Team building - "Synergy" vs. "Freedom"

[The Insanity]

I don't like to restrict my players, but when I see games where the players have freedom to take whatever the want and their team ends up having 3 Rogues or 4 Clerics, I'm kinda cringing inside. Sure, you can play that way, but IMO those types of parties should be left for gimmicky games, where playing an All Wizard Party is the point (because the game is about being students in a Wizard Academy or something) and not just all players happening to pick the same concept and being unwilling to change their minds. That's why, when I run a generic game (one that is just a simple adventure/campaign, not some complicated game with a specific theme) I'm going for the "Synergy" style of character/party creation. I require certain roles to be filled by each party member. Though they can go about filling their role in a plethora of ways (the frontman melee guy can be a Fighter, or a Barbarian, or a Warblade, and can be a full offense two-handing killing machine, or tanky sword & board tripper, etc.) and if build well can take secondary roles, I set some restrictions to... encourage variety. For example the frontman/melee guy/tank can't be a full caster. Yeah, it probably can be done with a Cleric or Druid or Wizard, and probably even better than a Fighter or Barb, but that's not what I imagine a frontliner to be.

So, how do you handle team building in your games?

[Malroth]

To be honest 4 clerics can be a perfectly balanced party provided their gods get along well enough to allow them to travel together. However most parties will corordnate their builds together if you have them all in one place for a character creation day and let them know the premise of the campaign and any rules changes that should affect their choices.

[daremetoidareyo]

I don't know if synergy is all that important for any game world. It just changes the nature of the challenges that a DM must throw at the party. Its a dereliction of DMly duties to refuse to cater the campaigns and adventures around the abilities of the player they have rather than the players that they wish they had.

Rogues would need just a tad bit more in loot to compensate for the UMD that they would need for their challenges.

Clerics would be like an all whitemage party from final fantasy 1: the only way to beat the game easily with a monochromatic cast.

Druids would be terribly fun. 2 different Wild shape specialists +summoner specialist + ubercompanion. There would be almost no challenge they couldn't handle.

The only "inoperable" party is all fighters, paladins, and monks, but that is mostly due to an inability to handle all those weird DND things that require certain spells to be cast to overcome certain obstacles. But a party of monks and fighters could be a total blast. Make them an advance commando squad for some agency (guild/army/constable/etc) and set them to bruise up the faces of the bad guys. That party will differentiate in flavor pretty fast (although mechanically, it is still about power attacking and maximizing reach.)

I think that the only terrible campaign would come from having 2 players attempting to do the exact same schtick, while the rest of the party is normal. Cleric necromancer, dread necromancer, rogue, fighter is far worse for campaign balance than 4 20 level marshals: the entire PC group experience is skewed towards undead stuff instead of whatever the campaign would be with a more synergistic PC design approach, and there is no substantive and fair way for the DM to compensate for that unbalance.

I prefer freedom as both a PC and a DM. I would warn PCs if someone else is designing a super similar character, but stop there. What they want is what they want. Further, If you run from level 1, there are so many builds out there that you can't really detect how the PCs will branch out, even if they start as all evokers. Freedom is better in my opinion.

[Red Fel]

So, how do you handle team building in your games?

Talk to the other players. Consult the ban list. Consider what you know about the campaign setting. Think about your own preferred play style and limitations. Remember not to be deliberately difficult or a jerk.

And then build whatever you want.

At least that's what I expect of my players. Your mileage may vary, and all that.

[Dysart]

I'm the same really, I always require the following slots to be filled:

Medic: Anything that can cast Cure spells is fine.
Scout: Stealthy/Dex based. Preferably with trapfinding.
Frontman: Someone who has a High AC and works with Melee attacks.
Arcane: It can be anything from a Magus to a Wizard. I'd even accept a Bard to be fair, they just need access to the plethora of magic that Arcane casters do.

Within that there is also the skills that need to be filled outside of class abilities.

Someone needs to be the 'face' aka the talker of the group. Someone needs to have Knowledges (or just high intelligence).

That's about it really, current group is:

Sword and Board fighter (constantly drunk Gnome)
Catfolk Catburglar
Hunter
Oracle
Summoner
Swashbuckler
Monk

Pretty well balanced if a little too many of them. I'd say the Swashbuckler/Monk and Sword & Board all serve the same job and could be interchangeable removed but even missing 2 of those three the party would be well balanced.

[rrwoods]

My approach: Make it very clear from the outset that a balanced party is a happy party (and by "balanced" I'm not talking about power, I'm talking about roles). If it looks like there's going to be a role that's completely unfilled, point it out to the players and give verbal nudges or shoves (depending on the group), but ultimately let them decide.

[Terazul]

Talk to the other players. Consult the ban list. Consider what you know about the campaign setting. Think about your own preferred play style and limitations. Remember not to be deliberately difficult or a jerk.

And then build whatever you want.

At least that's what I expect of my players. Your mileage may vary, and all that.

This is more or less the idea we run with in our games. More often than not after being presented with the setting/concept we each have a few builds/ideas bouncing around our heads, and we'll often share them with each other. Ultimately we'll play what we want, but typically amongst our group of friends we go through our mental checklist, seeing where there's overlap between characters, and where we'll be missing some form of utility/specialty entirely. Someone at least vaguely social-skilled, some martial skill, some sort of spellcasting around.

These days we're all bopping around with weird homebrew classes and things, so very rarely is anyone even remotely the same class, though.

[WhamBamSam]

Usually when I go into a game I have so many ideas kicking around and so much indecision over which one to pick, that I start looking at what the other players are playing to see if there's some cool combo one of my builds can pull off in conjunction with them.

When I run games, I just let people play what they want. They're usually reasonably optimized, and so find a way to manage, even if they seem to be "missing" some role or other.

Red_Fel is, per usual, remarkably on point.

Also, because I can't seem to get off of Stormwind and Co's collective jock lately, here are some relevant (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/1114906) threads (http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/3502556) on parties that don't necessarily follow the warrior/rogue/mage/healer archetypes. What I took away from them is that if the players are creative and put their heads together, they can often find tactics and synergy suitable to the non-traditional party they find themselves in.

[Firechanter]

The 3E family is pretty much ideal to combine both values. Synergy is important from a gameplay aspect, since not having one of your bases covered can and usually will screw you over big time in play. On the other hand, there are many ways to fulfill the classic roles, so neither does the "healing" niche have to be filled by a Cleric, nor is a Cleric restricted to being a healbot.

I also think it's not asking too much to expect the players to develop their party together and make sure they have all the primary and secondary roles covered.

Anecdote:
Conversely, I used to play in a (Pathfinder) group where "Freedom" took precedence, so everyone clobbered together some character or other, and the GM expected things to "work out somehow". In the first iteration, we had: a Ranger (Archery), a Fighter/Rogue (Archery), a Rogue (TWF), a Paladin (Sword&Board), an Alchemist, before I joined the game, with an Archer Cleric because I had no idea what the others were playing. So as you can imagine, that didn't work too well, in particular we had a decided lack of Magic Ability and a certain shortage of melee.
At some point, we had several character deaths (not even in-combat) and in the course of events half of the characters got swapped out. Ftr/Rog, Alchy and for the time being my Cleric remained, the rest rolled an Oracle (who didn't know he had Armour Proficiencies), a Sorcerer and a Bard. Boo yah - now we had too many casters and even less Melee than before! Next fight might have ended in HPK if the GM hadn't pulled her punches. That was an EL8 encounter with an APL 6.75 party, none of the monsters had any special abilities, so there was absolutely nothing to write home about. After that, I decided to swap out my Cleric against a proper Primary Melee character. However, the game fell dormant before I could bring him in.


So long story short, I _never_ want to waste my time like that again.

As a positive example, we recently started a new 3.5 campaign with my main group, and here we did everything by the book: we talked about the desired power level, we met for character creation, and distributed the main roles.

That did not go entirely frictionless, I have to admit. I had made clear from the start that I wanted to play Primary Melee, and my class choice Warblade also underlined that. Another player said he wanted to be a "Gish", which I interpreted as "Caster who can do a bit of physical combat" and thought he'd cover the Arcane niche. In the end he had rolled a Psi-Gish who focused mostly on melee, very easy on the Psi, and who probably would have paled in comparison to my character, while not offering very much on the Caster side. However, when I voiced my concerns, the player was a real good sport about it and switched to an Arcane Gish with focus on casting. The other players went for a Ranger/Cleric and a Factotum, so those roles are also pretty well defined.


That game started only recently, but so far it's working really well.

[OldTrees1]

A Synergy style of party creation is solely dependent upon the players and the resulting team plan may deviate from the single role composition you came up with.

For instance a Rogue/Beguiler/Bard/Psychic Rogue team may sound like they have no variety and did not coordinate their team for synergy. They are probably not doing the Frontman/Healer/Mage/Rearguard defensive formation(although they could). Instead they might be doing the Flanking Scout/Face(or Bait)/Support/Rear Scout assault formation.

[HammeredWharf]

I give my players varied challanges and it's fully expected they won't be able to tackle all of them with the same efficiency. So, every campaign will probably have traps, social challenges and straight combat. They could use the classic approach of disarming traps, using social skills to persuade NPCs and fighting the monsters... or they could create holes in the walls to bypass traps, kill the "social" NPCs and run away from fights.

The only thing I require is knowledge of their abilities, so I can prepare for that guy with 100 Diplomacy.

[Sam K]

I don't like to restrict my players, but when I see games where the players have freedom to take whatever the want and their team ends up having 3 Rogues or 4 Clerics, I'm kinda cringing inside. Sure, you can play that way, but IMO those types of parties should be left for gimmicky games, where playing an All Wizard Party is the point (because the game is about being students in a Wizard Academy or something) and not just all players happening to pick the same concept and being unwilling to change their minds. That's why, when I run a generic game (one that is just a simple adventure/campaign, not some complicated game with a specific theme) I'm going for the "Synergy" style of character/party creation. I require certain roles to be filled by each party member. Though they can go about filling their role in a plethora of ways (the frontman melee guy can be a Fighter, or a Barbarian, or a Warblade, and can be a full offense two-handing killing machine, or tanky sword & board tripper, etc.) and if build well can take secondary roles, I set some restrictions to... encourage variety. For example the frontman/melee guy/tank can't be a full caster. Yeah, it probably can be done with a Cleric or Druid or Wizard, and probably even better than a Fighter or Barb, but that's not what I imagine a frontliner to be.

So, how do you handle team building in your games?

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I think the bolded part would irk me. If I was told by a DM I had to fulfill a certain role for party composition, then I'd probably try to work with that (as long as it wasn't "healer" or "trap finder"), but if I was told I couldn't use the tools I wanted because the DM didn't imagine that was how the role was suppose to be filled, I would probably have doubts about the game. It's my character. The DM can make any amount of front liners that fit their image of what a front liner should be, I feel that my character should first and foremost be something I want to play.

That being said, I'm a big fan of the DM and players talking out their expectations and what they want to play/run the game for, before anyone starts comitting to characters. This should hopefully resolve most of these issues. A game is a group effort and everyone should be willing to be a bit flexible to make sure everyone can have fun.

[Vhaidara]

Build what you want. It helps that I don't require UMD for wands that you buy, so healing is taken care of, and someone usually grabs Disable Device. Oh, and my players are more than willing to consult each other so we don't end up with 4 front liners in a 10ft hallway. Everyone in my group can attack from at least Reach.

[Toilet Cobra]

I don't know if synergy is all that important for any game world. It just changes the nature of the challenges that a DM must throw at the party.

Agree with this completely.

I'm a story DM and I play with story players, so really the challenges have never been an issue. You scale them to the ability level of the group and move on. It also helps if players have a good grasp of their own capabilities, so they can choose to avoid challenges they don't have the tools to overcome, but really, why put them in the game in the first place.

[Firechanter]

If you look at published adventures (like Paizo Adventure Paths), these typically assume a low-op-but-balanced-roles party. Which means, you may easily find yourselves in a position where you simply are stuck in the mud if you don't have - for example - a Primary Divine in the party.
For example, I remember an encounter with a Lich in an AP, which was totally binary: if the party (around level 8) had access to Freedom of Movement (and some minor other stuff), it was a total cakewalk. Otherwise, without FoM it was just a question between legging it and a TPK.


I agree with most of what you're saying, but I think the bolded part would irk me. If I was told by a DM I had to fulfill a certain role for party composition, then I'd probably try to work with that (as long as it wasn't "healer" or "trap finder"), but if I was told I couldn't use the tools I wanted because the DM didn't imagine that was how the role was suppose to be filled, I would probably have doubts about the game. It's my character.

I mostly agree with this, however there's also the intended power level to be taken into account. If the game is supposed to revolve around T1-2, then sure, your Primary Melee should probably be a Cleric or so, and definitely not a Fighter. But if you try to reduce the power level, the group might agree that Primary Casters should sacrifice some of their spellcasting progression, in which case it would kinda defeat the purpose if the Primary Melee was a full caster himself.

[Brendanicus]

As a DM, I simply tailor the world around players' character selection.

For example, my campaign is a dungeon crawler, but nobody wanted to play a class with Trapfinding, so I just gave everybody the ability to find and disable traps if they rolled high enough on Search and Disable Device. If they have no healer, it's on them to buy enough potions, though.

[Amphetryon]

When I've given guidelines for non-gimmick (like 'Wizard's school,' or something) 3.X games, they've been along the lines of:

"One of you will need to be able to handle front-line fighting, in some way. One of you will need to be able to handle ranged combat, in some way. One of you will need to be able to handle traps and locks, in some way. One of you will need to be able to handle magical healing (and 'restoration'), in some way. One of you will need to be able to identify and use arcane magical doodads, in some way. One of you will need to be able to handle scouting and recon, in some way. One of you will need to be able to handle social encounters, in some way. If more than one of you is able to handle more than one of these aspects of the game, I'm fine with that."

I am acutely aware that the above in no way precludes such possibilities as Team Druid or Team Sorcerer, among others.

[Fotta]

As a DM, I simply tailor the world around players' character selection.

For example, my campaign is a dungeon crawler, but nobody wanted to play a class with Trapfinding, so I just gave everybody the ability to find and disable traps if they rolled high enough on Search and Disable Device.


I'm on the fence about this. On the one hand, it lets players play the character they really are excited about without worrying they'll leave the team missing something. On the other hand, that's part of the challenge I think.

If a party willingly rolls up four fighters, most of the campaign should be military style commandos etc. But I also think there should be diplomatic challenges, and areas with traps, or places that would be far easier to sneak through than go in guns (swords?) blazing. That shows the players that their choices have consequences, and also encourages them to come up with creative solutions for their missing talents.

[Sam K]

I mostly agree with this, however there's also the intended power level to be taken into account. If the game is supposed to revolve around T1-2, then sure, your Primary Melee should probably be a Cleric or so, and definitely not a Fighter. But if you try to reduce the power level, the group might agree that Primary Casters should sacrifice some of their spellcasting progression, in which case it would kinda defeat the purpose if the Primary Melee was a full caster himself.

If a group or DM wants to restrict classes based on power, then I guess that's fair enough. T1 classes can really throw off the game if used to their full power. However, if you allow clerics as, well, clerics, then I do not see a reason why you shouldn't allow them as frontliners (reduced spellcasting or not).

[WeaselGuy]

I am currently DMing a campaign right now for some friends that are deployed with me overseas. Our first session was dedicated solely to character creation, and I told my people "I don't really care what you play, as long as it's in one of these books. If you want to play a monster starting out, that's fine, but you may not have any class levels to start with, depending. I encourage you guys to stick to the PHB, and you should know that the typical party consists of a healer, a tank, a ranged and a skill monkey. You don't need to fill these roles, but the book assumes that these roles are present." So far I have a Druid and a Sorcerer, with our 3rd guy wanting to play a Rogue. I've supplemented them with a DMPC Paladin that they will control.

On the other side of the table (where I have spent the majority of my time), we frequently play games where we do what we want, and try to make ourselves fit in with the rest of the group. I've been a knock-down/lock-down Paladin of Tyranny, a Kobold Weasel-Rider Lancer, and now a DMM:P Cleric Beatstick. In our last campaign, I started as a Shadowcaster/Rogue/Arcane Trickster and ended up as a Champion of Corellon Larethian Griffonrider. Before that campaign, I was an OA Samurai before dying and switching to a Warlock, and before that I was a Beguiler before switching to a Druid/Halfling Outrider (I like mounted combat...). In almost all of these situations, my character either retired or died, and I chose a new character type based on the needs of the party. We currently have a Wilder who is stepping on the Sorcerer's toes, and the Wilder has agreed to retire his character in favor of an Assassin, since we don't have a competent skillmonkey in that campaign.

tl;dr - We have free reign on what we want to play, but become aware of the shortcomings of our choices and adjust as needed. The DM just keeps throwing Gelatinous Cubes at us until we realize playing an Unarmed Strike Monk wasn't the best idea.

[sleepyphoenixx]

As a DM i generally leave it up to the players how (and if) they cover the various roles.

I do tailor the campaign to the party, but only to an extent. So a party with no casters will encounter weaker/different enemies (and probably entirely different quests), but don't expect there to suddenly be no more locks on doors anywhere just because you neglected to take the option to deal with it.
Similarly i won't throw a lich/dragon/whatever in your path but if you go looking for it expect it to fight like one.

Dealing with a lack of appropiate tools is just as much part of roleplaying as using the tools you have properly. Don't go into the the trapridden lich-dungeon if you don't have the tools to deal with one.

As a player i generally try to fill any glaring holes in the party anyway, so it's not really an issue for me.

[Elder_Basilisk]

I posted this about a month ago on our facebook page for the campaign I'll be running in a bit:

"As I've said before, I'm not requiring any particular party balance or any balance at all. If you end up with an unbalanced party, it's just up to you to figure out how to make it work. If you don't manage that, maybe replacement characters will add some more balance.

That said, you may well want to plan some balance into the party so as to avoid the whole character replacement experience."

[Flickerdart]

My players tend to build a relatively synergized party without being forced to, mostly because nobody wants to overlap niches with anyone else. That would make the game less fun for both people - two front liners trip over one another, two archers quickly run out of targets, etc.

But I also try to present challenges appropriate for the party. This means more than just "level X goblins because the PCs are level X" - party makeup means that they are better at some things, and worse at other things, and it's a good DM's responsibility to take that into account when deciding how many laser beams to add to sharks' heads.

[icefractal]

Depends if you're using existing modules or not. If you're homebrewing the adventures yourself, who needs a given set of roles? No Rogues in the party? That just means areas with traps have a higher difficulty. No ranged characters? That just means flying monsters are "boss grade" material. No healing? Well, the party will be hitting below their weight class, and probably avoid places that don't allow for resting, but it's still easy enough to work with.

If you want to use existing modules, then the party does need some "role coverage". But I still wouldn't go so far as to say they need specific character types. They just need to be able to handle the situations that will arise. What does a tank do, for instance? Holds choke-points, gets between tough melee monsters and the rest of the party, walks into dangerous situations first. If you have people who can handle those things, by whatever method, then you're good.

[squiggit]

Depends if you're using existing modules or not. If you're homebrewing the adventures yourself, who needs a given set of roles? No Rogues in the party? That just means areas with traps have a higher difficulty. No ranged characters? That just means flying monsters are "boss grade" material. No healing? Well, the party will be hitting below their weight class, and probably avoid places that don't allow for resting, but it's still easy enough to work with.

If you want to use existing modules, then the party does need some "role coverage". But I still wouldn't go so far as to say they need specific character types. They just need to be able to handle the situations that will arise. What does a tank do, for instance? Holds choke-points, gets between tough melee monsters and the rest of the party, walks into dangerous situations first. If you have people who can handle those things, by whatever method, then you're good.

I think the issue is less having no roles covered, because you can adapt around that, and more having too many people playing the same role.

Having two "trap guys" or two "diplomacy guys" has a tendency to make whichever one isn't using his skills at the time feel like he's wasted his character more often than not, least from experience.

[Flickerdart]

If you're using modules that require certain roles, and you're unwilling to tweak them, an NPC companion or two will probably be appreciated. PCs usually respond well when, instead of begging them for help, an NPC pulls out his sword and asks "so when do we leave?"

Just make sure that these NPCs don't steal the spotlight! Making them very straightforward (think sword & board type fighter) and one or two levels lower than the PCs should help.

[NeoPhoenix0]

My group has done both synergy and freedom games. The freedom parties are often more powerful because we apply the principle of if it didn't burn you didn't use enough fire. Other time we get creative and find ways to use our abilities that aren't the stated purpose. We have also begun to get really good at optimizing the uses for the adventuring gear section of the phb.

though often we have to brute force our way through traps, and when we have a trapfinder there never seems to be a trap.

[Malroth]

Which is why you have a cloistered cleric with the Kobold and Trickery domains, need a trap monkey, congrats you're a trap monkey, there are no traps? then you're still a cleric.

[Kantolin]

IMHO, more than 'you are missing a key role', the biggest problem with not enough Synergy is toe-stepping.

In my real life group, the overwhelming majority of people like to be melee characters and like to be the person doing the most damage. We have, thus, had an 8-man team which consisted of seven melee characters and me who were often at odds for 'Everyone's in my way so I can't go melee things'. That is itself a problem.

Now, if nobody minds the toe stepping then the same party can work just fine. One of the most fun games I've been in consisted of four mostly-mundane martials. We just worked our way around or through problems that you couldn't hit with a sword and really had fun with it.

The biggest problem with limiting freedom, also in my opinion, is that it /really sucks/ to sit down at a table and be told what you're going to be playing. Like... okay, the quintessential stereotype is you get a flat tire, end up a bit late to get to the D&D group your friends are setting up, and they have a fighter, wizard, and rogue and you really don't want to be a healer again.

Now, while that specific statement doesn't necessarily mean it's awful (I am very much aware that cleric does not mandate healer), I have had that problem where I played /three/ clerics in a row (who were quite different) and decided that while divine casters were fun, I was done with them for awhile and wanted to do something else... and then sat down to a table that was missing a divine caster. This gets twice as true with 'you need a trapfinder' as that generally locks you to a particular style of play, and maybe someone is tired of or disinterested in being a beatstick.

I mean, 'I got this awesome warlock idea and - ' 'Sorry Jim, you can't be a warlock, you have to be a [x] instead' can be pretty lame. Even more lame than trying to figure out how to solve a problem that dispel magic could solve but nobody in the party has it on their list.

[nyjastul69]

As a player I like to get a gauge of what other players are doing and I choose a role based upon their decisions. This is so I can fill a roll not chosen. I never go into a game with a single concept as a player. I have too many concepts to nail it down myself. The other players choices give me focus.

On the other hand, as a DM, I always say play what you want. Roles are irrelevant, I'll gauge the game. They will however change a first idea so that all of the roles are usually covered. We do character creation as a first session, at least in concept, if not full fledged character generation.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Toe-stepping is definitely the worst problem that can happen when there isn't synergy. Though it helps when you have players who are cooperative by nature. There was this one guy in our group who would always try to be the best at everything by being the best at a few things that could do everything and the being very vocal about how it should be done in a way his character can do his stuff. That did not work out well for pretty much all of us. The rest of us were generally cooperative enough to be able to overcome overlapping abilities and have fun by working together.

[ericgrau]

3 rogues, take a 10 on most skill checks to avoid bad luck and solve problems with stealth. 4 clerics, you can bash stuff, you have combat magic, and you have utility magic too. So what's the problem? A bigger problem would probably be 3 rogues and 1 cleric. Hi, I'm the super noisy and visible guy who thwarts your stealth and is the only one who can take a couple hits. Without stealth you 3 have a bunch of redundant skills. You all die now in combat and you have to take turns with each other and with me on utility.

Even that could be made to work though with some planning. Trickery domain perhaps. I don't terribly like the idea of telling the players they can't be something.

[Maglubiyet]

Simple as: "Hey, you guys need a wizard. Who wants to roll one up?"

I usually just adjust the fights to account for party composition.

[Firechanter]

IME, there are usually different types of players in a group, and this can be exploited to generate synergy:
* the player who knows exactly what s/he wants to play. The "I got this cool idea for a Warlock" type.
* the player who has a decided preference for a specific role, e.g. "the melee guy".
* the player who doesn't really mind, but plays for the sake of playing.
* the player who is brimming with character concepts and wants to try something New every time.

See what I'm getting at? If your players' psychograms are mixed like that, you can give the most inspired players "first picks" and then gently nudge the less determined players in direction of the remaining roles.

[Spore]

What does a successful party need?

1) A melee guy: Unless your party always sets up traps and ambushes that work perfectly, someone has to take the heat. But still, I don't see a reason why a Fighter/Rogue can't be the only melee. There are so many spells and abilities from OTHER people able to protect him that a decent AC, good Con and a smart choice of battlefield (e.g. not getting surrounded) is enough.

2) Someone who speaks: Unless you live in 1980 and your game is only about dungeon crawling you need a face guy. However I have experienced that some people prefer the "face type" not to be rolled at all but just played. So depending on the party, even a fighter with Charisma 8 and no Diplomacy skills at all can be the face: "So you DON'T want to pay for our services and want your faces eaten by the pack of orcs? Fine by me." *continues impressive combat training*

3) A source of healing: It becomes very tiresome to provide convenient healing for the party if you are the DM and your party consists of Fighter, Rogue, Monk and Wizard. On the other hand, survival roleplaying can be quite interesting indeed. Heal checks and stabilization can become important. Potions are valued as they should be: Like valuables and not like "expensive healing wands".

Everything else is just gravy. You can even skip parts of those three but keep in mind that your DM does only change encounters so much to fit for your party. You can't run your party of rogues into the ooze kingdom of the sewers and expect them to win.

4) Running is always an option: No one says you should win every battle. D&D is about empowerment but if you're in over your heads, get out.

[Firechanter]

How is running "always an option", when half of the player races have 20ft base speed, and humanoids get slowed down by all kinds of ****, while monsters are typically adapted to their environment and move much faster?

[Spore]

Okay, so "always" was maybe a stretch. It's an option but mostly not a good one. But you can run at 4x your speed and as long as it's not an assassin or a very determined monster (like undead) they stop the chase more often than not. I tend to not overthink things on "decent" or "powerful" characters but any decent character should have an exit strategy.

[sleepyphoenixx]

How is running "always an option", when half of the player races have 20ft base speed, and humanoids get slowed down by all kinds of ****, while monsters are typically adapted to their environment and move much faster?

Pack a Tanglefoot Bag. Or caltrops. Marbles. A wand of Grease/Entangle/other BFC. Get an emergency teleport. Carry a potion of Expeditious Retreat. There are countless options for every character type and level of wealth.
Being able to retreat is a matter of minimal preperation and expense in 95% of situations. If you go out into danger without proper equipment you're a stupid adventurer, and stupid adventurers die.

This is something that keeps baffling me. Sure, the DM should tailor the campaign to the party.
But that shouldn't mean that the players can stop thinking/preparing and only need to pack a weapon & armor and the DM takes care of everything else.
(Unless you're into that kind of diablo-style hack & slash game, but i don't think that's the type of campaign most people play.)

[atemu1234]

In truth, I let my players build what they want, with minimum input from me. I let them know the party layout, let them decide what they want, and give them build advice. In general, it works out well.

[SangoProduction]

Generally, I say that building the character together = best, because it means everyone's characters have a connection to each other, and aren't going to kill themselves before the bad guy. But, all said, I would say synergy make absolutely no difference, unless you're throwing inappropriate challenges at the group (like an anti-magic field vs a level 1 group of wizards).

[icefractal]

Pack a Tanglefoot Bag. Or caltrops. Marbles. A wand of Grease/Entangle/other BFC. Get an emergency teleport. Carry a potion of Expeditious Retreat. There are countless options for every character type and level of wealth.
Being able to retreat is a matter of minimal preperation and expense in 95% of situations. If you go out into danger without proper equipment you're a stupid adventurer, and stupid adventurers die.The first four of those aren't going to stop an opponent that was outmatching you unless you get lucky. Teleport is nice - once you can afford it, and assuming you can get custom items for people who can't use a scroll. Expeditious Retreat may make the difference, or it may not - hope you're not right next to the monster, or the fact that it's a potion will doom you.

The truth is that much of the time when the PCs run away? The DM lets them get away. Because who really wants a TPK? So often, stuff that's pretty questionable, like throwing some coins or food on the ground, counts as good enough.

And that's fine, no reason not to play it that way. But I wouldn't go calling people stupid for not expecting that lenience.

[Trasilor]

Generally, I say that building the character together = best, because it means everyone's characters have a connection to each other, and aren't going to kill themselves before the bad guy.

I also find this to be vital.

I used to allow players to pre-build, mostly so they could have their character's done ahead of time. The problem was that it ended up with four or five characters that would never work together in the real world - different goals, different alignments, different...everything. Then I was forced to put them into a situation where they would work together. This is ended up being more work for me, and ultimately I wasn't enjoying the game.

Then I started implementing the build session. Players got talking to each other and adjusting their goals and story so that they were more aligned. Made DMing easier.

While I don't think the DM should be handing out pregenerated characters (unless a convention or one-off) or telling players "you must play X", having complete free reign in character creation caused me more work than I am willing or able to provide.

[Spore]

I also find this to be vital.

I used to allow players to pre-build, mostly so they could have their character's done ahead of time. The problem was that it ended up with four or five characters that would never work together in the real world - different goals, different alignments, different...everything. Then I was forced to put them into a situation where they would work together. This is ended up being more work for me, and ultimately I wasn't enjoying the game.

Then I started implementing the build session. Players got talking to each other and adjusting their goals and story so that they were more aligned. Made DMing easier.

While I don't think the DM should be handing out pregenerated characters (unless a convention or one-off) or telling players "you must play X", having complete free reign in character creation caused me more work than I am willing or able to provide.

I couldn't agree more. People in the games I am just playing made their characters without the same goals. They just saw the "standardized grid" and changed their character to check all the open boxes.

Then I started DMing myself. I presented the starting area, with NPCs, political and social situation and some vital areas and suddenly not only did all characters start with goals intertwined with the background, they also build on a similar powelevel. So Susie, the prostitute bard wasn't outclassed by Mary, the noble wind oracle.

[icefractal]

Talking over the characters together is good, but I don't like actually building it at the table. Not enough books to go around, plus I'd rather do it on a computer anyway, and often I have a better idea after a few days thinking about it than I do on the spot.

What's ideal, though it works best if you're wrapping another campaign up while this is happening:
1) DM pitches the game idea, talks about it with players, gets people on the same page. Players start thinking about character ideas.
2) A week later, everyone has some preliminary ideas, they get together to discuss them, seeing whether they have needed roles covered and how the characters might know each-other.
3) Players go home and make the characters, over the course of the next week. With the preliminary info from the discussion, the DM can start thinking about how the characters will fit in the game.
4) The campaign starts.

[squiggit]

I also find this to be vital.

I used to allow players to pre-build, mostly so they could have their character's done ahead of time. The problem was that it ended up with four or five characters that would never work together in the real world - different goals, different alignments, different...everything. Then I was forced to put them into a situation where they would work together. This is ended up being more work for me, and ultimately I wasn't enjoying the game.

Then I started implementing the build session. Players got talking to each other and adjusting their goals and story so that they were more aligned. Made DMing easier.

While I don't think the DM should be handing out pregenerated characters (unless a convention or one-off) or telling players "you must play X", having complete free reign in character creation caused me more work than I am willing or able to provide.

This is pretty much exactly my feelings.

Though in addition to having a bunch of characters with disparate goals and no reason to work together I'd also run into an issue where two players would want to play the same character and then one would get pissed at the other for making their character redundant and irrelevant. Usually for things like party face or trapfinding or knowledge, but being the fighter who did less damage and died easier happened a couple times too.

[PraxisVetli]

But I also try to present challenges appropriate for the party. This means more than just "level X goblins because the PCs are level X" - party makeup means that they are better at some things, and worse at other things, and it's a good DM's responsibility to take that into account when deciding how many laser beams to add to sharks' heads.

I really don't think that could be worded a whole lot better.

[ericgrau]

How is running "always an option", when half of the player races have 20ft base speed, and humanoids get slowed down by all kinds of ****, while monsters are typically adapted to their environment and move much faster?

Because someone with a 20 foot speed can run at 80 feet and the guy chasing him can only move and attack 30-40 feet. The baddy can chase you but he can't hurt you. Perhaps even with a double move hustle. At best safety is nearby or within an hour's travel. At worst multiple foes may surround one player or the party splits up and one dies while the rest are safe. This does not include spells, 150 gp potions of invisibility and so on. So perhaps one guy gets chased, goes invisible, all safe.

Most monsters are faster than 20 feet but only a small portion avoid getting slowed down somehow.

Ranged attacks are a bugger but they do less damage so you can at least buy some time for your allies.

Though I've noticed in practice most failing parties run after it's too late and a man is already down.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Because someone with a 20 foot speed can run at 80 feet and the guy chasing him can only move and attack 30-40 feet. The baddy can chase you but he can't hurt you. Perhaps even with a double move hustle. At best safety is nearby or within an hour's travel. At worst multiple foes may surround one player or the party splits up and one dies while the rest are safe. This does not include spells, 150 gp potions of invisibility and so on. So perhaps one guy gets chased, goes invisible, all safe.

Most monsters are faster than 20 feet but only a small portion avoid getting slowed down somehow.

Ranged attacks are a bugger but they do less damage so you can at least buy some time for your allies.

Though I've noticed in practice most failing parties run after it's too late and a man is already down.

The effort required to run away scales with the level of enemies you face (and therefore with available wealth).
At low levels against a few melee and ranged enemies all you need is caltrops and a smokestick. By the point that enemies get speeds significantly higher than normal humanoids you can afford more sophisticated means of retreating.

I'll second that most people run away to late though. When you're already half crippled and surrounded running away becomes significantly harder.