So... I'm just wondering, does anybody know what this thread is about any more? (Or, for that matter, what it was about in the first place? At first I thought I sorta understood what the OP was getting at, but I have become less and less certain of that.)
I suck at being succinct, but I will try. Reusing Umbran's useful physics/elegance analogy.
Pretend some new phenomenon is discovered, driving a search for new theory. Two alternative theories are proposed. One of those theories is "ugly" or "inelegant"--its equations are cumbersome, complicated (e.g. several parts/functions), or reliant on new constants of nature that can only be measured by observation, not calculated mathematically (the way pi is, for instance). The other theory is meaningfully more elegant--simple and sweet, coming from first principles, etc. The "ugly" theory, however, is demonstrably superior at predicting the actual behavior of this new phenomenon: let's say, 10% of the time, the elegant theory predicts something is almost certain to happen but doesn't, or almost certainly won't happen but does, while the "ugly" theory has such problems only 0.1% of the time.
It would be entirely valid to say, "The fact that this elegant theory is
close but still suspiciously erroneous indicates we need to do more study. We can reasonably expect that an elegant solution exists, we just haven't found it yet." It would also be entirely valid to admit that the elegant theory doesn't work as well, but is a sufficiently good approximation much of the time--that's how Newton's laws work, they're good approximations of
both quantum theory
and Einstein's equations as long as certain parameters aren't too big (e.g. speed) or too small (e.g. amount of things). It can even be valid to argue that the elegant theory is an easier place to
start so you get a handle on what phenomena are involved, before grappling with all the moving parts of the "ugly" theory.
I am asserting that it is NOT valid to say, "We should still use the elegant theory, and presume it is closest to the correct understanding of this phenomenon,
despite knowing it makes wrong predictions,
because it is more elegant; further, this choice should be intuitively obvious." In other words, I am arguing against "elegance is
the best metric of utility, and this is
self-evident." Likewise, meta-aesthetics--ANY meta-aesthetics, whether or not I personally care for them--are NOT the best metric of game design. They absolutely can be a wonderful metric, and designers ignore meta-aesthetics at their peril! Again, just so this is EXTREMELY EXPLICITLY said:
Good game designers should care about meta-aesthetics. Period. But just because something is too important to ignore,
does not imply that it is therefore
more important than any other consideration, to say nothing of that implication being self-evident.
LOL, since my own personal rules could effectively be called this "heartbreaker" I have to interject here. The 4e approach, which resulted in the existence of NORTH OF FIFTY THOUSAND POWERS (literally, no exaggeration) is clearly neither elegant nor practically beneficial. Our game, were it to be commercialized, would probably contain on the order of 500 powers. Yet it contains virtually all of the flexibility of the original. Call it 'elegance', call it anything you want, but 100x decrease in the necessary number of powers to achieve the same level of expressiveness, that is what I call A HUGE WIN.
And make no mistake, I did NOT set out with some sort of 'aesthetic' goal. I felt from the beginning that the 4e approach was flawed, but I had no special axe to grind beyond making it better. I DO feel it is more elegant to have basically a unified list, but I base that entirely on observation of the improvements gained! Frankly there is simply no way I could possibly design thousands of powers anyway, and there were goals I had in mind which didn't allow for simply making everything compatible with 4e's specific detailed structure. Honestly, at this point our game has diverged a lot from 4e anyway, but my advice to anyone who wants to make a game with the core 'power' concept is, don't make the mistake of putting them in too many niches. Its fine to say "you can only do this if you have met certain requirements", but in our case we shifted those to the narrative side, and then made the narrative construct a very solid part of the game. So, your fighter could have a fireball, but there would be a darned good reason, in narrative terms, for why, and there's probably a wizard someplace who will cast a better one.
I'm not--at all--saying that 4e's power list wasn't bloated (though there are reasons why your numbers are suspicious to me, that I'll get to in a moment). I am, however, saying that the
strident insistence that "all Martial characters should draw their powers from the same Martial-only list" reflects an excessive belief that a certain meta-aesthetic ("one-stop-shopping," centralization, whatever you want to call it) is inherently and axiomatically
more important than any game design considerations that might apply. That is, these assertions are made without context, plan, or anything like caution; they are instead asserted immediately, as obvious and unalloyed goods, without any (stated) thought to the potential negative consequences.
Now, as for those numbers themselves: how on earth did you achieve that? Even if you restricted character options down to, say, 12 classes (about half of 4e's actual set)
and made only 3 builds apiece on average (about 1 less than my rough-and-ready average of 4e's actual options)
and eliminated all themes
and made it so there were only an average of 2 paragon paths per class with zero PPs for anything else (such as race),
and only offered one ED per power source,
and only offered one specific power per build (including Utilities) at any given level where powers are offered,
and only offered say 20 races (far lower than actual 4e)...well, let's see. All of these numbers are minimums, by the way--some PPs and EDs get more powers through their features.
Per class: 60 powers
Per race: 1
Per PP: 3
Per ED: 1
12*60+20*1+2*12*3+1*3 = 720+20+72+3 = 815
So, yeah, I'd be real curious as to how you managed to cram anything even
remotely like 4e's diversity of builds and options into only 500 powers, given how many
things "powers" were for. Because I didn't even touch on anything like items that
do something (each of which will have its own power), basic/universal powers, themes/backgrounds that might offer powers, etc.
(Also, I'd like your cite on the 50k number. All evidence I can find--including stuff I myself have said about this topic in the past, when the digital tools still existed--puts it closer to a fifth or sixth of that amount, between 8k and 10k.)