Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
[rant] Balance schmalance
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1329814" data-attributes="member: 6398"><p>Funny, that's what I said too. Go ahead, read my post. You'll see it in there.</p><p> </p><p>Something else I'm saying, though, is that the "equal opportunity" mind set (one that is more reflective of how the Machina Politico would like us to see the world as opposed to how the world really is) leads some people into believing that if for once they <em>don't</em> share the spotlight for just a moment and someone else is shining just a bit bright for a single session, that they have been denied their "fair shake" and that the GM sucks. Sure, a team mentality is extremely helpful in solving many problems, but it needn't be the one and only way to solve problems and a GM shouldn't be forced to pidgeon-hole every issue into such a mold.</p><p> </p><p>Individuals will shine. In a properly run game, everyone gets a shot. In a poorly run game, it's a few of the whole. It's important not to immediately assume the later because of a false belief that the former isn't possible.</p><p> </p><p>I also find the assessment incorrect. That is to say, the combination is only a problem by manner of scenario design, not by level desparity.</p><p> </p><p>For instance, let's look at Pirates of the Carribean. Sure, Jack Sparrow was quite a few levels up on Will Turner, but in the final battle in the treasure cave, was Will Turner left twiddling his thumbs while Jack Sparrow fought the BBEG? No, Turner had <em>plenty</em> of other tasks to accomplish during the same span of time (i.e., villains and challenges properly rated for him). And, in the end, it was Turner's own actions that ended the curse and won the fight.</p><p> </p><p>I agree that the game itself doesn't do this, and it's probably best that it doesn't. However, a good GM with a firm grasp of what the characters can do (as individual abilities, not just a general number determined by averaging character levels) should have little problem doing it.</p><p> </p><p>Now, if a GM runs a game that is simply combat>combat>combat, then yes, the desparity is going to show quite clearly. But then again, the DMG indicates (3.0 page 8, don't know what page in 3.5) that games that are mostly focused on combat have a greater <em>need</em> for mechanical balance. However, it also says that this style of play is an extreme condition, just like games that are 99% role-play are an extreme condition but are less bound to the dictates of mechanical balance. It also goes on to indicate that most games fall in the middle ground, with balance being a good contributor to fun but not oh-so-important that the GM should jump through hoops to maintain it at all times. So, while preaching balance to a degree is a good thing, preaching it too much runs the risk of making it seem to be far more important <em>over-all</em> than it really is.</p><p> </p><p>On this, I agree. However, it doesn't seem to be the topic of discussion. After all, this issue was eliminated with the general class design of 3E. The question is, now that the system is as balanced as it is, is there really any point trying to make it "more" balanced, or it is balanced enough for everyone's needs? I'd say the later, although I can imagine some (like the more mathematically focused amongst us that Henry points out) to go over everything with a tweazers and whine about a .001% desparity at Level 100. To me it's not worth it. The game works well enough for the <em>majority</em> of games being played.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bendris Noulg, post: 1329814, member: 6398"] Funny, that's what I said too. Go ahead, read my post. You'll see it in there. Something else I'm saying, though, is that the "equal opportunity" mind set (one that is more reflective of how the Machina Politico would like us to see the world as opposed to how the world really is) leads some people into believing that if for once they [i]don't[/i] share the spotlight for just a moment and someone else is shining just a bit bright for a single session, that they have been denied their "fair shake" and that the GM sucks. Sure, a team mentality is extremely helpful in solving many problems, but it needn't be the one and only way to solve problems and a GM shouldn't be forced to pidgeon-hole every issue into such a mold. Individuals will shine. In a properly run game, everyone gets a shot. In a poorly run game, it's a few of the whole. It's important not to immediately assume the later because of a false belief that the former isn't possible. I also find the assessment incorrect. That is to say, the combination is only a problem by manner of scenario design, not by level desparity. For instance, let's look at Pirates of the Carribean. Sure, Jack Sparrow was quite a few levels up on Will Turner, but in the final battle in the treasure cave, was Will Turner left twiddling his thumbs while Jack Sparrow fought the BBEG? No, Turner had [i]plenty[/i] of other tasks to accomplish during the same span of time (i.e., villains and challenges properly rated for him). And, in the end, it was Turner's own actions that ended the curse and won the fight. I agree that the game itself doesn't do this, and it's probably best that it doesn't. However, a good GM with a firm grasp of what the characters can do (as individual abilities, not just a general number determined by averaging character levels) should have little problem doing it. Now, if a GM runs a game that is simply combat>combat>combat, then yes, the desparity is going to show quite clearly. But then again, the DMG indicates (3.0 page 8, don't know what page in 3.5) that games that are mostly focused on combat have a greater [i]need[/i] for mechanical balance. However, it also says that this style of play is an extreme condition, just like games that are 99% role-play are an extreme condition but are less bound to the dictates of mechanical balance. It also goes on to indicate that most games fall in the middle ground, with balance being a good contributor to fun but not oh-so-important that the GM should jump through hoops to maintain it at all times. So, while preaching balance to a degree is a good thing, preaching it too much runs the risk of making it seem to be far more important [i]over-all[/i] than it really is. On this, I agree. However, it doesn't seem to be the topic of discussion. After all, this issue was eliminated with the general class design of 3E. The question is, now that the system is as balanced as it is, is there really any point trying to make it "more" balanced, or it is balanced enough for everyone's needs? I'd say the later, although I can imagine some (like the more mathematically focused amongst us that Henry points out) to go over everything with a tweazers and whine about a .001% desparity at Level 100. To me it's not worth it. The game works well enough for the [i]majority[/i] of games being played. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
[rant] Balance schmalance
Top