Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5147028" data-attributes="member: 18280">It occurs to me that &quot;niche protection&quot; is a form of short-term &quot;suck now, win later&quot;.It seems to me, also, that how hard &quot;niche protection&quot; in particular blows, or does not blow, is based on three factors:(1)&nbsp; How involved are the players of the &quot;suck&quot; characters while their characters are &quot;sucking&quot;?(2)&nbsp; How much &quot;win&quot; vs. &quot;suck&quot; is there?(3)&nbsp; What is the difference between &quot;suck&quot; and &quot;win&quot;?Item (1) is affected by expected game play.&nbsp; In a &quot;challenge the player&quot; game, even if the character sucks, the player can contribute with advice or problem-solving skills.&nbsp; Thus, for example, in 1e, I have played many magic-users without feeling that I was ever not contributing.&nbsp; I always felt vital to the party's success, even when my PC had no spells left and was relegated to tactical advice, observation, and inference.&nbsp; In a &quot;challenge the character&quot; game, sucking means you suck.Item (2) s strongly affected by how long it takes to resolve any given encounter.&nbsp; Assuming a four-hour play session, in Game A it takes 15 minutes (average) to resolve an encounter, in Game B it takes 1 hour (average) to resolve an encounter, and in Game C it takes 4 hours (average) to resolve an encounter.Players of Game A can afford to suck sometimes, so that they can shine at other times.&nbsp; After all, with an average of 16 encounters per session, no single encounter bears the load of that session being &quot;fun&quot; or &quot;unfun&quot;.&nbsp; Conversely, the players of Game C must be able to contribute well to every encounter -- if they &quot;suck&quot; during the encounter, the session &quot;sucks&quot; for them!&nbsp; Players of Game B have a trade-off.&nbsp; They cannot afford as much niche-protection as players of Game A, because each encounter bears 1/4 of the session's &quot;fun load&quot;....but a little suck for a lot of win is probably a good trade-off.Item (3) is, AFAICT, the &quot;modern&quot; focus of niche protection.&nbsp; It is okay to suck a little now, and win a little later, but you should never suck too much (and consequently can never win too much either), for a game to be &quot;well balanced&quot;.&nbsp; The theory is that, even if taking away the lows also excises the highs, you can get a consistantly acceptable experience.&nbsp; Sort of a &quot;win a little all the time, suck a little all the time&quot; approach to game design.&nbsp; This seems quite popular right now.&nbsp; I suspect that the current &quot;bad-assery&quot; of PCs in various games is an attempt to make the median feel more like &quot;win&quot; and less like &quot;suck&quot;.We can call this balance by hiding the median.----In conclusion, it is difficult to fully explore balance of any type without examining how other systems/design philosophy impacts the experience of play.&nbsp; Older forms of balance are not &quot;implicitly discredited&quot; -- they are victims to the fads of our times, and design philosophy that makes a game hostile to their inclusion.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5147028, member: 18280"] It occurs to me that "niche protection" is a form of short-term "suck now, win later". It seems to me, also, that how hard "niche protection" in particular blows, or does not blow, is based on three factors: (1) How involved are the players of the "suck" characters while their characters are "sucking"? (2) How much "win" vs. "suck" is there? (3) What is the difference between "suck" and "win"? Item (1) is affected by expected game play. In a "challenge the player" game, even if the character sucks, the player can contribute with advice or problem-solving skills. Thus, for example, in 1e, I have played many magic-users without feeling that I was ever not contributing. I always felt vital to the party's success, even when my PC had no spells left and was relegated to tactical advice, observation, and inference. In a "challenge the character" game, sucking means you suck. Item (2) s strongly affected by how long it takes to resolve any given encounter. Assuming a four-hour play session, in Game A it takes 15 minutes (average) to resolve an encounter, in Game B it takes 1 hour (average) to resolve an encounter, and in Game C it takes 4 hours (average) to resolve an encounter. Players of Game A can afford to suck sometimes, so that they can shine at other times. After all, with an average of 16 encounters per session, no single encounter bears the load of that session being "fun" or "unfun". Conversely, the players of Game C must be able to contribute well to every encounter -- if they "suck" during the encounter, the session "sucks" for them! Players of Game B have a trade-off. They cannot afford as much niche-protection as players of Game A, because each encounter bears 1/4 of the session's "fun load"....but a little suck for a lot of win is probably a good trade-off. Item (3) is, AFAICT, the "modern" focus of niche protection. It is okay to suck a little now, and win a little later, but you should never suck too much (and consequently can never win too much either), for a game to be "well balanced". The theory is that, even if taking away the lows also excises the highs, you can get a consistantly acceptable experience. Sort of a "win a little all the time, suck a little all the time" approach to game design. This seems quite popular right now. I suspect that the current "bad-assery" of PCs in various games is an attempt to make the median feel more like "win" and less like "suck". We can call this [B][I]balance by hiding the median[/I][/B]. ---- In conclusion, it is difficult to fully explore balance of any type without examining how other systems/design philosophy impacts the experience of play. Older forms of balance are not "implicitly discredited" -- they are victims to the fads of our times, and design philosophy that makes a game hostile to their inclusion. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification