Alright, I get it, some people really like to tinker with game systems.

I'm one of them.

But I'm getting fed up with proclamations that things are broken, overpowered, underpowered, imbalanced, et al.

Here's an experiment — next time you find yourself analyzing the rules so closely that they appear broken, put your effort into running a scene for your friends that applies those elements creatively and entertainingly. There's no shortage of mechanics wonks, but there is always a shortage of great GMing.

You can "fix" the game through play. It is possible to do, even if a list of internet fallacies say you shouldn't have to. This forum is at its best when creative GMs share technique, and lately I feel like I'm seeing less of that. Let's pick it back up, friends.

</rant>

As human beings, gamers, and (in the case of a lot of us) Americans, I think you're asking for too much. We have to complain about SOMETHING afterall and at this point George Lucas hasn't revealed episodes 7, 8, and 9 yet.

;-)

Here's an experiment — next time you find yourself analyzing the rules so closely that they appear broken, put your effort into running a scene for your friends that applies those elements creatively and entertainingly. There's no shortage of mechanics wonks, but there is always a shortage of great GMing.

You can "fix" the game through play. It is possible to do, even if a list of internet fallacies say you shouldn't have to. This forum is at its best when creative GMs share technique, and lately I feel like I'm seeing less of that. Let's pick it back up, friends.

</rant>

But as the other poster said, if we didn't complain about something we'd probably go insane and end up eating our rulebooks.

Thank you for coming out and saying what a lot of us are thinking.

If you have a problem or question, bring it up at your gaming table and see what your DM thinks about it!

If your a DM and you come across something you like or don't like, then make a ruling and change it!

In the sage words of Socrates, "The unexamined game is not worth playing."

But I'm getting fed up with proclamations that things are broken, overpowered, underpowered, imbalanced, et al.

That's the nature of 1e, 2e, and 3e. Classes were designed to do what they do.

Today's generation of player unfortunately has been convinced by WoW and other computer games that all classes should be equal, hence 4e.

You can't just tell people to stop doing it, it's how they play, character envy. The idea of gimping your character at creation is frowned on by MANY.

But I'm getting fed up with proclamations that things are broken, overpowered, underpowered, imbalanced, et al.

Hmm.

Today's generation of player unfortunately has been convinced by WoW and other computer games that all classes should be equal, hence 4e.

Hmm.

In the sage words of Socrates, "The unexamined game is not worth playing."

The problem isn't the systems it's the people. A lot of people get character envy. This class does something cool. That class just did a lot of damage. And my class is sucking poo.

That's the nature of 1e, 2e, and 3e. Classes were designed to do what they do.

Today's generation of player unfortunately has been convinced by WoW and other computer games that all classes should be equal, hence 4e.

You can't just tell people to stop doing it, it's how they play, character envy. The idea of gimping your character at creation is frowned on by MANY.

For those of you watching, if the above position is what you are arguing from, you have missed the point as to why this discussion exists in the first place.

Oh, and for the record, all classes should be roughly equally fun to play.

Equally fun to play =/= equally balanced in combat.

Alright, I get it, some people really like to tinker with game systems.

I'm one of them.

But I'm getting fed up with proclamations that things are broken, overpowered, underpowered, imbalanced, et al.

Here's an experiment — next time you find yourself analyzing the rules so closely that they appear broken, put your effort into running a scene for your friends that applies those elements creatively and entertainingly. There's no shortage of mechanics wonks, but there is always a shortage of great GMing.

You can "fix" the game through play. It is possible to do, even if a list of internet fallacies say you shouldn't have to. This forum is at its best when creative GMs share technique, and lately I feel like I'm seeing less of that. Let's pick it back up, friends.

</rant>

Equally fun to play =/= equally balanced in combat.

Of course, the other part of "fun to play" is covered by role-playing rather than rules. That part is equally accessible to everyone. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with game balance.

If companies...spent as much time to scenario design and actually running the game as they did arguing the tiniest point or putting out rule mechanic books I personally think the game would be richer for it.

And yet the spellcasters also have the vast majority of out-of-combat situations covered too. The fighter might have a high charisma and spend most of his limited skill points on skills like Diplomacy and Bluff, but if the wizard memorised Charm Person that day then that's a more reliable option. What makes it worse for the fighter is that tomorrow he still has exactly the same options - the wizard can have a totally different set. So it's not just that most casters have more options on one particular day, they can swap out their options for a different set when they want to.

Can I invoke Godwinn, because this is the RPG-equivalent of mentioning Nazis :)

Spacelard wrote:

If companies...spent as much time to scenario design and actually running the game as they did arguing the tiniest point or putting out rule mechanic books I personally think the game would be richer for it.

The game, perhaps, but surely not the company :) I for one is not interested in a game where the company only ever release three books and then go bankrupt.

In the sage words of Socrates, "The unexamined game is not worth playing."

Plus, I bet he never played Calvinball.

Other Socratic quotes I like are:

True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.

A multitude of books distracts the mind.

Crito, I owe a c&%~ to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?

As an aside, it's interesting that this thread has turned into a meta-thread about the need to talk about game balance/design. As that is part of the Socratic method!

Sigh, not another "spellcasters are better" thread.

Can I invoke Godwinn, because this is the RPG-equivalent of mentioning Nazis :)

[Godwinsson's Law: The law that, as time goes on, the possibility that every thread on the Internet will eventually end up discussing Vikings, approaches 100%.]

Can I invoke Harold Godwinsson, for his line being the true royal family of England? :)

[Godwinsson's Law: The law that, as time goes on, the possibility that every thread on the Internet will eventually end up discussing Vikings, approaches 100%.]

As a decendant of the vikings (there, I did it), I do love that! :)

But who are better?
Pirates, ninjas,...or vikings?

But who are better?
Pirates, ninjas,...or vikings?

That's a lot of multiclassing....is that balanced?

The problem isn't the systems it's the people. A lot of people get character envy. This class does something cool. That class just did a lot of damage. And my class is sucking poo.

[...]

Today's generation of player unfortunately has been convinced by WoW and other computer games that all classes should be equal, hence 4e.

Players want to do cool things.

That's a pretty unavoidable fact, and that's perfectly good and acceptable thing. That a game might be designed to help everyone to do cool things through the rules themselves is spectacular.

Equally fun to play =/= equally balanced in combat.

That was exactly my point, I have a Beguiler player in my game who is very happy with his class despite being not that ace in combat.

4e, in my opinion, decided to get rid of *any* imbalance by dropping a nuke and trying to make every class fit into the same shoes.

That's a lot of multiclassing....is that balanced?

I do play. Twice a week. Two groups of 6 players (and another 4 players clamouring for a third game I just don't have time to run).

The game's balanced as far as I'm concerned.

Only change I made was to give any class with 2 + Int skills an extra 2 skills/level so that they'd have stuff to do outside of combat. And implementing Sean K. Reynold's "Step" system for levelling up. It's great to give my PCs a constant progression every game.

Here's an experiment — next time you find yourself analyzing the rules so closely that they appear broken, put your effort into running a scene for your friends that applies those elements creatively and entertainingly. There's no shortage of mechanics wonks, but there is always a shortage of great GMing.

You can "fix" the game through play.

What I've learned from that experience is that, since I don't need to use mechanics, when do use mechanics I want them to actually have a purpose. If the mechanics aren't rigorously important to the playing of the game then I don't need them to exist.

Aaaaaaaaaand I do believe we're exactly right back where the OP didn't want us to be, congratulations....

Was there a way it could have been avoided?

Snorter wrote:

That's a lot of multiclassing....is that balanced?

Are you sure those are classes? Coz they might just be jobs you know...

That was exactly my point, I have a Beguiler player in my game who is very happy with his class despite being not that ace in combat.

4e, in my opinion, decided to get rid of *any* imbalance by dropping a nuke and trying to make every class fit into the same shoes.

Though then you're getting into the decker problem where, while both characters can be useful, they really can't be useful at the same time. While the negotiator is negotiating, all the combat characters probably have sit back and not do anything, and it's hard to have situations where everyone gets to shine at the same time.

What I've learned from play is that I need absolutely no rules to roleplay.

What I've learned from that experience is that, since I don't need to use mechanics, when do use mechanics I want them to actually have a purpose. If the mechanics aren't rigorously important to the playing of the game then I don't need them to exist.

Aaaaaaaaaand I do believe we're exactly right back where the OP didn't want us to be, congratulations....

They are jobs but a lot of gamers feel that they should be classes. I happen to not be one. I don't need to spend cash to figure out how to build that job but some people, alas, do. Now if a book was produced with no mechanics on how to be a Pirate, Ninja or Viking in my opinion thats fine. Its when you start throwing game mechanics at it I get jaded.

IMO, a mercenary is a fighter that gets paid by an organisation to fight - he needs no special feats or class progression to do this. Other examples abound.

Spacelard wrote:

They are jobs but a lot of gamers feel that they should be classes. I happen to not be one. I don't need to spend cash to figure out how to build that job but some people, alas, do. Now if a book was produced with no mechanics on how to be a Pirate, Ninja or Viking in my opinion thats fine. Its when you start throwing game mechanics at it I get jaded.

I was making a joke there, sorry. I'm aware of the roles vs. classes debate. Hence the comment - should've put a smiley in.

IMO, a mercenary is a fighter that gets paid by an organisation to fight - he needs no special feats or class progression to do this. Other examples abound.

This is easy!

People who don't want to discuss mechanics can simply opt not to participate in mechanics-discussion threads. Everyone gets what they want!

This is easy!

People who don't want to discuss mechanics can simply opt not to participate in mechanics-discussion threads. Everyone gets what they want!

I wasn't looking for a "hell yeah", my suggestion was in earnest. I hope that those posters who felt this was some kind of personal attack revisit my original post.

I enjoy game balance conversations myself. I also feel that there's a missing component. It is very popular to discuss the game in terms of a GM-less vacuum, with much made of the reasons the game should "work" out of the box. But to discount game play experience in game balance discussions is not objectivity.

My suggestion is to run actual scenes for players and have fun, even with rules that appear broken. At worst, you may gain evidence that the problem is exactly as imagined. At best, you might discover factors not accounted for in your thought experiment. In my own experience, it is often the latter.

Of couse, if you already do this, you have no cause to take umbrage!

Once more, I did not aim to offend. I would like to see more gameplay examples and less conjecture is all. That request shouldn't exclude me from balance discussions, although that seems to be the direction this thread has taken.

Here's an experiment — next time you find yourself analyzing the rules so closely that they appear broken, put your effort into running a scene for your friends that applies those elements creatively and entertainingly. There's no shortage of mechanics wonks, but there is always a shortage of great GMing.

I would like to see more gameplay examples and less conjecture is all. That request shouldn't exclude me from balance discussions, although that seems to be the direction this thread has taken.

Mind you, that post might have been asinine, so you get what you give I suppose.

I would like to see more gameplay examples and less conjecture is all.

Yeah, in my day, we played RPGs where the array of character choices was wildly unevenly balanced and we liked it! Except that no, it was annoying because it was easy for one player to completely dominate play or another player to have no useful role. So we didn't like it. Hey, wait, we complained about it then, too, because we were convinced by tactical wargames that games should be balanced.

Hmm.

Hmmm.

Evil Lincoln wrote:

I would like to see more gameplay examples and less conjecture is all.

The thing with that is that one person will describe a problem they encountered, and it will be immediately countered with "well, it's not a problem in my experience!" So, some probing occurs, and generally you end up with something like, "well, we ignore the rules and just have story hour."

Evil Lincoln wrote:

I would like to see more gameplay examples and less conjecture is all.

The thing with that is that one person will describe a problem they encountered, and it will be immediately countered with "well, it's not a problem in my experience!" So, some probing occurs, and generally you end up with something like, "well, we ignore the rules and just have story hour."

Yep, Kirth, you ever try to make me participate in story hour and I'm telling Androstre to stop bringing beer.

A Man In Black wrote:

Yeah, in my day, we played RPGs where the array of character choices was wildly unevenly balanced and we liked it! Except that no, it was annoying because it was easy for one player to completely dominate play or another player to have no useful role. So we didn't like it. Hey, wait, we complained about it then, too, because we were convinced by tactical wargames that games should be balanced.

Hmm.

Funny, the 1e AD&D Players Handbook is still the best selling RPG rulebook of all time. Far more people played D&D in the '80s than do now. Most of them never touched a tactical wargame in their lives.

Hmmm.

That's a lot of multiclassing....is that balanced?

/comedy

houstonderek wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

Yeah, in my day, we played RPGs where the array of character choices was wildly unevenly balanced and we liked it! Except that no, it was annoying because it was easy for one player to completely dominate play or another player to have no useful role. So we didn't like it. Hey, wait, we complained about it then, too, because we were convinced by tactical wargames that games should be balanced.

Hmm.

Funny, the 1e AD&D Players Handbook is still the best selling RPG rulebook of all time. Far more people played D&D in the '80s than do now. Most of them never touched a tactical wargame in their lives.

Hmmm.

Are you serious Derek? You would think with the proliferation of the internet, the de-demonization of the game, and the expansion of roleplaying as a whole would have skyrocketted the market now as opposed to then.

:)

I like to think I am advocating a path between the extremes.

Story hour sounds like a lot of work for the GM ;)

houstonderek wrote:

Yep, Kirth, you ever try to make me participate in story hour and I'm telling Androstre to stop bringing beer.

Have you seen my avatar? Does it look like I can possibly DM a game without beer?!"

:)

I like to think I am advocating a path between the extremes.

Story hour sounds like a lot of work for the GM ;)

:)

Well, that's what I'm saying, be a DM.

Story hour sounds like a lot of work for the GM ;)