Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7907141" data-attributes="member: 22779">Absolutely, short-term balance.&nbsp; Posit a campaign that is 100 sessions long.&nbsp; (I'm picking a number out of a hat, just for the sake of conversation).&nbsp; Now, a class that only shines, say, 1 session in 3, means that that player is riding the pines, not doing much more than observing 2/3rds of the time.&nbsp; Sure, 1/3 of the time, he's a freaking rock star.&nbsp; Fantastic.&nbsp; But, the other couple of hundred hours of play, he might as well not even be at the table.Meanwhile, the short term balance players, while they might not be shining 100% percent of the time, are at least shining every single session.&nbsp; There's a reason for that character to be at the table every single time.&nbsp; That character MATTERS.&nbsp; Sure, great, your Gandalf character takes on the Balrog.&nbsp; But, the other 600 pages of the novel, he's basically not even worth mentioning.&nbsp; Which means that that player is bored out of his skull most of the time.RPG's are not a spectator sport.&nbsp; We don't need a character or a player that isn't engaged most of the time.&nbsp; We don't need a relief pitcher in an RPG.&nbsp; We need workhorse classes that are needed all the time.&nbsp; That's where game balance comes in.&nbsp; The old AD&amp;D MU character was balanced on long-term.&nbsp; Only problem was, that meant you wound up with multiple points of boredom while the MU just had nothing to contribute and, frequently, the campaign ended before the payoff occured.&nbsp; Yay, I just wasted a hundred hours of play watching everyone else have a great time while I got to throw my sleep spell once every ten hours.&nbsp; Whoopee!Long term balance is a myth.&nbsp; All long term balance actually is is multiple points of imbalance with a tiny, tiny sweet spot in the middle that may or may not ever actually occur.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7907141, member: 22779"] Absolutely, short-term balance. Posit a campaign that is 100 sessions long. (I'm picking a number out of a hat, just for the sake of conversation). Now, a class that only shines, say, 1 session in 3, means that that player is riding the pines, not doing much more than observing 2/3rds of the time. Sure, 1/3 of the time, he's a freaking rock star. Fantastic. But, the other couple of hundred hours of play, he might as well not even be at the table. Meanwhile, the short term balance players, while they might not be shining 100% percent of the time, are at least shining every single session. There's a reason for that character to be at the table every single time. That character MATTERS. Sure, great, your Gandalf character takes on the Balrog. But, the other 600 pages of the novel, he's basically not even worth mentioning. Which means that that player is bored out of his skull most of the time. RPG's are not a spectator sport. We don't need a character or a player that isn't engaged most of the time. We don't need a relief pitcher in an RPG. We need workhorse classes that are needed all the time. That's where game balance comes in. The old AD&D MU character was balanced on long-term. Only problem was, that meant you wound up with multiple points of boredom while the MU just had nothing to contribute and, frequently, the campaign ended before the payoff occured. Yay, I just wasted a hundred hours of play watching everyone else have a great time while I got to throw my sleep spell once every ten hours. Whoopee! Long term balance is a myth. All long term balance actually is is multiple points of imbalance with a tiny, tiny sweet spot in the middle that may or may not ever actually occur. [/QUOTE]

Verification