Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5750897" data-attributes="member: 87792">It is <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=":)" /> (Other than my PCs having wrapped up a campaign a session early recently through Darwin Awards).  And with you? This I can well believe.  I'll get on to why in the rest of this post - but the quick version is that OD&D and AD&D (1e) are in their way (and a different way from 4e) pretty well balanced for the types of games they are designed for.  Because the designers had done the work balance didn't become an issue at the table. Quite a lot of work had been put into balancing OD&D and (1e) AD&D.  Of course there was a lot that wasn't balanced (Cavaliers, 1e Barbarians).  But a lot of balance was woven into the metagame with things like the wandering monster percentages and giving fighters castles and followers at the time when the strategic resources wizards got (4th and 5th level spells) was going to start leaving fighters in the dust.  This was even why there were the differing XP charts by class - all subtle balance tweaks that weren't too intrusive because they more or less worked. 2e groups so far as I can tell had many more issues if they weren't continuation 1e groups than if they were - the metagame balancing factors were subtly removed or changed (for example 1e's scale sheer surface was changed to 2e's climb walls - a substantive but subtle nerf) but 1e groups didn't really notice because it was never highlighted.  My point is the opposite.  Balance doesn't appear important until it breaks. 3.X was the edition where Pun-Pun was (dubiously) possible.  Umbran had it.  A strawman is taking your opponents case as being an absurd one that no one on the other side believes.  Almost no one argues for perfect balance. About the only game I can think of that is perfectly balanced is <a href="http://wiki.saberpunk.net/Wushu/HomePage" target="_blank">Wushu</a>, which means that someone armed with toothpicks is precisely as deadly as someone armed with an Uzi.  And stating you run through the hail of bullets adds precisely the same to your defence as stating you hide behind a concrete pillar.  (Wushu is a great game as long as you embrace the absurdity of over the top action movies). No one's arguing for that.  What we're arguing for is what OD&D actually had, although spread over different timescales.  What balance means is that no one should feel like a supernumary, overshadowed by everyone else in the party.  You can do this a number of ways; making everyone equal is only one.  Giving everyone a limited number of occasions to be the best in the party at what they did is another, and trying to make sure they are all roughly as frequent as each other. That depends whether getting close helps <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=":)" />  In the real world I want a just legal system.  I know this is impossible.  But this doesn't mean that it's not a goal worth pursuing.  Even if you can never get there, most philosophical goals are like this - being closer is beneficial.  Physical goals - close only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tac nukes.  Balance is to me a philosophical goal.  2e was when the designers really stopped paying attention to balance, which meant that it became a serious issue on the tabletop (an argument can be made for Unearthed Arcana).  3e followed from 2e and has seriously screwed up balance by removing almost all remaining limitations on strategic use of casters, destroying the saving throws of fighters, opening up most of the rogues exclusive abilities, and removing the diplomatic game.  4e threw the whole system out and started from scratch with balance baked in even harder than it had been by Gygax.  And didn't give castles away at high levels because it made it a more setting neutral game not to.  It doesn't.  No one is arguing for Wushu.  No one is arguing that a toothpick should be as deadly as an uzi in D&D.  I'll drink to that.  So will everyone else I think.  We're now into haggling over the details.</blockquote>

Verification