Design Notes from The Den

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sun Jun 14, 2015 11:32 pm

Grek wrote:This doesn't work in TTRPGs because there is no default algorithm to make monsters attack you. Monsters attack whoever the DM decides they would decide to attack. As a result, all aggro abilities are either hamfisted "They have to make a will save or attack you." options, or basically flavour text the DM will ignore.

What can work is a power like the Tome Knight's, where you have a power (Designate Opponent) which becomes disproportionately powerful (Do +1d6 damage per level per attack) if monsters don't spend actions (attack actions) to stop you from using it. It incentivizes monsters to focus on you without literally mind controlling them.

Why would it be hamfisted if you had an ability (mind affect) that forces you to attack someone specific? There are moves like 'rage' that sends someone into a frenzy, confusion which makes people do random shit, command, etc. I really don't see how having some 'thing' that says 'you have to attack this thing on your turn: Will Save ends' is offensive. Not saying that a whole 'aggro' system needs to be made in order to determine who gets targeted but I don't really see a problem with the existence of an aggro ability or two.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 12:00 am

If a character is using literal mind control to compel enemies to attack them, people will want to know why that same character can't mind control the enemies into attacking someone else instead. If a character isn't using literal mind control, people will want to know what else could possibly convince the monsters to prioritize attacking the character over attacking the party member who is actually hurting them. Designate Opponent is one answer to that: If the monsters didn't prioritize the knight, the knight would do even more damage than the damage dealing party member.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 12:09 am

Grek wrote:If a character is using literal mind control to compel enemies to attack them, people will want to know why that same character can't mind control the enemies into attacking someone else instead. If a character isn't using literal mind control, people will want to know what else could possibly convince the monsters to prioritize attacking the character over attacking the party member who is actually hurting them. Designate Opponent is one answer to that: If the monsters didn't prioritize the knight, the knight would do even more damage than the damage dealing party member.

Why would it go like that? There are mind affects that cause people to just become 'shaken', that cause people to dance instead of attack other people, there's one in pathfinder that causes someone to kiss someone else, etc. Why would the existence of a mind affect that just compels a target to do 'that' specific thing be the straw that breaks the camel's back? I've not really heard of anyone viewing mind control in game the way you're describing.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 3:11 am

You should edit the flowchart into the top post instead of leaving it in a reply that's buried behind half a page of mechanical discussion. Especially if this thread continues to grow and have new things added to it, actually finding the things this thread is supposed to serve as a reference for is going to get much harder as time goes on.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:02 am

All of the options you're talking about MGuy, are spellcaster options. Spellcasters pick which spell that get, and pretty much all of them go with general spells like Confusion or Charm Person before they get incite stuff like Entice Gift or that kissing spell. They'd definitely pick Confusion over any hypothetical Get Hate spell. The only reason you'd have a class which has access to Get Hate but not Charm Person is if you'd specifically designed the class that way. At which point people will ask why that class exists in universe. What kind of stupid fucker signs up to learn to cast a magic spell to make people hate them and nothing else?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 5:55 am

Apparently for the benefit of the design thread Grek seems to be demonstrating the step by step process to make bad arguments and worse decisions about RPG design for everyone.

Grek wrote:All of the options you're talking about MGuy, are spellcaster options.

Step one: Imply or assert that spell casters are exceptional. And don't ever count, no backsies. Forever.

Spellcasters pick which spell that get

Step 2: Imply or assert that as long as someone can choose something else then either A)An inferior option is fine, or B)A discussed example does not exist. Do not attempt to assert A and B at the same time. Ah hell, who are we kidding, go ahead.

They'd definitely pick Confusion over any hypothetical Get Hate spell. The only reason you'd have a class which has access to Get Hate but not Charm Person is if you'd specifically designed the class that way. At which point people will ask why that class exists in universe. What kind of stupid fucker signs up to learn to cast a magic spell to make people hate them and nothing else?

Step: 3: Then describe a bunch of essentially unrelated and arbitrary bad design decisions, associate the "undesirable" mechanic with them for no reason, and then declare those arbitrary bad design decisions to be bad (regardless of whether they even are bad), and declare the "undesirable" mechanic to be bad by association, you know, the association you just fabricated right out of your ass.

Unfortunately while it certainly was an impressive showing for such a small post I fear its efficiency is not enough to make it a comprehensive list.

I somewhat suspect though that there will be more examples of other terrible RPG arguments to come.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:07 am

The actual argument is, of course, "Get Hate would be a very situational spell at best. Noone would take that as their first pick. So why would you design a class based around it? It's mechanically stupid and does not let you tell interesting stories. Go back to the drawing board and give the Tank a real class feature instead.", but PL failed his Will save vs my Get Hate power a few months ago. Now he is forced to attack my ideas, even when it requires an obvious mischaracterization of the argument to do so. Whoops!

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:14 am

Grek wrote:The actual argument is, of course, "Get Hate would be a very situational spell at best. Noone would take that as their first pick. So why would you design a class based around it? It's mechanically stupid and does not let you tell interesting stories. Go back to the drawing board and give the Tank a real class feature instead."

Step 4: Pretend you said something you didn't. But fail by just saying basically the same stupid thing you already said again. But just run with it and pretend you didn't.

but PL failed his Will save vs my Get Hate power a few months ago.

Step 5: Accuse anyone who notices what you are doing of being a big meanie out to get you. From that time, the one so compelling that they apparently have no idea what the hell you are even referring to.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:37 am

So evidently PL thinks aggro abilities for tanks are awesome.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:53 am

Grek wrote:All of the options you're talking about MGuy, are spellcaster options. Spellcasters pick which spell that get, and pretty much all of them go with general spells like Confusion or Charm Person before they get incite stuff like Entice Gift or that kissing spell. They'd definitely pick Confusion over any hypothetical Get Hate spell. The only reason you'd have a class which has access to Get Hate but not Charm Person is if you'd specifically designed the class that way. At which point people will ask why that class exists in universe. What kind of stupid fucker signs up to learn to cast a magic spell to make people hate them and nothing else?

Well I never said that a person would have to choose between this ability and other 'better' abilities. Also more than just primary spellcasters get 'magic' abilities so I'm not above just saying 'it's magic motherfucker' and moving on. I also didn't say anything about building a class exclusively around the ability to get hate. My question is simply why is the existence of the ability to 'get hate' more offensive than other options? There are a number of situations I can think of where forcing someone to spend an action attacking you instead of other people would be useful and of the existing spells and abilities I really don't see it as being the worst thing someone could pick up.

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:22 am

Now, if I were coming at this with no preconceptions, I don't think I'd have a problem with a "Make dudes attack me" spell. But I (and, I think, many of us) are already acquainted with at least one magic system that has at least one "Choose who dudes attack" spell, which is significantly more useful. Now, it's magic, and it doesn't have to fit my assumptions of how it should work, but given the prior experience, I do find it a bit jarring that a spell could force a dude to attack me but couldn't force a dude to attack his buddy. Again, it's magic, and it doesn't have to (and if I needed to I could come up with justifications) but the preconceptions are there and it's important to acknowledge them.

However, there definitely exists in source fiction a precedent for people being able to force their enemies to attack them - to taunt. But in the source fiction, this ability isn't explicitly magical (it works when it works and fails when it fails because the plot calls for it to, mostly), and any not-explicitly-magical attempt to replicate it ends up needing MC pity(/favors) or an existing social combat mechanism that allows for that level of control. That is, fighters can't have nice things.

One thing that I don't see so far that might be a viable (starting point for a) solution is something like, at or near the same spell level that someone gets Charm Person (complex control, up to inversion, of a person's attitude), someone else could get much simpler control over a bunch of people. So you could take one dude who was hostile towards you and make them friendly OR you could take like seven dudes who were already hostile towards you and make them... iunno, fanatically hostile, to the point where they have no real interest in anything but murdering you until you or they are dead (or the spell ends y'know whatevs).

This seems like something that doesn't trigger any of my objections, at least.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:45 am

MGuy wrote:My question is simply why is the existence of the ability to 'get hate' more offensive than other options?

It isn't. As an individual ability 'Get hate' is totally a valid option. Momo's hypothetical Mindless Rage spell would not be out of place alongside Charm Person.

But we're not talking about individual abilities. We're talking about overall combat roles. A character who's sum and total contribution to the party is "I'm a spearcatcher who takes hits for more useful party members." has no place at the table. It has no thematic support and isn't fun to play. Don't make that class.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:05 am

Grek wrote:But we're not talking about individual abilities.

Step 6: Only after several failed arguments against them grudgingly and backhandedly acknowledge that what the other guy is talking about is ok/correct. But then talk about how "we" aren't talking about that/aren't allowed to talk about it, as "we" are/must talk about the thing you are talking about instead, which is a bad/incorrect thing which the other guy should totally stop doing/talking about.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:17 am

PL, have you read thread? At all? The "why is getting hate bad" question is based on a Frank quote in the "What kind of Monster Roles should there be?" spoiler. We're obviously talking about combat roles. Mostly for monsters, but the problem is easier explained from a PC perspective.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:22 am

Grek wrote:PL, have you read thread?

I've certainly read the posts you flat out refuse to properly respond to.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:32 pm

What is your opinion on the matter PL? I assume that you don't find anything particularly offensive about the kind of ability I am asking about?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 1:45 am

MGuy wrote:What is your opinion on the matter PL? I assume that you don't find anything particularly offensive about the kind of ability I am asking about?

I see no reason why an ability like that shouldn't exist, for monsters, for PCs, as a one off or as part of some greater build.

In fact abilities that look like that basically should exist. The flavor of a hate me ability is consistent with desirable source material and in game outcomes. The function of more diverse target substitution mechanics including but not limited to hate me (and guard substitutions and deceptive substitutions and so on) only brings desirable tactical diversity to an RPG and provides SOME potential that, unlike Frank's (vague) suggestions, the Boss NPC EVER goes down AFTER his body guard monsters.

Mostly though I just thought Grek's dishonest and stupid retorts were somewhat out of place in a well meaning design concept/advice thread.

I've been generally holding off on being critical of the uncritically lifted unanalyzed bits of material just about entirely generated by Frank, I don't especially want to crap on the fan boy parade, and as poor as some pieces of the advice are, the sheer value of the design flow chart for the all to common amateur with NO clue as to what they are doing other than "lol I like crit miss tables" (regardless of it's own minor imperfections) is worth putting up with a bunch of other highly specific and poorly considered pieces of advice.

But the monster roles section is arguable a prime example of the worst advice material quoted on this thread. Not only do I disagree with it's premises and conclusions regarding "hate" and "hit me" roles/abilities... it isn't even a piece of clear and consistent advice on what it is criticizing or endorsing.

It inconsistently pretends "just there to absorb attacks" is a bad role while simultaneously naming and seemingly promoting roles like "speed bump" and "meat wall" and "disproportionately defensive".

It describes a "defensive monster role" that is utterly dysfunctional for gameplay outcomes. Even the described "it can't do anything productive alone, but if you leave it to last it MIGHT just finish you off!" is a deeply underwhelming scenario and design goal that does NOTHING to make you ever want to kill the boss body guard shield golems first ever.

It endorses ONLY the "tome knight" style challenge mechanic, and denounces "get hate" mechanics and damage/attack absorbing roles/monsters... but in a sufficiently vague way that it by no means makes clear even exactly what is being advised against.

It could be read as "don't do an over-arching MMO Hate mechanic".

It could be read as "don't do a monster with any "Hit Me" effect at the core of it's role".

It could be read as "don't ever do any sort of hit me effect period".

And at it's extremes it could even be a denouncement of self substitution for targets, target switching deception, and even god damn zone of control/AoO style mechanics/roles.

As a piece of advice it fails by being bad, but more so for being almost entirely opaque. About all it achieves is that through vagueness and some dog whistles for grognards who still foam at the mouth at the merest hint of something even slightly MMO sounding it manages to be appealing to certain audiences. After all vague advice you can freely interpret in a number of ways to support your own prejudices is frequently popular. I mean look how much Grek likes it and is ready to interpret it as just about anything he feels like it being. It's just not remotely useful.

edit: Though I feel I should probably clarify that at least some of the vagueness and the whole thing where the post is poor as a piece of advice is not entirely Frank's fault, it is after all lifted out of context here by a third party. Still, however it came to be there, as a stand alone piece of design advice, it's pretty terrible.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Tue Jun 16, 2015 3:41 am

I don't have a strong opinion about all the advice things. I haven't read them all but I do know that the piece about being against 'getting hate' caught my eye. I am familiar with a bunch of games that have hate me/force berserk abilities.