My group doesn't co-ordinate too much during character creation, we just try to make sure SOMEONE has healing magic to fix us up between fights, and we generally have some kind of arcane person...
We often play the same types of characters in different campaigns (I'm usually a melee/ranged dps non-caster type, another guy likes playing healers/support etc).
So yeah, I guess the concept of the party is still alive and well, we just don't sit down together and min-max as a group.
We min-max alone, then make it work during play. :D
Too many options has led Pathfinder to basically have no options because it "rewards specialization", unless you're lucky to find a DM who bans these uber builds and asks players to create characters based on their personality rather than how well they Trip.
Every DM I've played with has sought to bring these uber builds in line to something reasonable in an effort to make the game enjoyable for all. Almost all players have also sought to restrain themselves from these uber builds for the enjoyment of all. I've also always seen Wizards coordinate with other players to ensure that the wizard didn't step on other people's specialisations (although they did act as a backup with minimal effort).
No I think A-lost and CQ both make good points. I admit I can come off as a judgmental a-bomb sometimes and delivery is key. I try to be as non-aggressive and helpful as possible when making comments like this but I'm sure there are times when I fail that RL Diplomacy roll you know?
I'm trying. I'm trying to be a better player, I'm trying to be a better GM, I'm trying to do better in general. I'm not always good at it which is why I'm so self-deprecating. My only hope is that folks playing with me are so motivated.
The frustration arises with the player that ALWAYS makes spotlight characters but when their unique niche isn't useful in every game, they freak. Or how about the folks that proudly create their character in a vacuum not wanting anything to influence THEIR character, then when they show up they have glaring issues like no ranged attack or ill-chosen spells. Just that these players are in my games doesn't bother me.
Getting yelled at for trying to help does.
You guys are right, sometimes I'm a jerk. But sometimes I'm downright sheepish. Sometimes I'm just like "Hey, if you want a ranged weapon I have a sling and sling bullets..." and I get cut off mid-sentence by a comment about not telling someone how to play their character.
Then later when I suggest we have a common goal to strive for in a sandbox game, like let's all pick one hex we want to explore or maybe we all have a common business or even our own pirate ship. Suddenly I'm being controlling. I don't mean to be and if I come off that way I always apologize sincerely. My goal is always just to improve things. Also I know how hard it is on the GM to have 5 players running 5 different ways, so I'm trying to make things easier too.
But I've run into folks over the years who take any feedback to their style, tactics or builds as a pointed finger no matter HOW I phrase it. I have a thick skin, but when the follow up is spiteful, about how this person WON'T adopt any suggested change just on principle... that's how this thread came up.
Yet again I'll say: its probably just me. As I've agreed now a few times, sometimes I'm just not smooth. I guess I'm falling into a trap a lot of my older gaming friends are now. We look back not just on the mechanics of our younger games, but on the feel of it and strive to recapture some of that. I miss camaraderie, heroism, and unity in the party. No, I'm not just talking about optimizing roles though there was a lot of that starting with 3e. But I'm also talking about creating a sense that though we were four individuals we were ALSO a team, and that was just as important.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I've run into folks over the years who take any feedback to their style, tactics or builds as a pointed finger no matter HOW I phrase it. I have a thick skin, but when the follow up is spiteful, about how this person WON'T adopt any suggested change just on principle... that's how this thread came up.That's part of the problem. You have a thick skin. That makes it hard to judge what someone with a thinner skin will react to.
Lots of people have a character they want to play even if it's not optimal. Or possibly a stable of a few characters they want to play that they can choose between based on party composition. If someone can't see their character using a ranged weapon that's strange, but as long as they aren't playing a backstabber or complete waste of space that you can't see your character putting up with that's kind of their prerogative. They might be in the wrong group, but low OP RP focused play is legitimate and if you're friends outside of gaming you might choose to put up with the mismatch.
There's still a line that needs to be drawn though.
If the group is functioning well despite minor issues such as refusing to even chuck a spear when the situation warrants it then there isn't much that can be or really should be said. The group works and the guy is having fun.
However, if the group constantly finds itself going from one grueling near death experience to another on even very basic throw away encounters because "muh character" than something has to be done. I prefer in-character talk myself.
Like instead of Mark going, "Hey next time we get into a red dragon fight I've got a sling and some bullets you can use. I noticed your frustration during that fight with BLOODAXE GORECURDLER and figured that might be a sensible solution to your boggle."
In character he can say. "Do you like standing there looking mean with your over compensating axe while on fire! Because that's precisely what happened! We've got a veritable armory of spears, wands, bullets, and kitchen implements you can hurl, shoot and spit in anger at things! Maybe try picking one of them up rather than looking confused when the giant lizard of fire comes barreling out of the sky!"
Keeping it in-character can be somewhat more impactful and less insulting to the play of the other player. You are not acting from the stance of a controlling player but a character whose life is on the line by dint of another's stupid actions. That says a lot more.
My group will break down all of the classes down into the 4 basic groups. Put them on index cards with a number next to the classes. Randomly pull the cards for your roll in the party. Then roll whatever die you need to roll to figure out what class out of your "job" group your playing. It covers all of your group's needs but no one will be playing the same thing every time.
Is this for Real? Do you have the cards on computer? I am very curious about this system. I cannot even imagine any of the guys i play with submitting to somthing like that. Or guess how the Classes are groupd.
Sorry if this sounds sarcastic that is not the intention. One of the big draws for me here is to see how others play the game.
But I've run into folks over the years who take any feedback to their style, tactics or builds as a pointed finger no matter HOW I phrase it. I have a thick skin, but when the follow up is spiteful, about how this person WON'T adopt any suggested change just on principle... that's how this thread came up.That's part of the problem. You have a thick skin. That makes it hard to judge what someone with a thinner skin will react to.
Lots of people have a character they want to play even if it's not optimal. Or possibly a stable of a few characters they want to play that they can choose between based on party composition. If someone can't see their character using a ranged weapon that's strange, but as long as they aren't playing a backstabber or complete waste of space that you can't see your character putting up with that's kind of their prerogative. They might be in the wrong group, but low OP RP focused play is legitimate and if you're friends outside of gaming you might choose to put up with the mismatch.
There's still a line that needs to be drawn though.
If the group is functioning well despite minor issues such as refusing to even chuck a spear when the situation warrants it then there isn't much that can be or really should be said. The group works and the guy is having fun.
However, if the group constantly finds itself going from one grueling near death experience to another on even very basic throw away encounters because "muh character" than something has to be done.
Seconding this. Speaking from experience, there are definitely people who just really don't get how to make or play a remotely effective character, yet will stubbornly stick to their guns even as their strength-based TWF Kobold fighter continues flailing away at the enemy with a negative to-hit bonus for d6-1 damage.
Those sorts of players are inevitably frustrated by how ineffective their character is, yet at the same time refuse to accept that their character's failings are a result of their own build choices. Instead it's that the GM is making encounters too hard, or the other players are all powergaming to make them look bad, or just blaming unlucky dice.
I'm going to stop this here, because the moment you say the word "audition", you've broken the typical scenario that I see happen and the scenario that I was actually talking about. That type of party formation is covered in the two sentences after the ones you quoted.If the party is meeting up in a tavern, it breaks things for me if they all just so happen to work wonderfully together. I just don't like how contrived that is.Maybe.
Imagine this:
It's August, 1960, in England. Pete Best (a rock drummer) walks into an audition for a new group.
So change it slightly; the problem remains. August 1960, Liverpool, at The 196,418 Rabbits. (The landlord named his new pub The Two Rabbits back in 1887. Lapin a l'Anglaise is one of the specialities on the menu). Pete Best is sitting with his four best mates when one of them suggests they make a band.
"George," Pete says. "We're all drummers. Where are we going to get gigs? Who's going to pay to listen to us? Now, if you could learn to play guitar, and if Paul over there could learn bass -- even left-handed -- we might have something there."
Upon hearing this voice of common sense, the group decided instead to open an auto body shop, which eventually become one of the most commercially successful companies in postwar Britain. With their invention of the Beatle, a tool for beating dents out of quarter panels [rear wings], they revolutionized the auto repair industry. Lord Best of Ropewalk later told the BBC in an interview "Yeah, John, Paul, George, Stu, and I thought for a while about starting a band, but realised we were rubbish and took another path instead."
---
Now, if you want to have the village of Ropewalk attacked during DrummerCon (or MonkCon) and it's all-heroes-to-General-Quarters, then you might have a strongly unbalanced party. But if they're going to become professional adventurers, they're going to realize very quickly that they need a variety of skills. So they'll either branch out in their skills, or, more likely, "realise that they are rubbish and take another path instead."
|
The last part, after the break, is basically what I'm aiming at. It is, again, what a lot of the APs tend to do (all the ones I've taken a real look at the intros to, though that's only like four so it's certainly possible I just so happened to pick the four that did that).
Legacy of Fire sort of split the difference. The game starts where you don't know each-other much (though you've traveled together for a bit before the opening scene), but you were all hired on as mercenaries by the same person, so it makes sense that she would have hired a reasonably balanced party.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I wonder how all this factors into open-recruitment PbP games. The campaign I'm currently running started with the PCs (strangers at the time) meeting at a local festival and then a body drops out of the sky in their midst. Adventure ensues.
So within the narrative, there's no reason for them to make sure they're a well-balanced party. But since it's a PbP campaign for which I did open recruitment, I was able to look at the pool of available characters and decide on a party that I felt I could run a good game for. That decision included party balance (and plenty else, of course).
So where a pre-determined group of players deciding on party dynamics for that adventure might have felt "contrived" to me, the PbP recruitment selection didn't have that feel.
Hm. Not really sure where to go with that, but there it is.
No unfortunately we never got around to scanning them. It came into play a few years ago after we had a player who was just playing the same thing every campaign. We were kind getting bored with it, so one of the guys thought why not have everyone randomly roll for classes. The down side was 4 tanks and nothing else. So we ended up splitting up the classes with a divine, "fighter", skill monkey, and caster. Sure some of the classes are on two cards but you build for the job you draw. Like rangers fall into the "fighter" and skill monkey groups but you can build either way depending on the feats you take.My group will break down all of the classes down into the 4 basic groups. Put them on index cards with a number next to the classes. Randomly pull the cards for your roll in the party. Then roll whatever die you need to roll to figure out what class out of your "job" group your playing. It covers all of your group's needs but no one will be playing the same thing every time.Is this for Real? Do you have the cards on computer? I am very curious about this system. I cannot even imagine any of the guys i play with submitting to somthing like that. Or guess how the Classes are groupd.
Sorry if this sounds sarcastic that is not the intention. One of the big draws for me here is to see how others play the game.
shame. And thanks for getting back.
My group's have always done the same, minus the random element. There's universally recognised roles (tank, healer, caster, magical trap disabler). Everyone either doesn't care or has a few preferences of what they DON'T want to play due to their history (typically the person who always gets stuck playing the healer doesn't want it). Then everyone gets to choose whatever class they want. Sometimes someone will go a really bizarre choice at picking a class to fill their assigned role which might require negotiating with other players to pick up a spell or two to help cover their downfall. But the onus is always on the player to fulfill their assigned role.
{. . .}
No unfortunately we never got around to scanning them. It came into play a few years ago after we had a player who was just playing the same thing every campaign. We were kind getting bored with it, so one of the guys thought why not have everyone randomly roll for classes. {. . .}
Did anyone ever figure out why this play was always playing the same thing? You'd think it would be boring for that player . . . .
|
Party vs individual PCs is a pretty tricky concept.
One extreme is a juxtaposition of characters with no balance, no cohesion in combat and actually no reason to adventure together.
The other one is cogs in the machine. And god help you if your PC is not finely tuned to the exact level of optimization of the rest of the party.