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

[GSHamster]

What was chosen first? The adventure or the party?

If the adventure is chosen first, or predetermined like using an Adventure Path, then I think it's the player's responsibility to make a party that matches that adventure. If they refuse to, maybe throw in an NPC that can take some of the grunt work. Otherwise, let the chips fall where they may.

If the party is created first, I think it's the DM's responsibility to tailor her adventure towards the party. All rogues? Ocean's Eleven heist time. All mages? Probably intrigue and spell battles with rival wizards, a la Harry Potter.

 

[Stormonu]

What about those of use who run adventure paths made by paizo, or enworld, or (in my case) MWP's Dragonlance? Those are pre-designed.

Though the encounters may be fixed, players still have a lot of latitude on how (and when) they approach them; even if it's to bypass them.

 

[Desdichado]

What about those of use who run adventure paths made by paizo, or enworld, or (in my case) MWP's Dragonlance? Those are pre-designed.

Tweak'em. I've never seen a great game come straight out of the box without some GM intervention anyway.

 

[Squire James]

I think the players and the GM should make some effort to meet halfway on these things, if one side feels strongly enough about it that it's a problem. Obviously if nobody thinks it's a problem such movement is not necessary.

When a severely unbalanced party is created from some reason other than passive-aggressive behavior, they should expect the GM to alter the campaign slightly to at least allow them to engage in their favored activity. On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable for the GM to occasionally remind them of their party's imbalance with a situation that's unusually difficult. The key word here is OCCASIONALLY.

 

[GreyICE]

What was chosen first? The adventure or the party?

If the adventure is chosen first, or predetermined like using an Adventure Path, then I think it's the player's responsibility to make a party that matches that adventure. If they refuse to, maybe throw in an NPC that can take some of the grunt work. Otherwise, let the chips fall where they may.

If the party is created first, I think it's the DM's responsibility to tailor her adventure towards the party. All rogues? Ocean's Eleven heist time. All mages? Probably intrigue and spell battles with rival wizards, a la Harry Potter.

Depends on the edition and the party too. 4E? You're good with pretty much anything, but if they want to play all Clerics/Bards/Artificers you're allowed to throw dice at them until they stop (all Leader parties should be shot on sight, encounters that should take 30 minutes will take 2 hours). 3E, you'd be well within your rights to mail an all Wizard/Druid/Cleric party to Australia.

 

[Celebrim]

3E, you'd be well within your rights to mail an all Wizard/Druid/Cleric party to Australia.

I suppose if you play stock 3.X, but I don't. The equivalent party in my 3e variant would be perfectly fine so long as they played together as a team.

Honestly, I've never ran or played at a table that didn't have at least some house rules, and often extensive house rules. I DM as if the official rules are merely the house rules of some other DM, and consider that if my game is unbalanced it isn't primarily the designer's fault but rather mine.

If the adventure is not good, even if it came from a can and has someone else's name on it, it is still my fault. And while I like prepared adventures as well as I like prepared food, for its convienance and sometimes quality (I can't make cheese as good as I could buy, for example), what person who takes pride in what they present to others doesn't add their own personal touches?

The DM is supreme at his own table. He need bow to no other DM, even a professional one. Instead, he has toward the professional DM the respect of one DM to another in the craft. He hopes to learn from that DM, but would be willing to teach if the oppurtunity presented itself.

 

[GreyICE]

Oh, sure. In my twilight of running 3.X I gave up and banned every character class in the Players Handbook at one point, to save me some serious headache. But it's so damn much work. If they're going to be a pain, it ain't your responsibility to go through and sharpie out their stupid stuff. Just tell them "no" and move on.

 

[S'mon]

3E, you'd be well within your rights to mail an all Wizard/Druid/Cleric party to Australia.

3e, you use high-CR encounters and enemies who buff/scry/teleport THEM.

 

[jasper]

The characters were a rogue (as in the character class) who focused on breaking legs, a rogue (as in the character class) who focused on UMD, a rogue (as in the character class) who focused on picking locks, and a rogue (as in the character class) who focused on stabbing backs.

Ok I read the post wrong. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Oh, sure. In my twilight of running 3.X I gave up and banned every character class in the Players Handbook at one point, to save me some serious headache. But it's so damn much work. If they're going to be a pain, it ain't your responsibility to go through and sharpie out their stupid stuff. Just tell them "no" and move on.

I'm really confused as to how doing this stops headaches. In 3E it was only the supplemental classes that caused me to want to pull out my hair.