Topic: Unbalanced groups and combat

[providence13]

He does get aggravated with the number of rolls just to poison his weapons. 

He wanted to just buy poison and he found poisonous critters instead. I thought it was a nice limiting factor.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Sorry if it's been mentioned but let's not forget poison.
Although the onset time is crazy variable, RAW.

IIRC, in the real world neurotoxins often have onset times in seconds and full effects in minutes, and everything else tends to be anywhere from minutes to hours for onset, hours to days for full effect.

But all these examples make my earlier point for me: As GM, you set the tactical environment. OB/DB is only the limiting factor (or even a significant factor) in that environment if you make it so.

[Lord Garth]

Combat related imbalance sucks. It really does. Makes people feel redundant, or others get bored.

So what I usually advocate is, as a GM, trying to balance the game out in out-of-combat stuff. Ok, so you have on particular PC who's a killing machine. Good for him. Those type of players usually lack a lot of other stuff, like Administration, Appraisal or what not. Try to make non combat stuff relevant to your sessions and make sure you reward other skills well, both in terms of XP and gold/items. Yeah, it's inflation, but it works most of the time. Eventually the killing machine will start to shy away from pure combat skills and branch out into other skills to stay competitive, and things will go easier after that.

Works for me anyhow XD

[markc]

 You can also look at what the players are buying with talents (if available) and other house rules you might use. If players always buy a talent it is probably too cheap and a house rule may shift a game towards one skill or another.


 The other option is one that might not fit in your game. First it involves a GM sitting down with the player and integrating PC creation with there game world. This often does not let the "supreme build" of a PC as the GM can and should require other skills to be taken a specific points that the PC should have.


MDC

[JimiSue]

The other option is one that might not fit in your game. First it involves a GM sitting down with the player and integrating PC creation with there game world. This often does not let the "supreme build" of a PC as the GM can and should require other skills to be taken a specific points that the PC should have.

Which is a good point - these issues start at character creation. And what markc posted reminded me of something similar a friend of mine does in D&D - instead of penalising the players by forcing them to use their points to buy things, he gives them 3 skill points or a feat, with the only stipulation being that it can't be anything that enhances the character's ability to fulfil their class's primary role. *Unless* it is backed up by a full character history.

So he wins either way - use of these 'campaign points' means that the characters get more diverse (and he makes sure those skills are called for in game), and if they are really desperate to min/max then at least he gets a character history to work with to make the games more relevant to the characters. Which means it's never going to run smooth for them

[Nortti]

This balancing question is an important one and something that all GMs have to solve somehow.

When you just look at the OB/DB it really seems like some characters could be useless in combat. Are they useful in some other way then? I personally think that my job as a GM is to have a game that has interesting and exciting things to do for all players.

If playing is mostly combat it might be good to make this clear for players when they create their characters. I dont think it is much fun to create a character and quickly find out that it cannot do anything useful in the game. Everybody should have a chance to do something important.

Magic users and thieves can easily play an important role in combat, but they are very important in situations that tanks could not handle. Like gathering information, handling diplomacy, running a religion, creating items and poisons, trading etc. In real world too fighter types cannot do everything themselves. Of course anyone can open his mouth and speak to the nobles, clergy, wizards and thieves of the guild but it is unlikely you could convince them of anything very complex if you are the walking stack of hit points and OB of your party. You can convince them that you are able fighter and can attack some place for them, which is the usual story.

If its just balancing characters in combat it is easy to find situations when other characters than tanks are useful:

1. Someone mentioned climbing. Party could be attacked when climbing or slowly advancing on a rocky uneven path. Characters must consider if they wear armor when climbing.
2. Ambushed when swimming is good.
3. Attacked in the night. You cannot get rested in heavy armor. Monks and thieves can probably still fight. They can also detect attackers better in the night to warn others. It takes a lot of 10 second rounds to get that full plate on. When ambushed you would probably just get your melee weapon and maybe a shield.
4. Going to ambushes if you dont have good scouts. Ambushers could just cause a rockslide and fire a couple of volleys of arrows and disappear before tanks can do anything.
5. Swampy terrain, bridges that collapse under heavy characters.
6. Magic traps and items maybe found during combat. If you have any kind of magic-user in the party he should have a chance to deal with it.
7. Communication. Characters could face dangerous race that will turn hostile if you cannot communicate with them by knowing at least a relative language or by using magic. They would be neutral at first but could turn hostile and keep ambushing you as long as you travel through their area. They know their area well and can use terrain to maximally to their advantage. If talks are positive they might even help you a bit or trade with you. Anyone usually likes it that you can use their language at least somehow. Convincing that you will just go through their area could save you from a lot of poison arrow ambushes, poisonous smoke traps etc.
8. Optional routes for characters that climb well of fly by using magic. This should give great advantages in avoiding ambushes.
9. Knowledge of ancient writings can for example help you to choose that tunnel that wont collapse on your team.         

[Nortti]

Id like to add that variation is the keyword here. Surfaces, lighting, time of day, elements, items, magic, traps etc. But when making all these complex scenarios it is good to remember that tanks must be let to be important too. They need to have that situation when it is up to them to keep the enemy hordes at bay for example when magic-user is trying to find out how activate the magical defenses of the building etc. 

[pastaav]

Actually I think it a joint responsibility between player and GM. Sure you can twist things so that all characters get something to do in combat due to circumstances, but this gets old quickly. Players who are more fight inclined might feel that you steal part of their shine if you constantly arrange for them to be at disadvantage and the other players stealing the fun.

At the root of the players must take responsibility for their group composition. Take the fight when you can make use of all characters in the team and escape if the situation means that you must gamble about the fight able characters having a good dice day.

Something that I think is  the responsibility of the GM is to make sure that there in fiction are examples of NPC groups both using good use of their group composition and making bad use of it. With NPCs discussing how to make best use of a group you get the players aware of the issue and if insist of using bad tactics the NPCs should point that out too.

[yammahoper]

I HAVE PLAYED IN GAMES WERE THE gm...DAMN CAPLOCKS...were the GM levels all PC's at the same time.  I can live with this, but is is a measure contrary to the traditional nature of story telling.  The world is diverse and someone is always better (i.e. higher level).

Imagine sitting at the table for a new campaign.  The GM hands out a level 20 human, elven and dwarven fighter, a level 25 Ranger, a level 40 mage and four level 3 hobbits (two rogues, a layman and a fighter).  To make matters worse, the layman is giving an artifact...but he cant use it cuz its very evil.

So...who wants to be a hobbit?  It's more likely in this game the hobbits are the pc's and those high level characters are npc's, yet if not, I know and have met many players who would prefer to play one of the hobbits.  Me, I can find fun in either, but I prefer the mage.

[providence13]

I HAVE PLAYED IN GAMES WERE THE gm...DAMN CAPLOCKS...were the GM levels all PC's at the same time.  I can live with this, but is is a measure contrary to the traditional nature of story telling.  The world is diverse and someone is always better (i.e. higher level).

I hear what you're saying but that does work for us.
With everyone leveling at the same time, the group is slightly more balanced overall. Yes, you can make an argument vs Pure Casters vs Fighters and many other balance issues discussed over the years pertaining to level differences, but it's better than it was. No more kill steals for them, so they work together a bit more. No more tracking xp for me!
Everyone can get into character better and contribute to the story, but not everyone can contribute in the same way. You're right, "someone is always better" at something but it doesn't require a level difference. Whether or not it's completely fair is open for debate. I do believe my players feel as if they are treated fairly, which is good.

I did have to do some HR tweaking.. who doesn't.
For my campaigns, Ranks in skill are more important than level. Ranks are decided by PC's and everyone get's the same DP. Your games may vary.

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612
To see how a campaign you describe might really be played out, see the above. 

[yammahoper]

full disclosure, i threw out levels with my old group.  i hand out dp or ranks instead of exp points.  dev can be spent as it is acquired.  i too have a bunch of hr to make it all work. 

[GrumpyOldFart]

full disclosure, i threw out levels with my old group.  i hand out dp or ranks instead of exp points.  dev can be spent as it is acquired.  i too have a bunch of hr to make it all work.

I've gone to that method recently myself. I'm finding HARP very well suited to it. My only exception to "you can spend them as acquired" is that if you're spending DPs on a talent, I want to know when you start saving them, not when you spend them. It gives me time to work your acquisition into the story logic, and the more expensive the talent, the more time I get (and usually need.)

[mocking bird]

However, setting up interesting / balanced encounters will be difficult. Too easy and the two fighter-demons will dominate everything. Too hard and the more balanced PCs will be krushed.

Simple math - two fighter-demons, three monsters.  Have the rest gang up on the oddball.

Make the players think and be creative.  Combat is not all about standing toe to toe while players simply roll dice. 

I am guessing they also tend to charge into combat ahead of everybody else.  As such have them encircled when in the open and alone.  I might also guess the healer in the group is getting tired of healing the same two every time, not to mention irritating the spell casters unable to use any area of effect spells with those two in the mix.

All in all though if the party is having fun it really isn't an issue.

[Nortti]

In fantasy RPGs combat is often too simplistic. Usually just the same hit or no-hit / defense / damage -process. Fighters and/or monsters slug it out with heavy weapons and armor. Roll the dice and keep record of hit points.

If that is suitable for all the participants and players and GM likes it then thats good. IMO that has little rpg-element in it and that is more like a tactical fighting game. But still, Im not going to tell anyone how to play, I dont want to. I believe in doing what you think is good and right. I myself have enjoyed game that has variety and other characters than just fighters with highest OB/DB/HP can do things that are necessary for the survival of the group. I enjoy game that takes planning, information gathering, communication. And then you have that violent battle that settles the scores. Good fight is IMO an important part of a good game.

Let me continue with a modern day example. Tank is not the only tool that wins the battles. Without recon, information, scouting, detection abilities, supply, air-support, someone guarding the flanks and reliable weather reports the tank army probably wont succeed. It is not just tank vs tank in the field. Tanks can really get stuck in the swamp, be blinded, freeze. Bridges can collapse. And this is just the war-part. IMO an important part of a satisfying RPG is that peacetime activity too.

Taking diverse fighting conditions into account is not a negative thing. It makes the whole affair more interesting and believable. Pzkw VI b King Tiger cannot go unprepared and alone to the battlefield and expect to win.     

[gandalf970]

I am a scene type of GM where each session takes place in a few specific areas.  I put them in various areas that make the meat shield use other skills, like balance for the mountain rough terrain, and sense awarenesses for the fog and climbing for the jungles.  Then I bring them back through these areas from time to time so they are rewarded for taking these skills.  I base all of my scene's off what skills they purchased in the previous level so they drive the story without really knowing it.  I also give them lead in's and premonitions to see where they may end up and they buy into this stuff quite regularly.

[Nortti]

When it comes to levels we have always had PCs about the same level. If a character dies the new one will start one level lower. I guess we have avoided having a large exp-gap between PCs, thats why I dont have experience of how to handle it. When a new player has made a character it has been about same level as old players.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I'm okay with a certain amount of XP disparity in service of the story logic, whether higher or lower doesn't really matter to me. But once the disparity gets too big, you have to think up special situations to keep the most experienced guy from doing everything and getting all the XP.

Probably the best scenario I've been able to come up with for having all members of a seriously unbalanced party (levels 2 or 3 through 12-14) is to have the high level guys be the sergeant and corporal of a military squad doing border sweeps. The biggest part of their job is training the underlings and getting them back to base alive, and if you can run something off from the border areas, that's as good (from the point of view of your squad's job) as killing it. Better still, failure in any of that results in you having to explain yourself to your superiors.

All that does a lot to solidify the teamwork and keep a lid on the tyranny by the experienced party members... and when you've got 10 levels of disparity between the lowest and highest party members, you need every crutch you can lay hands on.

[jolt]

I treat combat the same way most team based comic books handle combat.  Both Marvel and DC have teams where the heroes on the team have widely varying levels of power.  The trick, I think, is to make combat have more options to it than just "roll to hit".  Even the street-level comic characters are involved in combat even against cosmic-level threats; they just typically aren't directly attacking.  But there's always something important for them to do because it's written so that they'll have something to do.  A GM needs to write combats the same way; especially when combat effectiveness varies.

[providence13]

I treat combat the same way most team based comic books handle combat.  Both Marvel and DC have teams where the heroes on the team have widely varying levels of power.

Aquaman: "I'll go talk to the fish.."