Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Hot take: get rid of the "balanced party" paradigm
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9587871" data-attributes="member: 6799660"><p>Yes, good point. This addresses the fundamental situation that makes the hot take become highlighted. It's still a balanced party though, just not balanced playing-player's-PCs or however one phrases that.</p><p></p><p>I think 'hot take: ' ends up being synonymous with 'thought experiment:' most of the time. OP seems to have run into some really bad times across multiple DMs or campaigns, which instigated the thread. I do question -- given OP's framing of the situation as passive aggression and outright bad behavior -- whether the instigating events were more contingent on truly bad DMs than about the specific DMing techniques or assumptions those DMs implemented. </p><p></p><p><u>A/D&D specific</u>: People have found references in the 1E DMG and modules and such and I agree with them. On the other hand, I'm not sure if it really matters whether it was specifically stated or not (I certainly don't think it was stated in all of the different rules editions). Any number of people played 1E bitd as B/X with new class and spell lists and never played modules, yet still stumbled into feeling this assumption. </p><p>I think it is because there are inherent road markers for it -- certain negative effects need cleric (sometimes MU) spells to remove*. Traps are an established component of the explained basic play loop, and all the rulesets post-oD&D** said or at least suggested that only Thieves could find many-to-most traps. MUs and Thieves were fragile enough*** that it was clear that there were supposed to be fighters up front keeping the hostiles away from the back line (although henchmen can definitely address this, see Lanefan's point above). Just the abundance of treasure (and how clear it was a main focus of the game to get to use it) that was class-specific really communicates 'it is a really good idea to cover all these bases.' </p><p><em><span style="font-size: 10px">*often with an urgency that a trek back to town for temple-healing will be too-little, too late</span></em></p><p><em><span style="font-size: 10px">**where they weren't initially part of the game, and the assumption was anyone could find traps, they just could do so by rolling dice instead of explaining their methods</span></em></p><p><em><span style="font-size: 10px">***and clerics able to use so few magic weapons</span></em></p><p></p><p><u>Other games</u>: There's a huge variety in how well other games even communicate their assumed central play loops at all, much less expectations about how best to play them. There's also a lot of variability in how much there are discrete classes or roles to begin with (and how much they gatekeep various abilities which may or may not be vital to standard play).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 9587871, member: 6799660"] Yes, good point. This addresses the fundamental situation that makes the hot take become highlighted. It's still a balanced party though, just not balanced playing-player's-PCs or however one phrases that. I think 'hot take: ' ends up being synonymous with 'thought experiment:' most of the time. OP seems to have run into some really bad times across multiple DMs or campaigns, which instigated the thread. I do question -- given OP's framing of the situation as passive aggression and outright bad behavior -- whether the instigating events were more contingent on truly bad DMs than about the specific DMing techniques or assumptions those DMs implemented. [U]A/D&D specific[/U]: People have found references in the 1E DMG and modules and such and I agree with them. On the other hand, I'm not sure if it really matters whether it was specifically stated or not (I certainly don't think it was stated in all of the different rules editions). Any number of people played 1E bitd as B/X with new class and spell lists and never played modules, yet still stumbled into feeling this assumption. I think it is because there are inherent road markers for it -- certain negative effects need cleric (sometimes MU) spells to remove*. Traps are an established component of the explained basic play loop, and all the rulesets post-oD&D** said or at least suggested that only Thieves could find many-to-most traps. MUs and Thieves were fragile enough*** that it was clear that there were supposed to be fighters up front keeping the hostiles away from the back line (although henchmen can definitely address this, see Lanefan's point above). Just the abundance of treasure (and how clear it was a main focus of the game to get to use it) that was class-specific really communicates 'it is a really good idea to cover all these bases.' [I][SIZE=2]*often with an urgency that a trek back to town for temple-healing will be too-little, too late **where they weren't initially part of the game, and the assumption was anyone could find traps, they just could do so by rolling dice instead of explaining their methods ***and clerics able to use so few magic weapons[/SIZE][/I] [U]Other games[/U]: There's a huge variety in how well other games even communicate their assumed central play loops at all, much less expectations about how best to play them. There's also a lot of variability in how much there are discrete classes or roles to begin with (and how much they gatekeep various abilities which may or may not be vital to standard play). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Hot take: get rid of the "balanced party" paradigm
Top