Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4880808" data-attributes="member: 22779">Couple of points, then I'll dive back in.Do we "need" balance.  IMO, yes, we do.  There needs to be, in every game, some metric that can be used in order to make sure that you don't wind up with Angel Summoner and BMX Biker.  The problem with the idea that the DM can just "make it all balance" is twofold.  First, it's lazy game design.  The designer is basically saying, "I can't be bothered doing the math behind this game, so, here, you do it for me."  The second problem being not all GM's or players are created equal.  Yes, a good or even great GM/DM can make the system work.  But, that's the problem right there.  It shouldn't require a good or great DM to make it work.  It should require an average DM to make it work, a good or great GM should make it work like magic.On the other side of the argument, whether or not we can actually achieve balance.  Well, it's absolutely true that we can never achieve perfectly balanced rules sets.  It cannot happen.  But, just like objectivity in history or in journalism for that matter, it's still the goal to aspire to.  It is not a failure not to reach perfect balance.  Now, back to business here, now that I'm no longer having my ankles chewed upon.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />3.  [/u]Setting BalanceThis method works best, again IMO, in games that are specifically tied to a given setting.  I find it more problematic in generic systems.  Essentially, you are using the in game reality to place limitations on abilities.  It could be something like the Honor system in Oriental Adventures.  While OA characters are considerably more powerful than stock D&D characters, the limitations of honor tend to make those powers less attractive and less useful.Another example might be in my favourite setting - Scarred Lands.  The SL abilities are very high octane.  You get some pretty heavy duty bonuses and whatnot for very little cost - pray to the right god and you get straight up pluses to die rolls for example.  This is balanced by the fact that SL is a bloody lethal setting where you should be fighting to scrape along pretty much most of the way.  It's like in the old Dark Sun setting where characters started at 4th level because the setting was so lethal.There are a couple of problems with this method though.  First, if you try to import from setting to setting it gets very difficult to judge the power levels.  Because the limiting factors aren't present within the elements themselves, it can be easy to misjudge the power level of an element.  A warforge's ability to not eat or drink isn't a big deal in Eberron, but would be considerably more powerful in Dark Sun for example.  The other issue with this is it assumes that the GM and the players are familiar enough with the setting that they will be able to understand how these elements are balanced.  If the balancing is very clearly explained in the text, that's not a problem so much, but, sometimes it can get buried under the verbiage.5.  Genre Convention BalanceOk, I'll be honest.  I hate this one.  I think it's a complete waste of time.  The idea is, because the players have agreed to play within a given genre, they will abide by that genre's conventions and deliberately choose options which are frequently illogical.  Take Batman as an example.  In the comics, he won't kill.  Or, well, he'll never deliberately kill anyway.  Let's not split hairs, and just work with me on this.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />So, in the comics, Bats catches the Joker, chucks him into Arkham Asylum, the Joker breaks out and wash, rinse, repeat for decades of fun.Now, instead of a writer, we put a player in the Batsuit.  After the third time he's caught the Joker and the Joker's escaped, even the most genre minded individual is likely going to take the logical and pragmatic step of launching the Joker off a convenient rooftop and making sure he goes splat.  It's just the nature of anyone playing a game that they're eventually going to make choices that, well, make perfect sense.Old World of Darkness was one that always bugged me for this.  It was ridiculously easy to break the system.  To the point where you actively had to avoid making certain choices to not break the system.  Unless of course you wanted to play it as a night time supers game, in which case, smash away.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Presuming that players will deliberately make choices that are obviously not the right one, just for the sake of genre convention is poor design.  You can get away with it a few times, but, at a certain point, it just gets ridiculous.6.  Balancing Combat with Non-combatOk, here's one that's likely going to annoy people.  The idea is, if you are good at combat, you are bad out of it and vice versa.  Slide the bar up on one side and the slider on the other side moves down.  The good side of this is... sorry, I'm drawing a blank here.  I've never really understood why we do this.  These are two fundamentally different areas of the game, any game, that share almost no mechanics.  Why should they be used to balance each other?  If I'm using one set, I'm most likely not using the other at any given time.  Or, to put it another way, how much damage is find traps worth?I do not like this method of balance (surprise!).  I think it's one that has been done far too many times in far too many games because it makes a certain amount of common sense.  You cannot be a super talker if you're a super fighter!  That wouldn't be fair!To me, that's just asking the wrong question.  I'm a super talker when we're talking.  I'm a super fighter when we're fighting.  They are fundamentally two separate parts of the game.  If I'm a super talker, maybe I'm a poor information guy.  Maybe I'm the super talker, but, my computer skills are the pits.  But, I've never been able to fathom how its balanced to say that I'm a super talker, so I cannot punch you in the nose.Anyway, it's late, I'm sleepy, so, off to bed I go.</blockquote>

Verification