Verisimilitude vs. Balance/Cinematic Appropriateness?

[Vrock_Summoner]

As a GM, which is more important?

It's important to remember that you're running a game in the hopes that it will be entertaining. So while they aren't always or even commonly mutually exclusive, there will be times when you must pick which of these sides to adhere to.

Let me give an example. Most caster vs. noncaster battles in any fantasy game. 9 times out of 10, a caster can turn ethereal and become unhittable, or fly and become untouchable to an opponent who can't, or a range of other things rendering their opponent completely irrelevant when the numbers (and more importantly, the story) indicate that they should be evenly matched.

In these situations and others like them, is it more appropriate to stick to what is cinematically appropriate and fair so as to not be effectively backhanding their character choice, or is it better to maintain the illusion of realism even though that generally results in players feeling like their characters are useless?

Some games, like D&D's 3rd Edition, partially avoid this problem by giving player characters rather easy access to items that allow them to make up for their deficiencies and even grant entirely new abilities to characters in need of them. But it still exists to a degree in D&D, and just as much if not more to other tabletop games that have a great deal of variation.

(This also doesn't apply to situations where cinematic value rests in the inability to fight back, in such scenes as helicopter chase scenes in low-level mundane d20 Modern games.)

What do you guys think? Which aspect should be adhered to most of the time?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Whatever is appropriate to the campaign. You wouldn't expect the physics of a film noir world, a superheroes world, and a medical drama to work the same, would you?

A good GM is aware of verisimilitude, balance, and realism, and uses them as tools to convey the proper mood. So long as everyone is on the same page, you're good. :smallsmile:

[Morty]

Let me give an example. Most caster vs. noncaster battles in any fantasy game. 9 times out of 10, a caster can turn ethereal and become unhittable, or fly and become untouchable to an opponent who can't, or a range of other things rendering their opponent completely irrelevant when the numbers (and more importantly, the story) indicate that they should be evenly matched.


If by "fantasy game" you mean D&D, yes. Most other fantasy tabletop games don't make it quite as easy for magic users to become untouchable. If they do make it easy, they also make it clear that they shouldn't be evenly matched with those who can't do the same - like Ars Magica or the World of Darkness Mage.

Otherwise, verisimilitude, balance and dramatic tension are all features, and their distribution in a game depends on what the GM wants, what the players want and the way the game was designed in the first place.

[Rhynn]

As a GM, which is more important?

Depends on the game.

I generally prefer games with verisimilitude, as a player and a GM, but verisimilitude doesn't have much to do with e.g. four-color superhero games.


Most caster vs. noncaster battles in any fantasy game

Your puny knowledge of RPGs amuses me!

Also, the idea that the numbers indicate they should be evenly matched, but that "the numbers" apparently doesn't include things like "what the character is capable of doing" is kinda hilarious.

[Kaun]

I would say the best strategy is to make a decision one way or the other at the start of the game. Spell it out to your players so they know the lay of the land. And then stick to that decision.

Their is no right answer as to which option is better. It only really becomes an issue if you change the goal posts mid game.

[ngilop]

I have and will always support the side that says ' rule of fun/cool'

Yes at non-low levels ( 4th and below) a wizard is effectilve immortal against a fighter.

But if your BBEG is a 1,200 year old lich ( and who knows how long he actually lived)
and your players randomly all wanted to be whats left of a elite legion (2 fighters, 3 rogues, a cleric, and a marshal)

id rather go with cinematic appropriateness than be all versimilitudinal ( is that even a word?) and just tel my players "sorry you guys lose"

[1337 b4k4]

As everyone has said, what's more important depends on the game you're running and the group you're running the game for. If you're playing a cinematic game, then cinematic appropriateness is more important. If you're playing a simulation game, than simulation is more important.

[obryn]

Different systems and campaign styles have different priorities. To use D&D as an example, most of the time I want action fantasy, and therefore run 4e. But sometimes I want to run exploration-based games or warlike campaigns against a megadungeon, and either AD&D or RC D&D generally handle those better.

You're talking about personal preferences on campaign styles and then asking what "RPGs" "should" do when the answer is "any or all of the above."

[Airk]

Yeaaaaah. That example was awful. I'll just leave it at that.

The answer is: These things are not mutually exclusive. Well, maybe balance can be under certain circumstances, but generally not. The most important thing is to set expectations. If the players know how things are expected to work, they can make the decisions that will lead to them having a good time. It's when the players expect things to work differently from how they do that they really get upset.

[NichG]

For me, the questions are answered at three different timescales.

When you're building/designing the campaign on the whole, I find that 'coherency' is the most important thing, followed by 'integrity'. Coherency is related to verisimilitude, but its specifically the idea that the game world is internally self-consistent and logically connected. On the time-scales of the entire campaign, you want the story that results from player interactions to make sense to the players and flow smoothly; you also want player decisions to have consistent consequences so that player decisions actually matter.

Integrity is the idea that there is some particular 'thing' about the campaign which determines 'what is this campaign about?'. Its sort of adherence to a theme. A campaign that claims to pick a theme and then has a bunch of sessions where that theme is completely thrown out will basically hide the theme and make the players distrust the thematic cues you're giving. Subverting the theme rarely (once in a campaign) can be an effective tool at a climactic point in the campaign, but only if you haven't wasted that opportunity on accidentally subverting it elsewhere along the way.

Okay, so thats the very long scale. On the medium scale (say, the span of 2-4 game sessions) balance becomes important. My preferred way to address this is adaptively - basically its okay for someone to be unbalanced for a few games so long as people who are behind catch up within that 2-4 game timespan, so once you see imbalance in the overpowered direction rather than nerfing it on the spot you can slowly introduce 'bennies' to the other players to catch them up; or if you see imbalance in the underpowered direction you can introduce bennies to that player to catch them up. In general, I think if everyone's relative power levels oscillate on a 2-4 game timescale, people don't get too bent out of shape about differences in power.

On the short scale you have cinematic appropriateness. If someone comes up with a cool idea that doesn't work well by the rules but is really cinematically appropriate, then by all means that should fly and override the underlying mechanics in that particular scene. But if they want to do the same cool thing repeatedly for the rest of the campaign and basically turn it into an extra 'move' on their character sheet without paying build resources for it, then that shouldn't generally work - the answer there of course is, assign a cost and let them pay a build resource to make it permanent. So cinematic appropriateness is good for the short timescale, but it shouldn't trump balance over the medium timescale.

[ngilop]

Did I read the OP's question wrong?

I see everybody keep saying they are not mutually exclusive

But did I mistakenly read it as ' I know these are not mutually exclusive BUT if it comes down to picking one or the other, which one would you chose'

[Yora]

That depends on each case. As GM, I have a certain mood and style in mind that I want to evoke with the campaign. In every scene, when I have to decite if I allow something cool and funny or not, I make my descision based on what would be appropriate to the theme of the campaign.

I would decite very differently if I would be running a game in Eberron or in Middle Earth.

[obryn]

Did I read the OP's question wrong?

I see everybody keep saying they are not mutually exclusive

But did I mistakenly read it as ' I know these are not mutually exclusive BUT if it comes down to picking one or the other, which one would you chose'
...and the answer is going to be, almost without fail, "It depends on what kind of game I'm trying to run." :smallsmile:

[Rhynn]

I see everybody keep saying they are not mutually exclusive

Is this a rhetorical distortion ("lying for effect") or are you just bad at reading? :smallamused:

[Airk]

Did I read the OP's question wrong?

I see everybody keep saying they are not mutually exclusive

But did I mistakenly read it as ' I know these are not mutually exclusive BUT if it comes down to picking one or the other, which one would you chose'

I think it is people trying to politely say "This is a bad question." :P

[Rhynn]

I think it is people trying to politely say "This is a bad question." :P

I don't think it is, really.

I think a D&D 4E game has comparatively little room for verisimilitude, and is all about balance. A Feng Shui game doesn't care for either, but for cinematic flair. A game of HârnMaster is all about the verisimilitude. They all produce different sorts of experiences.

Obviously, those are all extreme examples, and many games try to strike a balance between the concepts.

I generally don't give a rats' rear about balance; if there's a dragon, it's up to the players to figure out how to deal with it with what they have, not up to me to make it "tough but beatable." But if I'm running D&D 3E or 4E, I'm not going to futilely fight the system - I'll go with it. (That's why I don't run those games anymore.)

[Thrudd]

I don't think it is, really.

I think a D&D 4E game has comparatively little room for verisimilitude, and is all about balance. A Feng Shui game doesn't care for either, but for cinematic flair. A game of HârnMaster is all about the verisimilitude. They all produce different sorts of experiences.

Obviously, those are all extreme examples, and many games try to strike a balance between the concepts.

I generally don't give a rats' rear about balance; if there's a dragon, it's up to the players to figure out how to deal with it with what they have, not up to me to make it "tough but beatable." But if I'm running D&D 3E or 4E, I'm not going to futilely fight the system - I'll go with it. (That's why I don't run those games anymore.)

This is the best answer to this question, I believe. Games are each designed with different goals on the verisimilitude/game balance/cinematic-narrative spectrum. Choose a game which matches your own preferences and don't try to fight the rules to make it do something it isn't meant to do. Or homebrew your own game to do exactly what you want on the spectrum.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think the main problem with the question is that a lot of GMs, like myself, don't prefer one of the "sides" exclusively. It morphs, depending on the game I tend to run. It's not something I carry across game systems or genres.

[Airk]

I don't think it is, really.

I disagree, because I don't think you're answering the question as asked. (Though to be fair, the way it was asked was so poor that I can understand why you might be trying to answer a better question ;) )



I think a D&D 4E game has comparatively little room for verisimilitude, and is all about balance. A Feng Shui game doesn't care for either, but for cinematic flair. A game of HârnMaster is all about the verisimilitude. They all produce different sorts of experiences.

Obviously, those are all extreme examples, and many games try to strike a balance between the concepts.

I generally don't give a rats' rear about balance; if there's a dragon, it's up to the players to figure out how to deal with it with what they have, not up to me to make it "tough but beatable." But if I'm running D&D 3E or 4E, I'm not going to futilely fight the system - I'll go with it. (That's why I don't run those games anymore.)


Which is exactly why the answer is "There's no answer, it depends on what game and system you are playing" :P

[NichG]

Which is exactly why the answer is "There's no answer, it depends on what game and system you are playing" :P

In which case, if you want to answer the OPs question, it would be about what game/system you tend to play most often - e.g. do you tend to favor things that are balance driven or whatever.

[ngilop]

I disagree, because I don't think you're answering the question as asked. (Though to be fair, the way it was asked was so poor that I can understand why you might be trying to answer a better question ;) )




Which is exactly why the answer is "There's no answer, it depends on what game and system you are playing" :P

except the Op asked not what system or what do your as a dm/gm prefer but in a particular instance where versimiltude and balance/cinematic appropriateness clash.. which one do you chose?


that is completely a system neutral question. I mean the OP even acknowledges that the two are not mutually exclusive. he/she is just curious as to when it actually comes down to a this or that situation. DO you go with this or roll with that?

[Airk]

In which case, if you want to answer the OPs question, it would be about what game/system you tend to play most often - e.g. do you tend to favor things that are balance driven or whatever.

What if I don't play a system "most often"? I could answer for the systems I'm playing RIGHT NOW, but at the end of that day, that's not really saying anything, other than "The systems I am playing right now are, humorously, a spread between all three choices." :P



that is completely a system neutral question. I mean the OP even acknowledges that the two are not mutually exclusive. he/she is just curious as to when it actually comes down to a this or that situation. DO you go with this or roll with that?

You are confusing me badly.

Either this is a system neutral question, in which case the answer is "it depends" or it's a question with a specific situation involved, in which case, it's apparently a 3.5 question? In which case, hell if I know. :P

[Kaun]

he/she is just curious as to when it actually comes down to a this or that situation. DO you go with this or roll with that?

Well then to answer the original question; Yes

[valadil]

What do you guys think? Which aspect should be adhered to most of the time?

I think that how you blend these and a few other aspects determines the unique flavor of your game. Any ratio of them is perfectly valid.

Personally, I favor a more cinematic style. The game a is story. It is supposed to be a story worth retelling. It's okay with me if the events are more than a little unlikely if it makes for a better story. But there's a certain point I won't cross. The story still has to be believable. So I'll stretch reality in order to make things awesome, but I won't break it.

[Thrudd]

In which case, if you want to answer the OPs question, it would be about what game/system you tend to play most often - e.g. do you tend to favor things that are balance driven or whatever.

True. When I run Feng Shui, cinematic awesomeness is what the game is about and trumps all other concerns (by the rules as well as my game decisions).
When I run D&D 3e or earlier, simulation is what it is about. The rules help describe an internally consistent world which the players interact with. They create stories from their activities interacting with this world. I prefer AD&D and retroclones to 3e for this.
Balance, in the way it is being described in the OP, is not really something I am ever concerned about in an RPG. In a strategy/war game, yes. I can see 4e D&D occupying this place for some, it has some interesting tactical elements and very balanced combat abilities for all classes. I am a fan of Mordheim for tactical fantasy battles with small units. It has some RPG elements like rules for ongoing campaigns and units gaining experience and new abilities.

My WEG Star Wars campaigns were a mix of simulation of the star wars universe and narrative. Cinematic awesomeness probably trumped simulation most of the time if there was a conflict between the two, though the universe was wide open to the players to explore as a sandbox.

[squiggit]

I lean toward balance simply because verisimilitude (and cinematic flare) are both things I can freely control as a DM to my whim regardless of what system I'm running. That's what the cooperative storytelling part is about. The rules and balance are essentially the foundation of the game, so I want those to be solid and I can freely build whatever I want on top of that. Rules heavy game like 4e or something? Doesn't matter. I can just snap my fingers and bam, instant verisimilitude and awesomeness. Re-mathing some hackish, completely skewed system is much harder and doing it on the fly comes off as GM fiat'd punishment, whereas when I go the around way around it's jut GM fiat'd awesomeness I can dole out.

[Delwugor]

If I had to choose then cinematic gaming will win out every time both as a GM and a player. But I think both Verisimilitude and Cinematic are needed for a good game, with the possible exceptions for super heroes or pulp games.

I've really not had any serious issues with Balance. My namesake has been told many times that he is outclassed by high level spell casters. But being the stubborn dwarf he is, he ignores that and gets the job done anyway.

[obryn]

I lean toward balance simply because verisimilitude (and cinematic flare) are both things I can freely control as a DM to my whim regardless of what system I'm running.
Yeah, the main thing about balance, IMO, is that it isn't an end in and of itself. It enables the sorts of gameplay - usually cinematic and action-oriented - that I tend to value in D&D. With a well-balanced system, I need to worry less about spotlight-hogging, fudging rolls, broken characters, unexpected TPKs, and so on. I don't need to sit back and ask, "Hmmm, what interesting things can I give the Rogue to make them feel valuable this session?" Instead, I can just sit back and create challenging adventures without worry as to the party composition.

Balance is a game design goal, but it's not a game play goal. I don't ever sit back mid-session and ask, "Now how can I make this more balanced?" or "what would make balance sense here?"

[Jay R]

As a GM, which is more important?

You've made several false assumptions. I need to go through and discuss some of them before I can write an answer that will make any sense to you.

First of all, you write "Balance/Cinematic Appropriateness" as if those are synonyms. They aren't, and neither is a well-defined term.

What is "Balance", and why does it matter? The answer is usually some version of making all player characters equally powerful at all times.

I consider this to be an actively bad idea, that reduces the potential fun level for everyone. My goal is for each player's character to occasionally be the one whose abilities matter most at a crucial moment. This is easy for the spellcasters, so the DM's job is not, in my view, to give Fighters and Rogues spell-like abilities, but to provide moments when rogue skills and sheer fighting skills are required. Even when the solution is a fireball, the Fighters should be crucial to keep up the shield wall that keeps the wizard free to cast.

By contrast, "Cinematic Appropriateness" means some version of letting characters do what they do in the movies. But since movies aren't consistent, this has no meaning. An archer who is cinematically appropriate to Errol Flynn's Robin Hood is not cinematically appropriate to Legolas. Gene Kelly's D'Artagnan can do leaps and movements like a trained dancer; Michael York's D'Artagnan is a physical fighter; Logan Lerman's D'Artagnan does things humans can't do, and that look silly to a real fencer. So using the phrase "Cinematic Appropriateness" merely means "like the speaker's favorite movies," without telling us what you actually mean.

I personally don't like the 4E spell-like abilities for fighters because they are not cinematically appropriate - for the movies I like most. Robin Hood, D'Artagnan, Captain Blood, Zorro, Rob Roy, and William Wallace just don't do things like that. But even so, they make their mark in a heroic way.

Captain Harrison Love: After all, it's only one man...
Don Rafael: It isn't just one man, damn it. It's ZORRO.
The Mask of Zorro, 1998

Lord Willoughby: He’s chivalrous to the point of idiocy.
Captain Blood, 1935

[Note that watching these kinds of movies makes "cinematic appropriateness" a synonym for, not a contrast with, verisimilitude.]


Most caster vs. noncaster battles in any fantasy game. 9 times out of 10, a caster can turn ethereal and become unhittable, or fly and become untouchable to an opponent who can't, or a range of other things rendering their opponent completely irrelevant ...

Huh? Only if:
A. They are fairly high level. A 1st level wizard goes down fast and hard.
B. They start far enough away the fighter can't force melee in the first round.
C. They each start at the same moment. A Rogue who isn't trying to arrange a backstab is not playing like a Rogue.
D. There is only one person on each side.
E. There is no terrain to hide behind.

In short, the only likely scenario in which your statement is likely to be true is if they are fighting in a bare arena for a crowd, with referees to tell them when to start. As you have defined it, the spellcaster gets to cast spells on the first round, but the fighter doesn't get to attack and the rogue doesn't get to sneak or backstab. This scenario has artificially removed all the disadvantages of spellcasters and the advantages of non-spellcasters.

I have played D&D since 1975, and have almost never taken part in a one-on-one open field fight in which both participants knew the fight was coming. Certainly my thieves have taken out guardsmen from behind, and occasionally even a spellcaster, but the scenario as you laid it out simply doesn't come up, and so doesn't matter.

More importantly, I don't play one-player games of D&D. A proper party should have a mix of casters and spellcasters. The fighter-types should be protecting the wizard, just as infantry protect the guy with the bazooka, so he can shoot his fireball missile.

If a caster can survive long in a D&D campaign without noncaster protection, the DM is running an overly simplistic game.


... when the numbers (and more importantly, the story) indicate that they should be evenly matched.

How does the story indicate that? If they need something in a trapped chest, the thief is better off than any other. If the monsters are already in melee with them, the armored fighters have the advantage.

Frodo is not equal to Gandalf in power. But Frodo, not Gandalf, defeats Sauron.
Merlin has more individual power than Arthur. But the king with all his knights has more total power.
The White Witch has more power than Edmund. But Edmund breaks her wand and destroys her power.

The point of a heroic story is that the heroes face a challenge that can overwhelm them, but they find a way to defeat it, not in straight, open battle, but by subterfuge and cleverness. The Death Star is more powerful than the rebel allowance.

Long John Silver: Arrrr, fortune rides the shoulders of them what schemes.
Long John Silver, 1954

And there is no suggestion in literature or movie making that all the good guys have equal power. Harry is more powerful than Ron. Aragorn is more powerful than Merry. Lancelot is more powerful than Kay. Jaime is more powerful than Tyrion.

Fred Kwan: Maybe you’re the plucky comic relief. Did you ever think of that?
Galaxy Quest, 1999



In these situations and others like them, is it more appropriate to stick to what is cinematically appropriate and fair so as to not be effectively backhanding their character choice, or is it better to maintain the illusion of realism even though that generally results in players feeling like their characters are useless?

Cinematically appropriate doesn't mean "fair" either. It is not backhanding a character choice for a different character to have more raw power. Batman and Superman are in the same League. Hawkeye and Thor fight together. But in both cases, the writers guarantee moments when the powers of the "mere human" are necessary to saving the day. Balancing the party doesn't mean giving them each power; it means a proper mix of different types of abilities.

Miyagi: Better learn balance. Balance is key. Balance good, karate good. Everything good. Balance bad, better pack up, go home. Understand?
The Karate Kid, 1984

Not giving each character a moment to shine is "effectively backhanding their character choice," but don't blame the rules for the DM's decisions.


Some games, like D&D's 3rd Edition, partially avoid this problem by giving player characters rather easy access to items that allow them to make up for their deficiencies and even grant entirely new abilities to characters in need of them. But it still exists to a degree in D&D, and just as much if not more to other tabletop games that have a great deal of variation.

And some DMs avoid the problem by designing scenarios for their actual party.


What do you guys think? Which aspect should be adhered to most of the time?

Since the aspects of verisimilitude, balance, and cinematic appropriateness are in the eye of the beholder, and you and I don't agree on what they mean, none of these is a principle that we can agree on.

Different aspects of games appeal to different people; different approaches appeal to different people, and most people don't want all games to play the same. So the question as asked is unanswerable.

Here is (my) answer to the question I think you actually meant: The game should allow each player's character to shine occasionally, and in a party-based game, the party, by working together, should be more powerful than the individuals could be alone, so that after a session, it should be impossible for any player to even separate out who did what. The wizard beat the trolls with a fireball because the fighters were keeping the goblins off him, and the enemy wizard was ineffective because he'd been backstabbed by the rogue.

One for all, and all for one!
The Three Musketeers

[Anlashok]

The answer is usually some version of making all player characters equally powerful at all times.
Uh. What?

That's never, ever been the argument for balance. Ever.

Characters being equally good at everything has never been the goal, ever. What it means is that characters can be reasonably effective at what they intend to do and meaningfully contribute to something without being overshadowed by the people who aren't supposed to be strong in that regard.

The wizard being better at mystical stuff and the fighter being better at fistfighting isn't imbalanced (as your strawman suggests). The wizard being better at fighting anyways is, however, as would the wizard's mystical expertise completely obviating the need for the fighter to punch things.

[Sartharina]

Not giving each character a moment to shine is "effectively backhanding their character choice," but don't blame the rules for the DM's decisions.



And some DMs avoid the problem by designing scenarios for their actual party.This doesn't do any good when one character is flat-out better than the others, and when the DM tries to specifically tailor a situation one of the overshadowed players is meant to shine in (Which usually involves putting them at risk), they instead snuff it and the hypercompetent character has to shine through instead.

Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit have taken the road - but trying to let the BMX Bandit shine merely increases the chance of failure, risk of harm, and time needed to solve a problem Angel Summoner can solve quickly, safely, and reliably.

[Airk]

Uh. What?

That's never, ever been the argument for balance. Ever.

Yes it has. It's the Go-to strawman for people who don't understand what balance is. ;)



The wizard being better at mystical stuff and the fighter being better at fistfighting isn't imbalanced (as your strawman suggests). The wizard being better at fighting anyways is, however, as would the wizard's mystical expertise completely obviating the need for the fighter to punch things.

A caveat on balance that I always like to have is "It should not be possible in your system to make a bad character by making what seem like good decisions." - it's fine if you don't end up with a super optimal character, and it's fine if you can make a bad character by making decisions that are obviously bad, but when a newcomer sits down with a system and says, "Fighter sounds like a good choice for fighting! I'll make one of those! And he should be tough, so I'll take toughness!" and ends up with a crap character (and indeed, a character who is not very good at fighting, nor particularly tough), that system is poorly balanced.

That said, it's true that balance is generally a SYSTEM issue, not a GM issue. It can be exacerbated or smoothed over by the GM to a certain extent, but it's not something that usually goes in the same bucket as verisimilitude and 'cinematic feel'.

[Talakeal]

Uh. What?

That's never, ever been the argument for balance. Ever.

Characters being equally good at everything has never been the goal, ever. What it means is that characters can be reasonably effective at what they intend to do and meaningfully contribute to something without being overshadowed by the people who aren't supposed to be strong in that regard.

The wizard being better at mystical stuff and the fighter being better at fistfighting isn't imbalanced (as your strawman suggests). The wizard being better at fighting anyways is, however, as would the wizard's mystical expertise completely obviating the need for the fighter to punch things.

I started a thread about this last week, and from what I can tell there is no agreed about definition of what makes a game balanced. Some people want niche protection, others hate it. Some want equal time in the spotlight, others just want their moment to shine, others insist everyone share the spotlight equally at all times, and yet others are fine in a support role. Every player and game seems to have its own definition of what "balance" means to them.

[Airk]

I started a thread about this last week, and from what I can tell there is no agreed about definition of what makes a game balanced. Some people want niche protection, others hate it. Some want equal time in the spotlight, others just want their moment to shine, others insist everyone share the spotlight equally at all times, and yet others are fine in a support role. Every player and game seems to have its own definition of what "balance" means to them.

I have NEVER heard anyone argue that a character optimized for being on a ship should be just as effective off one. I've heard all the others, but "just as effective, all the time" is really just a strawman that people trot out.

[Jay R]

Uh. What?

That's never, ever been the argument for balance. Ever.

Characters being equally good at everything has never been the goal, ever.

I know. That's why I never said anything as silly as "being equally good at everything". In fact, I specifically said that "[t]he game should allow each player's character to shine occasionally...." Pretending I said something I didn't serves no useful purpose; it just derails the thread.

So let's get back to the topic. here are my main points:

1. Cinematic appropriateness can mean lots of different things, since movies are different.

2. Verisimilitude is consistent with the cinematic appropriateness of some movies, so it's not an "Either/or" contrast.

3. I don't consider "balance" a goal. The goal is fun. Balance is at best a low-grade tool for making fun possible, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient.

4. Comparing how two PCs would fare in a one-on-one battle in which the thief cannot start with a backstab and the fighter can't start in melee but the spellcasters can start with spells is an absurd situation that emphasizes the weaknesses of the non-spellcasters and the strengths of the spellcasters.

8. More importantly, since it virtually never happens in the run of a game, it should not be the basis for any discussion of how games run.

9. It's all right for one character to be more powerful, but the DM should arrange that each player's character gets to shine at some point during each adventure.

10. The party should work together, to do things no individual character can do.

And I defended the cinematic appropriateness of my points with examples and quotes from movies.

If you want to disagree with me, argue with my points and my position, not against some phrase ("being equally good at everything") that I never said, and that is in direct contradiction with my conclusions.

[Airk]

I know. That's why I never said anything as silly as "being equally good at everything". In fact, I specifically said that "[t]he game should allow each player's character to shine occasionally...." Pretending I said something I didn't serves no useful purpose; it just derails the thread.

Nice try, but:


What is "Balance", and why does it matter? The answer is usually some version of making all player characters equally powerful at all times.

Which is pretty much the strawman people are accusing you of using, eh?

[Jay R]

I know. That's why I never said anything as silly as "being equally good at everything". In fact, I specifically said that "[t]he game should allow each player's character to shine occasionally...." Pretending I said something I didn't serves no useful purpose; it just derails the thread.

Nice try, but:

What is "Balance", and why does it matter? The answer is usually some version of making all player characters equally powerful at all times.

Which is pretty much the strawman people are accusing you of using, eh?

No. Absolutely not. "Equally powerful at all times" is not the same as "being equally good at everything." I did not say anything as silly as "being equally good at everything", which implies that the warriors should be as good at magic as the wizards, and the clerics should be as good at picking pockets as the thieves.

But more importantly, is it that important to pick apart one sentence out of context, in order to avoid discussing the conclusions?

OK, you win. I hereby withdraw any definition of "Balance". My actual conclusions remain unchanged:

1. Cinematic appropriateness can mean lots of different things, since movies are different.

2. Verisimilitude is consistent with the cinematic appropriateness of some movies, so it's not an "Either/or" contrast.

3. I don't consider "balance" a goal. The goal is fun. Balance is at best a low-grade tool for making fun possible, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient.

4. Comparing how two PCs would fare in a one-on-one battle in which the thief cannot start with a backstab and the fighter can't start in melee but the spellcasters can start with spells is an absurd situation that emphasizes the weaknesses of the non-spellcasters and the strengths of the spellcasters.

8. More importantly, since it virtually never happens in the run of a game, it should not be the basis for any discussion of how games run.

9. It's all right for one character to be more powerful, but the DM should arrange that each player's character gets to shine at some point during each adventure.

10. The party should work together, to do things no individual character can do.

Anybody willing to discuss this?