| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So in looking back over some Fav posts I came across this little gem.
Some people may have missed it so I will post it here.
this is the link if you want to see it.
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz4igy&page=7?Why-would-anyone-ever-play-a-Se paratist#319
SKR said.
No, I'm pointing out to you that "balance" in an RPG where you have healing classes and damage classes and support classes is an illusion. Is the cleric with the Healing domain "balanced" against one with the Travel or War domains? Is the healing cleric balanced against the fighter? Or the barbarian? Or the sorcerer? Or the bard? How do you rate how "balanced" they are against each other? By how much damage they do? By how much damage they prevent or cure? By their total skill point bonuses?
The game, dating all the way back to Basic D&D, isn't built for you to win, it's built for you to have fun. And if you're given different ways for you to have fun with your character, even if some of those ways mean you're not "balanced" against a character specialized purely in damage or healing or Diplomacy checks, you're still having fun. This isn't World of Warcraft where a bad talent tree for a class means you're overall damage is down 2.5% from the best spec and you get yelled at by trying to raid in that poor spec because you're making it harder to kill boss monsters. This is a cooperative game where the odds are stacked in the PCs' favor and you don't have to maximize a number to ensure survival of the group. You're allowed to make choices that suit the story of your character, even if those choices mean you're not the best at damage or healing or Diplomacy. The game has greatswords and longswords and short swords and daggers, and each has its place in terms of damage, utility, and character flavor. Yet I don't see you complaining that the dagger-specialized fighter isn't balanced against the greatsword-specialized fighter.
If you want every option to be mechanically equal, you need to play a different game.
Me, I'm going to write for, and play, a game where it's okay if you want to play a Indiana Jones-style wizard who starts with a 15 Dex and 12 Int and fights with a whip. And it's okay if you want to play a rapier-wielding swashbuckler rogue who multiclasses into fighter and cleric of luck because it suits his theme, even though it costs him BAB and access to some better feats. And it's okay if you want to play a dwarf fighter who's slow as hell, has a 20 Con and 100 hit points at level 7, and takes Great Cleave to finish off all the minions while his monk and barbarian buddies kill the leader. Because those are all fun character options. Even if the wizard is struggling to keep his Int in pace with the minimum needed for his higher-level spells... because sometimes the wizard pulls off an awesome move in combat that he couldn't do with a pathetic Dex. Even if the swashbuckler is always out-damaged by the lower-level paladin with a greatsword... because sometimes the swashbuckler crit-kills a beholder in one stab. Even if the dwarf only gets to use Great Cleave once in the entire campaign... because that one time he kills 8 foes in one round and convinces the campaign boss to surrender in the face of such might.
If you're not satisfied with your numbers, choose another options that makes you feel like more of a man. If you're not having fun, play something else.
To paraphrase my second post in this thread:
Basically, "worthwhile" is not solely defined as "something mechanically equal to other options."
Note: He did not bold that part, I did.
True balance is, in almost all parts of life, a complete delusion. In order to achieve
a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc.
for a game, that by its very inherent nature, must give imaginary-physical life to varying fictitious characters to create "balance," or equality of amount on all sides, every class would have to have an option to do everything every other class could do at the same level of achievement. I would never want to play a game like that, at the tabletop anyway. If I want to play a game where a character can, heal, damage, magic, alchemize (made that word up), appraise, and discourse all at 100 percent efficiency, I'll play Skyrim.
I think it's ironic that "balance is a myth" when there are some rules that are there just to balance things...
I think that the rules that are there to balance things were probably made to keep people from god modding/whoring.
There was a similar post from a WoW developer who described balance in the original WoW design principles.
Originally "balance" meant the classes were equally fun to play.
Ah I see, well Pathfinder is a Role-playing game. And what I meant was more of rules to keep people from ruining other people's fun.
I think it's ironic that "balance is a myth" when there are some rules that are there just to balance things...
I'd replace your phrase "balance things" with this phrase, "make sure relative power per level stays within playable parameters." Of course, if I did that, it would take away all the irony of your statement. :)
|
I think it's ironic that "balance is a myth" when there are some rules that are there just to balance things...
The imprecision of language. IMHO, there's balance and there's balance; it's "good" (for lack of a better term) when it's in service to maximizing the potential for having fun playing the game. It's "bad" when instead it reduces the potential for having fun playing the game.
That said, although the edge cases are generally clear the crossover point is very much a matter of opinion. Obviously there are people who play and enjoy 4E; the well-documented considerable effort to balance different character options in that game doesn't seem to reduce their potential for having fun playing the game. It is likewise obvious that some other folks do not share that opinion.
I guess the way I'd put it is that good balance serves to broaden the range of maybe-not-quite-optimal-but-still-fun player options. A game where there is only one optimal player option and everything else is massively inferior to that is one that would take a lot of work on the part of the GM to make fun for me. A game where all options are equally optimal isn't much better.