Shitty character concepts need to die

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
K
King
Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by K »

ETortoise wrote:
While it may be true that the DM can provide any contrivance needed to advance the plot it feels more impressive to do it yourself. Especially since the DM could just give you enough clues for the players to think that going to the Abyss or whatever is their clever idea. The idea that something feels cooler is worth considering seriously since we are ultimately talking about a game we play for fun.
"What's cooler" is ultimately about execution.

So it may be cooler to personally fly to the Cloud Castle than to hitch a ride on an airship, an extended aerial Skydwarf Airship vs. Cloud Castle battle that culminates in a daring combat insertion for the party is even cooler.

It also means that there are a lot of uncool executions of travel powers. Running away to some plane to rest or gather allies is ultimately less cool than just beating the challenge set before you with what is available. Hell, even losing the challenge with what is available is more cool than "and then we spent several hours of session-time scouring the planes for allies to do the adventure for us."
Last edited by K on Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ishy
Duke
Posts: 2404
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:59 pm

Post by ishy »

K wrote:There are eight locations you can go to where there are going to be adventures, and having the ability to planeshift is not going to add more adventure locations.

You can totally say "I'm going to this location that is not on the list," and the DM replies "Ok, there is nothing there. What do you do?" You then proceed to do nothing because there is no adventure or encounter there.

At best, you are saying that the DM is under some kind of moral obligation to improvise an adventure or some encounters for you so that you don't feel that your ability to travel the planes at will is completely pointless. I don't like that because DM-pity abilities really shouldn't be part of any design.

And it is DM pity. Your decision to not go to one of the eight locations and then stop at the City of Brass means that the DM will have to then decide exactly how much stonewalling to give you before you will go back to the adventure. Maybe the sages you consult in the City of Brass confirm what important NPCs already told you. Maybe merchants sell equipment the DM was going to give you in some introductory encounter. Maybe he lets you rest and change spells there even though he was going to do that at the start of the first location anyway.

But that's all pity. The sages can just as easily claim ignorance, the merchants can just offer the same old stuff, and the planned encounter can not be changed at all by your time in the City of Brass.
Posts like this are why I thought you were advocating no abilities for anyone, just pure MTP.
Because it really sounds like you don't want the players to be able to do anything. Maybe you'd just be better off writing a novel or making a computer game?

- Edit: though I could be misreading you. If I am, could you explain what you want players to be capable off?
Last edited by ishy on Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
K
King
Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by K »

ishy wrote:
K wrote:There are eight locations you can go to where there are going to be adventures, and having the ability to planeshift is not going to add more adventure locations.

You can totally say "I'm going to this location that is not on the list," and the DM replies "Ok, there is nothing there. What do you do?" You then proceed to do nothing because there is no adventure or encounter there.

At best, you are saying that the DM is under some kind of moral obligation to improvise an adventure or some encounters for you so that you don't feel that your ability to travel the planes at will is completely pointless. I don't like that because DM-pity abilities really shouldn't be part of any design.

And it is DM pity. Your decision to not go to one of the eight locations and then stop at the City of Brass means that the DM will have to then decide exactly how much stonewalling to give you before you will go back to the adventure. Maybe the sages you consult in the City of Brass confirm what important NPCs already told you. Maybe merchants sell equipment the DM was going to give you in some introductory encounter. Maybe he lets you rest and change spells there even though he was going to do that at the start of the first location anyway.

But that's all pity. The sages can just as easily claim ignorance, the merchants can just offer the same old stuff, and the planned encounter can not be changed at all by your time in the City of Brass.
Posts like this are why I thought you were advocating no abilities for anyone, just pure MTP.
Because it really sounds like you don't want the players to be able to do anything. Maybe you'd just be better off writing a novel or making a computer game?

- Edit: though I could be misreading you. If I am, could you explain what you want players to be capable off?
Listen, if you think that travel powers do anything, you are literally advocating for MTP. You are saying "while there is nothing in this power that says that going to the City of Brass will get me aid or information about my current problem, I want the DM to pretend that it does and give me the encounters where that happens." You are asking the DM to pretend that your power does something that it doesn't.

Actual powers have to be explicit. They actually have to say things like "can gather information from any City-sized population center and solve Knowledge checks with a DC of X." It's only then that your PC has any agency at all.

Powers need to interact with rules. For example, gathering allies needs to be hard-coded and are not just "we show up in the Seven Heavens and start telling angels to help us." You need a specific power for gaining the aid of X number of Angels that doesn't require some improvised quest that the DM MTPs up because he took pity on you and decided to let it happen this time.

Sandbox games especially need actual rules for the setting and for character powers. You need to write up exactly what's in the City of Brass that would interest an adventurer and not MTP up some encounters where the PCs either can or cannot get what they want. You can't just say "sure, they probably have 1d4 water breathing potions you can buy, but then they are out for a month because I arbitrarily decided that." You need to say, "yes, any potion under the cost of 500 gold is available, up to 30 potions a month which is the excess production limit of the Alchemist's Guild."

This goes back to my earlier point about armies, one of the most heavily-used MTP elements in fantasy games. For there to be a game and not an extended improv RP acting sessions, you can't just MTP up the recruitment and leadership of armies because that's fundamentally the opposite of a game. Specific characters need to have specific powers that let them recruit and lead specific armies and not just say, "well, you ran into a Ghost King, so you now have a ghost army... because... um.... magic."

To go back to Frank's example of using plane shift to gather Formian allies and get angelic weapons, he's saying that the DM should MTP up some encounters where your party gets stuff because you just told the DM that you wanted to MTP up that stuff. In a setting where there was a system for getting weapons and gathering allies, it wouldn't even matter where you did those things because it was your power and you could just use it anywhere. The ability to palette shift with travel powers is unnecessary.

The essence of an RPG is being able to make meaningful choices about the way that the plot unfolds, and that just can't happen if you are constantly begging the DM to MTP up favorable results for your actions.
Last edited by K on Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
phlapjackage
Knight-Baron
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:29 am

Post by phlapjackage »

I think the problem comes in when deciding how much MTP can go on, and in what area of the game MTP happens.

A TTRPG intrinsically has to have some MTP'ing. That's what the GM is there for, mostly. Otherwise your group would be better off playing MMORPGs, where every single thing your character can and can't do is decided by hard-coded crunchy rules. And because there can't be coded rules for EVERY SINGLE interaction you want your character to have in a MMORPG world, you can't do them. In a TTRPG, you can, because you have a GM that can make decisions.

It sounds like you're (K) advocating for the players not to be able to do anything at all, unless there's a crunchy well-defined rule for it. I don't think this fits with TTRPGs.
Last edited by phlapjackage on Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Orion
Prince
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Orion »

K is basically right when he talks about how travel powers that give you "access to more places" is only a real ability if you have recruiting and shopping rules, but I think there's a more elegant way of getting at the ultimate point. There are basically two things everyone needs to remember. 1: "High Level" is a game mechanic.2:To implement a game mechanic, you have to change the game.3:D&D is not a game. Okay, if you prefer we could say that D&D is not a game, singular, but a collection of games. Or that part of D&D is a game, but not all. The point is, if we use "playing D&D" to mean "sitting around a table for 5 hours telling stories and rolling dice," then the very concept of level is only going to be relevant for part of it. Okay, now that I have your attention, it's time to define some terms. Obviously the word "game" has all different broad and narrow sense, up to and including "anything which is fun." I'm basically talking about what Richard Garfield called orthogames. So for today's class, we're going to say that something is more like a game the more of these traits it has:
  • A game presents players with choices that have objectively verifiable ramifications.
  • A game has rules that are binding on all participants.
  • A game has a formally defined star and end condition.
  • A game has at least a suggestion of win and loss conditions.
Recruiting angels or collecting diamonds from the Earth plane aren't games. There aren't any rules governing how it works, and even if there were, there usually aren't any good rules on what you can buy with the diamonds. Or on what your angel allies can accomplish while they're off-screen. D&D has a game inside it, and that game is a squad-level tactical combat wargame. Or if you prefer, D&D is a wargame with narrative fluff wrapped around it. I don't care how you prefer to think about it. What I do care about is this: you kick in the door, the MC draws a little room and tells you there's 4 ogres, an ogre mage, and a zombie dragon. You roll initiative. OK, now we're playing a game. We have abilities written on our sheets and we know what they do. We know how many magic missiles it takes to kill an ogre. We know we just started the combat music and we'll stop when one side cedes the field. the PCs can play to win, and the MC can also play as though he's trying to make the ogres win, because he's bound by rules like everyone else. I mean, the MC can decide to fuck with you, but it's obvious when he's cheating. Importantly, in the context of that game, travel powers are real powers. Dimension Door is a real ability because the player knows which attacks he can use against the ogre from here, and also which attacks he can use from over there. As long as he teleports somewhere on the battlemat, there's no MTP negotiation about what he finds when he gets there; everyone has pre-agreed about what you can do from this square or that.

All the plane shifting and gate-hunting and tracking and travel montages and opening restaurants and whatnot is not a game. It's pre-game negotiations. It's a bunch of people sitting around discussing what game they'd like to play. "Wanna play heroes vs. demons?" "nah dude, but I'd play heroes and angels vs. demons." Sometimes it's picking the teams, sometimes it's setting handicaps. The player says, "When we play heroes vs. demons, I want my fighter to have a Firebrand attack." The MC says, "Hmm, not how I envisioned it, but let's make a deal. You can have a Fire attack in the next game if you play this other game with me first. It's called heroes vs. fire elementals." All the world maps, travel spells, encounter tables, and so on are not game abilities, they are unenforceable ways for players to state their preferences about what game they'd like to be playing. I mean, games exist where travel powers are game abilities. They're mostly Eurogames. If Heaven is a space on a board and you roll a die on the "Heaven Recruitment table" when you go there, then i's a game ability just like using Dimension Door to flank an orc is, because the result is something the player chose, not something the MC made up. Now what does this have to do with level? Well, when D&D isn't a game, it's a story. The easy way to tell is whether you could call bullshit on your MC. If he refuses to let your fireball kill an orc, he's cheating at a game. If he refuses to let you buy anything in the City of Brass, he's just telling a lousy story. And as we all know, fictional characters do not have levels. Just because the story happens to be set in Hell or in Space doesn't mean it's a "high-level" story. You can only tell who is what level when you have an objective measuring stick--when your character is being used as a game piece.

So let's say you want to do some kind of leveling and advancement. We know palette-swapping the sets and the monsters doesn't count. That is where 4E went wrong. It would have been fine that all it did was squad combat, but it was the same squad combat game from 1 to 30. It's not enough to change the story, we have to actually change the game. Fortunately there are a lot of ways to do that. You can go 3-D, you can introduce effective combat healing, or take it away (D&D does both!), you can stop worrying about some mechanics (like higher ground and infantry formations) to concentrate on others (like pokemon type charts.) You can add all-new resource systems. And so on. So if you want to know fi a travel power is a high-level ability, you have to ask yourself if it changes the game.
  • Having an Airship drop you off at the adventure-site is level-agnostic. If you can call in air strikes, or if you're fighting on the deck of the ship, it might affect your level.
  • Teleporting to and from teleport circles isn't a real ability, and teleporting once a day generally isn't either. But if you have at-will teleports or just "a bunch of teleports," then you can get stuff from your house whenever you want. You can drop hostages off to avoid playing an escort mission. You can worry about the threat of enemy reinforcements showing up without warning at any time. Those are game-changers.
(Incidentally, this is why high-level play has always sucked and will always suck, until someone writes a system where you lose XP by adventuring)[/list]
Last edited by Orion on Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
K
King
Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by K »

phlapjackage wrote:I think the problem comes in when deciding how much MTP can go on, and in what area of the game MTP happens.

A TTRPG intrinsically has to have some MTP'ing. That's what the GM is there for, mostly. Otherwise your group would be better off playing MMORPGs, where every single thing your character can and can't do is decided by hard-coded crunchy rules. And because there can't be coded rules for EVERY SINGLE interaction you want your character to have in a MMORPG world, you can't do them. In a TTRPG, you can, because you have a GM that can make decisions.

It sounds like you're (K) advocating for the players not to be able to do anything at all, unless there's a crunchy well-defined rule for it. I don't think this fits with TTRPGs.
MTP is only valuable when it comes to creating content. Having a GM who can create new areas to explore, characters to meet, and new things to do is always going to make TTRPGs better than MMOs that regard.

That being said, MTPing the success or failure of PC agency is basically public masturbation and it's why MMOs are wildly popular and TTRPGs are dying slowly. At the point where MTPing important player agency happens, you've given up even pretending that you are playing a game and rendered all the dice-rolling and character sheets meaningless.
CCarter
Knight
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:41 pm

Post by CCarter »

@K
Hard-coded rules for army generation and the like would be useful for high-level, I'd agree with that. But I think you're conflating 'things that don't have rules' and 'things that may have complex rules but where the GM has some leeway to determine target numbers etc. Its broadening the definition quite a bit.

With this definition of 'MTP' here, I'm not sure there's anything in an RPG that isn't 'MTP'. Fighting wyverns in the Wyvern Mountains is MTP because the GM could've put a beholder there, gathering information in an inn is MTP because the GM didn't have to put an inn there, and so on.
Winnah
Duke
Posts: 1091
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:00 pm
Location: Oz

Post by Winnah »

It sounds as though K is advocating for adventures being totally dependant on clearly defined scripts and plotlines.

Which is complete ass.

I fucking hate running published modules for high level characters. Knot-Cutting is SOP, whether is is teleporting/demi-planar transit straight to the macguffin/treasure hoard, dominating the Lord of Darkness or replacing them with a simulacrum and subsuming control of their army, or my particular pet peeve; turning everything into swiss cheese with a horde of Thoqqua and Arrowhawks, spending an hour spamming Elemental Swarm and getting periodic status reports via scrying, while the 'adventurer' camps in their personal bunker, eating popcorn.

Keeping High level challenges in a state of flux, with a light script, at least allows the DM to come up with reasonable counters, consequences and reprisals to the actions of high level characters. That might be MTP, but I at least come to the table mentally prepared to handle knot-cutting. That keeps the game interesting.

If you think that having a set plot and adventure script somehow insulates a high level game against MTP, you're sorely mistaken. All it does is set you up for burnout and paralysis, assuming you don't take the "lol no" Gygaxian fiat approach to running games.
K
King
Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by K »

CCarter wrote:@K
Hard-coded rules for army generation and the like would be useful for high-level, I'd agree with that. But I think you're conflating 'things that don't have rules' and 'things that may have complex rules but where the GM has some leeway to determine target numbers etc. Its broadening the definition quite a bit.

With this definition of 'MTP' here, I'm not sure there's anything in an RPG that isn't 'MTP'. Fighting wyverns in the Wyvern Mountains is MTP because the GM could've put a beholder there, gathering information in an inn is MTP because the GM didn't have to put an inn there, and so on.
Placing monsters and locations , setting and adventure design, is the ideal use of MTP. These are persistent parts of the game and you can go back and use them again, thus creating the opportunity for player agency. PCs can use that inn again in some later adventure.

It's MTPing player-agency that prevents TTRPGs from being playable games. This means that important player agency like fighting battles, accomplishing plot points, and having power over setting elements all need hard-coded rules. For example, if a plot point in your story is attacking the Church of Wee Jas, then getting the Church of Pelor to attack the Church of Wee Jas is not a meaningful bit of player agency if there wasn't some objective system used to determine whether it happened. The DM simply deciding that it works robs it of player agency.

Ask yourself this: "would you play a TTRPG where life-and-death battles were MTPed?" If the answer is "no," then why would you give other important plot elements over to MTP?
K
King
Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by K »

Winnah wrote:It sounds as though K is advocating for adventures being totally dependant on clearly defined scripts and plotlines.

Which is complete ass.

I fucking hate running published modules for high level characters. Knot-Cutting is SOP, whether is is teleporting/demi-planar transit straight to the macguffin/treasure hoard, dominating the Lord of Darkness or replacing them with a simulacrum and subsuming control of their army, or my particular pet peeve; turning everything into swiss cheese with a horde of Thoqqua and Arrowhawks, spending an hour spamming Elemental Swarm and getting periodic status reports via scrying, while the 'adventurer' camps in their personal bunker, eating popcorn.

Keeping High level challenges in a state of flux, with a light script, at least allows the DM to come up with reasonable counters, consequences and reprisals to the actions of high level characters. That might be MTP, but I at least come to the table mentally prepared to handle knot-cutting. That keeps the game interesting.

If you think that having a set plot and adventure script somehow insulates a high level game against MTP, you're sorely mistaken. All it does is set you up for burnout and paralysis, assuming you don't take the "lol no" Gygaxian fiat approach to running games.
You do realize that you are saying that the only counter to PCs not having systems for anything and asking the DM to MTP success or failure is literally MTP on the part of the DM, right?

High-level DnD in 3.X is MTP on a grand scale, and that's why even professional DnD game designers and adventure writers throw up their hands when they try to write high-level adventures. You can't even pretend that there are objective chgallenges when you are MTPing whether simulacrums can take over armies or whether armies of elementals can beat other armies.

Low-level DnD works as a game because of the low amount of MTP, not because of the low number of abilities as the 4e designers assumed.
Winnah
Duke
Posts: 1091
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:00 pm
Location: Oz

Post by Winnah »

So instead of discussing the difference between high and low level abilities, you want to talk how you can make low level feel like high level with set changes, props and DM gift certificates.

Which is totally not MTP, because it relies totally on DM fiat. Choo Choo!
K
King
Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by K »

Winnah wrote:So instead of discussing the difference between high and low level abilities, you want to talk how you can make low level feel like high level with set changes, props and DM gift certificates.

Which is totally not MTP, because it relies totally on DM fiat. Choo Choo!
If you have systems, you don't need to railroad at all. Railroading is just simply MTP where PC MTP auto-fails. "Bad DMs" are either the ones that MTP parts of the system that have actual rules or they MTP in a way that players don't enjoy. The difference in high level and low level abilities is the amount of MTP required.

MTPing is the key element in shitty RPGs or adventures, not "bad DMs" or bad adventure design or some element inherent in telling more epic stories. Remove that and you get a playable game.

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

As for "Adventure scripts," you only need lists of resources, locations, and enemies that the PCs can interact with in a sandboxy way if you have actual systems that don't rely on MTP for success or failure.

Shit, you can even have actual adversarial DMs if you aren't MTPing plot points and battles.
Last edited by K on Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:27 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
phlapjackage
Knight-Baron
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:29 am

Post by phlapjackage »

K wrote:MTP is only valuable when it comes to creating content. Having a GM who can create new areas to explore, characters to meet, and new things to do is always going to make TTRPGs better than MMOs that regard.

That being said, MTPing the success or failure of PC agency is basically public masturbation and it's why MMOs are wildly popular and TTRPGs are dying slowly. At the point where MTPing important player agency happens, you've given up even pretending that you are playing a game and rendered all the dice-rolling and character sheets meaningless.
Creating content, and deciding how that content can be interacted with by the characters. You're advocating that there should be a rule for every single thing the characters can do in game, which is impossible. You can say "there are rules for X and Y, but not Z, so you can't do Z", which is a computer game. Or you can say "there are no explicit rules for Z, how do you go about accomplishing it?", which is what PnP games do.

In the plane-shift-to-gather-an-army example, I think you and Frank actually are on the same page. It's more high level to be able plane shift yourself rather than have to go buy a scroll (MTP). It's more high level to have some powerful ability that lets you attempt to gather an army, rather than coming up with some MTP reason your character can do that.

On another note, I don't think this is why TTRPGs are dying. I just think it's the general trend of technology becoming more and more popular, and it's easier (and more immediately rewarding) to jump on your computer than to try to gather 3+ of your friends at the same place at the same time.
K
King
Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by K »

phlapjackage wrote:You're advocating that there should be a rule for every single thing the characters can do in game, which is impossible.
Deciding what is impossible is called "game design" and it's provably possible because it's how games are created.

When a designer writes a game, they write off a huge number of things that are not viable actions in the game. That's called limiting the scope of the game. A game about super-spies is not going to have demon-summoning rules, and a game about high-school romance is not going to have time-travel rules. That's the only way to design a game.

In a game about adventurers in a fantasy world, there are only going to be a limited number of actions that are viable in the game and those are the one's you make rules for. Keeping that list relatively short is also how you prevent option paralysis.

For example, you don't need rules for running a business because fantasy adventurers should be going on fantasy adventures and not worrying about tariffs and exchange rates. Save that for your game about fantasy merchants (a game that might be fun and might even have a place in the same setting, but would detract from the fantasy adventure game).
Last edited by K on Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
phlapjackage
Knight-Baron
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:29 am

Post by phlapjackage »

K wrote:Deciding what is impossible is called "game design" and it's provably possible because it's how games are created.

When a designer writes a game, they write off a huge number of things that are not viable actions in the game. That's called limiting the scope of the game. A game about super-spies is not going to have demon-summoning rules, and a game about high-school romance is not going to have time-travel rules. That's the only way to design a game.

In a game about adventurers in a fantasy world, there are only going to be a limited number of actions that are viable in the game and those are the one's you make rules for. Keeping that list relatively short is also how you prevent option paralysis.

For example, you don't need rules for running a business because fantasy adventurers should be going on fantasy adventures and not worrying about tariffs and exchange rates. Save that for your game about fantasy merchants (a game that might be fun and might even have a place in the same setting, but would detract from the fantasy adventure game).
I understand that a games setting will prohibit certain things, like demon summoning. I'm talking about things that aren't prohibited by the setting, and that there are no explicit rules for. How many computer games are mocked, because a character walks up to a low fence and is stopped because there is no "jump" rule or the game is really 2D but presented as 3D. TTRPGs get around this problem by saying that many things aren't going to be modelled with rules, but that's ok, because that's what a GM is for.
Last edited by phlapjackage on Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
K
King
Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by K »

phlapjackage wrote: TTRPGs get around this problem by saying that many things aren't going to be modelled with rules, but that's ok, because that's what a GM is for.
Bad TTRPGs do that. It's literally the most famous fallacy in game design, the old "the rules aren't bad if there is a good DM to fix them."

Good games, TT or otherwise, have robust systems for every appropriate action. No one has a right to complain if your pirate sailing ship game has no rules for blowing up planets because blowing up planets is not an appropriate action.

People have gotten used to bad games. DnD went for decades with MTP social rules, MTP armies, MTP adventure and monster design, MTP abilities like illusions, and generally terrible rules even when there were rules.

"Not modeled by the rules" is a flaw in the game, not a feature.
User avatar
phlapjackage
Knight-Baron
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:29 am

Post by phlapjackage »

K wrote:Bad TTRPGs do that. It's literally the most famous fallacy in game design, the old "the rules aren't bad if there is a good DM to fix them."

Good games, TT or otherwise, have robust systems for every appropriate action. No one has a right to complain if your pirate sailing ship game has no rules for blowing up planets because blowing up planets is not an appropriate action.

People have gotten used to bad games. DnD went for decades with MTP social rules, MTP armies, MTP adventure and monster design, MTP abilities like illusions, and generally terrible rules even when there were rules.

"Not modeled by the rules" is a flaw in the game, not a feature.
Heh - I agree with you again. I'm not advocating a laissez-faire rule system where bad rules or no rules are ok because hey, GM. I just think your quest to have a rule system that 100% models everything possible in the game setting is doomed to failure.

Back to the plane-shift-raise-army scenario, would DnD be improved with high-level powers of "raise army" that are role protected, or would decent social rules be better, that are available to be used by every character, with some characters having social powers that can help in raising an army but aren't absolutely necessary? Just typing this, the distinction seems slight, but there. I like the second solution better myself.

I think you were being a little too simplistic earlier where you say that MTP'ing is the key reason for bad games. Bad and overly complicated rules can be just as much to blame ("The World of Synnibar!").
Last edited by phlapjackage on Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
K
King
Posts: 6487
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by K »

phlapjackage wrote:
Heh - I agree with you again. I'm not advocating a laissez-faire rule system where bad rules or no rules are ok because hey, GM. I just think your quest to have a rule system that 100% models everything possible in the game setting is doomed to failure.
You don't need 100% coverage or 100% perfect rules. You just need rules for everything in most sessions and the willingness to write new rules to cover new stuff. It's the only way to get a better game.

The role of DM needs to be Game/Adventure Designer and not MTP Judge.

phlapjackage wrote:Back to the plane-shift-raise-army scenario, would DnD be improved with high-level powers of "raise army" that are role protected, or would decent social rules be better, that are available to be used by every character, with some characters having social powers that can help in raising an army but aren't absolutely necessary? Just typing this, the distinction seems slight, but there. I like the second solution better myself.
There needs to be a way to model organizations of mixed classes like Witch Queens and their Generals running an evil kingdom, so a robust social system seems to be the way to do that.

I'd probably role-protect raising armies so that when you do adventures on other worlds or something, you don't get weird situations like adventuring Wizards raising armies to accomplish goals instead of fighting guys because you badly modeled Witch Queens and their armies.

Wizards already have broad conceptual space and they lose little for having to delegate army-raising to Generals in their organization.
Last edited by K on Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

I regard the arguments of "we should take armies away from Witch Queens" and "the ability to do things and go places doesn't matter, because the MC could just stone wall you by pretending you didn't say anything until you go back to the next planned encounter" as being so incredibly finished that I am honestly flabbergasted that people are still herp derping about them. Let's go back to the discussions that actually make any sense:
DrPraetor wrote:And I don't think any of your suggestions about juggling what ioun stones can and can't do when solve the underlying issue. In order to have nice (Paragon-tier+ at the least, and probably in the heroic tier this is mostly true as well) things, you must have:
[*] Resource management
[*] Phlebtonium

And getting back to the original topic of the thread, any character concept that doesn't meet these two requirements (including, at the Paragon Tier, the Gryphon Knight) sucks and needs to die.
Basically, I agree with this. The thing is that when we have our character who at the Heroic Tier is a Marshal, and who at the Paragon Tier is a Mind Lord, we have a fundamental question to answer about how often this character uses their Marshal abilities in combat. The answer is going to be something between "Always" and "Never".
Image
But a really interesting thing happens as regards balancing that character. Namely, that if the answer to the question is anywhere near the extremes of "Always" or "Never", that balancing the character across the Paragon divide is relatively simple. If he always uses his Marshal abilities in Paragon combats, then combat balance for the Marshal Mind Lord (and by extension the Marshal Witch Queen, the Marshal Angel Knight, the Marshal Thunder Master, and so on and so forth) is just a matter of playtesting the Marshal combat actions with Paragon level numbers stuck in them. If he never uses his Marshal abilities and instead relies on his Mind Lord powers every battle, then combat balance for the Marshal Mind Lord is again (relatively) easy (since it's just balancing the Mind Lord abilities by themselves and as such covers the Paladin Mind Lord, the Illusionist Mind Lord, and so on). If the Mind Lord abilities only come up one round per combat, it similarly doesn't affect the underlying reality of the Marshal's combat resource management and cancels out of the equation.

The only case in which the Marshal Mind Lord represents a resource management and self synergy headache is when the character sometimes uses the Marshal powers and sometimes uses the Mind Lord powers. Because that setup involves the two resource management systems interacting with each other. It involves the general case statement of using less of your Heroic Tier abilities during a battle, and therefore artificially improving the relative impact of limited use abilities of any kind at the expense of unlimited or less-limited abilities.

You might choose to do Sometimes anyway, because it seems like the kind of thing people would like. But just keep in mind that that is something you are choosing to do, and that the choice almost inevitably will lead to there being under and overpowered combinations (since your playtest requirement is now the number of Heroic Classes times the number of Paragon Paths, instead of the number of Heroic Classes plus the number of Paragon Paths).

-Username17
User avatar
DrPraetor
Duke
Posts: 1289
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:17 pm

Post by DrPraetor »

And I continue to maintain that all of this is a lot easier to balance (although still not trivial; which shows you how much of a headache this is) if you put all of this on a common scale, mutually transparent system, whatever you want to call it.

So if Lion's Roar is a 3rd-level martial arts move, it should be roughly balanced against a 3rd-level combat spell. If it isn't, then people with both spells and combat moves will always do one or the other, pretty transparently.

There's still a lot of work to do - for example, in balancing Riposte (which let's you stab someone who misses you) with Brainfire (which lets you retarget a spell that someone else has cast). The more interesting stuff you include, the harder it is to balance.

So in order to optimize the labor power into balancing the game, you should include more interesting stuff (counter-attacks, debuffs, whatever) even if you have to sacrifice diversity in management schemes. So the necromancer gets undead, but he just has to put them in long-term resource slots instead of getting a Necrontis pool; the Witch puts her familiar demons in the same long-term resource slots instead of accumulating Demonic Favor by some alternative system. People who don't have pets put GTFO abilities or the like in those same resource slots. I agree that you sacrifice something by going this route - Necrontis pool and Piety Abuse and the Wrath of Tzeentch could all, treated properly, be cool resource management mechanics - but by putting all the combat maneuvers on one single mutually-transparent scale; and all the misc. advantages (things which are, more or less, as useful as "I have a skeleton following me around"; I'd say that "has web added to my spell list" rates on the same scale) on yet another mutually-transparent scale; just makes the endeavor of ensuring that there are a lot of mutually distinct characters who are not shitty, and don't need to die, a lot easier to manage.
Chaosium rules are made of unicorn pubic hair and cancer. --AncientH
When you talk, all I can hear is "DunningKruger" over and over again like you were a god damn Pokemon. --Username17
Fuck off with the pony murder shit. --Grek
User avatar
nockermensch
Duke
Posts: 1900
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
Location: Rio: the Janeiro

Post by nockermensch »

FrankTrollman wrote:
K wrote:You can totally say "I'm going to this location that is not on the list," and the DM replies "Ok, there is nothing there. What do you do?" You then proceed to do nothing because there is no adventure or encounter there.
OK. I'm done with this discussion. If your argument is seriously that sand boxing is literally impossible, and the DM is going to be a railroading asshat that won't let you do anything except go to the next encounter point in the prewritten script, then I don't think we are even able to have a conversation. I categorically reject this viewpoint, and I have nothing else to add.

Your trivialization of player agency is so extreme that I am honestly offended, and I'm done pretending that we are having a polite or rational conversation.
Don't you see the MTP inherent to the opposite situation? With D&D planes being what they are (infinite and living places), "gating into heavens for help" can mean: "You step right into the effect of an invading Pit Fiend's mass charm monster. Roll your saves." Going to the City of Brass can place the PCs before a demigod on a personal quest to slay a number of high level mortals. Going to a Formian Hive can mean entering a Hive which is currently on an "enslave everybody" mode.

Or, to the opposite direction: "Right, you guys meet a Planetar/Myrmarch General eager for glories, that gladly sends their legion of 5,000 devas/myrmidons to do the adventure for you. Lets eat a pizza while we talk about what you found by the end."

Would you get offended by those extremes? Why? Do you expect the MC to roll on a Random Table that goes from [overwhelming hostility] to [overbearing help], with vast swathes of [nothing happens] and [irrelevant random encounter] whenever the PCs go into a new unplanned location? If not, which table should he roll, so that whatever you met there could be "fair"?

If there are not random tables to be rolled at all, then what's really happening is the MC personally considers the idea cool or is convinced by the PC's arguments and goes along, giving exactly [just enough help to keep things interesting]. This is not sandbox gaming. This is a direct appealling to the MC's pity, which I think it's something you don't like.

Player agency at this level (adventure building) has about zero actual rule support on the current rules. At best, the MC finds some random encounter tables he could roll, with no support for deciding those creatures' reactions and current goals. So you're just too used to having Narrative Powers that there aren't on your character sheets ("Ignore Plotline" and "Reduce Plotline's Difficulty, But Not Too Much") to notice them.

In before the counter is: "PCs should know enough about the world to make informed choices about where to go", ie: not going to the Mountains of Extreme Killing when you're low level, sticking to the Mildly Dangerous Prairies instead. This is an idea that I reject as offensive, because it denies agency to everybody else in the world. It's MMO logic, in which there are low and high level areas and assumes out of depth monsters don't wander around, don't plot, etc. In D&D land, any Mildly Dangerous Prairie can be in the midst of a high level plot at any time (the PCs know this personally, because a lich king or some shit just sent ghouls to wreck their Starting Town).
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

DrPraetor wrote:And I continue to maintain that all of this is a lot easier to balance (although still not trivial; which shows you how much of a headache this is) if you put all of this on a common scale, mutually transparent system, whatever you want to call it.
And you're still wrong. Cue up 3.5 Warlocks and Wizards. And how completely broken Warlocks would be if they could choose off the Wizard list and how completely meaningless it would be if Wizards could choose off the Warlock list.
So if Lion's Roar is a 3rd-level martial arts move, it should be roughly balanced against a 3rd-level combat spell. If it isn't, then people with both spells and combat moves will always do one or the other, pretty transparently.
No and no. The balance point is a 3rd level character versus a 3rd level character. Not move versus move. Let's consider Final Fantasy XI for the moment: Paladins are very tough, and Black Mages are very delicious. A Paladin's attacks have to be very much weaker than a Black Mage's because the Paladin's primary contribution is his defense. I use Final Fantasy XI instead of D&D because we all know how terribad 4e's attempts to make Defenders turned out. But you're still going to have characters filling out different tactical roles, and with different tactical roles comes different amounts of contribution by individual moves.

A character whose moves are usable as pre-battle buffs had better contribute a fuck tonne less with each of his moves than a characters whose moves are usable as in-battle curses. Even though those are in many ways exactly the same thing (changing the numbers to relatively favor your side). Because the guy who pre-buffs gets to use a lot more moves than the guy who curses does because the buffer can use non-combat actions to use moves and the curser can't. You can do a similar comparison between the guy who summons mooks and the guy who has AoE attacks. Heck, did you realize that offensively channeled characters make battles shorter and therefore expect to use less total moves, while defensively focused characters make battles longer and expect to use more total moves?

The cold hard reality is that the total amount of contribution of a character's moves is not expected to be a static number (as the offence/defense slider shows us), and similarly that the amount of contribution of any one move is not expected to be a static proportion of their total move contribution (as pre-buffing and battle extension demonstrate).

So: No. If you try to balance the moves directly between classes at the same levels, you won't have gotten anywhere closer to a balanced ideal. All you'll have done is guaranty that the game is broken in a particular way. The way that 4e happened to be broken during the heyday of the two weapon fighter, as it happens. Your attacks are balanced with the Strikers, but you're still way tougher than the other characters and thus overall massively superior.

The way forward is Same Game Tests. Make lists of monsters and challenges, and then run whole characters through gauntlets. It's not easy, but it works. Arbitrary comparisons of individual character abilities is not the way forward, because we can tell that is going to fail by a priori reasoning alone.

-Username17
User avatar
Chamomile
Prince
Posts: 4632
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:45 am

Post by Chamomile »

So here's a question. How do you SGT a class whose main role is providing party-wide buffs? On his own, he's doing 1/4 as much good as he's supposed to be. Or how do you SGT if you aren't operating under the paradigm of full recovery between every single combat?
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Chamomile wrote:So here's a question. How do you SGT a class whose main role is providing party-wide buffs? On his own, he's doing 1/4 as much good as he's supposed to be. Or how do you SGT if you aren't operating under the paradigm of full recovery between every single combat?
The first question is difficult. The second question is not. So we'll talk about the second question first.

If you want to SGT across a resource depletion mechanic, then the gauntlets you are throwing your characters through need to composed of (or at least include) encounter series as individual entries. So an entry might be "fight a boar, then fight a blood hawk, then fight a fire turtle", or whatever. The concept is still that you're going to want to shoot for table entries that characters have a good chance of winning or losing against (because that is way the fuck easier to evaluate the results from than if the character was supposed to be killed outright or win easily).

However, for encounter series and resource depletion models, you have another option, and that is "endless tests". And that's where you have encounter series that either never end or at least go on significantly longer than you expect PCs to be able to last. And then you gauntlet them through until they lose. And the expectation is that they should make some number like 3 or 4, but if they are consistently pooping out on the first or second then they are underpowered (or don't have enough staying power), and if they plow through 6 or 8 or more on a regular basis then they are overpowered (or have too much staying power).

Whichever way you do it (and you might want to end up doing both), the design of the SGT to take attrition models into account is not amazingly difficult.

The Buffing character and the Glass Cannon character are more complex. Some character concepts either explicitly voltron with other characters or require team members to defend them or power up their moves while they do stuff. This is more complicated to SGT as the assumptions made in a normal SGT are obviously false. There's a couple of things you can do, such as throwing in mooks to both sides of the equation so their buffs can stick to something or waiting until you've SGTed some other classes and run the buffers in with teams against proportionately larger gauntlets.

And if it sounds like that would give you information that doesn't exactly compare in an apples to apples fashion with the information you get on more straightforward classes: that is because it doesn't. The SGT is explicitly bad at giving you information on bards.

Of course, you could also make the pretty persuasive claim that it isn't a big deal. If "Leaders" punch above their weight class by making all the other characters awesome, then most of the problems of character imbalance just don't exist. People aren't going to feel bad that their Hero isn't contributing as much as the Marshal if their Hero is actually the medium through which most of the "Marshal's" damage is inflicted. In 4e, the Warlord is dramatically better than other classes, but he is still complained about much less than the Ranger, because the manner in which he makes everyone else look small in the pants doesn't actually overshadow anyone.

-Username17
User avatar
DrPraetor
Duke
Posts: 1289
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:17 pm

Post by DrPraetor »

FrankTrollman wrote:
DrPraetor wrote:And I continue to maintain that all of this is a lot easier to balance (although still not trivial; which shows you how much of a headache this is) if you put all of this on a common scale, mutually transparent system, whatever you want to call it.
And you're still wrong. Cue up 3.5 Warlocks and Wizards. And how completely broken Warlocks would be if they could choose off the Wizard list and how completely meaningless it would be if Wizards could choose off the Warlock list.
I'm not saying that Warlocks become balanced if you let them cast off the Wizard list at will; I'm saying that Warlocks, even with their existing at will list, are still worthless and always will be. The "everything at will" resource management scheme is a trap and it will always be a trap; Fighters and Warlocks need resource management (real resource management) or they are going to suck, and they are going to need abilities which are relevant in the world of the highest level spells the Wizard can cast - which is a hell of a lot easier if you just make them the same level.
FrankTrollman wrote:
So if Lion's Roar is a 3rd-level martial arts move, it should be roughly balanced against a 3rd-level combat spell. If it isn't, then people with both spells and combat moves will always do one or the other, pretty transparently.
No and no. The balance point is a 3rd level character versus a 3rd level character. Not move versus move. Let's consider Final Fantasy XI for the moment: Paladins are very tough, and Black Mages are very delicious. A Paladin's attacks have to be very much weaker than a Black Mage's because the Paladin's primary contribution is his defense. I use Final Fantasy XI instead of D&D because we all know how terribad 4e's attempts to make Defenders turned out. But you're still going to have characters filling out different tactical roles, and with different tactical roles comes different amounts of contribution by individual moves.
No, actually, I disagree. I do not think this is going to work; I think if you try this, you could easily do better than 4E but it's still going to suck. I reference most everything you've said for the past two months, about phlebtonium and GTFO moves and a lot else. The "Defender", who's so-called contribution is that he is tough and therefore marginally better than the animal companion, is a shitty character concept that needs to die.

Furthermore, this immediately implodes as soon as you hit whatever tier where people get multiple resource types. If magic moves are better than fighting moves, then the fighters will just scheme to get some magic and then never use any of their fighting. This is terribad.

If you want to balance a Defender against a Controller, the Defender needs to be making level-appropriate defensive moves, and the Controller needs to be making level-appropriate debuffs, and you move from there. 4E made an attempt to do this and it was a complete disaster on several different fronts, but they're basically correct that this is by-far the best way to achieve balance among non-shitty character concepts. They of course made all the character concepts shitty but that isn't an inevitable consequence of such an equalizing treatment.

This is a hell of a lot easier to arrange if you start from a basis point that each turn they spend in combat should involve a roughly[/b] equal contribution. The Defender is going to be tougher, and we can balance that against the Controller by:
[*] Giving the Defender moves which are still level-appropriate on any given round, but which synergize with his personal toughness (by forcing enemies to attack him, for example.)
[*] Penalize the Defender in some minor way with the resource management system (so the Defender gets to use his level-appropriate move fewer times per battle, perhaps), but NOT take away the Defender's ability to use level-appropriate powers.

Let's take the obvious example of two wizard prestige classes. The prestige class which costs you your highest-level spells/level appropriate abilities is a non-starter, full stop. But if one prestige class makes you tougher, and the other one gives you a modestly larger selection of abilities, or hell just numerical bonuses on your save-or-die's, then you have two alternatives which might be balanced.

I have to get back to work so I deleted the rest after barely skimming it, but it's a lot easier to (for example) give the Bard mass-buff abilities which are equivalent to 3rd level spells and then letting him cast them out of 3rd level spell slots, then it is to give the Bard some set of passive spellsongs only and then trying to figure out what spellsong a 5th level character would get at will which is balanced against a Fireball. It's possible, but it's a hell of a lot harder from the get-go, and it becomes increasinly difficult as you add character-customization options whether you call them Paragon Paths or Sub-classes or Tome-style feats.

So if you want to make a balanced heartbreaker with no shitty character options, start out by making "Fighters" who get combat maneuvers which are at-least-roughly comparable to Stinking Cloud (at Ftr 5) and Dimension Door (at Ftr 7), and then see how to move from there. Because even getting that working is going to be fairly difficult.
Locked