+ Log in or register to post
Results 1,491 to 1,497 of 1497
Saturday, 22nd September, 2012, 09:02 PM #1491
Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)
Or, maybe that's what you mean about 'obsessing over-much on balance?' Painting the game into a corner with 'balancing' mechanism that restrict the range of play?
I feel that some of the complaints and problems 4e are the result of going a little too far in the "balance" direction. What I don't know, is whether that's a result of the balance itself, or just a side-effect of the manner in which 4e was balanced.
But, as far as accommodating a breadth of campaigns and styles, well-balanced games do so better than fragilely-balanced ones. At worst, I suppose you could say that a balanced game, in allowing many styles, doesn't "support" specific styles to the degree that imbalanced ones favoring (over-rewarding) a style, or delicately balanced ones that only retain balance under a specific style, may do.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on adverts that
- are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Saturday, 22nd September, 2012, 09:21 PM #1492
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
I don't think Wizards needs to try and pull anyone away from their favored game, I think they need to work on making a game that's good enough where people will want to play Next and their favored game. If Next becomes their favored game then all the better but trying to get people to leave their preferred game all together is a losing battle.
Sunday, 23rd September, 2012, 04:43 AM #1493
Guide (Lvl 11)
To be clear, this is only a problem with game systems that engage in a lot of Complexity and particularly Simulationism. One of my favorite games, Capes, has characters that are all objectively equal in their ability to affect the story. However, the game is structured very lightly and relies on the players to narrate the events to match the underlying dice play.
Some people would call this game completely "dissassociated". In Capes, one character's "Novice Swordsman: 5" trait would be more important than another character's "Master Swordsman: 2" trait. Its up to the players to illustrate how that happens as play progresses. None of the rules are actually trying to emulate any features of an imagined reality. Thus, you can't really paint yourself into a corner. Two groups running Capes at neighboring tables could be playing very different imagined realities.
To some extent or another D&D has always tried to have the character sheet reflect something about the imagined reality of its world. More importantly, it usually tries to have its mechanics reflect the operation of that world as well. Thus, when you pile enough mechanics on, you define the way the imagined world works. At the level of complexity and detail which the later editions operate, its very hard not to closely define the nature of the imagined reality.
Sunday, 23rd September, 2012, 05:18 AM #1494
I like the stuff I've seen from 5e so far and if it came out tomorrow I still couldnt reasonably try it for at least 4 months without totally killing a campaign I've been running for a long time. And even that would require me to drop a planned sci-fi true20 game I have planned for after the one I'm currently in. So probably more a year until I could try it.
I think they absolutely need to be able to pull some people OUT of their current game in order to get good numbers.
Sunday, 23rd September, 2012, 06:28 AM #1495
Lama (Lvl 13)
Cortex rules (which I think may last until December when two players move out of state).
It also isn't something that can pull me away other games for fantasy including Savage Worlds (my favorite rpg), True20 (my favorite class/level rpg), or my home brewed 3e (which still has things I want to change including rewriting races to remove the non-biological aspects and making them feats). It is not even a game I would to sit in an play let run, but this could change as development continues an new modules are released.
MActor83% STeller75% Specialist75% Tactician 42% PGamer25% BKicker 17% CGamer 8%
Sunday, 23rd September, 2012, 09:35 AM #1496
Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)
Sunday, 23rd September, 2012, 10:00 AM #1497
Balanced as in equally weighted. As in smooth running of a car with four wheels.
The term "balanced" when referenced to its benefits is not referring to systems one push away from dramatic collapse.
Generally speaking in terms of physical systems, it is possible to build things such that you get a lot of the former without requiring the latter.
Similarly a game can of course be designed (or accidentally built in the case of latter) into either or both states. Obviously if you pick up on the way balance has been achieved and deliberately tweak that bit of the game you can remove the balanced state.