Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5049597" data-attributes="member: 4937">I agree.  However, I don't think that harms my point any.  For it to be truly "unforeseen consequences", it must exhibit behavior which is counter-intuitive and which is not well known to people familiar in complex systems of that type.  When the outcome of a decision is intuitive, or when the behavior is familiar to experts in complex systems of that type, then the consequences can't be said to be 'unforeseen'.  True 'unforeseen consequences' mainly occur in areas which are poorly understood even by those familiar with them.For example, in my local community a law was recently passed that allowed for the construction of a casino.  The selling point that finally got this law passed was that it would bring 3000 jobs to the community, which is a strong selling point when the economy is down.  I could forgive anyone without the slightest knowledge of complex economic systems for believing that the intended consequence (3000 new jobs) is what would actually happen, but anyone with the slightest understanding of economics ought to know better and indeed anyone who even stepped back and used their intuition ought to know better.  The inevitable consequence of a casino is at best no net gain in jobs and likely the net loss of hundreds of jobs.  Anyone that has studied economics (the study of a particular type of complex system) knows that the 3000 new jobs depend on people spending money at the casino.  That money will in turn not be spent at other places of business in the city, and in turn that will mean those places of business will lose jobs.  And anyone with a 'common sense' understanding will know that casinos are associated with poverty, corruption, and crime at the community level, and not prosperity.  For example, it's a stock movie trope that if the town has fallen on hard times, a casino appears.  That trope represents the 'common sense' understanding of the community.  I find it very improbable that the designers of the system actually believe their own claims about bringing prosperity to the system.  I find it much more likely that the 'unforeseen' consequences of the system chance are known, but that they just don't care.If that is the sole basis of your belief that I'm arguing past you, then you are clearly wrong.And if you believe what you claim to believe, that is a bizarre statement.Yes, I know.  And I didn't claim that you thought that proto-D&D made heroes powerful by accident.  I claimed that you thought that the manner in which it made them powerful had unforeseen unrealistic consequences, and I claimed that you were wrong.  I made the claim that the manner in which heroes were made powerful in proto-D&D was carefully selected from the available options, and the consequences (that the hero could survive several blows) was the preferred consequence by the designers.I find it really interesting where you cut off quoting me.  Right after I wrote, "...different mechanic, or even well, a different name, maybe?", I said: So, no, you are not talking past me, but it seems that I'm talking past you.Clearly I understood that there are alternatives to "immunity to the first three hits he takes".  Clearly I understood that the alternatives of "a huge to-hit bonus" or "a huge defensive (AC) bonus" where available.  What you don't seem to understand is that the designers of Proto-D&D also understood that these alternatives were available and rejected them as unsatisfying in actual play.  And further more, you don't seem to understand that the consequences of that - "immunity to the first three hits" - was something that was very much foreseen, understood, and accepted as what was best for the game.Moreover, I claim that the history of gaming confirms the wisdom of that decision, as virtually every computer RPG system (and many PnP systems) since then has adopted this mechanic as their own precisely because it makes for good gaming - even if it defies intuitive understanding of what is 'realistic' or 'plausible'.</blockquote>

Verification