|
Pathfinder for the most part (there's solo games, and that's fine) a team game, and as such, your character SHOULD be designed with the team in mind. You should work to play with your fellow party members to accomplish goals to the best of your combined abilities. This much is certain, and a large part of the fun of the game in my opinion.
But there's expectations of certain classes that aren't on others, certain things that are expected of them. I've been called selfish for not taking Infusion with Alchemist because it would help the party, even though it didn't fit what I wanted to do. Precise Bombs is almost in the same place. Divine casters also fit this mold, as they're expected to heal their non capable party members.
Most of these expectations are of resources, although some classes due to lack of resources are excused from this (mostly martial classes), since they can't really share something they don't have.
So I guess the question here would be what expectations of sharing do you have for your party, generally based on class, and what do you do when they're not met?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We build characters that we want to build, although sometimes a dip into a multiclass will be made to provide a tracker/lockpicker/healer. If nobody can see a way to do so and still remain true to their concept, then we use hirelings or magic items.
Party balance is important, but (at the risk of being a Special Snowflake) we all like to have a character that has his or her own niche. I wouldn't want to play a armoured holy fighter in the same party as a paladin, for example, unless there was a reason for two such characters to be together and each had their own specialism.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Work with the tools you have, and stop wishing for what you don't.
sure make a character that can and will work as a member of a team, but its your character make it how you want to play..not with what others want you to play.
Kinda like live your life for yourself, not as others want you to.
Besides its sometimes more fun to have some glaring deficiencies in a party that have to be shorn up in other ways.
Adapt overcome, and as Sadurian said hire some damn help if you must.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion party balance is overrrated, at least in the creation of the character. Build the character you want to play, the otehr build their characters they want to play, and then enjoy solving the problems the adventure offers to you.
|
|
The vast majority of my characters are divine characters that technically "have" the ability to heal people. I have never designed one to heal (mechanically or thematically) and I tell my party ahead of time that I am "not that kind of divine caster"
People never want to play the healer but get mad when there is a character that has the potential to heal and chooses not to...its selfish plan and simple.
If you have the right to design a non-healing character so do I. If I have the potential to heal (AKA a heal spell is on my spell list) I either get the wands or tell others to get the wands (have also been known to tell everyone to chip in and it will be used on everyone).
I used to be in the “make a balanced party” paradigm but no longer consider it important. As long as there is someone that can disable device and a character with a touch of Cha, we are all set.
Well, it's not so much owed as it is a good idea to help your teammates.
In one game I was playing a Barbarian with a glaive, who did pretty alright for himself. Another party member was a barbarian/alchemist who would hulk out with Feral Mutagen and Enlarge Person and go to town. He wasn't as tanky as my barbarian, but he attracted a lot more aggression from the enemies and blamed me for not doing a fair share of tanking.
Does he "owe" sharing Enlarge Person infusions? No. Might it be beneficial for him? Yes.
One of the best imbalanced parties I have ever played in was a monster sized one, 11 PCs and only 1 divine caster and 1 arcane..everyone else, fighters, paladins, barbarians, rangers etc. (cant remember exactly it was along time ago)
The cleric was a healer and the most protected and jealously guarded member of the party, the arcane guy, got himself killed all the time by wandering off and being mysterious (i.e. trying to do solo side missions)
It was a lot of fun because we were so imbalanced PC wise, and that made for some pretty challenging situations.
As a GM, I will do my best to avoid having a player pigeonholed. I want them to play their character first. Teamwork exists regardless of any notion of party balance. To me, RPGS are fundamentaly about CHOICE, so to have some players remove the choice of another goes against the type of game I want to play.
I'm currently playing a Magus in a campaign in which there are no healers! So obviously it's a team effort to compensate. I have high UMD, so I make sure to always have scrolls (for cures/disease/poison/etc.). Others lug around wands of CLW. I also occasionally "force punch" enemies closer to melee types (harder than it sounds) so that they can get proper full attacks/AOOs.
Really wish we could put the "clerics must be healers" stereotype to rest. Makes me want to play evil clerics...
Well to be fair..the cleric in my example wanted to be a healer, she even refused to carry any weapon more fierce than a walking stick, and shunned armor, our GM had some system for awarding stuff for taking limitations...and boy could that cleric slap some divine mojo around. :)
I'm getting vaguely interested in an oracle of life with the "wasted" curse that heals others and "takes on their disease"... kindof a saint/martyr motif.
So I guess the question here would be what expectations of sharing do you have for your party, generally based on class, and what do you do when they're not met?
I expect the party to have a roughly equivalent distribution of party wealth, with characters who have access to +6 levels of casting tending to get less and characters with less than 6 levels of casting tending to get more. As a DM i tend to dish out more wealth than magical equipment, so that players can buy the equipment they want.
Imagine a band where only the lead guitarist gets the best new equipment, and only his music goes through the good speakers. In the end he'll just have to cover for the rest of the group's bad sound, so it's probably easier to just give everyone the equipment they need to succeed.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
* everyone has to contribute SOMETHING. Tell the other players what you're going to contribute, to avoid redundancy/niche cramping.
* if you're not going to contribute the obvious with your class (non-healing cleric, non-debuffing witch), TELL the other players. Maybe one of them wants to pick up that slack, but he thought he'd be invading your niche.
* respect other people's niches but don't exaggerate.
* if a niche doesn't get filled, take notice as a group. Adapt group tactics.
* share with the team. Share plot hooks and clues. Often no individual PC gets all the clues needed. Not sharing plot hooks can grind the game to a halt.
* spend most of your time with the team. The occasional solo shenanigan is acceptable if it doesn't take too long, but spending time with the whole team together is much more fun for everyone.
* wait up on other people. If one PC is doing something elsewhere, don't go into battle or into places where you expect battle. Just say "we all wait for him to get back before going in". Because if you have a battle, he's sitting for hours not participating. Also, he could've helped.
* conform to the game/setting/player's cultural norms on party loyalty. Don't be the only backstabber. If everyone's a backstabber, don't be a wuss. Don't steal treasure if all other players are sharing fairly.
* have each other's backs. Back each others' plays, even if you don't understand what they're on about. Help each other out when in danger.
I expect what the other players tell me to expect, and vice versa.
I have a cleric of Gorum sitting around potentially to use in a game (we *need* a cleric and my character is somewhat redundant, though I hate clerics in general), and I'm going to tell everybody "I'm a battle cleric, not a support cleric. I'm going to be up front kicking butt, not hanging back and healing and buffing."
Well to be fair..the cleric in my example wanted to be a healer, she even refused to carry any weapon more fierce than a walking stick, and shunned armor, our GM had some system for awarding stuff for taking limitations...and boy could that cleric slap some divine mojo around. :)
I played a PC with the Healer NPC class from D&D3.5. Loaded her with Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion and turned her into a unicorn-riding healing machine. She was nicknamed the Duracell Bunny because no matter what she got hit with, she could cure it and be running about healing again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the thread's title, here's what the party's OWED
...
As to what the players and their characters owe one another their only debt is to contribute something. No longer should any party be constrained by the "4 roles" or "cleric=healer" stereotypes or what not. This is WHY the game has evolved to include archetypes, alternate racial starting packages, etc.
There can be success playing a team of all rogues; equally there is the chance of success playing a fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. Depending on the choices made by the individual players in designing their characters, one group's chances might be better than the other.
If players in my group in a Session #0 where characters are being generated want to sit around and say "what're you gonna be?" that's fine, but I've actively encouraged my players to play what they want, not what they feel is needed. WBL is there specifically to shore up deficencies. If the party needs a buffer spellcaster and no one is willing to do it, they have the following options in my opinion:
1. heck with it - live without and see what happens
2. buy some consumables
3. hire a hireling - oh yeah; there's THE REST OF THE GAMEWORLD we could look to...
In the end these kinds of problems boil down to communication and acceptance. Either you've communicated your desires and build successfully to your party or you haven't. Conversely, the party either accepts you or they don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ran a fairly short campaign while in the WTU, ( a few months long)
And had 9 players (all soldiers), I helped each player make his character in isolation and then when we got everyone together to play we had
3 Fighters (2 mounted specialists)
2 Rangers both missle types
2 Clerics
1 sorcerer
1 rogue
Pretty straight forward with races 1 dwarf and 1 elf (a cleric and rogue respectfully)
They at once fell into positions within the party , scouts, vanguard, out riders, security for the casters, a quartermaster, a liaison.
all without any input from me, it was pretty awesome, best organized party I have ever ran
and to compound things almost every player also hired a hireling or two..so in a few games I had to deal with a small very well organized army. :).
But that is kind of a extreme example, but fun to share nonetheless
I miss those guys.
I ran a fairly short campaign while in the WTU, ( a few months long)
And had 9 players (all soldiers), I helped each player make his character in isolation and then when we got everyone together to play we had
3 Fighters (2 mounted specialists)
2 Rangers both missle types
2 Clerics
1 sorcerer
1 roguePretty straight forward with races 1 dwarf and 1 elf (a cleric and rogue respectfully)
They at once fell into positions within the party , scouts, vanguard, out riders, security for the casters, a quartermaster, a liaison.
all without any input from me, it was pretty awesome, best organized party I have ever ran
and to compound things almost every player also hired a hireling or two..so in a few games I had to deal with a small very well organized army. :).
But that is kind of a extreme example, but fun to share nonetheless
I miss those guys.
I've got to say that sounds very interesting. I would be interested in running a game with those types of players, though it would probably be difficult.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, they kept me on my toes, every town they came to they scouted it for weaknesses, and sussed up the defensive capability of the locals, these guys were always on point.
And man did they love combat, we would have a whole pooltable with mini's and terrain for any largish encounters, lot of fun for those guys.
They even had a command structure in place for if the party leader was taken out who would step up to call the shots.
(but hey we were all combat vets , so I guess it makes sense)
But as to OP this party did not feel each player owed them anything, until the game actually began, then the only thing owed was loyalty.
|
|
In honor of "March Madness," gaming can be like a game of pick-up basketball at the local YMCA: you probably don't want a team of 5 short guys playing point guard or 5 tall guys who don't know how to dribble the ball. You have a basic understanding of what a team must have, and unless you're an ass-hat, you don't need to see their "character sheet" to know what other players shoot at the free-throw and 3-point line. (If you're playing for money, that may be another matter...)
A team that has played together long enough will have a level of trust that if one guy is playing the "point guard" then he'll be good at dribbling and passing the ball. The only thing owed to one another is that level of trust that everyone brings something useful to the team. If someone has an injury (i.e. making the party's only dhampir that takes damage from positive energy and another is playing a good cleric), they owe it to the party to say why they're still able to contribute to the team and how they'll overcome the injury.
Characters don't owe anything to the party. A divine caster doesn't owe the party any healing, the rogue doesn't owe the party the ability to open locks and such.
Though I seem to be one of the strange ones where I usually make my divine casters into healers, as I like healing. My oracle can buff, unbuff (not necessarily debuff) enemies, but focuses mostly on healing. I don't care if people think healing is a waste of focus for a character (similar to blasting as an arcane caster, apparently), it's how my character is made.
The only thing YOU OWE the other members of the party is the maintaining of the fun.
Don't forget S.P.A.W.M.!!!
I don't think that anybody "owes" the party anything, but it never hurts to tell the group what to expect, especially if you're planning on not filling a party function that your character class is known for generally filling. Additionally, if you're planning on making choices that severely hamper what a character of your chosen class can contribute, I think it's good policy to make sure that the group is okay with carrying you a little bit.
The one exception is that I do think, barring clearance from the rest of the group, that characters do have a responsibility to not be actively deleterious to the rest of the group. An alchemist doesn't owe it to the group to take Precise Bombs, but they do owe to the group to either take precise bombs or be judicious with bomb use such that they don't catch allies in the area of effect. There's certainly some gray area, especially when you get into the realm of chaotic effects, but in general I do think that you need clearance from the group before you go ahead with a character that plans to sometimes cause active harm to the party.
So I guess the question here would be what expectations of sharing do you have for your party, generally based on class, and what do you do when they're not met?
I have zero expectations, unless individual players decide to work together to make a pre-existing partnership or team before the game begins.
The way I see it, characters are organic, living beings within the game world. They didn't train to work together for the day they met the party, they possibly didn't even train to be adventurers. It's far more likely they're being thrown together by circumstances.
If that means a party that doesn't have all the bases covered, so be it. That can be an additional challenge to overcome, which is an opportunity not a penalty.
Equally, when I'm GMing I take it as my role to ensure a fair challenge to the players - if they didn't bring someone in plate armor, or a healer, or someone that can disarm traps or pick locks, then I'm going to make adjustments to compensate for it. I believe in giving them a fair balance of (mostly) challenges they are suited to overcome plus (occasionally) something they're not, and I calculate that balance from the group makeup. Bringing a balanced group isn't going to give them an advantage in a game I'm running, and bringing an imbalanced one isn't going to penalize them either. I do the same thing on a character-by-character basis for individual character power and abilities, too - no matter how well (or badly) they built their character, I'll rebalance the game around those individuals strengths and weaknesses to ensure it's fair for everyone playing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What the party in my games are owed: a chance to have fun, and for their choices to matter.
Everything else is up to them.
Pathfinder for the most part (there's solo games, and that's fine) a team game, and as such, your character SHOULD be designed with the team in mind.
I disagree. Your character SHOULD (imo) be designed with the game world in mind, and hopefully an interesting concept. If your group of players wants to sit down together and meta-game the perfect flawless pathfinder-winning machine, go for it, but don't feel entitled to the process if you sit down at someone elses table. That's a group decision. I've never been at a table where this happened. In my current game we don't even see each others sheets, and we play our characters as if we have no clue what the capabilities of the other characters, aside from what our characters seen each others do.
You should work to play with your fellow party members to accomplish goals to the best of your combined abilities.
Our opinions largely coincide, for most campaigns.
But there's expectations of certain classes that aren't on others, certain things that are expected of them.
These expectations are, again, meta-game issues. I try to leave them at the door.
So I guess the question here would be what expectations of sharing do you have for your party, generally based on class, and what do you do when they're not met?
I expect the players to do their best to keep each others characters alive, watch each others backs in combat and RP (as and when appropriate to character concept). When those expectations are not met, the party usually starts dying, getting hauled off to prison, or turned into newts.
I also expect every player at the table to make a deliberate effort to distinguish between character knowledge and player knowledge. When that expectation is not met, I expect my fellow players to call me on it, and call each other on it, politely, and recognize that it's a distinction worth making. When that expectation isn't met and nobody cares, the story we're telling becomes an exercise in senseless absurdity, from my perspective.
I have a steady group that can generally agree on these principles. Some people may not; I'm cool with that, but you won't find me playing with people who don't/can't make the distinction between what they actually know, and what their characters should know.
* everyone has to contribute SOMETHING. Tell the other players what you're going to contribute, to avoid redundancy/niche cramping.
I have no problem if that is what people want, but I do nto see it as neccesary. I have a samurai/monk, and You have a ranger, a barbarian, and a fighter in the group? cool! (that is the party of an actual campaing I am playing)
What a great question, one that I have strangely never considered before. I guess i would say that all players, including the referee, are owed the chance to have fun in the long term of the game. Short term, they should suffer from time to time. Also, I think the GM owes the players opportunities to _______________ (fill in the blank).
Design Manager
|
I think the party is owed a chance to have fun. I used to run groups all the time where nobody planned their characters out with the group, and it often went poorly, and sometimes it went spectacularly. Other groups I've been with have approached the game from the perspective of making sure everyone had a "role" to play, and those generally had much smaller chances of going poorly but still being great fun.
The players owe each other the chance to have fun and to play what they want to play. If Joe says "I'm playing a cleric of Gorum guys; I'm mostly going to be buffing and smashing so please don't rely on me for healing", the players owe it to Joe to respect that. Now, if the other players are all Paladins and good Clerics and Inquisitors and Joe shows up saying "I'm playing a chaotic evil necromancer", Joe owes it to the other players to rethink his stance on what he wants to play if they ask him to, because odds are really good that he's going to be making the game "not fun" for them.
|
|
Okay, I'll admit I had this from the perspective of the metagmae, since honestly I assumed that 'have fun' was a given. Although some ideas have come forward about party meshing.
Also who the hell are you Silence among Hounds? I'm going to guess you're Gothlo, since you're the only person who'd frequent a message board.
I don't think anything is necessarily "owed" to the party. We all play this to have fun being adventurers in a fantasy world. There is a certain amount of respect you need to pay your fellow players; i.e., they might be curious why they're taking along a cackling mad, three-armed alchemist when their last traveling companion (who was killed) was so much more...sane...but there should be no real expectations as to one's role.
I Believe in playing the character, not the class.. Every class has OPTIONS... and with each book they only get MORE options. However, none of them are REQUIRED...
You can make 20 different Alchemists, and have them look completely different. No two should ever be the same. If someone told me I HAD to take an option I didn't want... I'd tell them that was Choric the Alchemist who liked infusing things... this Is Hydlock the monster-man... completely different guy.
Nothing!!!
...this party did not feel each player owed them anything, until the game actually began, then the only thing owed was loyalty.
That's interesting, because that was exactly my gut reaction when I saw this thread. I have to wonder if I would have answered OP's question differently before I was in the service.
Hmm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
likely Aboniks, since service changes your priorities at the personal level, especially after deployments and combat.
Not all changes are for the better, but some are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm getting vaguely interested in an oracle of life with the "wasted" curse that heals others and "takes on their disease"... kindof a saint/martyr motif.
I've got a "leper messiah" double-cursed life oracle planned for just the right campaign some day. Wasting/Legalistic. [It works with wasted/lame as well, but I find the legalistic restrictions more interesting.]
The whole leprosy-as-a-curse concept has some pretty good semi-historical background (including a sainted Crusader King of Jerusalem), so there's tons of material to work with.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm getting vaguely interested in an oracle of life with the "wasted" curse that heals others and "takes on their disease"... kindof a saint/martyr motif.I've got a "leper messiah" double-cursed life oracle planned for just the right campaign some day. Wasting/Legalistic. [It works with wasted/lame as well, but I find the legalistic restrictions more interesting.]
The whole leprosy-as-a-curse concept has some pretty good semi-historical background (including a sainted Crusader King of Jerusalem), so there's tons of material to work with.
And Thomas Covenant for fantasy seasoning.
Damn. Now I want to craft an Illearth Stone.
|
So I guess the question here would be what expectations of sharing do you have for your party, generally based on class, and what do you do when they're not met?
For my part, I expect PCs to fill a certain role (and display specific abilities) based mostly on the role that their class usually plays.
Anyone is welcome to play a special case that deviates from the norm of his class, but he should warn the rest of the group (both GM and players) BEFORE the game starts, so that they have the opportunity to adjust their build (or the encounters on the GM's part) to ensure that the party stays viable (and even efficient).
For example, I expect to have a healer and a few meleists in any party. If someone says he will play a Cleric, I assume that he will take on the role of healer. If he wants his Cleric to do not play this role, he should warn us beforehand so that we are not stuck without good healing abilities. In the same vein, an archer or a reach combatant should warn the others before of his specific style so that we can adjust. And he should have a way to threaten adjacent squares (or be very clear and convincing about why he does not).
It is not a matter of forcing players to fulfill one role or another. It is a matter of making sure that our expectations are in line with the reality of the party.
There is nothing worse than discovering during combat that one of your teammate cannot fulfill the role you think he would. Because the whole tactics (and chances of survival) of the PC party actually hang on those expectations.
But there's expectations of certain classes that aren't on others, certain things that are expected of them. I've been called selfish for not taking Infusion with Alchemist because it would help the party, even though it didn't fit what I wanted to do. Precise Bombs is almost in the same place.Most of these expectations are of resources, although some classes due to lack of resources are excused from this (mostly martial classes), since they can't really share something they don't have.
Tea,s work far better than 4 individuals. And every class can bring valuable stuff to the team. Tanks, for example, can block foes and act as "meat shields".
Without Precise Bombs you are almost certainly doing damage to your own guys, and that's being a jerk.
And indeed, without Infusion you can't "cast a spell" on your team. It's very useful and part of being a team.
Yes, you can say "well it's not what my character would do!" But who designs your PC? You do.
You are part of a Band of Brothers, guys who have and will save your life many times. If you're playing a selfish jerk PC, why would even join up with them? Why should they keep you in the group and give you 1/4 the loot?
And even if you were playing a selfish jerk, they would realize that a TEAM is more efficient and gets more loot, so you'd still want to contribute.
A PC that doesn;t want to be part of the team wouldn't be on one in the first place, he'd go on solo adventures.
But there's expectations of certain classes that aren't on others, certain things that are expected of them. I've been called selfish for not taking Infusion with Alchemist because it would help the party, even though it didn't fit what I wanted to do. Precise Bombs is almost in the same place.Most of these expectations are of resources, although some classes due to lack of resources are excused from this (mostly martial classes), since they can't really share something they don't have.
Tea,s work far better than 4 individuals. And every class can bring valuable stuff to the team. Tanks, for example, can block foes and act as "meat shields".
Without Precise Bombs you are almost certainly doing damage to your own guys, and that's being a jerk.
And indeed, without Infusion you can't "cast a spell" on your team. It's very useful and part of being a team.
I think it gets tricky when you expect people to use limited resources to get the build that everyone else wants them to be...
Precise bombs is good. If you're planning on bombing... that's a nice one. However, there are no feats (that I'm aware of...)that would discount squares from a fireball... that just requires careful aiming. If I'm planning on building a super-Hyde/hulk/werewolf alchemist... I may not bother with improving my bomb abilities. I have other places i need those discoveries.
Same with Paladins... My paladin is the prime healer in the group. I absolutely will NOT take the selective Channel ability. I need more combat feats. So frankly NO channelling for healing in combat. regardless of how low you are.
I don't believe the 'group' has a right to vote on how you level up YOUR character. Unless Everyone else gets to vote what skills/feats/etc that you take too...
And frankly that drops the Roleplaying aspect for me. I would feel like I wasn't playing my character anymore... i was just playing a bunch of numbers that would fill in the holes of the group...
NOW... If the character has some innate ability that they all have, but the player doesn't want to use them... THAT can be kind of a jerk move.
For example, all Oracles get cure spells and they don't have to plan ahead for the day. To just say 'I'm not a healing oracle... I'm not doing that...'
THAT would get annoying. But I certainly wouldn't tell them what spells to pick when they level up and get mad if I didn't like them.
Pathfinder for the most part (there's solo games, and that's fine) a team game, and as such, your character SHOULD be designed with the team in mind. You should work to play with your fellow party members to accomplish goals to the best of your combined abilities. This much is certain, and a large part of the fun of the game in my opinion.
But there's expectations of certain classes that aren't on others, certain things that are expected of them. I've been called selfish for not taking Infusion with Alchemist because it would help the party, even though it didn't fit what I wanted to do. Precise Bombs is almost in the same place. Divine casters also fit this mold, as they're expected to heal their non capable party members.
Most of these expectations are of resources, although some classes due to lack of resources are excused from this (mostly martial classes), since they can't really share something they don't have.
So I guess the question here would be what expectations of sharing do you have for your party, generally based on class, and what do you do when they're not met?
You are not bound to any expectations. What should be expected is for the players to work together to cover any party weaknesses once the characters are made.
What I would like is for my arcane casters to be versatile. I like for my clerics to be able and willing to contribute to some healing out of combat even if it means the party has to buy them wands. Nobody should be forced to play a healbot. I would like for my full BAB classes to be able to do good damage. I like for the other classes to be decent at skills and combat. Since they are likely focusing on two aspects I dont expect for them to be great at either one.
However the final choice is still up to that player, and I prefer to make my character last to cover any holes<----I understand that does not work for everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am reminded of a 3.5 game I played as the party wizard.
Apparently the group expected me to take the creation feats.
And then got upset when I charged full price to each of them for the resultant items. They expected me to sacrifice exp, time, and money and then just hand it over? Like that was going to happen.
You, the player, owe the party NOTHING; except respect for their character/skill/feat/spell choices.
It's true that no one likes being a healbot, so we usually take turns being healer and have a secondary focus. I played a pretty good debuffing life oracle just recently and had a blast. My friend Phil played a fire cleric who liked to blast and summon angels, also a lot of fun. Ultimately, though, that group recognizes that healing is a necessity and someone has to bite the bullet and do it, even if it's the Witch.