Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sage Genesis" data-source="post: 6792473" data-attributes="member: 6706099">Roleplaying games are not stories. Stories have pre-defined narratives which exist to satisfy only an audience, not the participants of the story itself. So let us just say that I for one reject your definition of &quot;true&quot; roleplaying games.Edit:I suppose you could also say there are improv make-it-up-as-you-go-along types of stories. Which is fair, but even there you usually don't have one participant who gets to add more and better parts to the story than others just because he wrote &quot;wizard&quot; on his name badge.Edit2:Actually let's take this one step further. What do we all mean when we talk about &quot;balance&quot;? I'm copy-pasting this from elsewhere, but there's several different kinds.Numerical Balance: Ensuring that most characters' raw numeric outputs (bonuses, damage, etc.) are roughly on par when averaged out over a range of typical gameplay scenarios.Narrative Balance: Ensuring that all player characters' abilities are roughly equal in narrative scope (as distinct from being equal in mechanical scope).Spotlight Balance: Furnishing mechanical incentives for all player characters to receive approximately equal &quot;screen time&quot;.Contributory Balance: Structuring the game's major player character archetypes so that, for a given set of assumptions about the shape of play, each archetype is equally able to contribute to the group's success.Build Balance: Preserving interest in player-driven character creation as a discrete minigame by ensuring that the process of character-building isn't dominated by obvious &quot;no brainer&quot; choices.Tactical Balance: Preserving interest in mechanically mediated conflict - which may or may not boil down to combat - by ensuring that turn-to-turn decision making isn't dominated by obvious &quot;no brainer&quot; choices.Logistical Balance: Ensuring that the game's mechanical resource economy presents interesting choices during play, such that success is dependent on effective management of mechanical resources.PVP Balance: Preserving interest in player-versus-player conflict by ensuring that the various player character archetypes can fight each other on reasonably even mechanical footing.In a &quot;true&quot; roleplaying game, which of these is bad? Which of these is good? Which of these are outright ignored? People throw the word &quot;balance&quot; around too often without specifying what they actually mean with that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sage Genesis, post: 6792473, member: 6706099"] Roleplaying games are not stories. Stories have pre-defined narratives which exist to satisfy only an audience, not the participants of the story itself. So let us just say that I for one reject your definition of "true" roleplaying games. Edit: I suppose you could also say there are improv make-it-up-as-you-go-along types of stories. Which is fair, but even there you usually don't have one participant who gets to add more and better parts to the story than others just because he wrote "wizard" on his name badge. Edit2: Actually let's take this one step further. What do we all mean when we talk about "balance"? I'm copy-pasting this from elsewhere, but there's several different kinds. Numerical Balance: Ensuring that most characters' raw numeric outputs (bonuses, damage, etc.) are roughly on par when averaged out over a range of typical gameplay scenarios. Narrative Balance: Ensuring that all player characters' abilities are roughly equal in narrative scope (as distinct from being equal in mechanical scope). Spotlight Balance: Furnishing mechanical incentives for all player characters to receive approximately equal "screen time". Contributory Balance: Structuring the game's major player character archetypes so that, for a given set of assumptions about the shape of play, each archetype is equally able to contribute to the group's success. Build Balance: Preserving interest in player-driven character creation as a discrete minigame by ensuring that the process of character-building isn't dominated by obvious "no brainer" choices. Tactical Balance: Preserving interest in mechanically mediated conflict - which may or may not boil down to combat - by ensuring that turn-to-turn decision making isn't dominated by obvious "no brainer" choices. Logistical Balance: Ensuring that the game's mechanical resource economy presents interesting choices during play, such that success is dependent on effective management of mechanical resources. PVP Balance: Preserving interest in player-versus-player conflict by ensuring that the various player character archetypes can fight each other on reasonably even mechanical footing. In a "true" roleplaying game, which of these is bad? Which of these is good? Which of these are outright ignored? People throw the word "balance" around too often without specifying what they actually mean with that. [/QUOTE]

Verification