Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 6239389">I have been pretty vocal about 4E, in my opinion, going too far int he direction of balance and parity, but I don't think one can say balance on it's own is bad. First it varies from game to game and audience to audience. Second it is a spectrum. Third, balance isn't bad but like anything else in game design it affects other parts of the system, it is a trade off. I have found, just from my own efforts at game design that a certain amount of balance is desireable. A game with no balance will run into issues i don't want to deal with at the table. However the close I get to a platonic ideal of balance (particularly when it comes to things like powers and spells in a game) the more the flavor of the game tends to even out and become less distinct to me. That isn't automatically bad though, it just means i find the game less interesting if my choices are too even. I've learned i need some rough edges, un-anticipated results and a certain degree of broken-ness for a game to excite me and for its magic or power system to intrigue me. This is especially the case for me with powers/spells that may be uber in some circumstances but much less so in others. It is also true when it comes to creative use of powers. So I think there is a huge excluded middle here, where most players probably expect some amount of balance. They just don't want it to diminish other aspects of the game. And at the end of the day, it is a preference. Some folks will legitimately prefer a more balanced game with parity across the character cchoices. There isn't anything wrong with that. With D&D this has been a source of contention for a while, and they probably want to strike a god middle ground.</blockquote>

Verification