PDA

View Full Version : "Balanced" parties and choosing characters



Silus
2016-03-09, 10:29 PM
I'll try to keep this brief:

How important is it to have a balanced party in a TTRPG? Like for D&D it would be front line fighter, arcane caster, divine caster (healer) and skill character.

In addition, must players keep party balanced in mind when making characters, or is it acceptable for a player to make whatever kind of character they would like (Like if 75% of the party wants to play fighters and nobody feels like playing the arcane caster for example)?

Vitruviansquid
2016-03-09, 10:35 PM
It totally depends on the system.

If your game is extremely dependent on party balance, like DnD 4e or... I dunno, Shadowrun? (I haven't actually played that game)... it might not be super cool to willfully break the party's composition. But most games aren't really like that.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-09, 11:27 PM
The most important factor is the gm; a skilled gm can make it matter not at all, regardless of system. After that it's a matter of systemic expectations. Random D&D modules presume you have ready access to healing, a way to bypass locks and traps, somebody to stand in front, and somebody to bring the rain. You can probably get by without any one of those things but missing two or more can cause complications that the GM will have to work out.

In the overall, I'd say that it's only very mildly important at most and more likely that it barely matters at all.

Sir Pippin Boyd
2016-03-09, 11:30 PM
As a rule of thumb, the more flexible your DM is, the less important it is to have a 'balanced' party. An experienced DM that finds his players are all skill monkeys and diplomats may run his game to look like a typical episode of Star Trek: TNG, with emphasis on investigating mysteries, brokering deals, and solving problems with only the occasional combat. Similarly, a party that lacks any kind of spell caster will probably find itself in a low-magic campaign where being without a caster is not as much of a relative handicap.

In terms of what constitutes a balanced party, its better to look at the functions of the classes than the flavor of them when determining what roles to fill. I would call a party *very* balanced it if contains all of the following:

At least two sources of damage
- One of these is a source of high damage burst
- One of these is a steady source of sustained damage
At least two sources of in-combat utility
- One of these is offensive utility that shuts down enemies
- One of these is supportive utility that benefits allies
At least two sources of out-of-combat utility
- One of these is a source of Information
- One of these is a source of Influence
A least two sources of defense against enemy attacks
- One of these is preventative
- One of these is restorative

Many characters will fill two or more roles simultaneously. For example, a Rogue (Assassin) is an excellent source of burst damage and information, as he can sneak around to scout. A Fighter (battlemaster) is an excellent source of sustained damage, as well as either Offensive or Supportive utility depending on what Maneuvers he has chosen. A Warlock with Pact of the Tome and Book of Ancient Secrets and Agonizing Blast is a good source of Sustained Damage and Information. Anything with a high armor class can be a source of Preventative defense, as enemies whiff their attacks. While these examples are from 5th edition D&D, these roles can be applied to Shadowrun, World of Darkness, and other systems as well.

Darth Ultron
2016-03-10, 12:38 AM
It's not important, the whole balance thing is a myth.

In fact, a so called "balanced" party can make the game very boring.

NoldorForce
2016-03-10, 01:06 AM
Are you asking about a balanced party (similar amortized ability to contribute) or a diversified party (breadth in skill sets)? The former is definitely desirable, but (edit) avoiding the latter is just the players telling the GM what kind of game to run.

Sam113097
2016-03-10, 01:13 AM
Players should be free to pick whatever classes they want, it's up to the GM to ensure that the players can accomplish their goals in the game. This can be done in different ways.
For example, if no one plays a class with healing magic, you have to make a choice. Either healing items are going to have to be more common, enemies will deal less damage, or characters will die more often.

Sir Pippin Boyd
2016-03-10, 01:35 AM
Are you asking about a balanced party (similar amortized ability to contribute) or a diversified party (breadth in skill sets)? ... the latter is just the players telling the GM what kind of game to run.

This could not be more wrong, a highly diversified party is the players telling the GM that they're ready for anything, and that means he can throw anything at them. A full party of diplomats, on the other hand, tells the GM that its going to be a game about diplomacy.

NoldorForce
2016-03-10, 01:48 AM
Perhaps I misworded that? I would agree with you, and have corrected myself above.

Quertus
2016-03-10, 02:10 AM
it's up to the GM to ensure that the players can accomplish their goals in the game

Why the belief that success is the GM's responsibility?


A full party of diplomats, on the other hand, tells the GM that its going to be a game about diplomacy.

Why the belief that the game should only be about characters' strengths? Shouldn't a realistically run world challenge characters in a number of dimensions?


must players keep party balanced in mind when making characters, or is it acceptable for a player to make whatever kind of character they would like (Like if 75% of the party wants to play fighters and nobody feels like playing the arcane caster for example)?

Having GMed and been a member of numerous unbalanced parties, I feel confident saying that such diversity is in no way required, and you should let people play what they want.

Of course, I enjoy the novelty and challenge of trying to figure out how to do something when you are lacking the obvious tools to do so (traps with no rogue, melee with no tanks, dialogue with no face, etc).YMMV.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-10, 02:20 AM
Why the belief that success is the GM's responsibility?

At the hazard of putting words in someone else's mouth, I suspect that what he, and many others, mean is that it is the GM's responsibility to make sure the PC's have a reasonable chance of success rather than to make sure that they -do- succeed.


Why the belief that the game should only be about characters' strengths? Shouldn't a realistically run world challenge characters in a number of dimensions?

I do agree with this, wholeheartedly. It's best used sparingly, IMO, but it is a good thing for PC's to face adversity in areas they are not specialized in addressing.


Having GMed and been a member of numerous unbalanced parties, I feel confident saying that such diversity is in no way required, and you should let people play what they want.

Of course, I enjoy the novelty and challenge of trying to figure out how to do something when you are lacking the obvious tools to do so (traps with no rogue, melee with no tanks, dialogue with no face, etc).YMMV.

I agree with these as well. A skilled DM can calibrate the challenges the party faces to both the characters the players make and to the preferences of the group as a whole. Me and mine tend to prefer a fairly stiff degree of challenge but YMMV.

Sir Pippin Boyd
2016-03-10, 03:35 AM
At the hazard of putting words in someone else's mouth, I suspect that what he, and many others, mean is that it is the GM's responsibility to make sure the PC's have a reasonable chance of success rather than to make sure that they -do- succeed.

This is precisely what I was referring to. If there isn't some fair probability the party will succeed, the game is no longer genuinely interactive, and thus not actually a game anymore.


Why the belief that the game should only be about characters' strengths? Shouldn't a realistically run world challenge characters in a number of dimensions?

Of course, I enjoy the novelty and challenge of trying to figure out how to do something when you are lacking the obvious tools to do so (traps with no rogue, melee with no tanks, dialogue with no face, etc).YMMV.

I never said that it would only be about diplomacy, merely that it would mostly be about diplomacy. I think my star trek analogy illustrates my point very well. There is certainly an awkwardly choreographed scuffle from time to time, but the vast majority of airtime is dedicated to exploration of the bizarre, personal discovery, and interstellar politics. You may enjoy the novelty of curveball challenges, but you enjoy them *because* they are novel, and by definition they stop being novel when they become the norm. Assuming the dungeon master is a reasonable one, he will either be willing to tailor the challenges of the campaign to be ones the party is suited for, or he will warn the party in advance that their characters are ill-suited for the adventure they're embarking on.

There are additional points to be made for the diversity of the party, such as distribution of roles. Each member of the Fellowship of the Ring carves out a unique niche for his self as a character, except for the several redundant hobbits that mostly bugger around in the background while the real characters do most of the important stuff. Merry and Pippin only became truly validated as characters when they were separated from Frodo and Sam. A healthy diversity of characters means not only that the party is better prepared to handle diverse challenges, but also helps to ensure that each character has their chance to shine.

Silus
2016-03-10, 07:36 AM
Well I suppose some context for why I ask should be mentioned >.>

Short of it, rejoining a campaign (work vs gaming schedules didn't match up), making a new character, I wanna play a stupid powerful (but mechanically legal) beatstick. DM has issue with this as most of the party thus far is some variety of fighter and insists that we need anything other than more fighter-type characters, thus sort of forcing me into a caster role (As we're level 5-6, casters are kinda...eh.).

Not saying I couldn't play a caster for the sake of party balance/versatility, but I'd have much more fun as (essentially) a Large sized Drider-expy wielding a Huge sized weapon. Or an Emu-Harpy grappler.

Quertus
2016-03-10, 07:53 AM
rejoining a campaign (work vs gaming schedules didn't match up), making a new character, I wanna play a stupid powerful (but mechanically legal) beatstick. DM has issue with this as most of the party thus far is some variety of fighter and insists that we need anything other than more fighter-type characters, thus sort of forcing me into a caster role

Well, if the party has gotten along just fine without you for a while, they obviously don't need a caster. So the DMs stated reason is not valid.

However... given your description... is your character going to be a significantly better "striker" than the existing characters? Would you effectively, not just be sharing their role, but one-upping them in it, stealing their chance at the limelight? If so, then for completely different reasons, you may wish to rethink your character.

If the rest of the party is equivalent, then I personally see no problem with it. I've been in all-mundane parties before (yes, that implies I've run mundanes before - I'm sure this is a shock to many of those who have gamed with me), and the only problem I had with it was that I was running a mundane :smallwink:

Concrete
2016-03-10, 09:02 AM
Most of my game-mastering experience is with pathfinder.
I have seen that no matter how weird a party looks at first glance, they can usually work around the areas where they are weak, as long as not everyone is the same class.
Problems may arise when a player makes a character which must work off of other characters to be effective.
For example, someone bringing a melee rogue into a group with no other melee fighters or at least summoners is gonna have a bad time.

It is my firm belief that the best parties are made up of characters created to play off each other, both mechanically and, more importantly, narratively. As long as that's achieved, any ragtag bunch of missfits can achieve great things.

goto124
2016-03-10, 09:09 AM
It is my firm belief that the best parties are made up of characters created to play off each other, both mechanically and, more importantly, narratively. As long as that's achieved, any ragtag bunch of missfits can achieve great things.

But doesn't "ragtag bunch of missfits" mean that the characters aren't "created to play off each other"? :smallconfused:

Eisenheim
2016-03-10, 09:59 AM
Well, mechanical balance can be important in certain games, 4e certainly, in my experience.

I think the greater and more general across systems concern is narrative/concept balance. You don't want a party with three exiled princes or two slightly different varieties of master thief. Protecting niches of mechanical competence can serve the greater purpose of keeping multiple characters from fighting for the spotlight instead of sharing it.

Concrete
2016-03-10, 10:26 AM
But doesn't "ragtag bunch of missfits" mean that the characters aren't "created to play off each other"? :smallconfused:

I could have chosen a better word. What I meant to say would be more along the lines of "Even if the party is not following the dynamics intended by the mechanics of the game, most characters, no matter how odd, can be made to work if there is some kind of prior consensus as to how they are supposed to play off each other."
The "ragtag bunch of misfits" could be seen as more of an aesthetic. Most fiction where that phrase is used to describe the characters is still following a very intentional group dynamic.

Knaight
2016-03-10, 10:43 AM
Why the belief that the game should only be about characters' strengths? Shouldn't a realistically run world challenge characters in a number of dimensions?

Different characters are going to end up in different places in a realistically run world. The party of all diplomats is probably never going to face a lot of challenges routine to typical adventurers, because it just isn't going to come up. Nobody is going to look at them and think to themselves "Yes, that's who I'm hiring to go retrieve an item from a trapped tomb" or "These people have military leader potential, lets bring them in as that role for our resistance movement". On the other hand, they're much more likely to end up in a position where diplomacy is needed, particularly when it's a delicate situation that the ragtag bunch of misfits seem liable to screw up.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-10, 01:40 PM
Well I suppose some context for why I ask should be mentioned >.>

Short of it, rejoining a campaign (work vs gaming schedules didn't match up), making a new character, I wanna play a stupid powerful (but mechanically legal) beatstick. DM has issue with this as most of the party thus far is some variety of fighter and insists that we need anything other than more fighter-type characters, thus sort of forcing me into a caster role (As we're level 5-6, casters are kinda...eh.).

Not saying I couldn't play a caster for the sake of party balance/versatility, but I'd have much more fun as (essentially) a Large sized Drider-expy wielding a Huge sized weapon. Or an Emu-Harpy grappler.

Unless he's running a module, the party is clearly doing fine without a primary caster so that reasoning speaks to either a certain level of inexperience or its a matter of blindly adhering to the (poor) advice in the core rulebooks, maybe a little of both. Ask the DM to elaborate on -why- the party needs a caster other than simply not having one. If he doesn't have an answer to that, play what you want.

As an alternative motive, perhaps the DM feels that what he can present the party with is more limited than he enjoys. If he -wants- a caster in the party. Thats fine but it should be clear that its desire, not necessity, driving this request. As a compromise, perhaps something in a partial caster like a ranger would help.

PrincessCupcake
2016-03-10, 02:23 PM
I really dislike the notion that a party must be comprised of a certain set of classes in order to function. Not only is that horribly incorrect, it's frustrating to players who feel they "need" to conform to it rather than play a class they actually enjoy. It may have been true at one point in the life cycle of rpgs, but it's really a construct of video games.

If the players build a party of bards, I will provide a challenge appropriate for a party of bards. If the players build a party of Fighters, I will offer an appropriate challenge for that. The party does NOT need to be Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue. It never really has needed to be that way, unless you're butchering your way through the bestiary.


There are other kinds of balance. Some of them are good for both GMs and players alike.

The most important of these is Balance of Fun. Everybody should be having fun, and ideally everyone should be having the same amount of fun. (The kind of fun is not important, just the quantity and quality.)

Related to keeping the Balance of Fun:
Balance of Power Level- one player should not be upstaging everyone all the time. Each player should have some point to really shine. If you have a party of Average Joes, don't bring in a Demigod. If you have a party of Demigods, don't bring in Average Joe. This applies to both optimization and relative character level.

Balance of Expectations- If there is a difference in expectation (like if you wanted to run a horror/mystery and your players built characters expecting a hack-and-slash), you need to address that in some way. Whether that is changing your plan to match their expectations, asking them to adjust their characters, or finding a middle ground is up to the individual group.

Silus
2016-03-10, 02:59 PM
Unless he's running a module, the party is clearly doing fine without a primary caster so that reasoning speaks to either a certain level of inexperience or its a matter of blindly adhering to the (poor) advice in the core rulebooks, maybe a little of both. Ask the DM to elaborate on -why- the party needs a caster other than simply not having one. If he doesn't have an answer to that, play what you want.

As an alternative motive, perhaps the DM feels that what he can present the party with is more limited than he enjoys. If he -wants- a caster in the party. Thats fine but it should be clear that its desire, not necessity, driving this request. As a compromise, perhaps something in a partial caster like a ranger would help.

I'm gonna go with inexperience honestly, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's also the adherence to the core rulebooks.

The party currently consists of three "fighter" classes (A Paladin, a Gunslinger and one other class I forgot about) and a divine caster. The DM has said essentially "Anything other than a fighter (full BAB classes), and no evil." My problem is finding something I want to play and that falls into the "no fighter" and "no evil" circles which, believe it or not, is kinda difficult to do.

I'm looking at a battlefield control caster, dropping walls and pits all over the battlefield and such but honestly I'd rather play something else. Everyone's lvl 5-6 and that's still kinda a low level for casters and low level casters are generally pretty terrible.

GrayDeath
2016-03-10, 03:03 PM
This calls for a Druid. Unless the Divine Caster already is one that is.
You can fight, support and do all that while being a nice cuddly 1100 pound bear. ;)
(OK, not at lvl 5 but still^^).


Or you can go for something whacky that fits his limits. A Dread necromancer perhaps? (nonevil possible as I was reminded recently)?

Or go wild and use some Incarnum shennanigans, if you always wanted to try, as if the party is not "optimized" its a good chance as any.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-10, 03:18 PM
I'm gonna go with inexperience honestly, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's also the adherence to the core rulebooks.

The party currently consists of three "fighter" classes (A Paladin, a Gunslinger and one other class I forgot about) and a divine caster. The DM has said essentially "Anything other than a fighter (full BAB classes), and no evil." My problem is finding something I want to play and that falls into the "no fighter" and "no evil" circles which, believe it or not, is kinda difficult to do.

I'm looking at a battlefield control caster, dropping walls and pits all over the battlefield and such but honestly I'd rather play something else. Everyone's lvl 5-6 and that's still kinda a low level for casters and low level casters are generally pretty terrible.

Pathfinder or 3.P?

Quertus
2016-03-10, 05:18 PM
Different characters are going to end up in different places in a realistically run world. The party of all diplomats is probably never going to face a lot of challenges routine to typical adventurers, because it just isn't going to come up. Nobody is going to look at them and think to themselves "Yes, that's who I'm hiring to go retrieve an item from a trapped tomb" or "These people have military leader potential, lets bring them in as that role for our resistance movement". On the other hand, they're much more likely to end up in a position where diplomacy is needed, particularly when it's a delicate situation that the ragtag bunch of misfits seem liable to screw up.

That makes way too much sense.


The most important of these is Balance of Fun. Everybody should be having fun, and ideally everyone should be having the same amount of fun. (The kind of fun is not important, just the quantity and quality.)

Interesting. Explain, with examples?


one player should not be upstaging everyone all the time.

agreed


Each player should have some point to really shine.

agreed



Balance of Power Level- If you have a party of Average Joes, don't bring in a Demigod. If you have a party of Demigods, don't bring in Average Joe. This applies to both optimization and relative character level.

I'm... not sure about this. I'm not sure if you strictly need this, so long as you keep the above requirements. I know I've had fun playing a 1st level character in a 7th-level party (back in 2e D&D). And this character was... especially un-optimized. His ability to shine had nothing to do with his power, but with his tactics and investigation. That, and a running gag as to just how many unarmed prisoners the party continued to rescue (at, oddly enough, about the same rate as we lost party members) he could manage to equip / arm with just his starting equipment.

But this is largely a mix of personality and out of character skills. I'm not sure how well it would work out for a 3.x 1st level character to take their 4 ranks in each of Sense Motive, Spot, etc, and be the party investigator by virtue of being the only one with those skills in a 7th level 3.x party. But with "Bounded Accuracy", I'm guessing the equivalent would work just fine in 5e.

Silus
2016-03-10, 08:23 PM
Pathfinder or 3.P?

Pathfinder.