Hey guys!
So I've been thinking about the Five Man Band plus the Sixth Ranger as a party composition. An easier version of this would be a five man band with an NPC as The Chick.
For those of you whom are unfamiliar with the five man band, it is composed of two characters that are opposites of one another and argue, one extremely smart person, one extremely strong person, and someone who keeps this group from fracturing and/or dying. These characters are:
The Hero.
The Lancer.
The Smart Guy.
The Big Guy.
The Chick.
The Sixth Ranger is a character that joins the Five Man Band and either doubles up on one of the five man band's roles, or is able to partially cover two or more roles in a pinch.
What I was thinking about was intentionally giving each of these roles in the group an attribute requirement:
The Hero: Charisma 15; Dexterity 14; any 13, 12, 10, 8.
The Lancer: Wisdom 15; Dexterity 14; any 13, 12, 10, 8.
The Smart Guy: Intelligence 15; any 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.
The Big Guy: Strength 15; any 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.
The Chick: Dexterity 15; any 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.
The Sixth Ranger: any 14, 14, 14, 12, 12, 7.
In essence, specific positions in the group would fill certain roles in the game.
How I suspect this would play out would be like this:
The Hero: Bard or Paladin/Antipaladin.
The Lancer: Inquisitor or Ranger.
The Smart Guy: Magus or Wizard.
The Big Guy: Barbarian or Fighter.
The Chick: Most Dex Based Classes. Likely an Unchained Rogue.
The Sixth Ranger: Literally anything.
What do you guys think of the idea? It is part of my anti-power-gaming set of ideas.
I like the dymanics of it from a design stand point, and would probably use this model more for players to find and fulfill the different roles needed in a certain vein of campaigns.
The Hero = party leadership role, generally makes or arbitrates most important decisions, Leonardo if you will.
The Lancer Renegade = that one player in every group that doesn't want to talk through challenges but would rather jump into combat rashly and constantly, see also: CN, murderhobo. Raphael, if we continue the metaphor.
The Smart Guy = not necessarily constrained to classes with high INT, but they can cover most of the utilities the group needs in any campaign. Wizards with utility magic, or rogues and bards with large, versatile skill lists at disposal, Donatello, obviously.
The Big Guy = doesn't have to be a big guy, per say, but often they are the best performing combatant that harmonizes with the group's tactics and is considered vital to the core team. Process of elimination makes him Michelangelo.
The Chick = a role often assigned to the NPC that recurs most often, they serve to be the DM's voice in the game that keeps the plot together so the narrative flows and maintains some form of consistency. Not required to have actual agency in the story or even a combative role at all. Megan Fox April, by my record.
The sixth ranger = often meant to serve as deus ex machina, should the need ever arise to keep the party alive. In the best case scenarios he is the Green Ranger, starting off as an enemy and later becoming a valuable ally and friend to the team. In the worst case scenarios he can become the White Ranger, forcibly lodged into the role of team leader by Zordon the DM to make the narrative flow of character relations make sense when actors are replaced including the guy who was originally supposed to be the leader at the end of the season due to contract negotiations when characters die. The sixth ranger is often seen as part of the group, and must have some combat role, even if he is not necessarily superficially compatible with the group. Casey Jones. Does he have to be an NPC? [He] can also serve as the role of the new player that joins half-way into a game.
A lot of PC groups will probably fall into this sort of pattern to an extent anyway on their own. Trying to 'manufacture' this, when you are dealing with players with their own ideas will often not work out nearly as well as when a writer can totally control their own characters.
Basically, I think if you pitch the idea to your group and they are excited about it, then go for, but I'd expect plenty of groups to feel that it was too contrained, that the roles didn't fit what they wanted to play (and/or multiple players want the same role and some roles aren't wanted by any.)
In addition, making sure that the whole story doesn't revolve around 'the leader' with the other PCs just feeling like extras could be a challenge.
I also think your stats are too constrained. Several of those roles could be filled with quite different attributes.
Personally, I'd have a lot of doubts if such a game was presented to me.
A lot of PC groups will probably fall into this sort of pattern to an extent anyway on their own. Trying to 'manufacture' this, when you are dealing with players with their own ideas will often not work out nearly as well as when a writer can totally control their own characters.
Basically, I think if you pitch the idea to your group and they are excited about it, then go for, but I'd expect plenty of groups to feel that it was too contrained, that the roles didn't fit what they wanted to play (and/or multiple players want the same role and some roles aren't wanted by any.)
In addition, making sure that the whole story doesn't revolve around 'the leader' with the other PCs just feeling like extras could be a challenge.
I also think your stats are too constrained. Several of those roles could be filled with quite different attributes.
Personally, I'd have a lot of doubts if such a game was presented to me.
I've never played in a group, nor DM'd a group where there wasn't some form of party leadership established when it comes to decision making. Even if the role is just to be there in the event of a democratic tie, there is always someone in the group who gets to make some sort of final say. They don't have to be the party face in-game, but as far as the character roles go they lead. Making sure you divorce the concept from having the player control or have too much influence on the others in game is not that hard, given it's the entire premise of the social contract.
I've never played in a group, nor DM'd a group where there wasn't some form of party leadership established when it comes to decision making.
Interesting. I've never played or DM'd a group where one of the players had any more influence on what the party did than any other (beyond their ability to be convincing.) We always figured it out the same way we figure other things out, like whether to have pizza or burgers, not through some sort of system where someone got more votes. Even in Kingmaker, the player that was the monarch didn't get to decide what the party would do any more than any other player.
In any event, that was probably the least concern I would have with the proposed system, and my concern was more the natural tendency of a story with a leader character (not a leader player) to focus on the leader rather than the group as a whole.
I've never played in a group, nor DM'd a group where there wasn't some form of party leadership established when it comes to decision making.Interesting. I've never played or DM'd a group where one of the players had any more influence on what the party did than any other (beyond their ability to be convincing.) We always figured it out the same way we figure other things out, like whether to have pizza or burgers, not through some sort of system where someone got more votes. Even in Kingmaker, the player that was the monarch didn't get to decide what the party would do any more than any other player.
In any event, that was probably the least concern I would have with the proposed system, and my concern was more the natural tendency of a story with a leader character (not a leader player) to focus on the leader rather than the group as a whole.
Good DMing solves that. Just because Aragorn was king doesn't mean Legolas or Gimli were uninteresting or useless to the story. Before your mind writes a retort to that statement, remember that Frodo was the main character. Having interparty roles defined is the purpose of session zero iirc.
My group also tends to go on tangents and party leader also serves to reign that in, or at least in theory.
Actually Sam is the main character. But that is really beside the point. I already stated that it was a challenge, not an impossibility and certainly you could craft an adventure that focuses on one character more than the other characters and still have it be equally fun for everyone, but it is harder, hence my term 'challenge'.
Even with a perfect GM it might not work out, depending on the response of the players and no GM is perfect. Doesn't mean no one should ever try, but being aware of the potential difficulties will make one more likely to succeed (and perhaps realize sooner if it isn't going to.)
Eh. I try to avoid this particular trope due to the gender stereotyping. I'd definitely avoid tying genders to roles and even more so stats to genders.
I guess I just don't see what the point of this exercise is. It certainly won't keep "powergaming" from being a thing.
Actually Sam is the main character. But that is really beside the point.
To be fair, I think this proves my point.