Which do you honestly prefer?

I'm not going to lie, I enjoy playing the strongest character.

I shouldn't, and I know that games should strive for balance, and I try to avoid min-maxing and power-playing at all costs.

But I personally prefer to be stronger than the rest of the group. Because that lets me direct game flow, and avoid us getting bogged down in garbage.

I'm okay with either - even though the people I play with aren't the most optimized and sometimes character's die, we all have a good time.

I like being the strongest IN MY AREA OF FOCUS. If I'm the smart guy, I want to be the smartest guy in the group. Of I'm the fighter, I wanna be able to outfight anyone in the group. I don't want to be the fighter and be a better socialite than the Face, though. Everyone should have their main Niche, and everyone else should be able to contribute in most situations, while not being THE STRONGEST

My character is the strongest

I like to be able to play a character type that isn't "paranoid-schizo the murderhobo", and being the strongest (that is the most likely to survive) means I'm able to do things like trying to talk during the first round of combat.

Course, if the GM isn't shit and using a shit system, I'd prefer a balanced party

>your character is the strongest
But only because I've run into a few megadouches in the past and I'd prefer not to have to gamble on having to roll up a new character if the one I have gets backstabbed for some reason.
It's a little bit of carryover paranoia from earlier in my RPG experience.
More often this, though.

Balanced, obviously. A single character has single move per turn. A party has as many moves as members.

>honestly

You're noy going to get much of that here. People are more than willing to lie to themselves.

I need the strength to determine the course of the game.

That usually means being the strongest player, but I do keep my true strength in check to keep myself from stealing the spotlight every battle.

Balance is good, but if its the choice between me and another guy being strongest i will glady choose myself. Not because i want to stand center stage, but because i know how to sit back and let the rest of the group matter as well even if i could just do everything myself. I honestly don't trust most of the players at my table to do that.

Define "strongest"

>each member of the party fills a certain niche and do not intrude on other party member's niches

>I'm the guy that kills the monsters. Why don't you wait until I'm done here? Oh, and fetch me a beer if you're not doing anything.

>All the party have fun

Cirno

This. My current character is a paladin. I'm usually on par with the rest of the party, and I might even hang back from combat to do some healing. But if we're fighting lesser demons or whatever, then I'm slaying one demon per turn.

>your character is the strongest

This. Strongest in as many game-relevant mechanical area as possible. I should be able to open doors better than the thief, excel in combat better than the fighter, and solve as many or more social issues than the bard.

Why? Because if I'm clearly playing the strongest character, then not only do the other characters have to do what I tell them, but out-of-game they can't afford to get rid of me from the group else they won't be strong enough to clear the adventure. It's guaranteed job security.

Damn you, OP. This thread makes me miss D&D3e now. Playing wizards and stick-clerics were the best days the gaming hobby ever had. It's too bad most game these days have gone to shit and won't let me play my way, for all they advertise that they support lots of playstyles.

>this entire post

fuck off Virt

The Jedi tanks
The Bounty Hunter shoots
The Mechanic fixes
The other guy tries different character builds every few weeks

It works well enough

I like it when the party is balanced BUT I am doing the best because it feels like I am usefull (even if it's due to luck or consistant good rolls and not actual stat superiority or I don't know what).

This.

it'd be nice if my parties were completely balanced and not shit. that being said it always ends up with half my group making snowflakes that are so mechanically useless they can't fight, and those players are also too autistic to be the party face. the way i deal with it is to powergame into the fucking stratosphere, and play a dedicated support. it makes them have fun with they're poorly optimized ''another rouge who cant pick locks'' or ''obscure magic guy who doesn't know usefull spells in or out of combat'', and i have fun because i like numbers and being support.

I've been in both positions and it depends on how retarded the other players are. If I can't trust them to do anything right I'd rather have the latter, but if the other players aren't idiots I vastly prefer the former.

Obviously bait, but have a (You) regardless.

Shit/10. This kind of thinking leads to Deckers. You should want the other party members to be able to participate even when it's your niche time, just like you should want to participate in theirs.

>Sorry rogue, you can stay at home because the wizard has essentially replaced you with a stick.

The opposite sucks just as much.

Team is unbalanced as fuck and I'm not the strongest.

Fun is just a buzzword.

I prefer a game where nobody is fucking bitching because one guy is hogging the spotlight while everyone is just sorta...there.

If I'm going to drive a few miles getting to your place to game, the very bare minimum for my existence should be that my presence caused something to happen that wouldn't have happened if I wasn't there.

buzzword is just a buzzword

Nice meme.

The fetishization of "balance" is the ruination of TTRPGs.

The character dynamics are solid, they play off each other well, there's good synergy, and their respective power and ability fits their role in the party.

So if a party has a barbarian berserk who's an unstoppable force on the battlefield, it makes sense if they're stronger than the young rookie warrior who they've taken as a protege, but the person playing the more skilled warrior should hold back narrative, and allow the rookie to get in there and get more experience.

>not having a rivalry between two warriors, competing to see who can pull off the most impressive feats and get the most kills

Fun is for stupid and uneducated people desu

I prefer balance in the sense that everyone has their niche, or multiple niches, that they fill. While one person might be able to perform another's role, they probably can't do it as well as the other person. That said, I don't want someone getting sidelined out of the story simply because they aren't specd a certain way. If you're at the table, you're there to play, and should be included*

In my current group, unfortunately but totally welcome, the only veteran players are myself and the gm. It's still fairly early in the campaign, but the three new players are learning fast.
I am, for the moment, the strongest, because I've been playing the longest and know what I'm doing. Hopefully it won't be me just dominating most combat and skills soon.

*some restrictions apply

Honestly? I want there to be a semblance of equality, but I still want the spotlight. I tend to play Big Guys and most games are combat-oriented, so I get a lot of screen time. Although I still want everyone else to have fun too.

It's not what I consider 'ideal' but I admit that I normally build a very powerful character, but then hang back a lot in combat.

I like to be able to do a lot, and always have options. I like having a character that can get away with things. But since this requires a more reserved role, you need other people to go and charge in on combat scenarios who are weaker than you, and you need to play the back up when things get too intense.

Well I loathe "your character is the strongest" so I'll take complete party balance instead.

Being the absolute best would be fun for MAYBE one encounter.

Balanced.

Everyone should be useful.

Plus, I'm a big fan of Communist Experience in almost all situations. Helps the balancing.

>Team is unbalanced as fuck and I'm not the strongest.
This is the current state of my Anima game. Which is good for me, because the GMPC should never be the strongest.

buzzfeed is a website idiot

This

This, for me

Personally, I've only really played in parties where one of us has experience with the game, and the others are trying it for fun, and in that scenario, I prefer the one with more experience to be stronger, but to hold back a lot of the time.
For example, we have a pathfinder campaign, and I'm the only one with any experience with it, so I went wizard and keep a couple of GTFO spells on hand, but generally just play the "party buffer/enemy debuffer" role, to help streamline the encounters the GM sends us.
Except for the very first session where my level 1 wizard got instantly critted in the first round by some asshole, putting me into negatives before I got a chance to act, which was bullshit. It's like improved init + toughness didn't count for shit.

I actually like playing the weakest character.

???

This is kind of weird for me. I love playing healers and support characters, but absolutely not a sub.

How would a Dom!Healer work?

>thing that never happened

i wanna fuckin' murder you

Forcing the party to sub in order to get healing.

I want to be the reason that someone else's character is the strongest.

>The party is balanced because everybody is the best at what they do

Dom healers are hard.

Usually they are the mothering, "do as you're told and stay abed, listen to your healer, you did NOT just get out of bed to adventure" types.

Now, Sadistic healers are another and much more interesting sort of situation....

Angry soccer mom.

>you want healing? Earn it you useless fucker. I can't heal stupid so you're going t have to prove you're worth it.

You hold their life in your hands, it's yours to do what you see fit with. Make them beg, make them serve, hurt them a little extra before you heal so they remember who's in control.

Parental!Dom Healer, taking care of his party like a parent would their child.

>"Aww, c'mere Fighter. Lemme make it better. Now, what did we learn?"
>"Th-that running uphill towards a team of archers is a bad idea?"
>"That's right, you're so smart. There, all done. Now, go get the Wizard so I can take care of her next. You go have fun."

It accurately depicts when our healer has to queue for randoms.

The only thing I thought of initially was the Dom!Healer being on equal footing with the rest of the party then having a personal bitch / porter with them at all times.

Maybe punishment and rewards after the fact?

Making the tank beg for healing is bad business when fighting. Doesn't really strike me as a smart thing to do. But I dunno, it could work.

Veteran adventurer healer with a party of new blood? I like it.

100% truth. Fucking idiots.

Priestess of Lolth. You even get the fun Polymorph spell from your domain to turn people into tiny spiders. You're expected to order all the male characters around, and have ample experience with whips, bondage, and slaves.

>femdom
A shit.

My current party is not balanced at all. And I've made a mistake and assumed they will all optimalise their characters or at least won't make stupid choices, so even if I'm the only person with optimal build, I'm still medium tier when it comes to combat, because I play as a fucking scientist and the party was suppose to defend my ass on the quest to explore world pass the Urals

party being balanced

you're still the best at your specialty, and you don't have to worry about the others pulling their weight. Also, when you're doing all the cool stuff, they lose interest and stop showing up.

90% of the time in my experience, it doesn't matter, because their builds aren't why they suck, they suck because they're tactically retarded and won't read the damn books

just let the players play what they want to play as long as they don't step on each others' toes.

The only time I want my character to be the strongest is if my character is the one holding the party together.

Like, if I am a LG Paladin in a party of murderhobos? I'm okay with being the strongest, because having the Paladin have the power needed to keep the others in check makes for a good party dynamic under those circumstances. If we were balanced that internal conflict becomes a lot less interesting because I can be safely ignored.

Note that while this means I am the strongest in a fight, I'm not stealing the show from the other party members. Their actions and motivations matter, in many ways more than mine. I am a foil for their evil ways. But that only works i the dick-ass thief can't just stab in in the kidney and leave me on the side of the road.

If I am just a 3.5 wizard and make the rest of the party irrelevant... that isn't interesting. I'm the strongest, but my being the strongest isn't really bringing anything to the table.

I don't want to be the strongest. I do, however, want to be the TOUGHEST.

I don't care if I do weak-ass damage. I want to be able to plop my character down right in front of a dragon that's a higher level than me and be able to say

"I can stand here 5, maybe 6 rounds taking everything it can throw at me. You guys have that long to figure out how to kill this thing. I'm counting on you!"

And then get beaten silly.

It lets me feel important, but as tough as I am I can't solo fights so everyone gets to contribute.

vocaroo.com/i/s0vgK2x3gzGu

Neat, not sure why you posted it here, but I'm glad you did.

This.

I always love to the the last man standing through sheer toughness and determination.

"You'll be exhausted before I'm dead. Bring it on."

This, optimality is hardly a concern when the other players have to re-learn how to attack every single turn. You could be playing some shit gimmick build and it won't even register on the retard radar.

Balance. I -need- to feel useful and quickly turn shitty if stuck in any game where I can't contribute. Most of my examples come from more /v/ content

>picked valkyr as my starter in warframe
>another in my group played excalibur
>was worthless for a long time

>play krieg in BL2
>useful as fuck until late-game
>burk-out mode wasted as double sirens melted everything

This to the nth degree.

>boss wails on me for a good minute IGT screaming cliches like"WHY WON'T YOU DIE!?"
> I just stand there shield up trying not to corpse while the rogue gets into position
>Occasionally Lay on Hands myself just for another level of Fuck Your Damage.

Tanking is my favorite pasttime.

I generally try to be the most powerful but then tone it down by about 3/4ths and do a lot to boost other party members and make the game more fun. Like crippling enimes def so the big dude with the axe feels like a superhero when he can really go to town with nigh-guarenteed power hits. Becuase in older editions I learned that one-shotting everything gets old fast. Plus it's nice for when shit hits the fan you can step up and clutch save the day for everyone even though it's not really a clutch thing since no one was ever in any real danger and you still have an entire book full of "last resorts" left for any situation.

I think that a concept of "balance" is inherently difficult to define in pnp. Different characters excel in different tasks, at least in a good system. E.g- just because a character is stronger in combat doesn't necessarily mean he is unbalanced - fighting simply is his thing, he still needs people to do the sneaky stuff, social stuff, survival stuff, etc.. The only real unbalanced characters are the ones who are either good at decidedly too much, or decidedly too little, and this is indeed crap.

That's what balance means in this scenario user. When you and the rest of the group combined can handle any set of challenges thrown at you without relying on the wizard with a dozen unlock/disarmtrap/teleport/high level charm spells ready alongside some unresistable aoe nuke

Playing a home-made system that features a party with charecters of different levels, the lowest being 3 and the highest 11. A level 5 player is where you start getting to superhuman levels of power. One of the level 10's standard turns of combat is becoming almost entirely invunerable and summoning a pack of lvl.3 hounds to tear people apart. The level 11 has melee attacks that hit hard enough to basically mist-ify anything not a mini-boss or higher.
I play a lvl 9. I would be the party face, but being Nuetral Evil puts a stop to that. I specialized in theft, with powers like invisibility, auto-lockpicking, item/power mimicry, and am the only one who can Appraise.
For some reason, my build is the perfect counter to everyone who's a higher level. However, I lose to many players who are lower level than me.
Thats combat, of course. Outside of combat, I am pretty much the MVP of the group for my utility.
Am I the strongest? Or is it Immunity/Dig guy, who can 1vAll the entire party if you remove my charecter from the equation?

These guys get it. Even tanking is not necessary, the only thing that matters is surviving whatever shit the world throws at you and shrugging it off, through power, will, or luck. Or all at once.

Strongest. Because if I'm not then every time I want to try a thing I thought of that I'd be fairly (if not very) reasonably successful at, someone with a +1 score higher then me is gonna nag about how they should be doing it instead, because muh +1 bonus.

>join a group
>DM seems really on top of things, players all seem nice
>after the second session, realize that all the players have optimized characters/rolled high for stats (not in a real powergamey way, they're all pretty cool about it)
>I picked the regular array and built my character based off of character rather than effectiveness
>my character is constantly outshone in pretty much every department
>dream of the day when I can make a new character with one of three dope builds I've been thinking of that are effective AND narratively interesting
>mfw my character is the only one that lasts until the end of the campaign

t. Virt

Since when? Our raids would look for new healers the second those retard stepped out of line or started running their mouths. You'd think having to mash 4 buttons and having a whole new UI to help you figure out who to heal doesn't make it easier to do your already easy enough job.

After having both, I prefer characters to be balanced.

It sucks having to carry a party.

I GM, so I'm disillusioned with the idea of party strength. The party is only as strong as the GM decides it to be.

With that said, if one party member is considerably stronger than the others, this will affect the whole party negatively. both in and outside the game, so the smartest thing is to try and put everyone on equal footing so you don't accidentally fuck someone.

...

If you answer the latter you're automatically an faggot

OP asks people if they're a faggot or not
To what purpose? Who knows? Fucking autism thread away!!

>your character is the strongest

No. You have it the wrong way around. A weaker character requires more thought, and is generally more fun to play, imho. I'm usually the cunt who puts points in social skills, and actually use them.

Being the weakest, and still succeeding is great, unless the game is pure dungeon crawl.

See, personally, I tend to find it a lot more fun to play characters with good combat stats and lower social ones for this reason.

It's a lot more fun to fail at social situations than it is to fail at combat ones. I can have a character who makes an ass of themself and gets embarrassed, but can survive whatever consequences come of that, and live to try again. Where as the opposite can talk their way out of most things, but if things ever go poorly, or there's unavoidable combat, oh boy.

A social character build requires mostly success, a more combat focused character can live by surviving failure.

The party efficiently does social stuff:
Everybody's happy.

The party efficiently does combat stuff:
The GM raises the difficulty.

Being weak is a good motivation for myself as a player, to find ways around combat, or if combat is unavoidable, come prepared with traps and equipment. Preparing for a battle can make them much more interesting and distinct.