Hot take: get rid of the "balanced party" paradigm

[Wolfpack48]

You need to play more Con games!

Been in plenty and it hasn’t happened. Tell us some stories though, I’d be curious to hear them.

 

[Wolfpack48]

You left out an important operative word. "Skill play focus minded GMs". Skill and play go together, because skilled play is a specific playstyle. One that's not super popular since about the early 80s, but pockets of it still linger here and there. The whole classic playstyle is specifically geared towards catering to it, and certain elements of the OSR enjoy it too.

UPDATE: In fact, it's the lingering elements of skilled play that my hot take is complaining about, to be honest with you, or at least the migration of a skilled play perspective into a trad play game, where it's wildly inappropriate. I actually remember when classic play was still kinda mainstream still, and being unhappy with it. I know exactly why the trad play reaction happened. Sure, sure, as alluded to above, trad struggled with a lot of bad ideas before it finally actually kinda worked out how to work well, but that's because the demand for something that wasn't like skilled play/classic culture was extremely high and people weren't happy with a lot of classic paradigms. If you want to be completely honest, my whole hot take could be boiled down to, "why does this one single classic culture playstyle element endure in games that aren't classic playstyle games?"

Do you only have issues with skilled play in games that aren't "classic playstyle games?" What makes it "wildly inappropriate" in a trad play game?

Going off your OP, I am guessing you see the "challenge dungeon" as a challenge to a "balanced party" with a thief, cleric, mage and fighter, and should the party be playing a different mix, the challenge could not be overcome, therefore party would be "blocked?" I say it's still the referee's responsibility to challenge the players; I'm not so sure it's 100% necessary to challenge all possible mixes of character classes, only the ones the party has chosen.

 

[Lanefan]

How often really do players get totally blocked? I say the number is infinitesimal.

It's a small number IME, but greater than zero.

I've GMed parties that never found the adventure they were looking for, or that missed huge swathes of an adventure while thinking they were finished, or that got stuck and couldn't progress without going back to town (or somewhere else) and acquiring the required resources and-or personnel...or just packing it in and taking on a different mission instead.

 

[Emerikol]

I don't know if a game style name exists for mine. It's what I have played my whole life.

1. Player skill including preparation. This means poor play will get you killed.
2. Actor viewpoint though not always actor voiced. Third person is fine in many cases. No dissociative mechanics.
3. Zero to hero. I have always preferred going from 1st up.
4. Sandbox.
   1. NPC's have plots that are going to happen. The PCs can join in or ignore.
   2. Lot's of dungeon-like adventure areas exist. Players do whatever they want. They stay in the sandbox or the campaign pauses to create a new sandbox.
   3. PCs can establish themselves with friends, allies, and concerns in the world.

 

[loverdrive]

Hotter take: get rid of the party.

It, as a concept, basically obliterates player agency. You can't have any independent goals, not really, because the moment your own schemes get in the way of the wider goals of the party, congratulations, you cannot play the game anymore!

Also, PC-to-PC relationships are the most interesting ones, and constraining them to cooperation is just a waste.

 

[payn]

Hotter take: get rid of the party.

It, as a concept, basically obliterates player agency. You can't have any independent goals, not really, because the moment your own schemes get in the way of the wider goals of the party, congratulations, you cannot play the game anymore!

Also, PC-to-PC relationships are the most interesting ones, and constraining them to cooperation is just a waste.

Yeah thats sizzling. I agree its not needed for an RPG, but its pretty iconic to D&D. On the flip side, forcing the PCs to cooperate actually can help some groups actually function.

 

[loverdrive]

Yeah thats sizzling. I agree its not needed for an RPG, but its pretty iconic to D&D. On the flip side, forcing the PCs to cooperate actually can help some groups actually function.

Well, we are in TTRPG General, not in a dnd subforum, soo

 

[payn]

Well, we are in TTRPG General, not in a dnd subforum, soo

Sure, like my comment addressed TTRPGs and D&D while pointing out the party can be a benefit.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I wonder how many of these hot takes are reactions to some one-off bad con experience.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah thats sizzling. I agree its not needed for an RPG, but its pretty iconic to D&D. On the flip side, forcing the PCs to cooperate actually can help some groups actually function.

If nothing else, with player groups of any size it makes it less of a problem to balance spotlight time.