Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6651617" data-attributes="member: 22779">First off, what do you mean by &quot;balance&quot;.&nbsp; Often there's an issue that people mean very different things by balance.&nbsp; My definition goes like this:Balance:&nbsp; When no given option is obviously better than any other given option.&nbsp; Some options are situationally better (a bow is better than a sword if the target is up a tree) but, overall, given the choice between A or B, neither is always better than the other.Rules lawyering in Basic/Expert gave way to a lot of DM manipulation.&nbsp; &quot;Can I do X&quot; was dependent on how well you could convince your DM that X was an option.&nbsp; It could be fantastic, in the hands of a DM whose POV was similar to your own, or it could be horrid as in the case where there DM was on a totally different track than you.&nbsp; It could very easily lead to game screeching halts as the DM and the player(s) negotiations broke down.&nbsp; OTOH, heavy mechanical systems have their own problems too.&nbsp; The more rules you have, the more chance there is for options to become &quot;king&quot;.&nbsp; See the current discussion about Great Weapon Fighting for a 5e example of this.&nbsp; How much those problems intrude into a given table depends a lot on that particular table, but, it's still a issue.Now, on the issue of rules lawyering, that exists regardless of system.&nbsp; In a rules light system, like Basic D&amp;D, rules lawyering isn't so much manipulating the rules, as manipulating the DM.&nbsp; The rules lawyer tries to couch arguments in terms of &quot;realism&quot; or whatever in order to try to force the DM to rule in his favour.&nbsp; In a rules heavy system, the rules lawyer couches arguments in terms of various interpretations of the rules in order to get his way.&nbsp; In either case, it's done in bad faith in order to gain an advantage in the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6651617, member: 22779"] First off, what do you mean by "balance". Often there's an issue that people mean very different things by balance. My definition goes like this: [indent]Balance: When no given option is obviously better than any other given option. Some options are situationally better (a bow is better than a sword if the target is up a tree) but, overall, given the choice between A or B, neither is always better than the other.[/indent] Rules lawyering in Basic/Expert gave way to a lot of DM manipulation. "Can I do X" was dependent on how well you could convince your DM that X was an option. It could be fantastic, in the hands of a DM whose POV was similar to your own, or it could be horrid as in the case where there DM was on a totally different track than you. It could very easily lead to game screeching halts as the DM and the player(s) negotiations broke down. OTOH, heavy mechanical systems have their own problems too. The more rules you have, the more chance there is for options to become "king". See the current discussion about Great Weapon Fighting for a 5e example of this. How much those problems intrude into a given table depends a lot on that particular table, but, it's still a issue. Now, on the issue of rules lawyering, that exists regardless of system. In a rules light system, like Basic D&D, rules lawyering isn't so much manipulating the rules, as manipulating the DM. The rules lawyer tries to couch arguments in terms of "realism" or whatever in order to try to force the DM to rule in his favour. In a rules heavy system, the rules lawyer couches arguments in terms of various interpretations of the rules in order to get his way. In either case, it's done in bad faith in order to gain an advantage in the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification