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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6313487" data-attributes="member: 17106">Yes, the distinctive thing about the first option is that you can and likely will get situations where clashing personalities emerge (depending on the players, of course). This can work, but presents a challenge that many groups want to avoid.Interesting. I've never heard that one before. Good for you for trying something new.I do tend to think that one of the negatives of option 3 or maybe even 2 is people feeling this pressure and stress to play the "right" thing. And this is a nuanced issue. A party designed to collaborate effectively is likely going to be a bit better than a bunch of strangers thrown together, so depending on what kinds of challenges you're facing, that pressure may be a legitimate part of the game.Conversely, I think it also tends to place undue pressure in some cases. I see a lot of posts on these boards that assume that you have to have a healer (or some other class/role), which I don't think is accurate, and I suspect arises from people who are so ingrained in the collective mentality that they simply have never tried a nonstandard party, or don't know how to think about playing without the traditional archetypes being adequately represented.I kind of dislike that, and for a while I mandated that players try a new character type each game to avoid this kind of behavior.This is me too. Of course, I DM more often than I play, but when I play I do like to spread it around, and often, I'd let others do the independent thing and then fill in whatever gap I perceived. So it is possible for different players in the same group to answer this poll differently.</blockquote>

Verification