- Jan 13, 2021
- Reaction score
Asen RG offered an example of how his random rolls gave him a character he didn't want to have to play, but the choice became play this character and make the best of it, or don't play.lol, they all come about from player choice, not dictated by the game, and none of them are useless/incompetant
Your first two examples show the balance offered through two choices t a player - you play a fighter, and are better in combat than the other classes from the beginning, and gradually increase in ability as you level up, or you play a wizard and you exchange low power at low levels to much higher powers at higher levels. But nothing is forcing a player to play one or the other, and neither is unable to contribute to the game. The 1st level wizard has the exact same combat ability as every other not-Warrior-based class. It doesn't in anyway affect their abilities in social environments, unravelling mysteries, solving puzzles, negotiating and bargaining, stealth, etc.
Of course GMs can fix unbalanced rule systems. Of course players can choose not to play in systems that don't deliver parity of outcome.
Doesn't mean the game rules are not rigged to offer disparity of access.
I can play make believe or improv with a group of like minded people and interact 'in social environments, unravelling mysteries, solving puzzles, negotiating and bargaining' with no rules whatsoever.
My characters ability to conduct stealth operations will depend on my characters capabilities and the ruleset.
So either a system delivers comparable player choices or it doesn't. If it doesn't the GM can compensate or not.
I prefer to either play systems that offer parity of character ability to impact the world, or adapt them so they do.
Others say seeking balance is a chimera.