Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Kane
Actually, the point-and-purpose of the dialog is to determine the philosophy behind the Desinger's Premise - expressed algebraically - from a perspective of game-design; so that postulated modifications to the rules-set can be evaluated to determine if they are in-concert with that same philosophy; all in an effort to preserve consistency of form, function, flow, fun, and feel.
Obviously one cannot do that, unless and until, that philosophical design question is answered.
In short, it's not a rules discussion - as your answer attempts to relate it with - but rather, it's a discussion of game-design premises and philosophies; and that might explain why you failed to understand why there is the existence of "so much weight" on the algebraic formula in question and under examination.
I hope I was able to make things clearer for you.
PS - Your Member Name is quite apropos to the topic we are "dissecting", eh? Also, consider this: Many times a man and woman get into a car, which "never really had any purpose other than" to take them to the drive-in movies,... BUT they come back with a baby, nonetheless. Consequence is often NOT the result of original intent, BUT it must must be dealt with AND defined - for the simple fact the "IT" exists.
|
Okay, but even in terms of the starting philosophy, since ITL is part of TFT and ITL includes experience, attribute increases, and races with a different starting sum of attributes, I would say that your algebraic formulae are just one special case within a plethora of available options, and it's not actually the case that ST + DX always equals 24 or ST + DX + IQ always equals 32. Therefore, they are neither immovable nor the foundation stone of TFT, but simply a means to balance the game mechanical effects defined for ST, DX, and eventually IQ.
And my point about your multiple ways of denoting them being algebraically equivalent still stands, too... ;-)