Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6239889" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't understand - why are levels the device for expressing effective non-magical PCs, but not for expressing magical PCs like Jedi Knights, druids and wizards?It's not as if there is some Platonic ideal of "the 1st level rogue" or "the 1st level druid" such that a 1st level druid must be mechanically more effective than a 1st level rogue. For instance, if we hold rogues constant then we could power down druids so that their 1st level animal companions are mice or sparrows. Conversely, if we hold druids constant then we could power up rogues so that a 1st level rogue is more than a match in combat for the druid's pet wolf.As to Han Solo being balanced (or not) against a Jedi Master, he certainly has more impact on the story in Star Wars than does Obi Wan, and in Empire has more impact on the story than Yoda and (arguably) Luke. In an RPG the most straightforward mechanical way to achieve this is by giving Han's player meta resources to compensate for the PC's comparative lack of ingame capabilities.There are plenty of other RPGs that resemble 4e in this respect: HeroWars/Quest, Marvel Heroic RP, and other free-descriptor-style games with uniform action resolution systems.In these systems the difference between magic and martial ability isn't in the mechanics of resource depletion or what sort of dice you roll (or whether or not you need to roll dice at all). It is in the fiction. The 4e rulebooks never elaborated adequately on the importance of keywords for achieving this link between fiction and mechanics (it is clearest in the DMG rules for attacking objects). What makes the difference between (say) a fighter and a sorcerer is that the fighter's ability consists in swinging a sword, while the sorcerer's ability consists in summoning and hurling gouts of fire.If the difference between these two things never matters at the level of the fiction, and therefore - if the mechanics are uniform - never makes itself manifest in play, then I can see that the two classes might feel the same. Personally, I'm a bit dubious about purely mechanical differences that don't correlate to noticeable differences in the fiction, but for those who have the experience I've just described I can see that they might be important. Both 13th Age and Next have opted for them (though I think 13th Age is doing a better job, to date at least, of confronting the balance issues that come with classes having different rates of resource depletion).Here are <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/" target="_blank">some comments</a> from a thoughtful designer on ways to handle balance, including in an Avengers situation:Balance" is one of those words which is applied to a wide variety of activities or practices that may be independent or even contradictory. . . The word is thrown about like a shuttlecock with little reference to any definition at all. . . <ul style="margin-left: 20px"> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Compare "balance" with the notion of parity, or equality of performance or resources. If a game includes enforced parity, is it is balanced? Is it that simple? And if not, then what? </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Bear in mind that Fairness and Parity are not synonymous. One or the other might be the real priority regardless of which word is being used. . . </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Are we discussing the totality of a character (Effectiveness, Resource, Metagame), or are we discussing Effectiveness only, or Effectiveness + Resource only? </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Are we discussing "screen time" for characters at all, which has nothing to do with their abilities/oomph? </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Are we discussing anything to do at all with players, or rather, with the people at the table? Can we talk about balance in regard to attention, respect, and input among them? Does it have anything to do with Balance of Power, referring to how "the buck" (where it stops) is distributed among the members of the group?</li> </ul> They can't all be balance at once. . . <ul style="margin-left: 20px"> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Parity of starting point, with free rein given to differing degrees of improvement after that. Basically, this means that "we all start equal" but after that, anything goes, and if A gets better than B, then that's fine. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The relative Effectiveness of different categories of strategy: magic vs. physical combat, for instance, or pumping more investment into quickness rather than endurance. In this sense, "balance" means that any strategy is at least potentially effective, and "unbalanced" means numerically broken. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Related to [the above], a team that is not equipped for the expected range of potential dangers is sometimes called unbalanced. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">. . . "balance" can also mean that everyone is subject to the same vagaries of fate (Fortune). That is, play is "balanced" if everyone has a chance to save against the Killer Death Trap. Or it's balanced because we all rolled 3d6 for Strength, regardless of what everyone individually ended up with. (Tunnels & Trolls is all about this kind of play.) </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The resistance of a game to deliberate Breaking. . . </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">One fascinating way that the term is applied is to the Currency-based relationship among the components of a character: Effectiveness, Resource, Metagame. That's right - we're not talking about balance among characters at all, but rather balance within the interacting components of a single character. . . </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">And, completely differently, "balance" is often invoked as an anti-Gamist play defense, specifically in terms of not permitting characters to change very much relative to one another, as all of them improve. This is, I think, the origin of "everyone gets a couple E[xperience] P[oint]s at the end of each session" approach, as opposed to "everyone gets different EPs on the basis of individual performance." </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Rules-enforcement in terms of Effectiveness, which is why GURPS has point-total limits per setting. Note that heavy layering renders this very vulnerable to Gamist Drift. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"Balance" might be relevant as a measure of character screen time, or perhaps weight of screen time rather than absolute length. This is not solely the effectiveness-issue which confuses everyone. Comics fans will recognize that Hawkeye is just as significant as Thor, as a member of the Avengers, or even more so. In game terms, this is a Character Components issue: Hawkeye would have a high Metagame component whereas Thor would have a higher Effectiveness component.</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification