Usurping the party spokesman role

[Driddle]

PC-A: Rogue, naturally high Char (18), a few ranks in Diplomacy skill at low levels. ... Naturally ends up as spokesman in social settings.

PC-B: Fighter, starts with an above-ave. Char (13). But over several levels he quietly boosts his charisma higher, picks skill-focus feats (and feats that allow him to improve that skill cheaply), takes the half-elf paragon PrC for an additional improvement, works his skill synergies ... And before ya know it, he's got a truly impressive Diplomacy score.

Player B hasn't really been discussing his character development, and Player A hasn't noticed because he's all about the traps. But suddenly the team's alpha-male "face" has been displaced in negotiating with strangers - he gets the chicks, he talks with the king, he calms the angry crowd, etc.

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

 

[Crothian]

Watch it happen and wait for things to settle after a bit of conflict. I'd just let it go, it is good to see character growth like this. Now, if it spills over and stops being fun for Guy A then you might want to discuss things out of game, but until then sit back and watch the fun.

 

[IronWolf]

This sounds like a great character building scenario to me. Some great IC opportunities for RP as he watches the fighter take on a larger role with social interaction. I could see how it might lead to tension, but with the right group of people this could be quite fun. Any chance of convincing the two involved of that? Tossing a positive spin on it?

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

Sounds like good RP opportunities to me. There is nothing wrong with a little in game conflict, as long as it doesn't spill into RL!

 

[der_kluge]

"Players" shouldn't be handling anything.

This is a matter for "Characters" to resolve.

Remember that.

 

[JoeGKushner]

What is the 'real' issue here?

Is rogue player upset because he's not in the limelight anymore?

I can tell you from personal experience that it's harder to roleplay a lower charisma character for me because I like to talk a lot and my manner of speaking generally doesn't lend itself to not being convincing when I have to, so I tend to defer to those with higher charisma scores who are supposed to be party spokesmen, but whose players don't often speak quite as well as I do so I can see both sides of the 'real' issue and the game issue.

 

[Glyfair]

"Players" shouldn't be handling anything.

This is a matter for "Characters" to resolve.

Remember that.

I strongly disagree with this.

Take this particular situation. What is the issue here? Is the character the one who sees his role being displaced or is the player the one who sees his role being displaced?

If it's a character issue, then I agree that it's something that should be developed in character. Of course, if the player explained to the other player what was happening, good players can use that information to enhance the roleplaying of this situation.

However, if it's a player issue, then it's best handled by the players (and perhaps the DM). In this sort of situation, you can avoid a lot of hard feelings just by giving the player a heads up on what's happening instead of just springing it on them.

 

[JoeBlank]

This reminds me of the current thread we have debating resurrection and reincarnation of and NPC v a PC.

The best answer probably depends on your game style, do you metagame much in your group? Do you try to let PCs resolve in-game conflict among themselves, or do the players need some DM intervention.

To me, this would be an issue for the PCs to resolve. The rogue did not notice the evolution of the fighter, and now he has a rival on his hands. Could be fun, especially if the players can handle it and keep the conflict from spilling over into real life.

Some groups like to have well-defined roles at the outset, which they agree to ahead of time. They may agree that one player will make a cleric, another a meat-shield/tank, another an arcane caster, and finally a scout/trap-springer. And they may agree ahead of time who will devote skill points and Cha to be the party spokesman. If this was agreed upon ahead of time, then the rogue player might have a legitimate beef with the fighter stepping on his toes.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Did this actually happen in a game or is it just a discussion point?

 

[Driddle]

The ROLE-playing is exhibiting hints of friction based on the attitude of the players. The first guy is perturbed now because he *should* have been given the charisma-enhancing circlet, for example, instead of the magic sneaky boots a couple of adventures back. (Hindsight is 20/20, eh?) But no one can begrudge the player behind the fighter PC, because it's not like he made a big public fuss over his character's development in that direction. It just sort of evolved that way.

Reminds me of the petty posturing so popular on 'reality TV' series.

No biggie, really -- The rogue PC is excellent at locks/traps/sneaking. And he'll realize sooner or later that if he wanted to keep the Diplomacy limelight, he should have tried harder. As it is, he's got other skills to play up at the table.