Well, I'll ask to have "hardcore" defined then, or at least have a reference point for discussion, since I don't see 4e game-balance as all that extreme (or even all that great), it's just balanced around the notion that everyone will take part in an encounter, vs the other modern design trend, which is to balance people around either being mediocre in everything, or "specialized" -- ie, Character A is most useful in X scene/situation, Character B is most useful in Y scene/situation, etc.

So, whereas certain clans in Vampire might be most useful as diplomats and have comparable dice-pools for social abilities that a violent character would in fighting abilities, D&D4e just refocuses the notion of specialization down to the encounter level, where people are most effective in their given role during a fight, rather than during an adventure.

Strikers will always be better at doing damage, defenders will always do better at holding lines, controllers will always be best at handling large amounts of enemies and so on.  They're not directly balanced against one another, they're balanced relative to one another against possible challenges pitted against the party, so that the GM has better tools when making judgments about building encounters.

Quote from: Peregrin;377878Well, I'll ask to have "hardcore" defined then, or at least have a reference point for discussion, since I don't see 4e game-balance as all that extreme (or even all that great)

Prefer "absolute". Also, my original quote is:

The notion that somehow all characters should be strictly equal all the time whatever the circumstances is laughable. If you exclude circumstances, whether they are theoretically equal or not doesn't matter once the rubber hits the road in-game. Any way you slice it, strictissimo, hardcore rules balance is a misguided design tenet, at best.

I'm talking of notions, aims and design tenets, not actual results.

The notion is garbage, and will always lead to faulty results. And please, stop being butthurt about 4e. It's not about 4e. It's about a whole bunch of games that suffer from the same misconceptions about what "game balance" is, isn't, and how it relates to actual rules. Speaking of D&D, it actually started with 3.x, if not earlier. So you can stop white-knighting 4e.

Quote from: Benoist;377870What I was saying was this: "Any way you slice it, strictissimo, hardcore rules balance is a misguided design tenet, at best."

To which Peregrin answered: "Not if your game is built around the notion that people are playing capable adventurers who mainly engage in combat."

Nobody's discussing that some amount of balance can be a worthy design goal, particularly if the game focuses heavily on a treatment of combat with lots of mechanical options.

Absolute, hardcore game balance is what my post was talking about, however. Which is why I posted "wrong".

and we are also speaking of a design goal, which have to be prioritized.  So placing it too high in the chain pushes down other goals that might feed the roleplay side more and the game side a little less.  I can see lots of games this applies to.

Quote from: Benoist;377880The notion is garbage, and will always lead to faulty results. And please, stop being butthurt about 4e. It's not about 4e. It's about a whole bunch of games that suffer from the same misconceptions about what "game balance" is, isn't, and how it relates to actual rules. Speaking of D&D, it actually started with 3.x, if not earlier. So you can stop white-knighting 4e.

I never said it didn't start earlier, in fact my other post stated that I thought the cause was the removal of the endgame of D&D (way before 3rd ed), thus the result in a focus on wandering parties fighting ever more powerful foes in more exotic locations, rather than owning land, or leading armies, or engaging in diplomacy.

And I'm not white-knighting 4e.  For as much as I've bashed it about the things I don't like about it (and making it known it's far from my first choice when it comes to RPGs), I'm surprised I'm being called out on it.  I'm just stating things that I, personally, believe to be true about the design.  I never said it resulted in a superior campaign, or that the results would work for everyone, or that it would even work well as a game in-and-of-itself.  I've played it quite a bit (and starting a new run now with a different DM), and those are just my observations.

If it's about my statement that striving for such balance has resulted in tools that make it easy for the GM to judge encounters, then yes, I believe that to be true, but that doesn't automatically make the game better.

Who came up with the retarded notion that "game balance" actually means "rules balance", completely excluding actual game play thereof, by the way? Is there anyone to point the finger at on this one? Because that has to be one of the stupidest game design concepts of the later years of the hobby, up there with GNS. Seriously.

Quote from: Benoist;377888Who came up with the retarded notion that "game balance" actually means "rules balance", completely excluding actual game play thereof, by the way?

I suspect the idea got its start with the corporate incarnation of Gary Gygax talking about AD&D 1e in The Dragon (1977-1982 or so) and how if you changed any of the carefully balanced rules your game would fall apart badly. TSR was trying hard to put the genie back in the bottle at the time (so people would buy and use their stuff instead of creating their own or buying stuff produced by other companies) and Gary said a whole lot of nonsense that he obviously did not believe enough to actually put into practice himself. However, I am pretty sure that this is where the idea of that "rules balance" was the same thing as "game balance" got its start. Even the idea that "balance" was a high priority in RPG design probably got its start there.

My beef with Versimilitude is that its used by certain people to label other people's games badwrongfun.

Quote from: RandallS;377927I suspect the idea got its start with the corporate incarnation of Gary Gygax talking about AD&D 1e in The Dragon (1977-1982 or so) and how if you changed any of the carefully balanced rules your game would fall apart badly. TSR was trying hard to put the genie back in the bottle at the time (so people would buy and use their stuff instead of creating their own or buying stuff produced by other companies) and Gary said a whole lot of nonsense that he obviously did not believe enough to actually put into practice himself. However, I am pretty sure that this is where the idea of that "rules balance" was the same thing as "game balance" got its start. Even the idea that "balance" was a high priority in RPG design probably got its start there.

Balance is important because not everybody's gaming group is love and rainbows. Most games do a good enough job of balance that it isn't an issue. AD&D 1E/2E is an example of what I would call a tolerably balanced game. Balance is the biggest problem in games with freeform character creation, either point buy or a hybrid point buy like 3.x D&D(the points you spent were levels in individual classes). These games sacrifice balance for freedom in character creation, and balanced is sacrificed as you can powergame beyond the games underlying assumptions, and you are also free to create a character well below the game's power assumptions.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;377936My beef with Versimilitude is that its used by certain people to label other people's games badwrongfun.

So, in response, you call verisimilitude badwrongfun?

Quote from: John Morrow;377941So, in response, you call verisimilitude badwrongfun?

No, its just something I think some people take too seriously and something people use as a club to attack other peoples preferences.

Quote from: RandallS;377927I suspect the idea got its start with the corporate incarnation of Gary Gygax talking about AD&D 1e in The Dragon (1977-1982 or so) and how if you changed any of the carefully balanced rules your game would fall apart badly. TSR was trying hard to put the genie back in the bottle at the time (so people would buy and use their stuff instead of creating their own or buying stuff produced by other companies) and Gary said a whole lot of nonsense that he obviously did not believe enough to actually put into practice himself. However, I am pretty sure that this is where the idea of that "rules balance" was the same thing as "game balance" got its start. Even the idea that "balance" was a high priority in RPG design probably got its start there.

I remember this time period.   The period were they started realizing they needed to continue the cash flow, and there was a palpable change from the hobbyists telling readers that, 'the rules were just guidelines' to, 'buy only official products' and, 'we've carefully constructed these rules for balance, so don't screw with them.'  I think the 'rules balance = game balance' started a little before that, but that you are right in pinpointing that time as the time it srated to matter (when people would really say, "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!")

In another thread, we were talking about race/class limits and the humancentric construction of early D&D.  I think this is where we see it really coming up.   But I have always felt it was a question of creating a rule set that gives a GM tools to balance the game, because enforcing game balance through rules balance never worked.

(I literally changed the my AD&D campaign when I first got the PHB.  I changed class limits for race into an % experience point penalty for certain races after a certain point.)

Quote from: LordVreeg;377948I remember this time period.   The period were they started realizing they needed to continue the cash flow, and there was a palpable change from the hobbyists telling readers that, 'the rules were just guidelines' to, 'buy only official products' and, 'we've carefully constructed these rules for balance, so don't screw with them.'  I think the 'rules balance = game balance' started a little before that, but that you are right in pinpointing that time as the time it srated to matter (when people would really say, "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!")

I don't really know - but I have a suspicion that it may pre-date role-playing games.  i.e. I suspect hobbyists might have talked about the game balance within, say, the Chainmail miniatures rules.  

It's true that when role-playing exploded onto the scene, there were a lot of new players who were not previously miniature or wargame players.  And they were often very do-it-yourself with no particular cares about rules balance.  However, the usage may have already existed in some groups rather than being a wholly new invention by Gary Gygax to sell more product.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;377945No, its just something I think some people take too seriously and something people use as a club to attack other peoples preferences.

I think it's a preference, just as balance is a preference. Some prefer one and some the other. You just can't have both.

-clash

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;377940Balance is important because not everybody's gaming group is love and rainbows.

Balance is important, but RULES can't balance games where the GM, world, and play-styles vary. Realistically only the GM (and the group playing) can balance their campaign.

To provide balance at the rules level, you need to be able to control all the variables: the setting, the play-style, what character concepts the players will use, what the stress of game-play is, etc. If you want the rules to provide the balance you are stuck creating an RPG that will either feel like a prewritten railroad adventure with pre-generated characters who can only do what their character sheets say (something like Pacesetter's Sandman RPG from 1985) or feel like a boardgame or a card game (that is with extremely limited options).

Getting the rules to be the main source of balance in an RPG strikes me as counterproductive in more ways than it is productive. As counterproductive as a literal word for word translation of a foreign film or novel. Yes, it is strictly an accurate translation, but it loses much of the flavor and meaning that a idiomatic translation provides. It's so busy concentrating on the trees that it completely loses sight of the forest.

I create my own worlds, adventures, etc. and I need RPG rules that support many different styles of play. I will provide the balance needed for my campaign, my players, and our style of play when I design the campaign. Games that try to provide the balance in the rules just get in my way because it's very unlikely that my campaign, player mix, and style of play are going to be a close match to that of the game designer.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;377940Balance is important because not everybody's gaming group is love and rainbows.

Rules don't fix people's attitudes. Ever.