Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[billd91]

There's nothing bland about 4e.

Like most of the ciricisms leveled at 4e, this one is just an excuse people use to bash 4e. That's where the hatred of game balance came from- 4e has vastly superior balance, making for a far better, more playable game, so then the 4e haters decided balance was a bad thing, or resulted in dull games.

Like all issues of 4e hate, it's a very fludid concept, so it changes over time. First is was game balance, and then it morphed into dullness, later on after a few more arguments people will change terminology again.

It's just another excuse for the endless, perpetual, comunity damaging, issue concealing, terminology hyjacking temper tamtrum which is 4e hate.

The truth is that none of the people who habitually bash 4e ever really gave it a chance- and most of them have never even read it really, let alone played it. They hate it for existing, they have wotc for making it, and everything else is just window dressing.

Hey, you don't think it's bland. Other people do. It's an inherently subjective concept.

Now can you knock off the edition warring?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Catastrophic, if that is supposed to be intentionally funny, let me know, and I'll XP you.


RC

 

[catastrophic]

Hey, you don't think it's bland. Other people do. It's an inherently subjective concept.

Now can you knock off the edition warring?

In my opinion people pretending this is all subjective are the ones perpetuating the edition war.

 

[catastrophic]

Let's talk about Buffy. In a show about the supernatural and fighting vampires, it would simply be a bad idea to introduce a main character who has no combat ability, no connection with the supernatural and no desire to engage in the supernatural. Every character in that show eventually gained some combat ability over the seasons even if it was just to survive.

It's funny you should mention buffy because the buffy rpg proves that you can have characters of differing power levels as pcs in the same group, and do it well.

In the buffy and angel RPGS, PCs vary between slayer type superhumans(slayers, demons, spellcasters, ect), and more normal mortal types(the scoobies or white hats). The difference is made up with a plot point mechanic, that allows the less powerful pcs to play pivotal roles in the story in a consistent an fun way.

This is of course, the exact opposite of what happenes in 3e, despite what people argue.

So you can have varying power levels in a pretty clear sense. It's just not done well in 3e, and doing it (well or otherwise) does not make the same more of less bland.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In my opinion people pretending this is all subjective are the ones perpetuating the edition war.

Are you joking with us, or do you actually believe that personal taste is objective?

If you believe that there is an objective standard by which a game can be judged as "good", "bad", "better", or "worse", can you explain the standard you are using?

I am fully prepared to say that IF one accepts a certain standard, THEN game X is better than game Y. Trying to get other people to accept your standard of personal preference as objective, though, is going to make that IF a mighty big IF.


RC

 

[Desdichado]

Wow, catastrophic. Nice attempt on living up to your username.

 

[Piratecat]

He won't be able to answer. Carry on, please.

 

[MichaelSomething]

It's funny you should mention buffy because the buffy rpg proves that you can have characters of differing power levels as pcs in the same group, and do it well.

That's because the system is truthful with itself about power levels and takes steps to correct it. DMGs don't normally go, "Assuming your game resembles how the average group plays; X, Y, and Z will be owerpowered and you'll need to do A, B, and C in order to compensate for this."

 

[Garthanos]

It's funny you should mention buffy because the buffy rpg proves that you can have characters of differing power levels as pcs in the same group, and do it well

You should have used a vague yet thread appropriate phrase like "and do it in a balanced way" ....snicker. While I have been saying you could get the feel of this same aspect you are referring to by appropriate narration and handling of various leaders or sometimes other types (however it isnt as easy as I would like).
I do skin the tougness feat as god awful lucky (the definition of hit points encourages several presentations).... I have a wizard I have come to cherish with high CON but a frail body... he has fairies that he magically manifests (and which do much of his magic he barely remembers a lot of his magic) which do things to support him when he would be using CON like reabsorbing into his body to give him a burst of energy or carrying and lifting his arms when he would be weakening etc.. etc... etc)

 

[LostSoul]

LostSoul, If your undead and goblins feel the same in a fight I dont know what game you are playing.. I would say a feature of 4e is the monsters definitely do not feel the same in battle.

"Feel the same" and "Carry the same amount of risk" are two different things.

Let's say the game is set up so that the players choose goals for their PCs; the DM provides obstacles. If the choice is, "Should we fight goblins or undead in order to reach our goal?", it's not really a choice since the risk is the same and the reward is the same.

I think that the lack of meaningful choices breaks a game. (A game is unbalanced when the choices are balanced heavily to one side or another.)


I made the comment about PTA because the fact that this choice is not meaningful opens space up for new ones.

First, a little bit about Prime Time Adventures. You play a protagonist of a TV show. You have an Issue, like "I was raised by goblins and no one accepts me." You focus your PC around that issue.

So, back to D&D. If the choice between undead and goblins isn't a meaningful one, it opens up space for that choice to be about something else. The PTA analogy is that you can make the choice be about your PC's issue - "I want to go talk to the goblins to see why they're raiding the towns; when they raised me, they may have been thieves but they were not murderous."

Another character (NPC or PC) might not want to deal with the goblins, for whatever reason (a Paladin gung-ho on defeating undead, a mercenary hoping to rob a specific item from a tomb, a wizard who wants to speak with the dead). He might say, "Look, goblin-lover, we only hired you because those dirty bastards who raised you taught you how to deal with traps. We don't pay you for your opinions." (ie. It's all about the PC's issue.)

Taking away the risk-reward choice means you can focus on something else like this.

However, if you're focusing on an issue like that, does the tactical combat system add value to play?