|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 7:08PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2011
|
i found this video on youtube, and quite frankly i found it interesting. and in my opinion i would gladly give up balance for an interesting d&d experience anyday. ive played unbalanced games before and most of the time we get our moment in the sun. and when somebody else had the spotilight we acted like good sports(frankly because sometimes we contributed to creating the character and feel some pride that we helped make that overpowered character).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 7:17PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
Link in the Thread, please? Title link is a bad idea. Too many reasons I disagree to go through them all in a timely fashion, but I'd still like to see the video. 
Resident Logic Cannon
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 7:26PM
#3
|
|
|
It's basically a crap argument.
"Imbalance in the system is okay if the players and GM conspire together to create the balance themselves."
The guy uses as an example his online game that feature an Oni/Ogre Mage along with both varieties of Gith, which he acknowledges as being wildly different in power levels. Another example (perhaps the same group?) is that the differing power level of a 12th level character and fellow 8th level characters is okay if you have a player responsible enough to not wade into a combat and dominate over the other players, or if you have a GM skilled enough to not let the spotlight focus overlong on any one character.
So imbalance is okay if you can balance things.
Crap argument.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
Roll dice, not cars.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 7:35PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
I think it was odd that he chose to ask the viewer if they would buy an unbalanced game and asked if they felt up to making it work. It felt a bit like a schoolyard dare. Perhaps that sort of challenge is important to him, but it's absolutely not something I want to do, whether or not I could. I want the rules to already work when I buy them.
He also fails to address that whether the players in your group can align their power levels with each other on their own isn't the only issue with imbalance.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 8:52PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jan 11, 2012
|
Boy, howdy, that's a long-winded video!
(And he brought up a game I find rather dreadful as an attempt to justify his views on balance. I'll just say "guh. Stormers." Bad example. He also brought up some storyteller crap so that lost points with me immediately.)
However, I, myself, don't really beleive in balance, or, at least, what people are concerned about when it comes to balance.
Balance is an overly-general term for a whole bunch of different problems and bits of dissatisfaction.
There are lots of good reasons to revise the rules without messing around with an overly-hazy term like balance.
If you're worried about kill-steaing, then talk about the ability to deal damage rather than "balance."
If you're worried about equal participation (everyone gets at least one chance to hack a monster or everyone gets the same amount of chances to solve problems) than that's an entirely different issue.
If you're worried about player investment and interaction, yet another issue.
If you're worried about taking advantage of relationships between imaginary characters with vastly different experience and talents to add some depth of feeling to your game and story, that's a different issue, too.
Lumping it all under the term "balance" doesn't get anything solved.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 9:25PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
If you're worried about equal participation (everyone gets at least one chance to hack a monster or everyone gets the same amount of chances to solve problems) than that's an entirely different issue.
This is the only one that has anything to do with Balance, and it's a side case (though an important one).
"Balance" refers in the context we use it to the numbers adding up; can a PC just abuse X, Y, and Z to go infinite on Damage/Skill Bonuses/Stat Boosts? Are the Monsters Built correctly so that they neither OHKO "equivalent"-level PCs, nor take 5 hours to kill? What about the RNG (Random Number Generator/God)? Is there too much disparity between "Normal" Characters and Optimized Characters in terms of Attack Rolls, Skill Checks, Saves, Stats, Damage, AC, etc?
When you can answer these kinds of questions with decent numbers, that is Balance in the general sense. Yes, there's inter-Party Balance (which is very important), as well as Balance even inside of the Classes themselves (between whatever Features/Abilities that Class might have to offer), but in general, "Balance" in DnD is about the numbers (to me, at least). 3.5 did not have a sufficient amount; 4E mostly did it right. There is always room for improvement, though.
Resident Logic Cannon
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 9:42PM
#7
|
|
|
Balance is a sacred cow that needs to be slaughter. I do not understand why 4e lovers aren't saying this. They were all about salying sacred cows when 4e was announced. So strange. Like double standards.
Resident Socialist and Undying Troublemaker
Martyr of Section 1, 2 and 4
Original Troll of the House of Trolls
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 9:47PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2007
|
Balance is a sacred cow that needs to be slaughter. I do not understand why 4e lovers aren't saying this. They were all about salying sacred cows when 4e was announced. So strange. Like double standards.
Cause we're not for slaying every sacred cow? We typically like classes, races, fighters being called fighters, races, skills, ability scores, AC, DC's, levels, etc.
I wouldn't really call balance a sacred cow of D&D even, its a rather fundamental part of game design.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 9:47PM
#9
|
|
|
Balance is a sacred cow that needs to be slaughter. I do not understand why 4e lovers aren't saying this. They were all about salying sacred cows when 4e was announced. So strange. Like double standards.
You don't slaughter sacred cows just because they are sacred.
You slaughter which cows needs to be slaughtered, sacred or not.
There is a distinct difference.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
Roll dice, not cars.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 21, 2012 - 9:50PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
Balance is based on Mathematics and Logic; "Magic Missile should be an auto-hit," is a preference.
Balance is not a Sacred Cow; it's a Design Tenent, and one that should be payed at least some attention to for a plethora of reasons.
Resident Logic Cannon
|
|
|
