Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7445892" data-attributes="member: 996">Interestingly, it's those who decry any attempt to improve balance who seem more inclined to bring up 'perfect balance.'&nbsp; &quot;Perfect balance is impossible!&quot;&nbsp; (so stop trying to improve balance)&quot;Perfect balance would be boring!&quot;&nbsp; (So don't worry if you wreck what balance you have, it'll be more fun!)&quot;Of course, we admit that the game isn't perfectly balanced...&quot; (...so we don't have to acknowledge how profoundly imbalanced it is.)... there may be no limit to the constructs of illogic that can be used to defend imbalance.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Part of the problem is that, in the context of our hobby there's imbalance that's intuitive &amp; easy to spot - strict superiority (a choice is better than all alternatives, in all ways) - but, as a definition, it's too absolute to be of use.&nbsp; All it takes is one improbably situational advantage to put a plus in the inferior column or one trivial limitation for a minus in the other and it's not strict, anymore, it can be 'balanced' if those tiny differences are hammered hard &amp; often enough.We need a better definition. The best I've heard, for balance in the context of RPGs*, is that balance is the maximizing of player choices, while keeping those choices both meaningful &amp; viable.Perfect balance would thus be infinite choices, none of which are anywhere near being traps or must-haves, but each of which is meaningfully different and can lead, with capable play, to desirable outcomes, or, with mistakes &amp; bad luck, undesirable ones. The universe of outcomes, in such a game, might also need to be infinite.So, yeah, impossible to achieve.&nbsp; But that also just means that improvement is always possible.* though, of course it wasn't originated in our tiny industry.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7445892, member: 996"] Interestingly, it's those who decry any attempt to improve balance who seem more inclined to bring up 'perfect balance.' "Perfect balance is impossible!" (so stop trying to improve balance) "Perfect balance would be boring!" (So don't worry if you wreck what balance you have, it'll be more fun!) "Of course, we admit that the game isn't perfectly balanced..." (...so we don't have to acknowledge how profoundly imbalanced it is.) ... there may be no limit to the constructs of illogic that can be used to defend imbalance. ;) Part of the problem is that, in the context of our hobby there's imbalance that's intuitive & easy to spot - strict superiority (a choice is better than all alternatives, in all ways) - but, as a definition, it's too absolute to be of use. All it takes is one improbably situational advantage to put a plus in the inferior column or one trivial limitation for a minus in the other and it's not strict, anymore, it can be 'balanced' if those tiny differences are hammered hard & often enough. We need a better definition. The best I've heard, for balance in the context of RPGs*, is that [b]balance is the maximizing of player choices, while keeping those choices both meaningful & viable.[/b] Perfect balance would thus be infinite choices, none of which are anywhere near being traps or must-haves, but each of which is meaningfully different and can lead, with capable play, to desirable outcomes, or, with mistakes & bad luck, undesirable ones. The universe of outcomes, in such a game, might also need to be infinite. So, yeah, impossible to achieve. But that also just means that improvement is always possible. * though, of course it wasn't originated in our tiny industry. [/QUOTE]

Verification