D&D 5E Having another wizard in the group...does it suck?

[Mercule]

As for duplicate classes, I wouldn't mind playing a campaign with all characters being the same class. A party entirely comprised of wizards could make for some interesting roleplaying and adventures. So I wouldn't have a problem with two players of the same class either.

Agreed. The way 5E backgrounds, proficiencies, and tools work, an all-wizard group could still be quite diverse.

Heck, an all-fighter group would still be able to have some level of magical support, even.

 

[Elf Witch]

What's wrong with working together and sharing the spotlight? Why does spotlight have to work like clockwork?

Let's take two scouts for instance, since that was mentioned. Why can't the two work together? I mean it is a group game is it not?

1: Four eyes is better than two when scouting.

2: Who's to say you are always going to pass your rolls? If you fail then your partner might catch it, and same goes the other way.

3: The other scout is your backup in case something goes wrong. What if you are attacked and can't get away? Your backup can either help you out, or go and warn the others.

I'm just really bothered by some of the choice words I am seeing such as "selfish" and "rude". Sounds to me like some of you are stuck on the stereotypical "party of four" where it''s one of each class. There is no rule that states each player must be a different class.

There is enough spotlight to go around.

The spotlight issues happens when two players playing the same exact class with the same shtick end up committing for loot and a chance to do their thing. Take two rouges who are designed to handle traps and locks I can see some issues of who gets to go first to try or do we have to roll initiative to see. Also in a small party you are duplicating resources. Now if one rogue is designed for the lock picking and another more for scouting then that is different.

It is the same with a wizards if they do exactly the same thing then it can feel as if your toes are being stepped on.

I do think it is rude to bring a character into the game that is exactly like another already existing character without talking to the player playing that character.

 

[Elf Witch]

Doubling up on "roles" can go well or poorly, regardless of specific type. I've seen two fighters where both players wanted to stand out in toe-to-toe combat, compared to everyone else in the group. One of the issues we had when starting 5E was how easily everyone was able to add a bit of stealth to their character and leave the thief/rogue feeling useless (a reread of rogue abilities fixed that). If one wizard wants to be the mysterious stranger and the other wants to be the walking encyclopedia, it won't go well.

That's a player issue, though, not a character issue. The two fighters could be played as fun competitiveness. The rogue in the all stealth group could easily end up the leader and best at the shtick. If the walking encyclopedia is very frenetic and can spout a little about a lot, but the stranger knows the really weird stuff, both have a place. It just takes some give and take.

IME, it's generally the inability to work with others that makes the tension at the table. Everyone has bad days, but try to work with the others.

For the other issues:

DM has final say in group size and composition, but should either know the players well enough or consult with them. There's a difference between leader and dictator. Host (assuming other than GM) also has an absolute veto on who comes into their home.

I never allow more than one PC. Do not even fathom why you'd do this (troupe play may be different, but has its own convensions). If you have a small group, the DM controls NPC party members, who are explicitly supporting cast. I also despise the DMPC; the DM should always be able to divorce himself from any character.

This is my point it is a player issue. Which is why it does not always work because it depends on both players working together to make it fun for both of them.

I have seen issues like having the powergamer of the group design a blaster mage when another player who was already playing a blaster mage and he was just so much better at it that it totally overshadowed the other player. He ended up bringing in a new character but I know he was very unhappy about it and it did color the game some.

Spotlight whores are hard enough to deal with in game but if they are playing the same style PC as another player the issue is compounded.

On the other hand with the right players it can work really well. In a Shadowrun game I played a hermetic mage and we had a shaman. Since they both use the same exact spell list there could have been issues but we worked it out that I would be the offensive mage using my magic and elemenals under my control to attack and he would be defensive using his magic and spirits to protect.

I think with 5E and the way backgrounds work you have a better chance of avoiding issues of clones PCs.

 

[SirAntoine]

I already weighed in, but I'd like to express a little shock that so many groups are so anti-social. Inviting a new player in is even like introducing them. "Hey, I'd like you to meet my friends," or "You want to find a group to play D&D with, I have one, so why don't you come to the next meeting and see if you like it?" Or at a store, you see a group playing and ask if you can join them. There should be a secret vote apparently, and it would be like running a charity for some to say "Sure," and pull out the chair for someone. That's how you meet people and make friends.

Those are just some of my experiences, but you don't need any special qualifications to join and be a friend.

 

[Elf Witch]

I already weighed in, but I'd like to express a little shock that so many groups are so anti-social. Inviting a new player in is even like introducing them. "Hey, I'd like you to meet my friends," or "You want to find a group to play D&D with, I have one, so why don't you come to the next meeting and see if you like it?" Or at a store, you see a group playing and ask if you can join them. There should be a secret vote apparently, and it would be like running a charity for some to say "Sure," and pull out the chair for someone. That's how you meet people and make friends.

Those are just some of my experiences, but you don't need any special qualifications to join and be a friend.

It is not being anti social at all. It is being realistic that sometimes having more players at a table does not equate more fun. And that is why it is always a good idea to bring it up with the table before you say yes or just spring it on them. And is it really fair to spring it on a group with this is John he is going to sit in and see of he likes the group? I don't think so a and it is not fair to John if the majority don't feel that a new player is a good idea. It would be better to talk wit the group and if they think it is fine then bring John over to see if he would like to join.

As a DM I can only handle so many players and as a player I won't play in a game that has so many players that you have to have a caller and assistant DMs. For me that is not fun I played that way back when the game was new and it was part of the reason when my son was born I didn't make an effort to keep playing. It is almost impossible to real get into meaty role playing with a large group of players. Maybe there are exceptions out there but I have never seen it done successfully. It is one thing for one shot con game but it is not my cup of tea for a long running campaign.

This just happened this week in my game one of the players girlfriend expressed interest in joining the group. I brought it to the table and we talked about it and many felt no that having seven and a DM made it really crowded at the table as it is and the host was not comfortable with having more people in his small apartment, I was not sure I could handle another player I am not thrilled about seven and finally my one player who used to DM the player and his girlfriend told me privately she would quit rather than play with both of them in a game again . Separately they are fine but together there are issues.

I don't think this makes us anti social at all maybe you do.

 

[SirAntoine]

It is not being anti social at all. It is being realistic that sometimes having more players at a table does not equate more fun. And that is why it is always a good idea to bring it up with the table before you say yes or just spring it on them. And is it really fair to spring it on a group with this is John he is going to sit in and see of he likes the group? I don't think so a and it is not fair to John if the majority don't feel that a new player is a good idea. It would be better to talk wit the group and if they think it is fine then bring John over to see if he would like to join.

As a DM I can only handle so many players and as a player I won't play in a game that has so many players that you have to have a caller and assistant DMs. For me that is not fun I played that way back when the game was new and it was part of the reason when my son was born I didn't make an effort to keep playing. It is almost impossible to real get into meaty role playing with a large group of players. Maybe there are exceptions out there but I have never seen it done successfully. It is one thing for one shot con game but it is not my cup of tea for a long running campaign.

This just happened this week in my game one of the players girlfriend expressed interest in joining the group. I brought it to the table and we talked about it and many felt no that having seven and a DM made it really crowded at the table as it is and the host was not comfortable with having more people in his small apartment, I was not sure I could handle another player I am not thrilled about seven and finally my one player who used to DM the player and his girlfriend told me privately she would quit rather than play with both of them in a game again . Separately they are fine but together there are issues.

I don't think this makes us anti social at all maybe you do.

I think it should be a basic rule that DM's do accept new players. I know it can be very hard to work up the courage to ask to join a group.

If someone doesn't get along with someone else, you work on that. Even that is not grounds for excluding anyone. Only if a problem becomes serious should you consider telling anyone to leave the group.

The real-life game is such a great experience in part because of its social interaction. You aren't just sitting at home with your computer. New players may stay for a day, a month, or longer. Your characters can encounter other travelers easily enough. These people can play guest roles, or even henchmen if they just want to see what the game is all about. If they don't want to keep playing, no one should assume it's because they don't like them. Maybe the game itself wasn't to their liking, or they just lost the free time.

Being able to play the game is a privilege, and I agree with Iosue that you play at the pleasure of the DM. If the DM wants to invite someone else in, he or she shouldn't be asked to run a separate game just for that person. Let's try to get along, and move ahead together. We'll face any problems together, too.

Naturally, there are considerations about who's house it is you're playing at, whether there is enough space for another player, and whether the DM has written an adventure for a particular number of PC's. Perhaps the scenario would lose its intended challenge level if there is another PC, or maybe the adventure is back-story intensive such that a new player would feel more left out and not get a complete picture of the game.

In general, another player is a gift. The more players the DM can accommodate, the better. I have seen players be very selfish before. Calling it anti-social is maybe too strong to put it, but accepting a new player even in an impromptu manner is a basic part of the game every DM and every player should be able to handle.

You should bear in mind that some players may not be able to find groups in their area, and they may have felt a big need to switch groups if there were problems or if they were rejected.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think it should be a basic rule that DM's do accept new players. I know it can be very hard to work up the courage to ask to join a group.

If someone doesn't get along with someone else, you work on that. Even that is not grounds for excluding anyone. Only if a problem becomes serious should you consider telling anyone to leave the group.

The real-life game is such a great experience in part because of its social interaction. You aren't just sitting at home with your computer. New players may stay for a day, a month, or longer. Your characters can encounter other travelers easily enough. These people can play guest roles, or even henchmen if they just want to see what the game is all about. If they don't want to keep playing, no one should assume it's because they don't like them. Maybe the game itself wasn't to their liking, or they just lost the free time.

Being able to play the game is a privilege, and I agree with Iosue that you play at the pleasure of the DM. If the DM wants to invite someone else in, he or she shouldn't be asked to run a separate game just for that person. Let's try to get along, and move ahead together. We'll face any problems together, too.

Naturally, there are considerations about who's house it is you're playing at, whether there is enough space for another player, and whether the DM has written an adventure for a particular number of PC's. Perhaps the scenario would lose its intended challenge level if there is another PC, or maybe the adventure is back-story intensive such that a new player would feel more left out and not get a complete picture of the game.

In general, another player is a gift. The more players the DM can accommodate, the better. I have seen players be very selfish before. Calling it anti-social is maybe too strong to put it, but accepting a new player even in an impromptu manner is a basic part of the game every DM and every player should be able to handle.

You should bear in mind that some players may not be able to find groups in their area, and they may have felt a big need to switch groups if there were problems or if they were rejected.

I can't tell how much I disagree with this.

A DM should only accept the number of players he and his fellow players feel comfortable with. The basic rule of the game is that everyone at the table should be having fun and as a DM it is not my responsibility to provide a seat for every player who wants to play. At fifty seven years of age I no longer give credence to the geek fallacy that we must accept everyone. Play styles matter as does how many players a DM feels they can successful accommodate at a table. That goes for players as well no player should be forced to play in a game that is not fun just to accommodate another gamer in the hobby.

As you said the game is a social interaction and those comes with expectations as well as social contracts agreed to by the DM and the players at the table. As for playing at the pleasure of the DM well let me remind you of something a DM needs players or he might as well be sitting at home writing adventures for himself. And this is coming from someone who staunchly supports DMs because they do the most work in the game.

A another player is not always a gift sometimes it is white elephant that you simply don't need. And no it is not always better the more players a DM can accommodate the better I suggest you take a look at the poll here about how many players most DMs feel comfortable about DMing for. I would say from what I am seeing in that poll and my experiece of over thirty years of playing that most DMs seem to be comfortable with an average of six players.

And players have a right to fun as well if I join a game I always check with the DM how many players are going to be in it. I will not play in a long running campaign with a lot of players because I hate it and I would rather not play in that style of game. Iv the DM tells me it ill be a large group then I politely explain that I don't enjoy that kind of game and wish them luck. Because another thing I have learned is that no gaming is better than playing in a game that is not fun.

As for working on dealing with issue with players you don't get along with that is very naive, sometimes you can't. From my understanding the girl friend in question for example brings out the absolute worst in her boy friend at the table. He is over protective of her gets into fights with the DM if he think she is upset over a ruling always takes her side in any dispute with any other character even if makes no role playing sens that he would do so.

.

I refuse to even deal with that not with seven players at the table heck not even if I had only two players. Because life is to short to deal with players or DMs who drive you crazy and suck the fun out of the game. I learned long ago the some people in a relationship can't play well together at the table and in the end it will cause the game to self destruct.

I am big believer in communication between players and DMs and trying to work out issues so the game an continue but sometimes it is is impossible. And no one should be forced to play in a game with someone they don't like.

I have been in the situation over the years where I could not always find a group and you know what it sucks but it is not the responsibility of other gamers to put aside their enjoyment of a game just so I can play. Talk about selfish narcissistic and entitled.

Over the years I have introduced many new players to the game and I love it when they become avid gamers but I doubt they would have become avid gamers if I had been miserable as DM and my players unhappy.

 

[SirAntoine]

I can't tell how much I disagree with this.

A DM should only accept the number of players he and his fellow players feel comfortable with. The basic rule of the game is that everyone at the table should be having fun and as a DM it is not my responsibility to provide a seat for every player who wants to play. At fifty seven years of age I no longer give credence to the geek fallacy that we must accept everyone. Play styles matter as does how many players a DM feels they can successful accommodate at a table. That goes for players as well no player should be forced to play in a game that is not fun just to accommodate another gamer in the hobby.

As you said the game is a social interaction and those comes with expectations as well as social contracts agreed to by the DM and the players at the table. As for playing at the pleasure of the DM well let me remind you of something a DM needs players or he might as well be sitting at home writing adventures for himself. And this is coming from someone who staunchly supports DMs because they do the most work in the game.

A another player is not always a gift sometimes it is white elephant that you simply don't need. And no it is not always better the more players a DM can accommodate the better I suggest you take a look at the poll here about how many players most DMs feel comfortable about DMing for. I would say from what I am seeing in that poll and my experiece of over thirty years of playing that most DMs seem to be comfortable with an average of six players.

And players have a right to fun as well if I join a game I always check with the DM how many players are going to be in it. I will not play in a long running campaign with a lot of players because I hate it and I would rather not play in that style of game. Iv the DM tells me it ill be a large group then I politely explain that I don't enjoy that kind of game and wish them luck. Because another thing I have learned is that no gaming is better than playing in a game that is not fun.

As for working on dealing with issue with players you don't get along with that is very naive, sometimes you can't. From my understanding the girl friend in question for example brings out the absolute worst in her boy friend at the table. He is over protective of her gets into fights with the DM if he think she is upset over a ruling always takes her side in any dispute with any other character even if makes no role playing sens that he would do so.

.

I refuse to even deal with that not with seven players at the table heck not even if I had only two players. Because life is to short to deal with players or DMs who drive you crazy and suck the fun out of the game. I learned long ago the some people in a relationship can't play well together at the table and in the end it will cause the game to self destruct.

I am big believer in communication between players and DMs and trying to work out issues so the game an continue but sometimes it is is impossible. And no one should be forced to play in a game with someone they don't like.

I have been in the situation over the years where I could not always find a group and you know what it sucks but it is not the responsibility of other gamers to put aside their enjoyment of a game just so I can play. Talk about selfish narcissistic and entitled.

Over the years I have introduced many new players to the game and I love it when they become avid gamers but I doubt they would have become avid gamers if I had been miserable as DM and my players unhappy.

There is no need to try to say I am being selfish, narcissistic, and entitled. I think I would need to show you how to run the game, and others, because frankly, I don't get what you're saying or what the problem is. We're talking about new players you don't even know, right? Suppose your DM asks you what your opinion is of letting this new person in, what would you ask about them?

I don't use a check-list, to qualify people for entry. I just take players and they're usually coming back and telling me thanks. And let me tell you something else: as DM's there aren't that many of us. It really is our responsibility to run the game for as many players as we can handle if we're in areas with few DM's.

 

[Elf Witch]

There is no need to try to say I am being selfish, narcissistic, and entitled. I think I would need to show you how to run the game, and others, because frankly, I don't get what you're saying or what the problem is. We're talking about new players you don't even know, right? Suppose your DM asks you what your opinion is of letting this new person in, what would you ask about them?

I don't use a check-list, to qualify people for entry. I just take players and they're usually coming back and telling me thanks. And let me tell you something else: as DM's there aren't that many of us. It really is our responsibility to run the game for as many players as we can handle if we're in areas with few DM's.

As a player how I would feel about a new player would be based on many things like how big the group already is. I have never once had a fun role playing experience in a large group. Now I get some people do but I have never found big parties conducive to a game with a lot of role playing. If it was not a matter of numbers then I would ask questions like what kind of style to they like playing a hack and slasher would not fit with any group I play with. I would ask if they felt that they had to combat every session again we often don't.

I am usually open to giving new players a try. But if I see the DM having issues giving the players he has enough spotlight time or combat is a bore that takes forever to get through then i might question can we add another player to the table without compounding these issues.


BTW I think it is a tad arrogant that you think you need to show me how to play or DM. I read your pot about how you happily run a table with 10 players and you have the more the merrier kind of attitude. The game is played many different ways and what works for you does not work for me and that does not either of us is playing the game wrong.

 

[Riley37]

Think of a movie or tv series with a group of heroes, you have the guy who is socially skilled, than the guy who is great at computers, another guy who is a gunfighter, stuff like that. You don't need two computer hackers as main characters.

Right, that's why no one enjoyed the movie "Sneakers". Also that's why no one would ever do a movie about seven samurai. 7 characters, and they're all samurai? How boring! How could you even tell them apart?

That's why each of the "Ghostbusters" had unique abilities. Imagine how boring "Ghostbusters" would have been, if all four of them were equipping identical proton packs, firing identical streams of energy at ghosts.

That's also why no one watches soccer teams or basketball teams or hockey teams with multiple players in overlapping roles, and that's why there are no famous rock and roll bands from Liverpool with two guitarists. (Or, worse, two guitarists who are ALSO both vocalists. Imagine how badly would they step on each other's toes; it's easy if you try.)

In short, all of these would be epic fails, because people only have solo abilities, and don't have interesting personalities or motives or methods which are independent of those abilities, and cannot combine their efforts in interesting ways.