Hello,
Brad Thompson wrote:
> Also, 'balance' is a
> subject on which learned people can reasonably disagree and both be correct.
Agreed. :-)
> > Really? I've always found it easier to balance a skill based
> > system, than a
> > level based system. In a skill based system, to keep it balanced
> > all you have to
> > do is make sure all your skills have the same scope, and that
> > everyone starts
> > out with the same amount of skill levels to divide up as they
> > choose.
>
> This is actually one step beyond what I was talking about - class-less and
> skill-less. I personally find that this leads to a very 'generic' feeling
> game. I think it is hard to make this style flexible enough for most
> players' tastes.
I'm sorry, I think you may have to expand on this one a bit. What type of game
leads to a very generic feeling game?
I've never found a game system more flexible than a pure skill based system.
> Also, I find that a
> system where some skills are not available until a certain level of
> expertise is reached in another skill is attained to be richer and more
> satisfying. D&D uses Feats and Class Talents to accomplish this. These are
> actually cleverly disguised Skills, relying on class level for their skill
> value.
Unfortunately, by using classes, it has a lot of preconceptions that people may
not want to play with. Why is it that a person that can fight well, can't know
enough to find the vital spot in an enemies defense on a sneak attack? Sure I
can multi-class, but then for some reason I stop gaining the fighting ability,
even though I have still been on the same adventures, and hacking away as the
other pure fighters.
I'm not sure the benefits of a class (namely ease of character creation)
outweigh the restrictions that come along with it.
> They also
> played up the concept of 'hard choices' when advancing in level, forcing the
> player to make trade-offs between two desirable paths. This is a great
> balance mechanism, and the fact that one path isn't empirically better than
> another and that the choice really is 'hard' bears this out. I am much
> happier now with the balance of the game than I ever was with the prior two
> editions.
I like the hard choice aspect as well, adding in the feat concept was definitely
a good move. I actually liked the 2e balance the best. A thief was never a very
good fighter, but he was a thief after all, not a fighter. Now it is sort of
hard to tell if the thief is supposed to be a thief or a fighter.
> Flexibility (Multiclassing) is the key to a Human's long-term success, but
> the additional feat helps out a great deal in the short term.
But is more than balanced out with the other races advantages. If you are
serious about taking a fighter, you don't play a human, you play a dwarf. Or any
class for that matter. Sure you can't choose your bonuses with the other races,
but if you are going to play their preferred class, then you have a ton of
bonuses for that class that the human can't match. For example, in my last D20
game, I had a gnome (or halfling, can't remember) thief. Had a +13 to his hide,
and like a +9 to his sneak at 1st level. Really no way to do that with a human.
> I think the best measure of balance in a game is this: when does character
> advancement break down the balance?
Have you ever played Cyberpunk? I've never played or GM'd a more flexible or
balanced game. I could GM both beginning and highly advanced characters in that
game without anyone feeling as if they were useless in the game. I've never been
able to do that with a 1st and 15th level character in D&D.
That to me is a good indication of balance.
Have Fun,
Darren
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
