Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Haltherrion" data-source="post: 5333267" data-attributes="member: 18253">Regarding realism, that's never been an issue in my experience. My groups aren't afraid to use our real world experience for all of the more game parts of FRP where realism tends to crop up (how much does food weight, how far can you travel in a day, etc.) In the end, if it meets one's group's sense of realism, it is good enough. It is not like there is an independent realism police.&nbsp;Regarding balance, that's another issue. That comes down to &quot;game equity&quot;: do the players feel they are getting their share of fun in a gaming session.&nbsp; I've been playing for over 30 years and my players and I have put up with a lot of inequity over the years from the goofy XP tables of first addition onward and while it worked and we were good sports about rotating the less interesting roles, I'm all for the focus on balance and making sure each class packs a reasonably comparable amount of punch.&nbsp;For our group, the 4E edition has been a big hit to a large extent because of the focus on balance and this is a very seasoned group. (That tactical combat system is a big plus for us, too. There are downsides but overall, big net win.)&nbsp;I suppose my players and I may take a funny view on realism versus balance. We foremost recognize it is a game and accept rules that make it fairly even for all (same XP advancement tables, comparable things PCs can do in a combat round, same cost/effort of level advancement, etc.) but outside of the mechanics that determine rate of advancement and combat effectiveness, we like realism. We like our griffons to eat a reasonable amount of food for instance (see one of my blogs <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />)&nbsp;As we use the game rules for advancement/combat and our judgement for the rest, we look to the rules for balance and ourselves for realism.&nbsp;And I've never had an issue removing ressurrection from any game system. Most campaigns, I don't allow it. Dead is dead; gives the game a little extra edge.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Haltherrion, post: 5333267, member: 18253"] Regarding realism, that's never been an issue in my experience. My groups aren't afraid to use our real world experience for all of the more game parts of FRP where realism tends to crop up (how much does food weight, how far can you travel in a day, etc.) In the end, if it meets one's group's sense of realism, it is good enough. It is not like there is an independent realism police. Regarding balance, that's another issue. That comes down to "game equity": do the players feel they are getting their share of fun in a gaming session. I've been playing for over 30 years and my players and I have put up with a lot of inequity over the years from the goofy XP tables of first addition onward and while it worked and we were good sports about rotating the less interesting roles, I'm all for the focus on balance and making sure each class packs a reasonably comparable amount of punch. For our group, the 4E edition has been a big hit to a large extent because of the focus on balance and this is a very seasoned group. (That tactical combat system is a big plus for us, too. There are downsides but overall, big net win.) I suppose my players and I may take a funny view on realism versus balance. We foremost recognize it is a game and accept rules that make it fairly even for all (same XP advancement tables, comparable things PCs can do in a combat round, same cost/effort of level advancement, etc.) but outside of the mechanics that determine rate of advancement and combat effectiveness, we like realism. We like our griffons to eat a reasonable amount of food for instance (see one of my blogs :p) As we use the game rules for advancement/combat and our judgement for the rest, we look to the rules for balance and ourselves for realism. And I've never had an issue removing ressurrection from any game system. Most campaigns, I don't allow it. Dead is dead; gives the game a little extra edge. [/QUOTE]

Verification