Quote from: James J SkachAll DnD players? well, maybe not the exact same as Mr. Gleichman.  However, what you said could, even given context, be taken in a very bad light:

These two lines together are a weird set - it looks like you're setting up a false dichotomy. Since I know you, I shrugged it off as something I didn't get what you were trying to say. I figured you'd clarify it in due time.

And as I said, understandable. Hopefully I have cleared it up.

Quote from: James J SkachIssues? Nothing off the top of my head. It played nicely the one time I got a shot. Hope to again, soon. And I didn't mean question as in Inquisition.  Nobody expects the...oh nevermind...

Not meant that way either. Just meant that I can answer most questions you might have on the system even if you do not remember the details.

Quote from: James J SkachMy only point was going to be the things you mention (and I wanted to make sure I was remembering correctly); that is that there is some level of niche protection in Roma. It probably can be explained in many setting-accurate ways, but it is there, nonetheless. D&D skills are not so different (from the overview you give) in that a fighter can take stealth and disable device, etc - hell, so can a Cleric.  It might cost more, but it can be done.  There are a few things that are class specific in 3.5, but then they went and opened up multi-classing to such an extent that you can do just about anything.

hmm, before this trend gets too far ahead of what I have actually said, I have not pointed to any particular system. In fact, the whole thread is about asking what folk's experience with niche protection was. I have dome of the games mentioned, don't have others. My knowledge of 3.5 is weak at best. AD&D, much better. Second Ed, less so but still solid. 3.0 and 3.5 not so much.

So, I assume you are right. I would still question whether this is strong or weak niche protection?

Note: I am not making any sort of judgment here. 3e may be uber protection or no protection, that is why I asked.

Quote from: James J SkachNow pre 3e, it's a bit more straight up. But then everything outside the specific class stuff was more or less up for grabs.

Being a fan of "Niche Advantage" I have no issue with Iridium...

I guess I would admit that Iridium might have weak niche protection at best. I still am not sure about that though as a lot would depend on how you define it. Protection to me, means it is protected as in, not allowed access by others. So, a thief is the only one who accesses the thief skills/magic/whatever. It is not so much (although I can see the argument for it) that the thief has advantages. I could see how someone might include that as niche protection though.

Bill

I guess my experiences are slightly different than most others.  The two games I've heard the words "niche protection" were superhero games using Marvel's character modeling and Hero's point buy.  I think it's a funny way to ensure player participation balance and generally don't like it because there are other ways to do it.  Likewise, I've always found a number of niches within classes and love random character generation.

I guess I don't mind niche protection in D&D so much (it's the game I've played with the strongest mechanics for this), because I understand the reason for it and can work within the system. I do feel it's eased a bit with the opening up of multi-classing, and even more depending on what prestige classes might be allowed. I have turned, however, to True20, and maybe Savage Worlds, for the ability to more accurately model styles of characters from books and movies. I particularly like True20's almost transparent classes and wide-open multiclassing options. I do agree with everyone who's said there's more to separate characters from one another than stats and mechanics, but I think that genre also has a great deal to do with it. Seems to me characters in genres like westerns, espionage, sci-fi, and horror can more easily get away with being less diverse mechanically while still dealing with the default challenges, although I do realize that niches do, even sometimes strongly, exist in these genres as well. On the flip side, I'd say a supers game would almost have to have niches to even be a supers game, as it's a very strong theme in the genre that heroes powers would be wildly different from one another.

Quote from: GunslingerLikewise, I've always found a number of niches within classes and love random character generation.

I get ya, but as I understand "niche" in this context, I'm wanting to call what you're describing "sub-niches" A good example might be wizard specializations from D&D. Each would have differing specific abilities and areas of strength and weakness, but most would still fill the role of offensive/utility caster to greater or lesser degrees. Also, the deluge of prestige classes has created a "sub-niche"  and diluted niche nightmare of epic proportions for 3.5 anyway.

Quote from: HinterWeltUm, you have issues...serious issues. Out of that one statement, you have surmised I hate all DND gamers and anyone who favors niche protection...despite saying the opposite in several posts.

Edit: Comment removed, seems this was dealt with.

Thanks James.

HinterWelt, I'm not assuming you have a chip on your shoulder- please don't assume it about me. I read what I read, and you wrote what you wrote. Reasoned and honest people would be upset at the mistake and we each should be sorry at the error.

Quote from: WarthurBZZZZZZT. Niche != "character class".

Specifically, Aragorn in Lord of the Rings fills the niche of "last scion of forgotten race of Kings". Boromir slots into the niche of "guy who succumbs to the temptation of the ring".

Those aren't niches, those are if anything almost (from a rpg PoV) raidroaded story elements. No one seems to be agreeing on what niche protection means. This is now the third completely different view.



Aragorn is a Ranger, Boromir is a Fighter in D&D terms (and Age of Heroes terms).

Outside of D&D (such as Age of Heroes) Aragorn would get a whole set of Hero Abilities different than Boromir allowing him to have the strength of will to turn down the ring and wrest the seeing stone away (together with other things).

Boromir meanwhile would (again in Age of Heroes) have bought the "ignore serious wound" ability and "too dumb to quit" allowing him to fight after taking horrible wounds (together with other things).

Edit: I assume they would have different feats in D&D but can't really comment.

Quote from: HinterWeltIt is not so much (although I can see the argument for it) that the thief has advantages. I could see how someone might include that as niche protection though.

Exclusive access to abilities is very strong niche protection. And is rather rare in rpg designs these days (not even 3.x D&D has it any longer).

Access to an ability level above that of those outside the niche is the common niche protection (D&D 3.x, Rolemaster, etc).

Quote from: GunslingerI guess my experiences are slightly different than most others.  The two games I've heard the words "niche protection" were superhero games using Marvel's character modeling and Hero's point buy.

In HERO it certainly works better than depending upon the points for the role.

It's also easy in the extreme. HERO is so open that if people are wanting to conflict over niche- I'd look for new players.

Quote from: gleichmanThose aren't niches, those are if anything almost (from a rpg PoV) raidroaded story elements.

Yes, because Lord of the Rings is a STORY and the characters in it are designed to fit ROLES IN THE STORY, not niches in an RPG party. This is why citing fiction when discussing niche protection doesn't work: constructing a novel and constructing an RPG party hinges on an utterly different set of priorities.

Quote from: WarthurYes, because Lord of the Rings is a STORY and the characters in it are designed to fit ROLES IN THE STORY, not niches in an RPG party. This is why citing fiction when discussing niche protection doesn't work: constructing a novel and constructing an RPG party hinges on an utterly different set of priorities.

There are certainly different priorities, but one of the priorities of rpgs based upon existing fictional settings is that they transmit at least some characteristics of that setting.

Thus one has to look at mechanical niche protection and decide if it suits or does not suit the source material. IMO, it (at least the type I use) very much suits LotR and Middle Earth or at worst does not get in the way.


Naturally storyline niches would suit the source material, but is IMO extremely harmful to the rpg side of the question. I would never give a player a niche that required him to fall under the rings influence as you suggested. It may happen in play, but it would never be planned out like that.

This I reject storyline niches almost completely as something without value.

Quote from: WarthurYes, because Lord of the Rings is a STORY and the characters in it are designed to fit ROLES IN THE STORY, not niches in an RPG party.

Yep.

I could imagine how a game with 4 hobbits would run in a campaign alongside Aragorn, Borimir, and Gimli. Except for Frodo's player, the hobbit players would be caterwauling about how they have nothing to do.

Games are games. Stories are stories. Games have obligations to their participants that stories do not have to their characters.

Niche protection is character centered thinking, thusly flawed from the beginning. Alas, character centered stuff is popular it seems...

Quote from: SettembriniNiche protection is character centered thinking, thusly flawed from the beginning. Alas, character centered stuff is popular it seems...

Elaborate. 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.

Quote from: SettembriniNiche protection is character centered thinking, thusly flawed from the beginning. Alas, character centered stuff is popular it seems...

How do you define "character centred thinking", Sett? I consider myself to run character-centred games, because the PCs are, amongst other things, the proxies through which all the game participants experience the game world - oh, sure, as GM I have access to a heap of NPCs and information that the players don't have, but if I'm going to bring any of that into play it needs to be through the PCs encountering it.

Some RPGs, like D&D, require you to have a "balanced party" filling all the niches to be successful.  This is something the 4e game designers have discussed a few times on the Podcast.  If you start adventuring without a fighter... or a cleric... or a wizard... and probably a thief as well... you're not going to do very well.  "Someone needs to play the cleric"

This was the reason for many of the changes to 4e -- so you can adventure without the cleric, or the wizard, or the thief.  Or the fighter.

Other RPGs are more likely to support everyone making up whatever character they feel like.  If everyone wants to be a fighter -- no problem.  They're "niche" in the party isn't based on being "the fighter" but on all the other things that makes their character interesting.

The 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.

It's not that one approach is good, and the other is bad, they're just different kinds of games.