A good tabletop RPG system should strive to be as balanced as reasonably possible...

>as reasonably possible

This is the part where your line of presentation is just senseless argument fodder, because what is "reasonable" is eternally up to opinion and debate.

Balance is hardly the most important aspect of a game, and when a game makes too many sacrifices in the name of balance, you wind up with a dull and disappointing game.

Considering that any GM can balance a game on the user end with far more control than the designers who only have a finite degree of prediction of potential user cases, the idea of less work balancing a game is always superior to less work doing the far more important tasks of a GM is laughable. It's putting Balance as the most important aspect of a game, and if that's what you really believe, than you might as well play a game without any mechanical options whatsoever, since any game with meaningful mechanical choices will end up with unbalanced aspects.

A rational statement of the obvious. Unfortunately, half of Veeky Forums will disagree with you because they perceive any potential criticism as an attack on their preferred games and, therefore, an attack against themselves.

I always find it strange. I like a lot of unbalanced games, but I'm aware that being unbalanced is a bad thing, and that the games would be better off if the balance was improved. It's possible to like something while still being aware and honest about its flaws.

But that's not true at all? 4e's well balanced enough that there's plenty of wiggle room. They could have stated their assumptions more obviously, but as long as you reference existing material and don't go entirely outside precedent, it's pretty hard to break, especially if you're not trying to.

Your statement only really applies if you're talking about super high optimisation games, which the vast majority of the fanbase doesn't actually play.

But the definition of 'balance' you're using is absolute perfect balance, which is essentially a strawman. It's not actually what you're trying to achieve when you talk about balancing a game. It's not that every option is equally useful in every circumstance, it's that every option is worth using. That things will have niches or situational advantages is an aspect of balance, not something you need to eliminate in service of it.

You have not read the OP.

>Balance is hardly the most important aspect of a game
What is, in your opinion?

The game being transparent in its assumptions helps a lot for brewing, and 4e is pretty good at this.

Still hard to brew entire classes though.

That's more due to the sheer amount of content and design work it takes, which would be a factor regardless of how balanced the system was. It's a crunchy system and unlike other versions of D&D it has much less room for just copying things from other places, you're obliged to make unique things instead. It's a strength in adding a lot of class variety, but it does make adding more harder.

>it's easier for you to break the balance on purpose
You really can't read one sentence?

Probably the core resolution mechanic, followed by secondary modifiers (fate points, advantage/disadvantage, etc.). Most of them are innately balanced to begin with, making the question of whether they're balanced or not a non-issue from the get go. Since it's the part of the system that gets used most often, making sure it's finessed and appropriate is by far a greater concern than the auxiliary options attached to it that would then make it unbalanced.

Following that, even just the tone and presentation of a game is probably more important than whether it's balanced. An unbalanced game system that offers interesting mechanical options in an exciting world that people actually want to explore is definitely better than a balanced game with near-identical options with characters and a setting that are neither distinct nor memorable.

...What the fuck are you talking about? How in the hell is a core mechanic innately imbalanced?

I disagree,
Ars Magica, basically a more detailed and less horror version of world of darkness dark ages mage is quite imbalanced, Mages are not the only characters you play but they are clearly the superior ones, moreover although non magical characters exist and you can and probably will create and play few of them and there are even some sourcebooks about them, most of the focus is on mages and mages alone

Yet imbalance plays out perfectly, moreover your mage becomes powerufll not by adventuring and killing monsters for xps but by doing research, by studying. Therefore sometimes it is better to send non magical chracters to do the dirty work of adventuring while the mage is studying to become more powerull

Balance only matters in games which are more combat focused imho

...?

>Most of them are innately balanced

Fucked up phrasing, same difference. A core mechanic in a vacuum is only 'balanced' in the most useless, abstract possible sense to the point I find it hard to grasp what point you're trying to make.

>in an exciting world
Naw. Setting specific systems tend to be garbage tier.

>A core mechanic in a vacuum is only 'balanced' in the most useless, abstract possible sense
If the basis of the system is math, and the math equals out, then it is balanced in a vacuum, user.

...So why are you using that as an argument against balance?

see Now imagine the additional effort it would take to modify the mechanics of Ars Magica to make a balanced game, or one imbalanced *against* mages, if someone wanted that.

The difference, I think, is that Ars Magica makes that clear, and still gives every character a role to play.

Balance isn't about every option being equal. It's about the system honestly conveying the capabilities of various character options and ensuring that if it presents two options as equal, they actually are equal.

It's not necessary for everything to always be exactly equal to each other, just that everything you print should be a fun, useful element you can include in a game. Of course not everything appeals to everybody and some campaigns might not touch on certain niches, but it's just endeavouring to avoid printing garbage trap options or wasting pagespace on things people will never take.

I find that most balance issues appear when there aren't enough roles for characters to fill. No matter what the campaign is focused on if there aren't diverse roles for characters to fill one type of character will rise above the others and create imbalance.

The design of a core mechanic puts far less importance on the question of balance (to the degree that balance is essentially a non-issue in almost every core mechanic), and the question of whether or not it's intuitive, easy, quick, adaptable, entertaining, and even just whether it's accessible end up being dramatically more important in regards to it.

Pointing out that balance is a non-issue in regards to the most important feature of a system was just highlighting that concerns of balance are really not the end-all-be-all of game design.

...No? That's an irrelevant non-sequitur that does not logically follow at all.

Balance is about content. Content is built on a core mechanic. Having a strong, flexible and easy to understand core mechanic is great, but it's also directly connected to the idea of building good, balanced content to flesh out a system. I find it hard to see how you're dividing it up, rather than seeing it all as part of an interconnected whole. It seems pointlessly reductive.

I think imbalance comes form having differnet types of characters good at different things.

In DnD the fighter is good at fighting, the rogue is good at sneaking/opening traps etc.

The problems come from two sources, when a character type is better at something than other archetypes who are designed with that as their focus. Like wizards being better in combat or at lock-picking than fighters or rogues.

The other comes from imbalances do to the campaign. If you never encounter traps, than the trap guy is under powered. If all you encounter is social situations, the social character/bard is overpowered.

>making sure it's finessed and appropriate is by far a greater concern than the auxiliary options attached to it that would then make it unbalanced.
Wouldn't that be the opposite?

If the core mechanic can't be unbalanced, you don't need to worry about it. The greater concern should be about the auxiliary options that can cause imbalance.

I think it is absurd to balance a game about mages in the sense of mages vs others. As the user below you said, ars magica is a game for mages.
Though inter balance between mages is an interesting phenomenon, not just combat mind you, but for other aspects, for example a lot of political disputes are settlted with Certamen, an official dueling system. Interestingly Certman was founded by House Tremere and they train their pupils spesifically to become more skilled in it.
Moreover Tremere also has a policy of voting collectively on any issue (in other houses every mage has their own vote, in Tremere your vote belongs to your master) So politically Tremere has a tremendous advantage in domniating the mage politics.

But still I find that aspect interesting, world is not balanced at all. I think games where you play for or against Tremere can be fun
I think if you play a game called Ars Magica it is fucking given that you willl -either play a mage -do not complain if you pick a mundane character and see most of the focus is on mages/magical shit. I doubt you disagree with me in this regard

I think what is fun depends on the individual, someone can pretty much play the game as a political intrigue plot or a hack and slash loot the dungeon get the artefact game. But I do believe some games shine in some places and do not shine in others. To have it appeal to every aspect either makes the game shit or it makes it an universal system like GURPS.

For Ars Magica, characters are divided into 3 subgroups, Mages, Companions (non magical but important characters) and Grogs (less important characters). This doesn't mean Grogs must always be less powerfull than Companions, A maid in the mages covenant can be a companion and the 20 knights that guard the place might be grogs etc. The game does have a sourcebook about Grogs and even suggest an all grog campaign can be done, but I think it is streching too much why use ars magica when you have say Pendragon?

>is great

It's the most vital aspect of a system.

>building good,

Yes.

>balanced

Good content is not necessarily balanced from the get go. A lot of great ideas just unfortunately run contrary to efforts made for balance, including simple things like taking into account different people's preferences. Different people like different types of mechanics, and different types of mechanics are often inherently stronger.

A simple example is players who enjoy easy characters without much mechanical depth, and players who enjoy complicated characters who are difficult to make with lots of options. There is inherent difficulty and strength to the latter, and efforts made to balance those character relative to simpler characters have to walk a very thin line between making them worth the effort involved in them, and not making them too much stronger or so weak that it would actually punish players for experimenting with a difficult character.

Many games will simply make all characters have the same relative complexity in order to avoid this issue, and that means limiting the appeal of the game. Over the years, I've found that a game having a wide appeal is a gigantic asset since it's rare to find a group that unilaterally agree on the same issues to the same degree, and the natural imbalances that are relatively impossible to completely iron out and instead must merely be mitigated are employed in order to obtain that wider appeal. Hence, we're looking at designers introducing unbalancing elements to their games, something that runs contrary to the idea that Balance is the foremost ideal that takes precedence over any other concern.

You don't need to care about the balance of the core mechanic, you have to care about all the other features of it.

I don't think anybody has been saying balance is the most important thing? Just that it's an important thing if you want to make everything you publish meaningful content. A significantly overpowered option makes everything you put alongside it meaningless, a significantly underpowered option is just inherently meaningless and a trap for new or inexperienced players. It'll never be perfect, but it's about keeping the range of power narrow enough to cause as few problems as possible.

Honestly, your argument doesn't actually seem to oppose the idea of balance as I understand it. Literally all it means is 'Don't print stuff nobody should/would ever take'. Get the math right, clearly convey if something occupies a certain niche, give the GM and PC's all the tools they need to ensure that the party is on a level playing field, or to allow the imbalance to be understood and accounted for if they intentionally want an unbalanced experience.

Consider two game designers: One puts out a broken game and says "fix it yourself if you don't like it". The other puts out a fixed game and says "break it yourself if you don't like it". What would you rather have to do, fix a broken game, or break a game on purpose?
It's very easy for a GM to give more points or levels or whatever to the characters he intends to be overpowered in his campaign. He can even run multiple campaigns with different imbalances! Meanwhile a GM who doesn't want the imbalance built into Ars Magica will have a hard time fixing the system to suit his needs, and will probably end up playing with a different system, so in that sense an imbalanced system is more limiting than a balanced one.

How are the other features, not auxiliary?

>so in that sense an imbalanced system is more limiting than a balanced one.
I agree but I don't think there is nothing wrong with it. I think that was the point I tried to make. If you want a balanced game you shouldn't play "broken games", after all some of them are intenitionally broken.

Of course if a game claims to be balance but broken unitentionally its another thing.

Or the system could just let me enjoy the things that make it unique from others without me having to hack it into a balanced and more usable form.
Rarely are the broken bits entegral to the system.

>I don't think anybody has been saying balance is the most important thing?

OP said striving for balance is "always a good thing." That's an absolute statement, but one attached to the caveat of only striving to be "balanced as reasonably possible", a senselessly opinionated phrase that has no real meaning outside of a personal one. In effect, we have OP saying that balance is the most important thing, as long as it is the exact level of balance that he is personally comfortable with.

No one is arguing that balance isn't good and isn't something worth keeping in mind. But, to put Balance on such a pedestal that you always defer to it is what leads to designers limiting themselves and producing games that only cater to small groups, small groups that fanatically believe that the game has a broad appeal through its balanced mechanics despite being generally seen as bland and tasteless. Balance is something that helps games, but its also something that can hurt games if the designer puts too high of a priority towards it, and the notion that "less work balancing" always means "less work in general" for a GM is a terrible lie.

I don't think that logically follows at all. Something always being a good thing in no way implies it's the most important thing. You're leaping to a very bizarre conclusion from that, IMO.

>the notion that "less work balancing" always means "less work in general" for a GM is a terrible lie.

...What?

If you have less work to do balancing a game, then you have less work to do overall, all other things being equal.

How an individual GM might use that advantage varies, some might take it easy while others might put that extra effort into other aspects of the game, but I have trouble seeing how anything in that statement is a lie.

So why include the broken bits in the first place? The system would still be better off if they weren't broken, or weren't present. There's no reason to include something that isn't fit for purpose.

That is pretty much what I was saying.

If you always, without exception, are intended to strive for something, that thing is the highest priority.
If there are no circumstances or other concerns that would give pause to striving towards that something, than that something is the most important thing to you.

Without that "always", what OP is saying is "Balance is neat. Most of the time designers should try to make things balanced." Wow, what a prolific statement.

WIthout that "always", OP would have made no new revelation. Instead, OP went with "always", and marked himself as high up on Mt. Stupid.

>all other things being equal

Too bad that assumption doesn't hold true.

Balance was never a problem for me, when I realize something is broken and is disrupting the flow of the campaign I simply talk to the player and ban it. I never had any problems, people I play with are reasonable enough to think about the collective not themselves only. Sure we get some bickering and takes some convincing but in the end it always works out.

>If you always, without exception, are intended to strive for something, that thing is the highest priority.
No, it just means that the thing is never bad and getting it is always a good thing

>the notion that "less work balancing" always means "less work in general" for a GM is a terrible lie
You're fucking retarded.

Giving someone less work, means they have less work. How could anything else be the case?

I honestly think you're just making a logical leap that ends up with total nonsense there.

Balance is always a good thing. There is not a situation where adding balance makes something worse.

If you start assuming a zero sum game, and that the balance must always come at cost of something else, then things get a lot more nuanced, but that isn't implicit in the above statement.

It also does not at all imply it's the highest priority or the only thing that matters. It's always a good thing to have nice artwork, but that doesn't mean nice artwork is the highest priority in RPG design. It's always a good thing to have unique mechanics for making characters feel distinct. It's always a good thing to have rules that are easy to understand. There are a lot of different design aspects that are always good to have. OP is just making a statement in opposition to the idiots who claim balance doesn't matter.

This.

But you'd still be better off if you didn't actually have to do that

If giving them less work in one category gives them more work in another category.

If you balance a game so much, that the GM has to put more effort into actually making the game fun and exciting and to have the characters feel unique and distinct, for instance.

But that's just pulling something out of your ass without any evidence or argument.

>making the game fun and exciting and to have the characters feel unique and distinct
so you are saying that unless one type of character is far better than the others or far worse, that they all are bland and the same?

...

Yes a perfect system would be great, but talking things out is a big part of this activity, so having to negotiate something is not a big deal at all.

This is what Stockholm syndrome looks like

But what if it can't be solved with just negotiation? Often after figuring out what to do, you still need to put time and effort in to homebrew around the problem, especially if the imbalance is present in a core component of the system.

>If giving them less work in one category gives them more work in another category.
That's not what anyone was discussing though.

If you want to argue that game balance is bad, because game design has finite resources and you can either choose to be entertaining or balanced, then by all means do so.

>There is not a situation where adding balance makes something worse.

There's plenty of real examples, because "adding balance" is often a way of saying "destroying mechanical depth" or "limiting distinct options."

There's a number of things that inherently upset balance. Concepts such a synergistic benefits, allowing wide assumptions in play style, and distinct mechanical differences are all great things, and all which ultimately put pressure on the designers to stray from balance in order to achieve something actually fun to play.

>If you start assuming a zero sum game, and that the balance must always come at cost of something else, then things get a lot more nuanced, but that isn't implicit in the above statement.

It's not a strict zero sum game, but balance does come at the cost of something else. If not, why are you not playing a perfectly, absolutely balanced game? The game without any mechanical distinction? Balancing comes at a cost of mechanical diversity simply due to the inherent natural qualities that make options unbalanced, with the idea that adding more complexity ultimately just further unbalances the game in unexpected ways thanks to the inherent unbalancing element that complexity confers. It's actually refreshing to talk to someone so naive as to believe that seeking balance in an RPG is what will define it as being good.

> It's always a good thing to have nice artwork,
Not if that money would have been better spent developing the system better, by hiring more playtesters for example.

> It's always a good thing to have unique mechanics for making characters feel distinct.
Not if the unique mechanics are awkward and disastrously unbalanced.

Understand? Always is an absolute.

If balance is never a problem, how can you admit that a perfectly balanced game is more perfect?

That would be like saying that it doesn't matter if something is more orange or blue, but the bluer is is the better.

>Not if that money would have been better spent developing the system better, by hiring more playtesters for example.
Here's were your logic falls apart.

Something can be always good, without always being better.

>balance
>rules

As soon as DM tells me I can't do something because it's not in the rules I remove the blade I keep in my boot from its sheath, and I don't return it until it has spilled blood.

But your first point entirely relies on twisting the statement to mean something that isn't implicit to it. It's disingenuous at best.

And, again, you're operating on a completely pointless definition of balance nobody else in this thread is using. We're not talking about perfect, everything is equal balance. We're talking about every option being worth using and making sure you don't print things that are just wasted space. The idea that trying to balance a game means you're aspiring to perfect balance is just ludicrous, and your entire argument relies on it.

>always good

Except when it's bad, such as in the simple examples provided?

>It's actually refreshing to talk to someone so naive as to believe that seeking balance in an RPG is what will define it as being good.

Why do you keep repeating this strawman when it's been explicitly stated several times that this isn't the case?

But those examples rely on bringing up things that aren't implicit to the original statement. You're creating a new form of the statement to shoot down rather than dealing with it in its original form, changing what they actually mean in the process.

>We're talking about every option being worth using and making sure you don't print things that are just wasted space.

A far more meaningless qualification, because that relies entirely on subjective opinion in order to distinguish where the line between "worth-using" and "worthless" lies.

For some games, even widely mechanically unbalanced options are still all worth using, because the games are cooperative/narrative/thematic/etc. In others, even the smallest differences make all but one theoretical build useless, due to even just the character of the players.

What you're operating with is a definition that you feel works, because you have not bothered to extend your experience and your opinions outside of a rather closed sphere of understanding.

>The idea that trying to balance a game means you're aspiring to perfect balance is just ludicrous, and your entire argument relies on it.

No, perfect balance is just used to illustrate that balance comes at a cost, something you just tried to pretend is not something that ever occurs.

If you want to use absolutes, you're going to wind up dealing with perfect concepts and absolute statements. If you can't handle them, don't use them. In fact, that's my genuine advice, since you really don't seem to understand what "always" and "never" actually means, especially since you're so easily willing to throw in subjective, opinionated clauses to try and cover your ass.

Found the wizard player.

Well in my experience if something is rotten to its core I avoid it like the plague, no matter if I enjoy the setting. But if you somehow end up in that situation you go for whats best for your group, whats fun for them.

Thats a weird argument, I didn't mean that balance doesn't matter what I meant is that expecting a system to be perfect is silly, the dudes who write these books are not genius or robots. And the golden rule is the most important rule there is in any setting no matter the system. You should be used to fixing things on the spot and improvising. Yes perfect balance would be perfect, but thats just wishful thinking, there is nothing to talk about that, whats to discuss on an impossibility?

I assure you that even if someone someday managed to make a flawless system you would still have to homebrew and fix shit because your players want to be something else, that is broken and shitty or do something stupid that its not in that system simply because its stupid.

>Rarely are the broken bits entegral to the system.
That really depends, but maybe thats just my personal preference

You're just talking nonsense at this point.

Sure, some options will appeal more or less to certain niches. But there's also cases where clear, blatant trap options or overpowered things are pointed out by the community, well known an agreed upon by broad consensus that they're too good or too bad and need fixing. That is what we're talking about when we talk about balance. Avoiding the powerful options that skew the game around them or the weak options that fuck over a person who picks them.

Everything else you're talking about is essentially nonsense based on you rejecting the practical definition of balance most people actually use.

No. You're mistaken again.
Because something is the worse of two options doesn't make it bad.

If my options are one slice of cake, or two slices of cake and the holocaust, that doesn't mean that cake has less inherent value.

Pretty much.

user, while cutting yourself is a valid way of gaining attention, it is also very disingenuous to manipulate others this way
seek help

underrated , saying this as an anti balance fag
man I miss old screencaps

There's a difference, in my experience, between tweaking a system to my preferences and having to fix a system that isn't fit for purpose. The former is a default part of running the game, the latter is a flaw that the system would be better off without.

>Thats a weird argument
I'm equally bewildered by your argument.

>thats just wishful thinking, there is nothing to talk about that, whats to discuss on an impossibility?
Because while perfection might not be possible, "better" is. Why wouldn't you want things to be better?

Have you ever playtested a really early version of a game? Even 'professional' game designers are completely retarded and unable to catch very basic shit without other people pointing it out.

Where do you think we're disagreeing here friends? My answer to the OP was that imbalance will happen and we should all learn to deal with it because its just something inevitable. And I said more than once that yes, it would be great if everything was perfectly balanced. Again I don't see whats there to discuss in this thread, you're making a statement "Balance is good" and everyone is basically saying "Yes its good but hard" and this just keeps going on rolling on itself. Whats the final conclusion you want to reach here?

This.
A bandaid is fine.
Having to put so many bandaids on a system that it's more bandaid than creator content is bad.

Well, I think it's mostly a thread to try and draw out the people who claim balance isn't important or is a bad thing, like the guy who keeps trying to claim you have to aspire to perfect balance even if that's nonsense, along with pushing the idea that balance always comes at the cost of other things even though that's not true.

You're probably good, everything you've said is pretty reasonable, I was just sharing a related thought and clarification.

>That is what we're talking about when we talk about balance.

No, you're talking about specific circumstances that support your argument, while ignoring all the circumstances that counter and negate it. You're literally trying to use your personal opinion as a definition, and then wondering why people are so quick to highlight the flaws in your argument that extend beyond your arbitrary and personal definitions that rely heavily on subjective attributes. Even just the idea of whether something is or isn't a blatant trap option ends up being a matter of opinion.

We're looking at you either making pointless statements (balance is good most of the time) or making stupidly opinionated statements (my personal definition of what balance is is always good).
Here, the former is far better than the latter.

So, quit trying to use absolutes.

>who keeps trying to claim you have to aspire to perfect balance

Nice strawman. Even after it was explained that perfect balance was just used as a way of explaining that balance comes at a cost.

Do you practice being this stupid?

Except the definition of balance I'm using is the one basically everyone uses? Everything in the game working roughly the way it should, all options being worth using and nothing you print being wasted page space. Even outside of personal preferences, there are points when an option is entirely worthless or a mechanic is just entirely unfit for purpose, and yet you constantly try to evade that with cries of 'subjectivity'.

If what you're saying is so obvious, why is nobody else here agreeing with you?

Well, it was the least of two idiocies, since the alternative is just kinda ignoring that awkward non-sequitur, but I guess you're doubling down on it.

Absolute balance comes at a cost, sure. Balance, in cases, can come at a cost. There are also a great many cases where you can balance something without any cost other than work on the part of the developer. And in those cases, it's always better if they put the work in and improve the balance of the system.

>My answer to the OP was that imbalance will happen and we should all learn to deal with it because its just something inevitable.
Your original response to the OP implied that balance isn't a problem, or that it has never been a problem for you.

Learning how to address a reoccurring problem. Isn't the same as saying there is no problem.

And what about it? It was never a problem because I never let it be a problem, thats part of the "learn to deal with it" later on I even said that I tried my best to avoid things who are too broken exactly because you can't just deal with them. I never said it wasn't a problem.

Look I'm gonna ask what a lot of anons might be wondering by now, what happened dude? What kind of fucked up gaming experience did you have that put you on this crusade? I'm legit curious, I'm not even criticizing, I mean you wanna advocate perfect balance you go for it, if you ever find it let us know and I'm sure we will all migrate to that system.

>What kind of fucked up gaming experience did you have that put you on this crusade?
I'm going to hazard a guess here

>Except the definition of balance I'm using is the one basically everyone uses?

You don't even realize just how subjective the definition you're trying to push forward is, do you?

>working roughly the way it should

By who's measure.

>all options being worth using and nothing you print being wasted page space

According to who.

>there are points when an option is entirely worthless or a mechanic is just entirely unfit for purpose

At these extremes, there's almost nothing to discuss. To the point where an option is entirely useless, to the degree where it is strictly inferior to all other options, is a point almost never seen in any published work. You're talking about something that's at the level of being an editing mistake, rather than a design mistake, and something that would get errated the moment the designer noticed it, since the designer would fall into the group of people who universally recognize it as a mistake.

Short of those extremes, we are firmly within the realm of subjectivity, and it is there where you are hoping to apply your absolute statements. That's egotistical to a level where you should genuinely feel ashamed.

So, take my advice. Just redact your attempts at applying absolutes where they don't belong, and sit firmly and contentedly on your lukewarm, but at least not blatantly false or senselessly egotistical, statements about how balance is nice and worth pursuing as long as you don't let it get out of hand.

>I never said it wasn't a problem.
>Balance was never a problem

> To the point where an option is entirely useless, to the degree where it is strictly inferior to all other options, is a point almost never seen in any published work

Umm...

>is a point almost never seen in any published work.
Actually this happened a lot in 3.5 and PF. Truenamers, Monkey Lunge, Elephant Stomp, Prone Shooter, etc.

>That's egotistical to a level where you should genuinely feel ashamed.

Given that you're speaking with the authority of an absolute game design guru, I feel like this is more applicable to you. All I'm doing is repeating the common sense definition that you continue to rail against for bizarre reasons.

Balance is a good thing. That's all that was said, and that's what you're getting so fucking furious about. But it's true. Balance is a good thing.

Ok dude, I am sorry I expressed myself poorly you want me to rephrase the whole thing? Or did you get the gist of it?

Naw. I got the gist of it.
I'm just being needlessly argumentative because I enjoy debating people on Veeky Forums.
>But it's true. Balance is a good thing.
Yeah, but what if you could only make your game more balanced by beating your mother to death with a tire iron.

Then balance wouldn't be such a good thing would it?

No, but that's just a bizarre non-sequitur that doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

The balance side is still good, it's just outweighed by the bad stuff associated with it. If all it comes down to is 'You should practice discretion when designing systems and mechanics' then... Yes? But that doesn't mean 'balance is a good thing' isn't true. It's one of a lot of good things you need to juggle when creating a good game.