Paizo Have you ever compromised on your character?

[Fauchard1520]

I'm talking about stuff like a paladin coming up with a justification for partying with a necromancer, or vice versa. Maybe there was already a long-range caster, and the group didn't need another. Or your interesting dhampir PC could straight up not survive in a party with a channel-focused cleric, so you had to bin 'em until the next campaign.

We always hear how the phrase "it's what my character would do" becomes an excuse for being a jerk in-game. So as a possible palliative, share your stories of times when you were willing to bend a character concept for the good of the group.

 

[Imaculata]

I always try to adjust my character's motivations in such a way that they line up best with the rest of the party and serve the narrative best. I try to think of DnD often as a series of scenes in a tv-show. If I think my character teaming up with another party member makes for a better scene, then I'll find a reason for him to teamup. I seek out entertaining drama whenever I can.

Conflict between party members is unavoidable in my opinion, and often makes for great drama. But I try to have my character be reasonable, so that past grudges are quickly forgotten, and we can get back as a party as quickly as possible. I don't let character motivations drive a wedge between me and other party members.

I also try to seek out humorous situations whenever I can. I latch on to any situation where my character can be a comedic note in one way or the other. Either by providing witty commentary, sarcasm, or being the target of mockery himself. I want to provide my fellow players something to respond to, to create narrative together. For me, the narrative comes first, and my character's motivations come second (and adjust to serve the first).

 

[Fauchard1520]

I always try to adjust my character's motivations in such a way that they line up best with the rest of the party and serve the narrative best.

That works for the old rogue/paladin clash, but what about the mechanical? I remember one of my groups struggling with a pair of summon-focused casters. One was a wizard, the other was an oracle, and it felt a bit like both had come to a party wearing the same dress. One of 'em had to change to feel like they had their own nice.

So I guess I'm asking if compromise is required, or if it can be viable to keep those conflicts in the game.

 

[Imaculata]

You should be able to run a game with multiple of the same classes. I don't see why you couldn't have two summoners in the party.

But as a player, I'll usually pick a different class for the sake of diversity. It's simply no fun being one of two summoners, nor is it fun to be one of two paladins. Variety is good, even if it means that I'll have to pick something else.

 

[billd91]

You should be able to run a game with multiple of the same classes. I don't see why you couldn't have two summoners in the party.

You could... but it gets frustrating. I had 3 of my players in my latest Pathfinder game come to the table with high-Charisma characters. They were all different classes - sorcerer, bard, mesmerist - but despite my suggestion that they coordinate, they all ended up with massive skill overlap and that got frustrating for them. They'd have been better off carving out their specialty - one doing deception, one being good cop (diplomacy), the other bad cop (intimidation).

Two characters playing summoner-focused spellcasters could also really annoy the rest of the table because their turns are going to take longer too. But again, that can be mitigated with good coordination. They can share resources/summoned creature stat blocks and streamline their play.

 

[Fauchard1520]

They'd have been better off carving out their specialty - one doing deception, one being good cop (diplomacy), the other bad cop (intimidation).

The social roles are really tough, especially if you go in assuming that you're going to be "default face" just because you're a Charisma character. Being "the talky one" hits the prima donna issue too, meaning that you've got big personalities who would naturally want to seem preeminent in a scene.

It makes me wonder if there are any social encounters were redundant Charisma types can be useful. There's probably something in "Ultimate Intrigue," but I'm kind of scratching my head trying to figure out anything more mechanically complex than "everybody make gather information checks."

 

[billd91]

It makes me wonder if there are any social encounters were redundant Charisma types can be useful. There's probably something in "Ultimate Intrigue," but I'm kind of scratching my head trying to figure out anything more mechanically complex than "everybody make gather information checks."

We've had some luck with it - you can certainly aid another with the social skills. It does help if you have the players establish their plans ahead of time instead of one getting into it and the other just chiming in with "I want to aid another" ad hoc - it just kind of breaks up the feel of the interaction. But two or so PCs double-teaming someone with either diplomacy or intimidation or working a con with one lying and the other acting credulous to boost the believability of the deception - all of that seems pretty reasonable.

 

[Eltab]

D&D, not PF:
In my current campaign I wanted to play an investigator. After a few sessions I discovered another player was better at Investigation than I am (both as a player and mechanically). I changed my character's skills and background to give that player the space to do what he was better at. My character became a Sailor, the boat guy; useful since we are in a port city and have to visit islands.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I didn't autotune my voice when I played an Android/robot in Stafinder.

 

[Tallifer]

All the time. You have to compromise if you want to play a game with a group of individuals. Of course, discussion beforehand also helps even more.