Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eyebeams" data-source="post: 3283122" data-attributes="member: 9225">Chess is not "balanced" after the fashion of an RPG because:1) RPG balance is a subjective term with objective airs. Chess consists of entirely objective transactions.2) Chess begins with a set opening position and resources. RPGs do not.3) RPG balance attempts to blunt the ability of a clever player to exploit systemic advantages. Chess has no purpose other than to exploit systemic advantages.This last point is probably controversial, because the big adjustment of 3e was that minmaxing was perfectly okay, and the system has bits that reward player skill. But the pro-minmaxing is really about demonstrating the robust nature of the system, and the latter aspect is, if you go by Monte Cook, the exception that proves the rule. Cook explains that there are a few such "easter eggs" in the system, but these are deviations from a general plan that keeps anyone from using sheer play skill to acquire an enduring strategic advantage. In chess, decisive strategic skills are the purpose of serious chess play.The size of the world matters in that ultimately, a reward in a typical RPG is access to more variety within the game. Look at D&D. Gaining level doesn't really make your character tougher, since balanced CR encounters will maintain standard threats no matter his actual level. On the other hand, higher levels justify access to more of the world: cooler monsters, domains and magic items.</blockquote>

Verification