Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 6023270" data-attributes="member: 70709">Oh, I agree, all other things being equal, the simplest mechanic will tend to be the best one.&nbsp;&nbsp; That the simple mechanic suggested doesn't cover extended contests is therefore no great sin, especially since lacking a representation of that scenario does not prevent impair the functioning of short-term counterspelling.&nbsp; In my opinion the action economy issue is different because the negative impact here inherently strikes at core areas of the game's playability, and does not depend in an obvious way on either the simplicity or complexity of its mechanics.&nbsp; Only when we compare it to an alternate mechanic will we be able to weigh that against its simplicity.I don't think the &quot;what if?&quot; questions were the problem.&nbsp; In my mind the basic tension is between the &quot;expressivity&quot; of a mechanic vs. its complexity, both understood very broadly.&nbsp; In 3e they often increased expressivity a little while adding quite a few rarely used details.&nbsp; So the question is right, probably even vital to designing a playable game, but the response was often lacking.&nbsp; I'm not interested in going down that path again either.The appropriate response, in my opinion, is neither to maximize expressivity nor minimize complexity, but to maximize their ratio.&nbsp; In statements of the principle of parsimony this tends to be only implicit (since &quot;all other things being equal&quot; is a very useful and universal way to frame the idea, even though it holds so rarely) and can give the erroneous impression that simplicity itself is the highest value.Applied to counterspelling, I place enough value on the action economy that I'd accept a sizable but not arbitrarily large amount of added complexity in order to protect it compared to a mechanic that does not.&nbsp; (These are all matters of degree, I'm sure you'll agree, even if we weight the specifics differently.)&nbsp; Moreover, it is not clear to me that only a more complex counterspelling system can achieve it given the basic structure of D&amp;D magic (though that might be the case).&nbsp; I don't know what this hypothetical mechanic might look like, but my critique of the suggested mechanic should not be interpreted as a willingness to write a multitude of corner cases into the rules.&nbsp; I believe in the determination and comprehensive analysis of trade-offs. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ainamacar, post: 6023270, member: 70709"] Oh, I agree, all other things being equal, the simplest mechanic will tend to be the best one. That the simple mechanic suggested doesn't cover extended contests is therefore no great sin, especially since lacking a representation of that scenario does not prevent impair the functioning of short-term counterspelling. In my opinion the action economy issue is different because the negative impact here inherently strikes at core areas of the game's playability, and does not depend in an obvious way on either the simplicity or complexity of its mechanics. Only when we compare it to an alternate mechanic will we be able to weigh that against its simplicity. I don't think the "what if?" questions were the problem. In my mind the basic tension is between the "expressivity" of a mechanic vs. its complexity, both understood very broadly. In 3e they often increased expressivity a little while adding quite a few rarely used details. So the question is right, probably even vital to designing a playable game, but the response was often lacking. I'm not interested in going down that path again either. The appropriate response, in my opinion, is neither to maximize expressivity nor minimize complexity, but to maximize their ratio. In statements of the principle of parsimony this tends to be only implicit (since "all other things being equal" is a very useful and universal way to frame the idea, even though it holds so rarely) and can give the erroneous impression that simplicity itself is the highest value. Applied to counterspelling, I place enough value on the action economy that I'd accept a sizable but not arbitrarily large amount of added complexity in order to protect it compared to a mechanic that does not. (These are all matters of degree, I'm sure you'll agree, even if we weight the specifics differently.) Moreover, it is not clear to me that only a more complex counterspelling system can achieve it given the basic structure of D&D magic (though that might be the case). I don't know what this hypothetical mechanic might look like, but my critique of the suggested mechanic should not be interpreted as a willingness to write a multitude of corner cases into the rules. I believe in the determination and comprehensive analysis of trade-offs. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification