Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 9169593" data-attributes="member: 996">There is also nothing about it that automatically imposes 6-8 encounter days to force balance on classes with large resource disparities.D&amp;D's traditional design, essentially asks the DM to limit the range of things he can run, and, yes, curtail player agency, to impose balance on classes, or just run an imbalanced game.If you want to run a living breathing world for your TTRPG, a game with balanced player-facing choices will work better for you than D&amp;D.TTRPGs, do need balance. They need both mechanical balance, and the sort of balanced approach you're describing, there.&nbsp; The latter being left to the DM is probably inevitable, tho I'm sure there could be more resources, the former being pushed on the DM, who already has so many responsibilities, is a real problem.&nbsp; The same problem as class imbalance experienced by players, just viewed from a different angle.That is the indefensible double standard, yes.&nbsp; You arbitrarily demand realism from some elements of the game, but not others.&nbsp; Why should any player facing choice be limited by &quot;realism&quot; (forget verisimilitude, you've already admitted it's just realism, selectively applied), when certain player choices cannot be, by definition?&nbsp; You claimed I was being unfair - isn't what you're demanding innately unfair?&nbsp; Isn't that the point of it.TBF, that is not what the analysis in the OP did.&nbsp; It assumed that only DPR mattered, that enemies would not kill either the fighter or wizard before being killed themselves, even if the fighter was dedicated melee or the wizard was casting from a safe distance, and that the party never faced an encounter where more than 3 enemies were w/in 40' of eachother.The variable that were left out were myriad, but leaving them out discounted swaths of the Wizard's power &amp; versatility.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 9169593, member: 996"] There is also nothing about it that automatically imposes 6-8 encounter days to force balance on classes with large resource disparities. D&D's traditional design, essentially asks the DM to limit the range of things he can run, and, yes, curtail player agency, to impose balance on classes, or just run an imbalanced game. If you want to run a living breathing world for your TTRPG, a game with balanced player-facing choices will work better for you than D&D. TTRPGs, do need balance. They need both mechanical balance, and the sort of balanced approach you're describing, there. The latter being left to the DM is probably inevitable, tho I'm sure there could be more resources, the former being pushed on the DM, who already has so many responsibilities, is a real problem. The same problem as class imbalance experienced by players, just viewed from a different angle. That is the indefensible double standard, yes. You arbitrarily demand realism from some elements of the game, but not others. Why should any player facing choice be limited by "realism" (forget verisimilitude, you've already admitted it's just realism, selectively applied), when certain player choices cannot be, by definition? You claimed I was being unfair - isn't what you're demanding innately unfair? Isn't that the point of it. TBF, that is not what the analysis in the OP did. It assumed that only DPR mattered, that enemies would not kill either the fighter or wizard before being killed themselves, even if the fighter was dedicated melee or the wizard was casting from a safe distance, and that the party never faced an encounter where more than 3 enemies were w/in 40' of eachother. The variable that were left out were myriad, but leaving them out discounted swaths of the Wizard's power & versatility. [/QUOTE]

Verification