Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7158293" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Sure, balance should be considered in a variety of ways. I just don't think balance is the end, so much as a means. Sure....I didn't think I said it wasn't worth considering. I think I even acknowledged a couple of times I think it's a good idea.Sure, but that's what makes the term so difficult is my point. I can understand it's easier to type &quot;balance&quot; rather than &quot;maximizing viable/meaningful choices&quot; and I am capable of tracking folks' opinions over the course of a discussion at least partially, so I get where you are coming from....but then every time a new person jumps into the conversation, and they mention &quot;balance&quot;, then we have to establish a new definitaion and pair it with a new poster, and so on. I suppose. For me, my first attempt for anything in the game that I don't like is to try and fix it myself, not ask/tell WotC to fix it for me. And for the edition of D&amp;D that I enjoyed the least, I can tell you why, but even while doing so, I understood the approach that edition was going for, and I wouldn't have expected to see them implement things that seem contrary to that approach. So with 5E, I see one of the key design elements is to make things easy to modify. They're saying &quot;here's this system, and here's how you can change it to suit your specific needs.&quot; So when people ignore that element of the design and instead call for permanent changes to be made that run counter to the designers' intent....yeah, I think that's safe to cal &quot;odd&quot;.Not surprising, maybe, but odd.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 7158293, member: 6785785"] Sure, balance should be considered in a variety of ways. I just don't think balance is the end, so much as a means. Sure....I didn't think I said it wasn't worth considering. I think I even acknowledged a couple of times I think it's a good idea. Sure, but that's what makes the term so difficult is my point. I can understand it's easier to type "balance" rather than "maximizing viable/meaningful choices" and I am capable of tracking folks' opinions over the course of a discussion at least partially, so I get where you are coming from....but then every time a new person jumps into the conversation, and they mention "balance", then we have to establish a new definitaion and pair it with a new poster, and so on. I suppose. For me, my first attempt for anything in the game that I don't like is to try and fix it myself, not ask/tell WotC to fix it for me. And for the edition of D&D that I enjoyed the least, I can tell you why, but even while doing so, I understood the approach that edition was going for, and I wouldn't have expected to see them implement things that seem contrary to that approach. So with 5E, I see one of the key design elements is to make things easy to modify. They're saying "here's this system, and here's how you can change it to suit your specific needs." So when people ignore that element of the design and instead call for permanent changes to be made that run counter to the designers' intent....yeah, I think that's safe to cal "odd". Not surprising, maybe, but odd. [/QUOTE]

Verification