Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9824932" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Exactly.If a game isn't even fun to play in the first place, then balancing it isn't worth bothering about.If a game does contain fun, then it is worth investigating balance. Generally, that balance is going to be dynamic and asymmetrical: that is, there are genuinely different paths to the same/similar/equivalent results (asymmetric), and there will be shifts and changes in the exact effectiveness of any given option over time relative to other options (dynamic). Perfectly symmetrical balance is almost always possible, and nearly always really, REALLY boring, so it's extremely rare outside of outright actual board games. (And even there, truly perfect balance is extremely difficult to achieve--chess has to have alternating players start first, because "go first" is a clear and measurable advantage, but too difficult to precisely nail down how much it's an advantage.)So, if we're already considering a game that (a) actually is fun to play in at least some configurations, (b) employs dynamic and asymmetrical balance, and (c) still contains problematic components, then it is worth doing serious analysis to try to minimize the problems and maximize the space in which there are multiple distinct paths of approximately equivalent potency.This is worth doing because...well, I mean, that's how you make it so context, taste, and creativity become the primary drivers of choices. When there are certain paths that are clearly superior to other paths, context, taste, and creativity will yield to brute calculation, to mere "make number go up". When you can still choose poorly, but most paths look pretty much the same, then it genuinely comes down to the little details of each situation, to the specific preferences and style of each player, and the creative ways that player can recombine elements into patterns unexpected.That's why I speak so strongly against unbalanced games. Unbalanced games punish creativity, because there's clear "correct" solutions. Unbalanced games mock taste, because choosing flavor means choosing weakness, and choosing power (generally) means choosing blandness. Unbalanced games throw context to the wind, because you can invalidate most contextual factors with just "my numbers are too big for that to matter".If you want games that are engaging, that require you to not merely calculate but actually evaluate, that is, to make real judgment calls rather than mere rapid-pace mental arithmetic, then you want a game where there are numerous paths to more-or-less the same amount of raw power. When you do that, you make it so the grace notes, the subtle interactions, the clever deployment of utility effects, the smart arrangement of pieces into a more harmonious whole, are where any real gains in power will come from.Or, in simpler terms, you make it so optimization requires creativity, context, and taste; so that playing "smart" and playing "fun" are the exact same thing. The powergamer has to engage with the world and the story and the other characters--because that's the only way they can get the advantages they need in order to "win", by whatever metric they've declared counts as "winning".</blockquote>

Verification