The Gaming Den

FrankTrollman wrote:If you refuse to set yourself criteria for success or failure, your system has no basis by which to claim success.

You do set criteria. The criteria is "A specific, new, internally consistent high fantasy world which draws on materials from various shared fantasy sources."

You can pick the baseline mechanics first. Apparently everyone but you does this. Most people who payed attention to TNE said to themselves "I want this version of Dnd to be a leveled game." They did not create a complete gameworld in their head first, and then come to the conclusion that they wanted a leveled game. We know what a leveled game is, and that is preferable to a nonleveled game, according to the vast majority's vision for what TNE can be.

You can do this for every important aspect of the game. And if inconsistencies pop up, we choose and refine. The only possible way a community can create a shared setting is by starting with a lot and paring stuff down. A community attempting to create a specific setting from an image in one person's head is insanity.

The criteria is "A specific, new, internally consistent high fantasy world which draws on materials from various shared fantasy sources."

Consistent and "drawing from various sources"...

Oh, the contradictions.

Crissa wrote:Frank also said he doesn't think Shootout at the OK Corral and Trigun could be done in the same system. That was the longest part where I was convinced that we weren't going anywhere with a toolkit suggestion.

Given that one features humanoids as we actually know the term and the other doesn't, he's right.

Elennsar wrote:Orcus as no more challenging to a party at the right level than Bob the Stone Giant at the right level feels very wrong.

Orcus is specialer than that.

Orcus' no more challenging when the PCs were close to his power level than the giant was when the PCs were close to their power level. Duh.

Alternatives: you can cap the game and include enemies higher than the cap (woo, something 4E got right) if you want there to be enemies that can't be defeated without special setups, you can insert retarded plot devices as much as you want (and that freedom is indeed needed to do the non-retarded stuff, so it stays), and you can, of course, admit that what you want's a penis extension.

SphereOfFeetMan wrote:You can pick the baseline mechanics first. Apparently everyone but you does this. Most people who payed attention to TNE said to themselves "I want this version of Dnd to be a leveled game." They did not create a complete gameworld in their head first, and then come to the conclusion that they wanted a leveled game. We know what a leveled game is, and that is preferable to a nonleveled game, according to the vast majority's vision for what TNE can be.

Problem: it being a leveled game was about the only thing in which everyone agreed - and that, of course, because people seem to have been fed D&D stereotypes for far too long in many cases. And, should we want to drop a few voices behind, it'd be already done by this point. So, do we wanna wait to have a game which'll satisfy Elennsar as well?

SphereOfFeetMan wrote:You can do this for every important aspect of the game. And if inconsistencies pop up, we choose and refine. The only possible way a community can create a shared setting is by starting with a lot and paring stuff down. A community attempting to create a specific setting from an image in one person's head is insanity.

That makes the generous assumption that people're willing to pare anything down - can I say "it's already proved some aren't"? Again, fed D&D for too long (well, not in all cases, but it's common enough).

Half of Frank's examples of "different" genres are actually just window dressing in equipment, where the exotic locations are, and what the social setting is. The Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven are simulatable in very similar rulesets, at least in terms of attack resolution, number of rounds, and hitpoint-damage ratio. The Samurai duel at first light and the gunfight at High Noon work the exact same way. The status quo of the original Dune is a Renaissance society with deadly feuds and knifefights. The fact that the Spacing Guild controls transportation rather than the Merchants' Guild of Genoa makes no difference to the combat mechanics. Dune does include more supernatural power than a historical renaissance game, but the superhuman abilities are either Plot or merely more powerful than standard humans. Noone flings fireballs, everyone fights as duelists, and there is no combat teleportation, summoning, or any of the other things that separate D&D from a historical dark ages game.

zeruslord wrote:The Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven are simulatable in very similar rulesets, at least in terms of attack resolution, number of rounds, and hitpoint-damage ratio.

You know, except for the fact that everything is taking place at 30 paces instead of 2 meters, which straight up means that movement and action resolution don't function off the same rule set.

Yes, the rules are supposed to generate a number of rounds and serious injuries that are suspiciously similar (what with the fact that it's the same story told in the same number of frames). But the action resolution system is different because the movement/attack system is set to a baseline where distance is essentially worthless rather than being a guarantor of several rounds of free actions like it does in otherwise identical samurai land.

That's the problem. The problem is that even the exact same story needs a different rule set if the inputs are swapped from katana to six guns.

-Username17

Both games would have two sets of combat mechanics, one for setpiece duels and one for anything where more than one actual attack is made. At least in the setpiece, range and movement speed don't even come into it. Some characters are going to be unable to play in the setpiece, but for the combat at the climax of the story, there is no difference. In a zone-based system, even the large combat mechanics might be the same.

No. See in Magnificent Seven you can shoot a guy in an upper story window with a shot gun while you are personally riding on a carriage.

Seriously.

In Seven Samurai, you can't do that. The setup of what makes a robber fall down or not is fundamentally different. The attacks are regressed so that the combat lengths and general level of bad assery of individual heroes is as close to exactly the same as possible, but that doesn't mean the system is the same. It's very specifically not. It's just that the cover and distance effects cancel out for purposes of deciding how many people the heroes can kill in a combat round.

-Username17

In each of these hypothetical games, there are two combat systems with some shared attributes. Dust Devils has High Noon and Shootout at the OK Corral; Heavier than a Feather has The Art of Dueling and The Art of War. High Noon and the Art of Dueling differ only in the labels of combat numbers and abilities, because the situations they simulate work exactly the same way.

I do concede my point about The Art of War and Shootout. The differences in engagement range do change the way the scenario plays out.

and you can, of course, admit that what you want's a penis extension.

Having beings more powerful than any mortal can beat, and PCs and all the NPCs they have any reason encountering being mortals, is a penis extension?

So much for Fu Leng in Lot5R.

Anyway.

You know, I play games because I want to escape from reality. Because it allows me to be special in a way that I can't in real life.

And you seem to hate that, and want to piss all over that. PC's shouldn't be terribly special, you say. Fall within a range, you say. 1 in 10 billion is still 1 in ten billion, you say, and you should have to roll for it like everybody else.

Fuck that. I'm playing a badass hero, and he's damn well special. More special than everyone in his goddamn town, and more special than almost all other members of his race, with the exception of those who are higher level. He is that one in ten billion.

Because otherwise, you're playing "Joe the Somewhat Special Farmer slays some mediocre orcs and has a slightly memorable life," rather than Sinbad vs. the Eight Mothefucking Immortals, with Cuchulain by his side.

Why do you hate PC's being special or different so much? It's what makes them the goddamn PCs.

Aktariel wrote:Fuck that. I'm playing a badass hero, and he's damn well special. More special than everyone in his goddamn town, and more special than almost all other members of his race, with the exception of those who are higher level. He is that one in ten billion.

If there are less than ten billion in the world, and any of them are equal or higher level to you (like the rest of the party), then you are going to run into a problem with that - especially if you don't have the same opponent every week.

Why do you hate PC's being special or different so much? It's what makes them the goddamn PCs.

Because I vociferously disagree that there's only "Joe Dirt Farmer" and "Joe the guy who can SLAY GODS".

Joe the skilled and competent knight in a setting actually designed so that knights are worth noting is AWESOME, even if not as awesome as the most awesome possible thing EVER.

Insisting that if anyone else in your town or county or kingdom or species can do stuff equally impressive to you that you suddenly become bored is as pathetic as the "Joe Dirt Farmer" game only more so.

That's what monsters are for?

-Crissa

Oh right, I forgot. We can't have a game where PCs compete against NPCs, because humans fighting humans is BORING BECAUSE THAT HAPPENS ON EARTH AND EARTH SUCKS!!!!!


Yeah. If that's your take, you're cutting out a lot of perfectly interesting stories to have the "more than human" range as the only one that matters.

Is that a bad thing? Not more so than cutting out the range of sword and sorcery to make a high fantasy game, but insisting its a good and necessary thing is no more legitimate than insisting that its good and necessary to have human level be the level.

Which is why I made my comment on Orcus or the like as a suggestion...I think you could do a very good game where beings beyond mortals exist without having them be important directly.

You don't need to be able to fight Fu Leng to do all the meaningful stuff you could want to do in the Shadowlands, after all. And that's only a part of the meaningful stuff in the setting.

I don't mind playing in games where things are comparatively mortal. I also don't mind playing in mythical games. Then there's the in-between games, which are fine too. So long as everyone's interested in that power level and genre/mood/style, whatever.

Quite. So I have my suggestion, others have theirs. Neither is inherently superior.

Its not like "TNE" is "the only game you will be allowed to play after we complete it.", so each has their merits.

What we need is for whatever power level the PCs at to have plenty of interesting and fun things to do.

Whether there are things you will never be able to do or only able to do with incredible luck (beyond a 20 on d20) is not necessary to meet that requirement.

So what -should- PCs be doing? I mean, a game where you -care- that your enemy has a castle is a different thing than where part of what you are is that castles are a lower tier.

In my opinion, castles should always be important enough that if you run into one, you have to do something that takes more effort than if they weren't there.

Same with walls and such in general.

However, that limits some things, like flying and teleporting, a lot. And generally leans towards mortal scale (though not necessarily.)

Elenssar stop derailling threads

Oh, I forgot. Discussion is FORBIDDEN! WE MAY NEVER DISCUSS THINGS!

Stop accusing me of derailing threads for actually having a discussion on something that was disputed in a thread that is related to the topic of the thread.

Thread is about setting suggestions not your ideas of power level. You've already got a thread to whine about your douchebag ideas. Stick to it so the rest of us don't have to read your drivel.

If you don't think that what power level can be obtained has anything to do with the setting and what kind of things PCs are and what specific powers should/shouldn't exist, then you're...oblivious at best.

Bigode wrote:Problem: it being a leveled game was about the only thing in which everyone agreed - and that, of course, because people seem to have been fed D&D stereotypes for far too long in many cases. And, should we want to drop a few voices behind, it'd be already done by this point. So, do we wanna wait to have a game which'll satisfy Elennsar as well?

Nobody will be happy with every aspect of the completed game, whatever it turns out to be. I am not advocating unanimous consent for every facet of the game. I am advocating that TNE be designed by the following rubric: "Starting with the most basic game rule assumptions, list possible approaches. Evaluate and choose between binary choices. Once a decision has been made, evaluate ever more specific rule choices."

This has already been done to a great extent. There are many rules that were evaluated and chosen before the setting was conceived. And many of those decisions already disappointed some people. The important distinction is that these solutions were individually considered and evaluated on their merits.

• 1 Leveled and not non-leveled.
  2 Gridless and not grid-based.
  • 2B Has chase rules instead of standardized speeds.
  3 Classed and not classless.
  • 3B Class abilities offer breadth of options in a particular schtick, and don't necessitate areas of incompetence in areas of competence in another class.
  4 Abilities are primarily option based and not RNG based.
  Etc.

The opposite approach to this would be to do what Frank is doing. Create a specific description of a gameworld, and then automatically defer to certain rulesets. This method definitionally excludes possible solutions from community members which are not even considered by the person creating the setting in their mind. These lost rules are either not evaluated or even known.

Elennsar wrote:Having beings more powerful than any mortal can beat, and PCs and all the NPCs they have any reason encountering being mortals, is a penis extension?

Having them appear in the game in any capacity is. Not because I think the PCs should attack everything that crosses them, but because if you can't fight them back at all, you can't do anything other than their whims.

Crissa wrote:That's what monsters are for?

If I got the context right, they're for what? Extinguishing humanoid races because the population able to face them's barely bigger than the PCs? Especially at the point where you're specifically making them not humanoids - they then drift a lot closer to "it does nothing other than killing people".

Man: I'm not expecting 100% consensus. I'm just saying the game won't move forward as long as people have disagreements far larger than Cynic's HUUUUGE strength of will. Also, group consensus and binary trees can be applied to setting design as well if desired.

SoFM wrote:I am advocating that TNE be designed by the following rubric: "Starting with the most basic game rule assumptions, list possible approaches. Evaluate and choose between binary choices. Once a decision has been made, evaluate ever more specific rule choices."

That is dumb.

That is akin to asking people to evaluate soda flavors that they haven't tried. It's like asking someone to navigate a maze without seeing the exit. Individual game mechanics have advantages and disadvantages, but only in the context of other mechanics and overarching goals.

Would you rather suffer a -2 penalty when firing into cover or give a bonus to the dodge chance of the target? How the fuck are you suposed to answer that question a priori?

-Username17

Having them appear in the game in any capacity is. Not because I think the PCs should attack everything that crosses them, but because if you can't fight them back at all, you can't do anything other than their whims.

Remind me (in PM if possible) how this allows for CoC or Fu Leng or Sauron to exist.

Mind, I'm perfectly fine with my suggestions being declined after discussion...they're suggestions, not insistent demands.

As for TNE design:

I presume that this is going to be designed by multiple people, which presumably means the first priority is "what the fuck are we trying to design?"

Until that is answered, as Frank pointed out, how the fuck are you supposed to know which is better between two mechanics?

If you don't know whether or not you want people to rely primarily on melee, then designing combat mechanics for how effective ranged attacks are vs. heavily armored people is putting the cart before the horse, as well.

FrankTrollman wrote:How the fuck are you suposed to answer that question a priori?

You can easily answer such questions once you have decided on larger questions. We have already done this. Here is one specific example of the progression of rule building blocks we have used, prior to setting choice:

1A Do we want advancement for player character power or a static or diminishing power (such as in a horror game)?

1B Chosen: Pc power advancement. Next question: What kind of advancement do we want: leveled or point based?

1C Chosen: Leveled. Next question: How much more powerful should a maximum level character be than a minimum level character (slightly, moderately, extremely)?

1D Chosen: Extremely. Next question: How much more powerful should character level X be than a character level X –1 (slightly, moderately, extremely)?

1E Chosen: Slightly. Choices C and D necessitate that there be large number of levels. Next question: What is the limit of how many levels we want in the game?

1F Chosen: As many levels as possible, with the following restrictions:
- A character level X can be a slight threat to a character level X +2
- A group of X number of characters level Y can be a reasonable threat to a character level Y+4
- A group of X number of characters level Y cannot be a reasonable threat to a character level Y+10
- Since this is a classed game (chosen in another progression), we need detailed abilities for each class for each level. This requires effort, which is limited.

1G Given the above, 20 to 30 levels are chosen.

Next basic rule foundation tree.

On every step of the choices that were made, there was discussion for how that impacts the game. Alternate solutions were put forward, and their consequences explored and explained in detail. At no point did somebody leap to a conclusion which ignored possible solutions.

---

Rules = Setting.

If you make the setting first, and you don’t know all possible rules, then by definition you are limiting the possibilities of your setting.

I speculate that some of the setting disagreements might disappear if a foundational rule-based approach would be used to evaluate the rules-setting.

One good example is the TNE races thread. You don’t want centaurs and pixies because it supposedly destroys the setting. That is the wrong way to think about the issue. The right way would be to ask questions like “Is it possible to create rules for non-humanoid Pc’s without breaking game balance? Is it possible to create rules for non-humanoid Pc’s which doesn’t destroy a setting based on humanoid Pc’s?” This seems very likely. Pc’s don’t need to be carbon copies of stereotypes, that has been made very clear. And given the crazy things we expect Pc’s to be able to do at higher levels, a few “monstrous” qualities for Pc’s seems trivial.