Re: Mixing & Matching Resource Systems
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2021 7:31 pm
@JonSetanta
You're already aware that casters have meaningful decisions. The difference between casting fireball (area damage) versus web (area denial, debuff) is significant. You're not going to get that kind of meaningful choice if your martial characters have to spend 1-2 rounds 'charging' before 'discharging'. In fact, the act of charging may deprive them of useful targets that are worth the 'ultimate'. If you've reduced an opponent to 10% of their total hit points (such that a 'normal attack' could drop them), the act of building up to discharge an ultimate feels like a waste.
The rogue MAY have to 'build up' by moving into position, but under optimal circumstances they can 'ultimate' with every attack. Ideally, a rogue will still want to attack even if they can't get sneak, because there is some utility in the action - at least if it means otherwise doing nothing - but they're highly motivated to find ways to get sneak as often as possible.
As a designer, you don't want to say 'rogues must power up by doing 2-3 regular attacks before they get sneak attack'. I mean, I HOPE you don't want to say that. What you really want to do is set up interesting choices for the player. Should the rogue focus on opponents that are easy to sneak up on and likely to drop in a single hit? Or team up with other martial characters to focus fire on the biggest threat (knowing that puts him in greater danger)?
There isn't just one way to set up these kinds of meaningful choices for each class (or even outside of class abilities). OgreBattle has some great examples - Panache and Fury both allow you to build up power and (ideally) unleash that gathered power, but the characters will play extremely differently. Someone with fury almost wants a low Defense and would want abilities that let them trade blows; someone with Panache wants a high defense but still wants people to waste attacks on him; mobility powers that give him a bonus to Defense would synergize well. That does not reduce to 'spend 1-2 rounds doing normal powers; then make a super attack', or, even if it does, you don't want to focus on that. As a designer you do want to think about how quickly the powers build up, and whether they're equivalent and how often you THINK that a character ought to be able to use them, but it NEEDS to be variable.
Sometimes the Fury character is going to end up surrounded and take 8 attacks in a round, all of them hits. Since they're going to be down a lot of hit points, having the ability to do 3 or 4 supers (or a SUPER SUPER) after a round like that is probably a good thing. Meanwhile, getting missed by 8 opponents means you're NOT down any hit points, and are in good shape. There's a good chance that a Panache character shouldn't have supers that deal heaps of extra damage (or at least, not at the same rate as a Fury character). While in MOST situations you might expect each character to accumulate 1-2 'points' per round, that isn't ALWAYS the case. And you want to keep that in mind when you're laying out the power.
As a thought experiment, if you can only get 1 point per round, the Fury character DOESN'T want to get surrounded and attacked by 8 characters. He also wants to get hit by the weakest hitter on team monster. That's probably not what you want for your Fury character - you want him to WANT to get hit, and you want him to get hit by the HARDEST hitting monster, right? Those are the things you want to incentivize. The ability to RETRIBUTE, and getting bonuses to attack/damage when bloodied, as well as some type of 'rage healing' all encourage the character to get his ass kicked in Wolverine fashion.
It all comes down to incentives - you always have a vision of how a character OUGHT to play at the table; making sure that they have mechanical incentives to play correctly is your job as a designer. It is VERY VERY EASY to get this wrong. You might never think of playing 'the wrong way' because you know 'the right way' - and that's why playtesting is super important. Sometimes the behaviors you think you're encouraging aren't really optimal; if you're not careful you have a Berserker hiding in the bushes for 3-4 rounds getting angrier and angrier before he launches his unstoppable fusillade of arrows. And it isn't necessarily a problem if that's the optimal way to play and players enjoy it, even if it isn't what you planned - but it something you need to be aware of.
You're already aware that casters have meaningful decisions. The difference between casting fireball (area damage) versus web (area denial, debuff) is significant. You're not going to get that kind of meaningful choice if your martial characters have to spend 1-2 rounds 'charging' before 'discharging'. In fact, the act of charging may deprive them of useful targets that are worth the 'ultimate'. If you've reduced an opponent to 10% of their total hit points (such that a 'normal attack' could drop them), the act of building up to discharge an ultimate feels like a waste.
The rogue MAY have to 'build up' by moving into position, but under optimal circumstances they can 'ultimate' with every attack. Ideally, a rogue will still want to attack even if they can't get sneak, because there is some utility in the action - at least if it means otherwise doing nothing - but they're highly motivated to find ways to get sneak as often as possible.
As a designer, you don't want to say 'rogues must power up by doing 2-3 regular attacks before they get sneak attack'. I mean, I HOPE you don't want to say that. What you really want to do is set up interesting choices for the player. Should the rogue focus on opponents that are easy to sneak up on and likely to drop in a single hit? Or team up with other martial characters to focus fire on the biggest threat (knowing that puts him in greater danger)?
There isn't just one way to set up these kinds of meaningful choices for each class (or even outside of class abilities). OgreBattle has some great examples - Panache and Fury both allow you to build up power and (ideally) unleash that gathered power, but the characters will play extremely differently. Someone with fury almost wants a low Defense and would want abilities that let them trade blows; someone with Panache wants a high defense but still wants people to waste attacks on him; mobility powers that give him a bonus to Defense would synergize well. That does not reduce to 'spend 1-2 rounds doing normal powers; then make a super attack', or, even if it does, you don't want to focus on that. As a designer you do want to think about how quickly the powers build up, and whether they're equivalent and how often you THINK that a character ought to be able to use them, but it NEEDS to be variable.
Sometimes the Fury character is going to end up surrounded and take 8 attacks in a round, all of them hits. Since they're going to be down a lot of hit points, having the ability to do 3 or 4 supers (or a SUPER SUPER) after a round like that is probably a good thing. Meanwhile, getting missed by 8 opponents means you're NOT down any hit points, and are in good shape. There's a good chance that a Panache character shouldn't have supers that deal heaps of extra damage (or at least, not at the same rate as a Fury character). While in MOST situations you might expect each character to accumulate 1-2 'points' per round, that isn't ALWAYS the case. And you want to keep that in mind when you're laying out the power.
As a thought experiment, if you can only get 1 point per round, the Fury character DOESN'T want to get surrounded and attacked by 8 characters. He also wants to get hit by the weakest hitter on team monster. That's probably not what you want for your Fury character - you want him to WANT to get hit, and you want him to get hit by the HARDEST hitting monster, right? Those are the things you want to incentivize. The ability to RETRIBUTE, and getting bonuses to attack/damage when bloodied, as well as some type of 'rage healing' all encourage the character to get his ass kicked in Wolverine fashion.
It all comes down to incentives - you always have a vision of how a character OUGHT to play at the table; making sure that they have mechanical incentives to play correctly is your job as a designer. It is VERY VERY EASY to get this wrong. You might never think of playing 'the wrong way' because you know 'the right way' - and that's why playtesting is super important. Sometimes the behaviors you think you're encouraging aren't really optimal; if you're not careful you have a Berserker hiding in the bushes for 3-4 rounds getting angrier and angrier before he launches his unstoppable fusillade of arrows. And it isn't necessarily a problem if that's the optimal way to play and players enjoy it, even if it isn't what you planned - but it something you need to be aware of.