Rainbow or Monocolor Brokenness?

[PhoneLobster]

I'm just still pissed this guy came in here, said good things about Savage Species and how it has useful tools for a wide range of different power levels. Then when confronted on the obvious stupidity of that claim the most back up he is prepared to provide for that is an argument that...

"Hey, a completely different book might actually be good!"

What?

No. Wait.

What?

Savage Species fan, get back here and explain yourself. That's just too damn stupid. You can't possibly be claiming that. And anyway, about 2 seconds ago you said the book as written actually contained material useful for at least SOME "power level" of game. Not that that makes sense on several levels, but lets see you at least TRY and back that claim already.

[Kaelik]

Well his claim is in fact that a PC playing a Minotaur should be less effective than a PC playing a Orc, because you have to pay for that interesting part by being less powerful.

So he's pretty much right in line with the LA rules of 3.5.

[Psychic Robot]

It's not DM fiat if it works exactly the same for every single character in the game.

Note that I said basically.

Also, it has shit all to do with balance v variability.

To maintain balance, the developers had to introduce DM fiat (hard caps) into the mix. It's like what people were discussing in the "focus fire" thread--there should be some way to discourage it or encourage players to attack other enemies. Well, if you starting stacking on attack penalties for multiple attacks against one target, you're doing just that. It doesn't make a lick of sense, though, and it's just an arbitrary rule that shouldn't belong. Essentially, the DM is saying, "You're going to take a -10 penalty on your attack roll because Bill and Jenny already attacked the ogre this round, and I don't want the ogre to die that quickly."

[Username17]

To maintain balance, the developers had to introduce DM fiat (hard caps) into the mix. It's like what people were discussing in the "focus fire" thread--there should be some way to discourage it or encourage players to attack other enemies. Well, if you starting stacking on attack penalties for multiple attacks against one target, you're doing just that. It doesn't make a lick of sense, though, and it's just an arbitrary rule that shouldn't belong.

I can sort of see what you're trying to say, but that' an incredibly shitty example. When many people start trying to attack one target, they start getting in each other's way. Watch like any Kung Fu or Western movie with a bar brawl scene to see some halfway decent illustrative choreography.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

So a game that is balanced and variable should look exactly like a game that is only one of those, except being more of the other?

That's dumb. Having progressive gravity, or a burst meter, or a guard meter, or decreasing combo damage is exactly like having a super meter, something every damn game has. It's exactly like having specific moves with specific hit boxes.

Yes, they are hard caps built into the system. Guess what, every other game has the same thing.

Smash brothers has increasing knockback with damage for precisely the same reason that Guilty Gear has decreased block stun on successive combo hits. They are both design decisions that were made to prevent infinite combos.

If you declare every single design decision to be 'DM fiat' then you have nothing of value to say about anything.

[Rejakor]

I was reading this and mentally composing the massive, gigantic, epic post I was going to make and then Kaelik stepped in and won. Well done, sir.

Also, Previn, i've just read this entire thread, and I notice that you use a lot of personal attacks, usually relating to people 'reading what you've written'. I'd just like to say that that doesn't actually help your arguments. If anything, it hinders them.

-R

[Previn]

Why can't it be a 7 and be significantly interesting?

I've actually specifically point out that it could at least twice. Weaker and interesting doesn't preclude powerful and interesting. The two are not and have never been mutually exclusive.

From my point of view it's this: Why must it be a 7 to be significantly interesting?

Two things:

1) Someone claimed that more balanced = less variety.

That certainly wasn't me. I don't think I've raised a single point toward that because I don't believe it's true. If you have some actual reference from me toward that end, I would be interested in seeing it so I could clarify it for you.

2) Previn. You have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, no one cares what your first point was, because no matter what it was, it followed the statement, "I have to disagree with this." aimed at someone else's statement. For you to have a point, you have to demonstrate the incorrectness of that thing you disagreed with.

Actually, I said that I would have to disagree first, and then stated why. I've demonstrated the incorrectness several times, just because you disagree with my point of view doesn't mean I am debating without reasons or examples.

That I said I disagree with a position doesn't somehow invalidate my statement.

"All cars are red, it's dumb to have a blue car so no one would ever have one."
"I disagree, I've seen some blue cars."

I'm very curious as to why you think saying 'I disagree' does what you think it does.

You are arguing a nonsensical position. The original poster asked if when adding new content it should be up to the standard as existing content. Not if it should be the exact equivalent power level, but up to the same standard.

What I specifically disagreed with with the absolute statement: Writing additional material that is at the level of the lower power levels is dumb, because that bonus material won't get used.

It's factually provable that people do use lower power levels, even knowing that it's weaker, thus yes it does get used. My follow up was that the weaker material was sufficiently interesting to get the players to use it, and by extension of that, weaker but significantly interesting material could be created and would be used.

At which point everyone latched onto 'weaker' as being utterly impossible to have in a game in any form.

This is because as everyone else has already clearly explained, interesting v powerful continuum is another false continuum. Interesting and powerful are the same thing, because both are measures of how much people want to use them.

Except that I never once claimed that you couldn't have interesting and powerful, or that interesting or power was in any way related (and no, interesting and powerful are not the same thing, and I suspect that you know it). In fact I've gone out of my way several times to point out the fact that interesting and weaker doesn't preclude the same thing but in level, or more powerful. I'm specifically stating that power alone isn't the only possible selling point.

I'm just still pissed this guy came in here, said good things about Savage Species and how it has useful tools for a wide range of different power levels. Then when confronted on the obvious stupidity of that claim the most back up he is prepared to provide for that is an argument that...

....

Savage Species fan, get back here and explain yourself. That's just too damn stupid. You can't possibly be claiming that. And anyway, about 2 seconds ago you said the book as written actually contained material useful for at least SOME "power level" of game. Not that that makes sense on several levels, but lets see you at least TRY and back that claim already.

I said specifically: But as a concept 'players can play monsters?' Yes, Savage Species was excellent, it was merely the execution of the mechanics that lacked.

At no point have I defended Savage Species in anything more than an interesting concept for a book. I'm done with this strawman unless it specifically relates to the argument at hand.

Well his claim is in fact that a PC playing a Minotaur should be less effective than a PC playing a Orc, because you have to pay for that interesting part by being less powerful.

So he's pretty much right in line with the LA rules of 3.5.

Citation please? I'd really like to see exactly what you think you read because this clearly wasn't remotely close to anything I have ever said. I've never claimed once that interesting has to be less powerful, and I've stated explicitly several times that that's not true.

My claim, stated for probably the 40th time, is that if playing a Minotaur is interesting enough, a player won't mind the weakness. That does not mean that just because something is more interesting that it has to be weaker. Which I've already said repeatedly. The Minotaur could be just as powerful or more than the Orc, but it doesn't have to be.

[Leress]

Why must it be a 7 to be significantly interesting?

It doesn't have to be, it could be any number on the scale and be interesting. It wouldn't be balanced, and could turn into a newbie trap or auto win button. It could be a 4 or 5 on the scale and just needs a little tuning up to put it in line with the rest (depending on where the power point is). It could be an 8 or 9 and needing some toning down.

[Previn]

Why must it be a 7 to be significantly interesting?

It doesn't have to be, it could be any number on the scale and be interesting. It wouldn't be balanced, and could turn into a newbie trap or auto win button. It could be a 4 or 5 on the scale and just needs a little tuning up to put it in line with the rest (depending on where the power point is). It could be an 8 or 9 and needing some toning down.

If players willingly play with it as a 4 or 5, and the game itself is not adversely effected (it is not a newbie trap or an I win button), why would the power level need to be changed?

[Leress]

If players willingly play with it as a 4 or 5, and the game itself is not adversely effected (it is not a newbie trap or an I win button), why would the power level need to be changed?

That is what a 4 and 5 mean on your scale. What is the harm in tuning them up? If they are just as interesting as before then there nothing to be lost. Willing to play something weaker is acknowledging it as such. Bring them up makes the the game more balanced and more fair. If the point one aim for on the scale is say 7 then bringing the 4 and 5 up just makes sense.

[Previn]

Bring them up makes the the game more balanced and more fair. If the point one aim for on the scale is say 7 then bringing the 4 and 5 up just makes sense.

Everything on the same power level makes things more balanced and fair. But I do not see the relation that balanced and fair must be present for fun to be as well.

[violence in the media]

If the people wo take the "fun" abilities are constantly being outperformed by the effective, or even baseline, abilities then eventually they will stop taking them. Or else they'll start pestering the DM to power up those abilities.

[Leress]

Everything on the same power level makes things more balanced and fair. But I do not see the relation that balanced and fair must be present for fun to be as well.

You can have fun with anything (I've played a vagabond in RIFTS). I didn't say that it must be present to have fun. This isn't an "either/or" thing. A 7 can be just as interesting as a 4. So I would go with the 7.

[violence in the media]

How much of a numeric value would you assign to "interesting" anyway? We're talking 4s and 7s on a 10-point scale here, what does that even mean? What qualifies as an "interesting" ability? I can't imagine finding an ability "interestng" if it never works.

[Previn]

You can have fun with anything (I've played a vagabond in RIFTS). I didn't say that it must be present to have fun. This isn't an "either/or" thing. A 7 can be just as interesting as a 4. So I would go with the 7.

Rifts is a prime example, been on the edge of my mind through most of this. I'm not disputing that a 7 can be just as (or more) interesting than a 4, just that an interesting 4 can be fun.

Ironically I see an argument developing in some alternate reality of all abilities being perfectly balanced, and the less interesting ones are all never taken.

If the people wo take the "fun" abilities are constantly being outperformed by the effective, or even baseline, abilities then eventually they will stop taking them. Or else they'll start pestering the DM to power up those abilities.

Wouldn't that be the definition of an unfun ability as I've laid forth? One in which the interesting doesn't make it worthwhile compared to the weakness?

How much of a numeric value would you assign to "interesting" anyway? We're talking 4s and 7s on a 10-point scale here, what does that even mean? What qualifies as an "interesting" ability?

How much of a numeric value would you assign to "balance" anyway? What qualifies as a "balanced" ability?

[Psychic Robot]

Savage Species is a very much fun, interesting, crazy-off-the-wall book. It might not be balanced, but I love reading it anyhow.

[Leress]

RIFTS would not help your argument at all. RIFTS is a bad system, it has good flavor and that's about it. I could just take that flavor and put it on a more balanced system and it would be a far better game.

Playing RIFTS is like watching bad movies, you know there bad and the reason you watch them is to see how more ridiculous they can get.

Also Previn, stop the answering a question with a question when you don't even answer the question you were asked. You can't even stay on your own made up scale example.

Wouldn't that be the definition of an unfun ability as I've laid forth? One in which the interesting doesn't make it worthwhile compared to the weakness?

No, because apparently if 5 is being outperformed by a 7 then it just needs to be more interesting instead of tuned up.

[violence in the media]

You can have fun with anything (I've played a vagabond in RIFTS). I didn't say that it must be present to have fun. This isn't an "either/or" thing. A 7 can be just as interesting as a 4. So I would go with the 7.

Rifts is a prime example, been on the edge of my mind through most of this. I'm not disputing that a 7 can be just as (or more) interesting than a 4, just that an interesting 4 can be fun.

Ironically I see an argument developing in some alternate reality of all abilities being perfectly balanced, and the less interesting ones are all never taken.

If the people wo take the "fun" abilities are constantly being outperformed by the effective, or even baseline, abilities then eventually they will stop taking them. Or else they'll start pestering the DM to power up those abilities.

Wouldn't that be the definition of an unfun ability as I've laid forth? One in which the interesting doesn't make it worthwhile compared to the weakness?

How much of a numeric value would you assign to "interesting" anyway? We're talking 4s and 7s on a 10-point scale here, what does that even mean? What qualifies as an "interesting" ability?

How much of a numeric value would you assign to "balance" anyway? What qualifies as a "balanced" ability?

Ok, your definition of an "unfun" ability is bullshit then. If you're not being outperformed, then the ability isn't underpowered, and hence not worth a "4" or whatever. On the flip side, if someone is butthurt that they're being shown up by another PC all the time, does that make all their abilities "unfun" and deserving of buffs? What happens if 2 PCs have the same ability and only 1 of them cries about it?

As far as balance goes, it isn't worth any points and it's not measured on the same scale. Balanced abilities let me influence and affect the course and outcome of the game in relatively even proportion to the other players. Balanced abilities are not wildly swing-y or unstoppable and are able to be countered in non-obscure manners. They are mechanically comparable to other abilities of their power level, and do not rely on "soft" balancing factors like RP concerns or MTP interpretations.

[Psychic Robot]

This feels kind of like debating with one particular individual.

[Crissa]

I don't love reading Savage Species. Because it makes me cry. Because I know that the book next to it, the Player's Handbook, has races capable of the same things and more.

Imbalance isn't fun. It isn't flavorful. It's boring. Especially when you don't have something to give to the group.

-Crissa

[Maxus]

Well, okay, yes, a player may really want to play an ogre. Or a tall blue-skinned guy with shark's teeth. And he'll play it even if it's mechanically inferior.

In fact, that was covered in Races of War, which is why that "Some people will take something mechanically inferior if it's interesting" was ringing bells in my head.

Some people really want to be a gray skinned dude with shark's teeth, and they'll play whatever game mechanics are given to them. These players will be playing at the same level as other characters, and that means that they should be playing at the same power level! Really, all the unusual races are optional, so there's no purpose served in screwing them over. In the past, many races have simply been given insufficient goodies to be worth playing (Half-Orcs), or were given good enough abilities but then over-charged in levels for them so horribly as to make the character unplayable (Hobgoblins). We don't hold with that at all. If you don't want someone to play an ogre or goblin in your game, just don't let them play one. It's seriously not even a deal.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

This feels kind of like debating with one particular individual.

I was also starting to wonder if Previn was an Elennsar alt.

I said specifically: But as a concept 'players can play monsters?' Yes, Savage Species was excellent, it was merely the execution of the mechanics that lacked.

So that was your whole point? Seriously, I don't think there's a person on this board who doesn't think monsters as PCs is a cool idea. You were arguing against a strawman of incredible proportions if that's the case.

[Fuchs]

Seriously, there is a tendecny here to jump at people for making points they never made. Like Previn saying "Savage Species was a good idea, but not well executed" and people jumping at "He said Savage Species did not suck!!!!" (paraphrased, not quoted).

There would be less such discussions if poeple stopped seeing things where they are not. Preconceptions and all are bad for discussions.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Well, we assumed he meant something different because no sensible geek would ever think that monsters as PCs is a bad idea. I mean, there might be a few people who think that. Those are probably the same people who think that making Dragonborn core was pandering to munchkins. But how numerous is that group? It never occurred to me that anyone would feel that they needed to defend monstrous PCs as a cool concept.

Not only that, but the sequence of the argument didn't help. First, Previn defended "weaker but interesting" as a design concept. Then, when people started using Savage Species as an example of this philosophy producing a crappy product, Previn makes his little statement about how Savage Species is a "good concept." Given this sequence of events, the statment that Savage Species has cool concepts is a non-sequiter. We weren't talking about fluff; we were talking about design principles and power levels.

Really, everybody's biggest fault was that we gave Previn too much credit. We assumed he would actually make meaningful arguments that engaged the topic at hand.

[Fuchs]

Well, we assumed he meant something different because no sensible geek would ever think that monsters as PCs is a bad idea. I mean, there might be a few people who think that. Those are probably the same people who think that making Dragonborn core was pandering to munchkins. But how numerous is that group? It never occurred to me that anyone would feel that they needed to defend monstrous PCs as a cool concept.

Given some rather pointed attitudes just about every concept may be seen as in need of defense. Assuming he means something he never said is not the best way to argue.