Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="shoak1" data-source="post: 7157277" data-attributes="member: 54380">This is an example of what frustrates me and other gamists.&nbsp; The &quot;DM is subjective and everyone plays different&quot; argument is a nihilist excuse for poor balance.&nbsp; Just because some guys play all combat encounters, or some play all roleplaying encounters, or some DMs throw all ranged attacks at people, doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't balance the game.&nbsp; Balance is done for the norm/mean/average and is on a sliding scale of subjectiveness as you narrow/expand your focus.&nbsp; For instance, when you narrow the scope down to balancing combat stuff against combat stuff, the subjectiveness narrows as well.&nbsp; If you have 2 feats, one of which gives +3 with swords, and the other +1 with swords (and they don't stack) it is entirely factual - and not the least bit subjective - to say the two feats are imbalanced against each other.There are many, many of us that play D and D as a tactical challenge.&nbsp; Combat abilities can and must be balanced between each other to have a good game.&nbsp; Of course a silly DM can throw a monkey wrench into things by having all ranged combats or other ridiculous scenarios,and of course there are some people don't have combat encounters - but that doesn't then render balance pointless or subjective from a design view - it just renders it pointless to those people.&nbsp; And if you are one of those people, why would you argue against modifications?&nbsp; It doesn't impact you anyways!!!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="shoak1, post: 7157277, member: 54380"] This is an example of what frustrates me and other gamists. The "DM is subjective and everyone plays different" argument is a nihilist excuse for poor balance. Just because some guys play all combat encounters, or some play all roleplaying encounters, or some DMs throw all ranged attacks at people, doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't balance the game. Balance is done for the norm/mean/average and is on a sliding scale of subjectiveness as you narrow/expand your focus. For instance, when you narrow the scope down to balancing combat stuff against combat stuff, the subjectiveness narrows as well. If you have 2 feats, one of which gives +3 with swords, and the other +1 with swords (and they don't stack) it is entirely factual - and not the least bit subjective - to say the two feats are imbalanced against each other. There are many, many of us that play D and D as a tactical challenge. Combat abilities can and must be balanced between each other to have a good game. Of course a silly DM can throw a monkey wrench into things by having all ranged combats or other ridiculous scenarios,and of course there are some people don't have combat encounters - but that doesn't then render balance pointless or subjective from a design view - it just renders it pointless to those people. And if you are one of those people, why would you argue against modifications? It doesn't impact you anyways!!! [/QUOTE]

Verification