Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Badwe" data-source="post: 4655166" data-attributes="member: 61762">I have to disagree completely with the premise of this thread.&nbsp; The concept of balance as a hindrance is completely idiosyncratic, and held aloft only by the promise of &quot;Well, I won't break the system.&quot;As other posters have pointed out, lack of balance STIFLES creativity because it creates character build options that, because they are subpar, will almost never be taken.&nbsp; Further more, the possibility of total corner case specialization, propped up by a DM concocting scenarios where the player's obscure abilities are FINALLY giving their time to shine sounds like a nightmare to play!&nbsp; If my druid can only do half of their skills, the good half, in the woods, why would i ever leave?&nbsp; And what does the rest of the party get to do while i play my hordes of summoned and trained animals?&nbsp; I could be taking 10 or more actions while the fighter waits desperately for their chance to make a single full round attack.I will agree that an overemphasis on balance can limit options, but that is also bad design because it demonstrates a lack of ability to explore new and untapped design space.&nbsp; And really all that has been proposed in the absence of a system with balance is that it becomes the DM's job to carefully maintain and juggle balance, concocting scenarios to both keep some players afloat and prevent unbalanced characters from getting out of control.&nbsp; You know, that sounds like a lot of work that a DM wouldn't even NEED to do if they started with a system that was already balanced.&nbsp; Why would I want to start a system that, from the outset, promised me that i would have to do more work just to create a sense of balance?&nbsp; Not only that, but then at any given point, I risk losing the fun of my players.&nbsp; Either I failed to create a scenario that favors one player's overspecialization, or I find myself having to come down on a strong player, and he can't shake the feeling that i'm just creating encounter after encounter to thwart him.&nbsp; Frankly, he might be right, in that the other players with their weaker, specialized builds, have succeeded in foiling themselves.Yes, D&amp;D is a fantasy game, but don't forget the GAME part.&nbsp; A game requires that interesting, MEANINGFUL decisions can be made by EVERY player on a regular basis.&nbsp; Balance enables this by making more decisions comperable at any given time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Badwe, post: 4655166, member: 61762"] I have to disagree completely with the premise of this thread. The concept of balance as a hindrance is completely idiosyncratic, and held aloft only by the promise of "Well, I won't break the system." As other posters have pointed out, lack of balance STIFLES creativity because it creates character build options that, because they are subpar, will almost never be taken. Further more, the possibility of total corner case specialization, propped up by a DM concocting scenarios where the player's obscure abilities are FINALLY giving their time to shine sounds like a nightmare to play! If my druid can only do half of their skills, the good half, in the woods, why would i ever leave? And what does the rest of the party get to do while i play my hordes of summoned and trained animals? I could be taking 10 or more actions while the fighter waits desperately for their chance to make a single full round attack. I will agree that an overemphasis on balance can limit options, but that is also bad design because it demonstrates a lack of ability to explore new and untapped design space. And really all that has been proposed in the absence of a system with balance is that it becomes the DM's job to carefully maintain and juggle balance, concocting scenarios to both keep some players afloat and prevent unbalanced characters from getting out of control. You know, that sounds like a lot of work that a DM wouldn't even NEED to do if they started with a system that was already balanced. Why would I want to start a system that, from the outset, promised me that i would have to do more work just to create a sense of balance? Not only that, but then at any given point, I risk losing the fun of my players. Either I failed to create a scenario that favors one player's overspecialization, or I find myself having to come down on a strong player, and he can't shake the feeling that i'm just creating encounter after encounter to thwart him. Frankly, he might be right, in that the other players with their weaker, specialized builds, have succeeded in foiling themselves. Yes, D&D is a fantasy game, but don't forget the GAME part. A game requires that interesting, MEANINGFUL decisions can be made by EVERY player on a regular basis. Balance enables this by making more decisions comperable at any given time. [/QUOTE]

Verification