Arturius

[Elennsar]

If the players are determined to go through characters as if they were going out of style, that's their problem.

Setting things up so that a system cannot be abused even if you try is not worth the effort - I'd rather play with people who won't seek to abuse the system for all it is worth, and since I'm not trying to make money off of this, making a system equally balanced for abusers and nonabusers isn't necessary.

[Roy]

If the players are determined to go through characters as if they were going out of style, that's their problem.

Setting things up so that a system cannot be abused even if you try is not worth the effort - I'd rather play with people who won't seek to abuse the system for all it is worth, and since I'm not trying to make money off of this, making a system equally balanced for abusers and nonabusers isn't necessary.

Time to call down the lightning.

Wait for it...

If the players are going through characters as if they are going out of style, given your design decisions, this is your fucking fault. Players will do whatever the system encourages them to do. If the system encourages Cancer Puppy Syndrome, in which you do not wish to inflict emotional pain upon yourself by getting attached to something you know you will die, then your players are not going to name the Cancer Puppy. Except that it isn't a puppy we're talking about, it's their character, which means they will deliberately avoid getting attached to their characters and treat them as respawning shuffable pawns because guess what? The system makes PCs respawning shuffable pawns!

If you don't want the reaction to character death being 'Meh.' *reload* then you need to do something about it. 'Do something about it' means either prevent that from happening, in which case all campaigns using the system will be very short and end in TPK or stop wanking off to your own ignorance, failure to grasp the meaning of iterative probability (and probability in general for that matter), and various fallacies you are rapidly becoming infamous for, even outside the forums which you spam with your drivel. Otherwise, fucking deal with it, and take responsibility for your own fucking actions.

[Elennsar]

Because of course everyone and their mother in law always plays with optimal efficiency and seek out every possible plus and remove every possible minus whether it makes sense to do so for what they are supposedly or not.

Anyone who is determined to play a game like that can go play their Minimaxing and Monsters until their dice break their gaming tables.

So if you don't give a shit for becoming attached to a character because they can die, then go back to the games where they can't die.

Seriously. If you're incapable of playing anything without min-maxing, fuck off.

And in general, Roy, fuck off. If you don't want to help with this, stay out.

[violence in the media]

Elennsar, who do you actually game with? The more you talk, the more I'm convinced that you don't actually play with humans.

[Elennsar]

The kind of people who in this http://www.gamersarchive.net/theGamers/ ... es_3.0.pdf said this: In closing, a few words need to be said about trust as it applies to the game. A certain minimal amount of trust is expected
from all players—to obey orders, etc. Many die rolls are to be made in secret and players should feel comfortable concerning the honesty
implied in these rolls. Personally, I care very little for playing a game where tension or suspicion exists, and make it a point not to
repeat games against such opponents. There is no mechanism in our games to prohibit cheating and it is easy to circumvent the system if
one tries. However, I feel that creating such an airtight structure would also produce games I would have very little interest in playing—and
I see little point in trying. All of the games we put out will continue to demand a certain amount of honesty and trust between players.

And in a roleplaying game, I expect people who are playing humans who make decisions which have consequences for reasons having nothing to do with the most efficient way of getting rid of Darth Vader to make their characters do the same - sure, you could play Luke as calculating that it doesn't matter anyway, but is Luke the kind of person who would do that? Apparently not. Then don't play him as such!

[Psychic Robot]

The hard part about incorporating lots of death is that it sucks writing up a character and having him get dumped on fifteen minutes into the session. That sucks. Then there's the issue of character replacement: "Darn, my elven wizard Mogumbo died. I guess I'll have to roll up a new elven wizard, Bogumbo."

Really, there's no good way of handling this without resorting to stupidity. (Lots of fate points = why not make the game less lethal overall? Resurrection = stupid. And so on.) I would just accept the paradigm of lethality and work within that framework. Characters are embarking on a dangerous mission? They'd better avoid fights and prepare to surrender if things go poorly. Have the characters be knocked out once their HP (or whatever) reaches 0, instead of being outright dead. I don't know what else I can suggest.

[Elennsar]

Which is one reason I don't want to play with people who don't accept "gee, we can actually die" to some extent...if you're not able to accept it, this isn't for you.

To a point, avoiding unnecessary fights is fine and a good thing.

However, inevitably, you will have to fight and surrender is not a very good option.

Ideally, you are (when appropriate) always at risk of death - but you can fight it off. You can parry an attack, or whatever. But you do have to take those actions, and you do have to deal with the fact the other guy, if he's as good as you, might be able to beat your best efforts.

[Psychic Robot]

Well, perhaps you can give PCs one "freebie" per encounter/fight: one dodge, one parry, one free "shrug it off."

You might try to get players involved in the narrative, too. Players can describe how they're going to attack/defend, and the GM gives them bonuses to attack/defense as is deemed necessary. And perhaps doing fancy tricks (swinging on a chandelier, for instance) might give you a penalty to AC, but you get a "hero point" or whatever that you can spend in the session.

[Elennsar]

You get 1 hero point (if you would otherwise not have any) at the start of any major encounter (if it can kill you, you have 1 or more hero points).

Its not a "free save", but its something.

I do not want people getting them for taking risks unless those risks are serious enough that they can have Bad Things Happen.

If your character is risking his/her life, it should be because he/she thinks it is worth doing - not so the player can earn hero points.


And that is the thing. If you don't want to play a hero who thinks it is worth doing - whether or not the personally benefit in any way shape or form or even if victory is unlikely (but giving up is a bad idea) - then this is not for you. End of discussion.

Arturius is a tribute to the men and women who have done that, and an attempt to write a game representing how such people can (maybe) make a difference.

[Psychic Robot]

If your character is risking his/her life, it should be because he/she thinks it is worth doing - not so the player can earn hero points.

Mistaking motive for mechanics. I'm saying that hero points can be earned for doing something heroic, not that you do something heroic to earn hero points. Perhaps the DM could award them in secret.

[Elennsar]

Unless the players are in the dark about how many hero points they have, which doesn't particularly appeal (though its a thought...do something and say that if you have # hero points, you want to spend them.), they will notice - I'm sure there are ways to hide it, but still.

I'd personally like to have them be something that are refreshed every so often - for instance, the idea that you have at least 1 in a life threatening circumstance.

But if that's done, it would have to be tied to things that happen at their own pace - X/day is definately a bad idea (and doesn't feel right).

First priority, however, is figuring out what you can do with them. If hero points can massively alter results, I need to find a way of keeping the number of times they come up low - they're meant to supplement, not replace, regular rolls.

[Psychic Robot]

You have three types of "points."

Fate points: These can significantly alter plot events and even change how the story is told. (You come across a village burned to the ground; there are no survivors. A player spends a fate point, and it turns out that one family escaped into the woods.) Typically, players receive 1 fate point per story arc.

Hero points: These can give a player an edge when he needs it most. A single hero point can grant a player a significant bonus (or an automatic success, in some cases) when performing a task resolution action. Typically, players receive 1 hero point per game session.

Luck points: These can allow a player to succeed where he might normally fail. A single luck point can grant a player a moderate bonus when performing a task resolution action. Typically, players receive 3 luck points per game session.

[Elennsar]

Not a bad idea. I'd like something a bit less major for Hero points, though.

Also, I seriously need to sort out where the barbarians and other elements sit, so now that this is (pretty safely) taken care of for the time being, that needs to be answered.

There's a range for those not of the Kingdom from "different and equal" to "EVIL RAVAGERS (or TYRANTS)"

Where to place things is important - thoughts?

I do know that I want the invading barbarians to be at least something of a bad thing besides just invading and stealing your stuff, but that can be anywhere from aggressive and a little callous to the full out evil ravagers.

[Roy]

Because of course everyone and their mother in law always plays with optimal efficiency and seek out every possible plus and remove every possible minus whether it makes sense to do so for what they are supposedly or not.

Anyone who is determined to play a game like that can go play their Minimaxing and Monsters until their dice break their gaming tables.

So if you don't give a shit for becoming attached to a character because they can die, then go back to the games where they can't die.

Seriously. If you're incapable of playing anything without min-maxing, fuck off.

And in general, Roy, fuck off. If you don't want to help with this, stay out.

Elennsar brand strawman bullshit. Learn to understand basic logic, learn to understand basic probability, learn to stop Stormwinding, learn to stop blowing hot air in general, learn to stop committing the Extremes fallacy, learn to identify when people actually are helping you... and yes, that means it isn't all Paizil brand Super Happy Fun Time.

Did I miss any, or did I cover your Epic Fail extensively?

Also, dead characters make terrible roleplayers. Tell you what. I'm going to come over, and I'm going to shoot you in the face. Will you grub every advantage to not die by Darwin channeling gunman, or will you allow me to blow your head off for 'roleplaying reasons'?

[Roy]

Elennsar, who do you actually game with? The more you talk, the more I'm convinced that you don't actually play with humans.

The stupid breed the fastest.

[Psychic Robot]

I do know that I want the invading barbarians to be at least something of a bad thing besides just invading and stealing your stuff, but that can be anywhere from aggressive and a little callous to the full out evil ravagers.

I would do both. One group has the ravagers, and another group are slavers (or somesuch). People end up calling on the slavers to protect them from the ravagers.

[Tshern]

And in a roleplaying game, I expect people who are playing humans who make decisions which have consequences for reasons having nothing to do with the most efficient way of getting rid of Darth Vader to make their characters do the same - sure, you could play Luke as calculating that it doesn't matter anyway, but is Luke the kind of person who would do that? Apparently not. Then don't play him as such!

What the heck? Luke actually got rid of both Palpatine and Vader in a single fight and even managed to turn Vader back to the light side. And all on purpose. That's pretty fucking calculating to me.

[Grek]

Roy: That isn't helping. You have good points, but the tone you are using to express them is going to make Elennsar unwilling to listen to you.

Elennsar: I disagree with your assessment that games should be balanced around players not trying to break the system. That design pardigram results in stuff like polymorph any object, SoD/SoS rocket launcher tag and the five minute workday. Gaming the system should result in they players playing the game as intended, not crazytown and expendable knights.

How's this for a comprimise between altering the ratio of Companions to Fights That Can Kill People and leaving it alone: Some RP justifyable penalty to letting Companions get slaughtered, ie. a morale system in which the common troops get panicky and afraid, thus fighting less well if the players keep getting Companions killed.

[Elennsar]

What the heck? Luke actually got rid of both Palpatine and Vader in a single fight and even managed to turn Vader back to the light side. And all on purpose. That's pretty fucking calculating to me.

And I'm reasonably sure that "the easiest way to get rid of them" was not number 1 priority.

Elennsar: I disagree with your assessment that games should be balanced around players not trying to break the system. That design pardigram results in stuff like polymorph any object, SoD/SoS rocket launcher tag and the five minute workday. Gaming the system should result in they players playing the game as intended, not crazytown and expendable knights.

The game is designed on the assumption that you know how the system works and don't seek to abuse it for all its worth - but do know how it works.

If your response is to treat your character as an expendable minion, then guess what. My response is to treat you as an asshole who is not worth playing with.

As for the morale penalty - I'm not against something like that. What I am against is setting things up so that min-maxing is -encouraged-.

That leads to games where only people who min-max for all it is worth survive, which is not the kind of game I want to play in, let alone write.

Last time I checked, the goal of a good RPG was to roleplay interesting people doing interesting things and having fun. Not to get +X (where X is the highest bonus generatable in the system) ASAP.

[Tshern]

It was pretty much the only way, there weren't any easier methods available, so I suppose it was a great priority.

[Elennsar]

Blowing up the Death Star with them on it and not facing Vader for a long shot chance at redeeming him would probably have been easier.

Killing Palpatine would have been easier by ramming his lightsaber through him than hoping dad would (re)turn to the Light and throw him.

Luke seems to have felt "trying to redeem Dad" was a higher priority than "easiest method of removing him from the enemy's team".

But that's not related to this particular discussion, so I would request that it be placed elsewhere - point of the matter is, people do things because they believe they're the right thing to do for any number of reasons, and the most effective method isn't necessarily one of them.

[Grek]

As for the morale penalty - I'm not against something like that. What I am against is setting things up so that min-maxing is -encouraged-.

You have me backwards. I am saying that we should strive to create a system in which asking yourself "What is the best way to min-max this?" and asking yourself "What is the most heroic thing I could do here?" results in the same answer because the mechanics should actively encorage heroism in a game about heroic people doing heroic things. Morale bonuses to the common trooper from seeing the Companions do heroic stuff and risking their necks to help others is the best way to do that.

[Elennsar]

The problem is, that is not the kind of game I want to play or write.

This is a game about heroic people who do heroic things because that's what heroic people DO, not because the best way to win the battle involves the Companions risking their lives to buff the foot sloggers.

There's a reason that ambushing is frowned on and regarded as a Bad Thing, and it isn't that you get -5 to hit when ambushing.

If you're more concerned with "what's the highest bonus I can get?" then "what's the most heroic thing I can do here?", then you aren't looking to play a hero.

[zeruslord]

That is a matter of goals. Once he established that "redeem Dad" was a priority, he went about accomplishing it in a Xanatos Gambit that beat fricking Palpatine! That GOAL does make him more heroic, but the way he went about it is frankly as devious and bastardly in its execution as anything Palpatine came up with.

What we are saying is that some set of people will want to min-max, and if you set up the game so that a min-maxed character is far more effective than an unoptimized one and is not doing what you want, you have failed. Take a look at a fully optimized Tome Barbarian and one that essentially just picks stuff that matches Conan, and compare the numbers. They're far closer together than the Ubercharger's damage per round or a half-ogre Spiked Chain Tripper's damage taken per enemy killed is to a fighter like this. The Druid is in a similar situation. The obvious druid is a bear, accompanied by another bear or maybe a wolf, who buffs himself and his pet and summons other bears, but is sometimes a human dropping AOE control spells. If you are Frank and you dig through splatbooks to cheese everything out, you end up as a raptor, accompanied by a raptor, who buffs himself and his pet and summons other raptors, and sometimes casts AOE control spells, and is sometimes a human.

tldr; If you design your game so that a mechanically optimal character looks nearly like your iconic characters and a character in the same league is obvious for each of the iconic roles, people will play something like your ideal concept unless they are too stupid to build the obvious fighter or should be playing a game that matches the concept they really want to play.

[Elennsar]

tldr; If you design your game so that a mechanically optimal character looks nearly like your iconic characters and a character in the same league is obvious for each of the iconic roles, people will play something like your ideal concept unless they are too stupid to build the obvious fighter or should be playing a game that matches the concept they really want to play.

Too long, didn't quote piece by piece:

If you design the game so that the only reason no one ambushes people is because ambushing is mechanically inefficient, you make it pointless to have a character who considers himself above doing that because there's no reason for him to do it to begin with.

Instead of being a statement of principle because even if it would work it would be doing something the character believes is wrong - he has no incentive to think otherwise. He isn't challenged to mantain the high road, because the high road is better than the low road.

If you want to min-max your way through a game, and your fellow players are okay with that attitude - then min-max until you discover its boring to get over 9000 for its own sake or you die of old age, whichever comes first.

Those are not the kind of people I want to play with or write for.