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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 9185353" data-attributes="member: 996">Game balance is an older concept than TTRPGs, EGG was openly trying, however baroquely and unsuccessfully, to build balance into the system back in the 1e DMG.  Balance is a positive quality that games can posses.If you want to argue that balance is bad, you have a very difficult uphill battle.  You're going to need more than the standard-issue unverifiable anecdote from an anonymous internet source, or fallacious appeal to popularity.Someone with that attitude should probably prefer competative games to cooperative ones, then.  The social contract of a competative game is that there will be losers, so making good while othes make bad choices is a path to winning, which is part of the point.In a cooperative game, everyone contributes to the win, and if anyone contributes too little, it's a loss for everyone.  If the only thing that makes choice meaningful is power, then making a meaningful choice would mean some of the players choosing meaningfully less powerful options, which would then reduce the players' chance of winning the game - so, really, only the viable choices, the ones that can lead to a win, are real, which makes them meaningless, again, once system mastery is applied....OK, I see it, if the point of choices is only to separate the sysetem masters from the mass of the player population....Equally effective or equally contributing does not mean equal or identical.  It just means they're all viable, really.I think we get hung up on trying to visualize equality, and, sure, exact numerical & functional equality can be readily visualized by an example like two things that are identical.  That it might take a bit more effort to visualize things being distinct, unique, but still equal should not stop us from striving for that.</blockquote>

Verification