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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7693152" data-attributes="member: 42582">If "balance" is a myth, than what does "even footing" refer to? If it's really mythical then it doesn't become less mythical by using slightly different wording.I also don't understand why you equate "balance" with combat.Personally, I think that mechanical effectiveness is a real thing in RPGs, and that it is something that design can address. Just to give a couple of examples: many players find that low-level thieves in classic D&D struggle with mechanical effectiveness (and 2nd ed AD&D recognised this and addressed it by changing the rules for determining thief skill percentages); and many players find that high-level fighters in 3E/PF can struggle with mechanical effectiveness in comparison to spellcasters.Whether it's good or bad for the game that some character builds tend to be more mechanically effective than others is of course a different question. The MU class entry in the AD&D PHB, for instance, both (i) explains how high-level MUs are the most mechanically effective characters in the game, and then (ii) explains that this is counterbalanced by their comparative lack of mechanical effectiveness at low levels. That's a design that tends to make sense in a play environment where PC levels have to be "earned" through actual play, and where it is realistic to expect PCs to be played enough to rise to high levels. But other play contexts (eg starting PCs well above 1st level, so that the weak levels don't actually have to be played through; or playing only at low levels, so that the rewards for that initial suffering are never gained) can mean that that particular design choice doesn't serve the purpose for which it was intended.It's no surprise that what counts as good or bad design is relative to certain contexts and purposes of play. But that doesn't mean that the idea that PCs have a degree of mechanical effectiveness, which admits of comparison, is a myth.</blockquote>

Verification