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

[pemerton]

I've seen it referred to as "map-and-key" play, which I like. The dungeon is a hidden "board", and the players' goal is to get the high score by extracting the most treasure possible without dying.

I wonder who coined that phrase "map and key" on ENworld?

 

[MGibster]

I don’t remember “roles” prior to 4e. Happy to learn more or be educated about earlier mentions. Nerd = interest in such things so ready to be educated

Roles resembled but weren't quite the same back in the 80s and 90s as they were when codified by MMORPGs in the 2000s. These days, a tank is an individual who is suppose to get punched in the face instead of anyone else in the party getting punched in the face and very often have abilities to keep "aggro" on them. Aggro being aggressive actions taken by the bad guys. In the early 90s, a tank, sometimes called a brick, was a member of the party who could both dish out and take damage. They might seek to protect other party members, but didn't necessarily have any ability to keep aggro on them. Examples of tanks/bricks might include troll street samurais from Shadowrun, Colossus of the X-Men from Marvel Superhero Role Playing Game, or a Fighter from AD&D.

We didn't technically have what I'd call a dedicated Striker or Damage Per Second (DPS). Like I said, the tank/brick was expected to deal out damage. Sometimes I heard Magic-Users described as glass canons, something that could dish out a lot of damage but certainly couldn't take it, but I don't think that was super common. A Thief in AD&D got a sneak attack, but on the whole, a Fighter of the same level was going to do more damage over a few rounds.

 

[TwoSix]

I wonder who coined that phrase "map and key" on ENworld?

Whatever anonymous person did, it’s a good term!

 

[pemerton]

Whatever anonymous person did, it’s a good term!

I was just looking for a like/laugh!

But will take a reply in lieu.

EDIT: And I got my like! Huzzah!

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I tried to finesse the issue in my Brotherhood of Rangers game (3.5e) by having all the PCs be gestalt-rangers (fighter-ranger gestalt, wizard-ranger gestalt, cleric-ranger gestalt, etc.) None of the PCs were "the party Ranger" because they all were rangers in the wilderness-heavy setting. But it was still useful for them to pick different classes for the non-ranger side of their gestalts for the sake of each PC having a niche (and in the case of the two fighter-rangers, for them to pick two different fighter-niches; one specializing in archery & the other in two-handed sword.)

So even if the system and the game setting doesn't make 'balanced' parties into a survival imperative for the PCs, something resembling a balanced party is still good for niche protection and thus for player fun. Opposing this is the question of what abilities every PC in the party needs to have in order to be viable, and not a load that the rest of the party wishes (in character!) that they could just leave behind.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Let’s assume we are playing a module AP whatever, as is. Assume too that you play it as close to “the book” as possible.

Yeah, if you can’t find the final boss due to a magic lock you can’t open without magic, your party of fighters might be SOL.

However with any homebrew game wouldn’t you talk with the DM about what you want to play? If it’s a sandbox don’t you control some of the encounters by choice?

We happily—- very happily! Played an evil group in 1e including a barbarian and some thieves/assassins. It was one of the best gaming experiences ever.

We had a big map of the region and if people did not outright die, we could usually find temples and pay hefty fees for clerical magic.

We selectively sought out and spent money on healing potions. We ran from many fights. Just don’t know how that is doing it wrong.

Fast forward to 5e…every other subclass casts spells. Then there are feats. I find it hard to mess that up.

If the goal is fun play wtf you want and it will sort out if it’s a home game.

Edit to add: I am sure your could find some bad combo. All magic users in 1e without retainers or something. But assume this conversation is not about the possibility of a bad combo but rather the imperative of balance.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

A lot of really fun roles only make sense in the context of teamwork mattering, because they're about playing a role for the team, so it feels pretty bad when a game moves away from that because it makes the roles I'd like to play not exist in the first place.

I do separately really enjoy having dungeons where varying capability can unlock different routes and optional treasure and the like, I do the Map and Key Gameplay thing in PF2e and it works super well.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I tried to finesse the issue in my Brotherhood of Rangers game (3.5e) by having all the PCs be gestalt-rangers (fighter-ranger gestalt, wizard-ranger gestalt, cleric-ranger gestalt, etc.) None of the PCs were "the party Ranger" because they all were rangers in the wilderness-heavy setting. But it was still useful for them to pick different classes for the non-ranger side of their gestalts for the sake of each PC having a niche (and in the case of the two fighter-rangers, for them to pick two different fighter-niches; one specializing in archery & the other in two-handed sword.)

Well, the truth is even outside of the D&D sphere there tend to be niche/job stakeouts just because people want some distinctive game function for their character and to make sure certain jobs are covered. If you've got a modern game you can count on having at least one heavy combat specialist (assuming combat is expect to be something that's a gig at all), a medic and a technician of some stripe.

Truth is, best I can tell most people just find having multiple characters with too much overlap annoying.

So even if the system and the game setting doesn't make 'balanced' parties into a survival imperative for the PCs, something resembling a balanced party is still good for niche protection and thus for player fun. Opposing this is the question of what abilities every PC in the party needs to have in order to be viable, and not a load that the rest of the party wishes (in character!) that they could just leave behind.

Same reason in most games where it can be done most characters tend to invest in perception skills just because.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A lot of really fun roles only make sense in the context of teamwork mattering, because they're about playing a role for the team, so it feels pretty bad when a game moves away from that because it makes the roles I'd like to play not exist in the first place.

I'm not sure there's that many games where there isn't some function to split those sort things up; they may be split up differently or some specific ones not exist, but the only cases where I can see that not being true are ones where there's little group activity and purpose at all, and that's pretty clearly a minority of RPGs; even in the more indie end of things its not that common.

 

[PrunellaUK]

This appears to be very much a problem for games that lean more towards wargaming than storytelling.