The first player who makes a decisionm on what character to play gets to play whatever they feel like. Anything their heart desires.
Every successive player, according to conventional logic, must avoid and synergize with previous choices, removing more and more choice, until the final player in a typical four or five-man party has perhaps two 'logical' choices at best. They are effectively funneled into making the character the party wants, regardless of what they want.
Players who quickly nail down their chasracter get the freedom and benefit of playing whatever they want all the time. Players who deliberate and try to weigh their options are constantly forced to capitulate, play whatever the party decrees they play, and never get to play any of the characters that sing to them.
Is it any wonder that some tables have decided that intra-party balance can go to Hell and that everyone gets the same freedom to play what sings to them as that first player? I've had to flex, give up the characters I wanted to play for the characters the party insisted they needed, more often than the other way around at this point. I've made it work, found a way to have fun anyways. But sometimes? Sometimes it's somebody else's turn to play the party buttplug, bring up the rear and fill in the holes. If every table makes one or two players into the party buttplug every single game, forces those players to always give up on what they'd like to do in favor of what the party insists they need? That table may be down one or two players real shortly-like here.
This is what I alluded to in my earlier post, just not so colorfully, lol. It’s why I found it odd someone would suggest there is any “selfishness” involved. Seems the non-buttplugs are more “selfish” than the player who wants to stick with what they want to play no matter what the party wants.
And I think most players are a little bit if both, playing the character they want to play while making choices that benefit the party. And as long as a player isn’t being a wangrod who wants to be the main character of the story stealing all the spotlight then no matter the Party makeup, it should work out just fine.
I get to play D&D 3-4 hours, once or twice per month, so our campaign is spread out over a long time. So it is really important that I get to play the character I want to play. Once this campaign is over I have 5-10 characters ready that I would like to play, so it’s a little easier to keep from too much overlap. But if I only had one character in mind that I want to play, then that is what I would play. And luckily my group is very accommodating with each other, most of us have been friends for decades, so that wouldn’t be a problem. For myself or for other players to play what they want.
This is what I alluded to in my earlier post, just not so colorfully, lol. It’s why I found it odd someone would suggest there is any “selfishness” involved. Seems the non-buttplugs are more “selfish” than the player who wants to stick with what they want to play no matter what the party wants.
And I think most players are a little bit if both, playing the character they want to play while making choices that benefit the party. And as long as a player isn’t being a wangrod who wants to be the main character of the story stealing all the spotlight then no matter the Party makeup, it should work out just fine.
I get to play D&D 3-4 hours, once or twice per month, so our campaign is spread out over a long time. So it is really important that I get to play the character I want to play. Once this campaign is over I have 5-10 characters ready that I would like to play, so it’s a little easier to keep from too much overlap. But if I only had one character in mind that I want to play, then that is what I would play. And luckily my group is very accommodating with each other, most of us have been friends for decades, so that wouldn’t be a problem. For myself or for other players to play what they want.
I am in a similar situation where I have a bevy of characters ready to go, all with different skillsets and combinations thereof, lol. I do it for fun, to create characters who da fill a couple roles, then sit back and wonder what type of person would live a life that led to such interests and skills. Reverse engineering a character, somewhat, but I tend to carry a plethora of character personalities in my mind anyway, so plucking one out to suit the PC I just made usually doesn't take long. That said, I already have a bunch of characters I WANT to play and little actual time to dedicate to them, so picking one to round out the group and "cover the bases" as it were, isn't a big issue for me.
At my table, we do talk about who is going to do what and I find myself sitting back letting everyone pick what they want to do in the campaign, then looking at what stuff I feel would really help us, be it missing skills, like lockpicking and stealth or perhaps aracane magic, or maybe healing. From there I scan the list of waiting characters to see which one checks the most boxes. When I have equal desire to play 6-8 different characters I have played around building, picking whichever one fits the roles I see as missing isn't an issue. Better still, I have characters who overlap themselves, stealth, lockpicking and arcana, sure, got one can do that, sneaky stuff and healing, yeah, got some of that, too,. It means I usually still have 2-3 characters who can fill the "missing" roles, often via different means. Now I get to pick the personality I think will be most fun to be in the group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Since my return to playing D&D a couple years ago, I have been in parties where everyone made their characters independently, I've been in parties where we all discussed our characters as a group before anyone made anything, I've been in parties where I had to come up with a concept and backstory as a pitch to join the campaign without knowing what anyone else is playing... heck, I've even been in parties where we all rolled our race/class/background randomly, just for blanks and giggles
I have yet to be in a party where I was forced or even strongly encouraged to be a certain class or fill a certain role based on what anyone else had already come up with. I have no idea what "conventional logic" is being referred to here, but it doesn't seem particularly conventional to me
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I have yet to be in a party where I was forced or even strongly encouraged to be a certain class or fill a certain role based on what anyone else had already come up with. I have no idea what "conventional logic" is being referred to here, but it doesn't seem particularly conventional to me
It doesn't have to be external. Plenty of players feel that it's a mistake not to have a healer, or not to have an arcane expert of some sort who can identify stuff and counterspell, or not to have anyone with some interpersonal skills, etc - so they take it on themselves to fill in the blanks. There's nothing wrong with that either. And sometimes it's not so much about taking something specific as it is about not taking something someone else already picked, so as not to step on any toes. There are many possible reasons and justifications for someone to dismiss a few character options in function of the rest of the party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I had a specific character in mind to play Avernus with. When looking to join a group I asked if anyone was playing that class already or if it was a good fit. I was prepared to keep looking for a good fit rather than expect them to make it work.
I wouldn't play a totally different character to fit, but for example, later on we added someone and they put forward a few options they liked, asked what the rest of the group comp was and if we had any holes. Any of his choices would have worked for a 5th but we didn't have anyone with lock picking skills so he made a character with a criminal background.
This is the sort of thinking of the group that I'm thinking of rather than "we need a healer so if you want to play you need to play one and with these sets of skills", etc.
When I played as a kid in the 80s this is sort of what my friend group did, each playing a different role, though I don't think we really had a healer. And has mostly been my experience since starting again a year ago. I think I was a bit surprised by the attitude of play what you want regardless of group dynamic attitude, not really understanding how adaptable this game can be.
The OP likened it to a baseball team where you have a set of positions that have to be filled (shifts notwithstanding) and while this may not need to be true of a D&D group it would likely be true of an adventuring group in most D&D settings. From an RP perspective would you, as a wizard, join up with a group consisting of 3 other wizards or would you look for something a little more well-rounded?
The OP likened it to a baseball team where you have a set of positions that have to be filled (shifts notwithstanding) and while this may not need to be true of a D&D group it would likely be true of an adventuring group in most D&D settings. From an RP perspective would you, as a wizard, join up with a group consisting of 3 other wizards or would you look for something a little more well-rounded?
If it was just a bunch of friends who are all apprentices from Wizard School I would bet they would stick together.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The OP likened it to a baseball team where you have a set of positions that have to be filled (shifts notwithstanding) and while this may not need to be true of a D&D group it would likely be true of an adventuring group in most D&D settings. From an RP perspective would you, as a wizard, join up with a group consisting of 3 other wizards or would you look for something a little more well-rounded?
The answer is contingent on so many other things. I could see a number of reasons an all Wizard group would band together to accomplish some task, that would be meta-interpreted through a game and rules system as "an adventurer." Same for pretty much every class. I could also see situations where a more diversified set of skills might be useful. I could also envision many situations where a group of classes are haphazardly put together and have to work together (often survival, fugitive, refugee type scenarios, or "they're all that's left" forlorn hope type motivations). The notion that a party has to be some sort of professionalized adventuring unit consisting of five distinct types with distinctive roles I think in some ways in more limited than a group of players coming together with little coordination to see what can happen. And I wouldn't call the "classic" class distributions at all realistic for whatever "realistic adventuring" would be. From an RP perspective.
I had a specific character in mind to play Avernus with. When looking to join a group I asked if anyone was playing that class already or if it was a good fit. I was prepared to keep looking for a good fit rather than expect them to make it work.
I wouldn't play a totally different character to fit, but for example, later on we added someone and they put forward a few options they liked, asked what the rest of the group comp was and if we had any holes. Any of his choices would have worked for a 5th but we didn't have anyone with lock picking skills so he made a character with a criminal background.
This is the sort of thinking of the group that I'm thinking of rather than "we need a healer so if you want to play you need to play one and with these sets of skills", etc.
When I played as a kid in the 80s this is sort of what my friend group did, each playing a different role, though I don't think we really had a healer. And has mostly been my experience since starting again a year ago. I think I was a bit surprised by the attitude of play what you want regardless of group dynamic attitude, not really understanding how adaptable this game can be.
Agreed. We're looking at adding a player to our party, and I'll be pointing out the composition of the party and where they're lacking as well as where they're strong. Not because they're not allowed to be a second Druid, but do they really want to be competing with the Druid for spotting things? Do they really want to be competing with the Goliath for strength? Do they really want to the fourth tank? If on the other hand, they're (say) an Arcane Trickster Rogue, they get to be the only sneaky one in the group and the only intelligent one and so automatically will have two circumstances in which they will get the spotlight by default. If they want to be another tank, that's fine, we're not optimising here, they'll just struggle to come out of the shadow of the other players. So long as everyone's having fun, I don't care, I just think they're less likely to if they're similar to other characters..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I enjoy filling a niche and having a role within the party, so for me they're one and the same. It isn't as much fun for me if say, we have two sneaky lock picking types and are competing over that role.
Now this doesn't mean I can't enjoy having two of the same class. An archer based fighter and a melee fighter both have different roles to a degree for example. A wizard might focus on support spells or damage spells, letting two wizards fill different roles through spell choice, etc.
We have a player who can't be bothered with "complicated" characters, so always plays some sort of front-line type. This makes it easier for the rest of us.
I don't think we ever bother with a dedicated healer, but with a bard and a druid and a monk in our current party they can patch up where necessary.
There's a lot of talk of spotlight time, competing for roles, and the like.
Query: does anyone truly believe this is good for the game?
I've played The Sneaky Sort a few different times. When I'm the only Sneaky Sort, what it means is sneaky-sort tactics aren't on the table. Sure, I could suggest some big solo infiltration mission to gather information for the party and eat up half a session or more or on a big, risky solo play...or I could be a polite, considerate player and not do that instead. Any "Sneaky Sort" things I do have to fit inside ten or fewer minutes because elsewise I'm Hogging The Spotlight. Same for when I play a chatty facetime sort. I can't go off and handle a diplomatic meeting with important personages because that takes up way too much time. Any time I have skills the party does not that would require time, effort, and roleplaying to use, those skills go largely wasted because the average table doesn't tolerate one player taking up so much time by themselves.
One of my favorite D&D moments/stories ever was me convincing the DM to keep going after a session ended and most everybody else left. I asked if it was all right for me to rouse the party's other sneak from slumber and do an infiltration job on a super shady NPC's place of business, and both the other player and the DM agreed. We spent an hour and a half running a fantastic B&E infiltration on the building, learned some absolutely key information, and when we relayed what we discovere next session it changed the course of the game. It was super heckin' awesome, and also the only time I've ever been able to put Sneaky Sort skills to their proper work.
In my current artificer's game, two thirds of the party is Sneaky Sort capable. Half of us can pick locks, I'm one of exactly two characters without Stealth proficiency, and in general we have plenty of options for subterfuge and concealment. Sneaky Sort tactics are a normal thing for that party, since everybody can participate and partake. The overlap enables cool moments, it doesn't rob the individual players of spotlight time. More people being able to participate in a scene means that scene can actually happen, rather than the rogue doing a critical burglary scene that the party really needs...while the rest of the table checks out and fidgets on their phones. Or worse, convincing the DM to just let them go back home because they don't care about this crap.
Try to stop thinking in terms of who gets the spotlight when, and instead think inb terms of how many different cool things your party as a whole can do. The Balanced Blend where everybody has ONE thing and ONE THING ONLY they can do? Those parties suck. Nobody gets to do their One Thing because everybody else checks out when it's time to do it. Embrace the overlap. Lean into the lopsidedness. Find ways to make that lopsidedness awesome, and don't worry about the crap your team can't do. If you don't have any talky sorts, any nobleman or wealthy-merchant types? Don't bother with talky bits. They won't work, and there's other ways you can solve the issue instead.
Use your strengths instead of railing against your weaknesses.
There's a balance between people having a niche and spotlight hogging.
The sneaky character doesn't have to spend half the session doing an infiltration mission in order to get to do sneak things. They can scout ahead a bit in the dungeon, pick an npc's pocket, pick a lock/disarm a trap, get a good hiding spot to attack from while face argues with the villain to buy time etc.
This being D&D a lot of the niches also largely apply to combat where everyone is getting something to do anyway. Being the group's tanky bruiser doesn't take away from anyone else's time. Nor does being the utility wizard with a book full of situational fun support spells. Or being the group's long range archer.
And in terms of being the face, that doesn't mean everyone else has to just sit by and do nothing while the bard and the npcs talk. Have the rest of the party there to, let them chime in etc. You don't have to split individual characters off for prolonged periods of time to give people niches and roles to fulfill. Nor does it mean that niche is the 'ONLY' thing you can do. Being the sneaky type doesn't mean you specialize only in sneaking and can't contribute otherwise.
There are also ways to have other people involved if the DM is creative. For example, my rogue's party needed to break into a tower once to steal some magical items before a BBEG got their hands on it by purchasing said tower in a few days. She definitely got moments to shine in that ordeal, but the rest of the party wasn't left out. Everyone found ways to contribute, from collaborating to solve puzzles, to checking out different clues in the rooms we went to, to having to fight against some security golems for combat etc.
EDIT: Ophidimancer's "yes, in moderation" comment below also nails this on the head.
There's a lot of talk of spotlight time, competing for roles, and the like.
Query: does anyone truly believe this is good for the game?
I mean, yes in moderation. I think this is an issue of both DM skill and player collaboration. Every player has different needs when it comes to the spotlight and managing this one of the more crucial skills of a DM. Managed well it can lead to a game where everyone kind of tosses the spotlight back and forth and actively tries to help their teammates show off how cool they are. Sometimes, I would say rarely, you might get someone who doesn't want the spotlight ever. The DM needs to know how to gauge these kinds of things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yes spotlight time can be/is important in a game and often varies by player as well as PC. I have often seen problems arise when a player thinks their PC is going to do X and that situation just does not arise in the game do to other decisions that the group makes. I have often times see new'ish GM's say I do not want another X (Insert class/race/option) in my game as it is or was problematic for me as a GM or for the story/adventure I want to run. So IDing this before had is very important for the GM and letting the players know what the GM is thinking is important in longer running games.
I have also seen (in home games and org play) "the" player who says I am going to play X because I want to and become an issue just like in the past. Often identifying just what the persons reasons for doing so and why are complex and often you cannot say just because they made the choice they did they did it because they want to be a problem or they just like what they like. I can say I have seen disruptive players pick things just to blow up an org game and have seen someone play something for RP/theme that does the same but is very entertaining for the GM and group.
The strength of the party is something that comes with communication and teamwork. It doesn't matter how well your classes compliment each other, even if everybody is playing the most optimized party as voted by the internet, if they don't know how to play it well and together, it doesn't matter.
Ultimately this game is about having fun, so really do what you want to do (as long as its not killing the fun for everyone else). It always helps to take into account what other people are going for (this is where the communication begins). If everybody is happy with what they are able to do and has a good attitude, those are legitimately some of the best moments I've ever experienced.
And don't forget to support each other's success and failures! It really brings everybody together.
I'm hesitant to get judgy, but the latter approach seems a little on the selfish side. You want to play what you want and its up to everyone else to adjust to you and make what you want work, rather than considering the needs of the group. This is where I'm coming from, I'm sure there is a more positive spin on the latter view and I'd be interested in hearing what it is.
Only if you are the only one doing this. If everyone takes the approach of "let's make characters that are personally fun for us, throw them together, and live with whatever happens" then the needs of the group are being met. I have often told my group - "play what you want and I will roll a character to fill in gaps as needed, unless it's a paladin".
I'm hesitant to get judgy, but the latter approach seems a little on the selfish side. You want to play what you want and its up to everyone else to adjust to you and make what you want work, rather than considering the needs of the group. This is where I'm coming from, I'm sure there is a more positive spin on the latter view and I'd be interested in hearing what it is.
Only if you are the only one doing this. If everyone takes the approach of "let's make characters that are personally fun for us, throw them together, and live with whatever happens" then the needs of the group are being met. I have often told my group - "play what you want and I will roll a character to fill in gaps as needed, unless it's a paladin".
Paladins can do specific things no other class can (just like any other class), but there's little or nothing they can provide functionally that one or more other classes can't do in another way. Which kind of illustrates that unless you have a massive group, even if you don't want to double up on classes you should almost always have one or two options left for a general role after everyone else's already picked something before you. That doesn't mean such table rules are or should be ok for everyone, just that there's a lot of ways you can go about this that all pretty much work on a basic level.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm hesitant to get judgy, but the latter approach seems a little on the selfish side. You want to play what you want and its up to everyone else to adjust to you and make what you want work, rather than considering the needs of the group. This is where I'm coming from, I'm sure there is a more positive spin on the latter view and I'd be interested in hearing what it is.
Only if you are the only one doing this. If everyone takes the approach of "let's make characters that are personally fun for us, throw them together, and live with whatever happens" then the needs of the group are being met. I have often told my group - "play what you want and I will roll a character to fill in gaps as needed, unless it's a paladin".
Does that attitude impose much on the needs of the DM? Maybe that's the role of the DM, but is there a point where that attitude does become a burden on them? Like maybe the party all independently decide they want to play pacifist support characters, or maybe the BBEG the DM has been working on has complex political and social webs but the party all want to play bruiser barbarians and fighters? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe that is the burden a DM takes on.
Asking myself those questions, I'm now thinking how much should a player consider their DM when making character decisions? I hear recommendations to make a character that wants to adventure and be interested in story hooks, so it seems there is some sort of obligation on the part of players to consider their DM. So I expand the original question to include the DM along with the party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is what I alluded to in my earlier post, just not so colorfully, lol. It’s why I found it odd someone would suggest there is any “selfishness” involved. Seems the non-buttplugs are more “selfish” than the player who wants to stick with what they want to play no matter what the party wants.
And I think most players are a little bit if both, playing the character they want to play while making choices that benefit the party. And as long as a player isn’t being a wangrod who wants to be the main character of the story stealing all the spotlight then no matter the Party makeup, it should work out just fine.
I get to play D&D 3-4 hours, once or twice per month, so our campaign is spread out over a long time. So it is really important that I get to play the character I want to play. Once this campaign is over I have 5-10 characters ready that I would like to play, so it’s a little easier to keep from too much overlap. But if I only had one character in mind that I want to play, then that is what I would play. And luckily my group is very accommodating with each other, most of us have been friends for decades, so that wouldn’t be a problem. For myself or for other players to play what they want.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I am in a similar situation where I have a bevy of characters ready to go, all with different skillsets and combinations thereof, lol. I do it for fun, to create characters who da fill a couple roles, then sit back and wonder what type of person would live a life that led to such interests and skills. Reverse engineering a character, somewhat, but I tend to carry a plethora of character personalities in my mind anyway, so plucking one out to suit the PC I just made usually doesn't take long. That said, I already have a bunch of characters I WANT to play and little actual time to dedicate to them, so picking one to round out the group and "cover the bases" as it were, isn't a big issue for me.
At my table, we do talk about who is going to do what and I find myself sitting back letting everyone pick what they want to do in the campaign, then looking at what stuff I feel would really help us, be it missing skills, like lockpicking and stealth or perhaps aracane magic, or maybe healing. From there I scan the list of waiting characters to see which one checks the most boxes. When I have equal desire to play 6-8 different characters I have played around building, picking whichever one fits the roles I see as missing isn't an issue. Better still, I have characters who overlap themselves, stealth, lockpicking and arcana, sure, got one can do that, sneaky stuff and healing, yeah, got some of that, too,. It means I usually still have 2-3 characters who can fill the "missing" roles, often via different means. Now I get to pick the personality I think will be most fun to be in the group.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Since my return to playing D&D a couple years ago, I have been in parties where everyone made their characters independently, I've been in parties where we all discussed our characters as a group before anyone made anything, I've been in parties where I had to come up with a concept and backstory as a pitch to join the campaign without knowing what anyone else is playing... heck, I've even been in parties where we all rolled our race/class/background randomly, just for blanks and giggles
I have yet to be in a party where I was forced or even strongly encouraged to be a certain class or fill a certain role based on what anyone else had already come up with. I have no idea what "conventional logic" is being referred to here, but it doesn't seem particularly conventional to me
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It doesn't have to be external. Plenty of players feel that it's a mistake not to have a healer, or not to have an arcane expert of some sort who can identify stuff and counterspell, or not to have anyone with some interpersonal skills, etc - so they take it on themselves to fill in the blanks. There's nothing wrong with that either. And sometimes it's not so much about taking something specific as it is about not taking something someone else already picked, so as not to step on any toes. There are many possible reasons and justifications for someone to dismiss a few character options in function of the rest of the party.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I had a specific character in mind to play Avernus with. When looking to join a group I asked if anyone was playing that class already or if it was a good fit. I was prepared to keep looking for a good fit rather than expect them to make it work.
I wouldn't play a totally different character to fit, but for example, later on we added someone and they put forward a few options they liked, asked what the rest of the group comp was and if we had any holes. Any of his choices would have worked for a 5th but we didn't have anyone with lock picking skills so he made a character with a criminal background.
This is the sort of thinking of the group that I'm thinking of rather than "we need a healer so if you want to play you need to play one and with these sets of skills", etc.
When I played as a kid in the 80s this is sort of what my friend group did, each playing a different role, though I don't think we really had a healer. And has mostly been my experience since starting again a year ago. I think I was a bit surprised by the attitude of play what you want regardless of group dynamic attitude, not really understanding how adaptable this game can be.
The OP likened it to a baseball team where you have a set of positions that have to be filled (shifts notwithstanding) and while this may not need to be true of a D&D group it would likely be true of an adventuring group in most D&D settings. From an RP perspective would you, as a wizard, join up with a group consisting of 3 other wizards or would you look for something a little more well-rounded?
If it was just a bunch of friends who are all apprentices from Wizard School I would bet they would stick together.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The answer is contingent on so many other things. I could see a number of reasons an all Wizard group would band together to accomplish some task, that would be meta-interpreted through a game and rules system as "an adventurer." Same for pretty much every class. I could also see situations where a more diversified set of skills might be useful. I could also envision many situations where a group of classes are haphazardly put together and have to work together (often survival, fugitive, refugee type scenarios, or "they're all that's left" forlorn hope type motivations). The notion that a party has to be some sort of professionalized adventuring unit consisting of five distinct types with distinctive roles I think in some ways in more limited than a group of players coming together with little coordination to see what can happen. And I wouldn't call the "classic" class distributions at all realistic for whatever "realistic adventuring" would be. From an RP perspective.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Agreed. We're looking at adding a player to our party, and I'll be pointing out the composition of the party and where they're lacking as well as where they're strong. Not because they're not allowed to be a second Druid, but do they really want to be competing with the Druid for spotting things? Do they really want to be competing with the Goliath for strength? Do they really want to the fourth tank? If on the other hand, they're (say) an Arcane Trickster Rogue, they get to be the only sneaky one in the group and the only intelligent one and so automatically will have two circumstances in which they will get the spotlight by default. If they want to be another tank, that's fine, we're not optimising here, they'll just struggle to come out of the shadow of the other players. So long as everyone's having fun, I don't care, I just think they're less likely to if they're similar to other characters..
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I enjoy filling a niche and having a role within the party, so for me they're one and the same. It isn't as much fun for me if say, we have two sneaky lock picking types and are competing over that role.
Now this doesn't mean I can't enjoy having two of the same class. An archer based fighter and a melee fighter both have different roles to a degree for example. A wizard might focus on support spells or damage spells, letting two wizards fill different roles through spell choice, etc.
We have a player who can't be bothered with "complicated" characters, so always plays some sort of front-line type. This makes it easier for the rest of us.
I don't think we ever bother with a dedicated healer, but with a bard and a druid and a monk in our current party they can patch up where necessary.
There's a lot of talk of spotlight time, competing for roles, and the like.
Query: does anyone truly believe this is good for the game?
I've played The Sneaky Sort a few different times. When I'm the only Sneaky Sort, what it means is sneaky-sort tactics aren't on the table. Sure, I could suggest some big solo infiltration mission to gather information for the party and eat up half a session or more or on a big, risky solo play...or I could be a polite, considerate player and not do that instead. Any "Sneaky Sort" things I do have to fit inside ten or fewer minutes because elsewise I'm Hogging The Spotlight. Same for when I play a chatty facetime sort. I can't go off and handle a diplomatic meeting with important personages because that takes up way too much time. Any time I have skills the party does not that would require time, effort, and roleplaying to use, those skills go largely wasted because the average table doesn't tolerate one player taking up so much time by themselves.
One of my favorite D&D moments/stories ever was me convincing the DM to keep going after a session ended and most everybody else left. I asked if it was all right for me to rouse the party's other sneak from slumber and do an infiltration job on a super shady NPC's place of business, and both the other player and the DM agreed. We spent an hour and a half running a fantastic B&E infiltration on the building, learned some absolutely key information, and when we relayed what we discovere next session it changed the course of the game. It was super heckin' awesome, and also the only time I've ever been able to put Sneaky Sort skills to their proper work.
In my current artificer's game, two thirds of the party is Sneaky Sort capable. Half of us can pick locks, I'm one of exactly two characters without Stealth proficiency, and in general we have plenty of options for subterfuge and concealment. Sneaky Sort tactics are a normal thing for that party, since everybody can participate and partake. The overlap enables cool moments, it doesn't rob the individual players of spotlight time. More people being able to participate in a scene means that scene can actually happen, rather than the rogue doing a critical burglary scene that the party really needs...while the rest of the table checks out and fidgets on their phones. Or worse, convincing the DM to just let them go back home because they don't care about this crap.
Try to stop thinking in terms of who gets the spotlight when, and instead think inb terms of how many different cool things your party as a whole can do. The Balanced Blend where everybody has ONE thing and ONE THING ONLY they can do? Those parties suck. Nobody gets to do their One Thing because everybody else checks out when it's time to do it. Embrace the overlap. Lean into the lopsidedness. Find ways to make that lopsidedness awesome, and don't worry about the crap your team can't do. If you don't have any talky sorts, any nobleman or wealthy-merchant types? Don't bother with talky bits. They won't work, and there's other ways you can solve the issue instead.
Use your strengths instead of railing against your weaknesses.
Please do not contact or message me.
There's a balance between people having a niche and spotlight hogging.
The sneaky character doesn't have to spend half the session doing an infiltration mission in order to get to do sneak things. They can scout ahead a bit in the dungeon, pick an npc's pocket, pick a lock/disarm a trap, get a good hiding spot to attack from while face argues with the villain to buy time etc.
This being D&D a lot of the niches also largely apply to combat where everyone is getting something to do anyway. Being the group's tanky bruiser doesn't take away from anyone else's time. Nor does being the utility wizard with a book full of situational fun support spells. Or being the group's long range archer.
And in terms of being the face, that doesn't mean everyone else has to just sit by and do nothing while the bard and the npcs talk. Have the rest of the party there to, let them chime in etc. You don't have to split individual characters off for prolonged periods of time to give people niches and roles to fulfill. Nor does it mean that niche is the 'ONLY' thing you can do. Being the sneaky type doesn't mean you specialize only in sneaking and can't contribute otherwise.
There are also ways to have other people involved if the DM is creative. For example, my rogue's party needed to break into a tower once to steal some magical items before a BBEG got their hands on it by purchasing said tower in a few days. She definitely got moments to shine in that ordeal, but the rest of the party wasn't left out. Everyone found ways to contribute, from collaborating to solve puzzles, to checking out different clues in the rooms we went to, to having to fight against some security golems for combat etc.
EDIT: Ophidimancer's "yes, in moderation" comment below also nails this on the head.
I mean, yes in moderation. I think this is an issue of both DM skill and player collaboration. Every player has different needs when it comes to the spotlight and managing this one of the more crucial skills of a DM. Managed well it can lead to a game where everyone kind of tosses the spotlight back and forth and actively tries to help their teammates show off how cool they are. Sometimes, I would say rarely, you might get someone who doesn't want the spotlight ever. The DM needs to know how to gauge these kinds of things.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Response to Post #52-54,
Yes spotlight time can be/is important in a game and often varies by player as well as PC. I have often seen problems arise when a player thinks their PC is going to do X and that situation just does not arise in the game do to other decisions that the group makes. I have often times see new'ish GM's say I do not want another X (Insert class/race/option) in my game as it is or was problematic for me as a GM or for the story/adventure I want to run. So IDing this before had is very important for the GM and letting the players know what the GM is thinking is important in longer running games.
I have also seen (in home games and org play) "the" player who says I am going to play X because I want to and become an issue just like in the past. Often identifying just what the persons reasons for doing so and why are complex and often you cannot say just because they made the choice they did they did it because they want to be a problem or they just like what they like. I can say I have seen disruptive players pick things just to blow up an org game and have seen someone play something for RP/theme that does the same but is very entertaining for the GM and group.
I lean heavily toward the filling holes school of thought, but I can enjoy playing pretty much any class/role,
The strength of the party is something that comes with communication and teamwork. It doesn't matter how well your classes compliment each other, even if everybody is playing the most optimized party as voted by the internet, if they don't know how to play it well and together, it doesn't matter.
Ultimately this game is about having fun, so really do what you want to do (as long as its not killing the fun for everyone else). It always helps to take into account what other people are going for (this is where the communication begins). If everybody is happy with what they are able to do and has a good attitude, those are legitimately some of the best moments I've ever experienced.
And don't forget to support each other's success and failures! It really brings everybody together.
Only if you are the only one doing this. If everyone takes the approach of "let's make characters that are personally fun for us, throw them together, and live with whatever happens" then the needs of the group are being met. I have often told my group - "play what you want and I will roll a character to fill in gaps as needed, unless it's a paladin".
Paladins can do specific things no other class can (just like any other class), but there's little or nothing they can provide functionally that one or more other classes can't do in another way. Which kind of illustrates that unless you have a massive group, even if you don't want to double up on classes you should almost always have one or two options left for a general role after everyone else's already picked something before you. That doesn't mean such table rules are or should be ok for everyone, just that there's a lot of ways you can go about this that all pretty much work on a basic level.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Does that attitude impose much on the needs of the DM? Maybe that's the role of the DM, but is there a point where that attitude does become a burden on them? Like maybe the party all independently decide they want to play pacifist support characters, or maybe the BBEG the DM has been working on has complex political and social webs but the party all want to play bruiser barbarians and fighters? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe that is the burden a DM takes on.
Asking myself those questions, I'm now thinking how much should a player consider their DM when making character decisions? I hear recommendations to make a character that wants to adventure and be interested in story hooks, so it seems there is some sort of obligation on the part of players to consider their DM. So I expand the original question to include the DM along with the party.