Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5977325" data-attributes="member: 54877">Sure, but that's on a different axis than the point I'm trying to make.&nbsp; To put it in your terms, trying to introduce a new meaningful and viable choice is a risk of imbalance--or more work to get balanced so that the new choice is meaningful and viable.&nbsp; &nbsp;I suppose the distinction is one of theory versus practice, though I'm sure you didn't mean it as simplistically as I'm about to say it.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp; In theory, if having 5 meaningful, balanced choices is good, then having 6 or 10 or 20 or 50 is getting better.&nbsp; In practice, there's a point at which they aren't going to all be meaningful, balanced choices any longer.&nbsp;This is especially true when all choices are allowed to fully affect all other choices--thus siloing.&nbsp; So only 1 silo with N things in it is dull.&nbsp; But so is N silos each with one 1 thing in them.&nbsp; Neither is particularly balanced, except by luck, and even that minimal balance is likely to be illusion.&nbsp; But D&amp;D has never been particularly close to either extreme, in any version.&nbsp; &nbsp;As the old joke goes, once we get everyone to agree about the nature of the relationship, then we can discuss costs. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5977325, member: 54877"] Sure, but that's on a different axis than the point I'm trying to make. To put it in your terms, trying to introduce a new meaningful and viable choice is a risk of imbalance--or more work to get balanced so that the new choice is meaningful and viable. I suppose the distinction is one of theory versus practice, though I'm sure you didn't mean it as simplistically as I'm about to say it. :D In theory, if having 5 meaningful, balanced choices is good, then having 6 or 10 or 20 or 50 is getting better. In practice, there's a point at which they aren't going to all be meaningful, balanced choices any longer. This is especially true when all choices are allowed to fully affect all other choices--thus siloing. So only 1 silo with N things in it is dull. But so is N silos each with one 1 thing in them. Neither is particularly balanced, except by luck, and even that minimal balance is likely to be illusion. But D&D has never been particularly close to either extreme, in any version. As the old joke goes, once we get everyone to agree about the nature of the relationship, then we can discuss costs. :D [/QUOTE]

Verification