PDA

View Full Version : Do you allow multiple characters with the same role?



Talakeal
2014-09-30, 03:15 PM
TLDR: When you DM, do you allow multiple PCs to play as the same Class / Role / Archetype / Concept / etc.? When you are a player do you get mad / jealous if someone else plays the same thing as you?


Ok, so recently I joined a mage game that was already in progress. I brought in a PC from a previous game who is a med-school student who uses life magic super science.

One of the existing PCs is also playing a healer. She is significantly more experienced than I am both mechanically and storyline wise (she is over twice my characters age). And I thought it would be fun to play my character as jealous of hers. The player grew very cold to me, and at the end of the session spent all pooled XP to raise her medical and life skills even further above mind.

Now, one of the other players approached me after the game and told me that I had done a very mean thing by trying to encroach on an existing player's spot, and that the other player was feeling very threatened and jealous. Furthermore, that player who was talking to me told me that if he had been the storyteller he would have vetoed my character on the spot, and that he would NEVER allow two players in the same group who have the same primary sphere.

He went on to talk about how nothing good can ever come from two people playing similar characters and that it will inevitably end in hurt feelings and someone feeling useless, and that as a new player I should have simply volunteered to play whatever the group was lacking rather than what I wanted to play.

I personally encourage diversity when I DM, but I can't imagine taking it this far. What do you think? How do you handle it?

cobaltstarfire
2014-09-30, 03:25 PM
I'd probably push two players of the same class to try a slightly different niches so that they don't step on each others toes.

I personally would have frowned upon how you role played your character behaving towards the other. But that's probably more personal preference, I'm not interested in intra party drama at all, unless the two players have already agreed to it before hand.

sktarq
2014-09-30, 03:28 PM
It certainly can work, brilliantly even. However I'd say running it by the player of the character yours is "stepping on the toes of" is at the very least polite. Your choices have significant effects for her game and how she sees your entry is important. Also having differences in personality, theme, etc becomes more important as you become more similar mechanically. While you both may be healers one may be highly scientific and the other prone to crystals and the like. Giving you guys a place to stake out ideas and a system to interact with each other on. A purity minded restorer type healer vs one who sees the medical skill as the basis for augmenting living things with their magic (but sees the severely wounded as lost material instead of a challenge)

Talakeal
2014-09-30, 03:30 PM
I personally would have frowned upon how you role played your character behaving towards the other. But that's probably more personal preference, I'm not interested in intra party drama at all, unless the two players have already agreed to it before hand.

Honestly I don't think either of the other players (or even the storyteller) even noticed it, I mostly just made a few comments to one of the other players when we were talking in private.

Keep in mind, this is a White Wolf game, not a tactical game like D&D. Most of the action consists of simply talking in character and RPing, and I don't think intra party drama or rivalries are at all frowned upon (heck, in Vampire I think that is supposed to be one of the primary themes of the game).

DireSickFish
2014-09-30, 03:31 PM
Seems like a rather extreme situation with this group. I wouldn't want to piss anyone off and would agree to play another character even though I don't agree with there reasoning.

A lot of fun can be had with groups that are unbalanced or skewed. I ran a session with 3 rogues in it in 5th ed and everyone had a good time scouting and finding a variety of entry points to encounters. They also didn't approach the same character concept exactly the same even though statistically they had little difference.

It depends on the system though too I suppose. Edge of the Empire is a system where having 2 people be amazing computer experts or whatever leaves not much for the 2nd player to do.

I find unbalanced parties fun in general.

Talakeal
2014-09-30, 03:34 PM
It certainly can work, brilliantly even. However I'd say running it by the player of the character yours is "stepping on the toes of" is at the very least polite. Your choices have significant effects for her game and how she sees your entry is important. Also having differences in personality, theme, etc becomes more important as you become more similar mechanically. While you both may be healers one may be highly scientific and the other prone to crystals and the like. Giving you guys a place to stake out ideas and a system to interact with each other on. A purity minded restorer type healer vs one who sees the medical skill as the basis for augmenting living things with their magic (but sees the severely wounded as lost material instead of a challenge)

That is pretty much how we are doing it. She is very much new age mystic healing and using focuses that look supernatural, while I am a student of traditional medicine who uses a super science focus.

Of course, when it comes to healing wounded chantry mates, it all boils down to more or less the same thing.

cobaltstarfire
2014-09-30, 03:48 PM
Honestly I don't think either of the other players (or even the storyteller) even noticed it, I mostly just made a few comments to one of the other players when we were talking in private.

Keep in mind, this is a White Wolf game, not a tactical game like D&D. Most of the action consists of simply talking in character and RPing, and I don't think intra party drama or rivalries are at all frowned upon (heck, in Vampire I think that is supposed to be one of the primary themes of the game).


I was actually thinking within the context of Role Master? Which (at least when I've played) is almost all role playing. It should be easier for you to make your character such that it doesn't step on someone elses toes if you're playing a game where the action boils down to only RP.

They clearly don't appreciate what you did, and they're allowed to dislike it. So make an effort to fit in with the group, or find one that doesn't mind overlap.

And yes, intra party drama and rivalry can be frowned upon, I never said it universally was, just that I personally don't enjoy it as a player, or as a dm where one or more of the players isn't comfortable with it.

Vitruviansquid
2014-09-30, 03:52 PM
Never. One time, one of my players brought me a character concept that overlapped with another person's at my table. I took his character sheet out of his hand, ripped it into a thousand pieces, and threw the confetti in his eyes. Then, as he was screaming from the physical and emotional pain, I punched him the stomach, and encouraged the other players at the table to beat him with rocks and sticks from the yard.

I haven't played Mage, but in most games I've played, choosing to take a redundant role is just a strategic decision the players could make. In DnD 4e, if you get two defenders, it means your group's really serious about locking down enemies, not that one defender's going to always eclipse the other. I think, even if redundancy is a problem in the system, the character concept is solid, even interesting. However, depending on your group, the mechanics of your character (which are problematic) can be considered a lot more important.

What I don't get is, if you like diversity, and the group clearly wants diversity, why'd you roll your healer in the first place? And why not just change?

sktarq
2014-09-30, 03:56 PM
While it may well seem the same it is important it doesn't feel that way. In terms of the whole drama side of it character drama =/= player drama. And the later is always worse than the former. While many players base much of their "character" on their abilities more than history, personalities, view etc. Neither of you have that option if you are mechanically similar. I'd recommend talking to the other healer about developing a player-to-player understanding of how to deal with this issue. Your character may well not like each other, compete, stare daggers etc but work it out on the fleshworld level. Also as it is a mage game you each have lots of leeway in description of how your magic looks and feels - play that up.

Talakeal
2014-09-30, 04:05 PM
What I don't get is, if you like diversity, and the group clearly wants diversity, why'd you roll your healer in the first place? And why not just change?

I made this character before I knew who was in the group. Also, Mage tends to be about 90% dialogue, I would have a lot of trouble just coming up with a new character in such an environment. I am a full immersion RPer and am pretty terrible when it comes to improve.


While it may well seem the same it is important it doesn't feel that way. In terms of the whole drama side of it character drama =/= player drama. And the later is always worse than the former. While many players base much of their "character" on their abilities more than history, personalities, view etc. Neither of you have that option if you are mechanically similar. I'd recommend talking to the other healer about developing a player-to-player understanding of how to deal with this issue. Your character may well not like each other, compete, stare daggers etc but work it out on the fleshworld level. Also as it is a mage game you each have lots of leeway in description of how your magic looks and feels - play that up.

That's pretty much how I feel about the issue, but the rest of the group doesn't seem to see it that way.

Broken Crown
2014-09-30, 04:06 PM
TLDR: When you DM, do you allow multiple PCs to play as the same Class / Role / Archetype / Concept / etc.?

As long as the character is not unsuitable for the campaign setting and theme, I generally let my players play whatever they please.


When you are a player do you get mad / jealous if someone else plays the same thing as you?

Not mad or jealous, but it can be frustrating or boring to find my character is redundant because of being specialized for a role which is filled by another character. Too often it leaves one of the characters with nothing to do.

I try to get around this by making characters that aren't only good at one thing. Not only are they less likely to be made redundant by another character, they are also less likely overall to be in a situation where none of their skills are useful. Besides, to me, someone who can only do one thing isn't a protagonist, it's a supporting character. (Some game systems, unfortunately, actively work against versatile characters: A character in such a system who tries to be good in more than one role will be insufficiently good in all of them.)

There are some roles which suffer more from duplication than others: A given party usually doesn't need more than one "face," and stealthy missions generally work better the fewer people are involved. On the other hand, in a combat-heavy game, no one complains about having more combat-capable characters on the team, and usually more healers are welcome too (unless healing is unlimited in the system).

As for your own experience, I would suggest that deliberately setting up your character as a rival to another character in the group, without okaying it with the player, could very well cause some hostility. Intra-party rivalry can be a good story element, and could be fun to play, but only if all the players involved think it would be fun. If the other player didn't want to play out that story, then forcing it on her wouldn't be fun, and could be interpreted as a jerk move. It's best to be aware of what the other players want out of the game, before deciding on what roles their characters are going to play in your character's story.

Talakeal
2014-09-30, 04:08 PM
Never. One time, one of my players brought me a character concept that overlapped with another person's at my table. I took his character sheet out of his hand, ripped it into a thousand pieces, and threw the confetti in his eyes. Then, as he was screaming from the physical and emotional pain, I punched him the stomach, and encouraged the other players at the table to beat him with rocks and sticks from the yard.

I haven't played Mage, but in most games I've played, choosing to take a redundant role is just a strategic decision the players could make. In DnD 4e, if you get two defenders, it means your group's really serious about locking down enemies, not that one defender's going to always eclipse the other. I think, even if redundancy is a problem in the system, the character concept is solid, even interesting. However, depending on your group, the mechanics of your character (which are problematic) can be considered a lot more important.

What I don't get is, if you like diversity, and the group clearly wants diversity, why'd you roll your healer in the first place? And why not just change?

Geeze, you should use blue text or /sarcasm tags or something, I thought you were serious until you got to the punching part... (I have actually had DMs rip up my character sheets before, so it might not be as crazy as you think).

I don't know about your example. I haven't played much 4E, but the one game I did play I was a paladin and there was also a fighter in the party, and we constantly stepped on each other's toes when it came to our marks overriding one another's.

Rater202
2014-09-30, 04:08 PM
Never. One time, one of my players brought me a character concept that overlapped with another person's at my table. I took his character sheet out of his hand, ripped it into a thousand pieces, and threw the confetti in his eyes. Then, as he was screaming from the physical and emotional pain, I punched him the stomach, and encouraged the other players at the table to beat him with rocks and sticks from the yard.

Okay, having a similar character to an other player is no excuse to beat someone up or destroy something of theirs, and I'm quite certain that this is illegal in most civilized countries(Assuming you're being serious)

And if you reread what OP is posting, his concept is quite diferant, with just a little overlap.

Personally, Im more concered about a GM who makes you start with less XP than the other PCs


I haven't played Mage, but in most games I've played, choosing to take a redundant role is just a strategic decision the players could make. In DnD 4e, if you get two defenders, it means your group's really serious about locking down enemies, not that one defender's going to always eclipse the other. I think, even if redundancy is a problem in the system, the character concept is solid, even interesting. However, depending on your group, the mechanics of your character (which are problematic) can be considered a lot more important.
Yeah, tactics don't mean crap in WoD, especially mage, becuase most combat characters have Superhuman physical capabilities and/or powers that doo lots of damage at once, and noncombat characters tend to either outsmart or social manuver there ways out of combat/mind controll others so combat is no problem.

To be honest, in most games of Mage whith a a specific focus on combat, more or less everyone is going tohave the same or similar powers anyway, so really other healer is just being insecure.

What I don't get is, if you like diversity, and the group clearly wants diversity, why'd you roll your healer in the first place? And why not just change?

Read OP and OP's secondary posts. It's only the the two other players with problem, and it was a premade character he brought with him.

sktarq
2014-09-30, 04:24 PM
I made this character before I knew who was in the group....

That's pretty much how I feel about the issue, but the rest of the group doesn't seem to see it that way.

On point one *headdesk*. That the ST's fault more than yours. If they feel such things are not going to enhance the game and thus act as limit for appropriate characters being added to the game it is up to the ST to make sure your character integrates-preferably before you make them.

So talk to them about it. Point out the premadness - describe where you want to take the character and work that out so that you'll grow into a role that doesn't threaten the other healer's ideas of herself and her role. This was a communication problem (primarily) and can probably be solved by replacing bad communication with good.

Talakeal
2014-09-30, 04:30 PM
On point one *headdesk*. That the ST's fault more than yours. If they feel such things are not going to enhance the game and thus act as limit for appropriate characters being added to the game it is up to the ST to make sure your character integrates-preferably before you make them.

So talk to them about it. Point out the premadness - describe where you want to take the character and work that out so that you'll grow into a role that doesn't threaten the other healer's ideas of herself and her role. This was a communication problem (primarily) and can probably be solved by replacing bad communication with good.

The ST had no problem with it. It was two of the other players who got mad.

Vitruviansquid
2014-09-30, 04:35 PM
No dude, it's totally true. We beat the guy up and later divided his still-beating heart to eat. The police never found out.

LibraryOgre
2014-09-30, 04:42 PM
I don't see a particular problem with it, especially not in Mage or similar games that have less emphasis on tactical role filling. However, my main beef would be "brought in a character from another game"... I'm a big fan of "create the party together", and for the new guy to step into the party knowing more or less what they "need."

The whole "less experienced life mage jealous of the more experienced one"? That could have great game potential.

VoxRationis
2014-09-30, 04:47 PM
I don't play World of Darkness, but there's almost always a role that can be useful to have more than one of.

Rainman3769
2014-09-30, 04:51 PM
My group mostly plays games by Fantasy Flight (Rogue Trader, Deathwatch, Only War, etc) and D & D, and we have never had a problem with similar characters. In combat, having two beatsticks, or two sneaky types or two spell slingers just means the group will be strong in certain areas of combat and weak at others. I feel this just adds spice to a campaign, knowing that whenever your group runs into a challenge you know you are weak on, it will be that much more interesting. Having two healers just means it will be that much harder to die......where is the problem in that? Hell instead of seeing a similar character as a threat, why couldn't the two characters just play it as a friendly rivalry of who can learn the coolest spell/get the most kills, etc, instead of someone feeling threatened and making the whole thing out to be a negative?

Of course, on the flip side, I acknowledge not every group is like mine. I could understand if someone wanted to be the party's sneaky Rogue and they constantly had to deal with someone else picking that lock or disarming that trap before them. I guess it all comes down to wither or not someone sees their party as allies who are there to help each other, or competition for who gets to be the most super special indispensible character in the group. One's view on the matter is a good indicator of their emotional maturity, that's my two cents.

Rater202
2014-09-30, 04:58 PM
No dude, it's totally true. We beat the guy up and later divided his still-beating heart to eat. The police never found out.

Dude, this is not funny.

Krazzman
2014-09-30, 04:59 PM
Speaking from personal experience.
Games I have been in so far.
An all Barbarian game. 3 different types of barbaric characters at the table.
An all monk game with at least half the levels in monk. Also 3 very different monks.
All rogues/scoundrels very funny session.
In one dsa game the worst stealth char was a light armored street watcher. And he was fairly decent at it.

Overlap can be fun. The dm or St just needs to provide a good set up.

In my current game (3 players) I just let them do stuff. They don't have a trap expert or lock picker but they will probably manage with a dex focused magus//slayer; oradin; and shaman//monk.

Also if the group gets big enough there is normally some overlap to be expected.

Talakeal
2014-09-30, 05:11 PM
This reminds me of the instruction manual for the original Everquest game. When talking about party diversity it said something the lines of "Sure, you can make a part of six barbarian warriors and descend from the tundra cutting a bloody swath before you...." and I stopped reading at that part and decided it would be the most epic gaming experience ever. The rest of the quote was something like "but you will be far more effective if you carefully select your party with a balance of different classes and roles" and I was like **** that noise.







Also if the group gets big enough there is normally some overlap to be expected.

Yeah, the group is currently 8 people, and there are only 9 spheres of magic in mage. I would think it would be all but impossible to insist everyone had a different specialty sphere without exceptional good luck / passive players.

sktarq
2014-09-30, 05:14 PM
The ST had no problem with it. It was two of the other players who got mad.

Then you're fine. Perhaps reassure the other player you're not there to step on her toes or replace her (though you're open to her character feeling that way) and you've got plans of going in *whatever* direction and see that doesn't clash with her character-but both do need medicine and life sphere. As for the other player-just don't go to games him as ST, you'd just be begging to add more horror stories to your list.

DireSickFish
2014-09-30, 05:47 PM
Dude, this is not funny.

I agree it's not funny. It's -hilarious-.

TheThan
2014-09-30, 05:49 PM
Sure, as long as there are enough players to fill enough of the character roles it doesn't bother me.

But then I end up with people playing various spell casters and they can fill just about any roll that way anyway so meh.

Exediron
2014-09-30, 06:52 PM
TLDR: When you DM, do you allow multiple PCs to play as the same Class / Role / Archetype / Concept / etc.? When you are a player do you get mad / jealous if someone else plays the same thing as you?

Sure, all the time. Even when I'm not playing in a super-massive party with whole combat teams worth of the same roles.

When you have multiple characters filling the same role, inevitably one of them is going to be better than the others, possibly even dramatically. I personally feel that if people can't handle that fact that's their problem, but I suppose if I had someone in my group who felt strongly that way then - since I don't - I might agree to neuter my character to be inferior to theirs. I would not accept scrapping my concept just because it's the same mechanical role as someone else's. In this case it sounds like your healer is clearly the weaker one anyway, so I don't know what her problem is.

In my opinion - which I expect many will disagree with - this problem stems from a basic conflict in what the players hope to get out of the game. Some people just want to play characters in a fictional world and that's enough for them, but other people want to be successful and powerful in that world. I also believe the players who essentially play themselves are much more likely to take offense to being shown-up, which is only natural.

In my most recent games, I think in at least 50% of them my character or characters had a role that was overlapped:
The Eternal D&D Extravaganza (Current): Many, many characters. Such an unusual example that it is meaningless to compare.
MERP Game (Current): Best archer (out of three), weak melee fighters (out of a lot). Only dedicated stealth specialist.
Pirate Game (Dead): Only cleric.
D20 Modern Game (Finished): Best fighter; one other long-running character was a dedicated fighter, and he was tougher. So slightly different niche.
Ravenloft Game (Finished): Weak paladin (one of two in party); roughly equivalent sorceress (also one of two); equal-best fighter (one of many, but closest to one other); only ranged fighter, who was the second-best fighter in total.
4th Edition Game (Dead): Doesn't count, since everyone has the same roles no matter what their class is :smallwink:

Now, I realize one could look at that and say 'you only don't mind because you usually have the better one!' and I couldn't really argue with that. But on the occasions when I don't it doesn't bother me too much. If my characters are all bad enough to be useless that's another matter, but that would always be somewhat off-putting. I really can't see the problem if either a) the player with the weaker character is okay with it, or b) both are of equivalent ability.


Geeze, you should use blue text or /sarcasm tags or something, I thought you were serious until you got to the punching part...

No, you shouldn't. Blue text is a horrid affectation that needs to disappear. It's insulting to the intelligence of everyone reading it.

icefractal
2014-09-30, 07:20 PM
Furthermore, that player who was talking to me told me that if he had been the storyteller he would have vetoed my character on the spot, and that he would NEVER allow two players in the same group who have the same primary sphere.Wat. Has this guy not heard of Ritual Magic? Kind of an important thing in Mage!

If a group with one Life mage makes a monster to guard their sanctum, and a group with two Life mages makes a monster to breach that sanctum (or vice versa), the second monster is going to eat the first for lunch. This is especially important for Space (warding), but really it applies to pretty much every sphere. Having a variety of spheres is obviously useful, but being able to double-up for ritual magic is also useful; it's a balancing act, and a "zero overlap" group is probably not at the ideal spot.


Anyway, tactics aside - it seems like an overreaction. For one thing - she's the more experienced mage. If anyone's getting overshadowed here, it would be your character. And furthermore, Life is a pretty huge sphere, broad enough for more than one approach. Perhaps that's the issue - both your characters seem to be pidgeon-holing themselves into healing; a fairly small niche. And not one that comes up hugely often, IME, although that varies by how action-oriented the game is and what kind of tactics people use.

Raine_Sage
2014-09-30, 07:23 PM
No, you shouldn't. Blue text is a horrid affectation that needs to disappear. It's insulting to the intelligence of everyone reading it.

Considering there is at least one person on the thread who seemed to take the joke seriously, I'd say it's a warranted affectation. Especially given that sarcasm can be a LOT more nuanced than saying you beat someone with a rock and tone is hard to communicate through text.

On topic I can remember feeling a little put out sometimes when one of my characters has heavy overlap with another player in terms of utility. But I would never blame the other player for that, if anything I'd be inclined to be sore at the system for not offering niche specialization in its classes. After all it's hardly the player's fault that their character plays more or less the same as mine, its just a lack of flexibility and/or more players than there are individual roles to play.

Since its only these two that have a problem with it I'd just talk to them and explain that you never meant to step on anyone's toes, and any rivalry on your part was strictly IC and not meant to be you trying to usurp a position. You say you doubt anyone noticed but I feel like their rather severe reaction could be them picking up on perceived OOC rivalry.

Jeff the Green
2014-09-30, 07:38 PM
Caveat: I've only played D&D and Fate, so my answers may not be applicable to all systems

Yes, I do allow multiple characters with the same role as long as they're not clones of a role that's bad to duplicate. Skill Monkeys with the same skill sets, mostly. Most other roles can be shared or act as force multipliers—two druids could work together, alternating being the beatstick and the caster so neither is on the front line so long they're in much danger, two lock-down trippers can keep an enormous area off-limits to enemies, etc.. Plus, rarely are two characters so mechanically identical that there's real potential for conflict. An Illusionist plays very differently from a Conjurer, and a Duskblade and a Warblade are different approaches to dealing massive damage with a hunk of metal.


No, you shouldn't. Blue text is a horrid affectation that needs to disappear. It's insulting to the intelligence of everyone reading it.

You have a much higher regard for the average Playgrounder's ability to recognize sarcasm than I do. The first time I read it I didn't pick that up.

(Also, clearly recognizing sarcasm would be based on Wisdom.)

Diachronos
2014-09-30, 07:47 PM
Now, one of the other players approached me after the game and told me that I had done a very mean thing by trying to encroach on an existing player's spot, and that the other player was feeling very threatened and jealous. Furthermore, that player who was talking to me told me that if he had been the storyteller he would have vetoed my character on the spot, and that he would NEVER allow two players in the same group who have the same primary sphere.

He went on to talk about how nothing good can ever come from two people playing similar characters and that it will inevitably end in hurt feelings and someone feeling useless, and that as a new player I should have simply volunteered to play whatever the group was lacking rather than what I wanted to play.

I think the only thing you're at fault for is not clarifying you RPing intentions to the offended player from the start. Everything else is them overreacting. There are only 2 situations I can think of where overlapping party members' abilities would be bad:
1) The overlapping members end up competing with each other to determine who's "better" to a point where it's more of a burden to the party than a benefit
2) The overlap is shared by so many party members that the party lacks any way of dealing with problems outside of their specialization

In your post, neither of those seems to be the case.

Fumble Jack
2014-09-30, 07:49 PM
I don't see a particular problem with it, especially not in Mage or similar games that have less emphasis on tactical role filling. However, my main beef would be "brought in a character from another game"... I'm a big fan of "create the party together", and for the new guy to step into the party knowing more or less what they "need."

The whole "less experienced life mage jealous of the more experienced one"? That could have great game potential.

I'm in agreement here. The ST should have been a little more on point so there wouldn't be any hurt feelings between players. I mean I could of seen potential if you were perhaps the apprentice of the more experienced character and felt jealous of their power.

PrincessCupcake
2014-09-30, 10:37 PM
I generally allow a party to have whatever characters the players come up with. There's enough variation in any given role to allow for some overlap, and many parties could use an extra healer (especially World of Darkness). I have played in a group with multiples of two separate roles ( 3 each of Ragabash and Ahroun respectively.)

In your case, Sounds like those other players are just being overly sensitive. You may consider talking to your ST and arranging a pow-wow with the other player to make it clear you weren't trying to step on anyone's toes, with ST acting as mediator. Maybe consider grabbing some spheres that don't conflict with the offended player as you level as well to drive home the point.

Remmirath
2014-10-01, 12:10 AM
I'll always allow multiple characters with the same role, unless there should be some reason it truly doesn't make sense within the game world -- and I haven't yet encountered such a situation. I do typically run games with small numbers of players and larger numbers of characters, and I expect that people are on average less concerned about the success or failure of a particular character relative to other player's characters if they are running more than one at the same time, but I haven't handled this differently in the games I've run with a one-to-one player/character ratio.

I think it's far more important to allow all of the players at the table to play the characters that they want to play than it is to make sure that the party is balanced or that nobody is going to have a character who is better at something than another player's character is. I might warn the group that they may be lacking a particular skill set in their group, and if asked, I'll let them know what the party could best use -- but I won't restrict them.

As a player, the only way I would become angered would be if someone were to set out to try to play the same character in every way, and not just the class/skillset. I might become slightly annoyed if there's a situation in which the characters are similar enough that they are always vying for the same treasure and there was only ever enough of it for one person, but even so, I wouldn't worry about it too much (and wouldn't blame it on the other player). The most likely outcome there, really, would be that my character would become bitter about it and I'd find it kind of funny.

I'd suggest talking to the person in question and seeing what her problem is, but beyond that, have no advice about this specific situation. If you can work things out with her, then it seems like this could end up being an interesting thing for both of your characters.



Now, I realize one could look at that and say 'you only don't mind because you usually have the better one!' and I couldn't really argue with that. But on the occasions when I don't it doesn't bother me too much. If my characters are all bad enough to be useless that's another matter, but that would always be somewhat off-putting. I really can't see the problem if either a) the player with the weaker character is okay with it, or b) both are of equivalent ability.


I can certainly say that, in my case, I don't mind regardless of whether or not my character is better. There have been times when I've been perfectly content to play the worse character of any class in a group. Granted, I hardly ever end up having the least useful character of all of the characters in a game, and for all I know I would feel differently if that were the case -- but that's not about an overlapping skillset any more, so it's not quite relevant.

nedz
2014-10-01, 08:30 PM
I have no problem with this. The only time it can be an issue is if one person's character is very much better at the role than the others but even then this only matters if the players are being competitive about it.

Benthesquid
2014-10-01, 11:13 PM
Coming from a Pathfinder background, I probably would. First off, there's enough wriggle room within any class to allow different aspects- I could build a blaster wizard, or an 'army of undead,' necromancer wizard. Even within those roles, I wouldn't see much problem with overlap. If two players both want to build trip monkeys, that just means the enemies will spend twice as much time prone on the floor.

The only cases I could see it causing problems is if one player has built their character to be much more effective at the chosen role. If Alice is constantly sneaking under the nose of a dragon to steal the Chalice of Splendid Bubbling, and Bob is running away from the horde of goblins he alerted in the first chamber of the dragons lair, there might be some hurt feelings. Of course, depending on your party (mine right now is pretty good about this sort of thing) it could also be a chance for some fun roleplaying.

huttj509
2014-10-02, 12:06 AM
First off, OP, how well do you know these people? Particularly the other life magic user?

Character jealous of other character's power can easily come across as player jealous of other player's power, which can prompt a very different reaction.

Heck, just last Friday, after session, I was talking with some friends I game with about how my character taking charge and possibly talking over people was coming across as me taking charge and possibly talking over people. Former is cool (long as I don't go overboard), latter is very much not (2 of the players are new to the system, and a major point of the campaign is so they can get used to stuff for later when one's GMing, so "this is what I need you to do" is kinda extra unhelpful). And these are people I've known and gamed with for YEARS.

More directly on topic though...I always run a character summary (if not specifics) by the GM, who presumably knows party makeup. Having duplicate roles can be fine/awesome, but if one of the pair was expecting to be "THE x," it can be rather offputting. Similar to how for personality archetypes, you might be going for the Clint Eastwood "mysterious silent type," but if 2 people do so unexpectedly, suddenly someone's the "second most mysterious, second most silent" type. ...and now I need to figure out what podcast I swiped that example from so I can give credit where it's due...

Mr Beer
2014-10-02, 01:04 AM
Dude, this is not funny.

It was funny.

Aedilred
2014-10-02, 05:31 AM
Geeze, you should use blue text or /sarcasm tags or something, I thought you were serious until you got to the punching part... (I have actually had DMs rip up my character sheets before, so it might not be as crazy as you think).
I think in this case - as in just about every case - blue text would ruin the joke. At the risk of doing so myself, starting with a believable if slightly extreme situation then building the hyperbole is a venerable comic technique and starting out by making it clear you're joking completely destroys the effect.


Okay, having a similar character to an other player is no excuse to beat someone up or destroy something of theirs, and I'm quite certain that this is illegal in most civilized countries(Assuming you're being serious)Um.


No dude, it's totally true. We beat the guy up and later divided his still-beating heart to eat. The police never found out.
Excellent.


Dude, this is not funny.
I disagree.

I agree it's not funny. It's -hilarious-.
I agree.

Considering there is at least one person on the thread who seemed to take the joke seriously, I'd say it's a warranted affectation. Especially given that sarcasm can be a LOT more nuanced than saying you beat someone with a rock and tone is hard to communicate through text.
But then a straight face and deadpan delivery is also prized in verbal comedy. I have always found that blue text is forum shorthand for "this is meant to be funny, but it won't be, because it's in blue text".


Back to the original subject, and I don't think it's necessarily a problem, although it's certainly group-dependent and probably system-dependent. In many parties, having multiple characters occupying the same roles can actually free them up to do different things and become more well-rounded and versatile rather than being limited to doing the same thing all the time, which I think can be a bit of a straitjacket. But if it's a system which requires well-defined party roles for the sake of internal balance, or it's a group which prefers that, then it could be a problem. It's not for me, but some people like it. But then if it's a game which requires people to occupy a set variety of roles and they're all filled I don't know what they were thinking introducing a new player in the first place.

Mastikator
2014-10-02, 06:34 AM
As a DM I'd allow any lore-friendly non-toxic PC concept, even if it fills a tactical role that someone else also fills.

I deal with it by increasing their workload. You have two healers? Congrats everyone's gonna need a whole lot more healing. Have two wizards? Spell resistance suddenly became popular.

But usually I try to present obstacles to my players that can't be overcome just by activating a class feature. In fact, I don't even think about a solution, you just have to deal with it.

ElenionAncalima
2014-10-02, 07:10 AM
I don't think I would disallow anyone from playing the type of character they wanted...but I might discourage them from playing a character if I felt it would affect the table or their personal enjoyment in the long run.

For instance, in one game I play in we had a character who was completely focused on crafting. One of the other players decided he wanted his new character to craft too. He ended up being disappointed that no one wanted him to craft for them, because the other player could do it cheaper and faster. Later, that same player decided to make a healer, but ended up stepping on the toes of the two other healers at the table...one of whom was left with nothing much to do whenever he jumped in to heal.

Some tables care more about party balance than others. I think the best thing you can do is ask, "Will I be stepping on toes if I bring another [insert party role] into the party?"

TandemChelipeds
2014-10-02, 09:22 AM
I guess it depends on the game and the role. I'm used to Pathfinder, so I'll use that as my point of reference. In the game I'm currently in, our party is entirely composed of spellcasters, and two of them are classes that traditionally heal. I'm a cleric and the other one's a vitalist, but we actually get along pretty well both in- and out-of-character. This is partly because each of us has another role(buffing and summoning in my case, and infiltration in his), and partly because we're all pretty good roleplayers and our characters have ended up as Those Two Guys (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThoseTwoGuys)(it probably doesn't hurt that we're the only two Good characters in the party). I'm a Samsaran and he's a Blue, together we're Big Blue and Little Blue. We fight crime.

I guess what I'm saying is, if it bothers the other player that much, maybe you can branch out and expand your magic in another direction. You know, go in more of a Frankenstein/Re-Animator direction. There's lots of room for different kinds of mad medical science. I personally think necromancy-type magic is the best option in-character, though, because how do you one-up a healer? Cure death.(I'm not sure what you can actually do in Mage, so disregard that if reanimation isn't plausible)


Dude, this is not funny.

It is if you've read a JP thread.

Jornophelanthas
2014-10-02, 10:42 AM
As someone else already mentioned, this is lacking communication and a mismatch of expectations by you, the other players and the Storyteller.

Who should solve this? Ideally, the Storyteller.

However, you can do the following things yourself:

1.
Tell the two players that you never intended to take over anybody's role, because you did not even know the party composition. Ask the other Life mage player how your two characters could each specialize in different branches of Life magic. (For example, one could go into Life/Prime synergies, while the other could look into Life/Mind, or even Life/Matter.)

(I am assuming you are playing Mage: the Ascension. In case you are playing Mage: the Awakening, you should probably make sure to belong to different Orders, so you will not use the same Rotes.)

2.
Ask the player who complained to you about the Storyteller's decision to allow your character whether he talked to the Storyteller already. If not, offer to go talk to the Storyteller together.
Make it clear that you are not responsible for the decisions by the Storyteller. Again, mention that you did not even know there was another Life mage in the group before the first session.

3.
Talk to the Storyteller, and tell him that two other players have expressed concerns about your character. Also tell him that you don't want to cause any trouble, and ask for ways to solve this issue. Also fill him in on any other conversations you may have had already (steps 1 and 2 above), so that he knows the situation and what progress has been made already. The Storyteller should take it from there.

4.
One last reminder. Unless your only wish is to please the other players, do not let them dictate what character you should create, or how to play it. Even if they have "table seniority" over you (if such a thing exists), that does not mean that they can tell you how to play. Look for solutions and involve them to learn their opinions gain their their support.
Work with them, not beneath them. Negotiate, don't grovel. (But don't place demands either.)

Lord Torath
2014-10-02, 01:15 PM
I'd talk to the other healer's player, out-of-character, tell her your character concept, and see if she has any ideas for inter-character interactions. Maybe the two of you together can stake out some shared and non-shared ground. Maybe she'll enjoy having her character flaunt her powers to increase your character's jealousy. Maybe she'll have her character take the opposite approach and start mentoring yours. If the two of you can resolve your issues, you can pretty much ignore the other player's concerns.

Jay R
2014-10-02, 08:28 PM
To answer the question you actually asked: in my games, people can play any role they like, within the specifics of that game and world and scenario. I assume that my players are sufficiently adult that they will avoid stepping on each other's toes.

But you're asking the wrong question. The question should be, "When joining a group with a healer, I built a healer as well, and I've been told that I'd done a very mean thing by trying to encroach on an existing player's spot, and that the other player was feeling very threatened and jealous. How do I fix the problem I accidentally caused?"

Whether you think she should be upset by it or not, she evidently is, and you need to figure out how, and how to fix it.

When you get around to wanting to fix the specific problem, rather than complaining about it and asking whether it ought to be a problem, we may be able to help you.

We'd want more details, and I'd start with suggesting that you let her do all the healing she can first, and then follow up with what's still needed, making clear that you are additional support, not a rival.

Talakeal
2014-10-02, 08:43 PM
To answer the question you actually asked: in my games, people can play any role they like, within the specifics of that game and world and scenario. I assume that my players are sufficiently adult that they will avoid stepping on each other's toes.

But you're asking the wrong question. The question should be, "When joining a group with a healer, I built a healer as well, and I've been told that I'd done a very mean thing by trying to encroach on an existing player's spot, and that the other player was feeling very threatened and jealous. How do I fix the problem I accidentally caused?"

Whether you think she should be upset by it or not, she evidently is, and you need to figure out how, and how to fix it.

When you get around to wanting to fix the specific problem, rather than complaining about it and asking whether it ought to be a problem, we may be able to help you.

We'd want more details, and I'd start with suggesting that you let her do all the healing she can first, and then follow up with what's still needed, making clear that you are additional support, not a rival.


Dude, chill out, no reason to come across so confrontationally. Also, it distorts the conversation into a sort of weird mirror maze, as right now it looks like you are complaining about me complaining about someone else complaining about my character.

Honestly, although I am open to suggestions, I am not overly concerned with "fixing" the problem. The Storyteller is cool with it, and the player in question has yet to actually bring it up to me or do anything to inconvenience me, and until they do I really don't care about their feelings except in the broadest sense.

What concerned me more was the other player feeling that it was such a big deal that he needed to talk to me out of game and went on this whole speech about how I should have known better and if HE had been DMing he would never let duplicate characters in the group, and any GM worth their salt would police characters to make sure everyone was playing a different archetype with no overlap. I was wondering if that was a common sentiment among Game Masters, both that duplicates were bad and that it was the GM rather than the players who had to enforce it, which, judging from the responses so far, it isn't.

Vitruviansquid
2014-10-02, 10:34 PM
I'm a GM, I deserve to have whatever spice I wish, and I would honestly let the players work it out. As far as I'm concerned, I provide level-appropriate, theme-appropriate, story-appropriate challenges for my players, and it is up to them to solve them and choose their preferred methods of solving them. Unless player concepts are at campaign-wrecking levels of wack, I regard them with apathy. I tend not to run systems that require a lot of GM intervention in character creation, though.

Kami2awa
2014-10-03, 04:00 AM
One area where this doesn't work well is stealth. In general the more characters using stealth at the same time, the less effective it gets so in general only the best stealth-er can use it at any one time. This easily leads to one stealth character build completely overshadowing another.

Even worse is when the overshadowing character is not a PC but a *minion* of a PC. Sitting back while another PC's minion does what I should be doing is a recipe for "why the hell am I here?"

Alent
2014-10-03, 05:14 AM
What concerned me more was the other player feeling that it was such a big deal that he needed to talk to me out of game and went on this whole speech about how I should have known better and if HE had been DMing he would never let duplicate characters in the group, and any GM worth their salt would police characters to make sure everyone was playing a different archetype with no overlap. I was wondering if that was a common sentiment among Game Masters, both that duplicates were bad and that it was the GM rather than the players who had to enforce it, which, judging from the responses so far, it isn't.

The other player sounds like he's spoiled by small player pools, and/or MMO special snowflake mechanics. This is understandable if he hasn't played much in the way of freeform before. The whole point of the more freeform systems like whitewolf in my mind is so two people can both play healers and end up with entirely different characters with different responsibilities because they want to, despite having the same skillsets.

Some of my group's best characters came out of heavy character overlap where the overlapping characters teamed up to become 2.5 times the trouble to the DM. As an example, we once had two social characters in gurps (one washed up war hero specializing in lies and playing off of the moment teamed up with a privateer that specialized in eloquent speech and debate) team up to run the BBEG out of town with rumors by telling stories of their own personal exploits... and they succeed by selectively omitting parts of the story in ways that when people started talking, the combined stories ran the mayor's (BBEG) name through the mud. Neither one could do it by themselves, but they took their common ground, and started using it to support the other in such a way that not only did the rumors come together in the intended way, the BBEG couldn't touch them for slander because they weren't actually slandering him. Before long? The BBEG lost his titles and found himself a fugitive.

That kind of thing just doesn't happen when everyone neatly falls into tank/heals/DPT/CC with no overlap. That overlap is what gives you a foothold for teamwork and plans.

That said, as a DM, I will put my foot down when it comes to perfect carbon copies. I don't mind if you and another guy both like playing monks, I'll throw one of you a bone if the other is outshining you... but if you both bring the exact same monk build with the exact same character concept, I will politely request you two get some differentiation unless you two have a good reason/excuse like holding up a picture of Danny de Vito and Ahnuld Schwarzenegger and saying "These are our characters, we're twins, don't you see the resemblance?"

There are limits, but you have to push pretty hard before you find them.

Mastikator
2014-10-03, 05:59 AM
One area where this doesn't work well is stealth. In general the more characters using stealth at the same time, the less effective it gets so in general only the best stealth-er can use it at any one time. This easily leads to one stealth character build completely overshadowing another.

Even worse is when the overshadowing character is not a PC but a *minion* of a PC. Sitting back while another PC's minion does what I should be doing is a recipe for "why the hell am I here?"

On the flip side, two stealthy people can accomplish way more than one by being on two different locations, some stealth operations are not possible with only one sneaky character.

Jornophelanthas
2014-10-03, 09:58 AM
Quoting Talakeal, emphasis mine.


Honestly, although I am open to suggestions, I am not overly concerned with "fixing" the problem. The Storyteller is cool with it, and the player in question has yet to actually bring it up to me or do anything to inconvenience me, and until they do I really don't care about their feelings except in the broadest sense.

What concerned me more was the other player feeling that it was such a big deal that he needed to talk to me out of game and went on this whole speech about how I should have known better and if HE had been DMing he would never let duplicate characters in the group, and any GM worth their salt would police characters to make sure everyone was playing a different archetype with no overlap. I was wondering if that was a common sentiment among Game Masters, both that duplicates were bad and that it was the GM rather than the players who had to enforce it, which, judging from the responses so far, it isn't.

The healer player's issues (Player A) should concern you, because in that direction lies the solution to your problem with the player who complained to you (Player B).

It could go something like this:

1. Player B complains to you about you encroaching on Player A's turf (healing).
2. You approach Player A, asking them if he/she does indeed feel uncomfortable with your character being a healer.
3. Either work with Player A to find a nice compromise that keeps you both happy about your respective Life mages, or determine that Player A does not feel threatened at all and that Player B is imagining things.
4. Tell Player B that there is no problem, and that there is no need for him/her to give you a hard time. (He/she could go check with Player A, who should now back you up on this.)

If Player A does not want to find a solution with you, or if Player B keeps believing you are a troublemaker even after you solved the issue with Player A, then (and only then) do you ask for the Storyteller's help in mediating the situation.

(Now, if Player B is actually the one with the problem but will not admit it, that opens another can of worms. But let's not cross that bridge until we get there, if ever. It's far more likely that Player A is very insecure and non-confrontational, while Player B is very protective of Player A.)

P.S. When you go talk to Player A, you should probably start by explaining how you thought your character being jealous of his/her character's healing powers would be a cool thing, and ask if that gave off an impression that you (as a player) disliked Player A.
If necessary, apologize for unintentionally giving off such an impression, and explain that you don't yet know the unwritten rules of their table, but are trying to fit in.

Lord Torath
2014-10-03, 10:54 AM
The healer player's issues (Player A) should concern you, because in that direction lies the solution to your problem with the player who complained to you (Player B).

It could go something like this:

1. Player B complains to you about you encroaching on Player A's turf (healing).
2. You approach Player A, asking them if he/she does indeed feel uncomfortable with your character being a healer.
3. Either work with Player A to find a nice compromise that keeps you both happy about your respective Life mages, or determine that Player A does not feel threatened at all and that Player B is imagining things.
4. Tell Player B that there is no problem, and that there is no need for him/her to give you a hard time. (He/she could go check with Player A, who should now back you up on this.)

If Player A does not want to find a solution with you, or if Player B keeps believing you are a troublemaker even after you solved the issue with Player A, then (and only then) do you ask for the Storyteller's help in mediating the situation.

(Now, if Player B is actually the one with the problem but will not admit it, that opens another can of worms. But let's not cross that bridge until we get there, if ever. It's far more likely that Player A is very insecure and non-confrontational, while Player B is very protective of Player A.)

P.S. When you go talk to Player A, you should probably start by explaining how you thought your character being jealous of his/her character's healing powers would be a cool thing, and ask if that gave off an impression that you (as a player) disliked Player A.
If necessary, apologize for unintentionally giving off such an impression, and explain that you don't yet know the unwritten rules of their table, but are trying to fit in.This is what I was trying to say, but Jornophelanthas said it better and broke it out more explicitly. Make certain the situation is resolved with Player A, and the rest should take care of itself.

Broken Twin
2014-10-03, 12:41 PM
Answering OP's question: I'm absolutely fine with character overlap. The GM just needs to take the overlap into account. The more overlap there is, the heavier that niche should be useful within the setting. If there's a lot of healers, then endurance encounters or large groups of people that need healing are an option. Multiple sneaky people? An infiltration where two objectives need to be acquired within a short time frame of each other. Multiple fighters? Bigger combats. Multiple Faces? More social intrigue. And so on and so forth.

Having said that, overlap is fine, identical spheres of influence is not. Everyone should feel like they're able to contribute somewhere.

-------------------------------

As to your current situation, my guess is that the older healer's PC mistook your IC jealousy of her character as OOC intention to 'replace' her. Next session, emphasize the ways your character is different from hers (mechanically and/or fluff-wise), and that issue should hopefully go away. If it doesn't, talk to her outside of the game.

daremetoidareyo
2014-10-06, 07:42 PM
multiple casters makes for really interesting in group dynamics. I ran a group with a summoner, a bard, a sorcerer and a druid. They spammed summons and buffed them against the enemies like dynamos. A four person trojan horse: wooden statue not necessary. They made themselves a little mercenary business where they charged huge amounts of cash to rob people, kill protest movements, or just macguyver their way around for cash. They were smart enough to refuse any quests with dragons (or any huge beasts really) and stuck to humanoid enemies...

Knaight
2014-10-07, 03:10 PM
In this particular group it looks like there might be a problem with role overlap - and it would have been good to check with the player ahead of time, as their character appears to be fairly major in your character's dynamic. A quick "Hey, I'm thinking that it makes sense for X to be played as a secondary healer who looks up to and is envious of Y because Y is more skilled and experienced" to whoever is playing Y gives them forewarning and helps them integrate it into whatever they're doing with their character in a narrative sense.

That said: Generally, I have no issue with it. I've had groups where every character had more or less the same role, involving a group of fairly similar people. Heck, I've GMed games where the party was literally a group of 4 identical robots fresh off the assembly line*, and they all stayed in pretty much the same role of primary combatants with a secondary focus on communications and hacking. The precise details of each varied, but that's how it worked. Mechanical niche protection really doesn't matter to me, and I haven't seen any backstory cloning (other than the 4 robots off the assembly line, and that was my doing) - they still had distinct personalities.

*Breaking out of the factory prior to getting to the distribution center, but still.

Coidzor
2014-10-07, 04:12 PM
TLDR: When you DM, do you allow multiple PCs to play as the same Class / Role / Archetype / Concept / etc.? When you are a player do you get mad / jealous if someone else plays the same thing as you?

Well, first I ask them if they're aware of the other player's concept and character, since I generally try to encourage transparency between players to a fair extent there. Then I'd ask why they're doing it and if they're coordinating something between them, because if they are coordinating something between them I would kinda need to know as the GM. Also because if they're not coordinating something between them, then I'm even more curious as to why they're doing it.

This, of course, goes out the window for a game where we're intentionally doing something like this, like a game that starts with a whole bunch of apprentice mages or that starts out in a monastery of one sort or another or in the same dojo.


Ok, so recently I joined a mage game that was already in progress. I brought in a PC from a previous game who is a med-school student who uses life magic super science.

One of the existing PCs is also playing a healer. She is significantly more experienced than I am both mechanically and storyline wise (she is over twice my characters age). And I thought it would be fun to play my character as jealous of hers. The player grew very cold to me, and at the end of the session spent all pooled XP to raise her medical and life skills even further above mind.

Now, one of the other players approached me after the game and told me that I had done a very mean thing by trying to encroach on an existing player's spot, and that the other player was feeling very threatened and jealous. Furthermore, that player who was talking to me told me that if he had been the storyteller he would have vetoed my character on the spot, and that he would NEVER allow two players in the same group who have the same primary sphere.

He went on to talk about how nothing good can ever come from two people playing similar characters and that it will inevitably end in hurt feelings and someone feeling useless, and that as a new player I should have simply volunteered to play whatever the group was lacking rather than what I wanted to play.

I personally encourage diversity when I DM, but I can't imagine taking it this far. What do you think? How do you handle it?

So... did the Storyteller not tell you about what the other characters were playing in advance or did you just decide to try to create a rivalry with another player's character without discussing it with them first? :smallconfused:

Because you gotta have clear lines of communication if you're going to try to pull off a rivalry effectively, especially in a system that basically encourages player paranoia and backstabbing like WoD seems to have a history of doing.

The other player was way out of line for getting all sanctimonious at you about it, as well as espousing the horrible ethos of "force the new guy to play the X," though I suppose kudos to him for taking things to the spin of "force the new guy to play anything but the heal *****." It seems like half of his complaint is actually with the Storyteller who... apparently none of you actually talk to or else he'd have said something to that person instead? Or is your ST one of those kinds of STs who acts super petulant if anyone gets a word in edgewise? Because you shouldn't play with that kind of person to begin with, it's just not salubrious. :smallconfused:

Basically I see this as a problem born out of poor lines of communication. Your storyteller didn't get a good read of his existing players, he didn't tell you about what they were playing so you could have that to reference for your own character, you didn't communicate with the other player about wanting to start a rivalry or mentor relationship or whathaveyou, she didn't communicate that she didn't want to go in the direction you were taking things in, the second other player didn't communicate with the storyteller but decided to try to tear you a new one, and all of this after a full session, at least, had transpired. Rather than bring it up earlier so there'd be time to tweak things if such were truly necessary, and at the very least things could be smoothed out before tempers had flared.


I guess what I'm saying is, if it bothers the other player that much, maybe you can branch out and expand your magic in another direction. You know, go in more of a Frankenstein/Re-Animator direction. There's lots of room for different kinds of mad medical science. I personally think necromancy-type magic is the best option in-character, though, because how do you one-up a healer? Cure death.(I'm not sure what you can actually do in Mage, so disregard that if reanimation isn't plausible)

That reminds me, I can't recall for the life of me just who is able to make prometheans in the first place. Or if they even exist in nWoD.


It is if you've read a JP thread.

Ok, it was a little droll to start with, but now that actually made me chuckle in meatspace. XD

Talakeal
2014-10-07, 04:34 PM
Well, first I ask them if they're aware of the other player's concept and character, since I generally try to encourage transparency between players to a fair extent there. Then I'd ask why they're doing it and if they're coordinating something between them, because if they are coordinating something between them I would kinda need to know as the GM. Also because if they're not coordinating something between them, then I'm even more curious as to why they're doing it.

This, of course, goes out the window for a game where we're intentionally doing something like this, like a game that starts with a whole bunch of apprentice mages or that starts out in a monastery of one sort or another or in the same dojo.



So... did the Storyteller not tell you about what the other characters were playing in advance or did you just decide to try to create a rivalry with another player's character without discussing it with them first? :smallconfused:

Because you gotta have clear lines of communication if you're going to try to pull off a rivalry effectively, especially in a system that basically encourages player paranoia and backstabbing like WoD seems to have a history of doing.

The other player was way out of line for getting all sanctimonious at you about it, as well as espousing the horrible ethos of "force the new guy to play the X," though I suppose kudos to him for taking things to the spin of "force the new guy to play anything but the heal *****." It seems like half of his complaint is actually with the Storyteller who... apparently none of you actually talk to or else he'd have said something to that person instead? Or is your ST one of those kinds of STs who acts super petulant if anyone gets a word in edgewise? Because you shouldn't play with that kind of person to begin with, it's just not salubrious. :smallconfused:

Basically I see this as a problem born out of poor lines of communication. Your storyteller didn't get a good read of his existing players, he didn't tell you about what they were playing so you could have that to reference for your own character, you didn't communicate with the other player about wanting to start a rivalry or mentor relationship or whathaveyou, she didn't communicate that she didn't want to go in the direction you were taking things in, the second other player didn't communicate with the storyteller but decided to try to tear you a new one, and all of this after a full session, at least, had transpired. Rather than bring it up earlier so there'd be time to tweak things if such were truly necessary, and at the very least things could be smoothed out before tempers had flared.

I wasnt trying to start a rivalry. She is flat out better than me, and I was RPing as a jealous child. Why would someone starg a rivalry to someone who is left than half their age or experience?

The problem was that apparently the player, not the character, was jealous of me / threatened by me for some reason.

nedz
2014-10-07, 04:45 PM
Well, first I ask them if they're aware of the other player's concept and character, since I generally try to encourage transparency between players to a fair extent there. Then I'd ask why they're doing it and if they're coordinating something between them, because if they are coordinating something between them I would kinda need to know as the GM. Also because if they're not coordinating something between them, then I'm even more curious as to why they're doing it.

I prefer not to take this approach — I kind of enjoy the mini-game where everyone tries to work out exactly what everyone else is playing. It's not important in the grand scheme of things; but it can add fun, which is a good thing of itself. The reveals can be amusing also.

Coidzor
2014-10-07, 04:54 PM
I wasnt trying to start a rivalry. She is flat out better than me, and I was RPing as a jealous child. Why would someone starg a rivalry to someone who is left than half their age or experience?

The problem was that apparently the player, not the character, was jealous of me / threatened by me for some reason.

I would hazard a guess that it's at least partially because you didn't talk to them about coordinating this sort of thing and just unilaterally did it and still don't seem to have acknowledged this as even a potential misstep despite it being pointed out to you several times now.

There's some things that you can just do and then there's other things where you need to work with the other person. This is not one of the former, it is one of the latter.

Why are you so opposed to talking to and coordinating with the other player, especially when the alternative is coming out of left field like you did? :smallconfused:
I prefer not to take this approach — I kind of enjoy the mini-game where everyone tries to work out exactly what everyone else is playing. It's not important in the grand scheme of things; but it can add fun, which is a good thing of itself. The reveals can be amusing also.

I don't see what's so amusing unless you've got a troll barbarian-wizard sort. Having a single thread asking what everyone's thinking of playing is much less work than not only keeping several lines of private discussion going and making sure that not only I don't accidentally let it slip but also having to police the players so that none of the them tell any of the others what they're playing, especially if they're playing characters who are siblings or who have shared backstory.

I mean, more power to them if the players want to create their characters in complete secrecy from one another and do the heavy lifting there, but I'm not going to micromanage them to enforce that upon them for what seems to be an incredibly small payoff. :smallconfused:


I prefer not to take this approach — I kind of enjoy the mini-game where everyone tries to work out exactly what everyone else is playing. It's not important in the grand scheme of things; but it can add fun, which is a good thing of itself. The reveals can be amusing also.

I don't see what's so amusing unless you've got a troll barbarian-wizard sort. Though from what I recall, that sort of thing would be pretty amusing. If it didn't result in some kind of bloodshed from thrown objects.

Having a single thread asking what everyone's thinking of playing is much less work than not only keeping several lines of private discussion going and making sure that not only I don't accidentally let it slip but also having to police the players so that none of the them tell any of the others what they're playing, especially if they're playing characters who are siblings or who have shared backstory.

I mean, more power to them if the players want to create their characters in complete secrecy from one another and do the heavy lifting there, but I'm not going to micromanage them to enforce that upon them for what seems to be an incredibly small payoff. :smallconfused:

Talakeal
2014-10-07, 05:09 PM
I would hazard a guess that it's at least partially because you didn't talk to them about coordinating this sort of thing and just unilaterally did it and still don't seem to have acknowledged this as even a potential misstep despite it being pointed out to you several times now.

There's some things that you can just do and then there's other things where you need to work with the other person. This is not one of the former, it is one of the latter.

Why are you so opposed to talking to and coordinating with the other player, especially when the alternative is coming out of left field like you did? :smallconfused:
:

I have never spoken to the player outside of the game, and we all created our characters some time ago outside of the game before we had ever even met.

Honestly, I never even considered this sort of thing as being an issue. To me how players RP their character is completely up to them, and I can't imagine a party without quirks. Demanding someone else change their character's personality because it hurts your feelings is utterly incomprehensible to me.

People have prejudices and character quirks. I can't think of a single part, either in a game I have played in or in fantasy fiction, where there isn't some level of minor IC tension whether it be elves distrusting dwarves, barbarians distrusting wizards, paladins distrusting rogues, nobles looking down on commoners, or everyone being annoyed by the kender.

One player telling another how they can RP is imo completely unacceptable and non negotiable, and one of the few things that would cause me to walk out on the spot, and if you have read any of my previous RPG horror story threads you know I put up with a lot of crap.

Aedilred
2014-10-07, 06:27 PM
Honestly, I never even considered this sort of thing as being an issue. To me how players RP their character is completely up to them, and I can't imagine a party without quirks. Demanding someone else change their character's personality because it hurts your feelings is utterly incomprehensible to me.

...

One player telling another how they can RP is imo completely unacceptable and non negotiable, and one of the few things that would cause me to walk out on the spot, and if you have read any of my previous RPG horror story threads you know I put up with a lot of crap.

Eh. Rich actually wrote an article which I think is relevant to this a while ago. Here you go (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) (second half, from "decide to react differently"). On the one hand, you are completely in control of your character and how you RP them is up to you, that is true. However, that doesn't excuse RPing your character in a way that upsets another player - it's still completely within your control, so ultimately, if you're doing that deliberately, it's just you being a jerk.

There is perhaps a legitimate cause to query whether it's reasonable for them to be upset by the way you're playing it, but that still points to the solution of "discuss it with them" and try to reach a compromise - which is surely better than blithely pressing ahead and continue annoying them just because you can, with the likely ultimate outcome that one of you leaves the group, voluntarily or otherwise.

Coidzor
2014-10-07, 07:02 PM
I have never spoken to the player outside of the game, and we all created our characters some time ago outside of the game before we had ever even met.

You say that like that's a good thing(which is weird, considering my main analysis of the situation was that there was insufficient communication and the communication that did occur seemed to be pretty shoddy) or like this isn't the perfect opportunity and a fairly good reason to go ahead and contact them directly without waiting until the next session of the game. :smallconfused:


Honestly, I never even considered this sort of thing as being an issue. To me how players RP their character is completely up to them, and I can't imagine a party without quirks. Demanding someone else change their character's personality because it hurts your feelings is utterly incomprehensible to me.

Yeah, most of those quirks require players to work together to roleplay well and the more involved they are, especially character-to-character, the more cooperation is necessary. So just blithely going "I'm going to RP my character as crazy jealous and obsessed with this other player's character without talking to them about it at all" is less exercising your right to autonomy and more being a jerk and roping them into a situation where you're dictating what they have to react to in a sphere that is not always going to be kosher to do without consent.


People have prejudices and character quirks. I can't think of a single part, either in a game I have played in or in fantasy fiction, where there isn't some level of minor IC tension whether it be elves distrusting dwarves, barbarians distrusting wizards, paladins distrusting rogues, nobles looking down on commoners, or everyone being annoyed by the kender.

Yeah, this isn't really directly comparable to those things. Those are generalities and types. You made it personal, as much as you want to say "it's just a jealousy, not a rivalry."


One player telling another how they can RP is imo completely unacceptable and non negotiable, and one of the few things that would cause me to walk out on the spot, and if you have read any of my previous RPG horror story threads you know I put up with a lot of crap.

If you've experienced predominantly horror stories, maybe you shouldn't be basing so much of your analysis of this upon "I've only ever experienced games with IC conflict that bled over into OOC tension so that's normal." :smallconfused:

Talakeal
2014-10-07, 08:12 PM
You say that like that's a good thing(which is weird, considering my main analysis of the situation was that there was insufficient communication and the communication that did occur seemed to be pretty shoddy) or like this isn't the perfect opportunity and a fairly good reason to go ahead and contact them directly without waiting until the next session of the game. :smallconfused:



Yeah, most of those quirks require players to work together to roleplay well and the more involved they are, especially character-to-character, the more cooperation is necessary. So just blithely going "I'm going to RP my character as crazy jealous and obsessed with this other player's character without talking to them about it at all" is less exercising your right to autonomy and more being a jerk and roping them into a situation where you're dictating what they have to react to in a sphere that is not always going to be kosher to do without consent.



Yeah, this isn't really directly comparable to those things. Those are generalities and types. You made it personal, as much as you want to say "it's just a jealousy, not a rivalry."



If you've experienced predominantly horror stories, maybe you shouldn't be basing so much of your analysis of this upon "I've only ever experienced games with IC conflict that bled over into OOC tension so that's normal." :smallconfused:


Ok, so I think you migt be overestimating the level of jealousy here. In three sessions I have said two sentances of dialogue to convey it, only one of which was actually to her (and i doubt the player even heard me).

The first time she introduced her as a doctor of eastern medicine, and I asked "how is that different from regular medicine?" and the second time one of the other PCs came to me for healing and I said "are you sure you wouldnt rather go to X."

Thats it, in three sessions.


Also, it isnt just from games I have played in. Tensions between team mates is a staple of of any sort of fantasy novel or action movie I have ever seen. Take LoTR, in that you have legolas and gimle, aragorn and baromir, and pippen and gandalf, three relationships which are full of tensions, all of which flavor the narrative, none of which result in actual conflict, all end in mutual respect,and none of which can I imagine a reasonable person get mad about in game.

I cannot comprehend getting that upset because someone elses character said something mildly mean to your character. Even childrens cartoons like carebears have a grumpy character who says not so nice things to their friends occasionally.

Aedilred
2014-10-07, 09:13 PM
Also, it isnt just from games I have played in. Tensions between team mates is a staple of of any sort of fantasy novel or action movie I have ever seen. Take LoTR, in that you have legolas and gimle, aragorn and baromir, and pippen and gandalf, three relationships which are full of tensions, all of which flavor the narrative, none of which result in actual conflict, all end in mutual respect,and none of which can I imagine a reasonable person get mad about in game.

I cannot comprehend getting that upset because someone elses character said something mildly mean to your character. Even childrens cartoons like carebears have a grumpy character who says not so nice things to their friends occasionally.

So it seems like they might be a bit sensitive - I'd have thought that's all the more reason to talk to them OOC and at least try to clarify and explain what you're doing even if you don't want to modify your behaviour. It might be that you're trying to evoke Legolas and Gimli and they think you're trying to go for Mufasa and Scar, to use a thoroughly asinine example. A simple conversation might clear everything up.

Maybe you can't reach an understanding, but it's got to be worth a try.

valadil
2014-10-07, 09:18 PM
[QUOTE=Talakeal;18188347]TLDR: When you DM, do you allow multiple PCs to play as the same Class / Role / Archetype / Concept / etc.? When you are a player do you get mad / jealous if someone else plays the same thing as you?

Hell yeah! I've played tank/wizard/healer/skillmonkey before. I know how it works and don't need to see it again. bard/bard/bard/bard is a whole lot more interesting to me because it's unique.

As a player I've only really had a problem with this sort of thing when one of the characters completely overshadows the other. It's fine if they have similar niches or complementary skill sets, but everybody in the party should be the best at something. In this case, rather than vetoing the second similar character, I'd help the weaker character catch up mechanically.

One trick I've used as a player with a shared niche is to try and give that niche a little more spotlight time. It sounds selfish, but I don't think it is because a greater percentage of the party is participating in that niche than if you were going it alone. I played a barbarian with movement skills some time ago. There was also a ranger with similar skills. Our combat styles were distinct, but we both wanted to be the one scouting the other side of the chasm. Instead of each trying to be the designated scout we turned the whole thing into a friendly competition. Climb races were frequent occurences. The rest of the party would curse us for ditching them again, while we were busy giggling like idiots because the scouts ran off *again*. We wouldn't have had that side of the game if we'd been told to stay within our distinct niches, and TBH, that shared spotlight was my favorite part of the campaign.

Diachronos
2014-10-07, 09:30 PM
The only time I ever encountered this sort of problem myself was in the first Pathfinder campaign that I started in (technically my second, but this was the first one where I was there for the first session), and even then it wasn't that bad. The party had 3 characters capable of any kind of healing: my Alchemist, an Oracle, and a Druid. A lot of times I'd get irritated when people asked for healing after a tough fight because I'd prepared half of my extracts as Cure potions and had even invested in the Infusion discovery to share the alchemical love, but the Oracle and Druid were able to patch everyone up every single time. I ended up not bothering after a while, since we never needed that much healing and the casters always had enough spells left to handle whatever else came up that day, and using them for utility extracts, like Greater Invisibility for our Rogue/Gunslinger.

Knaight
2014-10-07, 09:42 PM
One player telling another how they can RP is imo completely unacceptable and non negotiable, and one of the few things that would cause me to walk out on the spot, and if you have read any of my previous RPG horror story threads you know I put up with a lot of crap.

Nobody is saying that people should be dictating terms to each other about how to role play. The word that has been used is "coordinate".

Talakeal
2014-10-08, 10:59 PM
@coidzor: I am sorry if I was a bit blunt with you in my last post, you seem to have been genuinely trying to help, and I came off as stubborn and defensive. I was distracted and typing on a tablet, so I came off a bit harsher than I should have, and am thankful for you input. I do, however, wish you would not take statements I say and throw them back to me as attacks. I have been part of a lot of bad gaming, but I have also been in a lot of good gaming. I have never been in a situation where people got bent out of shape over in character dialogue (hell, in most of my groups people don't talk IC at all).

While I can see how ic rude statements COULD hurt someone, I can't actually wrap my head around being that thin skinned, and the idea of actually asking permission before you say something in a make believe game is, to me, both incredibly patronizing and a huge time waster / immersion breaker.

Also, I wasn't trying to say that a lack of communication was a good thing, I was just explaining the situation.




Eh. Rich actually wrote an article which I think is relevant to this a while ago. Here you go (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) (second half, from "decide to react differently"). On the one hand, you are completely in control of your character and how you RP them is up to you, that is true. However, that doesn't excuse RPing your character in a way that upsets another player - it's still completely within your control, so ultimately, if you're doing that deliberately, it's just you being a jerk.


The problem with that article is that it assumes one player is at fault when it takes two to tango. He blames the paladin, but why is it the paladin's fault that the other player is performing disruptive acts? If you have mr. Chaotic Evil murderapist and mr. LG knight in shining armor both of them are ruining one another's play experience, why is it only one person's responsibility to change? How do you determine which player always need to cave, and how do you determine how far a players demands can go before you need to stop giving in?

For example, in my current group there is one player who flat out refuses to contribute to party expenses, and as a result has about 50% greater wealth than anyone else in the group and is starting to overpower the other players as a result. When they brought it up, he told them that by trying to make him feel bad they were victimizing him and ruining his play experience by not letting him be stronger than them and making him feel guilty about being "better with money than they are". In this case both people feel they are the victims and both are "ruining the other's play experience," who does that article suggest needs to cave?

Jornophelanthas
2014-10-09, 06:07 AM
While I can see how ic rude statements COULD hurt someone, I can't actually wrap my head around being that thin skinned, and the idea of actually asking permission before you say something in a make believe game is, to me, both incredibly patronizing and a huge time waster / immersion breaker.

You just need to accept that Player A (the Life mage) is (probably) being thin-skinned about this issue. You do not need to ask him/her permission for saying things in character, but a single conversation should help here. This conversation should preferably be one on one, and not involve Player B (the one who confronted you).

What should this conversation entail?

- You should first make sure whether Player A is actually feeling threatened, or uncomfortable, or frustrated by how he/she perceives your character's actions.

- You should explain the role you are playing. For example, explain that you want your character to have some jealousy issues towards her character, but that this is only to create some healthy intra-party tensions, and that this is in no way intended to "take over" his/her role as The Healer. Pretty much the explanations you have been giving in your various posts throughout this thread. Player A needs to understand this, so that he/she can react in an appropriate in-character manner.

- You should ask Player A what you could do to increase his/her enjoyment of the game, and suggest to him/her what he/she could do to enhance your enjoyment. Negotiate, and reach some kind of agreement, no matter how vague. (For example, Player A might want you to give him/her first dibs at healing the other players, while you might ask Player A to engage a little more in in-character bickering over foci/stlye.) The important thing is that you both go on knowing that you have an agreement, where it's actually not important what the details of the agreement are.

And you're done. All that is left both you and Player A adjusting your play style slightly in accordance with the spirit of the agreement, and telling Player B to stop worrying.

Aedilred
2014-10-09, 09:54 AM
The problem with that article is that it assumes one player is at fault when it takes two to tango. He blames the paladin, but why is it the paladin's fault that the other player is performing disruptive acts? If you have mr. Chaotic Evil murderapist and mr. LG knight in shining armor both of them are ruining one another's play experience, why is it only one person's responsibility to change? How do you determine which player always need to cave, and how do you determine how far a players demands can go before you need to stop giving in?
Well, talking about it couldn't hurt. This is not necessarily an issue on which anyone needs to "cave in"; given that as you present it it is at least in part a misunderstanding anyway, it may well be possible to reach a compromise. But no progress is going to be made if you continue to press on with your current activities and refuse to talk about them.

I think it's worth mentioning because I think it's a good principle for life in general: refusing to discuss a situation because you think you're in the right is a terrible way to handle it in almost all instances, excepting probably only cases of criminal responsibility. It almost inevitably leads to escalation of the problem, rather than any resolution. And sure, maybe you can browbeat someone else into accepting your way of doing things through sheer force of stubbornness, but - again, excepting a fairly narrow class of highly important situations - that's basically just being a jerk. Yeah, some people are pretty thin-skinned, and sometimes unreasonably so, but just bulldozing them because you don't agree isn't going to help anything: it's just going to make you look like the bad guy.

The question is, essentially, are you interested in actually solving the problem? Or just in "winning" this particular disagreement with another player (which ultimately, probably means their leaving the group)?

With relation to the article specifically, everyone knows what a paladin is there for, what he's doing, and the decision by another member of the party to act as a murderrapist is inherently - and knowingly - destructive to the paladin's character. The only way that situation can be reconciled long-term is by the paladin changing class altogether. In that situation, if a player goes into a game with a paladin planning to play that character that way, he's effectively planning to screw over the paladin, right from square one. This is why communication is important, so that some situation can be reached.


When they brought it up, he told them that by trying to make him feel bad they were victimizing him and ruining his play experience by not letting him be stronger than them and making him feel guilty about being "better with money than they are".
Well, that is pretty ridiculous (and I'm starting to wonder how dysfunctional this group is). "It's not fair that I'm not allowed to have an unfair advantage over you" is not a legitimate, or even logical, argument. But without more information about to what extent that's an IC issue and an OOC one and so forth it's difficult to see what the solution is or to what extent he's in the wrong.

To an extent, which player is causing the problem is decided by majority opinion. If the rest of the group is broadly in agreement that one player's (or PC's) behaviour doesn't fit in, they're the problem. Given that the purpose of the game is for everyone to have fun, if one person is hurting everyone else's fun, they're the problem, even if everyone else is, by a purely objective standard, being unreasonable. That's not an excuse for bullying, of course, but such are the intricacies of social interaction and it doesn't look like that's what's going on here with you.

Talakeal
2014-10-09, 01:19 PM
You just need to accept that Player A (the Life mage) is (probably) being thin-skinned about this issue. You do not need to ask him/her permission for saying things in character, but a single conversation should help here. This conversation should preferably be one on one, and not involve Player B (the one who confronted you).

What should this conversation entail?

- You should first make sure whether Player A is actually feeling threatened, or uncomfortable, or frustrated by how he/she perceives your character's actions.

- You should explain the role you are playing. For example, explain that you want your character to have some jealousy issues towards her character, but that this is only to create some healthy intra-party tensions, and that this is in no way intended to "take over" his/her role as The Healer. Pretty much the explanations you have been giving in your various posts throughout this thread. Player A needs to understand this, so that he/she can react in an appropriate in-character manner.

- You should ask Player A what you could do to increase his/her enjoyment of the game, and suggest to him/her what he/she could do to enhance your enjoyment. Negotiate, and reach some kind of agreement, no matter how vague. (For example, Player A might want you to give him/her first dibs at healing the other players, while you might ask Player A to engage a little more in in-character bickering over foci/stlye.) The important thing is that you both go on knowing that you have an agreement, where it's actually not important what the details of the agreement are.

And you're done. All that is left both you and Player A adjusting your play style slightly in accordance with the spirit of the agreement, and telling Player B to stop worrying.

Yeah, it would probably be a good idea, but I am not sure how to talk to him alone, I literally have no contact with him outside the game. Also, if player B is just blowing this out of proportion it might come across as weird and condescending.


Well, talking about it couldn't hurt. This is not necessarily an issue on which anyone needs to "cave in"; given that as you present it it is at least in part a misunderstanding anyway, it may well be possible to reach a compromise. But no progress is going to be made if you continue to press on with your current activities and refuse to talk about them.

I think it's worth mentioning because I think it's a good principle for life in general: refusing to discuss a situation because you think you're in the right is a terrible way to handle it in almost all instances, excepting probably only cases of criminal responsibility. It almost inevitably leads to escalation of the problem, rather than any resolution. And sure, maybe you can browbeat someone else into accepting your way of doing things through sheer force of stubbornness, but - again, excepting a fairly narrow class of highly important situations - that's basically just being a jerk. Yeah, some people are pretty thin-skinned, and sometimes unreasonably so, but just bulldozing them because you don't agree isn't going to help anything: it's just going to make you look like the bad guy.

The question is, essentially, are you interested in actually solving the problem? Or just in "winning" this particular disagreement with another player (which ultimately, probably means their leaving the group)?

With relation to the article specifically, everyone knows what a paladin is there for, what he's doing, and the decision by another member of the party to act as a murderrapist is inherently - and knowingly - destructive to the paladin's character. The only way that situation can be reconciled long-term is by the paladin changing class altogether. In that situation, if a player goes into a game with a paladin planning to play that character that way, he's effectively planning to screw over the paladin, right from square one. This is why communication is important, so that some situation can be reached.


Well, that is pretty ridiculous (and I'm starting to wonder how dysfunctional this group is). "It's not fair that I'm not allowed to have an unfair advantage over you" is not a legitimate, or even logical, argument. But without more information about to what extent that's an IC issue and an OOC one and so forth it's difficult to see what the solution is or to what extent he's in the wrong.

To an extent, which player is causing the problem is decided by majority opinion. If the rest of the group is broadly in agreement that one player's (or PC's) behaviour doesn't fit in, they're the problem. Given that the purpose of the game is for everyone to have fun, if one person is hurting everyone else's fun, they're the problem, even if everyone else is, by a purely objective standard, being unreasonable. That's not an excuse for bullying, of course, but such are the intricacies of social interaction and it doesn't look like that's what's going on here with you.


Well, Rich seems to place the blame for this on the players who want to police disruptive behavior rather than the players who engage in it, specifically calling out the paladin and the lawful monk as examples. That seems weird to me, as generally in my opinion it is the player who wants to be the CN sociopath who is ruining everyone's good time.

The party with the wealth imbalance is the one I DM for, not the same group that I am a PC in. But to continue that story, the really funny part is a few sessions later I tried to correct the wealth imbalance by putting in a powerful magic item that only the poorest character in the party could use, and the wealthy player insisted he sell it and give everyone a share. When the player said no, he got on a high horse and made a statement like "In THIS party we distribute all loot evenly!".

Honest Tiefling
2014-10-09, 02:06 PM
I admittedly skimmed this thread, but I think it bears mentioning: I somewhat get the feeling that the players are overreacting because they have had bad experiences with socially impaired neckbeards in the past. Have you made it clear that you made this conflict not because you dislike what the other healer is doing, but to encourage RP?

As for the question at large, I would. I would probably allow rerolling or tweaking if it didn't work the first time, but I sorta see it as their choice to do. I think the only time I got upset at someone being in the same niche is when they did the math incorrectly and were far better at skills and combat then me for that reason. If it was one or the other I could have gone in the other direction, but I admit, I don't do well when I feel cheated because someone else didn't do their sheet right.

Lord Torath
2014-10-09, 03:54 PM
Yeah, it would probably be a good idea, but I am not sure how to talk to him alone, I literally have no contact with him outside the game. Also, if player B is just blowing this out of proportion it might come across as weird and condescending.Before your next session starts, (while everyone is still arriving/setting up) ask him if you can talk to him for a few minutes alone to run some of your plans for your character by him (this makes it about you, not him). Then you explain how you thought it might be interesting to have your character be jealous of his character, and how does he want their relationship to develop?

Jornophelanthas
2014-10-09, 05:27 PM
Before your next session starts, (while everyone is still arriving/setting up) ask him if you can talk to him for a few minutes alone to run some of your plans for your character by him (this makes it about you, not him). Then you explain how you thought it might be interesting to have your character be jealous of his character, and how does he want their relationship to develop?

I second this suggestion.

Also, since you don't know if Player B is blowing things out of proportion, you could find a way of asking Player A whether he actually has any issues with your character. You could work this in as an innocuous side question, preferably near the start of the conversation.
For example: "I heard that [some weakened version of Player B's criticism]...?" If you trail off near the end (with a questioning tone), you give Player A any opportunity to clarify whether what you said is true, or an exaggeration.
If Player A knew that Player B was going to confront you, he should know enough. If Player A did not know, then you didn't tell him.
If Player A is genuinely bothered/threatened, your question offers a (hopefully) non-threatening opening to express it. If Player B is not really bothered by your character, he can laugh off your question.
And in the end, nobody loses face.