Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aberzanzorax" data-source="post: 5137204" data-attributes="member: 64209">Correct.&nbsp;The point is, that if we Reify balance as some perfect and measurable thing...&nbsp;Then my post makes/made sense. But my post WAS absurd....hence balance should not be reified.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The responses to my post were exactly right...that balance is NOT the holy grail of gaming...that there are other factors to balance, er...weigh, against it, that it cannot be perfectly quantified...etc.etc.etc.&nbsp;&nbsp;One thing I will disagree with...unless two classes are exactly the same, on the Reductio Ad Absurdum level...they are not balanced. Maybe they're balanced across x or y...but to EVEN BE ABLE to show that there is a situation where one is quantifiably better..well then they're not balanced.&nbsp;I.E. in a game that is &quot;all fighting, no socializing&quot; a fighter is a much, much better class than a bard.&nbsp;In a game that is all stealth, cloak and daggers, traps, infiltration, etc...a thief is a MUCH better class than a fighter.&nbsp;&nbsp;That's situation specific some may say...of course. But this (further abusurdity) goes to point out that this is the case with some of the arguments earlier in the thread. For both editions mentioned, it has been said that &quot;D&amp;D is a game of combat&quot;...I disagree personally, but if this is said, then the &quot;situation&quot; for one who believes that defines the bard and rogue as worse than the fighter. &nbsp;&nbsp;In essence...it's all absurd. The very nature of &quot;balance&quot; is not defined so we might as well be talking about which game is more Fugglewumpy than the other. (Which, of course is my game of choice!)&nbsp;I play the most Balanced and Fugglewumpy D&amp;D of all (homebrewed of course).&nbsp;Edit: and so do you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aberzanzorax, post: 5137204, member: 64209"] Correct. The point is, that if we Reify balance as some perfect and measurable thing... Then my post makes/made sense. But my post WAS absurd....hence balance should not be reified. The responses to my post were exactly right...that balance is NOT the holy grail of gaming...that there are other factors to balance, er...weigh, against it, that it cannot be perfectly quantified...etc.etc.etc. One thing I will disagree with...unless two classes are exactly the same, on the Reductio Ad Absurdum level...they are not balanced. Maybe they're balanced across x or y...but to EVEN BE ABLE to show that there is a situation where one is quantifiably better..well then they're not balanced. I.E. in a game that is "all fighting, no socializing" a fighter is a much, much better class than a bard. In a game that is all stealth, cloak and daggers, traps, infiltration, etc...a thief is a MUCH better class than a fighter. That's situation specific some may say...of course. But this (further abusurdity) goes to point out that this is the case with some of the arguments earlier in the thread. For both editions mentioned, it has been said that "D&D is a game of combat"...I disagree personally, but if this is said, then the "situation" for one who believes that defines the bard and rogue as worse than the fighter. In essence...it's all absurd. The very nature of "balance" is not defined so we might as well be talking about which game is more Fugglewumpy than the other. (Which, of course is my game of choice!) I play the most Balanced and Fugglewumpy D&D of all (homebrewed of course). Edit: [I][COLOR=white]and so do [/COLOR][COLOR=white]you.[/COLOR][/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification