Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="shadow" data-source="post: 6296097" data-attributes="member: 2182">That's true.&nbsp; It is a little problematic to simply use the word simulation.&nbsp; (Hence my use of quotation marks around the word simulation.)&nbsp; I suppose it's a 'simulation' of the reality found in legends and fantasy fiction.&nbsp; Or perhaps a better way to put it would be an emphasis on telling a good story without too much emphasis on precise mechanical balance.&nbsp; For example, if the fantasy milieu calls for wizards to be powerful then it is okay to have them a little more powerful than other characters (perhaps balanced by the DM imposing plot based restraints).&nbsp; On the other hand, we would have balance achieved through mechanical balance whether or not it makes sense in terms of the setting or the story.&nbsp; (For example, 4e's encounter powers dictated that certain powers could only be used once per encounter but provided no rationale as to why that may be.)&nbsp; Yes, I realize that it is a rather simplistic dichotomy, but it does illustrate two different philosophies that are prevalent when it comes to gaming.Anyway, as for me I prefer somewhere in the 'middle'.&nbsp; RPGs are not impromptu theater so rules and constraints are obviously needed.&nbsp; I obviously don't want one class or race to be completely super powered.&nbsp; However, when it comes to balance, I want the constraints to make sense within the confines of the story.&nbsp; One of the beefs I had with some of the rules of Pathfinder and D&amp;D 4e (and also some elements of 3.5) was that some of the rules seemed very 'metagamey'.&nbsp; I mentioned the now famous example of the Pathfinder alchemist as an example because, rather than constrain the 'explosive' ability with time needed to make explosives, or the amount of bombs that could be realistically carried, there is the rather seemingly arbitrary restriction of 'explosives per day'.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="shadow, post: 6296097, member: 2182"] That's true. It is a little problematic to simply use the word simulation. (Hence my use of quotation marks around the word simulation.) I suppose it's a 'simulation' of the reality found in legends and fantasy fiction. Or perhaps a better way to put it would be an emphasis on telling a good story without too much emphasis on precise mechanical balance. For example, if the fantasy milieu calls for wizards to be powerful then it is okay to have them a little more powerful than other characters (perhaps balanced by the DM imposing plot based restraints). On the other hand, we would have balance achieved through mechanical balance whether or not it makes sense in terms of the setting or the story. (For example, 4e's encounter powers dictated that certain powers could only be used once per encounter but provided no rationale as to why that may be.) Yes, I realize that it is a rather simplistic dichotomy, but it does illustrate two different philosophies that are prevalent when it comes to gaming. Anyway, as for me I prefer somewhere in the 'middle'. RPGs are not impromptu theater so rules and constraints are obviously needed. I obviously don't want one class or race to be completely super powered. However, when it comes to balance, I want the constraints to [I]make sense within the confines of the story[/I]. One of the beefs I had with some of the rules of Pathfinder and D&D 4e (and also some elements of 3.5) was that some of the rules seemed very 'metagamey'. I mentioned the now famous example of the Pathfinder alchemist as an example because, rather than constrain the 'explosive' ability with time needed to make explosives, or the amount of bombs that could be realistically carried, there is the rather seemingly arbitrary restriction of 'explosives per day'. [/QUOTE]

Verification