Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 4725780" data-attributes="member: 55271">Over the past 8 years there has been a <a href="http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/fetishizing-balance.html" target="_blank">fetishizing of balance</a>. The ideological backlash to that extremism is only to be expected. (It's also predictable that such a backlash will often propel people all the way over to the opposite sort of extremism.)Justin Alexander also recently posted an essay called <a href="http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/balance-types.html" target="_blank">The Many Types of Balance</a> which, in part, discusses these issues. Basically, he says, there are three types of balance:CONCEPT BALANCE -- Which holds that all character concepts should be equally viable.NATURALISTIC BALANCE -- Which tries to make things in the game behave the way they would within the reality of the game world.SPOTLIGHT BALANCE -- Which says that everybody should get an equal share of playing time and attention.Each of these has its strengths and its weaknesses. Since you're asking about foregoing balance, let's focus on the weaknesses.CONCEPT BALANCE requires that either the flexibility of character creation or the scope of gameplay be limited. This is why lots of people advocating for concept balance focus exclusively on combat, for example: By limiting the scope of gameplay strictly to combat, they can achieve balance.NATURALISTIC BALANCE allows for the creation of sub-par characters. Avoiding these sub-par characters requires system mastery.SPOTLIGHT BALANCE requires the GM to actually balance the spotlight. It can also mean that player A needs to sit around and do nothing while player B struts their stuff. (The "decker problem" in Shadowrun is an extreme example of this problem. More typical is the system in which character B has about 80% the effectiveness of character A in situation X, whereas in situation Y the reverse is true.)These problems can be mitigated in various ways, but not eliminated. They're fundamental to these types of balance.4th Edition is heavily invested in concept balance, virtually abandoning the spotlight balance which was once the core design principle of D&D. It achieves that concept balance by both limiting the scope of gameplay (as seen in combat) and the flexibility of character creation (as seen in the skill system).(Some may interpret that as a slam, but it's not. It's just the reality of 4th Edition's design: They traded scope and flexibility for concept balance. Whether that trade-off is worth it depends on how highly you value concept balance.)Personally, I largely agree with Justin's self-described sweet spot when it comes these issues (which is probably a good thing, since I play at his table):</blockquote>

Verification