When last we saw our adventures, they were entirely dead. A demise, I might add, that was equally entirely of their own making.
But today is a new day, and the dingbats have rallied and at long last decided to assemble a proper adventuring party. As a supreme marketing goblin who did not follow his father’s career path (guarding room 6a in a dungeon) I admit that I find the balanced party sort an intriguing concept. Objectively, if a party can do more things (cure, sneak, fight, cast) it should be better at things that adventuring parties should be good at: surviving, killing, and looting. That said, I get why some classes are more fun than others, and certain roles in the party are also more fun than others. So, naturally, balancing a party requires some degree of sacrifice, at least when there’s a small party and everyone has to take one role. I understand that some adventuring parties get as large as 10 players, which as a starting GM seems frankly bonkers. I can barely keep track of 4 characters (though the fact that they keep dying does make remembering their names more challenging) and the thought of sorting out 10 at once gives me hives. I’m also not sure it would be that fun as a player, honestly. It seems like there’s always one loudmouth who tries to suck all the oxygen out of the room at every table (I’m looking at you, Lou) and with 10 people there’s bound to be at least 2, maybe 3. Sounds horrid.*
But today is a new day, and the dingbats have rallied and at long last decided to assemble a proper adventuring party. As a supreme marketing goblin who did not follow his father’s career path (guarding room 6a in a dungeon) I admit that I find the balanced party sort an intriguing concept. Objectively, if a party can do more things (cure, sneak, fight, cast) it should be better at things that adventuring parties should be good at: surviving, killing, and looting. That said, I get why some classes are more fun than others, and certain roles in the party are also more fun than others. So, naturally, balancing a party requires some degree of sacrifice, at least when there’s a small party and everyone has to take one role. I understand that some adventuring parties get as large as 10 players, which as a starting GM seems frankly bonkers. I can barely keep track of 4 characters (though the fact that they keep dying does make remembering their names more challenging) and the thought of sorting out 10 at once gives me hives. I’m also not sure it would be that fun as a player, honestly. It seems like there’s always one loudmouth who tries to suck all the oxygen out of the room at every table (I’m looking at you, Lou) and with 10 people there’s bound to be at least 2, maybe 3. Sounds horrid.*
Anyway, back to the matter at hand. 4 players. 4 roles. 1 balanced party.
Phil’s fighter is Kohlrabi the Killer.
Harry’s Wizard (school of Weasels) is Fennel the Fabulous
Sally’s rogue is Galangal the Gallant
Lou’s (who obviously drew the short straw) cleric is Parsnip the Parsimonious**
Next week, we see whether they’re any better at surviving, killing, or looting.
Love,
Supreme Marketing Goblin
* One of the founders, on one of their unannounced and deeply annoying tours of the warehouse, recently regaled me with stories of the games of his youth, which apparently included a 10 person game at his local bookstore. That he seemed to look back on this fondly somewhat reinforces my previous opinion of him being an idiot. EDITOR: On the off chance he actually reads this you should scrub it.
** That they conspired to name all their characters root vegetables ups their chance of me killing all of them about 20%. Maybe 21%.
