Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7436010" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I feel like this may be more true of competitive games....chess and tic-tac-toe being examples that were mentioned....but in a collaborative game such as most RPGs, I don't think it's quite as necessary as all that. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by balance....there are a lot of ways we could apply the term to an RPG and to D&amp;D in particular. But given the OP and the way this conversation has gone, I look at it as a game not having &quot;clearly superior options&quot; in the form of feats or class combinations.And I think that's clearly not the case. Sure, a feat like Great Weapon Master may be seen by some as a clearly superior option, and a player who doesn't select it is not being &quot;optimal&quot;. But that's only when combat efficacy is the only goal. For those who aren't as concerned with combat efficacy, or at least for whom it's not the sole concern, such balance is far less important, and certainly not a necessity. This is the fundamental flaw with CapnZapp's premise; it's an issue for his game (and certainly some others', too), but that doesn't mean that the game needs to be revised. It means he and his players should revise the way they play the game....either by house ruling to achieve the desired outcome, or by shifting their focus a bit, and maybe playing the game a bit differently than they always have. If you want to apply the term balance more loosely....perhaps as &quot;most of the existing options will appeal to someone&quot;....then sure, balance is required. Because the goal is fun, so as long as all the players are enjoying themselves, then the game is balanced.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 7436010, member: 6785785"] I feel like this may be more true of competitive games....chess and tic-tac-toe being examples that were mentioned....but in a collaborative game such as most RPGs, I don't think it's quite as necessary as all that. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by balance....there are a lot of ways we could apply the term to an RPG and to D&D in particular. But given the OP and the way this conversation has gone, I look at it as a game not having "clearly superior options" in the form of feats or class combinations. And I think that's clearly not the case. Sure, a feat like Great Weapon Master may be seen by some as a clearly superior option, and a player who doesn't select it is not being "optimal". But that's only when combat efficacy is the only goal. For those who aren't as concerned with combat efficacy, or at least for whom it's not the sole concern, such balance is far less important, and certainly not a necessity. This is the fundamental flaw with CapnZapp's premise; it's an issue for his game (and certainly some others', too), but that doesn't mean that the game needs to be revised. It means he and his players should revise the way they play the game....either by house ruling to achieve the desired outcome, or by shifting their focus a bit, and maybe playing the game a bit differently than they always have. If you want to apply the term balance more loosely....perhaps as "most of the existing options will appeal to someone"....then sure, balance is required. Because the goal is fun, so as long as all the players are enjoying themselves, then the game is balanced. [/QUOTE]

Verification