The Niche Protection Poll

[Neonchameleon]

I kind of agree with that policy, as I feel role-play suffers if challenges are set to be too hard.

I couldn't disagree more. Monstsegur 1244 and Grey Ranks are incredible RP experiences and part of the reason is that the challenges are set at Kobayashi Maru level in both and there's no way of hacking. Both ask the question of who your PC is when the chips are down.

But this only works because the ways to eek out extra modifiers makes you more vulnerable. I believe I've done the same in my Hunger Games RPG where the game is likely to fizzle unless you are being harried and having to spend stress - and to team up even knowing it gives them a free shot when they want to shiv you. If you're playing something where the mechanics are about physics rather than emotions and engagement the way to handle heavy pressure is to slip into pawn play.

 

[Lanefan]

If you can manage to have a party of PCs fail and survive that's very nice, but its not my experience of how these things work. A part is more likely to die trying, or at least take casualties trying. And once PCs start to die and new PCs appear with any regularity, my experience is that roleplay suffers heavily and moves into pawn stance. Players refuse to engage emotionally and treat their characters as playing pieces. Particularly so if you are punished for dying by returning with a weaker character - this starts a vicious cycle of repeated deaths and increasing pawns stance, ending with the player quitting the game.

Only if your players and-or characters are stubborn enough to keep banging their heads against the same adventure even though they've clearly become weaker than they were to begin with.

It ain't rocket science, guys - turning around and doing something else is always an option!

That said; in-combat healing is something that simply should not exist, period, without significant risk and chance of (possibly catastrophic) failure. You heal after combat, not in the middle of it.

Lanefan

 

[Zhaleskra]

I voted "some exclusive, some not".

The kind of niche protection I despise is the "you can't have more than one character of the same class in the same party". I actually have run into people like that. Really, just because Bob is playing a thief, Jake can't play a thief? Playing the same class is "stepping on your toes"? How about specializing differently: the backstabber, the "locksmith", the trapfinder? Characters die. Redundancy is not always a bad thing. Of course, this is but one example.

 

[Lanefan]

I voted "some exclusive, some not".

The kind of niche protection I despise is the "you can't have more than one character of the same class in the same party". I actually have run into people like that. Really, just because Bob is playing a thief, Jake can't play a thief? Playing the same class is "stepping on your toes"? How about specializing differently: the backstabber, the "locksmith", the trapfinder? Characters die. Redundancy is not always a bad thing. Of course, this is but one example.

Agreed; and to go one step further, there's nothing even wrong with having two full-on locksmiths in the party.

But the thief *class* still has locksmithery as a niche, regardless of how many PCs are trying to fill that niche at any given moment.

Lan-"no party can ever have too many characters in it"-efan

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My experience of 4E was that healing was something each character could manage pretty well by themselves - no real need for leader-type characters.

That's intentional. There's no hard need in 4E for any single role. A balanced party will outperform an unbalanced one, given equal player skill and cooperation, but not by such a huge margin that it's unreasonable - this is precisely why we were confused by Ahnehnois' piece about how roles should be balanced with each other - in 4E, they largely are - if you lose a Leader and replace him with a Striker, the greater speed at which enemies fall will help to make up for the shortfall in healing. My main group is missing a controller (most of the time) and has a second leader, for example, and works very well.

There are places where certain roles shine, of course - unavoidable damage or really lengthy fights tend to benefit from a leader, swarms and large numbers of minions are harder to deal with without controller, and so on.

But if you believe leaders are any less essential than other roles (and I'm not saying you do!), then I think you are quite mistaken.

On this we can definitely agree. As a GM, my favorite aspect of play is having my players' PCs fail at an objective that is thematically impactful to them and watching what comes out of it; seeing how their characters' ethos, outlook, relationships (with people, places, things) and/or goals evolve (or devolve perhaps) as a result of the fallout of the failure/loss. How it might put them at tension with their former selves or at tension with one another.

Failure is certainly potentially interesting.

Failure because no-one decided to play a specific class/role, on the other hand, is absolutely the least interesting kind of failure (far less interesting than "bad rolls", even!), and may even put people off the game system entirely. It says more about the DM (in a more linear, story-centric campaign) and his encounter design, or the system (if certain scenarios require a certain class, even if more "real" logic doesn't dictate that they should), or occasionally the ability of the players to handle logistics, than it does about the characters or the like.

I know that I've seen failures in RPGs before that were solely related to this kind of thing - i.e. "We didn't have X class with us, so we failed" (8/10 X is a Cleric or very similar class), and the results were never character development or the like - they were universally disenchantment with a particular system, or recriminations between players (not characters).

 

[Ahnehnois]

Failure is certainly potentially interesting.

Failure because no-one decided to play a specific class/role, on the other hand, is absolutely the least interesting kind of failure (far less interesting than "bad rolls", even!), and may even put people off the game system entirely.

Not true at all in my experience. There are always going to be less players than there are possible characters, and thus there is always the opportunity for "what if"-type questions. It's part of the game. What I've seen is players being analytical, looking at what worked and what didn't, and learning from it for the future.

However, it also depends on two broadly distinct DMing philosophies. In one, the game is catered to the characters. In this case, there are no worries about missing a role. If you're all playing wizards, and it becomes a wizard campaign (probably one spent researching mysteries without a lot of combat). If you don't have a cleric, you probably won't face a ton of undead or be forced into situations where you need a lot of rapid healing. Instead, you'll be challenged on your terms. In this kind of game, there is no real worry about failing for not having chosen the "right" type of character.

In the other, the DM runs an uncaring world that doesn't cater to the players. In this case, the party's ability to tackle all the roles is being tested. If you find yourself stuck in a maze full of traps and have no rogue, you're screwed. The thing with this type of game, is that for the right player, they enjoy the challenge. Trying to guess what abilities are going to be needed and cover them as part of your endeavor to protect yourself from the adversarial DM is where the strategy of the game manifests. Fortunately, it's a pretty dynamic set of roles that D&D offers, so this can create a working gameplay experience.

 

[Starfox]

I realize I was part of the problem here, but lets try not to turn this into another edition war thread.

 

[Manbearcat]

Failure is certainly potentially interesting.

Failure because no-one decided to play a specific class/role, on the other hand, is absolutely the least interesting kind of failure (far less interesting than "bad rolls", even!), and may even put people off the game system entirely. It says more about the DM (in a more linear, story-centric campaign) and his encounter design, or the system (if certain scenarios require a certain class, even if more "real" logic doesn't dictate that they should), or occasionally the ability of the players to handle logistics, than it does about the characters or the like.

I didn't elaborate enough it would seem so I think you and [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] were thinking of a different sort of failure than I was. D&D is such a combat as primary means of conflict resolution paradigm that I suppose its just a presupposition. The fallout there is typically death or TPK. This isn't the sort of resolution I was referring to and it wasn't the sort of fallout I was referring to.

I was referring to conflicts that produce loss or setback that does not include the death of a player or a TPK. I was referring to fallout such as a parlay going haywire and therefore the PCs suffer from lack of alliance or someone/thing that is important to them is lost or terminally at risk (or outright executed). Failing to protect an innocent (or innocence) from being collateral damage in a combat or failing to save them from a burning building, a forest fire, or an earthquake is an example. Anything that compromises (makes their life more difficult and interesting) the PC from an intangible perspective (difficult ethos prioritzation for instance). Sytems with robust noncombat conflict resolution, and fallout feedback, accomplishes this sort of thematic loss that I'm referring to. Combat systems that have the metagame heft to produce this sort of non-lethal (to the PCs) scenario is what I'm referring to. An example going on right now in my 4e PBP on here is the protection of a daughter (a minion) by her father and the PC as a tentacle beast attacks their vessel in the bay. Its strategically important and emotionally important for the PC to protect this little girl but the odds of her herself dying from this attack are remote.