Torchbearer - Kickstarter is UP

[hogarth]

it's not any stupider than D&D's advancement scheme.

Hogarth I'm going to ask that you look at your recent posts and see just what percentage of them are you limply apologizing for bad mechanics. It's a thing you do a lot and I don't know why. My family runs a terrible car repair shop and I spend less time than you apologizing for shitty mechanics.

Huh? I'm saying they both suffer from essentially the same meta-game problem: punching orcs makes you better at fighting, but punching your friends doesn't because I SAID SO.

How that's supposed to be a defense of either game is beyond me.

[DSMatticus]

it's not any stupider than D&D's advancement scheme.

Hogarth I'm going to ask that you look at your recent posts and see just what percentage of them are you limply apologizing for bad mechanics. It's a thing you do a lot and I don't know why. My family runs a terrible car repair shop and I spend less time than you apologizing for shitty mechanics.

Huh? I'm saying they both suffer from essentially the same meta-game problem: punching orcs makes you better at fighting, but punching your friends doesn't because I SAID SO.

How that's supposed to be a defense of either game is beyond me.

Did you actually read any of this thread before offering your opinion? Let me recap for you:
D&D gives you advancement for "overcoming challenges." This encourages wizards to wizard at problems. This encourages clerics to cleric at problems. This encourages rogues to rogue at problems. This encourages fighters to fighter at problems reroll because they can't overcome any challenges. This encourages you to use the abilities you've selected to define your character.

A use-advancement system gives you advancement for using as many different abilities at possible. This encourages wizards to wizard at as few problems as possible. This encourages clerics to cleric at as few problems as possible. This encourages rogues to rogue at as few problems as possible. This encourages you not to use the abilities you've selected to define your character.

That's terribad all on its own; perverse incentives are perverse. And silva defended the mechanic on the basis that that's not a problem of the system, it's a problem with "rollplayers" and has nothing to do with the system. And then people pointed out that systems like D&D and Shadowrun do not have the same perverse incentives problem (see above), and you get advancement for behaving like what your character is and silva is just plain wrong.

Now, could you explain how your "punching orcs but not your friends" bit interacts with either of the above arguments? Well, no. You can't, because it doesn't. And I hope you see that now.

[silva]

It seems to me Hogarth criticism is a valid one, even if not directly related to the point we were discussing (which was about rewards and incentives of each game).

[Dean]

punching orcs makes you better at fighting, but punching your friends doesn't because I SAID SO.

If you punch your team Paladin to death I don't see why you wouldn't get experience for it. I don't think it's written anywhere that you can't kill people you consider friends and gain XP for it.

If what you are incredibly circuitously criticizing is that D&D doesn't have training rules that function without murdering people then I guess that's an ok thing to point out but that discussion is really a horse of a different color.

[hogarth]

A use-advancement system gives you advancement for using as many different abilities at possible. This encourages wizards to wizard at as few problems as possible. This encourages clerics to cleric at as few problems as possible. This encourages rogues to rogue at as few problems as possible. This encourages you not to use the abilities you've selected to define your character.

Say what? In Call of Cthulhu (say), you're definitely encouraged to use abilities that you're good at, in the sense that if you spend the entire adventure failing at everything, you'll probably die.

I agree that it's stupid that you're encouraged to grind each skill once per adventure (just to tick off the "tried it once" checkbox). It's the same grindy stupidity that you have in D&D where a wizard going through a dungeon is encouraged to go back and commit genocide against every last orc in the dungeon even after he's already defeated the big bad guy.

[talozin]

If you punch your team Paladin to death I don't see why you wouldn't get experience for it. I don't think it's written anywhere that you can't kill people you consider friends and gain XP for it.

Remember the XP chart for assassinations in the 1st edition DMG? Back when I was in high school, the guy playing an assassin had his character murder someone else in the group so he could level up.

True story.

[Judging__Eagle]

It's the same grindy stupidity that you have in D&D where a wizard going through a dungeon is encouraged to go back and commit genocide against every last orc in the dungeon even after he's already defeated the big bad guy.

I'd argue that being thorough is the sign of a professional; and that the more professional you are, the higher tier you should be counted as. Thoroughness of course varying based on the adventure.

Perhaps those remnant Orcs will contact allies, or their home group; which will come back as reinforcements at a later stage. I'm personally not opposed to players being proactive about their face-stabbing.

As D&D adventurers earn their income as "professional" face-stabbers (i.e. they earn more than a hobby income by face-stabbing); them acting more professionally is more reasonable than them acting more amateurishly.

In fact, the beginning adventure in a film whose title is "Leon the Professional" has him do the complete opposite of what you're suggesting.

He deliberately kills every last one of the mooks. Threatens the Boss with obvious death. Then lets the Boss go after the Boss is 'defeated'.

Of course, I also stopped counting XP on a per creature basis about.... several ages ago when I was still running D&D games. Instead shifting to simply counting "numbers of encounters faced" instead, leveling the PCs when they reached 13 encounters of about their level. With higher level encounters counting for more, and lower level encounters counting for less (or nothing, aside from, monetary, strategic, or tactical, value).

[silva]

I know is tangential to what we are discussing here, but..

D&D gives you advancement for "overcoming challenges." This encourages wizards to wizard at problems. This encourages clerics to cleric at problems. This encourages rogues to rogue at problems. This encourages fighters to fighter at problems reroll because they can't overcome any challenges. This encourages you to use the abilities you've selected to define your character.

I dont think this is true. There is not specific incentive for the Rogue to act as a Rogue or the Wizard act as a Wizard - there is incentive for reaching the objective (be it taking treasure or killing monsters or winning challenges, depending on the edition). Period. How you get to the objectives is open to each group specific strenghts and preferences.

This is an important distinction to make, because the way you phrased that paragraph, it could lead one to believe that in D&D a Wizard gain xp for casting spells, or a Rogue gain xp for picking locks/pockets, or a Fighter for attacking fauna, which is wrong: they gain xp for reaching the objectives - in fact, a Wizard can reach the objective without casting a single spell, as a fighter can reach it without attacking a single fauna, and a rogue can reach it without picking a single lock.

Ironically, in this case, BRP/Runquest is a better model for what you said, rewarding characters exactly for practicing/putting in use their capabilities: its not possible for a Thief to get "XP" if not actually picking locks or pockets, its not possible for the Wizard to get better if not actually casting spells, and its not possible for the Fighter to get better if not actually fighting. Sure this could lead to the metagaming issues cited earlier (like the fighter "weapons golfbag" where he brings his whole arsenal to maximize his improvement chances) but this do not denies the fact that he must use his proficiency if he wants to get better at it. This is not true in D&D.

[Kaelik]

in fact, a Wizard can reach the objective without casting a single spell, as a fighter can reach it without attacking a single fauna, and a rogue can reach it without picking a single lock.

This is in fact, completely false. A Wizard cannot complete objectives without casting spells, because they game defines objectives to be things not trivially simple. It actually doesn't let you gain XP for that shit. So in fact, you get the XP only when you cast spells as a Wizard, Sneak Attack things and skill check things as a Rogue, and are in a party with competent people who carry you as a fighter.

[Dean]

This is an important distinction to make... they gain xp for reaching the objectives

That would be a very important distinction to make if it were true. But it's not. In fact you don't actually gain xp in D&D for accomplishing objectives or goals you gain xp for murdering people of roughly equal level. This is not necessarily ideal and I bet most people around the Den have transferred away from a strictly murder based xp system but those are house rules we are using and not the actual rules. The actual DMG could be most accurately described as extremely hesitant about the concept of allowing players xp for anything that isn't murder.

As it stands the only way to level up is to murder people. So yes Wizards do have to wizard at problems to level up.

[RadiantPhoenix]

This is an important distinction to make... they gain xp for reaching the objectives

That would be a very important distinction to make if it were true. But it's not. In fact you don't actually gain xp in D&D for accomplishing objectives or goals you gain xp for murdering people of roughly equal level. This is not necessarily ideal and I bet most people around the Den have transferred away from a strictly murder based xp system but those are house rules we are using and not the actual rules. The actual DMG could be most accurately described as extremely hesitant about the concept of allowing players xp for anything that isn't murder.

As it stands the only way to level up is to murder people. So yes Wizards do have to wizard at problems to level up.

At low levels Wizards can "Opposable Thumb" at problems to level up. (Crossbows)

[DSMatticus]

I know is tangential to what we are discussing here, but..

D&D gives you advancement for "overcoming challenges." This encourages wizards to wizard at problems. This encourages clerics to cleric at problems. This encourages rogues to rogue at problems. This encourages fighters to fighter at problems reroll because they can't overcome any challenges. This encourages you to use the abilities you've selected to define your character.

I dont think this is true. There is not specific incentive for the Rogue to act as a Rogue or the Wizard act as a Wizard - there is incentive for reaching the objective (be it taking treasure or killing monsters or winning challenges, depending on the edition). Period. How you get to the objectives is open to each group specific strenghts and preferences.

This is an important distinction to make, because the way you phrased that paragraph, it could lead one to believe that in D&D a Wizard gain xp for casting spells, or a Rogue gain xp for picking locks/pockets, or a Fighter for attacking fauna, which is wrong: they gain xp for reaching the objectives - in fact, a Wizard can reach the objective without casting a single spell, as a fighter can reach it without attacking a single fauna, and a rogue can reach it without picking a single lock.

You're being stupid again. Remember: you get the same experience for defeating a CR 8 encounter however you do it. If you're an eighth level wizard, would you rather:
A) fighter at the CR 8 encounter, giving you a horrible chance of success,
B) wizard at the CR 8 encounter, giving you a much better chance of success.

Again, you need to get this through your skull: by not rewarding characters for behaving in a specific way and instead rewarding characters for accomplishment, D&D rewards you for using your character-defining strengths. You can choose not to use your character-defining strengths, but then you will fail more and you won't get as much experience.

In contrast, by rewarding characters for behaving in as many ways as possible, use-advancement systems punish you for using your character-defining strengths. You can choose to use your character-defining strengths, but then you won't get as much advancement (and will fail at more tasks in the future).

In fact you don't actually gain xp in D&D for accomplishing objectives or goals you gain xp for murdering people of roughly equal level.

Not tecnically true. You gain XP for overcoming challenges, where a "challenge" is whatever your DM says it is and "overcoming" is any solution your DM decides to give you XP for. It's very... arbitrary and self-fulfilling. And sure, most DM's give you experience for defeating things in mortal combat and only for defeating things in mortal combat, but the RAW is much more flexible. Though, it's not particularly relevant.

At low levels Wizards can "Opposable Thumb" at problems to level up. (Crossbows)

I think you mean 'have to' and that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

[RadiantPhoenix]

At low levels Wizards can "Opposable Thumb" at problems to level up. (Crossbows)

I think you mean 'have to' and that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

"You must do X" does not contradict "You can do X"

Also, you don't have to -- in 3E there are options that let you use certain magical attacks an unlimited number of times per day at 1st level as a Wizard or Sorcerer.

[DSMatticus]

It was a snarky jab at the game, not you. I apologize for any offense.

Though, as an aside; how does a 1st level wizard get unlimited magical attacks? I don't think there are reserve feats available below 3rd level, and I can't think of anything else.

[Dean]

In fact you don't actually gain xp in D&D for accomplishing objectives or goals you gain xp for murdering people of roughly equal level.

Not tecnically true. You gain XP for overcoming challenges, where a "challenge" is whatever your DM says it is and "overcoming" is any solution your DM decides to give you XP for. It's very... arbitrary and self-fulfilling. And sure, most DM's give you experience for defeating things in mortal combat and only for defeating things in mortal combat, but the RAW is much more flexible. Though, it's not particularly relevant.

You're not wrong per se but the RAW actually isn't super flexible. You and I and basically the entire D&D community has agreed that overcoming challenges without murder is totally valid but that doesn't mean that's what the books support. It's an agreement the community has made but the designers were clearly very wary about your freakie-hippy "Not kill every monster in the world" plan and they tell you in the DMG that trying to get XP without murder ranks somewhere between "Probably ok sometimes...whatever" and "Basically a houserule".

Here is the relevant section from the DMG

"You must decide when a challenge has been overcome. Usually this is simple to do. Did the PC's defeat the enemy in battle? Then they met the challenge and earned experience points. Other times it can be trickier. Suppose the PC's sneak past the sleeping minotaur to get into the magical vault- did they overcome the minotaur encounter? If their goal was to get into the vault and the minotaur was just a guardian, then the answer is probably yes. But it's up to you to make such judgements."

At low levels Wizards can "Opposable Thumb" at problems to level up. (Crossbows)

While it is theoretically possible that a Wizard could go 20 levels without ever opening his spellbook and still level up his spell mastery that's not a system failure in my opinion. If someone purposefully goes out of the way to play your system in a way which is suboptimal, unrewarding, and nonsensical and gets results that don't make sense then that's perfectly fine. While you could write more text and more rules into existence to counter that phenomenon it wouldn't improve the game at all because that's not a situation that would ever naturally occur. If your rules cover 99% of all possible cases and covering the remaining 1% wouldn't increase fun then not adding in additional text to cover the remainder is the superior choice for the games designer.

[RadiantPhoenix]

It was a snarky jab at the game, not you. I apologize for any offense.

Though, as an aside; how does a 1st level wizard get unlimited magical attacks? I don't think there are reserve feats available below 3rd level, and I can't think of anything else.

Well, there's Incarnum...

There's also a feat that lets you cast a 2nd level spell at level 1 (with some difficulty and restrictions), which presumably qualifies.

But, those probably aren't optimal choices.

[Aryxbez]

no matter how roleplaying-focused your game are, or roleplaying-focused the gaming advice on the GM section are, there will always be players who min-max the hell out of it like it was a competitive MMO, making the perfect-uber-optimized Assassin in Gurps or Street Samurai in Shadowrun, while the roleplaying-focused players keep making the flawed and interesting characters.

(sighs) Wow.....Good god....wow....First off, In shadowrun, you make optimal characters by actually ADDING MAX NUMBER OF FLAWS possible to them at character creation (in addition to other good choices, stat priortizing, and so on). So by your logic, "Flawed & Interesting", Shadowrun characters are actually most interesting when optimized, else you're not "roleplaying" hard enough. Secondly, an un-optimized character isn't inherently "more" interesting, and neither an optimized "less so" (if anything, by greater capabilities and interaction with the game, I'd possibly argue they'd make to be more "interesting" and less typical archtypes the game represents). The implication you actually believe that is "truly" idiotic, if not childish, that ye don't know this after a decade++ of RPG knowledge that exists to showcase this otherwise. Plus, in-world, a character is going to want to be the best they can be at what they do, if they're not, then in turn, you're doing disservice to "the roleplaying" of that character.

Optimization isn't a "bad" thing, it's only bad if it's disruptive to the game, and that's likely not of Optimization itself, but the lack of communication with the group. Such as, play D&D, decided to play at "Fighter-level", but a new guy brings in a "Wizard-level" character, or a "Capt Hobo" to a Superhero game (or playing at Hawkeye level, and someone brings in a superman).

[silva]

In fact you don't actually gain xp in D&D for accomplishing objectives or goals you gain xp for murdering people of roughly equal level.

As I cited in my full post, it depends on the edition. XP for gold, for killing fauna, for winning encounters, etc were valid methods through different editions.

So yes Wizards do have to wizard at problems to level up.

Nope. Im playing a D&D game right now where we acquired XP last session by simply robbing a goblin stash clean without no one noticing, and the wizard in the group didnt have to throw a single spell.

You're being stupid again. Remember: you get the same experience for defeating a CR 8 encounter however you do it.

Emphasis mine. You just corroborate with my point. Yes, XP is gained by reaching the objective however you do it. While XP in BRP/RQ/Pendragon is gained by actually using the related skill. The difference is obvious.

Again, you need to get this through your skull: by not rewarding characters for behaving in a specific way and instead rewarding characters for accomplishment

Youre getting drowned in your own argument. D&D always rewarded behaviors. Any reward system reward behaviors whatever the game, be it RPGs, a boardgames or a videogames. Ie: by dictating that acquiring gold and killing fauna inside dungeons is worth XP, OD&D incentives the group to behave like tomb raiders. Further, by dictating that acquiring gold is at least twice as profitable as killing fauna, and making low level survival difficulty, OD&D incentives the group to focus on getting the gold and avoid as many fights as possible.

D&D rewards you for using your character-defining strengths. You can choose not to use your character-defining strengths, but then you will fail more and you won't get as much experience.

Yes and no. See above. It will depend on edition and situation. In my current group, the most optimal way for acquiring gold is having both the fighter and wizard not acting at all, because if they do act, it means we entered a fight and the chances someone will get hurt/killed and the remaining characters must run away without getting gold (XP) is high. So, when only the Thief is acting (with the group support) our chances to gain XP are maximized.

There are editions that incentives more the use of each niches capabilities, in special those encounters-oriented. But even in those, its arguable if the use of those capabilities is really obligatory. Ie: while the GM can prepare an encounter considering how the wizard will deal with it, the group could tackle that obstacle in another way totally different from what the GM projected.

In contrast, by rewarding characters for behaving in as many ways as possible, use-advancement systems punish you for using your character-defining strengths. You can choose to use your character-defining strengths, but then you won't get as much advancement (and will fail at more tasks in the future).

True. This kind of reward system incentives players to take on a generalist approach, since they optimize their chance to improve the more skills they use.

But I put the following question:

What use it is for a warrior to raise its magical or healing or scouting skills if there are already other characters in the group that occupy those niches ? I mean, in a single player game (only 1 player and the GM) it makes sense, but in a group where each characters fills a different functional niche, whats the point in trying to get generalist ?

[Kaelik]

Silva, no one is talking about OD&fuckingD.

The fact that some other game we were not talking has other stupid incentives does not change that the game we are talking about has incentives that do not allow for Wizards to advance without wizarding.

[silva]

Oh yeah, if you referring just to 4e then I agree, its the one that most promotes archetypes synergy toward winning challenges.

Though Im not convinced its a feature of the "XP per challenges" idea. I think what promotes "Wizards doing Wizard things" is the fine-tuned procedural generation of encounters thats advised in the books, so you have encounters with opportunities for all niches to shine. In other words, its not the "XP per challenges" that promote the behaviour, its the fact that the challenges are balanced in a way to require that behavior in the first place. Yea, in the end we got at the same point, but I think its important to make the distinction.

[Kaelik]

Oh yeah, if you referring just to 4e then I agree, its the one that most promotes archetypes synergy toward winning challenges.

You are a fucking idiot. No one is talking about 4e either. Not that you would know because you don't actually know the rules to any fucking edition of any game.

[...You Lost Me]

Someone's tags are crazy.

[erik]

Why is he forming (incorrect) conclusions on 4e and thinking them worth sharing despite never having read it or played it? Weird. Oh wait, it's Silva.

I thought the sensible conclusion was that 4e is an oddball where the "have a party of 4 of the same class + 1 Warlord" was a winning strategy since the varied classes synergize so poorly with anything other than themselves or 1 warlord.

[edit:]

Someone's tags are crazy.

Only if you click on his post to read it silly.

[silva]

Oh yeah, if you referring just to 4e then I agree, its the one that most promotes archetypes synergy toward winning challenges.

You are a fucking idiot. No one is talking about 4e either. Not that you would know because you don't actually know the rules to any fucking edition of any game.

Look, friendly advice: The next time you try to offend me with a post devoid of any substance like that, I will put you in the ignore list. Forever. I never called you or anyone else here stupid or other pejorative adjective of any nature. And if you are not able to dispend the same respect and treatment, then youre a zero, a nobody who doesnt deserve my time.

Got it ?

[...You Lost Me]

Thank you erik.

silva, your post right before Kaelik's "OD&fuckingD" post has bad tags in it.