Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8698087" data-attributes="member: 177">First, just to clear the air here - 5e does not pretend to be a narrative-focused, rules lite game.&nbsp; This is just... incorrect.&nbsp; It may be seen as slightly more narrative focused and lite than some previous editions.&nbsp; But it has no pretensions of being lite or narrative as compared to the broader gaming ecology out there.I have seen this assertion before in discussions here - they are usually the result of someone taking what another person has said, driving it to a pole, and asserting the game itself claims to be thus.&nbsp; But in all honestly, if you look at the game itself, it doesn't.That aside, and ignoring other nitpicks on the twitter thread, yes, I think going forward the game should be balanced.&nbsp; And I mean balance in the sense that by and large, most choices available to players should be fairly effective ones.&nbsp; Balance, from my perspective, is a quality of a system that means the GM does not usually need to work hard to correct for mechanical disparities that lead to disparities in spotlight time and effectiveness.&nbsp; A player should be able to open the book, make standard choices, and not end up feeling like they made errors, or are stupid, or their character is worthless to the party.I don't care about balanced economic systems, for example - real economics is tedious, picayune, and poorly understood even by economists.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 8698087, member: 177"] First, just to clear the air here - 5e does not pretend to be a narrative-focused, rules lite game. This is just... incorrect. It may be seen as [I]slightly[/I] more narrative focused and lite than some previous editions. But it has no pretensions of being lite or narrative as compared to the broader gaming ecology out there. I have seen this assertion before in discussions here - they are usually the result of someone taking what another person has said, driving it to a pole, and asserting the game itself claims to be thus. But in all honestly, if you look at the game itself, it doesn't. That aside, and ignoring other nitpicks on the twitter thread, yes, I think going forward the game should be balanced. And I mean balance in the sense that by and large, most choices available to players should be fairly effective ones. Balance, from my perspective, is a quality of a system that means the GM does not usually need to work hard to correct for mechanical disparities that lead to disparities in spotlight time and effectiveness. A player should be able to open the book, make standard choices, and not end up feeling like they made errors, or are stupid, or their character is worthless to the party. I don't care about balanced economic systems, for example - real economics is tedious, picayune, and poorly understood even by economists. [/QUOTE]

Verification