Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[Obryn]

I wasn't suggesting cramming 4e into any hole. If you don't want what 4e offers, look at other games. I was responding to the implication by the OP that if you don't like 4e's style of balance, you're either a bad person or ignorant. Lots of people like 4e and don't mind it's playstyle or balance descisions. I don't, so I don't play it. That doesn't make me a munchkin or slacker the way the OP says, or ignorant the way others have implied.

I think the OP was over the top, but I don't think anyone's claiming anyone else is ignorant here. And certainly not that anyone's a bad person - where the heck is that coming from?

I responded to you, specifically, because a lot of the things that you claimed aren't possible with 4e actually are. And others are better served by a skill-based system, instead of D&D. 4e is an RPG, and it can be played with a strong non-combat focus. I don't think it's the best game for it, but you can do it. (You can also make characters who are bad at combat, if that's your goal.)

Of course it matters. If it didn't there wouldn't be debates over what game to play. The problem is that the OP, and many people siding with him seem to get inordinately upset that there are people who dislike their system of choice either wholly or partially because of it's design philosophy about what balance is and how it should be achieved.

Hmmm... If you say, "I don't play 4e because it can't/doesn't do A, B, and C," you might get a variety of responses. One is, "4e actually has A, and if you stretch it can do B and C. Here's how I'd make it work." Another is, "No, and 4e shouldn't do A, B, or C because that's not the game it is, and making it work for that would make it work less well at the things it's good at now." I've seen a lot of both of these. Neither one is a personal attack, and neither one is anyone getting upset. It's just two ways of approaching disagreement.

-O

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not saying that all RPGs are cooperative games. I do know, though, that I much prefer the ones that are. For one, my wife far prefers cooperation to competition, so I get to play with her more if the group is working together to achieve mutual awesomeness instead of competing for personal aggrandizement.

Yup.

And, when the "Can somebody explain the bias for game balance" thread comes up, be sure to mention it.


RC

 

[Krensky]

I'm not sure where he said that. That said, if you're getting a negative vibe here, it's because you seem obsessed with making a noncombatant character, and in many D&D games and most published D&D adventures, such a character is going to be a burden upon the rest of the group for large parts of the game. That is ultimately a selfish choice in a team-oriented game, and so most people view it as a negative.

The OP said the only two types of people who don't like the sort of balance 4e employs are min/maxers who must be better then other players or those who want to make crappy characters who he will have to carry.

Munchkins or Slackers.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

What really is the big issue here? On its most basic level, people who are ill served by a balanced game are people who want to be more powerful than the other players, and those who want to be free to make a weaker character that is a burden to the other players. I don't really have any sympathy for either of those.

I'm sure there's some other explanation, and I'd love to here them.

Or maybe they want their character to be how they envision that character being, using the tools in that particular ruleset and not have the douchebag type motives that you've ascribed to them? How is it not anything more than a matter of playstyle preference and taste?

How did this thread not get shut down when it starts off ascribing motives to a particular set of players (i.e everyone not playing 4E) in a totally negative way?

 

[Obryn]

How did this thread not get shut down when it starts off ascribing motives to a particular set of players (i.e everyone not playing 4E) in a totally negative way?

As a guess? Because although the OP was being provocative (and some might argue green, warty, regenerating, and vulnerable to fire) the rest of the thread has been pretty calm and productive, overall.

-O

 

[ShinHakkaider]

As a guess? Because although the OP was being provocative (and some might argue green, warty, regenerating, and vulnerable to fire) the rest of the thread has been pretty calm and productive, overall.

-O

Ah. Got it. So it's okay to start a fire as long as everyone else responds in a clam manner.

Cool. Got it.

 

[Obryn]

Ah. Got it. So it's okay to start a fire as long as everyone else responds in a clam manner.

Cool. Got it.

Who said it was okay? And why not just report the post?

-O

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ah. Got it. So it's okay to start a fire as long as everyone else responds in a clam manner.

Cool. Got it.

"Fire? What fire?"

 

[Garthanos]

How did this thread not get shut down when it starts off ascribing motives to a particular set of players (i.e everyone not playing 4E) in a totally negative way?

So "people who are ill served by a balanced game" means to you everyone not playing 4e D&D?... how interesting. ;-).

 

[Barastrondo]

Yup.

And, when the "Can somebody explain the bias for game balance" thread comes up, be sure to mention it.

So to your perspective, is the bias against game balance rooted in a desire to compete with one's fellow players? I was sort of coming at it from the perspective of "not necessarily," but I admit as a non-competitive type it's only theory from the outside.