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: 9187631" data-attributes="member: 996">So, for context (apologies for those getting tired of seeing it), a definition of balance that I've encountered that has seemed helpful to me, goesA game is better balanced the more choices it presents to the player that are both meaningful and viable.Now, yes, meaningful can be quite subjective, and tolerating some added choices that seem meaningless but turn out to all get chosen with some enthusiasm, can be just fine. Viable, OTOH, can be downright quantifiable, and speaks to the contribution the choice makes to completing the game successfully. So, rhetorically, this time:  How do non-viable choices provide imagery or support theme?Well, they don't, quite the opposite, the non-viable choices will tend to exclude or marginalize some of that imagery and undermine the theme. How do meaningless choices? Possibly by having meaning specific to the theme (so not actually meaningless, once viewed from the proper context), or perhaps, by representing imagery that part of the theme, so even tho ultimately meaningless, it's familiarity and association with the theme helps to support it.Why would a game need to punish players who fall for trap choices, to support a theme?It wouldn't, doing so would undermine the theme in the long run as players learn to avoid those theme-supporting choices. If said choices are contrary to the theme in the first place, they should simply excluded or weighted differently, rather than being falsely resented as good, while actually failing to deliver.Is the theme just "lol, sucks to be you?"There's maybe a strain of that, like hazing the newbie. Fraternities perform hazing rituals for a reason, afterall.  Building in extra rewards for system mastery amplifies the distinction between new/casual and experienced/serious players.  Thing is, complex games, like TTRPGs have a great deal of room for acquiring & displaying system mastery, even if very carefully balanced, as long as the game isn't over-simplified by paring away 'traps' until few choices remain (which is not actually improving balance, by the definition, above, but it can be thought of as 'fixing' imbalance - I'd say it's just being more honest about it). So, when you said:You meant the opposite, that opposing improved balance is about deviating from or subverting the classic fantasy genre, rather than preserving the themes & bits of that genre?  I mean, do you still think opposing balance is about sticking up for the theme's and imagery of classic fantasy?Standard-issue appeal to popularity aside, balance doesn't tear down unique archetypes, it just makes them all distinct & viable within the same game, assuring that they can each be chosen by players without undue negative consequences to the play experience. That is, unless the defining quality of those archetypes is that some must be strictly inferior to others, in which case, we are back to simply hating balance.</blockquote>

Verification