Party Balance - Is It Metagaming?

[DawnforgedCast]

Is Party Balance Metagaming?

Is it against the spirit of the game to plan out your party before you play?

Is it metagaming to go in with the "ideal" party, with all skills covered and none of them being redundant?

Should players play what they want and care little for a balanced party or is the balanced party an essential element of the game?

Your input would be much appreciated on this topic!

[RadiantSophia]

Yes, it is, but so what? Some metagaming is inevitable.

[Icyshadow]

RadiantSophia wrote:

Yes, it is, but so what? Some metagaming is inevitable.

I agree with this while aware that others might not.

[Baltzar Callinova]

Yeah, I see it the same way I see the following question:

Question: In [Insert MMO Game of Your Choice Here] what is the best class and spec to play?

Answer: Whatever is most fun for you. If it's not fun, you'll end up doing it badly so just because the spreadsheet makers say the class has the best stats won't matter.

Same way with tabletop gaming... If I am stuck as a fighter in a 3 person party because nobody else was willing to be the fighter, but I really wanted to be a sea witch... I'm not having any fun... that's going to make the game as a whole suffer a lot more than if I was a sea witch along side a wizard and a cleric.

[Stefan Hill]

Baltzar Callinova wrote:

Yeah, I see it the same way I see the following question:

Question: In [Insert MMO Game of Your Choice Here] what is the best class and spec to play?

Answer: Whatever is most fun for you. If it's not fun, you'll end up doing it badly so just because the spreadsheet makers say the class has the best stats won't matter.

Same way with tabletop gaming... If I am stuck as a fighter in a 3 person party because nobody else was willing to be the fighter, but I really wanted to be a sea witch... I'm not having any fun... that's going to make the game as a whole suffer a lot more than if I was a sea witch along side a wizard and a cleric.

Unlike [Insert MMO Game of Your Choice Here] a real life human DM can roll with whatever party composition is put before them. Why RL-RPGs kick computer-RPGs butts. Ran a party of all Dwarf fighters once, wasn't a bad game at all. Would have sucked if it was an MMO-RPG however...

[DigitalMage]

Yes, it is metagaming, but most likely it is a good type of metagaming, especially if the GM is running a pre-published scenario that is written with the assumption of a "balanced party".

[Alzrius]

Icyshadow wrote:

RadiantSophia wrote:

Yes, it is, but so what? Some metagaming is inevitable.

I agree with this while aware that others might not.

I parrot this while aware that others might restate it.

[Grey Lensman]

Baltzar Callinova wrote:

Same way with tabletop gaming... If I am stuck as a fighter in a 3 person party because nobody else was willing to be the fighter, but I really wanted to be a sea witch... I'm not having any fun... that's going to make the game as a whole suffer a lot more than if I was a sea witch along side a wizard and a cleric.

Two points to this.

First, if you have a less experienced GM who doesn't adapt as well to unbalanced parties, you can end up with 'start over because you all died due to the holes in the group', which also isn't very much fun.

Second, I'm thankful that the group I am in is mostly made up of people who change character types often, so that type I didn't get to try out in one game is very likely to be an option for the next.

I'm also thankful for the fact that there is more than one way to fill any of the basic roles in a party than 'One Class Only', which, coupled with the group I play in, often means I can find something that combines my initial concept with a needed role. It might not be a 100% fit to what I orginally envisioned, but it should be fun to play anyways.

So to answer the questions in order....

DawnforgedCast wrote:

Is it against the spirit of the game to plan out your party before you play?

No. The most famous example is when someone wants to play an evil character and someone else wants to play a paladin. Some groups handle this well, but my experience has been that most do not. You could also end up with the 'all magic must die' barbarian in a party full of mages, or something else equally likely to end badly.

DawnforgedCast wrote:

Is it metagaming to go in with the "ideal" party, with all skills covered and none of them being redundant?

Not for an AP or other pre-packaged adventure, where having the holes covered (even in an enviornment where such is unlikely) is assumed. A good, experienced GM can overcome this, but everyone has to start somewhere, and even old hats may have a blind spot or two that comes up again and again. For example, I avoid playing characters who are screwed in melee in one GM's games, because he often succumbs to lazy encounter plotting and just assigns everybody a melee opponent, no matter where the squishy was standing. Other than that, he is one of the best GM's I have ever seen.

DawnforgedCast wrote:

Should players play what they want and care little for a balanced party or is the balanced party an essential element of the game?

My own opinion is that neither of these outlooks should be absolute. Everybody should be able to play something they enjoy, and the group should be able to be balanced at the same time. A player might have to shift a little from time to time, and the party may be a little more lopsided (at least in the larger groups I play in), but there is a middle ground between the party of all enchanters showing up in an undead campaign and the group where each person has been assigned a class based on some idealized, optimal makeup.

[Bill Kirsch]

I don't necessarily think it's metagaming if it's happening BEFORE the game actually gets under way. If you haven't started the campaign, it's fine to seek party balance. You're prepping for what may lie ahead.

[strayshift]

The 2nd level party I'm in at the moment -

1. A Undead Scourge Paladin,
2. A Kobold Rogue (don't ask),
3. A Human Cleric of Saranrae,
4. A Gnome Illusion Focussed Sorcerer/Oracle,
5. My Kitsune Enchantment Focussed Sorcerer.

I feared when we individually presented our characters (we didn't discuss them prior) that two sorcerers would be unbalanced and we wouldn't have enough combat ability (especially against undead and other Illusion/Enchantment immune stuff). But we seem to be doing okay even against the undead (I fall back on buffing, the gnome has disrupt undead and the Paladin/Cleric are quite effective there) although we may lack spell versatility later on - we can certainly spam attack spells such as sleep and colour spray!

I suppose the point of this is that unless there is a huge amount of repetition or a complete lack of a vital aspect of the party (e.g. healing) I think there is an inherent survivability in a party if they work their tactics accordingly.

A bigger issue for me is that the ability of individual players to develop an effective build for their character (note not Maxed!) can be a bigger issue for the party - e.g. the high level fighter who just doesn't do a lot of damage or the Wizard who insists on blasting without meta-magics to enhance it to s decent level of damage.

[concerned-citizen]

I have found it to be a lot more funner to play a non-balance party than a balanced party. It is sometimes rather challenging when you come upon something that your party can't do but needs to do. This is when you discover new ways to do things.

[Kirth Gersen]

If the party meets haphazardly, then to an extent it is, but not in a bad way.

If the party assembles based on an employer/patron or by seeking out teammates themselves, then not at all -- if I were going into a dangerous wilderness, I'd want a good mix of talents and areas of expertise as well, and I'd damn well include that in the interview process. (When my company ends up with some managers, some accountants, some scientists, and some engineers, are they "metagaming" at real life, or just being logical?)

[Kryzbyn]

I would say that if the party make up was discussed and put together before the game started, then it's not meta-gaming.

[Funky Badger]

Any group of characters can work together tactically. I'm always more interested in creating backgrounds/personalities that fit together...

[Space Potato]

I think it makes sense, depending on how the game will be played. Some GMs like to throw nasty challenges at the group, and *require* them to be a very effective minmaxed team.

I would say that so long as all the players are fine with it and aren't pushed into playing roles they don't like, it's not a problem.

And it's not unrealistic either, to an extent. People would realistically try to optimize their teamwork, strategy, and try to complement eachother.

[Matt Thomason]

My answer, like a few others here, is "sometimes."

It is if you're having them meet up via a random encounter with [insert monster here]. If they're being assembled specifically as a team to do a job, then it's another matter - nobody is going to send four newbie wizards into battle without a meatshield protector of some kind.

[ModernKnight]

Yes, it's meta-gaming, but unfortunately, it's necessary for party survival at lower levels.

As someone pointed out, unless you have a seasoned GM (or one who has the time to adjust all of the encounters) you're going to need a character who has a high BAB and one who can heal. I've seen parties try to go forward without either of those roles and it typically ends in a TPK quickly. Though, out of the two the high BAB one is the necessity.

So in short, yes it's meta-gaming, but it's necessary to a degree.

[Steven Tindall]

Should players play what they want and care little for a balanced party or is the balanced party an essential element of the game?

yes to both.
First let players play what they want and if nobody wants to play johnny swing stick heavy armor then no one needs to, you can hire a guard or in the case of our last group we didn't have a cleric so we took ranks in UMD or the DM gave us a npc just for healing.

I'm a firm believer in the player should play what they want otherwise it's not fun and isn't that the whole point?
My current group knew that we had all the bases covered.
1. Half-orc ranger favored enemy orcs
2. human fey touched cleric of shandakul
3. teifling rogue
4. teifling gish type, starting off as a duskblade.
5. Asimar druid - moonshae mastiff as an animal companion.

We have only played one game but so far were doing very well. Nobody in character knows that anyone other than the half orc is anything but human. The teiflings keep their heads covered to hide the horns and my characters asimar traits are unnoticeable unless your familiar with the planes.

we as players decided who was going to take what role in the party when we built our charterers. I was tired of being the face and wanted someone else to do it.
Then since we had two healers the cleric and I decided he would deal with immediate healing IE cures and I would take the long term vigor spells. The guy that played the monk last time is a thief this go around.
I guess the point I'm trying to make in a long winded way of doing it is just because you meta game and optimize the characters shouldn't disrupt party balance it can actually make it better.
if the party is lacking in a class then it's up to the party to deal with that weakness in their group. If you as a party know going in to it that the name of the campaign is " undead terror from the unholy grounds of castle spulzeer" then they really should be prepared for undead and had better take a cleric that can rebuke and command them. The fighter has better have a bludgeoning weapon and the wizard need not worry about illusions. The poor thief is there just to open doors and lock boxes I'm afraid but his plucky side kick humor will be appreciated by all.
meta gaming is a survival tool that encourages great gaming.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

One point:
Metagaming is not a bad thing.

We've been told for years that metagaming is a bad thing and should be avoided. Not only is it unavoidable but it is neutral. The game is supposed to be fun for everyone and to some extent this means making IC and OOC choices based on what will be most fun for other players and the GM. Making choices based on other RL people or with a specific goal for the game in mind is metagaming. It can be done to the detriment of the game and fun by using OOC knowledge to overcome legitimate obstacles or situations (e.g. you've read the adventure beforehand and act on information the PCs don't have to win).
If you know the DM has planned a certain adventure for the session, but the PCs and/or players are in situation where they might prefer to do something else, going along with the DM's plan is metagaming for the sake of politeness and all-around enjoyment.
Coordinating party members to avoid intraparty conflict is also metagaming, but the good kind.

Party balance is what I would call good metagaming. For the most part, players don't like to feel as if their characters (and by extension, they themselves) are useless or incompetent compared to others, so making sure everyone has roughly the same power level is a very good idea.

[Set]

Meta-gaming? Yes.

Good manners, to ask if anyone is playing a Paladin / Necromancer before I bring in my evil Cleric of Pharasma (or vice-versa)? Also, yes.

The goal is for *all of us* to have a good time, not just me. If my character choice would make *all of us* less likely to have a good time, then my character choice needs to bend. Metagaming or not.

As for meta-gaming as a 'dirty word,' it's probably not a coincidence that some of my favorite characters in shows are the ones who are 'meta-aware' or 'genre savvy' and recognize that 'splitting up the party never ends well.'

[Gullyble Dwarf - Lvl 7 DM]

Pretty much what Bjorn said.

The point of the game is for your group to have fun. This means what is allowed should be aimed at that purpose. Most parties are not going to find it enjoyable to have an ineffective party, but some do for reasons like an increased challenge or non-standard play. Meta-gaming to come up with a party concept that everyone enjoys is good meta-gaming, cause it's meta-gaming that accomplishes the goal of the game.

I'd even argue that meta-gaming that people generally think of as bad, like your wizard knowing to cast cold spells on a red dragon w/o a knowledge check is not necessarily bad meta-gaming. If your group (DM included) is happier with PC's being able to use the cool things the players learned while playing for X years then go ahead. However, for a good chunk of role-players this breaks immersion and ruins the environment for them while having to act as their PC would with not having the knowledge they have as a player is a fun and interesting challenge.

So bottom line, I'd say it's meta-gaming, but the question that should be asked is how does this affect everyone's enjoyment of the game.

[Tinkergoth]

I've had this conversation multiple times over the last few days. As others have said before me, Meta-Gaming is not in and of itself a bad thing. It's all about how you do it.

Making sure there's a balanced party (so long as people still get to play characters they enjoy)? That's a good thing.

Immediately knowing the weaknesses of creatures you've got no way of ever having encountered or heard of before because you happened to read the Bestiary? That's bad metagaming (There are exceptions of course... if you've seen a dragon start breathing ice at you, there's a logical argument that would assume you don't want to throw cold stuff at him and would try fire instead before you've even identified the sucker).

Some games also rely on metagaming. I'm playing in a World of Darkness game at the moment, where we're playing as characters playing a game. Metagaming, both for us and for our characters in the game, is built into the campaign. It is without a doubt one of the most fun games I've played in a long time.