individual fun VS party needs

[Elf Witch]

I was in a game store this weekend with one of my roomates. A DM was setting up getting ready to run. He was in a heated discussion with several of his players who were angry that he was allowing the new guy to play a character other than a cleric. Because that was what the party needed.

My roomate and I discussed this on the way home. He is having a similar problem in his game. He desiged a wizard/cleric/mystic thergue. The character worships a God of trickery and he is an illusionist. When the game started eight months ago the party had a bard an a sorcerer in it. The bard died and was replaced with a ranger. The player playing the sorcerer moved. Now up until these changes a month ago the rest of the players enjoyed his character. But now the fact that he is the only magic user in the party the others are starting to point out that his character is not as effective in combat and since he is not throwing around the heavy duty combat spells the sorcerer did he is a libality to the party.

He has been thinking of bringing in a new character a more combat oriented wizard or sorcerer or maybe a straight cleric. And asked what I thought about it.

I told him not to. He was having a blast with this character and if the others had a problem let them change characters and play what they think the party needs.

This topic came up ay dinner with some more friends who game and we had a very heated discussion. Some of them agreed with me that he should play what he enjoys but others felt that since DnD is a group endevor if the other players think is character is weak he should change it.

I was wondering if these issues came up in other's games and just what en worlders thought about this?

 

[Black Omega]

All IMHO, but...

People sometimes confuse a sub-optimal character with one that is a liability. A character that is so poorly designed it can't do anything in combat, must be constantly saved, etc, is a problem. A character who is not designed with the utmost of power gaming efficiency is not a problem. The player should be allowed to decide what character to play.

 

[hong]

Sometimes D&D's heavy emphasis on niche protection is a real pain. In this situation, I'd say that the player should be allowed to play what they want. I'd either introduce an NPC to fill the gap, or modify the adventures to suit the makeup of the group.

And really, it's not like a blaster mage is an essential component of every party. It makes life easier sometimes, sure; but you can get along just fine without having fireballs being thrown every session. Heck, sometimes the hassle of keeping the mage alive can outweigh the benefits of the added firepower.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Personally, I think this is what the leadership feat was designed for. Filling the 'holes' in the party... We've often ended up with traps and locks rogues or healer clerics cohorts, as those are characters no-one in our group is that keen on playing. A couple of levels below the rest of the party but they're still useful. As a side benefit I think it allows the opportunity for some fun roleplaying.

I think it depends what sort of game is being played.

I think it can be lots of fun to have a non standard party, just need some slightly non standard challenges for them... IMO, it's fairly easy for the DM to adjust to this. No cleric - slightly less undead, more healing items, slightly more downtime? 4 rogue party - living humanoid enemies are likely to be more fun for them... undead barbarians less so?

On the other hand, when playing module based dungeon hacks 'out of the book', you pretty much need a Cleric, Fighter, Blasty Wizard and Rogue party - IME most of them are designed with that sort of party in mind. Deviate from it and things will be a lot harder?

 

[MonsterMash]

Luckily my players don't think that way, but it is a bit dull to have just four archetypes: combat specialist (fighter/barbarian), healer (cleric/druid), arcane spellcaster (wizard) and rogue/diplomat (rogue/bard).

As I homebrew a lot of the dungeons there is a bit more scope in my campaign for non standard parties, but sometimes players can be obsessive about having maximised types for combat.


I'd much rather get interesting PCs and roleplaying.

 

[Aeric]

It does seem sometimes that D&D is designed with a group including at least one of each of the four core classes (fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue) in mind. I usually find myself playing what the group needs, which is more often than not a cleric. This usually doesn't bother me, for I enjoy playing a "needed" character.

I think out of all the classes, the one that is most needed is the cleric. They are the only real guaranteed source of speedy healing in the game. If you're playing in a high-magic world, cure potions will be readily available, but cure potions don't magically replenish themselves the following day like a cleric's spell list does.

In my upcoming campaign, I have three warrior-types (monk, paladin, and barbarian) and a fourth who was undecided between cleric and bard. I told her to play what she wanted to play and I would adjust the game to accomodate the party. She chose the bard, and I implemented the Wounds alternate rule from Unearthed Arcana to make the game a bit more survivable. Because of a lack of a cleric in the group, healing will be slower, but it won't be impossible. The PCs will just have to adjust their strategies accordingly.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I've played in games where players complained good-naturedly about weak choices. The stick I got for playing a rogue/wizard was unbelievable. Still, it was good-natured and no-one ever seriously suggested restricting the characters we could bring in to the group as replacements for dead or departed PCs.

I do know some people who are fanatics for optimisation and loudly mouth off about the stupidity of "poorly-designed" parties, but I choose not to play with them.

 

[Whisper72]

Well... I think it is not a black and white issue. If a player decides to go with 'his' (or her) PC and winds up frustrating the other players in the game, the fun is spoiled for all around eventually.

It is all a matter of 'how much', and to what extend do the styles of the various players within the group match.

If a player wants to play a 'sub optimal' PC cuz of cool RP possibilities, but the other players are pure hack'n'slash types who seek an 'optimal' party, then this is more an issue of RP players and HnS players in one group then anything else.

What it ultimately boils down to is simple. DnD is a game. ALL players should be having fun. If the fun of some or one is lessened a slight bit to accommodate others, that's all in the game, hey if friends have to decide where to go to dinner, compromises are made as well, that is all in the _social_ arena between the PLAYERS trying to have a fun time together (and the DM as well natch). The moment that one (or more) of the players are having NO fun anymore, but some insist they have to 'do it for the group', the issue becomes total 'excrement of a male cow'. The moment someone has no fun anymore, he or she should quit. Time is too short to be doing things against your will (unless you get paid, but then it is called a job, and not a game anymore....)


Guess I am trying to say, in the example, if the friend is willing to play a 'blaster mage' and is sure to have fun with it, and accommodates friends, sure why not? As long as the guy who switches characters is still enjoying the game.

If switching detracts too much from enjoying the game, he should not do it. If one of the other players feels very strongly the group needs a 'blaster mage' to better accommodate his / her own 'optimal party' needs, then s/he should be the one to change characters, after all, s/he is the one who feels the group is not optimal enuff...

 

[Buttercup]

I think the player should run whatever character he wants, and the DM should give the party opportunities to compensate. No cleric? Arrange for healing to be alchemical, or introduce an NPC herbalist who can brew a healing tea. No rogue? Back off on the traps. It just doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

 

[Thanee]

Altho some people choose characters according to party needs, it's always up to the individual player what character to play. Of course, one should take a look on what other characters are there, so that you do not end up with too many similar character concepts, for example.

About party needs. If the party lacks something, there usually are plenty ways to cover this need. You don't have to introduce a new character, that fills the niche. In fact, this line of thinking already borders on metagaming.

The party is there, that's a given, and they have to find a way to deal with the situation (the characters, not the players, tho they also do in a way, obviously). They could hire some muscle or try to find a suitable party member (NPC, maybe even a cohort), invest in summoning magic, etc to bump up fighting power.

Bye
Thanee