Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[gamerprinter]

Every goal has its cost. It's trivial to make a balanced party; just give them all the same characters. One of the complaints about 4e is that it's already gone too far that way. Giving players the options to play interesting, distinct things with varying degrees of complexity is also an admirable goal, but it tends to work against balance.

And this why balance isn't what its cracked up to be. Its more fair to be balanced sure, but that doesn't necessarily make for a better or more effective game. Balance seems to be worried overmuch, and needlessly so.

 

[Dannager]

This claim certainly borders on the ridiculous. I know some gamers for which balance is important but it certainly is not most.

If 40% of gamers feel that balance in important, and you fail to make balance a priority, you are killing your product.

Of course, what you're providing is anecdote anyway.

Many gamers left WOTC's fold recently.

And many have joined.

It is very possible one of the reasons they did so was 4e's almost exclusive focus on balance.

I think it's very possible that the reasons they did so had nothing to do with balance at all.

I think the title of this thread is evidence enough your claim is shaky.

No. The title of this thread is evidence that Paizo has developed a successful business model - and that the OP is willing to be quite charitable with his use of the word "outselling".

 

[Dannager]

Every goal has its cost. It's trivial to make a balanced party; just give them all the same characters.

Balance and homogeneity are not the same thing. At all. If you are convinced that they are, your opinion isn't going to have a whole lot of weight in this discussion.

 

[Dannager]

And this why balance isn't what its cracked up to be. Its more fair to be balanced sure, but that doesn't necessarily make for a better or more effective game.

I think you'll have a hard time arguing that last point. The games that tend to stick around are typically examples of the best-balanced mechanics out there.

 

[gamerprinter]

I think you'll have a hard time arguing that last point. The games that tend to stick around are typically examples of the best-balanced mechanics out there.

Like D&D 2e/3x? Those weren't too balanced yet had far longer lifetimes on shelves than most 'balanced' games. I don't think what you suggest is true at all. Balance is a goal that's talked about in some circles these days, but there is no real proof that it's going to allow best-balanced mechanics to survive any longer than those 'non-balanced games'.

Some people still play 2e, so that's like 27 years of active use - is this not an example of a 'not-best-balanced mechanics' and is still out there - older than many players to the game... hmmm?

I think I'm arguing it well!

And realistically, D&D before 4e was far more popular than 4e has been and IMO will ever be.

With the most popular games in their time, balance was never a goal, and never what got people to buy into them - D&D 3x and earlier, WoD, etc.

Balance is a nice goal, but its not going to dent any of the popular non-balanced games out there. I really don't think that balance is the end all, be all.

 

[prosfilaes]

Balance and homogeneity are not the same thing. At all.

A homogeneous group is balanced. Any degree of non-homogeny is going to be theoretically unbalanceable. What's a swordsman worth versus an archer? If the DM is running a game in the Underdark where no room is larger than 10' square, archery is going to be useless. If the DM is running a game where you're fighting levitating mages and they always teleport away if you get in sword range, swordswork might be useless. Same for any other two meaningfully different abilities; there's going to be campaigns where one is valuable and the other useless, and vice versa.

If you are convinced that they are, your opinion isn't going to have a whole lot of weight in this discussion.

Nice way to dismiss my opinion without even trying to understand it.

 

[IronWolf]

If 40% of gamers feel that balance in important, and you fail to make balance a priority, you are killing your product.

Basis for the 40% statistic? Did WotC publish a market survey that states 40% of gamers place a priority on balance? And if we take this statistic without question - what do the majority at 60% think?

Of course, what you're providing is anecdote anyway.

Similar to your 40% figure?

And many have joined.

Anecdote.

I think you'll have a hard time arguing that last point. The games that tend to stick around are typically examples of the best-balanced mechanics out there.

They are?

 

[Pentius]

I have to wonder, though, how many players of the still-popular less-balanced games do a bit of self-regulating on the balance scale. I know my group did. It's perfectly possible to make a party of comparable power levels(without being the exact same character), after all. A lot of less-balanced games still see a lot of play, but I'm not convinced that the looser scale of balance is their primary selling point. To put it one way, I've met a lot of people willing to take 3.5 and play a Fighter partied with a friend's Druid, but I've never met someone who really wanted to play 3.5 in order to be the Fighter paired up with the Druid.

Also, RE: Balance and Homogeneity. All Homogeneous things are Balanced, but not all Balanced things are Homogeneous. That's for functional balance, naturally. Absolute Balance is a Unicorn. You can look and look, but you'll never find it. Even in Chess, white gets to go first.

 

[Nagol]

I think you'll have a hard time arguing that last point. The games that tend to stick around are typically examples of the best-balanced mechanics out there.

Actually, the reverse is true.

It's hard to think of a long-lasting highly balanced RPG, save for the "toolkit" systems like GURPS and Hero. They are balanced within themselves because they contain a system of rules for creating RPGs rather than characters. The play group can put a lot of thought into what they want to play and build a sub-set of the game to emulate that thing.

Traveller balanced? Buh-ha-ha. The 19 year-old skillless Merchant washout and the 39 year-old highly decorated Admiral with a dozen skills would like to have a word about "balance".

Oringinal D&Ds (0e, 1e, Holmes Basic, Moldavay Basic) weren't balanced in the same way, with the whole Magic-User / Cleric / Fighting Man using different systems.

Call of Cthulu? Starting characters can start reasonably balanced, but it uses random attributes, the dreaded "combat and non-combat capabilities draw from the same set of resources" that people decry as a balance-killer and once the Mythos books appear balance flies out the nearest straight angle.

Villains and Vigilantes? Aftermath? Tunnels and Trolls? Chivalry and Sorcery? Runequest? Gamma World? Rolemaster?

What long-term games are you thinking about that contain heavy balance?

 

[Dannager]

Like D&D 2e/3x? Those weren't too balanced yet had far longer lifetimes on shelves than most 'balanced' games.

Really? 2e had a longer shelf lifetime than Chess?