D&D General Kicking the tires vs. puncturing the tires; being effective vs. breaking the game

[EzekielRaiden]

Bigger and broader to an unmanageable extent, I think, which is why they have to round off some edges.

I mean, they've kind of done it with Magic: the Gathering - probably over 10,000 different cards now and very few faulty or broken interactions, and those that do arise are sharply nipped in the bud - but that game is buttoned down so tightly as to be nearly absurd. I mean, have you read the tournament rules and card rulings for that thing?

There's no way I'd ever want to see D&D - or any RPG, for that matter - buttoned down anywhere near as tight as M:tG, largely because RPGs are at their hearts games of creativity and there just ain't no way there can be a tight rule to cover anything and everything a player or a DM can dream up.

Two questions.

Does one example of a game (not even an RPG!) that is well-balanced (near "unbreakable" as the thread has used that term) by way of incredibly extensive and highly constraining rules prove that all RPGs that aim for being "unbreakable" must have incredibly extensive and highly constraining rules?

How many counterexamples are required to refute the claim that, in order to make a well-balanced* game, you absolutely must make it less interesting?

Because the problem here is, I gave two examples (4e and 13A) of games that are what I would call "resilient" as opposed to "unbreakable"*, but two counterexamples are apparently insufficient to disprove an existential negation claim ("there cannot exist a game that is well-balanced and which embraces variety," more or less). Conversely, a single example (that isn't even an RPG) is, it seems, being given as proof of a universal positive claim ("all games that are well-balanced must have extensive and confining rules.") As a general rule, this is precisely the opposite of how such claims should be handled. A universal positive claim is extremely hard to prove (generally one does so via proof by contradiction, which is....dicey in this context), while an existential negation claim is extremely easy to disprove (provide one counterexample and the claim is necessarily false.)

*Note: I absolutely would NOT expect "unbreakable" from essentially any game. If even Go, paragon of elegance and simplicity, needed the ko rule to fix a gameplay flaw, being "unbreakable" is a foolish target to shoot for. Being resilient, on the other hand--a game where edge cases are some combination of rare, small, and/or low-impact--is a perfectly reasonable target that many games meet. D&D...not so much.

 

[Lanefan]

Two questions.

Does one example of a game (not even an RPG!) that is well-balanced (near "unbreakable" as the thread has used that term) by way of incredibly extensive and highly constraining rules prove that all RPGs that aim for being "unbreakable" must have incredibly extensive and highly constraining rules?

Yes.

Because without constraining rules a game will break if someone tries to break it; and for these purposes the question is whether a game can stand up to players who are actively trying to break said game while not in fact breaking any of its own rules.

How many counterexamples are required to refute the claim that, in order to make a well-balanced* game, you absolutely must make it less interesting?

At least one, and I've yet to see any; in part because we're not after "well-balanced" here. We're after "unbreakable", and these two things are most certainly not the same.

M:tG is pretty much unbreakable but (despite WotC's many claims to the contrary) has never been in the same galaxy as well-balanced.

Because the problem here is, I gave two examples (4e and 13A) of games that are what I would call "resilient" as opposed to "unbreakable"*, but two counterexamples are apparently insufficient to disprove an existential negation claim ("there cannot exist a game that is well-balanced and which embraces variety," more or less). Conversely, a single example (that isn't even an RPG) is, it seems, being given as proof of a universal positive claim ("all games that are well-balanced must have extensive and confining rules.") As a general rule, this is precisely the opposite of how such claims should be handled. A universal positive claim is extremely hard to prove (generally one does so via proof by contradiction, which is....dicey in this context), while an existential negation claim is extremely easy to disprove (provide one counterexample and the claim is necessarily false.)

Chess, along with many other boardgames, is unbreakable because of its constraining rules. It's also balanced in theory, but not always in practice; wide variance in player skill soon sees to that.

*Note: I absolutely would NOT expect "unbreakable" from essentially any game. If even Go, paragon of elegance and simplicity, needed the ko rule to fix a gameplay flaw, being "unbreakable" is a foolish target to shoot for. Being resilient, on the other hand--a game where edge cases are some combination of rare, small, and/or low-impact--is a perfectly reasonable target that many games meet. D&D...not so much.

Resilient also does not equal unbreakable, and can mean many different things. I define 1e D&D as being resilient, in that the underlying system is robust enough to put up with all the kitbashing I can throw at it. But it sure the hell ain't unbreakable, and well-balanced is still hiding out somewhere behind the western mountains.

 

[nevin]

problem is well balanced is an opinion that people try to implement. Unbreakable is a challenge, and as nothing is perfect the most balanced thing ever can be broken and unbalanced. Balance only works when all the people involved want it to stay balanced. Never going to happen.

 

[Lanefan]

Balance only works when all the people involved want it to stay balanced. Never going to happen.

This.

And it's when they don't want it to stay balanced that the strength (or lack) of a game's design shows through.

 

[Thomas Shey]

problem is well balanced is an opinion that people try to implement. Unbreakable is a challenge, and as nothing is perfect the most balanced thing ever can be broken and unbalanced. Balance only works when all the people involved want it to stay balanced. Never going to happen.

Eh, if you constrain the potential outcomes enough, its absolutely true a rules set can be made unbreakable. The question is whether you can do so in a way to have a rules set that is still usefully applied to the RPG desires of the users while doing so.

 

[nevin]

This.

And it's when they don't want it to stay balanced that the strength (or lack) of a game's design shows through.

if they don't want it balanced no amount of game design will matter on the issue of balance. Very strange to equate balance with game design though. very small way of looking at a game.