Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 5984893" data-attributes="member: 85870">Better at what? Fighting? Diplomacy? Stealth? Ancient Lore? Spell casting? Riding? Climbing? From what I can tell, your definition (and many if not most 4e-enthusiasts' definition) of balance is, &quot;Total balance between characters in combat damage output and battlefield effectiveness.&quot; That's a perfectly fine, valid approach. But don't presume that this definition of &quot;balance&quot; by any stretch of the imagination meets the needs of all gamers, everywhere, and that somehow those of us who don't bow down to this tenet of &quot;balance&quot; are delusional fools &quot;who just don't get it,&quot; and are somehow missing out on the absolute panacea of gaming that we've all been wishing for, if only we would embrace the GREAT TRUTH that is &quot;balanced combat effectiveness.&quot;Let's put it another way---who's REALLY at fault for a min / maxer &quot;overshadowing&quot; other players in a D&amp;D game? Is it the rules? Or the DM, the offending player, and the other participants ALLOWING the min / maxer to knowingly upset the agreed upon social contract that the group's fun AS A WHOLE is more important than any one player? If the min / maxing player simply can't &quot;have his or her fun&quot; any other way besides willfully stretching the limits of the system's rules-as-written, then the problem is with the player, not the rules. Does this excuse massive ignorance on the part of game designers regarding balance? Not in any way, but frankly, I'd much rather a game designer focus on the vision they're trying to deliver for a product than worrying about Jackass Player Bob---who wouldn't even be a problem if the hypothetical group(s) in question would grow a pair and lay down some socially acceptable rules about what constitutes fair play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 5984893, member: 85870"] Better at what? Fighting? Diplomacy? Stealth? Ancient Lore? Spell casting? Riding? Climbing? From what I can tell, your definition (and many if not most 4e-enthusiasts' definition) of balance is, "Total balance between characters in combat damage output and battlefield effectiveness." That's a perfectly fine, valid approach. But don't presume that this definition of "balance" by any stretch of the imagination meets the needs of all gamers, everywhere, and that somehow those of us who don't bow down to this tenet of "balance" are delusional fools "who just don't get it," and are somehow missing out on the absolute panacea of gaming that we've all been wishing for, if only we would embrace the GREAT TRUTH that is "balanced combat effectiveness." Let's put it another way---who's REALLY at fault for a min / maxer "overshadowing" other players in a D&D game? Is it the rules? Or the DM, the offending player, and the other participants ALLOWING the min / maxer to knowingly upset the agreed upon social contract that the group's fun AS A WHOLE is more important than any one player? If the min / maxing player simply can't "have his or her fun" any other way besides willfully stretching the limits of the system's rules-as-written, then the problem is with the player, not the rules. Does this excuse massive ignorance on the part of game designers regarding balance? Not in any way, but frankly, I'd much rather a game designer focus on the vision they're trying to deliver for a product than worrying about Jackass Player Bob---who wouldn't even be a problem if the hypothetical group(s) in question would grow a pair and lay down some socially acceptable rules about what constitutes fair play. [/QUOTE]

Verification