Quote from: One Horse TownA potential problem with niche protection as regards group cohesion, is over reliance. If niches are protected so much that you require a certain type of character to function well as a party, then the absense of any particular niche/skill set/whatever can limit the possibilities of the game. Fine, if you build that into your campaign from the get-go and everyone is onboard with it. Not so fine, otherwise.

Dan,
Yeah and I would say that I think this level of niche protection is rare. I mean, the most popular game around might have shades of it and thus make it appear to be common in design but I think it is more rare than people often let on.

And to a point raised earlier about running "unbalanced" groups. Yes, I did similarly with an all thief group. It was a grand adventure with all thieves. AD&D 1e. However, the entire campaign was highly structured for that group. Little or no fights and those that did happen were back alley affairs. Lots of sneaking and intrigue, investigation and subterfuge but little need for healing (those that were, were met with potions), some magic (we had on muti-class) and almost no fighting. Still, if it had been a traditional dungeon crawl...man, they would have been chewed up in the first level.

Quote from: One Horse TownSimlilarly, if you broaden niches so that everyone can do everything to some degree, then it can rather dilute the experience for some folks. No matter the objection, i think it is rather widespread for folks to want their character to be able to do things that others can't - thus niche protection games tend to be the most popular IMO.

This has not been my experience precisely. I have found that players will find a way to generate this feeling regardless. For example, my system allows everyone to cast spells. I often have players take different spell combos and use them in extremely non-standard ways.

That said, I do agree it can be an issue especially if the group is used to strong niche protection.

Quote from: One Horse TownGiven a gaming group that are willing to compromise and not step on each others toes, then you don't necessarily need strong niche protection built into the game - leave it to the players to sort out who buys which skills etc, and possibly spice it up with other things that not everyone can do, like feats, special abilities, and the like.

I have found this happens more than you think. Even when you get two people making similar characters you still get differences that are real and profound. How you use an ability can often be as important as having it.

Bill

Quote from: gleichmanUpon reading such a game, I'd have to wonder why bother with classes at all. Assuming one doesn't have a initial cost advantage over another (in which case, I'd always start with the class having the most expensive total 'free' skills), it's basically coming across as a open point buy system.

Templates for quick start is about the only rational I can come up with from this distance. Is there another?

And it sounds to me like weak niche protection as defined above- basically nothing other than what the group works towards on their own.

Yes, Hinterwelt's system is basically a point buy system with a starting skill template.

Quote from: HinterWeltI have found this happens more than you think. Even when you get two people making similar characters you still get differences that are real and profound. How you use an ability can often be as important as having it.

Bill

Yes, when you and I gamed together there never seemed to be an issue with people overlapping into other players character concepts. If Scott wanted to play the killer uber tank lizardman, fine by me, I wouldn't build my fighter to similar.

Quote from: McrowYes, when you and I gamed together there never seemed to be an issue with people overlapping into other players character concepts. If Scott wanted to play the killer uber tank lizardman, fine by me, I wouldn't build my fighter to similar.

See, I always favored your Caelroarer Kolba (halfling for the uninitiated) as a counter point. It almost seemed to offend Scott somehow. Especially when he would kill more foes than Scott's big ole Lizardo.

Ah, memories....

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI have found this happens more than you think. Even when you get two people making similar characters you still get differences that are real and profound. How you use an ability can often be as important as having it.

Bill

Not to be contrary, but i didn't mention how often i thought it happened.

To me, this is a basic function of a well-adjusted group, who are comfortable with each other and want to have fun. Problems can still arise if 2 folks want to build similar characters and get entrenched, however - even in the best of groups and over longer periods of play.

Quote from: McrowWell, for me a class does not have to be a niche. If you look at hinterwelts use of classes in his games they are definitely not niches. That's the part about stuart's statement I can't agree with, if in fact he is saying that class=niches.

Class=Niche in one definition, but not in another.  So let me try to explain without using the word "niche".

Some games carve up the system so you need one of each class to have a functional whole for a default game (eg. D&D) while other games don't presuppose any specific combination of classes so people can choose whatever they like, or even all the same (eg. Many of Palladium's Games).

Quote from: One Horse TownNot to be contrary, but i didn't mention how often i thought it happened.

To me, this is a basic function of a well-adjusted group, who are comfortable with each other and want to have fun. Problems can still arise if 2 folks want to build similar characters and get entrenched, however - even in the best of groups and over longer periods of play.

Sorry about that, I should have said "more than people think"/ I did not mean to address it at you.

Oh, and I do not mean to paint a "wars do not happen" kind of picture. My experience with problems dealing with "running the same niche" has been rare and generally with players who find the power build and really only want to run the game. You could just say "I have observed this problem with power-gamers" but then someone will accuse me of attacking their favorite system.

So, yes, a well adjusted group no problem. Heck, even give me a group who wants to have fun and it works. Give me a guy who wants sit down and game the system and...well, it most likely will have issues and you need to take him by the hand.:deflated:

Bill

Quote from: One Horse TownTo me, this is a basic function of a well-adjusted group, who are comfortable with each other and want to have fun. Problems can still arise if 2 folks want to build similar characters and get entrenched, however - even in the best of groups and over longer periods of play.

I would agree with respect to short (to my mind campaigns).

However the longer the game goes, the more likely issues will arise. A good group will work them out but that takes knowledge, time and effort directly increasing in relationship to the length of the campaign.

Having one lasting nearly three decades made me very aware of that. So I use a game system that removes it completely.

Very few people I've spoken to only have seen people run the same campaign (with the same characters in it) for anything like that length of time. So my issues are unlikely to be encountered by others.

Quote from: StuartSome games carve up the system so you need one of each class to have a functional whole for a default game (eg. D&D)

Don't you mean here that some 'published adventures' do this?

And I'd ask that you be more specific about D&D, the current version as I recall allow Fighters and the like access to detect and disarm traps for instance.

You could thus have a good adventure for a Fighter only group full of traps- they would just have lower values than one for a group of thieves.

Quote from: gleichmanDon't you mean here that some 'published adventures' do this?

And I'd ask that you be more specific about D&D, the current version as I recall allow Fighters and the like access to detect and disarm traps for instance.

Yes, but IIRC, it costs double to buy the skill. Or atleast I think it's cross class skill, maybe it's not.

Quote from: McrowYes, but IIRC, it costs double to buy the skill. Or atleast I think it's cross class skill, maybe it's not.

Can't recall either, but the point stands. Just lower the difficulty rating of the trap to match the adventure needs. Really in concept identical to how the difficulty was sent in the original 'full group only' design.

Quote from: gleichmanCan't recall either, but the point stands. Just lower the difficulty rating of the trap to match the adventure needs. Really in concept identical to how the difficulty was sent in the original 'full group only' design.

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you just trying to confirm your thought.

I can see your point about the adventures being incorrect for the party. You are correct it's more poor function (for this group)of the adventure.

Quote from: StuartSome games carve up the system so you need one of each class to have a functional whole for a default game (eg. D&D) while other games don't presuppose any specific combination of classes so people can choose whatever they like, or even all the same (eg. Many of Palladium's Games).

I liked your term "function group". While I don't think it actually exists outside the adventure requirements- I think it certainly fits with respect to publish adventures and common approach.

Quote from: McrowOh, I wasn't disagreeing with you just trying to confirm your thought.

I can see your point about the adventures being incorrect for the party. You are correct it's more poor function (for this group)of the adventure.

Having an adventure coming out shortly, it's really hard to try to cater to as diverse a group of party members as possible. You have to include specific challenges and that, in itself, will clash with the expectations and abilities of a goodly proportion of the players who  undertake it. I've never, in my life, run an adventure as it was intended and that's a good reason why.

Edit: Grammar issues!

Quote from: One Horse TownHaving an adventure coming out shortly, it's really hard to try to cater to as diverse a group of possible party members as possible. You have to include specific challenges, and that in itself will clash with the expectations and abilities of a goodly proportion of the players who will undertake it. I've never in my life, run an adventure as it was intended, and that's a good reason why.

Yup, and that's the very reason why most adventures do not sell well. There is just no way for the designer to make the adventure suitable enough for a high enough number of groups for it to sell a ton of copies.