D&D 5E The "Powergamers (Min/maxer)" vs "Alpha Gamers" vs "Role Play Gamers" vs "GM" balance mismatch "problem(s)"

[Sunseeker]

Sure. Taken to the logical conclusion, you could, in essence, run one game for each player. The DPR type plays a dueling game. The skirimisher a tactical game. The diplomancer a negotiation strategy game. The trapfinder a treasure-hunting game. Etc... Meanwhile the other players fiddle with their mobile devices.

You know, I appreciate it when you ignore the second half of my statements, it makes for much more meaningful discussion. That's sarcasm BTW. I also appreciate it when you straw-man my arguments into something they're clearly not. I'd like to talk about these issues, but I really can't when you clearly have some idea in your head of what I'm saying and arguing as opposed to what I'm actually writing.

Lots of things can. One of them is having everyone participating & engaged, or at least interested, in as much of the game as possible.

Again with that "missing the second half" part. Really? Lots of things can improve the "fun" at the table? Duh. But "fun" is subjective. you cannot objectively increase fun in most cases.

Anyway, this will be my last response to you until you respond to what I write instead of what you think I wrote.

 

[Lanefan]

I have to admit. I did not think you would think of a time when players killed themselves but player vs player (intentional or not) would indeed be out of the GMs hands. In the case of player vs player the GM would not be developing or coordinating the game only interfering with player decisions. So bravo to you sir, I do have to consed that not all deaths are GM controlled.

And that was just one example out of lots of possibilities...

The big difference in our thinking it that I require a warning of some kind but also that if they all die like that its my fault for putting in a room like that and somehow leading them to believe their was some reason to go in there and pull the handle. You don't seem to put up signs, blame them for being curious cats, and then expect them to learn by living in fear.

I expect the PCs to behave much like real people would when exploring a highly dangerous place where possible death awaits around every corner; and that's to be careful - and yes, fearful - and to take the time for checks and searches before just plowing in.

Lan-"and, in the old saying, don't forget what curiosity did to the cat"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

In a cooperative boardgame or an RPG the point isn't giving the spectators one name to chant for and idolize to drive ticket sales, or one player to inspire the other players with his greatness, or even an 'anchor' to keep the team solid - the point is for everyone to contribute to success, or, in the case of the boardgame, everyone to have a fair shot at it.

Even then, if you look closely at most D&D parties you're going to find there's inevitably that one character that the party just couldn't function without.

Look at each member of the party and ask yourself "Could the party usefully continue to adventure without this character?". If your honest answer is 'yes' for each one, or 'no' for each one, then you've achieved your desired level of parity. Not sure I've ever seen this in 35 years of playing...

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

Look at each member of the party and ask yourself "Could the party usefully continue to adventure without this character?". If your honest answer is 'yes' for each one, or 'no' for each one, then you've achieved your desired level of parity. Not sure I've ever seen this in 35 years of playing...

Lanefan

Well, you have been playing 1e all that time.

But, even if, hypothetically, the game were neatly balanced or niche-protected to the degree that each type of character was absolutely vital, you still might have a party where most are indispenisble ("no" to your hypothetical question) but two are not ("yes"), because two players chose the same type of character.
For instance, in a 5-person 4e party you're going to duplicate one 'role,' since there's only 4 of 'em to go around. The two same-role characters may be balanced, distinctive, and fun, but either of them are de-facto dispensable, as long as the other remains.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Anyway, this will be my last response to you until you respond to what I write instead of what you think I wrote.

OK:

Right, that's why you make dedicated challenges. The super-DPR barbarian isn't going to do a very good job in social challenges.

my point is that some classes still do certain things other classes don't do. It's not terribly difficult to make challenges that favor certain classes strongpoints.

There's really not so many things that are absolutely unique to one class anymore, Expertise is shared between the Rogue & a Bard sub-class. Every spell list shares most of it's spells with one or more other lists. Any given skill is available to any character via class or background or feat. Extra attack is not fighter-exclusive (and while Action Surge is, & SA is rogue-exclusive & Rage Barb-exclusive, they're all just different mechanics that deliver higher DPR).
And, of course, BA makes the degree of difference between the skill specialist and the skill-incompetent less profound than in 3e.
Even so, yes, a given member of a party, due to class and/or build may well be much better in one area than anyone else (his specialty needn't be unique to his class to be unique in the context of the party), and you can use that, as DM, to highlight his contributions by making that one area of expertise central to a challenge or sideline him by making it irrelevant.

Taken to the logical conclusion, you could, in essence, run one game for each player - assuming each has chosen a different class/build, so that each has their unique strongpoint. You just tailor different challenges that play to the strongpoints of each one. The DPR king plays a dueling game. The skirimisher a tactical game. The diplomancer a negotiation strategy game. The trapfinder a treasure-hunting game. Etc...

I meant "better" as in "what improves the fun at the table". The DM may have a different take on what should be fun and how people should be having fun, but the Table's fun should be a group consideration. Inflexibility is bad on all sides.

Lots of things can add to fun, but fun is very subjective. Certainly, though, one of them is having everyone participating & engaged, or at least interested, in as much of the game as possible. Just in as much as there's not a lot of fun to be had in non-participation...
...though, I suppose there is a growing interest in RPGs as spectator sports, so I could be off base there.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, you have been playing 1e all that time.

And 3e; happened there too.

But, even if, hypothetically, the game were neatly balanced or niche-protected to the degree that each type of character was absolutely vital, you still might have a party where most are indispenisble ("no" to your hypothetical question) but two are not ("yes"), because two players chose the same type of character.
For instance, in a 5-person 4e party you're going to duplicate one 'role,' since there's only 4 of 'em to go around. The two same-role characters may be balanced, distinctive, and fun, but either of them are de-facto dispensable, as long as the other remains.

I'm not after every character being indispensible - redundancy is good. What I'm getting at is that even in parties where there's loads of redundancy there's still often that one character you just can't live without.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not after every character being indispensible - redundancy is good. What I'm getting at is that even in parties where there's loads of redundancy there's still often that one character you just can't live without.

It sounded to me like either would work: either each character is indispensable, or none of them are, the 'issue' being with some characters being dispensable non-entities and one or more others the all-important stars of the show. And that issue would be prettymuch a given in 1e ...

And 3e; happened there too.

...ok & 3e, most likely.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Saying this means that your also saying the players have no agency at all. If the players can't make a meaningful choice that has bad consequences because all bad consequences are really the DM's fault, then the players don't really have meaningful choices.

That is a black and white view on a gray topic. What I mean is the GM does effect and control almost everything. At the same time a GMs job is to ALLOW the player to do something to kill himself. But your point is the same as Lanefan's that a GMs power to interfere and control everything doesn't mean he should, also never means he can't. So in a case of player vs player combat if GM intervenes he is stopping free will and invading on the choices of the players. At the same time he could have a guard run into the middle of the fight and get shot... that would not be. What I am talking about is that if a group is going to TPK because events the GM controls its his fault. If he allows one party member to die based on his decisions and dice roles that one thing but a TPK pretty much means the GM went too far unless all the players decided to jump of a cliff. If for some reason they thought they were going to get a free wish if they jumped the GM should add some saves or something so hopefully at least one player lives. ...A thought the story of the time the party all died trying to make a wish would likely not be one they forgot.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Well, you have been playing 1e all that time.

But, even if, hypothetically, the game were neatly balanced or niche-protected to the degree that each type of character was absolutely vital, you still might have a party where most are indispenisble ("no" to your hypothetical question) but two are not ("yes"), because two players chose the same type of character.
For instance, in a 5-person 4e party you're going to duplicate one 'role,' since there's only 4 of 'em to go around. The two same-role characters may be balanced, distinctive, and fun, but either of them are de-facto dispensable, as long as the other remains.

Their are at least 7 roles healer/scout/crowd control caster/tank/face/skill junky/Primary Damage (single target) and a possibly 9 if you count Ranged Damage and AoE Damage as separate categories. But more to the point duplicating jobs is 99% of the time a problem, to be clear that's not the same class that causes the problem. In my experiance the happens mostly when player and the GM say "just build what you want" with no coordination with the group. So you build a character for a rule... and someone has it already. Then they get annoyed because your the new guy duplicating there job. When that happens your are exactly correct and its horrible. Generally the only fix it for someone to re-roll. Which means even if you started together one character becomes the "new guy" for the game. Its just not good.

 

[Lanefan]

A thought the story of the time the party all died trying to make a wish would likely not be one they forgot.

This would be the best TPK ever. End of story.