Re: Make up new Gods, dang it!

From: donald_at_A4Au3jxRw1UOsRWe8gSnppEbE8nXekd8GsQ1DJ6mblIP3BnGuy2OQx1qkSdXJPycw2cAW
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:28:29 GMT


In message <177dc5fd0707152013t50d23da7u32ba89c4475f5e64_at_SsmfRWFzOxhLtv_aA2ie5rnHVspW-q2FhvLuh0P4SLCLVh7DesjQUGvtLW-L8RDYHmCLd-J9tTfRRn3OOvhZTQlDDFXtDr-pJg_0xCkZz2dqtd3pzQH0_O3_trg22niv9ui4cJew.yahoo.invalid> "John Machin" writes:

>> I think this design philosophy has developed since HQ was published.
>> Role playing games have traditionally tried to mechanically balance
>> the various options a player has. They have usually failed. Some
>> gamers have now concluded that balance doesn't matter if it makes
>> a good story.
>
>Yes, this is all true, but it's still a pretty uncommon concept that
>perhaps bears a paragraph or two at the start of the rules;

Yes for the future. However it's a bit much to expect something published before the design philosophy was developed to include an explanation of it.

>Also, I would say that recognising that true balance in a system is
>impossible is one thing, but building imbalances into the system is
>quite another.

I don't believe there are in any imbalances deliberately built into the system. More that the authors saw an advantage to some choices and tried to find a balancing penalty. Sometimes they overcompensated, sometimes they undercompensated. I've done more than enough writing and playtesting of games to know how difficult this is and how much analysis and testing would be needed to really balance a system.

-- 
Donald Oddy
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/

           

Powered by hypermail