a question of balance

[Epametheus]

Balance is good -- things can get messy when PCs start overshadowing each other -- but not the be-all and end-all for me.

I know from personal experience that having a character that can't really participate in combat with the rest of the party isn't fun.

 

[Painfully]

Because I've been a DM, I always seem to have an eye towards balance when it comes to classes and class abilities within the party. As a player, for instance, I want to make sure there is an arcane caster and a divine caster in the party, and am willing to, "fill the gap" with an appropriate character. This is especially true even in one-shot games, simply because I know it will help the party to overcome the most diverse set of challenges the DM can produce. It helps to keep the game moving, and that's always important.

------------
Currently, I am in a situation where the three other players besides myself have all chosen the leadership feat to gain a cohort. It will soon transform my involvement from 1/4 of the party, to 1/7th of the party, as the other three players will each have two characters to control, while I have my one.

Now, if I were DM, I wouldn't let it get this far, but in all fairness, I don't think the DM anticipated this at all. Nevertheless, I am left marginaized as a player unless I take the leadership feat as well for my character.

While there are only a few things that IMO, "break the game" for me, and make it unplayable, this is certainly looking to become one of those situations unless steps are taken by either the DM, or myself (by taking the leadership feat). This goes beyond party balance. Now it is about player balance. And left unchecked by a DM or other players, can result in the loss of a player.

As for party balance, it seems that our party will still lack the ability to track, even with the added cohorts. Which leaves me to pick up the slack with a potential ranger cohort. Certainly not my first choice for potential cohorts, but with some work, could be worked into the story of the game.

My resentment then, is that I feel forced to choose these things to keep the party balanced, and the game fair for me, the player. I thought this was the DM's job! Anyway, when you take the choices away from the player, as in this particular case, it can become very unfun. And, as every gamer knows, that's a dirty word!

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

Of course this begs the question "What balance?" In our group we prefer that everyone have a chance to shine. As long as that is accomplished, balance is achieved. So I voted the second choice.

In our group (both groups I play in actually) , everyone is given an equal chance to shine and use their skills. No one person tries to hog the spotlight. In fact, I think in one of the groups, the bigger problem is that a few players tend to not act unless directed. I mean, they will rush in and fight, but as far as actually role playing, they tend to not do much unless prodded by another player or the GM.

I think actually, this is pretty good balance though. Two players get more into role playing, 3 are more into roll playing. But even if we all were just into combat or just into acting out our characters every thought, I think we'd all get our moment during game time.

 

[Nightfall]

I prefer party harmony over party balance. Believe me, I can manage it.

 

[randomling]

Important, but not important beyond all other things - the most important thing IMO is a fun game.

Party harmony, by the way, is not necessarily all it's cracked up to be: some of my most fun games have involved characters (not players) arguing or plotting against each other. Of course if you get the balance wrong there, things fall apart rather fast...

 

[doghead]

As above.

Particulary the last bit. Inter-character conflict can make a great game - but can kill it stone dead if it gets out of hand.