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

[Thomas Shey]

I wonder how many of these hot takes are reactions to some one-off bad con experience.

Eh. A lot of it is just reactions to overall community expectations that not everyone is on board. You can argue if those expectations are actually serving purposes or are just inherited from descent through D&D; I think they land on both sides of that fence depending.

 

[KYRON45]

Does the idea of having a balanced party even come from a specific game or publication or is it just a (my favorite term) social construct?

 

[Wolfpack48]

Does the idea of having a balanced party even come from a specific game or publication or is it just a (my favorite term) social construct?

I’m trying to remember if there was ever a section on party composition in any game I’ve read.

 

[KYRON45]

I’m trying to remember if there was ever a section on party composition in any game I’ve read.

I know with D&D "CR" is supposed to allow for the creation of a balanced encounter but where i come from you make a party and then the DM/GM etc. builds encounters around the party. Depending on your play style of course. Again....where i come from we used to call our play style....playing....we were neanderthals and didnt name things like that.

 

[gnarlygninja]

Hotter take: get rid of the party.

It, as a concept, basically obliterates player agency. You can't have any independent goals, not really, because the moment your own schemes get in the way of the wider goals of the party, congratulations, you cannot play the game anymore!

Also, PC-to-PC relationships are the most interesting ones, and constraining them to cooperation is just a waste.

I'm not sure I completely agree with getting rid of the party, but I've been in groups that have demanded the group move in lock step and it absolutely destroyed my ability to enjoy the game.

 

[TwoSix]

Hotter take: get rid of the party.

It, as a concept, basically obliterates player agency. You can't have any independent goals, not really, because the moment your own schemes get in the way of the wider goals of the party, congratulations, you cannot play the game anymore!

Also, PC-to-PC relationships are the most interesting ones, and constraining them to cooperation is just a waste.

Group size is a big variable here. I love a lot of games that are player agenda driven, but I find they tend to suffer when the group sizes increases past 6 or so (1 GM, 5 players). There just isn't enough spotlight time to go around.

Games based around parties become close to a necessity when group size is 6+. It's something I'm sensitive to as my main IRL groups have between 6 and 9 participants.

 

[payn]

I'm not sure I completely agree with getting rid of the party, but I've been in groups that have demanded the group move in lock step and it absolutely destroyed my ability to enjoy the game.

Yeap, i think this is a situation some folks like pineapple on their pizza and some folks will not eat anything but cheese.

 

[cbwjm]

I think 5e has reduced the need for a balanced party (requiring a mix of classes with main roles); you can run all wizards or all fighters or all rogues and do absolutely fine. Older editions may have run better with a member of each class (like the classic combo of fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric) but that's not been a thing for a while now.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Nothing wrong. It just drives me nuts when players assume that they must make a certain type of character.

We just play. It has worked for decades. Make what you want. Sometimes we talk it over and have played all rogue/assassins, all dwarves (different classes though), all fighters…

In such cases DM does generally allow for potion purchases for enough coin.

I will never accept the straight jacket roles. 5e has all but gotten rid of that concern anyway, of course.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I know with D&D "CR" is supposed to allow for the creation of a balanced encounter but where i come from you make a party and then the DM/GM etc. builds encounters around the party. Depending on your play style of course. Again....where i come from we used to call our play style....playing....we were neanderthals and didnt name things like that.

I just looked back at the old AD&D PH and the closest it comes is in the Successful Adventures section on p107. Talks about party cooperation and teamwork, getting the right equipment etc but nothing really about the “right” mix of classes. It does talk about hirelings to shore up party “muscle.”