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.
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="innerdude" data-source="post: 5146650" data-attributes="member: 85870"><p>I wrote a lengthy post on this a couple of weeks ago about a problem with the underlying assumption of this statement--because when people talk about balance in this context, 99.9 percent of the time they're talking about "balance in combat." </p><p></p><p>The problem assuming that "balance = combat balance" is that it naturally assumes that every single player at the table can only be happy if their character is just as combat balanced as every other player--when this is not the case. </p><p></p><p>People who enjoy the role-playing aspect of RPGs often don't give a rat's butt about combat balance--they just want to play an interesting <em>character</em>, and explore that character's motivations, world-view, and experience the milieu of the game world through that character's eyes. Sure, if the system is "combat balanced," that's an added bonus, but for some role-players, an over-emphasis on combat balance in the rules can actually take away from their enjoyment of playing the game, because the <em>combat system itself</em> dictates some of the requirements their character must meet. And if the dictates of the combat system force the player to create a character in a way they really don't envision, then that player is actually having a "sub-optimal" experience--regardless of how amazingly balanced the combat system is.</p><p></p><p>Someone else in that same thread also rightly pointed out that in this case, sometimes "combat balance," in terms of rules or character concept, is less important than the assumed social contract between the GM and players, and player-to-player. Some groups are okay with having a "sub-optimal" combat character, because they want to encourage the player to have "uber-optimal" fun with their character concept. To some groups, a "sub-optimal" combat character is anathema, a betrayal of the group. To a group that's heavily into the combat portion of a game, playing a character that isn't helping them "win the combats" is hindering their fun.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 5146650, member: 85870"] I wrote a lengthy post on this a couple of weeks ago about a problem with the underlying assumption of this statement--because when people talk about balance in this context, 99.9 percent of the time they're talking about "balance in combat." The problem assuming that "balance = combat balance" is that it naturally assumes that every single player at the table can only be happy if their character is just as combat balanced as every other player--when this is not the case. People who enjoy the role-playing aspect of RPGs often don't give a rat's butt about combat balance--they just want to play an interesting [I]character[/I], and explore that character's motivations, world-view, and experience the milieu of the game world through that character's eyes. Sure, if the system is "combat balanced," that's an added bonus, but for some role-players, an over-emphasis on combat balance in the rules can actually take away from their enjoyment of playing the game, because the [I]combat system itself[/I] dictates some of the requirements their character must meet. And if the dictates of the combat system force the player to create a character in a way they really don't envision, then that player is actually having a "sub-optimal" experience--regardless of how amazingly balanced the combat system is. Someone else in that same thread also rightly pointed out that in this case, sometimes "combat balance," in terms of rules or character concept, is less important than the assumed social contract between the GM and players, and player-to-player. Some groups are okay with having a "sub-optimal" combat character, because they want to encourage the player to have "uber-optimal" fun with their character concept. To some groups, a "sub-optimal" combat character is anathema, a betrayal of the group. To a group that's heavily into the combat portion of a game, playing a character that isn't helping them "win the combats" is hindering their fun. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?
Top