Temporal Balance - Don't Even Try

 You're running a game.
You've got a mixed group.  Some want to go with the flow, coast through the game and chill. Others enjoy engaging with the game, trying out things, and are a bit more involved.

Then you have that one player - the one who's really into the game. You know the one. The one who sends you messages between sessions, discussing ideas, the one who plans this, that, and the other during downtime. The one who makes connections and comes up with ideas, and puts in the work. The one who gains power rapidly, that has nothing to do with the points on the sheet or might not even has mechanics to back it up.

And honestly, there's no fair way to balance that. There are simply some players who play the game within the game. Politics, influence, allies, contacts, favours, or just going out and doing that little extra while other players don't bother.

And, of course, this creates an imbalance. One player is going to have more power than the others.  (Or two players, it isn't always just that one peep). Sometimes, it's fine, some players don't care, because everyone's on the same side. But sometimes, you're going to have those players who get upset at the imbalance in the game, even if they, themselves, don't want to put the work in to even the playing field - 'it's a game, I shouldn't have to work in a game'.

And to be honest, I've seen players be punished for 'playing the game'. They put in the work, they reap the benefits, and they're so head-and-shoulders above the others that there's actual conflict between the players - and it gets worse if the one who's ahead actually flexes their capabilities.

Case in point.  We're playing 5e D&D.  We have a mixed group. One of the players is playing a monk. I'm playing a barbarian. The monk's got more setting influence than the barbarian (which I am 100% fine with, that was kind of the point with him). The monk is a generalist.  The barbarian is a specialist.

When it comes time to fight, the barbarian is slaughtering anything that gets in his way.  That's what he does.  He focuses on a single opponent and then destroys them utterly.  The monk's player?  Gets ultra annoyed.  "Why am I even here?"

To which I answered, 'to play the game'. There's three other players at the table who do not destroy everything in their path. The paladin's so-so, she's got this whole reach thing to protect zones.  The monk's doing the second-most damage in the party.  And the player wasn't satisfied because the disparity between 'second' and 'first' was too wide a gap.

Yet, neither of us were doing anything wrong.  I just had a clear plan for how the character would evolve, and he didn't think of how to make his character stand out in their own way.  Half of the fun of the barbarian was his personality, and how he interacted with the environment - and his blowing through enemies was a part of that personality (the kid was way overconfident to the point where players laughed at his lines).

Kid (Aztec) encounters some slaad with a rust monster in a dungeon.  Passes his 'what the hell is that' check.
Kid: Oh no, a rust monster. Whatever shall I do?  *looks at his macuahuitl -- a wooden and obsidian sword -- pointedly*
Slaad:  Are you... mocking us?
Kid:  Of course not.  *proceeds to destroy everything in his path*

The GM loved it.  The players loved it.  Except that one.
And his character wasn't even in the room.  So, like, what gives?

Now, in this case, it's actual numbers and build design.  But what happens when it isn't?  What if it's something you can't put numbers on and go 'yeah, roll X'?  For example, in a game of Pathfinder, my character becomes blood brothers with a prince, because the PCs saved the living hell out of him and the kingdom, and my character was kind of a key part of all of this.

So.  The character's 'adopted' into the family line.  That's a lot of power right there. It was enough that he took the party to an island that was part of the nation but was a region that kept slaves and did 'bad things' - then took it completely over, freed the slaves, and then boosted the economy to make up for the loss of income.

The rest of the party was fine with this.  But what if one hadn't been? One of the characters is now royalty. Is engaged to an ambassador from that nation. Can, in fact, walk into the palace and ask favours, get money and gear, and call on guards to help him with stuff.

There's no rules for any of that.  Not really.

Next campaign?  PC is that character's grandson, and third in line for the throne.  At Level 1.  No other PC has that much influence (and by the end of the game, the character had, effectively, established a kingdom in virgin territory, and was the de-facto ruler of the region).  Again, the players were fine with that - but what if one wasn't?

What would the answer be? Do you curb the player's enthusiasm and reduce the opportunities he's making for himself?  That's punishing a player for ambition. Do you let it go and let him do his thing?  Then the other player feels like they're being punished for not being ambitious.

Of course, you can drop opportunities into the second player's lap, to help keep things more even - in which case, being ambitious isn't really a rewarding endeavour for the player who likes to go 'get things', because someone who isn't putting in the work is still reaping the rewards.

So, what's your answer?  I'm kind of curious.

Pax.