Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[Dark Mistress]

Darkmistress: would it be fair to say that because of the role play focus of wod changing the rules to make them more balanced wasn't much of a priority for you or your players? I had a friend who ran a bunch of wod games for us and i never recall balance coming up as a concern. When we played d&d it was discussed but not wod.

Sorta, I mean builds were not very balanced. But no one could be good at everything and thats what helped. i mean a friend of mine loved making combative brujah. He was so good at it, his characters could often have mashed every other PC at the same time in a fair fight and won. yet he was of limited use in some social situations or investigation etc.

But yes I would say some powers where way better than others and everyone knew it. Like level 2 protean which let you grow wolf claws was one of the most powerful abilities in the game. Since it did aggravated damage and most things had no defense against it. (think of it like a attack that bypassed DR but that all creatures had DR as their primary defense). So most ST's would limit PC's abilities to learn things like protean 2 and stuff. But cause the game was heavily story and RP focused even those that ruled at combat couldn't use combat to solve every problem, so everyone had moments to shine typically.

 

[Dannager]

Well, no; "having something interesting to do on a round-to-round basis" has nothing to do with the spotlight.

In any case, IME, the spotlight time depends on which backstories the DM buys into, who ends up party leader and who doesn't. It doesn't really depend on who's good at combat.

I don't think you and I are talking about the same spotlight, then.

 

[Dannager]

It is true that in the age of spectator sports, most sports have developed to a lesser or greater extent so as to better entertain an audience, but the prime purpose of most sports is the enjoyment of the participants. Spectators came along later.

And when the spectators came along, so did the larger teams and the lessened impact of each individual player. When people play for their own enjoyment, they want to feel as though they individually are important. When people play for the enjoyment of others, that matters far less.

 

[Dannager]

Dude, if I had to guess, I'd imagine most people play sports "because it's enjoyable", not "because of the spectators". Millions of kids play in league sports every year just because they enjoy doing it-- despite benchwarming, getting injured, losing, or not being the best on the team.

If you coach a youth soccer team and you have a kid warming the bench for much longer than anyone else on his team, you will have angry parents on your hands. The priorities for casual sports are very different from the priorities for sponsored, professional leagues.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If you coach a youth soccer team and you have a kid warming the bench for much longer than anyone else on his team, you will have angry parents on your hands. The priorities for casual sports are very different from the priorities for sponsored, professional leagues.

I think a lot of this also depends on how seriously those involved (both spectators and players) take compitetion. A lot of parents want to win pretty badly and don't want the benchwarmers on the field.

With rpgs i think there are a lot of gamers out there who want character creation choices, tactical decisions and use of resources to be rewarded with different valued outcomes. In my opinion 3e was an evolution towards this style of play, and 4e was an evolution away from it. Most gamers probably fall somewhere more in the middle. I know for my tastes 4e balances things too much and 3e too little.

 

[technoextreme]

If that's not your style, of course, that's cool, too. And that's why I play my game, and you play yours.

It actually is my playstyle. The problem is that certain classes are so broken in 3E that it can outshine any cooperative aspect.

You're quite right to a degree, though I'm not certain what this single mysterious house rule you refer to is. IME, different tables handle 3e "imbalance" issues in different ways, up to and including using specialized challenges, leaning on rp, or topping out at lower levels, as well as house ruling to nerf casters or boost fighters. It's not all that difficult to do, though it does require a fair bit of attention the DM's part. With real life time constraints or just not wanting to be bothered, I can understand why some tables prefer codified balance.

Again, whatever floats your boat. Just don't tell me I'm floating "wrong" because I'm on a sailboat while you're in a motor boat.

Yeah remember my original claim about turning people away who have never played the game before. You just conceeded the fact that it will confused the hell out of people who have never played any rpg before.

 

[billd91]

If you coach a youth soccer team and you have a kid warming the bench for much longer than anyone else on his team, you will have angry parents on your hands.

Indeed, you do. Which is why balance doesn't mean so much between players in youth sports. They all get to play anyway. As a coach, you just hope that they all learn something from the experience, whether they excel at the game or suck.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

If you coach a youth soccer team and you have a kid warming the bench for much longer than anyone else on his team, you will have angry parents on your hands. The priorities for casual sports are very different from the priorities for sponsored, professional leagues.

??? Well, yes... there are parents in this world who hate to see their precious snowflakes sit out the occasional game. It doesn't follow, however, that coddling them makes youth sports better. At least I hope not.

More importantly, what on earth does this have to do with game theory or marketing? I assume you're not suggesting that WotC is analogous to the helicopter parent here, because that would be just... sad.

Fact: Different people play different games under different conditions for different reasons.

Even stranger fact: different people people play the same game under different cnditions for different reasons.

Games, in other words, are enjoyable in different ways to different players, and provide entertainment to different demographics for different price/cost with different marketing schemes and different approaches to and definitions of 'balance' on different levels.

RPGs are no exception.

 

[billd91]

Yeah I would stop trying to draw comparisons to a game in which balance is a really good idea. Lets face it you want to stop people from scoring and score yourself meaning that both the offense and the defense need to operate in a meaningful manner in tandem.

Frankly, I'd probably stop making comparisons to football as well, if I were you. As far as this sports analogy makes any sense to me, the different classes correspond best to different positions on the football field. And the different positions on the field are really not balanced against each other. Circumstances of the game, including the nature of the opponent, may draw attention to one position or the other from time to time, but certain positions aren't as likely to be the MVP as others.

 

[billd91]

That is the very meaning of "overshadowed". The fact that you don't see it is immaterial. I do. Others do. It exists, and the game as designed enables (and, arguably, encourages) it.

Hmmm... the fact that I don't see it is immaterial but the fact that you do isn't. How nice for you.