Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6069322" data-attributes="member: 17106">It is, however, the only D&amp;D example. And so far, 5e isn't going too far down that road.Actually there are a host of obvious problems. Again, if your only goal is to create parity of mechanical effectiveness (implicitly between macro-level character options like classes), then that goal is achieved. However, that is not inherently a goal of creating an rpg, and it certainly isn't the only possible goal.As others have said, for those of us who use the rules as a window into the game world, and who play the game in order to immerse ourselves in that world, this approach destroys our ability to do that. The game experience created by the rules is separate from the reality in the game world. This is a nonstarter for a lot of people.Chess isn't an rpg, so there is no metagame/in-game distinction to reference. However, if one were to pretend that all the pieces were actual characters, their movement abilities are clearly inherent properties of the pieces themselves rather than of the person playing them. A knight moves two spaces and then one in the perpendicular direction regardless of who is moving it or how well they do so.Of course if you want to use chess is an example, it is a perfect example of why the &quot;all classes must be equal&quot; notion was never a requisite of game design or of achieving game balance to begin with, as the various pieces have different abilities, but chess is clearly a well-balanced game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6069322, member: 17106"] It is, however, the only D&D example. And so far, 5e isn't going too far down that road. Actually there are a host of obvious problems. Again, if your only goal is to create parity of mechanical effectiveness (implicitly between macro-level character options like classes), then that goal is achieved. However, that is not inherently a goal of creating an rpg, and it certainly isn't the only possible goal. As others have said, for those of us who use the rules as a window into the game world, and who play the game in order to immerse ourselves in that world, this approach destroys our ability to do that. The game experience created by the rules is separate from the reality in the game world. This is a nonstarter for a lot of people. Chess isn't an rpg, so there is no metagame/in-game distinction to reference. However, if one were to pretend that all the pieces were actual characters, their movement abilities are clearly inherent properties of the pieces themselves rather than of the person playing them. A knight moves two spaces and then one in the perpendicular direction regardless of who is moving it or how well they do so. Of course if you want to use chess is an example, it is a perfect example of why the "all classes must be equal" notion was never a requisite of game design or of achieving game balance to begin with, as the various pieces have different abilities, but chess is clearly a well-balanced game. [/QUOTE]

Verification