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

[DM Howard]

I agree with Hobo mostly, that is if you want the players to have completely free will with their character creation. It's usually what I do but if a particular GM was to not like the type of situations to occur I'd have a character creation session before the real game begins and hash out what type of campaign you, as the GM, wants to bring to the players and go at it from there.

 

[S'mon]

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.

IME that's more an rpgnet thing.

 

[Jhaelen]

In my group there are occasional issues with imbalance. Usually I see no other solution than an unintended but unavoidable (near)-TPK.

That's one option (and the one I prefer):

A dysfunctional party is a self-correcting problem. PCs will simply keep dying until the party is functional again. Usually, it doesn't take the players long to figure out what the problem is and correct it.

However, as you've been mentioning, it could also be a message to the DM:
If everyone wants to play a rogue (or a wizard), then the players may simply be interested in playing a non-standard campaign.

I might be fine with that, too (at least for a while) and adjust the adventures so they work with that kind of party. However, imho, it's harder to come up with a fun and interesting campaign for such a special setup. As the DM I'm more likely to run out of ideas.

Since I usually present my campaign idea before my players roll up PCs, I would be a bit miffed, if they disregard the setting we've decided on. E.g. if they agreed to play in a wilderness campaign and then everyone's PC turns out to be city-born and having no outdoor skills at all, there's a problem.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

Like I mentioned in the OP, I run into party imbalance only occasionally. Mostly this is because we lack healer. It's "glass cannon" effect when the PCs are able deal damage - and that is the main function of their characters - but lack the ability to take (and heal) damage. If I deny combat from them it would grossly unfair because they are made for fighting. If give them a fair fight, they will not be able to take the punishment.

My ex-DM once said (with a great deal of disgust in his voice):
"You have created the kind of character that the best opponent for you is a worm size of a building with a mouth of just few inches in diameter."

Once my group battled against spectres and had a near-TPK. They created new characters with the intent of returning back and getting back the bodies of the slain PCs (and their magical items). This was really fine with me.

The thing was that the new PCs were astoundingly poorly equipped to handle undead and incorporeal opponents. I'd argue that it would take less than minute for an average Enworlder to figure out that it was 100% hopeless mission.

So once I saw the characters, I was certain that I had given up the mission.

They didn't and they all died without any hope against the spectres. To this day I haven't figured out what the plan was.

There are times for all-rogue parties. If you create one from the beginning of the campaign that's ok. But during the campaign it can make things impossible.

 

[Nytmare]

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

Huh. Not to sidetrack, but in the all arcane casters game I played in we went through the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. The first couple of levels were like this, but once we hit the tipping point, every challenge after that was a complete joke.

 

[Rune]

The thing was that the new PCs were astoundingly poorly equipped to handle undead and incorporeal opponents. I'd argue that it would take less than minute for an average Enworlder to figure out that it was 100% hopeless mission.

So once I saw the characters, I was certain that I had given up the mission.

They didn't and they all died without any hope against the spectres. To this day I haven't figured out what the plan was.

There are times for all-rogue parties. If you create one from the beginning of the campaign that's ok. But during the campaign it can make things impossible.

A party of all rogues may be ill-equipped to confront undead and incorporeal opponents, but they should be well-equipped to evade them (assuming they have a solid plan and a DM who doesn't view such an endeavor as automatically hopeless from the start).

That said, situations where you absolutely need to fill a role are why hirelings exist.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I do see your point [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION] but running games for one-dimensional party can be very limited. Ok, the players create a gang of rogues... How many adventures do we want to play that are all about stealing things and sneaking around?

My year long Lankhmar campaign says about 12.

Single classed parties can be a blast to run games for simply because everyone will have a slightly different take on how that class works. My all-rogue party? 1 was a real beast with high strength and could stand toe to tow with some pretty touch customers. 2 others were the classic 'sneak n' stab' rogues and the last maxed out Use Magic Device and carried wands of fireballs and a staff of healing. I think the last one also took a level of bard. If people hadn't moved away I would be running that game today!

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Yeah, uh... not my first time.

Although, you've got to see the irony: in this case it was you who twisted the thread and applied hyperbole to it, preemptively attacking an argument that hadn't been made. Your post attacked so many strawmen that it was a fire hazard.

 

[Cor Azer]

Who said anything about the GM being treated like crap? The GM runs the show. Everything is under his control with one exception--the player characters (not that he doesn't have veto rights for concepts that just don't work for the campaign, or which he feels are unacceptable for some other reason.) I have no idea how as GM I'm being treated like crap because my philosophy is not to passive aggressively punish my players for wanting to play different characters than I might want them to.

Sorry to go way back to this post, and perhaps you have clarified your words in a later one, but the issue here isn't one of my players thinking I'm crappy, but of *you* calling me crappy because I apparently "passive aggressively punish my players for not playing a balanced party" (Perhaps not your intention, but since my post was before yours and you said you disagree with the approach of earlier posts, I got lumped in there too).

Of course, the point is actually moot, because I think my point was lost in my own pithy comment - I rather agree with you. I typically present challenges I think the players and characters would find interesting, regardless of 'balance', so an unbalanced party simply allows for a different set of 'interesting challenges'.

 

[Desdichado]

Sorry to go way back to this post, and perhaps you have clarified your words in a later one, but the issue here isn't one of my players thinking I'm crappy, but of *you* calling me crappy because I apparently "passive aggressively punish my players for not playing a balanced party" (Perhaps not your intention, but since my post was before yours and you said you disagree with the approach of earlier posts, I got lumped in there too).

You're right; that wasn't my intention, although it certainly looks like that's what I was doing.

Oh, well. Apologies.