The Nature of Party Balance

[Talakeal]

Imagine for the moment the following scenario: You are part of an old school RPG party consisting of a thief, a cleric, a fighter, and a bard.

You are going to slay an evil lich and reclaim the treasure from his dungeon.

While in town everyone needs to prepare for the adventure, doing research, shopping, and taking care of personal affairs. Everyone has something to do, but what the bard does is most important, he negotiates a better deal on the party's gear, talks the king into giving them a reward for the lich's head, researches the location of the lich's dungeon, and finds an old story that tells of the lich's weak spot.

The party sets out and finds the dungeon thanks to the bard's directions. The rogue finds the secret door and picks the lock, without the rogue the others never would have gotten inside. Furthermore, the rogue disarms several traps within that, if undetected, would have left the survivors in no position to continue their journey.

They fight the liche's minions. The fighter does the lion's share of the work, perhaps dealing and taking as much damage as the rest of the group combined, but everyone contributes and without the four of them they would perish.

After the fight the cleric heals the party, without this healing the party would be in no condition to fight the lich.

Approaching the lich the bard reveals his secret weakness, and the cleric blesses the warrior's sword so that it will deal incredible damage to the unholy creature. The rogue finds a secret passage into the liche's chamber, and they attack from hiding. It is a long battle, but eventually they triumph, again the warrior dealt and received the majority of the damage, but everyone contributed and they probably would have failed if anyone had been missing.

The rogue finds the liche's secret vault, and along with a pile of treasure uncovers his phylactery. The cleric is able to perform a ritual to destroy the phylactery ensuring the lich won't return to seek revenge.

The party returns to town and claims their reward, and the bard spreads the story of their great deeds so that they are recognized and rewarded and will likely be picked first when the kingdom needs to hire adventurers in the future.


***
As illustrated, most of the players were able to contribute in every scene, and if any of the characters had been missing the adventure probably would have failed, as would it have if several of the players had been playing the same class and thus depriving the adventure of diversity. However, not everyone got equal "screen time" and when it comes to raw "power" the warrior is clearly superior.


Do you think the above scenario is balanced, fair, and fun to the various players?

[Rhynn]

Do you think the above scenario is balanced, fair, and fun to the various players?

Yes.

But I also think the idea that every single session needs to meet some platonic ideal of fun, equal contribution, moments to shine, and equal contribution is silly and unrealistic. Indeed, the notion that every party member has to pull an equal amount of weight is, in itself, not automatically valid; in certain types of games it may be important, but in many (most?) other types, it isn't.

For instance, I've run a RuneQuest Heortling campaign where one of the players played a Trickster. He was next to useless in combat (other than occasionally briefly distracting opponents - never tactically chosen - by making them vomit or soil themselves or something equally juvenile and fitting for a Trickster), had to be protected, was usually more of a liability than anything in social situations (with some exceptions), but all the players had a good laugh over the character's antics, and the PCs kept him around because he was a great liar and frequently useful for committing crimes, and in very specific situations (usually of mythomagical significance, i.e. the most important stuff), he was literally irreplaceably valuable, and his role was one of cultural and religious importance.

The Trickster didn't contribute to the party's successes equally, but there were IC reasons to keep him around, and he made the game more fun for everyone.

Edit: Another example. In a GURPS Discworld game, I played an assassin school drop-out who was literally no good at anything (DX 8, when 10 is average and the typical human range is around 6-14), was a terrible klutz, and had awful luck (yet had a weird knack for not getting killed). His adventuring companion was a troll who could pretty much kill anything in one hit. We went on classic D&D-style adventures (in the early Discworld style), and had fun.

[Tengu_temp]

Honestly? No. I'm not a fan of the oldschool approach of balancing the game between skills and combat, with some characters being very good in combat but useless outside of it, others the opposite, and others in the middle (read: barely useful in a game that prioritites specializing).

What I prefer instead: everyone is good at fighting and can contibute in combat, though they fight in different ways. Everyone is also good at something non-combat, specific to their character. You can choose to be hopeless at combat, or hopeless at non-combat situations, but it won't suddenly turn you into a combat/skill god, just give you a small edge there. And it's an option you can take willingly, not a requirement for playing a character type that's vital to most parties.

[VoxRationis]

I would say that this is a good adventure, in general, though the rogue could probably do a little more. People focus too much on combat. While combat is fun, and I don't deny that, I don't mind playing characters who are primarily non-combat sorts.

[tensai_oni]

As illustrated, most of the players were able to contribute in every scene,

Did they? The way you described it, this theoretical adventure looked like outside of combat everyone but one character is twiddling their thumbs while the rogue/bard/cleric does his things.

and if any of the characters had been missing the adventure probably would have failed, as would it have if several of the players had been playing the same class and thus depriving the adventure of diversity.

Why do you say this like it's a good thing? If an adventure requires a character from class X to be present or else the party is screwed, then it's not a good adventure. It forces players into roles - "play a cleric because we don't have one yet".

Also treating two characters of the same class as lacking diversity is fair only when you play a system without any in-class customization AND where all player characters are personality-less cardboard cutouts.

[Talakeal]

Did they? The way you described it, this theoretical adventure looked like outside of combat everyone but one character is twiddling their thumbs while the rogue/bard/cleric does his things.

I suppose it depends on how you define "scene". In this case I divided it into "being in town", "exploring the dungeon", "fighting the minions," and "fighting the lich". I suppose I could have illustrated a bit more for the fighter to do outside of combat though, maybe assume he is forging weapons in town and forcing open stuck doors in the dungeon if it helps.

Why do you say this like it's a good thing? If an adventure requires a character from class X to be present or else the party is screwed, then it's not a good adventure. It forces players into roles - "play a cleric because we don't have one yet".

The opposite problem, of course, is "You can't play a fighter because you are just wasted space. Just play a druid instead, a druid can do everything a fighter can do only better and a whole lot of things the fighter can't." Obviously there can be a middle ground, and in most modern games characters have enough customization that they can fill in for another roll if need be, but I was presenting a watered down scenario for simplicity's sake.

Also treating two characters of the same class as lacking diversity is fair only when you play a system without any in-class customization AND where all player characters are personality-less cardboard cutouts.

That's quite a different topic. Generally I play games without strict classes. Still, you want a variety of skills, any RL organization is going to have a variety of skills divided between different rolls, and in most RPGs if you are going to have a party missing skills that are vital to your occupation (in this case dungeon crawling) either the player or the Game Master is going to have to do some serious compensating to offset the deficiency.

Honestly? No. I'm not a fan of the oldschool approach of balancing the game between skills and combat, with some characters being very good in combat but useless outside of it, others the opposite, and others in the middle (read: barely useful in a game that prioritizes specializing).

What I prefer instead: everyone is good at fighting and can contribute in combat, though they fight in different ways. Everyone is also good at something non-combat, specific to their character. You can choose to be hopeless at combat, or hopeless at non-combat situations, but it won't suddenly turn you into a combat/skill god, just give you a small edge there. And it's an option you can take willingly, not a requirement for playing a character type that's vital to most parties.

Ok, cool. Let me ask you though, does this only apply in combat, or does everyone have to contribute equally in everything? Does the fighter contribute just as much to social situations as the bard? Does the cleric contribute just as much to disarming traps as the rogue?

[Mnemophage]

Sort of.

First off, D&D is primarily a combat system. There's other stuff, but the bulk of the rules deal with combat situations, and the characters' skills typically have greater, if not sole use in combat. The social aspect is a part of it, to be sure, but there are other systems that focus more or focus equally on social interaction, and D&D is definitely not one of them. In this case, the character built more for pure combat WILL have more of a chance to shine, simply because there are more options for the DM to present as regards to combat. In terms of screen time, every player got a chance to shine - but in terms of effectiveness, it is entirely feasible that the warrior could have soloed the campaign (by leveraging threats or offering aid in town, kicking down doors in the dungeon, so on and so forth).

I do love the system and love playing and DMing it, but my typical approach is to have a general idea of what kind of story I want to tell, and then tailor the specifics to handle player archetypes and strengths. I've had situations where I had a great, strategic, interesting set of fights planned out in advance, and wound up with a party consisting of two rogues, one beguiler and one necromancer specialist wizard. This also frees the players to roll up an archetype that they WANT, rather than feel the need to fill a forgotten niche, which becomes only more important as you add splatbooks and allow players to make some more varied and interesting class choices. Furthermore, if a player drops out, can't make a session or has their character die, they don't have to roll up an effective clone of their previous guy.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

In a session? Of course one character can shine over the rest - if you, for whatever reason, decide to have a murder-mystery type adventure in a city, the Fighter's probably not going to have that much to do outside of the occasional bit of heavy lifting and the denouement at the end, while the rogue and/or the bard will likely take centre stage.

Over the course of a campaign, then yes, they should all have the opportunity to equally contribute - for instance, the Cleric's not just a walking bandaid box, he's got desires and goals and fears, just like everyone else, and he should have his day in the sun too.

[Airk]

It's not bad; You've clearly made at least some effort to make sure everyone is relevant. Part of being relevant though, is being creative and interesting and building an interesting character. And by "interesting" I don't mean "mechanically" but in terms of...character.

Doctor Watson is pretty much the equivalent of a "fighter" in the "murder-mystery type adventures" of the Sherlock Holmes stories, and yeah, while his being a doctor is relevant sometimes, more often he's "the muscle" and a sounding board for Holmes to keep him grounded in...people (not exactly Mr. Holmes strong suit.). Okay, so maybe that's a weird example, but what I'm trying to say here is that a character with character doesn't need to fall into the background just because he's not making a skill check right now. Spotlight/attention/roleplaying time is often at least as valuable in terms of making people feel "part of the game" as "Well, there's a lock, get the rogue up here."

That said, I don't think it's a good idea to try to drag D&D's issues with classes (Druid vs Fighter blah blah BS) into this. Those issues are well recognized, and there's not much you can mechanically do to remedy them other than play a less rigid system.

Er. Sorry. What was the original question again?

[neonchameleon]

You're right at the top level there having given no specifics. Let's take the rogue.

Why does the rogue find the secret door when no one else does? They have no special ability to find anything that isn't a trap by the rules. Likewise why does the rogue find the phylactery? Also why would the rest of the party have not made it into the dungeon without the rogue? What's the door made of that the fighter can't crowbar it? Seriously, the only thing picking locks is normally useful for is disguising the evidence anyone's been there.

And finally the rogue doesn't get a fair shake. They pick the look - single pass/fail die roll. They find things - single pass/fail die rolls. (Or RP investigation where they are no better than anyone else). The bard and fighter get to shine for entire scenes.

The cleric also has a sucky job. They are useful - but creating the ritual doesn't do much. They'd have either used a hammer or brought it back to town otherwise. And the main effect of out of combat healing is to allow the fighter to shine in combat. It's something that you do when the spotlight is off you.

[Red Fel]

On the one hand, yes, everybody has gotten the chance to do a thing without which the campaign would fall apart. Good on the players for being able to contribute, bad on the DM for making the session so "if X then Y" linear.

I agree with a lot of the complaints above. In particular, here are my two cents: the hypothetical session described in the OP breaks down the classes into basically fundamental roles. The Bard does Gather Information and Diplomacy to get information and good equipment. The Rogue uses Open Lock, Trapfinding and Disable Device. The Cleric uses heal and buff spells. The Fighter fights. (You even lampshade that one, "again the warrior dealt and received the majority of the damage[.]")

That's a fairly accurate and complete description of abilities and roles. Of the Fighter.

Everyone else, that was a horrid oversimplification that does a disservice to the class. A Bard isn't just a Diplomacy check and Gather Information. He's an easily-optimized gish, with effective BFC and useful support buffs. A Rogue isn't just a couple of skill checks and trapfinding; he's a stealth chassis upon which some fairly awesome classes are built. And if you tell me that a Cleric's primary role is healbotting I'm going to find someone who has optimized around Gate who can make you cry. This dated view of classes only does a disservice to the creativity of those who designed them and those who play them.

Take it a step further - your descriptions were not unique. A Bard, Rogue, or Cleric can be as capable a fighter as the Fighter. Assuming the Fighter does most of the fighting is just silly. What the Bard and Rogue did, with the exception of Trapfinding, was all skill-based, and could have been reproduced by anybody. What the Cleric did (buffs, heals) could have been done by the Bard, or even by a Rogue with high enough ranks in UMD and the right wands. In other words, you could have easily called the classes "Bob, Ruth, Carl and Fred," and it would have been just as descriptive - nobody was occupying a truly unique, incomparable, and singularly irreplaceable role.

While your scenario, on its surface, would have been a delightful romp that let players feel appreciated, doing so over and over would do a disservice to the players and the game. Each session would turn into a rote performance. The Bard does some skill checks. The Rogue does some skill checks. The Fighter kills some things and the Cleric heals. If that's all your characters are doing, that ceases to be an adventure and becomes a job. "Okay, everyone. You know the routine. I don't even need to tell you a story. Bob, roll d20 twice. Ruth, three times. Fred, roll a bunch of dice. If any of you roll badly, Carl, roll a few times. Great session, see you next week."

In sum: Is it balanced? No. You have decided that the Fighter will do most of the combat, the Rogue and Bard will do a bunch of skill checks, and the Cleric is a healbot. There's nothing balanced about being told what your job is and being expected to do that and nothing else. Is it fun? It depends on how the players feel about repetitive motion exercises.

[Talakeal]

It seems to me that most everyone is disagreeing with the nature of the class based system or picking apart the specific scenario.


I suppose I could simply reduce it to its parts rather than using a story.

Can a game ever be fair, fun, or balanced if characters have different strengths and weaknesses?

Must every class / feat / spell / skill be precisely balanced to be equally useful or is it enough that everything has its place?

Assuming The above is more or less impossible, is more desirable to have a balanced party be more effective or a party where everyone plays "the best" class?

Should the game be split evenly into combat / not combat and all characters combat ability be irrelevant to their out of combat abilities and vice versa.

Why do players feel the need to always be in the spotlight? If you know you are vital to success, have some time to shine, and are not sitting around bored for long periods of time, why are you still unhappy?

[erikun]

I think that the important point is that different characters each have a chance to get the spotlight, and that those different chances all need to be somewhat significant.

I'm not saying that all characters should get equal spotlight-time. Some people just don't want to be in the spotlight, or are too shy to jump on it. They should all have the chance, though.

However, it does need to be significant. If one character gets the spotlight for combat, one for social situations, and one for making a research roll before the DM tells more expository, then it would be understandable if the research-focused player would feel left out. The idea is to ensure that everyone gets a chance to do something meaningful, in a way that keeps them engaged.

[Airk]

It seems to me that most everyone is disagreeing with the nature of the class based system or picking apart the specific scenario.

I attribute this to you doing a poor job asking your question. I read the OP and I wasn't, truthfully, even sure what you were asking.

Can a game ever be fair, fun, or balanced if characters have different strengths and weaknesses?

Fair? Yes. Fun? Absolutely. Balanced? For certain definitions.

Must every class / feat / spell / skill be precisely balanced to be equally useful or is it enough that everything has its place?

It's obvious enough that things cannot be precisely balanced. An ability that is "situationally useful" will be better in that situation than out of it, and the more situational it is, the better it should be when it comes up...though taken to its logical extreme, this results in characters who are godlike 1% of the time and useless the other 99%. You should, however, strive to avoid "traps" where one ability/class/thing is just better than another. "This ability gives you +1 to hit when you have combat advantage in melee" vs "this ability gives you +1 to hit when you have combat advantage" to give a mild example.

Assuming The above is more or less impossible, is more desirable to have a balanced party be more effective or a party where everyone plays "the best" class?

I think in an ideal world, what you want is a system in which things are fun and interesting regardless of either of these.

Should the game be split evenly into combat / not combat and all characters combat ability be irrelevant to their out of combat abilities and vice versa.

This depends on what the game is about.

Why do players feel the need to always be in the spotlight? If you know you are vital to success, have some time to shine, and are not sitting around bored for long periods of time, why are you still unhappy?

Because some people are just like that? Brain chemistry or something?

[Rhynn]

Why do players feel the need to always be in the spotlight? If you know you are vital to success, have some time to shine, and are not sitting around bored for long periods of time, why are you still unhappy?

Because, unless you've gotten new players, yours are some of the most annoying, infuriating, ungrateful, childish people I've ever heard about.

Seriously, most normal, well-adjusted people don't have a problem with that.

Also, see the entirety of my earlier post which challenges the very notion that everyone must be constantly getting a chance to shine every session.

Can a game ever be fair, fun, or balanced if characters have different strengths and weaknesses?

Yes, absolutely, and to think the opposite is ridiculous and dumb and wrong-headed and just intentionally dense.

Must every class / feat / spell / skill be precisely balanced to be equally useful or is it enough that everything has its place?

No, and yes. If everything's equal, then nothing's different.

Assuming The above is more or less impossible, is more desirable to have a balanced party be more effective or a party where everyone plays "the best" class?

Effective, I guess, but even that's not the most desirable thing.

Should the game be split evenly into combat / not combat and all characters combat ability be irrelevant to their out of combat abilities and vice versa.

No and no. I generally prefer systems where combat skills are equal to other skills (GURPS, RuneQuest), or where they're entirely separate of other skills (ACKS).

[Red Fel]

I suppose I could simply reduce it to its parts rather than using a story.

Can a game ever be fair, fun, or balanced if characters have different strengths and weaknesses?

Yes to all of the above, to varying degrees. Fun is an easy yes. Fair and balanced differ, depending on what they mean.

The thing about words like "fair" and "balanced" is that they are relative. If you use a more literal definition, then every character has to be able to do what every other character can do, to the same degree, in order to achieve fairness and balance. But I don't think that's very fun at all, and certainly it detracts from a character's "special" feel.

Rather, in my mind, "fair" is when each character is able to contribute meaningfully to the adventure as a whole, and each player feels gratified that he was able to contribute, and appreciative of the contributions of others. In the scenario above, I observed that the contributions of the party seemed negligible in places, and less gratifying.

Similarly, "balanced" in my mind means that no single character is entirely dominating contributions, and no single character is utterly unable to contribute. Everyone is able to pull their weight without being overwhelmed by the others.

Is it possible to do this when everyone has a different talent set? Absolutely. Look at many well-written superhero teams. Each person fits in and is able to meaningfully contribute. Admittedly, some superhero teams are less balanced than others - for example, the Justice League has Batman and Superman at one end of the spectrum, and poor, unloved Aquaman at the other end. So it's not easy to balance different skills - but it's possible. And, more importantly, it's rewarding.

Must every class / feat / spell / skill be precisely balanced to be equally useful or is it enough that everything has its place?

I say no, they need not be precisely balanced. Mind you, I'm one of those people - the ones who complain about the fact that casters can basically crack the universe over a knee while non-casters swing a bit of stick about. But even so, not everything needs to be precisely balanced. In fact, as I mentioned above, doing so would make characters feel less special.

The trick isn't to precisely balance things. The trick is to make them situationally appropriate - or, as you say, "everything has its place." There should be a time for divinations, a time for Speak with Dead, a time for Fireball and for Wild Shape; there should also be a time for tanking, for Power Attack and Shock Trooper; there should also be a time for Diplomacy, Gather Information and Bluff. Everything should be useable and useful at the right time; that's what allows unbalanced features to nonetheless provide a fair and fun experience.

Assuming The above is more or less impossible, is more desirable to have a balanced party be more effective or a party where everyone plays "the best" class?

If everyone played "the best" class, it would be Wizards and CoDzillas all the way down, and we'd be bored silly. As has been said by others far more eloquent than myself on these forums, even if you could have steak every night, at some point you'd get a craving for a burger. That's just how it is.

Now, I take issue with one assumption you make - that the choices are "balanced party" or "everyone plays the best." There's a third option - play what you want, as long as it contributes and everyone enjoys. It doesn't have to be balanced, it doesn't have to be the best, it can just be useful and fun.

Should the game be split evenly into combat / not combat and all characters combat ability be irrelevant to their out of combat abilities and vice versa.

This is a trickier one. D&D is a primarily combat-oriented system. It's hard for an explicitly non-combat character to feel like he's contributing meaningfully. Similarly, combat characters get annoyed when a Diplomancer ends all encounters prematurely.

Do I think it needs to be an even split? No. But it should be based on player wants, not mechanical needs. If players want a more social game, expect less combat. Puzzle game, less combat. Hack'n'slash, more combat. And they should plan their characters accordingly.

Why do players feel the need to always be in the spotlight? If you know you are vital to success, have some time to shine, and are not sitting around bored for long periods of time, why are you still unhappy?

Because it's awesome. It's awesome to be awesome. Some people enjoy providing quiet support from the background, and that's cool. Others like to invisibly move the other players around without being noticed. Also cool. But some of us really want to be the barechested bad boy with the big blades and biceps, or the master of arcane lore surrounded by a storm of magical fury. We want to be stars.

A truly great game allows every player to walk away from a session and think, "Wow, tonight was really all about my character." And a truly exceptional game allows them all to be right.

[oxybe]

my problem with the scenario you described is that it's HEAVILY reliant on how good the GM is. effectively, if the GM doesn't design around the glaring weaknesses of the characters (that they're really only good at one or two things) that the PC simply will not be capable of participating in the adventure.

"gee if i don't put in something hidden/trapped for Mike to find, the guy will have nothing to do"
"i don't feel like running a combat this session/adventure but if i don't Jack will probably be bored"

this will lead to adventures that generally have the same basic constructs only re-arranged and reflavored for the sake of keeping everyone entertained. to me this isn't bad, necessarily, but not something i am interested in.

in my ideal system, all players can participate in every facet of the adventure. maybe one class has a slight advantage or simply more options on how they deal with some situations but very rarely should i ever present a complication to the party and only one PC has the capabilities to even attempt to succeed.

this would mean that something like the Socially Awkward Fighter is a characterization one does willingly. "My fighter is bad at talking so he's going to shut up and just look stoic during the talky bits" should be a choice rather then assumed default, so you're not punished for making the "fighter" choice.

i guess in essence what i want from classes is that it opens up new venues on how you deal with situations, rather then lock you out of even attempting a resolution.

[neonchameleon]

Can a game ever be fair, fun, or balanced if characters have different strengths and weaknesses?

Of course.

Must every class / feat / spell / skill be precisely balanced to be equally useful or is it enough that everything has its place?

Given that precise balance is impossible unless you have exact symmetry, this question is irrelevant. And by exact symmetry I'm not talking about the symmetry of 4e or even the greater symmetry of Fate. I'm talking about exactly identical stats.

Assuming The above is more or less impossible, is more desirable to have a balanced party be more effective or a party where everyone plays "the best" class?

A balanced party should always be more effective. Irrespective of whether the game is class based or not. This means that you aren't playing clones.

Should the game be split evenly into combat / not combat and all characters combat ability be irrelevant to their out of combat abilities and vice versa.

What is "The game"? If Call of Cthulhu is spit evenly into combat/not combat I'm worried.

Why do players feel the need to always be in the spotlight? If you know you are vital to success, have some time to shine, and are not sitting around bored for long periods of time, why are you still unhappy?

Because your examples of "being in the spotlight" suck. As several of us have pointed out you haven't got very good balance there. In the example of play you just gave, the rogue was only vital for success for one specific reason. The DM was lobbing softballs to the rogue. Which means that the rogue is likely to have felt patronised. The Cleric was only vital to success for two reasons. They allowed the fighter to continue being awesome and the DM deliberately pitched something straight to them that they could arbitrarily do. Again, that was patronising (why couldn't the bard do the ritual? And the answer is going to come down at a Doylist level to DM Fiat whatever the Watsonian explanation.)

And when you get the spotlight only by grace of the DM having set things up so that you are handed the spotlight it just feels cheap. You aren't getting the spotlight; the DM's canned plot is getting the spotlight and you are merely reading the script you are handed.

[Talakeal]

Now, I take issue with one assumption you make - that the choices are "balanced party" or "everyone plays the best." There's a third option - play what you want, as long as it contributes and everyone enjoys. It doesn't have to be balanced, it doesn't have to be the best, it can just be useful and fun.

Obviously that is the best choice for a fun game. I meant "best" in the tactical sense, i.e. able to complete the dungeon crawl (or whatever other sort of game you are running) in the most efficient manner possible.

Because your examples of "being in the spotlight" suck. As several of us have pointed out you haven't got very good balance there. In the example of play you just gave, the rogue was only vital for success for one specific reason. The DM was lobbing softballs to the rogue. Which means that the rogue is likely to have felt patronised. The Cleric was only vital to success for two reasons. They allowed the fighter to continue being awesome and the DM deliberately pitched something straight to them that they could arbitrarily do. Again, that was patronising (why couldn't the bard do the ritual? And the answer is going to come down at a Doylist level to DM Fiat whatever the Watsonian explanation.)

And when you get the spotlight only by grace of the DM having set things up so that you are handed the spotlight it just feels cheap. You aren't getting the spotlight; the DM's canned plot is getting the spotlight and you are merely reading the script you are handed.

I'm sorry if my sample adventure wasn't a masterpiece, it was literally something I made up on the spot as an example.

That said, many games, D&D in particular, do have things that require certain classes. Dungeons have secret doors, locks, and traps, all of which the rogue class is specifically designed to get around. Likewise the cleric is specifically made to be a healer, and different classes have different spells on their lists, which in the clerics case include spells to destroy undead and banish souls. Most of the spells dealing with undead and souls are simply not available to the bard, nor can a bard pick locks or disarm traps in most situations / editions.

I never said that a different party couldn't perform any of the tasks, nor did I say that the adventure was tailored for this group, or that the adventure would simply end if they hadn't made any challenges. I am sure you can pick apart my words to find such an implication, but again this was just a brief recap of an adventure where every character contributed to success and had time in the spotlight.

[Airk]

Obviously that is the best choice for a fun game. I meant "best" in the tactical sense, i.e. able to complete the dungeon crawl (or whatever other sort of game you are running) in the most efficient manner possible.

"Efficient" is for rules, games with victory conditions, and mile per gallon. It has no place in a game session. One should never have to worry about how "efficiently" the party is going to do something. Using the word "best" to mean "most efficient" means we're no longer talking about the same thing.

[neonchameleon]

my problem with the scenario you described is that it's HEAVILY reliant on how good the GM is. effectively, if the GM doesn't design around the glaring weaknesses of the characters (that they're really only good at one or two things) that the PC simply will not be capable of participating in the adventure.

"gee if i don't put in something hidden/trapped for Mike to find, the guy will have nothing to do"
"i don't feel like running a combat this session/adventure but if i don't Jack will probably be bored"

this will lead to adventures that generally have the same basic constructs only re-arranged and reflavored for the sake of keeping everyone entertained. to me this isn't bad, necessarily, but not something i am interested in.

in my ideal system, all players can participate in every facet of the adventure. maybe one class has a slight advantage or simply more options on how they deal with some situations but very rarely should i ever present a complication to the party and only one PC has the capabilities to even attempt to succeed.

this would mean that something like the Socially Awkward Fighter is a characterization one does willingly. "My fighter is bad at talking so he's going to shut up and just look stoic during the talky bits" should be a choice rather then assumed default, so you're not punished for making the "fighter" choice.

i guess in essence what i want from classes is that it opens up new venues on how you deal with situations, rather then lock you out of even attempting a resolution.

Every part of this is true.

There are also two distinct GMing philosophies that are relevant here: The Storyteller (White Wolf) and the MC (Apocalypse World). A Storyteller is ... a storyteller. They write the adventure from start to finish and the players' job is to read their lines and to provide a little colour. A good one will put the spotlight on everyone for some of the time and engage them all. A MC following the rules turns up to the first session of the game with literally nothing prepared. No planned adventure and not even a setting. The setting is created communally in character creation, and the PCs drive the plot.

Most GMs are a mix of the two or somewhere on the continuum between the two. And both GMing styles contain traps. I'd call pure Storytelling inherently inferior GMing myself - if you are Storytelling the star of the show is never the PCs. It's the GM's plot and worldbuilding. The job of the PCs is to be good little actors and play the parts they are given with very limited agency from start to finish. On the other hand MCs run the risk of making their world entirely too malleable. If the PCs have that much agency you need to make the world fairly unforgiving or the PCs are going to tapdance all over it - or be dealt with by enemies who treat it as just as malleable as they do. Also MCing can lead to players wondering what to do. (Apocalypse World is excellent in the way it makes the world bite back while loading up the PCs with agency - but forcing them to respond).

That example in the OP was Storytelling, pure and simple. First the Bard does the thing that it is scripted that the Bard should do. Then the Rogue does the thing it is scripted that the Rogue does. Then the fighter is given their chance to shine. Then the Rogue is scripted into their second chance. Then the Cleric does the Cleric's other thing. This is Storytelling - the PCs lack agency and are just going through the actions that are scripted to them and handed on a platter.

And in a balanced game although the methods are different any of the characters can get through any of the scenes except the combat that's a team game (the fighter finds a drinking companion, crowbars the door off its hinges, smashes the other door and grinds the phylactery into a paste before eating it - or the thief shadows one of the Lich's servants, opens the door, and whittles the phylactery into kindling - or the cleric's the perception master, listens at windows, and uses Knock and a crowbar to unlock the doors, or the Bard's their normal jack of all trades). And in a balanced game although the PCs would have been running through the scenes set by the GM, at the very least they would have had the opportunity to decide how they completed them rather than following the GM's script that was quite obviously pitched to let each of them do their thing in the way the GM pictured them behaving.

[GrayGriffin]

I think this might be part of why I love Pokemon Tabletop so much. Everyone has at least one Pokemon, which they can command in combat, so everyone has something to do both in and out of combat.

[neonchameleon]

I'm sorry if my sample adventure wasn't a masterpiece, it was literally something I made up on the spot as an example.

That said, many games, D&D in particular, do have things that require certain classes.

This is true. This does not make it a good thing.

Dungeons have secret doors, locks, and traps, all of which the rogue class is specifically designed to get around.

The rogue is not the best at finding secret doors - and there are very few locks that can't be forced open with the help of a crowbar or jemmy. As for traps, have you seen the AD&D Thief's disarm trap percentages? The way you are meant to deal with traps is think your way around them.

Likewise the cleric is specifically made to be a healer

The Cleric was invented to be van Helsing to counter an evil Vampire PC called Sir Fang, back in the days of Dave Arneson. They were giving healing abilities - and the healing proved so useful it came to dominate the class.

and different classes have different spells on their lists, which in the clerics case include spells to destroy undead and banish souls. Most of the spells dealing with undead and souls are simply not available to the bard, nor can a bard pick locks or disarm traps in most situations / editions.

Anyone can disarm traps in most editions. You're meant to do it by thinking your way through rather than rolling the dice. And the main use of picking locks is so you can lock the door behind you and make it harder to find out where you've been. And this is the problem with niching the abilities and forgetting or never realising that other people can work out their own ways around the problems.

[Thrudd]

my problem with the scenario you described is that it's HEAVILY reliant on how good the GM is. effectively, if the GM doesn't design around the glaring weaknesses of the characters (that they're really only good at one or two things) that the PC simply will not be capable of participating in the adventure.

This is the case with every game. The type of adventure/scenario the game is designed for dictates what sorts of characters and abilities will be applicable in that game, and RPGs are always heavily reliant on the GM to design and run good scenarios.

The issue of "party balance" is completely dependent on what specific game you're talking about, assuming the game even has "parties".

Aside point, Socially Awkward Fighter has never been a requirement of the class in D&D. No class has ever been required to be socially awkward. Social situations are generally handled according to the players' own wits and abilities, with charisma scores modifying interactions. Even a low charisma score doesn't mean a character can't handle a social situation, it just means they'll have a penalty to reactions. My guess is, "socially awkward fighter" type comes from players who don't like interacting with the non-combat parts of the game, and might be socially awkward in real life. It has always been something the player does willingly, not dictated by the rules of the game.

Players always can participate in every facet of the game, in D&D at least. Some characters just have special abilities that help them succeed in certain areas where others must find alternative means of dealing with issues. When you have a thief in the party, it is smart to have them look for traps using their special skills. If you don't have a thief, the other characters still look for traps by poking around with poles and throwing stones and being very observant. No class is officially locked out of attempting anything.
It is, indeed, up to the DM to make sure the game is focused on those things the rules are designed to deal with. You don't plan an adventure all about political intrigue and seduction when the game mechanics are all about exploring dungeons and fighting monsters.

[Tengu_temp]

Ok, cool. Let me ask you though, does this only apply in combat, or does everyone have to contribute equally in everything? Does the fighter contribute just as much to social situations as the bard? Does the cleric contribute just as much to disarming traps as the rogue?

Mostly combat. Did you ever wonder why in most games non-combat situations are resolved by a single roll, while combat takes many rounds full of specific rules?

That's because combat is the form of conflict in which everyone in the party is engaged. Most of the time, while the rogue is picking the lock, everyone else just sits and waits for it to be done, doing nothing, not contributing - that's why it's just a single roll, so it will be over quickly, allowing the game to return to situations where everyone can do something.

If you don't do that, you get Cyberpunk 2020, which had a massively complex set of rules about cyberspace - and only hackers ever used those rules, so when the hacker started hacking, everyone else was just sitting around the table and picked their nose, waiting for it to be over so they can start participating in the game again.

[Eisenheim]

One of the things that really seems to be coming out of the discussion here is that balance is incredibly difficult to achieve when different sorts of tasks are handled by highly distinct mechanics. Many comments point to the fact that the skill using PCs wind up with much less spotlight than the combat focused fighter because their tasks, while important, are resolved with relatively few roles and don't necessarily take up much real world time. The issue there is really that the mechanics for resolving different types of challenge in D&D are very different, and non-combat is simply much less developed mechanically.

Both the problem of different kinds of system providing different levels of satisfaction and the problem of situational utility are addressed in a system like FATE, which uses the same basic mechanics for challenges in or out of combat, and which gives all characters a much better chance to contribute usefully to a greater percentage of the obstacles the party faces.

I think OP's adventure as initially laid out is honestly a decently laid out scenario for engaging a diverse party in D&D, as much as that can be done without leveraging individual character backgrounds and motivations. It simply shows up the fundamental balance issues that the highly divergent subsystems of D&D unavoidably create.

[VoxRationis]

More so than the "encouraging everyone to play" idea, what would you do to make, say, Open Lock or Disable Device an in-depth affair? Would you require that the DMs have detailed knowledge of trap or lock mechanisms and you need to roll pseudo-attacks for each armature or cog you want to fiddle with?

[neonchameleon]

More so than the "encouraging everyone to play" idea, what would you do to make, say, Open Lock or Disable Device an in-depth affair? Would you require that the DMs have detailed knowledge of trap or lock mechanisms and you need to roll pseudo-attacks for each armature or cog you want to fiddle with?

Open Lock you generally don't. It's simple pass/fail - or more accurately the main thing Open Lock does is allows people in without smashing the lock and leaving an obvious trail.

Disable Device goes entirely. Don't make it a skill or a skill roll. Instead describe the trap and ask the PCs what they are doing about it and take things from there. Most traps aren't delicate clockwork things so much as large mechanical things. And the ones that are delicate clockwork can normally simply be smashed.

[Rhynn]

Would you require that the DMs have detailed knowledge of trap or lock mechanisms and you need to roll pseudo-attacks for each armature or cog you want to fiddle with?

That sounds like a horrible idea!

IMO the purpose of lockpicking skills is to offer options: instead of smashing a chest that may contain fragile treasures, you can open it on the spot (and, finding it to contain 5,000 copper pieces and a 5,000 gp gem, you pocket the gem and save yourself carrying a chest with 5000 copper pieces out); instead of bashing in the door and finding the enemies ready and waiting for you, you can quietly pick it, gently open it to peek inside, and maybe get the jump on them.

Trapfinding and -disarming skills are generally, for me, a bennie that a character has for shortcutting these things with a die roll, instead of doing the thinking. (In a lot of old D&D modules, the text implies, IMO, that Find/Remove Traps isn't intended to be a shortcut where you go "Oh, I FRT" and then roll and succeed and that's all she wrote.)

Making either lockpicking or trap-removing an essential requirement to accomplish some larger primary goal is a terrible idea, generally. Although I also don't see anything wrong with making a dungeon full of traps and locks, so long as the PCs have options and can gather information about the world around them; if they decide to proceed without anyone to pick locks and deal with traps, that's their problem...

These things shouldn't be the main jam of the character doing them, though. (The main jam of all characters should be making choices, taking actions, and seeing results/consequences. Horribly vague, I know...)

This isn't strictly relevant to the OP, anyway, since the example was obviously an example and I'm pretty sure wasn't supposed to be about any edition of D&D specifically (especially given Talakeal has developed his own system).

[VoxRationis]

That sounds like a horrible idea!

See, that's what I think. The rogue skills come down to single die rolls not because the game wishes to heavily prioritize combat, but because going into great detail, the same detail that goes into the tactics of combat, in areas like lockpicking would be exceptionally dull and too much work for players and DMs alike.
Similarly, the game isn't deemphasizing roleplaying by having most of its pages dedicated to combat. There's just no reason to have a bunch of in-depth rules related to talking, when players are already reasonably fluent at their native languages and know how to talk to one another. Role-playing skills are for when your character is supposed to be much better at talking than you are as a player (i.e., most players aren't fantastic liars, but you could make a character who is). Furthermore, there's no reason to have it such that some characters are really bad at talking inherently, or that you can't make a tangential comment without the NPC making a Rebuttal of Opportunity, because language is infinitely variable and restricting it would just make role-playing less varied.