Gamer Philoso-pig
My gaming perspective. Its really no contest so why do I feel like I lost? Well, particularly it is my own gaming perspective that has grown up parallel to my view of real life. The question poised was basically about "balance". The OP posted how can social disadvantages or advantages be balanced when a situation changes their value.
My answer to the matter is that what he's sees is his own point of view of balance and many situations do not fall within a human comprehension of balance. I've come from his point of view before, thinking that everything has to have a point value. The wrong assumptions with that point of view, as I grew to learn, was that nothing is static and everything is dynamic.
In a gaming point of view a character is measured in points. More points equates to more power/influence over the world. Everyone tends to be made up of varying level of points and the assumption is that points increase as one get more experienced or has done more.
First, let me re-emphasize Points equating to more power or influence over the world. Is Richard Branson a High point character? How abot Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet? Often, a gamer would focus on combat and technical skills. in general gamers, unfortunately, would never consdier that non-business exclusive skills that come into success- leadership, strategy, foresight, feedback, research etc. are as important as shooting, dodging, kicking and throwing.
Now the OP was tryting to rationalize the balance of the game with the balance of the situation. So if I spent a bunch of points on something, that something better be worth it-How can I make sure it is worth it? My answer is that- the GM makes it worth it. If an advantage disapears for the entire game and the player wants justification for that- he can if he wants to... but that is not exactly realistic isnt it? If these guys Like RB, BG and WB gets thrown in a middle of a war- how usefull or survivable will they be? What they have may be very usefull or valuable but what's that against the pittyless face of dire circumstance.
The way to best answer the question and the root of the reasoning is by removing the sense of entitlement a bunch of points makes the players. Yes, you are born with certain adv. and disadvantages but these exisist in your microcosm and finding yourself outside that microcosm is HIGHLY unlikely, unrealistic, and not a product of the cause and effect your Point Make up.
Situations like that are just like the freak accidents that get people meaninglessly killed and those who win the lottery only to burn through it and end up no better than they were. I guess, as Christopher Hitchen said, religion makes you believe that you're special and the center of the universe- only that kind of POV will make you think that "god" is entitled to give you something pro quo. (its just like me to insert a secularist-sided remark)
in continuation...
The reason why I guess. I find the OP's question quite disturbing is that assumption that in a situation is measurable. A pov that is contrary to my secularist belief- which is that one should never should assume that we can know something with any absolute degree of certainty- and because of that- one can only act on his/her best judgement in any given situation up to the limit of their information.
Interestingly this doctrine is pretty much accepted in military decisions as well as a game-theory reasoning.
Traveller. Interestingly the game I'm gonna run has a lot in common with the CFA test my wife just completed. Basically, I have a series of Business Case Studies that are organized into a Traveller Game format.
To go into a little more detail, the PCs are entrepreneurs who start out with a business plan and a bunch of investors who were willing to risk their hard-earned money on the credibility and competence of the PCs. So the PCs start with a basic business plan where they (the PCs) are going to stake their credibility with the use of an Imperial backed contract that will bind them to do all they can (save for force majeure) to give to their investors what is due.
The plan starts with carrying several managers and entrepreneurs who want to risk opening shop in emerging economies of far-off and unpatrolled (by the imperium) systems and possibly fill a need. These entreps have spent some time analyzing the interstellar traffic and intelligence about these emerging economies to come up with a prearrange set of modular high-tech manufacturing business models using game-theory mathematics to create complex but highly adaptable business strategies as they touch down.
The PCs start with basic trouble shooting helping these other entreps start up until they can become independent and afford the larger scale of supplies and exports- in return these entreps will be paying these guys for their services in by leveraging themselves to pay them in prospective goods.
I plan to make the COO and Executive Officer the Math wiz who will translate the statistics and the mathematical options to strategies for the PCs to decide on. Even with all the prospective analysis, it is the execution of these strategies and the PCs own natural talents that will dicate-success or failure in a given course of action.
You cannot get the human element out of even the most well designed mathematical plan, and there will be so many different murphies that wll come up that the PCs will have to be opportunistic and decisive to make the business work.
As an added dimension, to prevent Players from overworking PCs, as the GM I will provide stress penalties if the Players red line their PCs too much.
My answer to the matter is that what he's sees is his own point of view of balance and many situations do not fall within a human comprehension of balance. I've come from his point of view before, thinking that everything has to have a point value. The wrong assumptions with that point of view, as I grew to learn, was that nothing is static and everything is dynamic.
In a gaming point of view a character is measured in points. More points equates to more power/influence over the world. Everyone tends to be made up of varying level of points and the assumption is that points increase as one get more experienced or has done more.
First, let me re-emphasize Points equating to more power or influence over the world. Is Richard Branson a High point character? How abot Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet? Often, a gamer would focus on combat and technical skills. in general gamers, unfortunately, would never consdier that non-business exclusive skills that come into success- leadership, strategy, foresight, feedback, research etc. are as important as shooting, dodging, kicking and throwing.
Now the OP was tryting to rationalize the balance of the game with the balance of the situation. So if I spent a bunch of points on something, that something better be worth it-How can I make sure it is worth it? My answer is that- the GM makes it worth it. If an advantage disapears for the entire game and the player wants justification for that- he can if he wants to... but that is not exactly realistic isnt it? If these guys Like RB, BG and WB gets thrown in a middle of a war- how usefull or survivable will they be? What they have may be very usefull or valuable but what's that against the pittyless face of dire circumstance.
The way to best answer the question and the root of the reasoning is by removing the sense of entitlement a bunch of points makes the players. Yes, you are born with certain adv. and disadvantages but these exisist in your microcosm and finding yourself outside that microcosm is HIGHLY unlikely, unrealistic, and not a product of the cause and effect your Point Make up.
Situations like that are just like the freak accidents that get people meaninglessly killed and those who win the lottery only to burn through it and end up no better than they were. I guess, as Christopher Hitchen said, religion makes you believe that you're special and the center of the universe- only that kind of POV will make you think that "god" is entitled to give you something pro quo. (its just like me to insert a secularist-sided remark)
in continuation...
The reason why I guess. I find the OP's question quite disturbing is that assumption that in a situation is measurable. A pov that is contrary to my secularist belief- which is that one should never should assume that we can know something with any absolute degree of certainty- and because of that- one can only act on his/her best judgement in any given situation up to the limit of their information.
Interestingly this doctrine is pretty much accepted in military decisions as well as a game-theory reasoning.
Traveller. Interestingly the game I'm gonna run has a lot in common with the CFA test my wife just completed. Basically, I have a series of Business Case Studies that are organized into a Traveller Game format.
To go into a little more detail, the PCs are entrepreneurs who start out with a business plan and a bunch of investors who were willing to risk their hard-earned money on the credibility and competence of the PCs. So the PCs start with a basic business plan where they (the PCs) are going to stake their credibility with the use of an Imperial backed contract that will bind them to do all they can (save for force majeure) to give to their investors what is due.
The plan starts with carrying several managers and entrepreneurs who want to risk opening shop in emerging economies of far-off and unpatrolled (by the imperium) systems and possibly fill a need. These entreps have spent some time analyzing the interstellar traffic and intelligence about these emerging economies to come up with a prearrange set of modular high-tech manufacturing business models using game-theory mathematics to create complex but highly adaptable business strategies as they touch down.
The PCs start with basic trouble shooting helping these other entreps start up until they can become independent and afford the larger scale of supplies and exports- in return these entreps will be paying these guys for their services in by leveraging themselves to pay them in prospective goods.
I plan to make the COO and Executive Officer the Math wiz who will translate the statistics and the mathematical options to strategies for the PCs to decide on. Even with all the prospective analysis, it is the execution of these strategies and the PCs own natural talents that will dicate-success or failure in a given course of action.
You cannot get the human element out of even the most well designed mathematical plan, and there will be so many different murphies that wll come up that the PCs will have to be opportunistic and decisive to make the business work.
As an added dimension, to prevent Players from overworking PCs, as the GM I will provide stress penalties if the Players red line their PCs too much.
Comments
Post a Comment