When creating a character, do you have a responsibility to your gaming friends?

[GeraintElberion]

It seems like we have a bunch of threads in Advice that simply boil down to the question of whether or not it is okay to make a character that is not in harmony with the rpg desires of the rest of the group.

My take on it is that out of game you should be a team dedicated to mutual enjoyment. It's like sex, if one of you isn't enjoying it then you're all doing it wrong.

Am I wrong?

[ShadowcatX]

I agree 100%. This is a game, games are meant to be fun. That's all they're meant to be.

[Gruuuu]

Yeah but a problem you get is that, often, the guy late to the party is often left without much of a choice.

"well we really need a (caster/rogue/fighter/healer)"

I've had this happen often (and usually I suck it up and take whatever class fills the need).

[Bill Dunn]

GeraintElberion wrote:

It seems like we have a bunch of threads in Advice that simply boil down to the question of whether or not it is okay to make a character that is not in harmony with the rpg desires of the rest of the group.

My take on it is that out of game you should be a team dedicated to mutual enjoyment. It's like sex, if one of you isn't enjoying it then you're all doing it wrong.

Am I wrong?

I think you're right. If a character concept is general and flexible enough, I think a player can be given leeway to work the character up on his own. Really specific or special concepts need more coordination. But the point to underline is that RPGs are cooperative stories and individual characters need to reflect that.

[doctor_wu]

I agree with this. Even if two members of the party end up fighting each other I find myself getting bored at the table if I am not involved in it. Even if they are properly roleplaying my character. What should I do pick sides and escalate the whole pvp conflict to more than one person?

[leo1925]

I agree.

[GeraintElberion]

Gruuuu wrote:

Yeah but a problem you get is that, often, the guy late to the party is often left without much of a choice.

"well we really need a (caster/rogue/fighter/healer)"

I've had this happen often (and usually I suck it up and take whatever class fills the need).

That's interesting.

I wasn't really thinking about class choice, more questions like:
Is this a group focused upon overcoming tactical challenges where I really need to pull my weight and my concept for a mutli-class oracle/bard/monk goblin isn't going to cut the mustard?
Is this a group focused on non-combat situations (intrigue, romance, etc) that doesn't need a straight-forward. lumpen, oafish CN barbarian?
Is this a light-hearted group where my twenty pages of trauma-riddled back story and general air of angst won't really be suitable?

that kind of thing.

I must admit to finding the 'We need an X' really irksome, however if I join a group I will probably look for a role which needs filling - so the thing I resent being told to do is something I will actually do myself if left to it!

[dartnet]

Gruuuu wrote:

Yeah but a problem you get is that, often, the guy late to the party is often left without much of a choice.

"well we really need a (caster/rogue/fighter/healer)"

I've had this happen often (and usually I suck it up and take whatever class fills the need).

Make sure that if your the late guy your the one bringing the beer. That will end that issue fast. :)

[Pan]

Bottom line is dont crap where you eat. You can play a thieving or jerk character just leave the other players alone. The GM should provide plenty of NPCs for you to bother. Also dont try and steal other players RP moments or try and do their role better than them. Its obnoxious and rude.

Jerks in real life find themselves changing friends and co-workers often; why not adventuring parties? In other words if you have a player being an ass to everyone in any myriad of ways kick the PC out. Keep doing so until they learn to play along or go home and play a video game by them self.

[Dragonchess Player]

Gruuuu wrote:

Yeah but a problem you get is that, often, the guy late to the party is often left without much of a choice.

"well we really need a (caster/rogue/fighter/healer)"

I've had this happen often (and usually I suck it up and take whatever class fills the need).

There are usually enough options with classes, archetypes, and intelligent character development that the "last guy" can play the type of character they want and meet the rest of the party's need (arcanist, skill-monkey/trapfinder, full BAB warrior, healer, etc.). Only when the players pigeonhole classes into specific roles (only sorcerer/wizard arcanists, only rogue trapfinders, only dumb grunt barbarian/fighter warriors, only dedicated "heal-bot" cleric healers, etc.) do you end up with players "trapped" in specific classes.

If you want to play an arcanist, but the party needs a "tank," then try a synthesist summoner; if you want to play a warrior, but the party needs a healer, then a bard, inquisitor, or paladin can fill in; if you want to play a caster, but the party needs a trapfinder, then both the archaeologist and sandman bard archetypes can work; etc.

[Bruunwald]

Roleplaying games require cooperation and harmony to do their job: which is to be fun. This is the responsibility of all of the players, not only the GM.

It is essential to strike a balance and that sometimes requires compromise. When this cannot be achieved, and sometimes it can't, usually the less cooperative player leaves, or is asked to leave, or more often the game ends, and picks up with a different combination of players. That's how gaming groups evolve over time.

Now, those of you who are protesting in your minds and thinking that somehow the group is wrong and ruining your fun, let me remind you that I have 31 years of GMing/DMing under my belt. I've had to deal with a lot of disruption in that time, sometimes intentional, sometimes unintentional. In the end, it's all the same. You are not wrong for wanting to play the character you want, but you are wrong for forcing it on a group with which that character does not harmonize.

There is likewise nothing wrong with you finding a group that does fit your build and style. That this may be a temporary inconvenience for you sucks, but it is better, and more grown-up on your part than the alternative. The alternative being the slow build-up of frustration from the other players, followed by several talks with the GM, the eventual blow-up, and all of it followed by angry emails, with the final result being that the other players hold you up as a standard of a bad player for the rest of their gaming days. Your name becomes infamous among people who might not ever even meet you, and you remain a butt of jokes forever. Don't believe me?

31 years of GMing, buddy. 31 years. I've seen it all.

[Gravefiller613]

As Player I look at it as you have three responsibilities.

1) Responsibility to the Group. Pretty much this sums up to "don't be a dick", as stated by W.W. Your party is your team and the guys/gals you have fun with. You're there to help them have fun. If you can't be a member of a team, then you should rethink what you want out of gamming...or write fiction. At the same time, try to communicate and resolve issues in a calm and thought out manner.

2) Responsibility to the GM/Game. You need to treat the GM with all respect due. Like it or not, that person is putting effort out to make sure that the group has a good time. Show up on time, don't be a bad guest, and be appreciative of their work. Make sure you understand what the DM plans on doing and if the game style is something you're ok with.

3) Responsibility to yourself. You're there to have a good time and play. However just because you are giving to others, doesn't mean you should not have soemthing for yourself. Find soemthing fun that works with the others, but won't bore you to play. Finally if the game/Gm/ or other players aren't meshing with you, talk to them about it. You deserve to have a good time. Not everyone has the same comfort levels or expectations. If there isn't a compromise, it's ok to leave the group.

[Ghastlee]

Any GM worth his screen will be able to account for any 'lack of balance' in a party - and as such everyone can play what they want.

As for teamwork - it makes it easier to run the game if you're running it for a party instead of a group of individuals who all want to go off by themselves and sometimes go against each other.

From a player perspective, if you wanna have RP debates like 'ooo I'm a dwarf - never trust an elf' that's fine but just like in the example, you'd (hopefully) eventually learn to get along with and trust this character if they're in your party saving your bacon once or twice per session - it makes it fun to have those little exchanges - I've said in another such thread that anything beyond this kind of encounter between players in the same party depends on the style of the group, but this game doesnt seem to be designed with such in mind.

PvP should be kept to other games and hobbies.

[Barong]

Gruuuu wrote:

Yeah but a problem you get is that, often, the guy late to the party is often left without much of a choice.

"well we really need a (caster/rogue/fighter/healer)"

I've had this happen often (and usually I suck it up and take whatever class fills the need).

This reminds me of a this one group I heard about. They forced one of the guys at the table, who hated elves, to play one because the party needed a wizard and the wizard had to be optimized. He responded by playing up all the worst stereotypes of elves, with a mincing effeminate character who carried a mirror around with him and was always kissing his reflection. The other elf in the party, a ranger, eventually responded by trying to kill the other elf. The group kind of broke up after that.

[Alienfreak]

Gruuuu wrote:

Yeah but a problem you get is that, often, the guy late to the party is often left without much of a choice.

"well we really need a (caster/rogue/fighter/healer)"

I've had this happen often (and usually I suck it up and take whatever class fills the need).

I am always there as the chars get made but I still end up with the role nobody wants. Usually because that Role isn't fun at all ;)

[Atarlost]

The party roles problem is only a problem if the GM doesn't adjust trap prevalence to the presence or absence of a rogue.

The roles are really kind of unbalanced.

Only a caster can be a caster, but there are several choices for caster classes so it's not too bad and I think the load can be shared between partial and/or non-arcane casters to some degree.

Nearly everyone can be an out of combat healer and Clerics and Oracles can be emergency healers while building to primarily perform some other role (usually fighter or part of the caster role). Witches and Druids have to sacrifice prepared spells to be an emergency healer, but can do the job. If you need a healer role you can get the job done with anything from a Caster role filling Witch to a Fighter role filling battle Oracle to a blasty druid.

Lots of choices for the fighter role too from Barbarian to Magus. About the only classes that can't do the job in a pinch are the full arcane casters.

Trapfinding though? Rogue, Ranger, or Bard, and all the Bard archetypes with it give up the ability that makes most people want to play a bard or have one in the party. Want to play a full caster in a party that needs a rogue? Tough. Want to combine healer and trapfinder? You won't be much of a healer and won't be doing much else. There are balance reasons to not let caster and fighter be combined, but trapfinding is not a combat role and there's no reason it should be tied down to a handful of archetypes, most of which are uninspiring, in three classes.

The trapfinding classes and archetypes are limited enough that I'd say it's the GM's job to deal with the role going unfilled.

Caster is the most restricted role after trapfinder and there are mitigations. You can ask genericly fluffed archer or switch hitter rangers to switch to clerics of Erastil to get those primary caster spells that are on the cleric list (most notably summon monster, but also some (de)buffs and I think there are some walls as well). Natural weapon rangers or even barbarians can potentially be swaped for druids. Rogues can be switched to sandman or investigator bards. They're not great mechanically, but neither are rogues and the fluff is compatible. Paladins can become inquisitors. In some cases oracles may be able to be rebuilt as witches or sorceresses. The only trapfinding gaining rebuilds that seem like they would work are wizard/sorceror to magician bard and non-trapfinding ranger or rogue to trapfinding ranger or rogue. And magician appears to fall firmly in the master of no trade position with less applicable bardic performance, unaugmented 3/4 combat, and only 2/3 magic. The other trapfinding bards are all pretty much rogues by fluff already and won't take conversions from other classes or archetypes well.

A lack of fighters could be a problem, but almost anyone but a full arcane caster or a non-inspire courage bard can at least sort of fill the role. All the 3/4 BAB classes except non-inspiring bards and low level druids have something they can do as a standard action that gets them mostly battle ready be it arcane pool, inspire courage, wildshape, or divine favor/power. Monks and Summoners tend to walk around battle ready, as do druids with pets. An all wizard/sorceror/witch party may need the GM to put his foot down if he isn't prepared with a suitable adventure. Eliminating ambushes is going to wreak more havoc on a plot than eliminating hidden magical traps.

There are two or two and a half supported trapfinder concepts (rogue, either lawful or chaotic, or bard with roguelike fluff, trapper, and the poorly supported magician); while there are at least eight or nine fully supported fighter concepts (the full BAB classes, monk, melee alchemist, Eidolon based summoner, synthesist) plus three CoDzillas (cleric/oracle/druid), three hybrids that can take part of the fighter load (magus, bard, and inquisitor), and standard action summoners in divine (sacred summons) and arcane (SLA based summoner) flavors; three full casters with distinct fluff and three full divine and three 2/3 arcanists that can take up part of the load; five fairly strong healers that can take on other roles as well (cleric, oracle, druid, witch, and paladin), and eight classes with CLW on their list plus another two that are charisma based and have UMD as a class skill and an eleventh that has UMD as a class skill and is sometimes built with high charisma -- if not as high as sorcerors and summoners -- for social skills.

tl;dr: I'd say it's reasonable to expect the party to rearrange itself to fill most roles, but that it's the GM's job to deal with the absence of a trapfinder because diversity of character concept just isn't well supported for trapfinders.

[sgtrocknroll]

I find it interesting that this thread comes up after these last two do.

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/advice/isARogueSkimmingTreasureAsHeFindsItRolePlayingOrIsHeStealingFromH isAdventuringCompanions

and

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/advice/helpWithAPlayerWhoRolePlaysOnOtherPartyMembersTooMuchGraps

I say Dick over your enemy, not your party.

[Maxximilius]

Gruuuu wrote:

Yeah but a problem you get is that, often, the guy late to the party is often left without much of a choice.

"well we really need a (caster/rogue/fighter/healer)"

I've had this happen often (and usually I suck it up and take whatever class fills the need).

Last time I had a fellow player who said something like "I should do something that goes well with the group and fills a gap", I said to him "no you don't, just play what you want".

We're playing a level 1-15 campaign, we're level 12 and never had a cleric. The encounters are hard, we sometimes lost people and resurrection was never taken for granted, but it's a lot of fun. I don't see myself being told by a DM that I have to play one specific class just because he isn't able to make the lacking class a bit less vital in the game.

[Alienfreak]

Atarlost wrote:

The party roles problem is only a problem if the GM doesn't adjust trap prevalence to the presence or absence of a rogue.

Removing that dumb "Trapfinding" requirement in the skills section will work wonders... though...

[EWHM]

Here's what you're responsible for during character creation and advancement as a player--in my view.

You are expected to make a character that it is credible to believe that in the absence of the invisible metagame "PLAYER CHARACTER" tattoo on your forehead would be accepted as a full partner earning a full share of the treasure by the other members of the party.

In other words, don't make the other players metagame or the GM expend suspension of disbelief resources to force the other PCs to adventure with you.

There are exceptions to this rule, but in my experience, only those who truly understand and grok this rule should ever be trusted to bend it :-)

[phantom1592]

I am not a fan of the 'We need an XXXXX' group. It's not realistic to be that balanced of a group. There are what? 20? 25 Classes? Games are built for 4 person parties??

With that kind of options, EVERYONE gets to play what they want. I've told other people trying to 'manage' what everyone picks... to just play what THEY want to do... don't worry about MY choice, pick the character that YOU want to play.

There is a strong possibliity of Death and back up characters too. Just because I'm playing a sorcer right now... does NOT mean he's going to live past book one. If you pick your choice on the fact that 'Arcane Caster' is covered... my NEXT character will NOT be the same I just played...

Nobody knows how the game is going to go, and nobody knows WHAT the group will look like three months from now. Between job changes, moving, new babies and what not, our groups have been known to be flexible. If you have 2 choices of characters... and your favorite may be too Close to someone elses... do it anyway. Your their to have fun.

As for the OTHER part of the thread... the 'Don't be a Jerk' part of the conversation. I would say it's all dependent on the group. As a RULE, I prefer to play the strong and noble hero types. the 'nice guys'.

HOWEVER, I have on occasion played more antagonistic characters. I USUALLY let the group know ahead of time.

"Ok... just so you know, this new guy is a wizard of halrua... This amazing land of UBER-magic.. As such he thinks all magic is awesome, and those who can't cast are crippled somehow... Any NON-halruan mage he'll undoubtably think of as 'quaint'

But he's a nice guy, just a bit condescending... Hopefully that will change as the game goes on... but it has nothing to do with you or you character...

I HAVE seen games start to crash and burn over infighting... so it's best to nip in the bud if people are going to get hurt feelings, but I think that can be circumvented in-character most of the time.

[DeathQuaker]

I think for tabletop RPGs, a gamer's primary responsibility is not to be an asshat.

If a gamer can do that, really everything else should come out pretty easily, and respectful players can find compromises when different play styles and PC goals clash.

[doctor_wu]

DeathQuaker wrote:

I think for tabletop RPGs, a gamer's primary responsibility is not to be an asshat.

If a gamer can do that, really everything else should come out pretty easily, and respectful players can find compromises when different play styles and PC goals clash.

That makes so much sense. And play works better like that.

[Frogboy]

I have a tendency to make characters whose goals don't perfectly align with the rest of the group. I always treat the other players as the most important thing though as to not derail the campaign. It's fun to try to achieve your desires when they don't coincide. Sometimes you get your way; sometimes you don't. I enjoy the extra dynamic it adds to the game.