Quote from: DavetheLost;927323I remember groups of that size. Small unit tactics, rather than depending on a very few individuals in protected niches.

I can also remember playing many parties that didn't have one or more "niches" filled and we did just fine.

And if you really NEED a role filled ("Guys, if we're going to the Crypts of Fuckloads of Undead on the sixth level, we should have a Cleric") you could always try to hire an NPC.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;927443I'm not sure what's funniest about this post.

That you took the time to actually type out sputtering incoherence?

That you think comparing superhero powers is actually a way to win an argument?

Or that you know anything about the military you didn't learn from playing Call of Duty or watching Aliens?

Man, it's like you're trolling yourself.

In that case, there would be a Daliesque magnificence to it.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;927443I'm not sure what's funniest about this post.

That you took the time to actually type out sputtering incoherence?

That you think comparing superhero powers is actually a way to win an argument?

Or that you know anything about the military you didn't learn from playing Call of Duty or watching Aliens?

Man, it's like you're trolling yourself.

To be fair, Cupcake has a point here, but it's a point that applies to later editions.  3E and 3.5 and Pathfinder, all of which I've played, plays a lot more like comic superheroes than the old style dungeon adventuring I started with.  In a superhero team you don't want more than one Flash or Iron Fist or Doctor Strange. As I said above, in OD&D it's close order combat and kickin' and gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer, and the more swords the better.

And, marketing wise, it was inevitable that D&D would move in that direction.  Eventually, everybody that wanted 1E AD&D, and that style of game, HAD it.  At that point, change the game or die.  So from a business standpoint it is only logical that the play style would change, because you want to keep selling the game.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;927507So from a business standpoint it is only logical that the play style would change, because you want to keep selling [strike]the[/strike] a game.

The problem is there is no market for the game. So you need a different game to sell.


And yes I know that's what you meant. Just not quite what you said.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;927504And if you really NEED a role filled ("Guys, if we're going to the Crypts of Fuckloads of Undead on the sixth level, we should have a Cleric") you could always try to hire an NPC.

Retainers, Henchmen and just plain helpful classed NPCs are some of the more interesting, but over time forgotten aspects of D&D. It was nice to see 5e bring them back so some small degree.

Quote from: TristramEvans;927270...

It reminds me of the whole "assigned roles" thing in 4e, Controller, Striker, etc. The implications of which seemed to be that a party had to be made up of a specific selection or combination of characters to work effectively. I remember actually seeing local ads at the FLGS during that time where people were not seeking players, instead saying things to the effect of "our party needs a ----".

For one thing, it feels very artificial or "because game". It undermines randomly rolling up characters, shouldn't players then just be assigned one of the classes "needed" to fulfill the various niches required for a successful dungeoncrawl? It doesn't fit with either fantasy genre fiction or real life at all. I can't really see what the benefits are? What is the point of "niche protection"?

Well, when it gets to the point of clear artificiality, "because game", the player-group needing to have one person in each of several niches for artificial reasons, or players find themselves describing their characters as gamey labels, that feels way over my own boundaries of acceptability and interest.

I don't mind when those things intrinsically make sense, such as when a character has put most of their training and experience into learning certain special unique skills and have lived in a certain context, it just makes sense that they would be an expert much better in some of those skills, and that it would affect the type of person they are, their perspectives, and so on. As long as it makes sense and feels authentic, rather than that the game designer worships Rock-Paper-Scissors as a miracle of game design genius, or that it's designed to coddle the special snowflake sensibilities of players who want everyone else to suck at the thing their character specializes in, even if that thing is realistically something others could/would also be competent or even very good at, such as sneaking, or fighting, or having outdoor survival skills, or whatever.

It seems to me that if a game can represent enough levels of distinct difference in ability, then the snowflakes can be happy enough without artificially-enforced niche protection, and/or if the niche protection just works in a way that seems plausible enough. Sure many people can sneak around pretty well, but the guy who develops that for a big chunk of his life may be much better at it. Sure all sorts of people can get good at fighting, but the dedicated warrior is a few cuts above. If the game mechanics allow those (and other levels and types of) distinctions to be represented effectively then there's no need for artificial niche protection, unless the players choose characters whose skills don't match the adventures the GM makes, so the player feels like a fish out of water (or a forester in a desert/urban/aquatic adventure). On the other hand, if the game mechanics are too crude to allow that distinction in a satisfying way, then ya you could have issues (though still not ones for which I'd think the best answer would be "add niche protection").

Quote from: AsenRG;927411Not only were they not passed, lots of "advice to GMs" said specificially the GM has to enforce niche protection and construct adventures where each class gets a chance to shine:).

This, and White Wolf's (and others') "Storyteller as Illusionist" advice is why I read the GM section of new books first, and carefully. If it fails in one of those traps, or any of the others, I need to pay extra attention while reading the rules themselves;).

If you're doing Niche Protection right, there's no need at all to do either of these things.

Quote from: RPGPundit;928292If you're doing Niche Protection right, there's no need at all to do either of these things.

Then either I'm doing it right, or I'm not doing it at all. Basically, I leave it to the system to enforce that whoever spends more points in an area is going to be better, and tell the players to find a way to make the PC useful:D!

Either way, I'm not enforcing niche protection, and don't even care what their abilities are, much less constructing adventures that let them shine;).