Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7468918" data-attributes="member: 6919838">RE the bolded portion...We disagree at least perhaps in a few regards.Even if one limits your balancing toolkits to "pacing shifts" there is nothing at all preventing or making wrong for play having epic singles or chase longs in whatever order you want... and for a short period of play one can be the focus and for another the other can. balance in most any RPG sense has not ever to my knowledge been defined as our sought as "every character contributes the same amount every scene." Since its inception, RPGS have been mostly focused balance-wise of alternating spotlights, not sameness. So, no, nothing is restricted by anything other than a Gm desire and his/her player's desire to have "balance" to whatever degree. Balance can be obtained with the right choices, not a straightjacket. balance can also be blown by the wrong choices, not a problem, just a reality in most any game which has mechanics beyond indie-style screen time points.Now, if one expands his toolkit beyond just pacing choices, then the types of challenges gives another key balancing element even if they want to throw a pro-longed pacing skew. Adversaries not so nova-able help serve even a short pace and vice versa. Challnges which spotlight non-resource capabilities also provide other tools. heck, in our last big combat, my sorcerer had two big bads who were magic proof and where only magic weapons mattered after minions were done. Well, among other things i recovered the magic dagger when the rogue got feared and brought it back to the monster, i called the cleric over from where she was distracted and i used help actions for distraction to give her advantage and (with us being the two most fear resistant of the group) we finished off the beast. Should i have sued the Gm for not giving me a solid magic attackable key to victory under the "must balance every encounter for every character" instead of being a key element to winning the fight that we were losing?My Gm didn't think so judging by the after action stuff... neither did my fellow PCs.matter of fact, the two "crit rolls on fire bolt - followed by no effect whatsoever" gave my character an option to reveal the fancy singer dropping her facade and going back to her street rat enraged guttersnipe language which was quite the roleplaying reveal. Did my Gm expect it? I dont know, but the opportunity was definitely there for me to sieze and my character's resistance to fear made it very strong as a potential good choice and needed choice. If it had been me as a GM, i would see adding in the fear effects as a chance for that ability to shine - and it did.a Gm is as limited as they choose to be when it comes to balance. ***As for not using the encounter guidelines being "wrong" or "not using it" right? those were not a script. those were not a rule that you have to follow. those were a baseline, at most guidelines not a requirement. So, no, i do not agree that having different encounter strengths and rates and ferequencies or whatever is in anyway "no longer working" any more than having more orcs encounters than goblin encounters is or that having more wands than maces or shields is. Those guidelines were not put in as a limit on your campaign any more than a recipe that tells you to add 3 tsp of curry is telling you that more or less curry is wrong.Some may disagree but again, to me each Gm/group chooses their own limits.</blockquote>

Verification