Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6152264" data-attributes="member: 8461">I'm sympathetic to this point of view, as I think that the majority of "balance" is something that happens at the game table, and not in the rule books.From what I've read, a great deal of the complaints come from the mechanization of (that is, the introduction of game mechanics for) non-combat "narrative" options, mostly in the form of non-combat-focused skills and spells.Insofar as the skills system goes, it seems that it's often interpreted to be a substitution for role-playing - that is, you don't need to role-play out a conversation with the NPC whom you need to convince to help you, you just need to make a successful Diplomacy check. Is Diplomacy a cross-class skill for you, and you have a low Charisma? Then don't bother talking, let the guy with the higher score try it instead.I once read a blog post, I can't find it now, where someone talked about how this is the opposite view of how he experienced role-playing initially. That is, when you came across a situation that required a skill check, what was being measured was the creativity in how well the player could role-play his character through the situation. It was only if this failed that things fell back to a random roll of the dice. Now that sentiment has been reversed, and characters that can game the skill system are the primary method of out-of-combat interaction, with role-playing taking a back seat to that.Even more than this, however, is the primacy of non-combat spells. For example, the idea that you don't need to use diplomacy at all - either in role-playing or a skill check - when you can just use magic to charm someone. There's no need to worry about overland travel when you can teleport, etc.Personally, I find that these complaints showcase the difference between theorycrafting and game-play more than anything else. Very few are the times when spellcasters will have the perfect spell(s) for a given situation, I've found, even if they have loaded up with scrolls full of utility spells (something I have yet to see happen). It's the GM's job to make sure that certain characters don't get to hog the spotlight over the others, after all - hence the above sentiment that balance is found in actual play (which doesn't mean they should continually screw spellcasters over, either; rather, if one character keeps assuming "narrative control," then the GM needs to introduce checks).All of this, of course, seems to be symptomatic of a larger problem - that people seem to think that any instance of GM adjustment of adjudication is indicative of a failure of the game rules, rather than a natural part of the game. Simply put, in a game where anything can be attempted by the players, no rules can ever provide perfect balance (even leaving aside that no one can yet definitively define what balance is) between all character choices, options, and action results. The idea of balance, as most people seem to envision it, is a myth that can't be reached...and yet chasing it seems more popular than ever.</blockquote>

Verification