Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[technoextreme]

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 ).

So you honestly think that having classes which are completely overshadowed and will never really have anything of meaning to contribute included in the Player's Handbook for a game is a solid design choice?

 

[billd91]

So you honestly think that having classes which are completely overshadowed and will never really have anything of meaning to contribute included in the Player's Handbook for a game is a solid design choice?

Since it is not true that classes are completely overshadowed and will never really have anything of meaning to contribute except in these sorts of hyperbolic arguments, I don't see much of a problem.

 

[Guest 85555]

So you honestly think that having classes which are completely overshadowed and will never really have anything of meaning to contribute included in the Player's Handbook for a game is a solid design choice?

That isn't how i would characterize it but yes I think having one class that starts out weaker than the others but ends up the most powerful (at least in large bursts) can be a solid design choice depending on the type of game you are making and the target audience you are shooting for. Personally i liked the balance between wizards and other classes in 1e and 2e. 3e I had a blast as well but was a little turned off by builds. The 4e approach, which i think is well designed in that they clearly met their design goals, simply doesn't work. If balance is important to you, then you should absolutely play the edition you find most balanced.

 

[Dannager]

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 ).

Well, I mean, yes, it stands to reason that you don't believe something that you personally appreciate to be indicative of poorly-considered design.

 

[Dannager]

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.

And that's the trick to balance - if balance is given its due consideration when designing a game, it will be invisible. If balance is not made a priority, the imbalances will be painfully obvious.

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?

If you look at the most popular online competitive games, they are ones in which balance has been made a priority throughout the design process and into post-release support.

 

[Dannager]

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

Again, perfect balance is not the issue. The point is that an effort is made to achieve a level of balance that makes the game more enjoyable; that is to say, balance has been made a priority by those creating the rules and regulations of the game.

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).

The same applies here.

Just because they play be the same rules (don't all sports/games make everybody play under the same umbrella of rules?)

No.

does not mean they are balanced.

It means that the game is balanced, and it can mean that the players are balanced, to a certain extent.

 

[IronWolf]

So you honestly think that having classes which are completely overshadowed and will never really have anything of meaning to contribute included in the Player's Handbook for a game is a solid design choice?

Completely overshadowed? Never have anything of meaning to contribute? This seems a stretch to me.

 

[Guest 85555]

Well, I mean, yes, it stands to reason that you don't believe something that you personally appreciate to be indicative of poorly-considered design.

I guess what i am saying is it isn't objectively indicative of poor design because of the subjective nature of game appreciation.

 

[Dannager]

Since it is not true that classes are completely overshadowed and will never really have anything of meaning to contribute except in these sorts of hyperbolic arguments,

There are certain games which allow me to create a spellcasting character that can do everything that a Fighter can do for any reasonable amount of time comparable to that a typical adventuring party would spend doing their adventuring thing, plus have at my disposal any number of other spells and consumable magic items which allow me to gain tremendous advantage against nearly any conceivable threat, and certainly any threat against which the Fighter might stand a chance.

That is the very meaning of "overshadowed". The fact that you don't see it is immaterial. I do. Others do. It exists, and the game as designed enables (and, arguably, encourages) it.

I'm not going to spend hours arguing against the "Spellcasters don't outshine Fighters!" crowd. The above is as far as it needs to go.

 

[Dannager]

I guess what i am saying is it isn't objectively indicative of poor design because of the subjective nature of game appreciation.

You can chalk everything up to the subjective nature of game appreciation if you want to.

I could create a "game" in which I push a button and the other three players lose. It wouldn't be much of a game, and I probably wouldn't find it terribly enjoyable, but conceivably someone terribly excited by the potential power trip could come along and claim that it's a great game, and that it's pointless to criticize its design because game appreciation is subjective.

That's nonsense. An individual's tastes are subjective. Your typical person's tastes are, however, understood and catered to.

Game design, as with all fields, has its standard best practices, its worthy tenets, its theories, and its success stories. You can tell me "I don't care much about balance," all day long, but at the end of the day your average person appreciates a level of attention to balance in their games that - at the very least - prevents them from getting hung up on ridiculously unbalanced gameplay.