GMs & DMs: What do you do with (severely) unbalanced adventuring parties?

[Greg K]

I would never tell a DM to run something that they would not enjoy. However, if it is something, that you can enjoy it might be worth considering to give it a try.

Now, as a DM, if prior to character generation, I tell the players this is the setting and here are the available options/supplements in use, I expect them to adhere to it and make something that fits the setting.

Of course, there is additional conversations before characters get made. Character concepts are pitched by the players (taking into account the setting guidelines/options/house rules). I suggest tweaks to help them tailor concepts (and, occasionally, say, "No, not for this campaign"). A player cannot just show up with a character. They also cannot show up with something that we did not talk about (now, if they change their mind from their original concept, it gets discussed).
On the flip side, while I have a setting, I don't have a "story" to tell. I have things happening in the game world independent of the characters, but I also a tailor a lot of what will happen at the start based on the characters and give them freedom as the game goes on to shape the direction- make enemies and allies, pursue their interests (within set setting limits and they cannot be acting evil or just be doing hack and slash (which bores me to tears)).

If they wanted a game that I didn't want to run which could be evil PCs, a hack and slash or dungeon of the week campaign, a world with Dragonborn, Tiefings, Shadar Kai, Dhamyrs or a host of other races and certain classes, I would turn down running. No gaming is better than "bad" gaming (bad being subjective).

You misinterpret my post. I meant on message boards everyone is basically saying bow down to what the players want. This is -in my opinion- treating the gm crappy, and revoking what HE wants. Everywhere it's "cater to the players" , if this were the one true way of playing then no adventure paths would ever be sold since they don't "cater to the players". There are people out there that like running their own campaign and worlds, and there are players who enjoy playing in those worlds because they trust the GM.

I understand that some GMs enjoy it when their players are happy and basically don't care about what they run, as long as it makes them happy. I am not one of those people. If I have people that make a party full of wizards or rogues or something and I am NOT prepared for it, then I will NOT enjoy running the game, and the whole party will suffer (as in not enjoy playing because I'm not prepared, not suffer as in "rocks fall everyone dies make new characters). I know It's an awful monstrosity for a GM to run something HE wants to , but sadly it's just how I feel, i guess it's that human drawback of mine. If the player doesnt like my world or story or campaign or whatever, they don't have to play, im not forcing anyone . I can find other players who enjoy the style of game I wish to play.

Fortunately for me I have actually never encountered this problem. I pitch my cam[paign and the players converse with each other and make their own characters and have a balanced party where each person excels at a particular situation. I guess they think it would be boring to have 4 rogue who all basically do the same thing. I mean sure you have archetypes and all ,but customize all you want, 2 rogues are goign to be much more similar than a rogue and a wizard (for example).

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

How was any of this about player and DM rights before the two of you brought it up? Are you guys coming in from some other thread somewhere?

I'm a seer.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm a [-]seer[/-] troublemaker.

Be honest, fick. You can't fool me; I know you too well.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Be honest, fick. You can't fool me; I know you too well.

Maybe. Would you agree that my...hmmm...prediction would have come to be without my post, just based on the post I played off of?

 

[Desdichado]

Well, Evenglare tried really hard to take the thread somewhere it totally wasn't going, with his "inb4" remark, so it's hard to say. Either you're a master at reverse psychology and prevented it from happening, or no... it wasn't going to anyway.

It still could, I guess. I've learned to never underestimate the ability of the bowels of the internet to disgorge the most mind-numbingly stupid result imaginable.

 

[haakon1]

I've never faced something that extreme as a DM.

I have faced a party with a lack of a front-line fighter, and I tried to fix it by recruiting another player to play that type of character. The party also solved it themselves, to some extent, by having the Rogue and Cleric act as melee combatants.

The challenges I presented for this party tended to be slightly on the easy side -- 1st level module when they were nearly 2nd level, that sort of thing, partially because they were inexperienced players.

In general, though, I used module fitted into my personal version of Greyhawk and modified to make more of a story arc within it/joined the modules together. I provide the setting, they provide the characters. I wouldn't give them totally different modules based on party design -- like I wouldn't take the undead out of the Caves of Chaos because the party lacked a cleric, or remove all traps and secret doors because they lack a thief.

To me, modifying the world so it's safety consciously revolving around the party composition would ruin the POINT of the experiment of trying a party with all clerics, or whatever.

I've play in parties that lacked a Rogue more than once . . . and to me, setting off a lot of traps is part of the "Fun" of that kind of party. You get what you pay for.

 

[pemerton]

The DM that taught me explained he once had to deal with an all thief party in the adventure B2: Keep on the Borderlands that made their primary goal robbing the bank in the Keep.

The last time I ran B2 was about 25 years ago, but it played out similarly: the PCs were a duergar F/T and a svirfneblin I/T, and their adventuring was all in and around the Keep (exposing death cultists, mostly) - I don't think they went to the Caves at all.

Please excuse me but I must say that I'm baffled that people are satisfied with unbalanced groups.
With an all-rogue party you basically lose quarter of the monsters in Monster Manual.
With an all-rogue party you lack many creative approaches to many situations which a balanced group might have.

I have GMed an all-rogue party (as described above) - at 6th level each switched from Thief to Thief-Acrobat, and the adventures focused around their exploits as cat burglars. It was a great campaign, mostly city based, and so drawing on the Monster Manual only occasionally.

I didn't experience the problem with creativity you mention either - quite the opposite, in fact. Because thieves/rogues are skill heavy and spell-light (especially in AD&D, which doesn't have the Use Magic Device skill nor, by default, easy magic item acquisition) they are excellent vehicles for creativity: strategic, tactical and in the minutiae of action resolution.

I have also run an all-warrior AD&D game: an Oriental Adventures game with a human bushi and human kensai. Another very fun game, with the obvious martial arts and honour themes making for a reasonably tight focus.

If all PCs are arcane casters, they are ill-equipped to handle any challenge by themselves.

Normally I'm happy to GM for whatever PCs I get, I've never found much need for a balance of classes. I remember at one point my first 3e campaign had turned into all-Wizard (around 17th level) - that seemed to work much better than when the group had had a mix of classes!

My experience here is much closer to S'mon's. Once the game is in to mid-to-high levels my experience is that a party of all casters is versatile and powerful. (Although this experience is mostly in Rolemaster rather than D&D.)

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Back on topic, I actually like unbalanced parties as a player or a GM. This is because I really like the challenge of said parties. I also like that running or playing with said parties leave the standard blueprint, which I can't stand. Different strokes, and all that.

Of course, the game that I'm playing in uses published 4e modules, therefore is a standard blueprint-style party.

 

[GreyICE]

Back on topic, I actually like unbalanced parties as a player or a GM. This is because I really like the challenge of said parties. I also like that running or playing with said parties leave the standard blueprint, which I can't stand. Different strokes, and all that.

Of course, the game that I'm playing in uses published 4e modules, therefore is a standard blueprint-style party.

Yeah, but one of the first thing CharOp tried way back when when 4E released was running modules and encounters (EL+2 or EL+3 obv, CharOp) with 5 single-role parties. 5 Strikers, 5 Defenders, 5 Leaders, 5 Controllers. Apparently the Striker and Defender parties worked fine. The Leader parties completed all of the encounters, but with a horrible slog (like, 9+ rounds. Constantly). The Controller parties needed some really slick play and tended to take casualties, but they were described as "the most fun" when played.

In short, even parties that are "unbalanced" by 4E standards achieve a strong level of balance. 5 rogues can handle most encounters pretty well, although they will run into the occasional problem.

Balance, while decried by many, is excellent for allowing people to play what they like without creating issues where 1 party member overshadows another. The last 3.XE campaign I played (probably the last one ever, tbh) had a Wizard, Druid, Barbarian, Warlock, and Rogue. That same party would work fine in 4E, but in 3.X... ye gods. The pain. Ironically, I was playing a Druid because I was told my chosen class, the Warblade, was overpowered and would overshadow the party Barbarian. Yep. That happened.

 

[Evenglare]

Well, Evenglare tried really hard to take the thread somewhere it totally wasn't going, with his "inb4" remark, so it's hard to say. Either you're a master at reverse psychology and prevented it from happening, or no... it wasn't going to anyway.

It still could, I guess. I've learned to never underestimate the ability of the bowels of the internet to disgorge the most mind-numbingly stupid result imaginable.

Oh please, I had to make that inb4 remark , unless this is your first time on the internet you know invariably someone twists words and applies hyperbole without end. I always try and explain my situation and then someone ALWAYS comes along and blows it wayyyy out of proportion.