In terms of system design, I found it very useful to establish a ruthless balance in class design initially.

That made it a lot easier to then introduce imbalances into the system where the effects of each imbalance on how it plays are better understood.

For example, magic in the system uses a "build-up" system where the caster gathers energy to cast their spells.

One of the three casting classes uses the baseline of building X points a turn by taking actions.

The second class makes a check each turn to see how much power they draw... from 0 to 2X points each turn. The average is still 1X like the first class, but the dice will give it ebbs and flows where sometimes they can barely cast anything and others it has phenomenal power available.

The third class gets all its power, typically about 6X, front loaded during a rest and pre-spends their power into each of their magic devices, but gains no power outside of that. 6X is actually more than the "steady state" caster will build up in a typical encounter, but if they charge the wrong devices or reinforcements turn up they have no way to build more power to keep up their casting.

In play they all feel different and have different strengths (how they build up power is just one difference) and weaknesses that make them better or worse for different scenarios.

But because each of their imbalances was considered in relation to a balanced baseline none are so superior to the others as to render other classes worthless in comparison.

Quote from: Zelen on February 23, 2025, 10:06:06 AMWhite-room concerns about spellcasters often come from the perspective that:

1. The game system perpetually adds more spells (due to publishing-creep)
2. The PCs have virtually unlimited access to more spells
3. The PCs have all the spells at any given point and no other limitations (material components, time to prepare, relationship with Deity, etc)

When you're only playing with ~25% of the game rules (selectively chosen) then it's understandable when the game seems a bit off-kilter.

With AD&D 1E, everyone played with selectively chosen rules. Some parts especially -- like Grappling/Overbearing, Weapon-vs-Armor mods, and psionics -- were routinely ignored. Further, many people argued that the DM was supposed to use those rules as suggestions rather than trying to follow 100% of the rules as written.

I don't think these complaints were at all "white room". I've heard them lots of times from people who actually played AD&D.

Quote from: Brad on February 21, 2025, 11:44:58 AMIf I'm playing Conan, why the fuck do I care if the wizard gets into a spell slinging battle with an enemy sorcerer? That's his job and why he gets a share of the loot, even if I'm doing all the literal heavy lifting 99% of the time.

Trying to "balance" characters for every possible situation is retarded and boring and lame.

Why would I want my friend to sit around doing nothing during a game they were invited to participate in that occupies their valuable free time? That sounds pretty boring and lame. If my friend is Conan, I certainly want him sneaking around the flank to stab the sorcerer or ruin his ritual while I'm engaging him with magic. Teamwork is fun, and makes the game better.

A session where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case. An encounter where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case.

A game system doesn't have to sacrifice fun for balance. They're orthogonal.

4e sucked ass. Fortunately, there are lots of good games that aren't 4e or D&D.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on Today at 03:19:29 AMA session where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case. An encounter where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case.

Except that's clearly not true at all. I can think of plenty of examples where a singular character doing something is better than trying to shoehorn reasons for an entire group of PCs to engage. You're literally going to break verisimilitude by trying to have a thief get involved in some ritual that the cleric should rightfully do solo. I'm not saying this is true ALL the time, but if you're going to use a blanket "better" you have to allow for cases where it's not.

Quote from: Brad on Today at 07:59:06 AM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on Today at 03:19:29 AMA session where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case. An encounter where everyone gets to participate is better than one where that isn't the case.

Except that's clearly not true at all. I can think of plenty of examples where a singular character doing something is better than trying to shoehorn reasons for an entire group of PCs to engage. You're literally going to break verisimilitude by trying to have a thief get involved in some ritual that the cleric should rightfully do solo. I'm not saying this is true ALL the time, but if you're going to use a blanket "better" you have to allow for cases where it's not.

I think their argument is that, "if the cleric's solo ritual consumes an entire weekly session, it sucks for everyone else but the cleric who could have saved gas and pizza money for all they matter to the session."

I've got no problem with the cleric solo-casting the ritual or how long it takes in in-game time, if it only sidelines the other PLAYERS for 5-10 minutes. If it's long enough they could grab dinner somewhere and be back before their characters can do anything, that's what I'd call a problem.

Quote from: Chris24601 on Today at 08:25:12 AMI think their argument is that, "if the cleric's solo ritual consumes an entire weekly session, it sucks for everyone else but the cleric who could have saved gas and pizza money for all they matter to the session."

I've got no problem with the cleric solo-casting the ritual or how long it takes in in-game time, if it only sidelines the other PLAYERS for 5-10 minutes. If it's long enough they could grab dinner somewhere and be back before their characters can do anything, that's what I'd call a problem.

Fair enough, but if you're playing a real RPG, there will be times this sort of stuff happens and makes perfect sense in-game. MY point is that if it naturally occurs, trying to come up with dumb reasons to include other PCs makes the game meaningless. Now, an entire session, yeah, that's horseshit if you exclude everyone, but doing things in-game isn't the only way to participate.