Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7447319" data-attributes="member: 996">Not the way I'm used to 'flexibility' being used around here, which tends to be about the range of capabilities of the character, no.&nbsp; I mean in terms of options presented to the player.&nbsp; A game like Hero, for instance, is super-flexible, in part because it presents a finite set of options that are mixed &amp; re-skinned as a matter of course to model virtually anything, it wouldn't get credit for 'infinite balance' just because each choice is so wildly flexible.But if all you mean by flexibility is &quot;presenting more options,&quot; sure.&nbsp; &nbsp;I'd rather focused on balanced w/in the expected parameters of play.&nbsp; If the expected parameters are extremely permissive, balance is harder, if they're narrow (6-8 encounter days) it's easier.&nbsp; If a game is designed to narrow parameters, but in the field, gets used with broader ones, it's at best 'balanceable,' I suppose.&nbsp;It was merely a hypothetical analysis along one dimension illustrating how viability could depend on factors outside the choices being compared, themselves.&nbsp; Nod.&nbsp; It defeats the purpose:&nbsp; make two options identical, they're no longer meaningful alternatives to eachother.&nbsp; OTOH, 'better in some ways' often needs to mean 'closely comparable in critical ways' (in D&amp;D, with it's race-to-0-hps combat dynamic, DPR is particularly critical), while meaningfully different in others.&nbsp; D&amp;D happens to weight DPR pretty heavily, because merely 'wounding' an enemy does nothing.&nbsp; It's just an artifact of the system.&nbsp; A d20 game will be balanced more robustly if things like damage potential, bonuses relative to DCs, and resource pools are kept at a fairly close numeric parity - not because that's a desirable way to balance a system, but as a consequence of the most basic elements of the system - hps w/o any 'death spiral,' flat-distribution d20 resolution, etc...&nbsp;A problem with calibrating balance to the 'macro level' is that you end up with very limited options in how the game can be used.&nbsp; Fragile balance that only works when your campaign conforms to the macro parameters it's calibrated against.&nbsp; When that balance is left out of the design phase, it's left to the GM to balance the game as he goes - and DMs have enough to do, already.&nbsp; So 'balanceable,' sure, is a thing (essentially &quot;Imbalanced: please fix or repair daily&quot;), so is 'fragile' balance (&quot;OK! It's balanced! DON'T Touch ANYTHING!&quot;) - they're neither great things, resulting in games that take constant intervention to keep playable, or can be played only within a limited scope - but it's better than giving up, entirely.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7447319, member: 996"] Not the way I'm used to 'flexibility' being used around here, which tends to be about the range of capabilities of the character, no. I mean in terms of options presented to the player. A game like Hero, for instance, is super-flexible, in part because it presents a finite set of options that are mixed & re-skinned as a matter of course to model virtually anything, it wouldn't get credit for 'infinite balance' just because each choice is so wildly flexible. But if all you mean by flexibility is "presenting more options," sure. I'd rather focused on balanced w/in the expected parameters of play. If the expected parameters are extremely permissive, balance is harder, if they're narrow (6-8 encounter days) it's easier. If a game is designed to narrow parameters, but in the field, gets used with broader ones, it's at best 'balanceable,' I suppose. It was merely a hypothetical analysis along one dimension illustrating how viability could depend on factors outside the choices being compared, themselves. Nod. It defeats the purpose: make two options identical, they're no longer meaningful alternatives to eachother. OTOH, 'better in some ways' often needs to mean 'closely comparable in critical ways' (in D&D, with it's race-to-0-hps combat dynamic, DPR is particularly critical), while meaningfully different in others. D&D happens to weight DPR pretty heavily, because merely 'wounding' an enemy does nothing. It's just an artifact of the system. A d20 game will be balanced more robustly if things like damage potential, bonuses relative to DCs, and resource pools are kept at a fairly close numeric parity - not because that's a desirable way to balance a system, but as a consequence of the most basic elements of the system - hps w/o any 'death spiral,' flat-distribution d20 resolution, etc... A problem with calibrating balance to the 'macro level' is that you end up with very limited options in how the game can be used. Fragile balance that only works when your campaign conforms to the macro parameters it's calibrated against. When that balance is left out of the design phase, it's left to the GM to balance the game as he goes - and DMs have enough to do, already. So 'balanceable,' sure, is a thing (essentially "Imbalanced: please fix or repair daily"), so is 'fragile' balance ("OK! It's balanced! DON'T Touch ANYTHING!") - they're neither great things, resulting in games that take constant intervention to keep playable, or can be played only within a limited scope - but it's better than giving up, entirely. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification