Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 4332928" data-attributes="member: 6777">The conundrum in all this is that &quot;balance&quot; is often a nebulous term w/r/t RPGs.For me, in terms of RPGs, &quot;balance&quot; is about fun being as equally distributed as possible amongst all the players. I.e., if any one option is too effective, you're removing fun from any player who doesn't take advantage of that option.(This is one of the main things I am not going to miss about 3e.)Ergo, I have a hard time getting behind any argument that prioritizes verisimilitude or setting fidelity over fun (as exemplified by the Heinsoo quote in my .sig). The whole point of play, IMO, is getting together with people in order to create fun for each other. If Larry's 18th-level wizard can consistently contribute more meaningfully to the fun than my 18th-level rogue, that makes my participation pretty meaningless. No amount of &quot;But it makes sense!&quot; arguments are going to make me any more inclined to keep playing that rogue, much less keep playing that particular game with those people.The case would be exactly the same in a Narrativist, GM-less, shared-narration RPG (i.e., the polar opposite of D&amp;D). If there's an option that consistently allows Larry to shut down my ability to add narration, I am not going to be inclined to keep playing.Thus, &quot;balance&quot; is more important than anything else. &quot;But it's a roleplaying game&quot; is not an excuse. It's the worst possible excuse, honestly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="buzz, post: 4332928, member: 6777"] The conundrum in all this is that "balance" is often a nebulous term w/r/t RPGs. For me, in terms of RPGs, "balance" is about fun being as equally distributed as possible amongst all the players. I.e., if any one option is too effective, you're removing fun from any player who doesn't take advantage of that option. (This is one of the main things I am not going to miss about 3e.) Ergo, I have a hard time getting behind any argument that prioritizes verisimilitude or setting fidelity over fun (as exemplified by the Heinsoo quote in my .sig). The whole point of play, IMO, is getting together with people in order to create fun for each other. If Larry's 18th-level wizard can consistently contribute more meaningfully to the fun than my 18th-level rogue, that makes my participation pretty meaningless. No amount of "But it makes sense!" arguments are going to make me any more inclined to keep playing that rogue, much less keep playing that particular game with those people. The case would be exactly the same in a Narrativist, GM-less, shared-narration RPG (i.e., the polar opposite of D&D). If there's an option that consistently allows Larry to shut down my ability to add narration, I am not going to be inclined to keep playing. Thus, "balance" is more important than anything else. "But it's a roleplaying game" is not an excuse. It's the worst possible excuse, honestly. [/QUOTE]

Verification