GMs & DMs: What do you do with (severely) unbalanced adventuring parties?

[Desdichado]

You misinterpret my post. I meant on message boards everyone is basically saying bow down to what the players want. This is -in my opinion- treating the gm crappy, and revoking what HE wants. .

I don't see any evidence of that in this thread. That's certainly not what I'm saying.

Exception would be if I say "all Martial PCs" or "no PHB 3" - in that case the players need to stick to the restrictions I set for that campaign, or they can find another GM.

Indeed! And I have issued such declarations before, and it worked fine.

But I've never said "You're late - you're playing the Cleric". It did happen to me in the Pathfinder campaign I'm playing in - I was the 6th player, so I was told Cleric-only. I was a bit unsure, I prefer playing Fighter types, and I don't like overshadowing other players, especially newbies, who comprise most of this group. So I made my Cleric a Viking, and as Fighter-ish as possible without compromising his ability to do his job (STR 14 DEX 14 CON 13 INT 10 WIS 16 CHA 12) - Raknar Olafson likes charging into melee at the front of the group, mace swinging.

Neither have I, nor would I. But I have been on the recieving end of that before, either implicitly or explicitly. It sucks as a player.

 

[Desdichado]

I create a NPC Medic (or whatever) and hand it to group. Some one in the group chooses the actions of NPC with me having power to over rule the action. Aka: No! Hobo the npc medic is not going to give the party his magic and strip nekkid and moon the king.

Hah! In my group, it's likely that one of the PCs would do that anyway. I tend to get a bunch of fairly shifty ne'er-do-wells that more greatly resemble Cugel the "Clever" than they do anybody genuinely heroic.

 

[Celebrim]

How come the GM is always treated as crap in these situations. The GM is a player as well, GMs arent some company there to cater to the customer's whim. If they players arent having fun that sucks, but it also goes the other way if the GM isnt having fun then he won't care about the game. Why do people not realize it goes both ways?

You don't know how many times I've been in this argument on EnWorld. Half the time people are accusing me of saying that DM's have the right to abuse players. Half the time people are accusing me of saying that players have the right to abuse DMs. I've gotten to the point where I think this is a pretty meaningless argument, with goal posts that shift continually.

I agree with you that the GM is a player as well. I'll even go so far as to say that the GM is the most important player in the game, with the bigger stake in the game, and the greater expectation of control over the game as a result of that. I'm a DM 95% of the time, and I assure you that I'm no door mat for anyone.

However, what we are discussing here is the player's characters. A line has to be drawn over the DM's authority somewhere, because the players are players too. And for me that line is drawn hard and sharp at the player's characters. As the DM I control the whole world and this is my right as the DM. I make the world. I animate. I am every NPC in the world. The minute though I start asserting my authority over the PC's, I'm treading in dangerous waters. If the players don't have control over their own characters, then they don't have control over anything.

Now, I think we can all agree that the DM can make reasonable demands on the sort of characters that a player creates. For example, the character should fit the setting. The question then is, how reasonable is it for the DM to demand that the players collectively play a synergistic party? Can the DM demand that the player be a cleric, because no one else is a cleric? Can the DM demand that you play a fighter, because the role of wizard is already taken? Can the DM demand that the party be balanced, or achieve some theoretical level of optimization by a certain level?

And, for the most part, my answer is, "No. That would be a misuse of DM authority. While the DM has to have fun too, if the DM's fun depends on the players playing the character that he wants them to play to that degree, then the DM needs to reevaluate how he derives enjoyment from the game."

 

[S'mon]

I don't see any evidence of that in this thread. That's certainly not what I'm saying.

Indeed! And I have issued such declarations before, and it worked fine.

Neither have I, nor would I. But I have been on the recieving end of that before, either implicitly or explicitly. It sucks as a player.

Well, I think I made it work for me - being made to play a class I wouldn't normally choose to play, I had to stretch myself in characterising hin, and I think Raknar turned out more interesting than one of my normal Fighter types would have been.

In fact the only problem so far has been not from the GM, but from another player, the other non-newbie, who told me I was playing a Cleric of Erastil (LG god of hunting & community) "wrong" because I wasn't being Druid-y enough. Apparently he'd played an Erastil-worshiping Druid in another campaign and somehow got fixated on that being the correct model.

 

[Desdichado]

If I'm not saying as much as I might, it's only because Celebrim is already here saying it so well and I don't want to steal his thunder by making the same points more clumsily.

 

[Desdichado]

In fact the only problem so far has been not from the GM, but from another player, the other non-newbie, who told me I was playing a Cleric of Erastil (LG god of hunting & community) "wrong" because I wasn't being Druid-y enough. Apparently he'd played an Erastil-worshiping Druid in another campaign and somehow got fixated on that being the correct model.

That's sometimes the case. In fact, in my group, most of the other folks who commonly GM are much more likely to work with the players and find a solution for them (DMPCs being a common one, rather than tweaking the challenges faced, which is my personal favorite response.)

Curiously, it's occasionally one or two of the other players who are more likely to put pressure on the so-called "non-optimal" PCs--which are sometimes mine, because I'm more interested in creating characters I think are interesting than characters I think are optimal. These guys are my friends, so I feel free to speak to them pretty freely. I generally tell them to sod off, and if that's the kind of character that they think the group needs, they're free to play that kind of character themselves. I'll stick with the character I have, thankyouverymuch.

 

[Grogg of the North]

If you're running a pre-written game then it helps to work with the players when they are planning their characters. For instance, if the module is all about the dangers of city life and all of your players show up as rugged outdoors survivalists, then you may want to make sure that their charcters are going to work in the module.

If it's a home made adventure, then I try to adapt to what the players came up with. The party wants to play a rogue, a monk and a fighter? Okay, no problem. I'll adjust as I go and I always tell the players that the first session is usually me getting a feel for what people can do.

Part of the responsibility of being a GM is working with your players to make an experience that is fun for everyone. If you're absolutely gung-ho on running a campaign of political intrigue and the PCs want The Never Ending Dungeon of Monty Haul then there are some questions you need to ask. Would you be okay with TNEDoMH? Would the players be up for a session of politics? Would it be best for everyone to turn over the GM screen and join is as a player?

The only time unbalance comes in is when you have three people playing characters and another person playing a munchkin that is head and shoulders above the rest.

 

[Nytmare]

How come the GM is always treated as crap in these situations. The GM is a player as well, GMs arent some company there to cater to the customer's whim. If they players arent having fun that sucks, but it also goes the other way if the GM isnt having fun then he won't care about the game. Why do people not realize it goes both ways?

What GM where? If you were including me in your sweeping remark, I actually run about 75-80% of our games. These are group decisions made as a group not antagonistic party decisions made to ruin things for the DM.

Aside from the obvious that Evenglare is a bad DM who should cater to his players' needs, I will say that, like so many similar threads, this one also looks to become one of player's rights vs. DM's rights.

How was any of this about player and DM rights before the two of you brought it up? Are you guys coming in from some other thread somewhere?

Please excuse me but I must say that I'm baffled that people are satisfied with unbalanced groups.
With an all-rogue party you basically lose quarter of the monsters in Monster Manual.

Not everyone is looking to play/run a game that's a show-and-tell of the Monster Manual. For my rogue campaign, we lost more than three quarters of the Monster Manual just because the entire game was taking place inside a city.

With an all-rogue party you lack many creative approaches to many situations which a balanced group might have.
With an all-rogue party you make the XP system very difficult. Four 9th-level rogues are no match to a Roc. Also dealing large masses of opponents is difficult without a mid-level wizard.

An all rogue party has to be EXTRA creative to deal with situations that a "balanced" group is able to handle easily. They'd also probably find something better to do than march lockstep into a toe to toe fight with a roc or an army.

Also one of the rogues might be outshone by the others, thus being useless.

"A party of rogues" doesn't necessarily mean "a party of the same character." My game had the tough guy with the heart of gold, the smart guy who liked to use magically aided illusions and disguises, the safe cracker with an outrageous gambling problem, and the sneaky guy with the sharp knives and dull back story. They outshone each other repeatedly depending on the circumstances.

 

[Greg K]

Please excuse me but I must say that I'm baffled that people are satisfied with unbalanced groups.
With an all-rogue party you basically lose quarter of the monsters in Monster Manual.

Not an issue for me as a DM or a player. There are many monsters in the MM that I don't like, don't use and have not encountered as a player

With an all-rogue party you lack many creative approaches to many situations which a balanced group might have.

No. As others mentioned, they have to be more creative. They may also have to do research and planning. Perhaps even run when necessary.

With an all-rogue party you make the XP system very difficult. Four 9th-level rogues are no match to a Roc. Also dealing large masses of opponents is difficult without a mid-level wizard.
Also one of the rogues might be outshone by the others, thus being useless.

You are the DM. You choose which encounters/adventures to give them. (or, maybe, the players find their own adventures) If necessary, think about the types of adventures that might be interesting for rogues.

Of course, if it is not a game that you want to run, tell the players.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I create the world. The player's choose the challenges. If an all rogue party wants to indulge in skullduggery and thievery, that's their call. If they want to join the arena and try their hand at combat with fighters and barbarians, well, they may not succeed very well, but again, that's their call. Present them with an interesting milieu and stay the hell out of their way. Any interesting campaign arc is written by the players, not the dm.