Winds of Fate needs to be tested in a non-D&D system.

[Orion]

You're not supposed to want an AoE. Desire is the origin of suffering.

Om.

I know you think you're parodying my position or something but... yes. If you want to decide that you're just blasting everything before even looking at your powers, I suspect you don't really want a tactically challenging game. Which is fine. Most of the time, I don't either. My favorite game is Apocalypse World, which doesn't have tactical combat at all. My next favorite is D&D, played with sufficiently strong PCs that they can fuck around aimlessly and still win fights. But I'd like to have the option to reach for a game where you have to think carefully.

But I'm going to go further and say that the reason I have always championed Winds of Fate is because I hope it will increase immersion. When my character is fighting, I imagine that he is stressed out and desperate, seizing opportunities where they come and doing what feels right at the moment. Meanwhile D&D as it currently stands is about letting you the player do exactly what you want to, every time. That creates a disconnect between my experience of playing a combat and my character's experience of fighting it. I'd *rather* feel limited and harassed by the system than feel empowered.

[Swordslinger]

The drawbacks of WoF are:

[*]It's not newbie friendly at all. instead of just having to learn a couple staple powers to get them by, a newbie has to learn at minimum a number of powers equal to the size of their WoF matrix. Also, expect a long wait as newbies have to reanalyze their powers for each round.

[*] WoF is very dissociative, especially for any ranged character. Being told you can use an ice arrow, but not a fire arrow in some spots, and a fire arrow but not an ice arrow in others makes no sense for most people. If fire arrow is slower than ice arrow, people can grasp that, but in the case of WoF, it's entirely arbitrary limits.

[*] Because of the complexity required, you're going to need to write out tons of powers. This means that probably your powers won't change much as you level up or you're going to need a huge rulebook.

[*] It's still likely you may run into people playing the game with a heuristic like "Give me the best area attack I can use this turn." or simply a script of "the best out of the X powers offered to me."

I just don't see WoF as being all that great. It's something that might be worth a try, but it's hardly a be-all, end-all solution.

[DSMatticus]

That "good" adjective is subjective

No, good in this case refers to from a game balance standpoint, which is situational and relative but to a large extent objective. Playing a good game of chess is not a 'subjective' thing. It is relative to the person you played against, I suppose, but it's still objectively measurable in many ways.

"Reasonable time" is entirely arbitrary

Are you going to argue semantics with me to bullshit around the issue? Is it or is it not faster to thoroughly (read: completely) evaluate 6 options than 20? Read what I'm fucking saying, for god's sake...

WoF allows players to fully evaluate their turn options and the tactical situation in a reasonable time.

See? Fully evaluate. Fully. WoF is an alternative to heuristics, and it is either faster or more thorough, depending on the heuristic you compare it to. And this can be an advantage because you can't enforce the game rules inside people's heads. If your game is only as fast as WoF when all the players agree to apply the same heuristic, then WoF's speed is significantly more reliable. As in, you will actually see that speed increase at a gaming table, which you won't by saying, "pretty please use this heuristic". Saying WoF is slower than "defaulting" or "scripting" is meaningless, of course it is. Defaulting/scripting is a constant time algorithm, WoF is a linear time algorithm. The point of WoF is to stop that defaulting/scripting and get players to consider the tactics of the situation, and maintain a small enough option subset per turn that combat still happens quicker than people evaluating 30+ abilities. (And now we'll get stuck in a circular loop, because you'll point out they don't evaluate 30+ abilities, and then I'll point you back to the idea that the point of WoF is to allow you to fully evaluate all available abilities, so telling me they're not evaluating 30+ abilities will involve me going "NO SHIT, I know, that's one of the design differences between WoF and whatever other system you're pointing out").

Heuristics are not fucking magic. They either skip considerations, or they take more time than WoF. And that's it. I'm not saying that makes WoF better, I'm just fucking telling you that WoF's purpose is to allow you, round by round, to consider every available option and be able to do so quickly without option paralysis, while simultaneously allowing a large variety of abilities on the character sheet. And it fucking does both of these things, and it does them better than 30+ options and a heuristic, because heuristics, as I just said, are not fucking magic. They are shortcut algorithms that skip options or they're in fact slower, and you cannot reliably enforce them. You may not care that it allows full evaluation faster than other options, you may think that's not a worthy design goal because it's not actually an advantage, and I don't care, that just means you don't like WoF. But it still fucking does both of these things, whether they're valuable things to do or not.

Random does not mean variety because you can randomly be choosing from a list of palette swap abilities.

This is a separate issue. No matter what fucking system it is, if all your choices are just palette swaps of the same choice over and over that system sucks. This isn't a 'flaw' of WoF, it's a flaw of power design for any system. 4e should show you why this argument is BS: 4e is not WoF, and it has this exact god damn problem. If 3e had 6 spells renamed over and over again, you'd fucking notice that too, Vancian magic wouldn't stop that.

It doesn't mean that it automatically has more variety than another system it means that it randomizes your choices.

Uhh, yes. It fucking does, actually. You're correct to recognize that the variety is introduced by a random element instead of by the player, but that still makes it fucking variety. You may say, "that kind of variety is dumb" (which is what you seem to be trying to say), but I don't care and that wasn't what I said. It is in fact still variety, because combats will be more varied.

2) It doesn't necessarily give you equivalent good abilities because that's entirely dependent on how you implement it. Since it HASN'T been implemented there is no PROOF of this assertion.

Are you deliberately missing the point? Fine, let me put this as clearly as I possibly can:

Vancian magic. You have 36 equivalently awesome charges (i.e. level 9 charges, different spells each) at a time, all available at the start of the first combat.
WoF. You have 36 equivalently awesome abilities (i.e. your entire matrix, different abilities in each spot), and you get one row (6 abilities) at a time.
For which of these two is option paralysis a greater concern?

I know what you're trying to say ("what if all the abilities aren't equivalently good?"), but we're talking about the fucking capacities. That's what I've been talking about all along. WoF has a higher capacity for equivalently awesome abilities before option paralysis kicks in. Vancian magic CANNOT allow you to prepare 30+ equivalently awesome abilities without expecting you to default to shortcut heuristics (you may be okay with this), defaulting (you may be okay with this), or scripting (you may be okay with this). P.S., if you're going to respond to tell me, "but I think heuristics/defaulting/scripting are okay," stop. Just fucking stop. Those are value judgments. They are not statements of fact. I am telling you what WoF does, and you are telling me, "but I may not like that." That is a non-sequitur, and it means you don't like WoF, and I don't care. I am evaluating what WoF accomplishes, not whether those were good things to accomplish.

Remember that CCG comparison I made?

Do you really think this is a fair comparison? You realize CCG's are games where the future state is heavily dependent on decisions made now? As in, the decisions you make now are going to affect the game 10 turns from now, so even if you only have 6 options now, you have to consider a ton of variables like what's in your opponent's hand, what's going to happen in the next few turns, etc, etc. The combat minigame of RPG's is usually far, far simpler than this. This is just a misleading comparison.

Other systems can limit your options on a round to round basis just as well as WoF can depending on how it is implemented.

Name some, and I'll tell you what WoF does differently. (P.S., again, you don't seem to realize I'm not saying, 'this is why you should love WoF; x, y, and z.' I'm telling you, 'this is what WoF does; x, y, and z.')

[Username17]

It's not newbie friendly at all.

Uh... that doesn't follow. WoF allows you to put a tonne of abilities on a character sheet, and that can be a big pill to swallow. But Vancian casters have hundreds of options at their disposal and people still manage. D&D has a system of leveling, in which the casters become more complex and gain more preparable abilities over time. There is no reason that something similar couldn't be done with WoF. The newbie friendliness or not of the game has to do with how rapidly it throws the players into the deep end and how much it asks players to track. But WoF automatically is more newbie friendly than Charge Casting or Cooldown, because you don't have to track it over multiple rounds.

WoF is very dissociative

This claim is just bizarre. The concept of the "dissociative mechanic" is that the character and the player experience different things. In the heat of battle, people find that they have or don't have all kinds of openings at some point or another. The player sees the Tide of Battle roll and sees that they have an opportunity to use Disarming Strike right now, but they don't know if they'll have the same opportunity next round. The character can describe that they have an opportunity to Disarm their opponent at that moment and have no idea whether or when another similar opportunity will present itself. That is completely 100% associative, because the player and character description of the scenario are almost completely the same.

you're going to need to write out tons of powers.

Uh... yeah. If someone writes a mechanic whose selling point is that you can have more powers, they probably don't consider "having to" write a large number of powers to be a problem.

It's still likely you may run into people playing the game with a heuristic like "Give me the best area attack I can use this turn." or simply a script of "the best out of the X powers offered to me."

Do you know how dumb that objection is? It's super dumb. The "script" of "the best power each turn" is not a script. That's the entire tactical game. If you can honestly and objectively determine what the "best" available power is each turn, then WoF (or any resource management system being used) has done its job.

You don't have to like what WoF does. But you do have to stop being a whiny little bitch about it.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

I'm actually with Swordslinger that if you're not careful, you'll end up with a dissociative WoF. There are a few specific cases where it'd be hard to come up with a setting that makes sense for them.

Here's an example: it would be difficult to make setting up an ambush with a random move associative. If the PC's are hanging out waiting for some goblins to walk by, discussing their plans, and then they ambush them, rolling a WoF in that case would be dissociative in all but the weirdest of game worlds.

But then again, if I could do a WoF implementation, I would either...
A) You roll at the end of your turn. You can take X outside of combat to prepare a row, and you will start the next combat with that row available, or...
B) You have a charge or two you can store, in addition to rolling on a WoF matrix.

That would make for a good ambush mechanic - the first round or two go pretty much exactly as planned, but if the enemy's not down by then they start throwing monkey wrenches in your plans and you just have to wing it and go with the flow of combat.

So, a naive WoF is semi-dissociative. But you can make WoF implementations that aren't dissociative at all.

[Kaelik]

I'm actually with Swordslinger that if you're not careful, you'll end up with a dissociative WoF. There are a few specific cases where it'd be hard to come up with a setting that makes sense for them.

Here's an example: it would be difficult to make setting up an ambush with a random move associative. If the PC's are hanging out waiting for some goblins to walk by, discussing their plans, and then they ambush them, rolling a WoF in that case would be dissociative in all but the weirdest of game worlds.

But then again, if I could do a WoF implementation, I would either...
A) You roll at the end of your turn. You can take X outside of combat to prepare a row, and you will start the next combat with that row available, or...
B) You have a charge or two you can store, in addition to rolling on a WoF matrix.

That would make for a good ambush mechanic - the first round or two go pretty much exactly as planned, but if the enemy's not down by then they start throwing monkey wrenches in your plans and you just have to wing it and go with the flow of combat.

So, a naive WoF is semi-dissociative. But you can make WoF implementations that aren't dissociative at all.

1) I'm an advocate of the Circle action, spend one round not doing anything, and next round, you get to automatically have the WoF result that you declared at the end of last round for this round. If you put enough effort into it, you should be able to have an opening for any given action, and I don't mean it takes 15 rounds to be sure you can disarming strike, I mean that it takes two.

2) WoF can be very dissociative for casters/ranged characters. Yeah, Johnny the Fighter might have difficulty setting up X at any given time. But Green Arrow can't fail to be able to pull out an arrow, and 99.99% of all mage fluff ever invented is premised on the idea of mages deciding to use ability X, and then being able to use it only with respect to themselves, and not how their enemies are arrayed. Wizards who can fireball can fireball completely independent of what their enemies do. So you are basically limited to variations of Chaos Mage for WoF.

[Lago PARANOIA]

1) I'm an advocate of the Circle action, spend one round not doing anything, and next round, you get to automatically have the WoF result that you declared at the end of last round for this round. If you put enough effort into it, you should be able to have an opening for any given action, and I don't mean it takes 15 rounds to be sure you can disarming strike, I mean that it takes two.

I think the ceiling should be a bit higher than that to discourage people from thinking that it's a good option, because otherwise that obviates the system. A lot of people won't see losing every other action to do exactly what they want as bad (especially if they're stubborn), but few people would miss out on three or four actions for a 'better' power.

2) WoF can be very dissociative for casters/ranged characters. Yeah, Johnny the Fighter might have difficulty setting up X at any given time. But Green Arrow can't fail to be able to pull out an arrow, and 99.99% of all mage fluff ever invented is premised on the idea of mages deciding to use ability X, and then being able to use it only with respect to themselves, and not how their enemies are arrayed. Wizards who can fireball can fireball completely independent of what their enemies do. So you are basically limited to variations of Chaos Mage for WoF.

Despite the name of the system, Green Arrow is actually an inappropriate archetype for this kind of system since all of his stuff is low-grade kiddy shit that almost any punk off of the street can do. His stuff is just gear. As far as mages go, you don't necessarily need some Chaos Magic explanation unless you'd like. Sometimes it takes them longer to gather energy for a particular spell due to fluctuating mana levels, sometimes their focus slips, sometimes previous injuries interfere with their holistic integrity and makes a particular spell uneven (but the flow of their chakras lets them use this spell more easily), sometimes their clockwork devices went off early and they need some time to rewind, sometimes the chemicals needed for a spell had their containers cracked and it'll take some extra time to mentally create replacement alchemic formulas, etc. etc.

Personally, my favorite fluff explanation at least for mages is that casting higher-level spells is actually somewhat slow. While a 5th level mage can cast fireball, it'll take them 5 rounds to do so. It'll take them around 11th level before they can fire off a fireball in a round every round (for the 5th-level mage it's a supermove). What WoF is supposed to do is to speed up the use of magic by chaining energies from previous and ambient spells to cobble together something really quickly. The cost of being able to quickly cast spells ahead of schedule is that you don't always get exactly what you want. If you want to return to the 'inferior' way of casting you can do so--at the cost of using extra rounds. Or if you're badass enough you can have a signature spell or two as a basic attack that's as strong as a fireball so after a certain point you can spam fireball anyway. But using fireball at will every round is still inferior to chainspelling Wall of Stone/Dominate Person + Imperius Aura /Wall of Stone/Firestorm + Creeping Flame. The only people who would actually use the fireball at-will every round are either doing it in fluff to show off or for curbstomp battles or they're die-hard rat flail players. If they're the latter then fuck 'em.

[DSMatticus]

Casters are possibly the easiest to explain. I invoke 'It's Magic.'

Actually, to be more serious about it: maybe the mage's control over their own magical energies is imperfect. The abilities available during the round are the only ones the mage has managed to 'tame' and be prepared to use.

The gadget-based type of archer is a little bit weirder to explain. But only the gadget-based. Otherwise, make up some crap about muscle fatigue and concentration and focus. Whatever.

[hogarth]

You're not supposed to want an AoE. Desire is the origin of suffering.

Om.

I know you think you're parodying my position or something but... yes.

I have no idea who you are or what your position is. I was referring to what Frank had said on the issue in the previous thread.

[mean_liar]

That "good" adjective is subjective

No, good in this case refers to from a game balance standpoint, which is situational and relative but to a large extent objective. Playing a good game of chess is not a 'subjective' thing. It is relative to the person you played against, I suppose, but it's still objectively measurable in many ways.

One apparently measures a circle beginning anywhere.

Saying "WoF is 'good' if you set 'good' to be good and that's WoF!" is just tautological bullshittery. Which is what I pointed out already. Thank you for your acknowledgment. It's touching.

For example, most folks consider a raft of palette-swap powers equivalent, but not good. So why is WoF automatically good? You're looking at having to make quite a lot of powers - the risk that they're too similar is one of the largest design risks in WoF, and pretending that WoF := good is sufficient is just jerking yourself off.

"Reasonable time" is entirely arbitrary

Are you going to argue semantics with me to bullshit around the issue? Is it or is it not faster to thoroughly (read: completely) evaluate 6 options than 20? Read what I'm fucking saying, for god's sake...

Well, you tell me:

I execute a full analysis of a WoF roll and use 20sec. I use a heuristic and use 30sec.

Is that 10sec outright unreasonable, such that only WoF can save us?

So is that bullshit semantics, or just you relying on a strawman to make bullshit rhetorical statements about WoF's forced unoptimal choice list as significantly faster such as to render any other system inherently UNREASONABLE opposed to a heuristic's assumed unoptimal choice list?

fixed quote tags, I think. --Z

[Swordslinger]

2) WoF can be very dissociative for casters/ranged characters. Yeah, Johnny the Fighter might have difficulty setting up X at any given time. But Green Arrow can't fail to be able to pull out an arrow, and 99.99% of all mage fluff ever invented is premised on the idea of mages deciding to use ability X, and then being able to use it only with respect to themselves, and not how their enemies are arrayed. Wizards who can fireball can fireball completely independent of what their enemies do. So you are basically limited to variations of Chaos Mage for WoF.

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. Any kind of ranged character that has no interference from his enemies should effectively be able to do what he wants. It makes little sense that there are instances where you'd be able to do a fire arrow, but not an ice arrow, and then circumstances where you'd be able to ice arrow but not fire arrow. And oddly there would never be an instance where you could choose between fire arrow or ice arrow.

[DSMatticus]

Saying "WoF is 'good' if you set 'good' to be good and that's WoF!" is just tautological bullshittery.

No. That's not what I fucking said. What the fuck are you reading? Because it isn't my posts.

When I said 'good' was I talking about WoF? No, I was not. I was talking about abilities. As in, are these abilities 'equivalently good' in that they are balanced with eachother. There's not even any room for ambiguous interpretation here. I don't know how the fuck you got from what I said to what you're saying now, but you are lost.

I execute a full analysis of a WoF roll and use 20sec. I use a heuristic and use 30sec.

I am correct. You are in fact not reading my posts, because I will now redirect you forward to the part you didn't read but really should have.

WoF allows players to fully evaluate their turn options and the tactical situation in a reasonable time.

See? Fully evaluate. Fully.

Please see the bolded word. Your heuristic does not fully evaluate everything. Not if it's only taking 1.5x time as long - heuristics are not magic. Either they skip options, or they take linear time with respect to the number of abilities. Linear time on 36 inputs is 6x as long as linear time on 6 inputs.

Note: this is not a fucking value judgment. If you think heuristics are okay, fucking fine. I'm not telling you they're evil. I don't care. However, it is simple mathematical god damn fact that heuristics either A: skip options, or B: take longer than WoF would. This is something WoF does - it allows full evaluation quicker than a heuristic on the same input would, all else being equal. If you don't care about getting full evaluation, fine! Say so, and WoF isn't for you, but that has nothing to do with any of this shit, because this is what WoF does and it is mathematically demonstrable.

Also, note, I literally already pointed this out:

(And now we'll get stuck in a circular loop, because you'll point out they don't evaluate 30+ abilities, and then I'll point you back to the idea that the point of WoF is to allow you to fully evaluate all available abilities, so telling me they're not evaluating 30+ abilities will involve me going "NO SHIT, I know, that's one of the design differences between WoF and whatever other system you're pointing out").

[MGuy]

This is a separate issue. No matter what fucking system it is, if all your choices are just palette swaps of the same choice over and over that system sucks. This isn't a 'flaw' of WoF, it's a flaw of power design for any system. 4e should show you why this argument is BS: 4e is not WoF, and it has this exact god damn problem. If 3e had 6 spells renamed over and over again, you'd fucking notice that too, Vancian magic wouldn't stop that.

The issue is that because this can be said about any system depending on how it is implemented you can't parade it around as if WoF has already solved it. WoF has yet to be implemented so I cannot see the proposed variety you lend to it.

Uhh, yes. It fucking does, actually. You're correct to recognize that the variety is introduced by a random element instead of by the player, but that still makes it fucking variety. You may say, "that kind of variety is dumb" (which is what you seem to be trying to say), but I don't care and that wasn't what I said. It is in fact still variety, because combats will be more varied.

I wouldn't say that variety is dumb more that the variety potential is about the same. You acknowledge that indeed the variety is just coming from a different source but strangely you say right after that "its still variety" which I never said that it wasn't then you go on to say the combats are more varied. Yes... Variety leads to more varied combats. This isn't even something I've even argued. I'm not even sure why you mention it. What I can say is that neither of the sources of variety are inherently better/worse than the other.

I know what you're trying to say ("what if all the abilities aren't equivalently good?"), but we're talking about the fucking capacities. That's what I've been talking about all along. WoF has a higher capacity for equivalently awesome abilities before option paralysis kicks in. Vancian magic CANNOT allow you to prepare 30+ equivalently awesome abilities without expecting you to default to shortcut heuristics (you may be okay with this), defaulting (you may be okay with this), or scripting (you may be okay with this). P.S., if you're going to respond to tell me, "but I think heuristics/defaulting/scripting are okay," stop. Just fucking stop. Those are value judgments. They are not statements of fact. I am telling you what WoF does, and you are telling me, "but I may not like that." That is a non-sequitur, and it means you don't like WoF, and I don't care. I am evaluating what WoF accomplishes, not whether those were good things to accomplish.

It is interesting that you address me as if I fucked up and all I did was respond to what you posted. Its hilarious that you even lay down responses that I wouldn't even make as if you have figured out what my position was. You act like I hate WoF and I'm fighting some kind of campaign to abolish it. You miss MY entire point that all of this shit (whether WoF will be good or bad) depends highly on actual implementation. My actual problem is that you are parading WoF around as if it has already proven itself even though it has not.

Moving on...

What if instead of having 36 abilities available through the vanician/charge system all available at the beginning of combat you instead could prepare any of the 36. Lets say you could prepare 12 out of those 36. Now lets go further to assume you can only actually use 8 of those in any given combat (assuming combats only last around 4-6 rounds and you're limited to one trick around as I assume with WoF]. So now I'm making my decisions from a list that is only 12 long. I have 12 options to start out with [which by the research is good enough] and those options go down each time I use one. Now 12 is indeed more than 6 but it is a completely manageable number. I would believe that it wouldn't take much longer to decide between 12 options compared to 6 random ones from round to round.

Do you really think this is a fair comparison? You realize CCG's are games where the future state is heavily dependent on decisions made now? As in, the decisions you make now are going to affect the game 10 turns from now, so even if you only have 6 options now, you have to consider a ton of variables like what's in your opponent's hand, what's going to happen in the next few turns, etc, etc. The combat minigame of RPG's is usually far, far simpler than this. This is just a misleading comparison.

All I have to say to this is that if your combat minigame isn't good enough to make me pay for making mistakes then I don't think its good.

Name some, and I'll tell you what WoF does differently. (P.S., again, you don't seem to realize I'm not saying, 'this is why you should love WoF; x, y, and z.' I'm telling you, 'this is what WoF does; x, y, and z.')

This is an odd statement because I didn't say that WoF doesn't do things differently. Like at all. That isn't even a part of this conversation.

[mean_liar]

When I said 'good' was I talking about WoF? No, I was not. I was talking about abilities. As in, are these abilities 'equivalently good' in that they are balanced with eachother. There's not even any room for ambiguous interpretation here. I don't know how the fuck you got from what I said to what you're saying now, but you are lost.

If you think "equivalently good" and "equivalent" are not equal phrases and the first really says something the second does not which is meaningful and not just empty rhetoric, then you are an idiot. No amount of complaining is going to end that.

Try this, again:

WoF's need for large quantities of equivalent powers is a design risk (what I said).

OR

WoF's need for large quantities of equivalent KICKASS powers is a design feature (what you said, with hyperbole added since you're fucking dense).

Which statement is more neutral? Which is full of crap?

WoF allows players to fully evaluate their turn options and the tactical situation in a reasonable time.

See? Fully evaluate. Fully.

Wow. You can fully evaluate 1/X of your total number of powers - your full complement in some situation! - in a reasonable time? Well, then, fuck, that's awesome! YOU HAVE SAID NOTHING OF RELEVANCE.

Hell, I can say, "the best part of always only ever choosing between using either the first or the last at-will ability on my character sheet is that I can fully evaluate them in a reasonable time" and I have also said nothing of relevance. Nothing in that statement has any value regarding that system.

Sure, they're both true. But do they actually say anything?


You know what else you should consider putting on your list?

#4. WoF allows you to create awesome kickass matrices with rows and columns full of spectacular powers that delight and entertain!

Do you see how pointless that is? Do you see how that is meaningless drivel?

It's like watching a child fascinated with a kaleidoscope.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I really feel like I'm hearing half of each of two different arguments.

Also, mean_liar, you have an extra /something in your last post.

[DSMatticus]

The issue is that because this can be said about any system depending on how it is implemented you can't parade it around as if WoF has already solved it.

WoF is a skeleton mechanic for a resource management system. It has nothing to do with the powers you put into it, that is power design. WoF creates variety by outright randomly forbidding repetition on the level of entities. It isn't about (and doesn't have the responsibility of) blocking repetition on the internal mechanics of those powers.

You may as well blame Vancian magic for shivering touch being a 2nd level dragon-slaying spell. Power design and resource management are entirely separate things. You can design shitty powers for any system, but that isn't a fault of the resource management system, that's a fault of shitty power design.

If you're trying to point out, "well, a system may fail to take advantage of WoF's variety," you're absolutely correct. But this has nothing to do with the fact that WoF does in fact create variety. That has to do with the people doing power design being morons.

Another coherent example: are 4e's powers all bland copies of eachother because of their resource management system? No, they're bland copies of eachother because 4e has bad power design, and that's completely separate from its resource management system. You may as well be asking how the diplomacy rules lead to hitpoint bloat: this is just irrelevant. You are bringing things up that have no bearing.

that the variety potential is about the same.

Compared to what? Vancian? No, it isn't. Vancian systems quickly fall into repetition, because you're best off using your highest level charges, of which you have 4-8 distinct entities (and WoF has 36 distinct entities). Patterns emerge quickly in Vancian.

The variation in WoF will be significantly higher than in pretty much all Vancian systems. If the variety is less, the Vancian system will have a massive list of options and option paralysis becomes a consideration, something WoF avoids. Either one or the other, which is the entire point of WoF: big ability lists, quick decisions.

You miss MY entire point that all of this shit (whether WoF will be good or bad)

If this is your point why are you fucking talking to me? I have said time, and time, and time again that I am not discussing the relative merits of whether WoF is a good system or bad system. I am stating what WoF actually does/accomplishes. What effects it has. You are free to evaluate those effects however you want, and decide if they're good or bad. But that's not what you're doing - you're arguing with me about what WoF does.

Again, I think you're assuming I'm Lago, and that everything I say about WoF has, "and that's awesome" appended to it. It doesn't. I am giving the facts of WoF, and I am not assuming they are reasons you should like WoF. I was stating its capacities and uniquenesses compared to other resource management systems. And people tried to argue that these capacities do not exist, and they're wrong.

vancian example and such...

Yes. 12 is a mostly manageable number. It is also less available abilities for a given combat than a WoF matrix with 6x6 spots, and WoF will still have a quicker full evaluation (half as much time).

And this is, again, my point: WoF combines a huge list of abilities, round-by-round variation (enforced by random die roll), and quick full evaluation. You don't have to like any of these things. But to say WoF doesn't do them is to say 2+2=5.

All I have to say to this is that if your combat minigame isn't good enough to make me pay for making mistakes then I don't think its good.

Argh. Okay, I'm going to explain it like this: playing D&D is usually a greedy algorithm. By following a series of local optimums (the best move now) you will usually reach the optimal solution (the best combat possible). Usually. It's not universally true, but the deviations are few and far between.

Playing chess or a CCG is the exact opposite. A greedy algorithm for a CCG or chess takes the best move it sees in this very instant, and doesn't look ahead. This is rarely a winning strategy in a CCG or chess.

We could call it state complexity: a chess game or a CCG remembers a lot more of its state than a D&D game, so whereas chess games and CCG are about building a good state and taking good turns, D&D is more about just taking good turns.

This is an odd statement because I didn't say that WoF doesn't do things differently. Like at all. That isn't even a part of this conversation.

What I mean to say is that you're trying to pick WoF apart piece by piece. WoF is a package. It does three things.

1) Forces round by round variety, 2) allows for a large list of abilities for each combat, and 3) leads to quick decisions. There are systems that have more variety, there are systems that have bigger ability lists, and there are systems that have faster decisions. But WoF combines them all in the same place, something very few other resource management systems could do. And that is what make WoF stand out. You don't have to like it for that, but that's what WoF does.

[DSMatticus]

WoF's need for large quantities of equivalent powers is a design risk (what I said).

OR

WoF's need for large quantities of equivalent KICKASS powers is a design feature (what you said, with hyperbole added since you're fucking dense).

Yeah, except this isn't what you said. Or rather, it doesn't at all logically follow from what I said. This is actually true, except it's a complete and total non-sequitur.

I said 'WoF supports more balanced options at once before option paralysis becomes a consideration.' You said, 'WoF needs more balanced options.' Those are not fucking contradictory claims, in anyway. Those can literally both be true at once. Mine is true - and your's is also true. Mine is relevant to resource management systems (which WoF is), your's is relevant to power design (which WoF isn't).

But yes, if you want to take advantage of the round-by-round variety WoF enables, you need to create more balanced powers. You can have palette swaps, but then you aren't utilizing WoF's variety. In the same way 4e completely failed to utilize any potential variety between classes. That is not a comment about their class system, that is a comment about their power design.

You can fully evaluate 1/X of your total number of powers - your full complement in some situation! - in a reasonable time? Well, then, fuck, that's awesome!

Fuck, mean_liar, god damn. I will re-explain this for you.

To avoid option paralysis, a Vancian caster has to go into battle with 6-12 of their best charges, usually a little less because some lower level charges are also considerable in some situations. This means the potential abilities they will use during that combat is small. If combat lasts only five rounds, they've only used five of those abilities. A WoF caster goes into battle with let's say 36 (6x6) abilities. This means the potential abilities they will use during combat is large. If combat lasts only five rounds, they've still only used five of those abilities.

In either case, you still only use five god damn abilities, and that's fine. However, the sets of five things you could have chosen from 36 is a fuckton larger than the set of five things you could have chosen from 12. In both cases, we could have had quick, full evaluation of all powers available on a round-by-round basis (WoF slightly faster)

Now, let's increase the number of powers, so the WoF and the Vancian system have the same number of potential abilities to use during combat. The Vancian caster goes in with 36 of his best charges, and the WoF caster goes in with the same matrix as before. The Vancian caster has to contend with option paralysis now, but the number of possible fights he can play out is the same as the WoF guy (roughly). The WoF guy is now making seriously hugely faster/more thorough decisions.

Do you see? It's a fucking tradeoff, while WoF does both at once. This is why all your arguments are so god damn annoying and they don't let you see the relevance: because you're focusing on ONE point at a time, and the entire point of WoF is that it lets you do both at once, and systems like Vancian magic don't.

[mean_liar]

Yeah, except this isn't what you said. Or rather, it doesn't at all logically follow from what I said. This is actually true, except it's a complete and total non-sequitur.

You nut.


DSMatticus: 2) WoF gives you more equivalently good abilities than Vancian, than unlimited, than rage, etc, etc. It fits lots of equivalently good abilities in its mid-tier availability (powers in matrix compared to charges prepared), something few other systems can boast. I don't care if you like this, either, but it's still just something WoF does.

mean _liar: RE #2, characterizing WoF as having lots of "equivalently good" abilities is a misleading rhetorical flourish. It has lots of equivalent abilities, not equivalently good. That "good" adjective is subjective, and a threat of WoF as in any game is that you end up with a raft of bullshit powers.


I'm not even rebutting further here since you're running around chasing your tail.

Like, when you say this:

I said 'WoF supports more balanced options at once before option paralysis becomes a consideration.' You said, 'WoF needs more balanced options.'

...you're having a conversation with yourself. Or at least totally missing the point of what "RE #2" means in the context of a post immediately following one of yours containing a numbered list and a quote I used from that #2, wherein nothing is mentioned about option paralysis.

Fuck, mean_liar, god damn. I will re-explain this for you.

I'm excited!

Haha, I lied.

You're missing the point. I understand what WoF does. I've been over it something like 20+ pages now. It's a known. I get it. What annoys me is not WoF. It's a statement like this:

3) WoF allows players to fully evaluate their turn options and the tactical situation in a reasonable time. Again, don't care if you like it, it's just something this does and 20 options + scripts/heuristics can't.

...because fully evaluating a limited set of options is step #2 of a heuristic. The only difference between WoF and a heuristic is that at step #1, when the heuristic is analyzing and developing a short list of actions, WoF is rolling a die.

So when you say that it fully analyzes its options in a reasonable time, you're really saying, "it converts a wide array of options into a short list and then allows a full analysis of that short list of options in a reasonable time", which is exactly what a heuristic does and also neatly illustrates why what you wrote is rhetorical misdirection, since that's what pretty much every system does.

I suppose you could spice it up with, "it converts a wide array of options into a short list and then allows a full analysis of that short list of options in a reasonable time WITHOUT NEED FOR DEEP SYSTEM MASTERY", and then it would have validity. To me it would also underline an additional design risk of WoF, which is that it MAY not encourage system mastery as WoF neatly takes a large chunk of your decision-making process from you.

The only thing you wrote that had any worth out of that #1-#3 list is your #1. WoF indeed enforces variety. Everything else is drivel.

[Kaelik]

The WoF guy is now making seriously hugely faster/more thorough decisions.

This is false. Ignoring for the moment that it's certainly possible for the Vanacian Caster (or at will caster) to make those decisions as fast, the part where you say the decisions are more thorough is totally fucking batshit crazy and wrong.

Arbitrarily limiting your choices to a smaller subset of choices does not mean that you have more thoroughly analyzed the 36 powers you could use. It means you arbitrarily limited the subset of powers you analyzed to a smaller amount.

Nothing stops any resource management system from doing the same thing. A Vanacian caster can choose to work down each spell level, considering only 6th level spells on the first round, only 5th level spells on the second, ect. And no one would say that by doing so he was more thoroughly analyzing his powers than someone applying heuristics to a larger subset of powers, because he's arbitrarily choosing to ignore 30 powers, so he's actually just considering a pool of only 6 powers, not 36 powers.

Yes WoF allows you to make decisions quicker, it does this by never letting you have 36 powers. Claiming a WoF character has 36 powers to choose from is exactly like claiming that a 3.5 Sorcerer can have up to 23 First level spells known, because each level he can switch them out.

If you only ever have 6 powers at a time, you actually only have 6 powers, not 36 powers, and your 6 powers change all the time without your control. That's fine if you want to force arbitrary variety, but that's literally the only thing it does that is useful. Having six powers at will is exactly like WoF, except that in one case, you can plan your actions in advance, and in the other one, you don't actually get to choose your powers, so you can't make any plans. But it's okay, because not being able to make any plans for any combat is a "good thing." Because apparently your goal is to actually make a game that causes people who play it to hate you.

[Orion]

Kaelik,

Way to miss the point. Nobody is claiming that Winds of Fate makes people more thorough in some bullshit absolute sense where thoroughness = the raw number of options considered. Because that's crazy. Not only because thoroughness makes no sense except in relation to a system, but because Winds of Fate is explicitly based on the premise that the raw number does not change.

The idea is that you are only really going to evaluate 6 powers per turn. If you have access to thirty this turn, and you evaluate six, that makes you "sloppy." If you have access to six, then evaluating all six makes you, yes, thorough because you aren't ignoring any of your option. In other words, Winds of Fate brings down the skill cap and thus makes players able to play more optimally with less effort.

Now, you can argue about whether that's a good thing or not. Maybe you want the skill cap to stay where it is. And of course some people will enjoy any kind of game, so don't let me argue with you about your preferences. But when it comes to what will be a more fun game for most gamers, I think the low skill cap is the way to go. Because knowing that they are not going to play optimally makes people frustrated and sad, and it makes them spend less effort on the game in the first place.

[mean_liar]

Orion: motivation research implies that system mastery is a pivotal element for motivation... or something like that.

No one wants to get popped in the face everytime they sit at the table, but the game (and generally everything) still needs some degree of depth to keep 'em coming back for more. From my perspective the trick would be having that skill cap still be high enough to encourage a requisite mastery sufficient to motivate.

I'm not saying that WoF would strictly fail to meet that threshold, but I would feel confident in saying that it's random limitation to a particular moveset discourages at the least the decision-making, heuristic-developing mastery portion of the game.

From my perspective, I think eliminating tabletalk in combat is a better way to speed gameplay more dramatically than WoF could ever hope to achieve, and then what are you left with as a real achievement of WoF, other than the enforced variety?

[DSMatticus]

to make those decisions as fast, the part where you say the decisions are more thorough is totally fucking batshit crazy and wrong.

That's an either-or, not an and. Sorry for any confusion, but I mean to say it will be either faster OR more thorough.

It means you arbitrarily limited the subset of powers you analyzed to a smaller amount.

Yes, that's exactly what it means. It turns out getting people to make quicker decisions is as elegantly simple as cutting their options away.

We have discussed this before: you cannot enforce heuristics. You cannot force someone who has 36 abilities to ignore 30 of them by asking nicely (and if they don't ignore 30 options, they will be considering more than 6 and take longer than WoF would). WoF is a mechanic, and is part of the game (as opposed to a part of the player's mind).

Ignoring 30 options of 36 is a heuristic. Rolling randomly to select 6 of 36 is a mechanic. I can enforce the latter, you have no hope of enforcing the former, and that's why the difference between the two is significant and meaningful.

Claiming a WoF character has 36 powers to choose from is exactly like claiming that a 3.5 Sorcerer can have up to 23 First level spells known, because each level he can switch them out.

This discussion has been had too, and you're off a scale.

There is some subset of powers a Vancian caster will actually USE in combat. Charged expended. There is some subset of powers a WoF caster will actually use in combat.
Charges used -> slots used.

There is also some subset of powers a Vancian caster goes into combat with available (charges prepared). And there is also some subset of powers a WoF caster goes into combat with available (their chosen matrix).
Charges prepared -> slots filled.

There is also some subset of powers a Vancian caster knows, and there can be some subset of powers a WoF caster knows (but may not currently be in his Matrix - we don't have to suppose the WoF character is a sorcerer, who has all powers known in his matrix. We can ALSO have that, but it's not a necessity).
Charges known -> powers known.

You're comparing the Vancian's guys 'charges known' with the WoF guy's 'slots filled.' This is a bad comparison, because at the start of any given combat, there are elements in the charges known that have 0% chance of being used (ones not prepared). However, every ability on the WoF guy's matrix has a non-zero percent chance of being used.

I never claimed a WoF character has 36 powers to choose from (you can dig for that quote all you like, good luck): I claimed a WoF character has more abilities available for any given combat than a Vancian caster if they both want to avoid option paralysis. They will in fact use the same number of abilities if the combat lasts the same number of rounds, but that doesn't change the fact that at the start, the WoF guy was looking at much larger (as in factorially larger) possible combats than the Vancian guy.

YOU brought up the round-by-round comparison, I never did: and Orion gave you a wonderful response for that entirely different, entirely separate argument, so I'll just direct you to that.

[Kaelik]

Yes, that's exactly what it means. It turns out getting people to make quicker decisions is as elegantly simple as cutting their options away.

Yes, but it's also pointless. You have no advantages, and number of disadvantages over a system that just allows people to use six abilities at will (+ infinity out of combat utility abilities), because WoF characters only actually get six abilities anyway. All you are doing is forcing people to not be able to plan for the future, because they can't possibly know what six abilities they get. I do not see any advantage to that.

There is also some subset of powers a Vancian caster goes into combat with available (charges prepared). And there is also some subset of powers a WoF caster goes into combat with available (their chosen matrix).
Charges prepared -> slots filled.

This is false. A WoF caster goes into combat with 1/6th of their chosen matrix. Each ability only has a 1/6th chance of being accessible on any given turn, so the actual subset of powers a WoF caster goes into combat with is 1/6th (column 1) + 1/6th (column 2) ect.

Which added up, is actually just six abilities.

If a system gives 5 abilities at will, and then has you roll a d100, and on a roll of 1-99 gives nothing, and on a roll of 100 you roll another d100 and can also use the entry on a table, that is not a character that goes into combat with 105 abilities. It's a character that goes into combat with 5 and 1/100th of an ability.

[DSMatticus]

over a system that just allows people to use six abilities at will (+ infinity out of combat utility abilities), because WoF characters only actually get six abilities anyway.

Counterexample!

Guy A has 1 group of 6 at-will abilities. Guy B has 6 groups of 6 abilities. Guy B's group 1 is identical to Guy A's only group.

First round of combat: Guy A uses one of his abilities. Guy B rolls a 1, and uses one of the same abilities. So far everything's the same.

Second round of combat: Guy A uses one of his same abilities again. Guy B rolls a 2, completely tearing everything you just fucking said into tiny little shreds of stupid.

WoF characters get as many abilities as on their matrix. They don't use them all, and sometimes they can't use them all, but that's like saying, "A Vancian caster didn't actually have spells he never got a chance to expend because combat ended first." It's a rather dumb thing to say.

This is false. A WoF caster goes into combat with 1/6th of their chosen matrix. Each ability only has a 1/6th chance of being accessible on any given turn, so the actual subset of powers a WoF caster goes into combat with is 1/6th (column 1) + 1/6th (column 2) ect.

Proof that your statement is false by contradiction!

1) The WoF character with a 6x6 matrix goes into battle with 6 abilities available for that combat (your premise).
2) The WoF character plays through six rounds of combat, using abilities A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, F1.
3) The WoF character has a seventh round of combat, and uses ability A2!
4) The WoF character has now used 7 distinct abilities this combat.
5) Contradiction: 1 and 4 cannot both be simultaneously true. Ergo, either the character did not fight a seventh round (what?) or the character had access to more than 6 abilities.

You're measuring the wrong thing. You're confusing 'battle' and 'round.' I'm talking about battle. You're talking about round. It turns out they aren't the same thing.

[Lago PARANOIA]

No one wants to get popped in the face everytime they sit at the table, but the game (and generally everything) still needs some degree of depth to keep 'em coming back for more. From my perspective the trick would be having that skill cap still be high enough to encourage a requisite mastery sufficient to motivate.

1) I have no idea why this is a mark against WoF. If anything it's a plus for WoF because it lets people intelligently evaluate more abilities. Because of the RNG after a set number of battles you will have had the opportunity to use all of your powers assuming that the power creation system is built correctly and the DM seeded a variety of encounters. But that's true for any system.

2) The resource management system needn't be the only element that provides depth. Campaign settings, monster manuals, combat scenarios, and simple character advancement will provide way more depth than any other resource management system. Not to say that the resource management system isn't important, but depth should not be the overriding concern--speed, ease of use, and fairness are also big concerns.

but I would feel confident in saying that it's random limitation to a particular moveset discourages at the least the decision-making, heuristic-developing mastery portion of the game.

Why?

As said before, after a certain number of battles, probably one campaign, will give you more than enough time to ken all of your moves and get a feel for how they perform and what moves are best for what kind of situation. If anything someone using WoF will have an easier time mastering the system because they are exposed to more powers and the DM doesn't have to create a complicated Scooby Doo battle to push players out of their comfort zone.

From my perspective, I think eliminating tabletalk in combat is a better way to speed gameplay more dramatically than WoF could ever hope to achieve, and then what are you left with as a real achievement of WoF, other than the enforced variety?

And just how do you propose to do that short of Gygaxian social engineering? Award experience penalties for side conversations? Withhold Cheetos if someone makes an OOC remark? Skip someone's turn if they get distracted reading a book?

...because fully evaluating a limited set of options is step #2 of a heuristic.

...and when you repeat this step for many rounds, the heuristic will still keep giving you the same or similar results. If people kept applying different heuristics you would cycle through large sets of abilities, but people don't. Because people apply heuristics based on inflexible parameters. For fuck's sake, you can just look at this thread and the previous one. Several people gave their thought processes about how they select a power and if applied repeatedly to a large set of potential options it gave the same results.