Not-so-adventurous character types?

[Driddle]

re "(E)xperts can be adventures even though it realizes most will stay in whatever town or city they live in and do their own thing. But players are usually adventures and this opens experts up to be used by players characters. They are not going to be as strong as the traditional player character classes but it can go a long way in offering some interesting depth to character. Not everyone needs to start out as an adventuring type.":

So are you OK with the character in your group who provides low-key support or is helpful in special niche areas but isn't otherwise able to do much killing/lockpicking/magic-slinging?

 

[Dragonbait]

So are you OK with the character in your group who provides low-key support or is helpful in special niche areas but isn't otherwise able to do much killing/lockpicking/magic-slinging?

I am, and I have made characters like this. I feel it's ok as long as it's a role-play heavy game. Of course, a GM can make almost any character ultra-useful or incredibly ineffective.

Is there a half-ogre barbarian in the group? Ok, all monsters radiate a power that requires a Will save and when failed, the person flees, or all monsters are flying! yay! Got a +12 and skill focus in Profession (Cook)? Suddenly the GM allows the player to make potions that can mimic and divine or arcane spell with their cooking skill! yay! Taste my flame strike parfet!

edit: did a mini fix because rvcanada's post pointed out something that is very true too.

 

[Ry]

It can work, but you have to ask yourself if your character is going to be fun for everybody, or just for you. I mean, there's lots of gaming advice out there that assumes the GM is responsible for making everybody's character concepts effective, but if playstyles don't mesh that doesn't really work in practice. So you have to ask yourself, are the other players (not PCs) going to enjoy having this character in the party, and how much work will this create for our GM?

Edit: This can be a very difficult question to ask yourself, and I've had characters that reduced others' fun when I didn't ask myself this.

 

[delericho]

I once created a setting with a race called the Sloth, who were essentially reptilian hobbits. Unfortunately, one of my players wanted to play a member of the race, and really latched on to the "lazy peace-lovers" from the description. His character then proceeded to be near-impossible to motivate. About six weeks into the campaign, the rest of the characters ditched his character, and the rest of the players told him to roll up a new character.

In hindsight, I probably went a little far in my description of the race, and there was also some miscommunication about the nature of the campaign. Ultimately, though, the non-adventurous character just didn't work, and needed replaced.

That's not to say the archetype can't work... but unless the campaign is specially tailored for that kind of character then the player really needs to develop either a reason why the character isn't the stay-at-home type common for his race, or some reason why his character is determined to see this campaign through.

 

[Dragonbait]

I...His character then proceeded to be near-impossible to motivate. About six weeks into the campaign, the rest of the characters ditched his character, and the rest of the players told him to roll up a new character.

IMO if the player makes a lazy, unmotivated, or lone-wolf character, it should be up to them to figure out how to get their character involved (while working with the GM, of course). The GM is already dealing with 3 or more other people and their characters, they shouldn't have to work overtime to deal with the unmotivated character.

 

[Tonguez]

I had a player who wanted to be a play an Engineer (he was a civil engineer irl) and he proved really effective and a lynchpin to the adventures (which involved exploring the city sewers, reinforcing defensive walls, blowing up a bridge, infiltrating an enemy stronghold and rebuilding a ruined city)

he used his irl knowledge of engineering to add real depth and flavour to the game.
This is probabaly an important point since playing a 'Skillbased' character means that the Player needs to bring a bit of knowledge with them in order to keep it interesting..

 

[Kafkonia]

So are you OK with the character in your group who provides low-key support or is helpful in special niche areas but isn't otherwise able to do much killing/lockpicking/magic-slinging?

I am 100% okay with this, but I don't think that the d20 system paradigm works for it -- especially with the introduction of the Factotum, whose all-skill class skill list supplants the only thing the Expert class had going for it (variable skill list.) For a game like that I would turn to a different sytem, like GURPS or BRP, or even Hero (I don't know 5th ed.)

 

[Desdichado]

I'm OK with it in certain games. If I'm running the game, I want to know up front that someone's building a character like that, and I want the rest of the group on board, because it has implications for what the group does as a whole throughout the campaign, IMO. But I actually really like it; it just requires the GM to give the game a little bit of extra thought.

 

[Voadam]

I like the ECL and class balance paradigm for party balance. Having characters each able to hold their own and participate in combat is a good thing. I think being a complete deadweight in combat sucks as a PC.

 

[Driddle]

As far as I'm concerned, being involved with the rest of the group is incredibly simple -- you TALK. Ask questions, offer advice, make observations, give feedback.

As for the rest, it depends on how self-sufficient the player is and what his/her peers expect. For example, I could be quite happy with tagging along and staying out of the way, just being ME. And most of the people I've played with are so caught up in their own fantasies that they forget they're sharing the spotlight anyway, so they don't care what I'm doing. ... I haven't yet come across any examples of players who have actively griped about everyone "pulling weight."

An "adventure" is what you make of it, no?