Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6242168" data-attributes="member: 17106">If someone else's play style includes things that mine doesn't, such as miniatures, experience points, or some rigid notion of exact equality in combat effectiveness across all levels, they are perfectly welcome to do that. That's why I advocate a playstyle-neutral ruleset which treats the rules strictly as descriptors of in-game realities and does not impose metagame agendas like balance. Even 3e, as I'm sure you're happy to note, is not that, but it was a step in that direction when it was released, and I would have liked 5e to take more steps that way towards making a generic rpg for all, which was supposed to be the mandate.It seems to me that I already play the most comprehensively balanced D&amp;D-like rpg ever released, and that most of its flaws that I've had to fix result from steps taken to create that balance. Balance is in itself problematic, but moreso it detracts from more important things.What's really bad is when the rules encourage or even require metagaming, or when they encourage player entitlement, or when they violate genre conceits to enforce a type of balance that doesn't exist within the underlying genre (trying to make a rogue into a &quot;striker&quot; for example). Those ideas, perhaps used in the name of balance, are the source of most of the problems that exist within published D&amp;D (though thankfully not in my game).***It would seem to me that if you have a goal (say, enforcing an extreme between-PC balance), the best way to achieve it would be a simple, generic, and transparent core rules system (like one of the more minimalist 3e offshoots), and a DM using it to enforce that goal, rather than expecting the writers of the world's ostensible #1 rpg to cater to that specific goal at the exclusion of anything else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6242168, member: 17106"] If someone else's play style includes things that mine doesn't, such as miniatures, experience points, or some rigid notion of exact equality in combat effectiveness across all levels, they are perfectly welcome to do that. That's why I advocate a playstyle-neutral ruleset which treats the rules strictly as descriptors of in-game realities and does not impose metagame agendas like balance. Even 3e, as I'm sure you're happy to note, is not that, but it was a step in that direction when it was released, and I would have liked 5e to take more steps that way towards making a generic rpg for all, which was supposed to be the mandate. It seems to me that I already play the most comprehensively balanced D&D-like rpg ever released, and that most of its flaws that I've had to fix result from steps taken to create that balance. Balance is in itself problematic, but moreso it detracts from more important things. What's really bad is when the rules encourage or even require metagaming, or when they encourage player entitlement, or when they violate genre conceits to enforce a type of balance that doesn't exist within the underlying genre (trying to make a rogue into a "striker" for example). Those ideas, perhaps used in the name of balance, are the source of most of the problems that exist within published D&D (though thankfully not in my game). *** It would seem to me that if you have a goal (say, enforcing an extreme between-PC balance), the best way to achieve it would be a simple, generic, and transparent core rules system (like one of the more minimalist 3e offshoots), and a DM using it to enforce that goal, rather than expecting the writers of the world's ostensible #1 rpg to cater to that specific goal at the exclusion of anything else. [/QUOTE]

Verification