Moderator: Moderators
By relying on the fact that most people don't actually understand probability and warping it all in a fancy package.RadiantPhoenix wrote:So, how can we make the odds better than they look?
It's terrible because it's a slapdash fix that sounds good but we know that they won't actually follow through on. It's like when 1980s' Republicans say that we don't have to raise taxes, there's enough that can be trimmed from the budget by trimming programs. It's all well and good, but we all know that they didn't have the will to do what actually needed to be done to drive down spending (namely, slashing the MiC and implementing single-payer UHC) so their kick-the-can-down-the-road solutions like eliminating 'pork' or defunding the HHS or slashing the budget to the NEA was actually worse than not doing anything at all.echoVanguard wrote: This statement doesn't make any sense. If the paradigm they choose is substandard, and there's a benefit which makes it not substandard, how is that denial? I agree that the Magic Item Mart Gift Card idea is terrible, but it's terrible for very distinct reasons which have nothing to do with the core viability of the class paradigm.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
The bold part gives the show away. The people jacking off to VAHs want to win against the odds because of their own clever choices. That is what they want. That is not going to fucking happen, because unlikely events are unlikely. You can beat the odds, but by definition the majority of the time you are not going to.echoVanguard wrote: Frank - I totally disagree with the basic premise of what you're saying. People, on average, don't want to play objectively more terrible characters and win anyway, they want their characters to be equally powerful without access to explicit phlebotinum. They want to win using wits, improvisation, and luck, and those are things that class mechanics can provide to characters. Having extra rerolls that spellcasters don't get access to, for example, is statistically similar to "I roll higher because I'm luckier".
echo
If you're talking about having improbable events happen that aren't governed by die rolls, you're right. If you're talking about things that are governed by die rolls, you clearly didn't read past the bolded part of my statement.FrankTrollman wrote:...unlikely events are unlikely. You can beat the odds, but by definition the majority of the time you are not going to.
These assertions are all demonstrably false. If a particular character has a class ability to retroactively subvert an opponent's agents, that's a feasible definition of outwitting them. If a particular character has the ability to keep rerolling a die until it comes up a 20, that's a perfectly valid way to force things to unexpectedly go your way. The list of abilities that can be given to a class are constrained only by the rules of the system and the inventiveness of the designer.The mechanics can't provide you with the ability to outwit your opponent. The mechanics can't provide you with the ability the have things unexpectedly go your way. Those are not going to fucking happen.
Are you confusing a character outwitting another character with a player outwitting another player? Because that isn't what I'm talking about at all, and any arguments that say "but that's really the only type of outwitting that's valid" will be completely spurious.And get this: if you're so fucking stupid that you think that winning by being the underdog and hoping that black swans come and save you is a thing to aspire to: the chances of you outwitting anyone are pretty fucking low.
Probably true, although there have been some pretty sad attempts at doing so (e.g. the d20 Modern smart hero's ability to make a vague "plan" and add a bonus to rolls for the party).FrankTrollman wrote:And that is the beginning and the end of the argument. The mechanics can't provide you with the ability to outwit your opponent.echoVanguard wrote: They want to win using wits, improvisation, and luck, and those are things that class mechanics can provide to characters.
A luck bonus (or whatever) might be in-character "unexpectedly lucky" even if it's clearly not "unexpectedly lucky" out-of-character.FrankTrollman wrote:The mechanics can't provide you with the ability the have things unexpectedly go your way.
Who is "you"? The player? Or the PC?FrankTrollman wrote:No it isn't. you totally expect it because you're doing it.EV wrote:If a particular character has the ability to keep rerolling a die until it comes up a 20, that's a perfectly valid way to force things to unexpectedly go your way.
-Username17
I, the player, expect it. My character doesn't (and more importantly, neither do the other characters).FrankTrollman wrote:No it isn't. you totally expect it because you're doing it.EV wrote:If a particular character has the ability to keep rerolling a die until it comes up a 20, that's a perfectly valid way to force things to unexpectedly go your way.
-Username17
If you think you will satisfy these people by giving their character an additional bonus to attack rolls and armor class that their character officially does not know they have, You Are Wrong.echoVanguard wrote:I, the player, expect it. My character doesn't (and more importantly, neither do the other characters).FrankTrollman wrote:No it isn't. you totally expect it because you're doing it.EV wrote:If a particular character has the ability to keep rerolling a die until it comes up a 20, that's a perfectly valid way to force things to unexpectedly go your way.
-Username17
echo
Some people are idiots who will never be satisfied by any sensible mechanic. Does that mean that no one should create sensible mechanics?FrankTrollman wrote: If you think you will satisfy these people by giving their character an additional bonus to attack rolls and armor class that their character officially does not know they have, You Are Wrong.
Probably not - and frankly, that's not even close to being equivalent in power to, say, spellcasting as a core class feature. But it might be a workable starting point. I'm also interested in your response to hogarth's question about the Foil Action ability.FrankTrollman wrote:If you think you will satisfy these people by giving their character an additional bonus to attack rolls and armor class that their character officially does not know they have, You Are Wrong.
-Username17
TheFlatline wrote:This is like arguing that blowjobs have to be terrible, pain-inflicting endeavors so that when you get a chick who *doesn't* draw blood everyone can high-five and feel good about it.
But that doesn't help fighters. At all. If anything, the casters should be better at this because they're smarter and more charismatic. Hell, even the clerics are harder to lie to because they have wisdom bonuses, and in D&D land, you can call up the God of being Crazy Prepared (Briiu'ce Way''ne) and ask him if there's anything you missed, but only if you;re a caster. Meanwhile the warriors are rewarded more for putting points into physical power rather than mental.hyzmarca wrote:Outwitting a vastly superior enemy is perfectly plausible. It merely requires the game to be one of wits rather than one of blowing stuff up. Oedipus doesn't need superpowers to walk up to the Sphinx and say "a man".
Of course, that type of puzzle boss is rather extreme. Usually it merely requires the PC to have a source of information that the enemy does not. Lets say that the Dark Lord has the Artifact of Doom that would give him unlimited power if only he knew how to use it. I'm an average peasant and he can vaporize a mountain ranges with his at-will eye lasers. I can't possibly take the artifact from him. But the Artifact of Doom only works if used in one very precise way and failing to use the proper procedures and passwords will result in lethal feedback capable of slaying even gods, no saving throw allowed and I found the only copy instruction book in the hidden in Great Library of Thond (which is why the Black Fliers of Azamorn are after me).
I outwit the Dark Lord by scribing a copy of the book, slightly modified, and destroying the original. When he attempts to use the instructions that I've altered, he dies instantly. The Black Fliers die with him because their unnatural existence is tied to his and I win.
And there's always that trick to insta-kill the demi-lich at the end of Tomb of Horrors with the crown and scepter trap.
It isn't hard. Even Frodo could beat Sauron by just throwing the damned ring into the volcano.
OgreBattle wrote:"And thus the denizens learned that hating Shadzar was the only thing they had in common, and with him gone they turned their venom upon each other"
-Sarpadian Empires, vol. I
The Tome fighter's Foil Action ability is a useful mechanic for something that has the special effect of doing things through clever swordplay and luck. It does not actually cause people to overcome odds, it causes odds to change wildly in your favor.hogarth wrote: Does the fact that the Tome Fighter's "Foil Action" mechanic wouldn't satisfy Elennsar mean that it isn't a useful mechanic for simulating non-magical cool fighter tricks?
That's about what I thought. And that's exactly what I'm talking about - taking a level-appropriate ability and giving it the theme and flavor of using wit, improvisation, and luck to succeed at challenges. Quite frankly, people who want to fight balors as commoners are not and should not be significant factors in TTRPG design beyond the level of core design principles (as in, don't make it easy for players to create unplayable builds).FrankTrollman wrote:The Tome fighter's Foil Action ability is a useful mechanic for something that has the special effect of doing things through clever swordplay and luck. It does not actually cause people to overcome odds, it causes odds to change wildly in your favor.hogarth wrote: Does the fact that the Tome Fighter's "Foil Action" mechanic wouldn't satisfy Elennsar mean that it isn't a useful mechanic for simulating non-magical cool fighter tricks?
So if someone is mature enough to say that they want a character that looks like they skim through things by the skin of their teeth, that sort of mechanic is helpful. What K and I discovered however is that a lot of the Fighter demands are not that they want a grit and luck and trickiness skin on effective level-appropriate abilities, but that they literally want to rely on actual luck and provide the trickiness themselves.
That the Elensarrs of the world are in fact incredibly common, and compromise an actual majority of people who come into Fighter vs. Mage debates to herp derp about how how Fighters aren't underpowered.
-Username17
These people need to play a lot more Champions. As annoying as that game can sometimes be, it's extremely clarifying when it comes to learning to distinguish mechanical effect and special effect.FrankTrollman wrote:What K and I discovered however is that a lot of the Fighter demands are not that they want a grit and luck and trickiness skin on effective level-appropriate abilities, but that they literally want to rely on actual luck and provide the trickiness themselves.
As a general rule, PCs should not be stupider than their players. If the player can think of it, then so can the PC. The DM doesn't get to respond to a clever plan with "no, your character is too stupid to think of that".CapnTthePirateG wrote:But that doesn't help fighters. At all. If anything, the casters should be better at this because they're smarter and more charismatic. Hell, even the clerics are harder to lie to because they have wisdom bonuses, and in D&D land, you can call up the God of being Crazy Prepared (Briiu'ce Way''ne) and ask him if there's anything you missed, but only if you;re a caster. Meanwhile the warriors are rewarded more for putting points into physical power rather than mental.hyzmarca wrote:Outwitting a vastly superior enemy is perfectly plausible. It merely requires the game to be one of wits rather than one of blowing stuff up. Oedipus doesn't need superpowers to walk up to the Sphinx and say "a man".
Of course, that type of puzzle boss is rather extreme. Usually it merely requires the PC to have a source of information that the enemy does not. Lets say that the Dark Lord has the Artifact of Doom that would give him unlimited power if only he knew how to use it. I'm an average peasant and he can vaporize a mountain ranges with his at-will eye lasers. I can't possibly take the artifact from him. But the Artifact of Doom only works if used in one very precise way and failing to use the proper procedures and passwords will result in lethal feedback capable of slaying even gods, no saving throw allowed and I found the only copy instruction book in the hidden in Great Library of Thond (which is why the Black Fliers of Azamorn are after me).
I outwit the Dark Lord by scribing a copy of the book, slightly modified, and destroying the original. When he attempts to use the instructions that I've altered, he dies instantly. The Black Fliers die with him because their unnatural existence is tied to his and I win.
And there's always that trick to insta-kill the demi-lich at the end of Tomb of Horrors with the crown and scepter trap.
It isn't hard. Even Frodo could beat Sauron by just throwing the damned ring into the volcano.
While I agree with everything you said, there are a lot of players I know who would disagree.hyzmarca wrote: As a general rule, PCs should not be stupider than their players. If the player can think of it, then so can the PC. The DM doesn't get to respond to a clever plan with "no, your character is too stupid to think of that".
The thing to remember is that players do not want to challenge their characters. Players want you to challenge them. The character is superfluous except as an avatar for the player.
