Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9342536" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Except that it is. We can mathematically verify that it is.Nobody said &quot;nonviable.&quot; (Though I would challenge you to define what &quot;viable&quot; actualy means, because I find that that's a double-plus slippery word.)It's &quot;viable&quot; for a Wizard to never ever cast a single spell that targets enemies. That doesn't mean it's good, wise, proper, effective, or more likely to lead to success. That just means that it's possible to win while doing that. &quot;Possible to win while doing X&quot; is a bottom-of-the-barrel standard. I do not accept it as the standard that should be used for evaluating game design. If it were outright unviable that would be a completely unacceptable state of affairs.This is like the &quot;the rules are playable&quot; defense. A game that was somehow legitimately unplayable, something so horrendously awful that it literally could not be played by human beings, would be not only an offense before God and man, it would be an incredibly dangerous weapon of psychological warfare. Judging something as &quot;playable&quot; or &quot;viable&quot; and considering that adequate is like saying that an item is &quot;nontoxic&quot; and is therefore food. No! Being nontoxic is the absolute bare-minimum to justify even THINKING about whether something is food, it is not some high bar to clear!It isn't. That's why I dislike this so much.Except that's precisely what you're defending. Intentionally building an inferior character because it's more &quot;thematic&quot; or because you like the idea of being supportive even if the mechanics are actually quite bad at support!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9342536, member: 6790260"] Except that it is. We can mathematically verify that it is. Nobody said "nonviable." (Though I would challenge you to define what "viable" actualy means, because I find that that's a double-plus slippery word.) It's "viable" for a Wizard to never ever cast a single spell that targets enemies. That doesn't mean it's good, wise, proper, effective, or more likely to lead to success. That just means that it's possible to win while doing that. "Possible to win while doing X" is a bottom-of-the-barrel standard. I do not accept it as the standard that should be used for evaluating game design. If it were [I]outright unviable[/I] that would be a completely unacceptable state of affairs. This is like the "the rules are playable" defense. A game that was somehow legitimately [I]un[/I]playable, something so horrendously awful that it literally could not be played by human beings, would be not only an offense before God and man, it would be an incredibly dangerous weapon of psychological warfare. Judging something as "playable" or "viable" and considering that adequate is like saying that an item is "nontoxic" and is therefore food. No! Being nontoxic is the absolute bare-minimum to justify even THINKING about whether something is food, it is not some high bar to clear! It isn't. [I]That's why I dislike this so much[/I]. Except that's precisely what you're defending. Intentionally building an inferior character because it's more "thematic" or because you like the [I]idea[/I] of being supportive even if the mechanics are actually quite bad at support! [/QUOTE]

Verification