Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why Balance is Bad
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 6249096"><p>In this case, i think it prety much amounts to being just his opinion. The reasons he identified may be genuine, but that doesn't mean he has stumbled on a universal law of good design we should apply to all rpgs. Having reasons for not liking something simply doesn't establish a rule of good design automatically. I think it is pretty clear people are highly divided on the issue of balance, and on this issue in particuar. So any universal claim that parties balanced to be good at all pillars, needs to account for the fact that a substantial number of people don't enjoy that, and consider it unfun. I have my own reasons forcfinding that less exciting, and i have stated them. But one thing i understand is that reasons for disliking that kind of parity vary quite a bit. What is more important to me here is that some people like parity of the pillars and some people don't. I am not terribly interested into constructing theories round why and then using that to establish an objective measure of good design. </p><p></p><p>Again, i am not saying balance is unimportsnt, i think it is important. But i don't value the same kind of balnce as shidaku. He wants to ensure through the system that everyone always has something meaningfu to contribute in every type of event or challenge. He also seems very interested in making sure the GM has a much easier time presenting challenges to the party that are a good match for the individual skills of the player characters. That looks like it assumes he also wants play to be structured around challenges that are "just right". That isn't the kind of play i enjoy. My style of play and prefernces don't fit into that. So a game designed that way pretty much makes my style of play impossible or requires me to make all kinds of adjustments to achieve it. This is why i consider it a flawed design principle. A great principle to use for an audience of shidaku and like minded players, but not great for a gave that is trying to appeal to a broad audience that includes a lot of people like me. And certainly not a good principle for RPGs in general, where you have an enormous range of tastes and preferences around this specific concern (but again it is a good principle for the right target audience).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Guest 85555, post: 6249096"] In this case, i think it prety much amounts to being just his opinion. The reasons he identified may be genuine, but that doesn't mean he has stumbled on a universal law of good design we should apply to all rpgs. Having reasons for not liking something simply doesn't establish a rule of good design automatically. I think it is pretty clear people are highly divided on the issue of balance, and on this issue in particuar. So any universal claim that parties balanced to be good at all pillars, needs to account for the fact that a substantial number of people don't enjoy that, and consider it unfun. I have my own reasons forcfinding that less exciting, and i have stated them. But one thing i understand is that reasons for disliking that kind of parity vary quite a bit. What is more important to me here is that some people like parity of the pillars and some people don't. I am not terribly interested into constructing theories round why and then using that to establish an objective measure of good design. Again, i am not saying balance is unimportsnt, i think it is important. But i don't value the same kind of balnce as shidaku. He wants to ensure through the system that everyone always has something meaningfu to contribute in every type of event or challenge. He also seems very interested in making sure the GM has a much easier time presenting challenges to the party that are a good match for the individual skills of the player characters. That looks like it assumes he also wants play to be structured around challenges that are "just right". That isn't the kind of play i enjoy. My style of play and prefernces don't fit into that. So a game designed that way pretty much makes my style of play impossible or requires me to make all kinds of adjustments to achieve it. This is why i consider it a flawed design principle. A great principle to use for an audience of shidaku and like minded players, but not great for a gave that is trying to appeal to a broad audience that includes a lot of people like me. And certainly not a good principle for RPGs in general, where you have an enormous range of tastes and preferences around this specific concern (but again it is a good principle for the right target audience). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why Balance is Bad
Top