Do you hate getting forced into roles too?


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 324 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

CourtFool wrote:
pachristian wrote:
I believe there is a wide gap between "optimal" and "useless".

So we are agreed! Anything done 'too much' is a problem. Or, "Disruptive player is disruptive"

I believe there is another dynamic in here as well which causes trouble. When you have two or more people, who are both within that gap you reference, but in opposite sides of it.

I don't think we're allowed to agree. The gods of causuality are probably stalking us both now.... Let's find some trivial, off-topic point to flame each other about, and burden this thread with useless commentary. That should save us. (That's why people do it, right?)

But yeah, the group dynamic is important as well. Especially how the characters relate to each other.

And a disruptive player will find a way to be disruptive - no matter what he/she is playing!


I agree to an extent. I dislike the traditional roles: tank, healer, skill monkey, arcane caster. I think that in many novice groups (in mentality or experience) it's easy to default to this concept, especially with the prevalence of MMO's and other video games. However, I think it's important for every character to fill their own niche.

Your niche can be anything, but it should be something that you are bringing to the table. Being a font of knowledge, a charming party face, a terrain altering spellcaster, the traps & locks expert, the scout, dealing with melee (whether being in it or putting summons/enchanted monsters in it), dealing with long ranged enemies, debuffing & debilitating enemies with magic or maneuvers, etc. etc. Nearly any niche could be filled by any class, but they remain important. It gives the player the opportunity to feel the shine of the spotlight, and never leaves them or their allies questioning why they bring this guy/gal along.

Role? No thanks. Niche? Every time.


pachristian wrote:
Let's find some trivial, off-topic point to flame each other about, and burden this thread with useless commentary.

I could always just hump your leg.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

I've experienced an opposite problem where the GM says, "Play whatever you want," and then a player who was going to play one thing suddenly switches their own character because they perceive a "gap." And even when the GM and/or other players say, "No, don't switch characters!" they switch anyway. I have seen a number of people do this on a number of occasions. I've even altered my own character concept on occasion because of feeling pressured---not by anyone but myself--to take a different path so as to neither step on someone's toes nor to have a "role" missing in the party.

Interestingly, this came up in a recent conversation... and the point was actually to build an unorthodox party of all arcane spellcasters. The game isn't happening yet, but one of my fellow players was talking down the line of running an all-arcanists campaign. You can multiclass into non-arcanist classes but should have some arcane focus. One of my friends started excitedly talking about a monk/sorc/dragon disciple build, another friend talked about arcane duelist, and I had mentioned I'd created for the first attempt at the campaign (which didn't happen due to the GM getting hurt) playing a straight up sorcerer. Then the first friend, very excited about his character, said dejectedly, "Oh, but if we don't have a cleric, maybe I should play a mystic theurge instead." The would-be player of the arcane duelist pointed out he'd have cure spells and we'd figure healing out if another player didn't bring in a divine caster multiclass---the whole point after all was to be an unorthodox party build to begin with.

But it is just odd---and again, knowing I fall prey to the mindset myself---how we as players will limit ourselves to the "classic four" even when we're explicitly told not to. Now, to be fair---there is to a degree a reason for that. You do want some level of meat shielding, expertise, healing, and blast/utility magic but it's also fun to find ways to do things differently. I in fact ran a 3.x campaign that was a sword-and-board ranger, axe-and-board paladin, bow using cleric (yes, bow using cleric), and single-weapon-fighter/rogue/shadowdancer... and they were conquering a wizard's haunted laboratory. They didn't go about things the way they might've if they had an arcanist in the group, but they certainly handled things very well and very creatively.


I think the only time that's ever come up for my group(s) has been "we need some healing". Nobody ever cares what class the healing comes from. A Bard or Ranger with cure spells covers it well enough. If it's a higher level group that can afford the magic items just make sure you have a wand of CLW (and someone who can use it) and some potions.


The only time I change a character concept around drastically is if someone has an almost identical concept, as 2 characters with the same skill set and niche don't work well together in the same party. Otherwise, I tend to be happy playing just about anything, with the exception of rogue; for some reason, my dice do not like disable trap, and I personally detest the sneak attack mechanic.

Liberty's Edge

Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:

RD I dislike many topics you start.

I am in total agreement with you here however. I don't play much, but when I started DMing my pet bugbear was always that the group 'needed' XYZ. It was nearly always 'Cleric', and people would always be saying 'i'd like to play this but the group needs a...'

It would make me rage... I spent years trying to get my regular group out of this mindset.

I had a similar experience at first, but over the years our groups have learned to find ways to make groups work as groups. You still need people to be able to do certain things (healing is obviously still mission critical...) but after you find the person "assigned" to a role is now in the other part of the split group, or worse dead, you realize people in your group need to be able to multi-task and be versatile.


CourtFool wrote:
This does not mean everyone has to be best of buddies and take long, hot showers together.

But ... that's my favourite type of 'adventure'!


An odd conversation.

Roles in 3.x don't really exist. You don't need a dedicated healer in the slightest. There really isn't a "heavy guy in the front" role since it's so easy to bypass them and they have no means of keeping enemies focused. Most traps can be solved in ways other then "Rogue."

I've never been forced into a role. I refuse to even give legitimacy to their existence ;p

The only role that really exists is "spellcaster."

Liberty's Edge

ProfessorCirno wrote:

An odd conversation.

Roles in 3.x don't really exist. You don't need a dedicated healer in the slightest. There really isn't a "heavy guy in the front" role since it's so easy to bypass them and they have no means of keeping enemies focused. Most traps can be solved in ways other then "Rogue."

I've never been forced into a role. I refuse to even give legitimacy to their existence ;p

The only role that really exists is "spellcaster."

My thoughts on this post

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Were you really expecting anything else?

The Exchange

Can a party survive without a particular class or 'role'? Of course it can. Does a party benefit more from having a good balance of the traditional roles? It certainly does.

I can play to fill just about any gaps. I have my preferences, but I'm perfectly able and willing to adapt for the good of the group.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I often end up letting everyone else pick the characters they want to play, and then I make a character that plugs any egregious holes in ability I see in the party. I don't mind at all, really. I enjoy making something I will enjoy that will fill some role. I consider crafting a character within limits a part of the fun.

But our next game, I'm being totally selfish and playing what I want to play.

I'm going to play a halfing. A halfling stowaway.

So there!


ciretose wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

An odd conversation.

Roles in 3.x don't really exist. You don't need a dedicated healer in the slightest. There really isn't a "heavy guy in the front" role since it's so easy to bypass them and they have no means of keeping enemies focused. Most traps can be solved in ways other then "Rogue."

I've never been forced into a role. I refuse to even give legitimacy to their existence ;p

The only role that really exists is "spellcaster."

My thoughts on this post

Such a logical and in depth response!

Mind you, I'm not stating "EVERYONE MUST BE A SPELLCASTER." I'm saying that the role of the "spellcaster" in 3.x is one that can't be readily duplicated as easily as the other roles. At best you can utilize Use Magic Device and a whole lot of wands, but even then you really aren't doing that great of a job.

In other words, a standard party probably needs a spellcaster, but the rest of the party can typically play whatever they want.


Jess Door wrote:

I consider crafting a character within limits a part of the fun.

But our next game, I'm being totally selfish and playing what I want to play.

I'm going to play a halfing. A halfling stowaway.

So there!

Oooh! Oooh! I know! Halfling Monk! Only he joined the monastery because he was a KLUTZ and his parents got tired of him blowing Stealth checks on their cow-stealing missions!

And of course, in spite of him being slightly less combat effective than a comparable mass of moldy potatoes, he can be the Key to the Advencharr!

Tongue so firmly in cheek I can taste earwax


AdAstraGames wrote:
Oooh! Oooh! I know! Halfling Monk! Only he joined the monastery because he was a KLUTZ and his parents got tired of him blowing Stealth checks on their cow-stealing missions!

That actually could be a fun character to play in the right party.


sunshadow21 wrote:
The only time I change a character concept around drastically is if someone has an almost identical concept, as 2 characters with the same skill set and niche don't work well together in the same party. Otherwise, I tend to be happy playing just about anything, with the exception of rogue; for some reason, my dice do not like disable trap, and I personally detest the sneak attack mechanic.

Depends on the game, surely. In fact, if you're a gang of thieves working one particular type of job in a city, you'll probably all need similar skill sets if you don't want to be an active liability. And in my current Pendragon game our characters primary skills are nearly identical, and even the secondary ones are pretty similar with the exception of Sir Ivor, who is Cambrian and deserves it.


Ravingdork wrote:

If you've roleplayed long enough, surely your friends have approached you asking you to play a certain role in the party because it (1) hadn't been filled yet and (2) they felt it was absolutely necessary to the party's survival.

I for one do not believe that any one class is necessary for a party's survival (or even a certain class combos) if the PCs are played intelligently and to their strengths.

Got a party of rogues? Don's sit around and let the earth elementals bash you to bits like idiots. Run away and set up traps. Be sneaky and inventive like rogues are want to do. You're faster and smarter than they are. Pull an ewok.

A party of spellcasters fighting a golem? Keep your damned distance for starters! You can generally outmaneuver a golem by a factor of ten. Use no SR spells on them or target the terrain around it (trapping a golem is often as good as destroying it as far as XP and survival is concerned).

A bunch of physical types against a spellcaster? Rush him. He can have a bunch of buffs up that make hitting him in melee or at range incredibly hard, but he can't cover all of his bases at once. Something will get through. If there are four of you attacking him at once with full attacks, he's likely to take enough damage to go down in round 1 despite his defenses.

If the party asks me to make a rogue because they have no way of dealing with traps, I may just make a rogue with the scout/thug archetype and let them think their way out of the traps (mage hand and knock goes a long ways towards opening trapped doors).

The only thing forcing roles does is kill imagination and verisimilitude. Try thinking your way our of a situation for a change.

/rant

Of course sometimes being asked to take on a certain role (one that you don't normally play) can lead to some really fun PCs. My personal favourite was when I was asked (begged really) to create some kind of healer for our 3E group in Shackled City. I went with a dwarven Favoured Soul and took nothing but healing and buff spells. Even the feats were geared towards making buffs & healing last longer/be more powerful. I would have to say he was the funnest character I have ever played. I had zero offensive capabilities but nothing could get by the protective magics I layered on the party each day (I talking about multiple Mass Resist Energies lasting hours each!) and once combat started everyone waited for me to fire off one of three combat-boosting spells (I had a spell that gave me a total of +13 to initiative). It was tremendous fun suddenly being *the* good to guy for combat direction (one player had his PC basically into a hero worship mode saying stuff like "Well, what does Bruno want me to do? I make no move without his say so!").

So yeah I wouldn't say the only thing forcing roles does is kill imagination. Maybe you need to get shaken out of your groove once in a while.

Liberty's Edge

One of my GMs (my favorite) never allowed people to tell others what they were playing before the game started. So if we started with all rogues so be it. These were the more enjoyable games. The challenge was greater. The only down side (which I enjoyed) was paranoia of other characters goals/alignments/factions. When I get a chance to DM again

Scarab Sages

Well, this issue sort of came up in my Kingmaker game this week.
I am the DM, btw...

Current party: Witch,Alchemist,Cavalier,Inquisitor (We started off wanting to test the new classes in Beta...),Cleric/Wizard,lvl 7, except for the C/W, who is 3/3, he just needs to show and bump up to 7th (his schedule only allows him to play every other week).

We started at 6 players, then 5, then 4 (People had to drop due to work/school, understandable).
Last week, the player who had dropped originally informed me that he could once again play, as he no longer had a conflicting school schedule.
Now, the players who have been in it the whole time actually like how 4 players is moving a lot quicker than before, so they were lukewarm to him returning (I should note that we are all great friends, outside of the game, and many of us work together at a Nightclub, have similar work schedule, etc..generally a great fit).

I told Kit (The guy wanting to return) that if he was going to return, he had to play a Cleric. Now, the party has a Witch (Healing Hex) and an Alchemist for Potions. There is another Cleric, sort of... Cleric3/Wizard3... So Healing, per se, isn't a problem. I have also allowed them to get a hold of CLW wands etc, again, no need for a Healbot.
No, the party, the town...Needs a proper Cleric, Story-wise.
The current C/W serves Cayden Cailean ( And is a drunkard...his Temple is little more than a brewery). Initially, the townsfolk loved this...and then (Kingmaker, remember) drunken brawls became more frequent in the streets. Laborers started missing work, from attending 'services', generally, productivity became less than optimal.
Perhaps we are projecting (Myself and 2 of the other characters are all bartenders, the C/W used to be as well).
As I was saying, their new land needs a proper Cleric.
So, I told Kit (Who loves Clerics, btw...) that Yes,he could rejoin the game if he played a dedicated Cleric, Lvl 7, no C3/W2/R2 or whatever: that isn't a High Priest... They group doesn't need that. Bases covered is not an issue (I have a pool of NPCs for them to use in town, we have been playing a very Organic and interactive game, where they take an active role in the governing , as well as the welfare of the townsfolk. Need a Rogue for an adventure? Well, Norry (Town guard) used to be a Bandit, and he steps right up to help if called upon. Need advice? I made an old Oracle that lives at the outskirts of town who has a lot of knowledge skills, and is a rather good man for a bit of Wisdom. We have even run some alt mini-sessions with secondary characters, since the A-team was in the field when 'things went down' in town.The Baron had some legit RP things that he knew a Ruler should have been doing for about 3 sessions...so the Player played a guardsman, sent along as extra muscle. I guess I am lucky. these guys can optimize, they sometimes Min-max, but they are loving an over-arching story of the birth of a nation.

Anyways... the party didn't force him to play a Cleric (Again, he loves them), but we decided that if we were going to add someone back into our smooth running machine, he had better be a meaningful contribution,Classwise, Rolewise, as well as getting the fledgling town back on track. Kit loved it. He had been wanting to try out Erastil, but hadn't the proper game before (He plays 2 others). Perfect fit for in a frontier town. He hunts down Abberations, makes sure that poachers aren't killing off more than they need, and presides over marriages, and some legal disputes (We gave him backstory as if he were in the area for a while, know peripherally to the other PCs).

Now, he didn't make exactly what they had been expecting, and came in with a badass Archer-Priest, not a Healbot/Buffer. Fine with everybody.
He and the Inquisitor are very competitive with their shots...the Alchemist doesn't trust him, seeing him as usurping some of his power, the Baron (Witch) is keeping an eye on him, in case the commoners take too big a liking to him, the Cavalier,while he doesn't personally care, has to hear his Cohort chatter on (Kobold follower of Erastil, who is thrilled to have a proper Cleric around... The C/W (As mentioned) hasn't met the new guy, but the interplay should be great.

My point being, you can have a stated role/class that is needed, present it properly and still have everyone happy.

We didn't say 'Kit, we need healing, so...you are the Cleric. We said 'Man, Stagsfall is in trouble, people are not sure what to do, their Moral Compass is off, what do ya think about playing a Cleric and sorting things out? Again, he jumped at the idea.

-Uriel

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
AdAstraGames wrote:
Jess Door wrote:

I consider crafting a character within limits a part of the fun.

But our next game, I'm being totally selfish and playing what I want to play.

I'm going to play a halfing. A halfling stowaway.

So there!

Oooh! Oooh! I know! Halfling Monk! Only he joined the monastery because he was a KLUTZ and his parents got tired of him blowing Stealth checks on their cow-stealing missions!

And of course, in spite of him being slightly less combat effective than a comparable mass of moldy potatoes, he can be the Key to the Advencharr!

Tongue so firmly in cheek I can taste earwax

? This appears to be in reference to something, but I'm not sure what.

Dark Archive

My friends and I usually give some thought to what everyone else is playing when choosing classes. The role that is most often found lacking is the healer of course, so occasionally someone has been talked into changing or tweaking (such as playing a paladin rather than a fighter) their idea to help fill that role. Often the person who shows up last/late is the one who "volunteers" for this.

Oddly enough we actually had a recent situation where we found ourselves lacking a "blaster mage" type, so I retired my Summoner and built a casting-focused Druid to help fill that slot. Actually I first made a Magus, but 1; he didn't fill that slot like I thought he would and 2; he got killed so I switched to the Druid. I'm actually really looking forward to this game as making this character has reminded me why I used to love playing Druids, especially with the Fire Domain.


Ravingdork wrote:

If you've roleplayed long enough, surely your friends have approached you asking you to play a certain role in the party because it (1) hadn't been filled yet and (2) they felt it was absolutely necessary to the party's survival.

I for one do not believe that any one class is necessary for a party's survival (or even a certain class combos) if the PCs are played intelligently and to their strengths...

Recently(well, over time and is coming to a head recently), not forced into a certain role, but definitely out of.

We have a player, who plays in every game anyone has going on(or else), who plays self-centered, every-man-for-himself evil characters, every. single. game. My character had recently been slain by a powerful monster and there were no readily available means to revive, so I began rolling up a new character. This is so far a non-evil campaign; everyone (except evil guy) is neutral-ish for the most part. I was actually talked out of making anything inherently good-aligned because "ol' evil guy will fight ya".

So yes, in a relatively non-evil campaign, players are talked out of making good characters, all in fear of what that evil player will do to them in-game. Did I mention he plays in every single game going on? Yeah. Gods forbid someone ever feel like playing a Paladin, or even a Good Fighter.


Jandrem wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

If you've roleplayed long enough, surely your friends have approached you asking you to play a certain role in the party because it (1) hadn't been filled yet and (2) they felt it was absolutely necessary to the party's survival.

I for one do not believe that any one class is necessary for a party's survival (or even a certain class combos) if the PCs are played intelligently and to their strengths...

Recently(well, over time and is coming to a head recently), not forced into a certain role, but definitely out of.

We have a player, who plays in every game anyone has going on(or else), who plays self-centered, every-man-for-himself evil characters, every. single. game. My character had recently been slain by a powerful monster and there were no readily available means to revive, so I began rolling up a new character. This is so far a non-evil campaign; everyone (except evil guy) is neutral-ish for the most part. I was actually talked out of making anything inherently good-aligned because "ol' evil guy will fight ya".

So yes, in a relatively non-evil campaign, players are talked out of making good characters, all in fear of what that evil player will do to them in-game. Did I mention he plays in every single game going on? Yeah. Gods forbid someone ever feel like playing a Paladin, or even a Good Fighter.

So your next character is the paladin out to avenge his wrongs.

What? You have a rationale as good as his and a good reason to get the first Smite in! :D If he complains just point out that you are being no worse than him znd at least you are willing to play variety.

Edit: Just to be clear, this was said with tongue firmly in cheek.


Jandrem wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

If you've roleplayed long enough, surely your friends have approached you asking you to play a certain role in the party because it (1) hadn't been filled yet and (2) they felt it was absolutely necessary to the party's survival.

I for one do not believe that any one class is necessary for a party's survival (or even a certain class combos) if the PCs are played intelligently and to their strengths...

Recently(well, over time and is coming to a head recently), not forced into a certain role, but definitely out of.

We have a player, who plays in every game anyone has going on(or else), who plays self-centered, every-man-for-himself evil characters, every. single. game. My character had recently been slain by a powerful monster and there were no readily available means to revive, so I began rolling up a new character. This is so far a non-evil campaign; everyone (except evil guy) is neutral-ish for the most part. I was actually talked out of making anything inherently good-aligned because "ol' evil guy will fight ya".

So yes, in a relatively non-evil campaign, players are talked out of making good characters, all in fear of what that evil player will do to them in-game. Did I mention he plays in every single game going on? Yeah. Gods forbid someone ever feel like playing a Paladin, or even a Good Fighter.

I feel for you. Sounds like a real buzz-kill, particularly if you are someone like me, who plays these games partly for the chance to be heroic in ways ordinary life doesn't usually give us.

My suggestion is to start roleplaying your characters how you think they would honestly react to this guy's scumbag characters. Which would probably be getting together and deciding to ditch him first chance they get. After all, why in the world would anyone want to adventure with a character like that? Make him as a player face the consequence of his choices by making his character face the logical consequence of his actions.

And if he is engaging in PvP behavior to bully people into doing what he wants, give it back to him, in spades. Mercilessly kill his characters, repeatedly, as soon as they threaten or kill another character. If his character is too powerful for any single character to take individually, gang up on him, or rat him out to local law enforcement, or put out a hit on him with local do-gooders by letting them know what he's doing. After his character dies a dozen times or so, he should get the message, unless he's stupid as well as acting like a jerk.

Or you can go the other direction and make characters just as evil and self-centered as his or worse and revel in the PvP mayhem. Not my cup of tea, but I think it can be fun if everyone is into it.

In the end, if he can only get his jollies by playing characters that ruin your fun, and won't change, y'all need to decide if either he goes or you do. You can't let one guy dictate the entire game just by being the least flexible, or the most willing to be a jerk.


Brian Bachman wrote:


I feel for you. Sounds like a real buzz-kill, particularly if you are someone like me, who plays these games partly for the chance to be heroic in ways ordinary life doesn't usually give us.

My suggestion is to start roleplaying your characters how you think they would honestly react to this guy's scumbag characters. Which would probably be getting together and deciding to ditch him first chance they get. After all, why in the world would anyone want to adventure with a character like that? Make him as a player face the consequence of his choices by making his character face the logical consequence of his...

In a normal setting, this would work. But this guy has been at this for years. I could make a gleaming Paladin of all the is right and holy, smite him to nothingess, then his next character is just a carbon copy of his last one. I've done it before. This player and I have exchanged bouts in several different campaigns. And in the end he just keeps doing it.

The kicker is that outside of gaming, he's actually a great guy. He a very supportive friend, loyal, protective, etc. Gaming is sort of his jerk-outlet.

Brian Bachman wrote:


In the end, if he can only get his jollies by playing characters that ruin your fun, and won't change, y'all need to decide if either he goes or you do. You can't let one guy dictate the entire game just by being the least flexible, or the most willing to be a jerk.

This is actually what some of us at the table are pondering. What makes matters worse is I'm his means of transportation to gaming, as he can't drive. I also quoted this particular paragraph because this is exactly what usually happens, and is happening right now. He is the least flexible, and the entire game bends around him. I've had enough. The current games will no doubt implode, so the next game I start with the decent players, we're just not inviting him.


Jandrem wrote:


The kicker is that outside of gaming, he's actually a great guy. He a very supportive friend, loyal, protective, etc. Gaming is sort of his jerk-outlet.

...

This is actually what some of us at the table are pondering. What makes matters worse is I'm his means of transportation to gaming, as he can't drive. I also quoted this particular paragraph because this is exactly what usually happens, and is happening right now. He is the least flexible, and the entire game bends around him. I've had enough. The current games will no doubt implode, so the next game I start with the decent players, we're just not inviting him.

Best of luck to you. The top part is the real conundrum and undoubtedly why you have tolerated his behavior all these year. You hate to risk losing a good friend just because they are a jerk when (and only when) gaming. I'm assuming you have tried talking to him about it and finding out why in the world he does it, and have let him know how you feel about it. If not, I would do so, and maybe give him an ultimatum to shape up or ship out. If he doesn't agree to modify behavior or is he just can't help himself, all you can do is decide whether to continue to tolerate it or not and deal with the fallout.

We've had a few players with gaming jerk tendencies over the years, but generally have dealt with them by forceful "don't be a jerk" peer pressure that has quickly modified behavior. Helps that our anti-jerk patrol is both numerous and not conflict-averse.


Jandrem wrote:
He a very supportive friend, loyal, protective, etc.

Then why not talk to him about it? If he is such a good friend, surely he will be willing to find some common ground where both of you can enjoy the game.

"Hey, you have played Evil McVile the past several games. I kinda want to play the classic good guys for a change and not have to worry about watching my back around your character. What do you think?"


CourtFool wrote:
Jandrem wrote:
He a very supportive friend, loyal, protective, etc.

Then why not talk to him about it? If he is such a good friend, surely he will be willing to find some common ground where both of you can enjoy the game.

"Hey, you have played Evil McVile the past several games. I kinda want to play the classic good guys for a change and not have to worry about watching my back around your character. What do you think?"

I think I've asked him that very question lol, though worded slightly different. He won't budge. It's how he's always been, and how he thinks he'll always be.

I'm not including him in any more games I run, and I'll be hesitant to play in any he's in either. And yes, I'm going to flat out tell him about it. I don't think he understand the difference between "evil" alignment and "a-hole" alignment. I'm all for evil, as long as it's not turned inward toward the other party members. Maybe once he realizes he's sitting at home watching tv while the rest of us are playing without him, maybe he'll ease off of the jerkishness.


I don't mind being forced into a role - in fact, I almost prefer it. Lately, I've been waiting for everyone else to make their characters, and then choosing for myself the "role" that's missing.

The reason I like doing so is because limitations encourage creativity. Once I have some guideline to work within, I can really play with the concept - especially if the party composition left more than one empty role that I can fill.

I don't like having to take a role I played recently, though.


Jandrem wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Jandrem wrote:
He a very supportive friend, loyal, protective, etc.

Then why not talk to him about it? If he is such a good friend, surely he will be willing to find some common ground where both of you can enjoy the game.

"Hey, you have played Evil McVile the past several games. I kinda want to play the classic good guys for a change and not have to worry about watching my back around your character. What do you think?"

I think I've asked him that very question lol, though worded slightly different. He won't budge. It's how he's always been, and how he thinks he'll always be.

I'm not including him in any more games I run, and I'll be hesitant to play in any he's in either. And yes, I'm going to flat out tell him about it. I don't think he understand the difference between "evil" alignment and "a-hole" alignment. I'm all for evil, as long as it's not turned inward toward the other party members. Maybe once he realizes he's sitting at home watching tv while the rest of us are playing without him, maybe he'll ease off of the jerkishness.

Just let him know that in the next game it's a good aligned party and if he doesn't want to play good-aligned, he can find another ride to the game because you are entitled to have your fun.

If he's that good a friend he will be OK after he realises that he's been spoiling your fun for years.


as someone who DM's all the time I get frustrated when I hear talk about "what does the party need" and I always respond the same...

the party needs you to play a character you will like, if you all make bards then I'll make combat that is fitting for a bard team, if you all play wizards i'll adjust the game..

I want indepth and fun characters, not the stereotype party. great game i ran once had 2 rangers, a bard, a fighter, and a monk, no spell casters or healing really it and was lots of fun cause the characters were awesome.

personally I've seen some awesome duo work done by two characters of the same class, rogues flanking each other, spell casters comboing spells (reduce person plus gust of wind great way to deal with pesky medium size annoyance), etc etc.

but you know i'm just that type of dm, I have more fun with cool characters than tactical players. cause honestly if its a numbers game, in the end i'll "win"


The people I frequently play usually end up playing the same roles, I like being the "wild card" of the party, the problem is, they don't like arcane spell casters, which I always tend to fill the role up (Not that I mind, but I don't mind playing support/healing, however, pure martial classes bore me to death, sure they are useful, but I like to do more than attack stuff.)


Leshok wrote:
…I have more fun with cool characters than tactical players.

This. It pretty much sums up a lot of problems and miscommunications I have had with groups/players before.


Ravingdork wrote:

If you've roleplayed long enough, surely your friends have approached you asking you to play a certain role in the party because it (1) hadn't been filled yet and (2) they felt it was absolutely necessary to the party's survival.

No, actually. We have a standing "play what you want" rule. Our biggest problem is that we have a couple of people who won't play a class or race if that class or race is already being played. Drives me nuts. [Rant]STOP WANTING TO BE SPECIAL![/rant]

Sczarni

In short, no, I don't hate getting "forced" into particular roles.

Since I DM most of the time, and really enjoy character creation / tweaking the system, having a target to work for really help set limits & goals for CharGen.

Otherwise, I tend to get distracted and revert to "has high AC, Saves, does lots of damage, and can take 10 with high numbers" highly optimized CIA operative types.

When the others at the table say, "I'm playing a Melee Wizard, Beastmaster Druid, and Super-Archer-Fighter" my plan usually reverts to "healer/buffer", unless they yell at me and tell me to do something else.

I guess it's just the gamer in me, wanting to "win" all the time. :D


I remember someone rolling up a cleric.

And someone getting mad at them when they cast spells that stopped combat, rather than heal others.

I was sorta amused..

(edit) I was also forced into a healing role before.

New DM. PLayers and DM DEMANDED they have a healer.

So. I took healing and buffing to 11.

I did a Radiant Servant of Pelor.

And thus all the encounters became very boring as the players couldn't even be touched. Combined with Status and greater status. My cleric could of gone to get coffee in another city. And be back just in time to give the finishing blow.

The Half-dragon fighter and the monk/warlock/enlightened fist were not amused when I soloed fights with.. Just a cleric/radiant servant build. With little to no min maxing.

That was back in 3.5


juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

If you've roleplayed long enough, surely your friends have approached you asking you to play a certain role in the party because it (1) hadn't been filled yet and (2) they felt it was absolutely necessary to the party's survival.

No, actually. We have a standing "play what you want" rule. Our biggest problem is that we have a couple of people who won't play a class or race if that class or race is already being played. Drives me nuts. [Rant]STOP WANTING TO BE SPECIAL![/rant]

In my old D&D group I and another player (unknowingly) made near identical barbarian pcs. Same race even! We decided that they were brothers and came up with a shared history. Sadly the other players' PC was killed around 4th level but I used his death to give my character some really cool rp moments.

Sczarni

VictorCrackus wrote:

I remember someone rolling up a cleric.

And someone getting mad at them when they cast spells that stopped combat, rather than heal others.

I was sorta amused..

(edit) I was also forced into a healing role before.

New DM. PLayers and DM DEMANDED they have a healer.

So. I took healing and buffing to 11.

I did a Radiant Servant of Pelor.

And thus all the encounters became very boring as the players couldn't even be touched. Combined with Status and greater status. My cleric could of gone to get coffee in another city. And be back just in time to give the finishing blow.

The Half-dragon fighter and the monk/warlock/enlightened fist were not amused when I soloed fights with.. Just a cleric/radiant servant build. With little to no min maxing.

That was back in 3.5

Savage Tide, from books 5-12. Radiant Servant + Turn Outsider. That was a fun exercise in "can I neutralize the Cleric before he ends the fight?" DM'ing. By fun, I mean excruciating. If you're familiar with the books, there's one certain Demon-Boss-Guy who I simply had to exclude. It would have meant the end of the character, without a chance. No fun for him OR me possible in that encounter.


Ravingdork wrote:
If you've roleplayed long enough, surely your friends have approached you asking you to play a certain role in the party because it (1) hadn't been filled yet and (2) they felt it was absolutely necessary to the party's survival.

Oddly I have not had this happen in years. Good GM's allow the players to do the characters they want and build the game to challenge them.

One of our campaigns was a mounted fighter, bow fighter, bow ranger and a monk and we did fine. The ref tailored the adventures to overland and city crime/mystery intrigues with short deadly combats.

We did fine with no healing and ran into few traps that we could not handle even without a rogue. It made for a very interesting game. Mages became especially dangerous since we had no way to countermagic, but with so many strong ranged combatants and highly mobile ones, they seldom lasted long in any case.

But I agree the limitations of imaginations make your table play less fun and that includes people who HAVE to play the perfect party makeup.

Although I still have not been able to get my table to commit to the all halfling rogue group I am still trying...


VictorCrackus wrote:

I remember someone rolling up a cleric.

And someone getting mad at them when they cast spells that stopped combat, rather than heal others.

I was sorta amused..

(edit) I was also forced into a healing role before.

New DM. PLayers and DM DEMANDED they have a healer.

So. I took healing and buffing to 11.

I did a Radiant Servant of Pelor.

And thus all the encounters became very boring as the players couldn't even be touched. Combined with Status and greater status. My cleric could of gone to get coffee in another city. And be back just in time to give the finishing blow.

The Half-dragon fighter and the monk/warlock/enlightened fist were not amused when I soloed fights with.. Just a cleric/radiant servant build. With little to no min maxing.

That was back in 3.5

I find this highly amusing since the most broken character in our current group is the human Healer. The DM has the same problem you describe about encounters being boring because nothing can really hurt us. :)

Shadow Lodge

lynora wrote:
I find this highly amusing since the most broken character in our current group is the human Healer. The DM has the same problem you describe about encounters being boring because nothing can really hurt us. :)

Interesting. I was once told I had to show that I could make a 'broken' anything before I could 'nerf' myself by playing a Healer.


I still love Shadowrun, but I never want to stuck as the obligatory combat decker/rigger (now hacker) again! I like to blow things up with magic and heavy weapons too, ya know?

AdAstraGames wrote:

Oooh! Oooh! I know! Halfling Monk! Only he joined the monastery because he was a KLUTZ and his parents got tired of him blowing Stealth checks on their cow-stealing missions!

And of course, in spite of him being slightly less combat effective than a comparable mass of moldy potatoes, he can be the Key to the Advencharr!

Tongue so firmly in cheek I can taste earwax

You're gonna need provisions... fortunately the Realms Master just docked. Have a complimentary beer and this entire wheel of Luiren Spring Cheese.

This product placement was sponsored by the Grubb-Morales Dairy, Ltd.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
lynora wrote:
I find this highly amusing since the most broken character in our current group is the human Healer. The DM has the same problem you describe about encounters being boring because nothing can really hurt us. :)
Interesting. I was once told I had to show that I could make a 'broken' anything before I could 'nerf' myself by playing a Healer.

She's the NPC. We take turns playing her. We thought it was gonna be okay cause after all it's a suboptimal NPC class, right? Oh. SO. Wrong. o.O

She destroyed an entire undead army all by herself with Mass Heals. She does no damage other than to undead, but she can keep healing us all fricking day. Healers are badass!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
lynora wrote:

She's the NPC. We take turns playing her. We thought it was gonna be okay cause after all it's a suboptimal NPC class, right? Oh. SO. Wrong. o.O

She destroyed an entire undead army all by herself with Mass Heals. She does no damage other than to undead, but she can keep healing us all fricking day. Healers are badass!

Nah, just one trick ponies. If they weren't good at their one single thing, I'd be sad.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Sorry everyone. I would have posted more, but they moved the thread on me and I lost it for a while. I'll try and catch up.

Greg Wasson wrote:

Actually, when we start a game in our groups, people approach the GM with concepts, and ask "what is X playing?" Eventually, everyone comes up with something. On my part, if I hear someone say, " Darn, I wanted to play a something, but we don't have a whatzit. I guess I will change." I attempt to argue them out of it. Our games are usually more fun if the players play their original concepts. When someone gives up that for "teamplay" they start not having fun and it infects the whole group. I'd much rather an entire group of fighters having fun, and having to work harder to face and survive challenges, than a "balanced" group with one or two people not having as much fun.

Oh, and I think it is important not to change the challenges. When they succeed, it is more memorable, and when they fail it isn't because they were coddled.

Greg

I have seen EXACTLY this happen in our groups. As such, I wholeheartedly agree!

Lyrax wrote:
I make up whatever character I want to play and I play it. Unless I'm being indecisive, in which case I ask what people want me to play.

Yeah, that's about how I handle it as well.

Starbuck_II wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


Got a party of rogues? Don's sit around and let the earth elementals bash you to bits like idiots. Run away and set up traps. Be sneaky and inventive like rogues are want to do. You're faster and smarter than they are. Pull an ewok.

Traps cost money, time, etc. Reread trap creation rules:

You need Craft trap skill.
CR x1000 gp = gold cost.
Yes, a simple put trap is a worth a fortune. GM may allow pit trap to be as low as 250 gp x CR.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/environment.html#designing-a-trap

Yeah, not easy.

Yeah and average people can't see a hundred feet in front of them in a grass field in broad daylight.

What's your point?

I know no GM who plays so strictly.

LazarX wrote:

Rules, player strategies, have nothing to do with this discussion which is on group dynamics and how people relate to each other. You make it clear as usual that your modus operandi is that instead of dealing with such issues in a straight forward manner, you will continually choose to subvert and sabotage genuine requests by other people.

I would not play with you in a face to face game, nor even in a PBP on this board with the attitudes you continually express of confrontation before cooperation, subversion before honesty.

What exactly do you get out of telling me that? Does it somehow elevate you within the community trying to put me down like that?

In any case, I'm sorry you feel that was as that isn't at all how I actually play the game. In reality, I get very few complaints.

In fact, most real life players I play with have trouble making sense of some of the things that many of you forumites claim (about me, about our playstyle, and about our characters).

Renvale999 wrote:
I can heal through any amount of damage, no matter what level, timing my heals. I'm damn good now at playing clerics, and I generally have no desire to play any other class.

I've heard it said that healbots suck because damage almost always outpaces healing. How did you manage to break this trend? I must know! :D

DeathQuaker wrote:
I've experienced an opposite problem where the GM says, "Play whatever you want," and then a player who was going to play one thing suddenly switches their own character because they perceive a "gap." And even when the GM and/or other players say, "No, don't switch characters!" they switch anyway. I have seen a number of people do this on a number of occasions. I've even altered my own character concept on occasion because of feeling pressured---not by anyone but myself--to take a different path so as to neither step on someone's toes nor to have a "role" missing in the party.

I've seen this happen as well. Unfortunately, it usually goes badly even when it was the player's decision to change. The first concept is almost always the most successful. Almost.

Jandrem wrote:
I'm not including him in any more games I run, and I'll be hesitant to play in any he's in either. And yes, I'm going to flat out tell him about it. I don't think he understand the difference between "evil" alignment and "a-hole" alignment. I'm all for evil, as long as it's not turned inward toward the other party members. Maybe once he realizes he's sitting at home watching tv while the rest of us are playing without him, maybe he'll ease off of the jerkishness.

Sometimes that's what it takes. Best of luck!

PsychoticWarrior wrote:
In my old D&D group I and another player (unknowingly) made near identical barbarian pcs. Same race even! We decided that they were brothers and came up with a shared history. Sadly the other players' PC was killed around 4th level but I used his death to give my character some really cool rp moments.

I've done almost exactly that, but with specialist wizards. My "brother" was eaten by a giant blob out at sea. How did yours die?


lynora wrote:


I find this highly amusing since the most broken character in our current group is the human Healer. The DM has the same problem you describe about encounters being boring because nothing can really hurt us. :)

Yes. I really, really, prefer games where we have a few wands of healing. Maybe a cleric, or oracle that have a few healing items.. Or even a witch with a few healing options.

Pure healer makes games boring. Trust me on that. If someone focuses on NOTHING but healing and buffing spells. THe game can really get boring. Brain numbingly boring.


CourtFool wrote:
Leshok wrote:
…I have more fun with cool characters than tactical players.
This. It pretty much sums up a lot of problems and miscommunications I have had with groups/players before.

Implying that you can't have both?

While I agree to a certain degree that it is more immersion to be had from a character made with a roleplaying angle in mind, I also want my fellow players to make characters that are tactically sound. Having a self-proclaimed "REAL role player" be a huge glaring weak point in the party forces the rest of the characters to run an armed day-care for him.

I always try to make my characters both mechanically sound/able to contribute/cover a niche, AND be an interesting/convincing/fun character. To me, that is part of the challenge of character generation and party structure.

VictorCrackus wrote:
lynora wrote:


I find this highly amusing since the most broken character in our current group is the human Healer. The DM has the same problem you describe about encounters being boring because nothing can really hurt us. :)

Yes. I really, really, prefer games where we have a few wands of healing. Maybe a cleric, or oracle that have a few healing items.. Or even a witch with a few healing options.

Pure healer makes games boring. Trust me on that. If someone focuses on NOTHING but healing and buffing spells. THe game can really get boring. Brain numbingly boring.

In our Serpent Skull game, I am playing an all-rounder paladin (Warrior of Holy Light archetype) in a party with a healing-minded cleric. It takes a LOT to down me, but my resilience is balanced by the squishiness of said cleric and the restrictions on offense through copious amounts of concealment and difficult terrain, meaning we would likely have crashed and burned long ago were it not for this combo. It also allows the GM to not hold back, which he appreciates.


Ravingdork wrote:
If you've roleplayed long enough, surely your friends have approached you asking you to play a certain role in the party because it (1) hadn't been filled yet and (2) they felt it was absolutely necessary to the party's survival.

The only necessary roles are arcane caster and divine caster. Those are absolutely necessary to the party's survival as otherwise you have no tools to deal with encounters. Anything else though? Completely false. But no amount of imagination, intelligence, or anything else will save you if you lack the actual abilities to do something. You cannot exercise those abilities, so you die.

Fortunately most people realize this and don't try to make casterless teams.

51 to 100 of 324 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Do you hate getting forced into roles too? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.