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

[Gundan Shadeslinger]

Maybe I come from an odd group but we don't sit there with measuring tape in our hands and measure out spotlight time.

Our games aren't setup where spotlight is setup to go back and forth between characters. Spotlight can happen at any time depending on the character and not necessarily the situation setup by the DM. Sometimes the Wizard may have more time in the light that session than the other PC's but that's okay with us.

 

[Uchawi]

Let go of my Eg(g)o. Never bring another wizard to breakfast.

 

[Riley37]

I am leery about playing with anybody who has the attitude that if I don't get to play this concept right now I won't have any fun. That seems so rigid to me and they are most likely to be rigid about other things as well.

+1

I advise the OP to boycott this particular gaming table, which allows such a selfish, inflexible player to join it.

 

[Kikuras]

I think it is natural for people to bring their own experiences "personal baggage" into any discussion because it influences how we all look at things. In my case my personal baggage for example is that over large parties suck at role playing opportunities, often playing with SO in the same game can be fraught with landmines and that deliberately stepping on another players toes can lead to hostility and derailment of a game.

So it is natural when any of these subject come up I am going to be looking at them with a jaundiced eye. And how I respond will be with my experiences.

I think always keeping an open mind is good as well as communication. The best way I have seen two players playing the same concept is for them to sit down and work it out themselves. The DM steps in if they can't. That works so much better than the new player coming to the table with his lock picking rogue ready to go and the player already playing the same concept sitting there going WTF!!!

I am leery about playing with anybody who has the attitude that if I don't get to play this concept right now I won't have any fun. That seems so rigid to me and they are most likely to be rigid about other things as well.

When I join a game already in progress I ask what others are playing and I ask have they noticed any weakness that has been impacting the game. Then I make a character that can help with the weakness I do this for two reasons one to make the party as a whole stronger and because I like my PC to stand out in what she is good at. I think this is a win win for everyone.

I think there is a big difference between not wanting to share the spotlight with your concept in a specific game and not wanting to ever allow anyone else to play the concept in every game.


Again I don't think courtesy has anything to do with it I can only repeat that you don't have as a gamer the right to join a group just because you want to play. No group is obligated to take on any new players. This is where I think we are having our disconnect. If my table is not full and if I think the person is a good fit then I am always opened mined about even excited about having a new player. What my issue with is your idea that I have an obligation to open my table to new players.

Again the people I play with don't want to play with someone who does not want to invest in the same amount of role playing that we want. So no a hack and slasher even if he is not disruptive is not going to be a good fit because he will not be contributing to the game what we want in a player. Also asking a player to sacrifice what he enjoys most about the game to be able to play has never in my experiences really worked out. It will most likely be a very unsatisfactory play experience for them.

I don't think you're wrong, in fact I think you're very right, and being quite honest about the limitations of party size, and player-DM interactions. However, I think a lot of people are put off by the general attitude that no one new can join, no matter what, because we can't take one more. In the circumstance described by the OP, it was the DM who invited the new person, suggesting that the DM did not feel that another player would be detrimental to the overall interactions at the table.

Moreover, I think a lot of people support the idea of inclusive play rather than exclusive play, as being rejected by social rejects is even more damaging to the psyche. And no, we don't have an obligation to accept new people, but we don't have an obligation to reject them either. It's always going to be case by case, but let's not automatically assume they are the problem, because often enough it's us as individuals who have the problem. And yeah... 10 is too many. How do you even get 10 people to show up to a game regularly? I can't find a group who can do better than 5!

 

[Riley37]

Let go of my Eg(g)o. Never bring another wizard to breakfast.

But wizards are *delicious* for breakfast! Some of them are even pre-caffienated!

 

[Elf Witch]

I don't think you're wrong, in fact I think you're very right, and being quite honest about the limitations of party size, and player-DM interactions. However, I think a lot of people are put off by the general attitude that no one new can join, no matter what, because we can't take one more. In the circumstance described by the OP, it was the DM who invited the new person, suggesting that the DM did not feel that another player would be detrimental to the overall interactions at the table.

Moreover, I think a lot of people support the idea of inclusive play rather than exclusive play, as being rejected by social rejects is even more damaging to the psyche. And no, we don't have an obligation to accept new people, but we don't have an obligation to reject them either. It's always going to be case by case, but let's not automatically assume they are the problem, because often enough it's us as individuals who have the problem. And yeah... 10 is too many. How do you even get 10 people to show up to a game regularly? I can't find a group who can do better than 5!

In the situation with the OP the DM it does not sound like the DM sprang a new player on the group without telling them. But it does seem the OP has an issue with it. As I have said repeatedly the DM needs to take his players into consideration when changing things. We don't know the entire story here but the OP said the DM keeps bringing in new players and he seems to have an issue with this. I think issue like this can be avoided from the very beginning by the DM being upfront with his plans. If I was a player and the DM told me that he was willing and might possibly end up with a lot of players at the table I would choose to bow out right away. And I would be furious if I had been told something different the bait and switch is poor etiquette imo.

Maybe the DM feels he can handle more players and maybe he is wrong and his players realize he really can't not from where they are sitting. Again communication avoids these kind of issues. The OP needs to talk to his DM about his feelings.

I honestly don't think any of us support exclusive play. I know I don't but I also understand that sometimes you can't include everyone who wants a seat at the table.

 

[Kikuras]

In the situation with the OP the DM it does not sound like the DM sprang a new player on the group without telling them. But it does seem the OP has an issue with it. As I have said repeatedly the DM needs to take his players into consideration when changing things. We don't know the entire story here but the OP said the DM keeps bringing in new players and he seems to have an issue with this. I think issue like this can be avoided from the very beginning by the DM being upfront with his plans. If I was a player and the DM told me that he was willing and might possibly end up with a lot of players at the table I would choose to bow out right away. And I would be furious if I had been told something different the bait and switch is poor etiquette imo.

Maybe the DM feels he can handle more players and maybe he is wrong and his players realize he really can't not from where they are sitting. Again communication avoids these kind of issues. The OP needs to talk to his DM about his feelings.

I honestly don't think any of us support exclusive play. I know I don't but I also understand that sometimes you can't include everyone who wants a seat at the table.

The OP describes a group of 4 steady players and a single 50%er. OP also indicates that one player has already dropped from the group, suggesting that the OP is comfortable with a party of 5 or 6 players, however it's now down 4.5. What the OP does not do is define "more, and more players" except to identify a single individual (who also plays a wizard). That brings the players to 5.5, which is just below the assumed too-many threshold. What this means is that the OP doesn't have a numbers issue, but rather a social issue. We all agree that invitations should depend on who hosts, how many the DM is comfortable with, ect, but if all of those variables are non-issues, that just leaves being a cranky-pants.

 

[SoulsFury]

The DM can obviously handle more players, otherwise he wouldn't have invited someone else. The OP only seems to have a problem with the fact the player is playing a wizard. The OP is playing two characters. The only problems I see here are that the DM let someone play two characters, and that someone is now butt hurt when a new player can fulfill the niche one of his two characters has filled. Simple solution, retire his wizard and play the barbarian. Be a grown up.

 

[Elf Witch]

I don't think you're wrong, in fact I think you're very right, and being quite honest about the limitations of party size, and player-DM interactions. However, I think a lot of people are put off by the general attitude that no one new can join, no matter what, because we can't take one more. In the circumstance described by the OP, it was the DM who invited the new person, suggesting that the DM did not feel that another player would be detrimental to the overall interactions at the table.

Moreover, I think a lot of people support the idea of inclusive play rather than exclusive play, as being rejected by social rejects is even more damaging to the psyche. And no, we don't have an obligation to accept new people, but we don't have an obligation to reject them either. It's always going to be case by case, but let's not automatically assume they are the problem, because often enough it's us as individuals who have the problem. And yeah... 10 is too many. How do you even get 10 people to show up to a game regularly? I can't find a group who can do better than 5!

The OP describes a group of 4 steady players and a single 50%er. OP also indicates that one player has already dropped from the group, suggesting that the OP is comfortable with a party of 5 or 6 players, however it's now down 4.5. What the OP does not do is define "more, and more players" except to identify a single individual (who also plays a wizard). That brings the players to 5.5, which is just below the assumed too-many threshold. What this means is that the OP doesn't have a numbers issue, but rather a social issue. We all agree that invitations should depend on who hosts, how many the DM is comfortable with, ect, but if all of those variables are non-issues, that just leaves being a cranky-pants.

I am not going to judge either the player or the DM because there is no way to know the full story. I have played with DMs who can't manage a party bigger than 4. We don't know what is going on completely in that game. Maybe the player is being cranky and demanding, maybe the DM is not running the game well and the player already has issues.

The OP needs to bring his concerns up with his DM.

But my point is this just because a DM feels he can handle more players does not mean that his players are comfortable with that. This a group game and I don't think that the DM should be god to the point of getting a free rein on things that effect the entire table. For example I would not be comfortable with a DM who after the game started added house rules without talking with the players or deciding that spells no longer worked the way they say they do without talking to the players first. Bringing new players in can change a game hopefully for the better but not always. So I think at least talking to the table and listening to and addressing their concerns seems the smart way to deal with things like this.

 

[Elf Witch]

I don't think you're wrong, in fact I think you're very right, and being quite honest about the limitations of party size, and player-DM interactions. However, I think a lot of people are put off by the general attitude that no one new can join, no matter what, because we can't take one more. In the circumstance described by the OP, it was the DM who invited the new person, suggesting that the DM did not feel that another player would be detrimental to the overall interactions at the table.

Moreover, I think a lot of people support the idea of inclusive play rather than exclusive play, as being rejected by social rejects is even more damaging to the psyche. And no, we don't have an obligation to accept new people, but we don't have an obligation to reject them either. It's always going to be case by case, but let's not automatically assume they are the problem, because often enough it's us as individuals who have the problem. And yeah... 10 is too many. How do you even get 10 people to show up to a game regularly? I can't find a group who can do better than 5!

The DM can obviously handle more players, otherwise he wouldn't have invited someone else. The OP only seems to have a problem with the fact the player is playing a wizard. The OP is playing two characters. The only problems I see here are that the DM let someone play two characters, and that someone is now butt hurt when a new player can fulfill the niche one of his two characters has filled. Simple solution, retire his wizard and play the barbarian. Be a grown up.

Right because DM never misjudge their abilities or make mistakes.