TheRPGSite

So, I really truly abhor niche protection. It reeks of an artificial construct that will totally knock me right out of my SOD. To that end, I created my own system that, more or less, dumps that convention. It is one of those items that sometimes works for me and sometimes against me with new players. Essentially, you can have a fighter who is the best thief, a thief who is the best fighter or a sage that can do it all. Some classes have advantages in their field but nothing that bars others, just enables them to be the best X possible.

So:
1. What games have you experienced that have the strongest niche protection? Weakest or none?

2. How was it accomplished?

3. Do you like Niche protection? Hate it? Indifferent to it in favor of other elements?

Thanks,
Bill

This statement:

Quote from: HinterWeltEssentially, you can have a fighter who is the best thief, a thief who is the best fighter or a sage that can do it all.

Conflicts directly with this statement (from the same paragraph):

Quote from: HinterWeltSome classes have advantages in their field but nothing that bars others, just enables them to be the best X possible.

Which is it? The second is niche protection, the first is not.

Quote from: HinterWelt1. What games have you experienced that have the strongest niche protection? Weakest or none?

2. How was it accomplished?

HERO SYSTEM depends upon the limits of the points for niche protection and advice to not allow players to built out of concept. Rather weak without a strong GM to enforce it.

Age of Heroes uses classes that are built such that they have the advantage in those areas key to them. However all skills are open to any class to a lesser extent.

For a player who doesn't wan't to be the best at anything, there's the Mundane class...

Quote from: HinterWelt3. Do you like Niche protection? Hate it? Indifferent to it in favor of other elements?

Huge fan of it, won't play a game that doesn't have it.

Note: a niche does not have to be combat focused.

Quote from: HinterWeltSo:
1. What games have you experienced that have the strongest niche protection? Weakest or none?

1st Ed AD&D was strongest. Weakest? GURPS. HERO.

Quote2. How was it accomplished?

Pure point buy.

Quote3. Do you like Niche protection? Hate it? Indifferent to it in favor of other elements?

Thanks,
Bill

I mostly dislike it, but accept it in some circumstances, like Fantasy. My games are about as far away from niche protection as yours, Bill. :D

-clahs

It's a mixed bag for me.

Shadowrun traditionally has had very strong niche protection. Especially for a [offically] classless system, point buy game.  I like that SR4 has reduced this somewhat though it's still there. But there are two ways this has come about, one of which I like and the other which I don't.

I like when characters can dabble in this and that. I like that a character can an effective a decker/hacker AND an effective mage.

What I don't like is extreme parallelism where their is a congruent copy of doing something in magic for doing it in hardware. Just to break down the niche.

I think the difference there is I dislike niche protection for characters, I like niche protection for particular actions of a discipline.

P.S. I think D&D suffers from the pressure of niche protection between characters (by forcing, to varying degrees, a single choice of discipline) resulting in a natural push to break down the walls between the discipline niches (arcane healing spells and so on).

1. What games have you experienced that have the strongest niche protection? Weakest or none?

All versions of D&D have more niche protection via character classes than many other games that don't have classes.  Hearing the designers discuss 4e it sounds like it has more niche protection (Striker / Tank / Leader / Controller) as a primary design goal.

2. How was it accomplished?

Usually character classes, but I could see anything where you have to choose 1 of several options (eg. Schools of Magic in a hypothetical Wizard School game)

3. Do you like Niche protection? Hate it? Indifferent to it in favor of other elements?

I don't mind character niches -- but I don't care for "all equal in combat, just *different*", "all equal in social, just *different*" and "all equal in magic, just *different*" because that spoils my Suspension of Disbelief.  I guess it's not the niches that bug me, but the artificial "balance" which makes it seem too gamey.

Quote from: gleichmanThis statement:


Conflicts directly with this statement (from the same paragraph):


Which is it? The second is niche protection, the first is not.

I think our definition of Niche Protection vary slightly. In my world, niche protection means that if you play a Fighter, you are the fighter for the group. If you play the Thief, you are the thief for the group. No one will be able to take that away from you by merit of you being the Thief or Fighter. My games might give you an advantage from a professional point but if you spend your experience in fighter skills, you will probably be surpassed by someone who is spending their points in thief skills.

So, you may have some absolute definition but I was absent on that day in gym class. ;)

Bill

I guess a game that defines classes as "Fighter" and "Thief" is different from one where you have a "Knight", "Barbarian", "Hunter", "Highwayman", "Acrobat", etc.

In a game where it's just "Fighter"... they probably should be better at fighting. :)

Maybe some of the recent misunderstandings stem from the current 4e developer´s usage of the ideas & terms "niche protection" etc.

The game I know with the least niche protection is Runequest II. Especially played "straight", there's no built-in character class and the amount of customization available by choice, at start of play, is pretty low. IMO this encourages more focus on who the character is than what the character is, if you get my drift.

However, for fantasy I'm always conflicted over the mundane/magical divide. The Fantasy Trip achieved the former by making you choose between being a hero and a wizard at start of play. From that point on you could still take any skill or spell, but the cost was much higher if you selected outside your specialty. Whatever niche-ification there was, was a product of synergies and tradeoffs in the system--between ST and DX--and IIRC a certain amount of "skill tree".

Let's see

1. Probably AD&D. I can't think of another game I regularly played with as strong niche protection as 1E AD&D (Tunnels and Trolls had fewer niches, which should make it stronger, but Strength mattered to both, which made the niches sometimes less notable)


The weakest is Hero


2)  Hero has no real limitations (GM sets them) on taking skills/traits/powers, and utilizes point buy. It also has a large number of attributes which dilutes niches even farther.

3) Honestly, I see niches in most fictions--comic book superhero teams, TV characters (A-Team), fantasy character in a group set up (not all fantasy has "group" basis--some may have groups but there are levels of importance involved as well.) The fact that I can boil down a lot of other media to those tropes means that I see it is fairly common, and doesn't bother my SODB. I like it when it makes games easier/faster, or otherwise says "this is a group who are all equally important, just focused on different things in play"

A well designed game can make the niche protection aspect shine. A bad one, just uses it as a crutch. I'd prefer a good one to do it, and give a reasonable reason for it (A game of Spec Ops may present highly skilled individuals but even they have specialties which role they assume in a group most often. )

Yet many of my own designs don't utilize this because while I think it can be done well and for good reason, there are also reasons why it should not be done--most often it should be the players choice to either adopt a niche for play (give them a specialty) or not.  The decision shouldn't be hardwired into a system unless the system has only one setup/purpose/campaign structure. (The aforementioned Spec Ops team, or a crew of a starship, etc.)

Problem is I like games that can do multiple campaigns/campaign styles. So I prefer non-inherent niche protection.  I do see good reasons for it though as well. For example I have had many games where one PC will step up to do something another PC really wanted to focus on--and niches are really a shorthand cheat for giving each PC spotlight time.  Yet encouraging each player to pick their own chance for spotlight time, and me as Gm helping that along seems more natural over all.

Quote from: HinterWeltSo, you may have some absolute definition but I was absent on that day in gym class. ;)

I think yours is needlessly harsh, as by it I ofter no nich protection at all in my games.

And yet I know I offer less than original D&D, and far more than HERO or Deadlands to name but a handful of examples.

If your version of it is the one commonly held, then I need a new term.

Quote from: HinterWeltSo, I really truly abhor niche protection. It reeks of an artificial construct that will totally knock me right out of my SOD. To that end, I created my own system that, more or less, dumps that convention. It is one of those items that sometimes works for me and sometimes against me with new players. Essentially, you can have a fighter who is the best thief, a thief who is the best fighter or a sage that can do it all. Some classes have advantages in their field but nothing that bars others, just enables them to be the best X possible.

I think the difference is a matter of degrees.

Quote1. What games have you experienced that have the strongest niche protection?

2. How was it accomplished?

Various iterations of D&D - classes with narrow functions
Rolemaster - classes with prohibitive costs for out-of-class purchases

QuoteWeakest or none?

GURPS.

Hero 5e (4e at least had package deals that weren't just pregen characters.)

Quote3. Do you like Niche protection? Hate it? Indifferent to it in favor of other elements?

It might be along the same lines, but what I want is "role protection" and "role definition".

When I say Role protection means that you have a place to shine, but that place isn't necessarily compulsory in the game's adventure design.

When I say role definition, I mean defining an activity that your character can support well, and that I can use to design adventures around. I don't mind characters that can do 2 things well; diffuse, unfocused characters who can only achieve part of a task that I can't depend on any other character in the group doing is a different matter, and a liability.

Spycraft's classes work pretty well this way (a soldier and a faceman suggests to me a different adventure than I might run for a wheelman and a scout). Spirit of the Century's skill pyramids also supports this by ensuring there are a few things your character is real good at, but falls far short of letting you master every activity in the game.

I also like "shtick protection". That is, if you have something that is really cool that you designed your character to do, but isn't necessarily the only way to achieve that activity in the group. Frex, any character in a spirit of the century group can make stealth rolls and sneak in places if they have a decent Stealth skill. But if you spend all your stunts on the man/woman of shadows (http://www.faterpg.com/dl/sotc-srd.html#man-woman-of-shadows) stealth stunt chain, I've carved out a niche that defines my character pretty explicitly, and there's not much chance that anyone who wasn't thinking the same thing "accidentally" steals my shtick.

Oh, BTW I didn't answer the OP's question #2:

SR created niche of characters in a few ways:
1) The system tends to heavily favour specialists in a Skill or field of Skills.
2) The game play domain is huge with numerous avenues for specializing in. Because the game itself doesn't tend to center around playing one type of senario and because the game play is sliced up in the myriad of niches that exist in a modern technological society (with magic on top of that). EDIT: So it naturally promotes a team of PCs to cover different areas so the team as a whole can be much more rounded and deal with a wider range of situations.
3) Outright explicit exclusion of one path of a character if you take another. This has mellowed over time, for example mid-SR3 (IIRC) they added the ability to be both a Physical Adept and Magician in the same character. Something that wasn't allowed prior. But it still exists because you are not allowed to be both an Awakened character and a Technomancer (it appears to be a little of bit of a setting limitation and a games rule motivated limitation).
4) Prohibitively expensive. In SR3 and earlier to be a Decker worth anything at all you had to spend high 6-figures in cash, which made it next to impossible to be any sort of effective Awakened character during character build...and to come up with the copious number of Skills and cash in play? Erp. SR4 broke down that wall a fair amount, now most people can be passable hackers. Though there is definately an elite rank if you specialize in it.
5) The rules between the systems tended to not mesh. It was also hard to do one thing if you were doing another. For example to effectively Deck you had to be a limp noodle lying in a dumpster. Now in SR4 you can be a decent hacker walking down the street shooting Devil Rats. Although there are still some limitations they tend to be a lot softer.

Even point buy systems often have some degree of niche protection.  If you have to spend lots of points (relative to allotment) or prerequisites to get X, then you can almost guarantee that no one will be good at X without being decent at Y and Z.  
 
Any system where ability scores have a heavy weight and are difficult to buy/alter will have a different sort of niche protection.  You'll have the strong guy who is good at everything where strength is important, the agile and fine motor skill guy with high dex, etc.
 
I find AD&D level niche protection limiting in trying to model character concepts.  But D20 amounts of niche protection don't bother me.

Quote from: StuartI guess a game that defines classes as "Fighter" and "Thief" is different from one where you have a "Knight", "Barbarian", "Hunter", "Highwayman", "Acrobat", etc.

In a game where it's just "Fighter"... they probably should be better at fighting. :)

Stuart,
You can still have niche protection if you have a dozen different "Fighters". I just did not want to list all variants. Fighter, in my meaning, includes any fighter type.

The tough part is when you have types like "Highwaymen" combined with strong niches. Is he a Thief? A Fighter? The obvious answer is problematic, "a little of both" is not good for the strong niche system so you often get a thief who can use some weapons or a fighter with a few thief skills. Again, no problem with that but not my cup of tea.

As to having a "Fighter" class and the he "should" be good at fighting, well, I disagree. There are many types of fighters and some are great and some are passable but in the end, they are people and people tend to pick up what they need to know along the way. Again, my preference, but you could have started out a fighter and ended up a thief...or something that defies categorization.

Bill

Quote from: gleichmanI think yours is needlessly harsh, as by it I ofter no nich protection at all in my games.

And yet I know I offer less than original D&D, and far more than HERO or Deadlands to name but a handful of examples.

If your version of it is the one commonly held, then I need a new term.

hmm, strange, I was thinking the same about your definition.

Bill

Quote from: NicephorusI find AD&D level niche protection limiting in trying to model character concepts.  But D20 amounts of niche protection don't bother me.

I always found "Wizards can't ever wear armour" to be much more a PITA than a benefit. Of course I found the addition of an exception for Elven Chain to be salt in the wounds, YMMV. ;)

Quote from: NicephorusEven point buy systems often have some degree of niche protection.  If you have to spend lots of points (relative to allotment) or prerequisites to get X, then you can almost guarantee that no one will be good at X without being decent at Y and Z.  

That protection tends to break down easily. If you have campaign caps (HERO suggests these for OCV, DCV, damage class, etc), character advancement will reach these rather quickly and may even reach them with less than the starting character points. Thus additional points start pouring over into other niches.

Even without campaign caps, many games reach a point of dimishing returns that inspire nich creep. Yes, person A may have a edge- but it's not a significant edge and it costed him a lot to get there. Meanwhile it's very easy for other characters to buy into the niche to a significant degree.

This is not to say that one can't manage niche protection in HERO or the like. Just that it takes more GM effort and judgement to pull it off. And that often to do so for the long campaign- it means shutting off further XP.

Quote from: HinterWeltSo, I really truly abhor niche protection. It reeks of an artificial construct that will totally knock me right out of my SOD. To that end, I created my own system that, more or less, dumps that convention. It is one of those items that sometimes works for me and sometimes against me with new players. Essentially, you can have a fighter who is the best thief, a thief who is the best fighter or a sage that can do it all. Some classes have advantages in their field but nothing that bars others, just enables them to be the best X possible.

So:
1. What games have you experienced that have the strongest niche protection? Weakest or none?

2. How was it accomplished?

3. Do you like Niche protection? Hate it? Indifferent to it in favor of other elements?

Thanks,
Bill

I used to think like you, when I discovered RuneQuest (the first game I played was D&D, we had the Basic, Expert, Companion and Master) it was like a revelation to me, no classes, every character can do anything, cool! A long time later, I found myself having a lot of fun with an RPG with niche protection (namely Rolemaster), and I saw the point in it. During our last campaign our characters were a magician, an animist and a fighter. The magician was the artillery, the animist the healer and the fighter the tank, who protected the other characters. And it worked! So I changed my stance, now I like RPGs with niche protection, and the ones without it.

One of my favourites is WFRP 2E's progressive niche protection. Starting characters are on a roughly even keel, with similar stats and drawing their skills from the same broad pool. As they specialise into their advanced careers they start to look very different indeed.

Game with the most Niche Protection:

Any iteration of D&D. Although the First Edition had the best defined Niches.

Game with the least (while still actually having Niches):

Exalted. Anyone can take any charm for their Exalt type (Solar, Lunar...etc.) This lead to you Dawn Caste (the combat specialist) usually being not much more effective than say...your Night Caste (stealth and espionage) who wanted to be an assassin. The only edge being their Anima Banners.

Games with none:

Gurps, BESM, WoD (standard), AFMBE or pretty much any open ended point buy system. Players can create their own niches in any game, but mechanically these have absolutely none.

I think just about all RPGs have niche protection - just varying levels of it. Specifically, some RPGs are open about niche protection - they have classes or templates or kits or something which gives explicit names to the niches - and some are less so.

However, I've never encountered an RPG where a starting character can be competent in every skill area that the game is likely to regularly feature - no SR characters who can be the party fighter, magician, negotiator, sneak-ninja, and hacker, for example. In most games, if you try to make such a character, you'll end up with someone who manages to be mildly incompetent at everything, whereas if you go for a particular niche you can be competent at one - or even several - areas of expertise, while relying on other PCs for others.

And that's the key. In a game which truly has no niche protection, there's no reason to have more than one PC: if it's possible for one player character to cover all the bases, then what do the other players' characters do? And if it's not possible for one PC to cover all the bases, then by definition you have niche protection.

Quote from: WarthurAnd that's the key. In a game which truly has no niche protection, there's no reason to have more than one PC: if it's possible for one player character to cover all the bases, then what do the other players' characters do? And if it's not possible for one PC to cover all the bases, then by definition you have niche protection.

Two experts-of-all-trades > one expert-of-all-trades. Because there is more that can be done simultaneously.

Also, two characters can deal out and absorb more damage than one, and can split their attention between more opponents. Besides, as I suggested above, in some games it's not so much what you are as who you are.

Or what you stand/fight/bleed/die for.

Quote from: ClaudiusI used to think like you, when I discovered RuneQuest (the first game I played was D&D, we had the Basic, Expert, Companion and Master) it was like a revelation to me, no classes, every character can do anything, cool! A long time later, I found myself having a lot of fun with an RPG with niche protection (namely Rolemaster), and I saw the point in it. During our last campaign our characters were a magician, an animist and a fighter. The magician was the artillery, the animist the healer and the fighter the tank, who protected the other characters. And it worked! So I changed my stance, now I like RPGs with niche protection, and the ones without it.

Just to be clear, It is not that I believe niche protection "doesn't work" so much as it does not bring an element I enjoy.

Another poster said it better along the lines of role protection. I want to build a character that is needed because of what he does for the group, not some artificial profession designation. Anyone should be able to be trained to pick locks, swing a sword or repair a comm satellite. I dislike that you are restricted from learning those skills based on one profession decision.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltJust to be clear, It is not that I believe niche protection "doesn't work" so much as it does not bring an element I enjoy.

Another poster said it better along the lines of role protection. I want to build a character that is needed because of what he does for the group, not some artificial profession designation. Anyone should be able to be trained to pick locks, swing a sword or repair a comm satellite. I dislike that you are restricted from learning those skills based on one profession decision.

Bill

As usual, I was going to post basically the same thing! What I dislike is the artificial enforcement of niches. It feels cheap and awkward. Niches should arise out of the situation and the characters naturally because of what the group chooses to do.

-clash

Quote from: WarthurAnd that's the key. In a game which truly has no niche protection, there's no reason to have more than one PC: if it's possible for one player character to cover all the bases, then what do the other players' characters do? And if it's not possible for one PC to cover all the bases, then by definition you have niche protection.

Ah, grasshopper, you see, there are many reasons for multiple characters beyond mechanics. The least of which would be having number on your side. The strongest, imo, would be story. However, if you are a fan of niche protection, you likely will be looking to mechanics for all solutions and answers. Niche protection, imo, is about forcing a split of party skills in a manner to simulate fantasy genre stories. The classic Barbarian+Wizard+thief=Party.

Again, nothing "wrong" with niche protection, just not my preference.

Bill

Quote from: flyingmiceAs usual, I was going to post basically the same thing! What I dislike is the artificial enforcement of niches. It feels cheap and awkward. Niches should arise out of the situation and the characters naturally because of what the group chooses to do.

-clash

Yes....Clash for the win!

Bill

Quote from: blakkieTwo experts-of-all-trades > one expert-of-all-trades. Because there is more that can be done simultaneously.

True, but if all PC#2 provides at the end of the day is an extra pair of hands there's not much differentiating them from PC#1. If two players could swap their characters for a session and have pretty much the same experience in a game, something's wrong in my book.

What I dislike about niche protection is that it seems to encourage (in my games anyway) certain cliche behaviours in the characters created.

(Also what clash said)

Regards,
David R

Well, now we're talking about two different things: niche protection, and mechanically enforced niche protection. I think the former happens in all RPGs - even in games with absolutely no mechanical niche enforcement, you simply never get two PCs who are basically interchangable - players don't work that way. The latter is optional.

Quote from: HinterWeltHowever, if you are a fan of niche protection, you likely will be looking to mechanics for all solutions and answers.

You are not so foolish as to believe this are you?

Quote from: WarthurWell, now we're talking about two different things: niche protection, and mechanically enforced niche protection. I think the former happens in all RPGs - even in games with absolutely no mechanical niche enforcement, you simply never get two PCs who are basically interchangable - players don't work that way. The latter is optional.

Exactly.

-clash

Quote from: WarthurWell, now we're talking about two different things: niche protection, and mechanically enforced niche protection. I think the former happens in all RPGs - even in games with absolutely no mechanical niche enforcement, you simply never get two PCs who are basically interchangable - players don't work that way. The latter is optional.

It can happen, see my posts on HERO.

Many campaigns don't last long so this doesn't come up often. However most games without any niche protection will eventually run into niche conflict if they do as a result.

Quote from: WarthurWell, now we're talking about two different things: niche protection, and mechanically enforced niche protection. I think the former happens in all RPGs - even in games with absolutely no mechanical niche enforcement, you simply never get two PCs who are basically interchangable - players don't work that way.

I think that very often, players DO work that way, and the amount of interchangeable characters is largely a factor of how much breadth a single PC is afforded. Very often, games with a major advancement element and broad PCs see this in the late game.

Quote from: WarthurTrue, but if all PC#2 provides at the end of the day is an extra pair of hands there's not much differentiating them from PC#1. If two players could swap their characters for a session and have pretty much the same experience in a game, something's wrong in my book.

You see this is a lot of fantasy literature:

Aragorn and Boromir are more or less interchangeable as far as "niche" goes.  Probably Gimli too.  The Hobbits... all about the same.

Same deal with most of the characters from Robin Hood.  And Harry Potter.  

But they're all different, interesting characters -- even if they don't have niche protection.

You can have a good games and stories with each player controlling a character highly specialized in one area that together make an effective party -- but you don't need that to have a good game either.

Quote from: WarthurWell, now we're talking about two different things: niche protection, and mechanically enforced niche protection. I think the former happens in all RPGs - even in games with absolutely no mechanical niche enforcement, you simply never get two PCs who are basically interchangable - players don't work that way. The latter is optional.

Yes, so it is.

Quote from: StuartYou see this is a lot of fantasy literature:

Aragorn and Boromir are more or less interchangeable as far as "niche" goes.  Probably Gimli too.  The Hobbits... all about the same..

The Aragorn and Boromir example is complete BS. You're still focusing too much on combat and not considering the larger picture.

You may have a point with the Hobbits, but then again that was the point of the Hobbits- common joes and all.


I don't know about Robin Hood or Potter enough to comment.

How much Harry Potter you read, Stuart?  You know I love you, but I'd call BS on that.

It's pretty clear from the final scene of the first book that there's an expectation of niche protection. It might not be niche protection in the way we think about it from, say, D&D.  But it's clear they are three very different kinds of wizard and  it's the combination of those difference that makes them strong.

It's a theme, a motif, whatever you smart literary guys call that stuff, throughout these books.

Quote from: flyingmiceExactly.

-clash

I think he is getting it Clash. ;) I would go further and point out that even role protection should not be something expected. Redundancy in a group can be very good depending on the campaign (unless the thief ALWAYS makes his rolls). In long running campaigns of mine, you have people drifting in and out of roles, overlapping as needs change and new ones arise. Having strict niches...to me, is not as much fun as having the freedom to direct the growth of your character out of their niche or better yet, have none to start with.

YMMV,
Bill

Quote from: gleichmanThe Aragorn and Boromir example is complete BS. You're still focusing too much on combat and not considering the larger picture.

In D&D (and similar RPGs) they'd both be "fighters".  They have the same niche.  I think we're making the same point -- you need to consider them beyond that.

Quote from: WarthurTrue, but if all PC#2 provides at the end of the day is an extra pair of hands there's not much differentiating them from PC#1. If two players could swap their characters for a session and have pretty much the same experience in a game, something's wrong in my book.

Yes, but what's wrong has dick-all to do with skill system. :)

To paraphrase Elliot's and my post, if I may be so bold: Your character in sum is much be more than what their the skills could do, it is what they choose to do.

EDIT: **  Outside some really questionable Alignment enforcement of a few D&D classes I suppose, although that isn't really niche protection that we are talking about. Or is it?

Quote from: James J SkachHow much Harry Potter you read, Stuart?  You know I love you, but I'd call BS on that.

I've read the lot, and call BS on your BS.  Accio BS. :D

I think we're drifting into talking about different things here.  I'm not saying the characters are the same and have no differences -- I'm saying exactly the opposite!  You can have a lot of variety in a group of characters (like an adventuring party) without the characters having to be as widely separate in their niches as you see in some RPGs.

It's okay that the players don't each get a separate niche.

If you had to run Harry Potter with D&D, there would be a lot of Magic Users.  Maybe Hagrid is a fighter.  Maybe Doby and his friends are "Elves"

Quote from: StuartMaybe Hagrid is a fighter.

With a single multiclass level in Wizard. :)

Quote from: StuartIf you had to run Harry Potter with D&D, there would be a lot of Magic Users.  Maybe Hagrid is a fighter.  Maybe Doby and his friends are "Elves"

D&D is an exceptionally strong example of niche protection. Rolemaster has many different kinds of wizards with different spell lists to name but one example.

I wish people would stop thinking that niche protection is an all or nothing affair.

It's not, unless one insists on saying it is. In which case, this is a rather meaningless thing as it applies to one significant game on the market (and really not even that when you add in all the expansions you can buy).

Quote from: gleichmanYou are not so foolish as to believe this are you?

Enlighten us,  obviously nobody on this site knows as much as you.:p

Quote from: McrowEnlighten us,  obviously nobody on this site knows as much as you.:p

Oh I don't know, I would think that anyone who plays D&D would have taken exception to  HinterWelt's assertion that they can't find solutions for much of anything outside of mechanics...

But hell, maybe it's just me. Everyone else seems good with it.

Quote from: gleichmanOh I don't know, I would think that anyone who plays D&D would have taken exception to  HinterWelt's assertion that they can't find solutions for much of anything outside of mechanics...

But hell, maybe it's just me. Everyone else seems good with it.

No, I think what he was saying is that in D&D niche protection is done via mechanics. That is something we all know.

Quote from: McrowNo, I think what he was saying is that in D&D niche protection is done via mechanics. That is something we all know.

No, he said this:

Quote from: HinterWeltHowever, if you are a fan of niche protection, you likely will be looking to mechanics for all solutions and answers.

And that said something that may well not apply to to lots of people. I for example am very picky about what mechanics should and should not be used for- rejecting them in many areas common to current game designs.

It also implies that fans of niche protection are rather limited people, but I may just be reading him wrong because I would consider it an insult to be told I can't think or be creative outside the ruleset...

Quote from: StuartYou see this is a lot of fantasy literature:

Aragorn and Boromir are more or less interchangeable as far as "niche" goes.  Probably Gimli too.  The Hobbits... all about the same.

All examples from Tolkein, who had 12 interchangeable dwarves descend on Bilbo at the beginning of The Hobbit. I would argue that this sort of thing is actually a weakness of Tolkein's writing, rather than a strength.

QuoteSame deal with most of the characters from Robin Hood.  And Harry Potter.

Bullcrap. Many of the unnamed Merry Men or Hogwarts students are pretty interchangeable, but they're not the sort of characters who would be PCs in a Robin Hood or Harry Potter RPG. You wouldn't confuse Little John for Friar Tuck, and Ron and Hermione and Neville are all very different characters in their own right.

QuoteBut they're all different, interesting characters -- even if they don't have niche protection.

How do they not have niche protection? To take Harry Potter as an example, Hermione is the smart one who's maxed out on Library Use. Harry is the impetuous guy who's willing to get in there and get his fists bloody when necessary. Little John is the big brute who can knock down just as many soldiers as the Sheriff sends after him. Friar Tuck is a jolly monk who uses the air of respectability his monastic robes give him to cover for the outlaws. They all have their own niche; it's just not a niche which happens to tie in with precise job descriptions.

The Harry Potter characters can all do magic, but to say that they don't have niche protection just because they all do magic is to say that D&D characters don't have niche protection because they're all capable of speaking Common.

Quote from: StuartIn D&D (and similar RPGs) they'd both be "fighters".  They have the same niche.  I think we're making the same point -- you need to consider them beyond that.

BZZZZZZT. 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 don't have easy D&D analogues in terms of character class, because Tolkein wasn't writing in terms of D&D rules. (Perhaps they were using GURPS: Aragorn had the "Epic Destiny" advantage, while Boromir had the "Weak-Willed" disadvantage...)

Moving back to the subject of gaming and systems: in Ars Magica, assuming you forgo the multiple-PCs aspect of Troupe play (as some friends and I did in our most recent ArsM campaign), all the player characters are powerful wizards. At the same time, you'd never see two starting characters in an ArsM party sink all their points into the same areas of spellcasting - you'll have your Ignem specialist over here, your Intellego specialist over there...

Quote from: StuartIf you had to run Harry Potter with D&D, there would be a lot of Magic Users.

Yes, but you wouldn't, especially if you were running a game with the assumption that the PCs were all Hogwarts students. You'd run it in something like Ars Magica instead.

@Warthur:  You're arguing against a point I'm not making. :)

If you want to say niche = thing that makes each character different... I have no argument with that at all.  

I'm talking about games that carve the system up so that the assumption is a group of 4 players will have *very* different character types:

Warrior, Wizard, Thief, Priest

Tank, Striker, Controller, Leader

Decker, Rigger, Street Samurai, Mage

And contrasting that with fantasy literature that often has groups of character who would all be from one of the niches above, and yet they're all differernt and interesting characters.

Quote from: gleichmanNo, he said this:


And that said something that may well not apply to to lots of people. I for example am very picky about what mechanics should and should not be used for- rejecting them in many areas common to current game designs.

It also implies that fans of niche protection are rather limited people, but I may just be reading him wrong because I would consider it an insult to be told I can't think or be creative outside the ruleset...

Um, 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.

Look, in context,the quote you sited of mine means "You will look for all solutions and answers for niche protection issues in mechanics." This is opposed to finding them in setting or character divisions. I will give you that it was perhaps a bit vague but I figured most folks here would read with understanding...and apparently have since they did not take the umbrage you did.

Simply, go find some one else to get into a flame war with. I am not interested.

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: Stuart@Warthur:  You're arguing against a point I'm not making. :)

If you want to say niche = thing that makes each character different... I have no argument with that at all.  

I'm talking about games that carve the system up so that the assumption is a group of 4 players will have *very* different character types:

Warrior, Wizard, Thief, Priest

Tank, Striker, Controller, Leader

Decker, Rigger, Street Samurai, Mage

And contrasting that with fantasy literature that often has groups of character who would all be from one of the niches above, and yet they're all differernt and interesting characters.

Just so you know, Stuart, you and I are very much on the smae page as I understand your position.

To that point, I do not favor systems that force a character to a niche. In that, Warther (I think it was him) earlier spoke of how unfun it would be to have a group of interchangeable characters;i.e. characters with the same identical abilities. Personally, I believe this is what niche protection systematically leads to. You are forced to fill x role in the party. I just prefer more rounded characters than that.

Again, to make it clear though, I do not think people who favor niche protection should be blasted into outer space. This is just my opinion.

Bill

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.

Look, in context,the quote you sited of mine means "You will look for all solutions and answers for niche protection issues in mechanics." This is opposed to finding them in setting or character divisions. I will give you that it was perhaps a bit vague but I figured most folks here would read with understanding...and apparently have since they did not take the umbrage you did.

Simply, go find some one else to get into a flame war with. I am not interested.

Thanks,
Bill

Ummm...just so you know, Bill...he was not the only one who took it the way he describes.

But this issue is now so convoluted as to be less than helpful, shall we say. I don't have Roma handy, or I'd question you in a bit more depth...

Quote from: James J SkachUmmm...just so you know, Bill...he was not the only one who took it the way he describes.

But this issue is now so convoluted as to be less than helpful, shall we say. I don't have Roma handy, or I'd question you in a bit more depth...

Sorry to hear that. I still think that is a pretty unkind reading as I have said in other posts that niche protection is fine for other people... I just don't like it. Then you made the jump to thinking I was insulting all DND players...really?

Well, I have nothing to say to that except that it was not meant that way. I still think this guy has a chip on his shoulder.

What issues do you have with Iridium James? Don't worry, I will help out if I can if you have something about Roma you want to discuss.

Some points you might want to make may involve how I offer up special abilities to certain classes? How I have a bigger level bonus to in-class skills vs out of class skills? I know it may seem I have this "Niche Protection is on or off" thing going but I do believe there are different levels...and thus the questions. Note: I ask about strong vs weak or no niche protection...

So, with that, you could characterize that as a form of niche protection. I would not. My view of those items would be that they are a specialization path for characters. Yes, a Specialist can take weapon sepcializations cheaper than other classes, but everyone can specialize in weapons. Yes, a magus gets spells cheaper but everyone can take spells. Yes, priests and druids can cast free form magic but it is, by definition, the power of their god and the definition of their being (and in character you could become a priest or druid given enough time/social connections/etc).

The one that would be closer to niche protection than any others would be the class bonus to skills. That would be 3% per level for in class skills as opposed to 2% per level for out of class skills. Since you can change class so easily, I am not sure this is such a big deal. At best it would rank as pretty weak niche protection...and again, I would call it more "niche advantage" since it does not restrict one class from taking other classes skills.

All that said, if it is something else I am all ears.

Bill

Quote from: Stuart@Warthur:  You're arguing against a point I'm not making. :)

If you want to say niche = thing that makes each character different... I have no argument with that at all.  

I'm talking about games that carve the system up so that the assumption is a group of 4 players will have *very* different character types:

Warrior, Wizard, Thief, Priest

Tank, Striker, Controller, Leader

Decker, Rigger, Street Samurai, Mage

And contrasting that with fantasy literature that often has groups of character who would all be from one of the niches above, and yet they're all differernt and interesting characters.

So the problem with niches in RPGs is the wide disparity and (apparently) that it doesn't map well with the fiction it's supposed to be based on?

In the first case, I really see no reason why two or more characters might not pick the same class/skills/feats if they were central to the campaign.

In the second case... well... it really depends on the fiction. If you're playing all wizards (Potter) it makes sense to differentiate characters on different bases (basises?). Like... how everyone's a ninja in Naruto, but each ninja has a ridiculously different set of powers. God... I'm discussing Naruto as it applies to tabletop RPGs on an internet forum. :p So... yeah... what sets one character apart from another will (and more importantly *should*) vary from game to game if being all like the source material is what you're after.

If I'm playing a ghost in the shell RPG, I think it's safe to assume we all start as section 9 (or section 8 or 6 or 7 or whatever) operatives. The things an operative has/needs, you can assume they have. They know procedural stuff, have pretty keen wits, know their way around the weapons locker, and are better than a civilian when it comes to... anything having to do with their job at section nine. Only in comparison to each other do "niches" become apparent. Then there's the sniper, the bureaucrat, the badass major (probably only second best at any one thing, but second best at everything's still damn good... also the skills necessary for the role as party leader), the lameass rookie (and even he served as the one least/non cyber character, so at least one person wasn't vulnerable to hacking, IIRC).

Conversely, if I'm playing Akira, it's not unreasonable to have one character with a millitary background, a mad scientist, a psychic, a politician, a spy, and a speed-freak with a bike and a blunt object in the same party. Also some people are more than one of these things. Oh, and some of them are kids. Of course... Akira doesn't do the whole "party dynamic" thing either.

Quote from: HinterWeltSorry to hear that. I still think that is a pretty unkind reading as I have said in other posts that niche protection is fine for other people... I just don't like it. Then you made the jump to thinking I was insulting all DND players...really?

All 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:

Quote from: HinterWeltAh, grasshopper, you see, there are many reasons for multiple characters beyond mechanics. The least of which would be having number on your side. The strongest, imo, would be story. However, if you are a fan of niche protection, you likely will be looking to mechanics for all solutions and answers.

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.

Quote from: HinterWeltWhat issues do you have with Iridium James? Don't worry, I will help out if I can if you have something about Roma you want to discuss.

Issues? 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...

My 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.

Now 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...

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.

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.

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.

Only if you only look at class choice as enforcing niche. In practice, players will end up carving out their own niches using other means of differentiating their characters. Even in the earliest versions of D&D, choice of alignment and spell picks can do this; in post-3E D&D you have feats, skills and so forth. Ask a group of 3.5E players to make a party of wizards and they will all come back with completely different character builds - you'd have the guy specialising in buff spells, the guy specialising in firepower, the guy specialising in divination...

Quote from: StuartI'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.

But no game is that limited (except maybe original box D&D, I'd have to look).

D&D adds Ranger to the mix with others. Each of the classes has subsets from specialities and Feats that make the characters very different from each other.

Even so, I'd grant your point IF you'd just refain from painting all nich protection as the same. Maybe if you said "Extreme Niche Protection" or "Strong Niche Protection" we'd find common ground.

D&D does work with unbalanced parties for the most part. You get painted into a corner but you CAN still play.

If you have no or too few fighter types in your party you cannot play a heavy combat adventure. If you run a dungeon with a lot of traps and have no thief type, it's not going to go well. That's a fact.

We're not talking about the same thing.

You're talking about niche = what makes a character unique.

I'm talking about game systems that break things down so that a functional party is made up of character class niches.

We're not disagreeing -- just having overlapping conversations.

:unicorn:

Quote from: WarthurOnly if you only look at class choice as enforcing niche. In practice, players will end up carving out their own niches using other means of differentiating their characters.

This is my point.

Quote from: Mcrowit'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 making my case, and some here are even agreeing with it (this point exactly in fact).

Just because you disagree doesn't mean I'm not acting in good faith.

Elaborition on "character-centrality": The Supers-Genre, for example. Everything in the world is just a simile or catalyzer for the heroes navel-gazing. The world revolves around the heroes.

If you want to feel any accomplishment (I´m a necromancer!), you have to earn it. In order to meaningfully earn something, the world needs to be working on the same principles for everyone. For example, 7th sea is totally un-awesome. Because everything awesome you can do, was designed in a way for you to describe "awesome" things. Mook rules, are killing any accomplishment.

The table-play should be centered on the players, but the world and rules not on the characters.

Quote from: James J SkachMore importantly, IMHO, Stuart is using a very narrow definition of niche protection - probably due to this very narrow use being the prevalent usage.

It's possible.

I've never encountered this usage, nor do I know off hand of any widely published games today using that usage. And many in thread aren't seeming to use it either.

But it could still be possible.

Quote from: James J SkachThis 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.

I agree.

Quote from: James J SkachAs 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).

Agreed.

Sort of, I don't care for the word chose "overlap" :)

Quote from: gleichmanBut no game is that limited (except maybe original box D&D, I'd have to look).

D&D adds Ranger to the mix with others. Each of the classes has subsets from specialities and Feats that make the characters very different from each other.

AD&D adds Ranger.

In B/X, BECMI or RC D&D you'd have:

Boromir:  Fighter
Aragorn:  Fighter
Gimli: Dwarf (Fighter)
Legolas: Elf (Fighter) no magic
Gandalf: Magic-User
Frodo:  Halfling
Samwise: Halfling
Merry: Halfling
Pippin: Halfling

Robin of Loxley- Fighter
Robert of Huntingdon - Fighter
Lady Marion of Leaford - Fighter
Much - Fighter (maybe Thief?)
Will Scarlet - Fighter (maybe Thief?)
Little John - Fighter
Friar Tuck - Fighter (maybe Cleric?)
Nasir - Fighter

Harry Potter's extensive cast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harry_Potter_characters) - Magic User

I define nich protection as:

QuoteThe mechanical concepts in games that ensure that a given character type is unique in they way are played mechanically. This often dictates the characters role in the party.

Now, if I misunderstood Gleichman's meaning of the term, I'm sorry for being a dick. If not I stand by my statements. :haw:

Quote from: StuartIn B/X, BECMI or RC D&D you'd have:

Ok. It would have been good to know these were the rules you where talking about up front.

There are two questions I now have:

• 1. WhY are you using the most extreme example of niche protection in what seems to be an wholesale attack on the entire range of niche protection?
• 2. Is it possible that the point you're trying to make is that niche protection can go too far? If so I would agree and would like to move on to talking about less extreme forms of niche protection.

My point remains -- you can have interesting, differentiated characters in a group even if they are in the same niche.

Quote from: StuartMy point remains -- you can have interesting, differentiated characters in a group even if they are in the same niche.

Sigh.

Which niche? Extreme, Medium or Soft?

Quote from: gleichmanSigh.

Which niche? Extreme, Medium or Soft?

Chocolate.

Quote from: McrowI define nich protection as:



Now, if I misunderstood Gleichman's meaning of the term, I'm sorry for being a dick. If not I stand by my statements. :haw:

It is not the meaning I'm using.

Where is the quote from please?

Quote from: gleichmanSigh.

Which niche? Extreme, Medium or Soft?

I think he means all.

Which I can agree with.

Quote from: gleichmanIt is not the meaning I'm using.

Where is the quote from please?

I'm not quoting you, I'm using the qoute to highlight that it's mine.

Quote from: McrowI think he means all.

Which I can agree with.

Does he?

From what I could tell he was saying it's impossible to do before (at least in specific games), and now he's saying one can do it no matter what?

Quote from: gleichmanDoes he?

From what I could tell he was saying it's impossible to do before (at least in specific games), and now he's saying one can do it no matter what?

I gues he needs to clarify. I thought that his previous statement was refering to niche protection in mechanics while this one appears to be refering to niche protection in role-playing. :confused:

Quote from: gleichmanDoes he?

From what I could tell he was saying it's impossible to do before (at least in specific games), and now he's saying one can do it no matter what?

You're making it waaaaaaay more complicated than it needs to be.

Harry Potter -- they're all wizards.  But all different and interesting.

So you don't need to be doing a very different task compared to other players (going back to the mixed arms  Tank / Artillery / Infantry discussions) to have an interesting character or contribute to the group.

Quote from: McrowI'm not quoting you, I'm using the qoute to highlight that it's mine.

I thought that might be the case, but wanted to be sure. If it came from a respected source, I might need to change to match that version and would be opposed to the concept.

"a given character type is unique" is where it doesn't match mine. I would replace it with "a given character type is advantaged in a desired way".

Quote from: gleichman"a given character type is unique" is where it doesn't match mine. I would replace it with "a given character type is advantaged in a desired way".

picking nits, but sure that works.

Quote from: McrowI gues he needs to clarify. I thought that his previous statement was refering to niche protection in mechanics while this one appears to be refering to niche protection in role-playing. :confused:

It seems exceedingly odd to me to be saying the all the characters in Robin Hood would be in the same niche, but then saying that it doesn't matter because they would all be different anyway.

Your mechanics/role-playing splits seems the only answer to that.

Now you three lost me.:confused:

Quote from: Mcrowpicking nits, but sure that works.

It's far more than a nit from my point of view.

I can use class based systems one way, but couldn't the other. It's a difference that makes for a very serious difference in my eyes.

Quote from: StuartYou're making it waaaaaaay more complicated than it needs to be.

Harry Potter -- they're all wizards.  But all different and interesting.

Are you saying that in your limited version selection of D&D, they're all wizards and that the difference and interest would have to come out of how they are role-played?

And are you saying that's enough difference and interest?

Quote from: gleichmanAre you saying that in your limited version selection of D&D, they're all wizards and that the difference and interest would have to come out of how they are role-played?

And are you saying that's enough difference and interest?

I don't think D&D would be an optimal selection for games based on those sources because it was designed around the idea of more "balanced parties".  But in general, yes, I'm suggesting if you have multiple players with characters from the same character class / niche it doesn't mean it's redundant as you can have all sorts of things about them that make them distinctive from one another -- including how they are role-played.

I don't think it's a requirement of designing a good RPG to approach the system as requiring a "functional group" and then split that up into slices with the idea that each player will have one of those slices.

Quote from: StuartI don't think it's a requirement of designing a good RPG to approach the system as requiring a "functional group" and then split that up into slices with the idea that each player will have one of those slices.

Do you believe that niche protection is inseparable from "functional group"?

Quote from: gleichmanDo you believe that niche protection is inseparable from "functional group"?

No.

Quote from: StuartNo.

We agree here then.

Do you disagree that niche protection unrelated to "functional group" may be helpful in rpg designs, at least for certain goals?

Edit: I'm taking this step by step because the two of seem prone to disconnects. I'm hoping this helps. Please let me know if it doesn't.

Quote from: StuartBut in general, yes, I'm suggesting if you have multiple players with characters from the same character class / niche it doesn't mean it's redundant as you can have all sorts of things about them that make them distinctive from one another -- including how they are role-played.

The bolded conflation is, perhaps, the issue I'm having with your portion of the discussion, Stuart.

Quote from: James J SkachThe bolded conflation is, perhaps, the issue I'm having with your portion of the discussion, Stuart.

Well, 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.

Quote from: StuartIn B/X, BECMI or RC D&D you'd have:

(...)
Gandalf: Magic-User
(...)

Gandalf was an 8th level cleric. (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=134962&highlight=cleric#post134962)

A 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.

Simlilarly, 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.

Given 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.

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.

I don't know if he is, but the two seemed to be linked in a lot of his examples - which is why I pointed it out.

As HinterWelt notes, he has some things tied to class, but not as much as might be considered "protection" at that point.

Which leads to my second question about strength of enforcement and at what point of implementation.

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.

I'm not sure about the difference being referenced here.


As I recall, his classes were alot like mine in Age of Heroes, they provided advantage in defined areas while allowing one to buy skills outside those areas.

To me this is niche protection (by means of class) assuming a different class can't buy up the skills of another so that they are equal or near equal.

Hinterwelts use may be quite different, but I got the impression that they were similar.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadGames are games. Stories are stories. Games have obligations to their participants that stories do not have to their characters.

Kickass quote.

Quote from: gleichmanI'm not sure about the difference being referenced here.


As I recall, his classes were alot like mine in Age of Heroes, they provided advantage in defined areas while allowing one to buy skills outside those areas.

To me this is niche protection (by means of class) assuming a different class can't buy up the skills of another so that they are equal or near equal.

Hinterwelts use may be quite different, but I got the impression that they were similar.

Hinterwelt's classes basically just give you ranks in skills to start with. So if you are a fighter type you might start with:

2 ranks in weapons use, 1 rank in armor use, 1 in parry, 1 in Riding (horse)

any other class can buy those same skills at no extra cost but they don't get any "free ranks" to start.

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.

Simlilarly, 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.

Given 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 quoted the full post because I feel One Horse Town defines the three levels of niche protection: strong, moderate and weak in each of his paragraphs including some of the pitfalls.

He however left the pitfalls out of the weak option.

I happen to use this one a great deal (I run many games under HERO System). The main problem is that it's a lot of work, and if you screw up you have to go back and change things and that is never fun.

As the campaign ages, the problem only gets worse. In short, it's hard and takes extra effort I wish I had to use on other things like more world/NPC building.

My method of controlling it is XP caps and/or short campaigns, this in contrast to the generational length fantasy campaign with the Moderate Niche Protection Age of Heroes provides.

Quote from: McrowHinterwelt's classes basically just give you ranks in skills to start with. So if you are a fighter type you might start with:

2 ranks in weapons use, 1 rank in armor use, 1 in parry, 1 in Riding (horse)

any other class can buy those same skills at no extra cost but they don't get any "free ranks" to start.

Is it possible for a different class to buy their weapon us to levels higher or equal to the Fighter's?

Is it possible if the Fighter focuses his skill purchases towards weapons as much as the Thief?

If no to either of the above, is the difference significant in play?

Quote from: Consonant DudeKickass quote.

Thank you. I was wondering if my post(s) had any relevance after this thread achieved escape velocity.

Quote from: gleichmanIs it possible for a different class to buy their weapon us to levels higher or equal to the Fighter's?

Yes, you could be a magic user type and actually be a better fighter than say a "warrior". Sure, the warrior will get a rank or two in some of those skills for free to start but as teh characters advance you could easily become the better fighter depending on what skills the fighter picks to advance. The fighter will always have the advantage of starting with few extra ranks but unless they continue to advance them and don't diversify (like pick up magic more promenently) other classes can be better in combat.

QuoteIs it possible if the Fighter focuses his skill purchases towards weapons as much as the Thief?

Yes

Quote from: McrowThe fighter will always have the advantage of starting with few extra ranks but unless they continue to advance them and don't diversify (like pick up magic more promenently) other classes can be better in combat.
 Yes

Upon 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.

Quote from: gleichmanI quoted the full post because I feel One Horse Town defines the three levels of niche protection: strong, moderate and weak in each of his paragraphs including some of the pitfalls.

He however left the pitfalls out of the weak option.

I happen to use this one a great deal (I run many games under HERO System). The main problem is that it's a lot of work, and if you screw up you have to go back and change things and that is never fun.

As the campaign ages, the problem only gets worse. In short, it's hard and takes extra effort I wish I had to use on other things like more world/NPC building.

My method of controlling it is XP caps and/or short campaigns, this in contrast to the generational length fantasy campaign with the Moderate Niche Protection Age of Heroes provides.

Yeah - the weak option can quickly just morph into house-rule city and inconsistancies. Happened in an ad&d campaign i played in. great fun and we all sort of created our own niches without too much interference from the original system, but it was heavily house-ruled.

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.

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.

I'm think One Horse Town has great wisdom.

Bought an adventure that doesn't fit your gaming group due to balance, morality or other issue? Sure, whine about- you did pay your money.

Then get off your backside, fix the problem with the module and play the game. Have fun.

I've had cases where the only thing I kept was the adventure description on the back, some names, and couple of maps...

Quote from: McrowYup, 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.

I thought the claim was that adventure modules do indeed sell, it's just that they don't sell as well as rules and their expansion.

This means that WotC would like to spend it's resources on the highest value, leaving the adventure market to smaller companies that would be happy to get the return of adventure sales for their resource investment (because they don't have a higher return anywhere).

But I'm no expert on the subject.

Quote from: gleichmanI thought the claim was that adventure modules do indeed sell, it's just that they don't sell as well as rules and their expansion.

This means that WotC would like to spend it's resources on the highest value, leaving the adventure market to smaller companies that would be happy to get the return of adventure sales for their resource investment (because they don't have a higher return anywhere).

But I'm no expert on the subject.

They do, if given the proper treatment. Like  " return to greyhawk" and the super adventers hardvocers seem to due well. The olds school module, not so much. There are exceptions though, like Goodman Games, they seem to due well with their adventure series. Oh, and "sell well" means one thing to WotC and a totally different thing to small press.

Well, Wizards have returned to publishing adventures and have done so for a year or more now. If the market leader is returning to them, then i guess there must be a decent return to be made. Of course, if you have a novel imprint to tie them into, then the return is probably two-fold.

Quote from: One Horse TownWell, Wizards have returned to publishing adventures and have done so for a year or more now. If the market leader is returning to them, then i guess there must be a decent return to be made. Of course, if you have a novel imprint to tie them into, then the return is probably two-fold.

I would see that as an element of the product cycle.

1. Hire people to develop new rules edition- sale rules, don't sell modules.

2. Sales are going good, add more rules.

3. Sales are dropping, develop new edition. To avoid firing resources during down turn in sales, move them to writing adventures now that they are slowing a better profit ratio than old edition rules do.

3. Sell new edition- repeat cycle.


Note that by people/resources, that is often headcount not specific individuals although it could be. The idea is to not lose the funding that allows your group to exist/grow.

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.

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.

I said "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)"

A default archetypal D&D dungeoncrawl is different from one you create specifically to accommodate a non-standard mix of characters.

And D&D means real D&D. :haw:

Quote from: gleichmanI 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.

"Functional whole" if you're going to quote me. ;) The common / default approach, yes.

Quote from: gleichmanI would see that as an element of the product cycle.

1. Hire people to develop new rules edition- sale rules, don't sell modules.

2. Sales are going good, add more rules.

3. Sales are dropping, develop new edition. To avoid firing resources during down turn in sales, move them to writing adventures now that they are slowing a better profit ratio than old edition rules do.

3. Sell new edition- repeat cycle.


Note that by people/resources, that is often headcount not specific individuals although it could be. The idea is to not lose the funding that allows your group to exist/grow.

That's pretty much it, it's not so much that the adventures don't sell it's more about the fact that rule addons sell so much better.

Quote from: gleichmanI would see that as an element of the product cycle.

1. Hire people to develop new rules edition- sale rules, don't sell modules.

2. Sales are going good, add more rules.

3. Sales are dropping, develop new edition. To avoid firing resources during down turn in sales, move them to writing adventures now that they are slowing a better profit ratio than old edition rules do.

3. Sell new edition- repeat cycle.


Note that by people/resources, that is often headcount not specific individuals although it could be. The idea is to not lose the funding that allows your group to exist/grow.

True enough, i suspect. There are quite a few adventures planned before and after the launch of 4e, but they are guarenteed to sell well as folks want offical material to test the new ruleset with.

Check back in 18 months to see if production of 4e adventures from Wizards drops off again. :D

Edit: Actually, their plan to release new core books every year could well mean the continuation of adventure design - they simply make sure that those adventures only use the new rules from that years new 'core books'

Quote from: StuartI said "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)"

I would claim that the default game is mostly illusion and of little concern to the typical end buyer who almost always modifies the result to match the needs of his gaming group.


Does it really matter to you? Would you pass on an otherwise excellent game system perfect for your tastes because you object to their adventure modules?

Quote from: One Horse TownCheck back in 18 months to see if production of 4e adventures from Wizards drops off again. :D

Yes, that would be the test of the theory wouldn't it.

I would expect a few adventures with the first rules just to prime the pump. We'll see what happens there after and just how good my guess was.

Quote from: gleichmanI would claim that the default game is mostly illusion and of little concern to the typical end buyer who almost always modifies the result to match the needs of his gaming group.

Shenanigans

Quote from: StuartShenanigans

Are you of the mind that theory is always the same as actual practice?

I'm of the mind that the default / common way of playing D&D with dungeons and/or dragons and balanced parties including at least a Fighter, Mage, Cleric and Thief are not "mostly illusion and of little concern to the typical end buyer".

I'm calling Shenanigans on that.

Quote from: gleichmanI would claim that the default game is mostly illusion and of little concern to the typical end buyer who almost always modifies the result to match the needs of his gaming group.
 

No, not really in the case of D&D. Go look at ENworld. The vast majority do play it in the "default" form meaning they build the party around the games assuption that a balanced party is needed.

Quote from: StuartI'm of the mind that the default / common way of playing D&D with dungeons and/or dragons and balanced parties including at least a Fighter, Mage, Cleric and Thief are not "mostly illusion and of little concern to the typical end buyer".

I'm calling Shenanigans on that.

I'd rather you said you disagreed with me on that point. Less heated.


You didn't answer by question by the way. Would you not use a game system perfect for your needs if you disagreed with their adventure module design?

Quote from: McrowNo, not really in the case of D&D. Go look at ENworld. The vast majority do play it in the "default" form meaning they build the party around the games assuption that a balanced party is needed.

I just must have been playing a different game than everyone else...I swear...

I think the default assumption is that you will fair better if your party is "balanced." But, hell, we played Living F'ing Greyhawk modules without "balanced" parties.

Quote from: McrowNo, not really in the case of D&D. Go look at ENworld. The vast majority do play it in the "default" form meaning they build the party around the games assuption that a balanced party is needed.

I'll take your world for it, with but one condition.

One online person who I had a large number of exchanges with (not on this site, at least not that I know) took a shot at playing *standard* D&D module set and spent some time on that forum as I recall in an attempt to see how it should have been done/handled.

The take away from it was that none of them were using the written rules as they related to one difficult enounter. Most were unaware in fact that they had ignored or alter those rules.

I found that an interesting result that match a number of experiences I've had even with the designers of the game in question let alone players.

Thus, yes they say that. Yes, they may even believe that.

But do they do that?

In any case, that was a nitpick. I concede the point and will assume that this is indeed the default play style unless someone here presents a different view. Modern D&D is not my strong point.

The party is as balanced as the DM. :pundit:

Quote from: gleichmanYou didn't answer by question by the way. Would you not use a game system perfect for your needs if you disagreed with their adventure module design?

I'd play all sorts of games and RPGs.  If I thought an adventure module was bad, I wouldn't run it.  If I thought the game itself was bad, I wouldn't play it.

Quote from: StuartI'd play all sorts of games and RPGs.  If I thought an adventure module was bad, I wouldn't run it.  If I thought the game itself was bad, I wouldn't play it.

Ok given that, why the disdain towards D&D niche protection when it has no impact on you even if you were to play D&D (given that a number here have pointed out that it's quite possible to play non-functional groups)?

Quote from: gleichmanOk given that, why the disdain towards D&D niche protection when it has no impact on you even if you were to play D&D (given that a number here have pointed out that it's quite possible to play non-functional groups)?

Who said I have disdain for it? :)

I'm just saying it's not the only way to design a game.

D&D, with the niches, is tons of fun.

Games that don't have niches and have all the players running very similar characters (eg. TMNT or Robotech) can also be tons of fun.

Quote from: StuartWho said I have disdain for it? :)

I'm just saying it's not the only way to design a game.

Ok, did anyone suggest otherwise?

Quote from: gleichmanBut do they do that?
 

Well, to know for sure you'd have to play with them. :p

Quote from: McrowWell, to know for sure you'd have to play with them. :p

I withdraw the question :)

Quote from: gleichmanWould you not use a game system perfect for your needs if you disagreed with their adventure module design?

Here's how I see it. In D&D (1e and the Basic family), the DM and group collectively need to be quite careful about the design of adventures and the approach that a party takes toward them. Either the DM needs to tailor the adventures, or the party needs to be fashioned as somewhat balanced, or a considerable amount of circumspection, warning, and running away is needed.

The example that leaps to mind is undead. They're in the book, they seem cool, and a DM who's only thinking about the coolness factor or the appropriateness of a given monster to a given setting might easily stick them into an adventure just as readily as he might an ogre, troll, giant. Yet some of them require magical weapons to hit, and most of them have attacks that are very powerful (paralysis, level loss), which is only "balanced" by undead being susceptible to turning by a cleric. But that balance only applies if the GM makes sure the party has a cleric before including undead, or the players make sure they always have a cleric, or the GM gives the players ample opportunity to avoid undead encounters--and the players are smart enough to avoid.

I think the default mode of play in any game isn't a highly sophisticated and careful one, and the easiest approach to the above dilemma is to just make sure you've got a balanced party. The second easiest is careful tailoring, but that gets into the stereotyping problem we discussed with tactics. I.e., if the GM only allows undead into the game if there's a cleric in the party, then the players really don't have to think about dealing with challenges or weighing risks. It's all been calculated out for them beforehand.

As a DM, I absolutely HATE niche protection, because it creates huge problems when you have the "wrong" number of players, and it leads to situations where I, as DM, have to say stupid, stupid fucking things like "Okay, but who is going to play the cleric?"

Because if no one plays the cleric, then there isn't sufficient healing magic, and the party dies.  Why?  Because healing is the cleric's fucking niche, so nooooo, there's noooo possible way for a wizard to cast a spell that stitches wounds back together.  Animate the dead?  Sure!  Mend a broken pot with a wave of the hand?  Sure!  Transform a person's physical form into something else?  Sure!  Heal someone?  BADWRONG!

This one of my big problems with the discussion of 4E's guiding principles.  I already hated the niche protection in 3.5, and everything I've read indicates that there will be even more of it in 4E.  If there are exactly four niches, the game won't work with three players, and won't work with five players.  Six players is right the fuck out.

It's just dumb.  What's the point of player choice if players are forced into certain choices because of niche protection?

Quote from: SigmundOn 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.

Totally.  Supers don't work without niche protection.  You could never have an interesting story where all the characters have the exact same set of powers, abilities and equipment.

I mean, can you imagine how much it would suck if Batman was accompanied by a kid he trained and equipped with the same gear he uses, and was constantly being assisted by a girl who had basically copied his whole schtick, and a former protégé with the same set of abilities.  I mean, that would like totally suck.

Or imagine how awful the Justice League would be if in addition to Superman there was a guy whose powers included being super-strong and flying, only differentiated by the lightning bolt on his chest?  And then another guy who was basically a green Superman but with some telepathic powers?  It would never work!

/sarcasm

Quote from: JackalopeAs a DM, I absolutely HATE niche protection, because it creates huge problems when you have the "wrong" number of players, and it leads to situations where I, as DM, have to say stupid, stupid fucking things like "Okay, but who is going to play the cleric?"

Because if no one plays the cleric, then there isn't sufficient healing magic, and the party dies.  Why?  Because healing is the cleric's fucking niche, so nooooo, there's noooo possible way for a wizard to cast a spell that stitches wounds back together.  Animate the dead?  Sure!  Mend a broken pot with a wave of the hand?  Sure!  Transform a person's physical form into something else?  Sure!  Heal someone?  BADWRONG!

This one of my big problems with the discussion of 4E's guiding principles.  I already hated the niche protection in 3.5, and everything I've read indicates that there will be even more of it in 4E.  If there are exactly four niches, the game won't work with three players, and won't work with five players.  Six players is right the fuck out.

It's just dumb.  What's the point of player choice if players are forced into certain choices because of niche protection?

???

I can certainly relate on the "who's playing the cleric?" bit, but... really? You can't play with three or five characters? 'Cause I'm pretty sure I just ran a group of five with no real tank this past Friday. And I'm pretty sure I'm going to run a game for that same group again this coming Friday.

...and what makes you think there will be more of it in 4e? I'm pretty sure they were going the opposite direction, going so far as making healing more a function each character does for himself, rather than relying on a cleric.

Moreover... there are other things than cleric that can heal. Paladins, bards, and druids can heal you up. So can archivists (Heroes of Horror), favored souls (Complete Divine), spirit shamans (also Complete Divine), and even dragon shamans (I know... wtf!?). So can... you know... potions. Mmmm... potions. *drools*

Characters in 4E will be able to heal themselves at least once per encounter with surges. The need for a cleric in a party will be reduced by the appearence of the Warlord class, which can trigger additional surges on a per encounter basis.

Quote from: beejazzI can certainly relate on the "who's playing the cleric?" bit, but... really? You can't play with three or five characters? 'Cause I'm pretty sure I just ran a group of five with no real tank this past Friday. And I'm pretty sure I'm going to run a game for that same group again this coming Friday.

I didn't say you can't play, I said it doesn't work as well.

You have four niches, five players.  That means two players, at the least, are going to be in the same niche.  Which undermines the whole point of niche protection in the first place: keeping players from stepping on each other's toes.

Quote...and what makes you think there will be more of it in 4e? I'm pretty sure they were going the opposite direction, going so far as making healing more a function each character does for himself, rather than relying on a cleric.

The fact that they have named four niches and said that the game is going be designed around those niches.  Is 4E going to work if everyone wants to play the Striker?  Can a four Striker party work?  If it can, then what the fuck is the point of having niches?

QuoteMoreover... there are other things than cleric that can heal. Paladins, bards, and druids can heal you up. So can archivists (Heroes of Horror), favored souls (Complete Divine), spirit shamans (also Complete Divine), and even dragon shamans (I know... wtf!?). So can... you know... potions. Mmmm... potions. *drools*

Yeah, I've been running 3.5 for the last few years, and all of those options are inefficient substitutes.   The druid ends up having to devote all of his slots to healing spells, and ends up coming off as a half-rate cleric.  The Paladin ends up being a crappy healer who has to neglect his tank role to play the healer role.

And potions/wands turns out to be a shitty substitute, because of the cost of buying magic.  In the most recent campaign I played in, no one wanted to play the cleric.  

One guy played a Factotum with awesome Use Magic Device skill, so we bought him wands of cure magic -- and then he'd roll shit for rounds on end, and it would end up taking five rounds for him to get out a cure light wounds.  

Another played a Wu Jen/Spirit Shaman who was basically completely useless in every way.  We we're 7th level, and all he could contribute to combat was magic missiles and cure lights.    

I played a Knight, and I ended up going into negatives every fucking battle because the other two couldn't survive a round in hand-to-hand (so they hid behind me), couldn't heal me fast enough, and couldn't dish out shit for damage.  We're fighting fucking Bone Dragons and plate-mailed War Trolls and Gray Renders and getting fucked up the ass every time we turn around despite the supposed CR balance.

We we're constantly being forced to retreat from fights, and spending so much on healing magic that we couldn't keep our equipment up to spec for our level.  Because of our frequent need to retreat, we weren't gathering any treasure, but because most every hit point healed   At 7th level my character was 400 GP in debt to money lenders, and her only magic item was a +1 sword.  Where did our money go?  potions and wands, potions and wands.

Yeah, part of the problem was that the GM kinda sucked ass and refused to take our limitations into account (he said it was our fault for not playing into the niches).  But part of the problem is that the game is so built around the Wizard, Warrior, Cleric, Rogue dynamic that our group of non-standard characters couldn't compete.

Quote from: JackalopeTotally.  Supers don't work without niche protection.  You could never have an interesting story where all the characters have the exact same set of powers, abilities and equipment.

I mean, can you imagine how much it would suck if Batman was accompanied by a kid he trained and equipped with the same gear he uses, and was constantly being assisted by a girl who had basically copied his whole schtick, and a former protégé with the same set of abilities.  I mean, that would like totally suck.

Or imagine how awful the Justice League would be if in addition to Superman there was a guy whose powers included being super-strong and flying, only differentiated by the lightning bolt on his chest?  And then another guy who was basically a green Superman but with some telepathic powers?  It would never work!

/sarcasm

One, I didn't say never, I said almost never.

Two, you just listed about the only exceptions in the whole fucking genre, and even then they're not exactly the same, as you yourself point out. Also in the JLA are peeps like Wonder Woman, kinda different than Superman. Green Arrow, not really a strong man. Red tornado. Hawkman. Green Lantern Black Canary. How about Avengers..... Fantastic Four...... Xmen...... New mutants..... Watchmen.... etc...

How about ya take your sarcasm and go asspound yourself with it.

Quote from: JackalopeYeah, I've been running 3.5 for the last few years, and all of those options are inefficient substitutes.   The druid ends up having to devote all of his slots to healing spells, and ends up coming off as a half-rate cleric.  The Paladin ends up being a crappy healer who has to neglect his tank role to play the healer role.

And potions/wands turns out to be a shitty substitute, because of the cost of buying magic.  In the most recent campaign I played in, no one wanted to play the cleric.  

One guy played a Factotum with awesome Use Magic Device skill, so we bought him wands of cure magic -- and then he'd roll shit for rounds on end, and it would end up taking five rounds for him to get out a cure light wounds.  

Another played a Wu Jen/Spirit Shaman who was basically completely useless in every way.  We we're 7th level, and all he could contribute to combat was magic missiles and cure lights.    

I played a Knight, and I ended up going into negatives every fucking battle because the other two couldn't survive a round in hand-to-hand (so they hid behind me), couldn't heal me fast enough, and couldn't dish out shit for damage.  We're fighting fucking Bone Dragons and plate-mailed War Trolls and Gray Renders and getting fucked up the ass every time we turn around despite the supposed CR balance.

We we're constantly being forced to retreat from fights, and spending so much on healing magic that we couldn't keep our equipment up to spec for our level.  Because of our frequent need to retreat, we weren't gathering any treasure, but because most every hit point healed   At 7th level my character was 400 GP in debt to money lenders, and her only magic item was a +1 sword.  Where did our money go?  potions and wands, potions and wands.

Yeah, part of the problem was that the GM kinda sucked ass and refused to take our limitations into account (he said it was our fault for not playing into the niches).  But part of the problem is that the game is so built around the Wizard, Warrior, Cleric, Rogue dynamic that our group of non-standard characters couldn't compete.

Can't say I entirely agree about having more than 4 players, our group has done just fine with 5, but out of all the "niches" (or whatever classes with what seem to be niches are being called now), we have trouble running without a melee fighter or a cleric if the game is going to approach anywhere near the number and level of fights the game assumes as default. Game we player last year the group stared out with a ninja, ranged specialty fighter, rogue, cleric and me as a wizard. First 2 fights against goblins went well enough with my wizard's sleep spells being pivotal, but the third fight we ran into 20 big beetles and the ninja ran immediately, the fighter never bothered to even attempt moving to melee range (damn archer), and the cleric had an even lower initiative than me so my low initiative wizard got overrun and killed. My new character was a textbook standard dwarf axe fighter. The rest of the campaign went fine. The one time we tried a campaign with no cleric it went much like the quote above, it was either a fortune in healing potions and a sucky warlock-using-healing wand, or massive amounts of downtime, and restulted in a near tpk, with only the warlock escaping, the bastard.

Quote from: JackalopeI didn't say you can't play, I said it doesn't work as well.

Orly?

QuoteIf there are exactly four niches, the game won't work with three players, and won't work with five players. Six players is right the fuck out.

I don't know what you intended to say, but... y'know...

QuoteYou have four niches, five players.  That means two players, at the least, are going to be in the same niche.  Which undermines the whole point of niche protection in the first place: keeping players from stepping on each other's toes.

Bull. A rogue and a bard do different things. The monk isn't a standard tank, and seems custom built to fuck with spellcasters. Druids are fun, and don't fit fully into or compete directly with another niche.

QuoteThe fact that they have named four niches and said that the game is going be designed around those niches.  Is 4E going to work if everyone wants to play the Striker?  Can a four Striker party work?  If it can, then what the fuck is the point of having niches?

Yes, but the game has *always* been built around four (maybe fewer earlier) niches. Nothing about that implies *more* niche protection. And I and others have noted examples of how there will be less, mostly healing is going to be less of a problem.

QuoteOne guy played a Factotum with awesome Use Magic Device skill, so we bought him wands of cure magic -- and then he'd roll shit for rounds on end, and it would end up taking five rounds for him to get out a cure light wounds.

Get yourself an artificer and abuse the custom item creation rules at the back of the DMG. Starting at 6th level or so, a wand of infinite cure lights is a worthwhile investment. *Or* get yourself that same item for a warlock with the deceive item class feature and max ranks in umd.

QuoteAnother played a Wu Jen/Spirit Shaman who was basically completely useless in every way.  We we're 7th level, and all he could contribute to combat was magic missiles and cure lights.

This characters' build doesn't suck strictly because he's a spirit shaman... it sucks because he tried to split his spellcasting levels. And between classes with different key abilities at that! Learn that man to play as an illumian and take Aeshkrau so he can cast based on constitution and single class as a spirit shaman. Then give him feats so he can wear heavy armor. In any case, this happened because someone who had no business multiclassing multiclassed, and has more to do with "rules mastery" than "niche protection."  

QuoteYeah, part of the problem was that the GM kinda sucked ass and refused to take our limitations into account (he said it was our fault for not playing into the niches).  But part of the problem is that the game is so built around the Wizard, Warrior, Cleric, Rogue dynamic that our group of non-standard characters couldn't compete.

See... that has less to do with niche protection and more to do with failed powergamers vs. a lameass GM. No amount of niche protection/absence thereof is going to fix a game with a shitty GM.

Quote from: SigmundOne, I didn't say never, I said almost never.

Two, you just listed about the only exceptions in the whole fucking genre, and even then they're not exactly the same, as you yourself point out.

Yeah, one of which happens to be the most popular supergroup of all time (and yes, I'm referring to the Bat Clan).

QuoteAlso in the JLA are peeps like Wonder Woman, kinda different than Superman.

Yeah, she needs her invisible jet to fly.  

QuoteGreen Arrow, not really a strong man.

Correct.  He's is however exactly like Batman in every respect, except he has a bow.

QuoteHow about ya take your sarcasm and go asspound yourself with it.

How about you just admit it was dumb argument?  That seems far more productive. :p

Quote from: beejazzGet yourself an artificer and abuse the custom item creation rules at the back of the DMG. Starting at 6th level or so, a wand of infinite cure lights is a worthwhile investment. *Or* get yourself that same item for a warlock with the deceive item class feature and max ranks in umd.

Not my character.  Don't have any sway in what the other guy plays.  In fact, he tends to get right pissed off when I try to tell him how to play.  Funny that.

QuoteThis characters' build doesn't suck strictly because he's a spirit shaman... it sucks because he tried to split his spellcasting levels. And between classes with different key abilities at that! Learn that man to play as an illumian and take Aeshkrau so he can cast based on constitution and single class as a spirit shaman. Then give him feats so he can wear heavy armor. In any case, this happened because someone who had no business multiclassing multiclassed, and has more to do with "rules mastery" than "niche protection."  

I love how your advice is basically to tell my friends they're doing it wrong.  I will assume from this advice that you don't actually have any friends, or the friends you do have all think you're a controlling, know-it-all asshole.

I forgot to mention that the wu-jen/shaman is one of those monkey creatures from Oriental Adventures.  The guy playing him doesn't give a shit about min/maxing, or making an effective build.  Not really much I can do about it, except tell one of my best and oldest friends that he's a bad player and that my fun is so much more right than his.

But yeah, dude, you're totally right.  If I built their characters for them, our party would kick some fucking ass.  I mean, the sole reason we've survived as long as we have is because my Knight is as bad-ass as they get.

But if I designed their characters for them, they'd be my characters.

Quote from: JackalopeYou have four niches, five players.  That means two players, at the least, are going to be in the same niche.  Which undermines the whole point of niche protection in the first place: keeping players from stepping on each other's toes.

I went out searching Google to see if there was any kind of a consensus about what the "whole point of niche protection" is, and it turns out this thread is hit #1. :cool:

So, it behooves me to make my case right here and now. Niche "protection" is only half of the niche formula; the other half being niche or role definition, which defines standard activities in your adventure. This is most useful when you are dealing with published adventures.

I think in a game that assumes a certain "niche set", if all your niche are filled, the purpose of niche protection is already met. Adding more participants doesn't "undermine niche protection" so much that niche protection has done all it can do. Then you have to resort to other methods to distinguish characters, such as classes that don't strictly fulfill a niche.

QuoteAnd potions/wands turns out to be a shitty substitute, because of the cost of buying magic.  In the most recent campaign I played in, no one wanted to play the cleric.

I've seen it work in several games.

QuoteAnother played a Wu Jen/Spirit Shaman who was basically completely useless in every way.

A dual divine/arcane in 3.5 without bridge class? Color me unsurprised. Not sure what the relevance is to niche protection, though.

I agree that there isn't the same amount of niche protection in Super Hero comics / TV / movies / games (unless you want "niche" to mean "what makes them unique).  There are lots of examples of Super Hero teams with more than one strong guy, or flyer, or blaster, or fighter.

Any game that will let you have totally random power generation (MSH) means you can easily have more than one player with the same schtick.

(I think there are some versions of Wonder Woman where she can fly)

JLA is entertaining, despite there being 5 superman-like characters, because the author makes it entertaining.  I wouldn't play in a game where we were 5 kryptonians on earth if there wasn't some other way to be different (skills?).  Personalities are always different, but that isn't much of a game to me.  I could see some groups doing that, however.

In D&D 3.x, additional space is made in niches as the party grows in size.  The thing is, the classes aren't 100% in each niche.  The rogue is a striker, but can fill in as a tank better than a mage can.  The first niche that usually gains space is the tank.  Next is usually a healer, followed by a blaster.

Of course, 3.x also has 2 different groups of niches, one for combat and one for skills.  You can be a striker/face or a striker/sneaker with no impact on the striker.

Why do people keep referrencing books, movies, etc... when talking about games?  Even if you're simulating a genre, you're still playing a game.  Does anyone regularly play games where everyone is very mechanically similar and nobody has a specialty of their own?

Quote from: JackalopeNot my character.  Don't have any sway in what the other guy plays.  In fact, he tends to get right pissed off when I try to tell him how to play.  Funny that.

I love how your advice is basically to tell my friends they're doing it wrong.  I will assume from this advice that you don't actually have any friends, or the friends you do have all think you're a controlling, know-it-all asshole.

I forgot to mention that the wu-jen/shaman is one of those monkey creatures from Oriental Adventures.  The guy playing him doesn't give a shit about min/maxing, or making an effective build.  Not really much I can do about it, except tell one of my best and oldest friends that he's a bad player and that my fun is so much more right than his.

But yeah, dude, you're totally right.  If I built their characters for them, our party would kick some fucking ass.  I mean, the sole reason we've survived as long as we have is because my Knight is as bad-ass as they get.

But if I designed their characters for them, they'd be my characters.

Actually it isn't so much advice as a demonstration that friggin' anyone and everyone can heal. To list... you know... your own example... every. single. arcane caster. heals. You mentioned yourself one guy was a spirit shaman, so I assume you have Complete Divine? You're saying that arcane casters can't heal even so? Even though in that same book there's Arcane Domain, which can turn any and every arcane caster into a healer faster than you can say "healing domain?" So... yeah... you can play as a necromancer healer. Or whatever other crazy combo you can think of.

Now, if you wanted to (say) complain that natural healing or mundane use of the heal skill is gimped, I'm right with you. But clerics aren't the only healers, and can be equaled or surpassed in that role by members of other classes.

As for "telling your friends they're doing it wrong." Close but no. If your GM wants to run a combat heavy game (sounds like it from your description) he should say right off the bat "Hey guys, let's have some characters who are able to find their ass with two hands." And if the players just want to do some more laid back gonzo whatever, they might say as much to the GM. And if you are having problems with the other players or the GM, I would strongly advise that you tell them, rather than bitch to me about it. 'Cause... you know... there's really only so much I can do from here.

Quote from: JackalopeYeah, one of which happens to be the most popular supergroup of all time (and yes, I'm referring to the Bat Clan).



Yeah, she needs her invisible jet to fly.  



Correct.  He's is however exactly like Batman in every respect, except he has a bow.



How about you just admit it was dumb argument?  That seems far more productive. :p

That's because you're apparently an idiot, so any argument that doesn't conform to your fantasy-world view of superheroes (and who knows what else) is of course "dumb". So in your world any superhero who beats up bad guys is the same "niche". Gotcha. It doesn't matter if they use fists, exploding arrows, golden lassos, ray beams out of their eyes, or chocolate pies, it's all the same, right? And of course we're still using only one group out of all the superhero universes and stories to illustrate our fantasy-world point, apparently just to fuck with a post made ages ago in a thread that's long since passed it by. Good job, fantasy-world boy... making the place safe.

Quote from: StuartI agree that there isn't the same amount of niche protection in Super Hero comics / TV / movies / games (unless you want "niche" to mean "what makes them unique).  There are lots of examples of Super Hero teams with more than one strong guy, or flyer, or blaster, or fighter.

Any game that will let you have totally random power generation (MSH) means you can easily have more than one player with the same schtick.

(I think there are some versions of Wonder Woman where she can fly)

Indeed, but even similar heroes have separate powers that set them apart somewhat, like WW being able to force people to tell the truth with her golden-lasso bondage gear, which superman is fortunately lacking. There are a great many heroes with super-strength, but I wouldn't exactly call superman, wonder woman, hulk, and spiderman all the same niche. On the flip side, it's for sure they ain't gonna be the same niches that ya find in other genres.

Quote from: KingSpoomWhy do people keep referrencing books, movies, etc... when talking about games?  Even if you're simulating a genre, you're still playing a game.  Does anyone regularly play games where everyone is very mechanically similar and nobody has a specialty of their own?

Many (most?) boardgames have everyone being "mechanically similar".

I think there's an important distinction as well between characters each having a speciality, and not having any overlap in niches like "Fighter", "Shooter" or "Thinker".

Even a game of B/X D&D with 4 fighters will in all likelihood have 4 *different* fighters.

Quote from: StuartMany (most?) boardgames have everyone being "mechanically similar".

I think there's an important distinction as well between characters each having a speciality, and not having any overlap in niches like "Fighter", "Shooter" or "Thinker".

Any RPGs?

I agree that there's a difference.  To me, there will always be an overlap in niches.  You have your cleric who can heal and tank, and you have your favored soul who is less apt to tanking, but still heals (I forget the actual benefit... maybe the sorcerer-style spell slots).

Quote from: SigmundThat's because you're apparently an idiot, so any argument that doesn't conform to your fantasy-world view of superheroes (and who knows what else) is of course "dumb". So in your world any superhero who beats up bad guys is the same "niche". Gotcha.

No, not quite.  But any hero whose essential power set is Super Strength and Invulnerability falls into the niche of Brick.  And Wonder Woman is every bit a Brick as Superman is.  They're in the same niche.  A few extra flavor powers don't change that fact.

You have heard that term, right?  Brick?  It's one of the classic superheroic niches.

QuoteIt doesn't matter if they use fists, exploding arrows, golden lassos, ray beams out of their eyes, or chocolate pies, it's all the same, right? And of course we're still using only one group out of all the superhero universes and stories to illustrate our fantasy-world point, apparently just to fuck with a post made ages ago in a thread that's long since passed it by. Good job, fantasy-world boy... making the place safe.

Wow, someone's panties are all bunched up.

Dude, you said that superhero groups almost never have character who overlap in niches, and that's simply not the case, as I illustrated with the Batman Family, which is the single most prominent team of supers ever, having starred in multiple comics, television shows, and several movies.  That's all.  You getting all worked up about it only makes you look like a doofus.

You're right, there are many superteams where all the heroes have different powers and fill very different niches.  The Fantastic Four are a perfect example.  But niche protection is not an essentially quality of superteams, and a team can still be very interesting even if every character in has the exact same set of power, as evidenced by the mega-popularity of the bat-squad featuring Batman, Robin, Batgirl and Nightwing.

Quote from: beejazzActually it isn't so much advice as a demonstration that friggin' anyone and everyone can heal. To list... you know... your own example... every. single. arcane caster. heals. You mentioned yourself one guy was a spirit shaman, so I assume you have Complete Divine? You're saying that arcane casters can't heal even so? Even though in that same book there's Arcane Domain, which can turn any and every arcane caster into a healer faster than you can say "healing domain?" So... yeah... you can play as a necromancer healer. Or whatever other crazy combo you can think of.

I wasn't really talking specifically about D&D 3.5 when I made that statement, but rather D&D throughout the ages, from white box to red box to AD&D 1st to 2nd to D&D 3.  But yeah, okay, you're right, with a long enough list of feats, eventually niche protection begins to dissolve.

Which leads me back to the question: So why bother with niche protection?

I mean seriously, you're argument seems to be that niche protection doesn't create problems for non-standard parties because you can work around it and overcome it with enough work and rules mastery.

Kind of a lame duck argument.  I'd say that the fact that niche protection is something you have to work around to make non-standard party effective is problematic.

Either way you split it, niche protection ends up trumping player choice.  Either way a player's choice in character ends up having to take other player's characters into account.

That isn't necessarily a problem -- some games actually make character creation a group process -- but it still contributes to the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast that plagues traditional games.  Too many games claim you can play anything you want, when the fact is that you can't, and players frequently have to sacrifice their concept at the altar of self-defeating game design.

QuoteNow, if you wanted to (say) complain that natural healing or mundane use of the heal skill is gimped, I'm right with you. But clerics aren't the only healers, and can be equaled or surpassed in that role by members of other classes.

Pfft.  I seriously doubt that.  The spontaneous healing spells is a huge advantage, because it allows the cleric to memorize spells other than healing spells and then swap them out when needed, and the cleric doesn't have to waste a single feat to get the ability.  A mage has to blow two feats to get the same ability, one to get Healing domain, another to get spontaneous healing spells.  The cleric can blow those same two feats on Augmented Healing and

QuoteAs for "telling your friends they're doing it wrong." Close but no. If your GM wants to run a combat heavy game (sounds like it from your description) he should say right off the bat "Hey guys, let's have some characters who are able to find their ass with two hands." And if the players just want to do some more laid back gonzo whatever, they might say as much to the GM. And if you are having problems with the other players or the GM, I would strongly advise that you tell them, rather than bitch to me about it. 'Cause... you know... there's really only so much I can do from here.

I wasn't bitching to you about it.  I was using it as an example of how the game promises one thing (freedom to make any character you want), but fails to actually deliver a game where that works.

The campaign I'm talking about (and several others I've participated in) ultimately self-destructed because several players really believed that they had that freedom, when the simple fact is that they don't.

Quote from: JackalopeI wasn't really talking specifically about D&D 3.5 when I made that statement, but rather D&D throughout the ages, from white box to red box to AD&D 1st to 2nd to D&D 3.  But yeah, okay, you're right, with a long enough list of feats, eventually niche protection begins to dissolve.

Which leads me back to the question: So why bother with niche protection?

I mean seriously, you're argument seems to be that niche protection doesn't create problems for non-standard parties because you can work around it and overcome it with enough work and rules mastery.

Kind of a lame duck argument.  I'd say that the fact that niche protection is something you have to work around to make non-standard party effective is problematic.

See... in a very general sense, this is why I prefer a character creation system based on feats or SAGA-esque talent trees and such.

But... the only real reason you pursue a "balanced" party (IME) is because you want an effective party. If you're using niches (built into the game or not) you're kind of already playing the "rules mastery" game.

And you "bother" with niche protection because you want effective parties. Each character gets x resources at character creation, and redundancy adds less to party capabilities than diversity*. Even a game that isn't designed for it still gets it to some extent.

*I could get into how secondary combatants and secondary healers add more to the party's capabilities than secondary members of any other role, but that doesn't help your tankless healerless party much. And the "healer" role can be eschewed by certain rulesets as well.

QuoteEither way you split it, niche protection ends up trumping player choice.  Either way a player's choice in character ends up having to take other player's characters into account.

I really don't see this as a bad thing so much. In any case, there's a certain degree of unlikelihood in a game that two identical characters show up. At least IME, YMMV, etc.

QuoteThat isn't necessarily a problem -- some games actually make character creation a group process -- but it still contributes to the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast that plagues traditional games.  Too many games claim you can play anything you want, when the fact is that you can't, and players frequently have to sacrifice their concept at the altar of self-defeating game design.

Playing anything you want isn't my goal really. I don't particularly care for carebears in my Dungeons and Dragons for example. And... there's a difference between being able to play everything you want and being able to play everything you want and remain effective. Even I would be hard-pressed to build an effective character around cooking... and I'm the guy that cooked up the "vorpal pillows" build.

If you do want a game that "does it all," I suggest you look for a game that at least tries it (not going to argue whether it succeeds). GURPS, Tristat, some variation on M&M, True 20, whatever.

QuotePfft.  I seriously doubt that.  The spontaneous healing spells is a huge advantage, because it allows the cleric to memorize spells other than healing spells and then swap them out when needed, and the cleric doesn't have to waste a single feat to get the ability.  A mage has to blow two feats to get the same ability, one to get Healing domain, another to get spontaneous healing spells.  The cleric can blow those same two feats on Augmented Healing and

Well, sorc wouldn't need a second feat for spontaneity. If you want to get into secondary costs, you could always mention some that actually exist... mainly that you still have to learn the spells (they're on your class list but not on your spells known list). If you want to make your GM sweat, you could combine that feat with the dread necro class (or the warmage or the beguiler). Do you know the spells automatically or would you have to wait for advanced learning? I'm sure there's errata for it, but it's one of those rare rules hiccups.

And... dammit how did I get talking about this and what does it have to do with niche protection? Christ... I could write my friggin' thesis on this if I had to... which makes me sad to think about.

QuoteI wasn't bitching to you about it.  I was using it as an example of how the game promises one thing (freedom to make any character you want), but fails to actually deliver a game where that works.

The campaign I'm talking about (and several others I've participated in) ultimately self-destructed because several players really believed that they had that freedom, when the simple fact is that they don't.

The game works just fine... but yeah, you can't play anything you want and expect it all to turn out equally effective in combat. I... continue to not see why that is a bad thing, as long as people know that going into it.

EDIT: If I have a point anymore it's that niches emerge? And that there's really no more reason to "protect" them (and there's really little you can do to protect them beyond actually definitively making them mandatory) than there is to revile them. It's been fine for me and mines, in any case.

Beejazz's last post made me think of point that I have just been assuming. I am not opposed to niches, just being forced by the system to use niches. If I want to make a bastard child of a character mixed between fighthiefamgig then the system should aid that, not hose me and the group for it.

So, for me, it is a lot about choices in the system.

Bill

Quote from: beejazzSee... in a very general sense, this is why I prefer a character creation system based on feats or SAGA-esque talent trees and such.

Same here.

QuotePlaying anything you want isn't my goal really. I don't particularly care for carebears in my Dungeons and Dragons for example. And... there's a difference between being able to play everything you want and being able to play everything you want and remain effective. Even I would be hard-pressed to build an effective character around cooking... and I'm the guy that cooked up the "vorpal pillows" build.

I didn't mean "anything you want" in quite that expansive sense (it's a fair reading, I just didn't mean that).  I mean the rule books give you the sense that you get to create the character you want from the huge range of choices, and tweaked to your pleasure.  But anyone with some experience knows that only the first guy to yell out his concept really gets to play what he wants, and that you have to build towards the expectations of the game which, and this is the important part, aren't made explicit in the game.

That is, imho, shoddy design.  It's the impossible thing before breakfast, and it sucks.  I've played with far too many people who believe the game, and didn't understand why some campaigns were disasters and other worked.  And you can't point them to the section in the rules that tells you "You're party will probably fail if you don't have a dedicated healer, so make sure someone plays the cleric.  If no one wants to play the cleric, here's a rules mechanic to determine who gets first choice, second choice, so forth, so that the meekest guy in the group doesn't always get his choice hijacked and his role in the party determined by the more aggressive members of the troupe."

I know, I know.  :forge:

QuoteIf you do want a game that "does it all," I suggest you look for a game that at least tries it (not going to argue whether it succeeds). GURPS, Tristat, some variation on M&M, True 20, whatever.

Pfft.  My group has been on hiatus for a over a month.  I'm going to try to sell them on TMNT & Other Strangeness, a game with both limited choice (which the rules explicitly state the GM can limit further, down to essentially deciding what the players play) and no niche protection.

QuoteWell, sorc wouldn't need a second feat for spontaneity.

Yeah, but then you're playing a sorcerer, and you're already fucked.  No way is a sorcerer with some access to healing spells as effective as a cleric.

QuoteThe game works just fine... but yeah, you can't play anything you want and expect it all to turn out equally effective in combat. I... continue to not see why that is a bad thing, as long as people know that going into it.

Which they don't, because the actual rules as written pretty strongly imply the exact opposite.

Quote from: JackalopeI didn't mean "anything you want" in quite that expansive sense (it's a fair reading, I just didn't mean that).  I mean the rule books give you the sense that you get to create the character you want from the huge range of choices, and tweaked to your pleasure.  But anyone with some experience knows that only the first guy to yell out his concept really gets to play what he wants, and that you have to build towards the expectations of the game which, and this is the important part, aren't made explicit in the game.

What do you expect really? It's D&D, which means it pretty much has to cater to everybody. The other games don't know how easy they have it... they've all got a cozy little niche!:p

QuoteYeah, but then you're playing a sorcerer, and you're already fucked.  No way is a sorcerer with some access to healing spells as effective as a cleric.

Not all-around, but as a healer yes, I think so. The main disad here is the low hp and armor. You can get around that a number of ways, but... dang I don't want to get into it here! Man, I'd start a new thread on abusive and nonstandard healer builds, but I have the sneaking suspicion it'd just be you and me posting.

QuoteWhich they don't, because the actual rules as written pretty strongly imply the exact opposite.

I don't really get where the rules imply anything (at least with 3x... I know the other editions were pretty different in the sort of rules voice, but I thought they were more explicit about the incomplete nature of the game and how you'd have to make stuff up?). If anything, my experience with 3x is that this problem arises because *nothing* is really implied in that dry rules voice.

Quote from: beejazzWhat do you expect really? It's D&D, which means it pretty much has to cater to everybody. The other games don't know how easy they have it... they've all got a cozy little niche!:p

Not all-around, but as a healer yes, I think so. The main disad here is the low hp and armor. You can get around that a number of ways, but... dang I don't want to get into it here! Man, I'd start a new thread on abusive and nonstandard healer builds, but I have the sneaking suspicion it'd just be you and me posting.

I don't really get where the rules imply anything (at least with 3x... I know the other editions were pretty different in the sort of rules voice, but I thought they were more explicit about the incomplete nature of the game and how you'd have to make stuff up?). If anything, my experience with 3x is that this problem arises because *nothing* is really implied in that dry rules voice.

You have to first read the Introduction to the game.  Have you read it?  I owned the book for at least  a few years before I read it.  You seem like an old hand at this, and I'll bet you're like me and skip over the whole "What is role-playing?" section every game book has (the game I'm writing has a section titled "What is role-playing?" the text of the section is "Are you fucking kidding me?  This can't possibly be your first game.").  While not quite as fervant as 2nd Edition, the section does imply that you can make whatever you want given the rules presented.  The closest it comes to addressing the issue is one line:  "You should also find out what the other players have created so that your character fits into the group."

:raise:

This is followed by exactly no explanation of what that means.

What are your players doing reading the Dungeon Master's Guide?:eek:

But yeah... I don't really use that thing except for the crunchy details. It's poorly written in my opinion, maybe out of a conscious attempt to avoid saying anything definitively? I'm sure there are numerous ways you could spin it the stuff it says. Moreover, even the crunch is badly organized in some places. Gear for starting characters at higher levels is something I end up having to scramble for every time (I really should bookmark it, now that I think of it.)

Quote from: beejazzWhat are your players doing reading the Dungeon Master's Guide?:eek:

I was quoting the Player's Handbook, page 6.

Quote from: JackalopeDude, you said that superhero groups almost never have character who overlap in niches, and that's simply not the case, as I illustrated with the Batman Family, which is the single most prominent team of supers ever, having starred in multiple comics, television shows, and several movies.  That's all.  You getting all worked up about it only makes you look like a doofus.

You're right, there are many superteams where all the heroes have different powers and fill very different niches.  The Fantastic Four are a perfect example.  But niche protection is not an essentially quality of superteams, and a team can still be very interesting even if every character in has the exact same set of power, as evidenced by the mega-popularity of the bat-squad featuring Batman, Robin, Batgirl and Nightwing.

I see you're a little short on reading comprehension. Let me refresh the memory a bit. What I actually said was...

Quote from: SigmundI'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.

Never did I say niche protection was strong, just niches. Never did I say a given team wouldn't have multiples of heroes with similar power sets, just that niches are almost a defining feature of superhero media. Maybe strong archetypes would be a better label, whatever, still doesn't change the fact that you are attacking an arguement I hadn't even made, repeatedly using one or two examples out of all of comics history, and then saying I'm the doofus. I don't know you well enough to actually say outright that you're a dumb-ass troll, but you sure are acting like one in this thread. How about ya keep your [/sarcasm] and pathetic "panties bunch" bullshit to yourself and actually try to make a valid point instead.

Quote from: SigmundI don't know you well enough to actually say outright that you're a dumb-ass troll, but you sure are acting like one in this thread. How about ya keep your [/sarcasm] and pathetic "panties bunch" bullshit to yourself and actually try to make a valid point instead.

Oh bite me, you humorless son of a bitch.  Jesus. :rolleyes:

Ah, I see you are unable to make a decent point Jackalope.

Niche protection is either good or bad, depending on my mood. I'm fickle that way. :)

Quote from: Sacrificial LambNiche protection is either good or bad, depending on my mood. I'm fickle that way. :)

Some games I play have it, others don't. It's neither a selling point or a deal breaker for me, I'm not so much interested in system conceits as I am in their implementation viz a vis playability. If strong niche protection enhances my enjoyment of a particular game then I'm all for it.

Quote from: CthyAh, I see you are unable to make a decent point Jackalope.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: JackalopeOh bite me, you humorless son of a bitch.  Jesus. :rolleyes:

You're gonna hafta ask nicer than that.