Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8942771" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Because &quot;unbalanced&quot; should mean something. It should tell you something about the encounter. It shouldn't just be shorthand for &quot;a hard fight&quot; or &quot;a fight that you can't brute force&quot; or &quot;a fight that actually requires cleverness.&quot; It should be a fight that is broken. Because that's what &quot;unbalanced&quot; means.That's why people keep saying that you can make unbalanced fights in balanced systems, but you can't make balanced fights in unbalanced ones. You can't take assorted glass shards and just will them into being a tumbler. You can always break a tumbler if you have ones on hand.Further, when people talk up &quot;unbalanced&quot; encounters, it is almost always at least in part to poo-poo &quot;balanced&quot; encounters. It is used very frequently to show how using &quot;balanced&quot; encounters is desperately dull, and tedious, and stuffy, and boring, and desperately dull, that there's this TOTALLY better way if you just destroy any notion of &quot;balance.&quot;But that's never what they mean, and it's incredibly frustrating. &quot;Balance&quot; has been twisted into this four-letter word, a boogeyman to flee from, the dreaded specter of awful boring games as opposed to the galmorous excitement of &quot;unbalance.&quot; But that tells designers, &quot;Do whatever-the-heck you want. It doesn't matter! The rules don't matter.&quot; And that gets us systems that are actually broken. Like, I dunno, the 5e CR system, which is often worse than just eyeballing answers! That gets us things where we don't actually have any idea what a &quot;hard&quot; encounter is or an &quot;easy&quot; encounter. It gets us systems where even a highly educated guess might as well be random for all the difference it makes. It gets us systems where DMs are given no tools, no advice, no structure, just &quot;alright champ, have at it, you know best!&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8942771, member: 6790260"] Because "unbalanced" should [I]mean something[/I]. It should [I]tell[/I] you something about the encounter. It shouldn't just be shorthand for "a hard fight" or "a fight that you can't brute force" or "a fight that actually requires cleverness." It should be a fight that is [I]broken[/I]. Because that's what "unbalanced" [I]means[/I]. That's why people keep saying that you can make unbalanced fights in balanced systems, but you [I]can't[/I] make balanced fights in unbalanced ones. You can't take assorted glass shards and just [I]will[/I] them into being a tumbler. You can always [I]break[/I] a tumbler if you have ones on hand. Further, when people talk up "unbalanced" encounters, it is almost always at least in part to poo-poo "balanced" encounters. It is used very frequently to show how using "balanced" encounters is desperately dull, and tedious, and stuffy, and boring, and [I]desperately dull[/I], that there's this TOTALLY better way if you just destroy any notion of "balance." But that's never what they mean, and it's incredibly frustrating. "Balance" has been twisted into this four-letter word, a boogeyman to flee from, the dreaded specter of awful boring games as opposed to the galmorous [I]excitement[/I] of "unbalance." But that tells designers, "Do whatever-the-heck you want. It doesn't matter! The rules don't matter." And that gets us systems that are [I]actually broken[/I]. Like, I dunno, the 5e CR system, which is often [I]worse[/I] than just eyeballing answers! That gets us things where we [I]don't[/I] actually have any idea what a "hard" encounter is or an "easy" encounter. It gets us systems where even a highly educated guess might as well be random for all the difference it makes. It gets us systems where DMs are given no tools, no advice, no [I]structure[/I], just "alright champ, have at it, you know best!" [/QUOTE]

Verification