Archetypes

[TwoSix]

Wha? The player makes a choice with limited and irrecoverable build resources and you say acknowledging that choice is removing player agency?!

I don't think that's quite as crazy as it sounds. It sounds like the style of play is more of a classic Gygaxian dungeon crawl, or a focused adventure path. In that kind of game, there's a metagame challenge of diversifying your party to cover all sorts of possible challenges. If the encounters in the game are built to the character's abilities, then that metagame challenge is lost.

It reminds me of a lot of old school video game RPGs. In general, building a balanced party was the best approach, but there was a lot of fun to be had by building a non-standard party with lots of weaknesses and seeing if you could beat the game that way. (See: 4 white mages in Final Fantasy 1.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think that's quite as crazy as it sounds. It sounds like the style of play is more of a classic Gygaxian dungeon crawl, or a focused adventure path. In that kind of game, there's a metagame challenge of diversifying your party to cover all sorts of possible challenges. If the encounters in the game are built to the character's abilities, then that metagame challenge is lost.

It reminds me of a lot of old school video game RPGs. In general, building a balanced party was the best approach, but there was a lot of fun to be had by building a non-standard party with lots of weaknesses and seeing if you could beat the game that way. (See: 4 white mages in Final Fantasy 1.)

Yeah, I get that, and it's just peachy if you play a game that wouldn't add ekements because of player build choices. It's the idea that acknowledging build choices by, say, adding traps would be agency-removing that still has ne confused.

 

[abirdcall]

I don't think that's quite as crazy as it sounds. It sounds like the style of play is more of a classic Gygaxian dungeon crawl, or a focused adventure path. In that kind of game, there's a metagame challenge of diversifying your party to cover all sorts of possible challenges. If the encounters in the game are built to the character's abilities, then that metagame challenge is lost.

It reminds me of a lot of old school video game RPGs. In general, building a balanced party was the best approach, but there was a lot of fun to be had by building a non-standard party with lots of weaknesses and seeing if you could beat the game that way. (See: 4 white mages in Final Fantasy 1.)

I'm with you somewhat but it is odd to me that you use the term 'metagame'. I would consider putting in obstacles that are specifically designed to be overcome by the PC's specific abilities to be metagaming.

I like the adventure that comes from not knowing what will come. If an adventure is tailored to the characters then that takes away the excitement.

And there is a bit of what you said. In a party without anyone who can deal with traps then they become interesting as the party needs to figure out what to do. In a party with someone who can deal with them, I would hope more wouldn't be added just because of that. I want our trap person to reduce the threat of traps, not increase it.

To further explain the agency thing: Having obstacles that match the abilities of the PCs means that those ability choices don't have an impact as the obstacles will be matched to them.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm with you somewhat but it is odd to me that you use the term 'metagame'. I would consider putting in obstacles that are specifically designed to be overcome by the PC's specific abilities to be metagaming.

Sure, targeting encounters around the PC's strengths and weaknesses is a form of metagaming. Making different kinds of characters in order to have a diverse set of abilities is also metagaming. Nothing wrong with metagaming!

 

[abirdcall]

Sure, targeting encounters around the PC's strengths and weaknesses is a form of metagaming. Making different kinds of characters in order to have a diverse set of abilities is also metagaming. Nothing wrong with metagaming!

Maybe that is where you lost me.

Our table doesn't confer with each other to create a party (past trying not to have duplicate class/subclasses).

We just make the character we want to roleplay.

 

[ClaytonCross]

The point is, a party only needs one character to be good with traps (true, you can split the skills amongst multiple characters, but you don't need to) so, even if you are confident the adventure will feature traps, you run the risk of redundancy unless you can do something else, such as hold your own in a scrap or act as the party face.

Which is why all rogues get sneak attack, whether they like it or not.

Sure but you could also avoid redundancy by telling they guys your playing with "Hey, I am going to be the trap guy if that's okay with all off you. I will have decent perception, investigation, thieves's tools." Then if anyone duplicates you... you called it its up to them to have "something else" and they can just aid you some times when appropriate like a side kick. Very likely, they will avoid it and let you do your thing.

A little party planning can make the group a lot happier.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Sure, targeting encounters around the PC's strengths and weaknesses is a form of metagaming. Making different kinds of characters in order to have a diverse set of abilities is also metagaming. Nothing wrong with metagaming!

I could not agree more. After all if you TPK a group at level 1 because Tiamate attacks they town they are in that would be a negative effect of not metagaming. Leveling challenges and monsters to the party or even ensuring the party is the correct level for a pre-made dungeon or setting is meta-gaming but in the best possible way, for the improvement of the groups fun.

While yes I believe in having static GM elements so that players choices matter from the aspect of they can trivialize a task by becoming more skilled or remain difficult because they chose not too. Which is why I ensure I have traps if I have a trap master (possibly if I don't with alternant ways of disarming them) but I use a random macro or pre-generate them and roll for what I put in the dungeon at what spot.It is also true that if a character makes a scout and then GM requires the group to always stay together and forces successful NPC ambushes in order to push the story they way they want or choices to not include traps knowing that one of the player built a character who specialized in disarming them... also, take away player agency because player wants to play a specific style and the GM is denying that. Which is why I put level ranges and difficulty on my traps and only give them level appropriate or lower traps, because its not fun to kill a level 1 player on lvl20 trap, I am meta gaming that. Having said that, if the GM doesn't want to deal with traps players shouldn't force it on a GM. They just need to talk about it first.

My GM reviews characters before he starts planning campaigns, askes for changes to fit the world he designs, and lists what makes each character unique ties something for those in the campaign. "No Half orcs or Tieflings they are evil in my world and you will get murdered on site in most place. Oh your a trap master... Ok, I will ensure their are traps once in a while, its on the list. You two both built Tank healers, that's fine but you might want consider who is primarily the tank and who is primarily the healer and possibly tweak a little otherwise your likely to always be competing for your time to shine, also anyone who has submitted a character yet who was considering a healer or tank, you might want to look harder at your other ideas or your going to feel like a third wheel. A backup or "helper" is not going to rune anything but when you start getting 3 deep or focusing on the same primary role someone is likely to feel robbed and it generally hurts the fun and mood at the table."

 

[Hriston]

Maybe we mean different things by 'adventure'.

I think it is fine for an adventure to not have any traps in them.

If a campaign didn't have any traps that would be out of the ordinary and something that should be brought up in session 0.

Good point. I was using the word adventure the way I’d assumed [MENTION=6906155]Paul Farquhar[/MENTION] was using it, i.e. to mean the content of the game in which the character is being played. That would include many adventures of the sort you’re describing over the course of many sessions. I don’t see any particular problem with an adventure location devoid of locks or traps. In fact, it could give the character a chance to focus on its skill with locks and traps in a different light, wondering why the inhabitants don’t lock up their goods, and is this what they call security?

 

[Seth Maixner]

It is rare that any PC an intelligent human dreams up will fit neatly into the choices in the Players handbook. One concern I have is that Locksmithing isn't necessarily very sexy or heroic. "Once upon a time there was this locksmith" doesn't captivate the imagination.