Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5796499" data-attributes="member: 6679551">I think we are on the same page.&nbsp; Apologies for singling out your post, but I think this notion of &quot;balance&quot; is a pandemic in the RPG community.&nbsp; So bare with me while I use your response to really highlight the problem.It's really important to understand that there is no balance...none, unless we are all playing the same piece.&nbsp; Pawns on a chessboard are balanced. Nothing is else is balanced with Pawns.&nbsp; The reason it's important to drive this home is that it leads to the realization that 1e was NOT balanced.&nbsp; But more to the point, balance was not a design goal in 1e.&nbsp; But clearly it was a design goal in 4e.&nbsp;&nbsp; So as you've so astutely observed, in order to obtain equality, you sacrifice uniqueness and with that, meaningful choices.5e cannot bring the groups together.&nbsp; With all due respect to Monte Cook, to suggest that all editions can be united is to make evident a fundamental lack of understanding on what makes each edition appealing to its player bases.&nbsp;&nbsp; 1e is not going to provide 4e players with a game that is fair and neither is 3.5.&nbsp; 4e is not going to provide 3.5 players with a game that provides the depth and consequence of choice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arrowhawk, post: 5796499, member: 6679551"] I think we are on the same page. Apologies for singling out your post, but I think this notion of "balance" is a pandemic in the RPG community. So bare with me while I use your response to really highlight the problem. It's really important to understand that there is no balance...none, unless we are all playing the same piece. Pawns on a chessboard are balanced. Nothing is else is balanced with Pawns. The reason it's important to drive this home is that it leads to the realization that 1e was NOT balanced. But more to the point, balance was not a design goal in 1e. But clearly it was a design goal in 4e. So as you've so astutely observed, in order to obtain equality, you sacrifice uniqueness and with that, meaningful choices. 5e cannot bring the groups together. With all due respect to Monte Cook, to suggest that all editions can be united is to make evident a fundamental lack of understanding on what makes each edition appealing to its player bases. 1e is not going to provide 4e players with a game that is fair and neither is 3.5. 4e is not going to provide 3.5 players with a game that provides the depth and consequence of choice. [/QUOTE]

Verification