|
...and I'm not talking "class diversity" in a socio-political sense.
My gaming group has subtly shifted members over the years, but several have been with me since the "beginning". I've been the DM since our first campaign and we're currently on the third.
We've had practically the same party since the first time we played: a fighter, a rogue, another rogue, a wizard (sometimes a sorcerer), and a cleric. I'm constantly encourage the players to try new classes, that I'll work them into the campaign and go "easy" on them while they learn a new class. I can understand the hesitancy of new players to try new classes since they're still learning the game basics. However, I don't understand the desire for people who have been playing for 20 or 30 years to stick with the same class again and again.
PC death is no stranger to my campaigns, and while I don't use it as a mechanism to force my players to switch characters/classes, I do remind them that their current PC's death could be an opportunity to try something new. However, they never take me up on the offer.
The only "problem" I see with this is that it sort of becomes stale. When designing sessions and encounters I only have four or five classes to keep in mind, and while I try to continually introduce new ideas to keep things fresh, inevitably many of the sessions feel quite similar.
It should also be noted here that I'm more interested in the PC development than the actual players are, so that may have something to do with it.
My questions for you: Is it important to encourage players to switch? Important to facilitate new options? If so, is there a better way to do so? Or should I be satisfied with their less-complex kick-down-the-door style of play?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The role I take as a GM is as a facilitator and manager. I provide the parameters, the plots, the details, and most of the flavor. Beyond that, it's in the players' hands. I can try to provide a good amount of choices for them, but if the group only wants to play fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard, then that is their choice. Thankfully, my group often branches out into other classes, but it was through their initiative, and not any persuading of mine.
I understand that seeing the same classes over and over may get dull, but keep in mind that they are the *player* characters. To me, trying to influence their choice of class is rather like trying to influence their character's personality, which I avoid unless it is likely to cause unnecessary disruption, and even then I try to let the offending player come around on his own.
One problem with radically changing character concept when a character dies is that the dead player character had a particular role in the party that the player still feels the need to fill, which greatly limits how different the new character can be from the old one. Also, they will have had some ideas for advancement of their old characters that they would dearly like to apply to the new characters, which again requires that they be not too different from what they played before.
However, if these guys have been playing for 20 to 30 years, they must have been in several distinct campaigns. The start of a new campaign is an excellent time to switch to a radically different type of character, and I am surprised that it doesn't occur to the players.
I would think that by now one of them would say at the start of a new campaign something along the lines of "Hey guys, I've played the cleric in all of the past three campaigns. I would really like to try something different, so don't count on me for healing this time around."
|
|
Great advice all around, much appreciated. Calybos, Setting up a new rule that requires everybody to try something new is a great idea. I've since passed that point in the campaign, but it doesn't mean I can't utilize it in other ways -- perhaps when PCs die.
David, it surprises me, too, that they haven't willingly switched classes to try something new. I get the feeling that maybe they tried multiple classes early in their "D&D careers" and have now found one they like, so they're sticking with it.
Kryptik, I totally agree that influencing their choice of class is a bit too controlling. I like to promote freedom in my campaigns, too.
I'll continue to work on providing an open-ended framework that keeps things fresh.
However, I don't understand the desire for people who have been playing for 20 or 30 years to stick with the same class again and again.
And at the same time I don't understand the desire to have more than six or eight classes in a game to begin with. And even less so when people actually want to play all of them themselves.
But what baffles me the most is when people think they need to take action because other people don't like to make characters as varied as they would make themselves.Where is the problem?
I think the two primary motivations are encountering new situations and approaching them with a type of character you truly can get behind on the one side, and approaching reoccuring situations with different sets of abilities each time.
If you approach the game as an exercise of reaching a goal by comming up with new tactics that use different abilities to work, then trying out lots of classes would obviously be something you want to do.
But that really doesn't hold much appeal to me. In the last 15 years, I really only played two archetypes. A male half-elf ranger and a female human fighter/cleric. All characters virtually without exception in any pnp game and videogame that I created was a new take on these two. Any why not. For these two characters, I've worked out consistent and plausible personalties, along with motivations and priorities. But few games last anywhere close to long enough to really put these characters through all the situations they could get into. It's always new adventures and new situations, and so it is always a new experience to see how these characters are dealing with the things they encounter. And I have no problem with almost always playing 1st to 3rd level over and over and over. I don't play for tactical combat in which I use special abilities and knowledge of probabilities to solve statistical problems. I play to interact with the worlds and the people inside them.
I already know what types of protagonists I like and I want to see them in action. I don't want to experiment with new classes that seem like something I wouldn't chose for myself just to see if I could come up with an interesting personalty that fits the abilities and is enjoyable to play for me.
Forbidding players to play the characters they want sounds like a seriously dumb idea to me. Why force people to play something they don't want to play? Why make them game less enjoyable for them for no benefit in return at all?
I guess if I wouldn't be allowed to play a ranger or cleric, I would instead play an Archer-Fighter/Rogue or a fighter/oracle. That's jumping through hoops for no gain at all.
|
|
It pays to know your players, here. What are their capabilities...how much can they stretch and still enjoy it? I love variety, but when I came back to D&D in 3rd edition - after skipping most of 2nd - it had been several years, and I would not have felt comfortable jumping into a wizard, for example...and I'm one of the most experienced players I've ever known.
A far better example - my recent roommate...a great guy...has a bit of a learning disability. He loves basic melee characters, and even getting the hang of a few combat maneuvers is a stretch for him...but he loves playing...I'm not going to force him out of his comfort zone, where he'll feel frustrated trying to keep up with a ton of spells.
Conversely, my father plays casters...wizards, sorcerers, or clerics. He just doesn't get into the mundane aspects of the game...he's there for the magic of it...and he'd play a martial character terribly, simply because his interest would never be that high.
Other people I know love a really different character every time. I do love a variety, but my favorite characters are usually martial characters, so I end up playing more of them, than casters.
Sometimes, getting people out of a rut helps. Not always. YMMV.
But what baffles me the most is when people think they need to take action because other people don't like to make characters as varied as they would make themselves.
Where is the problem?
One problem I've seen is player competence. One of my regular players, for example, loves playing rogues. Unfortunately, they have a life expectancy measured in rounds (literally), because he doesn't realized how fragile they are (despite literally years of play). Suggesting that he might want to try playing other classes will, we hope, improve his understanding of the game and the amount of fun he has.
Is everyone having fun? If yes, then you are playing correctly.
However, is sounds if you are getting bored with the player choices.
Players always tend to gravitate towards characters that match their tactics and temperament. Nothing inherently wrong with that.
My only suggestion would be to try and find out what the player really likes about playing the fighter, the mage, or the rogue. If a player likes fighters because they do massive damage show them a build using a monk or archer ranger that can do massive damage. Same with the mage, why do they like to play a mage, is it fun to have so many spells to choose from? Show them a viable alternative that fits the way they want to play. Does the rogue like to be sneaky? Show him another stealthy build.
One possible way would (if the players agree, don't railroad them) is to set up a one-off or short adventure path using pre-gen characters that while they match the players temperament use unfamiliar classes to fill those roles.
In regards to character death, ofttimes a player will select the same type of characters based on the assumption they need to 'replace' the fallen characters role in the party.
I tend towards melee characters often fighters myself. But I also know that fighters because of their bonus feats can be so many different styles from the archetypal dwarven tank to a lithe lightly armored duelist. I still get my fix for up close and personal fighting but keep it fresh at the same time.
|
|
But what baffles me the most is when people think they need to take action because other people don't like to make characters as varied as they would make themselves.
Where is the problem?One problem I've seen is player competence. One of my regular players, for example, loves playing rogues. Unfortunately, they have a life expectancy measured in rounds (literally), because he doesn't realized how fragile they are (despite literally years of play). Suggesting that he might want to try playing other classes will, we hope, improve his understanding of the game and the amount of fun he has.
Rogues really tend to be better for advanced players that can really think on their feet. Tend to be, I say...some can start with one and really run with them...but as rogues tend to be out there in the wind by themselves more than any other class...and are not big combat characters as a rule...they take some real thinking to keep alive, sometimes.
|
|
But what baffles me the most is when people think they need to take action because other people don't like to make characters as varied as they would make themselves.
Where is the problem?
This was merely an open-ended question to size up the general thoughts on the issue. I don't consider narrow class choices to be a problem -- Tim is correct when he says it sounds like I'm getting bored with player choices.
We're all having fun, so it's not an issue. I'm trying to find ways to shake up the game a bit. This next session should do just that. Since I can't shake up the classes, I'm going to shake up the setting.
Thanks for the input, everybody. Much appreciated!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you tried using the other classes against them? Sometimes the best way to get someone to try something is to use it against them. The next time you are writing up some villains use a new class. Maybe instead of a cleric go for an inquisitor, or an oracle. Use a magus or an alchemist in place of your next wizard.
Have you tried using the other classes against them? Sometimes the best way to get someone to try something is to use it against them. The next time you are writing up some villains use a new class. Maybe instead of a cleric go for an inquisitor, or an oracle. Use a magus or an alchemist in place of your next wizard.
or use a bard or monk instead of a rogue, a ranger, cavalier, samurai, or barbarian instead or a fighter, a witch instead of a cleric or wizard.
heck, you can get dreamscarred presses psionics unleashed and psionics expanded and introduce
a soulknife, aegis, marksman, or psychic warrior in place of a fighter
a cryptic in place of a rogue
a dread, tactician, or vitalist in place of a cleric
or even a psion or wilder in place of a wizard or sorcerer.
you can get both of Dreamscarred Presses Psionics books on paper back as a bundle for slightly less than the core rulebook. ((both together are 80% of the price))
If they've been playing 20-30 years, I'd say they're playing what they want to play. And more to the point, if someone has been breaking down doors with a hammer for 20-30 years, and you somehow coax them into switching to a screwdriver, they're going to flip that thing around and continue using it to hammer down the door, just not as well as a hammer.
It sounds more like a playstyle issue in that you'd have more fun DMing for people willing to go more out there, and without variety during the game, you'd settle for variety in classes so you'd have to at least learn new class features, if not change up tactics very much.
Maybe throw in a couple encounters you can't tackle head-on, and see if it's not too greatly upsetting to the grognards?
(also, if they've been playing 20-30 years, my money is definitely on same people in different bodies)
|
|
Quick question, Left-Handed Lenny... Are the players essentially playing the same people in different bodies? Or does each new rogue (or whatever) come off as an entirely different character that happens to have the same class?
Jaunt is correct -- they're essentially the same people in different bodies.
Throwing different classes of villains at them is a great idea. Part of this issue may be my lack of new, interesting ideas to toss their way to see how they react, and introducing new classes as villains could be interesting.
I would usually just let them play what they want. If it is getting boring though something needs to change or you won't have fun and won't want to continue.
1) Have someone else occasionally be the GM even if it is just a 1 shot adventure. Then show them how fun a dragon disciple or gunslinger can be.
2) Have someone else travel with or be escorted by the party. Let one of them run that summoner ally.
3) On of them insults someone. It happens to be a lore warden duelist that specializes in disarming and humiliating people. When it is done to them with a build they could have fun running, it might get some thoughts moving.
i have a buddy who plays only the following
dwarven axe and board fighters
dwarven 2WF fighters
and he tends to rotate between axe and board and 2WF
but in both cases, he never uses power attack and thus it is easy to outdamage him.
As a GM, I personally let my players play whatever they want to, and as a player I hate having my GM try to affect my character builds. When you're a GM, you have a cast of thousands at your disposal. When you're a player, you have one character, maybe two if your GM lets you take Leadership. I say that one character should therefore be whatever the players wants it to be, and if that means my player wants to play Rogue or Fighter over and over again, I'll let them.