Mechanics that disappoint you in every conceivable manner

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Mon May 26, 2014 3:58 pm

Cyberzombie wrote:I've always hated combat healing as a mechanic. You never see it happen in fantasy stories and it's a real excitement killer, especially if it's overpowered like in 4E.

Yeah, fluff wise I've long felt that abjurations and other misc. forms of magical intervention are a better fit than in-combat heals--wizards and priests protecting their bros with quick force fields, illusory clones and blink effects is more flavorful and potentially has more interaction involved than plain ol' abstract hit point accounting that could easily be mopped up post-battle. Problem is, reactive defenses can be a bit of a pain in the ass. You've got bonuses and character states flipping off and on and the power balance varies even more widely than usual depending on how pre-occupied people are with other things. For example, I've yet to see someone play Frank's Curator for more than a session or two without occasionally forgetting to use the immediate actions the class is built around. It's just the nature of the beast that sooner or later someone will be chugging their mountain dew or taking a piss when something important happens during someone else's turn.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Mon May 26, 2014 4:16 pm

It's either Wolverine levels of Healing or not worth using it at all in my experience.

silva · Post by **silva** » Mon May 26, 2014 4:33 pm

ACOS wrote:Yeah, it sounds like he's saying that if you're going to take up magic item space, it better be more interesting than simply "+2 bullshit bonus".

Earthdawn magical items rules are one of the most innovative and interesting Ive seen - at first, a magical item work exactly like a mundane counterpart, but as the player uncovers information about the item's history, and spends legend points to activate it, he unlocks some of the magic in the item. And the more the player uncovers about it, the more powers are unlocked within the item. Thus, each magical item is unique by virtue of its history and the scope of its powers.

This rule is not only interesting by itself, but fits perfectly the setting of Earthdawn underlying theme of rebirth from the ruins of old civilizations, and the uncovering of lost pieces of lore that died with it.

Laertes · Post by **Laertes** » Mon May 26, 2014 4:43 pm

Earthdawn magical items rules are one of the most innovative and interesting Ive seen - at first, a magical item work exactly like a mundane counterpart, but as the player uncovers information about the item's history, and spends legend points to activate it, he unlocks some of the magic in the item. And the more the player uncovers about it, the more powers are unlocked within the item. Thus, each magical item is unique by virtue of its history and the scope of its powers.

How is that done? When you spend the legend point, how do you determine what the new power is? Is it GM fiat, player fiat, rolled on a table, or what?

schpeelah · Post by **schpeelah** » Mon May 26, 2014 6:45 pm

Laertes wrote:This also means that going to a magician and saying, "Dude, make me a sword which costs the same as these other ones do but has it's crazy random bullshit bonus aligned with my personal needs" has its advantages.

Well, obviously if you think that adding random bullshit bonuses to +1 swords for free is possible, then it doesn't make sense for plain +1 swords to exist. That is not really supported by anything. For instance, the sword of +Riding you mentioned by the rules is a sum of a +1 sword and a +Riding item costwise (1.5 of the latter in fact, if the DM rules that such an item would normally occupy an item slot), and needs to be created by a wizard capable of making both.

silva · Post by **silva** » Mon May 26, 2014 7:10 pm

Laertes wrote:How is that done? When you spend the legend point, how do you determine what the new power is? Is it GM fiat, player fiat, rolled on a table, or what?

If I remember right the book has a couple examples, together with rules for the GM to build new ones for his campaigns. Dont know if it makes sense for the players to create it themselves ( it would completely ditch the purpose of lore hunting, no ? ). What could work is having the player suggest a power based on the uncovered item story. So..

"Artorias Greatshield: the shield which the legendary knight Artorias used to save its wolf companion from darkness, before falling himself to the abyss"

..could provide different effects, like protection from darkness, or protection to animals, or even both effects at the cost of corrupting the user with darkness each time its used. Or another entirely new one based on the players creativity.

P.S: hmm... this lore-hunting thing would fit perfectly in the kind of "mythic" games and settings I commented on the other thread.

Laertes · Post by **Laertes** » Mon May 26, 2014 7:28 pm

Well, obviously if you think that adding random bullshit bonuses to +1 swords for free is possible, then it doesn't make sense for plain +1 swords to exist. That is not really supported by anything. For instance, the sword of +Riding you mentioned by the rules is a sum of a +1 sword and a +Riding item costwise (1.5 of the latter in fact, if the DM rules that such an item would normally occupy an item slot), and needs to be created by a wizard capable of making both.

It depends on the specifics of the system and the way it handles magic items, I suppose.

If I remember right the book has a couple examples, together with rules for the GM to build new ones for his campaigns. Dont know if it makes sense for the players to create it themselves ( it would completely ditch the purpose of lore hunting, no ? )

That does sound pretty cool, although I think anyone who chafes at GM fiat will really dislike that.

Mechanically, it just sounds like an item which continually upgrades as the character gets more powerful. Which, thinking about it, is a mechanic I quite like but would ascribe to the opposite flavour: instead of being a "you discover the world's lore" thing, it's more of a "you create new lore for the world" thing. It might work better for settings where there isn't a huge backlog of old civilisations, and characters are instead helping to shape the future.

silva · Post by **silva** » Mon May 26, 2014 7:32 pm

Laertes wrote:.. thinking about it, its a mechanic I quite like but would ascribe to the opposite flavour: instead of being a "you discover the world's lore" thing, it's more of a "you create new lore for the world" thing. It might work better for settings where there isn't a huge backlog of old civilisations, and characters are instead helping to shape the future.

Thats and AWESOME idea for a more freeform/broad strokes setting.

Im favorting this thread for not forgetting it.

silva · Post by **silva** » Mon May 26, 2014 7:50 pm

Laertes, just to clarify, Ive found this example of a Earthdawn magical item in the internet. Its converted to the DCC system, which is too mathy for my tastes. But the underlying logic works regardless of systems, really:

Flametongue
Chaotic, Int 8, Empathy, wants to slay cold and undead

This long sword was forged in lava flows of Mount Ulthruung by a slightly unhinged wizard named Geof. The steel shimmers in the light, as though it is always giving off heat and has a slight red sheen. It is a slender blade that is inscribed with glyphs that only appear in fire light. When deciphered and spoken aloud, they are the command word of the weapon. Flametongue was crafted as part of Geof's crusade against the frost giants.

Rank 1
Knowledge: The wielder must learn the name of the weapon.
Effect: The weapon becomes a +1 long sword that gives off light as a torch.

Rank 2
Deed: The wielder must view and decipher the glyphs on the blade.
Effect: When the command word is spoken, the weapon alights in flame, causing +1d4 fire damage. If the results is a 4, the wielder takes 1 point of damage from the flare.

Rank 3
Knowledge: The wielder must learn the name of the wizard that created Flametongue.
Effect: When the weapon is on fire, it gains +2 versus cold creatures. Additionally, all opponents that are within the light radius of the flame (a torch) and are weak to fire suffer -1 to Will from fear. This explicitly includes opponents that suffer negative effects (such as stopping their regeneration), not just take additional damage.

Rank 4
Knowledge: The wielder must learn the name of the volcano where the weapon was forged.
Deed: The wielder must visit the volcano where the weapon was forged.
Effect: When the weapon is on fire, the wielder may roll +1d6 for damage (instead of +1d4). If the result is a 6, the wielder takes 1 point of damage from the flare.

Rank 5
Knowledge: The wielder must learn the name of the frost giant king that was slain to end the crusade against them.
Deed: The wielder must somehow learn this information from a frost giant - the sword prefers force, but is flexible.
Effect: The weapon becomes a +2 long sword, +3 versus cold creatures.

Notice how an entire paralell campaign could develop based on the search for the weapon story.

Laertes · Post by **Laertes** » Mon May 26, 2014 8:05 pm

Interesting, so the player would sort of know the entire future of their campaign magic items as soon as they got it. Did that sort of magic item progression mean that people would tweak their character builds specifically to match the item's future forms?

silva · Post by **silva** » Mon May 26, 2014 8:30 pm

Laertes wrote:Interesting, so the player would sort of know the entire future of their campaign magic items as soon as they got it.

Hmmm, I dont remember if all that info is disclosed to the player. I suspect its only for the GM.

Did that sort of magic item progression mean that people would tweak their character builds specifically to match the item's future forms?

That would be an interesting proposition, if the full info on the item was relvealed as soon as the player acquired. But as I said above, dont know if thats the case.

It would actually cool if each player already began the game with a magical item, so each would have a particular agenda (besides the main campaign) on uncovering the item´s past, and thus planning their capacities together with it.

On the other hand, having an item powers/stories discovered only through the campaign could be a nice surprise too. Perhaps having the GM pre-plan the stories, and the player improv / on-the-fly suggesting power correlated to the stories. This perhaps would be the most "balanced" way between Player and GM input.

Laertes · Post by **Laertes** » Mon May 26, 2014 8:39 pm

Hmmm, I dont remember if all that info is disclosed to the player. I suspect its only for the GM.

That would be an interesting proposition, if the full info on the item was relvealed as soon as the player acquired. But as I said above, dont know if thats the case.

I have never, in all my decade plus experience of gaming, seen anyone pay any attention to a "players please don't know this knowledge k thx?" note. You could almost file that under the original thread topic.

In fact, I shall.

Things that disappoint me in every conceivable way: Relying on (and trying to enforce) player ignorance. It makes your players feel frustrated and out of control. It doesn't work. It prevents people from talking about your game. It makes the GM feel frustrated and out of control when the players inevitably know it anyway. It rewards the breaking of the social contract (by giving advantage to players who know it anyway) and punishes adherence to the social contract. Most damningly of all, it tries to shoehorn gaming into the form of traditional static entertainment media rather than any form of genuinely interactive model.

silva · Post by **silva** » Mon May 26, 2014 8:56 pm

Hmm, your right. I totally agree with that.

What about then, having items following a more or less simple and generic format like this:

- Name
- Creator
- Purpose
- Main deed

This way, you promote the player to search for such a very intuitive and logical pieces of lore, that it makes irrelevant the kind of list seen on Flametongue above. So, Flametongue would change to this in the new format:

- Name: Flametongue
- Creator: Goef the wizard, on the east volcano
- Purpose: to fight the frost giants
- Main deed: slaying of the frost giant King

Then the player would know exacly what to look for in the game, since its all very basic and intuitive. Plus, the effects are pretty much deducteable too (fire damage, bonus against giants and Ice, light emitting, etc).

What do you think ?

Laertes · Post by **Laertes** » Mon May 26, 2014 9:02 pm

Then the player would know exacly what to look for in the game, since its all very basic and intuitive. Plus, the effects are pretty much deducteable too (fire damage, bonus against giants and Ice, light emitting, etc).

What do you think ?

I think players would bitch about being railroaded (and they'd be right) if you just dumped that on them. On the other hand, if they got to choose it themselves then it would be another case of Following The Path Of What I Was Going To Do Anyway. Off the top of my head I'm not a hundred percent sure of what to do with it to make it work.

silva · Post by **silva** » Mon May 26, 2014 9:10 pm

On a more railroadish campaign where players follows the plot the GM pre-prepared, I think the first method (GM preps the item background, players fill the effects) would be better.

On the other hand, on a more sandboxy campaign where players dictate the campaign flow and direction (and even fill some blanks in the world), the second method (players fill items story AND effects themselves) could be better. Though in this case, it would be interesting if the players were obligued to re-enact in-game some important deed of the item as a requisite for its effects to "awaken". Otherwise it would be all too much in perfectly control of the player (as you said: Following The Path Of What I Was Going To Do Anyway ).

schpeelah · Post by **schpeelah** » Mon May 26, 2014 9:16 pm

Laertes wrote: It depends on the specifics of the system and the way it handles magic items, I suppose.

You were clearly talking about D&D. Anyway, +1 swords are boring because they create their own boringness. If it is meaningful to refer to a magic sword as a +1 sword, it also implies there are +0 and +2 swords, which ends up creating the expectation that you will have a +1 or +2 sword at certain points of your advancement, and putting bullshit small customized powers is not going to counter the fundamental mundanity of getting a +1 sword of any kind when you are supposed to have one.

Laertes · Post by **Laertes** » Mon May 26, 2014 9:24 pm

You were clearly talking about D&D. Anyway, +1 swords are boring because they create their own boringness. If it is meaningful to refer to a magic sword as a +1 sword, it also implies there are +0 and +2 swords, which ends up creating the expectation that you will have a +1 or +2 sword at certain points of your advancement, and putting bullshit small customized powers is not going to counter the fundamental mundanity of getting a +1 sword of any kind when you are supposed to have one.

There's nothing I can do to counter the mundanity of getting a +1 sword when you're expected to get one. However, by putting a small flavour bonus on a given sword, it at least makes that particular sword more interesting. It gives you a sense that the sword had somehow existed within the world prior to you getting it, and that you're rooting through other people's accumulated stuff rather than just finding wealth-by-level equipment.

schpeelah · Post by **schpeelah** » Mon May 26, 2014 9:32 pm

Laertes wrote:There's nothing I can do to counter the mundanity of getting a +1 sword when you're expected to get one. However, by putting a small flavour bonus on a given sword, it at least makes that particular sword more interesting.

My point is exactly that it does not do that. If it's a +1 sword, and the player is at a level they are supposed to have a +1 sword, then the fact that it has some special custom powers and a history the players can find out, will not make the player see the sword as anything other than a +1 sword they are supposed to have. Not without putting in significant effort, like making it important to a major adventure.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon May 26, 2014 9:34 pm

Laertes wrote:Things that disappoint me in every conceivable way: Relying on (and trying to enforce) player ignorance. It makes your players feel frustrated and out of control. It doesn't work. It prevents people from talking about your game. It makes the GM feel frustrated and out of control when the players inevitably know it anyway. It rewards the breaking of the social contract (by giving advantage to players who know it anyway) and punishes adherence to the social contract. Most damningly of all, it tries to shoehorn gaming into the form of traditional static entertainment media rather than any form of genuinely interactive model.

You missed a flaw. It is completely incompatible with People who both play and DM your game, and therefore actually prevents the growth of your game by having people who like playing going out and DMing, since now they are "ruining" their playing.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Mon May 26, 2014 9:39 pm

When you give a sword a name it becomes something like a character rather than a prop.

Think the difference between a named character and Elf #12.

silva · Post by **silva** » Mon May 26, 2014 10:05 pm

hyzmarca wrote:When you give a sword a name it becomes something like a character rather than a prop.

Think the difference between a named character and Elf #12.

Yup. And when you go on whole adventures to find out the story on that sword, you make it meaningful to you in a way a "sword +2" never will.

Though if youre the kind of player that ignores fluff and in-game meanings and only cares for mathematical bonuses, then nothing in the world will help you. (but then you shouldnt be bothered with the dryness of generic "swords+1" in the first place )

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon May 26, 2014 10:15 pm

silva wrote:
hyzmarca wrote:When you give a sword a name it becomes something like a character rather than a prop.

Think the difference between a named character and Elf #12.
Yup. And when you go on whole adventures to find out the story on that sword, you make it meaningful to you in a way a "sword +2" never will.

Though if youre the kind of player that ignores fluff and in-game meanings and only cares for mathematical bonuses, then nothing in the world will help you. (but then you shouldnt be bothered with the dryness of generic "swords+1" in the first place )

Or alternatively, your character might have better things to do with their life than go on adventures to find out the story of a sword.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Mon May 26, 2014 10:29 pm

Or just have the sword tell you about the cerazy shit it did as a kid during downtime while the wizard is fiddling with his spell list.

"This reminds me of that time I stabbed the Prince of Astonia in the dick. We wielder then was a real crazy bastard and we'd just slain the green dragon that was ravaging the countryside so the Prince invited us to a feast. Well, he invited the meatbags to a feast. They didn't serve anything I could eat and Wilbur just kept telling me to shut up."

"Wilbur?"

"Wilbur of Agengard. I think it was a family name. Anyway, as I was saying, Wilbur is crazy even when he's sober and the Prince did not skimp on the fancy wine that night. Wilbur was chugging it down and as the night wore on he became a little randy and started making passes at the Prince's wife. The Prince didn't like that at all, stood up and demanded that Wilbur apologize. Instead of doing the sensible thing and saying that he was sorry Wilbur whips me out and thrusts me right between the Prince's legs. Long story short the Prince never had any children, Wilbur was executed the next day, and I spent the next twenty-seven years locked up in a royal vault. The moral of the story is don't stab royalty in the junk. If you do I'll deny knowing you."

Laertes · Post by **Laertes** » Mon May 26, 2014 10:34 pm

hyzmarca wrote:[pitch-perfect talking sword speech that I'm probably going to steal and use]

Even James "Grim" Desborough realised that talking swords are a poor idea, destined to do little more than irritate everyone. Trying to play one straight and make players think it's cool is simply a doomed venture from the get-go.

Stinktopus · Post by **Stinktopus** » Mon May 26, 2014 11:05 pm

Things that disappoint me:

"Special" Magic Items - Talking swords are generally DMPCs designed to make your fighters feel small in the pants when they aren't blowing the DM to make Stormbringer go Super Saiyan and kill all the bad guys with bullshit handwavium powers.

Point Buying Friends And Money - "I have max ranks in Contacts and Wealth. I can pay someone to solve ANYTHING. So, how's that guy who's good at hitting things with nunchucks working out for you?"