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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5948005" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I was replying to the implication of the statement: "There are those who appreciate balance, and those who find having to compromise in the name of fairness or the enjoyment of fellow players to be overly constraining."That statement, to me, seems to be implying that there are two types of people when it comes to balance: those that like it, and those who don't care about what their friends want. I take issue that that implication, even if I like balance.You rotated the juggernaut if you lost, which wasn't all that often. Most of the time it was for the struggle against overwhelming odds, which was really fun in its own right.But, regardless of that, you don't need to convince me to the pros of having a balanced system. I prefer it. I also think it's a lot easier to create a balanced system from the get-go and unbalance it than it is to create an unbalanced system and then balance it. No arguments from me there.However, my point was that the implication that somebody doesn't really care about their friends wants because they don't care for balance? Really uncalled for. I find it misleading and overgeneralized.We could go quite a while without switching off, and it's likely that whoever was the best player (usually me) ended up as the juggernaut the entire time (unless I started as one of the three; then it might take 30 minutes before I had the majority kills against the juggernaut, and played as it for the remainder of our mini-game fun).Again, though, some people like the imbalance. This includes the "fellow players" mentioned in Tony's post that I objected to. Again, while I do prefer balance in the game, I completely understand the want of some groups to have a game that isn't balanced. It's not my preferred approach to gaming, but I can understand the appeal, at least.So, you don't need to convince me of anything. My point is about the statement I objected to, not really about my preference for balance in RPGs. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />A couple of things, here. First, D&D doesn't historically (to my knowledge) say that it's a completely balanced game, and that everyone will contribute just as much during gameplay. So, the comment on "D&D never says casters will dominate" doesn't hold, to me (unless old manuals are saying people are very well balanced; then I'll retract that).Second, my experience (and that of many others) isn't non-casters of a certain level being second fiddle to casters. While that certainly did happen to many groups (and I think it's a flaw of the mechanical system to allow it), that's also not a problem for many people. It never was for my group, even if people felt casters were a bit strong. Ask the player of the party Fighter, Blake: he nearly always felt like he was contributing meaningfully. At times he wasn't, but neither was the Sorcerer when he was grappled, blinded, and dimensionally anchored.Again, I prefer balance in the game system from the start. It's easier to make a balanced game and unbalance it than it is to make an unbalanced game and balance it. No need to try to convince me of the perks.My point, again, is on Tony's statement: When he writes "There are those who appreciate balance, and those who find having to compromise in the name of fairness or the enjoyment of fellow players to be overly constraining", he makes it sound like there are only two options here. People who like balance, and people who don't much care what their friends think about it. While I like balance, I dislike that implication.I disagree with "never" in your statement, but I know what my preference is. I definitely like balanced classes, where melee, ranged, magic, skilled, etc. can all play in the same ballpark. However, I am very much okay with an uneven "pillar" distribution; I'm okay with a Fighter being Combat 5 / Exploration 1 / Social 1, and a Ranger being Combat 3 / Exploration 4 / Interaction 1.But, that's my preference. My point is that I understand the preference of others, and I dislike the implication that Tony's statement had. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Then I think you are just too biased, honestly. What you're saying, in my experience, is not universal enough to hold true. Thus, overgeneralized and, of course, misleading.Well, it does feel pretty dichotomatic (that's right). And, personally, it does feel pretty uncharitable, but if you don't mean it that way, I apologize if I've come off as condescending or otherwise douchey.If nothing else, I can say that my experience is different from yours, and that I see things differently. Doesn't make you wrong, by any means. Thanks for the replies. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification