Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5292824" data-attributes="member: 80487">The Zero Sum:Strictly speaking, what in practice actually balance are the individual's advantages and disadvantages versus an arbitrary base line. Also, the sum of those sums of advantages and disadvantages (which are individually zero) naturally comes to zero, regardless of the number of players.There is (usually) no actual prohibition of one player having something that matches and thereby &quot;cancels&quot; another player's advantage. However, were that to occur perfectly -- or even beyond some lesser extent depending on personal taste -- then we would be right back to the &quot;sameness&quot; of characters in such games as old D&amp;D.There is only so much &quot;specialness&quot; to go around.When every character is simply assumed to be able to ride a horse, or can learn to ride a horse and to do any number of other things as well, there is no great &quot;specialness&quot; in being able to ride a horse.When every player has a sufficiency of such game-mechanical &quot;possessions&quot;, what is important is not what one has but what one does. Deeds in what we old-timers call &quot;actual play&quot; are the fount of specialness.Where random initial states can be unequal within bounds, inequality in outcomes can be even greater. In a game that permits wide-open improvement, even the initially widely superior and inferior can trade places.In RuneQuest, for instance, there are no &quot;levels&quot;, much less &quot;skill&quot; (or other) allotments by level, much less a Harrison Bergeron system keeping everyone in The Party equal. A noble whose player squanders opportunities and also has bad luck can fall behind both in field experience and in training. A peasant whose player plays with skill and also has good luck can become more expert in the noble's chosen specialty skills and more, learning more spells and more powerful ones, binding spirits and acquiring enchanted items, and attaining to the rank of Rune Lord ahead of the noble (who may instead perish far short of the goal).Even without &quot;skill ratings&quot; over which to compete, the situation in old D&amp;D is essentially the same. There is no guarantee of equality of initial state (in terms of &quot;stats&quot; from ability scores to hit points to money) among characters, much less of equality in their outcomes.There is a rough parity of opportunity among players, of choices to make and chances to roll.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5292824, member: 80487"] The Zero Sum: Strictly speaking, what in practice actually balance are the [i]individual's[/i] advantages and disadvantages versus an arbitrary base line. Also, the sum of those sums of advantages and disadvantages (which are individually zero) naturally comes to zero, regardless of the number of players. There is (usually) no actual prohibition of one player having something that matches and thereby "cancels" another player's advantage. However, were that to occur perfectly -- or even beyond some lesser extent depending on personal taste -- then we would be right back to the "sameness" of characters in such games as old D&D. There is only so much "specialness" to go around. When every character is simply assumed to be able to ride a horse, or can learn to ride a horse [i]and[/i] to do any number of other things as well, there is no great "specialness" in being able to ride a horse. When every player has a sufficiency of such game-mechanical "possessions", what is important is not what one has but what one does. Deeds in what we old-timers call "actual play" are the fount of specialness. Where random initial states can be unequal within bounds, inequality in outcomes can be even greater. In a game that permits wide-open improvement, even the initially widely superior and inferior can trade places. In RuneQuest, for instance, there are no "levels", much less "skill" (or other) allotments by level, much less a Harrison Bergeron system keeping everyone in The Party equal. A noble whose player squanders opportunities and also has bad luck can fall behind both in field experience and in training. A peasant whose player plays with skill and also has good luck can become more expert in the noble's chosen specialty skills and more, learning more spells and more powerful ones, binding spirits and acquiring enchanted items, and attaining to the rank of Rune Lord ahead of the noble (who may instead perish far short of the goal). Even without "skill ratings" over which to compete, the situation in old D&D is essentially the same. There is no guarantee of equality of initial state (in terms of "stats" from ability scores to hit points to money) among characters, much less of equality in their outcomes. There is a rough parity of opportunity among players, of choices to make and chances to roll. [/QUOTE]

Verification