JoeGKushner
Adventurer
As a GM, that's one of the reasons I try to keep a lot of pregenerated NPCs about. It also allows me as the GM, to throw in the occassional evil NPC who betrays the party.
individual fun VS party needs
- Thread starter Elf Witch
- Start date
AFGNCAAP
First Post
Honestly, it depends.
Ideally, it shouldn't matter what sort of character a player has, unless it goes against the campaigns restrictions (i.e., no evil PCs, no drow, no divine spellcasters, all-aquatic PC races only, etc.).
However, a party's effectiveness/survivability can be somewhat affected if they are not a "standard" group of adventures playing in a "standard" module or campaign. The two do not mix well. For example, during the days of 2nd ed. (w/ Skills & Powers), my gaming group went through Night Below, a uber-module more or less designed for an average party to go through. However, the players pretty much made up anything but a typical party--the group mainly consisted of elves, mages, & thieves, with very few non-elves (or non-unique, worthy-of-a-LA-in-3.X-mechanics), and very few actual divine spellcasters or heavy fighters. We did poorly overall in the module, and we were glad just to get the game over rather than feeling any level of accomplishment.
To some degree, it is a matter of what the players want to play (character- & game- wise) and what the DM wants to run (game-wise). If the two aren't the same, it's bound to cause problems.
Now, despite the character issues about individual fun vs. party needs, I think one of the big things that should be focused on is individual fun vs. group fun. A player is a problem when they try to have fun for themselves, esp. if their notion of "fun" disrupts the game or ruins the enjoyment for other players. As long is this issue isn't a problem, then characters really shouldn't be that much of an issue, for the most part. Hirelings & other NPCs could cover this role.
However, if the PCs (of at least 4-5+ members) need more than 1-2 hirelings to be able to successfully complete an adventure because their PCs cannot perform the necessary abilities to do so, then I'd definitely say that there was a problem with the group of PCs.
As long as the DM accounts for it, a focused or atypical group of PCs can have a good long campaign (such as a party full of elf rogue/wizards, or a party with no primary, 0-9 spell level list sort of spellcasters). But, that's if the DM accounts for it & runs adventures appropriate for that sort of party. Otherwise, I'd consider it a wise practice to have as diverse of a group as possible that at least covered most of the bases (healing, arcane firepower, combat/feats, skills, etc.; overall, the PCs should have someone who fits the role of a strong PC, a tough PC, an agile PC, a smart PC, a wise PC, and a personable PC; a good melee combatant and a good ranged combatant; at least 1 PC should have a good Will save, another should have a good Ref save, and another should have a good Fort save, so at least 1 person may be less injured/still standing after a mass attack that uses such saves; at least 1 PC with a good AC while flat-footed & 1 with a good touch AC; there should be at least 1 psychic character if it's a psychic campaign; etc.). It's possible to cover all of these bases, but it's just a matter of having the right mix of these elements (a fighter w/ high Str & Con would be good in combat, able to bear wearing heavy armor [and thus have a good flat-footed AC regardless], and have decent hit points & a fairly good Fort save; a high-Dex rogue would have a great Ref save and touch-based AC, be great at ranged combat, as well as Finesse-based melee, and would have a wealth of skills available {and a decent helping of skill points] to develop for scouting, dungeon-delving, spying, etc.). IMHO, a good group of PCs has a good mix of strengths--where one PC is weak or limited, another is mighty or capable. It sorta works in a sort of rock-paper-scissors sorta way. A bunch of high-Dex characters can be made less effective if they're either caught flat-footed or immobilized somehow (ala web, hold person, tanglefoot bags, or other movement-restricting magics/traps); if they have poor Will or Fort saves, then attacks that work on those kinds of saves can prove devastating.
So, to pretty much sum things up, it shouldn't matter with the player plays. However, it is a responsibility of the DM to at least provide fair warning of what kind of campaign he/she is running, or to at least adjust the campaign to ensure that (a) the campaign isn't a cakewalk, or (b) it isn't an eventual TPK.
Ideally, it shouldn't matter what sort of character a player has, unless it goes against the campaigns restrictions (i.e., no evil PCs, no drow, no divine spellcasters, all-aquatic PC races only, etc.).
However, a party's effectiveness/survivability can be somewhat affected if they are not a "standard" group of adventures playing in a "standard" module or campaign. The two do not mix well. For example, during the days of 2nd ed. (w/ Skills & Powers), my gaming group went through Night Below, a uber-module more or less designed for an average party to go through. However, the players pretty much made up anything but a typical party--the group mainly consisted of elves, mages, & thieves, with very few non-elves (or non-unique, worthy-of-a-LA-in-3.X-mechanics), and very few actual divine spellcasters or heavy fighters. We did poorly overall in the module, and we were glad just to get the game over rather than feeling any level of accomplishment.
To some degree, it is a matter of what the players want to play (character- & game- wise) and what the DM wants to run (game-wise). If the two aren't the same, it's bound to cause problems.
Now, despite the character issues about individual fun vs. party needs, I think one of the big things that should be focused on is individual fun vs. group fun. A player is a problem when they try to have fun for themselves, esp. if their notion of "fun" disrupts the game or ruins the enjoyment for other players. As long is this issue isn't a problem, then characters really shouldn't be that much of an issue, for the most part. Hirelings & other NPCs could cover this role.
However, if the PCs (of at least 4-5+ members) need more than 1-2 hirelings to be able to successfully complete an adventure because their PCs cannot perform the necessary abilities to do so, then I'd definitely say that there was a problem with the group of PCs.
As long as the DM accounts for it, a focused or atypical group of PCs can have a good long campaign (such as a party full of elf rogue/wizards, or a party with no primary, 0-9 spell level list sort of spellcasters). But, that's if the DM accounts for it & runs adventures appropriate for that sort of party. Otherwise, I'd consider it a wise practice to have as diverse of a group as possible that at least covered most of the bases (healing, arcane firepower, combat/feats, skills, etc.; overall, the PCs should have someone who fits the role of a strong PC, a tough PC, an agile PC, a smart PC, a wise PC, and a personable PC; a good melee combatant and a good ranged combatant; at least 1 PC should have a good Will save, another should have a good Ref save, and another should have a good Fort save, so at least 1 person may be less injured/still standing after a mass attack that uses such saves; at least 1 PC with a good AC while flat-footed & 1 with a good touch AC; there should be at least 1 psychic character if it's a psychic campaign; etc.). It's possible to cover all of these bases, but it's just a matter of having the right mix of these elements (a fighter w/ high Str & Con would be good in combat, able to bear wearing heavy armor [and thus have a good flat-footed AC regardless], and have decent hit points & a fairly good Fort save; a high-Dex rogue would have a great Ref save and touch-based AC, be great at ranged combat, as well as Finesse-based melee, and would have a wealth of skills available {and a decent helping of skill points] to develop for scouting, dungeon-delving, spying, etc.). IMHO, a good group of PCs has a good mix of strengths--where one PC is weak or limited, another is mighty or capable. It sorta works in a sort of rock-paper-scissors sorta way. A bunch of high-Dex characters can be made less effective if they're either caught flat-footed or immobilized somehow (ala web, hold person, tanglefoot bags, or other movement-restricting magics/traps); if they have poor Will or Fort saves, then attacks that work on those kinds of saves can prove devastating.
So, to pretty much sum things up, it shouldn't matter with the player plays. However, it is a responsibility of the DM to at least provide fair warning of what kind of campaign he/she is running, or to at least adjust the campaign to ensure that (a) the campaign isn't a cakewalk, or (b) it isn't an eventual TPK.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
If the other players are so concerned about the lack of a particular character type, why don't they ditch their characters to bring one in? If they don't care enough to give up their character concepts, why should you give up yours? If they can't even be bothered to take leadership and get a cohort to fill that role, why should you ditch your character. (And in your particular case, a mystic theurge is probably a better contributor than either a single-classed cleric or wizard in a party where he's the only spellcaster. Mystic theurge types can be competent and fill certain spellcasting roles well. With a sorceror, you'd have no cleric type character. With a cleric, you'd lack the battlefield control capabilities of a wizard. With a mystic theurge, you've a bit of both; the party with no other spellcasters seems the ideal situation for a mystic theurge not a situation you'd want to ditch him in favor of a different character).
A party can survive without members who fill particular roles (I won't count the number of Living Campaign adventures I've played without one or two of the main character roles--I must have played over a half-dozen sessions at 14th level without a cleric and I've played numerous sessions without a rogue and dozens of sessions without an artillery wizard). The players just need to adapt their strategies to take advantage of their strengths and to minimize their weaknesses. And, to a certain degree, they need to be lucky as well.
When I have joined existing campaigns, I generally look at what the party is missing and try to fill one of those roles. But I do that because there are several types of characters I enjoy playing and looking at party balance helps me decide which of those several potential characters I actually want to play. I don't do it because I feel some obligation to fill the empty spots on the party's roster. I play the game for fun and if a role wouldn't be fun to fill, it will have to go unfilled.
A party can survive without members who fill particular roles (I won't count the number of Living Campaign adventures I've played without one or two of the main character roles--I must have played over a half-dozen sessions at 14th level without a cleric and I've played numerous sessions without a rogue and dozens of sessions without an artillery wizard). The players just need to adapt their strategies to take advantage of their strengths and to minimize their weaknesses. And, to a certain degree, they need to be lucky as well.
When I have joined existing campaigns, I generally look at what the party is missing and try to fill one of those roles. But I do that because there are several types of characters I enjoy playing and looking at party balance helps me decide which of those several potential characters I actually want to play. I don't do it because I feel some obligation to fill the empty spots on the party's roster. I play the game for fun and if a role wouldn't be fun to fill, it will have to go unfilled.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Black Omega said:
I concur.
A Mystic Theurge may not be the powergaming best choice for a certain party, but if that PC is not actually pulling its weight it is much more likely a problem with the teamwork of the party as a whole than the particular PC or player in question. Is it really such a terrible burden to have a walking Buff Candy Machine in the party?
I do sometimes have a problem with a player being selfish in creating a character such that it detracts from the fun of the other players, usually because the character is completely dead weight in combat. But I think it is very impolite to be fussy about other player's character as long as that character is competent enough to be an asset as a traveling companion.
Darth K'Trava
First Post
He should be allowed to play whatever character HE wants to, not what the rest of the guys say he should play. Stuff like this is grounds for sore feelings and a very unenjoyable game for all. Even if it's the fact that the party NEEDS a cleric..... doesn't mean that someone should be FORCED to play one.
We did quite well with a party that had no cleric; it had a paladin and a druid/ranger for healing duties. It wasn't until that story arc ended and most everyone else got new characters (by choice) while I kept the paladin that we got a cleric/paladin in the group. And ALL the PCs are LG!
*That* was teamwork! Getting all to cooperate to have a party who got along well. The last party had a totally chaotic PC who rattled half everyone's nerve. She left due to work issues.
We did quite well with a party that had no cleric; it had a paladin and a druid/ranger for healing duties. It wasn't until that story arc ended and most everyone else got new characters (by choice) while I kept the paladin that we got a cleric/paladin in the group. And ALL the PCs are LG!
*That* was teamwork! Getting all to cooperate to have a party who got along well. The last party had a totally chaotic PC who rattled half everyone's nerve. She left due to work issues.Vraille Darkfang
First Post
Depends,
Do you run a role-palying game, or do you run a meat grinder.
Role-playing game. Most improtatn thing is interaction. Entire session may pass wihtout one to hit roll.
Meat Grinder. I'm the DM, my job is to kill every one of you. The faster you die, the better the DM I am.
Most DM's are in the middle (I'd get bored in 1, I'd walk out of 2). The closer to 2. your style is, the more combat min/maxed characters (and parties) have to be. Thus, any levels that aren't (Computer Generated is the phrase I use) will lead to character death. The closer to 1. the less important combat stats (attack bonus, destructive spells, cleric buffing) become.
This is the MOST IMPORTANT thing you can do, RIGHT NOW, to ensure the PC isn't (actually) weakening the party. You now know the party's weakness (lack of sorcerer firepower). Don't use that against them (at least not very often). Set up your encouters to challenge the party not kick them where the ain't got nothing. As long as you see your mission as DM to challenge the PC's and not rack up the highest PC death total, you'll (and your party) will do fine.
Keep this in mind when you set up for the game, don't always use opponents JUST BECAUSE the party has no way to adequetly deal with it. I.E. a rogueless party finds a trap-infested dugeon anything but fun. Should they:
1. Force somebody to make up a rogue, just so he can find all the traps.
2. Make up 10-12 back-up characters ahead of time so when the keep dying from those save-or-die traps they won't take up valuable game time.
3. Go back home, find a dungeon filled with undead and fewer traps.
To smmarize:
1. Let everyone play what they want.
2. Build lots of encounters that work off various charcters strengths.
3. Throw in an occasional curve ball that exploits their weakness (just to keep them on their toes).
4. Have fun, DM, Players, everybody. Thus the GAME part of role-playing game.
Do you run a role-palying game, or do you run a meat grinder.
Role-playing game. Most improtatn thing is interaction. Entire session may pass wihtout one to hit roll.
Meat Grinder. I'm the DM, my job is to kill every one of you. The faster you die, the better the DM I am.
Most DM's are in the middle (I'd get bored in 1, I'd walk out of 2). The closer to 2. your style is, the more combat min/maxed characters (and parties) have to be. Thus, any levels that aren't (Computer Generated is the phrase I use) will lead to character death. The closer to 1. the less important combat stats (attack bonus, destructive spells, cleric buffing) become.
This is the MOST IMPORTANT thing you can do, RIGHT NOW, to ensure the PC isn't (actually) weakening the party. You now know the party's weakness (lack of sorcerer firepower). Don't use that against them (at least not very often). Set up your encouters to challenge the party not kick them where the ain't got nothing. As long as you see your mission as DM to challenge the PC's and not rack up the highest PC death total, you'll (and your party) will do fine.
Keep this in mind when you set up for the game, don't always use opponents JUST BECAUSE the party has no way to adequetly deal with it. I.E. a rogueless party finds a trap-infested dugeon anything but fun. Should they:
1. Force somebody to make up a rogue, just so he can find all the traps.
2. Make up 10-12 back-up characters ahead of time so when the keep dying from those save-or-die traps they won't take up valuable game time.
3. Go back home, find a dungeon filled with undead and fewer traps.
To smmarize:
1. Let everyone play what they want.
2. Build lots of encounters that work off various charcters strengths.
3. Throw in an occasional curve ball that exploits their weakness (just to keep them on their toes).
4. Have fun, DM, Players, everybody. Thus the GAME part of role-playing game.
Similar Threads
