Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Orius" data-source="post: 4726425" data-attributes="member: 8863">From everything I've read about RIFTS, I'd guess that's probably the worst system to bring up the concept of balance.That's probably a better example I suppose.&nbsp; Jedi should be pretty powerful in a Star Wars game, but I don't remember too many comments about Star Wars being so broken that the Jedi always stole the spotlight.I agree.&nbsp; Even if character options are unbalanced with each other, a good GM can make sure every player has something to do and has fun.&nbsp; Still, there are some systems where some choices are clearly far better than others.&nbsp; I don't think classic D&amp;D really went there though, no matter how powerful the wizard was at high levels, the fighter was the tough guy earlier in the game.&nbsp; Even later on, the fighter would often become some kind of lord or leader, and the thing he did in game were less about direct combat power, and more about how much power and respect he commanded in the campaign.&nbsp; RPing stuff like this though is harder to quantify in terms of balance than combat mechanics though.Arguments on D&amp;D balance in recent material though don't really talk about the DM.&nbsp; A lot of it is arguing about hypothetical builds and stuff on character optimization boards, or how the balance issues work in electronic D&amp;D games.&nbsp; The latter is probably an important source of revenue for the brand for Hasbro, and I think that's partially why with 3.5 and 4e we've seen more concern about balance: a computer or console game simply can't manage the more subjective balance aspects DMs took care of in the old days.&nbsp; Also, inexperienced DMs have problems maintaining balance, and I think that too is why WotC started focusing on balance, since the game was now being marketed to both experienced and novice players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Orius, post: 4726425, member: 8863"] From everything I've read about RIFTS, I'd guess that's probably the worst system to bring up the concept of balance. That's probably a better example I suppose. Jedi should be pretty powerful in a Star Wars game, but I don't remember too many comments about Star Wars being so broken that the Jedi always stole the spotlight. I agree. Even if character options are unbalanced with each other, a good GM can make sure every player has something to do and has fun. Still, there are some systems where some choices are clearly far better than others. I don't think classic D&D really went there though, no matter how powerful the wizard was at high levels, the fighter was the tough guy earlier in the game. Even later on, the fighter would often become some kind of lord or leader, and the thing he did in game were less about direct combat power, and more about how much power and respect he commanded in the campaign. RPing stuff like this though is harder to quantify in terms of balance than combat mechanics though. Arguments on D&D balance in recent material though don't really talk about the DM. A lot of it is arguing about hypothetical builds and stuff on character optimization boards, or how the balance issues work in electronic D&D games. The latter is probably an important source of revenue for the brand for Hasbro, and I think that's partially why with 3.5 and 4e we've seen more concern about balance: a computer or console game simply can't manage the more subjective balance aspects DMs took care of in the old days. Also, inexperienced DMs have problems maintaining balance, and I think that too is why WotC started focusing on balance, since the game was now being marketed to both experienced and novice players. [/QUOTE]

Verification