Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 64185" data-attributes="member: 172">Oy. Here to educate us are you. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />That said: the idea of balance in a game is twofold:1) So that every character have a role to play and has a comparable ability to affect the outcome of the game.2) So that the GM can effectively challenge all characters without trouncing some of them.Now I don't know how you think FAIR doesn't work into both of these factors, but it does. Fairness is an element of balance.Now you don't have to be balanced down to a gnat's arse... and really, you can't be. But even D&D doesn't pretend to be... after all, it endorses random stat generation.How balanced a game needs to be is largely a personal determination. Some groups have players that don't mind a little dichotomy in character power. But really, a relatively balanced baseline is the way to go. From there, if the GM wants to allows 11th level characters along side 1st (or 200 point alongside 100 point characters), that is entirely his or her perogative.I think you making a distinction is faulty.Which punishes unique character concepts. No thanks, I'll stick with the "balanced as best we can approach" taken by HERO.That's true. And your GM should let you know if it would be a bad call to play a Courtier from Rokugan in your combat intensive game. However play balance is maintained if you take these things into account... you know your Samurai will fare better in combat, you know your Courtier will fare better in court intrigues. One of the central elements of balance is maintained as everyone has a role.That doesn't mean attepts at balance are pointless.I don't think anyone has said that. However it does make it easier to balance encounters. I really don't think this is an indication of the class system in and of itself, but the "balanced party" paradigm of D&D. Of course, I think you would have a harder time maintaining that paradigm without classes, so there is something there.I don't think anyone has said that either. But the true myth that some are touting is that flexibility is everything and the player should be given as free reign as possible. The places that the class system DOESN'T allow flexibility is often what makes it more worthwhile as a game. IMO.While I know that a vocal minority of GURPS players beleive that, I don't think many D20 system players do. Most D&D players I know are more than happy to play GURPS, Shadowrun, HERO, and numerous other systems.I would say SF is the best thing to use GURPS for, I wouldn't say that means GURPS is the best for SF. I personally don't think GURPS is the best for anything... it's too generic.In an odd way, this may be agreeing with you that no game is the best for everything. I just think that your implicit assumption that you may be trying to shove in there... that some games are the best at some things... is equally false. Games are about enteraining the players. And players, being human, have different likes and tolerances. No game is going to convey the best possible experince in a given setting or genre to all players.However, in summary, I don't find your myths especially compelling, primarily because I don't think most of them are widely held.</blockquote>

Verification