Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Kicking the tires vs. puncturing the tires; being effective vs. breaking the game
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9113737" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Two questions.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>all</em> RPGs that aim for being "unbreakable" <em>must</em> have incredibly extensive and highly constraining rules?</p><p></p><p>How many counterexamples are required to refute the claim that, in order to make a well-balanced* game, you <em>absolutely must</em> make it less interesting?</p><p></p><p>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.)</p><p></p><p>*Note: I absolutely would NOT expect "unbreakable" from essentially any game. If even Go, paragon of elegance and simplicity, needed the <em>ko</em> rule to fix a gameplay flaw, being "unbreakable" is a foolish target to shoot for. Being <em>resilient</em>, 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9113737, member: 6790260"] 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 [I]all[/I] RPGs that aim for being "unbreakable" [I]must[/I] 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 [I]absolutely must[/I] 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 [I]ko[/I] rule to fix a gameplay flaw, being "unbreakable" is a foolish target to shoot for. Being [I]resilient[/I], 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Kicking the tires vs. puncturing the tires; being effective vs. breaking the game
Top