I fought the RAW, and the RAW won

Tommy Brownell · May 29, 2010, 12:40:53 PM

Quote from: Benoist;384607Yes. A basic rules balance is actually a good thing. An obsession over perfect, absolute rules balance certainly isn't, IMO.

Nope. It should be made to make the game awesome. What "awesome" means in this instance we'll vary from gaming group to gaming group, and it doesn't necessarily mean "balanced on a theoretical basis grounded in rules taken in a vacuum, with an 'average' gaming group in fact that in fact doesn't exist, and doesn't necessarily represent our personal needs".

Sometimes, awesome will mean light sabers in Greyhawk that do 8d6 damage with no save.

Yup, have to agree with pretty much all of this.

areola · May 29, 2010, 12:59:08 PM

I miss those days where I can just make up my own magic items for storyline purposes without caring about balance.

Fifth Element · May 29, 2010, 01:03:20 PM

Quote from: Benoist;384607Nope. It should be made to make the game awesome. What "awesome" means in this instance will vary from gaming group to gaming group, and it doesn't necessarily mean "balanced on a theoretical basis grounded in rules taken in a vacuum, with an 'average' gaming group in mind which, in fact, doesn't exist, and doesn't necessarily represent our personal and specific needs".

Sometimes, awesome will mean light sabers in Greyhawk that do 8d6 damage with no save.

Completely agreed.

I think balance is a fine goal for a mass-market RPG. They really need to be designed for an 'average' group in mind. I let balance be the concern of the game designers. But once it's at my table, balance becomes a secondary concern. For any rules that sacrifice awesome for balance, the House Rule pen comes out. Remembering, as you point out, that "awesome" in this context depends on me and my group, and nothing else.

Benoist · May 29, 2010, 01:10:47 PM

Quote from: Logos7;384573As for that nifty viking game with twice as much black as white, that's cool, but I don't see it being played nowadays do you, especially not at an international level like chess and some other boardgames. I wonder why.

Because most people actually don't know about it.

Among these people, as they become aware of its existence, you'll find that some will actually play and enjoy it, while others won't, with, amongst them, the tiny fringe of whiners who won't play it because it's unfair. Booh-hoo-fucking-hoo.

Levi Kornelsen · May 29, 2010, 02:22:09 PM

I like my rules moderately balanced. Like, the writer spent the time to ensure that every character can get about as many cool rules things to do, each role generally has stuff to do in the setup, and it's in the same region power-wise.

Better balance than that is neat. But it's not worth watering down a game for.

Precision balance would be a straitjacket, because it would need to describe shit like "the right encounter mix" and so on. Attempts at closing this gap and locking a game into that state make me do the Billy Idol face.

LordVreeg · May 29, 2010, 02:28:07 PM

Balance.
What is it good for? Beginners, casual gamers, and larger groups of people where they might be shifting from gm to gm. Sure.

On the other hand, Houseruling that actually works the way a gm wants takes some experience. So to paraphrase the title, The RAW in a game will win with an inexperienced GM. Sort of the Paint-by-numbers idea for newbie GMs.

But eventually, some GMs 'find their voice'. And once this happens, some change the rules to take advantage of this voice.

Angry_Douchebag · May 29, 2010, 02:33:55 PM

Quote from: FrankTrollman;384593If I understand the current crop of interviews on the subject it is:

Living in the Seattle Area.
Being brought in by someone who already works there.
Quoted for truth. A fair explanation of the other, smaller rpg companies in existence in Seattle as staff move to and fro.

Caesar Slaad · May 29, 2010, 02:35:51 PM

Quote from: areola;384609I miss those days where I can just make up my own magic items for storyline purposes without caring about balance.

Yeah, me too. I played yesterday and already want to play again.

:cool:

Tommy Brownell · May 29, 2010, 04:23:21 PM

Quote from: LordVreeg;384620Balance.
What is it good for? Beginners, casual gamers, and larger groups of people where they might be shifting from gm to gm. Sure.

Really? In my experience, the casual gamers fret much less about rules balance than the hardcore gamers do. Same goes for most beginners.

LordVreeg · May 29, 2010, 04:57:39 PM

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;384632Really? In my experience, the casual gamers fret much less about rules balance than the hardcore gamers do. Same goes for most beginners.

I was not addressing the want as much as the need. I see your point that they might now care about it as much or even know enough to care about it, but the affect of game balance is more pronounced amongst this sub group.

Better?

Tommy Brownell · May 29, 2010, 05:05:35 PM

Quote from: LordVreeg;384636I was not addressing the want as much as the need. I see your point that they might now care about it as much or even know enough to care about it, but the affect of game balance is more pronounced amongst this sub group.

Better?

Hm, yeah, I can see the "need" over the "want", more...but then, I'm also in the camp of "if everyone is having fun, screw balance" (which has tended to work way more often than not, at least in my groups)...still, I get what you're saying much better now. Sorry for the misunderstanding here.

Of course, I have the benefit of the players knowing I'm bending the rules for the fun of the game (replacing Encumbrance with common sense for example), and not so I can "beat" them, or because I like one guy more than I do another (etc., etc.,) and I know that not everyone has that from their GMs.

Benoist · May 29, 2010, 05:07:43 PM

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;384632Really? In my experience, the casual gamers fret much less about rules balance than the hardcore gamers do. Same goes for most beginners.

I agree. It's like a hardcore group of gamers/designers *think* casual gamers need strict game balance while in reality, casual gamers couldn't care less. Then, it becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy as hardcore gamers drink the Kool-Aid and think there possibly cannot be good gaming without a strict game balance hardcoded into the rules.

Seanchai · May 29, 2010, 08:01:00 PM

Quote from: ggroy;384600I'm sorry to say it Frank, but I wouldn't be surprised if Mike Mearls is largely laughing at all your posts criticizing him.

Do you think he sees them or cares enough to laugh?

Seanchai

ggroy · May 29, 2010, 08:19:55 PM

Quote from: Seanchai;384665Do you think he sees them or cares enough to laugh?

Seanchai

Who knows?

Some people in high places are self-absorbed enough that they like to google their own names all the time, just to see what other people are saying about them. They get off on all the attention, despite how minor or major it is.

Simlasa · May 29, 2010, 10:50:28 PM

Seems to me that the guy in the OP crossed over a line from where 'balance' ceased to be one tool among many and became a goal unto itself. The game became ABOUT balance... when, really, balance is just a tool... to keep the 'power gamer's character from bullying other PCs... to make sure your character won't be killed by field mice when he tries to steal a potato... to make sure monsters that oughtta be scary stay scary (imbalance).

It's like a painter worrying too much about 'red'.
Basically he's become unbalanced about 'balance'.