Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[Dannager]

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?

Because football is entertainment for the audience, and an RPG is entertainment for the players.

When a bunch of guys get together in a backyard to play touch football, they don't have a special teams group that sits out for 90% of the game.

When you're talking about a game, something played for the sake of its own entertainment, everyone ought to have something interesting to do at any given point, or at the very least right around the corner. WotC decided that having something interesting to do on a round-to-round basis was enough to keep everyone engaged.

 

[prosfilaes]

When you're talking about a game, something played for the sake of its own entertainment, everyone ought to have something interesting to do at any given point, or at the very least right around the corner. WotC decided that having something interesting to do on a round-to-round basis was enough to keep everyone engaged.

But that's not about balance. A lot of the people who play fighters in D&D 3 are happy doing what they do every round, even if other people are doing more damage doing their thing.

 

[Dannager]

But that's not about balance. A lot of the people who play fighters in D&D 3 are happy doing what they do every round, even if other people are doing more damage doing their thing.

Inherent in that is the idea that no one character is going to consistently steal the spotlight from any other character. That is about balance.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Also inherent is some people leaving the table yawning - that is boring. If every character is in the spotlight all the time then no one shines. It leads to characters feeling very samey.

Not everybody values balance as much as you think; for a goodly number of folks seeing page after page of balancing minutiae and errata is not a good thing.

Having the character generator change your sheet every time you level is not a good thing.

Being told that the book you bought two weeks ago is now out of date is not a good thing.

If D&D is losing market share vs Pathfinder then spending this much effort trying to keep things balanced is wasted effort - a goodly percentage of folks just don't care that much about balance, and the effort could be better expended in trying to expand the market rather than in trying to get everything perfectly aligned.

The Auld Grump

 

[prosfilaes]

Inherent in that is the idea that no one character is going to consistently steal the spotlight from any other character. That is about balance.

Well, no; "having something interesting to do on a round-to-round basis" has nothing to do with the spotlight.

In any case, IME, the spotlight time depends on which backstories the DM buys into, who ends up party leader and who doesn't. It doesn't really depend on who's good at combat.

 

[bouncyhead]

Because football is entertainment for the audience, and an RPG is entertainment for the players.

It is true that in the age of spectator sports, most sports have developed to a lesser or greater extent so as to better entertain an audience, but the prime purpose of most sports is the enjoyment of the participants. Spectators came along later.

When a bunch of guys get together in a backyard to play touch football, they don't have a special teams group that sits out for 90% of the game.

But they will have a qb, receivers and tacklers, all of whom have clearly defined roles that will not all be 'balanced' in terms of spotlight, significance etc.. Even a casual game of football has keeper, defender, midfield and striker roles clearly defined and success depends upon playing those roles effectively. Again, these roles are not 'balanced' in terms of each participant feeling equally valued. The idea of an imbalance between the individual roles is implicit.

 

[Nagol]

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.*

Well the team owners have a separate mini-game around apportioning the roster of potential players. This game can have an impact of the team's success at the other game. The owners discovered that some players of this game had disporportionate success because the team's income/owners discretionary income was higher than others'. So they have attempted to 'balance' that mini-game through a series of rule changes and new sub-systems like salary caps, profit-sharing, etc.

 

[TheUltramark]

It is true that in the age of spectator sports, most sports have developed to a lesser or greater extent so as to better entertain an audience, but the prime purpose of most sports is the enjoyment of the participants. Spectators came along later.

In the age of specator sports???? you mean since 2000 bc ???
Also - the prime purpose in sports is winning,

But they will have a qb, receivers and tacklers, all of whom have clearly defined roles that will not all be 'balanced' in terms of spotlight, significance etc.. Even a casual game of football has keeper, defender, midfield and striker roles clearly defined and success depends upon playing those roles effectively. Again, these roles are not 'balanced' in terms of each participant feeling equally valued. The idea of an imbalance between the individual roles is implicit.

in "pick up games" I bet you would find it more common that roles are blurred, even non-exsistant. In pick up games the stakes arent nearly as high. Winning is still the objective, obviously, but other than the nights bar tab, or some other minor wager, pride is all thats at stake.

 

[BryonD]

Because football is entertainment for the audience, and an RPG is entertainment for the players.

When a bunch of guys get together in a backyard to play touch football, they don't have a special teams group that sits out for 90% of the game.

When you're talking about a game, something played for the sake of its own entertainment, everyone ought to have something interesting to do at any given point, or at the very least right around the corner. WotC decided that having something interesting to do on a round-to-round basis was enough to keep everyone engaged.

I don't think that is a good assessment of the tabletop RPG experience.

I've been playing for decades now and having periods in which a particular character shines is presumed and accepted. In fact, I'd certainly say that removing that would be a serious negative because those chances to the "the star" are part of the fun.

But it does require a good DM that keeps the story moving and exciting. If you have that then the other players are not sitting around waiting for something to do. They are highly engaged watching and encouraging the player/character whose heroics will have a significant impact on the fates of their characters as well. It is great fun for everyone. (and, of course, the 90% number you threw out has nothing to do with real gaming experiences)

But if your design basis presumes that a quality DM isn't certain, and further that the design should make that completely expendable and even go so far as to presume new DMs as the default, then achieving that engagement and fun can't be assumed. And the scenario you have described is required. And you will be required to trade out other things to fill that void.

But if your 3E games ran that way, then yeah, you will need to play something else. But if your players lose interest unless they specifically have something to do themselves every round, then that is a shame because there are other aspects of engagement that clearly are lacking there.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think we may be getting lost in the object of comparison here. Not sure proving anything about football helps either side of the edition balance debate.