Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Odhanan" data-source="post: 3205263" data-attributes="member: 12324">I believe &quot;Balance&quot; is a good theoretical principle when building a rules system. There shouldn't be options of character development that are so outrageously good as to make every player choose it. The balance of the rules, however, isn't solely decided by numerical values but what each and every option does in the game, in practice. Two &quot;+1&quot; bonus to two different components of a character are not always equal in game value. For instance, a +1 to attack rolls isn't equal for all intent and purposes to a +1 to a Climb check. But on which type of practice can you base this idea of value of different game components and their interactions thereof? After all, the gaming styles vary enormously at various game tables. What the designer ends up doing is base the idea of balance on a theoretical game style, how the game is &quot;supposed to be played&quot;, and on a pannel of people playing the game, i.e. playtesters. The end result is that rules balance is all fair and good in theory, but you cannot ever predict all the ways in which these rules will be actually used. &quot;Rules balance&quot; is thus a thing of theory. &quot;Game balance&quot;, for me, is what happens in practice, and there, the DM is the one calling the shots. As the rules can never be accurately balanced for a precise game table, it is the DM's job to make sure that all players have equal opportunities to make a difference in the actual game, in combats, in investigations, in character interactions (something rarely covered by a rules' system). You can have elements of a rules system that are out of theoretical balance. If this is designed for a precise goal within the adventure and it doesn't steal the spotlight from this PC or increase the capabilities of another to a shameful level, that's okay. In the end, the DM and the players (by the choices they make and how they let their fellow players have their fun or not) are the ones making the game balance happen... or not.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Odhanan, post: 3205263, member: 12324"] I believe "Balance" is a good theoretical principle when building a rules system. There shouldn't be options of character development that are so outrageously good as to make every player choose it. The balance of the rules, however, isn't solely decided by numerical values but what each and every option does in the game, in practice. Two "+1" bonus to two different components of a character are not always equal in game value. For instance, a +1 to attack rolls isn't equal for all intent and purposes to a +1 to a Climb check. But on which type of practice can you base this idea of value of different game components and their interactions thereof? After all, the gaming styles vary enormously at various game tables. What the designer ends up doing is base the idea of balance on a theoretical game style, how the game is "supposed to be played", and on a pannel of people playing the game, i.e. playtesters. The end result is that rules balance is all fair and good in theory, but you cannot ever predict all the ways in which these rules will be actually used. "Rules balance" is thus a thing of theory. "Game balance", for me, is what happens in practice, and there, the DM is the one calling the shots. As the rules can never be accurately balanced for a precise game table, it is the DM's job to make sure that all players have equal opportunities to make a difference in the actual game, in combats, in investigations, in character interactions (something rarely covered by a rules' system). You can have elements of a rules system that are out of theoretical balance. If this is designed for a precise goal within the adventure and it doesn't steal the spotlight from this PC or increase the capabilities of another to a shameful level, that's okay. In the end, the DM and the players (by the choices they make and how they let their fellow players have their fun or not) are the ones making the game balance happen... or not. [/QUOTE]

Verification