Hot take: get rid of the "balanced party" paradigm

[Lanefan]

That relies on absolutely superb design to work out well reliably. If you apply this same approach on mediocre design (which is all most DMs are capable of, definitionally), it doesn't work well, and most published adventures have mediocre design too. It also means you absolutely must have multiple ways around challenges or you're just going to dead-end a lot of adventures, which pleases no-one (sandboxes work better with this).

I'm fine if an adventure dead-ends because the PCs can't get past something, be it due to bad luck or poor planning or party composition deficiencies or whatever. I don't subscribe to the paradigm that says the PCs have to succeed on every mission or adventure or quest they undertake; though that said it never fails to amaze me how many new ways they find of solving things they on paper should have loads of trouble with.

 

[TwoSix]

Not sure how that's pushing back. I don't disagree with that at all. That said, a lot of people aren't really all that self-aware of their biases in how to play or how to run, so it doesn't occur to them that they're not being communicative about things that they never even think of not assuming as a baseline.

I didn't agree with this particular sentence.

This is about the GM style that suggests that the world is the world, and it's not the GMs job to engage with the characters, it's the characters' job to engage with the world and bring the characters that are optimized for the challenges that are out there. I think that's a garbage take on GMing...

I think that's a perfectly valid playstyle as long as it's communicated.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm fine if an adventure dead-ends because the PCs can't get past something, be it due to bad luck or poor planning or party composition deficiencies or whatever. I don't subscribe to the paradigm that says the PCs have to succeed on every mission or adventure or quest they undertake

They don't have to succeed, but a lot of dead-ends are just extremely, extremely boring and can make hours and hours of play feel entirely wasted, especially in certain games.

though that said it never fails to amaze me how many new ways they find of solving things they on paper should have loads of trouble with

That's what tends to rescue these things!

 

[Desdichado]

You can have any opinion you like. I was suggesting that some players have no idea what goes into being a GM.
Please excuse me i haven't read your autobiography yet...it's on my list though.

I came across less of a suggestion to the general royal you and clearly a specific statement to me personally that I needed to GM more before I complained about what goes into GMing successfully. Don't know how else to read that. Which is fine, just not really applicable. I feel like maybe I'm not communicating very well. It seems many of the responses I'm getting are kind of non sequiturs that are not really about what I posted this about. But that's maybe part of my whole point. People often have their baseline assumptions so hard-wired into how to do things that it literally never occurs to them that that's not the only way to play.

 

[KYRON45]

I came across less of a suggestion to the general royal you and clearly a specific statement to me personally that I needed to GM more before I complained about what goes into GMing successfully. Don't know how else to read that. Which is fine, just not really applicable. I feel like maybe I'm not communicating very well. It seems many of the responses I'm getting are kind of non sequiturs that are not really about what I posted this about. But that's maybe part of my whole point. People often have their baseline assumptions so hard-wired into how to do things that it literally never occurs to them that that's not the only way to play.

And some people are just hostile.
Play the game how you like.

 

[Lanefan]

See, and that's the whole entire essence of my "hot take." That whole paradigm is what I call passive-aggressively punishing the players for not building the party that the GM thinks that they need to have in order to succeed. That's not a GM worth his salt. That's very, very, very bad GMing. So bad that I'd hesitate to even play with one who has that attitude. I've been part of groups for years at times in the past where someone had to suck it up and play the cleric even though nobody really wanted to play a cleric, because without one, the party wasn't expected to be successful, for instance, or someone had to play a trap-finding specialist rogue, because otherwise traps would threaten TPKs on a regular basis, etc.

I think you missed my point from earlier: nobody has to "suck it up and play the cleric" and yet there can still be a Cleric in the party.

The PCs just have to go out and, in-character, recruit an NPC to fill that role. It ain't rocket science.

Either someone takes it on the chin and the game sucks for them because they're playing a character that they don't want to, or the game sucks for everyone because they're frustrated at constantly getting challenges that have nothing to do with the party, and the smug af GM tells them that it's their fault for not creating a balanced party with all of the traditional roles filled.

As noted above, there's more than one way to create a balanced party.

I say absolutely and definitively screw that. You want me to go into a dungeon full of undead and stupid af traps when nobody's playing a cleric or trap-finding rogue? No. We'll either go find another dungeon, or skip the dungeons altogether and get involved in smuggling into the Free City with the local organized crime, or something else instead.

Fine. As GM I'm not married to the specific dungeon or adventure you just turned away from, and can quickly come up with something else if needed. If you want to play a group of smugglers then smugglers it is - it's what the characters would do, after all; to go out and find something that suits their abilities.

What I won't do is change an adventure or dungeon just because of what abilities the PCs collectively have or don't have. If you don't have a trap-finder and the adventure or mission you've taken on happens to be trap-heavy then so be it; and if the players/PCs decide after running afoul of one trap too many that there's better pickings to be had elsewhere and go off to find a different mission or adventure then so be that too, and I-as-GM have to hit that curveball.

Two can play at that "I don't care what you are bringing to the table" routine and if a GM plays like that, I'm ready to fight fire with fire as a player, or walk away completely and play with a better GM. It's not like its a high bar to clear or anything.

I think it's a non-issue, myself, unless the GM is so dead-set on running the (usually) published adventure path that you-as-players are not allowed to leave it; but that's a different thing altogether.

 

[DragonLancer]

For me, I view trad as being epitomized by 1990s play advice, and rules built around that play advice, from predominantly White Wolf and 2e AD&D. Setting is king, immersion in the setting is of primary importance, and the players using defined rules to leverage agency over the story is generally frowned upon. The goal is to be part of the DM's story and world.

This largely describes my DMing/Playing style over the last 40 years. D&D (and role-playing in general) is about becoming part of the world or setting you are playing. Immersion and perhaps less agency. We're here to tell the story that is presented to us. Not rail-roady but linear. Whether the DM has purchased/prepared or written their own campaign, the social convention is to play and tell a cool story with your friends.

Anyway, back on topic... in my experience, editions 1st through 3rd (I avoided 4th) and Pathfinder 1st were all games where a balanced party was required - 1 or 2 combat types, 1 sneak, 1 divine caster/healer and a magic user (assuming here the traditional 4 to 5 players). The game worked better that way and the party had a better chance of succeeding whatever the adventure or campaign threw at them. Coming back into D&D with 5th 2024, I've noticed fairly quickly that the old paradigm is not needed now. Combat doesn't seem so lethal (Yet! My campaign is only up too 4th level at the moment) and everyone has access to healing in some form, or potions of healing are readily available. It's nice breath of fresh air if I'm honest.

In my view, any GM worth their salt won't change a thing. It's on the players to find ways and means of overcoming the challenges neutrally and fairly presented by the GM, and if the PCs they chose to play turn out to be individually or collectively sub-optimal against some of those challenges then so be it.

100%

I was just about to say this when I got to your post. I would never stop a party from playing what class combinations they want but I ain't changing anything to compensate. If they don't have the means to deal with traps (for example) then they need to use their agency to find another way round or to bypass. That's part of the game.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I've seen it referred to as "map-and-key" play, which I like. The dungeon is a hidden "board", and the players' goal is to get the high score by extracting the most treasure possible without dying.

You’re describing an old school tournament one shot where teams got points for figuring out various challenges in an adventure module. Points were awarded for many things beyond “extracting the most treasure possible without dying” but because gold used to equal XP, it was included as one element to tally success.

Tournaments often made it to published adventures and campaigns but the point tally was generally thrown out, leaving just the challenges and the stories told after the adventure was over.

I’ve always liked skilled play but I don’t think it means stopping the party in their tracks necessarily, just that something wasn’t done as optimally as it could have been. And that may or may not lead to PC death depending on how things go.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I'm fine if an adventure dead-ends because the PCs can't get past something, be it due to bad luck or poor planning or party composition deficiencies or whatever. I don't subscribe to the paradigm that says the PCs have to succeed on every mission or adventure or quest they undertake; though that said it never fails to amaze me how many new ways they find of solving things they on paper should have loads of trouble with.

How often really do players get totally blocked? I say the number is infinitesimal.

 

[Golden Bee]

How often really do players get totally blocked? I say the number is infinitesimal.

You need to play more Con games!