Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4657339" data-attributes="member: 22779">No, I meant viable - as in useful in the situation.&nbsp; In that it's an option that will actually help to acheive the goal.&nbsp; For most of the time, we don't feel that it's a viable option, any more than &quot;ready an action to counter spell&quot; against the spell caster is a viable option.&nbsp; It's so far below the level of actually useful that it might as well not exist.&nbsp; Giving someone a +2 to a single attack or skill, except in some very rare corner cases is pointless.&nbsp; Thus, not viable as an option.What problems?&nbsp; That's a question I don't believe you've answered.&nbsp; The only &quot;problem&quot; I've seen brought up is that somehow (in some way that's never been explained) balance hurts creativity.&nbsp; I've, and other people have, already shown why this is not true.&nbsp; That imbalance actually impedes creativity far more than balance does.&nbsp; Yes, I believe that in a game, balance is the goal of game design.&nbsp; Even something like Buffy, where you have wildly differing power levels, still balances through the use of Drama Points.&nbsp; Ars Magica balances by trading off roles.&nbsp; I'm actually drawing a fair blank trying to think of a game published in the last ten years that actively tries to create imbalance between characters without any countervailing rules.How is being fantastically rich and able to create any gadget you need at a moments notice a lack of powers?But, again, that's you.&nbsp; You claim that you would deliberately choose to handicap yourself in the face of mechanics that don't limit you.&nbsp; That's fine.&nbsp; I'm saying that the vast majority of players out there most certainly would not.&nbsp; Because deliberately handicapping yourself is generally seen as a bad idea.&nbsp; So, given the option of playing Superman with Batman's personality (Lobo anyone?) would appeal to a pretty wide audience.&nbsp; In the same way that using 2 weapons in 2e appealed to a very wide number of players.&nbsp; Or exploiting the chargen rules in Vampire to create a 7th gen vampire.&nbsp; On and on and on.Let me turn it around then.&nbsp; How does imbalance lead to more creativity?&nbsp; Can you give me some concrete examples of how imbalanced rules, ones that are clearly superior to other options, creates a more enjoyable experience?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4657339, member: 22779"] No, I meant viable - as in useful in the situation. In that it's an option that will actually help to acheive the goal. For most of the time, we don't feel that it's a viable option, any more than "ready an action to counter spell" against the spell caster is a viable option. It's so far below the level of actually useful that it might as well not exist. Giving someone a +2 to a single attack or skill, except in some very rare corner cases is pointless. Thus, not viable as an option. What problems? That's a question I don't believe you've answered. The only "problem" I've seen brought up is that somehow (in some way that's never been explained) balance hurts creativity. I've, and other people have, already shown why this is not true. That imbalance actually impedes creativity far more than balance does. Yes, I believe that in a game, balance is the goal of game design. Even something like Buffy, where you have wildly differing power levels, still balances through the use of Drama Points. Ars Magica balances by trading off roles. I'm actually drawing a fair blank trying to think of a game published in the last ten years that actively tries to create imbalance between characters without any countervailing rules. How is being fantastically rich and able to create any gadget you need at a moments notice a lack of powers? But, again, that's you. You claim that you would deliberately choose to handicap yourself in the face of mechanics that don't limit you. That's fine. I'm saying that the vast majority of players out there most certainly would not. Because deliberately handicapping yourself is generally seen as a bad idea. So, given the option of playing Superman with Batman's personality (Lobo anyone?) would appeal to a pretty wide audience. In the same way that using 2 weapons in 2e appealed to a very wide number of players. Or exploiting the chargen rules in Vampire to create a 7th gen vampire. On and on and on. Let me turn it around then. How does imbalance lead to more creativity? Can you give me some concrete examples of how imbalanced rules, ones that are clearly superior to other options, creates a more enjoyable experience? [/QUOTE]

Verification