Please clarify with an example. This is going over my head. The nearest interpretation I can make is as if you have a group of actors and each one of them wants to play Hamlet, but if you don't have someone playing Ophelia, Claudius, etc., you don't have the play.
Is that what you mean? A party where no one wants to play a Cleric, Warlord or Paladin, but someone makes the sacrifice in order to give the group healing ability?
Yep, this is what I mean. Perhaps we need more customization possibilities that happen to be both beneficial and restrictive to the party in the right balance along with encounter design that makes viable such a dynamic.
Ah, the DM. The solution to this problem! If players are dead set on their character concepts, then let the DM adjust the game world to accomodate them? Or are their character concepts logically incompatible "I am the only son of the Emperor of the World!" "No, I am!"?
Or perhaps you need a design that provides gameplay that deals with these problems instead of the DM.
I thought it was about having fun and not a job. Perhaps to have fun in my job I need a saying to (think about a council taking decisions).Whose job is to play on a team.
PC's should cooperate in a fight if they want to survive.
They are free to pursue other goals once the fight is over.
Badly designed combat rules are not rightly considered a characterization aid...
Perhaps what is encounter and combat and what is not for the characters needs readdressing all together.
Last edited: