Covert Ops Team or Fantasy Adventurers?

[Olidammara]

I've noticed that a lot of gamers online refer to the structure or formation of their character groups as though they're more interested in the perfect team balance for a covert operation. For example, a party MUST have at least one thief, one mage, one cleric, and a few battle tanks, minimum. Life simply cannot proceed unless someone at the table is willing to make a sacrifice to play the needed class, regardless of his personal interests.

Has fantasy adventuring devolved into a sort of strategy game mentality?

If individual gamers create characters that they like, then it doesn't matter whether the party makeup attains someone's artificial sense of "balance." If they're ready to tackle the world with a party comprised of (for example) two druids, a paladin and two dwarven thieves, then so be it! More power to the group who can make it work -- and a nod to the GM for crafting an adventure flexible enough to allow them to succeed with hard work.

The strategic strike force character party can be fun, certainly. But it's a shame when that sort of power balance detracts from character development and a true adventuring "life."

 

[Creamsteak]

Of course, a party constructed to accomplish such things is great for hack n' slash IMO. Long-term games (because I consider Hack n' slash sessions, but not campaigns), are only fun when every player has their own interests.

Bugaboo! Bugaboo!

Oh, and I also feel that perfectly-nit groups are a bit to cliche' but that's just me...

 

[Shadowdancer]

I think it's more of a hold-over from 1E and 2E. With the ready access to magic items, esp. magical healing, there is less need to have the perfectly balanced group in 3E. And if all else fails, you can always multi-class.

 

[hong]

I've noticed that a lot of gamers online refer to the structure or formation of their character groups as though they're more interested in the perfect team balance for a covert operation. For example, a party MUST have at least one thief, one mage, one cleric, and a few battle tanks, minimum. Life simply cannot proceed unless someone at the table is willing to make a sacrifice to play the needed class, regardless of his personal interests.

Has fantasy adventuring devolved into a sort of strategy game mentality?

For some groups, it certainly seems that way. I don't personally think it should be a requirement. If a group ends up with lots of fighters but no rogues, I'll change the adventures to involve less traps and locks, but more big fights. Similarly if there are lots of fighters and rogues but no wizards, I won't throw lots of spellcasters at them.

Some classes are easier to design around than others. It isn't too hard to run a game where no-one is playing a wizard or rogue, IMO. It's harder to run a game without any fighter types.

As a last resort, it's always possible to have NPCs fill out the untaken niches.

That said, my current group has a berserker/priest, priest, mage and rogue. You can't get much closer to the iconic party.

 

[Shallown]

I know what you mean. we just finished the return Temple of E Evil. So we are in a dungeon crawl/combat team state of mind. we were very tuned for combat but we are starting a new campaign and i have worked hard to let them know that we can play whatever we feel like. I plan to play a generalist fighter who will use a multitude of weapons and take no focus or specializations, only feats that can be used with most any weapon. so I will not be the tank since I am going light armor and taking tumble as a skill (we can use some FR feats). I am starting as a Ranger/Bar Apprentice. But of course this has nothing to do with what i started to say which is it took constant reminders to get everyone out of the must have one of each class and an extra fighter. Our second fighter is either the druid or the monk.

 

[Xarlen]

Oddly enough, my group accidently fell into this nitch.

When it Began, we had two wizards, a cleric, and a fighter/rogue. As the days went by, it ended up with just two players, the cleric and one wizard, so I had to often drop NPCs to help them. I put a personal NPC, the party tank (And romantic interest to the cleric) in there, and finally we got a Rogue/sorcoress.

 

[Ruined]

I really try to let the players play what they want to play without worrying too much about what their friends will play. As DM, I can manage the stories and challenges to fit the group, regardless of class composition.

One thing I do try to promote though, is different classes. This is more for the players than for the actual campaign. I've hit this wall a lot when playing with my friends. We started playing Earthdawn, and I was eager. " Cool! I'll play a Swordmaster." "Okay, Jason's playing a Swordmaster as well..." and so I run through my options. Nothing saps the fun out of your cool character concept than having another member of the part have the exact same skills and abilities as you do.

Fortunately, I'm pretty flexible when it comes to character class. I'll usually wait until the end and offer the DM, asking what he needs to round out his game. Does she not have a rogue in the party and thinks it would work? I'm there. This is probably why I've played so many clerics.

Current game compositions:
Planescape: 2 monks, 1 wizard, 1 bard.
Scarred Lands: 1 druid, 1 cleric, 1 fighter, 1 rogue/urban ranger

 

[Zappo]

I'll change adventures to suit whatever party is being played. And actually, I find that unusual parties are more fun. For example, if there are few or no spellcasters, I can have magic be more mysterious than usual, with magical items difficult to identify, no Spellcraft checks to see which spell was cast, and no immediate Dispel or Remove Curse available. Or, if there are lots of wizards, I can make adventures geared towards magical research and other stuff which offers little reward to non-spellcasters. And so on...

Ultimately, in a well-run game, your powers or party composition don't do much to influence survivability. The only thing that counts is playing smartly and the will of the DM. And a bit of luck with the save vs. disintegration, of course.

 

[trix]

2nd level

I usually have players start at 2nd level multiclass. That way there is no excuse not to play what u want as opposed to what you need.

It also allows the players starting history to be slightly more descriptive, giving them a bit more character.

Ie: Some typical background hooks become:

Was a wizard, became a druid or monk.

Was a monk, left the order to be a palidin.

Was a Rogue, heard a calling to become a cleric.

Obviously, things wouldnt be as brief as that... but u should be able to figure that out.