Posted September 28, 2013
rakenan: I think we are coming at this question from opposite directions.
You see imbalance as desirable because it promotes interesting choices
I see balance as desirable because it provides structure for those choices.
It is the dynamic tension between the two that makes a great game. Without some regard for balance, you end up with choices that are stupidly good to the extent that no player who wants to win would ever make other choices. Such choices are not interesting at all. With too much regard for balance, you end up with choices that are so similar that they just don't matter - whatever you choose, it won't make a difference in the game. Those choices are, if anything, even less interesting.
You cannot have controlled imbalance without an underlying structure, and that underlying structure must be balanced. Whenever an aspect of imbalance is not part of that controlled and skillfully crafted imbalance, it should be pared away to reveal the fundamentally balanced foundations of the game. And even the imbalance should be crafted so as to minimize the number of major choices which are, at least in game terms, clearly bad or clearly good - because choosing the option that is plainly and obviously correct is not an interesting choice.
Tervvo: What exactly is an underlying structure,say as applied to Mom? You see imbalance as desirable because it promotes interesting choices
I see balance as desirable because it provides structure for those choices.
It is the dynamic tension between the two that makes a great game. Without some regard for balance, you end up with choices that are stupidly good to the extent that no player who wants to win would ever make other choices. Such choices are not interesting at all. With too much regard for balance, you end up with choices that are so similar that they just don't matter - whatever you choose, it won't make a difference in the game. Those choices are, if anything, even less interesting.
You cannot have controlled imbalance without an underlying structure, and that underlying structure must be balanced. Whenever an aspect of imbalance is not part of that controlled and skillfully crafted imbalance, it should be pared away to reveal the fundamentally balanced foundations of the game. And even the imbalance should be crafted so as to minimize the number of major choices which are, at least in game terms, clearly bad or clearly good - because choosing the option that is plainly and obviously correct is not an interesting choice.
Mom Intentionally or not is fairly rock paper scissors,with some chaos in the mix.Chaos is fundamentally not balanced. There is all of the balance possible needed out there and balance is needed in the real world not in a game which one plays by themselves and can make their own decisions about balance or unbalance.
I would love some tweaks just not any balancing race tweaks.
If you acknowledge that this is an idiotic idea because it would make Gnolls too strong, you have acknowledged my core point - balance matters. There remains a question of how much it matters, but that is where the art and science of game design enter the picture.
There is a range of power levels in units, and units outside that range are not allowed to exist. Withinn that range, some power levels are appropriate for super low end units like Spearmen, and some are appropriate for super high end units like Death Knights. Within *THOSE* restrictions, some power levels are suitable for low end units of a low tech race focused on war like Gnolls, and others are suitable for low end units of a high tech race focused on city development, like High Men.
Having such rules in place, and understanding that they should not be thrown away arbitrarily, but only in service to a cool idea, is what makes a game interesting to play. The Gnoll super-spearmen I imagined above would be way outside of such rules. The argument can be fairly easily made that several other things in the game have been shown to be outside of the boundaries of such rules without any corresponding cool idea to justify them. The finite support life of a game led the developers to stop patching the game before all such potential flaws were repaired.
There is no cool idea that makes Orcs so blatantly inferior to High Men at every tech level. There is no cool idea that requires Klackons to be the worst race in the game - although that comes closer, since Klackon design was clearly influenced by a cool idea. There *IS* a cool idea behind why Halflings are so awesome - it is hard to imagine any changes to the race that would not directly infringe on the racial vision of friendly and agile race of diminutive farmers who get along with everybody and have a talent for throwing stones, which is pretty much standard for Halflings across most media that feature them.