Quote from: StuartSome RPGs, like D&D, require you to have a "balanced party" filling all the niches to be successful.

I have not played D&D since 1st edition, so I'm reaching here- but I don't believe you. Back in the day we often sucessfully ran "unbalanced" parties.

Quote from: StuartThe point about Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter or Robin Hood is to suggest a group of "adventurers" that are all different and interesting characters, who engage in fun adventures of the type you might see in an RPG session.  If converted to an RPG system with clearly defined niches (Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Thief) they would often all be in the same niche.

Many have disagreed with you here, I still do and strongly. I know for a fact that they would all have different niches in any of the games I play.

And yet you keep repeating this. I think it's safe to say at this point that "In Stuart's game they would all have the same niche", which says more about you than it does niche protection itself.

Quote from: beejazzElaborate. It is my experience that excitement about one's character (wanting to be a thief or a necromancer or whatever) is a huge part of what gets people all excited about stuff early in the game. Mind you... I don't think "I've got an interesting character concept" can carry a game all by itself, but I really don't know who would expect it to.

The fact that rpgs are character focused is the entire reason rpgs are played by groups of people each of whom brings a character to the table.

Interests of World, Story, etc only modify this groundwork given those characters things to do.

I know of one GM who would be quite happy if no one showed up to play in his games. Very World centric PoV there. He's the only example of that I know of. He actually considers players to be something of burden. He likely could get away with Sett's claim, while being truthful and knowledgeable of what's he's actually saying.

Quote from: gleichmanI have not played D&D since 1st edition, so I'm reaching here- but I don't believe you.  

Jesus Christ, dude!

What do you do float around the internet all day and tell everyone they're wrong and make ups fucking bullshit anwser as to why? FUCK!:mad:

Quote from: gleichmanAnd yet you keep repeating this. I think it's safe to say at this point that "In Stuart's game they would all have the same niche", which says more about you than it does niche protection itself.

No... it says more about you, I'm afraid. :rolleyes:

Quote from: McrowJesus Christ, dude!

What do you do float around the internet all day and tell everyone they're wrong and make ups fucking bullshit anwser as to why? FUCK!:mad:

Because he just said that what I have done is impossible. Should I just sit back and not comment?

Is therpgsite about the the free exchange of ideas? Or is it a place like where people get to make blanket claims about what is and is not possible in the total set of D&D gaming and not be challenged on them?

Quote from: gleichmanBecause he just said that what I have done is impossible. Should I just sit back and not comment?

It's not impossible but is rather difficult. Published adventures are designed with balanced parties in mind, with undead to turn, traps to remove, etc. Healing is a particularly big issue - the mindset of 3-4 combats a day doesn't work without healing in between. Clerics aren't the only source of healing but they are the main one.
 
But how can you say anything about what D&D does or doesn't do if you've never played the game that accounts for over half of all games currently being played?

Gleichman, read this very carefully:

Quote from: StuartThe point about Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter or Robin Hood is to suggest a group of "adventurers" that are all different and interesting characters, who engage in fun adventures of the type you might see in an RPG session. If converted to an RPG system with clearly defined niches (Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Thief) they would often all be in the same niche.

Now consider how you replied:

Quote from: GleichmanMany have disagreed with you here, I still do and strongly. I know for a fact that they would all have different niches in any of the games I play.

Are you really disagreeing with me?  So what if you'd put them in different niches in the game you played?  I wasn't talking about that (see the bolded part above).

Of course you could put them in different niches in some other game I wasn't talking about.  If it was "Robin Hood's Pie Eating Contest the RPG" then you might have niches of Big Eater, Gluttonous Eater, Sneaky Eater, and the Fast Eater.  

I'm talking about a specific example though, and I don't see where you're disagreeing with me.  Given the choice of Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Thief I think the Fellowship of the Ring, Robin Hood and his men, and the characters from Harry Potter would not make up well balanced parties.

Quote from: StuartNo... it says more about you, I'm afraid. :rolleyes:

It likely says things about both of us.

I'll be quite happy finding and using niches that you think don't exist, and you'll be fine saying whatever it is that you're saying.

But we have no common ground on this subject at all. We're not even speaking the same language.

Quote from: gleichmanBecause he just said that what I have done is impossible. Should I just sit back and not comment?

Is therpgsite about the the free exchange of ideas? Or is it a place like where people get to make blanket claims about what is and is not possible in the total set of D&D gaming and not be challenged on them?

it's not just that post, I've been reading the threads here lately and almost every post you make points out how someone is wrong and yet you can't come up with a valid arguement for your point.

Sorry, it's just getting real fucking old.

I'm drawing a distinction between games where you need one of each "niche" in the group to have a "balanced group" and games where you can show up with whatever you like.

If you show up with whatever you like, you may very well have the same "niche" as one of the other players at the table.

Quote from: NicephorusIt's not impossible but is rather difficult. Published adventures are designed with balanced parties in mind, with undead to turn, traps to remove, etc.

But you've added a criteria here - published adventures.

Some folks know the key to dealing with Sett is that you have to have the Rosetta stone to pull apart what he means in his short bursts of words (see "character centered" and "flawed" in this very thread). I dont' have it yet.

IMHO, the key to Mr. Gleichman is precision and accuracy in the use of words.

Stuart did just say that you can't do something in D&D that both Mr. Gleichman and myself have done.

More importantly, IMHO, Stuart is using a very narrow definition of niche protection - probably due to this very narrow use being the prevalent usage. See his distinction about Harry Potter, where some have argued, like me, that you have very different niches in the main three characters. Stuart is saying those would all be in the "niche" of Wizard.

This discussion seems to lead to two basic questions:

• At what level does one define niche in order for the discussion to have any meaning.
• How strongly must the agreed-upon niche be enforced in order to consider it protection.

But these are design questions - so maybe a different location is needed.

Until those are answered, however, we are, IMHO, just going to be talking past each other.

Quote from: James J SkachStuart did just say that you can't do something in D&D that both Mr. Gleichman and myself have done.

What's that?

Quote from: StuartI'm drawing a distinction between games where you need one of each "niche" in the group to have a "balanced group" and games where you can show up with whatever you like.

That is, to me, not a distinction worth the difference. Because, as I've pointed out, Harry doesn't survive the climactic end of the very first novel without the help of wizards from a different niche. You keep using the example of Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Thief - but it's meaningless once abstracted. It works to illustrate one classification system - and that's about it.

Quote from: StuartIf you show up with whatever you like, you may very well have the same "niche" as one of the other players at the table.

As others have opened my eyes - so? Even in D&D (the logical source of you F/W/C/T classification) you can often have multiple characters that fill the same niche. Niche protection says nothing about what I'll now term Overlap (cause I like shiny terms).

Quote from: NicephorusIt's not impossible but is rather difficult. Published adventures are designed with balanced parties in mind ?

I had thought that the use of published adventures was rare enough that WotC didn't consider them a significant income source. I know in my case, I almost never used them back in the day.

Running unbalanced groups in 1st edition as a result was quite easy. And while I've only play a game or two in 3rd Edition- it too was with unbalanced groups and presented no problem. It specifically lacked a Cleric.

It's likely that published modules require more. This also true of modules for systems with no niche protection at all- they typically require skills no one in a group thought to take (and is outside of character concept to take).

Quote from: NicephorusBut how can you say anything about what D&D does or doesn't do if you've never played the game that accounts for over half of all games currently being played?

I've extensively played older versions of the game where the niche protection was even higher than it is now.

I feel that gives me all the background needed for a general comment.

Quote from: StuartWhat's that?

This...

Quote from: StuartSome RPGs, like D&D, require you to have a "balanced party" filling all the niches to be successful.

Now you might have meant in this version or that version. Or you might have meant it with published adventures (like Nicephorus adds). It could be that you were referring to how strongly it seems to have influenced 4e design.

It's not what you said, however.

And I've played in plenty of D&D games where the party wasn't "balanced" and we were successful. It's a bit of a different game (say, you don't have a cleric so you get more cautious), but it's not required.