What is *worldbuilding* for?

[pemerton]

And I was saying it's not. A party of all wizards in 1e, for instance, uses daily recharge mechanics for all characters and is also balanced among characters.

I don't see that an all-wizard party actually raises any issue of balance among classes!

your point seems to be 'to have encounter focused play your need to have encounter balanced abilities' which is pretty trivial on it's face

That's not what I said, and it's not true. You can push a non-encounter based system into encounter-focused play if you want (I've done it with RM), but you have to be prepared to handle (among other things) resultant issues of class imbalance.

"Unrealized." Unless you've invented a new definition for that word, of course, it means 'not achieved.' IE, "failed" to achieve.

This is a different point in my post, and one on which I would expect a wide range of opinions.

Some people think the game is working well when a player has many resources (eg spells) unspent because s/he was saving them in the event of further challenges presented by the GM prior to a recovery period. I don't like this, as the player doesn't realise the archetype s/he set out to play. It's another reason I don't like the "adventuring day" approach to balance, which is independent of issues about the future being "fixed".

As far as I know, no one else on these boards - in all the threads I've read about managing encounter pacing and the "adventuring day" - has ever posted a similar concern, so I assume my preferences in this respect are strongly minority ones.

 

[Maxperson]

OTOH, I'm not so sure the Thief ever did much shining at any level - except when he tried to Hide in Shadows, of course. ;P

LOL Speaking of thieves shining in the shadows. I was once playing a human thief who walked ahead into a room full of pillars inside of the dungeon we were in. I heard something coming my way and declared that I was hiding in the dark behind one of the pillars. I rolled to hide and the DM was like, "You're still carrying an open bullseye lantern, right?" Oops! They still kid me about that.

 

[Maxperson]

and at worst consists of dragging you through his world to meet his NPCs & tour their locations, and /not be allowed to do anything that might disrupt their cystaline perfection/.

This part is not a worldbuilding issue. It's a DM issue. I've seen setting light DMs also drag out DMNPCs to ruin the day for everyone else. I've seen setting light DMs railroad players when they come up with ideas counter to what the DM expected to happen. A DM getting into worldbuilding doesn't make that more or less likely to happen. It's entirely dependent on the personality of the DM in question.

 

[Tony Vargas]

... when a player has many resources (eg spells) unspent because s/he was saving them in the event of further challenges presented by the GM prior to a recovery period. I don't like this, as the player doesn't realise the archetype s/he set out to play.
... I assume my preferences in this respect are strongly minority ones.

Have you ever heard the "sounds like a first-world problem" joke?

Sounds like a Tier 1 problem.

Seriously, though, it sounds like a common complaint from a less common angle. You're more likely to hear that the game/adventure/DM was 'too easy,' for instance.

It's another reason I don't like the "adventuring day" approach to balance, which is independent of issues about the future being "fixed".

Oh, the future probably needs to be fixed - all that advanced tech is totally OP and the future is expected to have overpopulation problems, too.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't follow what you're saying here. Lingering consequences don't, on their face, seem like they are aimed at limiting balance.

I miss-read you. I was commenting on a similarity between daily & encounter 'balance'

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't see that an all-wizard party actually raises any issue of balance among classes!

Selective quoting for the win! Did you have any comment on the larger point that small bit was contained within?

That's not what I said, and it's not true. You can push a non-encounter based system into encounter-focused play if you want (I've done it with RM), but you have to be prepared to handle (among other things) resultant issues of class imbalance.

How does that class imbalance arise, exactly? You're asserting without evidence.

This is a different point in my post, and one on which I would expect a wide range of opinions.

It was, in fact, exactly what I quoted just prior to the response that you went on the attack over my use of the word 'failure.' How you could think I was discussing some other part of your remarkably short post, especially when you fixed the formatting error in my post when you quoted it, I'm very uncertain about.

Also, did you mean player archetype or character archetype?

Some people think the game is working well when a player has many resources (eg spells) unspent because s/he was saving them in the event of further challenges presented by the GM prior to a recovery period. I don't like this, as the player doesn't realise the archetype s/he set out to play. It's another reason I don't like the "adventuring day" approach to balance, which is independent of issues about the future being "fixed".

You have very special players if they have many spells available to them.

How does the player not realize their archetype? What are player archetypes? I'm very confused.

As far as I know, no one else on these boards - in all the threads I've read about managing encounter pacing and the "adventuring day" - has ever posted a similar concern, so I assume my preferences in this respect are strongly minority ones.

Well, sure. I don't think any of the rest of us play with people that have spells. I'd hazard you're unique in that regard.

 

[Maxperson]

Some people think the game is working well when a player has many resources (eg spells) unspent because s/he was saving them in the event of further challenges presented by the GM prior to a recovery period. I don't like this, as the player doesn't realise the archetype s/he set out to play. It's another reason I don't like the "adventuring day" approach to balance, which is independent of issues about the future being "fixed".

This doesn't make sense to me. How does not casting all of a wizard's spells just in case he needs them later cause a failure to realize the archetype the player set out to play? If I were playing the cautious wizard or wizard strategist archetype, then going nova and using all my resources in the first encounter, then I would be failing to realize the archetype I set out to play. I suppose it's possible to fail to realize something like a reckless wizard archetype by saving resources, but it's not a sure thing and since it's within the player's control whether or not he uses all of his resources, it's not a game/system issue.

 

[pemerton]

This doesn't make sense to me.

Fair enough. I said I believed it to be a minority preference, given that I don't know of anyone else ever raising it, although I've read a lot of threads about balance/pacing/recharge periods.

 

[pemerton]

ou can push a non-encounter based system into encounter-focused play if you want (I've done it with RM), but you have to be prepared to handle (among other things) resultant issues of class imbalance.

How does that class imbalance arise, exactly? You're asserting without evidence.

The class imbalance arises because (absent rules variants that aren't the default for the system) a RM caster who uses a day's worth of spell points in a single encounter, or even a couple of encounters, will probably be mechanically more effective than a non-caster in the same circumstances.

Solutions that I have adopted include not using adders and even moreso not using PP multipliers; reducing the power of utility spells; and allowing all combatants access to the martial arts multiple attack options.

 

[Aldarc]

Again, I don't see how these points about persistent resources/complications bear on a discussion about the way recovery schemes factor into cross-class balance.

It's not as if "cross-class balance" is even a concern in Fate anyway.

This is a different point in my post, and one on which I would expect a wide range of opinions.

Some people think the game is working well when a player has many resources (eg spells) unspent because s/he was saving them in the event of further challenges presented by the GM prior to a recovery period. I don't like this, as the player doesn't realise the archetype s/he set out to play. It's another reason I don't like the "adventuring day" approach to balance, which is independent of issues about the future being "fixed".

As far as I know, no one else on these boards - in all the threads I've read about managing encounter pacing and the "adventuring day" - has ever posted a similar concern, so I assume my preferences in this respect are strongly minority ones.

I tend to agree here, and this is a concern that fellow players at my table have raised. It's entailed in "how often do I get to be cool?" That, and how leveling systems tend to gate when players can actually play their character concept. But there are systems out there that permit more out-of-the-box playing of player character concepts, no? Generally not D&D, but certainly Fate.