Fun vs balance [poll]

[Thomas Shey]

I do not believe in such a thing as balance in RPGs.
The mechanics of the game have to be plausible for the fiction of the campaign and produce enjoyable gameplay. That's really the only things that matter.

The problem with that, as I've mentioned before is that a lack of balance for many people does not create enjoyable gameplay. Quite the opposite.

 

[aramis erak]

I do not believe in such a thing as balance in RPGs.
The mechanics of the game have to be plausible for the fiction of the campaign and produce enjoyable gameplay. That's really the only things that matter.

That's playstyle dependent. Remember, some of us treat some RPGs as barely more than boardgames. (in my case, D&D OE, AD&D 1E/2E, D&D 3E and 5E are treated as miniatures combat games with explication of why the fight happens.)
In a purely combat focused campaign, the balance portion not only is possible, it's practical and useful.

The problem with that, as I've mentioned before is that a lack of balance for many people does not create enjoyable gameplay. Quite the opposite.

I'm one of those who likes at least a bit of balance on the power curve for PCs.
I also like rules that make the core competencies take about the same level of table-time to resolve across archetypes, when there are such.
I'm less picky about balanced encounters, but I like it when they work (and for me, D&D 5E's work rather well, but a poorly explicated in the rules. Note also, many mistake a deadly encounter level for a "This should TPK" - it's not that, it's someone on the PC side should be very close to or actually making death saves...).

 

[Incenjucar]

My position is that balance provides a functional and safe space for fun. If you don't balance the game, the fun will eventually screech to a halt for someone.

 

[nevin]

it's all about the fun and one person's balance is anothers hell. has to be adjusted for the group. Rule will never be enough to get both.