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

[Wolfpack48]

Agree up to here.

Disagree here. In my view, any GM worth their salt won't change a thing. It's on the players to find ways and means of overcoming the challenges neutrally and fairly presented by the GM, and if the PCs they chose to play turn out to be individually or collectively sub-optimal against some of those challenges then so be it.

Hire an NPC if necessary.

 

[MGibster]

Before this gets out of hand and turns into a player versus GM thread. Both the GM and the players have a responsibility to create the conditions for the game to be fun. That means the GM should be clear about what the game is about and players should make appropriate characters. Some flexibility from all parties involved is expected.

 

[TwoSix]

Can you clarify what LFQW is an acronym for? (I just think I missed the original post where that was spelled out: or I forgot in my old age )

Linear fighter, quadratic wizard. A reference to the idea that while a fighter mostly just gets tougher and more accurate as they level, a wizard's power increases in frequency (more spell slots), potency (many spells scale with class level), AND utility (higher level spells are generally capable of stronger feats).

In other words, a wizard's power is improving exponentially with his level (quadratically), as all of those different axes scale directly with class level.

 

[CellarHeroes]

I like this approach. But a good scenario has multiple ways to approach it. So while I agree that the referree should be relatively neutral, the setting should lend itself to the party creativity.

I must've been spoiled in my RPG upbringing, because this how I assumed all games were played.

 

[payn]

Before this gets out of hand and turns into a player versus GM thread. Both the GM and the players have a responsibility to create the conditions for the game to be fun. That means the GM should be clear about what the game is about and players should make appropriate characters. Some flexibility from all parties involved is expected.

 

[Rune]

Exactly. A lot of GMs aren't worth their salt, though.

I’ve never met a good GM who wasn’t a bad GM first, though. Myself included.

It is a learned skill/art and it takes practice to find out what works both in general and for each group.

Mistakes are an important part of the process.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Can you clarify what LFQW is an acronym for? (I just think I missed the original post where that was spelled out: or I forgot in my old age )

Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard.

Sorry I should have clarified, it's an old 3.XE-era acronym. It's about how Fighters improve little by little, whereas Wizard improve slowly at first and then absolutely skyrocket in power.

In 2E it was there, but you had to really get above about L9/L10 with a Mage to feel it kick in, maybe even a little higher, like 12.

In 3.XE/PF1 its becoming the case by L5 even, and past L8 it rapidly gets out of control (which is why rules-sets which ended progression at those levels were quite popular in 3.XE days).

In my view, any GM worth their salt won't change a thing. It's on the players to find ways and means of overcoming the challenges neutrally and fairly presented by the GM, and if the PCs they chose to play turn out to be individually or collectively sub-optimal against some of those challenges then so be it.

That relies on absolutely superb design to work out well reliably. If you apply this same approach on mediocre design (which is all most DMs are capable of, definitionally), it doesn't work well, and most published adventures have mediocre design too. It also means you absolutely must have multiple ways around challenges or you're just going to dead-end a lot of adventures, which pleases no-one (sandboxes work better with this).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I’ve never met a good GM who wasn’t a bad GM first, though. Myself included.

I have.

I've met several DMs in fact who "hit the ground running", and also several who, despite years, or even one case, decades, of experience, were still absolutely terrible DMs.

There's a difference between "good" and "perfect". Every DM has stuff to learn, sure, but with good advice and a fundamentally good attitude and/or the right mindset, you can be an extremely decent DM immediately. Especially if you've been playing RPGs a long time - but I can think of one person who came to DMing having only played less than a year of a single D&D campaign, and was immediately writing very good adventures and running them really well. She was very smart about DMing though and had read and thought a lot about it. The only mistakes I saw her make were in not realizing how players respond to certain stimuli, and I've seen experienced DMs make similar errors.

So I think it's just not true to suggest all DMs start bad and get good. Or that all DMs improve really even.

EDIT: To go further, I think there are a lot of transferrable skills that contribute being a good DM - those skills transferrable in both directions to some extent - i.e. learning to DM helps you with them, but if you have them before you become a DM, you'll be a better DM. For example (and these are just a few):

1) Being good at cooperating with others in a small-group situation.

2) Being fair-minded, empathic and compassionate, and not an egotist.

3) Being creative and enjoying creativity from others.

4) Being organised and prepared.

I could go on, but whilst TEENAGE BOYS (which is probably what most people are thinking of re: "bad DMs" or when they started DMing) rarely possess these skills, ADULTS, especially ones in their thirties and forties, often do possess some of these skills and others which contribute to being a good DM.

 

[Rune]

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)

In theory, 5e should be able to handle parties of mixed level better than 3e or 4e could because of bounded accuracy. In practice, the high-scaling of damage and hp makes this exceptionally difficult, especially at differing tiers.

Something like Dungeon World handles it just fine, however.

 

[payn]

That relies on absolutely superb design to work out well reliably. If you apply this same approach on mediocre design (which is all most DMs are capable of, definitionally), it doesn't work well, and most published adventures have mediocre design too. It also means you absolutely must have multiple ways around challenges or you're just going to dead-end a lot of adventures, which pleases no-one (sandboxes work better with this).

I dont think skill play focused minded GMs and player care about reliability. A dead end is a fine conclusion because there isnt really any purpose to the current delve other than solving puzzles. There is another puzzle just an NPC info dump and neon sign that says "dungeon this way" away.