Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5750749" data-attributes="member: 22779">RPG's are games.&nbsp; That's self evident.&nbsp; Games require some element of balance or they don't work.&nbsp; Even incredibly simple games like, say, Rock, Scissors, Paper are balanced.&nbsp; (Although that darn Rock keeps telling me to nerf paper.&nbsp; <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />)Whenever a system is not balanced, one option will become more advantageous than another option.&nbsp; I like to point to the 2e two weapons rules.&nbsp; It made very, very little sense to not use two weapons - you effectively doubled your damage per round at the cost of a single point of AC (lose a shield) and a proficiency slot.Complete no brainer.&nbsp; Two weapon fighting was just that much better than all other options.&nbsp; Now, you could ignore that and make a character that didn't use two weapons.&nbsp; Sure, no problem.&nbsp; But, the guy standing next to you is doing twice as much damage on average than you are.&nbsp; While there are people who simply don't care about this, there are quite a few people who do.&nbsp; It's hard to just let it slide when you see the other guy doing your thing twice as well as you do.So, IME, pretty much everyone who could took two weapon fighting in 2e.Which resulted in cookie cutter characters - everyone did the same thing.&nbsp; Even the clerics were getting in on the action as well.That, to me, is the primary problem with unbalanced systems.&nbsp; Whenever you have one option that is better than another option, the better option will become the default.&nbsp; It should become the default - it's outright better.&nbsp; There's a reason D&amp;D characters use a longsword and not a shortsword given the choice.&nbsp; The longsword option in most editions of D&amp;D is just better.&nbsp; And you'd tend to see fifteen sword users for every pole-arm user.&nbsp; (ok, I just made that up <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> I don't know the actual numbers.&nbsp; But how many Voulge's did you ever see used by a player?)While you'll never achieve perfect balance, that's not the point.&nbsp; Just because you cannot reach some sort of Platonic ideal of game balance doesn't mean that we should take the RIFTS approach and chuck game balance out the window.&nbsp; Balance is important.&nbsp; Balance means that more options become viable.&nbsp; I've always maintained that it is far, far easier to unbalance a balanced system than to try to balance one that isn't balanced in the first place.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5750749, member: 22779"] RPG's are games. That's self evident. Games require some element of balance or they don't work. Even incredibly simple games like, say, Rock, Scissors, Paper are balanced. (Although that darn Rock keeps telling me to nerf paper. :D) Whenever a system is not balanced, one option will become more advantageous than another option. I like to point to the 2e two weapons rules. It made very, very little sense to not use two weapons - you effectively doubled your damage per round at the cost of a single point of AC (lose a shield) and a proficiency slot. Complete no brainer. Two weapon fighting was just that much better than all other options. Now, you could ignore that and make a character that didn't use two weapons. Sure, no problem. But, the guy standing next to you is doing twice as much damage on average than you are. While there are people who simply don't care about this, there are quite a few people who do. It's hard to just let it slide when you see the other guy doing your thing twice as well as you do. So, IME, pretty much everyone who could took two weapon fighting in 2e. Which resulted in cookie cutter characters - everyone did the same thing. Even the clerics were getting in on the action as well. That, to me, is the primary problem with unbalanced systems. Whenever you have one option that is better than another option, the better option will become the default. It should become the default - it's outright better. There's a reason D&D characters use a longsword and not a shortsword given the choice. The longsword option in most editions of D&D is just better. And you'd tend to see fifteen sword users for every pole-arm user. (ok, I just made that up :D I don't know the actual numbers. But how many Voulge's did you ever see used by a player?) While you'll never achieve perfect balance, that's not the point. Just because you cannot reach some sort of Platonic ideal of game balance doesn't mean that we should take the RIFTS approach and chuck game balance out the window. Balance is important. Balance means that more options become viable. I've always maintained that it is far, far easier to unbalance a balanced system than to try to balance one that isn't balanced in the first place. [/QUOTE]

Verification