Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[Dannager]

A homogeneous group is balanced.

And a square is a rectangle.

Any degree of non-homogeny is going to be theoretically unbalanceable.

This demonstrates, to me, that you don't understand the concept of balance within a game environment very well.

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.

Yes.

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

I understand your opinion quite well, because your opinion is the same as pretty much everyone who has ever raised the "More Balance Means More Sameness!" flag.

 

[gamerprinter]

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

As someone above pointed out. In Chess, white goes first - so by definition it isn't balanced either.

But of course, the topic is RPGs and any discussion I make on EN World is solely concerning RPGs.

 

[Dannager]

Basis for the 40% statistic?

I didn't base it on anything. I cited 40% because you claimed that most gamers don't care about balance. The 40% figure allows me to demonstrate that even if most gamers don't care about balance (let's say, 60%), it's still a terrible idea not to make it a priority if a significant chunk of your market does care about it.

 

[Dannager]

Actually, the reverse is true.

No, it's not.

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

Very nearly every long-lived competitive (because competition drives balance concerns) non-RPG in the history of mankind, from board games to card games to sports.

 

[Dannager]

As someone above pointed out. In Chess, white goes first - so by definition it isn't balanced either.

Again, that's not what balance means.

Also, the idea that a game must be perfectly balanced in order to wear the label of "balanced" is ridiculous. Experts agree that first-move advantage is responsible for as little as 2% of victories, so it's clear that Chess remains well-balanced in spite of any advantage you might have in going first (and ignoring the fact that determination of first-move advantage can be randomized, eliminating any native player advantage).

But of course, the topic is RPGs and any discussion I make on EN World is solely concerning RPGs.

That's fine for you, but limiting this discussion to RPGs is myopic when we consider that there are few - if any - examples of long-lived (and by long-lived I don't mean "Has a small, proud, 'thriving' community of people still playing it despite being off the shelves for twenty years.") RPGs out there.

 

[gamerprinter]

I didn't base it on anything. I cited 40% because you claimed that most gamers don't care about balance. The 40% figure allows me to demonstrate that even if most gamers don't care about balance (let's say, 60%), it's still a terrible idea not to make it a priority if a significant chunk of your market does care about it.

The problem is nobody, including you and I, have no real idea what percentage is concerned with balance. Some are, some aren't. You can't please all of the people all of the time, so as a publisher you have to decide which segment of the market is worth targetting in your game design. If I create a more balanced game, like 4e is supposed to be, it might just fracture the market all the moreso, and I don't consider that a worthy goal for a gaming company.

I think the goal for any company is to design a game that's fun to play and hope the market will support it. And don't worry about every segment of the market as you cannot make a product that targets them all - this only leads to failure. And failure is too expensive of a proposition for a company to invest it's design dollars in.

 

[gamerprinter]

Again, that's not what balance means.

Also, the idea that a game must be perfectly balanced in order to wear the label of "balanced" is ridiculous.

That's fine for you, but limiting this discussion to RPGs is myopic when we consider that there are few - if any - examples of long-lived (and by long-lived I don't mean "Has a small, proud, 'thriving' community of people still playing it despite being off the shelves for twenty years.") RPGs out there.

Really? You said, that I would have a hard time arguing my point. So I mentioned several, but the example of 2e is one product. I don't need to list a thousand games, just one to prove my point. And I did. It wasn't a difficult argument at all. Show me one RPG with balanced mechanics that has lasted 20 years. Just one please, if you can (though I know you can't).

And the only reason 2e is off the shelves was a design decision by its owner, not that it needed to be moved off the shelves. Remember the "no more PDFs from WotC issue", why was that an issue, most of the products being lost were the older editions including 2e. Obviously it wouldn't be such a stink, if nobody cared about 2e products... so your small, proud, 'thriving' community line is like most of your arguments - anecdotal. My evidence is real, 2e was on the shelves for 20 years, that's a fact.

 

[Nagol]

No, it's not.



Very nearly every long-lived competitive (because competition drives balance concerns) non-RPG in the history of mankind, from board games to card games to sports.

As for long lasting non-balanced games, there is Hide and Seek, Marco Polo, and other such "it" games.

Regardless, RPGs are not generally competitive. They are much consistently designed designed to be cooperative. In many ways an active RPG group is more comparable to different members of the same team. A goalie does not have the same skills or game options as a forward.

 

[IronWolf]

I didn't base it on anything. I cited 40% because you claimed that most gamers don't care about balance.

I don't think I've mentioned much about balance in this thread. Just pointing out another "fact" brought up by you that isn't based on anything. It really isn't conducive to discussion.

By this point we certainly understand that you don't agree with several of the posters in this thread. But just as we can't speak for the entire gaming industry because we don't have concrete facts, neither can you. Throwing out anecdotes as fact doesn't get us anywhere.

Again - it sounds like you have the game for you and one that you have fun with. That is the important thing, we're all just gamers. Likewise, many of us have a game that we find fun and the style we want to play. There is no wrong here.

 

[IronWolf]

I think the goal for any company is to design a game that's fun to play and hope the market will support it. And don't worry about every segment of the market as you cannot make a product that targets them all - this only leads to failure. And failure is too expensive of a proposition for a company to invest it's design dollars in.

This is it. The goal for a company should be to design a game that is fun to play! It is what we are here for, gamers wanting to have fun playing a game.