Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7482827" data-attributes="member: 4937">This is not how I read the text.&nbsp; Define &quot;success&quot;.This is like saying that in order to succeed you need a certain number of X's and O's or a certain number of Red and Blue.&nbsp; Once you redefine failure as a component of success, it's not really failure anymore.&nbsp; Yet, we know what failure really is no matter how slippery we've made the language, because the min-maxer in you identifies it.Again, if you are going forward, it's not failure.&nbsp; I actually discussed this earlier in the thread.&nbsp; If the goal of play is to dominate it and get your way and never receive a significant setback, then games that are supposed to discourage that approach to play actually are often facilitating it.&nbsp; Failing forward isn't failure: calling it failing forward is a misnomer.&nbsp;&nbsp; A typical pass/fail system has something like &quot;For fortune outcome X or greater, succeed.&nbsp; For X-1 or less, fail.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; But fail forward systems typically have, &quot;For fortune outcome X or greater, get exactly what you want.&nbsp; For X-1 or less, succeed.&quot;&nbsp; The 'penalty' as such imposed on the gamer is that they don't get exactly what they want, but on the other hand they never fail - that is they never get exactly what they don't want.&nbsp;&nbsp; The character and therefore the play and therefore the player is always validated.I'm not sure it is intended to or even tries to handle min-maxing at all.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think it's an inherent assumption of the game that players don't have that as a motivation, and to the extent that they do go ahead and validate them for it.&nbsp;&nbsp; For example, there is no attempt what so ever at balancing chargen and ensuring equality of spotlight or equality of agency.&nbsp;&nbsp; On example of just how little the game cares about balance issues is that it sets up this elaborate combat minigame, something like rock-paper-scissors.&nbsp; But a close reading of the rules reveals that there is no objective reason not to choose 'rock' every time in the minigame - it loses&nbsp; to nothing.&nbsp; 'Rock' trumps every other choice and is trumped by nothing, while every other choice is trumped by at least one and sometimes two choice.&nbsp; Worse, an individual character can optimize for one choice, but gains no benefit for switching its play from its optimal choice equal to the loss it suffers by not doing the one thing it is good at.&nbsp; So there is no reason at all to play the mini-game, nor as far as I can tell does it offer any value to play.&nbsp; I have a copy of the rules on my bookshelf.&nbsp; I read through them twice and found them very thought provoking.&nbsp; But it definitely struck me as one of those rule books that is vastly more read than played, nor did the game rules actually seem to describe the game the text wanted you to create.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7482827, member: 4937"] This is not how I read the text. Define "success". This is like saying that in order to succeed you need a certain number of X's and O's or a certain number of Red and Blue. Once you redefine failure as a component of success, it's not really failure anymore. Yet, we know what failure really is no matter how slippery we've made the language, because the min-maxer in you identifies it. Again, if you are going forward, it's not failure. I actually discussed this earlier in the thread. If the goal of play is to dominate it and get your way and never receive a significant setback, then games that are supposed to discourage that approach to play actually are often facilitating it. Failing forward isn't failure: calling it failing forward is a misnomer. A typical pass/fail system has something like "For fortune outcome X or greater, succeed. For X-1 or less, fail." But fail forward systems typically have, "For fortune outcome X or greater, get exactly what you want. For X-1 or less, succeed." The 'penalty' as such imposed on the gamer is that they don't get exactly what they want, but on the other hand they never fail - that is they never get exactly what they don't want. The character and therefore the play and therefore the player is always validated. I'm not sure it is intended to or even tries to handle min-maxing at all. I think it's an inherent assumption of the game that players don't have that as a motivation, and to the extent that they do go ahead and validate them for it. For example, there is no attempt what so ever at balancing chargen and ensuring equality of spotlight or equality of agency. On example of just how little the game cares about balance issues is that it sets up this elaborate combat minigame, something like rock-paper-scissors. But a close reading of the rules reveals that there is no objective reason not to choose 'rock' every time in the minigame - it loses to nothing. 'Rock' trumps every other choice and is trumped by nothing, while every other choice is trumped by at least one and sometimes two choice. Worse, an individual character can optimize for one choice, but gains no benefit for switching its play from its optimal choice equal to the loss it suffers by not doing the one thing it is good at. So there is no reason at all to play the mini-game, nor as far as I can tell does it offer any value to play. I have a copy of the rules on my bookshelf. I read through them twice and found them very thought provoking. But it definitely struck me as one of those rule books that is vastly more read than played, nor did the game rules actually seem to describe the game the text wanted you to create. [/QUOTE]

Verification