Understanding Metavariants., If someone could lend a hand. Options

[Rystefn]

Actually it would. Choice to me is the fulcrum. Choosing is shifting the fulcrum.
Only as much as you. That is balance.

No... choice is picking which pile you want. Moving the fulcrum is moving the fulcrum. Both sides weighing the same is balance. Both sides having the same monetary value is another kind of balance. Moving the fulcrum is a third kind of balance. Picking the bigger pile has no relation to balance in any way. I fail to understand why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp... I have to wonder if maybe you have realized you are wrong and refuse to admit it and must resort to further depths of wrongness in a mad attempt to pretend you have been right the whole time.

[Draco18s]

Ah then, I disagree. Gameplay options need not be balanced against each other. Gameplay options, by necessity, are imbalanced against each other, unless they are identical which means that they are the same and not options.

Balance and Diversity are mutually exclusive, yes, but they exist on a continuum. That is, infinite shades of gray and not stark black and white. The goal is to find a middle area where you have perceived balance amongst a diversity of choices.

The point is:

"Is the ability to choose an option a deciding factor in choosing it?"

If you answer anything but "no" you do not understand what it means to have the ability to choose.

[toturi]

No... choice is picking which pile you want. Moving the fulcrum is moving the fulcrum. Both sides weighing the same is balance. Both sides having the same monetary value is another kind of balance. Moving the fulcrum is a third kind of balance. Picking the bigger pile has no relation to balance in any way. I fail to understand why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp... I have to wonder if maybe you have realized you are wrong and refuse to admit it and must resort to further depths of wrongness in a mad attempt to pretend you have been right the whole time.

Choice is moving the fulcrum.

Whatever made you think I was sane?

The point is:

"Is the ability to choose an option a deciding factor in choosing it?"

If you answer anything but "no" you do not understand what it means to have the ability to choose.

Why should not the ability to choose an option be a deciding factor in choosing it? Sometimes I choose something or to do something simply because I can.

[Emy]

Choice (meaning to choose) is a verb. Option is a noun. Do not confuse the two.

If you're going to be pedantic, you could at least bother to be correct.
Choice is an adjective or a noun. Option is a verb (uncommon) or a noun.

[Draco18s]

Whatever made you think I was sane?

One would assume that by participating in a logical discussion that you would have to be. By declaring that you are not sane we can no longer reason with you and drop the argument in its entirety.

Why should not the ability to choose an option be a deciding factor in choosing it? Sometimes I choose something or to do something simply because I can.

Ah. But that doesn't make it a good choice nor make it balanced against other choices not taken.

[Whipstitch]

I have to wonder if maybe you have realized you are wrong and refuse to admit it and must resort to further depths of wrongness in a mad attempt to pretend you have been right the whole time.

He isn't wrong, he's just approaching this from a different angle than you are. Games are built on the idea that not every choice gets to be optimal, and from this arises consequences. For example, chess is a rather fair game aside from White's small initial advantage, but a single poor choice can cost you the contest rather quickly. Yet rarely do you hear people complain that it is poorly balanced-- after all, without suboptimal choices available, it wouldn't be much of a game at all. In essence, you are saying that some metavariants are not optimal choices relative to others while Torturi is basically saying "Well, that's the point, isn't it?"

Now, I'll grant you that the purpose of playing a table top RPG isn't "winning," per se, but that observation cuts both ways. If you're not worried about meeting some win condition then the metatype costs should hardly bother you much, since they're certainly not steep enough to prevent a character from being playable.

[Draco18s]

There's nothing wrong with sub-optimal choices (after all that's what makes them different) but when you're presented with two clearly identical options, one of which costs more than the other, it's blatantly obvious which one is inferior. If you reduce the cost of the one (oni) just a small amount (5BP) it suddenly is exactly identical to the other option (orc), but comes with slight limitations (red skin and distinctive style), which is technically still making the choice sub-optimal, but the two options are perceived as balanced..

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I play drakes because, well, dragons are fucking badass. My last drake, I commented once "this character would have been better at being what he was built as a troll" and I had three good reasons:

1) Troll was 20 BP cheaper.
2) Trolls had stat benefits above what I had in drake form only.
3) None of that messy business shifting from one form to another.

But I still decided to play a drake again. Why? Find the niche that takes advantage of all of a drake's benefits. I actually gain armor when I shift this time. Hell, I even took some of the disadvantages and found a way to benefit from them (that whole "being naked" thing--grabbed Dynamic Chameleon Skin and voila: +2 or +4 to Infiltrate when naked).

At which point, you have made MY point... there are optimal choices, and then there are Sub-OPtimal (lets call them roleplaying choices)... generally these do not match up (in most cases)... the fact that you chose to play a Drake over a Troll says a lot about the character, at least to me...

Keep the Faith

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

You left out the part where the colored cars perform suboptimally.

Also, you left out the part where in no way, shape, or form represents the concept of "balance." It doesn't even pretend to.

Except that htere are color choices in cars that will cost you more money, even thought the cars will otherwise work the same... this is a fact of life in the auto industry...

Keep the Faith

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Sorry, but you saying so does not make it so. If I lay a thousand pounds of gold one side of a scale and five pounds of gold on the other does the scale magically become balanced if you get to choose which side you want? Does your choice weigh nine hundred and ninety-five pounds? Something tells me that if we were to try this out, we would find that the scale stubbornly stays tilted toward the heavier side, no matter how strongly you choose.

And yet if you put 5 pounds of gold on one side and 5 pounds of lead on the other side, they are balanced, and yet the gold is worth substabtially more... so what is your point?

Keep the Faith

EDITED...

[Rystefn]

Choice is moving the fulcrum.

No. Moving the fulcrum is moving the fulcrum. Look, I don't have a thousand pounds of gold, but I do have a small scale and some rocks. Let's see if your choice of one rock over another magically moves the fulcrum. I'll bet a substantial sum of money it does not.

He isn't wrong, he's just approaching this from a different angle than you are.

I disagree. He's approaching it from the angle that a thousand pounds of gold is balanced with five if you have the choice. Let's look at chess: is an inferior move balanced against a solid move because you can choose not make it? No. That's not what balance means. Do you know why they often refer to it as "weighing the options"? Because the two moves are not balanced. You set them on a metaphorical scale and see which one is heavier. Sometimes it's close, and it's a difficult choice. Those options are more balanced. The word has a meaning, and ignoring it doesn't make him right, just coming from a different angle. his angle is blatant misuse of a very simple word.

Except that htere are color choices in cars that will cost you more money, even thought the cars will otherwise work the same... this is a fact of life in the auto industry...

I say again: What part of that actually has anything to do with the concept of balance? I'm not saying the cars all cost the same any more than I am saying the metatypes all cost the same. All I'm saying is that it's not balanced. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And yet if you put 5 pounds of gold on one side and 5 pounds of gold on the other side, they are balanced, and yet the gold is worth substabtially more... so what is your point?

I'm confused... the gold is worth more than the other gold? Let's assume for the moment you were meaning to use gold and lead. It may have been something else, but lead works fine for me. The gold is valued more than the lead, yes. I'll concede that. If we are measuring monetary value, the loads are imbalanced. My metaphor was balancing weight. We can talk about balancing monetary value if you like. It makes no difference. Does your ability to choose the gold over the lead make both piles of metal equal in value? See? My point still stands. There are different kinds of balance, as I said before. I even mentioned monetary value specifically when I did so. In none of them does the ability to choose the heavier/higher priced/game winning option create balance out of the ether.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I'm confused... the gold is worth more than the other gold? Let's assume for the moment you were meaning to use gold and lead. It may have been something else, but lead works fine for me. The gold is valued more than the lead, yes. I'll concede that. If we are measuring monetary value, the loads are imbalanced. My metaphor was balancing weight. We can talk about balancing monetary value if you like. It makes no difference. Does your ability to choose the gold over the lead make both piles of metal equal in value? See? My point still stands. There are different kinds of balance, as I said before. I even mentioned monetary value specifically when I did so. In none of them does the ability to choose the heavier/higher priced/game winning option create balance out of the ether.

Sorry, That should have read 5 pounds of Gold and 5 Pounds of Lead...

Will fix it...

[Rystefn]

Yeah, I was about 85% sure that's what you meant. Couldn't resist a little jab, though.

[Draco18s]

Which weighs more, a pound of gold, or a pound of lead?

And no, "A pound is a pound" is not the right answer. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I'm confused... the gold is worth more than the other gold? Let's assume for the moment you were meaning to use gold and lead. It may have been something else, but lead works fine for me. The gold is valued more than the lead, yes. I'll concede that. If we are measuring monetary value, the loads are imbalanced. My metaphor was balancing weight. We can talk about balancing monetary value if you like. It makes no difference. Does your ability to choose the gold over the lead make both piles of metal equal in value? See? My point still stands. There are different kinds of balance, as I said before. I even mentioned monetary value specifically when I did so. In none of them does the ability to choose the heavier/higher priced/game winning option create balance out of the ether.

AS for the relative value of the gold vs. the Lead... SInce you asked...

Yes, Gold has more monetary value... but If I am in dire need of Bullets, Gold is a poor choice and I will choose the Lead every time... value is relative to the situation in hand... in the Monetary situation, GOld is more valuable... in the "Oh my god I am going to die in a few hours and I have no Bullets" well then the Lead is a much more valuable commodity AT THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT... and yet by wieght, they are still balanced...

In the end, I guess that this would indicate that balance is somewhat ephemeral, in that it means different things to different people... In my opinion, I would choose to play an Oni in a Japanese campaign as it would add more flavor, in my opinion, over the more common Ork, even though they have the same stats, and the Oni has a disadvantage the Ork does not, even if it costs the extra 5 points that the Ork does not suffer from. But that is just me... it is the same reason I would choose a less efficient build than a more efficient one at any given moment... that is what I wanted to Play at the time...

I really do come back to what I said before... Does the extra 5 points the Oni Costs REALLY affect your character? Really? I mean, look at it this way, there are a lot of Qualities that are more fluff than mechanics... and taking them has no real effect on game play, and having a character take one of these will alter the BALANCE of the character as compared to other characters... should we house rule those too?

For example... Perfect Time, Sense of Direction, Escaped Clone...I am sure that I could go on... Noticce that each of these is a 5 point Positive Quality, and yet has no REAL Shadowrunning applications that truly matter (except to those who want them as part of their concept) as they are mostly, if not all, fluff... Anyone taking them would be at a BP disadvantage for doing so... Should we make them more powerful beacuse of this? Or should we alter the Cost? Or do we play as they are written? I bet you can guess what I will do...

Qualities and Races are there to provide options.... the designers made decisions that placed a cost on them for reasons that to them made a lot of sense... why question their decisions, especially as no one really knows the thought processes that went into these decisions except the designers... just select and move along...

Houseruling causes problems in the long run if I choose to change groups... If i was playing in a game that was strictly RAW, I would be able to port my character from one game to another (via Missions perhaps) and have no impact upon the character whatsoever... However, Houseruling of BP costs will immediately eliminate me from doing so, if the game I enter does not agree with the previous group that I was gaming with... as such my character would suffer unduly becaues of someone else's interpretation... If I stick to the RAW, then I have no worries of this happening in a Standard Shadowrun Game.

Keep the Faith

[Rystefn]

AS for the relative value of the gold vs. the Lead... SInce you asked...

Yes, Gold has more monetary value... but If I am in dire need of Bullets, Gold is a poor choice and I will choose the Lead every time... value is relative to the situation in hand... in the Monetary situation, GOld is more valuable... in the "Oh my god I am going to die in a few hours and I have no Bullets" well then the Lead is a much more valuable commodity AT THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT... and yet by wieght, they are still balanced...

Actually, the only reason makes poor bullets is because it costs too much money and lead is cheap. The weight and hardness is pretty similar, so they will perform in roughly the same manner.

In the end, I guess that this would indicate that balance is somewhat ephemeral, in that it means different things to different people... In my opinion, I would choose to play an Oni in a Japanese campaign as it would add more flavor, in my opinion, over the more common Ork, even though they have the same stats, and the Oni has a disadvantage the Ork does not, even if it costs the extra 5 points that the Ork does not suffer from. But that is just me... it is the same reason I would choose a less efficient build than a more efficient one at any given moment... that is what I wanted to Play at the time...

I disagree. it's not that balance is ephemeral and means different things to different people. It's more that you can balance for different properties. As I mentioned earlier, there are different kinds of balance. Things like "It looks cool" and "I dunno, I just like it" can absolutely add value. However, this value is not in any way universal, and YOU thinking it's cool in your game in no way creates a balance in my game. You seem to really like to point out the five points for Oni. What about the other ones? What about the ones where it costs less? Are they especially undesirable in some way? Keep in mind, what we're talking about here is the way the cost is applied unevenly. The devs offered the explanation that the cost was raised for rarity while more common, less powerful cost fewer bp than less common and more powerful variants in some cases. This isn't balance. This is an arbitrary line and attempts to rationalize it after th fact.

I really do come back to what I said before... Does the extra 5 points the Oni Costs REALLY affect your character?

Are you admitting it's wrong, only it's not wrong enough for you to feel like complaining about it? Because if that's the case, why are you defending it?

For example... Perfect Time, Sense of Direction, Escaped Clone...I am sure that I could go on... Noticce that each of these is a 5 point Positive Quality, and yet has no REAL Shadowrunning applications that truly matter (except to those who want them as part of their concept) as they are mostly, if not all, fluff... Anyone taking them would be at a BP disadvantage for doing so... Should we make them more powerful beacuse of this? Or should we alter the Cost? Or do we play as they are written? I bet you can guess what I will do...

Really? Perfect Time has no value? Sense of Direction? Your GM is a lot nicer than mine... or alternately, he's a douche for seeing players with those abilities and never giving them a chance to show them off. Regardless, let's assume you're right, and there are qualities that cost points but give no real advantage - that's a design flaw. It's unbalanced. Things that cost 5bp should be roughly equal in value to other things that cost 5bp. Anything else is poor design.

Qualities and Races are there to provide options.... the designers made decisions that placed a cost on them for reasons that to them made a lot of sense... why question their decisions, especially as no one really knows the thought processes that went into these decisions except the designers... just select and move along...

Because 1) the designers tried to explain their thought process and it doesn't make sense; 2) "Because I said so" is NEVER a good enough reason for anything; and 3) Nothing in this world is above question. The game designers have made mistakes in the past. That's why there's errata. During the course of SR4, stats on things have changed. I'm sure they changed because someone pointed out that there was a problem with the old stats. What makes those people more qualified to see skewed numbers than I am?

Houseruling causes problems in the long run if I choose to change groups... If i was playing in a game that was strictly RAW, I would be able to port my character from one game to another (via Missions perhaps) and have no impact upon the character whatsoever... However, Houseruling of BP costs will immediately eliminate me from doing so, if the game I enter does not agree with the previous group that I was gaming with... as such my character would suffer unduly becaues of someone else's interpretation... If I stick to the RAW, then I have no worries of this happening in a Standard Shadowrun Game.

Actually, your RAW character would be invalid in my games, very likely, because we houseruled several things. Do you know anyone who plays without house rules? I don't. Because the rules are, quite often, borked. But, more to the point, I'm not talking about houseruling things I don't like. I'm talking about the game rules being wrong, and needing correction. Do I think my saying something will get a change pushed through? No. But if no one says anything ever, nothing will ever change. The changes that have been made were made because someone pointed out something they disagreed with and why. This is me doing the same.

If your entire argument comes down to "The rules are right because they are the rules in the book, and the book is right," just come out and say it that way. Save us both a lot of trouble.

[Heath Robinson]

Which weighs more, a pound of gold, or a pound of lead?

Lead is cheaper, therefore a pound's worth of lead weighs more than a pound's worth of gold. You can't even get a pound of gold for a pound. You can get a little under two pounds of lead for a pound, though.

[Draco18s]

Lead is cheaper, therefore a pound's worth of lead weighs more than a pound's worth of gold. You can't even get a pound of gold for a pound. You can get a little under two pounds of lead for a pound, though.

That in no way addressed the question I asked.

While on the face of it a pound of lead would seem to weigh the same as a pound of gold, this overlooks the fact that gold is universally weighed using a different definition of 'pound' than that used for most other materials.

Precious metals such as gold are measured in troy weight. A troy pound is 12 troy ounces, and each troy ounce is 480 grains, making a total of 5760 grains to the pound of gold.

Most materials use pounds and ounces from the avoirdupois system, and such a standard pound is made up of 16 ounces, where each ounce is 437.5 grains, making a total of 7000 grains to the pound of lead.

All this means that a pound of lead (or bricks, or feathers) is heavier than a pound of gold.

[Rystefn]

If you don't specify troy, then weight defaults to the standard measurements. Especially when dealing with mixed material types. Intentionally using imprecise language with the overt purpose to deceive does not make you clever. It makes you a jerk.

[Draco18s]

If you don't specify troy, then weight defaults to the standard measurements. Especially when dealing with mixed material types. Intentionally using imprecise language with the overt purpose to deceive does not make you clever. It makes you a jerk.

Its not me being "clever" or a "jerk." That is a very old and very well known saying.

[toturi]

If you don't specify troy, then weight defaults to the standard measurements. Especially when dealing with mixed material types. Intentionally using imprecise language with the overt purpose to deceive does not make you clever. It makes you a jerk.

It doesn't make him clever, it makes you... not so.

No. Moving the fulcrum is moving the fulcrum. Look, I don't have a thousand pounds of gold, but I do have a small scale and some rocks. Let's see if your choice of one rock over another magically moves the fulcrum. I'll bet a substantial sum of money it does not.

Ah, but my choice is to move the fulcrum in favor of one rock over the other. Hence choice moves the fulcrum.

[Rystefn]

It doesn't make him clever, it makes you... not so.

In what way? Did I fail to grasp what he was saying? No... you're just trying to score imaginary argument points. If it makes you feel better, award yourself +1 Called the Opponent Stupid points. They won't help you come out ahead on the whose's right and who's wrong front, of course, but if it makes you feel like you're doing well, I won't begrudge you that.

Ah, but my choice is to move the fulcrum in favor of one rock over the other. Hence choice moves the fulcrum.

No. Moving the fulcrum moves the fulcrum. Choice did exactly fuck-all. Moving the fulcrum would be the equivalent of declaring that bp spent on being an Oni only cost 90% while bp spent on being an ogre cost 125%, for example.

[Heath Robinson]

That in no way addressed the question I asked.

Next time I'll be sure to insert a huge piece of red text saying "I'm being facetious" for you.

[toturi]

In what way? Did I fail to grasp what he was saying? No... you're just trying to score imaginary argument points. If it makes you feel better, award yourself +1 Called the Opponent Stupid points. They won't help you come out ahead on the whose's right and who's wrong front, of course, but if it makes you feel like you're doing well, I won't begrudge you that.

No. Moving the fulcrum moves the fulcrum. Choice did exactly fuck-all. Moving the fulcrum would be the equivalent of declaring that bp spent on being an Oni only cost 90% while bp spent on being an ogre cost 125%, for example.

Oh but I cannot award myself Called the Opponent Stupid points when you have already awarded yourself an "I am stupid" point. That would be stupid.

No. The choice is to move the fulcrum. When you make any choice, you tilt the scales towards the side you choose to favor. But you can deny it if you wish, it won't help you come out ahead on the whose's right and who's wrong front, of course, but if it makes you feel like you're doing well, I won't begrudge you that.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Lead is cheaper, therefore a pound's worth of lead weighs more than a pound's worth of gold. You can't even get a pound of gold for a pound. You can get a little under two pounds of lead for a pound, though.

*TEXT REMOVED*

Oooopps..... Not sure why I was responding here... my mind went entirely blank... sorry for the interuption, return to your regularly scheduled discussion...

Keep the Faith