Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[prosfilaes]

For balance to justify regular rules updates, it doesn't have to be much of a priority, given how minor the inconvenience of keeping up with the rules updates is.

Even ignoring the people who don't find it such an inconvenience, they're expensive to make and distribute.

How in the world did you manage to convince yourself that I was claiming that purposefully making certain choices objectively - and significantly! - better than others was something to be encouraged?

You were. You were using Magic the Gathering as an example of balance, and that's M:tG's balance.

You said you wanted examples of asymmetrical games that balance players (and teams!) against each other. Fine, you got some.

No, I didn't. You gave me a list of asymmetrical games. You made no attempt to show they were balanced in any way. When I pointed out they are seriously unbalanced, this is your response.

Now you're saying that's not good enough; apparently, in order to show you that games like D&D benefit from balance, I actually have to show you that D&D itself benefits from balance, because any other examples we bring to the table are being hand-waved off.

Gee whiz, I ask you for some evidence you could run the space shuttle on gasoline, and I won't take the fact that cars can run on gasoline and jets on jet fuel as proof. How unfair.

Half your examples, like sports and Magic, don't even have player balance in the sense you're talking about. The other half are homogenous, and you've argued that that's not the type of balance you want for D&D.

 

[Dannager]

Even ignoring the people who don't find it such an inconvenience, they're expensive to make and distribute.

Not compared to releasing new content. They take a bit of development time and they're distributed via online tools/websites. They're incorporated into the latest build of tools like the Character Builder during the same time that the CB is being updated anyway.

You were. You were using Magic the Gathering as an example of balance, and that's M:tG's balance.

No, it's not.

That's M:tG's strategy, but it's not the same as its balance. The M:tG devs really do focus on balance quite a lot, and I mean real balance. They take tremendous care to ensure that each color is competitive in each set, to ensure that costs are commensurate with gains, and to ensure that the classic deck strategies have the ramp necessary to work.

I'm afraid you're not going to be able to convince me that "Pull mythics play mythics!" is the extent of M:tG's balance considerations.

No, I didn't. You gave me a list of asymmetrical games. You made no attempt to show they were balanced in any way. When I pointed out they are seriously unbalanced, this is your response.

I've played both of those games. Both sides win an appreciable amount of the time, and that win percentage increases with the skills of the players in question. They're balanced fine.

Gee whiz, I ask you for some evidence you could run the space shuttle on gasoline, and I won't take the fact that cars can run on gasoline and jets on jet fuel as proof. How unfair.

That's fine, if that's your standard, but if it is, don't string me along for two pages saying "Yeah, but you haven't shown that cars can run on gasoline yet!"

Half your examples, like sports and Magic, don't even have player balance in the sense you're talking about. The other half are homogenous, and you've argued that that's not the type of balance you want for D&D.

Okay, I'll bite: what is the "player balance" that you think I'm talking about?

 

[prosfilaes]

That's fine, if that's your standard, but if it is, don't string me along for two pages saying "Yeah, but you haven't shown that cars can run on gasoline yet!"

You're the one who insisted it was relevant; it was your responsibility to show that it was.

Okay, I'll bite: what is the "player balance" that you think I'm talking about?

If you don't know what you mean by balance, then what are you arguing about?

 

[Pentius]

Even ignoring the people who don't find it such an inconvenience, they're expensive to make and distribute.

Expensive compared to what? Making them takes up some of someone's time, but I'd be very surprised if it was a major time consideration at WotC. and the distribution is easier, it's on their website, available for download. So, that's a bit of bandwidth cost, but probably trivial compared to the online mags, since the errata is a smaller document.

 

[Dannager]

You're the one who insisted it was relevant; it was your responsibility to show that it was.

I just want to make it clear: you spent two and a half pages moving the goalposts on the question of "What other games out there feature balance as a priority?" just so that you could finish it off with "Those examples aren't good enough, and it's your responsibility to show relevance anyway!"?

Because...man.

If you don't know what you mean by balance, then what are you arguing about?

Are you trying to troll, here? I asked you what you think I mean so that I have some idea of whether or not you're on the same page as me. I know what I'm talking about. I'm asking if you have any clue as to what I mean when I use the term, because you seem quite sure that it doesn't mean what I think it does.

 

[Hussar]

Umm, since when do we balance games on a player by player basis? I can't think of any games that do so. Oh, wait, I suppose golf might with the idea of handicaps. But, by and large, games never, ever try to balance between players.

What they do balance between is opportunities in play. Yes, Football Team A is better than Football Team B, but not because the rules favor Team A. The rules are absolutely neutral between the two teams. Both teams field exactly the same number of players, both teams follow identical sets of rules governing virtually all aspects that are not down to simple skill of the player.

Having a better quarterback doesn't mean football is an unbalanced game. There is no such thing as "player balance" AFAIK.

*GACK!!! I'm not getting suckered into this again.*

 

[Dannager]

Umm, since when do we balance games on a player by player basis? I can't think of any games that do so. Oh, wait, I suppose golf might with the idea of handicaps. But, by and large, games never, ever try to balance between players.

What they do balance between is opportunities in play. Yes, Football Team A is better than Football Team B, but not because the rules favor Team A. The rules are absolutely neutral between the two teams. Both teams field exactly the same number of players, both teams follow identical sets of rules governing virtually all aspects that are not down to simple skill of the player.

Having a better quarterback doesn't mean football is an unbalanced game. There is no such thing as "player balance" AFAIK.

*GACK!!! I'm not getting suckered into this again.*

This is what I mean when using the term. Players are not balanced against one another in a literal sense (outside of matchmaking systems), but the framework of rules that exists around each player is balanced against the framework that exists around each other player.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Umm, since when do we balance games on a player by player basis? I can't think of any games that do so. Oh, wait, I suppose golf might with the idea of handicaps. But, by and large, games never, ever try to balance between players.

What they do balance between is opportunities in play. Yes, Football Team A is better than Football Team B, but not because the rules favor Team A. The rules are absolutely neutral between the two teams. Both teams field exactly the same number of players, both teams follow identical sets of rules governing virtually all aspects that are not down to simple skill of the player.

Having a better quarterback doesn't mean football is an unbalanced game. There is no such thing as "player balance" AFAIK.

*GACK!!! I'm not getting suckered into this again.*

This is what I mean when using the term. Players are not balanced against one another in a literal sense (outside of matchmaking systems), but the framework of rules that exists around each player is balanced against the framework that exists around each other player.

Right. So, just to frame my personal spin on balance (and I think others'), consider the "party" in D&D to be analogous to the football team for a moment. Stop considering balance between teams, or balance between individual players, and consider balance between player roles.

From that perspective, each football player operates according to the same rules regarding fouls, touching, tackling, passing, scoring; yet they also all have different functions, positions, and rules specific to their roles.

Here's the thing: Not all those player roles are balanced against each other, and certainly not under all conditions. Some games, a team's kicker may never set foot on the field; his impact on the game is clearly not balanced against the quarterback's. Even when completely ignoring individual player ability (that's what the contest is actually measuring, in fact) and ignoring the inherent balance between the teams (that's what makes it a fair contest to measure prowess), the game, while balanced as a whole, is inherently imbalanced with respect to the roles in that game.

I believe that is ultimately the objection that some have to an over-attention to "balance" in a game: it's simply not appropriate all the time. At some times, the defensive players need to shine, while at other times the offensive ones do. There's no reason to ensure that both offensive and defensive roles must shine all the time; and were a football coach to attempt that, he'd be looking forward to a losing season.

Why are RPGs any different? Why is it necessary that every character has something important to do every round, when in a balanced game like football, not every player has the same consideration?

 

[Summer-Knight925]

I...what?

exactly...I was tired of reading 9 pages of people arguing about something pointless so I pulled an Ozymandias (from Watchmen if you don't catch this reference) and make everyone unite

tehe?

 

[prosfilaes]

Expensive compared to what? Making them takes up some of someone's time, but I'd be very surprised if it was a major time consideration at WotC.

Why not? I would think that it would be the equivalent of a full time employee. You're talking about a very complex rules system that's already tightly balanced. You're going to need to analyze various perceived problems and possible solutions with a group of people; then you're going to need to playtest it. Exhaustively. Take the changes with dozens of slightly different parties against dozens of slightly different challenges. Unless you're doing that, there's no reason to think you're actually making improvements.