As a New GM Which Would You Rather See?

[Foeofthelance]

As a bit of background, my local game group is going to put our game on hold while one of the players deals with some IRL issues. But rather than abandon the game entirely, one of the players is going to step up and run the game, leaving me to pick a PC for myself. He's fairly new to GMing and most of the party is on their second or third character ever as well. As such, I'm leaning towards creating a more support oriented character to try and smooth over rough spots and to make sure others can experiment as they wish. If you were a new GM, what do you think would be more helpful, (A) a healer type who can patch up the party if they make disastrous decisions or (B) a Swiss army knife of skills that can get them through most noncombat encounters?

[OldTrees1]

It probably depends on the system and the campaign. I would suggest the healer unless the campaign has a lot of skill usage and the skill system discourages untrained checks.

However in some systems you could play a healer that supports the checks others make. In 5E D&D Bard or Cleric(Guidance) are examples of this possibility.

[ShadowSandbag]

It would depend on the system, but without that I'd lean towards A.
My thought process is that there are times I don't want the players to breeze through non-combat things. As a GM I often use those sorts of encounters as a stop-gap for when I need time. Sometimes it's because they've gone further than I planned for that week, sometimes I need to rethink some things based on their actions and sometimes they just make good pieces between larger events.

While I get your intentions in doing so, I would argue that breezing through those sorts of skill checks removes "easy" encounters from the GM toolbox and forces them to rely more on combat, which is a lot harder to balance around and work with.

[TyGuy]

(C) a PC that isn't designed to "break" anything played by someone who can show up on time, help with scheduling, help/point out rules respectfully, help track conditions even if it's not in the party's favor, and helps move the story forward.

[HidesHisEyes]

Entirely depends on the game system. I like systems where the respective skillsets of PCs don’t matter too much. But I also like PCs who are distinct and separate in every way, so with only the info you’ve given I would go with whichever of those two is less covered by the other characters.

[Anonymouswizard]

If you were a new GM, what do you think would be more helpful, (A) a healer type who can patch up the party if they make disastrous decisions or (B) a Swiss army knife of skills that can get them through most noncombat encounters?

B. I'm assuming you mean a 'Jack of All Trades, Master of none' style where the character makes sure that the party can get any course of action, but doesn't have high enough skills to reliably circumvent noncombat obstacles.

Unless the game is a more recent editions of D&D, where combat is the only thing that matters. In which case I'd probably prefer a player to play a healer (or, if I had a decent understanding of D&D, a buffer).

[Raphite1]

It doesn’t matter, the DM balances the adventure around the party. It only gets tricky when there’s a large power difference among party members.

[Quertus]

I think the answer is, "ask your GM".

When I was a new GM? I wouldn't have cared.

Now, having played for… has it really been 4 decades?…? I still wouldn't care.

I would care for this, though:

(C) a PC that isn't designed to "break" anything played by someone who can show up on time, help with scheduling, help/point out rules respectfully, help track conditions even if it's not in the party's favor, and helps move the story forward.

[False God]

Bit of both?

As a DM & player, I really don't like characters that can't stand on their on own. Glass cannons who need backup in order to do their job. healers who can't do anything else, etc.. So I appreciate more moderated characters that can cover a lot of ground even if they're not AAA+ at any one specific role.

[Foeofthelance]

(C) a PC that isn't designed to "break" anything played by someone who can show up on time, help with scheduling, help/point out rules respectfully, help track conditions even if it's not in the party's favor, and helps move the story forward.

Breaking things isn't the intent. If anything, it's too easy. *Looks at the 5th edition optimization threads*. It's more that coming off GMing for so long and knowing this is a party of new players, it would be easy to build something like a Sorcadin that runs around smiting everything while healing the rest while serving as party face, I'd rather be casting Hold Person so the Fighter can get in the big swing or Bardicly Inspiring the Wizard to crack the ancient coded runes.

Looks like the general consensus is healbot, so off to designing I go. Thanks all!

[Felhammer]

it really depends on the style of game and what the other players are playing. If everyone is a striker or a tank, then filling in as a healer is a good idea. If everyone else has all the bases covered, then being a jack of all trades - specifically picking things that complement your fellow PCs (or make up for their faults) would be desirable.

But, at the end of the day, I would want YOU to have fun. If you want to play a striker, play it. The DM, even newbie DMs, will learn how to balance things around the players.

[Easy e]

I would rather you do not cheese out your character, and instead focus on trying to help those around you by sharing the spotlight as much as you can.

[Xervous]

As a bit of background, my local game group is going to put our game on hold while one of the players deals with some IRL issues. But rather than abandon the game entirely, one of the players is going to step up and run the game, leaving me to pick a PC for myself. He's fairly new to GMing and most of the party is on their second or third character ever as well. As such, I'm leaning towards creating a more support oriented character to try and smooth over rough spots and to make sure others can experiment as they wish. If you were a new GM, what do you think would be more helpful, (A) a healer type who can patch up the party if they make disastrous decisions or (B) a Swiss army knife of skills that can get them through most noncombat encounters?

B assuming it’s Jack of all who can contribute but not definitively solve things on his lonesome.

[icefractal]

A is pretty safe; I can't see healing being an issue unless the GM really wants to kill off PCs, which they should probably be discouraged from anyway. There's a risk you might end up less than useful if the GM only uses infrequent or easy fights, but in most cases a healer is always handy.

B might be fine, might be a problem. Different GMs have different ideas about the purpose of an obstacle ("the bridge being wrecked is because there's an angry dragon around, it's not about the PCs" vs "the bridge being wrecked is a chance for PCs to show off their leaping/climbing/flying skills" vs "the bridge being wrecked is supposed to lead to taking an alternate route"), and having the tools to easily handle it may throw a wrench in the latter type's plans. Now on the one hand I don't think a GM should try too hard to force a particular path, and for an experienced GM I'd have no problem saying "I can teleport, dealwithit.jpg", but for a new GM it's best to cut them more slack.

[Mordar]

B. I'm assuming you mean a 'Jack of All Trades, Master of none' style where the character makes sure that the party can get any course of action, but doesn't have high enough skills to reliably circumvent noncombat obstacles.

Unless the game is a more recent editions of D&D, where combat is the only thing that matters. In which case I'd probably prefer a player to play a healer (or, if I had a decent understanding of D&D, a buffer).

I think the answer is, "ask your GM".

When I was a new GM? I wouldn't have cared.

Now, having played for… has it really been 4 decades?…? I still wouldn't care.

I would care for this, though:

I'm with Anonymous and Quertus...play a character that boosts the others. Help them help themselves, and don't "bot" anything.

- M

[Mordante]

If possible i would say healer/party face.

[Jay R]

(C) a PC designed to fill in the needs of this party of PCs run by this group of players.

Since we don't know anything about the other PCs or the other players, there's no way for us to know what's missing and needs to be supplied.

[Alcore]

Among the options presented? A.


I, however, would rather make a broken OP character. I can easily pull my punches and could save the party from TPK if the new GM is unused to balancing encounters. (It would also be wise to let him know, usually privately)

Edit; not necessarily the broken part; the unfair encounters part