Finding Party Balance - A Few GM Tips.

In order to get the most out of the game (or even life), adventuring parties should be well balanced. I know this might sound rather obvious, but frequently a new group of players may only consider what each of them wants to play, and therefore each individual player doesn't have it at the forefront of their mind to first think whether or not their new group of adventurers, as a whole, will have a full range of necessary skills to meet most challenges - or not even a full range, so much as a "particular" required range.

They may not even know what kinds of challenges they might meet. After all, it's probably a new world for them, maybe a new GM for them, too, and they can hardly be expected to know what they're up against before it happens.

Game Masters, on the other hand, can know - at least vaguely - and need be mindful of party balance from the start. It's the GM that'll know best what kinds of stories they are going to write, what types of challenges they will lay before the party, and what sorts of things - skills wise - they will emphasize. Naturally, knowing exactly what those challenges will be, or could be, or what style of challenges they tend toward, they can better know what compliment of skills it'll take to handle them.

Now while it may seem like a no-brainer to just toss in a complete cross section of all skills, such as a fighter type, a healer or religious type, a technical, science type or magical type, and a rascal or a rogue type, etc. etc., this isn't at all necessary. If, for example, the GM knows heavy emphasis will be placed more on combat - and little else - then they know the party will need more fighters than normal, more healers, and far fewer skill sets since his/her scenarios tend to ignore those other aspects. Is this wrong? Well, yeah, if the players don't care too much for battle-laden games, but no, absolutely not, if all the players revel in exactly that kind of thing. In fact, believe it or not, a group of mostly nothing but fighters and clerics, for that type of setting, would be considered well balanced.

Keep in mind, a "good" game master isn't necessarily one who writes and plans and executes good scenarios well, so much as simply one that knows his/her players, what they like, what style of play they prefer, and is willing to give it to them.

I don't mean, of course, a good GM should give the players everything they want - not at all - but while giving them opportunities to earn and perhaps eventually get what they want, they make it challenging, exciting, and fun - and potentially lethal, since, at least in my opinion, nothing is as exciting or as memorable as fighting for one's own life, or the whole party's very survival. Killer GMs, of course, go too far, but I shall not be discussing that problem here.

So while a GM could all too easily hand out bags of skill points, experience and treasure, for little or no real effort on their players' parts, this is not what I mean by giving one's players what they want. I mean if they like fighting, give them that, if they like intrigue, give them that, if they like puzzles, give them that, if they like exploring, let them do that, if they like the epic, gear your game toward that, if they love talking to NPCs and finding out about the culture, allow them plenty of opportunities to do that, or if they like horror filled stories or the gruesome and macabre, then give them that, etc.

If the GM doesn't know what their players are like at first, or what type of scenarios they'll like to play, they soon will, and it's never too late to alter one's world toward their players' personal tastes. As long as the GM enjoys that style, too, not only is this fine, it's that kind of flexibility that makes them a "good" game master.

NOTE: I've even seen GMs have several different types of worlds ready to go, each one geared up toward a particular style of play, and only decide which world to put their new group of players on after they have run them through a prefab or two. Personally, I like to think my world is large enough such that it can accommodate a wide variety of styles of play, just depending on where the group is on the planet, and I'll place them in an appropriate spot, or get them there, somehow, as time goes on and I see what they'll like. Of course, if they like something I haven't fleshed out yet, I still have large undeveloped areas on my world, too.

So, no matter how good a GM you think you are, no matter how much work and love you put into your world, you must keep in mind that a world rich in detail, a setting rife with realism, and a huge backlog of great story ideas coupled with a fantastic flare to tell tales, all isn't really what will make a GM good, so much as the ability to read and accommodate their players' expectations, desires, preferences, and the ability to give them these things all while making it challenging and exciting.

NOTE: It's simply the case that not all GMs are a good fit for all players. There's no pleasing everybody. So if your game falls apart, or the game you were in crashes, take heart in knowing it may not be your fault. It may not be the GM's fault, it may not be the players' fault, but it could simply be a poor match between GM and player preferences. If this is the case, it ought to become apparent in short order, too, though sometimes it may take longer. When it does take longer, however, it may be some other factor at the heart of the problem. Regardless, GMs could always learn to be more flexible, of course, and it never hurts for players to develop a broader range of tastes and interests. But at least such game failures, while sad, may potentially create better GMs and players. One can learn a great deal more from one's failures than one's successes, after all. Just keep in mind, it should take more than a few failures to dishearten GMs or players alike, so be sure to try, try again. If you think it might have been a poor fit, then by all means, try another GM or a different group of players, but if you think it was something else, then compromise may be in order.

As for party balance, once a GM knows what sort of players they have before them, they'll know, better than any player, what skills, what powers, and what temperaments it'll take to "beat the bad guys," or solve the mystery, or to simply succeed at the scenario's objectives. As such, even before the first scenario is under way, and still when character generation is upon a fledging group of adventurers, the GM need openly lay down some "guidelines" for what should be played, and in what quantities. More fighters, more healers, more magicians, more thieves; will a ranger be needed, can a paladin be tolerated, would an assassin fit in, will a rogue have anything to do in such a game, will there be a point to having a druid or naturalist, and all manner of similar questions should be addressed before players make their final choices.

Then, from this quantitative list of "necessary" suggested skill sets, the players may divvy up the responsibilities. Quite often, players won't have only one type they like to play, but several types, and from such a suggested GM approved list they can probably find at least one, or be delegated one, which they will either like to play or would like to try to play.

Dungeons and Dragons, of course, with it's multiclassing methods, offers some slight advantages to many other systems inasmuch as characters can eventually be more than "one" type, and once the party has all the necessary types, the characters can also fill out along other lines, too, and be more multidimensional. This is not only good for sheer power, but also great for added diversity and roleplaying. How so? Well, if one were a fighter type, and only a fighter type, they might become very one-dimensional and not particularly care for any other aspect of the game. Worse, though their player might care more about other aspects of the game, their characters are hemmed in by their PC's limitations. A fighter is not, as you might guess, going to be all that excited about some minor clue to a magic item that only very intelligent wizards might wield - even if they could find it, which is by no means a certainty - or interested in a bit of history concerning what some obscure necromancer did long past. They simply can't follow up to good effect on such clues. True, they might bring such information to the party wizard, even assuming they recognize its worth, but they'll be far less motivated to do it for another than they would be to do it for their own interests.

The more multifaceted a character is, therefore, the more opportunities may arise for them to take a proactive and forward stance in the scenario. Remember, it's a trap to allow one's players to sit back and only "react" to what the GM tosses at them. Players can quickly become complacent about these games, and expect the GM to do "all the work" for them. It's a far more exciting and interesting game, however, when players drive the story forward with their characters' personal objectives as they seek to carve out their own niche within the GM's world. To that end, the more areas in which they hold some expertise, the more directions they can drive the story, and the more opportunities will arise to do something new and exciting.

It's great when at least one player is so motivated they can practically drag the whole party along session after session, but it's a far more robust game dynamic if several players are leaders like this and not simply followers - assuming they learn to take "turns." And, of course, there is nothing worse than an entire group of nothing but followers.

The GM is not there to be the party leader, after all, or tell players what to do. More often than not, he or she should NOT even have a main NPC in the party (I say "main" since they must, or probably will, have many NPCs in the party, such as the horses or mounts, guard dogs, familiars and animal companions, hirelings and henchmen, etc., and these are probably all party NPCs. I mean, rather, GMs ought to avoid the trap of having NPCs of such power and prominence at the head of the party since it's too easy for them to solve their own problems, find their own traps, figure out their own clues, etc. and too easy for players to look to these NPCs for all the answers, as opposed to doing things for themselves. If the players came to play, please let them play, but if they just come around to watch you put on a one-man show, well, it's hardly the epitome of roleplaying for them, now is it? No matter.

NOTE: The best place for prominent NPCs would therefore be, naturally enough, back in some town, temple, guild, or what have you, and not traveling along with the party. If communications between home and the field are instantaneous, it's also too tempting to call home for orders or answers, too, so GMs might consider a whole host of communication problems or delays so their players will have to solve things on their own - which, let's face it, should be far more fun to play.

Now recall it is not good for the GM to give each player exactly what he or she wants, especially when it's so much better to allow him or her the chance to earn it.

For example, you needn't spoon feed the party cleric a rumor of some long lost relic of their god, but allow the player of the cleric to drive the story in that direction on occasion. Instead of mentioning the old tale of the lost relic and telling them where they can find out more, simply mention, oh, for example, in a temple they are visiting in another town one day - (perhaps when they all dropped in to get some healing during the course of another adventure) - while passing it, they see a mural on the wall. You'd be surprised how often players don't even bother to ask you to describe it.

But is simply asking for a description enough? No. Any such description should at first be superficial, particularly if the character that asks you to describe it isn't the cleric or doesn't have any background for that particular religion (since the mural is one of significance only to that religion or only to one with at least generalized religious training or lore of some sort). But if the player of the cleric for that god shows interest, then go into a little more detail. If they hunger for more, only then do you have them on the hook, and only then should you finally mention - "Hey, since you're examining it so closely, you notice a small, faded depiction of (insert item here) with faint lines emanating from it. You can barely see them in this light. Etc."

Certainly, if the cleric's players wanted to track down further information about this "item" then that could develop into a whole story line and quest (with which, hopefully, the other characters are willing to help, just as the cleric helps them with their quests - taking turns is key, you see). But I can't supply further details on this particular quest for "your" world, naturally. My point is, this method works not only for clerics, but also for wizards, rangers, paladins, rogues, fighters, bards, druids, etc., or even in general, for any character who possesses a particular skill or background. Recall, it isn't just seeing (or hearing, or reading, etc.) the clue, but also having the background to "appreciate" its significance that might allow one the opportunity to follow up. So whether it's class related, race related, family related, or what have you, the right background need be present to capitalize on the right clue. But I digress.

Party balance, of course, is often the key to a well-rounded game. Before the GM has given the suggested list of skill sets - (or classes, in D&D terms) - the players should be asked to jot down on paper a few choices. Have them write down their first choice, second choice, third choice, for class or skill sets, and then give those slips back to you. Later, after you give them the approved list of needed characters, if any arguments arise, these secondary and tertiary choices might help decide who could more likely accept an alternate position.

For a 1e or 2e AD&D example, if there were only one cleric needed, and both Tom and John wanted to play the cleric, you could look at the alternate choices. Suppose Tom wanted 1. Cleric, 2. Magic user, while John wanted 1. Cleric, 2. Rogue, and there was still a rogue left to play but the magic user position had already been taken, so, naturally, John should be more willing to forgo his first choice and take his second since, for if he didn't, Tom would have to take his third or fourth choice, which isn't as fair. You get the idea. It doesn't always work out so nicely, but these alternate selections made before they see the final recommended list does frequently help avoid arguments. And, of course, for other editions, like 3e, this isn't as important since it's quite easy to become multiclass later in the game.

When characters can multiclass, things are a little easier. In fact, not only can they multiclass, but they probably should if the game supports multiclass characters like 3e does.

True, I greatly dislike sudden development, and frown each time I catch wind of a character "instantly" developing a whole new class's skills at a moment's notice - particularly when the impetus for the desire to play that class is very recent rather than something long past. I much prefer it when those who wish to play multiclass characters generate characters that start out that way. Even in games that start with 1st level characters, a player desiring to multiclass should express to the GM this interest ahead of time, state which two or three class they would like to play, and bring in a character that is older (perhaps considerably older) that already has a great deal of background for these up and coming classes under their belts. Then, rather than instantly acquiring many new skills and feats that make up the core of a new class (when just last week they had none of those) they will already have had them, to varying degrees, and will have simply completed their training. But I have a whole article on this issue, and any who wish may read it by following the link below.

Zero Level Characters (Why They Are Required To Avoid Problems Of Sudden Development.)

The point is, when such training is available, it's almost foolish not to become multiclass in short order - if not as soon as possible. Why? Well, quite frankly, for a 3e D&D example, almost any 2nd level character who is 1st level in two separate classes, is more diverse, powerful, and likely to survive to third level than almost any 2nd level single class character. And without surviving to 3rd level, there is no real advantage to being single class. Yeah, I'm sure there are exceptions, but for the most part, no. Multiclass characters survive better in more varied situations than single class ones, just as groups of individuals solve problems and overcome difficulties better than lone adventurers. In a way, what I'm suggesting is, just as parties should be well balanced, so, too, should individuals have well balanced classes (or skill sets). Also, as previously mentioned, when characters are more multifaceted, it provides for more roleplaying opportunities, and this is always a good thing.

But this article is about party balance, so we'll continue in that vein.

Experienced GMs will likely better appreciate what balance is to be struck for each game system they play. Having played that system as a player, they have developed a sense of what works and what doesn't, and I'm afraid there is no decent substitute for this kind of experience. Their experience, their world, their scenarios, so they'll know best what they need and certainly don't need me telling them what balance to strike.

For the inexperienced GM, however, a few pointers might come in handy.

Lower level groups need to find their legs and get used to the game mechanics, and this most often means combat. Whether your game will continue to dwell on combat in the years ahead or not, it is often a good idea to get the feel for combat, so you'll want to place a heavier burden on the fighters and healers at first. A group of 4 players, for example, could have one fighter, one cleric, one wizard, and one rogue, and that might be fine, but it may also be better to consider a rogue/fighter, or wizard/fighter for those spots. A group of 5 almost certainly should sport another fighter, or paladin, or ranger, for example, before something else. Or perhaps a fighter/cleric to include a greater fighter backbone for the party, as well as more healing support. And, of course, take out the rogue or wizard entirely if you know you have no desire for one of those in your game and your scenarios will have little for them to do. Include another fighter type, instead.

Thankfully, for D&D players, the game is remarkably well suited for one fighter type, one cleric type, one wizard type, and one rogue type, and this will likely allow you to explore in most directions until you discover what you like best.

If your players number less than 4, a multiclass character is almost a must, at least one of the characters having, as their second class, that required 4th class skill set. And if they number greater than 4, rounding out the party with one of the other classes is more than acceptable, though a fighter type is probably better for a fledging group of players.

Recall, even more important than the right class for the party, you have to consider the right class for the player. Saddling a player with a character class they absolutely do not want to play will not help, no matter how much the party needs that class to be represented. Hopefully, few players will be so inflexible, and those few you find in your midst will be happy playing what they insist on while the other more flexible, better players are willing to take up his/her slack.

Remember, the GM must have slack. So it's pretty nice when the majority of your players can give it to them.

As your game develops, you may wish to more fully explore less combat oriented aspects of roleplaying. You may start a new group of adventurers, retiring the old party (maybe even the old world) and start again, after having learned a great deal from your past missteps.

You might include some of the old characters, but allow a few players to swap out old ones for new ones. They can start out as something higher than 1st level, if you wish. That's fine. It might help if they first write out a little background story for their new PC to explain their recent past and how they acquired those earlier levels, and this can substitute for actual experience. It is, after all, better than nothing, since just the requirement to do it demonstrates the player's willingness to put in some time and effort on the character. They'll less likely treat it as a "throwaway" PC then. Be mindful of the fact that players do enjoy their characters more if they have to work for them, and writing a back-story is work. I recommend they write one, the GM read it and suggest edits, and this collaboration continue back and forth until both sides are satisfied the character will fit on the world, in the campaign, and in the current party.

You may soon discover you like divine magic a great deal and wish to include more clerics and religiously based stories, or maybe you like wizards and arcane magic more and need to include another wizard or two (single class or multiclass wizards are fine). The game mechanics that handle magic are also something that needs time to develop, so if you didn't have any wizards or clerics before, you may have to start out slow as you introduce them, but if you had them from the start and just wish to increase their presence, add another spell caster to the group (a new player should take up that role, or an old one might acquire a new spell casting class).

Regardless of how you do it, the GM will know what he or she needs to have present in the party in order to meet the challenges they wish to lay before the adventurers, and inclusion of those skills can be handled in many ways.

Conversely, when a player expresses an interest in playing some new skills or a new class, the GM should - (if not immediately, then eventually) - include story lines that require, in whole or in part, the skill set or that class's skills to solve some problem and accomplish the scenario's objectives.

As you can see, GMs may write what they want and make sure the PC's are generated with the necessary skills to solve those types of problems, or they can see what the PC's already have for skills or acquired later on, and write new scenarios well-suited for those skills. In much the same way, they can also write around a particular magic item the party already has (to solve a problem) or make sure they acquire such an item later if the idea comes before the item's acquisition.

NOTE: Making sure the party acquires a particular magic item that compensates for their lack of a particular skill is a common GM trick. For example, in a party lacking clerics, healing potions or limited healing items - such as charged items that may only be used X number of times before they are forever depleted and useless. This might be preferable to forcing some player to play a cleric or multiclass into a cleric when no one has any desire to do this. Or perhaps no one really wishes to play a rogue, so a Chime Of Opening might be handy. As the limited charges dwindle on such a necessary magic item the party may recognize this fundamental deficiency and do something about it before they find themselves high and dry. The GM almost should even occasionally mention - what are you guys going to do when that item runs dry? - or some such, and with enough time to act, too, so they can take appropriate steps. If the party ignores the warnings, well, they'll have no one to blame but themselves. Let's just hope any encouragement given to them to flesh out their shortcomings before it's too late will not fall on deaf ears.

A GM might even recognize a skill deficiency in some area, and contrive of a scenario wherein the party will fail and be forced to retreat until at least one of the PCs either develop some new skills to handle it, or maybe the party hires, for a limited time, a specialist NPC with the necessary skills. Either option is fine, though it's better to acquire the skills within the party if that sort of problem is likely to arise again, while it's wiser to hire an NPC if the situation is pretty unique and not likely to crop up a second time.

NOTE: It is not recommended to have such specialists as full time party employees. Most party dynamics work only as a result of sharing equally the rewards with the risks, and you can't expect hirelings or specialists to tag along with the party and trek through numerous and dangerous paths for anything less than a full and equal share. Henchmen and followers might do this, perhaps, but then their skills always pale in comparison to the party members' own and wouldn't likely solve any huge problem the PCs couldn't handle by themselves.

NOTE: As a further aside, it's often a mistake for players to try to outfit their characters with every skill available under the sun since they'll undoubtedly only have limited points, particularly in the beginning. Thus, GMs should be warned to advise players not to incorporate within their characters skills that are seldom used or often only used while at home in a city. especially if the GM knows such skills will be pretty valueless in most of his or her scenarios or style of play. It is far better for adventurers to acquire skills more immediately useful in the field, and thus rely on numerous specialists at home to compliment missing elements, such as skills in lore, languages, history, etc. True, players may have good reasons for wanting at least some fundamentally basic skills in these areas, so rank 1 skills may still be in order, particularly as these may be required to at least point them in the right direction, though numerous ranks in such skills, while impressive on paper, only tend to deprive characters of more immediately useful skills required in the field for their very survival.

Party balance, then, is not one thing you have, but a dynamic that we constantly strive toward. It evolves and changes as needs and preferences change over time. The GM's style will, as always, set the tone for what's needed to meet the challenges, but the GM's style of play should conform to the players' wishes, too. Like most things in life, this is a give and take process, and a never-ending one at that.