TheRPGSite

How do you deal with the problem where the party has 2 characters that fill the same role? Like 2 characters that are both "the diplomacy guys," and that makes one of them feel irrelevant?

Do you make one player change theirs? Redo their sheet? In this case, both are attached to their current characters. Is there a way to thread this needle without forcing the two to get rid of their characters?

This can be tricky in games where things are not nuanced enough to make the characters feel distinct. I have certainly experienced this in play myself.

Other aspects of the character can make a huge difference. For example, using DnD 5e, if one character with Diplomacy had the 'noble' background whilst the other had the 'street urchin' background you could easily see how one character should get different results in many situations even if they are numerically identical. You can do this through just characterisation, of course, too.

Other possibilities include gender making a difference, knowledge skills giving an edge on different topics and splitting up the party so you can either cover ground faster or come back with a different line of questioning later.

This is actually worse with knowledge skills in my experience. There is is very little benefit in knowing only a little less than another PC in most games.

Hilariously that was my exact first reaction too. What if they're in some wilderness, or another plane, or something like that? Then they deal with strange creatures, not a local establishment or peasants that you can make a distinction between.

What happened in the game where it happened to you?

In the instance I'm thinking of specifically I appealed to my fellow player not to steal my niche! :)

The really weird thing was that my character was a con artist, with skill in deception, and his character was a noble with skill in diplomacy. The first talkie scene we had needed lying over persuading and he suddenly decided Diplomacy was useless and he needed to re-make his character as an expert liar.

It was really weird. He's a highly experienced role player of 30 years. Very out of character for him.

He remade his character as a gun bunny instead? :confused:

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;865631How do you deal with the problem where the party has 2 characters that fill the same role? Like 2 characters that are both "the diplomacy guys," and that makes one of them feel irrelevant

1) Split Up the Party.

• We don't treat the party as one indivisible unit. Sometimes it makes a lot more sense for the streetwise urchin to go talk to the Beggar Queen or the King of Thieves without bringing along the expensively dressed, exquisitely mannered noble ditto for talking to the Duke de Bellegarde, much less King Louis.
• You see this on ensemble TV shows all the time. The writers split up the characters to highlight specific characters. Either allow that to happen naturally or if you prefer a more plotted or narratively driven style, make it happen.

2) Don't worry about it.

• Most skills should have opportunities for multiple users (see Split Up the Party).
• Mature players can often work these things out themselves without requiring the GM to do anything in particular.

3) Expand the Scene.

• Instead of meeting the King in the throne room where a single diplomat is all you need, set the encounter at a ball, hunting party, opera, game of pall mall, etc. That way different characters can have different tasks or targets to focus on. The diplomat might target the Duke or the King, but the urchin might first need to learn rumors about the Duke or King by first talking with the servants.
• For wilderness skills, have one character set up the camp site while another hunts for food or scouts the perimeter to look for signs of hostile forces.
• Note that this is much like how combat plays out. Most fights aren't single duels between the best fighters on each side (though some may be).

4) Grow in Different Directions

• This can be a better option for characters that are already in play.
• This doesn't always work well in a class system, but many systems facilitate characters changing the direction or focus of skills to grow into an empty niche.

5) Create Characters as a Group

• This allows the group to catch most of these issues before play. I list it last not because it is the least useful - it is one of the most useful - but because you have already created and played the characters.
• One option is to use niche protection to avoid the issue (the usual solution in a class system).
• Another is to allow or even facilitate the players discussing how their characters will interact so as to share the spotlight.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;865631How do you deal with the problem where the party has 2 characters that fill the same role? Like 2 characters that are both "the diplomacy guys," and that makes one of them feel irrelevant?

Do you make one player change theirs? Redo their sheet? In this case, both are attached to their current characters. Is there a way to thread this needle without forcing the two to get rid of their characters?

I don't really worry about that. If you have two people who are good at diplomacy, then you just have two people who are good at diplomacy. Not everyone has to have one area carved out just for themselves. I think as players the way to look at that is an opportunity for an interesting relationship within the party (are they rivals? Pals? Is one more suited for a particular kind of diplomacy? ).

Can you have two fighters in the party? Two magic users, clerics or whatever? Of course you can, so why not two diplomacy guys?

In my experience, players make their place in the party by providing a use for their PCs. If two people have very similar skills, then split up the responsibilities.

Have them speak different languages, so they can interact with different races. Have them specialise in different areas, although that is easier to do in a skill-based system such as RQ than in D&D.

If there is a rivalry, then play on that in the game. Keep score, have some NPCs naturally take to one PC and others to the other PC, keep track of relationships and bonds that the PCs have forged and use them.

Overlapping skill sets and "roles" are not necessarily a bad thing. I've read several of Clive Cussler's Dirk Pitt books. Dirk and his constant companion Al are almost identical characters in terms of skills, there has to be about 90% overlap there. This is useful to the writer since they can go anywhere and do anything together, from diving under the sea to fist fighting bad guys on a cruise ship. Each knows how to use all the equipment and tools and weapons that they encounter.

This is rather quite common. "Birds of a feather flock together" and all that. All soldiers can do most tasks equally with just a bit of difference on the side. On a sailing ship most of the crew can do most of the tasks on it. Both airline pilots can fly a jet equally. When a group is in the jungle or the arctic everyone should have some survival skills there. One guy really can't do it all for a group, and what if he is incapacitated? In "Last of the Mohicans" the three Indian characters are identical in skills and ability. I ran a campaign where all the PCs were military mecha pilots and were very much alike.

It's these games that are the anomaly, where people of wildly different professions and skill sets go "adventuring" together. Do Navy Seal teams cart around a lawyer, a priest and a professional plumber with them?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;865667I don't really worry about that. If you have two people who are good at diplomacy, then you just have two people who are good at diplomacy. Not everyone has to have one area carved out just for themselves. I think as players the way to look at that is an opportunity for an interesting relationship within the party (are they rivals? Pals? Is one more suited for a particular kind of diplomacy? ).

Quote from: soltakss;865670Can you have two fighters in the party? Two magic users, clerics or whatever? Of course you can, so why not two diplomacy guys?

In my experience, players make their place in the party by providing a use for their PCs. If two people have very similar skills, then split up the responsibilities.

Have them speak different languages, so they can interact with different races. Have them specialise in different areas, although that is easier to do in a skill-based system such as RQ than in D&D.

If there is a rivalry, then play on that in the game. Keep score, have some NPCs naturally take to one PC and others to the other PC, keep track of relationships and bonds that the PCs have forged and use them.

Quote from: Doughdee222;865684Overlapping skill sets and "roles" are not necessarily a bad thing. I've read several of Clive Cussler's Dirk Pitt books. Dirk and his constant companion Al are almost identical characters in terms of skills, there has to be about 90% overlap there. This is useful to the writer since they can go anywhere and do anything together, from diving under the sea to fist fighting bad guys on a cruise ship. Each knows how to use all the equipment and tools and weapons that they encounter.

This is rather quite common. "Birds of a feather flock together" and all that. All soldiers can do most tasks equally with just a bit of difference on the side. On a sailing ship most of the crew and do most of the tasks on it. Both airline pilots can fly a jet equally. When a group is in the jungle or the arctic everyone should have some survival skills there. One guy really can't do it all for a group, and what if he is incapacitated? In "Last of the Mohicans" the three Indian characters are identical in skills and ability. I ran a campaign where all the PCs were military mecha pilots and were very much alike.

It's these games that are the anomaly, where people of wildly different professions and skill sets go "adventuring" together. Do Navy Seal teams cart around a lawyer, a priest and a professional plumber with them?

All of these.  It has never, ever been a problem in 43 years.  Of course, I've never seen a character that was good ONLY at one thing, either.

Surely cooperation and Aid Another is the obvious solution?

I mean, if you have two diplomancers in the party, you should obviously use the Two Man Con for all your conflict solving needs.

Quote from: Bren;8656605) Create Characters as a Group

• This allows the group to catch most of these issues before play. I list it last not because it is the least useful - it is one of the most useful - but because you have already created and played the characters.
• One option is to use niche protection to avoid the issue (the usual solution in a class system).
• Another is to allow or even facilitate the players discussing how their characters will interact so as to share the spotlight.

This. Head off any potential problem before it can arise.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;865631How do you deal with the problem where the party has 2 characters that fill the same role? Like 2 characters that are both "the diplomacy guys," and that makes one of them feel irrelevant?

Do you make one player change theirs? Redo their sheet? In this case, both are attached to their current characters. Is there a way to thread this needle without forcing the two to get rid of their characters?

For my part, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, I have sworn upon the altar of heaven eternal hostility against every form of niche protection, to the point where it's #2 on my list of Gaming Geek Fallacies. (http://ravenswing59.blogspot.com/2013/09/ggf-2.html)  With the sole exception of alignment, it's the stupidest concept ever to come out of D&D play, and it's not as if you can blame it on the rules either.  There's no such thing as "Amanda's problem" or "Doug's problem" or "Christine's problem," but the party's problem.

Beyond the comments others have made, are you really setting up your sessions so that people call dibs on "niches," and if situations come up for those "niches," everyone sits on his or her hands while the Appropriate Person steps to the plate?  If so, that's cracked.

Let's take my own lead party.  Superficially, Holly is the best go-to person for diplomacy.  She has the Attractive and Charisma Advantages, she's of elven blood, she's a major guild official in one of the largest College of Mages chantries in the world, she's a Master-class wizard, a former university professor, and from provincial gentry.

But.  Arkis is an acknowledged war hero with a lot of military and underworld contacts, and he's a Master of a feared combat wizardly order.  Torin has Charisma himself, and he's a known philanthropist in the slum areas of the city.  Kana is Attractive and holds an award of honor from the Mercenaries' Guild.  There are circumstances where each might be a more productive speaker, even if you leave aside that Holly's a former amnesiac who's sometimes a bit dippy, that Torin's only 15 years old, that Arkis is often short tempered and obnoxiously abrasive, and Kana's not terribly articulate or imaginative.

Not that any of that's an ironclad determinant, because if Torin's the only one in the room dealing with the ganglord, Torin's the one doing the talking.

Quote from: Axiomatic;865703Surely cooperation and Aid Another is the obvious solution?

I mean, if you have two diplomancers in the party, you should obviously use the Two Man Con for all your conflict solving needs.

This. Get the players to be a team. What's better than a single conman? Two who can work together to be unstoppable (just watch out for Kingpin situations where one of them is an asshole like Bill Murray's character).

The figures should be characters, not just pawns. Personalities, not stats, make it a role-playing game.

The game should not be about what means character X is better at using; it should be about what ends he/she will pursue with those means.

Obviously if you misplace the focus then it's going to be a lot more significant in a "monolithic party" form than in the original campaign form. However, the misplacement itself is the fundamental problem.

In the old days in D&D, we typically had a lot of Fighting Men, about twice as many as the other figure types combined. Nobody cried because they were all good at the same specialty of doing unto the enemy before they do unto you.

Diplomacy depends on situation, on the incentives presented. In one case, Abbess Nastya might have the strong position, in another Ganof the Master Thief, in another Lord Valerian. Being known as a slick talker might sometimes be a handicap. Generally, a high opinion of one's own charm counts for a lot less than holding the goods that someone most wants. The one who holds that card holds the trump!

Good advice all around, it basically lined up with what I was thinking.

There's a wrinkle though to though to the situation described in the OP. The characters weren't made at the same time with collaboration; it was all one big party that had gone through a campaign together, with the second diplomacy heavy PC joining later in a second campaign, already knowing the makeup of the party.

In other words, you could say one person had already laid claim to that role and it was easy to see the conflict coming. A distinction that makes a difference, or no?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;865826Good advice all around, it basically lined up with what I was thinking.

There's a wrinkle though to though to the situation described in the OP. The characters weren't made at the same time with collaboration; it was all one big party that had gone through a campaign together, with the second diplomacy heavy PC joining later in a second campaign, already knowing the makeup of the party.

In other words, you could say one person had already laid claim to that role and it was easy to see the conflict coming. A distinction that makes a difference, or no?

Nope. Having multiple people with similar talents is beneficial to the group.

What happens if one of them is incapacitated or killed?

What happens when one of them has had bad experiences with an NPC who really needs to be negotiated with?

Remember- two is one and one is none. Always have a plan B.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;865826In other words, you could say one person had already laid claim to that role and it was easy to see the conflict coming. A distinction that makes a difference, or no?

Not really. Some people might get awfully precious about the fact that their PC is unique and another PC is stepping on their territory, but that would be a mistake.

If the second player thought that there was a need for another talky person, then that probably meant that the first talky person wasn't doing the job in the first place.

My first thought when designing a PC isn't "Is this different to the other PCs?", I want a PC that interests me, that I can take, play, progress and have fun with.

If there was one talky PC in the party and another joined, then that makes them rivals, which is good as they will push each other to be the best talky.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;865702All of these.  It has never, ever been a problem in 43 years.  Of course, I've never seen a character that was good ONLY at one thing, either.

Exactly. What happened with 3e was characters were forced, for a variety of reasons, to hyper-specialize, to the point that, say, being able to pick locks required choice of class, race, abilities, feats, and magic items from the very first level.

So, if a party had two characters specializing in picking locks, they pretty much looked like twins. Now, this is more of a theoretical issue that doesn't come up, although I suspect somewhat similar characters happen all the time.

I've been playing with relatively large (8 or so) groups for the last couple of years, and there's been some overlap...but it's just not an issue, even on those occasions where there have been two diplomats at the table. Just let 'em both roll for everything, even if one is slightly better than the other, having a back-up gets appreciated quite well, and I've never had someone say "you're +12 to rolls is useless because I have a +15" in such situations.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;865826Good advice all around, it basically lined up with what I was thinking.

There's a wrinkle though to though to the situation described in the OP. The characters weren't made at the same time with collaboration; it was all one big party that had gone through a campaign together, with the second diplomacy heavy PC joining later in a second campaign, already knowing the makeup of the party.

In other words, you could say one person had already laid claim to that role and it was easy to see the conflict coming. A distinction that makes a difference, or no?

That really depends on the expectations in your group. If they really care about each person having a unique role, then it might. But I don't think it needs to matter at all, and I think playing toward niche protection like that can produce a game that feels more like being on a sports team than an adventuring party. You may just have a situation where two people can take on a fairly similar role on occasions. Most parties would welcome that I think. Better to have two diplomats than just one. I just don't picture most adventuring parties turning someone away because they "already have a guy who does that".

Quote from: soltakss;865670Can you have two fighters in the party? Two magic users, clerics or whatever? Of course you can, so why not two diplomacy guys?

In my experience, players make their place in the party by providing a use for their PCs. If two people have very similar skills, then split up the responsibilities.

Have them speak different languages, so they can interact with different races. Have them specialise in different areas, although that is easier to do in a skill-based system such as RQ than in D&D.

If there is a rivalry, then play on that in the game. Keep score, have some NPCs naturally take to one PC and others to the other PC, keep track of relationships and bonds that the PCs have forged and use them.

Absolutely this, though other people also found fun ways of expressing the same feeling:)!

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;865826In other words, you could say one person had already laid claim to that role and it was easy to see the conflict coming. A distinction that makes a difference, or no?

Only if you don't agree with much of anything most everyone else has said in this topic so far.

Recapitulating it would be tough without sounding patronizing, so I'll go with example.

If you join my campaign, you do have to pay attention to the premise.  If the party's a bunch of sailors who are into nautical adventures, I don't give a good goddamn if you try to do up a pacifist who's afraid of the sea; I won't let you.  Since my current lead group is my first stab at an all-magician party, I won't let you do up a magic-hater.  You are absolutely welcome to know something of what the others can do, and design something which complements their weaknesses.

Or not.  Your choice.  Because at my table, no one gets to "lay claim" to a role.  It's fine for someone to design a character layered with diplomacy-related advantages and skills, but that player still doesn't get to call dibs on doing all the talking, he sure as hell doesn't get to prevent other players from talking, and he sure as fuck does not get to get mad if anyone else does so.  

Conflict exists, at your table, only if you let it.  If you choose to let people with entitlement mentalities and the habits of selfish 5-year-olds demanding first choice and sole possession of the toys carry on unchecked, that's on you.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;865826Good advice all around, it basically lined up with what I was thinking.

There's a wrinkle though to though to the situation described in the OP. The characters weren't made at the same time with collaboration; it was all one big party that had gone through a campaign together, with the second diplomacy heavy PC joining later in a second campaign, already knowing the makeup of the party.

In other words, you could say one person had already laid claim to that role and it was easy to see the conflict coming. A distinction that makes a difference, or no?

No.  The phrase "grow fucking up" comes to mind.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;865911No.  The phrase "grow fucking up" comes to mind.

You just won the thread!

My two pence? Honestly, this sounds like a player problem, not a game/system/PC problem.

Time to knock heads together?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;865631How do you deal with the problem where the party has 2 characters that fill the same role? Like 2 characters that are both "the diplomacy guys," and that makes one of them feel irrelevant?

Do you make one player change theirs? Redo their sheet? In this case, both are attached to their current characters. Is there a way to thread this needle without forcing the two to get rid of their characters?

Feeling irrelevant is a sign of player insecurity or GM's inability to craft skill/role-appropriate scenarios/encounters/paths. Probably both, in my experience.

Simplest way to deal with this is: who likes talking? As in, who really likes talking? They're the go-to. Or, better yet, see who speaks up or acts first when talking is an option (bonus points for players who try to talk their way out of situations that are not obstensibly friendly to that -- and reward that as a GM, or you fucked up).

To get more granular with it, match up their points/dots in the "talkie" skills. Have them deal with situations that favor their character's build, if only by a point's difference. Get used to the idea of "pointman" -- it's something happens naturally in large groups (if not a large group, why is this happening in a small group?) with convergent PC skillsets and if it's not, again, something fucked up somewhere.

Honestly though, if a player goes "waaa, I'm the ones who says stuff", your response is, "tough -- shoulda spoke first". It's insane how simple that is and hopefully you've already taken this stance. And if you have and they're still winging, punish that shit like a motherfucker!

Quote from: AsenRG;865851Absolutely this, though other people also found fun ways of expressing the same feeling:)!

I do try to suck the fun out of things ...

Quote from: soltakss;865927I do try to suck the fun out of things ...

Weird. I haven't noticed!

And if your way of expressing that feeling wasn't fun, I'd have quoted someone else.

Quote from: soltakss;865927I do try to suck the fun out of things ...

hurr hurr hurr (tm)...

Quote from: Ravenswing;865872Only if you don't agree with much of anything most everyone else has said in this topic so far.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;865911No.  The phrase "grow fucking up" comes to mind.

I'm not actually the one running the game; it's a friend of mine who's in the game and bothered by the whole niche protection thing so I was wondering what the general expectation for this was and how people approach it.

I definitely think part of it is the structure of the way the game is run, since it's a PF game with all of the emphasis on mechanics that tends to come with it.

That and relatively new players rather than grizzled veterans who already know what kind of things you should expect.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;865925Honestly though, if a player goes "waaa, I'm the ones who says stuff", your response is, "tough -- shoulda spoke first". It's insane how simple that is and hopefully you've already taken this stance. And if you have and they're still winging, punish that shit like a motherfucker!

The player in question is passive and doesn't like to compete or jockey with others for speaking. So part of it is a clash of active player personality vs passive player personality.

When you're just the one guy with the one role, even if you're passive you're going to get all the work related to that role given to you. But if there's two people then you have to change how you play because it's not automatically coming your way.

Though I've noticed in general that playing passively in RPGs tends to not be as fun as playing actively, at least for me. When you're passive you're just hoping something falls into your lap, and you never know if it will.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;865849That really depends on the expectations in your group. If they really care about each person having a unique role, then it might. But I don't think it needs to matter at all, and I think playing toward niche protection like that can produce a game that feels more like being on a sports team than an adventuring party. You may just have a situation where two people can take on a fairly similar role on occasions. Most parties would welcome that I think. Better to have two diplomats than just one. I just don't picture most adventuring parties turning someone away because they "already have a guy who does that".

Yeah I generally try to avoid that in my own games, I want it to feel like an RP and not a game of Call of Duty or League of Legends.

Though isn't Shadowrun basically supposed to be that way? You have everyone with their own specialized little roles. That's not D&D though.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;865836Nope. Having multiple people with similar talents is beneficial to the group.

What happens if one of them is incapacitated or killed?

What happens when one of them has had bad experiences with an NPC who really needs to be negotiated with?

Remember- two is one and one is none. Always have a plan B.

Exactly. One of the reasons the group had me memorize Knock was in case the thief got nailed by a trap or whatever. (We lost about as many thieves in one campaign at lower levels as I lost magic users. ahem...)

The problem comes when you have one player who is geared for X and out of the blue another player starts muscling in on their focus that is not RPing. Sometimes for no good reason other than to steal the players limelight.

IE: A wizard who stocks up on duneoneering spells/skills and uses them incessantly when the group allready has a thief. This is different from the wizard who keeps some backup dungeoneering spells but does not use them unless the Thief or group ask him to.

Though sometimes this sort of overlap situation comes when you have players creating individual characters with no knowledge or discussion with the rest of the group. For some groups overlap is fine or even vital. For others it can turn into a limelight war or the DM having to figure out convolutions to enguage everyone. Or lay down the law if it looks like one player is just messing with the other.

When I was running Red Shetland, on one site there was a big political intrigue plotline and that attracted various players geared for diplomacy or because the outline interested them. The trick was to have the NPCs react naturally. what did the PCs say? Which one spoke better? Or even which one was more interesting or fit their plans better.

And sometimes barging in on someone elses limelight can be a very-bad-idea.

The orcs token of peace is poisoned. Congrats. You just saved the groups normal negotiator. Now make a poison save in a few hours or die on the spot.

You barged in front of the thief and popped the chest with Knock. Congrats. Have a cloud kill trap only you are in range of. (because you just had to get right up close to it in case there was something good in that chest.)

So overlap. Good. Bad. Not an issue. As usual, varies wildly from group to group.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;865941I'm not actually the one running the game; it's a friend of mine who's in the game and bothered by the whole niche protection thing so I was wondering what the general expectation for this was and how people approach it ...

Though I've noticed in general that playing passively in RPGs tends to not be as fun as playing actively, at least for me. When you're passive you're just hoping something falls into your lap, and you never know if it will.

I know I've said this to you before, and it warrants repeating: screw "general expectation."  How I play the game, or Gronan plays the game, or Asen plays the game, or the guys in the next town over do, shouldn't matter jack shit to you -- except in so far as any of us are doing something that strikes you as neat.  You and your circle need to please yourselves.  There's no earthly reason why you need to conform to anyone else's expectations.

On the second bit, yeah, you're right.  Passive players can be very much behind the 8-ball at the RPG table, especially since there pretty much always is at least one other player eager to grab all the face time anyone else doesn't seize first.

The only way to handle it is an imperfect solution: "Scott, I've heard from everyone else what they're doing.  What is San Marsilius doing with the rest of the morning?"  "No, hang on, Dave, I just dealt with you talking to the Chancellor and to the Grand Master.  It's Amanda's turn."  Imperfect because you can't make someone interact.  Some people really only to want to speak when they're spoken to and roll dice only when they're called upon to do so.

But this is the real issue at hand.  It's not so much that people are jealous of their "niches" or their "roles."  It's that they want their share of face time.  To the degree you let one or two players hog the stage, and the rest are sitting with thin lips staring at their electronics, they're being shortchanged.

Quote from: Ravenswing;865960The only way to handle it is an imperfect solution: "Scott, I've heard from everyone else what they're doing.  What is San Marsilius doing with the rest of the morning?"  "No, hang on, Dave, I just dealt with you talking to the Chancellor and to the Grand Master.  It's Amanda's turn."  Imperfect because you can't make someone interact.  

True. As the GM, I can make sure we take turns. I can't make someone an active turn taker.

Quote from: Ravenswing;865960I know I've said this to you before, and it warrants repeating: screw "general expectation."  How I play the game, or Gronan plays the game, or Asen plays the game, or the guys in the next town over do, shouldn't matter jack shit to you -- except in so far as any of us are doing something that strikes you as neat.  You and your circle need to please yourselves.  There's no earthly reason why you need to conform to anyone else's expectations.

My questions aren't to conform to peer pressure, it's to find out the "body of research" that already exists out there, just like when you want to publish a paper. It might present answers I'd never thought of, or evolve my thinking in some way.

Quote from: Ravenswing;865960
The only way to handle it is an imperfect solution: "Scott, I've heard from everyone else what they're doing. What is San Marsilius doing with the rest of the morning?" "No, hang on, Dave, I just dealt with you talking to the Chancellor and to the Grand Master. It's Amanda's turn." Imperfect because you can't make someone interact. Some people really only to want to speak when they're spoken to and roll dice only when they're called upon to do so.

This is actually exactly what I do at my table IRL because there's one player who just brazenly talks over everyone and even tries to speak for them half the time.

Guy: "OK, we all gather up our stuff and go he--"
Me: "You mean YOU go and do that. The others haven't said anything."
Guy: "Yeah but we're obviously all going to go."
Me: "It doesn't matter, they have to actually say it."
Guy: "I'm just saving us some time!"
Me: "You don't actually know what they'll do. They might want to do something else. OK, so you're doing that. What's everyone else doing?"

After doing that enough times it's become more manageable. Before that everybody would put up a resistance but eventually just give up since a) his ideas were actually tactically sound, so there wasn't a strategic reason to deny it, b) they didn't want to turn it into a long argument.

Quote from: Ravenswing;865960I know I've said this to you before, and it warrants repeating: screw "general expectation."  How I play the game, or Gronan plays the game, or Asen plays the game, or the guys in the next town over do, shouldn't matter jack shit to you -- except in so far as any of us are doing something that strikes you as neat.  You and your circle need to please yourselves.  There's no earthly reason why you need to conform to anyone else's expectations.

On the second bit, yeah, you're right.  Passive players can be very much behind the 8-ball at the RPG table, especially since there pretty much always is at least one other player eager to grab all the face time anyone else doesn't seize first.

The only way to handle it is an imperfect solution: "Scott, I've heard from everyone else what they're doing.  What is San Marsilius doing with the rest of the morning?"  "No, hang on, Dave, I just dealt with you talking to the Chancellor and to the Grand Master.  It's Amanda's turn."  Imperfect because you can't make someone interact.  Some people really only to want to speak when they're spoken to and roll dice only when they're called upon to do so.

But this is the real issue at hand.  It's not so much that people are jealous of their "niches" or their "roles."  It's that they want their share of face time.  To the degree you let one or two players hog the stage, and the rest are sitting with thin lips staring at their electronics, they're being shortchanged.

In some cases, some of these problems are solved by the now-largely-discarded concept of the 'caller', which in old-school games was one player who would co-ordinate what every player was doing and then communicate that to the GM (something that was vital in some of the old D&D dungeon-crawls where you might have 17 players!).  The DM just has to make sure the caller is being honest, and acting as the guy who makes sure everyone says their piece rather than the guy that just tells everyone what to do.

Ultimately, what I've found is that there's some players who always want to be doing everything. Some guys who literally can't just be standing there in a scene and not do anything; I've seen more than a few who will totally fuck up a situation they had no business being involved with in the first place just for the sake of doing something themselves when they could have just done nothing.

But there's also some players who don't want to do a whole bunch of things. Players who don't always want to be in the spotlight. And I've found that some of these react well to gentle encouragement to come out and participate, while others freak out when you do this, and may even quit a game because they feel like there's too much performance pressure.

In the long run, I've come to the conclusion that it's better to let the players police the first type of guy. If the other players don't actually want to stop the glory-hound from fucking up things for everyone else, they can watch their plans fall apart because of him. Of course, if they do want to do something about it, the GM should back their play.
As for the second type, I've come to the conclusion that the only thing a GM should do is always make it clear the player has the option to jump in, role play, or do things, but if they don't really want to be one of the high-activity players, just let them not be.  As long as they keep telling you they're happy with playing and how the game is going, the GM should probably BELIEVE them on that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;866347In the long run, I've come to the conclusion that it's better to let the players police the first type of guy. If the other players don't actually want to stop the glory-hound from fucking up things for everyone else, they can watch their plans fall apart because of him.

Sometimes the players dont know to speak up. Or in the wallflower cases. Dont have the nerve to. They may think it is the DMs authority only to speak out about what is good and bad play. Especially if they are new to RPGs and just learning the ropes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;866347In some cases, some of these problems are solved by the now-largely-discarded concept of the 'caller', which in old-school games was one player who would co-ordinate what every player was doing and then communicate that to the GM (something that was vital in some of the old D&D dungeon-crawls where you might have 17 players!).  The DM just has to make sure the caller is being honest, and acting as the guy who makes sure everyone says their piece rather than the guy that just tells everyone what to do.

Ultimately, what I've found is that there's some players who always want to be doing everything. Some guys who literally can't just be standing there in a scene and not do anything; I've seen more than a few who will totally fuck up a situation they had no business being involved with in the first place just for the sake of doing something themselves when they could have just done nothing.

But there's also some players who don't want to do a whole bunch of things. Players who don't always want to be in the spotlight. And I've found that some of these react well to gentle encouragement to come out and participate, while others freak out when you do this, and may even quit a game because they feel like there's too much performance pressure.

In the long run, I've come to the conclusion that it's better to let the players police the first type of guy. If the other players don't actually want to stop the glory-hound from fucking up things for everyone else, they can watch their plans fall apart because of him. Of course, if they do want to do something about it, the GM should back their play.
As for the second type, I've come to the conclusion that the only thing a GM should do is always make it clear the player has the option to jump in, role play, or do things, but if they don't really want to be one of the high-activity players, just let them not be.  As long as they keep telling you they're happy with playing and how the game is going, the GM should probably BELIEVE them on that.

I thought of the caller concept, but isn't that just what the GM should be doing anyway? It just adds an extra buffer between the problem but doesn't change anything.

Plus what I'd expect is that guy who never shuts up is just going to do the same thing when everyone is trying to coordinate with the caller. Or do you mean the caller actively goes around the table and polls each player, then picks the majority option or something?

It really becomes a problem when you combine the first type of overbearing player with the second type who doesn't enjoy having to constantly police him. Then the game becomes a chore.

This is something I have seen people argue a lot about on the internet but not something that has ever actually been a problem for me at the tabletop.  I have never seen characters that were so narrowly specialized and overlapped so much that anything like this actually happened.  What ability would come up during play enough and be important enough for this to actually be an issue that would also be dispensable enough that the group could afford to have only one person who can do it?  This seems more like theoretical nonsense for people to argue about on the internet than a real issue.

Quote from: yosemitemike;866365This is something I have seen people argue a lot about on the internet but not something that has ever actually been a problem for me at the tabletop.  I have never seen characters that were so narrowly specialized and overlapped so much that anything like this actually happened.  What ability would come up during play enough and be important enough for this to actually be an issue that would also be dispensable enough that the group could afford to have only one person who can do it?  This seems more like theoretical nonsense for people to argue about on the internet than a real issue.

People getting butthurt because they feel that their little snowflake isn't special enough is sadly a real issue.

Granted, I didn't remember it being much of an issue back in the old days. I think the problem has become more common because there are more players these days who play as a form of ego stroking wish fulfillment instead of enjoying a simple game.

If you allow what happens in a silly elf game to impact your sense of self worth the amount of butthurt generated by the game rises exponentially.

I'm new here, but I'm pretty sure I've been making this same argument for about 15 years now. It certainly goes as far back as Joe the Fighter vs Fred the Fighter.

I like to use an especially warped example of Joe vs Fred to really drive the point home that every character is useful. I imagine Joe and Fred not just having the same character class, but they rolled all the same attributes, too. But worse still, this is old-school, so they rolled for hit points and Joe got 10 where Fred only got 1. So Fred is exactly like Joe, only useless, right?

Well, no. See, for the party mage to get off his spells, which have really potent offensive capability, he's got to be protected. That means having a strong front line. It's so important to have that strong front line, that Joe, with his 10 hit points, is too important to use for anything else. He's got to be there. This allows Fred the fighter hang back and take up the role of archer. Joe can't be the archer. His role as a tank is too important.

Call it opportunity cost. It's also why I've always thought the "battle mage" is such a goofy character idea. Great. You can swing a battle axe AND cast magic missile. Only you can't do both at once. So I guess some rounds you're just a plain old fighter, others your a plain old mage, but on all rounds you're less powerful than your straight fighter or mage counterparts. Way to go!

Right. Opportunity cost. This brings me to point #2. There seems to be a lot of confusion (not necessarily in this thread, just in general) about archetypes vs niches, and that can shape players' expectations. Archetypes are like classes in D&D, they're convenient things that you can choose during character generation. Niches, however, cannot be chosen. They emerge from actual play. From the party's and campaign world's "chemistry."

Some gamers (over on that other RPG forum website) have taken to fussing over "niche protection." Only problem is there ain't no such thing. Yeah, it's great to have an opinion, and liking a protected niche sure is an opinion, but because niches emerge from actual play, nobody can predict your niche 100% of the time, let alone design rules to protect it. Good luck finding Bigfoot.

That in mind, I think the irony is that people often think that class-based systems, with their strong archetypes, are ideal for niche protection. Nope. In my example of Joe vs Fred, once Fred's role as the party archer emerges, wouldn't it be neat if he could then focus and specialize as being an archer as he levels? Then he'd definitely be differentiated from Joe the fighter for sure!

In some versions of D&D, that is totally do-able to one degree or another. Skill-based games, far more so. But the key take-away here is, the more rigid the class definition, the less you can do to specialize in your niche once it emerges from play. So class-based games don't provide niche protection. They provide archetype protection, which in turn frustrates niche specialization.

So what do you do about two diplomacy guys? I always thought it was wise when seeking fame and fortune to play to my strengths. A party with two diplomacy guys, diplomacy has gotta be high on their list of strengths. So what sort of all-important diplomacy adventures has this party been on? Do you find they come down to persuading some all-important NPC? If so, the higher skill diplomacy guy needs to be on that. He's too valuable to do anything else. Maybe that means he's always gotta play good cop. Guess what? That means the other diplomacy guy is needed to play bad cop. Let the player choose skills going forward that reflect specialization in that niche.

I think the idea of a "battle mage" is legitimate if done right. Think of the Jedi from Star Wars or Richard Rahl from The Sword of Truth series. It can come down to: "Is there an enemy next to me? If yes, then swing ax. If no then cast spell at an enemy." I like the idea of a guy who can cut down an orc one round then throw a web or sleep spell at an orc 30 yards away the next. You can even go more subtle. I often like to play characters who appear meek but are packing power. Imagine a scrawny mage who casts one spell and now has double strength. He casts a second spell and a small stick is now a battleaxe. I'm currently playing an Amber game and my character doesn't look like much nor talk tough. You'd never guess that he can alter the whole planet if he wanted to.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;866386People getting butthurt because they feel that their little snowflake isn't special enough is sadly a real issue.

I have seen the occasional Arnold Horshack player. (If you are too young to remember Welcome Back Kotter (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/916QZRq-PpL._SL1500_.jpg). Horshak is the guy who raises his hand and keeps saying Me. Me! ME! until he gets to do something. Anything.) So Horshak races up to first aid your character but he isn't a medic, which means his PC is shit for first aid, so he puts a tourniquet around your favorite character's neck to slow the bleeding from his head wound.

Quote from: Doughdee222;866441I think the idea of a "battle mage" is legitimate if done right. Think of the Jedi from Star Wars or Richard Rahl from The Sword of Truth series. It can come down to: "Is there an enemy next to me? If yes, then swing ax. If no then cast spell at an enemy." I like the idea of a guy who can cut down an orc one round then throw a web or sleep spell at an orc 30 yards away the next. You can even go more subtle. I often like to play characters who appear meek but are packing power. Imagine a scrawny mage who casts one spell and now has double strength. He casts a second spell and a small stick is now a battleaxe. I'm currently playing an Amber game and my character doesn't look like much nor talk tough. You'd never guess that he can alter the whole planet if he wanted to.

I actually agree. I was just being a jerk to make a point. I would play a fighter/mage. I just wouldn't want to load up on combat spells if my guy already knows how to deal damage. I'd be down with a magic missile, because it always hits and is magic for those creatures not harmed by normal weapons. I'd want to pick my spells, not to deal maximum damage, but to complement fighting skills. They'd probably be heavily skewed towards "miscellaneous" spells, hence I don't think MY fighter/mage would necessarily fit the mold of "battle mage," but certainly buffs are a great idea. Using magic to leverage fighting skills. Not exactly a "front-line" type, though, since you don't want to be that exposed to the enemy while getting your buffs up.

What the hell happened to the days when having several fighters in a group was a good thing? Or having an all thief party? People have been playing this just fine since the get-go.

Apparently at some point players started getting territorial of "their class" shtick and things like teamwork and backups or, god forbid, thinking, went out the window.

Quote from: Omega;866474What the hell happened to the days when having several fighters in a group was a good thing? Or having an all thief party? People have been playing this just fine since the get-go.

Apparently at some point players started getting territorial of "their class" shtick and things like teamwork and backups or, god forbid, thinking, went out the window.

I believe it was the evolution of game balance.

It's like people used to think game balance was like balancing on a pin point. You had to design the game juuuust right to get it. And then if so much as one person house ruled one thing, or even just used one monster too often, it would topple the whole thing.

Obviously this was absurd. So it almost seems like "game balance" forked in two directions from there. One was "combat balance." Which I guess is the idea that being good in combat equates to being good at survival (odd, I'd think your chances at survival would be better if you avoided combat), and survival is what allows you to do all those superfluous, non-combat abilities to your heart's content.

The other prong was the shtick school of thought. Where you may be so awesome in combat that you can split the Earth in two on a critical hit, but my character has above average skill in antique cars, so.. you better hope you're not my opponent if that's the category in Final Jeopardy. Because that's my time to shine.

Of course, there's a problem with the shtick school. I mean, really, how many times can antique cars possibly be the category on Final Jeopardy? It would seem Earth splitter would be more useful more often. This led to the spotlight time school of thought.

Kind of strange when you think about it. When I'm really great at something, I tend to be able to do it quickly and easily. If I'm terrible at something, it can take a long, long time. If the central conflict in the story is finishing a jigged saw puzzle, and my guy sucks at it, it would seem like the spotlight would spend more time on me, not less.


The things people come up with in the name of some kind of game balance. Personally, I like battle royal style game balance. Everyone teams up on whoever seems too likely to win. That'll cut his odds down.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;866361I thought of the caller concept, but isn't that just what the GM should be doing anyway? It just adds an extra buffer between the problem but doesn't change anything.

Plus what I'd expect is that guy who never shuts up is just going to do the same thing when everyone is trying to coordinate with the caller. Or do you mean the caller actively goes around the table and polls each player, then picks the majority option or something?

It really becomes a problem when you combine the first type of overbearing player with the second type who doesn't enjoy having to constantly police him. Then the game becomes a chore.

All excellent points, and large parts of the reason why the "caller" concept was one of the earliest features of D&D to be near-to-universally dustbinned.

Beyond that, it was something of the same issue as with overbearing players today.  People want to play the game for themselves, not just roll dice when told to do so and let someone else do all the playing.

Quote from: Omega;866474What the hell happened to the days when having several fighters in a group was a good thing? Or having an all thief party? People have been playing this just fine since the get-go.

Apparently at some point players started getting territorial of "their class" shtick and things like teamwork and backups or, god forbid, thinking, went out the window.

Heck, I'm running an all-magician party right now, and knew going in that the setup would result in blowing unforeseen holes through my scenarios.  :hatsoff:

A major -- and often overlooked -- factor in the evolution of "niche protection" as a concept was the popularization of commercial "modules."  When they usually came with not only a couple sentences (often emphasized enough to put on the cover of the product) detailing the level, numbers and types of characters for whom they were purportedly designed, but generally with problems that could only be solved one way, and DMs were increasingly pressured to run the things straight ...  

If you had to get through the trapped door to continue on the adventure, then you Needed A Thief.  If you had to get through the horde of minions to continue the adventure, the fighting skill of the group be damned, then you Needed A Cleric.

Luckily I never saw any of those. Sounds like bad module design to put in an element that specifically needs a class present to advance. What happens if the Thief gets offed before you get to the trapped door? If there is no way for the rest of the group to find it, disarm it, or smash through it. Then that is really bad design and not a fault of the game itself.

I know there are modules that suggest you have XYZ class present. But never seen one that says you must have a class present. (Aside from the class focused modules.)

Quote from: Bren;866442I have seen the occasional Arnold Horshack player. (If you are too young to remember Welcome Back Kotter (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/916QZRq-PpL._SL1500_.jpg). Horshak is the guy who raises his hand and keeps saying Me. Me! ME! until he gets to do something. Anything.) So Horshak races up to first aid your character but he isn't a medic, which means his PC is shit for first aid, so he puts a tourniquet around your favorite character's neck to slow the bleeding from his head wound.

:rotfl:

How funny would that be if your character was a minotaur?

Quote from: Omega;866508Luckily I never saw any of those. Sounds like bad module design to put in an element that specifically needs a class present to advance. What happens if the Thief gets offed before you get to the trapped door? If there is no way for the rest of the group to find it, disarm it, or smash through it. Then that is really bad design and not a fault of the game itself.

I'm not sure I agree; there's only so much stuff you can write into an adventure -- which generally work on strict page counts.  The fault is more with the game companies who don't push the premise that the GM has the absolute right to change or create anything he or she wants, and that 'modules' aren't inviolable holy writ set in concrete.

That then is bad design and bad direction. Which unfortunately TSR had no corner on the market of.

Lack of playtesting can be another problem. No one to spot that there is a bottleneck.

Or even as simple a problem as the writer just assuming the DM was intelligent enough to tweak a module if it didnt quite fit their campaign without the writer having to hold their hand and explain that "yes Timmy. You can change stuff."

Back on topic.

If you have two negotiators in the group for example.
Surely one is better at X and the other at Y? Or one is better at X than the other. Ask why are they wrestling for the limelight? Whats the point?

Or have the NPC react to this jockying negatively because real people sure do.

Quote from: Ravenswing;866563I'm not sure I agree; there's only so much stuff you can write into an adventure -- which generally work on strict page counts.  The fault is more with the game companies who don't push the premise that the GM has the absolute right to change or create anything he or she wants, and that 'modules' aren't inviolable holy writ set in concrete.

The real issue with too many published adventures these day is that they are NOT modules.

Many published adventures these days are little more than canned stories, almost script like to be played through to a pre-determined conclusion punctuated by occasional die rolls for a bit of color.

The art of scenario design is becoming lost. A scenario doesn't channel PCs through a prescribed challenge gauntlet, assuming triumph on the race towards the inevitable exciting conclusion.

Fuck that. If I wanted a complete story then I would have purchased a novel.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;866668The real issue with too many published adventures these day is that they are NOT modules.

Many published adventures these days are little more than canned stories, almost script like to be played through to a pre-determined conclusion punctuated by occasional die rolls for a bit of color.

The art of scenario design is becoming lost. A scenario doesn't channel PCs through a prescribed challenge gauntlet, assuming triumph on the race towards the inevitable exciting conclusion.

Fuck that. If I wanted a complete story then I would have purchased a novel.

Exactly. Many older modules also had a plot. But the players were free to approach that plot however they could. Possibly even bypassing parts of said plot. The general idea was that once the players enguaged the start of the plot that they would hit at least a few of the points along the way. Or that by dint of the action. Some things are likely to happen later.

More linear adventures can be viable as long as they still allow for leeway.

I just want to note that there are only two solutions to overbearing players that I've seen to work reliantly, and both are best implemented as a GM, but might be used by another player as well.
First, if the player isn't doing it maliciously, but is just new, "calm down and let other people take a turn".
Second, if the player is doing it consciously, "shut up and let other people play, too, and by Sol Invictus, don't try to play anyone else's character".

Quote from: AsenRG;867305I just want to note that there are only two solutions to overbearing players that I've seen to work reliantly, and both are best implemented as a GM, but might be used by another player as well.
First, if the player isn't doing it maliciously, but is just new, "calm down and let other people take a turn".
Second, if the player is doing it consciously, "shut up and let other people play, too, and by Sol Invictus, don't try to play anyone else's character".

Yeah.

Once again, the answer is "the normal amount of social skills an adult should have."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;867308Yeah.

Once again, the answer is "the normal amount of social skills an adult should have."

Which apparently is a fucking rarity in this hobby.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;867308Yeah.

Once again, the answer is "the normal amount of social skills an adult should have."

No no no!

You are supposed to send a fire resistant troll to kill the character out of the blue so the player, who has no fucking clue why the troll killed them because YOU DIDNT JUST SAY, will "learn his lesson."

argh!

Is it so hard to just say "Hey? Are you aware you are messing with the other player? Could you tone it down a little or a-lot?"

Quote from: Omega;867388Is it so hard to just say "Hey? Are you aware you are messing with the other player? Could you tone it down a little or a-lot?"

These are the people who deal with a problem player not by telling the guy to stop being a problem or stop playing but by saying they are stopping the game and then moving it to another time and place but not telling that guy.  Apparently, it is so hard.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;867308Yeah.

Once again, the answer is "the normal amount of social skills an adult should have."

I'd expect the same from many teenagers, but mostly yeah;).

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;865631How do you deal with the problem where the party has 2 characters that fill the same role? Like 2 characters that are both "the diplomacy guys," and that makes one of them feel irrelevant?

Do you make one player change theirs? Redo their sheet? In this case, both are attached to their current characters. Is there a way to thread this needle without forcing the two to get rid of their characters?

Why do you assume it's a problem?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;865702All of these.  It has never, ever been a problem in 43 years.  Of course, I've never seen a character that was good ONLY at one thing, either.

I've seen a few really shitty players whose characters aren't very good at the one thing they stick to. Some can be coached up, but the rest are just shitty players.

Quote from: Omega;866474What the hell happened to the days when having several fighters in a group was a good thing? Or having an all thief party? People have been playing this just fine since the get-go.

Apparently at some point players started getting territorial of "their class" shtick and things like teamwork and backups or, god forbid, thinking, went out the window.

I've played in parties where everyone was a fighter, thief or one of the sub-classes. It was a lot of tense fun knowing there was no medic -I mean cleric- to tend the wounded; and no mage to blast the enemy with fire and lightning.

Quote from: Omega;866350Sometimes the players dont know to speak up. Or in the wallflower cases. Dont have the nerve to. They may think it is the DMs authority only to speak out about what is good and bad play. Especially if they are new to RPGs and just learning the ropes.

There's certainly some extreme cases where the GM sitting people down and telling them why they're being shit-heads is called for. I had to do that not too long back in my DCC campaign.

Quote from: Elfdart;867869Why do you assume it's a problem?

One of the players feels like their character is obsoleted.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;868110One of the players feels like their character is obsoleted.

Nobody can make your character obsolete without your consent.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;868110One of the players feels like their character is obsoleted.

So, someone comes along with a PC that does something similar to that player's PC and the player feels the PC is obsoleted. That is a very defeatist attitude.

I would see it as a challenge and would make my PC relevant to the party. I would fight and scheme to prove the PC to be better/different than the new PC.

It seems what we are actually talking about here is "de-protagonism"**, i.e. removing a _player's_ opportunities to meaningfully change the game-world. This is a breakdown in the social contract of RPGs, but isn't a mechanics problem unless the GM and players allow it to be one.


**You ever watch some-body whip the floor with some-one in a 2 player "fighter" video-game? 100+ Combo Chains and crap like that? And the 2nd player can only just stand there and futilely wave this control-stick and tap buttons the whole round, but it's not really doing anything in-game? Yeah, that's "de-protagonism".

Quote from: Telarus;868308**You ever watch some-body whip the floor with some-one in a 2 player "fighter" video-game? 100+ Combo Chains and crap like that? And the 2nd player can only just stand there and futilely wave this control-stick and tap buttons the whole round, but it's not really doing anything in-game? Yeah, that's "de-protagonism".

Bad example. That is differences in skill level. Not overlap of function.

It's also a competitive game not a cooperative one.  Beating the other player is the goal in one and not the other.

Quote from: Telarus;868308It seems what we are actually talking about here is "de-protagonism"**, i.e. removing a _player's_ opportunities to meaningfully change the game-world. This is a breakdown in the social contract of RPGs, but isn't a mechanics problem unless the GM and players allow it to be one.

And Gronan phrased it quite pithily: it isn't a social problem, either, unless the player lets it be.

GMing GURPS, the largest XP gap I've ever had in a party is just a touch over 100 pts.  (For those of you not conversant with GURPS, that's about two years worth of progression.)  That's a honking lot, and it still doesn't automatically emasculate the newbie.  You handle your end of the battle line, I'll handle mine, there are plenty of orcs for everyone.

Quote from: Telarus;868308It seems what we are actually talking about here is "de-protagonism"**, i.e. removing a _player's_ opportunities to meaningfully change the game-world. This is a breakdown in the social contract of RPGs, but isn't a mechanics problem unless the GM and players allow it to be one.

This can only ever be a problem when playing WHFRP. It is the only game featuring the protagonist class.

In any other games I have played there have been no protagonists. Therefore it is impossible to be de-protagonized.

The very act of "playing a character" in an RPG sets one into the "protagonist" role. (This can be as an "anti-hero", etc, etc.)

The PCs are the "principal character(s) in [the] story, drama, etc.," which evolves out of the actual-play sessions (from Greek protagonistes "actor who plays the chief or first part").

My example of the video game was just to show the concept in another (very different) "game" context. It doesn't matter that it was the skill-level difference between the 2 players that caused the deprotagonism. One player could not make any meaningful change to what was happening in-game, and thus "feels deprotagonized". Such a player won't stick around long, and it doesn't matter what game it is or who they are playing with.

In an RPG situation, if a player comes to me as a GM and says, "My character is too similar to Bob's character, and it makes me feel irrelevant", what I take that to mean is "I haven't been able to meaningfully change the game world like I keept seeing Bob do, but our characters are similar so why can't I make meaningful change to the game-world like that?"

The _player_ feels that his character has been deprotagonized. The _cause_ of this probably isn't the similarity between the characters, which is why I said it was a breakdown of the social-contract of "everyone gets to play/contribute-to-the-game-session's-outcome".

Quote from: Telarus;869025In an RPG situation, if a player comes to me as a GM and says, "My character is too similar to Bob's character, and it makes me feel irrelevant", what I take that to mean is "I haven't been able to meaningfully change the game world like I keept seeing Bob do, but our characters are similar so why can't I make meaningful change to the game-world like that?"

The _player_ feels that his character has been deprotagonized. The _cause_ of this probably isn't the similarity between the characters, which is why I said it was a breakdown of the social-contract of "everyone gets to play/contribute-to-the-game-session's-outcome".

If the characters are mechanically identical and the player is unable to play at the same level as Bob then its a matter of experience and playing skill.

The only remedy for that is to keep playing, learn and improve. If you have the same abilities on paper then the only variable to look at is yourself.

That isn't being deprotagonized. That is simply not playing as well as another player. This can be a problem if there are game mechanics or system mastery issues causing the disparity. In the case of a mechanically identical character it is the player that needs to change something, not the DM and not the group.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;869082If the characters are mechanically identical and the player is unable to play at the same level as Bob then its a matter of experience and playing skill.

The only remedy for that is to keep playing, learn and improve. If you have the same abilities on paper then the only variable to look at is yourself.

That isn't being deprotagonized. That is simply not playing as well as another player. This can be a problem if there are game mechanics or system mastery issues causing the disparity. In the case of a mechanically identical character it is the player that needs to change something, not the DM and not the group.

How can they change it? It's not like you can snap your fingers and acquire system mastery over night.

Quote from: Telarus;869025The _player_ feels that his character has been deprotagonized. The _cause_ of this probably isn't the similarity between the characters, which is why I said it was a breakdown of the social-contract of "everyone gets to play/contribute-to-the-game-session's-outcome".

What do you mean by this? The cause being the broken social contract, that is.

Riddle me this.

Every time we've included NPC underlings in the party--and I'm talking about NPCs who are only there to help out the PCs, who follow commands, who are far inferior stat-wise, and so forth--without fail, at least one of them ends up effecting the outcome of the game in a meaningful way.

It's not like Joe the Fighter vs Fred the Fighter, only Joe is a level lower, or doesn't have Fred's exceptional strength. It's like Joe is 1st level with all average stats and Fred is 6th level with above average to high stats. In other words, it's a disparity to a degree we'd never actually see among PCs.

As for player skill, again, these NPCs don't have that individual drive of PCs. Typically, they're used as just a column of combat stats taking their turn. In other words, in terms of choice, strategy, motives, ideas and so forth, they're far below a low-skilled player.

And despite all that, they still have an impact. And at least one even comes to stand out. Sometimes the players just like the guy's name.

So if this is possible with all the odds set against it, how is it ever possible that a player with even low-skill playing even a poorly built character with lower stats than the rest of the group is rendered unable to effect the game world?

It's not that they can't. It's for whatever reason they don't.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;869083How can they change it? It's not like you can snap your fingers and acquire system mastery over night.

Again. In case this part was unclear somehow:

This can be a problem if there are game mechanics or system mastery issues causing the disparity.

Some players are more casual and show up more to socialize than anything else. If a player isn't interested in learning from mistakes made and does not care about improving his/her playing skills then the last thing I'm going to worry about is how deprotagonized they feel.

It's a breakdown of the social contract because role-playing games are a social activity, but as a game they also include ideas like "fair-play" and "uncertain-but-ultimately-quantifiable-outcome" which are essential to the enjoyment/fun of the thing. We purposefully agree to limit ourselves to a rule-set so that we can procedurally determine the uncertain outcome (sports: which team will play better, etc).

Exploderwizard has pointed out one possible source of the breakdown, one player having much less aptitude at interfacing with the game-mechanics than the other. "Games" required that the agents playing them have a choice among "possible strategies" which is used in the feedback-loop of exploring strategies and observing outcomes.

Maybe the lack of player aptitude is from mis-understanding a game rule, or from only choosing one strategy no matter what the context of the situation. These are things that have to be corrected on the social-contract level, i.e. "let's step out of character for a bit here guys and clarify XYZ for Bob".

Consider another possible breakdown of the social contract: A GM who is arbitrarily inconsistent in rule applications. So Player A may be able to learn what strategies (based on character sheet/resources) are good in certain situations - but when Player B tries similar strategies in similar situations, they have wildly different results, seemingly for no reason. Player B is flailing in the dark, having no consistent "world-fiction" to influence the next choice of strategy. I've only ever been in one game like that, but I do hear about them.... :P

Quote from: Exploderwizard;869113Some players are more casual and show up more to socialize than anything else. If a player isn't interested in learning from mistakes made and does not care about improving his/her playing skills then the last thing I'm going to worry about is how deprotagonized they feel.

While "how deprotagonized they feel" isn't the last thing I'd worry about (I can come up with a really extensive list of things to worry about), it wouldn't be anywhere near the top of my list. And you raise a good point that for gamers who aren't interested in getting better at tactics/playing skills, expecting that they will improve is an exercise in frustration for everyone.

Eh, requiring the player to become a system guru to enjoy himself doesn't quite cut it for me. I regularly see people here talk about not even expecting their players to know the rules and just having them react in-character and in-universe, then translating their actions into the game. That kind of play isn't going to mesh with the expectation of them becoming rule lawyers.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;869143Eh, requiring the player to become a system guru to enjoy himself doesn't quite cut it for me. I regularly see people here talk about not even expecting their players to know the rules and just having them react in-character and in-universe, then translating their actions into the game. That kind of play isn't going to mesh with the expectation of them becoming rule lawyers.

Those aren't all the same people saying all the same things.

There are two things that shouldn't be confused. (Though there may be some overlap between the two.)

   1) Mastery of system.

2) Mastery of tactics.

OD&D could easily be played intelligently by a player who had the latter, but not the former (i.e. a decent tactician unfamiliar with the system mechanics). Runequest 2 also worked that way to some extent, though the ubiquity of minor magic required some system understanding. Some other games, e.g. D&D 3E and 4E wouldn't work as well in this way since all the system widgets (feats, daily powers, etc.) require some system understanding or mastery to facilitate intelligent play. And since some of those widgets aren't all that much like real world tactics, if one can only master one of those two things, a player in 3E/4E will probably play more intelligently with only system mastery than with only real world tactical mastery.

People that play a game where there is a good mapping between tactics that make sense in the real world and tactics that make sense in the game world can get by with natural language and system-agnostic real world tactical decisions.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;869143Eh, requiring the player to become a system guru to enjoy himself doesn't quite cut it for me. I regularly see people here talk about not even expecting their players to know the rules and just having them react in-character and in-universe, then translating their actions into the game. That kind of play isn't going to mesh with the expectation of them becoming rule lawyers.

:banghead:

Quote from: Bren;869155Those aren't all the same people saying all the same things.

There are two things that shouldn't be confused. (Though there may be some overlap between the two.)

   1) Mastery of system.

2) Mastery of tactics.

OD&D could easily be played intelligently by a player who had the latter, but not the former (i.e. a decent tactician unfamiliar with the system mechanics). Runequest 2 also worked that way to some extent, though the ubiquity of minor magic required some system understanding. Some other games, e.g. D&D 3E and 4E wouldn't work as well in this way since all the system widgets (feats, daily powers, etc.) require some system understanding or mastery to facilitate intelligent play. And since some of those widgets aren't all that much like real world tactics, if one can only master one of those two things, a player in 3E/4E will probably play more intelligently with only system mastery than with only real world tactical mastery.

People that play a game where there is a good mapping between tactics that make sense in the real world and tactics that make sense in the game world can get by with natural language and system-agnostic real world tactical decisions.

Thank you for illustrating this critical difference.  I was losing patience.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;869188Thank you for illustrating this critical difference.  I was losing patience.

Ah yes, a feeling I know well. ;) You are most welcome.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;869083How can they change it? It's not like you can snap your fingers and acquire system mastery over night.

It's not about "system mastery." It's about strategic skill. REMOVE all knowledge of 'system' and you'll see where the rubber really hits the road.

They can change it with practice that takes more than snapping and snoozing. For goodness' sake, that's the same with pretty much every game worth playing once you're out of diapers enough to move on from Snakes and Ladders.

Quote from: Telarus;868308It seems what we are actually talking about here is "de-protagonism"**, i.e. removing a _player's_ opportunities to meaningfully change the game-world. This is a breakdown in the social contract of RPGs, but isn't a mechanics problem unless the GM and players allow it to be one.


**You ever watch some-body whip the floor with some-one in a 2 player "fighter" video-game? 100+ Combo Chains and crap like that? And the 2nd player can only just stand there and futilely wave this control-stick and tap buttons the whole round, but it's not really doing anything in-game? Yeah, that's "de-protagonism".

What in the name of Burl Ives' left nut does "de-protaginism" mean?

Quote from: Lunamancer;869095Riddle me this.

Every time we've included NPC underlings in the party--and I'm talking about NPCs who are only there to help out the PCs, who follow commands, who are far inferior stat-wise, and so forth--without fail, at least one of them ends up effecting the outcome of the game in a meaningful way.

It's not like Joe the Fighter vs Fred the Fighter, only Joe is a level lower, or doesn't have Fred's exceptional strength. It's like Joe is 1st level with all average stats and Fred is 6th level with above average to high stats. In other words, it's a disparity to a degree we'd never actually see among PCs.

As for player skill, again, these NPCs don't have that individual drive of PCs. Typically, they're used as just a column of combat stats taking their turn. In other words, in terms of choice, strategy, motives, ideas and so forth, they're far below a low-skilled player.

And despite all that, they still have an impact. And at least one even comes to stand out. Sometimes the players just like the guy's name.

So if this is possible with all the odds set against it, how is it ever possible that a player with even low-skill playing even a poorly built character with lower stats than the rest of the group is rendered unable to effect the game world?

It's not that they can't. It's for whatever reason they don't.

I've done quite well as a player, taking over a henchman or hireling (and in a couple of cases, taking over monsters and animals with the party). I say this, not to brag about how awesome I am as a player, but to point out that a PC doesn't have to be the star of the show to contribute.

I have always been of the opinion that just as any football coach will tell you he can't have too many quality pass rushers, a party can seldom have too many quality PCs (unless there's a hard upper limit for the number of players/PCs). So there's an extra cleric... Big deal.

Quote from: Elfdart;869570I've done quite well as a player, taking over a henchman or hireling (and in a couple of cases, taking over monsters and animals with the party). I say this, not to brag about how awesome I am as a player, but to point out that a PC doesn't have to be the star of the show to contribute.

Of course, there is an element of subjectivity to it. You could be the player who tips the pizza guy and still be an important contribution to the evening's game. So the issue is two fold. 1) Can the player/character contribute? And 2) is the contribution perceived as "significant" by the player?

The answer to #1 is an unqualified yes. It could only ever be "No" in theory, or in the beliefs of an overly-negative player. In the case of theory, I would simply say the theory is wrong or is bad theory. In the case of a negative player, I would suggest the real problem isn't that someone took his shtick but rather it's the negative attitude itself.

As for #2, it becomes a problem when they player's expectations become unrealistic. Yes, not all expectations are equally valid. Some people, petty as it sounds, really do feel slighted if god forbid another player should have an additional moment to shine. That would be an example of unrealistic expectations. It doesn't have to be lofty. I would call an expectation unrealistic--or perhaps unreasonable is a better word--if getting yours means someone else's needs to be put on pause for a bit.

Outside of that? Yes, your moment will come to you, even if only by dumb luck. And it doesn't become any less substantial just because someone else had two or three in the time it took for you to have one.

Quote from: Elfdart;869567What in the name of Burl Ives' left nut does "de-protaginism" mean?

The idea is that an RPG should be like a book or movie with the PCs filling the role of protagonists.  If they aren't the equivalent of the main characters in a book or TV series, they are said to have been "de-protagonized" or robbed of "real agency".  In concrete terms, it's a fandom created term with no real meaning.  Everyone who uses it mean something a bit different by it.

Quote from: Elfdart;869570I have always been of the opinion that just as any football coach will tell you he can't have too many quality pass rushers, a party can seldom have too many quality PCs (unless there's a hard upper limit for the number of players/PCs). So there's an extra cleric... Big deal.

Hammering this revelation into some players heads is like mining granite with a mop.

More clerics = less sustained wounds and deeper delves because we are intact longer. And more undead popping.
More thieves = less falling into pits, more locked chests and doors opened.
More magic users = more detection, buffing or crowd clearing effects.
More fighters = stuff made dead faster.

Quote from: yosemitemike;869586The idea is that an RPG should be like a book or movie with the PCs filling the role of protagonists.  If they aren't the equivalent of the main characters in a book or TV series, they are said to have been "de-protagonized" or robbed of "real agency".  In concrete terms, it's a fandom created term with no real meaning.  Everyone who uses it mean something a bit different by it.

Mostly they mean "Waa the referee said no to me."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;869685Mostly they mean "Waa the referee said no to me."

Some people mean it that way.  GM didn't say yes to that overpowered thing you wanted?  De-protagonism you say?  Oh, no!  Quick!  Someone call a Waaahmbulance!

Some mean that the PCs should be like the protagonists/main characters of a lot of TV shows and book series with everything important happening where they are and all significant events revolving around them.  This is the crowd that would call a persistent world with significant events unfolding here and there that the PCs have no part in de-protagonism.  This is the crowd that doesn't want to play in licensed setting because the canonical characters are the ones who do all of the "cool stuff".  They want their PCs to be like SG-1 from Stargate SG-1 or the Charmed Ones from Charmed.  Everything important happens where they are and all significant events revolve around them right from the beginning.

Quote from: yosemitemike;869782Some people mean it that way.  GM didn't say yes to that overpowered thing you wanted?  De-protagonism you say?  Oh, no!  Quick!  Someone call a Waaahmbulance!

Some mean that the PCs should be like the protagonists/main characters of a lot of TV shows and book series with everything important happening where they are and all significant events revolving around them.  This is the crowd that would call a persistent world with significant events unfolding here and there that the PCs have no part in de-protagonism.  This is the crowd that doesn't want to play in licensed setting because the canonical characters are the ones who do all of the "cool stuff".  They want their PCs to be like SG-1 from Stargate SG-1 or the Charmed Ones from Charmed.  Everything important happens where they are and all significant events revolve around them right from the beginning.

With no snark, folks like that should play Silver Age superheroes.  Spider Man is the hero of his own comic, even though Thor could kill him with an incautious fart.

It's definitely a mentality that fits four color super heroics better than it does a game like D&D.

Quote from: yosemitemike;869806It's definitely a mentality that fits four color super heroics better than it does a game like D&D.

It doesnt even fit that because while your group is off saving the day. So is XYZ other groups in the comics. The invaders are dealing with one group, the Liberty Legion another in WWII. Later you had the Avengers, Defenders, X-Men, Fantastic Four, and a couple of other groups all doing their own thing on oft massive scales.

The thing some players forget or dont want to accept is that in their little corner of the world THEY are important now. RIGHT NOW! Who the hell cares if Elminster is banging a goddess over there? The illithids are trying to snuf out the sun. Here. And theres only your group between that and eternal brain noshing darkness.

But boo-hoo-hoo! Mean ol Dri'zzt is doin stuffs in da book. Me not important! waaah!

Quote from: Omega;869850It doesnt even fit that because while your group is off saving the day. So is XYZ other groups in the comics. The invaders are dealing with one group, the Liberty Legion another in WWII. Later you had the Avengers, Defenders, X-Men, Fantastic Four, and a couple of other groups all doing their own thing on oft massive scales.

It fits better anyway.  If you were reading a Fantastic Four comic (when there was a Fantastic Four), pretty much everything revolved around the Fantastic Four and other heroes hardly ever showed up or mattered even ones that operated right there in the same city.  The fact that the X-Men were off somewhere doing some mutant related thing hardly mattered.  Lots of titles only nominally take place in a shared world unless there is an event going on.  This is especially true of DC.  

It fits even better for prime time soap opera stuff like pre-Angel spinoff Buffy or Charmed where the main characters are the destined chosen ones and pretty much nothing significant happens that doesn't revolve around them.

Quote from: yosemitemike;869782Some mean that the PCs should be like the protagonists/main characters of a lot of TV shows and book series with everything important happening where they are and all significant events revolving around them.  This is the crowd that would call a persistent world with significant events unfolding here and there that the PCs have no part in de-protagonism.  This is the crowd that doesn't want to play in licensed setting because the canonical characters are the ones who do all of the "cool stuff".  They want their PCs to be like SG-1 from Stargate SG-1 or the Charmed Ones from Charmed.  Everything important happens where they are and all significant events revolve around them right from the beginning.

Although ... some can be educated.

I started up a new group composed of folks from my martial arts class.  The sensei was one of the players, and not unnaturally, did up a martial artist.  He was somewhat frosted out of the gate when his character couldn't do some things he thought he ought to be able to do.  I started to explain the zero-to-hero concept (me still being on my heavily VD&D homebrew at the time), and he slapped his forehead and said, "I get it!  You're telling me that I'm thinking like a black belt, only my character is just a green belt."

Certainly a better summation than I was giving.

In Old-School, sometimes PCs of the same class (or race) start out kind of alike, but if you're doing your work right, after a short while they'll become different from each other and be better at different things.

Quote from: RPGPundit;870453In Old-School, sometimes PCs of the same class (or race) start out kind of alike, but if you're doing your work right, after a short while they'll become different from each other and be better at different things.

That is true of anyschool RPG. About any RPG you can have pretty much identical characters sometimes even with random rolls for stats, class, race.

For that matter, overlapping character roles can occur because of overly random chargen, or even normally random chargen. You can end up with an all fighter group simply because that is all everyone qualifies for with their stat rolls. Or an all fighter group because everyone rolled a fighter on the random class table.

Example: RPG Quest from I believe Brazil you roll for race and class. With Ranger, and Paladino at the bottom of the bell curve and the Guerreiro the most likely to be rolled by a small margin, closely followed by the Ladrao.
A quick test and got 3 Ladrao and 1 Barbaro.

Quote from: Omega;870602That is true of anyschool RPG. About any RPG you can have pretty much identical characters sometimes even with random rolls for stats, class, race.

For that matter, overlapping character roles can occur because of overly random chargen, or even normally random chargen. You can end up with an all fighter group simply because that is all everyone qualifies for with their stat rolls. Or an all fighter group because everyone rolled a fighter on the random class table.

Yeah this is why I find it completely hilarious when someone tries to defend the need for 300+ page rule books with the old " you need all these options to make unique characters" bullshit.

All those options and yet two players have pretty good odds that if they build heavy fighters that they will resemble clones of each other. So after hundreds of mechanical options and all the bloated rules to go along with them, we are basically back to name and personality as the only unique traits. Much as the case was back in OD&D.

The more things change.....;)

Quote from: Lunamancer;869579Outside of that? Yes, your moment will come to you, even if only by dumb luck. And it doesn't become any less substantial just because someone else had two or three in the time it took for you to have one.

Quote from: Omega;869661Hammering this revelation into some players heads is like mining granite with a mop.

More clerics = less sustained wounds and deeper delves because we are intact longer. And more undead popping.
More thieves = less falling into pits, more locked chests and doors opened.
More magic users = more detection, buffing or crowd clearing effects.
More fighters = stuff made dead faster.

The important thing is this: No matter what your PC's level or abilities or equipment, you need to find a way to MAKE yourself useful to the group. I had a 1st-level cleric who was a best slightly above average. The party already had a much better cleric, and a paladin to boot. On top of that, I rolled a below average amount of starting money. Clearly I was "de-protagonized" from the get-go, right? Wrong.

I used my cleric's meager amount of gold, not to buy the usual: a suit of mail, shield and mace, but to buy a mule, a horse and as much oil, torches, rope and other gear as possible. Yes, he had to make do with padded armor, a wooden shield and several clubs as his starting arms and armor, but thanks to the extra gear brought to the dungeon, as well as the ability take more stuff from the dungeon, everybody made 2nd level on one trip. Being able to stockpile along the way all those arrows and spears alone made it worthwhile, since ammo was scrutinized by that particular DM.

Now I know what someone who believes he is just too good to play a supporting character must be thinking right now: "But, but I want to be the center of attention, not a travelling quartermaster. That's worse than a medic!"

Brother Geoff soon became the center of attention as the enemy went after him and the pack animals. This wasn't DM revenge dickery, but a realization on the part of the brigands and their allies just how important my PC had become to the group, combined with the erroneous assumption on their part that the cleric, horse and mule were easy meat.

I've had similar luck being the mediocre fighter or thief who brings up the rear. Thanks to the DM's fondness for trying to have the enemy stalk and attack from the rear, my PCs got their share of action and more -and appreciation from the rest of the group.

Are y'all saying "it ain't the size of the boat, but the motion of the ocean"? :teehee:

(I do feel the same way, too. But inappropriate analogies are fun.)

You know, in my old Conan game the players really had to specialize physical combatant characters to find their niche. Using the Netbook of Feats really helped facilitate this action.

One player decided to play a typical barbarian, and didn't invest any time differentiating. He did however enter the game believing that he was going to be The Beef. Once he saw that "old fashioned" was underwhelming, he became frustrated.

He didn't give up on the character though. Instead he began to role-play his deficiency to the hilt - behaving as a drunken braggart that was never able to live up to his own boasting. It was hysterical to watch him run his mouth, and then fail miserably. In the end, he was the most memorable of his band.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;865631How do you deal with the problem where the party has 2 characters that fill the same role?

Like D&D Wizards and every other character in the game, save for the healing spells of the cleric?  No one's ever cared about it at the tables I've played at.

Quote from: Omega;869850It doesnt even fit that because while your group is off saving the day. So is XYZ other groups in the comics. The invaders are dealing with one group, the Liberty Legion another in WWII. Later you had the Avengers, Defenders, X-Men, Fantastic Four, and a couple of other groups all doing their own thing on oft massive scales.

If I remember correctly, there was a statement in the X-Men comic made by Magneto back in the 80's (One of their perennial villains) saying something that the X-Men individually, they were powerful, but when they got together (in their team of 5 operatives) their innate powers increased greater than five-fold.

Most of my crews have more or less ascribed to that philosophy.

And if you look at it, a lot of the iconic loners have a crew of close to equally skilled partners or aids.  Batman and his 'family' is a prime example.

It's not what you 'are' stat-wise that's really interesting to me, since that's just a matter of non-play paperwork. What's interesting is what you DO, which is where the play is.

Now, it's true that some variety gets cut out when you reduce the game form to one in which all characters are members of a monolithic party on the same expeditions probably for the same overall goals. However, in my experience that still leaves plenty of room for distinction.

You cut out still more when it's negligibly a role-playing game, having been thoroughly boiled down to a tactical combat exercise. Fighting is more the same than the reasons men fight, also the reasons they at other times choose a different course of action.

It's in the larger context of relationships that Patton is very entertainingly different from Montgomery or Rommel, not in the business of hurling shot and shell.