Unbalanced PC groups - is this okay?
LandonSuffered:
Quote
This does, however, leave open the very real possibility that any given group of player-run characters will be wildly mismatched in terms of power. Is it possible to run such a game, but still have all the players comfortable with it? Is it even possible to run such a game and not have the lowest-power character vulnerable to a quick and painful death?
Is it possible? Sure. But it’s UNUSUAL, by which I mean it’s a type of game-play (for D&D) not directly supported by the rules as written.
Not impossible for the rules as written, just not supported.
Whether or not all the players are “comfortable” will depend on players’ expectations of game play, and how disruptive to those expectations your game play is. If Robin and his “band of Merry Men” are hogging all the spot light with their interactions, this might get on the nerves of fellow players (especially if you detail individual personalities and quirks for each of Sleepy, Sneeezy, Dopey, etc.). On the other hand, if you treat “the band” as one big personality, (“the men are hungry,” or “the men are grumbling they aren’t getting hazard pay”) it may simply add some interesting color to the game.
Running the game without “quick and painful death,” is possible with support from an amicable DM, but will require a bit of extra work on his or her part. Especially if your Merry Men (or whatever) are intended as “meat shields” there’s no way they won’t occasionally eat a bullet (or orcish arrow). Instead of 10th level fighter with 60-some hit points, you’ll have a handful of warriors with 8-10 hit points apiece…in effect, they ARE your hit points (of course, while other party members heal HPs, your guys may not necessarily come back from the dead).
But depending on YOUR ROLE in an adventuring party, your DM will be forced to scale challenges for you. For example: if you replace a 10th level rogue with a 3rd level Rogue and his apprentice foot pads, your DM won’t be able to set traps with Challenge Ratings too high for your rogue to find. If you’ve got two 5th level druids, encounters will need to be structured to include MORE but LESSER STRENGTH plant/animal menaces to overcome. Likewise with fighter-types…more orcs and goblins, less ogres and trolls.
Now if your multiple characters intrude on the niche of another player, then it’s possible you’ll have more problems. If one player has a 10th level cleric, he’s going to want (and need) challenging encounters that test his abilities (higher level undead, need for more potent healing spells, etc.). If you’re running three or four low-level clerics, they’re going to be out-classed by encounters…either because they can have no effect (they’re too weenie) or because the high level cleric can accomplish all they can and more with less effort (blowing up zombies, curing more wounds, etc.). It’s still possible to have mixed encounters (say a troll for the high level fighter and orcs for the low level Merry Men), but not every encounter can be scaled that way…or it could, but it might get boring. And it will require cooperation between player characters (“I’ll handle the vampire, you two get the wights,” for example).
So, yeah, it’s possible. Don’t make it too disruptive for the other players (hogging more spot light than any other major PC would). Try to find a niche (for your DM’s ease and so as not to be out-classed by similar party members). And don’t get too attached to little guys that get killed off by big scaries!
: )
Daniel B:
Quote from: Lance D. Allen on April 29, 2009, 02:35:02 AM
First off, the guys you were playing with were dicks.
LOL, no argument. I have since stopped playing with one. The other guy, I still play with because he's actually a pretty good gamer as long as the bad influence isn't around. (They seem to get into this "I know the rules better than you" mode, which just irritates me .. even for gamists, it's not sportsmanlike)
Raven, thanks for reminding me of the old Dark Sun .. I *can't* believe I'd forgotten. That used to be my all-time favourite setting.
Having read people's responses, the general answer seems to be "Why not? As long as your combat system isn't too much like one such as D&D's" In fact, I'm beginning to think my initial concerns are a throwback to that mode of thinking. However, y'all make good points and I agree with the consensus.
Thanks everyone for the replies (and sorry for lateness of my own reply, getting a bit busy with real life stuff.)
Daniel
greyorm:
Quote from: ShallowThoughts on April 30, 2009, 10:47:09 PM
Raven, thanks for reminding me of the old Dark Sun .. I *can't* believe I'd forgotten. That used to be my all-time favourite setting.
Really? Awesome! Then let me, as the local ambassador of the Templarate, say: We'd love to have you over on the dedicated DS boards at Wizards and on the off-site Arena boards, Daniel, if you're still interested in the setting. The boards are not spastically busy, but do see at least daily posting and we have a good crew keeping the setting alive and interesting.
Cranewings:
Balance isn't as important to my group as playtime and accomplishment. I've run a couple of games with really bad power balance, but as long as everyone was doing something important, it never turned into a problem.
It does take a lot of maturity on the part of the players, and the GM can't just throw the group to the wind or else it will never turn out right. It takes some work.
Joshua A.C. Newman:
If you're finding yourself at the limits of the rules, start searching for something else, but it sounds like you've resolved the interpersonal issue and the technical issue since this episode. Your solutions certainly seem like good opportunities for all sorts of fun
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page