Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gimby" data-source="post: 5042692" data-attributes="member: 49875">Ok, I think I'm understanding where you are coming from here.&nbsp; What seem to be saying is that a desire for balance as part of the rules structure limits the design elements that can be part of that rules design, correct?So balance being important at the design stage means that the game faces more limitations at that point than a game where balance isn't important.&nbsp; The point I was (trying to, poorly apparently) make above is that while that is true, and is as you say tautological, when we move to the play stage of the game, the balance that's encoded into the rules allows for more freedom as to how the DM actually want to frame and run his game.&nbsp; The DM doesn't have to rebalance the game based on his group but can run the game out of the box.&nbsp; So essentially:Balance not important at design stage: Freedom of mechanics and systemsBalance important at design stage: Freedom of setting and framingWould you agree?Personally, the second is more important to me as I'm more interested in results than processes.&nbsp; If you killed that goblin with astral fire I don't particularly care if it was a Vancian spell, a Sorceror spellslot, a Warlock SLA or whatever.&nbsp; All I'm concerned about is describing his roasting corpse.&nbsp; I do care if your astral fire is winning all the fights by itself though.edit - As a side point, a balanced game doesn't break down if you deliberate unbalance it.&nbsp; It just goes from a balanced game to an unbalanced one, much as how an unbalanced on would go to a worse balanced for the same changes.If you put a 5th level character in a 1st level group then you will face issues of him being more powerful in any edition. If you put a 20th level character in a first level group you will face the same issues, just exaggerated and again, the same in any edition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gimby, post: 5042692, member: 49875"] Ok, I think I'm understanding where you are coming from here. What seem to be saying is that a desire for balance as part of the rules structure limits the design elements that can be part of that rules design, correct? So balance being important at the design stage means that the game faces more limitations at that point than a game where balance isn't important. The point I was (trying to, poorly apparently) make above is that while that is true, and is as you say tautological, when we move to the play stage of the game, the balance that's encoded into the rules allows for more freedom as to how the DM actually want to frame and run his game. The DM doesn't have to rebalance the game based on his group but can run the game out of the box. So essentially: Balance not important at design stage: Freedom of mechanics and systems Balance important at design stage: Freedom of setting and framing Would you agree? Personally, the second is more important to me as I'm more interested in results than processes. If you killed that goblin with astral fire I don't particularly care if it was a Vancian spell, a Sorceror spellslot, a Warlock SLA or whatever. All I'm concerned about is describing his roasting corpse. I do care if your astral fire is winning all the fights by itself though. edit - As a side point, a balanced game doesn't break down if you deliberate unbalance it. It just goes from a balanced game to an unbalanced one, much as how an unbalanced on would go to a worse balanced for the same changes. If you put a 5th level character in a 1st level group then you will face issues of him being more powerful in any edition. If you put a 20th level character in a first level group you will face the same issues, just exaggerated and again, the same in any edition. [/QUOTE]

Verification