Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 7155235" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I don't believe in balance as anything other than a lack of imbalance. Specific outcomes may vary with the situation. For the most part, though, I want to make them interesting. That can happen either because of external narrative goings-on, or because the encounter itself has features that make it interesting.Imbalance, to me, occurs when one character dominates the game and its prep in such a way that makes it impossible to make it interesting for everyone. The classic example is one PC that is soo much tougher and stronger that the DM has trouble choosing adversaries that can challenge the strong PC without overwhelming the rest of the party. But this can happen in other ways. If a build is strong in &quot;trump&quot; powers (mind control, super speed, etc.), they can obviate the need for the rest of the party.Same as any encounter, to be interesting and make it worthwhile for players to show up. Honestly, the groups I'm with now is constantly hacking rules. So, we hack...Yes, but that game wouldn't be D&amp;D...or anything all that similar to it. You'd need a system where every combat wasn't win-or-die for the PCs (not just combat, for that matter). D&amp;D manages to neatly avoid that as even a possibility 90% of the time, because it was originally build on that murderhobo stucture. Killing 'em and taking their stuff is the point of the game. Lack of solid goal structures beyond the &quot;fight monsters, get XP, level up&quot; treadmill, make that very difficult. There's just not enough mechanics to support multiple or complex goals, and &quot;beating it up and taking its stuff&quot; will always be the &quot;trump&quot;in D&amp;D. IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 7155235, member: 6688937"] I don't believe in balance as anything other than a lack of imbalance. Specific outcomes may vary with the situation. For the most part, though, I want to make them [I]interesting[/I]. That can happen either because of external narrative goings-on, or because the encounter itself has features that make it interesting. Imbalance, to me, occurs when one character dominates the game and its prep in such a way that makes it impossible to make it interesting for everyone. The classic example is one PC that is soo much tougher and stronger that the DM has trouble choosing adversaries that can challenge the strong PC without overwhelming the rest of the party. But this can happen in other ways. If a build is strong in "trump" powers (mind control, super speed, etc.), they can obviate the need for the rest of the party. Same as any encounter, to be interesting and make it worthwhile for players to show up. Honestly, the groups I'm with now is constantly hacking rules. So, we hack... Yes, but that game wouldn't be D&D...or anything all that similar to it. You'd need a system where every combat wasn't win-or-die for the PCs (not just combat, for that matter). D&D manages to neatly avoid that as even a possibility 90% of the time, because it was originally build on that murderhobo stucture. Killing 'em and taking their stuff is [I]the point[/I] of the game. Lack of solid goal structures beyond the "fight monsters, get XP, level up" treadmill, make that very difficult. There's just not enough mechanics to support multiple or complex goals, and "beating it up and taking its stuff" will always be the "trump"in D&D. IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification