Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

[deaddmwalking]

I don't see any problems with that. You're basically saying Primal is a DM asspull that doesn't require justification and PCs can't make it happen. In the fluff, I'd just say something about 'mysterious', 'very few documented cases', and 'even those are disputed'.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Oh no, I was gonna make up items that let Pokemon harness that power. PCs can make them the same way they can make Mega Stones. Granted, it doesn't come online until high levels... but I guess a DM could asspull it out earlier if they wanted.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

It's been a while since I shat out a discussion topic, so today I have a more subtle issue to bring up.

In many games (tabletop games included), whenever you hit someone, you deal damage to them. It doesn't matter how much damage you deal, just that no matter what you are going to inflict at LEAST 1 damage. Contrast this versus games where, if your attack cannot surmount an enemy's defense, you deal no damage whatsoever. What are some of the strategies and unintended consequences that arise from both systems?
Obviously, the first one lets you Death of 1000 Cuts a guy, while the second one results in that same guy laughing away as you helplessly flail at him. For the latter, feeling like you did absolutely nothing with your turn, not even dealing any damage, sucks... but being able to no-sell the enemy just through the weight of your sheer stats is awesome.
At the same time, if you always deal 1 damage with your attacks and your HP scales are in the 1-20 range, then that means a lot more than in D&D where you hit a 200 HP blob for 1 damage. Hrm.

I'm assuming in this scenario the typical "roll to hit, then roll for damage" setup, but I think the results would be mostly the same for games where the attack roll also includes damage, like Vampire and such?

Just a random thought I had.

[...You Lost Me]

I think minimum damage is only has worth considering when you're dealing with low or fixed HP values. Like you noted, dealing 1 damage to a 200 HP blob is pretty meaningless. If anything, it could actually be more annoying if you have to track damage this way, because there is a teensy tactical advantage of 1-HP attacks and players may be incentivized to bog down the game with lots of tiny attacks from their army of 200 warriors.

I think an important consideration of minimum damage that you haven't hit on is that it forces the game towards a conclusion. If you want to engage players, you should have a system that regularly leads to things happening. Including 2 discrete steps in combat where there is a chance for a player to accomplish nothing (like hit & soak, or hit & applying damage versus DR) increases the likelihood that things don't happen. This leads to players quitting your game because they'd rather do something more interesting with their time.

I think it's telling that turn-based video games where combat plays a major role tend to give attacks high accuracy, and always let you deal some amount of damage. Divinity 2 comes to mind, where missing is a rare occurrence unless a creature is specifically built for it. Combat is instead lengthened by giving enemies high HP / armor / magic armor values, so you can see the little bars go down over time and feel good about your progress.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

I think an important consideration of minimum damage that you haven't hit on is that it forces the game towards a conclusion. If you want to engage players, you should have a system that regularly leads to things happening. Including 2 discrete steps in combat where there is a chance for a player to accomplish nothing (like hit & soak, or hit & applying damage versus DR) increases the likelihood that things don't happen. This leads to players quitting your game because they'd rather do something more interesting with their time.

That's a good point. However, if you hit with one of your attacks and it does fucking nothing to one guy, then (unless you have random damage) you know that particular course of action is no longer on the table. Having one of your tactical options eliminated or lessened sounds like something happening to me, but I might be looking at this more from a designer's perspective than a player's.
It's one thing to swing and do no damage because you missed or didn't roll enough damage, but it's another thing to swing as hard as you can, hit, and still do no damage.

[...You Lost Me]

Yeah, I think that making damage-prevention a frequent thing just means you need to design around it. Making sure everyone has multiple tactical options, and that some of them can get around high DR, seems like a good solution.

Alternatively, just using the existence of DR to pump up other numbers seems like a possibility. I'm imagining a D&D 3e-esque system where you hit 2/3 of the time. If you add DR that can only be broken through 3/4 of the time, it means players will be doing nothing (1 - (2/3) * (3/4)) = 1/2 the time. So maybe you give out DR like candy, but you also give player classes a flat damage boost, or you change the hit system so attack rolls never miss on default attacks.

In any case, the inclusion of Hit + DR / Soak will require some design work so that players players have accessible, interesting combat options for all their enemies. That might be too much work for a light game and/or too much headache for players who don't want to pay attention and do subtraction at the table.

[Thaluikhain]

It's been a while since I shat out a discussion topic, so today I have a more subtle issue to bring up.

In many games (tabletop games included), whenever you hit someone, you deal damage to them. It doesn't matter how much damage you deal, just that no matter what you are going to inflict at LEAST 1 damage. Contrast this versus games where, if your attack cannot surmount an enemy's defense, you deal no damage whatsoever. What are some of the strategies and unintended consequences that arise from both systems?

For the latter, do you mean you have a chance of doing some damage, and a chance of doing no damage every time?

If so, then it's up to the dice gods how the fight goes. I mean, it always is, but the fight is more predictable when you will always do some damage and the thing can only take so much damage.

[deaddmwalking]

Variable outcomes tend to be desirable. Player's don't like missing completely, but they do like hitting for a small amount of damage and they really like hitting for a large amount of damage (like a critical hit). Rolling small amounts of negligible damage kinda sucks, but rolling 'normal damage' and applying a small soak works okay - psychologically you hit, and even if the contribution is small the number you roll for damage can be 'okay'. Having ways to increase the damage (x2, x3, and even x4) can be good - it tends to reduce the amount of time spent fighting, but if those are spread around and inconsistent, they seem special enough.

[Orion]

Is there are accepted phrase for the opposite of "rules-light"? Is rules-light still considered a useful or meaningful phrase? To me, the hallmarks of typical rules-light are a universal resolution mechanic you can plug various skills or traits into, coupled with the absence of game structures that would tell you how what the scope of a single roll is or a procedure for running a complete encounter, I.E. any games where what a successful action accomplishes has to be improvised. Maybe also games where that's defined but only in meta-game terms, like where we know a medium challenge is resolved in 5 actions, but we don't know what fictional situations would qualify as medium challenges.

Basically I want to talk in my BitD review about how Blades is awkwardly halfway between being a freeform/rules-light/improvisational game and being a crunchier game that's mostly unfinished.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Rules-heavy.

[OgreBattle]

Is there are accepted phrase for the opposite of "rules-light"? Is rules-light still considered a useful or meaningful phrase? To me, the hallmarks of typical rules-light are a universal resolution mechanic you can plug various skills or traits into, coupled with the absence of game structures that would tell you how what the scope of a single roll is or a procedure for running a complete encounter, I.E. any games where what a successful action accomplishes has to be improvised. Maybe also games where that's defined but only in meta-game terms, like where we know a medium challenge is resolved in 5 actions, but we don't know what fictional situations would qualify as medium challenges.

Basically I want to talk in my BitD review about how Blades is awkwardly halfway between being a freeform/rules-light/improvisational game and being a crunchier game that's mostly unfinished.

"Crunchy" "Rules Heavy" "High System Mastery"

For specific parameters to judge a game we can look at...

System Mastery: Is player's skill in character building and decision making critical to success?
Chance: How much of it is random vs deterministic, more or less rolling
Arbitration: Are the outcomes of rolls, choices set or to be determined by the folks at the table

Like a game could have rolls with set results, or a lot of system mastery to get bonuses to rolls but the outcome is table determined. He likes old greek words so he calls it Paidia vs Ludus


--
Roger C. actually brings up something similar to a sliding bar of complexity to simplicity.

"paidia, which is active, tum ultuous, exuberant, and spontaneous, to ludus, representing calculation, contrivance, and subordination to rules. (A s the
derivation of the term paidia implies, children’s games
would predom inate in this category.)"

Paidia is "simple children's games without structure" like spinning in a circle, going down a slide.

Ludus is "structured games with rules or technique, mastery", like driving a fast car or flying a kite skillfully.



http://creativegames.org.uk/modules/Int ... 2-2001.pdf

[JigokuBosatsu]

A few observations from some vintage RPG stuff I've been idly reading.

From the Menzobaranzan box set:
-most single male drow get happy endings at massage parlors.
-there is a very specific spell that gives you fake illusionary boobs on top of your regular boobs, but you can drop the illusion and shoot lightning from somewhere in the vicinity of your boobs.

From FASERIP Realms of Magic:
-there are rules for evil sorcerors gloating

[OgreBattle]

"-most single male drow get happy endings at massage parlors."

Who are they getting those from though, foreign slaves or each other or are there enough low status Drow women for that.

"-there is a very specific spell that gives you fake illusionary boobs on top of your regular boobs, but you can drop the illusion and shoot lightning from somewhere in the vicinity of your boobs."

That is sensible as 80's Drow art oozes cheesecake and modernizes War Enemy she-wolf type stuff.

----


So are there any studies on what profiles of people get drawn to what kind of gambling game?

There's "Skill gambling" vs "Total Chance Gambling", but I'd like to read about compsarisons between blackjack players vs poker players, or slots vs roulette

[Prak]

For a couple years now, I've had this idea in my head for a board game themed on Trick or Treating, it's evolved into more of a hybrid card and board game as I'm working on it, and I'm stuck on movement.

Basically, the idea is that in phase one, players make their costumes using costume piece cards to grab costume cards. Then phase 2 is the actual trick or treating, where players move around a board visiting house spaces and collecting candy. In phase 3, players trade candy and then score their hauls (based on collecting schemes, so, like, one player has a card that says chocolate is worth an extra point, and another has a card saying that smartees are worth 2 points, etc). The highest score wins.

Obviously, with trick or treating as the theme, the idea is that players will visit each house, but this leaves me with two questions- first, how do they move around the board? Roll and move seems the easiest choice, but it leaves something to be desired. Or maybe I'm just unreasonably tossing the most fitting mechanic because it's the "simple rule for American babies" one. The other question is how best to mar houses that a player has already visited. This is more of a production question, I suppose, because the obvious answer is "with color coded tokens." That just feels too finicky.

[Thaluikhain]

Do the different costumes they choose make a difference?

[Prak]

Yeah, I want the costumes to impact game play. Some houses will give more or less candy based on costume, I'm thinking some costumes have movement modifiers (so, like, if you're a sheet ghost or a cardboard robot, you take a penalty because you're moving awkwardly)

But I'm also thinking about special costume pieces that satisfy costume requirements, while also having their own bonuses.

So, as an example-
Cardboard Robot
Sci-Fi
Requirements

• Cardboard
• Aluminum
• Medium Prop

Modifiers: -1 movement, +1 Against Teens (or something)

Medium Prop--Roller Skates
Only usable with Sci-Fi costumes. +2 movement.

Trekkies House
3 Candy
Sci Fi Fans: Players with Sci-Fi costumes receive +1 candy

Devil
Fantasy, Evil
Requirements

• Common Clothes
• Face Paint
• Medium Prop

Modifiers: Whenever you play a Trick, draw a card

Moral Crusade House
2 candy
Crusade: Fantasy and Evil costumes receive -1 candy. Costumes that are both receive 0 candy.

[deaddmwalking]

Players should all start at the same point (mouth of the cul-de-sac). Houses are closer at the beginning of the street, but further apart and richer (and therefore more generous) at the top of the street. Stopping at a house costs some movement. It might actually be good to have the game proceed until some 'end of night' card is drawn...

You need at least 3 turns of movement where people get something like 10-30 movement points; enough to visit a couple of houses at the beginning of the street or get to the best houses. By splitting the movement up, players are taking a chance that they won't get quite enough to fulfill their plan.

Visiting the same house might give you candy again (but less).

The qualities of the house should be unknown until someone rings the doorbell. Since kids can't keep a secret, once the house has dispensed candy, everybody knows where the good stuff is at (ie, flip and reveal).

[Prak]

Yeah, that's all pretty in line with what I was thinking. Including the hidden reward part, tho I was considering having a step between costume making and trick or treating where players draw cards from a House Deck and then take turns laying them out, which means that each house's reward would be known by a given player. Which could work out, tbh, and adds some strategy to it, so if you pay the Ultra Rich House, you're beating feet to get to it before anyone else

[Pedantic]

Why not avoid the marking problem by just making progress one way? You can only move forward to new houses (maybe add some branching and reconnecting paths along the way). You could use a rondel mechanic or something to determine turn order, maybe set restrictions on how many kids can pile in on a house. That gives you the ability to deny a valuable house to another player with careful timing.

[merxa]

An indicator to mark when a house runs out of candy would make sense.

Could be a more general 'lights out' mechanics

[Josh_Kablack]

Really sounds like you want a streamlined and re-themed version of Galaxy Trucker.

In the first phase, people scramble through piles of card to assemble their set-up in real time and then in the second phase people use their hastily cobbled together outfits to negotiate through an encounter deck in turn-order, with various setup pieces being better at the various challenges you encounter.

For Galaxy Trucker, that works out to Lasers helping you out against Meteor Showers and Space Pirates and, Crew Members letting you get more from salvage encounters, and more engines helping you get through Empty Space faster. But there is zero reason that can't change along the lines of Realistic-looking weapon helping you ward off Bullies, Pockets letting you carry more treats, and Roller Skates letting you get past the Graveyard faster.


I mean I would certainly do a "lighter" game than Galaxy Trucker for this theme -- you don't need quite so many rules about legal connecters and power sources for the design and placement phase, and you might want to skip the suggested mocking of the other players during the build validation phase.

[OgreBattle]

I haven't played Galaxy Trucker but have played Xia Legacy of a Drift System which I think is a less complex take https://www.faroffgames.com/xia-legends ... ift-system

[Prak]

Definitely thinking about one-way progress. I might split the difference by making progress one-way, except for a few spaces that let you jump back across the street. Seems like a good compromise.

I like the idea of houses "running out of candy" or "turning off the lights." I'd have to figure out a good mechanic for that, and I'm thinking about a turn-counting mechanic, but that requires tracking another thing. Could work though, I'm planning on the houses being represented by cards, but also planning on having an actual board, so one edge of the board could have a turn track.

Galaxy Trucker sounds very much like what I'm thinking and I'll have to take a look at it.

Thanks all

[Dean]

I'm trying to figure out the relative value of bonuses to re-rolls for 2d6. I can only make anydice give it to me for 1 re-roll before I don't know how to write it anymore.

So 2d6 avg is 7. 2d6 with a re-roll avg is 8.37. So 1 re-roll is a bit better than a +1.

How many 2d6 rolls to equal a +2 bonus, how many for a +3/+4/ and +5?

[Thaluikhain]

So 2d6 avg is 7. 2d6 with a re-roll avg is 8.37.

Is that re-roll and take the highest? Cause there's the option of re-roll if you want, but take the second roll even if it's worse.

And then you could decide to re-roll one die instead of both, I guess, but that might be beyond the scope of the question.