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

[GMMichael]

As a DM I've never exerted pressure on the players regarding what "roles" they want to fill in the party. That's up to them. That said, many players I've had exert that pressure on themselves. Usually the new players decide what they want to play and the more veteran choose to fill in.

This makes Minnesota-nice steam come out of my GM ears.

"Oh, you 'need' a healer? And one with darkvision, since no one in the group has darkvision? Yeah, okay. Do whatever you want to do!"

 

[Micah Sweet]

This makes Minnesota-nice steam come out of my GM ears.

"Oh, you 'need' a healer? And one with darkvision, since no one in the group has darkvision? Yeah, okay. Do whatever you want to do!"

Not sure what you're getting at here. Am I doing something wrong in your estimation?

 

[Desdichado]

But this is a tangent from your OP topic, and I don't want to distract the thread over it.

But still a topic that I'm quite interested in! You may be right; I could be the one with a perception bias, because I don't really like 5e all that much, I play it kind of reluctantly, but I also play it with people who are not at all neotrad. Although I do have a couple of Millennial/zoomers in my group who are kids of two other Gen-Xers in the group, they tend to play in a more 80s-style "paleo-trad" if that makes sense. Personally, I think the definition of trad is pretty skewed and kind of inaccurate, because the person who coined the different labels in that blog post that everyone quotes clearly isn't very into that style, so he equates "bad trad" with just "trad" and kind of misses the point. And maybe I'm trying to create a new label "paleo-trad" which is just equivalent to "good trad". I don't mind the tangent. Although maybe it deserves a different thread.

I realize now that this is TTRPGs general and I answered in a D&D way, but its true not every game has/needs this paradigm. I'd argue its pretty iconic to D&D though, and I think 5E found a sort of middle ground where it is present but can be leaned out of for GMs/group who choose to do so.

In RPGs generally it's not a question anyway, it seems mostly to only be a thing in D&D. Because it works fine without role protection and "you have to have all the roles" in every other game, it seems self-evident that it works just fine in D&D too. But many DMs of D&D feel that D&D has to be played in a different way than every other game.

But you make a good point; the 5e hypercompetent characters Fantasy Avengers paradigm probably somewhat reduces the extent to which this is still a thing. But not all D&D players play 5e, and not all D&D players play 5e differently than they played 2e or 3e or OSE or whatever either.

 

[payn]

But still a topic that I'm quite interested in! You may be right; I could be the one with a perception bias, because I don't really like 5e all that much, I play it kind of reluctantly, but I also play it with people who are not at all neotrad. Although I do have a couple of Millennial/zoomers in my group who are kids of two other Gen-Xers in the group, they tend to play in a more 80s-style "paleo-trad" if that makes sense. Personally, I think the definition of trad is pretty skewed and kind of inaccurate, because the person who coined the different labels in that blog post that everyone quotes clearly isn't very into that style, so he equates "bad trad" with just "trad" and kind of misses the point. And maybe I'm trying to create a new label "paleo-trad" which is just equivalent to "good trad". I don't mind the tangent. Although maybe it deserves a different thread.

I'd be down becasue I waffle daily on if im neotrad or not. Id certainly enjoy discussing trad and/or neotrad in more detail.

In RPGs generally it's not a question anyway, it seems mostly to only be a thing in D&D. Because it works fine without role protection and "you have to have all the roles" in every other game, it seems self-evident that it works just fine in D&D too. But many DMs of D&D feel that D&D has to be played in a different way than every other game.

But you make a good point; the 5e hypercompetent characters Fantasy Avengers paradigm probably somewhat reduces the extent to which this is still a thing. But not all D&D players play 5e, and not all D&D players play 5e differently than they played 2e or 3e or OSE or whatever either.

The only case at this point then of the balanced party paradigm being an issue is the folks that take it to every RPG they play. I'd say the issue then is more with the D&D template itself and its outsized influence on RPGs in general. Busting D&d of the paradigm entirely is tilting at windmills.

 

[TwoSix]

But still a topic that I'm quite interested in! You may be right; I could be the one with a perception bias, because I don't really like 5e all that much, I play it kind of reluctantly, but I also play it with people who are not at all neotrad. Although I do have a couple of Millennial/zoomers in my group who are kids of two other Gen-Xers in the group, they tend to play in a more 80s-style "paleo-trad" if that makes sense. Personally, I think the definition of trad is pretty skewed and kind of inaccurate, because the person who coined the different labels in that blog post that everyone quotes clearly isn't very into that style, so he equates "bad trad" with just "trad" and kind of misses the point. And maybe I'm trying to create a new label "paleo-trad" which is just equivalent to "good trad". I don't mind the tangent. Although maybe it deserves a different thread.

If you're willing to make the tangent, I would probably need to know how you define "paleo-trad".

For me, I view trad as being epitomized by 1990s play advice, and rules built around that play advice, from predominantly White Wolf and 2e AD&D. Setting is king, immersion in the setting is of primary importance, and the players using defined rules to leverage agency over the story is generally frowned upon. The goal is to be part of the DM's story and world.

 

[GMMichael]

Not sure what you're getting at here. Am I doing something wrong in your estimation?

Nothing wrong. It just drives me nuts when players assume that they must make a certain type of character.

 

[payn]

If you're willing to make the tangent, I would probably need to know how you define "paleo-trad".

For me, I view trad as being epitomized by 1990s play advice, and rules built around that play advice, from predominantly White Wolf and 2e AD&D. Setting is king, immersion in the setting is of primary importance, and the players using defined rules to leverage agency over the story is generally frowned upon. The goal is to be part of the DM's story and world.

Interesting because I didnt think setting was at all important to the culture playstyle definitions. I thought it was more about narrative authority and play purpose than anything as particular as being part of the GM story and setting.

For example, the GM controls the world entirely and has full authority, or the players have some or completely shared ability to effect the narrative of the setting and story?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm a strong believer in the idea of chucking the "balanced party" paradigm. If a GM is passive-aggressively punishing players for playing the characters that they want to by making them fail if they don't have all of the roles from classic D&D TV Tropes party, then he needs to take a step back and reevaluate his game, or touch grass, or whatever the cool kids are saying these days. You're responsible for the game. If it doesn't fit the characters that came to the table, then that's a significant failure of GMing. I'm equally a strong believer in bright, sharp lines between the domains of the players and GMs, and GMs essentially "soft-mandating" a balanced party is them making a hostile, aggressive foray into the territory of player agency. One of the earliest and most important pieces of player agency is that within the context of the setting and what is available, they can play whatever characters that they want to.

I've played games where every character was a rogue. I've played games with no healing. I've played games with all magic users. I've played games with all fighters. They all work. They may require a bit of rejiggering on the GM side, but... so what? That's the job.

Interesting topic. Balancing all classes around combat is one of my pet peeves in D&D. I much prefer the 1E 2E paradigm. I also liked how some classes used to be balanced across time (i.e. different XP progression charts)

 

[payn]

Interesting topic. Balancing all classes around combat is one of my pet peeves in D&D. I much prefer the 1E 2E paradigm. I also liked how some classes used to be balanced across time (i.e. different XP progression charts)

 

[billd91]

I'm a strong believer in the idea of chucking the "balanced party" paradigm. If a GM is passive-aggressively punishing players for playing the characters that they want to by making them fail if they don't have all of the roles from classic D&D TV Tropes party, then he needs to take a step back and reevaluate his game, or touch grass, or whatever the cool kids are saying these days. You're responsible for the game. If it doesn't fit the characters that came to the table, then that's a significant failure of GMing. I'm equally a strong believer in bright, sharp lines between the domains of the players and GMs, and GMs essentially "soft-mandating" a balanced party is them making a hostile, aggressive foray into the territory of player agency. One of the earliest and most important pieces of player agency is that within the context of the setting and what is available, they can play whatever characters that they want to.

I've played games where every character was a rogue. I've played games with no healing. I've played games with all magic users. I've played games with all fighters. They all work. They may require a bit of rejiggering on the GM side, but... so what? That's the job.

I agree that games where the characters are all playing from a more limited palette is well within D&D's reach - even if it's a bit of a lift for the DM. After all, if they all make fighter characters, they're telling the DM something about what they want the campaign to be about. The issue is making all of this explicit in the setup of the campaign and not waiting until the last minute to set these parameters.

I don't, however, agree that DMs soft-mandating a balanced party is a hostile, aggressive foray into player agency. Setting up a campaign always involves someone making a pitch and seeing if the group agrees to buy in. A DM suggesting a more traditional D&D campaign that they have in mind isn't doing anything to player agency - the players still have the choice to buy in or not. Maybe they agree to participate, maybe they don't and they move on to the next pitch. Any agreement to participate - whether in a traditional balanced party campaign or a more focused one - means they're agreeing that they may be limiting some of their choices, whether as players or the DM, in the future to match the premise of the campaign. That's no assault on anyone's agency as a player.