Also, it is poor form to point to something entirely impossible as a counterexample.
I dunno, is it? Says who? Either way, I was just trying to take that particular stance to its extreme to show when it might not work out in practice using an extreme example to make a point. But hey, I can give a better example: what if someone took pleasure out of complaining and arguing endlessly in OOC even when people have stopped said person to stop? Does the policy of 'everyone maximize his own happiness' still lead to the most desirable outcome?
I guess I was originally trying to point out that saying something is irrational merely means you need to upgrade your rationality to understand the chain of reasoning that led to the supposedly irrational idea?
Ah, now this I don't fully agree with. As I pointed out in the beginning, I
do understand how one would come to this point. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the most rational way forward, starting from certain as of yet undefined parameters. Let us re-examine the original question:
Item A might be unbalanced. Let's assume it indeed is. What now? Do we:
1) suck it up and go on (no work needed, all is well)
2) change a number until it's balanced
3) invent a new mechanic, balance it, try to weed out loopholes, and all that jazz (more work than the previous option, I'd wager)
My view is that, if 1) isn't an option, then 2) is superior ( number 3 is an option, of course, but should not be the default one, I'm arguing). Why? Because pw has stated before he doesn't really enjoy these kinds of things, evidenced by the time she said tinker can give him a headache. Hell, it's why the council is there, to help him with the minutiae, so he can focus on the game and the story. So, if we assume the gm prefers us to stay in the boundaries he has set out himself before where possible, and that his fun (and ability to continue playing) with the game is rather more important than that of any one particular player (if he drops, the whole thing stops. If half the players stop, we can keep on trucking), then the more rational way forward is to try and stay within the game's boundaries (which in this case means changing the token cost) and solve the problem
before we consider new mechanics and all the work that entails.
I know how actual utilitarianism works, of course.
Gonna give you the benefit of the doubt for this one
since I'm pretty sure only high-ranking people of ARM that are still dumb enough to go into the field of battle would need protection of their insides from amp assassins, and those bastards need all the costs they can get.
HAH. A cheap shot, but I laughed. To quote a famous yellow man: it's funny 'cause it's true.