|
2 months ago ::
Mar 17, 2013 - 5:15PM
#151
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Other way around Dave. Appeasing the balance brigade lead us here today.
I don't want 3.5 or 4th eds "balance". Both of them need to die in the fires of the wrath of Gygax. Just make a fun game where balance is close enough and let DMs sort it out. Or just play the game.
I don't think so. I think the problem was the way they tried to achieve balance, what they sacrificed in the name of balance. And, I don't want them to make those sacrifices a second time around. I don't want the game to alienate the majority of the sort of players who chose Pathfinder due to what Pathfinder offers. Similarly, however, 3e stopped being profitable at least in part because of its drastic imbalance. That too needs to be addressed.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 17, 2013 - 5:26PM
#152
|
Date Joined:
Nov 18, 2004
|
Other way around Dave. Appeasing the balance brigade lead us here today.
I don't want 3.5 or 4th eds "balance". Both of them need to die in the fires of the wrath of Gygax. Just make a fun game where balance is close enough and let DMs sort it out. Or just play the game.
I don't think so. I think the problem was the way they tried to achieve balance, what they sacrificed in the name of balance. And, I don't want them to make those sacrifices a second time around. I don't want the game to alienate the majority of the sort of players who chose Pathfinder due to what Pathfinder offers. Similarly, however, 3e stopped being profitable at least in part because of its drastic imbalance. That too needs to be addressed.
Did it cease to be profitable? One could argue that Pathfinder is 3rd and remains profitable even today. 3rd edition was retired not because it wasn't profitable, but because it wasn't hitting Hasbro's magic number.
It also had things stacked against it, WOTC wasn't allowed to count novel sales or video games as D&D revenue.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 17, 2013 - 5:49PM
#153
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
Throw is garbage quality splat books towards the end as well.Who wrote the Complete Mage off the top of your head? Exactly.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 17, 2013 - 6:55PM
#154
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
You can disagree all you like. This conversation is just another semantic debate that you are using to obfuscate the issue at hand. Making "fun" the point where you define the end goal is meaningless, as there is no way to quantify what is or is not more fun.
Sure there is. The designers tweak the classes, races, etc. and then through feedback you eventually learn what the majority of your playtesters find to be fun. Bam! Quantified as much as it needs to be for this situation.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 17, 2013 - 6:56PM
#155
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Other way around Dave. Appeasing the balance brigade lead us here today.
I don't want 3.5 or 4th eds "balance". Both of them need to die in the fires of the wrath of Gygax. Just make a fun game where balance is close enough and let DMs sort it out. Or just play the game.
That's where I sit as well. 3.5 was not balanced enough. 4e was too balanced.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Apr 02, 2013 - 7:23PM
#156
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2010
|
So what constitutes the goals of game balance for you in DnD Next?
'game balance' is usually just someone explaining why a class you like shoud suck. Why was the druid drawn and quartered in 4e? Balance. '
Yep, sorry no. Balance is not an excuse, or a reason to do something people don't like. It is a way to keep all characters on the same power level so that a single character can't steal the show all or most of the time. Its keeps one character from doing everything. In 4E the Druid was 'drawn and quartered' because in 3.xE the Druid could obsolete the Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, and Cleric and did all that without sacrificing its own ability to cast spells and summon animals.
If 5e is going to go on about balance and it hasn't been but if, it should balance the classes that aren't good enough to be on the same teams with a complete version of the druid by making them better, not by making the druid suck or cutting it into little pieces and only letting you play one peice at a time. The podcast said they had no trouble with the druid so I'm betting they just gave it a good enough variety of abilities and spells to do everything its supposed to without worrying about 'balance.'
looks like I won that bet . the Druid is out and its good, not drawn and quartered
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Apr 02, 2013 - 10:54PM
#157
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Game balance means no one is insiginifcant, and no one is essential.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Apr 02, 2013 - 11:29PM
#158
|
Date Joined:
Jan 16, 2012
|
Game balance means the outcome is as realistic as possible even if doesn't provide balance in the players favor.
"...spells were not created to serve the mechanics of the combat system. Many of them were sources of inspiration, cues for role playing, and served to make the game naturally unpredictable, which I think served the 'product of your imagination' concept alot better than any mechanic ever could. In fact I'd rather not have D&D next be a 'product of the mechanics' type of game ever again." ~dmgorgon
There are solutions in this world other than "Smack things around with your standard array of combat abilities" ~Tevish_Szat
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Apr 02, 2013 - 11:32PM
#159
|
Date Joined:
Nov 15, 2007
|
To me game balance is about the classes all having equal chance to contribute to the different areas (or pillars) of the game.
In other words when I come up with a character concept I should not be "penalized" i.e. have to "sit around" or have no mechanical options to contribute for large chunks of the game based on what type of character I envisioned.
Just because I envision my character wearing heavy armor and using a melee weapon that should not mean my character should not be able to do things outside of combat. And conversely just because I envision my character wearing a robe and casting arcane spells that does not mean I should be able to trivialize an entire adventure.
Because you like something, it does not mean it is good.
Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus.
Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Apr 02, 2013 - 11:37PM
#160
|
Date Joined:
Nov 15, 2007
|
Other way around Dave. Appeasing the balance brigade lead us here today.
I don't want 3.5 or 4th eds "balance". Both of them need to die in the fires of the wrath of Gygax. Just make a fun game where balance is close enough and let DMs sort it out. Or just play the game.
I don't think so. I think the problem was the way they tried to achieve balance, what they sacrificed in the name of balance. And, I don't want them to make those sacrifices a second time around. I don't want the game to alienate the majority of the sort of players who chose Pathfinder due to what Pathfinder offers. Similarly, however, 3e stopped being profitable at least in part because of its drastic imbalance. That too needs to be addressed.
Did it cease to be profitable? One could argue that Pathfinder is 3rd and remains profitable even today. 3rd edition was retired not because it wasn't profitable, but because it wasn't hitting Hasbro's magic number.
It also had things stacked against it, WOTC wasn't allowed to count novel sales or video games as D&D revenue.
Gee wow, just like 4E!
Because you like something, it does not mean it is good.
Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus.
Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.
|
|
|
