Help me actually understand Winds of Fate.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I gave you an explanation as to how WoF would work internally earlier; why did you ignore it?

but you can't have warriors that act with cool detachment,

This is wrong.

or mages that understand arcane like a science.

This is also wrong. Unless you're also going to try to tell me that quantum mechanics or discrete mathematics isn't a science.

At least not as serious contenders to power; they could be NPC classes, ala Expert.

Says who? There's nothing that says that Whirlwind Slice or Power Throw or whatever always has to take exactly 6 seconds to use or however long you want to dilenate a round. That's video game logic, the idea that game effects are always available on demand exactly how you want it. It's acceptable for a video game since those emphasize repetition and speed and having powers work even slightly differently is an irritation, but you can't backport it to a TTRPG and then tell me that's how it's supposed to work.

Which I think would be fine, there's still plenty of design space there. However, some people keep insisting that the framing is unimportant and WoF can fit absolutely any fluff, just by handwaving. Which is bollocks.

Oh really now? People are willing to suspend their WSoD for other things. People are willing to justify just the existence of fighter encounter powers and dailies in 3E/4E even though it makes even less sense that a fighter can only attempt to disarm someone once every 5 minutes (but can totally use a more demanding manuever--even if it's a disarm in a whirlwind right afterwards) than anything WoF proposes. Where was the rioting in the streets over Stunning Fist or Book of Nine Swords? Pretty convenient that they tell us now that their WSoD is being abused.

Let's face it, people are just looking for excuses. I'm willing to provide one because I know how butthurt grognards get, but I'm not going to pretend that there isn't some double standard behind the whole mess.

[PhoneLobster]

I was about to write some post saying that yeah, WSoD isn't a big deal, its about choice...

...Then I remembered that the main proponent of WoF has giant bitchfests where he has WSoD meltdowns about horses being allowed inside.

So yeah. No free pass on WSoD for you guys.

[Orion]

TROLL MOAR

[tussock]

"Magic is a capricious force, and at any moment some spells will flow freely while others fizzle" - good WoF justification.

It goes further than that too though, eh. If it's the nature of magic that forces your hand, it should be forcing the other guys hand the same way at the same time, so magic just gets one die roll each round for everyone.

And if your justification is "it's not always appropriate to WWA", there's plenty of ways to make WWA fail sometimes, or be only randomly available, without saying I never choose between WWA and Cleave and Flurries, because the game makes that choice for me. Because that doesn't fit your fluff.

People are willing to justify just the existence of fighter encounter powers and dailies

People also fucking hate that abstract bullshit but probably would've been playing 4e right now if they'd just tied that shit to a fatigue mechanic, or a "seen that trick" penalty, and not had us forget how to fucking trip people after we just tripped them, like it's a god damned spell. BURN THAT SHIT WITH HELLFIRE irrational kinda hate.

Edit: and also, Lago, fuck you for trying to tell me how I really feel about things when I'm trying to be all nice here and stuff. That "it's a good mechanic, use it for fighters too" bullshit really isn't everyone's cup of tea, it's a big part of why people didn't go to 4e, even though many people don't mind it and did go.

[Username17]

It goes further than that too though, eh. If it's the nature of magic that forces your hand, it should be forcing the other guys hand the same way at the same time, so magic just gets one die roll each round for everyone.

What?

You're not standing in the same place or tapping into the exact same energy flows, why would you be influenced by the ebb and flow of magic in the same way?

I mean, you could have the Arcane Wind bring the same arcane magic WoF result for the whole table. That would be totally reasonable and you could have a game like that. But absolutely no one flips out that 2nd edition 40k psykers got different tides of the warp cards from their opponents or that mages in Etherlords get their spell channels separately.

-Username17

[wotmaniac]

EDIT: was falling asleep before I finished this, and then went to work right after I woke up. Please forgive the random/sporadic posting.

Wow. Wotmanic, you're a moron. I just had to get that insult out front and center because this is the Den.

I expect nothing less.

Now I'm going to cut up your quote so it doesn't follow i its original logical order but instead pairs concepts that indicate that you are using fuzzy thinking and holding incompatible ideas in your head simultaneously.

Well, this smacks of condescending hand-holding to me. either that, or an attempt to boil RPGs down to a TCG (be it M:tG, or whatever). If I need someone to hold my hand, I'll let them know.
...
I get it -- there are more than a few players who just get overwhelmed by all the options at their disposal ..... I've had it happen in my games as well. After getting fed-up with it, I started putting a timer on turns.

OK, so that is in fact you letting us know that in reality you do need hand holding and that you can't man up and deal with long ability lists. If it wasn't a problem, you wouldn't need the turn timer. Since you need the timer, there is a genuine problem. And how does your draconian solution work?

well, first, you've got it backwards -- these are games I've run that happened to have had an issue or 2 with a couple of specific players.
Within some of those same games, I've also had players with way more options than the stunted players, and not had a single problem. Don't you think that player competence has some role to play here?

I didn't have to contrive some randomizing option selector for everybody ... I counted to 20 -- that's it. Take too long -- lose your spot in the initiative. Still taking too long -- lose your turn.
...
Guess what happened -- they tightened-up their shot-group real quick.

Yes. By being a draconian asshole to your players the players learned that they had to ignore most of their abilities and make choices out of a small group of abilities that were usable in most circumstances. Because if they tried to contemplate their actual whole range of tactical options they would have their turns taken away. So they had to essentially erase most of their character's abilities and concentrate on a tightened list.

Exactly what WoF would do for them, except it was probably the same short list every single round forever.

You evidently have nowhere near enough information to be making the assumptions you're attempting to make (what's that saying about assuming things?).
First, I'm not quite the Chairman Mao-wannabe that you're making me out to be. I distinctly remember mentioning several times about being supportive in helping players develop. Better players = better gaming.
I can see how you might make that jump, though ..... forgive me for condensing and (possibly) over-simplifying the process -- I did so only for the sake of brevity.

Second, you've the results all wrong. They learned to actually pay attention. They learned to compartmentalize and prioritize through quick assessment (hell, they learned how to make quick assessments). They learned to actually be organized. As a result, they were able to be creative with their repertoire without bogging the game down forever when it came their turn. As to the implementation -- see point #1 (as a matter of fact, you need to refer to point #1 for just about everything in your post)

unhealthy dedication to powergaming... is, again, a social issue. Fixing social issues is not the role of a game's rule-set -- that job rests on the shoulders of peer pressure

No. If people do things that the game rewards them for and you feel the need to be a dick to the player to try to get them to do something less effective, because you are fucking bored, then the game system has failed you. Because the game being boring is bad, and being a dick to your fellow players to try to extort them to take actions with th predictable result of punishing their character is bad.

First, "different" =/= "less effective". As a matter of fact, the increased spontaneity actually led to them being at least as effective (sometimes more). You see, with their new-found competence and efficacy, I could no longer rely on their same-ol' predictable thought processes -- this also helped to keep me on my toes.
Second, as discussed above, they learned how to organize their stuff and finally understood things on a larger scale; which resulted in greater efficacy.
Third -- I'm not just talking about full-progression dual-casters with umpteen-billion spell options. I've had players go in to full-on brain-lock over trying to figure out how much to f'n Power Attack. Give me a break -- if people need to learn how to run their character, they need to learn how to run their f'n character.
Finally -- once again, see above concerning implementation style.

The other thing that really turns me off to this is that it feels like a game of musical grab-bags, what with not really being able to actually plan for anything -- "ooh, let's see what I get to do this round; okay, now what the hell do I get to do this round; alright, what random grab-bag do I have to rummage through now?"
...
I really think that the criticism of the 5Mod is a little over-played.

I can't tell if you're serious here or not. You seem to be suggesting that the game is fuxxored if it comes around to your turn and you can't use the Color Spray you wanted to use because the enemies aren't in range. The idea of getting upset because your move script is interrupted in a tactical minigame is so foreign to me that I don't even know what to say. It's a game, and the situation adapts every turn. That is why you are required to make a decision on your turn on every turn. And you don't, for example, hand your script to one of the other players and then wander off and play Smash Brothers.

I mean, you're seriously saying that the big thing wrong with WoF is that it keeps you personally from having a comfortable routine of five moves that you do in predefined order, and you're saying that 5MoD isn't a problem? You apparently throw a temper tantrum if circumstances prevent you from using your Five Moves of Doom! In real life!

-Username17

What in the hell are you even talking about? This has absolutely no basis in reality, whatsoever. As a matter of fact, I think that this is so disconnected that I believe that you may have just had a psychotic break. As such, I don't even know how to begin responding. You might want to look in the mirror before you start spouting "moron".

Well, I've got some thread catch-up to do.

[mean_liar]

I don't like WoF and really should have been back in on this at page 1 to really make the points I wanted, so I'll be brief.

I find WoF to be in inelegant solution to real problem of practical gaming. The two main points it addresses seem to be:

1. analysis paralysis
2. best-attack spam

Its a solution, but I just feel there are better solutions that tackle those issues head-on: I feel like WoF is best-implemented in an existing system such that the designers didn't manage to resolve those issues already.

I don't often see analysis paralysis in RPG play (as opposed to board games) and so I'm wary of anything meant to address it.

The loss of player agency in WoF is my main complaint. It mainly says that attempting to create a combat system with integrated meaningful choices is too hard and WoF will abstract it out to the back-end and give you a handful of choices and require some narrative reason why it has to be that way.

To that, I wonder how many folks have played Street Fighter: the Storytelling Game. The game's combat system had a lot of paper-scissors-rock going on that arose out of actual play and opponent actions: your "best attack spam" was a viable strategy at low tiers of play (even though implementing it was often a separate chess match unto itself as you set your opponent up to be just in the right spot at the right moment) but as you advanced the game's chess match got extremely engaging, without succumbing to analysis paralysis.

If I hadn't enjoyed SF:tSG as much as I did I doubt I'd consider WoF so disappointing. As it is, though, for me it comes off as a duct tape solution to a deeper problem.

[virgil]

I understand that many other resource management systems will create an equally arbitrary list of options each round. I'm getting the impression the dislike stems from WoF being too up-front about the arbitration; they want that illusion of choice, as it were.

Personally, I'd need to see such a thing in action to decide whether it's any good, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

[Ice9]

I gave you an explanation as to how WoF would work internally earlier; why did you ignore it?

Says who? There's nothing that says that Whirlwind Slice or Power Throw or whatever always has to take exactly 6 seconds to use or however long you want to dilenate a round. That's video game logic, the idea that game effects are always available on demand exactly how you want it. It's acceptable for a video game since those emphasize repetition and speed and having powers work even slightly differently is an irritation, but you can't backport it to a TTRPG and then tell me that's how it's supposed to work.

I'm not talking about myself only, I'm talking about people who want the mechanics to directly represent the in-game situation. It's like FK vs IK - they may produce the same limb angles, but the process is different. In one case, you're going "in-game reality" -> rules -> results, in the other, you're going rules -> results -> "in-game reality". Which is how it works in a lot of narrative systems, and some people are fine with it. But not everyone is.

Oh really now? People are willing to suspend their WSoD for other things. People are willing to justify just the existence of fighter encounter powers and dailies in 3E/4E even though it makes even less sense that a fighter can only attempt to disarm someone once every 5 minutes (but can totally use a more demanding manuever--even if it's a disarm in a whirlwind right afterwards) than anything WoF proposes. Where was the rioting in the streets over Stunning Fist or Book of Nine Swords? Pretty convenient that they tell us now that their WSoD is being abused.

Having things like "Disarm" as an encounter power was a fairly disliked aspect of 4E, by many. And "they've seen that trick before" has always been an unsatisfactory explanation for Bo9S. Sure, I use Bo9S, because I want martial types that are interesting to play. Doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer it to fit the fluff better. And some people won't use it for that reason.

Again, I'm not saying that a "back-dating" explanation for WoF won't work at all, I'm just saying there are a significant number of people that aren't going to be satisfied with it.

[hogarth]

I don't often see analysis paralysis in RPG play (as opposed to board games) and so I'm wary of anything meant to address it.

There are a couple of situations where I see that kind of thing:

• Prepared spellcasters in D&D (and, to a lesser extent, charge-based characters in other games) dithering over "should I use spell X now, or save it for later?"
• Characters with a very open-ended power trying to figure out what to do with it. E.g. an illusionist trying to figure out what sort of illusion to create.

Winds of Fate would certainly help with the former, but wouldn't help at all with the latter (unless you just ban open-ended powers altogether).

[Username17]

What in the hell are you even talking about?

I'm talking about your sense of entitlement. Which you blather about here:

The other thing that really turns me off to this is that it feels like a game of musical grab-bags, what with not really being able to actually plan for anything -- "ooh, let's see what I get to do this round; okay, now what the hell do I get to do this round; alright, what random grab-bag do I have to rummage through now?"

Look: in any game that is half way good, you don't get to plan anything. You can have contingencies for situations, but you don't get to decide that on turn 3 you will use Color Spray until turn 3 actually comes around. Deciding that ahead of time isn't just jumping the gun, it's something that is detrimental to everything. Not simply your own enjoyment or the interest others can muster in your combat actions, but the actual effectiveness of your character. Enemies could have moved, or been stunned, or just happen to be far away from you or each other.

So when you say "I'm going to use Color Spray" on turn 3, then you're either a mouth breathing moron, or you're actually saying:

• If...
• The enemies are still a threat worth spending spell slots on, and
• The enemies are not currently stunned, and
• The enemies are within very short range, and
• The enemies are clustered, and
• I can hit the enemies without nailing my teammates, and
• I do not believe the enemies to be immune to [Mind Affecting] [Patterns], then
  I will use Color Spray on turn 3.

And within that context, WoF doesn't keep your from planning at all. You have various contingencies. WoF is one of the things that will very profoundly affect what you'll be using, but you can still make a flowchart that will direct you to every single one of your powers. Just one of the earliest decision trees is "what did my WoF actually generate for turn 3?"

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

The Fighter Disarm isn't an unpopular encounter power in 4E because it's an encounter power--it's unpopular because it's a paragon-level effect exclusive to one class and really fucks up things on the mechanics level since monsters were not meant to be played with their equipment detached from them. Which is why no one has created a power even remotely similar to that. People don't complain about whirlwind attack (close burst) or powers with bull rushing or trip built into them. Seems weird that disarming would be the sticking point, doesn't it?

And some people won't use it for that reason.

Again, I'm not saying that a "back-dating" explanation for WoF won't work at all, I'm just saying there are a significant number of people that aren't going to be satisfied with it.

Didn't stop Bo9S from being probably the most well-liked book this side of 3.5E, didn't it? You could argue that the reason why it was most liked was because people were willing to suspend their WSoD in order to have the greater goal of martial-types not sucking (i.e. improved mechanics), but why does this reasoning suddenly not apply to WoF? It's a believability/gameplay tradeoff just like that book, I still don't see why people are digging in their heels.

I'm not against putting in an explanation, I just want everyone to know that it'll be under protest to assauge peoples' baby feelings and that bowing to the double standard is easier than butting heads over this.

I'm getting the impression the dislike stems from WoF being too up-front about the arbitration; they want that illusion of choice, as it were.

Magic all up in this bitch, I don't want to talk to a scientist y'all motherfuckers lying and getting me pissed? Makes sense to me.

Its a solution, but I just feel there are better solutions that tackle those issues head-on:

I'd love to hear them. At this point this statement is just empty rhetoric because we've asked people repeatedly what should be done instead. And the response is just to bleat 'there's got to be a better way!' and/or 'these problems you're complaining about don't exist!' I mean, seriously ML, you just jumped right in and said that option paralysis isn't a problem--even though hilariously enough another poster on this and the previous page said the same thing and didn't even realize that he had an option paralysis problem.

The loss of player agency in WoF is my main complaint.

What loss of player agency? Due to iterative probability, WoF lets you use any power you want. Sometimes that power will come up in 1 round, most of the time in 4, rarely it'll come up in 6 or more. Why is that a bigger loss than Vancian casting going 'you can only use this one power once in a day'? Depending on how you set the length of rounds, it's still a pretty small unit of time--of course things like casting time and standard action maneuvers last an arbitrary amount of time anyway. Apparently a Shadowrun mage can shoot off 8 fireballs in the time it takes a D&D wizard to shoot 1.

The only thing you give up is the ability to do Five Moves of Doom in a preset sequence. Which is of course bad for the game.

[Ice9]

The Fighter Disarm isn't an unpopular encounter power in 4E because it's an encounter power--it's unpopular because it's a paragon-level effect exclusive to one class and really fucks up things on the mechanics level since monsters were not meant to be played with their equipment detached from them. Which is why no one has created a power even remotely similar to that. People don't complain about whirlwind attack (close burst) or powers with bull rushing or trip built into them. Seems weird that disarming would be the sticking point, doesn't it?

Were you around when 4E came out? There was a lot of complaining that characters couldn't trip or disarm people without a specific power, and also that the powers which could do so were 1/encounter.

Didn't stop Bo9S from being probably the most well-liked book this side of 3.5E, didn't it? You could argue that the reason why it was most liked was because people were willing to suspend their WSoD in order to have the greater goal of martial-types not sucking (i.e. improved mechanics), but why does this reasoning suddenly not apply to WoF? It's a believability/gameplay tradeoff just like that book, I still don't see why people are digging in their heels.

Because spellcasters already don't suck, at least not in the way that pre-Bo9S martial types did. Sure, Vancian casting has significant flaws, but the step from Vancian to WoF is not as great as from "nothing" to Bo9S. And besides, one of Bo9S's big strengths was that it was official WotC material, which enabled its use in many campaigns where the DM wouldn't even look at Tome stuff.

TL;DR - WoF is held to a higher standard because it's being compared to every other potential system, not just WotC martial classes.

What loss of player agency? Due to iterative probability, WoF lets you use any power you want. Sometimes that power will come up in 1 round, most of the time in 4, rarely it'll come up in 6 or more. Why is that a bigger loss than Vancian casting going 'you can only use this one power once in a day'? Depending on how you set the length of rounds, it's still a pretty small unit of time

It doesn't really matter how much real-time a round represents. Unless we go 4E-style padded sumo, there aren't going to be that many of them in the combat - probably not even enough to run through your whole WoF wheel a single time.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Were you around when 4E came out? There was a lot of complaining that characters couldn't trip or disarm people without a specific power, and also that the powers which could do so were 1/encounter.

Yes, because it's a loss of functionality compared to the 3E fighter. If the 4E fighter got to do cooler things in order to compensate, no one would care, but because the 4E fighter doesn't have anything newly cool going for it people notice what they lost more than what they didn't gain. Of course people people don't expect DMFs to do much more than trip and disarm there wasn't a lot the designers could do anyway, but that's another story.

TL;DR - WoF is held to a higher standard because it's being compared to every other potential system, not just WotC martial classes.

Whenever people use the 'WoF doesn't make sense!' card, they always trot out the fighter and his dumbass friends and point to him because for magical characters you could just use the excuse of 'magic works in mysterious ways' like you could for Vancian. People want an explanation for why Power Throw is available but not Whirlwind Attack but they know that asking an explanation as to why Fireball is available but not Lightning Bolt isn't is just going to get shot down because Vancian is just as arbitrary.

So it's only fair to compare WoF for martial characters to other power systems they had before, since they're the main sticking point. Of course the fact of the matter is that other WotC-approved power schemes for DMFs (4E and Bo9S) is just as arbitrary and stupid, so they don't have a leg to stand on. The time to riot was when Tome of Battle came out with Crusader, not when WoF got presented. It's just a double standard.

It doesn't really matter how much real-time a round represents. Unless we go 4E-style padded sumo, there aren't going to be that many of them in the combat - probably not even enough to run through your whole WoF wheel a single time.

So... why is that a loss of player agency? Are you telling me that people will only be happy if they get to use their favorite move every so often? That it isn't 'I can't cast fire spells' is what people are moaning about, they're moaning about not being able to specifically cast 'fire seeds'?

[rampaging-poet]

Winds of Fate takes away player agency because it's a resource management system in which the players don't actually get to manage any resources. Because whether you're able to cast Flesh to Stone or whatever right this second depends entirely on a random roll, the player has no control over when any given power is online. Let's take a look at some examples of when a power is not available.

In the Vancian system, a wizard who already cast every copy of Flesh to Stone he prepared that morning can't cast it anymore. This is a player-controlled event because he had the option of preparing more copies (if he had space) or casting something else earlier. A spell point system is the same: the wizard doesn't have enough mojo left for that kind of spell, but he would if he had cast less spells earlier.

In a cool-down system, the wizard cannot cast Flesh to Stone right after he uses it, but it is available up until he casts it for the first time. If he can't cast it, it's because he chose to use it and it hasn't refreshed yet. It's unavailable because of player action. After the initial charging, a charge-up system is the same.

Meanwhile, in the Winds of Fate system proposed here, the wizard can't cast the spell he wants because the Tide of Magic is against him. This is determined by some arbitrary randomization and has absolutely nothing to do with anything the player has done. There is no player agency involved.

While the end result is the same in all these systems, WoF is the only one in which the player has absolutely no control over when their powers are offline. Whining about not being able to cast Fireball in a Vancian system is different than whining about it in WoF because the former is their fault and the latter has nothing to do with them at all. Other resource management systems don't accomplish the goals of WoF very well, but the loss of player agency is a legitimate complaint. Maybe the benefits outweigh the drawback or maybe they don't, but either way the drawback is there.

Even the ToB Crusader has more player agency than the table and die system. While you may not know what you start with or what card you'll draw next, you at least have a good idea of what's going to be in your hand next round. You still have no choice about when a maneuver becomes available, but you have total control over when it's used up.

[tussock]

Didn't stop Bo9S from being probably the most well-liked book this side of 3.5E, didn't it?

PHB II seemed more popular, as did the Dread Necro, Archivist, even the Warlock. Definitely better than the book of 3 magic systems no one used, or the book of blue souls, or most other things. Shit, some people really liked the enviro splats, so, no accounting for taste and all that.

But yes, very popular. I think that was down to 1) being able to move and still be level appropriate, 2) not needing five feats to trip someone properly, even if it was just once, 3) getting a full attack worth of damage with one attack check.

And people really did refuse to play with it because the fighter's feet were on fire for no reason, but not such that he could burn anything with them, and he wasn't at all resistant to fire even if he just walked in it. Which was stupid enough in Diablo II, let alone a game of D&D were we're supposed to try and be creative.

Or not allowed to be creative, as the case may be. /4e

[ScottS]

Its a solution, but I just feel there are better solutions that tackle those issues head-on:

I'd love to hear them. At this point this statement is just empty rhetoric because we've asked people repeatedly what should be done instead. And the response is just to bleat 'there's got to be a better way!' and/or 'these problems you're complaining about don't exist!' I mean, seriously ML, you just jumped right in and said that option paralysis isn't a problem--even though hilariously enough another poster on this and the previous page said the same thing and didn't even realize that he had an option paralysis problem.

If you can reflavor and/or rework the mechanic somewhat, so that the failure to be able to cherry-pick your power isn't "magic randomly not going your way", but rather something like a "skill check" (i.e. you failed your desired style/spell that round because "it's hard"), then you might get less bitching. I haven't really thought about your matrix thing, but off the top of my head, maybe you want to do something like have the rows be ordered strictly in terms of how encounter-breaking/ending the styles are. So your initial roll to find your row is "how awesomely you performed" that round. That might also involve having the lower rows just be more generic/less magical versions of the upper-row powers (e.g. you roll a 1, and instead of being able to hit a guy and make his blood evaporate, you just get a regular sword swing or whatever).

[Username17]

If you can reflavor and/or rework the mechanic somewhat, so that the failure to be able to cherry-pick your power isn't "magic randomly not going your way", but rather something like a "skill check" (i.e. you failed your desired style/spell that round because "it's hard"), then you might get less bitching. I haven't really thought about your matrix thing, but off the top of my head, maybe you want to do something like have the rows be ordered strictly in terms of how encounter-breaking/ending the styles are. So your initial roll to find your row is "how awesomely you performed" that round. That might also involve having the lower rows just be more generic/less magical versions of the upper-row powers (e.g. you roll a 1, and instead of being able to hit a guy and make his blood evaporate, you just get a regular sword swing or whatever).

Dragon Age works like this, and that is about the best and most popular part of an otherwise rather poorly done system. It does work fine and no one really seems to complain about it. There is a lot of complaining about Top Decking though - the maneuvers at each tier are so unbalanced that in most cases what is available has a 1:1 correspondance with what you will actually use that round. But literally no one condemns that part of the game as breaking player agency or any of that shit.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

Dragon Age works like this

Dragon age works?

That's news to me.

[hogarth]

So it's only fair to compare WoF for martial characters to other power systems they had before, since they're the main sticking point. Of course the fact of the matter is that other WotC-approved power schemes for DMFs (4E and Bo9S) is just as arbitrary and stupid, so they don't have a leg to stand on. The time to riot was when Tome of Battle came out with Crusader, not when WoF got presented. It's just a double standard.

Huh? I thought the Crusader had a dumb mechanic in 3.5, but it was nothing to "riot" over since I could easily choose not to play one.

No one in my neighbourhood rioted over Magic of Incarnum either, but that doesn't make it an awesome system to base a game around.

[Swordslinger]

Huh? I thought the Crusader had a dumb mechanic in 3.5, but it was nothing to "riot" over since I could easily choose not to play one.

Yeah, WoF may not be a bad mechanic to base a class off of, but it's a terrible mechanic to base a game off of. Not everyone wants all that added complexity.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Added complexity compared to what?

[mean_liar]

Its a solution, but I just feel there are better solutions that tackle those issues head-on:

I'd love to hear them. At this point this statement is just empty rhetoric because we've asked people repeatedly what should be done instead. And the response is just to bleat 'there's got to be a better way!' and/or 'these problems you're complaining about don't exist!' I mean, seriously ML, you just jumped right in and said that option paralysis isn't a problem--even though hilariously enough another poster on this and the previous page said the same thing and didn't even realize that he had an option paralysis problem.

First, I didn't say that analysis paralysis isn't a problem: I said that it wasn't a problem at games I've played in. I don't believe in one system to rule them all, and if other people are experiencing problems with analysis paralysis then yes, they need to have their options limited for the sake of the game.

Second, I have often proposed a solution to this. Yes, its in my heartbreaker which will most likely never be completed (but I'm almost done with my wrestling game! ):

In how I've constructed it, actions in a round are based on Initiative, Accuracy, Damage, Defense, Resilience and Mobility. Any small number of important axes can be used though. Actions for the round are selected in secret (by card, or by small printout taped to the front of a standard card). Actions are revealed and immediately executed in reverse initiative order, with the slowest going first; faster actions interrupt slower actions which can be in turn interrupted by even faster actions. There is a limited and hampered set of Abort actions (such as Parrying or Diving for Cover), which you can jump to if you find your base action obviated.

At that point you're balancing the various actions so that their tradeoffs between their performance axes are sufficient that nothing is +ALL.

The intent is to inject enough risk into the process that your ultimate move has enough weakness to it that you're never 100% certain that it won't be exploited.

[ScottS]

Dragon Age works like this, and that is about the best and most popular part of an otherwise rather poorly done system. It does work fine and no one really seems to complain about it. There is a lot of complaining about Top Decking though - the maneuvers at each tier are so unbalanced that in most cases what is available has a 1:1 correspondance with what you will actually use that round. But literally no one condemns that part of the game as breaking player agency or any of that shit.

-Username17

Yeah I mentioned DA last time we talked about non-matrix variants of WoF (only know about it through podcasts so wasn't aware to what degree it sucked).

I guess along the lines of what you're saying, if you want to include anything like "Kryptonite Gas Arrow" as a type of power, you either have to

a) have the row you roll always be your "best choice" in a round (i.e. have every column be the same power with "more [W]" and/or supersets of rider effects the higher you go, up to and including having a generic "Plot Arrow: you accidentally find the target's secret weakness"); that version sounds like what you're saying about DA

or b) make it so that you can always choose powers in a lower row than what you roll; extreme version of this is that higher row check means you can choose from a larger section of the full matrix, which takes you away from the small-option-set goal on "good rounds"; toned-down version would be that you tag individual powers as "you can use this whenever you roll this row or higher", which would clutter the matrix somewhat but would at least prevent butthurt at not being able to use Summon Weed-B-Gon when you fight plants etc.

Coincidentally, I thought DA was b) rather than a), but like I said I haven't played it so perhaps you're correct.

[wotmaniac]

First, let me get the miscellany out of the way:

'these problems you're complaining about don't exist!' I mean, seriously ML, you just jumped right in and said that option paralysis isn't a problem--even though hilariously enough another poster on this and the previous page said the same thing and didn't even realize that he had an option paralysis problem.

No, get it straight: I've had player competency problems at my table.
Yes, I've had individual players that have indeed exhibited option paralysis issues; however, once the core problems were identified and addressed, the option paralysis issues went away.
So yes, option paralysis is a problem -- more accurately, it's a symptom. Identifying and addressing the core cause(s) is the solution. *TA-DA!* -- problem solved.
Your WoF tries to simply addresses the symptom. The actual core problem is usually player competency -- which is an issue that should be addressed at the table, as no system can truly "fix" this.
The other (less prevalent) core problem is over-thinking -- while I see this is primarily a personality issue that involves a disconnect with the intended scope and social context of the game, I will address this later.

What loss of player agency? Due to iterative probability, WoF lets you use any power you want.

Wow -- next, I bet you're gonna try to convince me that really is a cumulonimbus that you have stuffed in your pants.

-------------

As to the fluff that y'all are arguing over right now:
I can see any of it being explained within the context of some sort of fog-of-war something-something ...
done. simple as that.

of course, I don't agree that any explanation is wholly adequate to support a blanket use of this type of system; but the explanation is there.
_______________

What in the hell are you even talking about?

I'm talking about your sense of entitlement. Which you blather about here:

The other thing that really turns me off to this is that it feels like a game of musical grab-bags, what with not really being able to actually plan for anything -- "ooh, let's see what I get to do this round; okay, now what the hell do I get to do this round; alright, what random grab-bag do I have to rummage through now?"

And by "sense of entitlement", I assume you mean this in a bad way -- as in "over-developed" or "false" or "self-induced". If so, I think you misunderstand me. If someone takes special time and care in selecting their character's abilities, it's because they want to use them; and probably don't take kindly to some contrived bs that only lets them use those abilities on a completely arbitrary basis -- there's nothing false or overly-developed or self-induced about that kind of entitlement.

Look: in any game that is half way good, you don't get to plan anything. You can have contingencies for situations, [...]

You do realize that having contingencies is planning, right? Right? Okay.

Deciding that ahead of time isn't just jumping the gun, it's something that is detrimental to everything. Not simply your own enjoyment or the interest others can muster in your combat actions, but the actual effectiveness of your character. Enemies could have moved, or been stunned, or just happen to be far away from you or each other.

so, do I see you saying that the validity of someone else's character is dependent on whether you find it interesting? How many times have you nerdraged on somebody just because their character or how they play that character is not necessarily aesthetically pleasing to you?
And yes, I agree -- battlefield situations do change.

So when you say "I'm going to use Color Spray" on turn 3, then you're either a mouth breathing moron, or you're actually saying:

• If...
• The enemies [...]
• [...]
  I will use Color Spray on turn 3.

I'm glad you understand that. It's a good thing I don't endorse such a thing.

And within that context, WoF doesn't keep your from planning at all.

I guess you and I have differing ideas on what constitutes planning.

You have various contingencies. WoF is one of the things that will very profoundly affect what you'll be using, but you can still make a flowchart that will direct you to every single one of your powers. Just one of the earliest decision trees is "what did my WoF actually generate for turn 3?"

And if nothing comes up that round that is actually properly useful or appropriate for the particular set of circumstances of that round, then you're fucked.
Oh, and flowcharts? Now I need a fucking flowcharts to actually make this bs useful? Are you trying to revive Rolemaster?

Okay -- let's back up for a minute. I think you've misinterpreted what I'm talking about here. To be fair, I think that may have been my fault -- I used improper terminology when explaining my position. I only encountered "5MoD" just this past few days, and took that to be just some analogue for same-move-spamming -- apparently, "5MoD" has a more specific designation.
So, just to be clear:
- same-move-spamming, while unimaginative and boring, is a (semi-)legitimate player choice (hell, there's even entire classes designed around this). I believe this may be tied to player self-efficacy more than anything else.
- 5MoD is something I've never seen. I suspect that this may be more of a GM efficacy issue (I'm open to discussion of this if you care to).

________________

Now, with all that being said, let me say this:
I've been refreshing myself on the finer points of Game Theory the last couple of days; and, I must say, have started to develop a better appreciation of what you're trying to do.
Yes, I understand (and always have) that rules do indeed influence behavior. This is an exercise in behavior modification.
- Option Paralysis:
As I have personally experienced it, option-paralysis really has been primarily a player competency issue (what can I say -- I have high standards). And the complaints that I have seen here seem to boil down to this very thing much of the time.
However, being that this isn't an issue that can be truly addressed by any system, what you are actually trying to address is what I call the "over-thinker". While I personally believe that this can often be handled as a social issue (even though, at it's core, it can arguably be boiled down to a self-efficacy issue), I can certainly see the validity (and even virtue) of trying to handle this systemically from a mechanical approach.
What WoF does, through random and arbitrary limitation of choice, is force the player to not only make their decisions on a round-by-round basis; but also forces them to treat each round as it's own bubble. You've basically taken the combat encounter and broken it down in to a series of separate (yet related) one-round mini-encounters. Not only that, but players are issued a randomly determined set of powers with which to engage each mini-encounter. Furthermore, these sets of powers are but a very small cross-section of their actual abilities. I think this goes too far (I'll cover this a little more in a minute).
Random Tangent Moment -- Let's look at chess for a moment:
I've sometimes implemented a timer. Competitive chess also uses a timer. In both cases, the timer serves the same purpose -- you really do have to keep the game moving. Like in chess, TTRPGs often have players who attempt to play through in his head the entirety of a trembling hand perfect equilibrium for the entire encounter. The application of a timer prevents this by letting the player know that he simply doesn't have time for this. Oftentimes, however, this (obviously) leads to sub-optimal decisions due to either not being able to take the strategy out far enough or through miscalculations from having to speed-up the process too fast[/tangent]
So, instead, WoF just says "fuck you, you get *these* "options" this round; and your "options" are gonna change next round, so don't even bother trying to think past this round". Oh, wait a minute -- let me consult my flowchart. Gee, thanks. Additionally, I think you underestimate the capacity for this to actually draw encounters out longer than need be.

- 5MoD and/or same-move-spamming:
Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I really do believe this to be a GM efficacy issue. It's up to the GM to design and present interesting encounters that encourage (if not outright force) players to use varying tactics/moves/powers/etc. For every 5MoD-combo you throw at me, I'm sure I've got at least 5 different ways to make that combo sub-optimal. The tools are all their -- just use them.


Okay, now that I've just taken another big shit on your concept, let me propose something a little more constructive (now, this is just off the top of my head at the moment, so forgive me if this isn't fleshed-out and ready for playtesting):
you know, you seem to like this whole WoF thing so much, I'm just gonna try to work within the basic framework:
- organizing each of a character's abilities/powers/etc. in to groups of "tactics" (e.g., "damage", "control", "buff", "debuff", etc.)
- to simulate the fog-of-war concept that I mentioned earlier, since you seem to like the idea of randomizing the available move set, simply randomize the the "tactic". From there, the player chooses their action from within the tactic. The idea is to simulate having to make snap decisions in the heat of the moment ..... given the immediate circumstances, you react with the first "tactic" that comes to mind. add flavor as needed for a given circumstance.
Like I said, it's just an initial thought -- do with it what you will.