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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 5827251" data-attributes="member: 5143">That's true.  On the flip side, however, I want the option SOMETIMES to be "draw my sword" and when that IS the option, I want everyone in the group to be good at it and for it to be something other than running through the motions.  There should be risk involved for the PCs but controlled risk.  To be able to do that, you need balance.The reverse is also true, however.  The less balance there is, the worse it is at being a combat boardgame.  And not just a combat boardgame, but a combat GAME in general.After all, if choice becomes more important than balance, then it doesn't matter if you take that feat that gives you +1 to hit with your sword.  That choice is invalidated by someone choosing to carry around a blowdart filled with magic poison that causes instant death to anyone hit by it.  Or worse yet, it might just be invalidated by someone saying "I sweep the leg, then I jump on top of him and choke him until he dies".  If you DM likes the idea, it might succeed automatically...making your choice of feat useless.Also, choice is an illusion ALWAYS, whether there's balance or not.  The game always involves a DM and they get to make whatever decisions they want based on any criteria they want.  I've played many systems, but they've all come down to "DM Fiat" at some point in the resolution chain.  The more freeform, the more the game relies on DM Fiat.  Then how valuable your choices are come down to how much the DM likes them.  You play the DM instead of playing the game.  Your DM likes cars?  Find a car related solution to a problem and I bet it succeeds more often.I've always worried about balance.  At first, I didn't realize what balance WAS but I still worried about it.  From the first time when I was 15(back in 2e) and my players trounced the group of enemies I had attack them without taking a single point of damage, I wondered "Hmm, that sucks, shouldn't monsters be able to do SOMETHING to the PCs?"It wasn't until later that people gave a name to it(sometimes around the time 3e was coming out) that I began to think "Wouldn't it be good if the numbers were close to the same on both sides so that one group didn't have a clear advantage?"</blockquote>

Verification