Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 4738272" data-attributes="member: 12377">The game rules shouldn't allow you to make that choice.&nbsp; They should not allow me to make a character that is more -- or less -- useful than yours.&nbsp; That's what &quot;game balance&quot; ultimately means.&nbsp; My character can be different but not better.This thread has devolved into people arguing whether or not the game should be balanced.&nbsp; I'm for balance, because it's always easy for the DM to unbalance things by throwing a monkey wrench into the works, if that's what the group wants.&nbsp; (&quot;You're playing Aragorn, so you're 4 levels higher than everybody else... and you hobbits, I have news for you too...&quot;)I'll certainly grant that combat is not the only measure of usefulness, but in most D&amp;D groups it is the most important measure.&nbsp; (For example, it's possible to have fun with a weak character if he is getting a lot of the spotlight -- see aforementioned hobbit example.)&nbsp; But I've played in too many games where one PC wound up accidentally better or worse -- power-wise -- and the other PCs came to resent it.&nbsp; Then the DM has to untangle the mess and it's a pain.&nbsp; So I'm definitely in favor of the core rules being balanced.Since when is being torn any fun?&nbsp; That sucks.&nbsp; A game may be &quot;a series of interesting decisions&quot; but that does not mean that every decision is automatically fun.&nbsp; A trade-off between combat effectiveness and character concept is a lose-lose.&nbsp;-- 77IM</blockquote>

[QUOTE="77IM, post: 4738272, member: 12377"] The game rules [i]shouldn't allow you to make that choice.[/i] They should not allow me to make a character that is more -- or less -- useful than yours. That's what "game balance" ultimately means. My character can be [i]different[/i] but not [i]better[/i]. This thread has devolved into people arguing whether or not the game should be balanced. I'm for balance, because it's always easy for the DM to unbalance things by throwing a monkey wrench into the works, if that's what the group wants. ("You're playing Aragorn, so you're 4 levels higher than everybody else... and you hobbits, I have news for you too...") I'll certainly grant that combat is not the only measure of usefulness, but in most D&D groups it is the most important measure. (For example, it's possible to have fun with a weak character if he is getting a lot of the spotlight -- see aforementioned hobbit example.) But I've played in too many games where one PC wound up [i]accidentally[/i] better or worse -- power-wise -- and the other PCs came to resent it. Then the DM has to untangle the mess and it's a pain. So I'm definitely in favor of the core rules being balanced. Since when is being torn any fun? That sucks. A game may be "a series of interesting decisions" but that does not mean that every decision is automatically fun. A trade-off between combat effectiveness and character concept is a lose-lose. -- 77IM [/QUOTE]

Verification