Quote from: thecasualoblivion;377714In 3.x, you don't need to be a jerk. Playing a single classed Druid and picking the smart and obvious options is enough to unbalance the game.

1) Some players and groups don't care about the "smart and obvious options," they select options based on their desires for their character (which aren't always "maximize personal power") and the group's needs and goals. Not all groups revolve around combat or other activities where rules min-maxing matters. In other groups it does. This is why many 3.x groups never had much trouble with Druids or other classes that are unbalanced as written. Different group goals.

2) Many GMs are quite capable of handling characters of very different power levels in one party. I realize that the rules as written for 3.x and 4e assume parties will be made of of characters who are all about the same level and base their guidelines for encounters on that, but that doesn't mean that GMs can't do it their own way. Mixed parties of low and high level monsters will handle it for combat. The nasties target the powerful characters first while the weaker monsters go after the less powerful characters. It's not rocket science and it works just as well for parties which are all the same character level but not the same character power.

Does this mean that unbalanced classes don't matter? Of course not, it just means that how likely they are to "ruin" a campaign depends on player and group goals -- and GM skill. Balance is very important for some styles of play and not so important for other styles of play.

Quote from: RandallS;377725Many GMs are quite capable of handling characters of very different power levels in one party.

This.

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.

Quote from: Benoist;377727This.

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.

Absolutely! Agreed and quoted, just to give it a better chance of being read.

-clash

Quote from: beejazz;377718The solution for everybody but D&D, IME is to sell several stand alone games instead of one game and a bunch of supplements, and to sell print copies. Both of which I'm pretty sure you do.

Yes, that is what I do.

-clash

Quote from: Benoist;377727Any way you slice it, strictissimo, hardcore rules balance is a misguided design tenet, at best.

Not if your game is built around the notion that people are playing capable adventurers who mainly engage in combat.

It's a different game these days.  One that I don't entirely dislike for what it is.  

Despite my limited experience, from what I've seen and read, D&D as a game with a broad focus, from dungeoneering all the way to social-political engineering, was lost as soon as they cut the endgame out of it, with future designers just kind of going with the assumption that the party will always be a wandering band of adventurers encountering ever more powerful beasties, rather than settling down and ruling their own little fiefdoms.  

When you take out the game-play assumption that the PCs may one day be rulers, there's no need for fighters to grow their own entourages or armies rather than relying solely on their own exponentially increasing fighting prowess, and wizards being more powerful at endgame and doing world/nation-shattering things has no meaning, and so you build the game differently.

Quote from: Peregrin;377798Not if your game is built around the notion that people are playing capable adventurers who mainly engage in combat.

Wrong.

Quote from: Benoist;377727This.

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.

It creates the situation where the setting revolves around the players, which is exactly the opposite of the 'world in motion' tenet for creating versimilitude.  Rules that balance the party within itself, or worse, the party with the world, are rules in oppostion to immersion and versimilitude.

Versimilitude=taking things too seriously IMO.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;377846Versimilitude=taking things too seriously IMO.

God you're an idiot to say such a thing.
I don't even know where to begin. I just won't.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;377846Versimilitude=taking things too seriously IMO.

You know how some people say they can't get into worlds like Tekumel or Glorantha because they are just too weird? That's exactly what I think of any campaign that lacks a fair emphasis on versimilitude: such worlds are just too weird for me to enjoy playing in.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;377846Versimilitude=taking things too seriously IMO.

I'm sure I take it far more seriously than most.  But that's because I believe that verisimilitude is one of the most important ingredients to roleplaying.
I see your response the equiv of saying that people who run campaigns take roleplaying games too seriously.

But that's ok, not eveyone sees immersion or roleplaying as goals in their games, I guess.

Benoist, I can kind of see what Peregrin is saying, though I agree with you.  Peregrin is saying that in a GM's combat/encounter-heavy Game (and he used that term in the possessive, which is important) , where you have boiled much of the rest of an RPG away, rules balance can be achieved.  Does it make sense from an immersive logic, I doubt it.  I mean, to me, (and for those who know my game, PCS only get better in skills they use, etc), it would be impossible, as once one player does something and gains experience in that skill, *wham*, we are already on our way to imbalance.

But Peregrin was infering (and correct me if I am wrong) that by removing the side-games and fiddly parts, balance becomes more doable.  And I can see this, tho closer the game gets back to the roots of all of this (war gaming), the easier it becomes to balance.

Quote from: LordVreeg;377867Benoist, I can kind of see what Peregrin is saying, though I agree with you.  Peregrin is saying that in a GM's combat/encounter-heavy Game (and he used that term in the possessive, which is important) , where you have boiled much of the rest of an RPG away, rules balance can be achieved.

What 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".

I'm about as likely to strive for balance as I am for consistency.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;377846Versimilitude=taking things too seriously IMO.

Next time, pull your head out of your ass before responding.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;377846Versimilitude=taking things too seriously IMO.