Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8252861" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Rarity does not equal balance. I don't know how much more I can simplify this concept- this has nothing to do with balance. Instead, this is (to use the phrase I have returned to repeatedly) an example of &quot;the rich getting richer.&quot; It's an example of gatekeeping (and, verisimilitude) not of any attempt to balance.Having weaker classes advance more quickly? That's an attempt at balance.Allowing demi-humans to multi-class and have special abilities, but then capping their levels? That's an attempt at balance.Having some classes be weaker at low levels, and more powerful at higher levels? Again, that is an attempt at balance.*Giving cascading advantages to high rolls is not balance- at all! It's gatekeeping. It's hiding advantages behind minimum abilities; moreover, these advantages tended to accrue in waves at character creation (so that everything from bonuses from that ability, to being a certain class, to percentile strength, to XP bonuses, to advantages in your class like bonuses to thieving abilities) would all get wrapped up; as realistic as it might have been, it wasn't balancing, and it wasn't even attempting to balance. It was attempting to reflect reality (simulationism), which isn't the same as a gaming concern (balance).*I use the term &quot;attempt at balance&quot; in all of these advisedly- some are more successful than others.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8252861, member: 7023840"] Rarity does not equal balance. I don't know how much more I can simplify this concept- this has [I]nothing to do with balance[/I]. Instead, this is (to use the phrase I have returned to repeatedly) an example of "the rich getting richer." It's an example of gatekeeping (and, verisimilitude) not of any attempt to balance. Having weaker classes advance more quickly? That's an attempt at balance. Allowing demi-humans to multi-class and have special abilities, but then capping their levels? That's an attempt at balance. Having some classes be weaker at low levels, and more powerful at higher levels? Again, that is an attempt at balance.* Giving cascading advantages to high rolls is not balance- at all! It's gatekeeping. It's hiding advantages behind minimum abilities; moreover, these advantages tended to accrue in waves at character creation (so that everything from bonuses from that ability, to being a certain class, to percentile strength, to XP bonuses, to advantages in your class like bonuses to thieving abilities) would all get wrapped up; as [I]realistic [/I]as it might have been, it wasn't [I]balancing[/I], and it wasn't even attempting to balance. It was attempting to reflect reality (simulationism), which isn't the same as a gaming concern (balance). *I use the term "attempt at balance" in all of these advisedly- some are more successful than others. [/QUOTE]

Verification