Your preferred level of complexity in a game?

[PhoneLobster]

Does anyone who is not PhoneLobster disagree with any of the three following statements

I see, now it's transparent strawmen.

Have you even considered outlining your actual brilliant strategy that is so special it warrants all these smoke bombs?

[Caedrus]

Does anyone who is not PhoneLobster disagree with any of the three following statements:

• I am willing to spend upwards of six minutes creating a Player Character for a game.
• I want to have an occasional scene with 20 or more NPCs in it.
• I do not want to spend over 2 hours creating NPCs for a single set piece, especially on short notice.

Seriously. Is there a single person on this forum who isn't PhoneLobster who disagrees with any of those statements?

-Username17

Those all sound like wonderful notions to me.

[Username17]

It's very good and the expansions only make it better.

'm sorry, you seem to be a lying sack of shit. Would you like a nice glass of shutthefuckup?

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

So then, smoke bomb number fifty, the Frank panics and throw irrelevant images around.

[Username17]

So then, smoke bomb number fifty, the Frank panics and throw irrelevant images around.

Descent is a game that you gave as an example of a very good game. You gave it a glowing review and suggested buying expansions for it.

Player Characters in that game have a lot more rules and numbers, and are represented by many more cards than the NPCs they face off against. It's an example of the kind of thing RC and I are talking about. It's an example of the design philosophy that you said was "insane," "unworkable," and "totally fucked."

But the outcome is a game that you have praised and which you have suggested that other people purchase with actual money. So where is your argument? When the simplified NPC model that RC and I are advocating generates a real game that you personally really like, how am I supposed to take you seriously when you say that methodology can't generate a good game?

Check mate.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

So then your genius plan is to design your RPG as a board game instead.

You lose. Maybe next time you should design it based on Air Hockey, after all its design principles worked for it, I fucking LOVE Air Hockey.

But even better, if you remember way way back to the last Squares debate.

I used Descent as an example of a squares system that got it right.

But that of course was utterly inappropriate for an RPG.

So double check mate.

[Murtak]

Any specific game can be a decent or even gerat game despite having flawed mechanics. Most of us enjoyed playing 3rd edition despite massive issues with mechanics and balancing.

[Murtak]

Or, in other words, if a PC hyperspecializes the game is imbalanced. Either he gets lucky and his specialisation comes up or he doesn't and all points are wasted.

Because PCs don't necessarily know where the campaign is going, yet the DM pretty much does.

Q.E.D. - the game is unbalanced either way, as soon as you allow the PC to hyperspecialize. The gamble may pay off, or it may not, but either way, balance is destroyed.

I believe this is just some sort of DnD blindness. Sure, noone wants to create a level 20 wizard NPC, the amount of work to do it well is staggering. But a level 20 Beguiler is much less trouble.

That's true, but it's still not something I want to do. Just selecting feats and selecting magic items is a shitload of dumpster diving and takes a long time.

More DnD blindness. You can not even conceive of a game which can be played without accounting for 500000 gold pieces. Any time you feel the need to resort to dumpster diving the game hasd already failed. If you do it for fun, great. But otherwise any thematic selection should be fine, power- and versatility-wise. And accounting needs to go away. I don't care whether your magic sword is a justification for your powers or whether everyone of your level gets a magic sword, but Conan not gambling, drinking and whoring his coins away, instead carefully spending them for the maximum number of bonuses is retarded.

[Username17]

Any specific game can be a decent or even gerat game despite having flawed mechanics. Most of us enjoyed playing 3rd edition despite massive issues with mechanics and balancing.

Quite true. But there is nothing to be gained from statting up this woman:



With all the detail and numbers of this woman:



-Username17

[Murtak]

And noone is asking you to. What I propose is statting up Dodomeki as:
Stamina 2
Damage 4
Perception 4
Scanner 3
Fight 8
so she uses the same stats as the PCs do, preferably using the same system used to generate PCs of the same level. Feel free to leave out any parts you don't intend to use.

[Thymos]

Frank, I have to agree with Draco and calling BS on using 20 different monsters in the encounter. Not only would it be a headache to create, but run as well. Not that I disagree with the notion.

Also, Monsters in Arkham Horror don't serve the same role as they do in RPGs. Besides that they also have no intention of being balanced (you can fight the cultist and gug in the same damn turn), and are meant to be encounters more than creatures who fight the same way you do.

The point of Giant TPK Crabs is to point out the potential failings of a 2 system approach (of course what I mean by system and what Frank means by system are two different things).

[Username17]

And noone is asking you to.

True. But only in that nothing coming off of PL's keyboard could possibly be considered "asking."

What I propose is statting up Dodomeki as:
Stamina 2
Damage 4
Perception 4
Scanner 3
Fight 8
so she uses the same stats as the PCs do, preferably using the same system used to generate PCs of the same level. Feel free to leave out any parts you don't intend to use.

The point is that that isn't the stats the PCs use. In fact, it's a Roll Once combat system, which means that the Dodomeki doesn't even have dice pools, only difficulty modifiers and success thresholds. Which is a perfectly acceptable way to do things. Turning it into an opposed roll system would require that there were twice as many numbers on sheets and it would make resolution of actions take twice as long, but it wouldn't actually benefit anything. The only advantage is that people who have some kind of fetish for the same dice rolls being made by the players and the GM would get their wish. But you can get the same odds and a faster resolution with a roll once system.

And the Dodomeki doesn't need a Logic or Will score because she doesn't have equipment cards and doesn't draw encounter cards, so those stats even existing for her is a waste of time. But Player Characters do pay for their Logic and Will scores, because those do help them win the game.

-Username17

[Murtak]

The point is that that isn't the stats the PCs use. In fact, it's a Roll Once combat system, which means that the Dodomeki doesn't even have dice pools, only difficulty modifiers and success thresholds. Which is a perfectly acceptable way to do things. Turning it into an opposed roll system would require that there were twice as many numbers on sheets and it would make resolution of actions take twice as long, but it wouldn't actually benefit anything. The only advantage is that people who have some kind of fetish for the same dice rolls being made by the players and the GM would get their wish. But you can get the same odds and a faster resolution with a roll once system.

Oh, I thought you were just copy/pasting an example for us to use. Are you actually trying to turn from discussing a free form RPG system, where an NPC might actually attempt to notice a player or to fight against a different NPC, to discussing a board game with infinitely more fixed rules? Is that seriously what you are saying?

[Username17]

I'm saying that there isn't any reason that the game is better if NPCs are rolling to hit and notice people than it is if the rolls are all made by the PCs. You can simply set NPCs to have notice thresholds and have PCs making stealth checks. You can give the enemies attack scores and have the PCs making dodge checks.

In short, the game seriously gets speed advantages that are real if you take the dice away from the monsters altogether. The board game model is not the only model, but don't forget that all roll playing games started as either board games or free form storytelling. Any elements foreign to those two mediums are very specifically not needed in an RPG.

A roll once system is a solid counter example to the ideal of giving NPCs and PCs even similar rules. And it's something that does work in an RPG context. Yes, sometimes it is nice to give similar resolution methods to PCs and NPCs. But sometimes it is not. And contrary to what people have been saying: giving a unique PC and NPC mechanic does not have to slow down the game. Indeed, the roll once system is specifically and demonstrably faster because PCs and NPCs use rules that are extremely different.

-Username17

[Murtak]

So you want to have monsters to be incapable of sneaking past other monsters and incapable of spotting other monsters but you want them to able to sneak past players and to spot players?

That sounds retarded.

[Thymos]

Frank, AH works because PC's never attack other PC's and Monsters never attack other Monsters. Mostly because they can't.

Honestly, what AH calls combat is not the same thing that we mean by RPG combat.

[RandomCasualty2]

So you want to have monsters to be incapable of sneaking past other monsters and incapable of spotting other monsters but you want them to able to sneak past players and to spot players?

That sounds retarded.

Yeah I really wouldn't want to go that far as to have NPCs not capable of making certain rolls, because at some point we're probably going to have monster versus monster combats (in the case of summoners), so I'd want that as an option. PC versus PC combat also may be required if a PC is dominated, or even just to support some interesting roleplaying where PCs may turn on each other from time to time.

Q.E.D. - the game is unbalanced either way, as soon as you allow the PC to hyperspecialize. The gamble may pay off, or it may not, but either way, balance is destroyed.

Well yeah, the purpose of a level system is to prevent your PCs from totally going off the deep end and just having one ability. You don't want PCs to be one trick ponies. This sort of thing is actually ok for a monster. A giant scorpion can literally do nothing other than charge at people to claw and sting them. But PCs need more depth.

Once you force PCs to diversify some, then the only problem arises if PCs all specialize in the same thing. Though I think it's a balance paradigm that you can deal with, the PCs just have to be willing to accept that some fights are going to be easy and others are going to be brutal. A group of all shadowrun mages will have a real easy time with astral combat, but if they need to do hacking things, they're going to be in trouble.

More DnD blindness. You can not even conceive of a game which can be played without accounting for 500000 gold pieces. Any time you feel the need to resort to dumpster diving the game hasd already failed.

The problem is that dumpster diving isn't just a D&D thing. Lots of games have lots of PC options. GURPS for instance has a massive list of choices. BESM is much the same way (though the list is admittedly somewhat shorter). Shadowrun requires you to purchase equipment through a big list. White wolf requires you select from a bunch of backgrounds, disciplines, skills and so on. And all that stuff pretty much involves dumpster diving.

Really I have trouble thinking of many RPGs that don't at one time or another require PCs to consult a bunch of lists that won't fit on a DM screen and also don't require adding or subtracting gold/points. White wolf is probably the closest, but as I said, lots of game systems share this flaw when you make monsters as PCs. Whether I'm adding gold, skill ranks, nuyen or GURPS character points, I'm still doing a ton of math and that's unacceptable for calculating a monster.

D&D 3.5 isn't alone. Pretty much pick any system where creating a PC takes longer than 5-10 minutes, which is almost every system (Feng Shui seems to be the only exception to that rule). But the problem is not limited to only D&D, in fact, it's very widespread.

[Username17]

A roll once system becomes more complex if PCs want to fight each other or NPCs want to face off against each other, yes. However, since PCs fighting each other is usually destructive to the game and NPC conflicts are little better than DM masturbation in most cases, that's not necessarily a big deal.

The fact that in such a circumstance it goes to an opposed roll system where you have to compare who beat whose DC by more on a flat roll, or you have to reverse engineer someone's defense mod or attack DC, and either way it is annoying and cumbersome. But the rest of the time you get the whole shebang over in one roll. For a lot of games that's going to speed up play a lot.

No, roll once systems are not the only good way to do things. But they are a good way to do things. So if you want to tell me that in an abstract fashion giving out wholly different stat blocks and resolution systems to people depending on whether they are NPCs or PCs, then you are demonstrably and clearly full of shit. If there is at least one good way of handling things in a game where PCs and NPCs don't use the same numbers or roll the same dice, and there is, then the claim that you can't do that an have it work out is objectively false.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

But only in that nothing coming off of PL's keyboard could possibly be considered "asking."

You really are quiet the princess aren't you "Say pretty magic please with a sparkly cherry on top".

The point is that that isn't the stats the PCs use.

Point is those ARE the stats the players use. greater than 50% of the rules resolution that occurs in Arkham horror and Descent happens to revolve around THOSE attributes and their related rules.

The rules for managing NPCs DEFINE those games, their complexity levels and their available strategies as much or more than the, few, PC specific rules do.

They are games with simple NPC rules... and they are SIMPLE GAMES. Even the PC rules are only fractionally more complex than NPC rules at best.

You can't even pick examples that support your point, they don't fucking exist.

Your examples even in board games match my predictions on the effect of minimum complexity on over all complexity. The only difference is being a board game having a very low over all level of detail and flexibility is perfectly acceptable.

Of course this is a level of detail you already have made it clear you refuse to accept since the PCs in these games are too simple by your own standards (take less than six minutes to generate) and the NPCs are too complex (all pregenerated with no on the fly creation possible at all).

But then, you haven't really been worried about any kind of consistency in your rules methodology and discussion for a while now have you?

[Murtak]

No, roll once systems are not the only good way to do things. But they are a good way to do things. So if you want to tell me that in an abstract fashion giving out wholly different stat blocks and resolution systems to people depending on whether they are NPCs or PCs, then you are demonstrably and clearly full of shit.

I have no clue what this is supposed to mean, apart from apparently trying to cleverly insult me. Would you mind adding some content to your venom? So far I have seen you jumping all over the place with your claims while repeatedly sidestepping my questions.

- Your very own sailing/farming example doesn't work out? Well, it wasn't meant as a real example anyways.

- Not filling out the parts of a character sheet you do not intend to use? No, that would make it a completely different system! Look, a number is off!!! Different system!

- Your own suggestion actively unbalancing the game? No problem! It's alright! Possibly alright anyways. It might all balance out after all.

- Your next suggestion disallowing the friendly NPC to sneak past a guard? That is not a problem. In most games you don't want to do this anyways.

Sheesh. From what I can tell your suggestions don't do what you claim they do. I can not see a real benefit beyond your knocking down your own strawmen of "I do not want to spend over 2 hours creating NPCs". But most importantly I do want the option of charming a guard and have him sneak me the door keys. I want to be able to duel another character for the throne, I want to see an unknown knight triumph against the reigning champion because I secretly buffed him. And you tell me all of these are unreasonable.

Fine then. Your idea of NPC generation has no appeal to me. I think it sucks, but hey, if it works for you, go for it. I just can't see anyone using a system which would have severely impacted every single campaign I ever played in.

P.S.: For someone who actively complains about other people calling you names you sure like to dish it out yourself.

[RandomCasualty2]

I can not see a real benefit beyond your knocking down your own strawmen of "I do not want to spend over 2 hours creating NPCs".

That's no strawman. In a lot of systems, it really can take over 2 hours to create the NPCs for a given quest. Try to fully stat out an NPC wizards guild and it will become readily apparent that 2 hours would be a low end estimate. That's a very real consequence of PCs as NPCs.

Now, you can make the counter argument that PC generation could be simpler, but that also means PC abilities are dumbed down.

I don't want to go as far as Frank does and make the NPCs unable to interact with other NPCs, I just want to eliminate the substat system for NPC generation and divorce them from PC abilities, very similar to how 4E does it. A lot of people seem to object to this because it means that NPC wizards have different abilities than PC wizards, but seriously, this tends to be the case in books anyway. Voldemort uses different spells than Harry Potter, Every spellcaster in Buffy/Angel casts different types of spells than Willow does. Same with Record of Lodoss war with Slade versus Vognard. So I'm okay with saying that NPCs use different moves.

[Thymos]

Now, you can make the counter argument that PC generation could be simpler, but that also means PC abilities are dumbed down.

That's not necessarily true RC2. It's very possible to remove a lot of meaningless choices and retain just as meaningful PC's with far faster creation times.

[RandomCasualty2]

That's not necessarily true RC2. It's very possible to remove a lot of meaningless choices and retain just as meaningful PC's with far faster creation times.

I don't know. What choices in 3.5 character creation would you classify as "meaningless" that could be eliminated?

[Murtak]

Why is DnD even mentioned when we are talking about reducing the complexity of character generation, except as an example of how not to do it?

[Username17]

I don't want to go as far as Frank does and make the NPCs unable to interact with other NPCs

I don't necessarily want to either. At least, not in all cases. However, it really is a real and effective way to do things. It is a simple and complete proof that the people who are saying PCs and NPCs must use the same rules are wrong.

See, the claim "You can't make a good mechanic where PCs and NPCs don't use the same rules." is a falsifiable claim. I falsified it, people have to shut up now. The claim "PCs and NPCs should use different mechanics" is not a falsifiable claim. Even if you held up a mechanic where the PCs and NPCs were different and it was better than a mechanic where the PCs and NPCs were identical that wouldn't mean that couldn't find a PC/NPC parity rule that worked better still.

So Murtak and co. are perfectly capable of arguing that they have an idea for PC/NPC parity that would work very well. But they are not capable of arguing that it can't be done well without PC/NPC parity.

-Username17