NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 488856" data-attributes="member: 5834">ReKahuna,Player agreement is always needed. This is specifically concerning game balance which the DM will always have to determine even if the players agree to a campaign of a different nature. The players will have some input as to how the game should be balanced, but ultimately the DM will control the adventure and how game balance is affected. For example, if someone is playing the sycophant, you really can't expect them to enjoy the role if  he does nothing. The DM has to throw him into situations where his character role is interesting such as attempted coups where he must judge whether or not his current leader will be able to win or not. I am basically saying the game balance is determined by the DM and what encounters the DM determines will make the situation interesting for the PC's. That is why I don't see the mechanics as the primary determinant of game balance. A player can have a mechanically balanced character, but be nigh on useless during the campaign. For example, you could have a party of 6 people. Let's say three of them are fighters, two are clerics and one is a rogue. Lets say the DM uses a module designed for four people exactly as it is written. What are the odds that those characters are going to have a good time? I would say not very good. The fighters are redundant and will probably be banking on rolling a good initiative just to get the chance to swing their swords. The clerics will probably get bored because they don't have to heal or fight much. The rogue might be entertained because he will still get to scout and deal with traps. Whereas you could take a group consisting of a halfling rogue, a Chosen of Mystra wizard, a half-celestial Paladin, and a human commoner on an adventure where each character had an interesting role if the DM takes the time to design encounters that challenge and interest the PC's. If the DM designs a pure combat adventure, then most likely the halfling rogue and the human commoner are going to get very bored. If the DM is running an interesting storyline, then things will be fun. For example, let's say the halfling rogue is the best friend of the human commoner who is an orphan. The Half-celestial shows up with the Chosen of Mystra, who tells the human commoner that he is only remaining child of a fallen kingdom. Then the Chosen of Mystra informs the human commoner that he must travel with him to reclaim his kingdom. This would be a very fun campaign to play for many roleplayers, but it is definitely not balanced powerwise or even character viability. The balance is entirely in the hands of the DM who must ensure the adventure is interesting to the players. Of course, the players must be willing to roleplay this scenario. I say to worry too much about game balance in terms of combat or equal abilities is to lose the opportunity to run people through a good story. This is the primary reason I chose option 4.You can create a very good story and not have the characters balanced in the slightest. I bet a great many players would still enjoy running in an "imbalanced" campaign with a great story and DM capable of making the adventure fun for all.</blockquote>

Verification