Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 6404209" data-attributes="member: 85555">I certainly do agree, it is only balanced over the long view. I also agree, most people don't like. I therefore think it is a bad idea for current editions of D&D because that's a game that appeals to a very broad audience. But I do think balance over the long term is a perfectly fine approach if that is what you or your audience like. As I said, to me it is perfectly balanced. I don't mind being weaker in this instance if my chance of being strong was equal to your's but I rolled poorly (in fact it kind of makes character creation exciting for me). That is also why stuff like mages starting super weak but becoming really powerful in the end is something I am fine with. It is balance, it just isn't parity at every step. And it does require one put it in the perspective of gaming over the long haul. But I think there are people who don't even care about balance at all. They're rare but I've seen them first hand. Particularly in more competitive games. There is a whole market for players who are into uber builds for example. For players taking that approach, lack of balance in key areas is a feature not a bug. I get that this isn't the mainstream attitude. And I acknowledge it isn't the best way for D&D to be designed because it needs to get the biggest possible audience (and frankly it isn't what I am into either). But I think we really need to stop talking about games in terms of one way being the best way, like it is objectively true (this isn't a direct response to your post, but just something that has been on my mind since this article came out). Certainly there is a best choice for a particular game, given its audience. But too often I see folks, myself certainly included, trying to position their set of preferences as the most ideal way to approach RPGS, and they use all manner of logic and evidence to prove that point. I find it odd that "logic" and "reason" so often lead people back to their own set of preferences (just like the Wick article, he makes a good argument for his position, but you can tell he started with his conclusion and worked his way toward it, rather than the other way around). But then when you go out and play with folks, you just see this vast range of diversity of preferences, styles, etc that suggest a one size fits all measure of balance isn't going to work. people want too many different things. So I see it more as gauging what the audience is and wants, and knowing what kind of game you are trying to make, then working toward that. Very likely balance will be an important factor of course.</blockquote>

Verification