Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Votan" data-source="post: 5143665" data-attributes="member: 18680"><p>If you are going to design a massively multiple source book game, like 4E, and have it run without serious tweaks at a table then some common design assumptions are needed. If Minotaurs had +8 to strength then every strength based power woould need to be re-evaluated relative to PCs being able to start with a 26 (as opposed to a 20). </p><p></p><p>There are ways around this. The AD&D (1E and, to some extent, 2E) solution was to make few things dependent on ability scores. Strength was a partial exception because it scaled so high 9as was constitution for Fighters; dexterity bonuses -- in contrast -- rapidly flattened). But with strength there were core magic items (guantlets of Ogre Power) that made an 18/00 strength (+3, +6) attainable for a high level fighter. </p><p></p><p>Another option is to balance the system across a more diverse set of scores; that is a lot easier to do with a small number of books (ideally a single players handbook) where you can work through all of the permutations. I suspect that is the trick for point systems like Champions. </p><p></p><p>Or you can restrict options to a narrow set of races. In the extreme is the "human-only" games like Mage (from White Wolf) or Ars Magica. </p><p></p><p>Finally, you can make focus very costly. If the race has a +8 strength and -4 dexterity that could just about even out if the system sets bonuses and penalties appropriately (slow but strong could be evenly matched by fast but weak). </p><p></p><p>The 4E solution simply assumes that races will ahve either a +0 or +2 in any relevant ability score. So you baalnce across these two possibilities. This means that only the racial powers are an avenue to allow power creep and they are much easier to evaluate by comparision (it this nice new ability stronger or weaker than Fey Step?). </p><p></p><p>It's true that you lose some flavor with these decisions. But a lesson of games that have tried to allow radically different racial power levels is that balance is very hard to maintain without active DM involvement. For a very experienced DM, this may not be an issue. But for a mass market system (intended for many, many books) I tend to agree that this is a feature and not a bug.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Votan, post: 5143665, member: 18680"] If you are going to design a massively multiple source book game, like 4E, and have it run without serious tweaks at a table then some common design assumptions are needed. If Minotaurs had +8 to strength then every strength based power woould need to be re-evaluated relative to PCs being able to start with a 26 (as opposed to a 20). There are ways around this. The AD&D (1E and, to some extent, 2E) solution was to make few things dependent on ability scores. Strength was a partial exception because it scaled so high 9as was constitution for Fighters; dexterity bonuses -- in contrast -- rapidly flattened). But with strength there were core magic items (guantlets of Ogre Power) that made an 18/00 strength (+3, +6) attainable for a high level fighter. Another option is to balance the system across a more diverse set of scores; that is a lot easier to do with a small number of books (ideally a single players handbook) where you can work through all of the permutations. I suspect that is the trick for point systems like Champions. Or you can restrict options to a narrow set of races. In the extreme is the "human-only" games like Mage (from White Wolf) or Ars Magica. Finally, you can make focus very costly. If the race has a +8 strength and -4 dexterity that could just about even out if the system sets bonuses and penalties appropriately (slow but strong could be evenly matched by fast but weak). The 4E solution simply assumes that races will ahve either a +0 or +2 in any relevant ability score. So you baalnce across these two possibilities. This means that only the racial powers are an avenue to allow power creep and they are much easier to evaluate by comparision (it this nice new ability stronger or weaker than Fey Step?). It's true that you lose some flavor with these decisions. But a lesson of games that have tried to allow radically different racial power levels is that balance is very hard to maintain without active DM involvement. For a very experienced DM, this may not be an issue. But for a mass market system (intended for many, many books) I tend to agree that this is a feature and not a bug. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?
Top