Let's Get Real - the DM's responsibility is balance

[Mr. Wonderful]

TBH, I'm tired of seeing thread that say "such and such class is boring or unbalanced." Usually (but not always) it's aimed at martial classes, whose primary benefits are combat.

Folks, that is what a DM is for. The DM is there to make sure that EVERYONE has fun, and that usually means EVERYONE participates in the classic three pillars of RPGs = social, exploration and combat.

Mind you, I didn't say that everyone has to be GOOD at what they do. But they do need to have agency, and impact, and participate.

I would far rather prefer for the dwarf barbarian to be engaged - if not necessarily to the party's benefit - in negotiation with the Elven King than than have the player "check out" because "this isn't their thing." Conversely, while the elf bard SHOULD get a chance to shine that doesn't mean they succeed just by rolling a die. The presence of the dwarf barbarian should be part of the challenge that the player must overcome.

And no player should EVER feel: "oh, I am playing the wrong class, I might as well check my phone while the bard or the ranger carries the party." It's FINE that certain classes have advantages - whether its combat, social or exploration - but no one should be left out. GOOD roleplayers look forward to failing, as long as it is FUN.

[JNAProductions]

"If I can fix it, it's not broken," is not a good mentality.

[Catullus64]

Well said. As a DM, it's always a good idea to take a cue from your meanest high school teachers, and call on the proverbial inattentive student. That is to say, contrive circumstances such that the Barbarian is thrust into social roleplay whether he was planning for it or not.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I agree... to a point. There's a social contract in place that the group is expected to have similar expectations from each other. If most of them are there for the RP, then there's that one guy who power builds a hyper-efficient full caster.

I'd make the argument that the DM isn't wholly responsible for the balance in that situation; what would challenge that one player would wipe the other players complettely. Especially with Charisma being such a god stat in this edition you could easily have one character dominate two thirds of the the three tiers of play, with the ignored pillar being the much maligned Exploration pillar.

[Guy Lombard-O]

I would far rather prefer for the dwarf barbarian to be engaged - if not necessarily to the party's benefit - in negotiation with the Elven King than than have the player "check out" because "this isn't their thing." Conversely, while the elf bard SHOULD get a chance to shine that doesn't mean they succeed just by rolling a die. The presence of the dwarf barbarian should be part of the challenge that the player must overcome.

I agree with your larger point, but I'm not so sure about the above.

Knowing that the socially-capable PC may sort of only hobble along in combat and not really be capable of adding a whole lot compared to the DPS-focused and BC PCs, it might very much feel to the other players that having their PCs actively mucking up the social PC's time to shine is sort of an uncool thing to do. The social PC is unlikely to be actively hampering the other PCs in combat (frankly, 5e PCs are all pretty combat capable), only contributing less, but still contributing. Being the guy whose PC is now actually part of the problem, or "part of the challenge that the [other] player must overcome", is definitely not a guy I'm comfortable being. Especially if I'm in a campaign where the social/political aspects actually matter, and how well we handle them is going to effect the overall outcome.

Not saying the bumblers should stay in the corner and only speak when spoken to all the time. But I'd be pretty careful about sticking my actively-hampering nose into somebody's else's spotlight on more than the occasional basis.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The real trick is engineering the situation so that there are things the non-socially-adept barbarian could choose to do that will help. Or not, their choice. While still respecting the established fiction.

And I don't agree about spotlights. Unlike some games, D&D doesn't have hard niche protection. Or shouldn't. The spotlight should be on the party, not only any individual within the party. Situations should encourage group participation, not cater to heroes with sidekicks, even if who gets to be the hero changes from scene to scene.

[Mr. Wonderful]

"If I can fix it, it's not broken," is not a good mentality.

While I disagree - thinking its the BEST mentality - let me ask you honestly what your alternative is.

I hope it's not expecting a perfect system, folks will wait a long time to see that.

[JNAProductions]

While I disagree - thinking its the BEST mentality - let me ask you honestly what your alternative is.

I hope it's not expecting a perfect system, folks will wait a long time to see that.

Of course not-but your specific complaints seem to hit that fallacy pretty hard. A Ranger obviating exploration, rather than enhancing the fun, is a problem.

People complain, sure, and some people complain too much. But to say "It's the DM's job to make the table work," is both putting a ton of pressure on the DM and letting pressure off the designers who's literal jobs it is to make content for customers.
Now, WotC is pretty good, in 5th edition, about it. I definitely enjoy 5th edition a lot, and while it ain't some masterpiece of RPG history, it's still a solid, fun game. But there ARE issues. There are things that can be improved, either with future releases or with a 6th edition. Putting it all on the DM rather than on the designers isn't good for the game or the players.

Edit: Ah, that was the name! It's the Oberoni Fallacy.

[Mr. Wonderful]

I agree... to a point. There's a social contract in place that the group is expected to have similar expectations from each other. If most of them are there for the RP, then there's that one guy who power builds a hyper-efficient full caster.

I'd make the argument that the DM isn't wholly responsible for the balance in that situation; what would challenge that one player would wipe the other players complettely. Especially with Charisma being such a god stat in this edition you could easily have one character dominate two thirds of the the three tiers of play, with the ignored pillar being the much maligned Exploration pillar.

That's the challenge inherent in being a DM. There will ALWAYS be a player who optimizes their character sheet, it's inevitable and hell, I do it myself all the time! I can hardly ask players to do otherwise.

But what you can do is recognize that there is FUN to be had with a moment's focus on the not-good portion of your character. It breathes life into the character, adds complexity, and let's face it, no one generally minds being in the spotlight even when you're the comic relief.

There is a reason why a bad roll or dump stat is called the "roleplaying stat" in groups I play with. EVERYONE should participate in all three pillars of play!

[Catullus64]

Of course not-but your specific complaints seem to hit that fallacy pretty hard. A Ranger obviating exploration, rather than enhancing the fun, is a problem.

People complain, sure, and some people complain too much. But to say "It's the DM's job to make the table work," is both putting a ton of pressure on the DM and letting pressure off the designers who's literal jobs it is to make content for customers.
Now, WotC is pretty good, in 5th edition, about it. I definitely enjoy 5th edition a lot, and while it ain't some masterpiece of RPG history, it's still a solid, fun game. But there ARE issues. There are things that can be improved, either with future releases or with a 6th edition. Putting it all on the DM rather than on the designers isn't good for the game or the players.

As someone more positively inclined to Mr. Wonderful's position, I think it's less about the DM and players picking up the slack for an imbalanced system than it is about the system leaving a lot of free space for the DM and players to operate in, which may incidentally create imbalances. Balance is nice to have, but it can also impose restraints.

I think a good example of this is the AD&D and earlier Thief skills. It carves out a specific niche for that class that casters have a hard time replicating, so you might say it's good balance. But it also has the side effect of locking other characters out of the roleplay tasks covered by those skills, and reduces them to fairly cut-and-dry percentile rolls. A more freeform skill system like 5e has doesn't protect the niche of nonmagical characters in the same way, but it does encourage all players to try out new and creative things outside the game's more systematized interactions, and it encourages the DM to work with them to do so.

[Unoriginal]

TBH, I'm tired of seeing thread that say "such and such class is boring or unbalanced." Usually (but not always) it's aimed at martial classes, whose primary benefits are combat.

Folks, that is what a DM is for. The DM is there to make sure that EVERYONE has fun, and that usually means EVERYONE participates in the classic three pillars of RPGs = social, exploration and combat.

Mind you, I didn't say that everyone has to be GOOD at what they do. But they do need to have agency, and impact, and participate.

I would far rather prefer for the dwarf barbarian to be engaged - if not necessarily to the party's benefit - in negotiation with the Elven King than than have the player "check out" because "this isn't their thing." Conversely, while the elf bard SHOULD get a chance to shine that doesn't mean they succeed just by rolling a die. The presence of the dwarf barbarian should be part of the challenge that the player must overcome.

And no player should EVER feel: "oh, I am playing the wrong class, I might as well check my phone while the bard or the ranger carries the party." It's FINE that certain classes have advantages - whether its combat, social or exploration - but no one should be left out. GOOD roleplayers look forward to failing, as long as it is FUN.

You're conflating different debates, here.

What people mean when they say "balance" is mechanical balance. Not table balance, social-to-exploration-to-combat balane, time-spent-on-each-player balance, or anything else.

Fun and balance are different concern. You can have fun with or without balance, and you can have balance with or without fun.

A DM's responsibility is to DM sessions. The whole group's responsibility is to have fun. And mechanical balance is the responsibility of whoever made the mechanic being discussed.

[Mr. Wonderful]

Of course not-but your specific complaints seem to hit that fallacy pretty hard. A Ranger obviating exploration, rather than enhancing the fun, is a problem.

People complain, sure, and some people complain too much. But to say "It's the DM's job to make the table work," is both putting a ton of pressure on the DM and letting pressure off the designers who's literal jobs it is to make content for customers.
Now, WotC is pretty good, in 5th edition, about it. I definitely enjoy 5th edition a lot, and while it ain't some masterpiece of RPG history, it's still a solid, fun game. But there ARE issues. There are things that can be improved, either with future releases or with a 6th edition. Putting it all on the DM rather than on the designers isn't good for the game or the players.

Edit: Ah, that was the name! It's the Oberoni Fallacy.

Rangers shouldn't obviate exploration, that should be one of their strengths. But it doesn't mean that because they are good at it the whole party is, and the challenges are waved away because one character is specialized.

I believe that instead that Exploration is the Ranger's chance to shine.....BUT part of the challenge is the cleric clanking along in plate armor or the paladin's desire to challenge anyone seen with a hearty "friend or foe?"

Too many DMs reduce things to a single die roll and use the party's best stat to roll against. My argument is that this is overly simple, even lazy, and surrenders the chance for FUN that comes from parties working to overcome their individual weaknesses to become a greater whole.

[Unoriginal]

Rangers shouldn't obviate exploration, that should be one of their strengths. But it doesn't mean that because they are good at it the whole party is, and the challenges are waved away because one character is specialized.

I believe that instead that Exploration is the Ranger's chance to shine.....BUT part of the challenge is the cleric clanking along in plate armor or the paladin's desire to challenge anyone seen with a hearty "friend or foe?"

Too many DMs reduce things to a single die roll and use the party's best stat to roll against. My argument is that this is overly simple, even lazy, and surrenders the chance for FUN that comes from parties working to overcome their individual weaknesses to become a greater whole.

Then you're not arguing that balance is the DM's responsibility, you're arguing that providing challenges is.

[Mr. Wonderful]

You're conflating different debates, here.

What people mean when they say "balance" is mechanical balance. Not table balance, social-to-exploration-to-combat balane, time-spent-on-each-player balance, or anything else.

Fun and balance are different concern. You can have fun with or without balance, and you can have balance with or without fun.

A DM's responsibility is to DM sessions. The whole group's responsibility is to have fun. And mechanical balance is the responsibility of whoever made the mechanic being discussed.

"I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful one-hundred percent!"

[Unoriginal]

"I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful one-hundred percent!"

If you want a discussion where people get what you mean, you can't Humpty Dumpty your way through language.

Terms have a meaning in how they're used by the community. If you want to give your own definition to a term or restrict the meaning to a specific thing only (like many academic essay writers), you have to provide the glossary in your opening statement.

[Mr. Wonderful]

If you want a discussion where people get what you mean, you can't Humpty Dumpty your way through language.

Terms have a meaning in how they're used by the community. If you want to give your own definition to a term or restrict the meaning to a specific thing only (like many academic essay writers), you have to provide the glossary in your opening statement.

But I do get to stand by my words - which I'm doing because you decided to conflate them with other discussions or arguments.

[strangebloke]

Eyyyyy rule zero fallacy!

DMs have a lot on their plates. The rules are there to make running the game easier, not harder, and if the rules do make things harder (ie, require the DM to set up arbitrary obstacles so that a less conventionally powerful character can shine) then that is a failing of the rules.

Sure, DMs can and do deal with this kind of problem all the kind. Sure, DND 5e is mostly (imo) a good system. Sure, players are liable to have fun even if the game is run 'poorly' by some people's standards because roleplay and dice-rolling and hanging out are all inherently fun regardless of what else is happening....

But problems are problems and its fundamentally unhelpful to just say "DM better lol."

[Pex]

As DM, when a player says his character does or says something that player makes the roll if one is necessary, not the PC who has the highest plus. If bad luck means they don't make the DC, another PC does not make a roll. The failure result happens. The DC is not always high. Good luck means they make the DC despite the +0 or -1, or maybe the DC was 5 but I did want that small chance of failure. There are occasions when I'll ask for a roll any PC can do. Then it's fine if the party wants the PC with the highest plus to make the roll.

It is part of the DM's job to get everyone involved. Don't let players default to whoever has the highest plus. Don't let players be discouraged from trying when they have a +0 or -1 to something. Sometimes no roll is needed. When a roll is needed sometimes the DC is 10 or less.

[Chronic]

I will give my 2 cents about it. I partially agree with the OP, GMs are in a good position to balance things, but there is also limit to this. The GMs aren't perfect human being, the players also have a part to play, and the system should provide a good basis.
I think that pen and paper rpg's are ultimately a social experience, no matter the system, no matter the type of game etc. They can be played differently, as a battle simulation for example but I would argue thatn's not their primary goal and there is more optimal tools or mediums to do it.
So in my opinion, the role of the gm is first and foremost to provide a enjoyable social experience. What groups might consider enjoyable vary, some people like to have immediate fun, other enjoyable immersion but social interaction is at the heart of the hobby.
So as a Gm, my primary goal is to understand what the players expect, what they truly want (which can be different from what they expect), and try to make it work as a group.
Balance is fairly open concept at the end of the day. A good experience is when people needs meet the right system. A gm can balance things, but if it require a lot of work to provide a good experience for your group, you might as well use another system.

[Cheesegear]

TBH, I'm tired of seeing thread that say "such and such class is boring or unbalanced." Usually (but not always) it's aimed at martial classes, whose primary benefits are combat.

The problem is that every class is good at combat. Combat is largely what the entire game is based around. But, the problem is that casters can do a lot of things, often without effort, outside of combat.

EVERYONE participates in the classic three pillars of RPGs = social, exploration and combat.
[...]
Mind you, I didn't say that everyone has to be GOOD at what they do. But they do need to have agency, and impact, and participate.

No. Not everyone needs to participate. Not everyone can participate.

If there is a lever on the other side of the room, that turns the spinning blades off inside the room, what are you gonna do? Are you going to do a series of Acrobatics checks where failure is likely to lead to HP damage via the spinning blades? Or is the Wizard just going to cast Mage Hand and pull the lever from one side of the room?

Right.

There is something high up on a ledge that you need. An egg. A martial attempts to Athletics check his way up the ledge, where failure potentially means fall damage.
A Wizard casts Mage Hand.

It's extraordinarily simple situations like this that lead to the perception that martials can't do anything. Or rather, anything a martial can do, a spellcaster can probably do, too, with less risk and effort.

And the complete failure of misunderstanding is that when it comes to combat? The Wizard can still cast Lightning Bolt, Fireball, etc.

A Wizard can do combat, and other things. It's the other part of that sentence that matters.
Combat is great. You're good at combat. Awesome. What else you got?

The Bard hands out Bardic Insipiration. The Bard casts Vicious Mockery and forces Disadvantage. The Bard also has proficiency in...Everything, I guess. The Bard also hands out +1d6 HPs every short rest. The Bard has also has a Rapier and Shortbow, just in case the Bard really gets stuck.

The Barbarian can cast Polearm. Or it can cast Polearm, but angrier.

I would far rather prefer for the dwarf barbarian to be engaged - if not necessarily to the party's benefit - in negotiation with the Elven King than than have the player "check out" because "this isn't their thing."

I've said it time and time again... When it comes to roleplaying, your species and class is irrelevant. Roleplaying, comes from you. Your intelligence and your charisma and your empathy/insight. If the player can not - or chooses not to - participate in a roleplaying event, that's on them.

Sometimes, a player just can't roleplay, and they will check out, and they will be on their phone. They simply aren't interested in making fictional friends in a fictional game. What they see is a series of mechanical numbers, and the aim of the game is to make sure that their numbers are higher than the DMs (ignoring that the DM can simply just insert any hostile they want and automatically win the arms race everytime...). Any situation that doesn't involve those numbers, they aren't interested in.
Sometimes, one player might pick up on a thread, or an NPC, that literally no-one else at the table cares about. It happens all the time. Sometimes, a character might ask a really stupid question, and you the DM, have to play it straight. As if the character really did ask that question because the player doesn't actually know what's going on. The entire table groans.

The presence of the dwarf barbarian should be part of the challenge that the [Bard] must overcome.

wat.
Having a player at the table negatively impact another player, mechanically, at the table is the opposite of what you want at the table. Because now the other players at the table are indirectly incentivized to force the Dwarf Barbarian to be removed from the party. Why the **** would the Bard keep him around, from a player perspective, when he is constantly causing problems?

Would it be narratively compelling for interpersonal problems to affect the party? Sure.
Does it make for a good game? No.

It's FINE that certain classes have advantages - whether its combat, social or exploration - but no one should be left out.

Again, go back to how useful Mage Hand just is. There are certain spells, abilities, traits and feats, that are simply so good at what they do, and so versatile in their application, that the player in control actually can simply say 'Stand back nerds, I got this.'

In order to fix this, you have to do a lot work, making a homebrew list of banned and nerfed spells and abilities. No DM really wants to do that, and no player really wants to have their choices neutered by arbitrary rules by the DM when the book very clearly says something different.
It's actually easier just not to play as a Barbarian. Just play a Dex-based Fighter and call yourself a barbarian (lower case).

GOOD roleplayers look forward to failing, as long as it is FUN.

Please define 'fun'.
Furthmore, the final part of the OP seems to imply that if you're not good at roleplaying, you shouldn't play. But that may be a misinterpretation.

[Snowbluff]

But, the problem is that casters can do a lot of things, often without effort, outside of combat.

Huh? Literally every thing a caster does takes more effort and knowledge than "I use the attack action." You demonstrated that with your own continued post.


Also, I'm going to say that saying that the game doesn't need to be balanced isn't Oberoni. Balance would assume that every player at every table run by every DM has a power level that is similar. The case it that it's simply not. Heck, some subclasses, such as the Champion, are decided to have less effectiveness in exchange for simplicity for new players. Having fewer options making weaker characters is a game feature.

[strangebloke]

Huh? Literally every thing a caster does takes more effort and knowledge than "I use the attack action." You demonstrated that with your own continued post.

Also, I'm going to say that saying that the game doesn't need to be balanced isn't Oberoni. Balance would assume that every player at every table run by every DM has a power level that is similar. The case it that it's simply not. Heck, some subclasses, such as the Champion, are decided to have less effectiveness in exchange for simplicity for new players. Having fewer options making weaker characters is a game feature.

Complexity doesn't have to correlate with strength. I play fighting games, and the current strongest character in Guilty Gear Strive is Sol, who's also one of the three simplest characters in the game. His numbers are just big enough. Similarly with 5e's chassis, its easy to imagine a balance point where sorcerer-without-metamagic is more the baseline for casters instead of the wizard, and the champion is something more like the UA brute, and... yeah. In that context, I don't think people would still be saying that simpler=weaker.

The power of the wizard comes from the fact that the class features it has are really strong in a lot of spheres of play, and though more complex than a champion fighter, I'd argue its less complex than the (much weaker) sorcerer, at least in terms of how hard it is to be effective.

I agree that balance isn't the main (or only) goal, but an imbalanced system presents difficulties for the DM. If you don't think that's true, look at the 3.5 subforum and search up all the threads talking about "I have two players, one wants to play a paladin, the other wants to play a wizard, what do I do??" If a player wants to be a big lump and sit in the corner out of combat, fine, good for them, but by the same token if they want to play a fighter/barbarian/whatever, they shouldn't have to be a lump. The current system de-facto enforces lumpiness for (by my estimation) fighters, barbarians, paladins, monks, and sorcerers, all of whom have to sacrifice combat effectiveness in order to have anything to do out of combat (no, basic ability checks don't count) and aren't really better in combat to begin with.

[Waazraath]

TBH, I'm tired of seeing thread that say "such and such class is boring or unbalanced." Usually (but not always) it's aimed at martial classes, whose primary benefits are combat.

Folks, that is what a DM is for. The DM is there to make sure that EVERYONE has fun, and that usually means EVERYONE participates in the classic three pillars of RPGs = social, exploration and combat.

Mind you, I didn't say that everyone has to be GOOD at what they do. But they do need to have agency, and impact, and participate.

I would far rather prefer for the dwarf barbarian to be engaged - if not necessarily to the party's benefit - in negotiation with the Elven King than than have the player "check out" because "this isn't their thing." Conversely, while the elf bard SHOULD get a chance to shine that doesn't mean they succeed just by rolling a die. The presence of the dwarf barbarian should be part of the challenge that the player must overcome.

And no player should EVER feel: "oh, I am playing the wrong class, I might as well check my phone while the bard or the ranger carries the party." It's FINE that certain classes have advantages - whether its combat, social or exploration - but no one should be left out. GOOD roleplayers look forward to failing, as long as it is FUN.

Several semi-random thoughts:

- this isn't Oberoni afaic, Oberoni states that the DM can fix stuff by disallowing or changing stuff (the DM being the higher authority than the rules, according to the rules, or rule 0). As I interpret the OP, it's not about disallowing overpowered ability X, but e.g. offering low charisma & no social skills characters options to engage in the social pillar of the game.

- a DM can do a lot of things to balance the game; the DM makes the challanges, be it combat, social or exploration, and part of the job is imo considering the both the characters and the players when designing an adventure. That's as much as "not use a monster immune to all magic when having 2 blaster casters without other options but the 'help' action" as "don't prepare an hours long diplomatic intrigue encounter if 3 out of 4 are only there to kick in the door.

- I think in earlier edtions this was a formal job of the DM, according to the DMG (but haven't checked).

- as for balance between classes in combat, a lot can be done with encounter design: how many enemies per encounter, surprise attacks or not, amount of encouters/day, special abilities enemy, special terrain, you name it. Vary enough, and everybody gets their moment to shine.

- Or, if that new player picked a featless champion fighter to learn the game and gets bored by level 10 due to lack of options, just hand out some magic items which allow that, allow retraining ASI's in feats, or change subclass (think there are rules in Tasha's for some of that?), or just let him retire the character and roll a new one.

- the burden can't be placed soley on the shoulders of the DM though, it's a team game - the player (and other players) have some responsiblity. The player can be expected to put some effort in making the character work, just as other players have a responsiblity in keeping the game fun for everybody, e.g. not turning every encounter into a combat while somebody wants to do some RP as well.

[DwarfFighter]

"If I can fix it, it's not broken," is not a good mentality.

This is not a good mentality.

[False God]

Your title says the Dm's repsonsibility is balance, but your argument seems to focus more on engagement.

The game designer's job is balance, to a reasonable degree, or to their desired degree. A game designer may not want wizards and fighters to be played alongside each other. A game designer may be fine with one OP option and not another.

Assuming we are purchasing a game that was advertised as balanced, then it is the game designers job to ensure said balance exists.

Moving on...

I agree it's a DM's job to ensure equitable engagement, or at least engagement up to the desired level of the player. Not every character needs to participate in every scene, and charactes shouldn't be punished for not engaging in things they're not good at, nor players denied the opportunity to make an attempt if they want to be involved.

[sithlordnergal]

TBH, I'm tired of seeing thread that say "such and such class is boring or unbalanced." Usually (but not always) it's aimed at martial classes, whose primary benefits are combat.

Folks, that is what a DM is for. The DM is there to make sure that EVERYONE has fun, and that usually means EVERYONE participates in the classic three pillars of RPGs = social, exploration and combat.

Huh, you and I must be seeing different threads. I fully agree that I see a lot of threads about martials being "boring", but generally when someone makes a thread about things being "unbalanced" its usually "<insert non-Sorcerer full caster here> is unbalanced". And while the DM is there to make sure everyone has fun and things are relatively balanced between players, you can't control every single detail when it comes to balance.

The unfortunate reality is that not all classes are made equal. Some are far better than others, and that's a fact of life. And if you end up with a table where one half of it hyper specializes and the other doesn't, your table isn't going to be balanced at all. Of course, that doesn't mean the players won't have fun, you can have a ton of fun with an unbalanced party.

Mind you, I didn't say that everyone has to be GOOD at what they do. But they do need to have agency, and impact, and participate.

I would far rather prefer for the dwarf barbarian to be engaged - if not necessarily to the party's benefit - in negotiation with the Elven King than than have the player "check out" because "this isn't their thing." Conversely, while the elf bard SHOULD get a chance to shine that doesn't mean they succeed just by rolling a die. The presence of the dwarf barbarian should be part of the challenge that the player must overcome.

And no player should EVER feel: "oh, I am playing the wrong class, I might as well check my phone while the bard or the ranger carries the party." It's FINE that certain classes have advantages - whether its combat, social or exploration - but no one should be left out. GOOD roleplayers look forward to failing, as long as it is FUN.

So, I agree with the first part, and disagree with literally everything else. Players do need to have agency...but that includes having the agency to not participate. As a DM, your job is to make sure those who want to be engaged in what's going on are able to be engaged. For a Dwarf Barbarian, you need to ask them if they want to join in, and if they aren't engaged in what's going on then either offer them a chance to join in or offer them a side thing they can engage in. However, you cannot, and should not, try to force them to engage.

Next, party members should NEVER be a hinderance to the success of another player unless said player is ACTIVLY trying to be a hinderance. A Bard should never be penalized just because they have a rough and gruff looking Barbarian with a sailor's mouth standing by them while they're dealing with high society, ESPECIALLY if that Barbarian isn't doing anything. Now, if the Barbarian is causing a scene, or doing something RP wise that would cause a hinderance, sure, give the Bard a penalty. But NEVER give out a penalty just because the Barbarian is there. All that will do is cause tension among the players, and cause the Barbarian to engage in RP stuff even less.

Hell, if my own DM did that with my Druid, it wouldn't lead to me "engaging" more with RP. I'd actively avoid social encounters and have my Druid leave whenever an important social encounter was about to happen, that way my presence doesn't cause problems for the group. And since I'd be in a different place entirely, with my character unable to listen in, I'd end up engaging even less, check out even more than I might have otherwise, and ask the party for a summary in character because my character wasn't there.

Good RPers do look forward to failing, yes. But their failure shouldn't be caused by a different player choosing not to engage with a situation.

[Kane0]

TBH, I'm tired of seeing thread that say "such and such class is boring or unbalanced." Usually (but not always) it's aimed at martial classes, whose primary benefits are combat.

Folks, that is what a DM is for. The DM is there to make sure that EVERYONE has fun, and that usually means EVERYONE participates in the classic three pillars of RPGs = social, exploration and combat.

Mind you, I didn't say that everyone has to be GOOD at what they do. But they do need to have agency, and impact, and participate.

Okay. However consider that not all classes contribute to those pillars evenly, which means a DM will be putting more effort into some than others. That might be what some people are referring to as unbalanced.
An adventure with a barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue and ranger will be a very different experience for the DM than the same adventure with a bard, warlock, paladin, druid and wizard.

And no player should EVER feel: "oh, I am playing the wrong class, I might as well check my phone while the bard or the ranger carries the party."

Funny, for a long time the meme used to be 'ranger sucks play a fighter with a bow'

[sithlordnergal]

Funny, for a long time the meme used to be 'ranger sucks play a fighter with a bow'

Lol, I mean it still is the meme. The only time I can think of a Ranger carrying the party is if they're traveling through their favored terrain...which is a feature of that ability since it just removes all chances of failure for getting lost and what not. XD

[Kane0]

Lol, I mean it still is the meme. The only time I can think of a Ranger carrying the party is if they're traveling through their favored terrain...which is a feature of that ability since it just removes all chances of failure for getting lost and what not. XD

I think its less applicable now that you can trade favored enemy, natural explorer and primal awareness for 'actual' class features

[Chaos Jackal]

For one, just because the DM can and should try to "balance" player characters doesn't mean the DM should be forced to do that. The reason such threads as those you mentioned exist is because the problem creeps up, and DMs have a lot in their plate in the first place without needing to worry about how to engage the barbarian outside of combat when there's a paladin and a bard along for the ride.

And your idea of fun isn't necessarily the same as everyone else's. If I'm playing a barbarian (which I rarely do, but still) I'll actively avoid most social situations, and the DM purposely trying to maneuver me into one isn't earning any brownie points from me; I'm aware of the barbarian's limitations, I know that, while there are social situations I can tackle, diplomacy in the royal banquet isn't one of them, and I most certainly don't find it fun to act, even in-character, like a buffoon, fail at what I'm doing unless I get really lucky with dice and potentially screw over my party. If I am the bard, I most certainly don't find it fun when, either through the DM's manipulation or their own volition, the barbarian acts like a buffoon in the royal feast and screws me over.

Yes, the DM should strive to include all players in a game and not leave anyone out. That doesn't mean there aren't issues making this difficult, and neither does it mean that all players should participate in everything because everyone needs an equal piece from all pies.