Where to Draw the Line?

[Draco_Argentum]

Ideally, a character could randomize EVERYTHING he chooses and still be viable.

I agree notionally but since its such a lofty goal I wouldn't be willing to actually devote much design effort to it.

[Crissa]

As long as they can't randomize their actions on the gaming table, like 4e.

-Crissa

[SunTzuWarmaster]

As an elven divination wizard, you still have a large number of choices. There are something like 8 Divination-specific feats, and a really large number of casting feats. Additionally, you can still take crafting feats, metamagic, or whatever.

Your character is different based on how you roleplay it and the choices you make (spells and actions in and out of combat).

[Hicks]

If you say that you can "moon" someone as a combat action, it damn well better be worth it in actual combat, otherwise you, personally, are a sadistic bastard and I hope you die from cancer, in a fire. It should be nigh-impossible to totally fvck up a character by just consulting a dart board at character generation and every time they level. Every option offered should be cool and flavorful, adding depth and breadth, or you shouldn't offer it. Not everyone is cut out to be a powergamer, capable of sifting through a metric ton of shit to find a new combo of secret power. People shouldn't be punished for doing what the rules tell them to do. I'm still polishing it, but my CHIMERA system promises to do this, while still granting allowing the stupid awesome to exist at all levels of play.

[Bigode]

Ideally, a character could randomize EVERYTHING he chooses and still be viable.

I draw the line in actions actually taken during the game. If you are a wizard who has taken Unarmed Fighting techniques, great. If your Unarmed Fighting Wizard decides he wants to try his hand at shooting stuff with a crossbow with which he has no training, THEN he should fail.

The idea here is that the effectiveness of a character isn't determined by the things done during character creation, but by the CHOICES the player makes during combat/socializing/whatever.

That's an ideal that is hard to realize, but when the designer presents a player with an option during character creation, it his responsibility that the option isn't just there to be bullshit or a be a "bad choice 'cause you're too dumb to understand the rules" type of situation.

I agree with that in principle. Seriously. That's the exact point I tried to shove into Elennsar's head, and he still thinks "making an orc wizard" is the same as "making a wizard and not using spells".

However, you did well in using "ideally" - it means something that isn't gonna ever happen. So I'm settling for "if a player can even get what they want right, they might get all manners of things they didn't expect - including sucking".

Because asking "How should this already existing system behave?" and answering "In some way which it does not." is an exercise in futility.

To get anywhere, you need to look at the desired outcome and then figure out how you're going to get there. Arbitrarily deciding that 'My selection of various D&D idioms is going to get me a functional character 73% of the time.' gets you nowhere.

There's D&D terms in there, and believe me when I say I dislike that. But are you gonna say that any of them can't be translated into other systems assuming ... one actually knows other systems (never a given, you know)?

[Talisman]

If you say that you can "moon" someone as a combat action, it damn well better be worth it in actual combat

So I am required to allow anything you decide to do be useful in combat? I am assuming from the wording of this poll that "moon" wasn't listed after "grapple" and before "trip," but rather, Bob the wizard suddenly declared, "I'm gonna drop my pants and moon the orc chief!"

You can't stop player craziness.

Every option offered should be cool and flavorful, adding depth and breadth, or you shouldn't offer it.

Should every option be equally useful to every type of character?

If you're making an armored knight and you don't realize that "+3 to Magickin' Skillz" is useless even though your character doesn have any Magickin' Skillz, does that mean I must cripple the wizard by removing Magickin' Skillz from the game?

[Fwib]

I picked C, because he's a wizard, not a wizard/meleeist

Of course, if he actually _is_ a wizard/meleeist then it would be D

maybe.

Cheers for those who think anything at all should be a valid option

[Hicks]

Pandering to "Player Crazyness" is bullshit. Fine, you drop your trowsers as a free action, whatever; what are you going to legaly spend your move and standard actions on? If the game says: Spend a Standard Action to bare your Ass at a monster, it has to be the equal of cutting said monster in two, or casting a spell, or inducing primal fear, or somethin other than nothing; if an actionhas a 100% chance of nothing happening it should not cost an action to do. And if a course of action does absolutely nothing all of the time, whoever designed that action is either a completly incompotent game designer or a diseased asshole.

I've been on the ass end of "Ok Daniel, just pick something that sounds cool" but is actually not. In fact, it was the polar opposit: my (ignorent) choices were activly harmful to my character and my party, from the very start. An entire 4 months of sitting in a smoke filled room for 6 hours at a time, only to consistantly fail at everything I touched. That said, The DM was amazing. God bless you Jeff!

FVCK "Player Crazyness" as a standpoint in game design, and FVCK any system that punishes players by lying to them

[CatharzGodfoot]

Because asking "How should this already existing system behave?" and answering "In some way which it does not." is an exercise in futility.

To get anywhere, you need to look at the desired outcome and then figure out how you're going to get there. Arbitrarily deciding that 'My selection of various D&D idioms is going to get me a functional character 73% of the time.' gets you nowhere.

There's D&D terms in there, and believe me when I say I dislike that. But are you gonna say that any of them can't be translated into other systems assuming ... one actually knows other systems (never a given, you know)?

When you use D&D terms, there are a lot of underlying assumptions that you drag along with them. The worthwhile questions are things like "Should it be possible to create a character that's significantly (weaker|more powerful) than another character?" and "Should a stupid (unintelligent) wizard get fewer or worse options than a smart wizard?".

I don't think you can stop stupid play, and I think that learning how to play well is one of the fun parts of a game. I do think that it's possible to start from the rule that 'There are no bad choices in character creation, with the possible exception of play style conflicts.'


Deck building in Magic is part of the game, and you can change your deck between any two games (which probably don't last more than half an hour). You could make character creation like that and leave it dirty like D&D, but that's not really the type of game I'm interested in.

[Hicks]

I don't think you can stop stupid play, and I think that learning how to play well is one of the fun parts of a game. I do think that it's possible to start from the rule that 'There are no bad choices in character creation, with the possible exception of play style conflicts.'

This paragraph is full of win. Verily, if one tries hard enough, they can suck at anything, but games should be designed on the concept of making all options awesome in most circumstances; a fireball against mushroom men, or libral application of blunt force trauma to a mage's skull. It's fine if once in a while, somethin comes along to foul up the well oiled killing machine player characters are, but such instances should be rare: a creature immune to critical hits is not immune to base weapon damage, and fire elementals should have spell resistance to fire, not immunity. But the main point is that you should have to bend the system over your knee and spank it like a naughty playmate if you actually want to suck instead of compete.

[Talisman]

Pandering to "Player Crazyness" is bullshit.

I agree. My point was, if a player decides to waste his standard action doing bullshit, I am not going to reward him for it.

"What are you doing, Bob?"

"I moon the orc chief!"

"Fine, you moon him as a free action. What are you actually doing?"

"I call his sister a whore!"

"No, seriously..."

"I piss on him!"

"..."

Tht's what I'm talking about. If "moon the enemy" is listed as a valid combat option, then yeah, it had damn well better do something useful. If, on the other hand, the player decides to waste everyone's time with stupidity, I am under no obligation to decide that the orc chief magically takes 2d6 points of "mooning damage."

My understanding (and hopefully Ice9 will correct me if I'm wrong) was that "moon" was shorthand for "waste time doing pointless stuff instead of contributing."

[Hicks]

Instead of magically taking 2d6 points of "mooning damage," why not I just "magically" tell that player to get the hell out of my house. Just as an enabler to a wife beater is part of the problem, being an enabler to a life waster is also part of the problem. Be part of the solution, and kick him the fvck out.

Now I gotta say the bullshit everybody has to say after the "lose the offender in rush hour traffic" speech is made: If it's part of your game to do stupid random shit and everyone at the table is haveing a wonderfull time, fine. That is indeed the entire point to why these games happen; everyone is on the same page and every one is having fun. BUT if the player is just a a flaming cock, tell him to Fvck Off inside a blender.

Edit: it occurs to me that we are not arguing, and I support your stance entirely.

[Talisman]

I guess we're in violent agreement, then.

[Username17]

I don't think that doing anything randomly should be as good as making conscious decisions. The thing in 4e where characters can use their abilities in random order and still perform well hurts my soul. I don't think that random chargen should be pandered to either, and for the same reason.

I think that effort should be made so that all the Pokemon are worth taking, and I think that effort should be made to make all the moves worth taking, but I don't think it's even desirable to make it so that a deliberately and carefully designed move list shouldn't be superior to a movelist chosen by percentile dice.

-Username17

[Hicks]

I was under the impression that if you did not select a particular Race/Class/Feat combination in 4e, you fell off the RNG, hard, and that the Problem with 4e Powers (all 9000 of them) were the exact same, each with a half-assed cosmetic facelift. In 4e, you can't consult a dartboard for character generation or advancement, and you still do half assed things that everybody else does anyway: Basic weapon + 2d6 damage, and push 10', all with a 50% chance of failure if you take time out of your life to cull the system for secret power.

---

You're right, of course, but the game need not penalize a player for slecting thematic abilities that are supposidly level appropriate; lets face it: a first time player with no or little gaming experience is basically going to read off the ability names and pick whichever seems coolest, which, given different strokes for differnt folks, is the exact same thing as consulting a dartboard.

On ability sets: If I practice "Earth Bending", I should not be flat out better than if I had choosen "Fire Bending", if the game presupposes that any two characters of the same level are equivilent, not equal. Oh God no, not equal. I don't want my wall of stone to be the exact same as a wall of fire, but with different serial numbers, and I don't want my throw boulder to act the same as a fire ball. Level Equivalency through unique ability sets, not Level Equality through homogenious ability sets.

[Talisman]

On ability sets: If I practice "Earth Bending", I should not be flat out better than if I had choosen "Fire Bending", if the game presupposes that any two characters of the same level are equivilent, not equal. Oh God no, not equal.

Thanks, Hicks. That somehow seems like a much clearer way of describing it.

Equivalent abilities can be better or worse in a given situation, but are not better or worse across the board.

[JonSetanta]

Mooning as an option, because enraging your enemies in to making fumbles and stupid decisions is a worthwhile activity.

Likewise, if he's a punchan wizard he should have a punchan spell or option in repetoire.

[Elennsar]

Bigode: No, its equivalant to a wizard with less magical power.

If you're determined to have anything short of "optimal" be "suck", then of course orcs suck. Otherwise they're just weaker.

Insisting that options be removed because they're inferior even when its clear as day that you're picking something inferior by picking them is like insisting that you can't pick a first level spell as your new spell at 15th level.

If you want to be level inappropriate, and everyone else is happy with that too, what's the problem with self gimping?

A player too new to read "Hey. Spending feats on brawlin' as a wizard is a bad idea." is a player too new to make anything decent.

A designer who refuses to put that text there is an ass and needs to burn, however.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

If I practice "Earth Bending", I should not be flat out better than if I had choosen "Fire Bending"

Unless you are a Stab People character that chose Earth Bending versus a Magicy character that chose Fire Bending. These are clearly feats for magic people.

In which case you should suck, because this is clearly the wrong choice. The Frank and K suffers a similar problem, if you take [Combat] feats without having a decent BAB, then they are not worth as much to you as they are to someone with a high BAB. If you take feats that scale with your ranks in Concentration and you are a fighter without ranks in Concentration, then that should is a big lose.

F&K simplified this so that you can look at what a feat scales based off of and immediately know whether it will suck for you or not. But, and I know this sounds harsh, I am all for punishing characters that takes feats that do not at least vaguely compliment something they do.

[Hicks]

Insisting that options be removed because they're inferior even when its clear as day that you're picking something inferior by picking them is like insisting that you can't pick a first level spell as your new spell at 15th level.

And that is the major problem: Intentionally leaving land mines in the rules to allow a character to out and out suck is inexcusible, and anyone advicating that the game should activly punish people for honest ignorance makes you as horrible a person as someone tipping over a retarted kid's wheel chair down an up escalator covered in razorblades smeared with shit. This is not a hazing ritual, this is Sparta! recreational role playing. As in: it's supposed to be fun. Having a 15th level wizard with no 8th level spells fight CR 15 opponent is un-fun. Fvck that. The entire concept of a Level based system is that a character of a given level uses abilities appropriate to their given level; not greater, not worse, but appropriate.

This is a belated response to Talisman's "+3 to Magickin' Skillz": No, it should not be removed from the game, but the Knight may never select it unless he some how picks up a wizard level. Although a "+3 bonus" must meet the oppertunity cost of having anything else you could have selected in its place.

As for the example of an Orc Wizard... That is not a crippling disadvantage, though it is an inconvient one. A specialist still gets 2 spells of his highest level castable irregardless of their intelligence score, and it is rediciously easy to pull an irresistable 2 spell combo; just invest in spells that don't require saves such as summoning and calling spells, alterself and polymorph, or unresistable battlefield control such as solid/acid/incendiary fog, wall of stone/force, and force cage.

[Crissa]

Why can't we have Earth Bending for stab people?

It comes from a stab people show, anyhow.

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

This is a belated response to Talisman's "+3 to Magickin' Skillz": No, it should not be removed from the game, but the Knight may never select it unless he some how picks up a wizard level. Although a "+3 bonus" must meet the oppertunity cost of having anything else you could have selected in its place.

So in order to compensate for the illiterate dorks who refuse to read "this will do you little if any good if you're not a wizard.", we have to prohibit it entirely.

Sorry, but if you're an illiterate dork determined to ignore that there's no point to taking something based on Charisma without a decent Charisma, you should be beaten over the head.

Honest ignorance is one thing.

I'd let someone replace it with something if they honestly screwed up, but I wouldn't prohibit taking it.

Willfully ignoring "Hey. This would be a bad choice if you take it!" is being the kind of loser I want to see cut with razor blades (literally and metaphorically).

[Hicks]

Then that means you want to cut me, yourself, and everyone on the damn planet. Nobody was spawned from their mother with the innate ability to sit down at an unfamilliar game, for the first time, and not totally fvck everything up. Everybody starts in square 1: cold, ignorent, and alone with (in 3.x) 1,000 pages of small print legalese rules that interact in a byzantine fashion accross 3 books they most likely don't even own, hopefully borrowed (for a month of reading in your spare time) but more likely gust glanced through in the 20 feverish minutes of character creation before game time.

And then there are whole groups of 10 or 12 people playing the game, and no one knows exactly what the fvck they are doing. Each player has a little snippet of what they think was cool, and thats it. And that is the best case scenario. You want to cut me? My girlfriend? My borther? His wife? My many gaming groups? The overwhelmingly vast majority of the gaming community is not composed of powergaming rule savants, who but, ya know, "regular jack-offs" who possess a vocation, a family, a life.

Life is too short for recreational gaming to be taught by hazing. In trying times like these, I stand by the Universal Code: Don't be a Jackass. If you're a game designer, Don't be a Jackass. Please?

edit: replaced "who" with "but"

[Gelare]

Ideally, a character could randomize EVERYTHING he chooses and still be viable.

I draw the line in actions actually taken during the game.

Sweet merciful gods, why?

How are choices made during character creation at all different from choices made in game?

"Because choices made at character creation are permanent and stay with the character." Fine. Allow retraining. I personally think retraining is awesome. Allow that full-on psionic "remake your entire character sheet" jazz, that's fine. Anything else? Are you seriously going to tell me that a character who makes random choices should be as good as a character who's actually taken the time to set up some cool synergies? For serious?

I throw in my support for what Frank said above.

[Talisman]

This is a belated response to Talisman's "+3 to Magickin' Skillz": No, it should not be removed from the game, but the Knight may never select it unless he some how picks up a wizard level.

Better example: I play a blasty wizard. I have shit for AC and my spell selection is oriented around raining down unholy fire from afar.

It is possible for me to take Weapon Focus (Malaysian backscratcher), in the sense that I meet the prerequisites for it. Let's assume for the moment that, for a warrior character, Weapon Focus is actually worth taking.

Are you saying that my blasty wizard taking Weapon Focus should be just as effective as a blast wizard taking Improved Blast Your Ass? For a buff-and-hack melee wizard, sure. For a cast-and-burn blaster?

Certain options will be suboptimal for certain character builds. That doesn't mean they should be utterly forbidden.

Although a "+3 bonus" must meet the oppertunity cost of having anything else you could have selected in its place.

Well, yeah.

Nobody was spawned from their mother with the innate ability to sit down at an unfamilliar game, for the first time, and not totally fvck everything up. Everybody starts in square 1: cold, ignorent, and alone with (in 3.x) 1,000 pages of small print legalese rules that interact in a byzantine fashion accross 3 books they most likely don't even own, hopefully borrowed (for a month of reading in your spare time) but more likely gust glanced through in the 20 feverish minutes of character creation before game time.

I refuse to pander to ignorance. I'm all for making a RPG easy to understand, but wrapping Nerf foam around all the pointy bits to prevent the ignorant from hurting themselves on it makes it a Playskool game: bright, chunky, and simple...and, in the long run, not very satisfying.