|
In another thread, the following statement was made:
Variety should not be mistaken for power.
I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement. This idea is tied to 90 year old concept in gaming made by Aron Nimzovitch, "Sometimes the threat is greater than the execution."
The existence of available options, in themselves, result in an increase in power. A character's ability to respond to a given challenge is a function of the options they have available. If options are limited, compromises may be needed to overcome the challenge in comparison to choices that have a greater degree of optimization inherent in from additional choices.
Even variety in the form of "you have the choice of A or B, but not both" has the illusion of being power neutral. But when combined with other choices of a like nature, in the presence of synergy between the choices, the whole is greater than the parts. The ability to creatively make choices that are based on this variety is a fundamental cause of power creep, regardless of whether the independent choices are balanced.
A character's options at the table give power. The existence of more choices in character build, such as feats, traits, multi-classing, archetypes, traits, spell availability, or any other such resources, result in more powerful characters. Power creep is inherent in a system that offers new options, regardless of whether the options are balanced independently or not.
I think I see where you are going with this... However, I don't think that options necessarily grant power. From a wargame perspective, no matter how many choices you have, there are a few 'Best' choices. Look at a competitive Warhammer 40K environment: the "winning" armies are almost always near copies of each other (assuming they are being pulled from the same codex).
It would be better to say that more 'good' choices raises power.
GNOME
|
|
I think I see where you are going with this... However, I don't think that options necessarily grant power. From a wargame perspective, no matter how many choices you have, there are a few 'Best' choices. (snip WH40k stuff) It would be better to say that more 'good' choices raises power.
Well, having additional 'good' choices, is certainly more influential than a wealth of choices that aren't as good. However, my point is that having additional choices, in itself, results in a stronger character. That's true on the tabletop, and it's true when the player makes choices about feats and other resources.
The optimizers may point to a given two handed weapon as an optimal melee weapon for a fighter. A dagger is probably not the optimal choice for a ranged weapon in comparison to a composite bow. Yet, a character armed with a two handed weapon and a dagger that he can throw has more options than just having the two handed weapon. In an encounter where the opponent stays out of melee reach, it is illustrated well. Even though a thrown dagger may not be a 'good' choice in comparison to other ranged weapon choices, it's better than none.
Similarly, when looking at the first level wizard spells, there are some strong candidates for 'best' spell. Let's stipulate that we agree that choice is color spray. The wizard still is going to see the value, due to the increase in options provided, for adding comprehend languages or alarm to his spellbook.
Those are simple examples. A given feat may be ho-hum until it is placed in synergy with other feats to leverage them further or to provide options that otherwise aren't there.
More variety, more options, more choices lead to more powerful characters.
|
|
More variety, more options, more choices lead to more powerful characters.Only if sufficient amounts of these choices can be actualized.
You can claim that the 3e bard, due to the wealth of choices available for the class, was the most powerful class in 3rd edition.
However these choices tended not to synergize well with one another, and most of the flexibility was in design that required permanent choices that more than offset this to kill most if not all of the adaptability that it might otherwise offer.
Sure, it's only if it can actually happen. My OP includes the clause, "in the presence of synergy between the choices." We agree on this.
Comparing a role playing game to a wargame is comparing apples to bandersnatches.
Whether more options means more power or not is a function that can't be evaluated without knowledge of all the variables included. Those variables include the GM's flexibility, the imagination of the player, the synergy of the available options and about a million more variables.
Saying that more options means more power is sort of like saying "the pen is mightier than the sword." Of course that isn't true if you are playing WarHammer or Chess, but it MIGHT be true if you are playing a fantasy role playing game.
Now, it is my opinion that more options typically equals more FUN, but that's a different equation.
This is why the Tiers system for determining relative "power" of the classes considers even the new Fighter fairly low on the tiers, while full casters still dominate the top tiers.
Even if the Fighter can kill 2 Balors in a single round at the highest levels... he's still considered "low powered" to the guy that bends the universe to his will.
All choices being equal, variety is power.
All choices being unequal, pick of the most unequally strong is power.
The closer choices grow towards being of equal power, the more powerful variety is.
So, variety with martial characters is not power, as the choices tend to be strongly unequal. A character that can use throwing weapons and crossbows and a single one handed weapon has large variety, but has mostly chosen bad options, whereas a character that specializes entirely in using a bow lacks the variety but has distinctively more power. The number of situations that "specialize in bow" solves is incredibly higher then the number of situations of all other options combined.
Variety with spellcasters, however, most definitively is power, as the choices are mostly equal given different circumstances. In a case where a lock is found, Knock is very powerful; in a case where a cliff needs to be climbed, spider climb is very powerful. In this case, having the variety between spells means you are "winning" in all of these encounters. The number of situations that "variety" solves is incredibly higher then if they had gone with "specialize in one spell."
Now, the caveat to this is one specialization leads to variety. Case in point, Shadowcraft Mage, which allows specialization in really just one spell - heighten image - to become near absurd variety.
Options equal power.
Not variety.
I can have a dozen different classes and races but if all they do is look different (variety) without providing any mechanical differences it doesn't matter what I choose.
If some of those different classes and races provide different options for what I'm going to do -- then I have more power in since I have more control over my responses.
Put it this way:
If my only option is to swing something at an enemy what I swing (variety) doesn't matter in the grand scheme compared to if I swing or not.
However if instead I have the option to swing or shoot a bow then I have more control over what I am doing and therefore more power as I can choose the best option for the situation.
|
|
Options equal power.
Not variety.
I can have a dozen different classes and races but if all they do is look different (variety) without providing any mechanical differences it doesn't matter what I choose.
If some of those different classes and races provide different options for what I'm going to do -- then I have more power in since I have more control over my responses.
Put it this way:
If my only option is to swing something at an enemy what I swing (variety) doesn't matter in the grand scheme compared to if I swing or not.
However if instead I have the option to swing or shoot a bow then I have more control over what I am doing and therefore more power as I can choose the best option for the situation.
Variety has greater meaning that being different in a meaningless way. If you are going to limit it to that sense, then yes, variety has no impact on definition. Options stem from the ability to make choices in the presence of variety. Variety without the ability to choose, and variety where the difference is immaterial, is merely trivia. I agree.
Variety has greater meaning that being different in a meaningless way. If you are going to limit it to that sense, then yes, variety has no impact on definition. Options stem from the ability to make choices in the presence of variety. Variety without the ability to choose, and variety where the difference is immaterial, is merely trivia. I agree.
Yeah I'm not trying to argue semantics, but variety in and of itself doesn't grant options. Options are where the power is... kind of one of those "square is a rectangle, but a rectangle doesn't have to be a square" deals.
I felt it was prudent to point out the difference since it can be very easy to get lost in the important bits through being too vague.
I simply felt that 'variety' was too vague for the conversation.