Payn's Ponderings; System mastery and the concept of fair fight.

[Emerikol]

Maybe this distinction will help.

1. Character creation is fair so long as all players have equal access to all options

2. Gameplay is fair so long as character creation was fair and the challenges are fair (whatever that means for this group).

I think these principles would be definitely a power gamer perspective. A less power gamer perspective would be players wanting the options to be more balanced so it's harder to choose a bad outcome.

I don't mind a lot but I do dislike the idea there is just one way to do a particular thing. I also think a power gamer may derive pleasure from being the star when without his or her supporting cast he wouldn't be able to apply the force he built.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think these principles would be definitely a power gamer perspective. A less power gamer perspective would be players wanting the options to be more balanced so it's harder to choose a bad outcome.

My issue is calling that fairness. More balanced options isn’t any more or less fair than less balanced ones. It’s a valid preference. It’s not fairness though.

I don't mind a lot but I do dislike the idea there is just one way to do a particular thing. I also think a power gamer may derive pleasure from being the star when without his or her supporting cast he wouldn't be able to apply the force he built.

I don’t think most people have a clue what motivates most power gamers. Most power gamers probably don’t either.

 

[Emerikol]

My issue is calling that fairness. More balanced options isn’t any more or less fair than less balanced ones. It’s a valid preference. It’s not fairness though.

Maybe if it had a class bias you might call that unfair but I suppose if you had a bunch of balanced and unbalanced options for all preferences it wouldn't be unfair.

Just a thought. Maybe unfair to people not smart enough to power game the options?

 

[FrogReaver]

Maybe if it had a class bias you might call that unfair but I suppose if you had a bunch of balanced and unbalanced options for all preferences it wouldn't be unfair.

I don’t think that makes it unfair as long as you aren’t restricted in what class you can choose.

Just a thought. Maybe unfair to people not smart enough to power game the options?

They can read any of 1000’s of guides of people that have done it for them. So probably not then either.

In a theoretical place with no internet access and no friends in the group sharing ideas then maybe.

 

[Emerikol]

I don’t think that makes it unfair as long as you aren’t restricted in what class you can choose.

They can read any of 1000’s of guides of people that have done it for them. So probably not then either.

In a theoretical place with no internet access and no friends in the group sharing ideas then maybe.

Not smart includes people who aren't going to be able to access things as effectively.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not smart includes people who aren't going to be able to access things as effectively.

But they can still do so. So…

 

[Emerikol]

But they can still do so. So…

Depending on the design of the game, the farther you stretch out system mastery as an ability probably somewhat based on intelligence and time to spend outside the game, the less those not wanting to participate to that degree will opt out. As you turn the balance dial up, you will get less disparity and the odds are more likely people of different views will want to play together. Now I'm not saying those on the extreme opposite ends will ever want to play together. I am saying the "band" or sweet spot widens if system mastery is not a heavy investment.

 

[FrogReaver]

Depending on the design of the game, the farther you stretch out system mastery as an ability probably somewhat based on intelligence and time to spend outside the game, the less those not wanting to participate to that degree will opt out.

Okay, and what does them opting out have to do with fairness? I mean people opt out for reasons other than fairness all the time.

As you turn the balance dial up, you will get less disparity and the odds are more likely people of different views will want to play together.

Interesting theory but there’s no evidence of this. In fact, @payn’s Sandy anecdote is a decent counter example.

Now I'm not saying those on the extreme opposite ends will ever want to play together. I am saying the "band" or sweet spot widens if system mastery is not a heavy investment.

I’d propose an addendum to this theory. The sweet spot exists where options are relatively balanced but system mastery can still provide an advantage.

 

[innerdude]

Depending on the design of the game, the farther you stretch out system mastery as an ability probably somewhat based on intelligence and time to spend outside the game, the less those not wanting to participate to that degree will opt out.

You've just described in once sentence why GURPS has never, and will never be more than a fraction of 1% of the overall game playing population. Well done.

 

[TiQuinn]

Which drives right back to my challenge. Everyone wants both system mastery and fairness.

Now there are times to dial back system mastery in favor of other considerations, say verisimilitude or preventing a never ending arms race between dm and player, but why would system mastery ever interfere with fairness?

I don’t know if “fairness” is necessarily the right word for what @payn described. But what I took away from the post was that if you do not participate in the system mastery, are you still able to play the game and enjoy it the way that you would like?