The Tyranny of Fun

[Crissa]

I was talking with the System7+ guys yesterday. Well, Wednesday.

They developed software which took data from what choices players made to balance things so that no one choice would be optimal.

But that was counted by the fact that they would choose, as the game developer putting in the strategies, what would be the optimal choices. So of course having one of the best level weapons in the game would be awesome, always, but each awesome would be the same awesome as the other already-selected awesomes.

So that game developers could just say 'here's the broad strokes of how I want my game to run' and the computer would do it for them.

So with M:tg you had many choices, most of them terrible; and 4e you have many choices, most of them meh. There's a broad range between giving many suboptimal choices, you want to give a few, so that players feel good about learning the game. But you don't want to give so few that players feel railroaded (see WoW threads about tanking or Hunters) or so many that player choice doesn't seem to matter (see 4e threads here).

And it's at that point that we seem to be weak in game design. A game can support many styles without losing tactical or strategic choice on the part of the player.

-Crissa

[CatharzGodfoot]

That sounds like a very difficult system to program. If it works though ...pure awesome.

[RandomCasualty2]

So with M:tg you had many choices, most of them terrible; and 4e you have many choices, most of them meh. There's a broad range between giving many suboptimal choices, you want to give a few, so that players feel good about learning the game. But you don't want to give so few that players feel railroaded (see WoW threads about tanking or Hunters) or so many that player choice doesn't seem to matter (see 4e threads here).

Well, I don't really like like suboptimal choices at all. I don't like it when designers say, "I don't like monks, so lets make monks suck."

Newbie trap abilities and classes are just a waste of paper.

That's just not good game design at all. Ideally it really shouldn't matter what choices you make at character creation. Any combination of choices should give you a balanced character with any other PC. Where system mastery should come in is in the actual battles and encounters, where you can use your abilities better than someone else. System mastery during character creation should be something we strive to eradicate, but it has to be something that is present during the actual game.

[Crissa]

True, RC. That's what they were saying.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty2]

True, RC. That's what they were saying.

Oh, then I guess I misunderstood what they were saying. I thought they were pushing for system mastery being in the game at character creation.

[Ice9]

While I don't think there should be purely bad choices like "Monks always suck", I do think there should be meaningful choices in character creation, like "to be good at X, this class and these feats are better". And I don't think you need to be able to pick your feats out of a hat either - there can be feats which are useful but not suited to every character type.

Optimizing your decisions in play is fine, but why is optimizing your decisions before play a bad thing? Some people like to tinker with their characters - that's part of the fun, but they don't want to do it entirely during gameplay because it slows things down too much. Now granted, nobody should be stuck with a lousy character because of one bad choice - that's what retraining is for, and it should be frequently and easily available.

But saying that you should literally be able to pick feats and powers at random and get an ideal result is like saying you should be able to pick actions in combat at random and win.

[RandomCasualty2]

But saying that you should literally be able to pick feats and powers at random and get an ideal result is like saying you should be able to pick actions in combat at random and win.

Well, random generation is fine for character generation, it just means you end up with a different sort of character. Obviously, if you choose ranged feats, you won't be a great meleer, but you'll still be good at something regardless of what you choose.

Basically, sucking is not an option.

[Ice9]

I agree that picking any path should be viable, but I don't think it's possible or necessary to avoid certain choices not being suited to certain purposes.

For instance, making a spellcaster and then putting all your feats into things like Improved Critical, Robilar's Gambit, and other fancy weapon tricks without anything to actually let you be a gish. Or being, say, a Monk and putting all your feats into ranged combat.

Depending on how the classes are designed, you might not suck, but there are certainly choices that are a better idea than others for any given type of character.

[RandomCasualty2]

For instance, making a spellcaster and then putting all your feats into things like Improved Critical, Robilar's Gambit, and other fancy weapon tricks without anything to actually let you be a gish. Or being, say, a Monk and putting all your feats into ranged combat.

I would say that putting your feats into stuff like that should be exactly the sort of thing that makes you a gish instead of a regular caster. As for a monk with ranged attacks, Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter showed us how that works.

[JonSetanta]

Yes but then you run in to problems such as spell selection.

Do you railroad players in to the "Revenge Gish build" or let them flail it out themselves?
The latter option will always favor those that know better spell lineups than newer, dumber, or less CharOp-type players.
The trend is towards The Perfect Build... unless one goes the 4e path and knocks out all mistake choices for you.

However, one could make the ability picks very simple and few in number. This would restrict customization but also prevent atrocious build errors, such as a Gish caster using Robilar's Gambit but with all Fireball-like spells.

I guess you can't idiot proof an RPG completely. There are still some steps that can be taken, though.

[Draco_Argentum]

I agree that picking any path should be viable, but I don't think it's possible or necessary to avoid certain choices not being suited to certain purposes.

Correct, as long as the game is obvious about what works with what its perfectly fine for abilities to synergise or not. As long as there isn't and numerical synergy since that just makes it a collect the bonus style game where you lose if you don't get them all.

[K]

The solution is to make generalized abilities that encompass different tactics.

For example, say you make a Conjurer. He starts with a bunch of summoning spells and a few feats that work well with summoning.

Then he decides to take fireball as one of his 3rd level spells. Now, this doesn't fit with his skill set, and in some ways conflicts with it since blasting melees where his monsters are fighting is a wash in terms of usefulness since enemies and his summons are damaged.

But, at the end, you can argue that there are situations where he can't use summons and having this ability is valuable because is makes him useful in more situations.

At the end of teh day, you can't go the 3e route where "fighting guys" need long feats chains and MAD stats to use even one of their abilities at any level of competency, and you also can't go the 4e route where you effectively lose the ability once you pick up a mace instead of a dagger. Each ability needs to be self-contained and valuable independent of your other abilities.

Unfortunately, people love meta-abilities. They want something that says "with this ability, I'm a better evoker than the evoker who didn't take this abiliity."

I mean, the CO boards are based on the principle that some characters are objectively better than others of the same general type by virtue of the correct synergy of abilities and feats. Move that discussion to one where the "better" evoker is one with more evoking spells and evocation tactics as opposed to a generalist evoker who dabbles in a variety of Wizard abilities and all the contentiousness leaves the CO board because and it all becomes a matter of play style and opinion.

[RandomCasualty2]

Unfortunately, people love meta-abilities. They want something that says "with this ability, I'm a better evoker than the evoker who didn't take this abiliity."

I mean, the CO boards are based on the principle that some characters are objectively better than others of the same general type by virtue of the correct synergy of abilities and feats. Move that discussion to one where the "better" evoker is one with more evoking spells and evocation tactics as opposed to a generalist evoker who dabbles in a variety of Wizard abilities and all the contentiousness leaves the CO board because and it all becomes a matter of play style and opinion.

Yeah, meta abilities really muck things up balance wise. Mainly because you get only a single action, and meta abilities actually make that action better. So in most cases you're better off getting a ton of metas instead of branching out.

One thing I've considered with meta abilities is capping it at one ability at a time as a modifier. That way the game doesn't turn into a big stack of meta abilities on one main ability.

[Username17]

There is no way to take system mastery out of playing the game or even character creation without making a game where choices objectively do not matter. System mastery is good. It's unavoidable. And bitching about it is counter-productive.

Let's take the powers of fog and repulsion. One makes it harder for people to use ranged attacks, the other makes it harder to do melee attacks. Leaving aside the idea of making those abilities have different costs based on whether you want to incentivize melee or ranged combat - it's an undeniable fact that one of those synergizes well with having a halberd and the other synergizes well with having a crossbow. If you select your power such that it works well with your weapon of choice, you do well, and if you don't you do poorly. That's system mastery. It's system mastery at every stage of the character from the original concept straight to the actual battlefield.

Now there's another thing that games get stuck in which we can call "numeric system mastery." That's where things have weird numeric bonuses that stack or don't and are ascribed numeric capabilities which are not on a level playing field one to another. That's bad. People shouldn't be given a choice between two different fire bolts where one is objectively superior to the other - especially not if the math behind that is complicated. Probably the single worst thing about oWoD is the fact that the Profane Magical Fire thrown by practitioners of Baali Daimonion was objectively inferior to the Thaumaturgical Fire thrown by practitioners of the Tremere Walk of Flame. If someone wants to "throw fire" they shouldn't be offered a dizzying array of options that range from "awesome" to "suck."

But while I think that we can all agree that putting trap options into the game is a bad idea, we shouldn't get confused into thinking that there shouldn't be bad builds. Tanking and Hiding are just always going to go together like cookies and ass, and there will be bad choices available in any game where choices are real. Your second move can be K -> K2. It shouldn't be, but it can be.

And any game that tries to remove peoples' ability to choose powers that don't work well together is by definition a game that is not worth playing.

-Username17

[K]

There is no way to take system mastery out of playing the game or even character creation without making a game where choices objectively do not matter. System mastery is good. It's unavoidable. And bitching about it is counter-productive.

Let's take the powers of fog and repulsion. One makes it harder for people to use ranged attacks, the other makes it harder to do melee attacks. Leaving aside the idea of making those abilities have different costs based on whether you want to incentivize melee or ranged combat - it's an undeniable fact that one of those synergizes well with having a halberd and the other synergizes well with having a crossbow. If you select your power such that it works well with your weapon of choice, you do well, and if you don't you do poorly. That's system mastery. It's system mastery at every stage of the character from the original concept straight to the actual battlefield.

System mastery is inevitable and good.

However, even in your example then optimum synergy it is not clear cut. The ideal synergy for you might not be the ideal synergy for your party or for the situation at hand.

Let's say that you are an archer who can cast fog cloud or repulsion from scrolls. The best synergy for you might seem to be repulsion in that it keeps people out of melee range of you.

But, let's say that your party is being attacked by four archers and that three out of four of your members are melee guys. In that case, the best synergy is dropping a fog cloud on the archers and having your meleers do their thing. The fact that you have to resort to your backup weapon to do anything in the combat is much less of a penalty than you are inflicting on the four archers who have to do the same.

Heck, maybe four archer guys ambush you from rooftops while you are in an alley. In that case, fog cloud is the answer since playing marco polo with daggers in a fog and maybe fighting them one on one is better than trading shots with all four of them.

The bad abilities are the ones that can be stacked. I mean, there are ways to turn a single 3rd level fireball into 120 + 10d6 untyped and save for half-damage as an 8th level Wizard and that just shouldn't be asked to compete with the other 8th level Wizard's fireball that is 8d6 fire damage with a save for half (and where enemy fire resistance 5 actually reduces the damage by a third when the enemy makes a save).

[CatharzGodfoot]

Let's say that you are an archer who can cast fog cloud or repulsion from scrolls. The best synergy for you might seem to be repulsion in that it keeps people out of melee range of you.

But, let's say that your party is being attacked by four archers and that three out of four of your members are melee guys. In that case, the best synergy is dropping a fog cloud on the archers and having your meleers do their thing. The fact that you have to resort to your backup weapon to do anything in the combat is much less of a penalty than you are inflicting on the four archers who have to do the same.

System mastery in choices made on the fly that only affect immediate results are quite different from system mastery choices that can't be immediately and usefully learned from. If the choice is made before play and without the option of change later, getting screwed because you want to play 'the archer of the mist' instead of 'the repulsive hurler' sucks.

On the other hand, if you want to play the archer of the mist and that includes Hideo-style Zen archery, you're in fine shape.

[K]

Let's say that you are an archer who can cast fog cloud or repulsion from scrolls. The best synergy for you might seem to be repulsion in that it keeps people out of melee range of you.

But, let's say that your party is being attacked by four archers and that three out of four of your members are melee guys. In that case, the best synergy is dropping a fog cloud on the archers and having your meleers do their thing. The fact that you have to resort to your backup weapon to do anything in the combat is much less of a penalty than you are inflicting on the four archers who have to do the same.

System mastery in choices made on the fly that only affect immediate results are quite different from system mastery choices that can't be immediately and usefully learned from. If the choice is made before play and without the option of change later, getting screwed because you want to play 'the archer of the mist' instead of 'the repulsive hurler' sucks.

I don't see either choice as "being screwed" at any point. Fog cloud has a range and is useful in a number of situations to both you and the party and less useful if you center it on yourself and are fighting alone. Repulsion is good against a whole class of enemies.

Where is the screwing?

[JonSetanta]

System mastery in choices made on the fly that only affect immediate results are quite different from system mastery choices that can't be immediately and usefully learned from. If the choice is made before play and without the option of change later, getting screwed because you want to play 'the archer of the mist' instead of 'the repulsive hurler' sucks.

Key part here.
This factor of "making the bad build choice" should always be left open for players to correct.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I don't see either choice as "being screwed" at any point. Fog cloud has a range and is useful in a number of situations to both you and the party and less useful if you center it on yourself and are fighting alone. Repulsion is good against a whole class of enemies.

Where is the screwing?

The screwing arises when Magneto finds his abilities useful together 60% of the time while Ms. Mist finds her's useful together only 20% of the time, and furthermore, when the abilities aren't useful together each character is equally effective.

Perhaps "screwed" is too strong of a word. Certainly there are times that non-synergistic abilities are better than synergistic ones (e.g. the sorcerer with enlarge person and web rather than ray of fire and web).

[K]

I don't see either choice as "being screwed" at any point. Fog cloud has a range and is useful in a number of situations to both you and the party and less useful if you center it on yourself and are fighting alone. Repulsion is good against a whole class of enemies.

Where is the screwing?

The screwing arises when Magneto finds his abilities useful together 60% of the time while Ms. Mist finds her's useful together only 20% of the time, and furthermore, when the abilities aren't useful together each character is equally effective.

Perhaps "screwed" is too strong of a word. Certainly there are times that non-synergistic abilities are better than synergistic ones (e.g. the sorcerer with enlarge person and web rather than ray of fire and web).

I think you may be confusing good synergy with bad synergy. Good synergy makes a story better, and bad synergy breaks the game and leads to characters reusing the same broken tactics in every battle.

Good synergy is where you make it. It depends on the situation, on other player's abilities, and that kind of thing. Mostly, it depends on being creative. Ideally, each character shouldn't need other characters to function at a certain basic level so the need for lots of synergy is avoided.

Bad synergy is where someone takes three abilities and suddenly they are doing something that someone five levels above them can't do. Being able to cast fog cloud as an archer and see through the fog is bad synergy. Breaking the "ranged game" for everyone is a viable tactic...breaking it for just your enemies when you are taking advantage of it is bad.

Now, I do believe that people should be able to move around gained abilities until they get a build that is fun for them, but they should not be able to get some massively synergistic mega-tactic composed of several abilities(see my fireball example above).

[CatharzGodfoot]

Now, I do believe that people should be able to move around gained abilities until they get a build that is fun for them, but they should not be able to get some massively synergistic mega-tactic composed of several abilities(see my fireball example above).

So how do you stop someone from playing the angelic warrior who flies around with swan wings, blinds enemies with rays of sunlight, and snipes with her golden bow.

[K]

Now, I do believe that people should be able to move around gained abilities until they get a build that is fun for them, but they should not be able to get some massively synergistic mega-tactic composed of several abilities(see my fireball example above).

So how do you stop someone from playing the angelic warrior who flies around with swan wings, blinds enemies with rays of sunlight, and snipes with her golden bow.

Easy.

The core problems with this build are the flying and the blinding. Each one needs a fix.

First, flying needs to be dangerous. I mean, nothing in nature flies without some danger, so you institute a rule where flying things that get hit have to make a save or drop X amount feet before they recover. Make that save an auto-fail for certain kinds of terrible wounds. This'll immediately make even ranged v. ranged battles more even since the fliers immunity to melee is offset by the danger of crashing.

Second, blinding needs to be keyed into overall health. People in the know are aware that the "blind" condition of DnD is a save or die, so you need to institute some kind of rule where someone needs to be already heavily damaged before they can be blinded(and the sunlight beam does damage, so a combat looks like "damage, damage, damage, damage + blind, damage + dead"). Other blind-type conditions like fog clouds or stone walls need to offer protection from ranged at the same rate that they give make it harder.

Third, the overall system needs to embrace the fact that bears are not monsters. By "bears", I mean any monster that is expected to just melee. That's bad for the game and it makes no sense for PCs to fight when they can use archers to insta-kill. The easiest fix to just let things like golems and trolls pick up rocks and other objects and toss them as a viable ranged combat actions and to let other things like bullette get the ability to "submarine" and avoid ranged combat(in their case they burrow underground, but things like plane-shifting and invisibility work the same). This part is harder because is requires someone to actually design monsters well with melee, ranged or a ranged counter, and other things that monsters need if they are to face PCs on level ground.

Now, this can't be done with DnD without completely rewriting the system. Thus, TNE.

[Ice9]

I'm just not sold on this "tactics are great, long-term strategy should be stabbed in the face" thing. Making smart choices when creating, advancing, and changing your character is just as valid as making smart choices during a fight. The last point is important - you aren't stuck with bad choices, because retraining should be easily available. Now certainly, build choices shouldn't trump tactical choices, but neither do they need to go extinct. I'm looking for something like a 30/70 ratio, and you seem to want a 0/100 one.

And most of the arguments that can be made for only rewarding tactical smarts could be applied in the other direction as well:

I think you may be confusing good synergy with bad synergy. Good synergy makes a story better, and bad synergy breaks the game and leads to characters taking hours to plan their tactics in every battle.

Good synergy is part of the character. It depends on the choices you made when creating, advancing, and changing a character. Mostly, it depends on being creative. Ideally, each character shouldn't need other characters to function at a certain basic level so the need for lots of synergy is avoided.

Bad synergy is where someone exploits the circumstances of the current situation and suddenly they are doing something that someone five levels above them can't do...

[K]

First, the TNE system as I've got it now has retraining. It takes long enough that you'd do it between parts of your adventure or between adventures.

Second, long-term synergies are to be avoided. They lead to people creating one-trick pony characters.

One trick pony characters are bad because people get super pissed when the DM counters your one trick, and they feel like they are being singled out for punishment. Also, if you don't let people do their one trick 100% of the time they end up with useless abilities and they go off and play Smash Brothers. Neither is a good situation.

Take a trip character. He trips people, and that's basically what he does. Now, let's say the DM wants an adventure about a guy who sends swarms to devour a village. The only monsters in the adventure are immune to his one trick, so he spends the whole adventure contributing as much as a high-level Commoner.

Let's go even broader. You are a melee character who is super-specialized in the halberd. On turn 3 of your first battle of the adventure in the Abyss a fiendish giant sunders your +3 Cold Iron Holy Halberd, so now you are useless the rest of the adventure until you go back to civilization and buy another magic halberd that can punch through enemy DR.

Or maybe you suddenly have to do a fight against some flying demons. Your can't even function as more than an arrow catcher until the party mage casts an Overland Flight spell on you.

Characters need to be generalists. Long-term synergies are not just boring to play and watch being played, but they are fundamentally bad for the game.

[Judging__Eagle]

Or being, say, a Monk and putting all your feats into ranged combat.

No, it actually works. Brutally so.

The monk fighting style that lets you use any of your Fighting Styles with a weapon that you wield can simply be picked up with all of your initial and later on fighting styles.

I actually try to fit in a level of monk into "sneaky" fighter builds for Hide as a class skill, and the ability to deal Con damage with my normal weapon attacks. TWF is one thing, Whirlwind is an other, Combat School yet an other, a Monk fighting style that lets you deal Con damage with weapon attacks is yet an other. Combine them all with say... darts, or thrown daggers or dual bastard swords; and you´ve got a shredding enemies sort of build.

Or dealing Plane Shifts with bow attacks, that´s pretty awesome.