Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 5044663" data-attributes="member: 3192">Thank you.  That does help.  I still don't believe an RPG should be balanced as a simulation game or a storygame, but I understand the desires by those who want those games for it to be included.  From my perspective, enforced equality in altering the game world means no actions are rewarded with a greater ability to do so.  Of course, no actions penalize this ability either.  For example, if my Fighter PC has a sword and yours does not, must there be an absolute balance between us if the characters were to battle each other?  If so, what's the point of having a sword?  In another way, if we find a horde of treasure and decide to give it all to one PC, then shouldn't he or she be more powerful / influential in the game than the rest of us?  I don't care for the enforced balancing of PCs nor the removal of rewarding success with influence in the game.  I understand the alternative means the potential for unbalanced influence over the game by different players, but I don't view the game as a simulation game and therefore needing such.  In terms of storygame balance, screen time for one, this is already built into almost every kind of D&D.  Every PC gets their Round or Turn to act.  They might sleep for 8 hours while those on watch do something else, but sleeping is their action.  If it didn't have beneficial consequences, I wouldn't do it in game.  I'm not really sure one can balance the degree of influence every single person has over a story, but I don't know all the new mechanics being created for storygames either.I think of AD&D as a game of 1. attempting to navigate the world, 2. gaining greater influence within it, and 3. getting XP.  The first is rewarded by simply getting to where you want to go, however metaphorical that may be.  Not every PC may be able to do so the same way, but I don't see the game as placing each player in the exact same position.  Actually, I see the game as attempting to have so much variation as to put every player in a different position. In terms of gaining influence over the world I think of the game like any resource collecting game, get as much power as you can.  However, the players are not necessarily in a competition with each other. That potential exists, but, in fact, the game actually increases the odds for personal success down all three paths when influential allies are included in one's endeavors.  And the reverse holds true as well.  The more powerful one's allies, the greater the odds are for success.  Go it alone and you're asking for trouble.  So sharing resources between players is rewarded by the game because it pays off in greater long term benefits.  Not to mention it behooves players to assist inexperienced players in becoming better ones as this improves everyone's chances.XP rewards are given out individually and tailored to Class.  So a certain amount of negotiation between players is required in order for each to accomplish their own XP-rewarded goals.  However, there is also a good deal of overlap between classes, a kind of synergy.  When there is no synergy between classes, we get something like the Shadowrun Decker class. They have their game in between everyone else's.  In a well designed game plenty of non-XP rewards exist to be won, which are useful trade offs in bartered negotiations between players deciding what to do.  Plus, XP rewards lead to greater influence over the game (Class levels are not commensurate with all such influence).  The longer one plays without dying, the greater power a player gains.  Quickly getting XP or resources is indicative of skillful play and more difficult and rewarding challenges can faced earlier.  However, if a PC does die, the player starts over at the beginning.  This hurts everyone, but it also increases the desire to keep everyone alive and becoming a more powerful ally.  XP is logarithmic so new PCs gain in level faster than older ones.  It actually takes as long to level a higher ranked PC as it does for a new 0XP character to reach the level they are leaving.Needless to say, I think there exist a number of balancing mechanisms in the game that aren't accounted as "balance" anymore.  But it does depend upon one's point of view on whether these count or not.  The game is designed upon different tenets.  It is understood there will be unequal player influence at any given point during the game.  Every class has a different focus of play, realm of influence, and reward structure.  Cooperation is greatly rewarded, but not required.  Classes are designed to succeed better in their particular domains of influence than any other.I can't remember everything, but IMO a good deal of reflection went into creating a well designed game for the AD&D ruleset.  I don't agree with every rule or all of its' design intents, but it has enough of the good stuff to get the blood pumping.</blockquote>

Verification