Do you allow multiple characters with the same role?

[Fumble Jack]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Dude, this is not funny.

It was funny.

[Aedilred]

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]

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]

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]

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(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

[Talakeal]

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?
:

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]

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 (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.