Usurping the party spokesman role

[Numion]

Sheesh, do you ask all your friends at the office if they would mind you learning a few new jokes instead of the designated company jester? And if you were funnier, would you back off and let the other guy shine in his role?

Or your neighbor next door, the guy who is famous around the block for his great parties -- do you survey the street before you decide to have a blow-out event of your own? After all, you wouldn't want to hurt his feelings when it turns out you're a better host.

I'll answer that on behalf of other reasonable readers here: No. That's not the way healthy people grow and develop. Game interaction at the table isn't any different ... unless there's a contract signed by everyone ahead of time.

Well, with all due respect, in real life you're stuck with being you so you better run with it. In a fantasy roleplaying game you can choose who you are, and what you'll be aiming for. There are only 3-5 other players to consider - in real life if you wanted to consider others, there'd be a lot more.

So in the fantasy game the problem is minor - with small adjustments you can increase others enjoyment of the game. In real life we're free to be jerks

 

[Voadam]

There's some tension at the table because the party roles have been shifted. How do you handle it?

As a DM I try to make sure every PC has their time in the spotlight and opportunities to interact with NPCs. In my game face time with NPCs is not about diplomacy scores but character story niche, i.e. the dwarven cleric fighter is the front man as a revered church luminary and warrior champion when they travel to his homeland, the paladin is ready to jump in and vociferously pledge himself to whatever good cause crosses his path, and the CSI druidica (as we call the party druid/shifter) takes over when there is an investigation. And the quiet arcane trickster who tries to keep his head down because of his past church and law run ins has to deal with the mage issues that come up as the theocratic empire they are in cracks down on regulating arcane magic.

Now the first three characters all have similar niches, magical hand to hand bricks, but they complement each other and are differentiated enough for everything to work well.

 

[Driddle]

... they complement each other and are differentiated enough for everything to work well.

Oh. My. Gawd.
Someone used 'complement' correctly.
(sob)

 

[Chimera]

So if one player had long been trying to make his character the best archer possible, you wouldn't mind if another player introduced a character that is doing the same (to replace a dead PC, for example) .. but better. He's noticed the errors in the first players 'build', he's had better chance to get the prerequisited for new PrCs WotC has churned out, he's all around just a bit better.

You have no objections that the first archers player now aspires to be the second best archer, and due to sub-optimal choices earlier in career can never truly match the other players new archer?

Wow, you really kicked the snot out of that straw man you set up, didn't you.

There isn't anything like this happening in the scenario established.

 

[BSF]

An interesting perspective. Do you hold it in life as well?
(Peanut Gallery, in one voice: "No, you ninny! This is a GAAAAAAME!!!")

I believe in being the best I can be at whatever I want to be best at -- in game, or in life. Only by being the best me possible can I help others.
The other guy's expectations are *his* responsibility, not mine.

*laugh*
You want to compare the real world to a game? In the real world, I try to work with people that can teach me something and that I can teach something.

Within the game, it would be easy for me, as a player, to outdo many of the other players I game with. I have a better appreciation and understanding of the rules than some of them do. There are also so many ways in a RPG to make a PC that you can always find a new area to excel at. Why do I need to specifically target an area that another player is trying to excel at? It's a game and we are all there to have fun. When my friends ask for help in character design, then I provide it. When I can see an area the PC lacks in, that I might want to excel at, I often discuss it with the group. Why risk misunderstanding when a little proactive conversation will help make sure everyone at the table is having fun?

 

[Voadam]

Oh. My. Gawd.
Someone used 'complement' correctly.
(sob)

Don't try this at home kids, I'm a trained professional.

 

[Bagpuss]

There's some tension at the table because the party roles have been shifted. How do you handle it?

Folks still do that whole party spokesperson thing?

And you decide it by who has the best attributes?

Never played a game like that so the situation would never come up.

 

[shilsen]

Oh. My. Gawd.
Someone used 'complement' correctly.
(sob)

[Digression]There's a huge plaque in the geology department at my university which informs people that "geology compliments many other disciplines" [/Digression]

 

[Chimera]

Why do I need to specifically target an area that another player is trying to excel at?

Why risk misunderstanding when a little proactive conversation will help make sure everyone at the table is having fun?

Why does it have to be seen that way?

I disagree with the philosophy that I need to studiously avoid having my PCs excel in areas where others dominate. This doesn't mean I'm "competing" with them at all, nor do I see it as such when others match my skills.

In one game I played in this last fall, the THREE of us who all had good Sense Motive skills all failed to notice something the Paladin, with the lowest SM of the bunch, picked up on. Because the player rolled a 20. Hey, I'm glad to have someone else at the table who can pick up where my character fails!!! It isn't a sense of competition or jealously guarding my own little piece of turf. It's a cooperative effort.

And hey, if for some reason my character fails his diplomacy roll or somehow becomes disliked by the NPC we're trying to influence, I always welcome someone else who can pick up the pieces and make a second effort!

The game I'm playing in now, there is another Rogue with almost the same skills as I have (at first level). Neither of us has a problem with that. We like the fact that we can both try our skills out and cover each other's backs.

Again, it's not competition, it's not selfishly defending my small pile of turf. It's about cooperation to reach goals.

And insofar as Diplomacy and Charisma are concerned, I'm always in some sense the 1e player, looking at the "clear some land and create a Fief". In 3e, maybe it's just about being more socially connected and having one's own NPC relationships. I always see such skills and abilities as nothing but a benefit to the PC with such goals and would never begrudge my fellow player this kind of PC development.

 

[Janx]

I could empathize with someone who's character's class features are being out done by a vastly different class. The case of a Wizard with better 1st level "rogue" spells than the 10th level rogue's skills. Or the cleric who's better at fighting monsters with weapons than the fighter and barbarian combined.

But those are usually extremes in character build + munchkin supplements

When it comes to general tasks, like talking to NPCs, spotting, etc, those are things that all characters have a right to participate in. Overlap and redundancy are usually a good thing. It's OK to have characters that can do the same thing. it's also good to have characters with different skills. Middle-ground is the key.

Janx