Do You Want A Balanced Game?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**BunkhouseBuster**

Hatachi wrote:
I don't think you understand the crux of my post. Some people may like unbalanced scenarios; It doesn't mean they was the architecture of the game system itself unbalanced. It's comparing apples and oranges. The group for narrative groups doesn't have to be large, it only has to be the people that want to do it. Not everyone wants to do Cities of Death, but it should work if they want to do it as well as tournament.

Neither of these scenarios, without bringing up if people want to put the work in or not for the type of game that is or isn't what they don't want to do, is more important than the other. The fact the game mode you don't prefer works as well is proof the game, not the scenario, is balanced as well as flexible.

Flexibility should be just as important to you. You don't want balance that will shatter the moment they add a single new unit, faction. or scenario.

*EDIT* I want to point out that I like unbalanced scenarios and tend to play fluffy lists. That's the side I usually fall on. I'm trying to approach the question in the way a game designer would.

Gotcha! Makes much more sense when you put it that way. I hadn't thought about "flexibility" in all of these discussions, but you are absolutely right to use that term.

You have expanded my academic-view-of-wargaming vocabulary. Thanks!