Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7222460" data-attributes="member: 996">The logic is unassailable:&nbsp; the character with fewer and/or poorer options will force the player to come up with clever improv that'll work even better than everything the strictly mechanically superior character could do.&nbsp; While strict mechanical superiority locks down the creativity and free will of the other hypothetical player!It's the same infallible mechanism that has balanced Tier 1 casters and Tier 5 non-casters so flawlessly in the past.Seriously, give it up, there's no arguing with a point like that.&nbsp;It's a simplified, clear, comparison that isolates&nbsp; the difference in question, and demonstrates its impact.&nbsp; In a given instance other factors may overwhelm that impact - but they could as easily do so in the opposite direction.&nbsp;I'm struck by that, as well.&nbsp; Two gamblers roll the same fair dice with the same stakes for the same payoff.&nbsp; That's fair.&nbsp; One wins, one loses. Not unfair, just gambling.Statistics might determine that the chance of winning was 1 in 6.&nbsp; That still might not make the game unfair, but might make it imprudent to play for stakes you couldn't afford to lose.&nbsp; No anecdote about winners changes that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7222460, member: 996"] The logic is unassailable: the character with fewer and/or poorer options will force the player to come up with clever improv that'll work even better than everything the strictly mechanically superior character could do. While strict mechanical superiority locks down the creativity and free will of the other hypothetical player! It's the same infallible mechanism that has balanced Tier 1 casters and Tier 5 non-casters so flawlessly in the past. Seriously, give it up, there's no arguing with a point like that. It's a simplified, clear, comparison that isolates the difference in question, and demonstrates its impact. In a given instance other factors may overwhelm that impact - but they could as easily do so in the opposite direction. I'm struck by that, as well. Two gamblers roll the same fair dice with the same stakes for the same payoff. That's fair. One wins, one loses. Not unfair, just gambling. Statistics might determine that the chance of winning was 1 in 6. That still might not make the game unfair, but might make it imprudent to play for stakes you couldn't afford to lose. No anecdote about winners changes that. [/QUOTE]

Verification