Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[Dannager]

I think Ralph Waldo Emmerson made a quote about game balance...

Ah yes,

Adhering only to game balance is the hobgoblin of little minds...

oh right... A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. How easy it is to mix the two up.

Silly me, Ralph Waldo Emmerson never played RPG's...

*Joking really

"Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it." - George Santanaya

 

[Dannager]

Well then you need to present arguments that it is not sameness. Just saying "you don't know the difference between homogeneity and balance," does not convince anyone of anything.

I've provided examples of games featuring concerted efforts to balance classes that are varying and distinct from one another, but sure, here's another: World of Warcraft features cooperative, competitive, and team-based gameplay, and every class is balanced against every other class based on all three of the above considerations.

There are a bunch of powers with cool names, that when it is brought down to numbers pretty much do the same thing within their pigeon holed 'roles'.

Really.

There are thousands of powers in the D&D Compendium.

If they all do the same thing, back it up with a bit of evidence. Go into the Compendium and find me just ten pairs of powers which are perfectly mechanically identical to one another. That shouldn't be hard, right?

 

[Guest 85555]

One thing i've learned from twenty plus years of gaming, there is no one right answer on the balance issue. Everyone has a different opinion on how important balance is, and everyone has a different idea of what balanced means and how best to a achieve(balance over a campaign versus an encounter, etc). For me 4e takes too heavy a hand on balance for my preferences, but I am not the target audience. Someone like dannager is the target and it looks like he's happy with game. Me I am much happier with old fashioned wizards who start weak and get uber over time (liked it best when they advance at different rate) and fighters who are decent to start but don't really compare to a wizard in the end. For me that hits the flavor and style I like. What i can't see is how wizards could possibly make a game both dannager and i would be enthusiastic about now that you have such a visible split and both sides seem to have a game that works for them.

 

[Dannager]

No actually, sports adopted those terms. They did not originate there. You did realize this didn't you? (see how that last line sounds?)
Before you get snarky make sure what you are saying holds weight please.

Actually, the term probably saw use regarding physical competition and drama at about the same time, and clearly has roots in the sort of activity that was the direct predecessor to sports. Heck, the root "agon" means "contest".

From the Random House Dictionary: agōnistḗs - one who contends for a prize, combatant, actor.

 

[Dannager]

One thing i've learned from twenty plus years of gaming, there is no one right answer on the balance issue. Everyone has a different opinion on how important balance is, and everyone has a different idea of what balanced means and how best to a achieve(balance over a campaign versus an encounter, etc). For me 4e takes too heavy a hand on balance for my preferences, but I am not the target audience. Someone like dannager is the target and it looks like he's happy with game. Me I am much happier with old fashioned wizards who start weak and get uber over time (liked it best when they advance at different rate) and fighters who are decent to start but don't really compare to a wizard in the end. For me that hits the flavor and style I like. What i can't see is how wizards could possibly make a game both dannager and i would be enthusiastic about now that you have such a visible split and both sides seem to have a game that works for them.

I find it hard to imagine a game that could satisfy us both. The fact that spellcasters could shape reality to their whim with a thought at high levels, and Fighters were still just a guy with a sword and some shiny armor is a pretty big sticking point for me. It is not solid game design. A game that features uber casters and pitiable fighters will not be for me, and a game that doesn't feature those things won't be for you. I don't see a reconciliation.

 

[Guest 85555]

I find it hard to imagine a game that could satisfy us both. The fact that spellcasters could shape reality to their whim with a thought at high levels, and Fighters were still just a guy with a sword and some shiny armor is a pretty big sticking point for me. It is not solid game design. A game that features uber casters and pitiable fighters will not be for me, and a game that doesn't feature those things won't be for you. I don't see a reconciliation.

Exactly. Though I don't think it is an issue of 3e or 2e/1e not being solidly designed, it is an issue of that design not appealing to you. It is just a different approach to balance that works for some but doesn't for many others (which also happens to be the case with 4E ).

The more playtests I run of my own games the more I realize the key thing is for designers to have a rubric to measure responses against their design goals and the people they are designing the games for. It has less to do with there being a golden method to design, and more to do with realizing who and what you are making. When the design goals/target audience don't line up with your game, then I think its fair to call it shoddy or not solid design. This is why I would never say 4E or pathfinder are poorly designed. They are made for very specific gamers, and they please their target audience.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

A question, to folks with a better business sense than me:

To what extent does "balance" actually matter in (1) selling a game, and (2) maintaining a customer base?

I'd assume that the vast majority of gamers are casual gamers, not armchair game theorists or designers, so I'd guess that as a selling point "balance" would be practically invisible, way behind obvious things like marketing, production values, outreach (eg, Encouters, etc), and word of mouth.

I could see that balance might help in retaining customers, though even that I see as secondary to things like supplement support, availability of other players of that game, quality of those players (eg, social interaction), and the like. That is to say, I'd think that factors external to the game would quite possibly be at least as important to the casual gamer as the game itself.

Thoughts?

 

[gamerprinter]

A question, to folks with a better business sense than me:

To what extent does "balance" actually matter...

I could see that balance would help in retaining customers, though even that I see as secondary to things like supplement support, availability of other players of that game, quality of those players (eg, social interaction), and the like. That is to say, I'd think that factors external to the game would quite possibly be more important to the casual gamer than the game itself.

Thoughts?

This. As in creating a product that best serves a userbase for a duration.

Balance as far as a primary selling point is almost mute. However, creating a balanced game that offers more long term quality with appropriate mechanics to keep every player more happy consistently - this is reason for balance.

Selling RPGs is never for a quick buck, as most know we aren't getting rich selling games we create. But if players recognize a game is unbalanced they aren't going to want to play and that will affect your bottom line pretty quickly.

As I posted up thread, balance is one of those things that a publisher must consider, but it is in no way the primary goal or even one of the top goals, it is still something that must be considered before release - simple.

 

[DaveMage]

A question, to folks with a better business sense than me:

To what extent does "balance" actually matter in (1) selling a game, and (2) maintaining a customer base?

Fun matters.

Re-playability matters.

If you have these two things, balance is irrelevant.

(Of course, "balance" or lack of same, can be used to affect fun and replayability, but not necessarily in the same way for the same people. "Balance" is a game feature, not a core requirement.)

 

[rkwoodard]

wait

I'm so glad you mentioned this.

Yes, fans of Team X want Team X to be made of nothing but awesome dudes. But fans of Team X don't make the rules. The league makes the rules. And the league implements rules designed to make sure that a team's players aren't out of hand - for instance, most leagues have limits on the total salaries they're able to pay out (go over the limit and face a fine), and every league has rules and regulations on substance abuse above and beyond the legal system (for an example of a sports league trying to keep players balanced against one another, look at their reaction to steroid abuse in baseball a few years back).



As a fan of that team, yes.

As a member of the rules committee for the league? Not so much.

How is the University of Alabama Football team balanced against Vanderbuilt University? (same division, same conference).

Or how is the Dallas Cowboys (usually at the top of the payroll max) balanced against the Browns (usually toward the bottom of the payroll min).

Just because they play be the same rules (don't all sports/games make everybody play under the same umbrella of rules?) does not mean they are balanced.

RK