MoogleEmpMog
First Post
Doug McCrae said:
Niche protection, as I understand the term, presumably resulted in turning undead and bardic knowledge employing unique mechanics rather than being skill checks.
Usurping the party spokesman role
- Thread starter Driddle
- Start date
Niche protection, as I understand the term, presumably resulted in turning undead and bardic knowledge employing unique mechanics rather than being skill checks.
Doug McCrae
Legend
As I understand it, niche protection means that each player character has skills or abilities that are both unique (at least to the team) and useful. The mechanism for this in D&D is the character class system. Provided every PC is of a different class each will have a distinct niche. The system doesn't entirely work - once clerics get Divine Power and Righteous Might they're better at fighting than the fighters - but it's pretty good.
Doug McCrae said:
I play in a big group so we have seen a lot of this. For example we have an infiltrator class from Kalamar this class is all about scouting and gathering infomation and things like that. But most of the time the druid wildshapes into a bird of some kind and does most of the scouting. The system is far from perfect. I play a fighter at the levels we are now the paladin/cleric out fights me all the time. :\
The situation being described here in this thread I don't see as a big deal it is not like the rogue has nothing else to do he used his very generous skill points in a different area. So the fighter chose to expand the rather limited things fighters get to do outside of combat. And since the rogue had not bothered to raise his diplomacy it was not like he was making that something he was very good at his niche in the party. So someone else filled that niche in. I think the player of the fighter was very creative in his apporach.
Herpes Cineplex
First Post
Until this thread, it never even occurred to me that 'niche protection' was some kind of dirty word. 
Maybe to be safe we should be talking about "character spotlights" or something along those lines: an area in which a character is really good, so the spotlight is on them when it's time to do something related to that area of expertise.
Some people don't care if they have to share a particular spotlight. For that matter, some people don't care if they don't have any spotlight that is theirs and theirs alone. They're fine with being second-best at everything, and don't care whether the margin between them and first place is tiny or if it's absolutely huge. If an entire campaign goes by without their character being the person who has everyone's attention and gets to do the Cool Thing that saves the day, they don't even notice. They don't mind if everything their character does can be done by someone else in the party, only those other characters can do it faster and better and with more style.
But, in my experience, those people are very rare. Most of the folks I've played with like to have at least one thing that their character can be better at than everyone else, so that they can step forward and make the difference when that talent is needed. And all emotionally-laced jargon like 'niche protection' aside, that seems like the problem which might be looming with this rogue-versus-fighter situation.
My sympathies are divided on this. I like playing the talky characters, and I can see resenting it if someone else came along and tried to usurp that spotlight. At the same time, I've played uncharismatic characters and been so tremendously unhappy about it (both by the limited opportunities to interact with NPCs and by the agonizing second-guessing of NPC interactions as handled by other players) that I can totally see why the guy playing the fighter would be interested in seeing his character branch out in that direction.
At some point, it might be helpful for both of them to talk about what they have planned for their characters, what kinds of things they think are fun to do in the game, and whether they need some kind of gentleman's agreement about how to handle this area of overlapping skills. At the very least, it would help to know whether this is going to be the fun kind of intraparty conflict (where both players are laughing and conspiring with each other about how their characters can try to undercut the other's position) or the evil kind (where the players stop talking to each other in real life and the entire game collapses under an avalanche of drama).
And it's worth pointing out that this doesn't have to be a bad situation at all: they can play good-cop/bad-cop now, they can negotiate with two separate groups simultaneously, and so on. There's no reason why this has to all be about one of them displacing the other entirely, right? There are plenty of ways that they can make this overlap work to their advantage.
(Besides, the rogue still gets the "traps and stealth" spotlight, and the fighter still has the "deal out and take huge fistfuls of damage" spotlight.)
--
good luck
ryan
Maybe to be safe we should be talking about "character spotlights" or something along those lines: an area in which a character is really good, so the spotlight is on them when it's time to do something related to that area of expertise.
Some people don't care if they have to share a particular spotlight. For that matter, some people don't care if they don't have any spotlight that is theirs and theirs alone. They're fine with being second-best at everything, and don't care whether the margin between them and first place is tiny or if it's absolutely huge. If an entire campaign goes by without their character being the person who has everyone's attention and gets to do the Cool Thing that saves the day, they don't even notice. They don't mind if everything their character does can be done by someone else in the party, only those other characters can do it faster and better and with more style.
But, in my experience, those people are very rare. Most of the folks I've played with like to have at least one thing that their character can be better at than everyone else, so that they can step forward and make the difference when that talent is needed. And all emotionally-laced jargon like 'niche protection' aside, that seems like the problem which might be looming with this rogue-versus-fighter situation.
My sympathies are divided on this. I like playing the talky characters, and I can see resenting it if someone else came along and tried to usurp that spotlight. At the same time, I've played uncharismatic characters and been so tremendously unhappy about it (both by the limited opportunities to interact with NPCs and by the agonizing second-guessing of NPC interactions as handled by other players) that I can totally see why the guy playing the fighter would be interested in seeing his character branch out in that direction.
At some point, it might be helpful for both of them to talk about what they have planned for their characters, what kinds of things they think are fun to do in the game, and whether they need some kind of gentleman's agreement about how to handle this area of overlapping skills. At the very least, it would help to know whether this is going to be the fun kind of intraparty conflict (where both players are laughing and conspiring with each other about how their characters can try to undercut the other's position) or the evil kind (where the players stop talking to each other in real life and the entire game collapses under an avalanche of drama).
And it's worth pointing out that this doesn't have to be a bad situation at all: they can play good-cop/bad-cop now, they can negotiate with two separate groups simultaneously, and so on. There's no reason why this has to all be about one of them displacing the other entirely, right? There are plenty of ways that they can make this overlap work to their advantage.
(Besides, the rogue still gets the "traps and stealth" spotlight, and the fighter still has the "deal out and take huge fistfuls of damage" spotlight.)
--
good luck
ryan
Your character didn't try to be the best he could be, he specifically targeted a role of one of the other PCs and usurped it. I don't understand why you would do this. I personally would have tried to be a better fighter but hey if you want to be the "best" of the group in many areas, more power to you. I'm sure the other players appreciate the effort you've made.Driddle said:
Numion
First Post
Chimera said:
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?
Lord Pendragon
First Post
To take this a step further, at 9th-level, I was seriously contemplating picking up a cohort for my paladin. I was keen on the idea of a cleric-archer, until I realized that my cohort would wind up being a better cleric than our cleric, and possibly a better archer than our archer. So I gave up on getting a cohort after all.Numion said:
It seemed obvious to me that outstripping their PCs in their specialties would in all likelihood take away from their fun.
Kast said:
???
I never said I was the player in the initial post.That point aside, it's not as though the guy in question "targeted a role" to take it away from some other deserving slob. It's simple: his character evolved.
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.
Breakdaddy
First Post
Driddle said:
Didnt I buy your motivational tape for 19.95 last month??
Kast said:
There's many layers of problems presented in this thread. I'll start with the one I just quoted, skill overlap.
Using real life as an example. I work on a programming team. I'm probably one of the best on my team. I would hope that others on my team work to improve their skills so that they can contribute at my level. Heck, my job is to mentor that.
The difference between that example and the Rogue-fighter -diplomat problem is that my "real life party" is of the same class, programmer. We all need to have high ranks in it.
So let's switch focus to what some call "niche protection" The basic niche for rogue is sneaky ba$tard. The basic niche for fighter is kills better than anyone else.
Everybody on a team has a core job, and may have some other skills. Certainly we don't want the rogue to be a better at fighting than the fighter. Nor do we want the fighter to be sneakier than the rogue.
But here's a problem where the rogue was the talky guy, and now the fighter is more talky. Being talky has nothing to do with being a fighter or a rogue. It's not a class based job. In fact, it's the job that goes to whoever takes it up. In way, it's a job that can be shared among the whole party, based on the context of the story.
Having just had my boss go to a "Managing Technical People" course, one of the items she brought back was a list of what motivates us. High on that list was things like: to be listened to, to have your ideas used. It's my opinion that most of us want that, not just technical people. So let me merge all these concepts together for you in the next paragraph or so.
The game should have encounters where each character is involved. Not just in using skills, but in communicating with NPCs and such. Granted, some people loathe talking in RPGs, and you can spot those people and customize encounters for them (i.e. don't have NPCs talk to them). In simple terms, make your NPCs talk to people of like nature. Clerics talk to the party cleric more than the rest of the party. Wizards talk to the party wizard more than the rest of the party. Etc. Don't just do this on "class" boundaries, figure out other ways that an NPC may feel more in common with a particular PC and prefer to direct conversation to them.
When you spot situations like the one with the rogue and fighter, bring it up. But direct it as, something you're interested in seeing if the players want to explore through their characters. For example, "Hey guys, I noticed that the fighter's starting to get a really good diplomacy rating and is doing more of the party negotiating. Do you guys want to play it that the rogue is losing control of the group? That could make for some good inner-party conflict." You've pretty much said what's on your mind, and presented it in terms that make it part of the game, rather than being touchy-feely "my feelings are hurt, but I'm not going to do anything about it" This method presents the current situation, and directs the players to think about how they want their characters to react. That's valuable for all concerned as it will encourage them to incorporate role-playing concepts into their gaming.
Now on a side note, have you considered why the fighter is improving his communication skills. One reason may be so he can do more "chatting" in the game. Another, may be because he wants party leadership. A third may be because he wants to make a commander of armies character (ala Leadership feat) and wants the biggest baddest cohort/followers/henchmen he can get.
In my own game, I've got a monk, who's had a series of defeats. The personal honor is tarnished kind of defeats. So I asked him, "hey, you've taken a lot. Do you want to incorporate this into your character." He said yes. We talked about it, and decided to go for an alcoholism theme. So we started having his character drink more, be late or missing for certain party activities, etc. We're not showing him being a drunk. We're just putting the effects of alcoholism in how it affects his relationship with the party. For instance, he missed his CO & friend's award ceremony. That had an impact on the other players, as something they noticed and wondered what was going on. And that is something that gets a player into the story.
Janx
