on a different sort of defense will turn into potential TPKs.

When I expressed my displeasure, I was told that calling dibs on a defensive skills is "a big middle finger to the rest of the group". Furthermore, he said that defensive powers cannot be a core part of a character's identity / fantasy.

So, two things. First; I know its kind of childish to want to be "special", but at the same time, it really feels like that is part a big part of fantasy of the game, and it does hurt my enjoyment. Is there anything that can be done about this?

Second, I realized that I really, really, need to stop taking my fellow players literally. The idea that a character's defenses can't be part of their concept is patently absurd, right? But then, I don't think that they even believe this, I think they just like to make absolute statements to justify their actions. In the best I have made threads about quotes like "When someone is talking in an RPG, nobody else is having fun" or "A DM is not allowed to remove a model from the battle mat if they could still potentially hinder the players" or "If someone attempts to gain a tactical advantage over you, you are always justified in responding with lethal force". I took all of these statements at face value, and tried to come to the forum for understanding, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that they don't actually mean what they are saying. Or am I off base in this conclusion?



Then on the GM side of things, the GM asked everyone to come up with both a short and a long term goal for their character.

Now, this sounds like a really good idea on paper, allowing people the opportunity to flesh out their character and the GM to tailor adventure to interest them, but I haven't had good luck with this in the past.

I remember one game where the GM did something like this, and then proceeded to ignore our motivations when designing his adventure, and then threatened to beat me up when my character was reluctant to go along with a plot that was pretty much antithetical to his nature.

Another time we were playing Chronicles of Darkness, where XP is based on accomplishing goals you set for yourself, but my character was too "grounded" for it to work. We were playing an urban horror type game where the "adventures" were distractions from real life, and all of my goals were more mundane things involving education, family, and career, and so stuff like solving supernatural mysteries and battling the monster of the week were active impediments to my goals, none of which were really game-able, especially in the short turn.

I am also afraid that, as the players are deciding these goals in a vacuum, it will serve to drive the party apart as we are each trying to go in our own direction.

So I ask the GM how he imagines this playing out, trying to sound calm and non-accusatory, but as usual I fail, at which point the GM loses his temper and tells everyone to forget about it, he will just railroad us and ignore our input in the future.

When I try and put it on myself and say I am having trouble coming up with any goals as my character has essentially had her whole life stripped away and is trying to find her footing before she can come up with long term goals, and as for short-term goals, we are shipwrecked on an island, its going to be hard to have any short term goals beyond finding food and a way out of here, at which point one of the other players told me that I need to learn to hand-wave away all of the logistics and instead focus on the fun, and I tried to explain that for me, the verisimilitude of the situation IS the fun.

So, any advice you can give me for relaxing and enjoying the situation? Or anything I can pass on to the GM about how to make this player goals thing go more smoothly?

Thanks for listening to my ramble.

----------


## The Glyphstone

Is getting drunk/stoned before game an option? Only half serious, but even the sessions you describe as good look like a horrifically toxic environment to all of us. At least in a chemically altered state of mind itd be harder to be bothered by the madness.

----------


## Batcathat

I know you've been told this a bunch of times already and it's probably not the kind of advice you're looking for... but you should really consider playing with different people. A group where the only options seems to be "walk on eggshells" and "screaming matches" is not a good group. To be clear, I'm certainly not saying a group needs to agree on everything (that just sounds boring, to be honest) and be best friends forever, but conflicts should be handled in a hopefully mature or at the very least sane manner. Even ignoring everything you've posted before, there are quite a few red flags in this post alone.

As for the specifics, I'm sort of split regarding the first problem. I too usually want my characters to have a thing that they're the best at and if I made such a character only to have the rest of the players create characters that were even better at My Thing, I'd probably be annoyed. On the other hand, I agree with your group that it seems like kind of an odd thing to base character identity around (though since I'm not familiar with the system, I can't really say for sure). I'm also curious why they did design their characters that way, is resolve just a really important skill, were they intentionally trying to steal your thing or something else?

Not sure what to suggest for the goal thing. The obvious answer seem to be "Talk to you GM and the rest of the group". But, well...

----------


## False God

Find a different group of people to play with.

That said, don't rebuild your character.  Make an entirely new one.  If you are stuck with no option but to rebuild the old character, create an entirely new one anyway  and keep the name/age/sex/species.  Min/max to such a degree as to put everyone else to shame, you're on these boards after all, I'm certain you can find a way.  

Which is, if you're not going to find a new group to play with, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.  And if you must, bright a lightsaber.

----------


## Keltest

> Find a different group of people to play with.
> 
> That said, don't rebuild your character.  Make an entirely new one.  If you are stuck with no option but to rebuild the old character, create an entirely new one anyway  and keep the name/age/sex/species.  Min/max to such a degree as to put everyone else to shame, you're on these boards after all, I'm certain you can find a way.  
> 
> Which is, if you're not going to find a new group to play with, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.  And if you must, bright a lightsaber.


Well said. If you can't leave an unfair situation, play unfair yourself.

----------


## Quertus

Ok, lets start with the stuff that comes early to me: Character goals.

So, youre all stranded on an island? My character goals might includeMake a map of the island.Start a garden.Get <other character> to go out with me.Get duties established (watch being the obvious one)Find the necessary herbs to easy bake more spells (a 3e build concept; adapt to your own needs (oil for keeping sword from rusting, perhaps?)).Find something to turn into alcohol.Pick out a good spot to call homeConvince party of value of vow of Nudity, or look for way to make/mend clothes.Turn shipwreck into Statue of Liberty shaped torch / beacon.Befriend member of local wildlife.Take stock of provisions, other useful items.Investigate good fishing spot; craft fishing tools as needed.Begin building raft / submarine / flight (hang glider / hot air balloon / pterodactyl / undead bat swarm), as crafting skill and materials allow.Begin tooling up, possibly starting with glass-blowing, maybe for something useful, and/or maybe to build a ship in a bottle.Get GM buy-in on new custom Prestige class(es) (or system equivalent) related to current scenario.Find appropriate inanimate object to paint face on, talk to as new best friend.Catalogue local flora and fauna, to use as materials for magic item creation.Pray.Figure out which NPCs would be tastiest / would be least likely to go along with Advanced Rationing Techniques.Determine which of local hazards / flora / fauna would be best for removing NPC / monster hazards.Learn sight lines, acoustics, Travel times for keeping everyone safe / staging accidents.Find / create short cuts.If rules set does not make prohibitively difficult, begin creating traps to secure perimeter.Begin carving dice, other recreational objects (to improve morale).Shave everyone bald, to create ropes of human hair.Begin drawing strange arcane symbols for no apparent reason.

And, as Ive said before, I am who I am, regardless of who anyone else is, and the same goes for my characters. Superman is Superman, regardless of whether hes teamed up with Batman, or with someone stronger and tougher than himself. Learn to accept this, and to measure yourself compared to the infinite multiverse, not the trivially small sample set right next to you.

----------


## Talakeal

> I'm also curious why they did design their characters that way, is resolve just a really important skill, were they intentionally trying to steal your thing or something else?


No idea.

None of the defenses are particularly better than the others, and I have no idea why people are flocking to resolve or how my actions factor into it at all.

The best theory I have is that they have short memories, and become hyper-fixated on defending against the last thing they encountered. If it had been poison, they would all be maxing out fortitude at the cost of resolve, and if it had been fireballs, they would be maxing out acrobatics at the cost of fortitude.




> Find a different group of people to play with.
> 
> That said, don't rebuild your character.  Make an entirely new one.  If you are stuck with no option but to rebuild the old character, create an entirely new one anyway  and keep the name/age/sex/species.  Min/max to such a degree as to put everyone else to shame, you're on these boards after all, I'm certain you can find a way.  
> 
> Which is, if you're not going to find a new group to play with, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.  And if you must, bright a lightsaber.


I may use min-max differently than most people. I am not talking about *power gaming*, I am talking about people who sink their entire build into one or two areas and then crumple like wet tissue paper when forced to act outside of it. 

My character is already probably the strongest in the party overall, the issue is about wanting to feel unique rather than feeling powerful.




> Ok, lets start with the stuff that comes early to me: Character goals.
> 
> So, youre all stranded on an island? My character goals might include *snip*


Pretty much everything on that list falls into the category of logistics to be hand-waved for the sake of fun or passing the ball back into the DM's court.




> And, as Ive said before, I am who I am, regardless of who anyone else is, and the same goes for my characters. Superman is Superman, regardless of whether hes teamed up with Batman, or with someone stronger and tougher than himself. Learn to accept this, and to measure yourself compared to the infinite multiverse, not the trivially small sample set right next to you.


Maybe so, but the gameplay experience and social interactions are going to be VASTLY different.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

I'll echo the idea of 'is it at all possible to find another group of players', but I remember you saying before that you're not in an area with many available groups.

As to character goals, something that CofD explains really poorly is that Aspirations _don't have to be in character_, and you can apply the same logic here. The classic example is the short term goal of 'get in a fight', which few characters will actually want to do but many players actively pursue. So try starting from 'what do I want to see in the game' and working back to how your character's motivations can lead to that. If that still doesn't work go for easily but not immediately attainable stuff, along the lines of 'short term goal: play the trumpet in front of an audience' or 'long term goal: buy a farm'.

It certainly doesn't solve the issue of the GM ignoring them, but there's not really anything that can beyond what you've tried.

----------


## False God

> I may use min-max differently than most people. I am not talking about *power gaming*, I am talking about people who sink their entire build into one or two areas and then crumple like wet tissue paper when forced to act outside of it. 
> 
> My character is already probably the strongest in the party overall, the issue is about wanting to feel unique rather than feeling powerful..


Then, as I said, build something completely different.  It sounds like they all maxed into the same area, so it should be easy to max into any other area and still remain the most powerful overall.  

But these folks clearly don't care about your feelings, and with everyone maxing into the same area it sounds like either the DM or the system heavily favor that area.

----------


## Quertus

> the issue is about wanting to feel unique rather than feeling powerful.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much everything on that list falls into the category of logistics to be hand-waved for the sake of fun or passing the ball back into the DM's court.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe so, but the gameplay experience and social interactions are going to be VASTLY different.


So, everything that makes the scenario unique, that makes it more than window dressing, is hand waved away? Whats the point of a scenario if you cant take advantage of the differences in creating a story? EDIT: note that I intentionally borrowed many of my ideas from classic scenes from shipwreck scenarios; without those things, the stories wouldnt have been the same.

OTOH, your characters attributes have not been hand waved away. They are still exactly as you built them, and the universe will still mechanically respond as it should. Youre still more likely to die to starvation or drowning than to despair in your deserted island / shipwreck scenario. The difference is, you _happen_ to have been shipwrecked with a group who are stronger at your strength, and weaker at everything else, than you are.

Afaict, youre upset because you had pictured your character having a particular role in the story. Um dont do that? Instead, play to find out what your role in the narrative is. Let the story evolve organically.

More generally, anything that _has_ to be true for you to have fun, make sure to get explicit buy-in from everyone else before the game starts. Corollary: to optimize your fun, and to minimize the burden you impose upon others, work to minimize your requirements, both in number and degree.

Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, is tactically inept. Yet there are four scenarios I can think of (three tables, one being Ed Greenwoods) where despite his ineptitude he would probably be the competent one in the group. And I actually got to play through that 4th scenario, where Quertus dealt with a sorceress who was more tactically inept than he himself was. It was great! I got to RP the story of a one-eyed man is king.

Yes, the gameplay was different. Thats why I dont settle for just one campaign with just one group of PCs in just one setting under just one GM. Thats why I want to keep replaying the same characters, to try to get as full a picture of who they are as I can.

Ideally, look at this as an opportunity to play a version of Superman who didnt grow up with a superiority complex of Im tough, I can take it, or of him confronting a scenario where hes still Superman, but hes teamed up with especially durable Kryptonian soldiers or something. Nothings changed, except who hes with.

And thats the key: an RPG isnt single-author fiction, everyone at the table has input into the story being told. The input from your fellow players has had the logical consequences that your character likely wont fulfill one role in the story that you had anticipated them filling. Ok, so what? Is your character a one-note two-dimensional caricature (the smart one), or are they an orchestral symphony, a full character worth being invested in? What else about them, other than their resolve, makes them worth playing, worth telling stories about? Even Superman, the iconic Brick, is known for stories about him out-thinking his opponents, and about his particular Boy Scout morality. Plus oddball alternate-reality ones that push lessons like, your secret is worth alienating your friends and letting people die for.   :Small Confused: 

Now, that said, were I in your shoes, knowing how your group is utterly horrible (and explosively so), rather than making problems out of nothing, heres the _actual_ problems Id be prepared for:
No one else in the party can handle anything other than resolve. Be prepared for a whole party of glass cannons, who just cant hack it.

No one else is as good as your character at so very many things. Expect to get an awful lot of spotlight time but likely the way a Monk does, by being able to survive, and being volunteered for tasks no one else can survive. Expect them to think youre getting too much attention, while you feel abused and want time for your _active_ abilities to shine.

Expect the game to implode, and everyone to think its your fault.
Really, that last one is probably good for you to be prepared for, for every game with your group.

----------


## kyoryu

> Finally, after a more than two year hiatus, I am going to get a chance to be a player again.
> 
> We started this campaign back in early 2020, did a couple of rocky sessions, and then put the whole thing on hold due to Covid lockdown.
> 
> We are finally ready to start up again in January, but since that time both the group composition and the game rules have changed, and so this weekend we met up to discuss our plans for the game and to build / rebuild characters.
> 
> Overall, I am optimistic toward the game, but a few things are getting me down.
> 
> 
> ...


So, it sounds like there's just a basic, run-of-the-mill expectations mismatch here.

They're not wrong, and neither are you.  But you have expectations that don't work well together.

Sounds like the expectations are:

1. Some degree of charop higher than is your natural inclination
2. Characters focused on non-mundane goals

There's also a bit of monday-morning-quarterbacking other peoples characters.  So, my suggestion is the general one for mismatched expectations - get in line with the rest of the group, or find a different game.

As far as the skills and defenses go, just make your character, and don't worry about it, and don't expect the rest of the team to "cover" your "gaps".  If you do, you're just dictating what they do, and that ain't super cool.

If you keep going on, I'd recommend:

1. Build your character to the level of charop standard for the group.  Or at least reasonably close to the range.
2. Make your character goals the same "scale/scope" as the rest of the group.
3. Let other people make their characters, _within those guidelines_

----------


## BRC

1) Re Min-maxing resolve defense

That sounds like a lesson the rest of the group may have to learn about not focusing on a single defense. That said I don't think it's especially fair of you to call dibs on having a good defensive stat, especially if the stat in question is one that lets you not get mind controlled. Lots of players will put everything into Resolve or their system's equivalent just because failing it is distinctly not fun. 


2) Setting Character Goals

Ideally this sort of thing will be a conversation. "Here are the types of Goals I'm thinking of, will these work in the campaign as you imagine it?". I don't know how the conversation with your GM went down exactly.

For the specific "Shipwrecked on an island" scenario, don't think about it as writing out sidequests so much as prorities. Is her top priority to maximize the chance of day-to-day survival? To maximize chance of escaping the island, or to maximize their comfort while ON the island. 

For long-term goals, forget about the Island, and go Broad. Don't plan it as "What is she going to be working for session 1" so much as "what is her general goal". 


The trick with that sort of "Character Goal" thing is that the group needs to be cohesive, you need to have a reason to stay working within the group session-by-session, your goal exists to be plot hooks and general guidance. Character Goals shouldn't be the all-encompassing reason why your character does everything. As you noted with your "Grounded" character, they should also be the sort of thing that is progressed by engaging with the concept of the campaign.


Inigo Montoya from Princess Bride is a great model for this sort of thing.

Inigo has a Situation, an Ideal, a preference, and a long-term goal. 

Inigo's situation is that he's a hired goon, he wants to follow his bosses orders so he gets paid.

He has an Ideal, as much as he's in the princess kidnapping business, he's a man of deep honor. He promises The Man in Black that he will not cut the rope, even though his end goal is to kill the Man in Black.

He's got a preference, he would much prefer to test his skills against The Man in Black in an honorable duel than to ambush him when he finishes scaling the cliffs, or even attack him before he catches his breath. 

And he's got a long-term goal, to kill the six-fingered man and avenge his father's death.

All of these things influence his actions, but he's still able to work within the adventuring party of himself, Fezzik, and Vincini. As much as he wants to live a life of honor and seek revenge, he accepts his situation as a mercenary.


TLDR, don't think of a long-term goal as "Why is my character in this party". Start with a character that will be in this party, and list goals as "What sort of opportunities would they be interested in pursuing if they came up?"

Inigo saw an opportunity to test his skills in an honorable duel, so he pursued that, but that wasn't his reason for being in the group.

----------


## Talakeal

> Then, as I said, build something completely different.  It sounds like they all maxed into the same area, so it should be easy to max into any other area and still remain the most powerful overall.  
> 
> But these folks clearly don't care about your feelings, and with everyone maxing into the same area it sounds like either the DM or the system heavily favor that area.


I have already rebuilt my character TWICE for these people, I really don't want to do it a third time.




> As to character goals, something that CofD explains really poorly is that Aspirations _don't have to be in character_, and you can apply the same logic here. The classic example is the short term goal of 'get in a fight', which few characters will actually want to do but many players actively pursue. So try starting from 'what do I want to see in the game' and working back to how your character's motivations can lead to that. If that still doesn't work go for easily but not immediately attainable stuff, along the lines of 'short term goal: play the trumpet in front of an audience' or 'long term goal: buy a farm'.
> 
> It certainly doesn't solve the issue of the GM ignoring them, but there's not really anything that can beyond what you've tried.


Making it a list of OOC doesn't really solve the problem, all it does is add is make me completely unsure about what the point of even having listed goals is.




> So, everything that makes the scenario unique, that makes it more than window dressing, is hand waved away? Whats the point of a scenario if you cant take advantage of the differences in creating a story? EDIT: note that I intentionally borrowed many of my ideas from classic scenes from shipwreck scenarios; without those things, the stories wouldnt have been the same.
> 
> OTOH, your characters attributes have not been hand waved away. They are still exactly as you built them, and the universe will still mechanically respond as it should. Youre still more likely to die to starvation or drowning than to despair in your deserted island / shipwreck scenario. The difference is, you _happen_ to have been shipwrecked with a group who are stronger at your strength, and weaker at everything else, than you are.


Pretty sure they want to just hand-wave away logistics like food and supplies, so no, I wouldn't be at risk of starvation.

Also, it isn't really relevant, but to clarify, its not a tiny desert island. The DM has described the island as being about the same general size and climate as Kansas, and presumably a similar population. There is a small town nearby and several farms, and I believe there is at least one city somewhere on the island.

The problem is, the region is recovering from a severe famine, and we don't have a lot of money, so finding food or money with which to buy it and getting our boat fixed would, logically, be our first priority.




> Afaict, youre upset because you had pictured your character having a particular role in the story. Um dont do that? Instead, play to find out what your role in the narrative is. Let the story evolve organically.


Playing to find out what my role in the narrative is is exactly what I plan on doing, which is why I am having trouble coming up with goals.

Still doesn't mean that my character not working mechanically is going to be fun game play.




> Expect to get an awful lot of spotlight time but likely the way a Monk does, by being able to survive, and being volunteered for tasks no one else can survive. Expect them to think youre getting too much attention, while you feel abused and want time for your _active_ abilities to shine.


But Doctor, I AM the monk.




> There's also a bit of monday-morning-quarterbacking other peoples characters.  So, my suggestion is the general one for mismatched expectations - get in line with the rest of the group, or find a different game.
> 
> As far as the skills and defenses go, just make your character, and don't worry about it, and don't expect the rest of the team to "cover" your "gaps".  If you do, you're just dictating what they do, and that ain't super cool.


Its less about dictating what other people do than not liking playing the same character as someone else.

It always results in the game turning needlessly competitive and one person feeling useless.

I would rather just play a different character, and indeed already tossed away two perfectly good characters to better fit in with the party.


Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the old 3E D&D conundrum where a cleric player uses all of their spells to buff themselves and then outfight the martial characters in the group rather than healing or buffing allies?




> If you keep going on, I'd recommend:
> 
> 1. Build your character to the level of charop standard for the group.  Or at least reasonably close to the range.
> 2. Make your character goals the same "scale/scope" as the rest of the group.
> 3. Let other people make their characters, _within those guidelines_


I could certainly power game harder and make a more proactive and objective oriented character. But does that actually seem like it would help to you?

To me it just seems needlessly childish and antagonistic and will result in more conflict with the rest of the party in the long term.




> That sounds like a lesson the rest of the group may have to learn about not focusing on a single defense. That said I don't think it's especially fair of you to call dibs on having a good defensive stat, especially if the stat in question is one that lets you not get mind controlled. Lots of players will put everything into Resolve or their system's equivalent just because failing it is distinctly not fun.


For a normal person, being dead is a lot worse than being mind controlled, but nobody seems worried about fortitude or acrobatics despite the fact that those are a lot more common and likely to avoid getting you killed. 

OOC being mind controlled is actually kind of fun IMO.

But if being mind controlled is that bad, its much simpler to just make a character who is immune to mind control.

So we aren't playing 3.5, but I will translate what happened:

In the previous game which I ran, there was one encounter where the party moved through a field of flowers that fed on blood and released a pollen that drugged people and sent them into a rage. Mechanically, make a will save each turn while within the area or attack the nearest ally. As there was only one person in the party who had a good will save, and everyone but one person was playing a "glass canon" all offense but no defense, that encounter got them really beat up. It didn't wipe the party or anything, but they took a lot of damage.

So, we make characters. I want to play a healer, but someone else calls dibs, so then I want to play a samurai, but that doesn't work either due to the rest of the party's goals and alignment, so for my third character I create a monk who will work with the rest of the party mechanically and ethically. Part of my backstory is that I was a very stubborn rebellious noble child who was sent to live in a monastery to learn inner peace and to channel my obstinance into something positive. So I put my highest stat (a 16) into wisdom and chose Iron Will for my starting feat.

Then, one of the other players is having trouble picking her starting feat, and say's 
"Hey, what was that feat Brian took last time that made him resistant to mind control?"
"Iron Will" 
"Cool, I want that."
"Oh, that's a good idea, I want that to!" And then every player at the table proceeds to erase the starting feat they had chosen and write in Iron Will.
I say "Could you please not? Having a strong willpower is kind of important to my character concept and what makes her special."
"**** You! You can't tell us not to take a defense! Besides, defensive abilities cannot be part of a character concept, that's absurd!"

Now, then the part that really baffles me, is that everyone else ALSO puts their highest stat into wisdom, even classes that don't really benefit from it like the fighter and the rogue, and as a result of people using more min-maxxed builds and starting with 18 wisdom OR playing a race with a racial bonus to wisdom, I actually end up with the lowest score in the party.






> That sounds like a lesson the rest of the group may have to learn about not focusing on a single defense. That said I don't think it's especially fair of you to call dibs on having a good defensive stat, especially if the stat in question is one that lets you not get mind controlled. Lots of players will put everything into Resolve or their system's equivalent just because failing it is distinctly not fun.


For a normal person, being dead is a lot worse than being mind controlled, but nobody seems worried about fortitude or acrobatics despite the fact that those are a lot more common and likely to avoid getting you killed. 

OOC being mind controlled is actually kind of fun IMO.

But if being mind controlled is that bad, its much simpler to just make a character who is immune to mind control.

So we aren't playing 3.5, but I will translate what happened:

In the previous game which I ran, there was one encounter where the party moved through a field of flowers that fed on blood and released a pollen that drugged people and sent them into a rage. Mechanically, make a will save each turn while within the area or attack the nearest ally. As there was only one person in the party who had a good will save, and everyone but one person was playing a "glass canon" all offense but no defense, that encounter got them really beat up. It didn't wipe the party or anything, but they took a lot of damage.

So, we make characters. I want to play a healer, but someone else calls dibs, so then I want to play a samurai, but that doesn't work either due to the rest of the party's goals and alignment, so for my third character I create a monk who will work with the rest of the party mechanically and ethically. Part of my backstory is that I was a very stubborn rebellious noble child who was sent to live in a monastery to learn inner peace and to channel my obstinance into something positive. So I put my highest stat (a 16) into wisdom and chose Iron Will for my starting feat.

Then, one of the other players is having trouble picking her starting feat, and say's 
"Hey, what was that feat Brian took last time that made him resistant to mind control?"
"Iron Will" 
"Cool, I want that."
"Oh, that's a good idea, I want that to!" And then every player at the table proceeds to erase the starting feat they had chosen and write in Iron Will.
I say "Could you please not? Having a strong willpower is kind of important to my character concept and what makes her special."
"**** You! You can't tell us not to take a defense! Besides, defensive abilities cannot be part of a character concept, that's absurd!"

Now, then the part that really baffles me, is that everyone else ALSO puts their highest stat into wisdom, even classes that don't really benefit from it, and as a result of people using more min-maxxed builds and starting with 18 wisdom OR playing a race with a racial bonus to wisdom, I actually end up with the lowest score in the party.




> stuff about goals.


A lot of the stuff about Inigo was more character traits than goals, IMO, and I have plenty of development in that regard.

The problem is that most of my short term goals are practical rather than adventures, and I am asked to hand-waive that sort of thing.

As for long term goals, I very intentionally made a character who does NOT have any to fit with the rest of the party.

One of the other PCs is playing a Chaotic Evil Necromancer who is both a narcissist and a serial killer, as well as being a penniless street urchin who is on the run from the most powerful organization in the world, and whose long term goals are to kill everyone in the world and raise them as her mindless thralls.

That is not a character that is easy to just slot into your standard adventuring party, and I had to contort my backstory into pretzels to make that work, and part of it was intentionally playing someone who has no connections to anything and is fine sitting back and watching the world burn.

----------


## Keltest

Realistically, I dont think theres a way you can have your cake and eat it too here Talakeal. This group does not care about your feelings. Youre going to have to give somewhere, either remaking the character, suffer through being the worst at the job, or leave.

I understand you dont want to leave, but you are now to the point where you preemptively complain and cringe. That seems like you are now dreading the game more than you have fun.

----------


## BRC

> For a normal person, being dead is a lot worse than being mind controlled, but nobody seems worried about fortitude or acrobatics despite the fact that those are a lot more common and likely to avoid getting you killed.


System dependent, but in general failing a single one of those saves doesn't instantly take away your character sheet. Failing a save and being told "Okay, you don't get to play the game for a while" is the sort of thing some players find distinctly unfun. I know plenty of players who, upon losing the ability to make decisions in the game, will at best just check out and become disconnected in what's going on, and at worst get very frustrated. 
(You can get the same effect with paralysis and the like I guess).



> OOC being mind controlled is actually kind of fun IMO.


 To each there own.



> But if being mind controlled is that bad, its much simpler to just make a character who is immune to mind control.


System-Dependent. Not every system has "Immune to mind control" as a simple thing to get. 



> So we aren't playing 3.5, but I will translate what happened:
> 
> In the previous game which I ran, there was one encounter where the party moved through a field of flowers that fed on blood and released a pollen that drugged people and sent them into a rage. Mechanically, make a will save each turn while within the area or attack the nearest ally. As there was only one person in the party who had a good will save, and everyone but one person was playing a "glass canon" all offense but no defense, that encounter got them really beat up. It didn't wipe the party or anything, but they took a lot of damage.
> 
> So, we make characters. I want to play a healer, but someone else calls dibs, so then I want to play a samurai, but that doesn't work either due to the rest of the party's goals and alignment, so for my third character I create a monk who will work with the rest of the party mechanically and ethically. Part of my backstory is that I was a very stubborn rebellious noble child who was sent to live in a monastery to learn inner peace and to channel my obstinance into something positive. So I put my highest stat (a 16) into wisdom and chose Iron Will for my starting feat.
> 
> Then, one of the other players is having trouble picking her starting feat, and say's 
> "Hey, what was that feat Brian took last time that made him resistant to mind control?"
> "Iron Will" 
> ...


Okay, I have a question here.

Were you excited about mechanically having the unique niche of having a high resolve? Or were you excited about roleplaying a character who was especially willful and stubborn, as mechanically represented by the Iron Will feat?

If the former, I get why you might be miffed, but I have trouble sympathizing with your plight. Telling other players that they need to be bad at something they'd like to be good at so you can feel special is kind of a **** move, especially when the thing in question is being good at resisting mind control. If you were trying to play a character built around being an acrobat, and somebody else was a common thief and just happened to min-max their way into a higher acrobatics score, I could have more sympathy, but it sounds like the other players are especially scared of mind control for some reason, and it's not really fair to tell them that they need to be bad at that so you can be good at it.  

You're right in that this will probably result in the GM just not using mind control and therefore nobody gets to show off how good they are at resisting it, but I don't think there's a good solution there.

If the latter, you can STILL play your character as strong-willed, if everybody else switched feats as an afterthought they're probably not RPing that as a central feature of your character. Yeah, there's a bit of a mismatch that your strong-willed monk has worse resolve saves than  Fighter Joe Who Happened To Take Iron Will, but it doesn't stop you from RPing your character as willful and determined. 




> The problem is that most of my short term goals are practical rather than adventures, and I am asked to hand-waive that sort of thing.
> 
> As for long term goals, I very intentionally made a character who does NOT have any to fit with the rest of the party.
> 
> One of the other PCs is playing a Chaotic Evil Necromancer who is both a narcissist and a serial killer, as well as being a penniless street urchin who is on the run from the most powerful organization in the world, and whose long term goals are to kill everyone in the world and raise them as her mindless thralls.
> 
> That is not a character that is easy to just slot into your standard adventuring party, and I had to contort my backstory into pretzels to make that work, and part of it was intentionally playing someone who has no connections to anything and is fine sitting back and watching the world burn.



Problem is mostly on the CE necro here, but points to you for bending over backwards to accommodate them. 

As for short-term goals, try going one step above base survival practicality. 

Your character is an ex-noble, maybe she misses the life of luxury she had growing up (Even if she was rebellious), and resents the spartan lifestyle of the monestary: Short term goal, acquire a nice living space.

Or, alternatively, if she really resonated with her time at the monastery, a short-term goal might be to find some way to reconnect with her order.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

I'll note that not getting to play is intentionally baked into many RPGs as a punishment. Don't play well and you're forced to sit out for some measure of real time until you wake up/get raised/have a suspiciously similar character turn up in a jail cell. The issue with SoD effects and the like is that they're inflicting the punishment in a way that's very hard to mitigate.

Mind control is a separate issue, it basically requires the group to be able to maturely handle PvP. Dame Jasmine the Paladin might be mad at you, but her player Anonymouswizard understands that it's just part of the game that occasionally you play for the other side, have implanted orders, or get into a disagreement. If your group can't handle PvP there should be a gentlemen's agreement to keep mind control off the table.

I'll also concur that many games don't allow outright immunity. Although honestly shooting for immunity is generally a bit silly, it tends to be a lot of points for very little actual benefit. The exception generally being games that play at cosmic levels, Nobilis lets you be outright immune to pretty much anything for only like 6CP (out of 25, it's basically two Attribute levels).

----------


## BRC

> I'll note that not getting to play is intentionally baked into many RPGs as a punishment. Don't play well and you're forced to sit out for some measure of real time until you wake up/get raised/have a suspiciously similar character turn up in a jail cell. The issue with SoD effects and the like is that they're inflicting the punishment in a way that's very hard to mitigate.
> 
> Mind control is a separate issue, it basically requires the group to be able to maturely handle PvP. Dame Jasmine the Paladin might be mad at you, but her player Anonymouswizard understands that it's just part of the game that occasionally you play for the other side, have implanted orders, or get into a disagreement. If your group can't handle PvP there should be a gentlemen's agreement to keep mind control off the table.
> 
> I'll also concur that many games don't allow outright immunity. Although honestly shooting for immunity is generally a bit silly, it tends to be a lot of points for very little actual benefit. The exception generally being games that play at cosmic levels, Nobilis lets you be outright immune to pretty much anything for only like 6CP (out of 25, it's basically two Attribute levels).


Yeah but psychologically there's a difference between "I don't get to play because (Long string of events that led to me running out of hit points)" vs "I don't get to play because I rolled a bad save and now I'm asleep/paralyzed/Mind controlled/convinced I'm a sea slug".

The former has you out of the game longer, but is going to be rarer, and rarely feels like you're being directly punished for decisions you made in character creation. 

If you go down to damage you can say "Hrmm, I shouldn't have passed on drinking that health potion/charged that ogre/ switched off the shield for the two-hander" or whatever.

Getting mind controlled is "hrmm,  back when I made my character, I should have made the number that makes this not happen be higher". 

And unlike learning lessons about smart play, fixing that your character sheet is a slow process that comes at a high cost. If you're sick of being mind controlled, you've got to wait to level up and spend whatever your system spends to get that instead of other abilities you were more excited about. 

So yeah, I can't blame anybody for deciding to prioritize resistance to mind control at character creation.

----------


## kyoryu

> Yeah but psychologically there's a difference between "I don't get to play because (Long string of events that led to me running out of hit points)" vs "I don't get to play because I rolled a bad save and now I'm asleep/paralyzed/Mind controlled/convinced I'm a sea slug".
> 
> The former has you out of the game longer, but is going to be rarer, and rarely feels like you're being directly punished for decisions you made in character creation. 
> 
> If you go down to damage you can say "Hrmm, I shouldn't have passed on drinking that health potion/charged that ogre/ switched off the shield for the two-hander" or whatever.
> 
> Getting mind controlled is "hrmm,  back when I made my character, I should have made the number that makes this not happen be higher". 
> 
> And unlike learning lessons about smart play, fixing that your character sheet is a slow process that comes at a high cost. If you're sick of being mind controlled, you've got to wait to level up and spend whatever your system spends to get that instead of other abilities you were more excited about. 
> ...


Also, running out of HP is usually the result of _multiple_ bad decisions or rolls, and can be mitigated with positioning, etc.  Typically mind control is tied to _one_ roll, and often not even something that you could have avoided tactically.

Even if mind control had to go through some kind of 'mental resistance' hp-like analogue, that would make it more palatable, I think.  Sadly, I think a lot of 1e mind-control spells were intended to be used against monsters, and when they got flipped don't really work as well.

----------


## Talakeal

> System dependent, but in general failing a single one of those saves doesn't instantly take away your character sheet. Failing a save and being told "Okay, you don't get to play the game for a while" is the sort of thing some players find distinctly unfun. I know plenty of players who, upon losing the ability to make decisions in the game, will at best just check out and become disconnected in what's going on, and at worst get very frustrated. 
> (You can get the same effect with paralysis and the like I guess).


Are we talking about mind control or incapacitation effects?

Because mind control doesn't tend to take away your ability to play the game, and there are plenty of incapacitation effects that are avoided with acrobatics or fortitude (and heck, strength).






> To each there own.


You get to still play the game, but you get to do so in an unusual manner. Lots of players relish the opportunity to RP a different perspective or to take at their frustrations and wreck the other players.





> Okay, I have a question here.
> 
> Were you excited about mechanically having the unique niche of having a high resolve? Or were you excited about role-playing a character who was especially willful and stubborn, as mechanically represented by the Iron Will feat?
> 
> If the former, I get why you might be miffed, but I have trouble sympathizing with your plight. Telling other players that they need to be bad at something they'd like to be good at so you can feel special is kind of a **** move, especially when the thing in question is being good at resisting mind control. If you were trying to play a character built around being an acrobat, and somebody else was a common thief and just happened to min-max their way into a higher acrobatics score, I could have more sympathy, but it sounds like the other players are especially scared of mind control for some reason, and it's not really fair to tell them that they need to be bad at that so you can be good at it.  
> 
> If the latter, you can STILL play your character as strong-willed, if everybody else switched feats as an afterthought they're probably not RPing that as a central feature of your character. Yeah, there's a bit of a mismatch that your strong-willed monk has worse resolve saves than  Fighter Joe Who Happened To Take Iron Will, but it doesn't stop you from RPing your character as willful and determined.


Mostly RP, but I like the mechanics and the fluff to match; and it would be nice to occasionally reinforce my character by shaking off effects that the rest of the party struggles with.




> As for short-term goals, try going one step above base survival practicality. 
> 
> Your character is an ex-noble, maybe she misses the life of luxury she had growing up (Even if she was rebellious), and resents the spartan lifestyle of the monestary: Short term goal, acquire a nice living space.
> 
> Or, alternatively, if she really resonated with her time at the monastery, a short-term goal might be to find some way to reconnect with her order.


That's actually one of the reasons we are working on repairing our boat; I am really looking forward to having a mobile base of operations. I definitely plan on pimping out my quarters once we get her in ship-shape again and am saving my money and crafting resources towards that goal, but I am not sure quite how that would translate into an adventure. I'll try running it past the GM.

As for reconnecting with my order, that would an interesting adventure that I hadn't considered, but it is certainly a long term goal.




> I'll also concur that many games don't allow outright immunity. Although honestly shooting for immunity is generally a bit silly, it tends to be a lot of points for very little actual benefit. The exception generally being games that play at cosmic levels, Nobilis lets you be outright immune to pretty much anything for only like 6CP (out of 25, it's basically two Attribute levels).


In my system it is trivially easy, certainly cheaper and more straightforward than min-maxxing your resolve score. Of course, it also has the downside or rendering you immune to beneficial mind-control effects.




> Yeah but psychologically there's a difference between "I don't get to play because (Long string of events that led to me running out of hit points)" vs "I don't get to play because I rolled a bad save and now I'm asleep/paralyzed/Mind controlled/convinced I'm a sea slug".
> 
> The former has you out of the game longer, but is going to be rarer, and rarely feels like you're being directly punished for decisions you made in character creation. 
> 
> If you go down to damage you can say "Hrmm, I shouldn't have passed on drinking that health potion/charged that ogre/ switched off the shield for the two-hander" or whatever.
> 
> Getting mind controlled is "hrmm,  back when I made my character, I should have made the number that makes this not happen be higher". 
> 
> And unlike learning lessons about smart play, fixing that your character sheet is a slow process that comes at a high cost. If you're sick of being mind controlled, you've got to wait to level up and spend whatever your system spends to get that instead of other abilities you were more excited about. 
> ...


There are plenty of ways to be incapacitated because of a single bad dice roll, resolve is hardly an outlier in this manner.

Heck, my system actually does have luck points and will points which can make resisting mind control or other "save or lose" effects into an ablative process not dissimilar from hit points.

----------


## BRC

Specific adventure hooks without knowing the setting is going to be hard, that's why setting up a goal that can be met in multiple ways is a way to do it. 

For example, if your goal is to assemble an arcane reference library, that could be met by getting enough money to buy books, or delving an abandoned wizard's tower, or what have you. 

Without details of the setting, you can't really lay out a specific adventure, so you can make your goal something that could be gotten from an adventure.

If you had more setting details, you could build more directly actionable plot hooks into your goals, but it sounds like you don't know enough about the place you've washed up on to do that.

Edit: Usually "Give me some goals" is the GM fishing for plot hooks, which is good! but specific plot hooks is hard if the setting (or at least the local setting where the campaign is going to start) is unknown to the players. You can't say "My goal is to beat up Evil Wizadman!" if you don't know that Evil Wizardman is there.





> Mostly RP, but I like the mechanics and the fluff to match; and it would be nice to occasionally reinforce my character by shaking off effects that the rest of the party struggles with.


Agreed, it would have been nice, but I don't really see any good moves on your part to change the situation.




> There are plenty of ways to be incapacitated because of a single bad dice roll, resolve is hardly an outlier in this manner.
> 
> Heck, my system actually does have luck points and will points which can make resisting mind control or other "save or lose" effects into an ablative process not dissimilar from hit points.



I'd have a similar take on people deciding to harden their character against Paralysis or stun or whatever incapacitating effect you care to name.

----------


## Phhase

> When I expressed my displeasure, I was told that calling dibs on a defensive skills is "a big middle finger to the rest of the group". Furthermore, he said that defensive powers cannot be a core part of a character's identity / fantasy.
> 
> So, two things. First; I know its kind of childish to want to be "special", but at the same time, it really feels like that is part a big part of fantasy of the game, and it does hurt my enjoyment. Is there anything that can be done about this?


Abject idiocy of the highest caliber (referring to what you are being told). It WOULD be a middle finger IF having defensive skills was somehow a limited resource that must be split among the party, or if party composition was somehow crucial to enforce in a traditional tank/mage/healer/dps/whateverthehell  format. But it's not. And if they're laboring under that misconception, it should be cleared up. mechanics serve to inform the character archetype, but do not solely define it. You're not taking away from anyone else's characters by playing a character with some surface level mechanical similarities. If they can't see their characters as more than bundles of features, that's their problem.

As for defensive powers being an invalid fantasy, bull. The immovable bulwark of iron armor and the unhittable dodging rogue and more are all highly defensive fantasy staples. This, to me, is clearly a nothing-excuse made in bad faith to try to brush you off, whether they realize it or not.




> Second, I realized that I really, really, need to stop taking my fellow players literally. The idea that a character's defenses can't be part of their concept is patently absurd, right? But then, I don't think that they even believe this, I think they just like to make absolute statements to justify their actions. In the best I have made threads about quotes like "When someone is talking in an RPG, nobody else is having fun" or "A DM is not allowed to remove a model from the battle mat if they could still potentially hinder the players" or "If someone attempts to gain a tactical advantage over you, you are always justified in responding with lethal force". I took all of these statements at face value, and tried to come to the forum for understanding, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that they don't actually mean what they are saying. Or am I off base in this conclusion?


Yeah, in fairness, nobody teaches this crap. We have to figure it all out on our own, and sometimes our single perspective can be limiting. My advice is as follows. What people are saying, what they mean, and what they're trying to tell you are often three different things. I think there's a nonzero chance here that you're effectively getting shouted down by people. One of the wiser things to apply may be to simply ask for detailed explanations. Clarity is the enemy of misunderstanding and unreason. It can be daunting, but just remember, there's no shame in wanting to know why. When presented with absurd situations like the aforementioned, remain calm, and clarify where you stand, while asking for clarification on where they stand, and why. Make it clear you're not trying to antagonize anyone, you just want to be clear on the situation so that there's no misunderstandings. Ask questions like "Why is it a middle finger?" "What gave you the impression I was calling dibs?" "Why exactly are defensive powers an invalid fantasy?" "Aren't mechanical role and character/narrative role two different things?" Illogical arguments tend to break down under analysis. A party of all clerics or all paladins can be mechanically similar, yet wildly different in character. I've heard tales of both. You don't have to be wholly unique to be special.

Above all, remain calm, ask questions to get to the heart of the matter, and don't let up. You deserve to know why just the same as anyone else. You're the one building the character after all.

Personally, though I'm not up to date on your situation, these seem like inflexible, disagreeable powergamers who think "RP" refers to Magnus from Dota 2's ultimate ability. But, if you want to make this work, such is my advice.

EDIT: read a bit more of the thread.



> So, we make characters. I want to play a healer, but someone else calls dibs, so then I want to play a samurai, but that doesn't work either due to the rest of the party's goals and alignment, so for my third character I create a monk who will work with the rest of the party mechanically and ethically. Part of my backstory is that I was a very stubborn rebellious noble child who was sent to live in a monastery to learn inner peace and to channel my obstinance into something positive. So I put my highest stat (a 16) into wisdom and chose Iron Will for my starting feat.


Personally, I don't see why two people couldn't be healers. There's still different characters, right? This seems like something ingrained in your group that is causing major friction.



> Then, one of the other players is having trouble picking her starting feat, and say's 
> "Hey, what was that feat Brian took last time that made him resistant to mind control?"
> "Iron Will" 
> "Cool, I want that."
> "Oh, that's a good idea, I want that to!" And then every player at the table proceeds to erase the starting feat they had chosen and write in Iron Will.
> I say "Could you please not? Having a strong willpower is kind of important to my character concept and what makes her special."
> "**** You! You can't tell us not to take a defense! Besides, defensive abilities cannot be part of a character concept, that's absurd!"
> 
> Now, then the part that really baffles me, is that everyone else ALSO puts their highest stat into wisdom, even classes that don't really benefit from it, and as a result of people using more min-maxxed builds and starting with 18 wisdom OR playing a race with a racial bonus to wisdom, I actually end up with the lowest score in the party.


Ah I see how it went. On one hand, you're right to want to be unique in being good defensively. On the other hand, they're right in that it's just fine for more than one person to have a certain thing. On the other-other hand isn't it just a little annoying if everyone suddenly piles onto one of the things you picked as a character trait, but treat it instead like a minmax tool with little character justification in the vein of the Mine! Mine! Mine! seagulls? To be honest this just got out of hand.



> A lot of the stuff about Inigo was more character traits than goals, IMO, and I have plenty of development in that regard.
> 
> The problem is that most of my short term goals are practical rather than adventures, and I am asked to hand-waive that sort of thing.
> 
> As for long term goals, I very intentionally made a character who does NOT have any to fit with the rest of the party.
> 
> One of the other PCs is playing a Chaotic Evil Necromancer who is both a narcissist and a serial killer, as well as being a penniless street urchin who is on the run from the most powerful organization in the world, and whose long term goals are to kill everyone in the world and raise them as her mindless thralls.
> 
> That is not a character that is easy to just slot into your standard adventuring party, and I had to contort my backstory into pretzels to make that work, and part of it was intentionally playing someone who has no connections to anything and is fine sitting back and watching the world burn.


Yikers. Not knowing much, I can only surmise that either A, the player is good enough to make this character concept work congruously with the party and has a way of making the character palatable, either through being redeemable, being okay with them being killed at some point in an internal conflict, or through simply being amicable/amusing as an evil character, B, it's supposed to be an evil-style campaign, or C, it's a flag which rather the ocean incarnadine. So to speak, huge and red.

----------


## Quertus

> Playing to find out what my role in the narrative is is exactly what I plan on doing, which is why I am having trouble coming up with goals.


Eh, no, at least not the way I use those words. You want to specify your _role_ ("the smart one") without having a _goal_ ("delete the internet").

Consider the opposite, having a goal ("delete the internet") without specifying a role ("being the smart one").




> OOC being mind controlled is actually kind of fun IMO.





> You get to still play the game, but you get to do so in an unusual manner.


Agreed.




> The problem is, the region is recovering from a severe famine, and we don't have a lot of money, so finding food or money with which to buy it and getting our boat fixed would, logically, be our first priority.





> That's actually one of the reasons we are working on repairing our boat; I am really looking forward to having a mobile base of operations. I definitely plan on pimping out my quarters once we get her in ship-shape again and am saving my money and crafting resources towards that goal, but I am not sure quite how that would translate into an adventure. I'll try running it past the GM.





> One of the other PCs is playing a Chaotic Evil Necromancer who is both a narcissist and a serial killer... whose long term goals are to kill everyone in the world and raise them as her mindless thralls.


Well, this one is easy. "Money? How pedestrian." Simply suggest to the Necromancer that you "hire" a group to fix your boat (murder a small village and animate them). With a group of tireless workers cutting down trees for you, for free, it should be much easier to get your boat fixed. Remember, they're only peasants, not anything you care about. And you're a noble, accustomed to abusing the peasants and getting away with it.

You built this character to work with the Necromancer; go over the top, suggest things beyond what they've considered. Let them real you in to the reality of Necromancy, to doing things like animating the wildlife you kill, or buying rights to dead bodies, or other such more socially-acceptable solutions... or just enjoy being the villains.

-----

Now, to the hard part. I don't have any _advice_, any ideas for what to do moving forward, but I do want you to hear a few red flags of "here's what I heard" - or, more importantly, "here's what your group probably heard":




> "Could you please not? Having a strong willpower is kind of important to my character concept and what makes her special."





> it would be nice to occasionally reinforce my character by shaking off effects that the rest of the party struggles with.


"I need other people to fail - or to fail in specific ways - in order to feel special. If others do not fail in that way - or take precautions against failing in that way - I will lash out, and attempt to tear them down, so that they will fail, and I can feel special."




> You get to still play the game, but you get to do so in an unusual manner. Lots of players relish the opportunity to RP a different perspective or to take at their frustrations and wreck the other players.


"My friends and allies are frustrating (why am I friends and allies with them again?). Really, I'd much rather work against them than with them, and I relish getting a 'the devil made me do it' excuse to sabotage their efforts, or to even harm or kill them."

Again, I don't have any advice, but your group seems to take things in the worst possible way (or worse than we can imagine they could take things, at least from your descriptions), so I thought hearing how those bits could be taken might long-term help you to understand your group / how to interact with them / what linguistic eggshells you need to walk on in order to not set them off.

As ever, I'll keep trying to give you different perspectives, until maybe someday something clicks as "Oh, maybe that's what's going on in Bizarro World!".

----------


## kyoryu

Reading through this all, it seems like your biggest complaint, really, is "other people have a higher Will defense than I do."

That seems... odd.

1. No, you don't have the right to tell other people to tank a defense just because you want to have it.
2. It's kind of weird to say you want to shine in an area and then not mechanically back that up, and then get mad when others _do_ mechanically back that up.

It seems like what you think should happen is that since you have made "high will defense" part of your character concept, then everyone else should have to have a will defense that is significantly lower than yours, regardless of how you build your character.

The other players taking high will defenses doesn't make your character in any way worse at defending against will (unless, of course, the GM compensates in some way by making mind control effects harder to counter).  The only thing you're not getting is the highlight scene of you shaking off the effects that hit everyone else - and that seems a little of an odd thing to hinge a character concept on.

----------


## King of Nowhere

> Now, to the hard part. I don't have any _advice_, any ideas for what to do moving forward, but I do want you to hear a few red flags of "here's what I heard" - or, more importantly, "here's what your group probably heard":
> 
> "I need other people to fail - or to fail in specific ways - in order to feel special. If others do not fail in that way - or take precautions against failing in that way - I will lash out, and attempt to tear them down, so that they will fail, and I can feel special."
> 
> "My friends and allies are frustrating (why am I friends and allies with them again?). Really, I'd much rather work against them than with them, and I relish getting a 'the devil made me do it' excuse to sabotage their efforts, or to even harm or kill them."
> 
> Again, I don't have any advice, but your group seems to take things in the worst possible way (or worse than we can imagine they could take things, at least from your descriptions), so I thought hearing how those bits could be taken might long-term help you to understand your group / how to interact with them / what linguistic eggshells you need to walk on in order to not set them off.
> 
> As ever, I'll keep trying to give you different perspectives, until maybe someday something clicks as "Oh, maybe that's what's going on in Bizarro World!".


I was about to say the same. 
while your group is plenty toxic in many ways, they are actually right in telling you that you cannot call dibs on _a single defensive roll_. You are unique in your character concept; say that you are a wizard specialized in abjuration and using protective spells, that's a unique concept and that's something you can claim as your own. it's very unlikely someone else will do the same anyway, and if another player by happenstance comes to the table with the same concept, talk with them, find out what they want to do and specialize in a slightly different area. 
but "having a high will save"? how is that a unique character concept? are you going to walk into a combat and declare "i move forward and wait for someone to try to cast dominate person on me"? I don't think so. having overall high defences can be a part of your character, but you certainly cannot ask everyone else to lower their defences for you.

Regarding the long term and short term goal, I get the impression that you don't want to do it because in the past you were railroaded. 
which is not a healty way of handling things. your dm asked you something about your character. actually, that's a good introduction to roleplaying. you speak so much about your character having a complex backstory and everyone else just minmaxxing, but then you can't tell what your character wants out of life, and the others can. do your character actually has a personality, or he only has a past?
so you think having a personality is a waste because you'll be railroaded anyway? with that premise, don't play. if you authomatically assume you will be hurt and do anything in that light, you can't have fun roleplaying. or in any kind of meaningful interaction, really. give the dm the benefit of the doubt.
frankly, i'm a LOT more worried about the necromancer guy wanting to kill everyone. unless the whole party is on board with a villain campaign, this would be reason enough for me to leave the table. I want to play a good guy, and I'm not going to adventure with an omnicidal psyco. furthermore, such a character goal - unless done very subtly in a "that's a really long term goal, for now i'll go along and behave" - does actually undermine whatever the rest of the party wants to achieve. 
So, you should definitely ask what the tone of the campaign will be - are we supposed to be good guys or bad guys? then you build your character accordingly. you certainly cannot be a paladin of all that's good and pure together with the guy who wants to kill everybody, so you talk among players and see what kind of table you want to have. that's how sane groups do it.
or, you make a character who wants to get a degree while growing up his family, that guy is gonna retire from adventuring. what else do you expect? making a character that _wants_ to stick out with the party and keep adventuring is your responsibility. it is everyone's responsibility to create a bunch of characters that will want to cooperate. that's why people talk before the campaign and decide on concepts and stuff. of course, your players apparently will each do what they want and scream at anyone else that they're ruining their fun for just thinking of trying to suggest something else; again, sane parties make sure that the characters will be compatible. 
and really, if your character has no reason to stay in the party, do what your character would do: leave. and make a new character who's a better fit to the party. no drama about it, creative mismatches happen.

as for suggestions to have fun?
very simple one: stop looking so hard at everyone else's character. you actually do come across as if you wanted to micromanage the whole party, your players may have a point there. 
make your character, make him morally neutral enough so that he won't be out of place in most groups, and just play him; also avoid strong ties to anything. the rest of the party has [stats]? not your issue, ignore it. the rest of the party does [stuff]? not your issue. and if the stuff they do is clearly too dumb to leave, and they ignore your warning, let them die. possibly make a character to not grow too attached to, in case it dies or the campaign goes poorly.

----------


## Talakeal

> Reading through this all, it seems like your biggest complaint, really, is "other people have a higher Will defense than I do."
> 
> That seems... odd.
> 
> 1. No, you don't have the right to tell other people to tank a defense just because you want to have it.
> 2. It's kind of weird to say you want to shine in an area and then not mechanically back that up, and then get mad when others _do_ mechanically back that up.
> 
> It seems like what you think should happen is that since you have made "high will defense" part of your character concept, then everyone else should have to have a will defense that is significantly lower than yours, regardless of how you build your character.
> 
> The other players taking high will defenses doesn't make your character in any way worse at defending against will (unless, of course, the GM compensates in some way by making mind control effects harder to counter).  The only thing you're not getting is the highlight scene of you shaking off the effects that hit everyone else - and that seems a little of an odd thing to hinge a character concept on.


Question, are you exaggerating for effect, not understanding what I am saying, or coming from a wholly different level of optimization than I am?

Because you are using words like "taking" and "not mechanically backing it up" which don't apply to the situation I am describing.

I took a 16 in the prime stat and Iron Will as my only starting feat. In my mind, that is absolutely backing it up.

Likewise, playing a fighters or rogue and not to put an 18 into wisdom *and* taking Iron Will as your starting stat is, imo, absolutely not the same as "tanking" it.

And, again, there is a huge gulf of difference between "significantly higher than everyone else" and "the lowest in the party".


But mostly its just the disconnect between narrative and mechanics. It feels really weird to make something a huge part of my character and then have the lowest score when everyone else has absolutely no IC justification for it.

I'll ask again, would you not think something was wrong if, in 3E, one player agreed to play the fighter and another agreed to take the cleric, and then the cleric showed up with a war-priest who never heals or buffs anyone else and out melees the fighter?

Or, to use a real world example, if you agree to bring the drinks for a party and I agree to bring the snacks, and then instead of snacks I show up with a case of fifty year old scotch that puts your bowl of punch and twelve pack of beer to shame?




> I was about to say the same. 
> while your group is plenty toxic in many ways, they are actually right in telling you that you cannot call dibs on _a single defensive roll_. You are unique in your character concept; say that you are a wizard specialized in abjuration and using protective spells, that's a unique concept and that's something you can claim as your own. it's very unlikely someone else will do the same anyway, and if another player by happenstance comes to the table with the same concept, talk with them, find out what they want to do and specialize in a slightly different area. 
> but "having a high will save"? how is that a unique character concept? are you going to walk into a combat and declare "i move forward and wait for someone to try to cast dominate person on me"? I don't think so. having overall high defences can be a part of your character, but you certainly cannot ask everyone else to lower their defences for you.


I just don't get it.

If I am playing a member of a snake-handling cult who has been exposed to poisons all her life as a test of religious faith, is having resistance to poison not a part of my character concept?
If I am playing a an immortal Scottish swordsman, is being able to recover from anything short of decapitation not part of my character concept?
If I am playing colossus, whose power is literally turning into iron, is being really tough and difficult to injure not part of my character concept?
Heck, even Bella Swan from Twilight made a huge deal out of being immune to mind-reading as what made her special.

Would it not diminish any of their stories if a random person showed up with the same immunity "just because"?




> very simple one: stop looking so hard at everyone else's character. you actually do come across as if you wanted to micromanage the whole party, your players may have a point there.


I suppose, but I really want to the game to go well.

I haven't told any of the characters to change their core concepts, either narratively or mechanically, and indeed I have totally remade my character twice and rebuilt her one more time just to better fit in with the party.

Mostly I am just trying to convince people to diversify a little and not all take the same crafting skills, defenses, and weapon proficiency because everyone trying to do the same role never works out on either a mechanical or social level. I have seen far too many groups die and then blame the DM because they all took the same weakness, and far too many players who quit the group because someone else was stepping on their toes over the years.




> Regarding the long term and short term goal, I get the impression that you don't want to do it because in the past you were railroaded. 
> which is not a healty way of handling things. your dm asked you something about your character. actually, that's a good introduction to role-playing. you speak so much about your character having a complex backstory and everyone else just min-maxxing, but then you can't tell what your character wants out of life, and the others can. do your character actually has a personality, or he only has a past?
> so you think having a personality is a waste because you'll be railroaded anyway? with that premise, don't play. if you automatically assume you will be hurt and do anything in that light, you can't have fun role-playing. or in any kind of meaningful interaction, really. give the dm the benefit of the doubt.


Goals =/= personality.

I intentionally made a character who didn't have any long term goals aside from protecting the party because I am trying to avoid conflict.

I don't care about railroading one way or the other. But I do care about conflict. I have been in way too many games where the players (or random strangers on the internet) tarred and feathered the DM for some minor event, and I am doing everything to avoid it.

The bigger thing is that I really like the exploration aspect of the game. I despise "story-telling" games, and I am looking forward to being a player for once and actually being surprised by the world and discovering what it out there. I would much rather set out into the unknown and see what happens rather than come up with my own adventures for myself.




> and really, if your character has no reason to stay in the party, do what your character would do: leave. and make a new character who's a better fit to the party. no drama about it, creative mismatches happen.


I did that three times. 

Now, I have a character who has no goals but staying with the party, and am getting push-back from the GM as a result.




> frankly, i'm a LOT more worried about the necromancer guy wanting to kill everyone. unless the whole party is on board with a villain campaign, this would be reason enough for me to leave the table. I want to play a good guy, and I'm not going to adventure with an omnicidal psyco. furthermore, such a character goal - unless done very subtly in a "that's a really long term goal, for now i'll go along and behave" - does actually undermine whatever the rest of the party wants to achieve. 
> So, you should definitely ask what the tone of the campaign will be - are we supposed to be good guys or bad guys? then you build your character accordingly. you certainly cannot be a paladin of all that's good and pure together with the guy who wants to kill everybody, so you talk among players and see what kind of table you want to have. that's how sane groups do it.
> or, you make a character who wants to get a degree while growing up his family, that guy is gonna retire from adventuring. what else do you expect? making a character that _wants_ to stick out with the party and keep adventuring is your responsibility. it is everyone's responsibility to create a bunch of characters that will want to cooperate. that's why people talk before the campaign and decide on concepts and stuff. of course, your players apparently will each do what they want and scream at anyone else that they're ruining their fun for just thinking of trying to suggest something else; again, sane parties make sure that the characters will be compatible.


Yep. 

I long ago learned that playing anything other than an evil character with this group is a recipe for disaster.

----------


## Batcathat

> If I am playing a member of a snake-handling cult who has been exposed to poisons all her life as a test of religious faith, is having resistance to poison not a part of my character concept?
> If I am playing a an immortal Scottish swordsman, is being able to recover from anything short of decapitation not part of my character concept?
> If I am playing colossus, whose power is literally turning into iron, is being really tough and difficult to injure not part of my character concept?
> Heck, even Bella Swan from Twilight made a huge deal out of being immune to mind-reading as what made her special.


I think a key part is the difference between "is the character concept" and "is _part of_ the character concept". Being really tough is part of Colossus' character concept, but there are other tough X-Men who don't really step on Colossus' conceptual toes the way another X-Man literally turning into iron would. In a similar fashion, I imagine there are things about your character concept beyond "has a high resolve".

----------


## Quertus

OK, flipping things on their head, I do have a slightly different perspective on things.

So, if I wanted to play "Superman", that's fine. I'm a peasant from Krypton. If the rest of the group played trained Kryptonian soldiers, I'd expect the logical consequences could include that they're tougher than my character.

OTOH, if they played "Captain Hobo", who had armor made of cardboard, it would be weird for them to be tougher than Superman.

So my question, @*Talakeal*, is, if they backed up their mechanics with a reason why they're the way they are - "Kryptonian soldiers", for example - would you still have a problem with being the lowest "will save" (Resolve?) in the party?

----------


## King of Nowhere

> Question, are you exaggerating for effect, not understanding what I am saying, or coming from a wholly different level of optimization than I am?
> 
> Because you are using words like "taking" and "not mechanically backing it up" which don't apply to the situation I am describing.
> 
> I took a 16 in the prime stat and Iron Will as my only starting feat. In my mind, that is absolutely backing it up.
> 
> Likewise, playing a fighters or rogue and not to put an 18 into wisdom *and* taking Iron Will as your starting stat is, imo, absolutely not the same as "tanking" it.
> 
> And, again, there is a huge gulf of difference between "significantly higher than everyone else" and "the lowest in the party".
> ...


those stuff are *a part* of your character concept. they are not your whole character concept. and d&d is not a superhero game where you have a single power, maybe two. you have a lot of stuff you can do, and if other characters happen to be better at one of them? doesn't matter.
furthermore, it's not even such a big deal of "optimization". you had a 16 wis and you took iron will. ok, that's a +5 total. you can't really expect to shine there, not yet. maybe going forward your build will improve more, maybe you'll buy magic items to further buff. 
if the other guys are playing a fighter and rogue and putting 18 in wisdom and iron will just to get a +6? first, they are hamstringing them heavily. second, just because they have a +6 and you have a +5 doesn't make you weak or diminish you in any way.
in fact, you start at level 1. so you cannot possibly expect to shine in anything yet. you start with higher than average will save at first level. you build from there. 
and no, i don't feel the need to have a in-character justification for everything on my sheet. so those other guys are simply a fighter and a rogue with unusually strong wills. it happens. in fact, most high level fighters in my campaigns have unusually high wills, or they learned to compensate for it; simply because those are the ones who live to high level. 



> I suppose, but I really want to the game to go well.
> 
> I haven't told any of the characters to change their core concepts, either narratively or mechanically, and indeed I have totally remade my character twice and rebuilt her one more time just to better fit in with the party.
> 
> Mostly I am just trying to convince people to diversify a little and not all take the same crafting skills, defenses, and weapon proficiency because everyone trying to do the same role never works out on either a mechanical or social level. I have seen far too many groups die and then blame the DM because they all took the same weakness, and far too many players who quit the group because someone else was stepping on their toes over the years.


we all know your group is toxic. 
they build glass cannons, then they get used to mop the floor whenever something does not go their way, then they blame the dm.
if you try to ask them to play something different, they tell you to mind your own business.
this is clearly a morton's fork. there is no way to avoid it, they will get mad at someone. because they are toxic; getting mad at people for futile reasons is what toxic people do. you're not going to change that.
which is why i advised you to stop caring and take the game as it goes. you can still have some fun that way.

I know it sucks. i know it's painful. but you can't get what you want out of gaming with those people. often in life you can't get what you want, and you have to compromise. here you can get a sucky game and enjoy it, or you can leave. you can't try to get a good game with those people.




> I did that three times. 
> 
> Now, I have a character who has no goals but staying with the party, and am getting push-back from the GM as a result.


my character for a new group was a monk with an emotionally scarred past. he wanted to become strong, and he thought that the way to get strong was to suffer and to overcome the suffering. so he'd gladly throw himself at any adventure, any fight, with the belief that it would made him stronger (which, because of experience points, turned out to be true, but the universe is not supposed to work like that).
anyway, he always had a motivation and he was a good fit for any party. he had short term goals, not long term ones

----------


## Talakeal

> those stuff are *a part* of your character concept. they are not your whole character concept. and d&d is not a superhero game where you have a single power, maybe two. you have a lot of stuff you can do, and if other characters happen to be better at one of them? doesn't matter.
> furthermore, it's not even such a big deal of "optimization". you had a 16 wis and you took iron will. ok, that's a +5 total. you can't really expect to shine there, not yet. maybe going forward your build will improve more, maybe you'll buy magic items to further buff. 
> if the other guys are playing a fighter and rogue and putting 18 in wisdom and iron will just to get a +6? first, they are hamstringing them heavily. second, just because they have a +6 and you have a +5 doesn't make you weak or diminish you in any way.
> in fact, you start at level 1. so you cannot possibly expect to shine in anything yet. you start with higher than average will save at first level. you build from there. 
> and no, i don't feel the need to have a in-character justification for everything on my sheet. so those other guys are simply a fighter and a rogue with unusually strong wills. it happens. in fact, most high level fighters in my campaigns have unusually high wills, or they learned to compensate for it; simply because those are the ones who live to high level.


To restate, we are not playing D&D, I was just translating to  D&D terms for familiarity. 

In this system, the average starting character who is trained in resolve has a +12. I have a +18, which is a very significant investment, and everyone else has between a +19 and +21.

But to do that they had to tank all their other defenses. And, as predicted, in the first session we encountered some giant spiders and everyone but me was on death's door from the venom and, predictably, blamed the DM for the "over-tuned" encounter.




> my character for a new group was a monk with an emotionally scarred past. he wanted to become strong, and he thought that the way to get strong was to suffer and to overcome the suffering. so he'd gladly throw himself at any adventure, any fight, with the belief that it would made him stronger (which, because of experience points, turned out to be true, but the universe is not supposed to work like that).
> anyway, he always had a motivation and he was a good fit for any party. he had short term goals, not long term ones


That is extremely close to the last character I played in Chronicles of Darkness, and those are goals that I was explicitly told by the DM were inappropriate because they are reactive rather than proactive and don't provide any hooks for him to build on.




> we all know your group is toxic. 
> they build glass cannons, then they get used to mop the floor whenever something does not go their way, then they blame the dm.
> if you try to ask them to play something different, they tell you to mind your own business.
> this is clearly a morton's fork. there is no way to avoid it, they will get mad at someone. because they are toxic; getting mad at people for futile reasons is what toxic people do. you're not going to change that.
> which is why i advised you to stop caring and take the game as it goes. you can still have some fun that way.
> 
> I know it sucks. i know it's painful. but you can't get what you want out of gaming with those people. often in life you can't get what you want, and you have to compromise. here you can get a sucky game and enjoy it, or you can leave. you can't try to get a good game with those people.


Sad.

Thank you for introducing me to the concept of the Morton's Fork!




> OK, flipping things on their head, I do have a slightly different perspective on things.
> 
> So, if I wanted to play "Superman", that's fine. I'm a peasant from Krypton. If the rest of the group played trained Kryptonian soldiers, I'd expect the logical consequences could include that they're tougher than my character.
> 
> OTOH, if they played "Captain Hobo", who had armor made of cardboard, it would be weird for them to be tougher than Superman.
> 
> So my question, @*Talakeal*, is, if they backed up their mechanics with a reason why they're the way they are - "Kryptonian soldiers", for example - would you still have a problem with being the lowest "will save" (Resolve?) in the party?


As I said in the OP, there are two issues. One is the "captain hobo" problem and the other is not being able to feel special.

I would expect this sort of thing to be talked about in Session Zero. If I didn't want to play the Kryptonian peasant amongst soldiers, I would either reroll to something else or see if the other players really were married to that concept.

Which we had. And I tossed out two characters because they didn't fit in with the group and settled on a monk, whose traditional roll is high willpower mage-killer. But then everyone decided to maximize willpower and change their feats to iron will afterwards.

On an unrelated note, I have always felt that Superman himself was sort of a "Captain Hobo". He's just a farm boy from Kansas who happens to be an alien, but is stronger than everyone else in the universe, including aliens from the same species who actually have military training.




> Eh, no, at least not the way I use those words. You want to specify your _role_ ("the smart one") without having a _goal_ ("delete the internet").
> 
> Consider the opposite, having a goal ("delete the internet") without specifying a role ("being the smart one").


To me that's just not what an RPG is.

I come from the 90s school of gaming where it is much more about playing a character than achieving a goal.

And besides, having a strong goal is really going to but heads with whatever the DM has planned and the rest of the group whose goals are all about spreading murder and mayhem.




> I think a key part is the difference between "is the character concept" and "is _part of_ the character concept". Being really tough is part of Colossus' character concept, but there are other tough X-Men who don't really step on Colossus' conceptual toes the way another X-Man literally turning into iron would. In a similar fashion, I imagine there are things about your character concept beyond "has a high resolve".


No, its not the only thing. But it was my primary skill. As I said, it just feels bad and weird for my highest score to be the lowest in the party. 




> Well, this one is easy. "Money? How pedestrian." Simply suggest to the Necromancer that you "hire" a group to fix your boat (murder a small village and animate them). With a group of tireless workers cutting down trees for you, for free, it should be much easier to get your boat fixed. Remember, they're only peasants, not anything you care about. And you're a noble, accustomed to abusing the peasants and getting away with it.
> 
> You built this character to work with the Necromancer; go over the top, suggest things beyond what they've considered. Let them real you in to the reality of Necromancy, to doing things like animating the wildlife you kill, or buying rights to dead bodies, or other such more socially-acceptable solutions... or just enjoy being the villains.


Trust me, we are working on it. Not a single corpse or spell slot is going to waste.

I also care nothing for the people here. 

Its just that at this point, keeping the villagers* alive is a lot more valuable to us than killing them. This is a farming town coming off of a famine; afaict they don't have any stockpiles of food for us to raid or the forests (let alone the skill at lumber-jacking) for us to harvest. I could talk to the GM about it though. We are also on the run, and don't want to attract too much attention to ourselves until we are more stable, and I think wiping out a town would do that.

After watching Midnight Mass I got the idea that it would be really cool if we could start an undead worshiping cult here, but nobody else in the group really seemed interested in that much social interaction.


On the other hand, I don't think I am going to have any trouble coming up with crazy schemes, and I don't think this party has anyone with common sense enough to reign me in.



*They aren't peasants. AFAICT this is not a feudal society and doesn't have any sort of commoner / aristocracy divide.




> Now, to the hard part. I don't have any _advice_, any ideas for what to do moving forward, but I do want you to hear a few red flags of "here's what I heard" - or, more importantly, "here's what your group probably heard":
> 
> "I need other people to fail - or to fail in specific ways - in order to feel special. If others do not fail in that way - or take precautions against failing in that way - I will lash out, and attempt to tear them down, so that they will fail, and I can feel special."


I appreciate actually letting me know you are playing devil's advocate for once :)

So, while that is an extremely negative way of looking at it, that's not exactly wrong. Any work of fiction about a team of heroes is going to include moments where each member gets to shine and saves the group from something that would have otherwise wiped them out.

The game is meant to be a team endeavor, and part of a successful team is diversity of skills. Imagine a heist movie where they have, for example, five cat-burglars and no safe-cracker. That won't go over too well unless they really go out of their way to get around the obvious limitation and might make some jobs all but impossible.

Real life isn't fiction, but the same principles tend to apply.

----------


## kyoryu

> Question, are you exaggerating for effect, not understanding what I am saying, or coming from a wholly different level of optimization than I am?
> 
> Because you are using words like "taking" and "not mechanically backing it up" which don't apply to the situation I am describing.
> 
> I took a 16 in the prime stat and Iron Will as my only starting feat. In my mind, that is absolutely backing it up.
> 
> Likewise, playing a fighters or rogue and not to put an 18 into wisdom *and* taking Iron Will as your starting stat is, imo, absolutely not the same as "tanking" it.
> 
> And, again, there is a huge gulf of difference between "significantly higher than everyone else" and "the lowest in the party".


You want to be "the best" but didn't even put in "the best stat".  It seems like you've gone for a more rounded character, but then expect to be the best at something.  That seems contradictory.

But I think there's two interesting questions that can highlight my point here:

First, the question:  What is the highest resolve that the other players should be able to take?

Secondly, the meta-question:  _Should you be able to declare a highest resolve that other players are allowed to take?_

----------


## kyoryu

> I'll ask again, would you not think something was wrong if, in 3E, one player agreed to play the fighter and another agreed to take the cleric, and then the cleric showed up with a war-priest who never heals or buffs anyone else and out melees the fighter?


Well I wouldn't play 3E to begin with.  But it depends, did the cleric say they were going to do healing or not?

You clearly take niche protection very seriously.  Guess what?  They don't.  Again, they're not _wrong_ they just have different assumptions.  Clarify those assumptions and expectations.  Asking people to keep their defense in an area below a certain level because that's the level you took, and you want to be the best, when you didn't even maximize as much as you could seems like a really weird stance to take to me.  Even if you believe in niche protection more than I do.




> Or, to use a real world example, if you agree to bring the drinks for a party and I agree to bring the snacks, and then instead of snacks I show up with a case of fifty year old scotch that puts your bowl of punch and twelve pack of beer to shame?


I would be ecstatic and enjoy tasty scotch.

----------


## Talakeal

> You want to be "the best" but didn't even put in "the best stat".  It seems like you've gone for a more rounded character, but then expect to be the best at something.  That seems contradictory.
> 
> But I think there's two interesting questions that can highlight my point here:
> 
> First, the question:  What is the highest resolve that the other players should be able to take?
> 
> Secondly, the meta-question:  _Should you be able to declare a highest resolve that other players are allowed to take?_


I can't see your viewpoint at all.

It seems like you are saying people should either suffer in silence or be childish power-gamers who ruin everyone else's fun.

Min-maxxed characters are not good. If everyone min-maxxes, the party dies, the game ends, and everyone picks on a scapegoat, usually the DM but sometimes another player.

Its not about "declaring a maximum value" its that min-maxxing into someone else's role is, imo, both extremely rude and tactically brain-dead, and is going to make the game less fun for everyone involved.


So, in the past I have been in groups with three people:

1: One was playing a rogue. His desire was to do "melee dps". I was playing a barbarian. I had significantly better system mastery than him, and always out damaged him. Rather than be coached, he left the group.
2: A guy who has "grass is always greener" syndrome and whenever someone else in the party does something impressive, he gets jealous and rebuilds his character to be able to show them up in their area of expertise.
3: A guy who always has to be the center of attention. He was playing a diviner, and he would routinely try and channel the appropriate skills and knowledge to yank the spotlight back to him whenever it fell into someone else's area of expertise.

All of these are things I don't ever want to experience again, and I really think talking about people's expectations and discussing these things in session zero is a good thing and the best way to avoid it, but I was told doing so was "giving the middle finger" to the rest of the group. IMO doing as you suggest and just trying to get into a pissing contest with them is both immature and ultimately self destructive.

----------


## kyoryu

> I can't see your viewpoint at all.


Honestly, I don't think you're good at seeing hte viewpoints of others.  That's a nearly constant thread in your posts.




> It seems like you are saying people should either suffer in silence or be childish power-gamers who ruin everyone else's fun.


I'm saying that I don't see the situation as suffering, and it seems like you're attempting to control the choices of others based on arbitrary criteria that you have determined but they haven't agreed to.




> Its not about "declaring a maximum value" its that min-maxxing into someone else's role is, imo, both extremely rude and tactically brain-dead, and is going to make the game less fun for everyone involved.


... that's exactly what you're doing.

You're saying that your character concept is "high resolve", and that others taking their resolve that high robs you of your fun.  So, you think it's bad for other players to have a resolve higher than yours, for whatever reason (niche protection, optimization, whatever)

I'd _guess_ that you wouldn't be happy with them equaling your resolve either, as that takes away from the moment you have in mind of you throwing off mind effects that hit everyone else.  So, it seems like you're expecting them to stay below your resolve score to facilitate - but by how much?

----------


## Quertus

> To me that's just not what an RPG is.
> 
> I come from the 90s school of gaming where it is much more about playing a character than achieving a goal.
> 
> And besides, having a strong goal is really going to but heads with whatever the DM has planned and the rest of the group whose goals are all about spreading murder and mayhem.


That's fair. Having a singular unwavering goal can make it easy for the GM, or can make the character disruptive to their plans. Shrug. I generally prefer someone who can develop lots of goals from the GM's content (whether I'm a player or GM). Still, if you're opposed to this concept of a singular goal as an impediment to fitting, why would you ever choose to take the singular thing impediment of a particular role? Instead of playing, "the smart one", why not play "Quertus", and see what role you play in this particular setup? I'm just not getting the appeal of trying to pre-determine your role, _especially_ when you know what such singular, pre-determined bits can be antithetical to working with the group.




> Trust me, we are working on it. Not a single corpse or spell slot is going to waste.
> 
> I also care nothing for the people here. 
> 
> Its just that at this point, keeping the villagers* alive is a lot more valuable to us than killing them. This is a farming town coming off of a famine; afaict they don't have any stockpiles of food for us to raid or the forests (let alone the skill at lumber-jacking) for us to harvest. I could talk to the GM about it though. We are also on the run, and don't want to attract too much attention to ourselves until we are more stable, and I think wiping out a town would do that.
> 
> After watching Midnight Mass I got the idea that it would be really cool if we could start an undead worshiping cult here, but nobody else in the group really seemed interested in that much social interaction.
> 
> 
> ...


None of them are nobles, so they're all peasants, regardless of what they call themselves.  :Small Wink: 

Also, peasants have meat on them - if you killed the peasants, you'd help solve your food problems.  :Small Cool: 

And it doesn't take "skilled lumberjacks" to chop down trees - dim-witted, disposable zombies are more than sufficient to the task. Maybe it takes a village, but I did recommend killing and animating a village, did I not? Also, that's a village worth of hungry mouths you no longer have to feed. Seems like a win/win scenario. Oh, and zombies require no social interaction. Win/win/win scenario.  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## BRC

> That's fair. Having a singular unwavering goal can make it easy for the GM, or can make the character disruptive to their plans. Shrug. I generally prefer someone who can develop lots of goals from the GM's content (whether I'm a player or GM). Still, if you're opposed to this concept of a singular goal as an impediment to fitting, why would you ever choose to take the singular thing impediment of a particular role? Instead of playing, "the smart one", why not play "Quertus", and see what role you play in this particular setup? I'm just not getting the appeal of trying to pre-determine your role, _especially_ when you know what such singular, pre-determined bits can be antithetical to working with the group.


Eh, it sounds like there was less a "Party Role" and more a specific fantasy (being strong willed and resilient) that they wanted, only to find themselves suddenly the least strong-willed person in the party, at least mechanically. 


It also sounds like the current solution is the result of previous attempts at goal-based characters being rejected as incompatible with a party that includes an omnicidal necromancer.

----------


## Talakeal

@Kyoru: I am not sure why, but this conversation is taking a needlessly hostile turn. I will try and lighten up a bit, but as is going I really just don't want to play this game at all anymore.




> I'm saying that I don't see the situation as suffering, and it seems like you're attempting to control the choices of others based on arbitrary criteria that you have determined but they haven't agreed to.


We made characters as a group.

The concepts we pitched were:

Ogre Pirate.
Healing focused alchemist (me).
Necromancy focused alchemist.
Healing focused priest.
Ranger who is fascinated by technology.
Heavily armored blacksmith.

I withdrew my character as I didn't want to be in competition with the priest or the necromancer. I then went with a samurai that also didn't work with the party, and ended up with Monk with focus in swordsmanship and resolve.

Everyone agreed to this. We split up and made our characters.

Then, after creating their characters, everyone decided to go back and rework their characters so that resolve was their highest score.




> ... that's exactly what you're doing.
> 
> You're saying that your character concept is "high resolve", and that others taking their resolve that high robs you of your fun.  So, you think it's bad for other players to have a resolve higher than yours, for whatever reason (niche protection, optimization, whatever)
> 
> I'd _guess_ that you wouldn't be happy with them equaling your resolve either, as that takes away from the moment you have in mind of you throwing off mind effects that hit everyone else.  So, it seems like you're expecting them to stay below your resolve score to facilitate - but by how much?


By "that's exactly what you're doing" you mean setting a number? 

Because no, not really. Its about everyone having their highest score be the one that was part of my character concept and not part of their character concept. I don't really care what the specific number is (although I suppose we could get to some ludicrous level where difference is so vast it becomes irrelevant).




> Eh, it sounds like there was less a "Party Role" and more a specific fantasy (being strong willed and resilient) that they wanted, only to find themselves suddenly the least strong-willed person in the party, at least mechanically. 
> 
> 
> It also sounds like the current solution is the result of previous attempts at goal-based characters being rejected as incompatible with a party that includes an omnicidal necromancer.


Correct.

----------


## Batcathat

> I withdrew my character as I didn't want to be in competition with the priest or the necromancer. I then went with a samurai that also didn't work with the party, and ended up with Monk with focus in swordsmanship and resolve.


Out of curiosity, would other characters focusing on swordsmanship be equally problematic to you? 

To summarize my own view, I understand wanting a character to have their own Thing. A particular form of defense seems like an odd pick for a Thing. Everyone else picking the same defense to focus on seems tactically odd and/or socially hostile, depending on why. As for justifying a mechanical aspect in a character's background I could go either way, I like it in general but I wouldn't demand every aspect of every character to be like that.

----------


## Talakeal

> Out of curiosity, would other characters focusing on swordsmanship be equally problematic to you?


Only if they used the same fighting style.

That being said, I dont think I have ever seen two characters use the same weapon and fighting style in the same party ever, let alone a whole group.

----------


## gbaji

> I took a 16 in the prime stat and Iron Will as my only starting feat. In my mind, that is absolutely backing it up.
> 
> Likewise, playing a fighters or rogue and not to put an 18 into wisdom *and* taking Iron Will as your starting stat is, imo, absolutely not the same as "tanking" it.


Ok. But, assuming the game rules for character creation work the same for everyone, then they lost out of some other abilities in order to do this, right? So your character is going to be better at other things. It sounds like you created a character designed to be balanced to handle a variety of things, with a mild focus on resolve/will, but other players focused their characters on just a few things, so they suck at a bunch of things you are "good" at, and are slightly better at resolve/will due to it being one of the things they focused on.

Why not just play this out? Seems like your character will do better in the long run as a result.





> I'll ask again, would you not think something was wrong if, in 3E, one player agreed to play the fighter and another agreed to take the cleric, and then the cleric showed up with a war-priest who never heals or buffs anyone else and out melees the fighter?


If the players concept for their character was "divine warrior", why is that a problem? Two or more characters can actually exist in the same party with similar roles. Now yes, from a party balance point of view, if no one has any healing abilities at all, this may be an issue. But it's not like the fighter's player should be upset about this and frankly odd that you'd assume it should be.




> Or, to use a real world example, if you agree to bring the drinks for a party and I agree to bring the snacks, and then instead of snacks I show up with a case of fifty year old scotch that puts your bowl of punch and twelve pack of beer to shame?


In that case, the thing to be upset about is the lack of snacks, not the fact that there's more booze.  It's not a competition. I'd be like "ooh! Free scotch", and start drinking. Let me put it another way: Is my twelve pack and bowl of punch any less a twelve pack and bowl of punch because someone else brought scotch? Would the party be better if we only had a twelve pack of beer and a bowl of punch than if we had a twelve pack of beer, a bowl of punch, *and* a bottle of scotch? I would say not.

Again, the thing to be upset or concerned about is the stuff that is  missing (the snacks in this case). But you seem to be most upset with the duplication or being "show up" in some way. IMO, that's backwards.





> Mostly I am just trying to convince people to diversify a little and not all take the same crafting skills, defenses, and weapon proficiency because everyone trying to do the same role never works out on either a mechanical or social level. I have seen far too many groups die and then blame the DM because they all took the same weakness, and far too many players who quit the group because someone else was stepping on their toes over the years.


That's perfectly legitimate, if the real objective is to ensure some sort of party balance and capability to manage a variety of situations. But, from what you have posted, it seems less driven by that and more a need for you personally to not have any direct overlap/competition with another PC in the party.





> But to do that they had to tank all their other defenses. And, as predicted, in the first session we encountered some giant spiders and everyone but me was on death's door from the venom and, predictably, blamed the DM for the "over-tuned" encounter.


Great! So you get to bask in the "I told you so" fact that your character performed better than theirs did. IMO, this sort of poor character design is self correcting in that every time they do it, they'll find that they are utterly unable to deal with different things that come along. Unless they actually expect the GM to only hit them with things they have the most defenses to?





> Which we had. And I tossed out two characters because they didn't fit in with the group and settled on a monk, whose traditional roll is high willpower mage-killer. But then everyone decided to maximize willpower and change their feats to iron will afterwards.


Was it that the character didn't "fit", or that there was overlap/competition and you don't like that? Based on what you've posted, it sounds like you started with a character concept, realized that two other characters had overlaping skillsets, you you changed, then decided that character didn't fit with the necromancer, so you changed again. And then the other players changed their defenses so that it overlapped/competed with yours, and you got upset about that.

Again. You can't worry about this. While I agree that a balanced party should have a mix of things, having some overlap isn't a problem. Now yeah, everyone taking one and only one defense is silly, but that's on them.





> The game is meant to be a team endeavor, and part of a successful team is diversity of skills. Imagine a heist movie where they have, for example, five cat-burglars and no safe-cracker. That won't go over too well unless they really go out of their way to get around the obvious limitation and might make some jobs all but impossible.


Just let them learn that. You're not obligated to teach them yourself. Just focus on playing your character and let them play theirs.





> Only if they used the same fighting style.
> 
> That being said, I dont think I have ever seen two characters use the same weapon and fighting style in the same party ever, let alone a whole group.


I suppose this is extremely game system dependent, but that's absolutely common in my game.  In fact, it would be downright strange if there was only one guy using bastard sword to fight, and just one using a broad sword, and just one using mace, and just one using <whatever>. Then again, I don't play in a class based system and the game doesn't have feats either. You just have skills. So it's just a matter of what weapons you use and  how good you are at them. And yeah, some weapons are going to be more common than others.

And yeah, in my game, it's not uncommon at all for some characters to just be "better in every way" at combat than some other characters. And not because we have character classes (cause we don't). Some just have higher skills, or spells that enhance their damage, or magic weapons, while others may not. Some folks will have different spells to use (biggest difference and closest things to "class" in this game is which deity you worship if any), and that can absolutely have different effects in different game situations, but in terms of "we're in a fight", some folks are going to be your heavy hitters, and some are not. We push the guys with the best armor up front, and other folks maybe fight along side, getting in some hits, while the "tanks" take the damage. Maybe others hang back casting spells if they want. But yeah, there is zero assumption that there's any sort of "balance" in that one character does more damage but can't take it as well, or vice versa.

It's totally common for one character to have better armor, do more damage, and be more skilled (better able to hit), then the person fighting next to him. No one has a problem with this. We just send those characters in first (hehe). And yeah, while there may be some counter balancing things (maybe the weaker combat character has some out of combat skills/spells that create a benefit that the stronger character doesn't have), there's zero guarantee of that.

I think you may just be overly sensitive to this and require that your character have "his/her own thing" that defines them and that no-one else can do. Again, I'm not super familiar with your game system (I did read some about it on your link though), but in any reasonable game system there should be some degree of specialization available. There should be some skills/abilities/spells that are "unique" based on some other criteria. In most games, that criteria is  class. Is there something you have access to because your are a monk that other classes do not? *That's* what you should focus on. A defense/power/feat that is (apparently) available to everyone is not, nor should it be expected to be, a defining thing for any character.

I'll give an example from the last adventure I played in. I played a kind of warrior/healer (huh. Odd coincidence actually). There's a primary healing goddess that most humans worship, who is pacifistic (they're only allowed to fight in defense and usually only to capture not kill), but they get a ton of healing and defensive spells. My character worships basically the son of this deity, who is more combat focused, with some combat spells (spears being the preferred weapons), but missing some of the more powerful healing magic because of this (no resurrection spell, no "heal all damage" spell, limited set of restoration spells, also missing the basic "heal using just magic points" spell, but gets a spell that turns their first aid skill into magical, but slow healing good for post combat triage). But he also gets some special spells for healing damage from (and doing damage to) chaotic enemies (which was actually why he was on this mission since we were traveling to a chaos realm and fighting a bunch of icky chaos things). It's a fairly balanced thing in terms of spells, but that by no means that it's balanced to the rest of the party.

As it happened, one of the other party members had an artifact that gave them a few uses a day of the "heal all damage" spell that my "healer" didn't actually have. So this character, worshiping a combat deity (and being far far tougher in combat than me), could toss lightning bolts around, wade into battle, and could fast heal people to complete health in one second. Did this diminish my character at all? Nope. I just sent her on ahead in front of me, while I followed with my spear. Ironically though, we do have some martial arts skills in the game, and he's actually farther along that progression than she was, which gave him some other things he could do in combat that she didn't (er, still didn't change the damage done, or taken though). And hey, as it happened, I was the one who got stabbed with the poisoned tail attack, and happened to be the one person in the party with the treat poison skill. So that worked out well too (given the battle situation it might have taken a few rounds for me to even get to someone else if they'd been poisoned resulting in them taking more damage from it).

Er. And in this particular adventure, each player was playing two characters. My second character? Total wimpy rogue guy, who basically realized halfway through the fight that he was waaaaay out classed in this battle and spent the rest of the fight hiding behind a wall shouting encouragement. Did that bother me? Not at all. He's a young relatively low power character. My warrior/healer guy is old and experienced. And the young guy is way way better looking (and dressed). I'll also point out that my more powerful character never actually made it up to the main bad guy (got hit and knocked back by the darn poison tail attack mid fight). So I never did a single point of damage in the battle (with either character). Turned out it was one of the other characters (who had a nifty super anti-chaos sword that had some charges of "do a bunch of damage directly to chaotic beings" effect left for the fight), and another archer character (who got some good hits in at range) that did the trick. The rest of us more or less occupied the bad guy and drew its attacks.

Again. Just focus on what your character is good at and don't worry about anyone else. If the other players didn't make characters that are balanced or whatever, they'll figure it out over time. They are responsible for running their characters, not you. And yeah, sometime this means that the whole party maybe suffers, but then that's on them. it does sound like your monk character has other abilities that make her effective, so maybe focus on those instead?

I'd also point out that you can have character defining traits that have nothing at all to do with character skills/abilities written on the sheet. It sounds like you did try to develop a personality for this character. Why not just focus on that instead?

----------


## TaiLiu

Sometimes I get the sense that people in your gaming group don't like each other very much. I don't have advice or anything important to say, but it makes me a little sad.

----------


## The Glyphstone

> Sometimes I get the sense that people in your gaming group don't like each other very much. I don't have advice or anything important to say, but it makes me a little sad.


In the same way that hydrogen and anti-hydrogen don't like each other much...

----------


## Talakeal

Thanks for taking the time to write out such a long response!




> Ok. But, assuming the game rules for character creation work the same for everyone, then they lost out of some other abilities in order to do this, right? So your character is going to be better at other things. It sounds like you created a character designed to be balanced to handle a variety of things, with a mild focus on resolve/will, but other players focused their characters on just a few things, so they suck at a bunch of things you are "good" at, and are slightly better at resolve/will due to it being one of the things they focused on.


For sure.

There are diminishing returns for abilities, and investing so strongly in one area really hurts your character over all.

But it's not really about who has the strongest character.

It just really seems odd that every single person in the party has the same highest skill, and that skill happens to be one I told them would be part of my focus and they made no mention of in session zero after throwing away another character because I told them that I really do not like sharing the same role as someone else.

It's really strange behavior in a vacuum, but in this context it feels almost antagonistic.




> If the players concept for their character was "divine warrior", why is that a problem? Two or more characters can actually exist in the same party with similar roles. Now yes, from a party balance point of view, if no one has any healing abilities at all, this may be an issue. But it's not like the fighter's player should be upset about this and frankly odd that you'd assume it should be.


This was a VERY common problem back in the 3.5 days, if you go back and search you can find plenty of threads about it.

Basically, martial characters sucked back then, and at the same time, WoTC piled buffs onto divine casters to encourage people to play support / healers.

But, people realized that they could just play selfish divine casters who kept all the buffs to themselves and become powerhouses. The common term for this was "CoDzilla".

As a result, not only did the melee player not get any support, but the caster was *significantly* outperforming at the role that they signed up for.

In a better-balanced system though, trying to beat someone else at their own role is a fool's errand that imo is, tactically dumb and socially antagonistic.






> In that case, the thing to be upset about is the lack of snacks, not the fact that there's more booze.  It's not a competition. I'd be like "ooh! Free scotch", and start drinking. Let me put it another way: Is my twelve pack and bowl of punch any less a twelve pack and bowl of punch because someone else brought scotch? Would the party be better if we only had a twelve pack of beer and a bowl of punch than if we had a twelve pack of beer, a bowl of punch, *and* a bottle of scotch? I would say not.
> 
> Again, the thing to be upset or concerned about is the stuff that is  missing (the snacks in this case). But you seem to be most upset with the duplication or being "show up" in some way. IMO, that's backwards.


These are both things to be upset about. 

I can easily see people talking behind a person's back and accusing them of being cheap or ignoring their responsibilities, and potentially not inviting them to the party in the future.





> That's perfectly legitimate, if the real objective is to ensure some sort of party balance and capability to manage a variety of situations. But, from what you have posted, it seems less driven by that and more a need for you personally to not have any direct overlap/competition with another PC in the party.


Again, it's both.

This was specifically about "micromanaging everyone's character". There is no micromanaging involved in not wanting to play a character with the same primary skill as other people, it is a single, simple, straightforward request with nothing micro about it. 

We did have a session zero to discuss everyone's role. I did request someone play a specialist wizard of a school they haven't played before (that's kind of a playtesting thing more than a player thing though) but other than myself, everyone had a unique role, and I changed my character to fulfill the defensive roll that nobody else wanted to play.

Nobody wanted to play a party face, and the DM made a ruling that we had to each have a crafting skill to give us something to do during downtime, so I did suggest each person pick up a different charisma or crafting skill, and tried to encourage a variety of fighting styles and defensive skills, which is more what I feel could be considered micro-managing, and has nothing to do with my personal preferences and just a general desire for teamwork and efficiency.





> Great! So you get to bask in the "I told you so" fact that your character performed better than theirs did. IMO, this sort of poor character design is self correcting in that every time they do it, they'll find that they are utterly unable to deal with different things that come along. Unless they actually expect the GM to only hit them with things they have the most defenses to?


In a perfect world, yes.

But as someone pointed out above, toxic people blame others, that is what they do.

They won't actually rebuild their character to be more rationale. They will find someone to blame (usually the DM) and pitch a fit about how it was unfair and they go screwed. Then, their next character knee jerk in the opposite direction, focusing on maximizing their defense against whatever it was that bit them in the ass last time and neglecting everything else.




> Was it that the character didn't "fit", or that there was overlap/competition and you don't like that? Based on what you've posted, it sounds like you started with a character concept, realized that two other characters had overlapping skillsets, you changed, then decided that character didn't fit with the necromancer, so you changed again. And then the other players changed their defenses so that it overlapped/competed with yours, and you got upset about that.


A party with three healers and no "tanks" is not really one that is going to be fun to play or tactically viable unless you are playing something less action and adventure and more hospital drama.

So I changed to a samurai character who could do the "tank" thing and had a personality / background set up to be the "dragon", the Darth Vader to the necromancer's Emperor Palpatine.

Then I found out that said necromancer was a homeless, outlaw, impoverished, child with no goals beyond random murder and carnage. Likewise, the rest of the party had no real motivation between random violence and hijinks.

So I changed to a monk character who could also serve as more of a leadership role / glue that holds the party together.

But then we played one session, and I found out that the necromancer is also a narcissist, and threatened to kill me for not "treating them with the proper respect" after I told someone that he was my cabin boy (remember, he is a penniless child who is on the run from the inquisitors) to avoid razing suspicion, and then ogre continually threatened to kill me and take over the ship. Then we went into a dungeon, and I refused to protect these people who are constantly threatening me, and the game stalled out with arguing. We had a long OOC conversation and we all agreed to soft remake our character's backgrounds and personality to actually tie together and have a motivation for not killing each other.

In short, chaotic evil parties really suck but for some reason everyone always wants to play them.




> I suppose this is extremely game system dependent, but that's absolutely common in my game.  In fact, it would be downright strange if there was only one guy using bastard sword to fight, and just one using a broad sword, and just one using mace, and just one using <whatever>. Then again, I don't play in a class-based system and the game doesn't have feats either. You just have skills. So it's just a matter of what weapons you use and how good you are at them. And yeah, some weapons are going to be more common than others.


Went back and thought about all the long-term games I have played with this system:

First party; dual wielding kris and whip, dual wielding pistols, single bastard sword, and long spear. I believe the two non-combat characters did both have a single pistol as a sidearm.
Second party; arming sword and shield, dual wielding pistols, single pistol, unarmed, glaive, and none.
Third party: Great sword and submachine gun, Staff, unarmed, rifle, and none.
Fourth party: Great sword, rifle, unarmed, short sword and shield, and none.
Fifth party: Spear, dual wielding long swords, dual wielding daggers, dual wielding pistols, spear and shield, and none.
Sixth party: Unarmed, long spear, and none.
Seventh party: Warhammer and shield with sawed off shotgun, dual wielding short swords, great sword, long bow and spear, and none.
Eighth party: Meteor hammer, parrying dagger, bola, rapier and crossbow, staff, rifle, and unarmed.
Current Party: Battle axe and shield, dual wielding long swords, fighting glove and chain, short bow, and none.

So really, there isn't a single overlap besides non-combatant characters who have either nothing or a single pistol as a sidearm. Even between there parties there is very little overlap.




> And yeah, in my game, it's not uncommon at all for some characters to just be "better in every way" at combat than some other characters. And not because we have character classes (cause we don't). Some just have higher skills, or spells that enhance their damage, or magic weapons, while others may not. Some folks will have different spells to use (biggest difference and closest things to "class" in this game is which deity you worship if any), and that can absolutely have different effects in different game situations, but in terms of "we're in a fight", some folks are going to be your heavy hitters, and some are not. We push the guys with the best armor up front, and other folks maybe fight along side, getting in some hits, while the "tanks" take the damage. Maybe others hang back casting spells if they want. But yeah, there is zero assumption that there's any sort of "balance" in that one character does more damage but can't take it as well, or vice versa.
> 
> It's totally common for one character to have better armor, do more damage, and be more skilled (better able to hit), then the person fighting next to him. No one has a problem with this. We just send those characters in first (hehe). And yeah, while there may be some counter balancing things (maybe the weaker combat character has some out of combat skills/spells that create a benefit that the stronger character doesn't have), there's zero guarantee of that.


I would be hard pressed to actually come up with a list of which characters are "better" in combat than others. The game is set up for teamwork, and it is kind of meaningless to try and analyze each piece's contribution when the whole is more than the sum of its parts. For example, a "bard" type character who buffs the whole group is not going to out tank or out damage anyone, and will lose to anyone else in a one-on-one dual, but still probably contributes more to the team as a whole than anyone else.

Now, some people do make dedicated "support" characters who focus exclusively on things like medicine or crafting, but even then, those do directly help the team's ability as a whole to participate in combat. 

The only really bad characters are people who either hyper-focus in one area and then crumple when it doesn't come up, or those who are trying to do everything at once and thus don't end up able to do anything. But even that isn't bad in a vacuum as long as you take the rest of the team into account; a jack of all trades can be useful redundancy in a very small or very large party, and a hyper specialist can be a great asset in a big party that knows to cover for their limitations.





> I think you may just be overly sensitive to this and require that your character have "his/her own thing" that defines them and that no-one else can do. Again, I'm not super familiar with your game system (I did read some about it on your link though), but in any reasonable game system there should be some degree of specialization available. There should be some skills/abilities/spells that are "unique" based on some other criteria. In most games, that criteria is class. Is there something you have access to because your are a monk that other classes do not? *That's* what you should focus on. A defense/power/feat that is (apparently) available to everyone is not, nor should it be expected to be, a defining thing for any character.


That is absolutely true, I am overly sensitive towards characters being special.

It just seems really bizarre in this case that after I plainly stated this to the party, and laid claim to a roll that nobody else was interested in, the entire party then remade their characters to all focus on the thing I chose.

The game isn't based on classes but rather skills and traits. There is nothing stopping anyone from taking any ability, although some are more costly or less synergized than others.

The monk archetype is a lightly armored "tank" character who specializes in having good defensive skills; fortitude, acrobatics, and resolve.

I still don't understand why *defensive* is such a dividing line though.

Like, imagine an x-men rpg:

Professor X/GM: Welcome new kid! What is your mutant power?
New guy: I want to shoot lasers from my eyes!
Professor X: Sorry, that's cyclops' thing! Choose again!
New guy: Ok, how about regeneration and an adamantium skeleton?
Wolverine: Sorry, that's already my thing.
Professor X: Now now, Logan. Don't be unreasonable. Those are defensive powers! Go ahead new kid.
New guy: Yay! Can I also have claws?
Professor X: We have already talked about this. No copying other people's powers. Get out!




> I'd also point out that you can have character defining traits that have nothing at all to do with character skills/abilities written on the sheet. It sounds like you did try to develop a personality for this character. Why not just focus on that instead?


Again, I don't see the fluff and the crunch as opposites, I really like them to line up whenever possible.

My character's whole personality is built around being the calm den-mother for the whole group, being the steady stable rock upon which the team is built. It's really hard to do that when the character sheet says that I am supposed to be least determined and confident member of the party.

----------


## Lord Torath

You cannot control other people's reactions.
You cannot control how other people build their characters.

You can only control how you build your character, and how you respond and react to things.

Was it fair for them to rebuild their characters so they all had better resolve than you?  No rules prevent it, so yes.
Was it _nice_ of them to do it?  No, not really.  But do you really think they did it just to spite your character?  It's possible, but it's rather unlikely.
Is it reasonable for you to feel angry about it?  Sure.  You will feel however you feel about it.  Having your idea stolen/outshone is frustrating.  So go ahead and feel frustrated about it.  But try to keep it to yourself.
Is it reasonable to ask the other players to rebuild their characters away from your Resolve niche?  No, it's really not.  They're free to build their characters however they want.
Is it reasonable to expect the others to create a well-rounded party?  Yes, but people are not always reasonable.  

You have plenty of reason to feel angry about the others not respecting your niche, especially after you went out of your way to respect their niches.  But as someone else has said, holding on to anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.  It is not useful, and it keeps you from being happy and having fun.

As far as having a niche, your new niche appears to be "well-rounded character".  The spider(?) encounter has showed how your character is more versatile than the glass-cannons the others have created.  Next time they complain about the encounter being "overtuned", you get to smile and say cheerfully, "Really?  I thought it was just about perfect!  DM, you did a fantastic job there!"  (Your DM will also love hearing that!)

Remember:  You can only control you, and are only responsible for your own actions and reactions.  If anyone complains that you brought beer and punch instead of 50-year scotch, just remind them you brought precisely what you said you would bring.  Don't mention that  the other person brought scotch instead of chips and seven-layer dip like they said they would.  Just focus on yourself and your own actions.



Regarding goals, all I can say is "COMMUNICATE, DANG IT!"  (Thanks, D+1!)

Talk to the DM.  Alone.  Assume he has good intentions, and is not asking for your goals just to ignore them, but to try to make the game more fun.
Apologize to him for not reacting appropriately when he first asked about goals (because you really didn't).  _Don't_ mention his behavior at all!  Also don't expect him to apologize to you.  If he does, Bonus!, but don't expect it.

Tell him your concerns about how your PCs' goals have been ignored/abused by previous DMs in the past, so he knows where you're coming from.  Then tell him you're interested in how he plans you integrate your PC's goals, and how much time you'll likely have to pursue those goals.  Reassure him that you're not trying to poke holes in his plan, but really want to know.  He probably already knows most of your backstory, but give it to him again.  Ask him what he thinks appropriate short term goals are (maybe he can share some of the other PCs' goals), and ask if he thinks there are any long-term goals that would fit with both your PC and his ideas for the campaign.  What types of goals would he like?  Apparently immediate survival goals are not the sort he means, as (to his point) they are generally not that interesting or unique.  _Everyone_ wants to survive.  So ask him what kinds of goals he's looking for.  The two of you can brainstorm a bit and come up with some that fit.  You're a monk, maybe you can make a goal to initiate some of the local villagers into your order.  

Again, the DM wants goals for your PC because he thinks it will make the game more fun for both you and him.  So see if you can work with him a bit on it.

Best wishes!


Also:  Learned about Morton's Fork today!  Thanks, King of Nowhere!

----------


## gbaji

> This was specifically about "micromanaging everyone's character". There is no micromanaging involved in not wanting to play a character with the same primary skill as other people, it is a single, simple, straightforward request with nothing micro about it.


Again, maybe I'm not understanding the game system, but I would not consider a choice of defense as a "primary skill". I would assume that in most games, you have different categories of damage and effects and different characters are going to have different levels of defense against those damage and effect sources. That's just a somewhat baked in thing. Everyone's got some amount of defense against each type of threat. Only thing that varies is how much.

Primary skills for a character would be like a rogue who can escape bonds, or scale walls. Or a monk who can do flying leaps and other acrobatic stuff. Or a swordsman with special moves with the weapon (maybe disarm or deflection stuff?). Or maybe you're really good at sewing and can therefore confuse the bandits by disguising everyone to look like the local heroes or something ("they can sew!"). Having a high level of one of a set of (what appears to be) standard defenses just seems like not something I'd focus on as a defining characteristic.





> Like, imagine an x-men rpg:
> 
> Professor X/GM: Welcome new kid! What is your mutant power?
> New guy: I want to shoot lasers from my eyes!
> Professor X: Sorry, that's cyclops' thing! Choose again!
> New guy: Ok, how about regeneration and an adamantium skeleton?
> Wolverine: Sorry, that's already my thing.
> Professor X: Now now, Logan. Don't be unreasonable. Those are defensive powers! Go ahead new kid.
> New guy: Yay! Can I also have claws?
> Professor X: We have already talked about this. No copying other people's powers. Get out!


But in this case, it's more like one character being good at taking energy damager and then another character comes along and *also* has high defenses against energy damage. I played a lot of champions in the day, and I never ever thought the defining characteristic of any character was "has a high ED, or PD, or characteristic defense, or mental defense, or presence defense, or whatever". Like... ever. And I'd certainly not be upset at all if my mentalist had a high mental defense (cause, duh), but then the party brick decided for (reasons) that his character is super protected from mental powers, so he also has a high (maybe even higher) mental defense. And heaven forbid the guy with electromagnetic powers has a helmet that grants him a high protection from such things (that's just so unrealistic, right?).

I get wanting to have a "unique" role in a party. Makes sense and whatnot. But you might be setting yourself up for this by defining that unique thing based on something so generic and broadly available. Sure. It's "odd" that everyone else jumped to maxing out their resolve and yeah, I also question the logic/reason for doing that. But that's not really something that is or should be unique to anyone IMO.





> My character's whole personality is built around being the calm den-mother for the whole group, being the steady stable rock upon which the team is built. It's really hard to do that when the character sheet says that I am supposed to be least determined and confident member of the party.


Again. I'm not super familiar with the game system, but why on earth does what you defend against have anything at all to do with your personality? Being the "steady stable rock" of the party doesn't (or shouldn't) have anything at all to do with the resolve rating written down on your sheet. That's a defense. Nothing more. You roleplay whether your character is stable, steady, and provides social/emotional/whatever grounding/support to the party.

Someone can be very calm and stable personality wise, without having super high defenses against whatever it is resolve defends against. Not every personality trait has to be reflected as a stat/skill/ability/power on the character sheet. In fact, I'd argue that most should not.

So maybe just roleplay your character the way you want to roleplay her, and don't worry about the resolve skill level. It's a good bet that none of the other characters are tying their resolve rating to the same personality elements you are attributing/claiming for your own character, so no one is really stealing your "role" here.

----------


## Talakeal

So maybe the scotch vs. beer analogy doesn't work, but surely people can think of some situations in real life where people violate an agreement to make themselves look good at other people's expense?

Like, say if the parents agree not to buy a kid a birthday present because he got bad grades, and then the dad shows up with a brand new PS5 looking like a hero while leaving the mom to look like the bad guy?




> Is it reasonable for you to feel angry about it?  Sure.  You will feel however you feel about it.  Having your idea stolen/outshone is frustrating.  So go ahead and feel frustrated about it.  But try to keep it to yourself.
> 
> Regarding goals, all I can say is "COMMUNICATE, DANG IT!"  (Thanks, D+1!)



Getting mixed signals here. 

Communication is a good thing, but if someone else is doing something that makes me upset I should just keep it to myself?





> Was it fair for them to rebuild their characters so they all had better resolve than you?  No rules prevent it, so yes.


There are a lot of things that are technically legal but are horribly mean and unfair.




> Talk to the DM.  Alone.  Assume he has good intentions, and is not asking for your goals just to ignore them, but to try to make the game more fun.
> Apologize to him for not reacting appropriately when he first asked about goals (because you really didn't).  _Don't_ mention his behavior at all!  Also don't expect him to apologize to you.  If he does, Bonus!, but don't expect it.
> 
> Tell him your concerns about how your PCs' goals have been ignored/abused by previous DMs in the past, so he knows where you're coming from.  Then tell him you're interested in how he plans you integrate your PC's goals, and how much time you'll likely have to pursue those goals.  Reassure him that you're not trying to poke holes in his plan, but really want to know.  He probably already knows most of your backstory, but give it to him again.  Ask him what he thinks appropriate short term goals are (maybe he can share some of the other PCs' goals), and ask if he thinks there are any long-term goals that would fit with both your PC and his ideas for the campaign.  What types of goals would he like?  Apparently immediate survival goals are not the sort he means, as (to his point) they are generally not that interesting or unique.  _Everyone_ wants to survive.  So ask him what kinds of goals he's looking for.  The two of you can brainstorm a bit and come up with some that fit.  You're a monk, maybe you can make a goal to initiate some of the local villagers into your order.  
> 
> Again, the DM wants goals for your PC because he thinks it will make the game more fun for both you and him.  So see if you can work with him a bit on it.


I appear to be missing something.

What exactly did I do that was inappropriate? Was it just having the conversation in public rather than private? 

Because your suggestion is almost exactly what I did.




> You're a monk, maybe you can make a goal to initiate some of the local villagers into your order.


Why would I do that? Apparently, everyone already has superior skills without any sort of monastic training.




> Again, maybe I'm not understanding the game system, but I would not consider a choice of defense as a "primary skill". I would assume that in most games, you have different categories of damage and effects and different characters are going to have different levels of defense against those damage and effect sources. That's just a somewhat baked in thing. Everyone's got some amount of defense against each type of threat. Only thing that varies is how much.
> 
> Primary skills for a character would be like a rogue who can escape bonds, or scale walls. Or a monk who can do flying leaps and other acrobatic stuff. Or a swordsman with special moves with the weapon (maybe disarm or deflection stuff?). Or maybe you're really good at sewing and can therefore confuse the bandits by disguising everyone to look like the local heroes or something ("they can sew!"). Having a high level of one of a set of (what appears to be) standard defenses just seems like not something I'd focus on as a defining characteristic.
> 
> 
> But in this case, it's more like one character being good at taking energy damager and then another character comes along and *also* has high defenses against energy damage. I played a lot of champions in the day, and I never ever thought the defining characteristic of any character was "has a high ED, or PD, or characteristic defense, or mental defense, or presence defense, or whatever". Like... ever. And I'd certainly not be upset at all if my mentalist had a high mental defense (cause, duh), but then the party brick decided for (reasons) that his character is super protected from mental powers, so he also has a high (maybe even higher) mental defense. And heaven forbid the guy with electromagnetic powers has a helmet that grants him a high protection from such things (that's just so unrealistic, right?).
> 
> I get wanting to have a "unique" role in a party. Makes sense and whatnot. But you might be setting yourself up for this by defining that unique thing based on something so generic and broadly available. Sure. It's "odd" that everyone else jumped to maxing out their resolve and yeah, I also question the logic/reason for doing that. But that's not really something that is or should be unique to anyone IMO.



In short, there are three steps to characters. Your base attributes which determine the starting value of your skills (Agility, Charisma, Dexterity, Endurance, Intelligence, Perception, Strength, Willpower).

Then there are thirty skills that determine what you can do. You select three of these are your primary skills and generally determine your roll on the team. (Academics, Acrobatics, Alertness, Art, Athletics, Business, Domestrics, Expression, Fortitude, Gaming, Insight, Larceny, Leadership, Marksmanship, Medical, Melee, Metalworking, Performance, Reason, Resolve, Riding, Science, Social, Stealth, Stoneworking, Survival, Technology, Unarmed, Woodworking).

Then you get traits to customize your character, the equivalent of Feats in D&D.

The acrobatics, fortitude, and resolve skills include the equivalent of the three saving throw categories in 3.5, although that is not all they can do.

In this case, my role was the monk, which is the defensive mage killer role, and chose resolve, melee, and art (the latter was a demand by the GM) for my skills. It would be perfectly viable for a monk to pick acrobatics, fortitude, and resolve as their three primary skills.

So, what happened here is that everyone in the party, regardless of roll, chose willpower as their highest attribute and then resolve as one of their three primary skills. Then they went back and changed their traits to "obstinate" (the equivalent of 3.5's iron will feat) to boost their resolve even further. The wizards did this instead of more spells or metamagics, the pirate did this instead of sneak attacking or sailing, the blacksmith did this over more recipes or heavy armor, the ranger did this over increased range or animal companions or trick shots, etc. You can also use these traits to pick an additional primary skill, or have extra HP, or focus onto an active skill, or innate supernatural powers, etc. 

Like, clearly THEY all thought it was something super huge and role defining, as they gave up literally any other active power to have it.




> Again. I'm not super familiar with the game system, but why on earth does what you defend against have anything at all to do with your personality? Being the "steady stable rock" of the party doesn't (or shouldn't) have anything at all to do with the resolve rating written down on your sheet. That's a defense. Nothing more. You roleplay whether your character is stable, steady, and provides social/emotional/whatever grounding/support to the party.
> 
> Someone can be very calm and stable personality wise, without having super high defenses against whatever it is resolve defends against. Not every personality trait has to be reflected as a stat/skill/ability/power on the character sheet. In fact, I'd argue that most should not.
> 
> So maybe just roleplay your character the way you want to roleplay her, and don't worry about the resolve skill level. It's a good bet that none of the other characters are tying their resolve rating to the same personality elements you are attributing/claiming for your own character, so no one is really stealing your "role" here.


In my mind, it is cheating to not play your character in accordance with your mental scores.

It is not appropriate to play a suave, smooth-talking charmer and then dumb your expression score, or to play a character with a high reason score as a bumbling idiot.

----------


## Lord Torath

> So maybe the scotch vs. beer analogy doesn't work, but surely people can think of some situations in real life where people violate an agreement to make themselves look good at other people's expense?
> 
> Like, say if the parents agree not to buy a kid a birthday present because he got bad grades, and then the dad shows up with a brand new PS5 looking like a hero while leaving the mom to look like the bad guy?


This is something people can do, and it is not against the law.  Is it nice?  No!  It's pretty awful.  But you can't control other people, either what they do, what they think, or how they feel.  All you can control is yourself.  




> Getting mixed signals here. 
> 
> Communication is a good thing, but if someone else is doing something that makes me upset I should just keep it to myself?


Feeling anger is normal and natural.  But expressing it almost never leads to the outcome you really want.  Realize that your anger is not going to change the position of anyone else.  And holding on to that anger is not going to be helpful for you.  All it will do is fill you with resentment, which will keep you from being able to enjoy your game.  So yes, feel the anger.  Come here and vent about it.  Then let it go.





> There are a lot of things that are technically legal but are horribly mean and unfair.


And what are you going to do about it?  You cannot make the other players change their characters.  That is beyond your power.  So you can either accept that they've eclipsed you at your high resolve and move on, or sit and stew about it.  Which one will be more fun for you?  I know which one _I'd_ have more fun with in your shoes, but I'm not you.




> I appear to be missing something.
> 
> What exactly did I do that was inappropriate? Was it just having the conversation in public rather than private? 
> 
> Because your suggestion is almost exactly what I did.


Perhaps I misunderstood.  I was under the impression that you challenged the DM publicly about the need for goals, and then he got defensive, and things escalated.  If that's not how it happened, I apologize.  Regardless of whether or not you challenged him inappropriately, _he_ probably feels you did, since he got defensive.  So an apology would not go amiss, and would probably be well received by your DM.  Even if you feel you did nothing wrong, an apology sets the tone that you're not coming at him as an adversary who needs to win, but as someone who wants to understand where he's coming from, and work together to make the game more fun.

Having the meeting in private allows the two of you to talk without anyone else interfering or vying for the DM's attention.  It allows for clearer communication.  It also removes the need to score points for the sake of the watching audience, and you don't need to worry about their opinions of your goals.




> Why would I do that? Apparently, everyone already has superior skills without any sort of monastic training.


Because if _you_ set it up, they will likely be loyal to _you_.1   :Small Wink:   That was just a throw-out goal based on the very little I know of your character.  I'm sure you and your DM will be able to come up with something much better.

The big takeaway here should be that as much as you might want to, you cannot change the other players.  All you can do is control your self.  Accept the fact that you cannot change them, and let it go.

We frequently say here on the boards that No Gaming is better than Bad Gaming.  No D&D game is perfect, because we are all imperfect humans.  Can you have fun at the game, playing your monk with the lowest Resolve at the table?  If so, great!  Carry on!  But if you can't let go of the resentment of the other players stealing your niche, then it's probably time to tell the group you're going to sit this campaign out.


Drat.  I forgot how to select the Dark Orchid text color.

----------


## King of Nowhere

> I still don't understand why *defensive* is such a dividing line though.
> 
> Like, imagine an x-men rpg:
> 
> Professor X/GM: Welcome new kid! What is your mutant power?
> New guy: I want to shoot lasers from my eyes!
> Professor X: Sorry, that's cyclops' thing! Choose again!
> New guy: Ok, how about regeneration and an adamantium skeleton?
> Wolverine: Sorry, that's already my thing.
> ...


it's not about being a defensive ability. it's about it being a single roll.
so, to fix your example...

New guy: Ok, how about having a body made of iron?
Wolverine: Sorry, that would make you impervious to bullets, and being impervious to bullets is my thing. Pick something else.

as a monk you are a well rounded tank. your main ability is not a high will save. a cleric or a druid also have high will saves. a bunch of other classes too.
when i was playing my defensive-focused monk, the cleric has a better will save than me. the fighter had a better fortitude. the rogue had better reflexes. none of that trespassed in my role, because i had by far the better defence overall. at high level the wizard could cover himself in defensive buffs and get better defences than me, but even that didn't really trespass in my role, because he was always a couple of dispels away from being squishy again, and i didn't.
so, for obscure reasons the other players all shot themselves in the foot just to have a high will save, but it doesn't trespass into your thing. 
if they all played tanks with high saving throws, mobility and acrobatics? then you'd have a better argument.




> So maybe the scotch vs. beer analogy doesn't work, but surely people can think of some situations in real life where people violate an agreement to make themselves look good at other people's expense?
> 
> Like, say if the parents agree not to buy a kid a birthday present because he got bad grades, and then the dad shows up with a brand new PS5 looking like a hero while leaving the mom to look like the bad guy?


again, not an apt metaphor because the other players did not get themselves cool gifts. they do not look like heroes. 
they look like morons who totally sabotaged their main things just to have a minor bonus somewhere else.
it's like this dad traded his car for a playstation. 



> In my mind, it is cheating to not play your character in accordance with your mental scores.
> 
> It is not appropriate to play a suave, smooth-talking charmer and then dumb your expression score, or to play a character with a high reason score as a bumbling idiot.


well, you have a point there, but you are taking it way too extreme. and you end up restricting the possible personalities because "this character is dumb, so he can't do something smart"
intelligence is a tricky business. the game has 3 stats to represent it. this is, of course, a simplification.
now, i assume everyone on this site is familiar with the order of the stick, even though it's not required for this forum. and i call in miko as an example.
miko had a high charisma. a high charisma could mean many things; most often it is associated with someone being likable. 
miko is totally not likable. that's ok; because charisma also represents self-confidence. and miko had tons of that. miko had enough self-confidence that when the gods stripped her of powers, she still thought she was in the right. so she had high charisma, but she wasn't likable.
compare with xykon; high charisma, funny and charming until he starts doing vile stuff.
compare with roy; he's not really likable despite his charisma, but he's the quiet dependable guy you can trust to lead. 
all those people have high charisma, and yet they all display traits that are associated with low charisma.

even in real life, there's plenty of graduated people buying into the sillyest conspiracy theories when they should know better. or you could have a highly intelligent guy be illiterate because he comes from a tribe of hunter-gatherers with no knowledge of writing; this guy obviously will have zero academic knowledge, but he'll be very skilled at a lot of other stuff. and then you have the highly intelligent learned guy, who will go in the jungle to meet the hunter gatherer and everyone in the tribe will be aghast at how this supposedly intelligent learned guy can be so dumb as to [insert stuff that would get you killed in the jungle].  but I won't expand on real life because it may infringe on forum rules.  

so, just because those other characters have high defence against enchantment magic, it does not mean they have to be emotionally stable. it certainly does not mean that they must be more emotionally stable than you just because you have a +7 and they have a +8 (or whatever the actual bonuses are in your homebrew system).
the stats are flexible. they represent what you want them to represent.
once more, i do believe you are vastly conflating the importance of the other guys having a slightly higher bonus than you, and ascribing to it all manners of meanings it doesn't have to have.

----------


## kyoryu

Suave character with low charisma?

Lemme introduce you to a dude named Han Solo.  Really suave.  Never actually works.

----------


## Telok

> We made characters as a group.
> 
> The concepts we pitched were:
> 
> Ogre Pirate.
> Healing focused alchemist (me).
> Necromancy focused alchemist.
> Healing focused priest.
> Ranger who is fascinated by technology.
> ...


I think they're all just nuts. Although something does occur to me; if they consider you the expert in the system mechanics, and this is the first character you've made to play, they could be reading your character's resolve focus as some sort of "uber build" thing and trying to emulate it without understanding it.

I've sort of seen something similar in other games, although not a whole group nor to your extent. Someone considered a "optimizer" has a character that's focused on & good at something and has no other obvious weaknesses, the group "that guy" brings in a replacement character (they die more often because "that guy") with one of the "optimized" character's things. Then, as you'd expect, without understanding the synergies or teamwork or "not min/maxing too much" or whatevever the new character falls short.

That might not be what's happening. Its just the memory that your bits I quoted happened to trigger. Can you go "beer & pretzels" on this? Abandon the teamwork den-mother thing, skip the leader role, to just go with a focus on making good quips and surviving the inevitable near-TPK by staying just outside their fireball formation? That's kinda what I've done this last campaign and its... refreshing to just take it mentally easy, emotionally distance a little, focus on having a bit of fun while waiting for them to pull the lever labeled "do not pull this lever, death trap".

----------


## Batcathat

> I think they're all just nuts. Although something does occur to me; if they consider you the expert in the system mechanics, and this is the first character you've made to play, they could be reading your character's resolve focus as some sort of "uber build" thing and trying to emulate it without understanding it.
> 
> I've sort of seen something similar in other games, although not a whole group nor to your extent. Someone considered a "optimizer" has a character that's focused on & good at something and has no other obvious weaknesses, the group "that guy" brings in a replacement character (they die more often because "that guy") with one of the "optimized" character's things. Then, as you'd expect, without understanding the synergies or teamwork or "not min/maxing too much" or whatevever the new character falls short.
> 
> That might not be what's happening. Its just the memory that your bits I quoted happened to trigger. Can you go "beer & pretzels" on this? Abandon the teamwork den-mother thing, skip the leader role, to just go with a focus on making good quips and surviving the inevitable near-TPK by staying just outside their fireball formation? That's kinda what I've done this last campaign and its... refreshing to just take it mentally easy, emotionally distance a little, focus on having a bit of fun while waiting for them to pull the lever labeled "do not pull this lever, death trap".


This sounds both like a reasonable explanation and a reasonable solution. 

(Though from what I've seen about the kind of people Talakeal plays with, a reasonable explanation is probably not the most likely one and the reasonable solution would probably lead to at least one person throwing a fit over Talakeal "tricking them" into making their characters like that).

----------


## Talakeal

> I think they're all just nuts. Although something does occur to me; if they consider you the expert in the system mechanics, and this is the first character you've made to play, they could be reading your character's resolve focus as some sort of "uber build" thing and trying to emulate it without understanding it.
> 
> I've sort of seen something similar in other games, although not a whole group nor to your extent. Someone considered a "optimizer" has a character that's focused on & good at something and has no other obvious weaknesses, the group "that guy" brings in a replacement character (they die more often because "that guy") with one of the "optimized" character's things. Then, as you'd expect, without understanding the synergies or teamwork or "not min/maxing too much" or whatevever the new character falls short.
> 
> That might not be what's happening. Its just the memory that your bits I quoted happened to trigger. Can you go "beer & pretzels" on this? Abandon the teamwork den-mother thing, skip the leader role, to just go with a focus on making good quips and surviving the inevitable near-TPK by staying just outside their fireball formation? That's kinda what I've done this last campaign and its... refreshing to just take it mentally easy, emotionally distance a little, focus on having a bit of fun while waiting for them to pull the lever labeled "do not pull this lever, death trap".


That might be the case, except that the whole Iron Will thing was before anyone had even seen my character sheet. They only knew that I was going for the monk role, and then they all retroactively changed to iron will because the priest chose it when she couldn't think of anything better.




> It's not about being a defensive ability. it's about it being a single roll.


Could you elaborate on what a "single roll" means in this context?

Like, everything in the game is resolved with a single roll. Do you mean a single score?

Because in this case they all picked willpower as their highest base stat, all took resolve as one of their primary skills, and all took iron will as their starting feat. That's more than one thing.




> As a monk you are a well-rounded tank. your main ability is not a high will save. a cleric or a druid also have high will saves. a bunch of other classes too.
> when i was playing my defensive-focused monk, the cleric has a better will save than me. the fighter had a better fortitude. the rogue had better reflexes. none of that trespassed in my role, because i had by far the better defense overall. at high level the wizard could cover himself in defensive buffs and get better defenses than me, but even that didn't really trespass in my role, because he was always a couple of dispels away from being squishy again, and I didn't.
> 
> so, for obscure reasons the other players all shot themselves in the foot just to have a high will save, but it doesn't trespass into your thing. 
> if they all played tanks with high saving throws, mobility and acrobatics? then you'd have a better argument.


But I specifically made a high resolve build.

I don't really care about the priest and wizard also having high willpower, but when the fighter and the rogue do it its just, wth.

I would actually expect the pirate to have more mobility and acrobatics because that is his class role and I didn't focus on that, but for some crazy reason he focused on willpower.

At this point I don't really have a role in combat except to play second fiddle to everyone else. 




> This is something people can do, and it is not against the law.  Is it nice?  No!  It's pretty awful.  But you can't control other people, either what they do, what they think, or how they feel.  All you can control is yourself.  
> 
> Feeling anger is normal and natural.  But expressing it almost never leads to the outcome you really want.  Realize that your anger is not going to change the position of anyone else.  And holding on to that anger is not going to be helpful for you.  All it will do is fill you with resentment, which will keep you from being able to enjoy your game.  So yes, feel the anger.  Come here and vent about it.  Then let it go.
> 
> 
> And what are you going to do about it?  You cannot make the other players change their characters.  That is beyond your power.  So you can either accept that they've eclipsed you at your high resolve and move on, or sit and stew about it.  Which one will be more fun for you?  I know which one _I'd_ have more fun with in your shoes, but I'm not you.


Well, I CAN force them to change their characters, but doing so is generally not nice and is more trouble than it's worth.

But in this case, I think talking to people can work.

I think calmly explaining that they are hurting my feelings and / or making a tactical mistake certainly could have convinced some of them to make a different choice if Bob hadn't immediately started telling me that choosing a defensive character concept is absurd and that I am "giving the entire group a giant middle finger".





> Perhaps I misunderstood.  I was under the impression that you challenged the DM publicly about the need for goals, and then he got defensive, and things escalated.  If that's not how it happened, I apologize.  Regardless of whether or not you challenged him inappropriately, _he_ probably feels you did, since he got defensive.  So an apology would not go amiss, and would probably be well received by your DM.  Even if you feel you did nothing wrong, an apology sets the tone that you're not coming at him as an adversary who needs to win, but as someone who wants to understand where he's coming from, and work together to make the game more fun.
> 
> Having the meeting in private allows the two of you to talk without anyone else interfering or vying for the DM's attention.  It allows for clearer communication.  It also removes the need to score points for the sake of the watching audience, and you don't need to worry about their opinions of your goals.


Ok, so it is just having the conversation in public rather than in private. 

That is the kind of thing I am pretty blind to. But in this case I am not sure if it was practical, because he wanted us to come up with motivations on the spot and this was really a conversation that we needed to have before I could proceed; and it probably saved us a lot of trouble in the long run as it prevented people from immediately coming up with a bunch of contradictory goals.




> That might not be what's happening. Its just the memory that your bits I quoted happened to trigger. Can you go "beer & pretzels" on this? Abandon the teamwork den-mother thing, skip the leader role, to just go with a focus on making good quips and surviving the inevitable near-TPK by staying just outside their fireball formation? That's kinda what I've done this last campaign and its... refreshing to just take it mentally easy, emotionally distance a little, focus on having a bit of fun while waiting for them to pull the lever labeled "do not pull this lever, death trap".


I really can't.

I am competitive by nature and really get into character. That's just who I am.




> well, you have a point there, but you are taking it way too extreme. and you end up restricting the possible personalities because "this character is dumb, so he can't do something smart"
> intelligence is a tricky business. the game has 3 stats to represent it. this is, of course, a simplification.
> now, i assume everyone on this site is familiar with the order of the stick, even though it's not required for this forum. and i call in miko as an example.
> miko had a high charisma. a high charisma could mean many things; most often it is associated with someone being likable. 
> miko is totally not likable. that's ok; because charisma also represents self-confidence. and miko had tons of that. miko had enough self-confidence that when the gods stripped her of powers, she still thought she was in the right. so she had high charisma, but she wasn't likable.
> compare with xykon; high charisma, funny and charming until he starts doing vile stuff.
> compare with roy; he's not really likable despite his charisma, but he's the quiet dependable guy you can trust to lead. 
> all those people have high charisma, and yet they all display traits that are associated with low charisma.
> 
> ...


A lot of that is just D&D nonsense with never making up its mind about what the ability scores mean.

In my system, everything has a very solid in fiction explanation. People are allowed to refluff stuff with GM permission, but nobody did.

But that does explain a lot of the disconnect. They are seeing it as resistance to enchantment magic*, whereas I am seeing it as a vital part of my personality and backstory. A primary skill is the equivalent of a degree in that field, and my character spent six years in a monastery learning it. Again, a lot of it does go back to the time Elan decided to pick up a level of wizard.

*And again, if that is all they want out of it, this is a terrible way to go about it. They could become flat out immune to enchantment for significantly less investment.

----------


## Telok

FYI Tak, ya got a misquote in there. Last quote block.

Oh, and if you really can't avoid the compete thing, can you change what you're competing on?  Maybe move into a more non-combat rp competitive effort? Get your character drunk more than anyone else? Use more consumables  and use them better than anyone else?

----------


## King of Nowhere

> Could you elaborate on what a "single roll" means in this context?
> 
> Like, everything in the game is resolved with a single roll. Do you mean a single score?
> 
> Because in this case they all picked willpower as their highest base stat, all took resolve as one of their primary skills, and all took iron will as their starting feat. That's more than one thing.
> ...
> At this point I don't really have a role in combat except to play second fiddle to everyone else.


I mean a bonus to a single thing. a bonus to resolve and nothing else. it's just a single bonus to a single check.
now, if this is like d&d (and i know your homebrew is similar, so I'll just go forward here) there are at least 5 different numbers that contribute to tankyness: the three saving throws, armor class, and hit points. then there are a bunch of other more subtle parameters that contribute, like being immune or having counters to specific effects that are not covered by the above (for example, having a way to get out of a forcecage), a way to reroll a saving throw for that time when you roll a natural 1 against death, high touch ac against rays, and so on.
and then you need to also be threatening in some way; clearly if you built a tank you cannot be expected to also deal damage like the dps, but you must have some way to protect the rest of your team. most often this is some kind of crowd control, or perhaps some buffing/debuffing area effect. otherwise the enemy is just going to ignore you and you're not contributing.
in fact, my monk was such a great tank because he excelled at all of that stuff; and other party members outstripped him in specific areas, but he was the best tank because he had all of the traits of a good tank, and nobody could outcompete him for that. 

instead, your other players focused on resolve. just that. one single factor out of the five major ones and dozens of smaller ones that make a good tank. and they invested way too many build resources on it. 
and frankly, how often is resolve called into account? i don't know your system, but in my experience it is seldom rolled; at low levels there aren't many effects that call for will saves, and at higher levels everyone buys immunity to the most annoying stuff. how is willpower a thing so important that it defines a character when 90% of the encounters it will not even be needed? 
I at least hope your campaign sees more of those effects used, to at least somewhat partially justify all the fuss you and the rest of the group are making about maximizing this one very specific thing. 
because I really. can't figure out. why. everyone in your group. is. so. FIXATED. WITH. ONE. SINGLE. ABILITY!
this makes as much sense to me as everyone deciding they want to maximize their _profession: basket weaver_ modifier at the expence of everything else. and yes, i realize ffailing a save against domination sucks, but so does failing a save against a death effect. or failing a reflex save and being dead for too much damage. or having low armor and being dead for too much damage.

the idea that "I don't really have a role in combat except to play second fiddle to everyone else" is just incredibly outlandish. so your role in combat is solely that of having high willpower? "talekeal, your turn" "I step up and roll willpower!" "there is nothing to roll willpower against. those are just a bunch of goblins with spears" "oh. i guess i'll skip the fight then". is that all your character will do?
no, you're not playing second fiddle to anyone. you will have a lot of other capacities they don't have, because they insisted on sinking all their resources into one single seldom-used capacity while you have a more rounded character.
unless their characters are better than yours at everything, in which case i'd question your charbuild ability.



> A lot of that is just D&D nonsense with never making up its mind about what the ability scores mean.
> 
> In my system, everything has a very solid in fiction explanation.


none of that is d&d nonsense. 
it's just that the human mind and personality is way too vast to reduce it to three scores. the three scores are a broad stroke approximation because you can only get a broad stroke approximation. FATAL tried to be accurate, and it had, like, a 14-pages character sheet (ok, FATAL also included stuff like anal diameter to figure out how much damage you'd take if raped by horny gay ogres, but that doesn't detract from the general argument). 
so you roll three stats with very vague meanings, and then you decide what they actually mean for your character specifically.






> I am competitive by nature and really get into character. That's just who I am.


those two things are generally anthitetical. Competitive players will minmax as much as they can and they will try to pick the best strategy. people who really get into character tend to go for "my character would do that" even when it's not the most optimal move, and they intentionally put unnecessary weaknesses in their characters.
But I'm just using this as an opening for the core of my argument. Do you realize how unreasonably punctilious you are coming across?

you insist in every character filling a very specific niche, to the point that you changed three characters during creation just because there was some overlap. you got very perturbed when the rest of the party made characters with more resolve than you, to the point of becoming persuaded that your character is now useless. you want to be very competitive (but not too much, somewhere in your head is a limit to what level of optimization is right), while also wanting to be very much in character. you get annoyied when the other party members act stupid, but also when they do act out of character, for example by being smart while their character has a low intelligence. you want every nuance of a character to be scrupolously justified by backstory and supported by build resources. yes, you accept to compromise in many areas - including in many areas where most other people would never compromise - but there still is a huge array of situations where you go crazy over minor things - at least judging by how hard you argue in the forum.
now, in your multiple stories on this board you do paint yourself as the only sane man in your toxic group, but you've given us plenty of evidence that when your fellow players treat you as "that weirdo that keeps pocking into our stuff and gets uppity for everything", they may have a point.
No, it does not make your fellow players any less toxic, nor does it excuse them. indeed, i suspect that in a table of good people - like the one i count myself lucky for having - you'd be fine, while your fellow players would not. I'd invite you to my table, but we are on opposite sides of an ocean.
still, at your specific table your unwillingness to compromise on specific issues is part of the problem.

----------


## Talakeal

Argh! Forum ate my post. Let's try this again.




> instead, your other players focused on resolve. just that. one single factor out of the five major ones and dozens of smaller ones that make a good tank. and they invested way too many build resources on it. 
> and frankly, how often is resolve called into account? i don't know your system, but in my experience it is seldom rolled; at low levels there aren't many effects that call for will saves, and at higher levels everyone buys immunity to the most annoying stuff. how is willpower a thing so important that it defines a character when 90% of the encounters it will not even be needed? 
> I at least hope your campaign sees more of those effects used, to at least somewhat partially justify all the fuss you and the rest of the group are making about maximizing this one very specific thing. 
> because I really. can't figure out. why. everyone in your group. is. so. FIXATED. WITH. ONE. SINGLE. ABILITY!
> this makes as much sense to me as everyone deciding they want to maximize their _profession: basket weaver_ modifier at the expence of everything else. and yes, i realize ffailing a save against domination sucks, but so does failing a save against a death effect. or failing a reflex save and being dead for too much damage. or having low armor and being dead for too much damage.


Preaching to the choir here.




> the idea that "I don't really have a role in combat except to play second fiddle to everyone else" is just incredibly outlandish. so your role in combat is solely that of having high willpower? "talekeal, your turn" "I step up and roll willpower!" "there is nothing to roll willpower against. those are just a bunch of goblins with spears" "oh. i guess i'll skip the fight then". is that all your character will do?
> no, you're not playing second fiddle to anyone. you will have a lot of other capacities they don't have, because they insisted on sinking all their resources into one single seldom-used capacity while you have a more rounded character.
> unless their characters are better than yours at everything, in which case i'd question your charbuild ability.


It's not the I don't have a role or am useless. It's that I am playing, as we used to call bards back in middle school, the jack**** of all trades.

I don't have the highest armor in the party. I don't have the most HP. I don't deal the most damage. I don't have the highest attack bonus. I don't have the highest initiative. I don't have the best fortitude save. I don't have the best reflex save. I don't even have the highest stealth, perception, athletics.

Everything I can do in combat, someone else can do better.*

I am probably going to contribute more to most fights than the others overall because I am the second best in a lot of things, but I will still never get the opportunity to feel special or shine or live out my class fantasy.

It would just have been nice if once every ten sessions or so I got to put my skills as a monk to use, like there was a wizard who needed killings or some sort of "mind-trap" hazard where I could be the one who saved the day.

*I do have slightly higher mobility than anyone else. That is something.




> those two things are generally anthitetical. Competitive players will minmax as much as they can and they will try to pick the best strategy. people who really get into character tend to go for "my character would do that" even when it's not the most optimal move, and they intentionally put unnecessary weaknesses in their characters.
> But I'm just using this as an opening for the core of my argument. Do you realize how unreasonably punctilious you are coming across?


They can be antithetical, but they don't have to be.

In a vacuum, I can create my character and be good at the things I want, bad at the things I want, and unique in the things I want.

I wanted this character to be good at resolve, so I gave her a +18, which in the narrative is considered to be a master. That's pretty darn good. Especially for a starting character.

But then the rest of the group one-ups me, and I no longer look pretty good. I have the urge to go even higher, even though it now isn't supported by my backstory (and also hoses my overall build) so at this point they come into conflict.

Again though, this isn't just about being the "best" so much as its about being special and unique. It could also apply to having a unique dump stat, or weakness, or cosmetic / backstory element.




> you insist in every character filling a very specific niche, to the point that you changed three characters during creation just because there was some overlap. you got very perturbed when the rest of the party made characters with more resolve than you, to the point of becoming persuaded that your character is now useless. you want to be very competitive (but not too much, somewhere in your head is a limit to what level of optimization is right), while also wanting to be very much in character. you get annoyied when the other party members act stupid, but also when they do act out of character, for example by being smart while their character has a low intelligence. you want every nuance of a character to be scrupolously justified by backstory and supported by build resources. yes, you accept to compromise in many areas - including in many areas where most other people would never compromise - but there still is a huge array of situations where you go crazy over minor things - at least judging by how hard you argue in the forum.


Did any of this actually happen?

Your examples don't seem drawn from anything that actually happened at my table. You seem to be extrapolating based on my preferences / the standards I try and hold myself up to and then assuming that I must be forcing them on everyone else.

I don't. Not even when I GM.

I can't recall a single time I have ever rejected a player's plan or backstory because it didn't fit with the numbers on my sheet. Policing other player's RP isn't really my job, especially as another player.

The only time I am even going to care if they are using it as an excuse to ruin someone else's fun or to blame other people for their failures.




> still, at your specific table your unwillingness to compromise on specific issues is part of the problem.


Like this.

What is giving you the impression the *I* am the one unwilling to compromise?

I rebuild my entire character three times. I didn't want to do so again, so I politely asked if the other players would mind not trying to min-max toward the same skill as me, and was then told I was "giving a giant middle finger to the entire group".

There was no chance for discussion or compromise.

----------


## Quertus

> Use more consumables  and use them better than anyone else?


Oh, good call. That was something where the group supposedly has a needs improvement grade, and what better plan than to have the system designer / former GM test how much better they can do from the opposite side of the screen.

Show, dont tell, as they say.

----------


## King of Nowhere

> I wanted this character to be good at resolve, so I gave her a +18, which in the narrative is considered to be a master. That's pretty darn good. Especially for a starting character.


+18? at level 1? 
i've been working on the assumption that your homebrew was much like standard d&d; so you'd have probably a +7, and the other guys would have at most a +8, hardly a difference worth noting.
if your character has +18, and the other guys are even higher... well, I have no idea how higher can they be. nor do i have an idea how likely does that make them of passing a relevant check. 




> Like this.
> 
> What is giving you the impression the *I* am the one unwilling to compromise?
> 
> I rebuild my entire character three times.


ah, but this is a matter of perspective. 
from your perspective, you are willing to compromise a lot, because you made three characters.
but from my perspective, those three different characters are exactly the sign that you are unwilling to compromise: you were unwilling to compromise on sharing a specialization, and so you went through all the hassle of building new characters just to avoid doing something similar to someone else. 

in general, we are all willing to compromise on some things we consider unimportant, and unwilling to compromise on stuff that's really important to us. the question is not whether we compromise, but on what we compromise. 
and you appear to have a very unconventional set of values. on one hand, you are willing to put up with all the crap of your various groups; something that would have most of us just leave after the first session. on the other hand, stuff that none of us cares about - like sharing a role, or being outmatched on a single saving throw where you wanted to excel in - bothers you deeply. those things are never an issue in any of the tables I've seen, which is part of why I'm so flabbergasted by your reaction when it happened at your table. 
like, my party had two fighters at some point, and one was significantly stronger than the other. it wasn't an issue. we had two clerics at some point, not an issue. someone had a rogue that took over scouting duty from my monk, again no issue. then the rogue rolled a 1 on disarming a trap and almost died of poisoning, something that my monk would have been immune to; so it was decided the monk did make a better scout after all, and I took back scouting duty. again, no issue. at my table, when you told the other players "i wanted to play a healer but we already have one, so i'll change role", we'd have probably looked at you funny and asked "that's great, we'll have even more healing; why would that be a problem?". then again, changing character is your right, especially at level 1.

anyway, I am prone to ramble, and indeed I do not know how often those small things that bother you cause a reaction at a table, and how often you just keep a straight face at the table and just come here venting. 
but my general point stands: you making a big deal out of stuff that nodoby else cares about can be a source of problems. in a healty table that would not be an issue, but at your table it can be.
I'm not saying it's not your right to have some stuff you care about. everyone is entitled some quirks, and your other players are certainly taking more than their fair share of those.
i guess it all comes down to morton's fork again. you always have to make some unsavory choice. you either quit the group, or you let the other players shove you around, or you enter a shouting match every other session to defend your boundaries.

----------


## Theoboldi

> ah, but this is a matter of perspective. 
> from your perspective, you are willing to compromise a lot, because you made three characters.
> but from my perspective, those three different characters are exactly the sign that you are unwilling to compromise: you were unwilling to compromise on sharing a specialization, and so you went through all the hassle of building new characters just to avoid doing something similar to someone else.


So, as someone who has been following this conversation just casually, this strikes me as a little bit unfair. You're not just asking Talakeal to compromise anymore, but rather to compromise on the other players' terms. At which point it is no longer compromising, it is just doing what they want. I think any solution that followed this line of thinking would be untenable in the long run for him.

Talakeal, to you I'd like to say that I am sympathetic to you in all this. While you haven't handled everything that has happened flawlessly, these groups you are with sound bizarre and incredibly disfunctional. The only real advice I could offer would be to repeat everyone else's opinion that you should get out of your local roleplaying community. So nothing too helpful. 

Perhaps it would be fun if you played a relatively average, not min-maxed character, wrote their backstory around them being an average guy with looser morals than is healthy, and then focused on keeping that character alive and well-off better than anyone else via gameplay? That might give you some level of peace of mind while integrating relatively frictionlessly with your party. Basically somewhat like what Telok and Quertus suggested.

----------


## Talakeal

> +18? at level 1? 
> i've been working on the assumption that your homebrew was much like standard d&d; so you'd have probably a +7, and the other guys would have at most a +8, hardly a difference worth noting.
> if your character has +18, and the other guys are even higher... well, I have no idea how higher can they be. nor do i have an idea how likely does that make them of passing a relevant check.


Basically, difficulties typically range from 10-40 with 20 being average.

The scale for skill level modifiers are:
0:  No capability
2:  Handicapped
4:  Poor
6:  Layman
8:  Student
10: Amateur
12: Professional
14: Adept
16: Expert
18: Master
20: Paragon
21-25: Legendary / Superhuman
26-30: Divine

There are diminishing returns, and getting above a 15 in a skill on a starting character requires a significant investment and above a +20 requires some serious min-maxxing / optimization. 12-14 is probably where most characters lie, and indeed is where everyone in the party is for skills EXCEPT for resolve, where everyone has 18-22, and the caster's Occult skills which are both 15.




> and you appear to have a very unconventional set of values. on one hand, you are willing to put up with all the crap of your various groups; something that would have most of us just leave after the first session. on the other hand, stuff that none of us cares about - like sharing a role, or being outmatched on a single saving throw where you wanted to excel in - bothers you deeply. those things are never an issue in any of the tables I've seen, which is part of why I'm so flabbergasted by your reaction when it happened at your table. 
> like, my party had two fighters at some point, and one was significantly stronger than the other. it wasn't an issue. we had two clerics at some point, not an issue. someone had a rogue that took over scouting duty from my monk, again no issue. then the rogue rolled a 1 on disarming a trap and almost died of poisoning, something that my monk would have been immune to; so it was decided the monk did make a better scout after all, and I took back scouting duty. again, no issue. at my table, when you told the other players "i wanted to play a healer but we already have one, so i'll change role", we'd have probably looked at you funny and asked "that's great, we'll have even more healing; why would that be a problem?". then again, changing character is your right, especially at level 1.


Sometimes two characters in the same role works, especially if they are different, like a 2-handed striker fighter vs. a sword and board tank fighter, or if they are actually working together to do it like RPing identical twins.

But a lot of people (myself included) get really competitive. And a lot of people get really upset and quit the game when they "lose" said competition. As I said, I am especially sensitive to this as I have driven away several new players, and have also been in groups with people who need to steal the spotlight / get jealous of other people and actively copy them.

I agree its not healthy, but on the other hand wanting to feel "special" is a big part of the appeal of RPGs.

----------


## King of Nowhere

> So, as someone who has been following this conversation just casually, this strikes me as a little bit unfair. You're not just asking Talakeal to compromise anymore, but rather to compromise on the other players' terms. At which point it is no longer compromising, it is just doing what they want. I think any solution that followed this line of thinking would be untenable in the long run for him.


not exactly. i'm saying that he has to choose between letting the other players have their way, fighting constantly, or quitting.
personally i'd quit, but it's his choice.

----------


## TaiLiu

> In the same way that hydrogen and anti-hydrogen don't like each other much...


Maybe! Although there's no annihilation or anything. They still play together.

----------


## MrStabby

> Finally, after a more than two year hiatus, I am going to get a chance to be a player again.
> 
> We started this campaign back in early 2020, did a couple of rocky sessions, and then put the whole thing on hold due to Covid lockdown.
> 
> We are finally ready to start up again in January, but since that time both the group composition and the game rules have changed, and so this weekend we met up to discuss our plans for the game and to build / rebuild characters.
> 
> Overall, I am optimistic toward the game, but a few things are getting me down.
> 
> 
> ...


First of all let me express my genuine sympathy.

I think I would feel exactly the same in your position and have been in similar positions in the past.

The bad news is that I don't think there is a good answer.

They are right, in my view, that there should be no exclusion from any defensive abilities - no one should have the right to dicate to any oher player what that other player should or should not be able to bring (with the excepton of the DM who guides what is appropriate for their world).

But yes, it truely does suck when a) having something special to your character maters to you, and b) it isn't special anymore.  At the end of the day, it sounds like you won't enjoy the game and walking away might be a good move.  The burning resentment engendered by a character being better than you at your key thing probably won't go away.  No amount of subsitution of being good at something you don't really care about being good at is really going to change it.

Plan B is obviously to play something else.  Is there anything else that might take your fancy?  Anything a bit different?  If you are not happy with the game anyway there is a certain freedom to having nothing to lose.  Play that character that is a bit experimental?  A character that you don't really know if you would like.  Worst case you don't enjoy the game and leave.  If that was a possability anyway then you haven't lost anything by trying something crazy.

----------


## Kane0

Play what you wanted to in the first place? Just go though with it, and have fun. It really doesnt matter if youre a party of all mechanically identical characters.

----------


## gbaji

> In my mind, it is cheating to not play your character in accordance with your mental scores.
> 
> It is not appropriate to play a suave, smooth-talking charmer and then dumb your expression score, or to play a character with a high reason score as a bumbling idiot.


Except that's not the case here. You clearly believed that your values in willpower, resolve, and iron will were sufficient to justify your character concept as "den mother"/rock/steady person/whatever to the group. So those values were sufficient, right? Why does that assessment of your own characters capability and role in the party change because others have higher values?

Your values in those things were not reduced, so it should not change your ability to role play the character the way you intended.




> But that does explain a lot of the disconnect. They are seeing it as resistance to enchantment magic*, whereas I am seeing it as a vital part of my personality and backstory. A primary skill is the equivalent of a degree in that field, and my character spent six years in a monastery learning it. Again, a lot of it does go back to the time Elan decided to pick up a level of wizard.


And I think this is part of the problem. They see it as a selection of primary and secondary attributes and skills/feats. You see them as "defining roles" for the character.

Again, I'm not super familiar with the game system, but you mentioned earlier that it does not contain classes. But it  feels as though you are trying to create enforced classes in it anyway, but just calling them "roles", and insisting that if someone picks a "role" for their character, it must come with specific sets of attributes and skills/feats that *you* feel are appropriate for that role.

But that's just (as I said above) enforced class restrictions by another name. Why not just let people take advantage of the classless game system and let them pick whatever combination of attributes and skills and feats that they want for their characters and then let them call  those characters whatever they want? They're free to think they are good at something, even if they aren't. At the end of the day, the stuff written down on the sheet determines what the characters can do (well) mechanically in the game (rollplaying). But what personality they choose and how they choose to have their character act (roleplaying)? That's entirely up to them.

I want to play an ugly bard who sings off key constantly (cause I put low charisma and no actual perform skill)? Why not? In a classless system, I can call myself a bard. I can carry around a lute. I can play it (awfully) whenever I want. The fact that my skills maybe lie in completely different areas doesn't preclude myself deciding that "I'm the party bard", and insisting on regaling the local taverns with stories of our groups adventures, you know, just because. The fact that I'll epically fail at this (but perhaps think I'm really good) is a great source  of RP fun.

You're playing a game in which your character is free to describe themselves any way they want. Take advantage of that fact. And yeah, if the other players choose to pick a mish mash of abilities and what not, and that results in them being less capable? That's on them. But that's one of the inherent benefits of a classless system. You can decide to pick a set of skills/abilities/whatever that are *not* thematically associated in any way at all. Sure, ideally players should pick things that work thematically and that synergize in some way. But they are not required to do so.

----------


## Talakeal

> Except that's not the case here. You clearly believed that your values in willpower, resolve, and iron will were sufficient to justify your character concept as "den mother"/rock/steady person/whatever to the group. So those values were sufficient, right? Why does that assessment of your own characters capability and role in the party change because others have higher values?
> 
> Your values in those things were not reduced, so it should not change your ability to role play the character the way you intended.


Because if everyone else in the group has a higher resolve than I do they are significantly more stable than I am, so there is no reason for me to fill that roll on the team. Sort of the opposite of the old adage "in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king".




> And I think this is part of the problem. They see it as a selection of primary and secondary attributes and skills/feats. You see them as "defining roles" for the character.
> 
> Again, I'm not super familiar with the game system, but you mentioned earlier that it does not contain classes. But it  feels as though you are trying to create enforced classes in it anyway, but just calling them "roles", and insisting that if someone picks a "role" for their character, it must come with specific sets of attributes and skills/feats that *you* feel are appropriate for that role.
> 
> But that's just (as I said above) enforced class restrictions by another name. Why not just let people take advantage of the classless game system and let them pick whatever combination of attributes and skills and feats that they want for their characters and then let them call  those characters whatever they want? They're free to think they are good at something, even if they aren't. At the end of the day, the stuff written down on the sheet determines what the characters can do (well) mechanically in the game (rollplaying). But what personality they choose and how they choose to have their character act (roleplaying)? That's entirely up to them.
> 
> I want to play an ugly bard who sings off key constantly (cause I put low charisma and no actual perform skill)? Why not? In a classless system, I can call myself a bard. I can carry around a lute. I can play it (awfully) whenever I want. The fact that my skills maybe lie in completely different areas doesn't preclude myself deciding that "I'm the party bard", and insisting on regaling the local taverns with stories of our groups adventures, you know, just because. The fact that I'll epically fail at this (but perhaps think I'm really good) is a great source  of RP fun.
> 
> You're playing a game in which your character is free to describe themselves any way they want. Take advantage of that fact. And yeah, if the other players choose to pick a mish mash of abilities and what not, and that results in them being less capable? That's on them. But that's one of the inherent benefits of a classless system. You can decide to pick a set of skills/abilities/whatever that are *not* thematically associated in any way at all. Sure, ideally players should pick things that work thematically and that synergize in some way. But they are not required to do so.


I am not sure I agree with you about how relevant this is. People being mad about having a role or about not being allowed to make a joke character don't seem to be issues in my group; they are pretty into the serious tactical overcoming challenges mode of play. Honestly, I think they take it a bit more seriously than I do, as one of the frequent problems when I am GMing is that they look at everything as a challenge to overcome even if I meant it as just a cool bit of flavor.

I don't personally see a correlation between a class based game and whether or not it is appropriate to make a joke character. I mean, I certainly can play a bard in 5E, dump my charisma, sink all my proficiency in tools and equipment I don't carry with my, spend combat hitting people with a frying pan, and telling everyone that I am druid. Whether or not I _should_ do this really depends on the rest of the group and the tone of the game, but there is no rule against it.

Likewise, the difference between calling someone "a character whose primary skills are marksmanship, survival, and tracking" or "a ranger" are really just semantic, most people will groc that they mean the same thing, but the latter is far quicker to say.

I think that if the players are interested in playing efficiently or tactically, they will organize themselves into roles regardless of what the system says, just like in real life people tend to take on roles based on their skill set and the needs of the group.

Role Playing Game literally means game where one plays a role, I don't think its some weird abjuration. If anything, I think respecting people's niches and the agreed upon tone and level of optimization are even more important in a less structured game; I am sure you have heard stories of people "god-modding" in totally freeform RPGs or played make believe with a kid who always had to top everything you did so he could feel the most special.

----------


## Quertus

> Because if everyone else in the group has a higher resolve than I do they are significantly more stable than I am, so there is no reason for me to fill that roll on the team. Sort of the opposite of the old adage "in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king".


In the king of the 1-eyed, the blind man is land?

I suppose, if I had only ever run Quertus, my signature tactically-inept academia mage for whom this account is named, in a group where everyone in the party (but not the world) was even more inept, or even more academic, it would have been weird. But, at best, that might serve to give you some inkling what I mean when I say that my characters feel incomplete when run only in a single group, with a single dynamic.

I mean, think about it: Hans player obviously pictured his character as the whiner (its not my fault, its not my fault), yet Luke absolutely didnt respect that, and stole his thunder.

But Leia? Oh the poor girl. She even picked a spoiled princess archetype - theres no way physically possible to Telegraph any harder that you want to be the party whiner than to be a princess, born to privilege, is there?

Luke and Han absolutely _ruined_ the character of the poor lass, making her the least whiny of the PCs. They even went so far as to tell her player, you cant call being the whiny one - thats not a protected role! Because she didnt min-max, but had instead built a balanced character, her feeble attempts at whining came off more like snark in comparison (youre a little short for a storm trooper, I am not a committee), and she had to rely on the rest of her sheet to define herself, to give herself a role to play in this impossibly whiny group, where a spoiled princess was the least whiny member of the party.

----------


## gbaji

This is what you said about your character personality:




> My character's whole personality is built around being the calm den-mother for the whole group, being the steady stable rock upon which the team is built. It's really hard to do that when the character sheet says that I am supposed to be least determined and confident member of the party.


And now:




> Because if everyone else in the group has a higher resolve than I do they are significantly more stable than I am, so there is no reason for me to fill that roll on the team. Sort of the opposite of the old adage "in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king".


Why? Again, I think you are mixing up "rollplaying" with "roleplaying". There is nothing inherent in having a high "resolve" attribute that means your character is the "calm den-mother for the whole group, being the steady rock upon which the team is built". Again, I'm extrapolating here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the resolve value only has to do with making rolls in specific situations in the game. It's a mechanical thing. So if you are faced with something scary, daunting, or whatever (seriously don't know what this is about exactly), you may have to make a resolve check (or maybe resist some fear effects?).

That's not the same as the "role" of den-mother. You can have someone who is the shoulder others cry on, the person who gives advice for the group, the person who helps out when needed, and provides emotional support, without being someone who is also fearless in the face of the horrific unknown (or whatever resolve helps against mechanically). Similarly,  you could conceive a character who is a brave knight, who can stand up to the most terrifying situations imaginable with calm and aplomb, but cares nothing for others, and would not be a "den-mother" in any situation.

One is not tied to the other.





> Honestly, I think they take it a bit more seriously than I do, as one of the frequent problems when I am GMing is that they look at everything as a challenge to overcome even if I meant it as just a cool bit of flavor.


I think that's the point. They see resolve as an attribute that helps defend against specific game effects. Period. It's mechanical. You think it has to do with a defining personality of the character itself. That's the conflict in play here.

I would argue that *a character is more than the combination of their stats/abilities*. In this case, just because you personally have a high resolve doesn't also mean that you are a kind person who helps the others in the party to over come their issues/problems/fears, or try to inspire others, or otherwise guide them. So if you have chosen those things as your characters personality, then someone else having a high resolve in no way prevents you from still fulfilling/playing that role in the party.




> I think that if the players are interested in playing efficiently or tactically, they will organize themselves into roles regardless of what the system says, just like in real life people tend to take on roles based on their skill set and the needs of the group.


Sure.  And the other players have decided that having a high resolve skill provides them some benefit tactically in the game. They may be wrong, but that's what's driving their choices. You're the one saying "but you're a pirate, or a wizard, or a blacksmith, or a ranger. You shouldn't have a high resolve". Why not?

if we were playing a class based game where resolve is restricted to specific classes, you'd have a point. But in this game, anyone can take any combination of stats and feats they want, and they can label their character whatever they want. Let them.




> Role Playing Game literally means game where one plays a role, I don't think its some weird abjuration. If anything, I think respecting people's niches and the agreed upon tone and level of optimization are even more important in a less structured game; ...


But you are not doing that. You're getting upset that other people have decided to take a high resolve and obstinate feat and "The wizards did this instead of more spells or metamagics, the pirate did this instead of sneak attacking or sailing, the blacksmith did this over more recipes or heavy armor, the ranger did this over increased range or animal companions or trick shots, etc."

This is you deciding that the "role" of wizard requires more spells or metamagics, and the "role" of pirate requires sneak attack or sailing, and the "role" of blacksmith requires more recipes or heavy armor, and the "role" of ranger requires increased range or animal companions or trick shot. This is you imposing your view of what a wizard, pirate, blacksmith, and ranger is on the other players, in the face of them each choosing something else.

I'd just let them build their characters how ever they want. Sure. So the wizard is less of a spell caster than otherwise, and the pirate maybe can't sail very well, and the blacksmith can't make as many different things, or the ranger just isn't as in tune with nature and hunting/tracking. So what? Not every character  must be single mindedly focused on a single thing or set of things that someone else has arbitrarily decided fit together in a single "role".

That's the assumption behind class based game systems. But you are not playing a class based game.

I also play primarily in a non-classed based game. And guess what? There are times when the big powerful warrior in heavy armor, with a big honking weapon, and fueled by the power of the war god will be totally outmatched in melee by the party sorceress, wearing a pretty dress and wielding a rapier. And guess what? Sometimes, it's the big powerful warrior, who just happens to have a more useful magic spell to deal with some specific situation than the sorceress does (cause she spent her free time practicing advanced fighting techniques and enhancement spells than maybe other types of magic). And maybe that guy wearing the gray robes of a priest of the god of knowledge, in addition to being an exceptional researcher, is actually the last person in the party you want to get into a hand to hand brawl with, and will wipe the floor with the berserker storm god worshiper for whom fist fighting is practically a religious practice. And maybe the berserker guy is also better at picking locks than the party "thief". Why? Because he's been practicing it for a couple decades, and maybe the thief focused on climbing and sneaking instead.

In a classless game, you have to let go of assumptions about what a character "should be" based on some broad description, and just let them be what they actually are. And yes, it's quite common for there to be quite a bit of overlap because of this. That should not be a problem, once you actually abandon the concept of "classes" in a party, filling specific slots (we need a party fighter, a party wizard, a party cleric, etc). Also, none of the skills and stats and feats have anything at all to do with the personality and "social role" that character may play in the party either. As long as the combination of stats/skills/whatever on your sheet doesn't actually preclude whatever personality you have chosen, then you can be that person. Just roleplay what you want. That's the point.

----------


## Talakeal

> Why? Again, I think you are mixing up "rollplaying" with "roleplaying". There is nothing inherent in having a high "resolve" attribute that means your character is the "calm den-mother for the whole group, being the steady rock upon which the team is built". Again, I'm extrapolating here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the resolve value only has to do with making rolls in specific situations in the game. It's a mechanical thing. So if you are faced with something scary, daunting, or whatever (seriously don't know what this is about exactly), you may have to make a resolve check (or maybe resist some fear effects?).
> 
> That's not the same as the "role" of den-mother. You can have someone who is the shoulder others cry on, the person who gives advice for the group, the person who helps out when needed, and provides emotional support, without being someone who is also fearless in the face of the horrific unknown (or whatever resolve helps against mechanically). Similarly,  you could conceive a character who is a brave knight, who can stand up to the most terrifying situations imaginable with calm and aplomb, but cares nothing for others, and would not be a "den-mother" in any situation.
> 
> One is not tied to the other.


I think that "rollplaying" vs. "roleplaying" is a false dichotomy. The numbers and powers on the character sheet should match the fiction as closely as possible.

The personality and the scores are, imo, linked. But that is still only part of the problem.

It still leaves my character without any area she can be special mechanically, and I am still in the "Captain Hobo" situation where my character's backstory is built around having a high resolve but everyone else in the party is, at least on paper, better than me "just because".





> I think that's the point. They see resolve as an attribute that helps defend against specific game effects. Period. It's mechanical. You think it has to do with a defining personality of the character itself. That's the conflict in play here.


That's exactly what I was saying when you corrected me and said it was actually about party roles.





> I would argue that *a character is more than the combination of their stats/abilities*. In this case, just because you personally have a high resolve doesn't also mean that you are a kind person who helps the others in the party to over come their issues/problems/fears, or try to inspire others, or otherwise guide them. So if you have chosen those things as your characters personality, then someone else having a high resolve in no way prevents you from still fulfilling/playing that role in the party.


I don't disagree, but one can also go to far in the opposite direction. There is more than one way to interpret the numbers on the sheet, but the RP shouldn't directly contradict them either, and should be strongly informed by then.

And, not that it matters, but I am not in anyone wise or kind or someone you should come to for advice. The idea is that I am the calm collected one; and that doesn't work if I am the one who is constantly falling for hucksters, running from threats, curling up and howling in pain when hurt, etc. while the rest of the party is totally cool and blase.






> Sure.  And the other players have decided that having a high resolve skill provides them some benefit tactically in the game. They may be wrong, but that's what's driving their choices. You're the one saying "but you're a pirate, or a wizard, or a blacksmith, or a ranger. You shouldn't have a high resolve". Why not?
> 
> if we were playing a class based game where resolve is restricted to specific classes, you'd have a point. But in this game, anyone can take any combination of stats and feats they want, and they can label their character whatever they want. Let them.
> 
> But you are not doing that. You're getting upset that other people have decided to take a high resolve and obstinate feat and "The wizards did this instead of more spells or metamagics, the pirate did this instead of sneak attacking or sailing, the blacksmith did this over more recipes or heavy armor, the ranger did this over increased range or animal companions or trick shots, etc."
> 
> This is you deciding that the "role" of wizard requires more spells or metamagics, and the "role" of pirate requires sneak attack or sailing, and the "role" of blacksmith requires more recipes or heavy armor, and the "role" of ranger requires increased range or animal companions or trick shot. This is you imposing your view of what a wizard, pirate, blacksmith, and ranger is on the other players, in the face of them each choosing something else.
> 
> I'd just let them build their characters how ever they want. Sure. So the wizard is less of a spell caster than otherwise, and the pirate maybe can't sail very well, and the blacksmith can't make as many different things, or the ranger just isn't as in tune with nature and hunting/tracking. So what? Not every character  must be single mindedly focused on a single thing or set of things that someone else has arbitrarily decided fit together in a single "role".
> ...


Issues of party synergy and niche protection aren't mechanical, they are social. 

In my opinion, if someone describes their character as a rogue, I would imagine that 99% of gamers would imagine a lightly armored sneaky guy who picks locks and disarms traps. And if someone pitches their character as a rogue, I think it is perfectly appropriate for the rest of the party to assume they want to be the one picking locks. It is some combination of rude or disingenuous for someone who pitched their character as a rogue to not tell anyone that they can't pick locks, just like it is some combination of rude and disingenuous for someone who pitched their character as a paladin or necromancer to max out their lock-picking skill without letting the rogue guy know.

I;m sorry, but I find the idea that playing a class-based game means "everyone stick to their lane, your class defines you" while a skill-based game means "do whatever you want, don't you dare have any expectations of your fellow players" to be totally absurd. I have been in some pretty bad groups, but I have played mostly skill based games throughout my life and have never once come across this logic aside from the "chaotic neutral" guy who just wants to be the center of attention at the expense of everyone else's fun.




> In the king of the 1-eyed, the blind man is land?
> 
> I suppose, if I had only ever run Quertus, my signature tactically-inept academia mage for whom this account is named, in a group where everyone in the party (but not the world) was even more inept, or even more academic, it would have been weird. But, at best, that might serve to give you some inkling what I mean when I say that my characters feel incomplete when run only in a single group, with a single dynamic.
> 
> I mean, think about it: Hans player obviously pictured his character as the whiner (its not my fault, its not my fault), yet Luke absolutely didnt respect that, and stole his thunder.
> 
> But Leia? Oh the poor girl. She even picked a spoiled princess archetype - theres no way physically possible to Telegraph any harder that you want to be the party whiner than to be a princess, born to privilege, is there?
> 
> Luke and Han absolutely _ruined_ the character of the poor lass, making her the least whiny of the PCs. They even went so far as to tell her player, you cant call being the whiny one - thats not a protected role! Because she didnt min-max, but had instead built a balanced character, her feeble attempts at whining came off more like snark in comparison (youre a little short for a storm trooper, I am not a committee), and she had to rely on the rest of her sheet to define herself, to give herself a role to play in this impossibly whiny group, where a spoiled princess was the least whiny member of the party.


Don't forget C-3P0. He clearly went online and found some power-whine builds and is playing on a whole other level of optimization than the rest of the group!

----------


## King of Nowhere

> I don't disagree, but one can also go to far in the opposite direction. There is more than one way to interpret the numbers on the sheet, but the RP shouldn't directly contradict them either, and should be strongly informed by then.
> 
> And, not that it matters, but I am not in anyone wise or kind or someone you should come to for advice. The idea is that I am the calm collected one; and that doesn't work if I am the one who is constantly falling for hucksters, running from threats, curling up and howling in pain when hurt, etc. while the rest of the party is totally cool and blase.


except, that's not what's going to happen at your table. other characters having an even higher resolve than yours does not make your own resolve any lower.
what will happen is that nobody will run from threats (unless for tactically sound reasons, of course), curl up and howl, etc. and you can still be the wise guy.
anyway, in my experience this kind of interactions between party members are only formed with time. saying "i will be the calm wise guy and the others will come to me for advice" depends a lot on what the other players will do. even in a good group like mine, trying to establish party roles like that before time is chancy at best. it happens all the time that people come with a certain idea that they want to explore, then they don't find really all that much to do with that idea, meanwhile they get sidetracked and find something else.

my tanky monk was never supposed to become good friend with the power-hungry party wizard; in fact, the morally grey wizard should have been someone that my monk mostly distrusted. but mechanically they complemented each other very well (the glass cannon who could smoke almost any single target but runs out of steam fast, and the tank who can gradually mow down hordes of mooks without spending resources, and prevent them from reaching the glass cannon). and there was also a hefty dose of respect (the monk was pretty much the only guy that the wizard would have trouble killing, and the wizard was pretty much the only caster that the monk couldn't shrug off effortlessly). so, those two characters formed a strong friendship, even though they should have been rivals on paper. it's not the kind of stuff that you plan in advance. 

so my suggestion here is that you don't start with strong preconceptions of what your role in the party will be. you bring some capabilities to the party. where they will actually be relevant will be seen in game. how you will interact with the party will be seen in game. be open, and the game may surprise you favorably. start with some preconceived notion that you can't have exactly the same role you envisioned in the exact way you envisioned and so your fun is ruined forever, and your fun will indeed be ruined forever.




> Issues of party synergy and niche protection aren't mechanical, they are social. 
> 
> In my opinion, if someone describes their character as a rogue, I would imagine that 99% of gamers would imagine a lightly armored sneaky guy who picks locks and disarms traps. And if someone pitches their character as a rogue, I think it is perfectly appropriate for the rest of the party to assume they want to be the one picking locks. It is some combination of rude or disingenuous for someone who pitched their character as a rogue to not tell anyone that they can't pick locks, just like it is some combination of rude and disingenuous for someone who pitched their character as a paladin or necromancer to max out their lock-picking skill without letting the rogue guy know.


if you came to my table, i think 67% of our rogues could not pick lock. there would be no such expectation.
so, you could come to my table, and find out that we have a rogue without lockpicking skill, and consider us rude and disingenuous. and it would be closeminded on you to do so, obviously. there are very good reasons our table rogues never found much use for lockpicking1. 
just in the same way that you could bring to my table a fighter and some other players would also bring a fighter and you'd be all "this is bad this guy is stealing my role and he's so rude and why the dm does let him get away with it the dm is so bad too", while the simple truth is that at my table we don't care about overlapping roles. 

you have so many expectations that you are bringing into this game, and they are so deeply ingrained within you that you consider them the correct way to play and don't even realize they are assumptions that may not hold for many other people. seems like some of your problems with your other players stem from that; you think that they are infringing into something that belongs to you, but they don't see it and are bewildered that you would complain about their saving throws2. (a lot more problems with your players stem from the fact that they cannot communicate and discuss like adults, of course, but that's another matter).

1 the reason is that there is virtually no reason to be very good at picking locks. how often do you need it? it's generally easier to smash the door/safe/whatever. and if it's got such awesome abjurations on it that you can't smash it, chances are instead of closing the door with a lock that could be picked by someone really good, they just barred the door from the other side and posted a guard to remove the bar. this very cheap solution makes the door unpickable. and sure, picking the lock is more stealthy, but if the door is so important that somebody installed a dc 35+ lock on it, you can again be sure that it will also be guarded. so it is extremely rare that picking locks is relevant, and other skills are more important.
2 for example, if that same situation happened at my table, we'd also be telling you that you have no right to claim to a high saving throw and that you should just chill off. of course, since at my table we can discuss like adults and you can discuss like an adult, we'd sort it out in some way.

----------


## Keltest

At my table, it's far more common to parcel out the dump stats than the high stats. 2 dex characters can play very differently, but when 40% of the party is dumping wisdom, it becomes hard to cover for that.

----------


## gbaji

> I think that "rollplaying" vs. "roleplaying" is a false dichotomy. The numbers and powers on the character sheet should match the fiction as closely as possible.


Except that "rollplaying" is about using the skills, abilities, spells, items, or whatever that are written on your sheet. This ties into my earlier statement that your character can do whatever they can actually do. It's about doing in the party dynamic what your character is good at. If you are good at fighting, you should be fighting. If you are good at casting spells, you should be casting spells. But that's all this is.

"roleplaying" is about creating a unique personality for the character. It can certainly be related to the skills on the sheet, but it need not be defined by that at all. It's more like the skills will tend to reflect the character (assume a character will tend to gravitate towards things they like doing and away from things they dislike doing, and so, over time will be better at the former and less good at the latter). But it's really about the personality you choose for the character regardless of what is written on the sheet.





> It still leaves my character without any area she can be special mechanically, and I am still in the "Captain Hobo" situation where my character's backstory is built around having a high resolve but everyone else in the party is, at least on paper, better than me "just because".


And I suppose this dovetails back to the above in that there's a "mechanical role" and a "social role" for your character. In this case, I'm using the phrase "mechanical role" not about "roleplaying", but about the "role you play in the party mechanically". You mentioned being a den-mother type character. That's not a mechanical role, but a social role. You can be that regardless of your resolve skill level. You can be the "rock of the party" also without having a high resolve skill level. You just roleplay it between action scenes.

As to the mechanical role, you have other things you are good at, right? That's your "role in the party". Remember, that the role in the party isn't about what your character's personality is like, but about what you are good at relative to other characters in the party. It's not uncommon for one character to be the best fighter in one party, but the next is full of even better fighters, so they take on the role of archer, or spell caster, or whatever. That's not about "who you are as a character", but "how you fit into this specific group".

Assuming some sort of balanced point buy system (which my flipping through the rules in your link seems to indicate), then there must be things you are good at and can do that others in the party aren't or cannot. Being "good at resolve" cannot, by the rules of the system, be the only thing you are capable of, otherwise it would be impossible for others to be a "pirate with higher resolve", and a "wizard with higher resolve", and a "blacksmith with higher resolve", and a "ranger with higher resolve". Your role (mechanical) in the party is to use your monk abilities, which you have and they don't, to benefit the group. That's it. Why is that not good enough?

Again though, that doesn't define your character as a person. It's just what they are doing right now in this group. I'm an IT engineer. I'm very good at configuring computer systems and integrating them into larger enterprise environments. I'm also somewhat decent at coding, and know several languages. I am also pretty good at putting physical things together (I've even been known to solder stuff together a time or two). If I'm working with a group of car mechanics, they're going to be the ones putting things together, and I'm going to be writing the code (or installing/configuring it) for their POS system. If I'm working with a group of software developers, they're going to be writing the code, and I'll maintain the computers they work on. If I'm working with a group of other IT engineers, maybe I'm the best coder in the group, and I'll let them manage the computer installation/configuration. Or maybe I'm not and I... wait for it... switch roles.

Point being that the "role" you play in any group will change based on the relative abilities of other people in the same group. But this has no bearing on "who you are". Just "what you're doing right now". Your character's mechanical "role" in the group is not the same as your "social role" as a person.





> That's exactly what I was saying when you corrected me and said it was actually about party roles.


I think I was talking about "role in the party" and wasn't clear that this is different from "roleplaying" your character. Again, roleplaying is about creating a set of likes, dislikes, hates, fears, loves, desires, goals, quirks, etc for the character and then playing that out. It's only somewhat related to the skills on your sheet and the "role" you play mechanically in a group environment.





> And, not that it matters, but I am not in anyone wise or kind or someone you should come to for advice. The idea is that I am the calm collected one; and that doesn't work if I am the one who is constantly falling for hucksters, running from threats, curling up and howling in pain when hurt, etc. while the rest of the party is totally cool and blase.


Are you any less calm and collected with your chosen resolve level today then you were before you discovered the resolve level of the rest of the party? It's not like the GM is grading on a curve here (or shouldn't be, but you never know).

And you literally said "den-mother". Which suggests someone who helps the others, guides them, gives them advice, a shoulder to cry on, etc. That's absolutely "roleplaying", which I thought was what you were defining for this character, and I'm not sure how your relative resolve skill has anything to do with that. If you literally only defined your character based on "having the highest level of skill X in the party", then maybe I would suggest not doing that? That's a terrible way to define a character and will almost certainly cause you to encounter this exact problem.

I would suggest making the character you want to play and *then* discovering what you are the "best in the party at", and then *that* becomes your "role in the party".

You are the best at something, right? That's your "role". I just think you are going about things backwards is all.





> Issues of party synergy and niche protection aren't mechanical, they are social.


No. They are 100% mechanical. Social is "likes to make flower arrangements". Mechanical is "has an X rating in skill Y". Party synergy is about which relative skills and abilities the different  members of the party have and thus how they work together as a team to overcome things they may encounter in the game. It's the "what you do" part I spoke about earlier. That's not at all "who you are". And yeah, you can also have "social synergy" in a party, but that's about interactive roleplaying. This *may* involve use of skills on your sheet, but does not need to.




> In my opinion, if someone describes their character as a rogue, I would imagine that 99% of gamers would imagine a lightly armored sneaky guy who picks locks and disarms traps. And if someone pitches their character as a rogue, I think it is perfectly appropriate for the rest of the party to assume they want to be the one picking locks. It is some combination of rude or disingenuous for someone who pitched their character as a rogue to not tell anyone that they can't pick locks, just like it is some combination of rude and disingenuous for someone who pitched their character as a paladin or necromancer to max out their lock-picking skill without letting the rogue guy know.


Sure. Broadly. But try listing off all the skills we might associate with "rogue". Hiding, sneaking, climbing, rope work, lock picking, trap disarming. Right? Now take the class "rogue" off the table. Anyone can be good at any of these things. Is it not possible,  therefore that someone who doesn't define themselves as a "rogue" might actually be better at one (or maybe even two) of those things? The party ranger might be better at sneaking and hiding (to hunt in the forest without alerting things). Maybe the party monk is better at climbing. Heck. Maybe the party fighter is better at lock picking and maybe even trap disarming because on the last long adventure they didn't have anyone who could do it at all, and he got tired of being the guy told to "smash that lock off" and kept getting his weapons damaged  and hit by traps, so he took some skills in those things to help himself out. Why not?

Point being that, in the absence of class in a game, we might descriptively call someone a "rogue", and reasonably expect that he should be somewhat skilled at most or all of those things, but not at all expect that he's automatically going to be "the best" at all of them, or even a majority of them. It depends on the other characters. I would expect, in fact, that some of those skills should be in common with a lot of characters. 




> I;m sorry, but I find the idea that playing a class-based game means "everyone stick to their lane, your class defines you" while a skill-based game means "do whatever you want, don't you dare have any expectations of your fellow players" to be totally absurd. I have been in some pretty bad groups, but I have played mostly skill based games throughout my life and have never once come across this logic aside from the "chaotic neutral" guy who just wants to be the center of attention at the expense of everyone else's fun.


There's a difference between "don't you dare have any expectations of your fellow players" and "I call dibs on this skill/power and no one else can be as good at it". My only expectation in an RPG is that each of the other players will create their own character based on what they want to play. I will do the same. Sometimes, I'm better at one thing than other PCs. Sometimes, I'm not. It should not be a big deal, and I have *never* gone into any game session expecting that my character will be "the best at X" at all. I discover what I'm best at in the course of play, and then adjust how I play in the group based on that.

In an adventure long ago, I played a character that was primarily a spell caster, but she was actually pretty skilled with melee weapons as well (the game system we use doesn't have any restrictions on this at all), and she also had an item that gave her some special defensive abilities that made her hard to injure in a fight. She spent about the first third of the (long) adventure being one of the better front line fighters as a result. But as the adventure went on, her spell casting abilities got better, and other characters focused more on fighting abilities and she found herself more and more often standing in the back waggling her fingers instead of wading into battle. She was still pretty effective as a fighter, but there were others who were as good or better, and so she was more useful to the group as a whole staying back and casting support spells instead. I didn't start out thinking "she's going to be the front line fighter for the group" when I started her, it just turned out that way. And I certainly didn't plan for any specific change to her relatively speaking. It, again, just happened as I realized gradually that I found myself casting spells in combat more often than fighting in melee. It just happened.

At no point was I upset at her "role" in the party. It simply was. If anything it was just somewhat amusing to me to watch the role change over time, as the more fighting focused characters got better at it and outstripped her, while her spell casting abilities came more into the forefront.

----------


## King of Nowhere

And by the way, what's the point of removing classes from the game if you expect people to conform to stereotypes anyway?

"You are not restricted to classes, you can get any combination of powers"
"Great! I'll be a rogue"
"Good choice. To be a rogue you spend your starting points in agility, sneak attack, stealth"
"Done, done, and done. Because i'm being creative. Ok, i have some points left, i'll buy a high willpower"
"You can't do that, you have to spend your remaining points in trapfinding and lockpicking to be a rogue. You're a bad player and a rude person"

Yes, i am exaggerating for the sake of showcasing my point, but having a classless system and then expecting character archetypes to strictly match the skills associated with the archetype - indeed, the very notion that players would describe their roles based on a d&d class - seem contradictory.
If you start character creation by saying  i'm a fighter, i'm a wizard, i'm a pirate (which is really a rogue), then you may as well play with classes.

----------


## Talakeal

Thinking about it, I think this thread has really blown the problem way out of proportion.

I am competitive by nature, and have found in the past that trying to fulfill the same role as someone else exacerbates that and someone usually walks away unhappy, so I prefer games where that isn't an issue. It isn't a huge thing, but its just something I keep in mind to make the game run smoother.

When I saw that everyone had decided to change their character to outdo me in my primary roll, this made me a little concerned, and I asked them politely not to.

The reaction, being told that I was "giving a giant middle finger to the entire group" and that "defenses can't be part of a character concept" was honestly a lot more shocking and discussion worthy than the event in the first place.

But after a week of forum discussion, I feel like every little aspect of this has been magnified to such a degree that its really distorting the scope of the issue and the nature of the campaign.




> At my table, it's far more common to parcel out the dump stats than the high stats. 2 dex characters can play very differently, but when 40% of the party is dumping wisdom, it becomes hard to cover for that.


Indeed.

This is also a concern here.

For example, the aforementioned spider swarms.

I am also kind of concerned that we are doing a nautical campaign and I am one of the only two people in the party who knows how to climb, swim, or jump. Boarding enemy ships is going to be... interesting.




> No. They are 100% mechanical. Social is "likes to make flower arrangements". Mechanical is "has an X rating in skill Y". Party synergy is about which relative skills and abilities the different  members of the party have and thus how they work together as a team to overcome things they may encounter in the game. It's the "what you do" part I spoke about earlier. That's not at all "who you are". And yeah, you can also have "social synergy" in a party, but that's about interactive roleplaying. This *may* involve use of skills on your sheet, but does not need to.


What I mean by social not mechanical is that this is an issue with group dynamics OOC, not something that springs out of the rules of the game.

A bunch of kids playing make believe in the backyard with no formal rule sets can still run into these kind of troubles, like playing Star Wars and fighting over who gets to be Boba Fett or that episode of South Park where they are playing ninja's and Cartman keeps giving his guy new powers so nobody else can do anything he can't. 

Likewise it can easily happen in a class based system like D&D, especially older editions. I have seen plenty of groups get into arguments or even fall apart because everyone wants to play a wizard or nobody wants to play a cleric.




> And you literally said "den-mother". Which suggests someone who helps the others, guides them, gives them advice, a shoulder to cry on, etc. That's absolutely "role-playing", which I thought was what you were defining for this character, and I'm not sure how your relative resolve skill has anything to do with that.


The party is a bunch of emotional psychopaths with no common sense or social skills.

Den mother is defined as "a woman who plays a supportive *or protective* role for a particular group of people"

I meant "den-mother" in that I am going to be the calm collected one who keeps them safe when they bite off more than they can chew.

But, according to their character sheets, they are all significantly calmer and more disciplined than I am. I doubt that they are going to RP it as such, but any time it actually comes down to dice rolls, that's how it is likely to play out.




> Are you any less calm and collected with your chosen resolve level today then you were before you discovered the resolve level of the rest of the party? It's not like the GM is grading on a curve here (or shouldn't be, but you never know).


And that's a big question.

If the DM is scaling challenges to the party, then I am going to be the one who is constantly failing resolve rolls OR the points I put into resolve just become useless as it never comes up.

More on this later.




> Assuming some sort of balanced point buy system (which my flipping through the rules in your link seems to indicate), then there must be things you are good at and can do that others in the party aren't or cannot. Being "good at resolve" cannot, by the rules of the system, be the only thing you are capable of, otherwise it would be impossible for others to be a "pirate with higher resolve", and a "wizard with higher resolve", and a "blacksmith with higher resolve", and a "ranger with higher resolve". Your role (mechanical) in the party is to use your monk abilities, which you have and they don't, to benefit the group. That's it. Why is that not good enough?
> 
> You are the best at something, right? That's your "role". I just think you are going about things backwards is all.


As I said above, no, my character doesn't really have any unique abilities and is not the best at anything.

I made a more well rounded character to begin with, and focused my character around resolve and to a lesser extent swordsmanship.

But everyone else made a more min-maxxed character than mine and also focused on resolve to a greater extent than I did.

Going over character sheets, I have:

The highest movement speed (which is something I guess, but not really exciting or terribly likely to matter)
The highest touch AC (not the highest overall AC though)
The highest calligraphy skill (which was forced on me by the DM and not something that is likely to ever matter).
And a modest gather information skill because we divided CHA based skills between us as nobody wanted to play a face).

Every other aspect, offensive or defensive or utilitarian, somebody else is going to covering, which means that during the game I am just going to be the "second best" in combat and maybe the guy who reads the party their mission briefing at the start of the session.

Again though, its not a huge deal, as I said above.




> except, that's not what's going to happen at your table. other characters having an even higher resolve than yours does not make your own resolve any lower.
> what will happen is that nobody will run from threats (unless for tactically sound reasons, of course), curl up and howl, etc. [/SIZE]


Unless of course the DM decides to scale challenges for the party, in which case I still the most likely to fail. OR the DM just never requires a test at all which means all of those build points just go to waste and our characters suck for no reason.




> and you can still be the wise guy.
> anyway, in my experience this kind of interactions between party members are only formed with time. saying "i will be the calm wise guy and the others will come to me for advice" depends a lot on what the other players will do.


Again, not that it matters, but my character is neither wise nor a guy. The idea was that she was calm and collected and would protect the party when they did something impulsive or aggressive.




> if you came to my table, i think 67% of our rogues could not pick lock. there would be no such expectation.
> so, you could come to my table, and find out that we have a rogue without lockpicking skill, and consider us rude and disingenuous. and it would be closeminded on you to do so, obviously. there are very good reasons our table rogues never found much use for lockpicking1. 
> just in the same way that you could bring to my table a fighter and some other players would also bring a fighter and you'd be all "this is bad this guy is stealing my role and he's so rude and why the dm does let him get away with it the dm is so bad too", while the simple truth is that at my table we don't care about overlapping roles. 
> 
> 1 the reason is that there is virtually no reason to be very good at picking locks. how often do you need it? it's generally easier to smash the door/safe/whatever. and if it's got such awesome abjurations on it that you can't smash it, chances are instead of closing the door with a lock that could be picked by someone really good, they just barred the door from the other side and posted a guard to remove the bar. this very cheap solution makes the door unpickable. and sure, picking the lock is more stealthy, but if the door is so important that somebody installed a dc 35+ lock on it, you can again be sure that it will also be guarded. so it is extremely rare that picking locks is relevant, and other skills are more important.
> 2 for example, if that same situation happened at my table, we'd also be telling you that you have no right to claim to a high saving throw and that you should just chill off. of course, since at my table we can discuss like adults and you can discuss like an adult, we'd sort it out in some way.


You have three rogues in your group at the same time, or is this over the course of several games?

The issue is communication. 

How did you group come to the conclusion that lock-picking wasn't worthwhile? Did the three rogues ever discuss it with one another? 




> for example, if that same situation happened at my table, we'd also be telling you that you have no right to claim to a high saving throw and that you should just chill off. of course, since at my table we can discuss like adults and you can discuss like an adult, we'd sort it out in some way


Question, is this saving throws specifically, or is it anything?

Because in my case, the issue was specifically that my group stated that it is reasonable to not want other people stepping on your toes, but "defensive" abilities cannot be claimed and it is absurd to think of your defenses as part of your archetype.

And my system isn't D&D; there is no distinction between proficiency, saving throws, and class features. All of these are lumped under skills, and each character gets (on average) three of these as the primary skills that define the character. The resolve skill is the source of many things that would be considered monk class features in D&D.


But yeah, if it is everything, I can't imagine playing with your group. I am too competitive, and have seen far too many people who are spotlight hogs sore losers to ever have fun in such a group, and the idea that people won't even entertain the idea that someone might play that was is a huge red flag.




> you have so many expectations that you are bringing into this game, and they are so deeply ingrained within you that you consider them the correct way to play and don't even realize they are assumptions that may not hold for many other people. seems like some of your problems with your other players stem from that; you think that they are infringing into something that belongs to you, but they don't see it and are bewildered that you would complain about their saving throws2. (a lot more problems with your players stem from the fact that they cannot communicate and discuss like adults, of course, but that's another matter).


Do you actually think this is a problem in my game? Because neither I nor my players see it.

I have noticed a phenomenon in internet discussions where two people have a disagreement online, and one person assumes that the person they are talking to is defined by that disagreement and subconsciously blames all of their problems on it, and I think a lot of that is happening in this thread as it is descending deeper and deeper into the idea of party roles.




> (a lot more problems with your players stem from the fact that they cannot communicate and discuss like adults, of course, but that's another matter).


We are in agreement there.




> Yes, i am exaggerating for the sake of showcasing my point.


I wish you wouldn't intentionally make a straw-man argument, its hard enough on the internet to tell what other people are saying to have to cut through intentional overstatement.




> i'm a pirate (which is really a rogue)


In my mind, and judging by his character sheet said PC's mind, a pirate is pretty different from a rogue.

They are both lightly armored people who steal things, that is true.

But I would expect the pirate to have a lot of nautical skills and to be more focused on combat and acrobatics, while the rogue is going to be sneakier and have skills at house-breaking and pick-pocketing.


This is exactly the kind of subtle but important distinction that makes a classless system useful, and is certainly a lot less clunky than the 66 base classes and hundreds of prestige classes in 3E.




> "You are not restricted to classes, you can get any combination of powers"
> "Great! I'll be a rogue"
> "Good choice. To be a rogue you spend your starting points in agility, sneak attack, stealth"
> "Done, done, and done. Because i'm being creative. Ok, i have some points left, i'll buy a high willpower"
> "You can't do that, you have to spend your remaining points in trapfinding and lockpicking to be a rogue.


But again, that isn't whats happening here. 

The other players are all putting their *highest*  score into my core skill after I had already told them I didn't want to compete with other people and already remade my character twice to avoid it.

A better analogy would be telling everyone they are playing a rogue and then showing up to the table with a multi-class rogue 2 / monk 8.




> You're a bad player...


That's not a judgement call, that's just how reality works.

A group with diverse skill-sets working to cover gaps in one another's abilities will produce superior results.

Look at any business, sports team, or military and you will find a plethora of examples of this.

Some games emphasize this more than others, and IMO this is a good thing as it encourages teamwork while still allowing everyone to feel unique and special when it is their turn in the spotlight.




> ...and a rude person"


The rude comes in when people have established "lanes" and then someone decides to go outside of their lane *without discussing it*. Communication is key, there is absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with playing against type.




> ... a classless system and then expecting character archetypes to strictly match the skills associated with the archetype - indeed, the very notion that players would describe their roles based on a d&d class - seem contradictory.
> If you start character creation by saying  i'm a fighter, i'm a wizard, i'm a pirate (which is really a rogue), then you may as well play with classes.


Again, this is really a straw-man.

Customization and individuality is a great thing.

I don't think any character in my current group, or pretty much any past group, could be represented with any D&D class. Maybe if you are playing 3.5 with its dozens of base classes, hundreds of prestige classes, ACLs, feats, and the gestalt / multi class rules, but at that point you are just playing a really convoluted point buy system imo.

But classes still serve as useful archetypes to communicate the sort of character you are envisioning. 

I do agree that some characters, and probably some players, can work just find in a class based game, but imo they are a minority.

And again, the idea that you are encroaching on someone else's niche really has nothing to do with a class based game, I have seen it happen plenty of times in class based games, classless games, and even total freeform.

----------


## gbaji

> Yes, i am exaggerating for the sake of showcasing my point, but having a classless system and then expecting character archetypes to strictly match the skills associated with the archetype - indeed, the very notion that players would describe their roles based on a d&d class - seem contradictory.


I'm always reminded of the Conan film, where Arnold is playing Conan, this big, strong, barbarian type character. What does he do through most of the film? Sneaks around. He scales the outside of a serpent temple. Sneaks around the guards with his friends, and steals some stuff. He only gets into fights when he is discovered. He adopts disguises frequently to hide amongst other people and avoid detection.

So clearly Conan is a rogue, right? Or, we drop the assumption of class, and just say "he's a strong fighter guy, whose also good at sneaking, climbing, and disguise". Why not? In the real world, there is no class restriction. If Conan wants to practice climbing and sneaking he should. Heck. He's a lot better at "fighting" if he can sneak past the outer guards without sounding an alarm before fighting the main bad guy, right? Why wouldn't he develop these skills?

In the game I play, this is also what often happens. It's not uncommon to have a situation where we're trying to attack a group of bad guys, and we want at least some of the party to get as close as possible prior to the main attack. Do we "send in the rogue"? Nope. No classes. Folks look at their character sheets, and the members who are good enough at sneak/hide to have a good shot of "getting up close" go with the sneaky group. The rest clank along later in the main assault. And the members who end up on that sneaky group typically have absolutely zero correlation to who is good at picking locks, or climbing ropes, or back stabbing people, or disarming traps. They're just good at hiding and sneaking. They are skills. Anyone can learn them (and everyone will learn at least some skill in these things over time). And yeah, sometimes the toughest fighter in the group is right there with the sneaky folks. Expecting otherwise is assuming D&D style classes in the game. Where that doesn't exist, it just doesn't happen that way.





> The reaction, being told that I was "giving a giant middle finger to the entire group" and that "defenses can't be part of a character concept" was honestly a lot more shocking and discussion worthy than the event in the first place.


Shocking to you, but not to pretty much everyone else, both at your table, and on this forum. Which might suggest to you that maybe re-assessing your assumptions might be in order.





> I am also kind of concerned that we are doing a nautical campaign and I am one of the only two people in the party who knows how to climb, swim, or jump. Boarding enemy ships is going to be... interesting.


Well, there's your role. You're one of the two folks who'll be swimming up to and climbing up into enemy ships.





> What I mean by social not mechanical is that this is an issue with group dynamics OOC, not something that springs out of the rules of the game.


You explicitly stated "party synergy and niche protection". I'm not sure what you mean by "party synergy", but "niche protection" is specifically about making rolls to defend against specific in-game encounters, right? That can't be anything other than mechanical in nature. You're literally increasing your ability to resist whatever "resolve" helps you resist against (I'm assuming various forms of fear, demoralize, retreat, lose-hope, or whatever effects/situations).

It's clearly something that "springs out of the rules of the game", because it has a value associated with it, and it protects you from <something> which also has a value associated with it, and presumably at some points in the game, dice are rolled to determine if that <something> affects you in some way, based entirely on how high your defensive value is. What else is the skill used for?




> Den mother is defined as "a woman who plays a supportive *or protective* role for a particular group of people"
> 
> I meant "den-mother" in that I am going to be the calm collected one who keeps them safe when they bite off more than they can chew.


I'm not sure how "resolve" (which from the description I'm assuming protects *you* in some way) allows you to "protect" others? Maybe if the ability was called "inspire", I could see how this helps you protect others from such things, but not something called "resolve". That's your own will power resisting other things that might otherwise affect you in a negative way. I'm also not seeing "supportive" in there either. If there's a skill/stat called "empathy" that also would be a better fit for this role.

How does resolve allow you to "keep them safe when they bite of more than they can chew"? Are you actually envisioning a situation where the party encounters something, and everyone else cowers in fear, while you bravely stand firm and "save the day" or something? Cause that's an incredibly narrow thing to base an entire character concept on. Um... What exactly are you going to do in that situation to "keep them safe"? Are you any better at fighting off whatever is causing the effect than maybe the pirate, or wizard, or ranger? Would it not be better, for the entire party in that situation if *everyone* resisted the fear causing  effect and were able to fight as a team?





> But, according to their character sheets, they are all significantly calmer and more disciplined than I am. I doubt that they are going to RP it as such, but any time it actually comes down to dice rolls, that's how it is likely to play out.


Then you RP as the "calm, disciplined" character. Why doesn't that still work? It seems to me like a skill like resolve doesn't have to only fit into the personality type you are  envisioning. Maybe someone else is just really stubborn and doesn't let things stop him in a crisis situation? Maybe someone else defines his resolve as "I'm a crazy berserker type guy who just pushes through". Maybe yet another defines it as "I've trained my mind to resist external influences". 

None if this intrudes on you being the disciplined monk who meditates every morning to center themselves, speaks in Koans, and provides a calm moral support to the rest of the party. That's you "roleplaying" your character. It has nothing to do with, nor does it requires, that you  personally have the highest resolve in the party. I guess I just don't understand why you so firmly associate one with the other.





> Every other aspect, offensive or defensive or utilitarian, somebody else is going to covering, which means that during the game I am just going to be the "second best" in combat and maybe the guy who reads the party their mission briefing at the start of the session.


Yeah, but you're going to be able to participate, where as some members of the party will not (or will not be as effective). There's nothing wrong with being "second best fighter", and "second best forager", and "second best archer", and "second best swimmer", and "second best sneak". That allows you to be actively involved in, and have an impact on, more things than any other single character. It's about the party, not the individuals in it. So the party fighter is standing there doing nothing while you are sneaking up with the sneaky people. And the party rogue is standing there doing nothing while you're standing next to the party fighter in a fight. And the party ranger is standing there doing nothing while you swim out to a ship next to the party swimmer. And you and the party ranger are out foraging while everyone else is sitting around camp, also doing nothing.

That's not a bad way to run a character.




> Unless of course the DM decides to scale challenges for the party, in which case I still the most likely to fail. OR the DM just never requires a test at all which means all of those build points just go to waste and our characters suck for no reason.


If the GM is changing the challenges such that he makes things harder because the players are better at defending, then he's a poor GM. Doubly so if he's actually changing the thing they need to defend against to avoid their strongest defenses. And if the GM isn't doing this? And there were never any resolve checks for you to make? Your character build points would also go to waste.

Also, from your description it only sounds like they maybe have a couple more points than you do. That's hardly likely to result in "OMG. Everyone succeeded and I failed" situations. If a "normal" person has maybe an 8-10 value, and you built up to an 18, and the rest of the party built up to a 20, um... you're all still really strong in that area. Again. I'm not clear on the mechanics of the game, or how powerful these effects are, but it seems to me that the result is that the whole party will more or less curb stomp anything involving resolve. And yeah, maybe that's going to make them vulnerable to other things, but you were going to be vulnerable to those other things to the same extent as well anyway. So... you're even?





> Because in my case, the issue was specifically that my group stated that it is reasonable to not want other people stepping on your toes, but "defensive" abilities cannot be claimed and it is absurd to think of your defenses as part of your archetype.


Again. This may be your group and their own... idioms... but it seems odd to speak of this in terms of "stepping on toes". As though each and every player just has to have one area in which they and only they get to shine and have the spotlight or something. That's... bizarre.

I do think that players should communicate when building a party, but it should be with an eye towards having a breadth of skills and abilities to cover different situations they may find themselves in, not this sort of self serving concept of "I have to be the best at X, so you be the best at something else" mentality. At least one person should be good at each core thing, but if multiple people are also good at overlapping things, that's not a bad thing at all IMO. And certainly, no one should be upset about it. That's just childish.




> But yeah, if it is everything, I can't imagine playing with your group. I am too competitive, and have seen far too many people who are spotlight hogs sore losers to ever have fun in such a group, and the idea that people won't even entertain the idea that someone might play that was is a huge red flag.


Not intending this maliciously, but you might want to take a look in the mirror for a moment. You also seem to have a strong need to have one thing that "I'm the best at". What some of us are trying to get across is that this is not a requirement (or should not be), to have a good time playing a game. There should be plenty of enemies to fight such that you don't have to be the "best fighter", and plenty of targets to shoot at such that you don't have to be the "best archer", and plenty of situations where having two people sneaking up is better than one that you also don't have to be the "best at sneaking". Etc, etc, etc.

Most people play the game such that they don't care who is best at anything (especially in non-class based games), as long as there's at least someone who can handle any given situation, things are good. Having more people, even with variable ability, who can handle something is even better. The assumption in most classless systems is that it's skill based, right? So everyone can "try" to do things, and some will be better than others. But it's not a hard pass/fail in most cases, it's a matter of "how many are good enough for the party to succeed"? Your character isn't either "the best" or "nothing". If your skill in X is "good enough", then it's useful to the party. Even if it's not the best.





> In my mind, and judging by his character sheet said PC's mind, a pirate is pretty different from a rogue.
> 
> 
> They are both lightly armored people who steal things, that is true.
> 
> But I would expect the pirate to have a lot of nautical skills and to be more focused on combat and acrobatics, while the rogue is going to be sneakier and have skills at house-breaking and pick-pocketing.


Nope. There is no distinction. "Pirate" is a profession. If you engage in piracy, then you are a pirate. There is zero assumption about what skills that pirate may have. Sure if you live on a ship most of the time, you're presumably going to have to develop skills useful to that environment, but that's not what makes you a pirate.

You're still thinking in class terms. There is no reason why a "rogue" should be "sneakier" at all, or better at picking locks, or better at breaking into houses. I actually ran a "rogue" character, who was basically the local thieves guild's leg breaker. He had picked up some typical thief like skills (but sucked at them), He was a big bruiser, who the other guys brought along when they were collecting debts. That was the background for him. He could not sneak at all. Nor hide very well. Couldn't scale a wall to save his life. He was "Ok" at disarming traps, and had picked up some rope skills (probably his best rogue like skill, cause you tie people up before threating to break their legs, right?). I think he also picked up some forgery stuff too. So definitely not a typical second story man sort of "rogue".

That's the point of not having classes though. You can define your character however you want. You don't have to resort to any sort of stereotypes.





> This is exactly the kind of subtle but important distinction that makes a classless system useful, and is certainly a lot less clunky than the 66 base classes and hundreds of prestige classes in 3E.


But you're still insisting on defining one as "pirate", and the other as "rogue" and then making assumptions about what specific skills they should have. That's still leaning on a class based game assumption. Get rid of that. Again. Pirate is a profession. Rogue is a personality type. They are not classes in a classless game. They are descriptors and could mean anything at all (or nothing).




> The other players are all putting their *highest*  score into my core skill after I had already told them I didn't want to compete with other people and already remade my character twice to avoid it.


Stop thinking of it as "competing" and thing of it as "coordinating". Havin two or more people in a party that are all good at the same thing, means the party as a whole can handle that type of situation better. Insisting that one and only one person in the party can be good at any one thing is going to result in a really limited party IMO. So Joe does X, and Frank does X, and no one else can help out or participate? That's... strange.




> And again, the idea that you are encroaching on someone else's niche really has nothing to do with a class based game, I have seen it happen plenty of times in class based games, classless games, and even total freeform.


Sure. But again, the problem is that you are assuming that everyone has to have a "niche" in the first place.

----------


## King of Nowhere

> The party is a bunch of emotional psychopaths with no common sense or social skills.
> 
> Den mother is defined as "a woman who plays a supportive *or protective* role for a particular group of people"
> 
> I meant "den-mother" in that I am going to be the calm collected one who keeps them safe when they bite off more than they can chew.
> 
> But, according to their character sheets, they are all significantly calmer and more disciplined than I am. I doubt that they are going to RP it as such, but any time it actually comes down to dice rolls, that's how it is likely to play out.


i would be more optimistic. as you yourself remarked, they are a bunch pf psycopaths with no common sense. you will be the calm collected one. 
and unless you have to roll resolve to avoid stabbing random people on the road for imagined slights, you'll still be the one with common sense. you may fail resolve if there is a scenario that calls for resolve, and if the dm is scaling - which would be bad - and if rolls are all average. 
in fact, the scenario you often refer where you fail resolve and everyone else passes is very unlikely. unless they somehow already have +25 at level 1, the difference is small enough that the random god will be a lot more relevant. if your dm is not adjusting, most likely scenario is everyone passes.



> And that's a big question.
> OR the points I put into resolve just become useless as it never comes up.


that happens to tanks against smart opponents. i mean, if the enemy can realize all your party has very strong resolve, they are simply unlikely to cast stuff that requires resolve at you. in the same way that they are likely to try and counter your best attacks however they can.
still doesn't invalidate your build. i mean, you're a tank, it is supposed that the enemy will try to ignore you and focus on the squishier characters. this is why in competitive games (i'm thinking league of legends here) tanks are generally associated with crowd control abilities and damage over time. i don't know what you have in your case, anyway if the enemies never use resolve effects on your party because you are all strong, it's not useless. it's a whole lot of effects that you won't have to worry about.



> You have three rogues in your group at the same time, or is this over the course of several games?
> 
> The issue is communication. 
> 
> How did you group come to the conclusion that lock-picking wasn't worthwhile? Did the three rogues ever discuss it with one another?


now that i think about it we had 4 rogues; or three and a half, one was a sort of gish rogue with some magic. so only 25% of our rogues had lockpicking. 
we had two rogues together for a while, the other two were in different parties. for a long time we also adventured without a rogue at all (my monk took up the scouting and trapfinding part, mostly by running around and dodging traps, while the wizard took over for other minor skills that could be replicated - or circumvented - by magic). 
we also adventured without a face for a long time - as long as your requests to npcs are reasonable, you don't need a +30 diplomacy to get them to agree.

no, we never discussed this splitting of abilities. we make sure to have one physical damage dealer, one healer, one arcane caster, because those are roles that are very important. but as for everything else, we found that other roles can be compensated for. 




> Question, is this saving throws specifically, or is it anything?
> 
> Because in my case, the issue was specifically that my group stated that it is reasonable to not want other people stepping on your toes, but "defensive" abilities cannot be claimed and it is absurd to think of your defenses as part of your archetype.


it's just that at my table we have no compunctions with "stepping on your toes". nobody cares if there is someone else in the party doing what you do. nobody sees it as a problem. it took me many posts to understand that this is a big deal at your table, and i still have to fight the urge to shout "it's not a big deal!". 

as for your specific case, it's a bit of a border case; ok, you agree to not replicate what others can do, but should it apply to general areas, or to every single bonus? because in the first case, you want to have defence and it's fine for others to have higher resolve or ac or something else than you, so long as you're still tankier on average. in the second case you have a point, but then so would a fighter type if anyone else tries to have a good to-hit bonus, or a wizard if anyone else casts some spells. If I were to arbitrate, I'd say that you can totally ask to be the better tank overall and claim that as your archetype. You can even ask to be the best at tanking magic (requiring high saving throws overall). but if you ask that everyone else has a lower resolve than you, that's too specific.
Of course, I'd also want to know why everyone else maxxed resolve, but that's not an available information here.



> But yeah, if it is everything, I can't imagine playing with your group. I am too competitive, and have seen far too many people who are spotlight hogs sore losers to ever have fun in such a group, and the idea that people won't even entertain the idea that someone might play that was is a huge red flag.


it's not that we are not competitive. we optimize pretty high, and we frequently have to discuss what are the limits of allowed optimization. as a dm, i test the players hard. the npcs are powerful and competent; fights are dangerous, save-or-die are often spammed. political maneuvering is often involved in the campaign, and failing to catch a political undercurrent may result in much stronger opponents. no, i'm not a sadist killer dm; my challenges are designed so that if the players play smart and are observant, they get the golden ending. they'll likely need a few resurrections along the way, but i made them easy to get.
as a player, I helped the dm to optimize enemies because i wanted my monk to face real challenges. if i am virtually invulnerable, fighting is boring.

the difference is that we compete as a team. everybody wants to be strong and contribute, nobody tries to hog the spotlight. 
in fact, we are opposite to your party in cooperation; your party (apparetly) discussed at lenght what skills they will have before the game to ensure no overlapping, so that you cover everything and nobody has competition. then in game everyone plays by himself and suggestions on how to be tactically more effective are met with rudeness.
 in my party, we don't try to split skills in character creation. but we always talk strategy. we talk on how to be effective. we do not discuss 0 "we must have a rogue with trapfinding to deal with trapped hallways - and the dm must include traps else the rogue will feel useless". we discuss "ok, we have a trapped hallway. how do we best deal with it?"
optimization and power level matters because everyone must be strong enough to contribute - if someone lags behind, he gets some boons. but if someone is a bit weaker and has to take a supporting role, he's still giving an important contribution and he's still sharing the spotlight.
I hope you can see why I see your attitude of "must be better than the party at something to have shining moment" as a yellow flag.

and it's not even a "players versus dm" cooperation. the dm is part of the team, as the guy who pulls in most work to make sure there are good challenges for the other players. if the dm needs to stat up a bunch of enemies and doesn't have the time or ideas, the players volunteer to help. if the dm gets stuck story-wise the players help the dm come up with ideas. 

which is why i am proud of my fellows and hold them as an example of how a good gaming group should work. 




> Do you actually think this is a problem in my game? Because neither I nor my players see it.
> 
> I have noticed a phenomenon in internet discussions where two people have a disagreement online, and one person assumes that the person they are talking to is defined by that disagreement and subconsciously blames all of their problems on it, and I think a lot of that is happening in this thread as it is descending deeper and deeper into the idea of party roles.


you are right, I've  been projecting my expectations on your group myself.
because I figured that my group is functional and we don't practice niche protection, so niche protection may be part of the problem. but analyzing better, i see that my party is functional because we are all friends wanting to share and nobody would ever want to humiliate or defeat someone else at the table; the lack of niche protection is a consequence of that attitude. your group has a bad attitude, perhaps in that circumstance niche protection and ensuring everyone has some chance at the spotlight is a way to keep things going.



> That's not a judgement call, that's just how reality works.
> 
> A group with diverse skill-sets working to cover gaps in one another's abilities will produce superior results.
> 
> Look at any business, sports team, or military and you will find a plethora of examples of this.
> 
> Some games emphasize this more than others, and IMO this is a good thing as it encourages teamwork while still allowing everyone to feel unique and special when it is their turn in the spotlight.


well... yes and no. 
yes, it is important to cover a wide array of skills.
but look at reality, no functional team protects niches. in the military you have a platoon with 20 soldiers doing the same thing; nobody is saying "hey, shooting the rifle is MY job, back off and do something else". In a football(soccer) team, you have multiple people in the same roles. and an attacker could easily take on the role of a defender, and viceversa. having multiple people being able to do the same thing also tends to produce superior results. you can find many examples here too.

but to stick in d&d, a team with more overlap is not weaker than a team with perfectly diverse skill set.
say that you got two fighters instead of a rogue. ok, your team is weaker when there are traps and similar stuff.
but your team is also a lot stronger when there are just plain fights. if there aren't many traps around, this team will perform significantly better than the "balanced" team. the fact that you expect the dm to include certain kinds of challenges, else "all of those build points just go to waste", showcases how you expect the dm to tailor the challenges to a certain kind of party.

i'd say that different parties just handle challenges differently. a "balanced" team has the rogue disarm the traps and the fighter fighting the guards. a team of fighters will walk through the traps, heal from the damage, and who cares if this will alert the guards who will have time to set up a better ambush, they can still fight them easily. a team of rogues will sneak past the guards and the traps and avoid direct confrontation entirely. a team of clerics will walk through the traps and the guards, they will just keep healing themselves. a team of wizards... well, they have many options, but they do have to prepare in advance.
all the teams were equally successful against the challenges. they just went at them in different ways, using the strenghts of the party.

and if you really, really, _really_ need a very specific capacity that the party doesn't have, you can always hire an npc for a mission. "find somebody that can do this and manage to recruit him" can be a good plot.

----------


## Batcathat

> Stop thinking of it as "competing" and thing of it as "coordinating". Havin two or more people in a party that are all good at the same thing, means the party as a whole can handle that type of situation better. Insisting that one and only one person in the party can be good at any one thing is going to result in a really limited party IMO. So Joe does X, and Frank does X, and no one else can help out or participate? That's... strange.


Doesn't it also mean that the party as a whole probably handles a lot of other situations poorly though? Which seems even more limiting than having more variation (that is assuming having good resolve and having good other stuff is about equally useful, of course). Whether or not Talakeal is right to be defensive of the character's niche, I do think the rest of the party's behavior is odd from both a strategic and a social standpoint. 

I also think you might be underestimating how many people are invested in having their character having something that they're the best at. For example, a lot of discussions about class imbalance in D&D seems to be less "class X is too powerful in general" and more "class X is better than class Y at everything, including class Y's supposed specialty".

----------


## gbaji

> Doesn't it also mean that the party as a whole probably handles a lot of other situations poorly though? Which seems even more limiting than having more variation (that is assuming having good resolve and having good other stuff is about equally useful, of course). Whether or not Talakeal is right to be defensive of the character's niche, I do think the rest of the party's behavior is odd from both a strategic and a social standpoint.


Oh to be sure. They're putting all their eggs in one basket. I'm not familiar enough to know about how many different forms of defense there are in the game, but let's assume there's maybe 3 or 4 (maybe, emotional/resolve, physical/toughness?, spiritual/soulstrength?, agile/dex?). Dunno. I'd be curious if Talakeal would be any less upset if just one other character had a higher resolve instead of all of them. I suspect he still would be. But that's just speculation.

All of them focusing on resolve is dumb from a "party defense" perspective, but assuming a relatively small number of different types of defense like this, it's pretty reasonable to assume, if the party were to spread out their defenses, that there would have to be at least some overlap and one or two defenses in which two characters were equally defensive(ish). So it's completely unreasonable to "claim" one form of defense and insist that no one else may take it, or be better at it than your own character.

That's the element of this story that I'm having issue with. Obviously, there are additional problems with the group's choices, but those are somewhat tangential to what Talakeal seems to be most upset with and where I think maybe a bit of destressing and rational analysis could be helpful.




> I also think you might be underestimating how many people are invested in having their character having something that they're the best at. For example, a lot of discussions about class imbalance in D&D seems to be less "class X is too powerful in general" and more "class X is better than class Y at everything, including class Y's supposed specialty".


Sure. In class discussions in a class based game system. And that's because those classes strictly define what abilities each has and what they "can have". In a classless game, it's just a matter of how you buy/earn skills/abilities/whatever, and then what players pick for their characters.

I'm just baffled by why someone who is playing in a classless game is still clinging to class based assumptions and therefore actually creating conflict as a result. if you just drop the class assumptions about character "roles" in the first place, then 99% of this entire issue just disappears. It's just "here's the stuff on my character sheet that define what my character can do and how good she/he is at doing it". And what you call yourself, or label yourself, is irrelevant. Heck. We don't have labels at all. Just character names. And over time, we learn what specific skills/abilities each has and then call up the people who are good at X, when we need X. That's it.

No one ever says something absurd like "I'm the party rogue, so I have to be the one to climb that wall and sneak into the castle and open the door for us". Ever. It's "who has good enough climb, hide, and sneak skills to do the job", and those characters go. There is no "rogue". There is no "fighter". There's just skills/abilities different people have and determining which ones are useful at any given time.

And guess what? No one is upset about this, or thinks they're somehow less because they didn't get to shine. If you adopt this mindset is reduces player conflicts a whole lot. People aren't playing to be "in the spotlight doing what my class does best" and waiting for that opportunity (and expecting the GM to put in the right ratio of such things to be "fair"). It's cooperative effort in the party to achieve common goals. That's it.

And it also allows one to focus on actual roleplaying to distinguish one character from another rather than relying on class based roles. I happen to think that's a massive positive as well. What differentiates you from the character next to you isn't just what you do, but primarily who you are. That's a good thing in a RPG. You're no longer constrained based on what people expect based on the class written on your sheet. You can play a character with a lot of stealth skills who is brave and charges into battle. Or... well... anything.

----------


## Batcathat

> Sure. In class discussions in a class based game system. And that's because those classes strictly define what abilities each has and what they "can have". In a classless game, it's just a matter of how you buy/earn skills/abilities/whatever, and then what players pick for their characters.
> 
> I'm just baffled by why someone who is playing in a classless game is still clinging to class based assumptions and therefore actually creating conflict as a result. if you just drop the class assumptions about character "roles" in the first place, then 99% of this entire issue just disappears. It's just "here's the stuff on my character sheet that define what my character can do and how good she/he is at doing it". And what you call yourself, or label yourself, is irrelevant. Heck. We don't have labels at all. Just character names. And over time, we learn what specific skills/abilities each has and then call up the people who are good at X, when we need X. That's it.


I disagree with the assumption that the desire (justified or not) for your character to have their own niche where they are the best in the party is in any way dependent on the system having classes. The fact that my character doesn't have a label saying "rogue" doesn't mean that I wouldn't want to be the party's stealth expert or whatever. Of course, maybe I'm fine with being "the stealthy character who's good with a knife" and don't care that there's also "the stealthy character who's a sniper", but that's just a matter of how specifically the niche is defined. 

Now, whether or not other players are in any way obliged to let my character be the best at stealth is obviously up to each individual group, but that's a discussion the group might need to have whether or not they're playing a class-based system.

----------


## gbaji

> I disagree with the assumption that the desire (justified or not) for your character to have their own niche where they are the best in the party is in any way dependent on the system having classes.


That wasn't my assumption though. I was responding to (and directly quoted) this statement, by you:




> I also think you might be underestimating how many people are invested in having their character having something that they're the best at. For example, a lot of discussions about class imbalance in D&D seems to be less "class X is too powerful in general" and more "class X is better than class Y at everything, including class Y's supposed specialty".


You were specifically speaking about arguments about classes and class imbalance. In these cases, it's the set of things that a class has that is being discussed, not just "my character isn't as good at something as this other character and I think that's not right". Surely you can see how, if we're discussing individual characters in a classless system, if you bring in examples specifically of class discussions on forums about a class based game, that's a bit off subject. That's all I was trying to say.

They are upset because their "class" by its nature is less capable at something (or a set of somethings) than another class, despite their class supposedly being focused on that set of somethings. But that's an artifact of class based systems itself. If you are not constrained to picking "classA" or "classB", then this issue never comes up. The player is not restricted to what their character can do based on class, so the existence of another class that is "better" at something they want to do than their class just doesn't exist.





> The fact that my character doesn't have a label saying "rogue" doesn't mean that I wouldn't want to be the party's stealth expert or whatever. Of course, maybe I'm fine with being "the stealthy character who's good with a knife" and don't care that there's also "the stealthy character who's a sniper", but that's just a matter of how specifically the niche is defined.


Sure. And this is usually how these things go in a non-class based game. Different characters will have different levels of various stealth skills. They'll have different levels in different weapons skills. They'll have different levels in different social skills. They'll have different levels in different knowledge or craft type skills. And so on, and so on. And they'll carry/use different weapons. And have different types and levels of armor. And use different amounts and types of magic. And, over time adventuring, accumulate different sets of magic items as well.

These things create plenty of differences between characters. No two are going to be alike. But there's often quite a bit of overlap in terms of who can be helpful in any given situation. Maybe in slightly different ways, but still. Heck. In my game, in any somewhat experienced party, usually about half of the party is pretty darn good at stealth skills and can serve well enough in any sort of "sneak in and do something" role. To be fair though, I play in an experienced based skill game where you just get better at things you do. It's not experience point based and/or point buy (well, except during initial character build and downtime advancement). And it's not uncommon for stealth and perception rolls to be called for all the time, just walking around (do you spot the bad guys following you? How close does your party get to the bad guys before they notice you?). So, over time, everyone becomes somewhat skilled at these things.

And yeah, we also allow different levels of experience to play in any given adventure. So it's incredibly common for that beginning(ish) sneaky character to be far less skilled at sneaking than the old veteran adventurer (who's also much better at straight up fighting, and is stronger, and has better armor, speaks more languages, makes maps better, tracks better, etc). No one whines that "my character isn't as good at what he's best at" (of course you're not, you just started out). It's more "great. Someone else to help me out so my meager skills don't get us all killed, and I can learn from these guys and become better over time as a result. Oh and survive longer than I would hanging out with a group of people just as newbie as me".

Yeah. Also maybe putting some points out there about level based games as well, but aside from maybe if we all just rolled up brand new characters, no one has that sort of expectation. And frankly, with "new" characters we don't expect *anyone* to be that good at anything anyway. The guy with the 60% sneak isn't exactly crowing over the guy who has a 45% or anything. Yeah. He's "our best", but he's still going to fail 40% of the time. Of course, the hoped for is that the folks we're sneaking up on are similarly poor at their spot skills...





> Now, whether or not other players are in any way obliged to let my character be the best at stealth is obviously up to each individual group, but that's a discussion the group might need to have whether or not they're playing a class-based system.


Maybe. I mean, I get what you're saying on an intellectual level, but this does really seem like an artifact of class based systems (and players who have become accustomed to such). It clearly *can* happen (cause OP, right?). But I think that's an artificial constraint being applied by the players themselves to their own characters. It's not a function of the game like it is in class based games (where the rogue will always be better at stealth stuff than the fighter or wizard).

I'm saying that it *shouldn't* be something that is considered as part of party build at all. Certainly not in the concept of "I've picked stealth, so no one else can be as good at that". My experience is that it's usually not about who is "best" at anything, but that for any given challenge the party is faced with there will be some number of characters who are "good enough" at the appropriate skill(s) to be effective. Those characters all "succeed" equally. Whether one character has a higher skill in something or another thing (and who that character is) is really irrelevant. It's not uncommon at all for 3 or 4 characters to be "good enough" at their stealth skills to send on some scouting or sneaky mission, and not uncommon at all for one to have the highest hide, another to have the highest sneak, yet another to have the highest climb, yet another to have the best lock picking, someone else is best at disarming traps, another better at spotting lookouts, another has spells that can confuse or distract said lookouts, another has better abilities to search for what they're looking for, etc, etc, etc.

Same deal with melee fighting. Same deal with ranged combat. Same deal with social situations. Same deal with tracking/foraging/mapping. Same deal with everything in these sorts of games. Characters only have single focused/exclusive "roles" in a party if the players steadfastly insist on it. So yeah, to me, they are failing to really grasp the point (and advantage) of classless game systems.

Er, that's not to say that you shouldn't have a good spread of different abilities among the characters in a party, but it should always be focused on maximizing the overall capabilities of the party. It should never be based on the "exclusive role" type of mentality. I'm totally ok with critiquing the OP party because of the former failing, but not really on the latter. Again, I think that's just a backwards way of looking at things.

----------


## Talakeal

> I'm always reminded of the Conan film, where Arnold is playing Conan, this big, strong, barbarian type character. What does he do through most of the film? Sneaks around. He scales the outside of a serpent temple. Sneaks around the guards with his friends, and steals some stuff. He only gets into fights when he is discovered. He adopts disguises frequently to hide amongst other people and avoid detection.
> 
> So clearly Conan is a rogue, right? Or, we drop the assumption of class, and just say "he's a strong fighter guy, whose also good at sneaking, climbing, and disguise". Why not? In the real world, there is no class restriction. If Conan wants to practice climbing and sneaking he should. Heck. He's a lot better at "fighting" if he can sneak past the outer guards without sounding an alarm before fighting the main bad guy, right? Why wouldn't he develop these skills?


Ok. Agreed.

So, out of curiosity, would this thread be vastly different if instead of describing the party as:

"A necromancer alchemist, a healer alchemist, an ogre pirate, a ranger, a blaksmith, and a sword-saint"

I had said:

"This is a skill based game. The party includes a girl whose skills are necromancy, alchemy, and insight. A girl whose skills are restoration, medical, and alchemy. An ogre whose skills are sailing, melee, and larceny. A dryad whose skills are marksmanship, survival, and tracking. A guy whose skills are melee, metal working, and fortitude. And myself, whose skills are melee, resolve, and gather information."




> Shocking to you, but not to pretty much everyone else, both at your table, and on this forum. Which might suggest to you that maybe re-assessing your assumptions might be in order.


Ok. So let's have that conversation then.

Most every CRPG has a "tank" role, and they are often limited to one per party. Is this totally inappropriate and does the gaming industry need to change?
Am I crazy to think the image of someone shooting superman in the chest and the bullet merely bouncing off is an iconic part of his character?
Are wolverine and dead-pool just generic soldiers with sharp objects? If regeneration and adamantium bones are not powers, why are they considered super-heroes?
Why are there so many homebrews for Highlander style immortals in World of Darkness when you can already pick up a sword?
Are Juggernaut, Colossus, and The Thing just shameless hulk rip-offs whose only power is super-strength?
If Captain America's shield is only good as a frisbee, why isn't he as lame as Captain Boomerang?
Likewise, why do so many people draw Iron Man in armor when clearly the flight and the repulsor beams are the only part of the character that matters. Heck, why even call him Iron Man and not Laser Lad?

And so on and so on.

I honestly don't know whether to put a sarcasm filter on the above or not. To me the very notion that defensive abilities can't be part of a character concept seems absurd... but if I am the only one who feels that way then I guess these are legitimate questions?






> Well, there's your role. You're one of the two folks who'll be swimming up to and climbing up into enemy ships.


I'm not Aquaman. The battle will be long over by the time I actually make it up.




> You explicitly stated "party synergy and niche protection". I'm not sure what you mean by "party synergy", but "niche protection" is specifically about making rolls to defend against specific in-game encounters, right? That can't be anything other than mechanical in nature. You're literally increasing your ability to resist whatever "resolve" helps you resist against (I'm assuming various forms of fear, demoralize, retreat, lose-hope, or whatever effects/situations).


Party synergy would be making sure that we have the variety of skills necessary to accomplish our goals and then synergize them, for example having one guy distract the enemies while the other slips behind their lines.

I don't see this giant line between narrative and mechanics that you do. It is a description of the character's mental capabilities, and the rules attempt to model that.




> I'm not sure how "resolve" (which from the description I'm assuming protects *you* in some way) allows you to "protect" others? Maybe if the ability was called "inspire", I could see how this helps you protect others from such things, but not something called "resolve". That's your own will power resisting other things that might otherwise affect you in a negative way. I'm also not seeing "supportive" in there either. If there's a skill/stat called "empathy" that also would be a better fit for this role.


Party synergy would be making sure that we have the variety of skills necessary to accomplish our goals and then synergize them, for example having one guy distract the enemies while the other slips behind their lines.

My character is also a decent combatant, and my fighting style is built around protecting others. Of course, then the blacksmith / fighter joined the party, and he is a heck of a lot better at it than I am.


I don't see this giant line between narrative and mechanics that you do. It is a description of the character's mental capabilities, and the rules attempt to model that.




> I'm not sure how "resolve" (which from the description I'm assuming protects *you* in some way) allows you to "protect" others? Maybe if the ability was called "inspire", I could see how this helps you protect others from such things, but not something called "resolve". That's your own will power resisting other things that might otherwise affect you in a negative way. I'm also not seeing "supportive" in there either. If there's a skill/stat called "empathy" that also would be a better fit for this role.
> 
> How does resolve allow you to "keep them safe when they bite of more than they can chew"? Are you actually envisioning a situation where the party encounters something, and everyone else cowers in fear, while you bravely stand firm and "save the day" or something? Cause that's an incredibly narrow thing to base an entire character concept on. Um... What exactly are you going to do in that situation to "keep them safe"? Are you any better at fighting off whatever is causing the effect than maybe the pirate, or wizard, or ranger? Would it not be better, for the entire party in that situation if *everyone* resisted the fear causing  effect and were able to fight as a team?


Yes, occasionally I am expecting a situation were one or more of the other party members are frightened, mind-controlled, tricked, or injured and I am have to step up to save the day with my mighty thews. As well as occasional more active uses of resolve where I need to make a sacrifice like walking through lava or throwing herself on a grenade.


Yes, a party that has a universally high resolve is better at situations that require resolve. Of course, they all tanked their other defenses to get there, so the party is overall much worse.

Rather than, say, having a series of challenging encounters where everyone gets a chance to shine, you instead alternate between frustratingly hard encounters where everyone gets their but kicked (and possibly killed) and boring encounters where nobody is much threatened and everyone just checks out.




> Then you RP as the "calm, disciplined" character. Why doesn't that still work? It seems to me like a skill like resolve doesn't have to only fit into the personality type you are  envisioning. Maybe someone else is just really stubborn and doesn't let things stop him in a crisis situation? Maybe someone else defines his resolve as "I'm a crazy berserker type guy who just pushes through". Maybe yet another defines it as "I've trained my mind to resist external influences". 
> 
> None if this intrudes on you being the disciplined monk who meditates every morning to center themselves, speaks in Koans, and provides a calm moral support to the rest of the party. That's you "roleplaying" your character. It has nothing to do with, nor does it requires, that you  personally have the highest resolve in the party. I guess I just don't understand why you so firmly associate one with the other.


Ok. What if we come to a situation where we need to actively test that calm and discipline? 

Like say, a temple where you have to allow yourself to be burned alive to access the Macguffin.  

Who do you send in for the task? The monk who has been training for this all her life, or the guy who min-maxxed his character so he is much better at actually succeeding on the task when the dice come out?




> Yeah, but you're going to be able to participate, where as some members of the party will not (or will not be as effective). There's nothing wrong with being "second best fighter", and "second best forager", and "second best archer", and "second best swimmer", and "second best sneak". That allows you to be actively involved in, and have an impact on, more things than any other single character. It's about the party, not the individuals in it. So the party fighter is standing there doing nothing while you are sneaking up with the sneaky people. And the party rogue is standing there doing nothing while you're standing next to the party fighter in a fight. And the party ranger is standing there doing nothing while you swim out to a ship next to the party swimmer. And you and the party ranger are out foraging while everyone else is sitting around camp, also doing nothing.
> 
> That's not a bad way to run a character.


No, it isn't terrible. Which is why I am saying this thread is making a bigger deal out of it than it really is.

But IMO always playing second fiddle is a lot less fun than actually being in the spotlight or saving the day on occasion.

Also, those specific examples are pretty terrible, the rogue significantly outfights me, the ranger significantly outfights me (and does it at range!) and my character is neither stealthy nor adept at any sort of wilderness survival.




> If the GM is changing the challenges such that he makes things harder because the players are better at defending, then he's a poor GM. Doubly so if he's actually changing the thing they need to defend against to avoid their strongest defenses. And if the GM isn't doing this? And there were never any resolve checks for you to make? Your character build points would also go to waste.


Whether or not the GM should tailor challenges to the party is a matter of much debate.

I will say though, that if the GM doesn't, that means our lack of synergy or diversity is a lot more likely to get us stuck or killed.




> Again. This may be your group and their own... idioms... but it seems odd to speak of this in terms of "stepping on toes". As though each and every player just has to have one area in which they and only they get to shine and have the spotlight or something. That's... bizarre.


I have never been in a party where any given character didn't have half a dozen ways to shine. This party is an extreme outlier, and I have never seen a situation where everyone dogpiles onto one score so much that not only is it every single person's highest score, but that someone can simultaneously have it be their highest score and still the lowest in the party. These are uncharted waters.

But on a broader note, forget games, have you ever read a book or seen a movie?

Those with ensemble casts are (almost) always written so that each character gets a chance to shine. "This Looks Like a Job For Aquaman" is an old trope for a reason.




> I do think that players should communicate when building a party, but it should be with an eye towards having a breadth of skills and abilities to cover different situations they may find themselves in, not this sort of self serving concept of "I have to be the best at X, so you be the best at something else" mentality. At least one person should be good at each core thing, but if multiple people are also good at overlapping things, that's not a bad thing at all IMO. And certainly, no one should be upset about it. That's just childish.


It may be childish, but it is a core component of human psychology, and trying to ignore it is just going to lead to hurt feelings.

Also, as my parents say if I bring up any of my gaming problems to them, "You are grown men playing make believe. It is inherently immature and childish. Of course the players are going to act that way!"




> Not intending this maliciously, but you might want to take a look in the mirror for a moment. You also seem to have a strong need to have one thing that "I'm the best at". What some of us are trying to get across is that this is not a requirement (or should not be), to have a good time playing a game. There should be plenty of enemies to fight such that you don't have to be the "best fighter", and plenty of targets to shoot at such that you don't have to be the "best archer", and plenty of situations where having two people sneaking up is better than one that you also don't have to be the "best at sneaking". Etc, etc, etc.
> 
> Most people play the game such that they don't care who is best at anything (especially in non-class based games), as long as there's at least someone who can handle any given situation, things are good. Having more people, even with variable ability, who can handle something is even better. The assumption in most classless systems is that it's skill based, right? So everyone can "try" to do things, and some will be better than others. But it's not a hard pass/fail in most cases, it's a matter of "how many are good enough for the party to succeed"? Your character isn't either "the best" or "nothing". If your skill in X is "good enough", then it's useful to the party. Even if it's not the best.


It's weird that you are responding to the statement "I am too competitive" with "You might want to look in the mirror".

It isn't universal, but I don't believe that you haven't played with people who don't enjoy being special or having spotlight time on occasion. I have seen way to many competitive players, grass is always greener copy-cats, spotlight hogs, and people who quit the game because they aren't doing well enough, both in person and on the forums, to think that this is somehow strange and alien behavior to you.


And yeah, redundancy isn't terrible, but it isn't really a good idea if you are missing out in other vital areas to get it. And some things are more forgiving than others, another warm body with a gun is almost always helpful in a firefight, but half a dozen rogues trying to pick the same lock isn't going to contribute so much.




> Nope. There is no distinction. "Pirate" is a profession. If you engage in piracy, then you are a pirate. There is zero assumption about what skills that pirate may have. Sure if you live on a ship most of the time, you're presumably going to have to develop skills useful to that environment, but that's not what makes you a pirate.
> 
> You're still thinking in class terms. There is no reason why a "rogue" should be "sneakier" at all, or better at picking locks, or better at breaking into houses. I actually ran a "rogue" character, who was basically the local thieves guild's leg breaker. He had picked up some typical thief like skills (but sucked at them), He was a big bruiser, who the other guys brought along when they were collecting debts. That was the background for him. He could not sneak at all. Nor hide very well. Couldn't scale a wall to save his life. He was "Ok" at disarming traps, and had picked up some rope skills (probably his best rogue like skill, cause you tie people up before threating to break their legs, right?). I think he also picked up some forgery stuff too. So definitely not a typical second story man sort of "rogue".
> 
> That's the point of not having classes though. You can define your character however you want. You don't have to resort to any sort of stereotypes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you're still insisting on defining one as "pirate", and the other as "rogue" and then making assumptions about what specific skills they should have. That's still leaning on a class based game assumption. Get rid of that. Again. Pirate is a profession. Rogue is a personality type. They are not classes in a classless game. They are descriptors and could mean anything at all (or nothing).


You are trying really hard to turn this into a semantic argument. 

I don't see any logical reason why a "class" based game needs to operate under a fundamentally different table / group dynamic than a "skill" based game.

Although I am curious, if I did something similar to Daggerfall and rewrote the rules so that they were labelled "class building" rather than "character building" and added a line about naming your class onto the end of them, would that minor (and ultimately semantic) change justify drastically changing the way the game is played?




> Stop thinking of it as "competing" and thing of it as "coordinating". Havin two or more people in a party that are all good at the same thing, means the party as a whole can handle that type of situation better. Insisting that one and only one person in the party can be good at any one thing is going to result in a really limited party IMO. So Joe does X, and Frank does X, and no one else can help out or participate? That's... strange.


Batchat already said what I was going to say about this.

----------


## Batcathat

> That wasn't my assumption though. I was responding to (and directly quoted) this statement, by you:


Fair enough. It was just meant to be an example (that you would likely be familiar with, given where we are) of what I was talking about, but I can see how it was misleading.

Though for saying that's not your assumption, the rest of your post kinda makes it seem like that is  at least partly  the assumption.




> They are upset because their "class" by its nature is less capable at something (or a set of somethings) than another class, despite their class supposedly being focused on that set of somethings. But that's an artifact of class based systems itself. If you are not constrained to picking "classA" or "classB", then this issue never comes up. The player is not restricted to what their character can do based on class, so the existence of another class that is "better" at something they want to do than their class just doesn't exist.


Sure, if there are no classes, no classes is better than any other. But if character A is built around being good at skills X, Y and Z, character B being better at X, Y and Z (as well as skills K, F and M) can be an issue, whether or not characters A and B have classes. 




> These things create plenty of differences between characters. No two are going to be alike. But there's often quite a bit of overlap in terms of who can be helpful in any given situation.


Right, but characters can be plenty different from each other in a class-based system too while there's nothing in a class-less system that prevents players from being upset about others encroaching on their "thing". So again, I don't see the connection between classes and these issues.




> And yeah, we also allow different levels of experience to play in any given adventure. So it's incredibly common for that beginning(ish) sneaky character to be far less skilled at sneaking than the old veteran adventurer (who's also much better at straight up fighting, and is stronger, and has better armor, speaks more languages, makes maps better, tracks better, etc). No one whines that "my character isn't as good at what he's best at" (of course you're not, you just started out). It's more "great. Someone else to help me out so my meager skills don't get us all killed, and I can learn from these guys and become better over time as a result. Oh and survive longer than I would hanging out with a group of people just as newbie as me".


That's nice, but I think that's more to do with your group than your system.




> Maybe. I mean, I get what you're saying on an intellectual level, but this does really seem like an artifact of class based systems (and players who have become accustomed to such). It clearly *can* happen (cause OP, right?). But I think that's an artificial constraint being applied by the players themselves to their own characters. It's not a function of the game like it is in class based games (where the rogue will always be better at stealth stuff than the fighter or wizard).


Sure, but I'm not saying it's a function of the game, I'm saying it's a function of human psychology. Some people could play in a class-based system and not mind other people stepping on their conceptual toes in the slightest, others will feel that way no matter the system.

Take me, for example, most of my gaming has been in either class-less systems or systems where the classes are flexible enough that they might as well be class-less. But I'm still a big proponent of my character having a thing that's "theirs" in some fashion. 




> I'm saying that it *shouldn't* be something that is considered as part of party build at all. Certainly not in the concept of "I've picked stealth, so no one else can be as good at that". My experience is that it's usually not about who is "best" at anything, but that for any given challenge the party is faced with there will be some number of characters who are "good enough" at the appropriate skill(s) to be effective. Those characters all "succeed" equally. Whether one character has a higher skill in something or another thing (and who that character is) is really irrelevant. It's not uncommon at all for 3 or 4 characters to be "good enough" at their stealth skills to send on some scouting or sneaky mission, and not uncommon at all for one to have the highest hide, another to have the highest sneak, yet another to have the highest climb, yet another to have the best lock picking, someone else is best at disarming traps, another better at spotting lookouts, another has spells that can confuse or distract said lookouts, another has better abilities to search for what they're looking for, etc, etc, etc.


And focusing on what's best for the party as a whole is an entirely reasonable approach for a group to have, but so is focusing on letting everyone have their own thing to shine at or not focusing on anything at all and just building characters in isolation. It's a matter of taste (and one entirely disconnected from whether or not the system has classes, as I see it).




> Same deal with melee fighting. Same deal with ranged combat. Same deal with social situations. Same deal with tracking/foraging/mapping. Same deal with everything in these sorts of games. Characters only have single focused/exclusive "roles" in a party if the players steadfastly insist on it. So yeah, to me, they are failing to really grasp the point (and advantage) of classless game systems.


To me, the advantage of a class-less system is being able to build a character more or less exactly how I want it (which is probably why I usually prefer those systems, since I generally have a very specific idea). I don't see how potentially being bothered by someone else outshining me has anything at all to do with whether or not the system has classes.




> Er, that's not to say that you shouldn't have a good spread of different abilities among the characters in a party, but it should always be focused on maximizing the overall capabilities of the party. It should never be based on the "exclusive role" type of mentality. I'm totally ok with critiquing the OP party because of the former failing, but not really on the latter. Again, I think that's just a backwards way of looking at things.


Again, that's certainly _one_ way of looking at things, but it's not the only one.

----------


## Morgaln

> Ok. Agreed.
> 
> So, out of curiosity, would this thread be vastly different if instead of describing the party as:
> 
> "A necromancer alchemist, a healer alchemist, an ogre pirate, a ranger, a blaksmith, and a sword-saint"
> 
> I had said:
> 
> "This is a skill based game. The party includes a girl whose skills are necromancy, alchemy, and insight. A girl whose skills are restoration, medical, and alchemy. An ogre whose skills are sailing, melee, and larceny. A dryad whose skills are marksmanship, survival, and tracking. A guy whose skills are melee, metal working, and fortitude. And myself, whose skills are melee, resolve, and gather information."


So you share melee skills with two other people, yet you don't seem bothered by that. Isn't that infringing on your niche as well? Why is that different? 




> Ok. So let's have that conversation then.
> 
> Most every CRPG has a "tank" role, and they are often limited to one per party. Is this totally inappropriate and does the gaming industry need to change?
> Am I crazy to think the image of someone shooting superman in the chest and the bullet merely bouncing off is an iconic part of his character?
> Are wolverine and dead-pool just generic soldiers with sharp objects? If regeneration and adamantium bones are not powers, why are they considered super-heroes?
> Why are there so many homebrews for Highlander style immortals in World of Darkness when you can already pick up a sword?
> Are Juggernaut, Colossus, and The Thing just shameless hulk rip-offs whose only power is super-strength?
> If Captain America's shield is only good as a frisbee, why isn't he as lame as Captain Boomerang?
> Likewise, why do so many people draw Iron Man in armor when clearly the flight and the repulsor beams are the only part of the character that matters. Heck, why even call him Iron Man and not Laser Lad?
> ...


While I agree that defensive capabilities are absolutely part of character concepts, you are making a case against your own point here.

Does the existence of Warmachine invalidate Iron Man? They have the exact same powers, after all. 
Do Juggernaut, Colossus and The Thing invalidate the Hulk, just because they share his toughness?
If Wolverine and Deadpool both regenerate, don't they infringe on each other's niche?
Does Superman stop being Superman when bullets bounce off Shazam's chest?
Speaking of which, is Superman's superspeed less of a superpower just because the Flash is even faster?

Comic books are full off people with similar powers, especially similar defensive powers. They also team up constantly (Superman and Shazam are even part of the same team). That's because powers don't make the character. They are distinctive because they are different people with different stories. Their powers support their stories but they don't make them.

----------


## King of Nowhere

> Party synergy would be making sure that we have the variety of skills necessary to accomplish our goals and then synergize them, for example having one guy distract the enemies while the other slips behind their lines.


I don't think so. 
You present this like your party put all the effort into specializing in different areas as if it was a matter of efficiency. but your party is anything but efficient. from your multiple threads here, I know that trying to give tactical suggestions to somebody is a big taboo, so that nobody coordinates because nobody wants to be told what his character should do. in addition to not coordinating, the players often do whatever looks cool without a care for the consequences on the party. 

so this is not a gaming group that cares much about efficiencies and synergy and accomplishing goals. if you did, you'd play a lot more like my group. 

from your posts I get the impression that you're not a party working towards common goals, but a bunch of individuals working towards overshadowing each other. you don't care that the villain is defeated, you care that YOU did it - or at least gave as major a contribution as possible. you don't help the other guy in trouble because the party needs to succeed, but to get bragging rights. you are not competitive against the challenges offered by the campaign, you are competing against the other players to be better than them.
your very speech pattern shows this. you always descriibe an adventure like "and here are traps and the rogue gets to be great, then there is a fight and the fighter gets to be great, then there is some magic ritual and the wizard get his chance..." - meanwhile I focus on how the party overcomes obstacles through creativity and teamplay.

and so you came up with elaborate ways to split capabilities so that everyone can get a similar amount of bragging points. the objective is not efficiency, it is to avoid hurt feelings. 

It is a terribly unhealty way of playing. Normally I would insert "I think" before such a drastic statement, but everyone is telling you it's unhealty, so it's not just an opinion.
however, given how terribly disfunctional your groups are, this is probably the only way to make the game work. I'm not telling you to change your style here.
but let's be honest here, synergizing as done at your table has nothing to do with efficiency, it's got to do with protecting egos.




> It's weird that you are responding to the statement "I am too competitive" with "You might want to look in the mirror".
> 
> It isn't universal, but I don't believe that you haven't played with people who don't enjoy being special or having spotlight time on occasion. I have seen way to many competitive players, grass is always greener copy-cats, spotlight hogs, and people who quit the game because they aren't doing well enough, both in person and on the forums, to think that this is somehow strange and alien behavior to you.


everyone enjoys some spotlight. your table is taking it way, way too extremely. 

and please, don't call that "being competitive". rpg is a team game. being competitive in a team game is trying hard to be good and defeating the other team. wanting to be better than the people in your team is not being competitive, it's being an awful team player.

----------


## gbaji

> Most every CRPG has a "tank" role, and they are often limited to one per party. Is this totally inappropriate and does the gaming industry need to change?


That's a very very limited sub-set of "melee combat". And my experience in classless games is that more often than not, they trend towards most of the characters being somewhat good at combat, some with more armor, some with more damage, maybe some with more hps, some focused on range, some more about sneak attacks, etc. And a lot of the time, we're talking about minor variations in those different capabilities. Not so much that one is "the party tank", but "I've got a couple more points of AC than you do", but either could stand and fight something some what equally.

In class based games, especially in small parties (5-6 people) the game system itself somewhat forces you to do this. You have to have at least one wizard, and one cleric, and one rogue, so that doesn't leave a lot of room for more than one "tank", especially if you want to also have any of a number of other skills/abilities locked behind class restrictions. Again though, I've found that in classless games, most players will build their characters to be at least somewhat useful in a combat situation as a base, and then pick some other sets of non-combat skills/abilities/spells that they want or think may be useful or just like as a character concept. Assuming, as with most games, that combat is a somewhat forefront thing. Obviously, more social resolution focused games will be very different.

And yeah. ditto on the whole "there's like 4 tanks just in the Avengers" bit.





> I'm not Aquaman. The battle will be long over by the time I actually make it up.


Not if the rest of the party is still on shore because they can't, you know, swim? What did you think the swimming and climbing skills were being used for here? So you and the one other party member who can swim and climb, swim under cover of night, sneak aboard the enemy ship, and then... <do something plot specific>. As you said, it's an nautical focused game. You don't think this is going to come up at least a few times? Being able to swim over and do <something> would seem to be a pretty "spotlight" moment.





> Party synergy would be making sure that we have the variety of skills necessary to accomplish our goals and then synergize them, for example having one guy distract the enemies while the other slips behind their lines.


The skills that have numerical values and game rules mechanics to resolve? That's "rollpaying", not "roleplaying". That's 100% about determining mechanical resolutions. Picking which skills will be needed to do something is mechanical, not social. I'm not sure why you don't see this.




> I don't see this giant line between narrative and mechanics that you do. It is a description of the character's mental capabilities, and the rules attempt to model that.


Because narrative is the "why" of a story. The skill levels and mechanics are the "how". Why is your character doing something has nothing at all to do with how high a given value is in any given skill or ability. What motivates your character? Why did they join the group? What do they hope to accomplish? Why is that important to them? These are all part of roleplaying your character. It's not enough to just say "I'm a collection of stats, abilities, and skills written on a sheet and my mission is to do X utilizing these things in collaboration with a few other characters that are also just a collection of slightly different stats, abilities, skills". Not having the "why" dehumanizes the whole thing and IMO defeats the purpose of playing a RPG in the first place. And none of that "why" stuff has to depend on anything specific to the skills or abilities written on the character sheet. 





> Party synergy would be making sure that we have the variety of skills necessary to accomplish our goals and then synergize them, for example having one guy distract the enemies while the other slips behind their lines.


Which are, again, purely mechanical decisions.





> Rather than, say, having a series of challenging encounters where everyone gets a chance to shine, you instead alternate between frustratingly hard encounters where everyone gets their but kicked (and possibly killed) and boring encounters where nobody is much threatened and everyone just checks out.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. What if we come to a situation where we need to actively test that calm and discipline? 
> 
> Like say, a temple where you have to allow yourself to be burned alive to access the Macguffin.  
> 
> Who do you send in for the task? The monk who has been training for this all her life, or the guy who min-maxxed his character so he is much better at actually succeeding on the task when the dice come out?


Sure. But that's precisely the style of adventuring and scenario building that I find to be, er... poor? This idea that the GM should contrive different challenges to each characters special "thing", so that each can shine? That's hogwash. Very poor gaming IMO.

Why on earth is the macguffin just sitting there waiting for someone with a high resolve to take it? That's incredibly contrived. Who would actually do that? No one. Only a GM intentionally creating conditions for each character to "shine" would do that. It's not terribly realistic though.

Why an otherwise empty room, with one challenge to overcome, and presumably all the time in the world to decide who is the one "best" person to deal with that challenge? Let me present an alternative:

The macguffin is rumored to be held in the ruins of the ancient temple of Woe. It's been long abandoned by its builders, but still has some ancient defenses. Additionally, a group of local monster/creatures/whatever have moved in and taken up residence. They don't know anything about the original builders, but worship them as powerful beings capable of building great wonders and pray (perhaps foolishly) for their return. They will fight to the death to prevent any outsiders from entering into the "most holy" parts of the ruins (which, of course, happens to be where the macguffin is). You fight/sneak/whatever your way through these annoying things, and find yourself in the center chamber of the temple where the macguffin should be. You approach the altar, and a group of statues come to life and attack you (constructs of some kind)! While they're doing this, another horde of creatures launches an attack as well. Meanwhile, you've clearly triggered some kind of ancient automated defenses and magic spells start firing off and hitting you guys (and maybe sometimes hitting the creatures as well, cause the defenses don't care).

In the midst of this fight, you see that the altar has opened up, and some demonic face swirls in the flames swearing to destroy you all for defiling this place. Behind the face, you see the macguffin! If you had time, maybe you could disarm the flames. Maybe it's something that could be defeated somehow and it might disable all the defenses. Or maybe someone could just thrust their hands into the flames, take the damage and grab the macguffin and everyone could run away. Who's going to actually do that is going to depend on where people are, how busy they are in the fight, how functional they are, etc. It's a dynamic situation. And guess what? In that case, maybe the "best"  person isn't the one who sticks their hand in. But the person that happens to be there at the moment. Maybe they succeed. Maybe they don't.

Put the players into dynamic situations where they don't have the time or ability to always make "the best" choice. Let characters who aren't "the best" at something attempt it anyway. Maybe the get lucky and succeed? Maybe they don't and you have to wait until someone with a better shot can get to the altar? Maybe you just fight through the constructs, drive off the creatures, hold the demonic spirit thing at bay, and are able to take your time with it later. Lots of ways to deal with this. But just presenting the players with a single "challenge" and a single obvious "solution" and all the time in the world to always have "the best" person do it?

That may make each person "shine", but it's terrible story writing and game playing IMO.





> Whether or not the GM should tailor challenges to the party is a matter of much debate.
> 
> I will say though, that if the GM doesn't, that means our lack of synergy or diversity is a lot more likely to get us stuck or killed.


There's a difference between adjusting difficulty to the groups strengths along the way (I've certainly done that), but that's not the same as actually changing the challenges themselves to be tailored to the parties strengths (or the other way around). I make changes if it makes sense to make changes. Intelligent opponents, if given information about the party,  will adjust their tactics and should become more difficult to deal with in future encounters.

But I think if you avoid putting things in where there's just one thing that "shines and saves the day", then you avoid this problem entirely.





> But on a broader note, forget games, have you ever read a book or seen a movie?
> 
> Those with ensemble casts are (almost) always written so that each character gets a chance to shine. "This Looks Like a Job For Aquaman" is an old trope for a reason.


Yes. I've read those books. And I've watched those films and TV shows. They almost always induce a strong eyeroll reaction from me too. I (maybe hate is too strong a word) seriously dislike writers who contrive that sort of stuff. It's garbage writing. Cheap. Dumb. Insert negative invective here. It's also really lazy.

OMG! What a coincidence that there are 5 characters exploring the ancient whatever, and we run into exactly 5 obstacles to overcome, and what do you know? Each one of us has one unique skill/ability/whatever that allows us to over come that exact obstacle! What a great story! So beautifully written. So well balanced. Er... no. That's total garbage writing. It's sadly extremely common and used all the time, but it's actually just horrifically awful writing. I would never in a million years actually structure any adventure scenario after those kinds of plots or resolutions. Ever. It's just that bad.





> It's weird that you are responding to the statement "I am too competitive" with "You might want to look in the mirror".


Yeah. When I was re-reading that, I realized I probably should have trimmed that out. I was talking about the whole "need to hog the spotlight" bit, which you seemed to be aiming at "some players", but not at yourself.




> It isn't universal, but I don't believe that you haven't played with people who don't enjoy being special or having spotlight time on occasion. I have seen way to many competitive players, grass is always greener copy-cats, spotlight hogs, and people who quit the game because they aren't doing well enough, both in person and on the forums, to think that this is somehow strange and alien behavior to you.


Sure. But they gain the spotlight by doing things when/where they need to be done. Not by GM contrivance related directly to some special power they have. In my games, rarely is "shine  in the spotlight" the result of the character that is "the best" at something just doing the one thing they are "the best" at. In fact, it's usually the opposite. It's the unlikely character doing something they aren't good at, but being in the right place at the right time, choosing to take the risk and succeeding that are the moments that players talk about for years to come.

The knock down drag out fight, which came down to the last functional character (the party healer), rolling around on the floor grappling with the last functional (but badly damaged) mind flayer is exciting and dramatic, and amazing (we just barely won that one). The halfling tossing a dagger at the big horrific monster, enraging it, and then running like a scared kitten for the whole fight while it chased him, screaming the whole time, but occupying it long enough that the rest of the party could defeat other things and then finally defeat the big monster thing was great, and likely saved the day with some "out of the box" thinking. The time the party wizard was trying to stay out the middle of a fight (we were on some dimensional travel adventure) and runs smack into two guys with firearms (which his defensive spells were unlikely to work against), more or less froze as they shot at him, and through random luck his spells defended him completely, so he's standing there, eyes closed, expecting death and then "Oh. I guess I'm ok", then continued to run away. Those are random, fun, moments that occur in scenarios. The characters were not the best characters for the situation, but found themselves there anyway. And by either luck, or choice, or just "trying and seeing what happens" managed to succeed (or just survive long enough for help to arrive).

The point is that you can "shine" at anything. And in a classless game, it seems more likely to happen this way precisely because even if you aren't "the best" at something, due to no class restrictions, you only have to be "good enough" to have that moment.





> I don't see any logical reason why a "class" based game needs to operate under a fundamentally different table / group dynamic than a "skill" based game.


In theory, maybe not? In practice, classes tend to cause players to focus their characters more. That's just the nature of the beast. And that tends towards situations where there actually is only one character in the party that has any chance at all of doing X, and a completely different character with any chance of doing Y, and yet another for Z, etc. In a classless game, anyone can do anything, it's more a matter of degrees, so you find quite often that characters end up having to do things that they aren't great at, but they have "some skill" at, and just giving it a go because the circumstances require it. Sometimes they fail epically. But sometimes they succeed. Those are the "great moments" of such a game.






> Sure, if there are no classes, no classes is better than any other. But if character A is built around being good at skills X, Y and Z, character B being better at X, Y and Z (as well as skills K, F and M) can be an issue, whether or not characters A and B have classes.


Right. We could imagine a very simple game with just five attributes and nothing more. Let's call them A, B, C, D, and E (we could label them something like "physical, mental, social, environmental, and magical", the GM determines difficulties for different tasks based on applicable attribute and we roll dice for that, and roleplay everything else, and maybe be actually approaching a playable game system here).

Let's say that you get 20 points to assign to each of the five attributes for your starting character.

Player 1 (Talakeal) wants a somewhat balanced character but focused most on attribute A: so A:8, B:3, C:3, D:3, E:3

The other four players all decide that A is a great attribute to focus  on,  but pick less balanced characters, each focusing on one other secondary attribute but tanking the rest:

Player 2 A:10, B:4, C:2, D:2, E:2
Player 3 A:10, B:2, C:4, D:2, E:2
Player 4 A:10, B:2, C:2, D:4, E:2
Player 5 A:10, B:2, C:2, D:2, E:4

Well, this looks bad for Talakeal, right? I mean, everyone else is better at his "signature attribute" (A). And because he's balanced the rest, someone else is actually better at every other thing as well. So I guess he just can't play this character and do anything right?

Well, no. While each of the other characters will be "better" at A, and "better" at one of the other things, Talakeal's character will be "good enough" to be effective at every single thing. Certainly, in the same ballpark. He's never more than 2 points less capable at anything than the "best" is. Assuming some sort of linear D20ish game system, he's 5% less capable at those things, but 5% better than 60% of the party at everything else at any given point in time. He's more likely to reasonably contribute and be effective in every single phase of the game.

If you need to be "the best" at something, that's going to bother you. But if you just want to maximize the amount of "fun" you have "doing things" in the game, Talakeal's character will fulfill that better than anyone else at the table. And to be honest, given that the "average" score in this made up game is 4, one has to assume that challenges for beginning characters should be scaled to that difficulty wise, right? So the fact that he only has an 8 in A is irrelevant. He's going to succeed at just about any challenge related to A (as is everyone else). And he's right in the range of "competent" for any balanced challenge the game might throw at him as well.

In this case, it's a matter of degrees (and small degrees at that). Any character can "shine" in any situation, just based on circumstances and choices made. And I think that should drive this sort of thing far more than just "who has the best skill" in something. But this is entirely dependent on how the players view their character "roles" in the group though. That kind of "degrees of difference" system may not be a good fit for some players.





> Right, but characters can be plenty different from each other in a class-based system too while there's nothing in a class-less system that prevents players from being upset about others encroaching on their "thing". So again, I don't see the connection between classes and these issues.


In a classless system, players are less likely to have adopted the "this is my role in the party" mentality, and therefore less likely to be upset about this in the first place. Obviously, this can vary quite a bit from game system to game system, but in my experience you're far more likely to have a larger number of characters that can handle any given situation (perhaps in slightly different ways) in a classless system than in a class based one.

I'm not trying to make a specific argument about the merits of one type of game over the other (though I think it's clear where my bias leans). I'm just observing that it seems odd to me that he's playing in a classless system, but seems to want to force the PCs into very specific "roles" that look a heck of a lot like classes to me, complete with the "I'm the one best person for the job, so no one else can do it" approach (which, to be fair, is extreme even for class based systems as well, but he's like leaning into it hard). And yeah, I suppose it's more that this *should* be the mindset difference, not necessarily that it will actually be the case.





> Sure, but I'm not saying it's a function of the game, I'm saying it's a function of human psychology. Some people could play in a class-based system and not mind other people stepping on their conceptual toes in the slightest, others will feel that way no matter the system.
> 
> Take me, for example, most of my gaming has been in either class-less systems or systems where the classes are flexible enough that they might as well be class-less. But I'm still a big proponent of my character having a thing that's "theirs" in some fashion.


Fair enough. I agree completely that this is about player mentality. But, ironically, given this groups proclivities, it's actually likely that they would be better off actually playing in a class based system. Less likelihood of toe stepping in that case, because classes would somewhat force each to have things they are "best at" and "shine at" and that "no one else can do". I guess what I'm trying to get at (perhaps poorly), is that the same positive about classless systems (anyone can do anything) also means that it's not only possible but *likely* that other characters will be able to do the same sorts of thing you can do, with perhaps only minor degrees of difference in ability.

If you have a table full of people who all want to be in their own lane, maybe a classless system isn't the one for them to play in?

I guess I was originally approaching this backwards, assuming that if you choose to play in a classless game you (as a group of players) would want the differences in character build and whatnot that that entails and should therefore not be bothered by "similar with minor differences in many cases" characters. And was surprised that he was playing this game, but seemed to not want that sort of condition to ever happen at all. Well, guess what? It's going to happen, quite often, in classless games. And it's definitely going to happen if you pre-determine that just one single thing on your character sheet is your "defining characteristic" around which you've designed the entire character concept.

That's just asking for disappointment IMO. For example, if you initially planned your character around a set of skills, expecting "sneak" to be your focus, but then another character has a high "sneak" as well, would you continue to focus on that? Or decide that some other thing you can do that this other character can't is  your defining/differentiating feature? I suspect that you would. You'd be the "sneaky guy with the ranged weapon" vs "sneaky guy with daggers", or whatever. And maybe you have really good social skills and can be the party face rounds you out as well, while the other guy focused on being good at tracking or something. There are always differences in characters. Those are the things that define you. And those are what you should focus on.





> To me, the advantage of a class-less system is being able to build a character more or less exactly how I want it (which is probably why I usually prefer those systems, since I generally have a very specific idea). I don't see how potentially being bothered by someone else outshining me has anything at all to do with whether or not the system has classes.



Sure. Again though, when designing that character "just the way you want", that doesn't preclude that some other character also designed just the way their player wants, may just be equal or better than you at something you are good at. It happens. All the time actually. It's not a big deal. You focus on other things, right?





> from your posts I get the impression that you're not a party working towards common goals, but a bunch of individuals working towards overshadowing each other. you don't care that the villain is defeated, you care that YOU did it - or at least gave as major a contribution as possible. you don't help the other guy in trouble because the party needs to succeed, but to get bragging rights. you are not competitive against the challenges offered by the campaign, you are competing against the other players to be better than them.
> your very speech pattern shows this. you always descriibe an adventure like "and here are traps and the rogue gets to be great, then there is a fight and the fighter gets to be great, then there is some magic ritual and the wizard get his chance..." - meanwhile I focus on how the party overcomes obstacles through creativity and teamplay.


I wouldn't go quite that far, but yeah, there do seem to be elements of this. I agree that it's not really a great way to run a game. To re-iterate something I mentioned earlier in this (much too long) post, I prefer characters "shine" based on decisions and actions they make, and not purely because of their build synergizing with the adventure itself. And there's nothing more "fun" than when you have a table of people, all making decisions, and things just "click" during any encounter (combat or social or whatever), and PC A does one thing, PC B does another, and they just work together in a way that neither of them could do on their own. Without discussion or planning. It just happens that way.

That doesn't happen if each player is looking for their one moment when the build for their character is supposed to step up and do their, on queue, one moment to shine, sort of thing. Dunno. That feels forced to me. And I'm sure I'm getting an exaggerated sense of this, but it does feel like it's a tendency this table leans towards.




> everyone enjoys some spotlight. your table is taking it way, way too extremely.


Yeah. Agree 100% And I'll add (again) that I think a lot of that spotlight stuff is being forced. Not sure if that's coming from the GM running the game, or the players pushing for it, or some combination of the two.

The best "spotlight" moments occur spontaneously IMO.

----------


## Batcathat

> Well, no. While each of the other characters will be "better" at A, and "better" at one of the other things, Talakeal's character will be "good enough" to be effective at every single thing. Certainly, in the same ballpark. He's never more than 2 points less capable at anything than the "best" is. Assuming some sort of linear D20ish game system, he's 5% less capable at those things, but 5% better than 60% of the party at everything else at any given point in time. He's more likely to reasonably contribute and be effective in every single phase of the game.


Right, but being that sort of "second best at everything" type isn't something exclusive to class-less games. Most class-based games I've seen have some sort of jack-of-all-trades class that's exactly that (or at least intended to be that, whether or not it succeeds depends on how well the classes are balanced).




> In a classless system, players are less likely to have adopted the "this is my role in the party" mentality, and therefore less likely to be upset about this in the first place.


I think that's more to do with personality than what system they're playing or have played in the past. Some players would be fine with being Dwarf Fighter #4 in the party, some wouldn't want any overlap at all.




> Obviously, this can vary quite a bit from game system to game system, but in my experience you're far more likely to have a larger number of characters that can handle any given situation (perhaps in slightly different ways) in a classless system than in a class based one.


That's not my experience. Obviously it's possible to build that sort of well-rounded characters with a little bit of everything in a class-less system, but a lot of people seem to prefer to still build characters with a specific thing or area of expertise. To me, that's a big part of the appeal with class-less systems. I can come up with some weird concept and make it happen, rather than trying to mold a class into something it's not intended to be.




> I'm not trying to make a specific argument about the merits of one type of game over the other (though I think it's clear where my bias leans). I'm just observing that it seems odd to me that he's playing in a classless system, but seems to want to force the PCs into very specific "roles" that look a heck of a lot like classes to me, complete with the "I'm the one best person for the job, so no one else can do it" approach (which, to be fair, is extreme even for class based systems as well, but he's like leaning into it hard). And yeah, I suppose it's more that this *should* be the mindset difference, not necessarily that it will actually be the case.


I think it's generally less "I'm the one best person for the job, so no one else can do it" and more "there should be things I'm the best at, even if other people also do it". 




> Fair enough. I agree completely that this is about player mentality. But, ironically, given this groups proclivities, it's actually likely that they would be better off actually playing in a class based system. Less likelihood of toe stepping in that case, because classes would somewhat force each to have things they are "best at" and "shine at" and that "no one else can do". I guess what I'm trying to get at (perhaps poorly), is that the same positive about classless systems (anyone can do anything) also means that it's not only possible but *likely* that other characters will be able to do the same sorts of thing you can do, with perhaps only minor degrees of difference in ability.


You might be right, though the list of things Talakeal's group would be better off doing probably also includes "couples counseling", "never seeing each other again" and "starting a fight club". 




> If you have a table full of people who all want to be in their own lane, maybe a classless system isn't the one for them to play in?


I disagree. It's easy building class-less characters where everyone has their own thing, especially if that's something all the players want. Not to mention that having classes is no guarantee toes won't be stepped on (where D&D offers plenty of examples of some classes just being better than others at pretty much literally everything). 




> That's just asking for disappointment IMO. For example, if you initially planned your character around a set of skills, expecting "sneak" to be your focus, but then another character has a high "sneak" as well, would you continue to focus on that? Or decide that some other thing you can do that this other character can't is  your defining/differentiating feature? I suspect that you would. You'd be the "sneaky guy with the ranged weapon" vs "sneaky guy with daggers", or whatever. And maybe you have really good social skills and can be the party face rounds you out as well, while the other guy focused on being good at tracking or something. There are always differences in characters. Those are the things that define you. And those are what you should focus on.


Right. That's almost literally what I said. 




> The fact that my character doesn't have a label saying "rogue" doesn't mean that I wouldn't want to be the party's stealth expert or whatever. Of course, maybe I'm fine with being "the stealthy character who's good with a knife" and don't care that there's also "the stealthy character who's a sniper", but that's just a matter of how specifically the niche is defined.


I'm not saying that everything about my character has to be unique, just that it's reasonable to want a character to have their own thing to shine at (of course, it's still up to the other players whether or not to oblige). 




> Sure. Again though, when designing that character "just the way you want", that doesn't preclude that some other character also designed just the way their player wants, may just be equal or better than you at something you are good at. It happens. All the time actually. It's not a big deal. You focus on other things, right?


To some people it is, to some people it isn't. Like I said, a group can have different approaches to this. Some groups might prioritize everyone having their own thing, some groups might prioritize the ideal party composition, some groups might just build their characters and not care if they end up with five gnomish rogues or whatever.

----------


## King of Nowhere

> Sure. But that's precisely the style of adventuring and scenario building that I find to be, er... poor? This idea that the GM should contrive different challenges to each characters special "thing", so that each can shine? That's hogwash. Very poor gaming IMO.
> 
> Why on earth is the macguffin just sitting there waiting for someone with a high resolve to take it? That's incredibly contrived. Who would actually do that? No one. Only a GM intentionally creating conditions for each character to "shine" would do that. It's not terribly realistic though.
> 
> ...
> 
> I've read those books. And I've watched those films and TV shows. They almost always induce a strong eyeroll reaction from me too. I (maybe hate is too strong a word) seriously dislike writers who contrive that sort of stuff. It's garbage writing. Cheap. Dumb. Insert negative invective here. It's also really lazy.
> 
> OMG! What a coincidence that there are 5 characters exploring the ancient whatever, and we run into exactly 5 obstacles to overcome, and what do you know? Each one of us has one unique skill/ability/whatever that allows us to over come that exact obstacle! What a great story! So beautifully written. So well balanced. Er... no. That's total garbage writing. It's sadly extremely common and used all the time, but it's actually just horrifically awful writing. I would never in a million years actually structure any adventure scenario after those kinds of plots or resolutions. Ever. It's just that bad.


Yes. So much YES, I'm totally going to temporarily derail this thread to jump on this train.
I never ask myself "how can I include an obstacle that showcases the best skill of every player". Rather, I ask myself "how would a smart person with this amount of resources available protect this thing?"
People don't make a vault so that "only the pure of heart may enter" (though that would be pretty effective against talekeal pals). people do not make a vault so that someone with genius intellect can solve the riddles and enter. people make a vault so that only THEY can enter, and a few people they allow.
A temple that allow yourself to be burned alive to access the macguffin? test your resistance to pain to pass?
who would ever make something like that? have you ever seen a bank vault where you have to walk barefoot on hot coals to open it?
and who would ever ask a riddle as a password? what's the point? do you want your enemy to be able to enter freely if he can solve the puzzle? people don't put a riddle, people put a random password, memorize it, and delete any physical record. if they can't memorize the password, they may carry a note with themselves. they may leave the password concealed in plain sight, maybe disguised as a telephone number. or maybe hide the node in the middle of a drawer alongside hundreds of other pieces of paper. they may do something very stupid like setting up a recovery question that can easily be answered by looking at their social media profile. 
but i've certainly never, ever head of someone leaving a post-it on their work pc saying something like "the password walks on four legs in the morning, with two legs at noon, with three legs in the evening". that would be dumb.
people don't make a grid of laser sensors that move slowly and that someone could slip through with a dc 30 tumble check. they make a grid of stationary sensors spaced no more than 5 cm from each other. which is also cheaper. plus, in a fantasy setting they'd also put a magic sensor there in case someone tries to slip through shapeshifted into a mouse or some other foolishness.
*Spoiler: THIS is how you make a safe laser grid*
Show



people don't make small ventilation ducts that are just narrow enugh that somebody really, really limber would have a really hard time getting through. you make the ventilation duct too narrow, period. or, if it must be big, you put a grate in it, or something.
people don't make a big room with columns and statues and obstacles where somebody really good at sneaking could avoid the multiple guard patrols. much better to have a small, straight, empty corridor, well lit and with no cover whatsoever, and a single guard wearing see invisibility goggles at the end.
you don't bother with locking the door with a lock that's just hard enough that the party rogue can open it by taking 20. you bar the door from the other side and put a guard to open. one too dumb to fool, possibly. and if you don't have a guard there to give the alarm, then any intruder can just knock down the door, so there's no point wasting money for an elaborate lock.
*Spoiler: as the image shows*
Show


this looks like a job for the party lockpick! or, you know, you could pry the loose board on the back...


incidentally, all those examples show how the acrobatic burglar archetype is quite useless against smart opponents that just put in a little bit of precautions. guess that's why it's not a popular build at my table.

the point of those obstacles is not that the party should be able to pass them. in that case they would be useless, and whoever made this vault would not want to waste his money on obstacles that his usual enemies could easily bypass. the point of those obstacles is that the party should not be able to get past them.
at this point the players start brainstorming for some smart way past the obstacles. because no matter how impassable, all defences have weaknesses. often they are in the very people that are required to go in and out regularly. maybe you can familiarize with the guards and discover which ones are susceptible to corruption. maybe you can find some really smart way to fool the defences, for example the wizard will cast an illusion that looks exactly like the empty corridor to fool the guard while the cleric is casting silence on the alarm that is set off by spellcasting. in one particularly epic event, the cleric managed to sneak into a high noble mansion by claiming to be the plumber, and rolling a natural 20 on disguise. it looks like something too silly to work, but there's plenty of real life examples of people getting access to protected areas by posing as janitors, delivery guys, or other similar figures. maybe they break in fast, grab the macguffin quickly and escape before reinforces can be summoned.
whatever they do, if they are smart they will find a way. no system is unbeatable. if nothing else, eventually they're going to stumble over something I didn't think of. 
and it's going to be a lot more satisfying that an adventure designed to show off their skills. "remember that time there was that obstacle that required a dc 30 tumble, and my rogue with +20 took 10 and passed it?" meh. " remember that time we infiltrated the mansion disguised as plumbers?" we still remember it, and we still give respect to the cleric player even though he's no longer playing with us and only two of us were there when it happened.


P.S. deadly traps are unlikely. if you live in a place, chances are one day you'll stumble and put your foot on the wrong tile; you don't want to get hit by a poison dart when it happens. it would be like rigging your mobile phone to explode the first time somebody inputs a wrong password. a discreet alarm is much safer for you, and more likely to actually work against pc types.

----------


## Talakeal

Long post incoming. 




> i don't know what you have in your case, anyway if the enemies never use resolve effects on your party because you are all strong, it's not useless. it's a whole lot of effects that you won't have to worry about.


But then they will just do something else.

Who would choose to play scissors if they know the enemy is going to play rock?




> no, we never discussed this splitting of abilities. we make sure to have one physical damage dealer, one healer, one arcane caster, because those are roles that are very important. but as for everything else, we found that other roles can be compensated for.


How do you make sure to have one of each role without any discussion of splitting abilities? This seems to be a contradiction.




> as for your specific case, it's a bit of a border case; ok, you agree to not replicate what others can do, but should it apply to general areas, or to every single bonus? because in the first case, you want to have defence and it's fine for others to have higher resolve or ac or something else than you, so long as you're still tankier on average. in the second case you have a point, but then so would a fighter type if anyone else tries to have a good to-hit bonus, or a wizard if anyone else casts some spells. If I were to arbitrate, I'd say that you can totally ask to be the better tank overall and claim that as your archetype. You can even ask to be the best at tanking magic (requiring high saving throws overall). but if you ask that everyone else has a lower resolve than you, that's too specific.


I think that's actually the opposite of how I would resolve such a conflict.

I would say no to someone wanting to be "the tanking guy", but I might step in if someone wanted to copy a specific build or power, or tell them to divide up the role (like, you can both be rogues, but one of you should focus on picking locks and the other disarming traps).

Of course, it's not really my place to resolve such a conflict in any case. Despite what Gbaj says, I am not going to force anyone to do anything when it comes to character builds.




> Of course, I'd also want to know why everyone else maxxed resolve, but that's not an available information here.


A unique combination of lack of system mastery combined with obstinate defiant disorder.

Sarah couldn't think of a last feat and recalled the time in the previous campaign when Brian had been the only one not to be totally screwed over by the mind control pollen because his character has the "Iron Will" feat, and the other newbies agreed with her and swapped over to it.

Then I stepped in and tried to explain that they were kind of stepping on my toes and that a variety of defenses is better, but Bob jumped in (as he always does when someone gives him advice) and started shouting and swearing and insisting that everyone needed to max out their resolve and rebuild his character to have a superhuman resolve score to prove a point.




> but to stick in d&d, a team with more overlap is not weaker than a team with perfectly diverse skill set.
> say that you got two fighters instead of a rogue. ok, your team is weaker when there are traps and similar stuff.
> but your team is also a lot stronger when there are just plain fights. if there aren't many traps around, this team will perform significantly better than the "balanced" team. the fact that you expect the dm to include certain kinds of challenges, else "all of those build points just go to waste", showcases how you expect the dm to tailor the challenges to a certain kind of party.
> 
> i'd say that different parties just handle challenges differently. a "balanced" team has the rogue disarm the traps and the fighter fighting the guards. a team of fighters will walk through the traps, heal from the damage, and who cares if this will alert the guards who will have time to set up a better ambush, they can still fight them easily. a team of rogues will sneak past the guards and the traps and avoid direct confrontation entirely. a team of clerics will walk through the traps and the guards, they will just keep healing themselves. a team of wizards... well, they have many options, but they do have to prepare in advance.
> all the teams were equally successful against the challenges. they just went at them in different ways, using the strenghts of the party.
> 
> and if you really, really, _really_ need a very specific capacity that the party doesn't have, you can always hire an npc for a mission. "find somebody that can do this and manage to recruit him" can be a good plot.


For the record, please do not assume that I am supporting tailoring the adventure for the players. I don't do it when I DM, and I don't like it when the DM I am playing under does it, but I recognize that it is something that a lot of DM's do and that a lot of very smart people think that DM's should do, so I am not going to act like it never happens.

But it really seems like you might be playing a weirdly designed system (maybe D&D 3E?) if you think it is equally effective to just face tank all the traps as to avoid or disarm them. Especially when so many traps do things other than just "deal damage".

(This probably goes without saying, but we still generally have an understanding about what the game is about. I am not going to prep the same kind of adventures for a game about a group of children at a British boarding school than I would for a group of outlaws on the frontier or a group of mercenaries on the frontlines in World War I.)




> Maybe. I mean, I get what you're saying on an intellectual level, but this does really seem like an artifact of class based systems (and players who have become accustomed to such). It clearly *can* happen (cause OP, right?). But I think that's an artificial constraint being applied by the players themselves to their own characters. It's not a function of the game like it is in class based games (where the rogue will always be better at stealth stuff than the fighter or wizard).
> 
> I'm saying that it *shouldn't* be something that is considered as part of party build at all. Certainly not in the concept of "I've picked stealth, so no one else can be as good at that". My experience is that it's usually not about who is "best" at anything, but that for any given challenge the party is faced with there will be some number of characters who are "good enough" at the appropriate skill(s) to be effective. Those characters all "succeed" equally. Whether one character has a higher skill in something or another thing (and who that character is) is really irrelevant. It's not uncommon at all for 3 or 4 characters to be "good enough" at their stealth skills to send on some scouting or sneaky mission, and not uncommon at all for one to have the highest hide, another to have the highest sneak, yet another to have the highest climb, yet another to have the best lock picking, someone else is best at disarming traps, another better at spotting lookouts, another has spells that can confuse or distract said lookouts, another has better abilities to search for what they're looking for, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> Same deal with melee fighting. Same deal with ranged combat. Same deal with social situations. Same deal with tracking/foraging/mapping. Same deal with everything in these sorts of games. Characters only have single focused/exclusive "roles" in a party if the players steadfastly insist on it. So yeah, to me, they are failing to really grasp the point (and advantage) of classless game systems.
> 
> Er, that's not to say that you shouldn't have a good spread of different abilities among the characters in a party, but it should always be focused on maximizing the overall capabilities of the party. It should never be based on the "exclusive role" type of mentality. I'm totally ok with critiquing the OP party because of the former failing, but not really on the latter. Again, I think that's just a backwards way of looking at things.


It's kind of odd that I am coming from the exact opposite point of view.

To me, the advantage of a classless system is the ability to make a truly unique and special character.

In a class based game, all characters of the same archetype are pretty much the same. If you say someone in AD&D is a "17th level wizard" or "13th level fighter" you pretty much know what there is to know about their capabilities. It is way harder to feel special and unique. 

And then, you are limited to the 12 or so classes and a few variations on them. Even something as simple as a "singing cowboy" archetype is more or less impossible in 3E as there are no classes who can simultaneously have a good BaB and perform as a class skill.

Its also really hard to be good at anything in most class based systems, especially 5E, as everything is so closely tied to your level and your roll in combat. I can't count the number of times when I have wanted to play something like a blacksmith, or a minstrel, or a surgeon, or a merchant and been told by the DM/Forum/Other players "No. You are an ADVENTURER." 

The Angry GM touched on this in a recent article:

"But theres more yet to this analysis. Take good ole d20 D&D for instance. Truth is, failure doesnt mean a whole lot in D&D. A failure wont kill you. It wont usually even hurt you. Usually, it means a wasted action. Youll have to try again or try something else. So the high variability doesnt mean a whole lot. And given the games about legendary fantasy heroes who are expected to do amazing things  when heroes try to do things, they usually succeed  the high-randomness, low-value-of-training-and-talent thing works really well.

Use the same d20 mechanic in a game where failure carries a steep cost and where expertise and training are meant to be everything  like a gritty modern espionage game where the agents have tiles like the Face, the Fixer, and The Hacker  and thatll suck. It doesnt work there."

And although I wouldn't call my system modern or espionage, it certainly plays a lot more like the latter than the former.




> snip


Couldn't have said it better myself!




> So you share melee skills with two other people, yet you don't seem bothered by that. Isn't that infringing on your niche as well? Why is that different?


I already mentoned this upthread.

We all have different weapons and fighting styles, so it's less of an issue.

Also, combat is something that happens a lot more and where everyone is generally able to contribute with cumulative effects, so its less of an issue.




> While I agree that defensive capabilities are absolutely part of character concepts, you are making a case against your own point here.
> 
> Does the existence of Warmachine invalidate Iron Man? They have the exact same powers, after all. 
> Do Juggernaut, Colossus and The Thing invalidate the Hulk, just because they share his toughness?
> If Wolverine and Deadpool both regenerate, don't they infringe on each other's niche?
> Does Superman stop being Superman when bullets bounce off Shazam's chest?
> Speaking of which, is Superman's super-speed less of a superpower just because the Flash is even faster?
> 
> Comic books are full off people with similar powers, especially similar defensive powers. They also team up constantly (Superman and Shazam are even part of the same team). That's because powers don't make the character. They are distinctive because they are different people with different stories. Their powers support their stories but they don't make them.


Comic books absolutely have to work very hard to differentiate characters, and they often fail to do that.

But, being authored fiction, it is a lot easier. 

I actually do think that this can be a major problem, I mean the whole Angel Summoner BMX Bandit trope that is frequently brought up on these boards comparing D&D classes shows the problems you can have when you have one guy (like Superman) who is a generalist who is better than the specialists in their own areas of expertise. Superman alone has more powers than some teams, and his higher showings of speed are frequently above Flash's lower showings, which is why they usually nerf him in a teamup comic.

But I would have a hard time seeing something like, say, a team-up between Flash and Quicksilver end up with anything but Quicksilver as a sidekick unless the authors make sure to warp their powers based on the scene.
I mean, the whole "this looks like a job for Aquaman" I linked earlier kind of lampshades this problem.
Also, DC actually sued Fawcett over Captain Marvel, so they clearly felt that his existence made Superman less special.




> I don't think so. 
> You present this like your party put all the effort into specializing in different areas as if it was a matter of efficiency. but your party is anything but efficient. from your multiple threads here, I know that trying to give tactical suggestions to somebody is a big taboo, so that nobody coordinates because nobody wants to be told what his character should do. in addition to not coordinating, the players often do whatever looks cool without a care for the consequences on the party. 
> 
> so this is not a gaming group that cares much about efficiencies and synergy and accomplishing goals. if you did, you'd play a lot more like my group. 
> 
> from your posts I get the impression that you're not a party working towards common goals, but a bunch of individuals working towards overshadowing each other. you don't care that the villain is defeated, you care that YOU did it - or at least gave as major a contribution as possible. you don't help the other guy in trouble because the party needs to succeed, but to get bragging rights. you are not competitive against the challenges offered by the campaign, you are competing against the other players to be better than them.
> your very speech pattern shows this. you always descriibe an adventure like "and here are traps and the rogue gets to be great, then there is a fight and the fighter gets to be great, then there is some magic ritual and the wizard get his chance..." - meanwhile I focus on how the party overcomes obstacles through creativity and teamplay.
> 
> and so you came up with elaborate ways to split capabilities so that everyone can get a similar amount of bragging points. the objective is not efficiency, it is to avoid hurt feelings.


I agree. My table needs to learn a lot about teamwork. I have made several threads about it recently, and that is one of the big reasons that I am looking forward to being a player again.

That being said, it is hardly unique to this group, or ubiquitous. Every group has a mix of loners, competitive players, spotlight hogs, jealous people, and short attention span people, and my current group is not especially bad in this regard.




> It is a terribly unhealty way of playing. Normally I would insert "I think" before such a drastic statement, but everyone is telling you it's unhealty, so it's not just an opinion.
> however, given how terribly disfunctional your groups are, this is probably the only way to make the game work. I'm not telling you to change your style here.
> but let's be honest here, synergizing as done at your table has nothing to do with efficiency, it's got to do with protecting egos.


I am not sure about that. I am probably the person at the table with the strongest desire to "be unique", but I still encourage teamwork and party synergy from the players. 

Likewise, when I create a group of NPCs, I generally create them with a mix of abilities, even though there is no "player" to have their ego hurt. It's just both more logical and more memorable to do so. 

Although, I guess at my table its kind of hard to separate ego and efficiency; as anytime someone fails at something you better believe they will find someone else to blame and then either pout or throw start a fight.




> and please, don't call that "being competitive". rpg is a team game. being competitive in a team game is trying hard to be good and defeating the other team. wanting to be better than the people in your team is not being competitive, it's being an awful team player.


That's an interesting way of looking at it.

Again, people seem to be trying really hard to turn this into a semantics argument.

I would say that someone who wants to "be the best" and someone who wants to "always win" are both different flavors of competitive.

To use a couple of examples, in World of Warcraft lots of people are obsessed with parses and damage meters. This drives them to get better. People who don't care won't put in the effort to learn their characters, practice, gear up properly, etc. and are a drain on the raid. On the flip side, people who care too much about the meters and getting the number one sport will often take unnecessary risks to get up there and risk wiping the raid and put undo stress on the healers. That's bad.

Likewise, I wouldn't say that someone who is more interested in breaking the school record than winning a given meet isn't competitive.

In Baseball, there is nothing wrong with wanting to be the best pitcher or the best hitter, those desires will push you to get better and to train harder. That's good. Its only if you are doing something to sabotage the others that it becomes bad.

Spending hours in the gym exercising and practicing your shooting because you want to be the best are, imo, admirable qualities in an athlete. But, at the same time, that desire could also cause you take refuse to pass the pall, which is being an awful team player.

Likewise, I would much rather have someone who tries too hard than someone who doesn't care at all.

And, on that note, I have had far more issues in RPGs with not contributing enough to the team than contributing too much. Roleplaying my character's flaws and personality are always far more important to me than the numbers on my sheet, and the vast majority of my conflicts come from refusing to be an emotionless tactical robot. And I take great umbrage as the idea that "rpg is a team game. being competitive in a team game is trying hard to be good and defeating the other team" as that is a very myopic view or a very narrow subset of RPGs.

In short, being competitive is a motivation. Being an awful team player is an action. There could be overlap there, but they are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive, and treating them as if they were is wannabee though policing that doesn't help anyone.




> Not if the rest of the party is still on shore because they can't, you know, swim? What did you think the swimming and climbing skills were being used for here? So you and the one other party member who can swim and climb, swim under cover of night, sneak aboard the enemy ship, and then... <do something plot specific>. As you said, it's an nautical focused game. You don't think this is going to come up at least a few times? Being able to swim over and do <something> would seem to be a pretty "spotlight" moment.


Honestly, I had never even considered it.

I guess it could theoretically come up.

My character is anything but stealthy, and doesn't really have any skills (or personality traits) that would lend to her trying infiltration or sabotage or assassination, nor do I think I am a good enough climber to get up onto the side of the ship without help. The rest of the party would also get pretty bored in the situation.

I was more thinking about boarding an enemy ship during combat or surviving falling overboard.




> The skills that have numerical values and game rules mechanics to resolve? That's "rollpaying", not "roleplaying". That's 100% about determining mechanical resolutions. Picking which skills will be needed to do something is mechanical, not social. I'm not sure why you don't see this.


I am not seeing it because you are using the words differently than I have ever heard them used before.

In my experience a "role-playing vs. roll-playing" decision would be something like: My character has found a bag of gold, will they spend it on a gift for their mother or a +1 sword that helps them in combat? The former is something the character would do in the narrative, while the latter is something that mechanically rewards them in game.

I would never consider something like "My players are frustrated and having a bad time, should I nerf the encounter to let them win?" to be a roll-playing vs. role-playing question as it is completely metagame and involves the emotions of the people around the table rather than their characters, but that is sort of situation you are asking me to apply it to.




> Sure. But that's precisely the style of adventuring and scenario building that I find to be, er... poor? This idea that the GM should contrive different challenges to each characters special "thing", so that each can shine? That's hogwash. Very poor gaming IMO.
> 
> Why on earth is the macguffin just sitting there waiting for someone with a high resolve to take it? That's incredibly contrived. Who would actually do that? No one. Only a GM intentionally creating conditions for each character to "shine" would do that. It's not terribly realistic though.


That was an actual example from a real session, and it was a pretty memorable and emotionally impactful one.

I don't think the GM had any thoughts about allowing one character to shine, if I had to guess I would assume he was inspired by the ritual for crowning the elven phoenix king in Warhammer.




> The macguffin is rumored to be held in the ruins of the ancient temple of Woe. It's been long abandoned by its builders, but still has some ancient defenses. Additionally, a group of local monster/creatures/whatever have moved in and taken up residence. They don't know anything about the original builders, but worship them as powerful beings capable of building great wonders and pray (perhaps foolishly) for their return. They will fight to the death to prevent any outsiders from entering into the "most holy" parts of the ruins (which, of course, happens to be where the macguffin is). You fight/sneak/whatever your way through these annoying things, and find yourself in the center chamber of the temple where the macguffin should be. You approach the altar, and a group of statues come to life and attack you (constructs of some kind)! While they're doing this, another horde of creatures launches an attack as well. Meanwhile, you've clearly triggered some kind of ancient automated defenses and magic spells start firing off and hitting you guys (and maybe sometimes hitting the creatures as well, cause the defenses don't care).
> 
> In the midst of this fight, you see that the altar has opened up, and some demonic face swirls in the flames swearing to destroy you all for defiling this place. Behind the face, you see the macguffin! If you had time, maybe you could disarm the flames. Maybe it's something that could be defeated somehow and it might disable all the defenses. Or maybe someone could just thrust their hands into the flames, take the damage and grab the macguffin and everyone could run away. Who's going to actually do that is going to depend on where people are, how busy they are in the fight, how functional they are, etc. It's a dynamic situation. And guess what? In that case, maybe the "best" person isn't the one who sticks their hand in. But the person that happens to be there at the moment. Maybe they succeed. Maybe they don't.
> 
> Put the players into dynamic situations where they don't have the time or ability to always make "the best" choice. Let characters who aren't "the best" at something attempt it anyway. Maybe the get lucky and succeed? Maybe they don't and you have to wait until someone with a better shot can get to the altar? Maybe you just fight through the constructs, drive off the creatures, hold the demonic spirit thing at bay, and are able to take your time with it later. Lots of ways to deal with this. But just presenting the players with a single "challenge" and a single obvious "solution" and all the time in the world to always have "the best" person do it?


So in short, you hate contrived situations that are designed to give one character a chance to shine so much that you engineer contrived situations where players are forced to act more or less at random rather than letting them decide on a solution organically?




> Yes. I've read those books. And I've watched those films and TV shows. They almost always induce a strong eyeroll reaction from me too. I (maybe hate is too strong a word) seriously dislike writers who contrive that sort of stuff. It's garbage writing. Cheap. Dumb. Insert negative invective here. It's also really lazy.
> 
> OMG! What a coincidence that there are 5 characters exploring the ancient whatever, and we run into exactly 5 obstacles to overcome, and what do you know? Each one of us has one unique skill/ability/whatever that allows us to over come that exact obstacle! What a great story! So beautifully written. So well balanced. Er... no. That's total garbage writing. It's sadly extremely common and used all the time, but it's actually just horrifically awful writing. I would never in a million years actually structure any adventure scenario after those kinds of plots or resolutions. Ever. It's just that bad.


First, let me say that I agree, contrived solutions are lame. My point is that people enjoy having spotlight time, and that denying it is just turning a blind eye to human psychology.

Some players, however, will enjoy games designed to replicate a heist movie or tomb robbing narrative, and will except lame contrivences like that as part of their fun. I'm not one of them, but I don't begrudge them for it.

I DO NOT tailor encounters to my players. But at the same time, I recognize that things will happen organically. I guarantee you that if you give me a random scenario and a random party, I will find places in it where one character has a disproportional impact upon the encounter just because that's how reality works.

In a realistic scenario, a group is going to recruit or train people to overcome the problems they are likely to face in their line of work. If you are bank-robbers, you will bring a safe-cracker, if you are tomb raiders, you will bring someone who can disarm ancient traps and read hieroglyphics, if you are trailblazing across the frontier you will bring someone who knows how to forage and build shelter. Its not contrived for expected hazards to occur. Likewise, the world is complex and varied enough that you will occasionally find people who just so happen to have the right skill for the job; the guy who happened to find a ring of fire resistance will shine when the party just happens to be fighting fire elementals, it's not contrived, it's just random events lining up.




> Yeah. When I was re-reading that, I realized I probably should have trimmed that out. I was talking about the whole "need to hog the spotlight" bit, which you seemed to be aiming at "some players", but not at yourself.


No, that's not me.

I am very quiet and introverted when playing. I kind of hate it when I am thrust into a leadership role in a game. I much prefer to play a support character like a healer or a calm stoic character (as was the goal here). I frequently have DM's who ask me to talk more and to take a more active role in the game, but that just isn't me. I remember one GM saying to me "Look, I get that you enjoy the strong silent type, but this is a two-person party, if you aren't going to be a little more extroverted, nothing is ever going to happen!".

It's nice to occasionally have a moment to shine, but I would hate to have it happen regularly. 

To use an example, the longest running time I was a PC was in a game of Mage. I was playing a healer, and my character was very quiet. There were entire sessions where I would roll zero dice, and say maybe three sentences of dialogue. On the other hand, we had another player who was an oracle, and was constantly telling other people what to do and being the party face, and she put herself in the middle of everything. This player was a classic spotlight hog.

I distinctly remember one time we found a prisoner who had been wrapped in thorns that were cutting into her flesh. I saw this as my chance to do something, and asked to remove the thorns surgically. The oracle insisted we didn't have time for this, and cast a spell to find out the most efficient way to remove the thorns herself. The GM, seeing what was happening, responded with "The spell tells you that the most efficient way for you to remove the thorns is to sit back and do nothing until Talakeal is finished". 

And then I made the medical role, cut her free, treated her injuries, and went back to silently tagging along for the rest of the session.




> Yes. So much YES, I'm totally going to temporarily derail this thread to jump on this train.
> I never ask myself "how can I include an obstacle that showcases the best skill of every player". Rather, I ask myself "how would a smart person with this amount of resources available protect this thing?"
> People don't make a vault so that "only the pure of heart may enter" (though that would be pretty effective against talekeal pals). people do not make a vault so that someone with genius intellect can solve the riddles and enter. people make a vault so that only THEY can enter, and a few people they allow.
> A temple that allow yourself to be burned alive to access the macguffin? test your resistance to pain to pass?
> who would ever make something like that? have you ever seen a bank vault where you have to walk barefoot on hot coals to open it?
> and who would ever ask a riddle as a password? what's the point? do you want your enemy to be able to enter freely if he can solve the puzzle? people don't put a riddle, people put a random password, memorize it, and delete any physical record. if they can't memorize the password, they may carry a note with themselves. they may leave the password concealed in plain sight, maybe disguised as a telephone number. or maybe hide the node in the middle of a drawer alongside hundreds of other pieces of paper. they may do something very stupid like setting up a recovery question that can easily be answered by looking at their social media profile. 
> but i've certainly never, ever head of someone leaving a post-it on their work pc saying something like "the password walks on four legs in the morning, with two legs at noon, with three legs in the evening". that would be dumb.
> people don't make a grid of laser sensors that move slowly and that someone could slip through with a dc 30 tumble check. they make a grid of stationary sensors spaced no more than 5 cm from each other. which is also cheaper. plus, in a fantasy setting they'd also put a magic sensor there in case someone tries to slip through shapeshifted into a mouse or some other foolishness.
> *Spoiler: THIS is how you make a safe laser grid*
> ...


I agree, puzzles and riddles are pretty stupid, and almost never use them unless it REALLY makes sense in character, but some people like them.

As I said above, I do not tailor challenges to the party, and always think organically about what sort of defenses are reasonable.

The thing is, any security system is going to have flaws in it. There are practicality limitations here. Ventilation systems are primarily there to provide adequate ventilation, not block entry. Lasers every 5cm might not be feasible based on the technology, architecture, and budget*.

Likewise, barred doors instead of locks create so many issues; you need to have someone manning them all the time, you need some way to communicate, they cause fire hazards, they restrict the flow of personnel, etc. They could easily be every bit as big of a liability as putting random death traps all over the place.

I work in an actual government facility (albeit not a top secret one or anything), and having locked myself out on night shift plenty of times, I am well aware of the flaws in the security system and the ways to bypass them, and many do in fact involve climbing, jumping, or picking locks.


So, if in real life we had devices that could read thoughts or even control minds, do you not think we would use them in security systems? And do you not think that monks who trained their minds to be able to resist outside influence would not, in such a world, have a role on a team that was infiltrating a facility?


*One of our classic gaming stories was finding a kobold lair where they put chains every 6'' so that nobody bigger than a kobold could move freely. Running some math, we calculated that the kobolds had spent over 10 million gold based on the price of chains in the PHB, and decided that after we killed the kobolds we would retire at level 1 and become chain barons.




> I'm not trying to make a specific argument about the merits of one type of game over the other (though I think it's clear where my bias leans). I'm just observing that it seems odd to me that he's playing in a classless system, but seems to want to force the PCs into very specific "roles" that look a heck of a lot like classes to me, complete with the "I'm the one best person for the job, so no one else can do it" approach (which, to be fair, is extreme even for class based systems as well, but he's like leaning into it hard). And yeah, I suppose it's more that this *should* be the mindset difference, not necessarily that it will actually be the case.


I don't know why you are getting that impression.

I have never "forced" anyone to do anything, the closest I have ever come is, when a new player comes in to an existing group without a character concept in mind, suggest a few things that the party is missing.

I do encourage people to have a diversity of skills and traits for both social and mechanical reasons, but nobody is ever forced into a role.

Likewise, its very rarely, "nobody else can do it". It's just that typically when it comes to a lot of highly precise abilities like surgery, or forging plate armor, or cutting a gem, or picking a lock, or cooking a gourmet meal, having a bunch of less skilled people around trying to help are more likely to get in the way than not.

And for me personally, what I am "leaning hard into" is making a unique character. Its less an issue of "forced roles" than it is of being a "special snowflake", and I would be every bit as peeved (probably more so) if people were copying my appearance, personality, or background. But again, in my system there is so much variability that this almost never happens, although there was a guy named Dave we used to game with who was extremely impressionable and got bored with his character, and whenever he saw anything cool (be it an NPC, another PC, or a movie he watched) he would try and incorporate it into his character, so we would often have this problem regardless of the system we were playing.








I also meant to say something about my group, but I can't find who or what exactly it was in response to.

My group much prefers letting the dice do their thinking for them. They will frequently "roll diplomacy" against NPCs rather than talking, to the point where they won't even tell me what they want or what approach they are using, so I have trouble setting difficulties or arbitrating results. Something like "We flatter the guard hoping he will tell us about the unusual activity" they will say "I want to roll diplomacy to get help from the guard."

Likewise, in my last game we had a situation where the party was looking for a tomb which had a "false tomb" at the entrance to detour thieves. The lever to open the way to the real tomb was disguised as decoration, and the party rolled a 1 on their search check and missed it. They then spent the next two hours doing nothing despite the fact that the tomb was made of stone and the party included a geomancer who could talk to, reshape, move, walk through, and see through stone.

----------


## gbaji

> That's not my experience. Obviously it's possible to build that sort of well-rounded characters with a little bit of everything in a class-less system, but a lot of people seem to prefer to still build characters with a specific thing or area of expertise. To me, that's a big part of the appeal with class-less systems. I can come up with some weird concept and make it happen, rather than trying to mold a class into something it's not intended to be.


Sure. But most people will at least try to make their characters "somewhat useful" for the most common situations they expect to find themselves in. in a combat resolution heavy high fantasy game, you're probably going to at least have some combat skills to use. In a social resolution game, you're going to have at least some social skills. In a solve the mystery game, you'll have some investigative/deduction skills. In a political intrigue game, you'll have some political/social skills. It's the other stuff that varries a lot. And I agree that in a classless system, there's a lot more variety to be had in the combinations of all the different skills, abilities, spells, powers, etc, so you can make really unique characters. But it's usually going to be in the more oddball or unusual abilities, not things that are more common. The more common things? More likely to be just somewhere in a range along with other people at those things.




> I think it's generally less "I'm the one best person for the job, so no one else can do it" and more "there should be things I'm the best at, even if other people also do it".


Right. But in this case, it was "I picked one thing I assumed would be the one thing I would shine at and others took it too". That's not the same thing. Talakeal's charater does have things she is actually best at (mapmaking and some monk stuff that I can't recall at the moment). But he built the charater assuming that resolve would be the one "thing" that defined the character, then met the rest of the team and discovered that was not the case. My point is that you then pivot and play that out, now that clearly resolve *isn't* your special "thing", but other things that you actually are the best at are.

He's not doing that pivot. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that you shouldn't start out building a character and saying "I'm going to be the best in the party at <whatever>, so my role will be <whatever> in the party". You create your character, compare notes with the other characters in the party, then figure out who is best at whatever different things, and determine roles and responsibilities in the party based on that. And as I pointed out in an earlier example, sometimes you start out thinking "I'm going to be the party spellcaster", and then discover that you're one of the more effective melee fighters. So you spend more time fighting in melee. And then, over time, if other characters surpass you at melee fighting, maybe your role then switches to spellcasting at that point. You have to be flexible with your characters and play them based on what they actually *are* and not just what you think they should be.

And yeah, I do happen to think that classless games allow for this sort of flexible roleswitching more than class based games do, but that kind of a side point I guess.





> I disagree. It's easy building class-less characters where everyone has their own thing, especially if that's something all the players want. Not to mention that having classes is no guarantee toes won't be stepped on (where D&D offers plenty of examples of some classes just being better than others at pretty much literally everything). 
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm not saying that everything about my character has to be unique, just that it's reasonable to want a character to have their own thing to shine at (of course, it's still up to the other players whether or not to oblige).


Hah. Yeah, except it doesn't look like that's actually what the rest of the group wants or agrees to oblige. At least in terms of whether a defense counts as a "thing".




> To some people it is, to some people it isn't. Like I said, a group can have different approaches to this. Some groups might prioritize everyone having their own thing, some groups might prioritize the ideal party composition, some groups might just build their characters and not care if they end up with five gnomish rogues or whatever.


My group tends to be somewhere in the middle. We're usually told what the next adventure will consist of in very general terms (long/short, local/distant, low/medium/high/uber power level, etc). in our game, each player tends to have a stable of different characters, and will pick one (or two, which we tend to allow on longer and/or more distant adventures) they think will work well, or just feel like playing. We will often have at least some conversations, but again very rarely concerned with overlap so much as trying to avoid any huge gaping holes in the group.

I can't recall ever having a player be upset that someone else had the same or better skill/power/whatever on an adventure. Like. Ever. Maybe I just play with a more mature group? But it's just strange because I've played with a number of different groups of different age over time, and I don't recall that ever being a major problem in those game either. And it didn't seem to matter much what game system it was. Again though, the closest I've ever seen to this has been in class based games (well, D&D actually), where I have seen folks actively work to make sure that someone else doesn't pick the same class as them, for what I assume is that very reason. Most other games, even if they had classes to some degree, tended to have more specific (and encouter relevant) skill buy systems, so even characters that in the broad sketch were "similar" would still play out very differently (ShadowRun, for example, though I recall that VtM worked pretty similarly as well with clan/ability/skill selection providing plenty of variation).

So maybe that's what driving my belief that this viewpoint derives from class based systems and the inherent assumptions those systems bring with them in terms of "party roles". I suppose it doesn't have to though.




> the point of those obstacles is not that the party should be able to pass them. in that case they would be useless, and whoever made this vault would not want to waste his money on obstacles that his usual enemies could easily bypass. the point of those obstacles is that the party should not be able to get past them.
> at this point the players start brainstorming for some smart way past the obstacles. because no matter how impassable, all defences have weaknesses. often they are in the very people that are required to go in and out regularly. maybe you can familiarize with the guards and discover which ones are susceptible to corruption. maybe you can find some really smart way to fool the defences, for example the wizard will cast an illusion that looks exactly like the empty corridor to fool the guard while the cleric is casting silence on the alarm that is set off by spellcasting. in one particularly epic event, the cleric managed to sneak into a high noble mansion by claiming to be the plumber, and rolling a natural 20 on disguise. it looks like something too silly to work, but there's plenty of real life examples of people getting access to protected areas by posing as janitors, delivery guys, or other similar figures. maybe they break in fast, grab the macguffin quickly and escape before reinforces can be summoned.
> whatever they do, if they are smart they will find a way. no system is unbeatable. if nothing else, eventually they're going to stumble over something I didn't think of. 
> and it's going to be a lot more satisfying that an adventure designed to show off their skills. "remember that time there was that obstacle that required a dc 30 tumble, and my rogue with +20 took 10 and passed it?" meh. " remember that time we infiltrated the mansion disguised as plumbers?" we still remember it, and we still give respect to the cleric player even though he's no longer playing with us and only two of us were there when it happened.


Yup. Any sort of security should be based on what resources the person building them had, what they were defending against, and also how frequently they themselves needed to access that thing. if you're locking something away "for all time", you're going to put very different security on it, than if you're securing the "holy relics we bring out once a season for ritual purposes" or something.

And yes, any static defense can be defeated given enough time and effort (and ability). Never understimate the sheer utility of some form of scrying and telekinesis to get things open (shockingly, things tend to open much easier from the other side). Sometimes, pure brute force can work, if you have enough time, and can deal with any defenders. And yeah, as the old saying goes: "You'd be surprised how many places you can get into with a hard hat and a clipboard".




> P.S. deadly traps are unlikely. if you live in a place, chances are one day you'll stumble and put your foot on the wrong tile; you don't want to get hit by a poison dart when it happens. it would be like rigging your mobile phone to explode the first time somebody inputs a wrong password. a discreet alarm is much safer for you, and more likely to actually work against pc types.


Hah. Absolutely. I once had the party rummaging through this NPC thief guys stuff, and there was a chest, with a poison trap. On a shelf nearby, was an unlabeled bottle with the antidote. Why? Cause he had only trapped the chest when he left for longish periods of time (which, of course, was when the party chose to go there, duh), but even with a really good disam trap, you'll still fail some percentage of the time. So... antidote right there. So he could save himself in case he screwed up. The party thief was able to disarm the trap successfully, but that wasn't the point. They found the bottle in the room (amongst other things), and later figured out what it was. Didn't have any impact on their ability to get into his chest, but it was there to explain why on earth he'd put that trap there in the first place.

As a GM, when considering any defense/trap/security, you must always consider the needs and utility of those things to the person using/creating them and *not* with regard to "how is the party going to get in here". The latter should not be your concern because that would not at all be what the person building that thing would be thinking about (if anything, they'd be thinking the exact opposite). Heck. Same thing for just laying out any kind of dungeon, caverns, castle defenses, or whatever. I mean, yeah, you can consider some degree of balance based on the power level of the group when designing the adventure, but that falls more into the "the people building this were only X powerful, so this is what they can do" sort of way. Within that constraint, defenses should always be about making it as difficult as possible to get in. So yeah, the uber powerful lich kings defenses are going to be more difficult to deal with than the local bandit leaders. Never ever ever design something specifically for different characters to use specific abilities to overcome them. Like ever. That *is* bad writing. And that *is* a form of railroading.

For actively defended locations, "traps" are more likely to do things like jiggle a line that rings a bell in another room alerting the guards, or activate some sort of guardian spirit/demon/construct that has the ability to detect friend from foe (or at least who's allowed access and who is not). Actual deadly traps are extremely rare, and only in those very "rarely or never will anyone go here" situations. Er. You also have to consider age too. Things wear out and fall apart over time. A poison needle trap should no longer threaten anything more than tetanus if it's old enough. I once had the party find a treasure vault thing (hidden like 150 years earlier), that was in an enclosed grotto near an oceanfront (kind of in a cliff area next to the ocean. Hey, it was a pirate themed thing). The original "trap" was that the entire floor was raised 20 feet or so above the rocky/watery area below, with long beams running from the entrance area to the other end (where the treasure was). There were weak panels of "flooring" laid in between the beams. The idea was that you couldn't tell the floor wasn't very solid, and would fall through and take damage on the rocks below. Of course, over time, the support's had weakened, and the beams had bowed, and the floor panels had all rotted and fallen down. So they were presented with some rickety looking 8" or so wide beams, with somehwhat questionable supports below, maybe wobbling a bit, and had to traverse those to get to the other side. Of course, the zombies and skeletons on the other side were still operating just fine...

----------


## Lord Torath

> Then I stepped in and tried to explain that they were kind of stepping on my toes and that a variety of defenses is better, but *Bob jumped in* (as he always does when someone gives him advice) and started *shouting and swearing* and insisting that everyone needed to max out their resolve and rebuild his character to have a superhuman resolve score to prove a point.


You seriously need a lot more of this:

Bob! Out!  You can come back in when you can behave yourself.  We do not shout and scream and swear at the other players.  Out!

----------


## King of Nowhere

anyway, back on topic, some ideas emerged here got me thinking.

you have troubles accepting that the other party members have more resolve than you, even though you trained all your life for resolve and they don't. and it creates a disconnect between lore and numbers.
well, you could see them as being incredibly stubborn. they are, after all, your players. they are NOT going to change their mind, and they are NOT going to be manipulated, and they are NOT going to change their course of action just because someone else tell them to. they will do what they feel like doing, and they won't be intimidated; even threats to their lives will not make them back off from exerting their fundamental right of stabbing a blocke on the street that looked at them funny. 
impossible to manipulate, impossible to intimidate, impossible to divert from their course... looks like epic-level resolve to me. 
just because they have high resolve doesn't mean they have to be _right_. in fact, lots of dunbasses use their strong resolve to keep being dunbasses against all proof to the contrary. and resolve doesn't have to necessary equate with emotional stability either. it's not like everyone who's headstrong is also stable.

as for you being the calm rock of stability in the party, the role is yours. those are, after all, your players. I am pretty sure a 5 years old kid would be a calm rock of stability in comparison. being a den-mother... well, you can only be that if they let you. which, being your players, they won't. you can at most be a cassandra, telling them to rein in their impulses or else. but they won't be reined in, they are too resolute for that. 
now I want to make a cassandra prestige class, based around a power named "I told you so!"

anyway, in the temple and flame scene, you can tell your teammembers that the flame insulted them and said it bet they wouldn't resist the pain of being burned for five minutes straight, and you'll see them jumping in. and do a better job than your character could have. they are channelig the power of their immaturity.

maybe seeing things in this light may help you accept the stats?

as for your fear of being made irrelevant, you should not worry. 
first, according to what you told in previous posts, in every situation you'll be overshadowed by someone else, but all the rest of the party will be completely useless. and unless the only other guy who can swim is going to reach the other boat first and try to board it alone, he'll have to wait for you.
wait, those are your players, so he may be fully capable of jumping in first, go alone, and get killed. in which case you'll get to play your cassandra ability.

anyway, i'm sure you'll find ways to save the day even without being mechanically the best at anything, simply because you ca count on your players being stupid and putting themselves in trouble

----------


## Talakeal

> I would be ecstatic and enjoy tasty scotch.


Ok, so here is an irl example that came up this morning.

My room mate is with me at my parents for xmas because his family lives across the country. May roommate and my parents agreed not to get each other gifts months ago.

He held to the agreement, while they bought him a very nice gift in-spite of it.

He is very embarrassed and feeling betrayed.

Is he wrong to feel this way instead of just enjoying his gift?

----------


## Batcathat

> Ok, so here is an irl example that came up this morning.
> 
> My room mate is with me at my parents for xmas because his family lives across the country. May roommate and my parents agreed not to get each other gifts months ago.
> 
> He held to the agreement, while they bought him a very nice gift in-spite of it.
> 
> He is very embarrassed and feeling betrayed.
> 
> Is he wrong to feel this way instead of just enjoying his gift?


While "betrayed" makes it sound a little melodramatic in my opinion, I think it's rather reasonable to be a little upset about it. They had made an agreement and it should be fairly obvious that breaking it might put your roommate in an awkward position, even if it wasn't meant to. That said, if it was me I'd probably spend thirty minutes being annoyed and maybe a little embarrassed before moving on and enjoying my gift. 

Though I suppose the fact that it might trigger my pet peeve against people thinking they can do whatever they want if they do it for the "right" reasons (helping someone, being nice, etc.), in which case I might be a little more pissed (though probably not for much longer, I think I might be physically incapable of holding a grudge for very long).

----------

