NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6242420" data-attributes="member: 87792">The problem is that when you've set up Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli as your party running for the non-combat rogue is a Shadowrun Decker problem.  That party did not have Samwise for a good reason - except in the section that was an escort mission.  I'm not saying that either approach is right or wrong.  I'm saying that they are good tastes that do not blend.  The rogue has always had the problem that they want to split the party.You're running off Geek Social Fallacy #1: Ostracisers are Evil there.  Along with looking for the I in team.Samwise simply does not fit with the rest of the party.  If you don't have Samwise there is no need for 75% of the players to spend 25% of the time bored and doing things they don't want to.  You've a group that's in tune with spending 90% of the time doing what they all want to.  Samwise simply is not interested in the sort of play the others are interested in.  And they are only peripherally interested in the type of play he wants.  If you have 22 people and 20 of them want to play soccer, 1 hockey, and 1 handball you end up playing soccer.  You don't swap games.What I'm suggesting is that Samwise should go and adventure with Frodo.  I'm suggesting that there is no pact saying "We should accept all concepts from all players".  And I'm suggesting that Samwise belongs in a different game, in a different part of the setting to the other three.  Just the way it was in the books.I'm not suggesting that Samwise's player is wrong for having those preferences.  I'm suggesting that Samwise is the wrong PC for that party.  He'd be just fine in another game.  One where the party involved Samwise, Merry, Pippin, and Frodo.  I'm suggesting that Samwise's player is being selfish by insisting that the three other players and the GM alter their game to suit him if he knows who else is turning up.  (And if he doesn't I'd suggest different means of creating characters).By creating a character who has no interest in combat to go alongside Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, Samwise's player is not just saying "I have no interest in combat" but "I don't want to play the same game as you three".  To which the reply is "OK."If D&D is about three pillars then all characters must have at least some competence at all three.  Unless the player wants to be sitting out of the game at least a third of the time - and more if the other PCs have a strong focus on that pillar.Oh, I can imagine it.  It takes DM fiat.  DM fiat to get the Dragon to act stupidly.  (Which I consider bad DMing practice).  DM fiat to change the treasure.  DM fiat to re-write the world to suit the players.  All of this I consider bad DMing practice.It can be done.  But if it needs doing the game is not fit for the purpose it is being put to.  Of course if you weren't playing D&D but Fate, and didn't have a game balanced round three pillars while having a player who refused to play the third of the game the rest of the party considers most important, you would be able to work things.  But this approach, based on the Fate Fractal (every challenge can be statted either as an aspect or a character) and no divide at all between combat and out of combat skills has nothing to do with D&D.There's more than one approach. But the context of this thread is D&D Next - and D&D in general.  Very old editions of D&D also assumed a party including a dozen hirelings and no immersion at all - instead using pawn play.If you are balancing a game round three pillars, and take a pillar away from any character then it's unstable and falls over.  Combat more than any other pillar.</blockquote>

Verification