Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6349013" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I think I kinda agree with you, but maybe for different reasons.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses    B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /> However, I do think that it is an important factor to consider in game design.I think this is one of those weird nomenclature situations where IRL language fails. That is, I've heard people say "The opposite of poverty is not wealth, it's justice." Currently, I feel like the opposite of "imbalanced" is not "balanced", but that people are kinda locked in on that.* The way I see it, its far more important to avoid an "imbalance" than work to provide some kind of "perfect balance". I've played a game (Capes) where everyone was perfectly balanced, mechanically. But that game's mechanics functioned at such an abstracted level that was so very different from what most folks would consider an rpg to be that I don't think it makes much sense to include it. (Not that it wasn't fun or competitive, it was both of those and a fantastic story game!)So, as I'm sure others have noted, the value of a character design choice (CDC) is context-dependent. That makes it very difficult to design a traditional rpg and even attempt to make all such choices equal, because the relevant context is so variable. I recall a 2e campaign I ran. I eliminated "common" from the list of languages and added regional languages...suddenly the value of anything that let you speak additional languages shot up, because it added flexibility to the ways the party could act. (At one point, the party could only actually all talk to each other when every single one of them was in the room translating for some portion of the others...<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />).  So, the obvious solution is to tighten the focus of the game. I think 4e did this (both in and out of combat) to some extent and that this is the (subtle) source of some of the gripes about it. It also is the source of some disparaging "hot button" words or accusations leveled against it. By which I mean that 4e CDC's simultaneously had more and less obvious impact on your character's capabilities and function during play. Sure, each class had its own selection of fiddly bits that were unique, but they were all unique in exactly the same way.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" />  That lead to often profound mutual misunderstandings and disagreements between h4ters and 4vengers (in both directions).The second, and perhaps less obvious, solution is to back away from the detailed and narratively inflexible nature of the traditional rpg CDC. Games like Fate and MHRP use more "open descriptor" mechanics and often function at a level stepped back from the actual fictional positioning allowing you to fill in the blanks on the fly. However, this has a definite large impact on the feel of play (by increasing a player's author-stance participation) at the table which a lot of players find dissatisfying. Which is not to say that both of those solutions do not have large advantages and provide the capacity for much tighter "balance" than we are used to from traditional games. They certainly do.However, ignoring the idea of balance isn't very effective, either. Since you mention that "extreme imbalance" is a problem, I'll not belabor the point. However, I think its far easier to accidentally provide substantial imbalance than you might think, especially if the designer doesn't account for the variety of contexts under which one might suppose the game to cover. Moreover, I don't think that "imbalance" by itself provides very much to the game. Often is just leads to a situation where all games of that ruleset tend to degenerate to a single solution. So, perhaps the best way to approach it is to look to create a kind of "bounded imbalance", although I'm sure that folks will disagree on how tightly "bounded" that should be. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />*I'm not sure what I would suggest the opposite of "imbalanced" be: "playable", "reasonable", "fair"...all seem acceptable to me.</blockquote>

Verification