Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rel" data-source="post: 5106087" data-attributes="member: 99">I think it does somewhat.  But looking at your comparison between Sneaky Rogue and Mounted Knight I still think that you are applying two different player mindsets, which leads to sort of a double standard.You're saying that it'll be relatively easy to satisfy the Sneaky Rogue, even if you only briefly touch on his capabilities and don't give them a big helping of spotlight time.  One assumes that while in combat he will be able to sneak only a limited amount (unless the player classifies Sneak Attacks gained by flanking as "being sneaky").  So the balance of his sneakiness is going to come mostly from brief descriptions of how he was sneaky, rolling a few skill checks and the once in a while Big Sneaking Event.That approach seems fairly similar to how I spoke up thread about handling a Mounted Knight for a certain playstyle.  This is done by similarly touching on it whenever possible, asking for skill rolls related to that topic now and then, and having the occasional Big Mounted Event.  I would suggest that if the player in my group were to play each of these two character types in successive campaigns, he could be accommodated by these methods.If you have a player who is all about the crunch and has made his PC into a super Stealth Monkey, and if he's only satisfied when he's getting to to undertake that role mechanically, then you're going to have just as hard a time accommodating them as you would the Mounted Knight who wants his horse in every combat.  So my point is that I feel this is more of a playstyle issue and less of an archetype issue.So if you have a player who is mechanically focused then I'd urge them to choose a character archetype that is going to be addressed mechanically very often (certainly in combat).  Because, unless your group is very small, there simply isn't enough screen time to let them "do their thing" and do it mechanically more than 50% of the time if the archetype is narrow.Let me finally take a moment to point out that these sorts of narrow archetypes are WONDERFUL for solo or very small games.  For the same player I mentioned above I ran a couple of Assassin themed games where he was either the only player or one of a pair.  In the game with two players the other PC was sort of his sidekick/partner who was more of a Cat Burglar (i.e. Sneaky Rogue) archetype.  Those games were fantastic for all the reasons that they'd be bad characters in a game with five players.  I could focus all the story AND mechanics on a very narrow set of circumstances.I know a lot of groups that, when they are down to only a couple players, immediately shift into "Looking For Players" mode.  But I've always grabbed those opportunities over the years (typically when people in our gaming group are out of action due to new babies) as a chance to play a different kind of game.  And so if you've got a player who wants to do Sir Mounted Knight then tell them to save that concept for when you are going to run a solo campaign or maybe pair them with the player who would like to play the silver-tongued Squire Ladies Man along side them.</blockquote>

Verification