Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mishihari Lord" data-source="post: 6346884" data-attributes="member: 128">(Underline added)Because most of us have talked with someone online who was up in arms that his dual butterknife wielding ninja midget hamster wasn't as combat effective as the guy with a rifle.&nbsp; &quot;C'mon guys.&nbsp; Why should I be limited in effectiveness because I'm playing true to my character concept?&nbsp; You're cramping my STYLLLLE!&quot;&nbsp; Candidly, until the post I quoted above you were coming across that way, so I'm glad to see you're more sensible than that.Your &quot;Bounds of reason&quot; comment gets to the core of the issue.&nbsp; What is reasonable in this area is very subjective.&nbsp; Should the butter knife guy be as effective as the rifle guy?&nbsp; How about karate vs tank?&nbsp; Karate vs rifle?&nbsp; Two handed sword vs spear?&nbsp; While you might think it's reasonable that a long sword and short sword are equally effective, someone who's read different books or had different personal experience might see this as as much of a mismatch as the butterknife vs rifle example.And I'll reiterate my oft repeated position on game balance in general.&nbsp; Game balance is a crock. What matters is spotlight balance.&nbsp; As long as every player gets some time to shine where their character is the star, and everyone has something good to do most of the time, the game is fine.&nbsp; The design sacrifice required to balance things closely are generally just not worth it.&nbsp; I have personally both DMed and played in games with player power imbalance similar to the classic Gandalf and Frodo example where everyone had a great time anyway.&nbsp; All it takes is a bit of skill on the DM's part.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mishihari Lord, post: 6346884, member: 128"] (Underline added) Because most of us have talked with someone online who was up in arms that his dual butterknife wielding ninja midget hamster wasn't as combat effective as the guy with a rifle. "C'mon guys. Why should I be limited in effectiveness because I'm playing true to my character concept? You're cramping my STYLLLLE!" Candidly, until the post I quoted above you were coming across that way, so I'm glad to see you're more sensible than that. Your "Bounds of reason" comment gets to the core of the issue. What is reasonable in this area is very subjective. Should the butter knife guy be as effective as the rifle guy? How about karate vs tank? Karate vs rifle? Two handed sword vs spear? While you might think it's reasonable that a long sword and short sword are equally effective, someone who's read different books or had different personal experience might see this as as much of a mismatch as the butterknife vs rifle example. And I'll reiterate my oft repeated position on game balance in general. Game balance is a crock. What matters is spotlight balance. As long as every player gets some time to shine where their character is the star, and everyone has something good to do most of the time, the game is fine. The design sacrifice required to balance things closely are generally just not worth it. I have personally both DMed and played in games with player power imbalance similar to the classic Gandalf and Frodo example where everyone had a great time anyway. All it takes is a bit of skill on the DM's part. [/QUOTE]

Verification