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!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1064281" data-attributes="member: 10201">I wasn't suggesting that things be imbalanced in an actual-play sort of way.  I'm suggesting that mechanical balance doesn't necessarily produce playtime balance, and that within the context of a specific setting you *can* use non-mechanical elements to balance mechanical ones.Oh, and anecdote time: I played in a D&D3E campaign for 2 years.  It fairly quickly became obvious that the monk i'd chosen to play was underpowered compared to the rest of the group (so, compared to barbarian, fighter, ranger, paladin, cleric, druid, sorcerer, bard, and wizard--nobody played a rogue at any point).  I was in constant danger of being the show stealer.  That matches my experiences from day one of RPGs: the good and/or outgoing RPer is the show-stealer, not the player with the powerful character.  At least, not unless the power imbalance is absolutely ridiculous (as in, the powerful character can cover all the niches, and has no need for the others in any capacity).  That's why i think that niche protection is far more important than overall power--even assuming you could accurately guage the latter. edit: and this is yet another case where i think the core system in Spycraft outshines that in D&D3E: the "core ability" of each class is only available to 1st-level characters, so the person who starts out in a given class always has a leg-up on the person who multiclasses into it.As for balancing "across the full spectrum of gaming styles": how does that help?  Campaigns don't run the full spectrum, and those that do usually tend to one style or another.  Is the game really balanced if you spend 90% fighting (where some classes excel) and 10% politics (where others do)?  What about the other way 'round?  Getting the limelight in an equal number of styles is no help if those styles come up very unequally.In this context: absolute: inflexible and not dependent on the particulars of the group or campaign; abstract: somehow derived solely from the mechanics of the game, yet applying to all game groups, settings, and play styles--thus, abstracting from the concrete reality of RPing, where all of those things contribute to what is balanced and what is not.So spell them out.  Who says RPing elements have to be all wishy-washy?  Whether it's part of the balance of a class, or just an element of the setting, you need to say what happens when you let off a fireball in the town square--that's part of what makes the setting.  So, i'm not proposing arbitrary RPing disads (or ads).  Take D&D3E as an example: it has several quite specific RPing disads built in: paladin behavior, barbarian alignment, monks and paladins not multiclassing, rangers fighting with 2 weapons, half-elven diplomacy, etc.  In each case, an RPing element has been codified so that it has roughly the same impact regardless of the group (provided they are following the rules).  The same could be done for Dark Sun (using existing systems, or inventing new ones).Well, i think that's a sort of silly answer.  What if i design a region where weapons are not allowed, and even fisticuffs will get you life in prison?  Is it the game's fault that fighters are shafted there?  D&D has certain in-built assumptions WRT the setting.  Dark Sun has far more specific ones.  You can't expect the classes, races, etc., to necessarily work in a different setting.  The only change is that the parameters of the intended setting for Dark Sun are significantly narrower than the intended setting for D&D.  And, on th flip side, much of the flavor of Dark Sun comes from the social and environmental setting, so i'd like to see those incorporated into the mechanics of the game (such as through class abilities/restrictions).</blockquote>

Verification