Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6401889" data-attributes="member: 22779">The bigger issue IMO, that gets lost in these discussions is no one really agrees what balance actually means.&nbsp; Does balance only mean that everything must be identical?&nbsp; In that case, how can one claim that Chess is balanced?&nbsp; After all, there are six different types of pieces, all with different rules.&nbsp; A pawn isn't balanced against a queen after all.&nbsp; Overall, sure, the game is balanced because both sides have the same resources.&nbsp; But, now we have to accept that balance really depends on where you are standing.&nbsp; At the individual unit level Chess is totally imbalanced.&nbsp; On the whole it is balanced.For me, I always define balance thusly:Balance in a role playing game means that no option is qualitatively always better than all other options.So, in a game like Ars Magica, while there is serious imbalance between the characters, that balance is maintained at a higher level since Troupe Play means that no one always gets to play the finger wiggler.&nbsp; Remove that balancing mechanic and Ars Magica has some serious issues.&nbsp; Would you want to play a long term Ars Magica game where you can only play a mook and never the wizard?&nbsp; Heck, would you always want to play the wizard?&nbsp; I sure wouldn't.When you have imbalanced systems, roleplaying is hurt because the most logical choice is to always choose the better option.&nbsp; It doesn't make rational sense, really, to deliberately choose the weaker option.&nbsp; If a longsword is flat out better than a broadsword (because the weapon vs armor table, and the fact that the majority of magical swords will be longswords) the game really pushes players to choose longsword over broadsword.&nbsp; I know one of the biggest changes I saw in fighter types in 3e was a sudden spike in fighter types not using swords.&nbsp; In fact, I'd say that swords became something of a large minority of weapon choice.&nbsp; Lots and lots of axes, spear and pole arms suddenly got use at my table.&nbsp; After almost twenty years, I actually saw a fighter choose a halberd as his primary weapon.&nbsp; All because of game balance.Balance matters.&nbsp; It always matters.&nbsp; Games without balance lead to cookie cutter characters because if you have an option that is clearly better than other options, why handicap yourself?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6401889, member: 22779"] The bigger issue IMO, that gets lost in these discussions is no one really agrees what balance actually means. Does balance only mean that everything must be identical? In that case, how can one claim that Chess is balanced? After all, there are six different types of pieces, all with different rules. A pawn isn't balanced against a queen after all. Overall, sure, the game is balanced because both sides have the same resources. But, now we have to accept that balance really depends on where you are standing. At the individual unit level Chess is totally imbalanced. On the whole it is balanced. For me, I always define balance thusly: [indent]Balance in a role playing game means that no option is qualitatively always better than all other options.[/indent] So, in a game like Ars Magica, while there is serious imbalance between the characters, that balance is maintained at a higher level since Troupe Play means that no one always gets to play the finger wiggler. Remove that balancing mechanic and Ars Magica has some serious issues. Would you want to play a long term Ars Magica game where you can only play a mook and never the wizard? Heck, would you always want to play the wizard? I sure wouldn't. When you have imbalanced systems, roleplaying is hurt because the most logical choice is to always choose the better option. It doesn't make rational sense, really, to deliberately choose the weaker option. If a longsword is flat out better than a broadsword (because the weapon vs armor table, and the fact that the majority of magical swords will be longswords) the game really pushes players to choose longsword over broadsword. I know one of the biggest changes I saw in fighter types in 3e was a sudden spike in fighter types not using swords. In fact, I'd say that swords became something of a large minority of weapon choice. Lots and lots of axes, spear and pole arms suddenly got use at my table. After almost twenty years, I actually saw a fighter choose a halberd as his primary weapon. All because of game balance. Balance matters. It always matters. Games without balance lead to cookie cutter characters because if you have an option that is clearly better than other options, why handicap yourself? [/QUOTE]

Verification