Help me actually understand Winds of Fate.

[name_here]

Um, Mean_Liar did, four posts above yours.

[hogarth]

Um, Mean_Liar did, four posts above yours.

That wasn't my question.

[mean_liar]

I'm not sure why people keep mentioning adding rows to WoF matrices. Thats clearly not what you'd do if you wanted more choices per round since it doesn't give more choices per round.

I'd also rather have more than 12 abilities total.

The "adding more rows" arises out of the idea that the WoF roll determines the column number, whereupon you choose your action off of the list running from row 1 to X, where X is your choices per round.

Regarding the total number of abilities, as an exercise list out up to 12 types of effective, separate in-combat attacks you'd like to have available at some identified tier of power. I think you might find that filling that up is somewhat difficult, but maybe not.

Also, keep in mind that while adding more abilities is something that WoF does well, it also means that your odds of pulling any particular ability drops with each new one. Wanting more than N abilities, say, means that you're looking at something like a 1/N chance of performing any ability (though with "card holding" or other storage mechanics you can rely on one or two moves, but then you're back to encouraging Ultimo-Moves, something WoF was supposed to mitigate against). I would think having a load of abilities means much less when you can't reliably use them.

[ScottS]

Tactical reductionism has absolutely nothing to do with WoF. Tactics reduce.

Speaking of reductionism, note that by this logic every wargame ever is tactically uninteresting because none of them use WoF.

You could make the argument that units in wargames have small numbers of options available to them, obviating WoF and retaining tactical interest because they have small numbers of choices. The follow-on question to that statement is, "how many is 'small'"? The research WoF's row magnitude is based on indicates 12, rather than 6, and a WoF with 12 rows seems unnecessary.

Side point but there are at least 2 popular lines of wargames that use forms of WoF (We The People derived "CDGs", and Command and Colors games). The WoF is done through cards, and the idea there is not so much "restricting options to a manageable number" but rather modelling "friction" in some fashion (e.g. not being able to supply more than one offensive at a time, not being able to have widely separated forces act simultaneously due to command/communication limits). Your decision tree is arguably being pared down from "use all units in your army in arbitrary order every turn", to "choose 1-5 units out of 20-30 total to move or attack each turn", but that's still not anywhere near 12 choices or whatever we're calling an ideal number. You pretty much always get to move and/or attack, but even basic functions like "gather reinforcements" are sometimes limited to specific card draws, so pretty WoF-like in that regard.

I guess this only relates to the thread in the sense that "You Can't Always Get What You Want" mechanics have been successfully used in other genres, and more people bought into the idea than rejected it.

[mean_liar]

I haven't played Command and Colors. I know that when you pull a card saying you can execute an action with a Medium unit, that's very similar to WoF's limitations: there's an arbitrarily short list of things you can do. Does CaC model uncommanded actions? As in, a unit engaged in melee with another unit - if you don't order them this turn, do they still attack?

I know in Warmaster the commander issues his orders and as he does so, his ability to issue further orders degrades, with your turn ending when you fail to issue an order. With multiple commanders but each command limited in range, you have to make tough decisions about what order to command in (you can't go back) and how much to push your commanders so that minor actions still occur... and then on top of that, your units still act on their own regardless of orders in a mindless, pre-programmed sort of way.

So, I like Warmaster. I like the flexibility it offers and how it models friction. Would I play CaC? Sure. Do I think of it as a better system (from what little I know of it) compared to Warmaster? No, I don't.

I also think that the parallel between command friction (distance and chaos mucking up a marshal's ability to lead) and confusion and restrictions arising in hand-to-hand combat should be different. In one, you're a skilled actor attempting to provide direction to goons. In the other, you're a skilled actor attempting to provide direction to yourself. Against a single goon or a squad of master assassins in the dark, you're rolling and similarly limited. I don't like that feel.

[PhoneLobster]

Regarding the total number of abilities, as an exercise list out up to 12 types of effective, separate in-combat attacks you'd like to have available at some identified tier of power. I think you might find that filling that up is somewhat difficult, but maybe not.

Then do it again. For 5 different character classes. Then double that for the classes that didn't come. Then double THAT for the abilities people didn't select then multiply THAT by the number of different power levels you need that many powers at.

And that's actually a pretty sparse number of powers to pick from given the size of actual power sets being brought to the table.

[Username17]

Regarding the total number of abilities, as an exercise list out up to 12 types of effective, separate in-combat attacks you'd like to have available at some identified tier of power. I think you might find that filling that up is somewhat difficult, but maybe not.

Then do it again. For 5 different character classes. Then double that for the classes that didn't come. Then double THAT for the abilities people didn't select then multiply THAT by the number of different power levels you need that many powers at.

And that's actually a pretty sparse number of powers to pick from given the size of actual power sets being brought to the table.

Yeah, that would be pretty sparse. I think to credibly do a Class and Maneuver based tactical system, you'd need about 800 combat maneuvers. That would be about 40,000 words, and take up about 54 pages of a coffee table RPG book. Or about 120 pages of word document.

Totally workable. It wold take me a couple of months to crank it out alone.

-Username17

[mean_liar]

I'd recommend doing it off of a modular effects-driven system. You don't want additive abilities, you want to have multiplicative ones.

It's easier to write 12 abilities and 12 things you can do to mod those abilities and then say, "you can have up to X abilities and Y mods per power based on your level" or something similar. Even if you restrict X to 2 and Y to 2, then you're looking at (12 + 12*11 + (12*11) * 12 + (12*11) * (12*11)) ability combinations.

And you can do that in under 40000 words as well.

800 separate maneuvers sounds to me like a recipe for shit. Or 4e. However you want to classify that.

[wotmaniac]

The WoF is done through cards, and the idea there is not so much "restricting options to a manageable number" but rather modelling "friction" in some fashion (e.g. not being able to supply more than one offensive at a time, not being able to have widely separated forces act simultaneously due to command/communication limits). Your decision tree is arguably being pared down from "use all units in your army in arbitrary order every turn", to "choose 1-5 units out of 20-30 total to move or attack each turn", but that's still not anywhere near 12 choices or whatever we're calling an ideal number. You pretty much always get to move and/or attack, but even basic functions like "gather reinforcements" are sometimes limited to specific card draws, so pretty WoF-like in that regard.

I guess this only relates to the thread in the sense that "You Can't Always Get What You Want" mechanics have been successfully used in other genres, and more people bought into the idea than rejected it.

alright ... call me stupid, but I fail to understand something:
how is that not "restricting options to a manageable number"? wouldn't it be the same concept, except just using a different mechanism (i.e., action economy)?
I'm just asking.

Also, every game involves "You Can't Always Get What You Want". It's just a matter of where in the process you implement the governors -- the closer to the final decision point you place them, the more pronounced the effect is in game play. Also, the manner of implementation influences the mind-set behind the importance with which those governors are perceived.
yes/no/maybe???


okay, now I've got a bit of a slight derail. I know that much of it is re-hash; but hopefully I've been able to say things in a different enough way so as to cause some different synapse to fire.
I'll spoiler this for thread convenience:

I've been thinking .... and I'm gonna have to renege just a little on my marketing statement -- but only because of "mission statement".
If the "mission statement" had been something along the lines of "design a system that has the functionality of a TCG, but with the added depth of narrative of an RPG", then I'd be on board. But that would mean that you'd be critiquing the several other games that already do this, and "improve" upon them (or, at least, adapt something similar that serves that audience in a slightly different way).
However, as far as I can tell, this does not seem to be the case. All the critiques that I've seen address perceived problems of RPGs. In essence, the "mission statement" seems to be something along the lines of "fix the problems that appear inherent to RPGs". Now, if you want to say that you are doing the latter by implementing the former, I'm gonna have to disagree -- because the 2 "mission statements" involve 2 different types of games. "But that's why it's a hybrid", you might say ..... too which I say "right -- it's a third type of game".
This is an important distinction, and I think that it needs to be made. If you want to design a different type of game, then fine, say as much. However, if you're goal is to improve the functionality of an existing game type, then you should probably work within the framework of that kind of game.

Before I go off on my tirade, let me just say that one of the major strengths that should be sought in an RPG is the ability to accommodate many different play styles and preferences. Being able to do so gives the necessary flexibility to each individual group to be able to run things the way they see fit (as well as flexibility for the individual player) -- this gives you depth of player base, which is ultimately good for the game.

Let's look at the problems that have tried to be addressed:
- same-move spam
this is seen as a problem because it's "boring". but boring to who? if it's boring to the individual using this spamming, then we do need to address the individual player. however, if it's just boring to others, then they probably just need to get over themselves -- but I will add this one caveat: if someone just isn't appropriate for the group, then perhaps that does need to be addressed (preferably by finding ways to encourage them to adapt to the norms of the group; but other, less palatable, options do exist).
now, I've boiled this down to basically a self-efficacy issue for the following reasons:
same-move spamming has been theorized to be a function of the inadequacy of heuristics -- and this is partially correct. It also indicates a lack of imagination. Both of these problems, however, stem from the same self-efficacy issue -- the lack of the player to recognize his ability to be effective in other ways. The inadequate heuristics supposedly cause the "fuck it, I fireball him" -- this is just satisficing in its most basic form. Why does this happen? Because he lacks the imagination to think of other ways to be effective -- which is primarily an issue of his mastery of his options (which, btw, involves much more than just knowing what the powers' entry says in the book -- this also involves, amongst other things, a practical understanding of what they look like in action).
So, he resorts to satisficing, because he knows that is what works -- this also implies that he thinks that other things won't work. Which we know is bullshit, because we know, empirically, that other things do indeed work. This brings us to the self-efficacy issue ... address that -- and do it directly, not by insulting his intelligence by contriving some hand-holding mechanic that assumes that he is incapable of learning to do it himself (remember, I did endorse WoF as a primer for introducing noobs to a wide variety of power types).
Now, as a side note: if the class itself actively and intentionally demands same-move spam (I'm looking at you, warlock), then the issue is the individual class, and needs to be addressed unapologetically head-on.

- 5MoD:
This is like unto same-move spam, in that it is boring. First -- hey, at least there's more than just 1 or 2 moves going on; right? just be glad they found a solution to their own same-move spamming and option paralysis (besides, I would think that this is preferable to either same-move spamming or option paralysis .... but that's just me)
Now, with this one, I'm just gonna have to be a hard-liner. This is a GM issue. There are just too many possible types of scenarios for the exact same set of 5 (or 3, or 6, or whatever) moves to work every time. If this is happening, then 1 of 3 things will need to happen (preferably in order):
1) if everybody else is having fun, then get over yourself and go with the flow , -or-
2) get back to the drawing board. whatever you're doing, it's not working -- get out of your complacency and get to work (that may include getting some aid from other GMs) , -or-
3) you, as a GM, need to take a long, hard look in the mirror. After which, if you, as well as your players, still believe you to be fit to remain seated behind the GM Screen, then you are gonna seriously need to swallow your pride and shelve your ego long enough to have an open and honest conversation with your players.
In all 3 scenarios, you have to get your ego out of the way, period.
Now, if someone has multiple different sets of 5MoD (i.e., 1 or more sets for each different type of scenario), and you still wanna bitch .... well, now you're just being a nit-picky little cry-baby -- and I can't help you with that.

- option paralysis
okay, much of this boils down to being able to satisfice, as opposed to maximize. Now, I know you might be thinking "but didn't you just criticize satisficing a couple of paragraphs ago?". No, I criticized a core motivation driving a specific type and manner of satisficing -- 2 different things.
I think that some are trying to get way too much mileage out of the whole "too many options" bit. I mean, give me a break ... people lock up even if they only have 2 or 3 options -- I know, because I see it every.single.day. So, whether it's 2 options or 20, indecisive people are gonna be indecisive no matter what.
With some people, this is a precursor to same-move spam; and I've already covered that one, so .....
With others, they're probably just taking things too seriously. Sometimes this is an individual personality issue. Other times, it might be a function of the overall tone and mood set by the GM and/or the group as a whole. I've also experienced this first-hand .... a simple shift in the tone and mood can really let the players relax more, which can be a huge help with this option paralysis thing. Why? Because it reduces the pressure to perform that is experienced by many players (often self-induced). They need to realize that the game isn't about "winning". It's that obsession with "winning" that locks people up; it causes them to become unhealthily attached to their characters. But guess what? You can always just roll up another one. "Fun" has been defined as "learning in a safe environment" ... and it's okay that your character died because you made some less-than-optimal decisions, because it happened in a safe environment ..... I mean, it's not like you died -- it was just a figment of your imagination. So, learn what there is to learn from that situation, and move on.
_______

The reason that I like manna points (or whatever you want to call it) is that it fixes much of the issues I personally find in vancian-type systems and that still makes sense to me.
Let's look at psionics (and if you're getting hung-up on the "flavor", you've got other problems):
- you get enough options to keep things interesting for you, without having so many that you can't keep track of everything
- it's easy enough to conceptualize without distracting from the narrative (I'm looking at you, Vance). i.e., it's quite intuitive (or maybe it's just me)
- there are very few simply binary effects .... the granularity is such that you are better able to customize the use of each power
Now, the biggest criticism that I've seen is one of resource management. If you end up nova-ing every round, then of course you're gonna be spent. I guess it's time to learn how to manage your resources. Don't fall victim to the ever-increasing societal pitfall of instant-gratification. If you have to shoot your entire load in only 1 or 2 encounters, either you or the GM is doing something wrong. And no, managing that resource is not as complicated/time-consuming/convoluted as it has been claimed. It's real easy -- keep a running total on a piece of scratch paper; when you hit your max total for the day, you're done. It's not like your dealing with complex numbers here -- at any given point, you're simply adding a 1-or-2 digit # to a 1,2, or 3 digit # .... 10 seconds and your done. Hell, D&D is, from top to bottom, a game of resource management. At any given time, you have at least a dozen different resources that you are having to manage.

Speaking of resource management .... despite the claim, WoF is not a method of resource management -- it's decision management through arbitrary option inhibition. From everything I can tell, there are no resources to manage -- once you stack your matrix, it manages itself.
Like I said at the top, look at your "mission statement"

Also like I said at the top, hopefully I've been able to reiterate this in a way so as to give it at least a slightly different light. If not, here's the reminder this was time spent that you are never gonna get back -- you're welcome.

[MGuy]

How is item/scroll/similar thing modeled in WoF? How do you ability sets change if you switch between being mounted or unmounted?

[Orion]

I'm not familiar with the phrase "self-efficacy"

[wotmaniac]

I'm not familiar with the phrase "self-efficacy"

here you go.

[ScottS]

I haven't played Command and Colors. I know that when you pull a card saying you can execute an action with a Medium unit, that's very similar to WoF's limitations: there's an arbitrarily short list of things you can do. Does CaC model uncommanded actions? As in, a unit engaged in melee with another unit - if you don't order them this turn, do they still attack?(...)I also think that the parallel between command friction (distance and chaos mucking up a marshal's ability to lead) and confusion and restrictions arising in hand-to-hand combat should be different. In one, you're a skilled actor attempting to provide direction to goons. In the other, you're a skilled actor attempting to provide direction to yourself. Against a single goon or a squad of master assassins in the dark, you're rolling and similarly limited. I don't like that feel.

Generally, if you don't use cards to activate the units then they just sit there (they shoot back if attacked, retreat if they lose a battle, and in some games have a limited ability to "intercept" i.e. move into an enemy's way and force a combat if someone's trying to move around/past them). You can't initiate attacks and/or continue a fight from one turn to the next unless you keep playing cards for that unit.

The "friction" isn't the same between a large force and a single combatant, I agree, but as mentioned above, I'm pretty used to the idea of RPGs lightly boning PCs when they try to do anything important (e.g. a 50-60% success rate on "heroic" actions is pretty depressing when you think about it, but that figure gets used as a design benchmark in a lot of cases to "keep the die rolls exciting").

alright ... call me stupid, but I fail to understand something: how is that not "restricting options to a manageable number"? wouldn't it be the same concept, except just using a different mechanism (i.e., action economy)? I'm just asking(...)Also, every game involves "You Can't Always Get What You Want". It's just a matter of where in the process you implement the governors -- the closer to the final decision point you place them, the more pronounced the effect is in game play. Also, the manner of implementation influences the mind-set behind the importance with which those governors are perceived. yes/no/maybe???

It is introducing an action economy, and it is "less options", but what I was trying to get across was that a) it's not generally limiting your options down to a mere 12, and b) it's not "less decision-making" from a time-wasting perspective.

You have two identical wargames with 20 units/pieces; in one, you can activate all your units every turn, and in the other, you are limited to around 3 activations per turn (activating one unit at a time, consecutively, in both cases). As an initial estimate, you're comparing 20! to 20-choose-3 different move sequences, so obviously you've narrowed the set of possibilites down a lot, but you're still in the hundreds. Also, being able to move everything at once means that you can just blow through your turn in a lot of cases, because the particular order of your moves may not matter (e.g. in strategic games with multiple "fronts", where what happens on one end of the map has no direct effect on the other end; or games where for whatever reason, adjacent units aren't allowed to cooperate and/or have to declare all attacks up front before you resolve any of them). In the only-move-3-per-turn case, on the other hand, you may run into the "choosing flavors of jam"/decision anxiety situation discussed above. You have a lot of ways of running your turn, and you can narrow that down using heuristics (e.g. wanting to crush a guy in one location = just spend all your activations in that section of the map, front falling apart from enemy attack = spend the necessary activations to shore it up), but the turn can still run long if the person sits there derping while he decides what to do. So between the two cases, you're trading off mechanical resolution time for "pondering the board" time. It probably runs faster overall, but it's not like Paths of Glory etc. are what you would call "fast games".

[Username17]

I am inherently distrustful of self-efficacy, because it has a negative correlation with actual competence.

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

Dammit, I confused self-efficacy with self-effacing. So much for my English language competence.

How is item/scroll/similar thing modeled in WoF?

That would depend on how you want different types of items to work. A single-use item that is usable in combat time might have its own WoF slot for when you have the chance to whip it out.

How do you ability sets change if you switch between being mounted or unmounted?

Would probably depend on both the mount and the rider. An untrained rider on a horse would probably get nothing. A dragon knight might replace 'charge' with 'trample' and 'whirlwind slash' with 'fire breath'.

[Orion]

I'm a little confused about that point, Frank. The wiki page you linked does assert several times that "people with actual ability underestimate themselves," but it doesn't back it up. The actual study they cite showed that the wrost quartile were overconfident, while the better students were *accurate* -- suggesting to me that basically everyone put themselves in the second quartile, and there is no negative correlation between ability and confidence. In fact, even if we grant them the assumption that talented people are *underconfident* it takes more than that plus the overconfidence of the untalented to show that relationship.

For example, if absolutely everyone rated their ability as "average", it would be true that the untalented are overconfident and the talented are underconfident, but FALSE to say there there is a "negative correlation between ability and confidence."

[Username17]

I'm a little confused about that point, Frank. The wiki page you linked does assert several times that "people with actual ability underestimate themselves," but it doesn't back it up. The actual study they cite showed that the wrost quartile were overconfident, while the better students were *accurate* -- suggesting to me that basically everyone put themselves in the second quartile, and there is no negative correlation between ability and confidence. In fact, even if we grant them the assumption that talented people are *underconfident* it takes more than that plus the overconfidence of the untalented to show that relationship.

For example, if absolutely everyone rated their ability as "average", it would be true that the untalented are overconfident and the talented are underconfident, but FALSE to say there there is a "negative correlation between ability and confidence."

The uskilled rate themselves as superior much of the time. In fact, a majority of people over all self report themselves as above average. 42% of engineers think their work is in the top 5%. 94% of professors think their work is above average. And so on. The really great one of course is driving, where self-reporting one's self as an "above average driver" statistically correlates to actually being an "unsafe driver" as defined by insurance companies.

People who are in fact unskilled have a higher tendency to self rate themselves as highly skilled. People who are in fact highly skilled have a tendency to rate themselves down.

When people respond to suggested systems to make things easier for players with suggestions that players need to just "Get Better" like "they" are, I am highly suspicious.

-Username17

[MGuy]

Considering that a player's only responsibility is to know how their character works I don't think its a big stretch to ask them to know their abilities thoroughly enough to know how they should be used when they get to the table. If they choose not to do that I don't think the game should lose parts of itself to compensate.

On another note the more I hear about people spamming the same abilities the less I'm beginning to care about it as an issue. I actually started out thinking it was a problem but the more I hear the arguments about how people should be forced to use things that aren't what they want to use the more I start to think that it isn't an issue worth pursuing.

[Username17]

Considering that a player's only responsibility is to know how their character works I don't think its a big stretch to ask them to know their abilities thoroughly enough to know how they should be used when they get to the table. If they choose not to do that I don't think the game should lose parts of itself to compensate.

I'm beginning to think you're being deliberately thick. The people in candy selection studies know what all the candies are, know what they do, and know how they work. They don't need to have kitkats explained to them, they don't need to reread peanut butter cups. They don't have a problem with failing to use snickers successfully and they are capable of opening and eating a bag of skittles without mishap.

Nonetheless, having larger lists of candy to select from does not increase enjoyment after a point. Even at the point where all selections are positive (you get candy), and every choice is fully comprehended by the subject before the game even begins (as they are familiar with each candy and the effects of eating each one), there is still a point where a larger selection pool decreases rather than increases satisfaction. And it's not even terribly large. It's in the low double digits.

When you introduce wrong choices and longterm consequences, the number of choices that people like goes down significantly. When faced with a decision with consequences and six choices, barely more than two people in three will actually fully consider each option rather than employing a simplistic elimination heuristic. When the number of choices is increased to 9, less than one person in four actually considers each option.

And before you say "I'm that one person in four! Don't dumb the game down just because the other three people suck.", I'm sorry to say it but you probably actually aren't. Certainly, when Wotmanic and hogarth were explaining their decision making processes, they were actually describing a shallow elimination heuristic that almost certainly produces suboptimal tactics all the time.

The reality is that people are happier and more productive when they are making a choice from 6 options than when they are making a choice from 18. The obvious and optimal choice is therefore to give the player 6 choices during a combat round. The alternative to WoF is not to give them all 18 abilities to choose from every round, because that makes people demotivated, unhappy, and unproductive. The alternative is to give them a WoF where every row is exactly the same and they still only have 6 choices each round. WoF isn't there to limit the number of options players have on a round by round basis to the ideal number - you'd do that anyway. WoF is there to increase the number of abilities characters ever use by changing what those options actually are on a round by round basis.

-Username17

[hogarth]

Certainly, when Wotmanic and hogarth were explaining their decision making processes, they were actually describing a shallow elimination heuristic that almost certainly produces suboptimal tactics all the time.

How self-efficacious of you to think so.

[MfA]

That's the wrong way to look at it. The takeaway is that people still pick sorcerers and warlocks even though it has been repeatedly shown that they are inferior choices to wizards for a variety of reasons. In other words, using a bait and switch but continuing to offer the bait after you introduce the switch will still have people picking bait. Even if the switch actually turns out to be much better.

How am I wrong? It proves that people will chose classes with "better" designed action mechanics even when they are mechanically inferior ... if you made a WoF class which was actually balanced with the wizard people should come to it even easier.

So how is that not an argument to put in the Vancian wizard? You get the grognards and people who don't want the complexity wont have to.

[mean_liar]

This just in:

Chess players hate the game
Checkers is too complicated
Same for wargames
Frank supports paternalism necessary to save people from unoptimized choices (not too surprising, really)
All heuristic sorts are suboptimal

I think that hit all the low points.

[MGuy]

Considering that a player's only responsibility is to know how their character works I don't think its a big stretch to ask them to know their abilities thoroughly enough to know how they should be used when they get to the table. If they choose not to do that I don't think the game should lose parts of itself to compensate.

I'm beginning to think you're being deliberately thick. The people in candy selection studies know what all the candies are, know what they do, and know how they work. They don't need to have kitkats explained to them, they don't need to reread peanut butter cups. They don't have a problem with failing to use snickers successfully and they are capable of opening and eating a bag of skittles without mishap.

Nonetheless, having larger lists of candy to select from does not increase enjoyment after a point. Even at the point where all selections are positive (you get candy), and every choice is fully comprehended by the subject before the game even begins (as they are familiar with each candy and the effects of eating each one), there is still a point where a larger selection pool decreases rather than increases satisfaction. And it's not even terribly large. It's in the low double digits.

When you introduce wrong choices and longterm consequences, the number of choices that people like goes down significantly. When faced with a decision with consequences and six choices, barely more than two people in three will actually fully consider each option rather than employing a simplistic elimination heuristic. When the number of choices is increased to 9, less than one person in four actually considers each option.

And before you say "I'm that one person in four! Don't dumb the game down just because the other three people suck.", I'm sorry to say it but you probably actually aren't. Certainly, when Wotmanic and hogarth were explaining their decision making processes, they were actually describing a shallow elimination heuristic that almost certainly produces suboptimal tactics all the time.

The reality is that people are happier and more productive when they are making a choice from 6 options than when they are making a choice from 18. The obvious and optimal choice is therefore to give the player 6 choices during a combat round. The alternative to WoF is not to give them all 18 abilities to choose from every round, because that makes people demotivated, unhappy, and unproductive. The alternative is to give them a WoF where every row is exactly the same and they still only have 6 choices each round. WoF isn't there to limit the number of options players have on a round by round basis to the ideal number - you'd do that anyway. WoF is there to increase the number of abilities characters ever use by changing what those options actually are on a round by round basis.

-Username17

1) Why do I give a damn if people don't always make the most optimal use of every abilities they have all the time? In a system where you don't have your abilities taken away people simply CHOOSE not to use their abilities why do I care? Why should I care? That's their choice. They have plenty of time to go home, learn their choices, think of cool ways to use them and show up at the game either ready to exercise them or not.

2) If your concern is that a person won't use all their abilities then why make a system where they don't even get the choice to? What functional difference is there between a person choosing in a given situation to not use 60% of their abilities and a system that tells you you can't use just as many because randomness. Yes this system FORCES you to use options you wouldn't regularly consider but so would an encounter that makes your regular choices obviously bad , unusable, or useless.

3) If a person defaults to the thought of using fireball in a given situation then not having fireball roll up will cause them to use the closest move to fireball (area+Damage). For ability spammers they will fill their matrix up with these. Considering that you've already admitted the skill lists will~ be rife with repeats this doesn't stop spammers from spamming it just turns them into palette swaps.

4) Why should I care if people make suboptimal choices? You certainly don't as this system will most likely very often not provide you with the optimal choice from your ability set. It will force you to use the options available based on random happenstance, and those choices could very well be all suboptimal. The chance of this is increased if the abilities are in reality credibly different~ from one another. So how is it better to force someone to make a suboptimal choice than for them to choose to do so? I mean you could say they are more likely to use the most optimal choice based on the 6 options given but if you have a BETTER option somewhere else on your matrix then you've effectively chosen a suboptimal ability anyway.

In the example with the zombies. I know I can illussion my way around this situation but I rolled up a row where the best option is fireball. I HAVE to use it instead of illusions, not because I failed to realize illusions would do the trick but because it didn't roll up.

[Username17]

If people aren't evaluating an option, it doesn't make any difference if they have it or not. The 9th ability isn't 12% more real choices, it's like half as many real choices.

-Username17

[MGuy]

Here's that IF again. "If" people can evaluate their choices then everything is ok. I can't say that I can effectively evaluate my choices because you seem to be running on the logic that IF I say I do I probably can't.

However that "If" isn't what I asked about. What I asked you was how was cutting off people's ability to choose effectively different from them choosing to do the same their own?