>obsessing over game balance
>masturbating over mechanics
play the fucking game, retards.
>>45572867
cant really argue about that.
pet peeve thread?
>not wearing deodorant
>Not trying to talk to other party members.
> Not doing the adventure.
>>45572867
i play the game how want faggot !
if they play the game, they'll obsess even more
>>45572867
>caring about what strangers obsess about
>caring about what strangers masturbate to
what a waste of your emotions
>>45572867
but I want to play a good game.
>complaining about how something tastes
>whining about small portions
just eat the fucking tv dinner, fatty
>>45572913
Steve Jobs used to believe that an all fruit diet made his body oder a pleasant smell.
>>45573102
Did it work?
>>45573113
He also believed that it can cure cancer.
>>45573129
ah, that makes sense,
>>45573102
He also had a rare-and-treatable form of pancreatic cancer but refused to follow the advice of trained medical professionals, instead following "alternative" routes.
And now he's fucking dead. Shows what he knew.
>>45572867
>let's play tic tac toe
>but anon that game's horribly balanced and has poor mechanics
>JUST PLAY THE FUCKING GAME REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>45572867
People are really starting to fetishize game balance, just don't be a bellend. Problem solved.
>>45573484
You'd think Apple would have gone 'your ass is too important, we're gonna have doctors stick needles in you.'
>>45572867
>playing bad games
I pity you, fool.
>>45574134
This. Game Balance isn't everything. Just because something is powerful doesn't mean it has to be used. You can play very fun, interesting games and scenarios that are completely unbalanced.
Game balance isn't the be all and end all of game design, but it is important. A game doesn't have to be perfectly balanced, but beyond a point imbalance directly acts against the enjoyment of the people involved.
>>45572867
That would require people to actually have and/or run groups, which about half of /tg/ clearly don't.
>>45574152
It's the George Lucas problem, once you're a big shot, no one dares call you out on your shit
I play games I like all the time, but I also enjoy discussing it and balance between the game's options is one of the most objective thing people can relate to and discuss actively. You're basically just being Mr. Badwrongfun, OP.
>>45574180
To be fair, that logic relies on the idea that everyone will be willing to not simply do what is most effective, or isn't a cunt.
If a group of eight people play wargames, and thre people play far more cheesy armies than all the others, they'll make things less fun for the rest of them. Why play a fluffy, less balanced list when someone is stomping you for it over and over? Even if it was just one person, it would sour the experience, especially if no one wanted to kick him out.
In a tabletop game, no one would want to form team and work together knowing that they're always going to be inferior to the guy who memorized all the rules and has built a minmaxed character that at his best his class could not compete with.
>>45574152
Considering that Apple is still doing fine (better in some ways, probably), he clearly wasn't that important by the time he kicked it. Tim Cook is basically a silver-haired, gayer Steve Jobs anyway.
>>45574227
Tell him that's not the sort of game you're playing and say that perhaps he'd like to tone down the min-maxing or find another group.
I've literally never had this problem though because people seem quite happy to play the game in the setting/style that's been promoted. Not to mention with wargaming you can spice things up. One day you can have big huge battles, the next you can run scenarios and so forth. If someone just wants to play big battles and stomp people then people would find that boring.
>>45574227
You have that all the time in parties though. You have the guy who sucks at fighting but who's good at diplomacy, you have magical autist glass cannon, you have fighter mc huge large, etc etc.
Just because my character isn't swing fucking dick of the hill doesn't mean I'm not interested in the game. At the same time, having a super strong guy as an ally and partner is fantastic.
>>45574247
That the problem can be fixed by the players or GM doesn't excuse the problem existing.
>>45574302
it's dull though. I want to play the desperate rearguard action, the last stand against all odds, the suicide charge to delay the enemy for a few minutes, the forlorn hope against the freshly opened breach. I don't want balance. I want interesting scenarios and excitement.
>>45574368
False dichotomy.
A balanced game is required to make those scenarios work. A well designed set of rules can accommodate for that sort of asymmetry, through use of scenarios, terrain features or varying objectives, but having a functional and balanced base game is only an asset to creating that kind of situation. If you're playing an unbalanced game, you might have the valiant rearguard utterly crush the overwhelming invaders through exploitation of a rules loophole or cheesy combo.
Balance doesn't mean 'Everything working the same'. It doesn't mean all choices are equally viable in all situations. It just means that you establish a common frame of reference for your mechanics to act within, to make sure they all work well together. It's basic, competent game design.
>>45574395
Balance as /tg/ understands it and as /tg/ bitches about it is precisely "Everything working the same'. It doesn't mean all choices are equally viable in all situations."
Game balance isn't everything, but a lack of balance means that it requires good taste and communication with who you'll be playing with so everybody has an idea of expectations going into the game. An even-handed GM is a big plus.
And if there's one thing I've learned from /tg/ it is that you cannot always depend on good taste or communication, and of course there are plenty of simply AWFUL GMs out there. So...I'm perfectly fine with balance-focused games. There's a niche there.
>>45574411
So by /tg/ standards, the only balanced games are shit like Go and Draughts?
>>45574257
But what if the character is better at your job than you are, like say, a wizard? Or you're a bard, so you're already more of a support class, with most of your optional roles in the party taken up by more optimized characters?
>>45572867
Balance is important though, don't want anyone in the party to feel useless.
>>45572867
GW pls go and stay go.
>>45572867
Congratulations, you got the reasoning behind D&D 4 and the reason it failed.
>>45577857
Horseshit.
>>45572867
It's fun to talk about.
But yeah it's ultimately overrated. If the game isn't big on combat or simulation, you can really boil almost everything RNG down to a d6. The GM is calling the odds anyway. I mean, take a d20 game for example. The DCs move in 5 point increments, usually 5/10/15/20/25. Is that really different than a 2/3/4/5/6 on a d6? Or a 4/6/8/10/12 on a 2d6? Same shit.
When I do roll20 games I have to be super careful about house rules, or even snap judgements, because someone might go atomic. I've actually had one person demand, mid-session, that he be able to ignore the house rules that he agreed to play with, because they pissed him off. It's the ride you signed up for, buddy! Just fucking go with it and enjoy yourself.
>>45574452
Sure, that's why we constantly have reasoned discussions about Go problems and strategy instead of nonstop "Elf Emprah of Mankind wat do" shit.
>>45572867
>>obsessing over x
>>masturbating over x
>Shut up and play the fucking game
I agree with this sentiment.
Game balance is important, but not all-important.
A couple anons have it right already in this thread.
>>45574227
>To be fair, that logic relies on the idea that everyone will be willing to not simply do what is most effective, or isn't a cunt.
This is true and the heart of the issue.
First, don't play with cunts and that problem is solved.
Second, everyone always doing what is most effective is the most boring predictable mess ever.
It is spamming the "win" button and in rpgs there often is no win condition.
>Okay take these specs with these stats because they are the best. Human wizard, Elf Archer, Half-Orc Barbarian,with xyz features. Every time. Why would you make a gnome bard, they suck!
I ran a game with a group that ended up being like Gandalf the White and Fell's Five.
It worked because the wizard player wasn't a cunt and turned the challenge from defeating the encounters I presented them with and instead the challenge became empowering the rest of the group to defeat the challenges together.
He actually acted like a guide and mentor like Gandalf rather than a teenager with Gandalf's power.
In wargames, I can see people thinking unbalanced games are less fun if the winner is obvious from the start.
But sometimes winning is not the only possible objective.
Sometimes doing very well before losing against a superior opponent is more impressive than winning against an evenly matched one.
I don't play wargames, but I play MtG, mainly with one friend.
He is better at building decks and has better/more cards than me.
He beats me more times than not, but I have fun and actually play a little better than him.
I used to routinely play chess against my Ukrainian roommate. I never once won.
Still fun.
Those who obsessively choose the best, most effective option aren't really being cunts, but they're being less fun and more boring than they could be.
>>45574134
>just don't be a bellend. Problem solved.
>>45574180
>Game Balance isn't everything.
>>45574200
>Game balance isn't the be all and end all of game design, but it is important.
All this.
>>45574425
>Game balance isn't everything, but a lack of balance means that it requires good taste and communication with who you'll be playing with so everybody has an idea of expectations going into the game
But this anon said it best.
>>45574225
>I play games I like all the time, but I also enjoy discussing it
And if OP is talking about anons on /tg/, this is the correct answer.
>>45579850
Anon, there is a difference between what you are saying and then finding out that the game you are playing is making what you would like to play difficult or impossible to achieve it's basic goals.
Balance exists to make it so that what you play can do what it says on the tin. You can play a sword and board fighter in 3.5 D&D, but it's not that you will be less effective at your chosen goal compared to the barbarian with a great axe, it's that you will not be able to achieve your goal in gameplay without the dm making concessions, that work counter to the game's expectations, just for you.
THAT is poor balance. Poor balance means just playing what you want is a difficult prospect.
>>45579850
>There are no bad RPGs just bad players
>MtG, mainly with one friend.
>He is better at building decks and has better/more cards than me.
That's a skill divide, not a rules or game balance divide. He'd probably end up beating you even with if you exchanged decks because you're a scrub.
>I used to routinely play chess against my Ukrainian roommate. I never once won.
Another example of skill divide and not rules or game balance divide.
>>45580072
>That's a skill divide, not a rules or game balance divide.
Both result in "someone stomping you over and over"
Both can still be interesting and engaging.
Losing can be fun, embrace you inner dorf.
>>45580174
Yet, neither are a sign of balance, which is the argument being presented, not the factor of winning or losing.
>>45572913
Heh, I was once kicked out (well asked to leave) of a group because I looked too presentable or whatever and the others felt 'weird' about it.
>>45580570
Fuck that.
Myself and another guy in the group occasionally show up for game in 3 piece suits with all the trimmings.
Why? We felt like it. I don't need a reason to look good, dammit.
>implying some semblance of balance shouldn't be a thing
>shitposting
>>45580418
>Yet, neither are a sign of balance, which is the argument being presented, not the factor of winning or losing.
>game balance divide is not a sign of balance
You don't say.
Also, the arguments that were presented in this post chain are as follows:
>Obsessing over game balance is bad
>Avoiding extremes is good
>Game balance isn't everything and unbalanced options are optional.
>Not choosing the optimal option requires players' willingness to not do the most effective option.
>Always choosing the most effective option is boring.
>Skill divide is not game balance divide.
>Both can still be fun.
>Neither are game balance..
>>45572867
Well you are certainly enlightened, anon. If only everyone had the clarity of vision and the cool as ice approach to life as you.
>>45572867
>playing in full furry costume
I really need to cull my list of friends
>>45574232
>Apple
>Doing fine
>Being this oblivious
>>45579996
>Poor balance means just playing what you want is a difficult prospect.
While this is true,
>you will not be able to achieve your goal in gameplay without the dm making concessions
This seems like poor design, not poor necessarily balance.
Both are bad, but it's still true though.
Also, there are degrees of imbalance.
>>45581215
Poor balance IS poor design, anon.
>>45581265
>Poor balance IS poor design, anon.
But poor design is not necessarily poor balance, anon.
>>45572867
I am playing the game! Three of them, to be exact.
AND RUNNING ANOTHER!
HAKUNAH YOUR GODDAMNED TATAS!
>>45581303
I've yet to see a game with poor design that didn't have poor balance.
That said, poor balance is an example of poor game design, flat, so what are you trying to say?
>>45581392
>what are you trying to say?
Just that if a class or role can't do what it is supposed to do, blaming balance seems like a limited view of the problem.
It's the difference between a fighter always being ineffective or just being useless if another character is there to do his job.
>>45581265
well, only if balance (combat?) is a design goal
I think all players should be equally useful, but hey, that's just my opinion, man.
>>45572867
>I'll take Stormwind Fallacy for 600, Alex
>>45581683
>well, only if balance (combat?) is a design goal
Good point.
If playing a supers game, balance between not!batman and not!superman is not going to happen.
>>45581646
Except when the game's math is understood, and it is seen that it is the case of the developers fucking up, that is a balance problem.
3.pf, for example, is a clear example of balance issues brought upon by the devs, and claiming otherwise is fucking idiocy.
BESM's issues of Soul being the dominant stat is a balance issue.
Shadowrun's issue of mages being powerhouses unless the gm counters them with enemy mages or setting issues is a balance issue.
>>45581683
Balance should be a design goal in how this option should not be clearly weaker than this other option because the math says so.
>>45572867
Why even bother with mechanics OP? Just LARP in your back yard without rules.
Game mechanics exist to resolve the classic playground argument of:
>"MY fictional character is invincible and unbeatable!"
>"Oh yeah? Well my character is MORE INVINCIBLE AND UNBEATABLE YOU PIDDLY COCKWAFFLE."
Well, maybe I'm paraphrasing.
Anyway, game balance has to exist to prevent the mechanics from turning into just as much of a shit show as unstructured RP tends to be.
Given that, game balance and mechanics are interesting since they determine what you can do, how you can play, and knowing about them can make the experience better.
Don't be a faggot OP.
>>45581877
>3.pf
>BESM's issues of Soul being the dominant stat is a balance issue.
>Shadowrun's issue of mages being powerhouses
Are any of those an issue of a class or role not being able to do what it's supposed to do?
>>>45581683
>Balance should be a design goal in how this option should not be clearly weaker than this other option because the math says so.
Unless balanced options are not an intended design goal.
Try to imagine a less crunchy game than you clearly prefer.
Is Fate balanced?
>>45580174
>Both result in "someone stomping you over and over"
One is your fault. You can learn the rules and the game better if you suck.
The other is the game designers' fault and cannot be fixed by playing better. It requires major overhaul of rules and balance which could all be avoided if you had picked a better system.
I don't understand how you 3.PFdrones function.
>>45582184
>The other is the game designers' fault and cannot be fixed by playing better. It requires major overhaul of rules and balance which could all be avoided if you had picked a better system.
>I don't understand how you 3.PFdrones function.
I don't think you get what matters in tabletop balance Anon.
You can actually overcome a shitload of rules and balance issues in tabletop RPG because normally it is not, and is not intended to be, competitive. In a competitive setting you need to have the game balanced on a knife edge, but this isn't true for cooperative.
It also means it's viable to have OP as hell shit in your system, because the context of how it's being used matters. Wizards are OP as fuck, but they can fit into a party and campaign just fine if the party is other high power classes, or the person playing the wizard doesn't have a character concept that involves exploiting the wizards more powerful BS.
I've run some games in my local group that involved only high tier casters, and allowed all kinds of bullshit they could think of, and was still able to make the encounters and party balanced since the party members had a similar power level and the encounters can just be scaled up behind the scenes.
What's important for balancing an RP system is that you have
>Interesting options that have a substantial effect on gameplay and give players options.
Psychic warrior is probably a good example of a weak class that fulfils this well, so are most of the incarnum classes.
>Groups of playable classes at a given power level.
>Scalable encounters.
Actually having all the classes in DnD or a system with a similar amount of content and style (ex. shadowrun) balanced respective to each other and the bad guys is basically impossible. To achieve it you'd really have to dumb down the mechanics, kill most or all of the non-core classes and races, remove a ton of the feats/perks, limit feat/perk selection more, and make a lot of the classes more similar.
>>45582184
>One is your fault. You can learn the rules and the game better if you suck.
>Not a chess grandmaster? Git gud since it's impossible to have fun playing someone better than you.
Nigga please.
>The other is the game designers' fault
I agree.
>and cannot be fixed by playing better.
I disagree.
>It requires major overhaul of rules and balance which could all be avoided if you had picked a better system.
OR it requires players, who aren't cunts, with a willingness to not always play the most effective option
>I don't understand how you 3.PFdrones function.
Never played 3.PF in my life, I am just not anti-sperging so hard that I become a sperg in the opposite direction.
You need to learn to have a balanced response to issues.
>>45573943
>>45582394
cont.
That's a lot of interesting content cut and a lot of work to no real purpose. Instead you can have the way the game is played smooth over these issues.
In DnD and most other D20 systems this is done by having the DM scale the encounters to the party they get, and encouraging the players to play different roles/similar power classes, and avoiding PvP.
It's pretty hard to run into balance issues if you play an all martial party, or in a party where everyone has a different role (ex. 3 man team with party face/sneak, tough warrior, caster of some kind), because everyone has an area to shine in.
Players trying to do shit that's straight retarded is resolved via rule zero, and strong parties get resolved with tougher or different styles of encounters.
Ofc, some systems do go all in and bail on the wide variety of meaningful race selection, and narrow classes down to like 3-6 classes. In which case you can have balance, and it really cookie-cutters character creation, which is good if you've got some fucker who can't wipe his own ass playing that usually slows the game down, or if all your players are that fucker.
Personally I prefer to either play mechanically interesting or go all in on something with a token system where really it's more of a story telling experience with dispute resolution guidelines. Balance and mechanics still technically exist, but they might as well not since those are pretty impossible to screw up or leave loopholes in.
>>45572867
I can't it's too broken.
>>45574247
Or you could not play a game that has some semblance of balance so one guy can't be a cunt and steamroll everyone with one list.
>>45574257
>You have the guy who sucks at fighting but who's good at diplomacy, you have magical autist glass cannon, you have fighter mc huge large
And what if you have someone who can do all that? Shouldn't we critisize the game for letting you do that?
>>45583390
>Or you could not play a game that has some semblance of balance so one guy can't be a cunt and steamroll everyone with one list.
Then that one guy will be a cunt in some other way.
Trying to find a system that prevents a cunt from being able to act like a cunt is futile.
Don't play with cunts.
>>45579968
I agree with this for the most part, but I wan't to weigh.
I have had issues where players have complained about something being unbalanced, in this situation it was their chosen race being gimped and someone else's being too good.
I agreed with both points but didn't have any way of sorting the problem then and there.
As time went on this player got more frustrated that their character had to work harder to achieve things because their gimped race didn't fit into any party role and the combat parts of the campaign were being overcome almost completely by the OP race player, reducing the complaining player's enjoyment further.
I ended up going out of my way to re balance all the races to sort the problem. If something is atleast mostly balanced the only thing that could harm player enjoyment is myself as the GM making a bad decision or the other players making the campaign less enjoyable for themselves or others. I feel its just another factor for the GM to take control of to ensure an enjoyable game.
>>45581215
There's two kinds of balance in a TTRPG.
Intra-party balance, which is balance of the options within the party. 3.5 wizards are a good example of bad intra-party balance since wizards can take over other characters' roles, and perform multiple roles at once.
The second type is "PvE" balance, that is the party's ability to overcome the challenges the party is presented with when the game is run completely by the book. This is the type of balance that the anon you were responding to was referring to with his example of a 3.5 sword & board fighter. It will be sorely underpowered against the recommended challenges.
>>45583476
Except in this scenario cunt means "Good at the game".
>>45582538
>Games should be entirely inaccessable to new players
This is basically what you're arguing here. All players have to be experts at the game and work around all its flaws rather than finding a game where the designers didn't cock up colossally. Because fuck new players.
>>45572867
BALANCE IMPACTS FUN <insert insult from the 90's>
>>45584408
>Getting massacered because the book lied about how strong a monster is does not impact fun
>Getting entirely overshadowed by another character who can do everything you can better does not impact fun.
>>45584445
In case it wasnt clear i was being genuine, i just didnt want to start a shitstorm so i tried to be over the top in my answer. No one likes playing kirllin.
Balance has become a nasty word for some people, mostly the 'play for fun' crowd, because for some reason they associate balance with taking away all the fun and making everything completely equal, I won't even get into the fact that the idea of 'play for fun' is dumb (and people reading this will take it as me saying you cant have fun in games), but this allergy to the word balance gives me a headache.
I recently had a big argument about balance that didnt lead anywhere because the other guy refused to understand that balance doesnt mean taking away the spirit and fun of the game. It's exhausting.
>>45584864
I'm convinced that for some of them it does. I wouldn't at all be surprised if anywhere up to one third of the anti-balance people just want to play their OP as fuck wizards.
>>45584206
>Except in this scenario cunt means "Good at the game".
Actually it means "Is significantly better at the game than everyone else currently playing and defeating them easily with no effort, like a steamroller flattening objects."
Subtle difference.
>list
Not sure how I missed this reference to competitive play.
Kind of changes the dynamic a bit.
Steamrollers aren't necessarily cunts in competitive play.
Still, don't play with cunts.
>>45573484
>guy w 1 million patents dies
>lol he sho dum
This is how stupid you sound.
>>45585779
Intelligence isn't a blanket, you can be clever at some things and stupid in others.
>>45585779
Smart and successful people can also be fucking idiots. Steve Jobs is one example.
>>45572867
So ignore a game's imbalance and just play it even though it's not enjoyable because the imbalance causes gross gameplay inequity?
That's like saying "stop obsessing over shitty wages and just work your shitty dead end job that doesn't even pay your bills".
>>45585919
>>45585877
>>45585779
Of the many truths of life I have discovered, the biggest and most often applicable one is this:
>Never underestimate the sheer power and scope of human stupidity.
>>45586006
Not OP, but your analogy is a bit off.
The whole point of a shitty job is the wages.
The whole point of a game is not the balance.
It's more like saying "stop obsessing over how shitty your job is and just work your shitty dead end job that doesn't even pay your bills".
Either your game/job is worth doing or it's not.
Do your best to enjoy it or find a better one.
>>45581710
Powerfags always shit this meme out, but a lot of the time,constant optimizing DOES shit up their RP. They nearly always have shitty backstories because they make the mechanical build first and then fudge a theme and story together to fit. PROTIP, POWERFAGS: this is immediately noticeable to anyone with a bit of experience, and it feels very corny and contrived.
In-game they will always take the mechanically optimal choices even if it doesn't fit what makes most sense for the character from an RP point of view. They think about the game in terms of mechanics and not RP, saying stupid things like "Well adventurers would try to be as powerful as possible", as if their PCs somehow have some meta understanding of the game mechanics.
Usually they have double standards mechanically too. I've never known anyone other than powerfags say stuff like "I shouldn't have to roleplay Diplomacy, just lemme roll. I'm not good at speeches but my character has CHA 20". While the very same player will still play a low INT+WIS character as cleverly as they can in all situations.
So yeah, the Stormwind fallacy is a fallacy if it's taken as an absolute, but even so powerfags do tend to be shit roleplayers. It's like Chaotic Evil PCs - sure, in theory it can be done right, but how often is it? Hardly ever.
>>45586484
>You are shit at RP if you pick Druid, Wizard or Cleric with any degree of competence.
>>45586926
That's not what he said. Please learn reading comprehension
>>45587186
That is exactly what he said.
>>45587325
It really isn't bub
>>45587423
He said anyone who makes a mechanically powerful character is a shit RPer. Playing a Cleric, Druid or Wizard half competently is one of the most powerful things in the game.
Therefore playing a Cleric, Wizard or Druid competently makes you shit at RP.
>>45587467
He said "a lot of the time", he actually expressly said that this isn't always the case. He simply said it was a fairly big tell that the person would be a shit rp'er.
As previously stated, learn reading comprehension.
>>45587467
>constant optimizing DOES shit up rp
Playing any of those classes alone is not constantly optimizing. Things the guy said =\= your conclusion.
Learn to read please.
>>45587623
Playing those classes with any degree of proficiency is what is optimal. So how is that not constantly optimizing?
>>45587610
Fine, change my comment to "playing a Cleric, Wizard or Druid competently indicates you are probably shit at RP." It's still just as retarded a statement.
>>45587701
Don't constantly optimize that is what you do.
If you want to make any headway here read >>45586484 again and form an arguement. As it stands all you are doing is making strawmen.
>>45587701
No, optimal is seeking out this and this from these specific splat books and this and that from these and this random ass race when none of those things make sense together thematically, and then trying to come up with a bullshit explaination. Then, during the game, making choices that go against your established character because they will make you more powerfully.
Constant Optimization. It's different from just picking one of the "best" classes.
>>45587999
>>45588089
So you don't understand what optimisation is and blame me for you having a shit argument?
>>45586484
> "I shouldn't have to roleplay Diplomacy, just lemme roll. I'm not good at speeches but my character has CHA 20".
Mental skills are weird and my attitude about it is generally to let stuff like that slide. If they wanna RP out their diplomacy that's fine, but a lot of people really don't have the silver tongues their characters are supposed to, and if you focus on increasing them skill bonuses can reach some kind of divine level that most people can't think on to begin with.
>stupid inbred hick plays 20 int wizard
>autistic unlikeable asshole plays 20 cha paladin
>normie who doesn't pay attention plays 20 wis monk
>While the very same player will still play a low INT+WIS character as cleverly as they can in all situations.
Just remind them that their character is supposed to drool a lot and talk like a caveman if you catch them in the act. Say they get distracted by a shiny thing or jangling keys.
>>45573484
Lots of people who take the advice of trained medical professionals are now fucking dead.
Your standard of proof should be higher.
>>45578194
I'd strongly disagree with this. Mechanics aren't just arbitrary, they can affect the feel and tone of playing the game.
Without getting into more divergent systems, even something as simple as having a bell curve or not can give a system a different feel. 3d6 and 1d20 have the same average, but the probability distribution gives task resolution with them a very different meaning.
In a d20 system, the numbers are wild, with great success or terrible failure always being close. Tragedy can strike at any moment, but you can also break through impossible odds.
In a 3d6 system, meanwhile, things are a lot more reliable. Sure, the best or worst case scenarios can happen, but they're significantly rarer, and you can have a very good idea of what's going to work and what isn't.
Just that simple difference can create a very different experience of playing the game, and selecting mechanics to fit the tone of your game is, IMO, a key part of good game design.
