Rainbow or Monocolor Brokenness?

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

koz
Duke
Posts: 1585
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:39 pm
Location: Oz

Post by koz »

Previn wrote:
Well, I'm sorry you have people that have to be #1 or something is wrong in your games, but again, very clearly, there is a huge amount of the player base that demonstrably does not feel this way at all.

You seem to be having a big problem admitting that people can have different point of view and play style than your games. In 21 years of running and playing D&D, I have had 1 player complain about what you see as an insurmountable problem of not being as good as someone else.

{Edits: fixing tag and missing word}
Yes, this is what YOU think. This is not any more or less valid than what Lago thinks. You seem to think that somehow, your viewpoint that imbalance is not a problem because people don't care is superior to Lago's. Unfortunately, passing off such a poorly-reasoned, argued and defended statement here isn't kosher.

Do you believe that, in order to have fun, people need a high degree of mechanical awareness, and need to spend hours dumpster-diving so that their character doesn't feel like a waste of space? Sure, SOME people enjoy that, and those SOME people are welcome to play Rifts for all I fucking well care. MOST people want to play characters who contribute meaningfully and who don't require as much time to build as doing my taxes.

Tl;dr: Stop passing off opinions as facts and lern 2 debate.
Everything I learned about DnD, I learned from Frank Trollman.
Kaelik wrote:You are so full of Strawmen that I can only assume you actually shit actual straw.
souran wrote:...uber, nerd-rage-inducing, minutia-devoted, pointless blithering shit.
Schwarzkopf wrote:The Den, your one-stop shop for in-depth analysis of Dungeons & Dragons and distressingly credible threats of oral rape.
DSM wrote:Apparently, The GM's Going To Punch You in Your Goddamned Face edition of D&D is getting more traction than I expected. Well, it beats playing 4th. Probably 5th, too.
Frank Trollman wrote:Giving someone a mouth full of cock is a standard action.
PoliteNewb wrote:If size means anything, it's what position you have to get in to give a BJ.
Image
Fuchs
Duke
Posts: 2446
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Zürich

Post by Fuchs »

violence in the media wrote:Look, there is nobody who cares so little about effectiveness versus cool that they'll willingly play a Monk in a game where everyone else is a Wizard, Cleric, or Rogue. After a few game sessions it becomes clear that they add nothing to the party and exist only as a mobile hit point battery. It doesn't matter how cool their Leap of the Clouds or twin-kama style looks, because the graphics on this game are really bad and those things don't fucking contribute meaningfully.

Four hours of uselessness-for-fun will wear on anybody. And don't you dare suggest that the DM fix it--nobody should get special attention because the game designers failed and their character sucks ass.
I expect everyone to get special attention from teh DM, no matter their class. That can range from incorporating the background hooks into the adventures to tailoring the opposition so everyone has fun.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

It is, of course, really obvious when an episode of Superfriends goes out of its way to justify Aquaman's presence on the show.

Instead of making the DM go through all of these contrivances to make it look like Aquaman is useful, why not just make Aquaman more useful?
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Fuchs
Duke
Posts: 2446
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Zürich

Post by Fuchs »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:It is, of course, really obvious when an episode of Superfriends goes out of its way to justify Aquaman's presence on the show.

Instead of making the DM go through all of these contrivances to make it look like Aquaman is useful, why not just make Aquaman more useful?
Sometimes it's overall easier for the DM to make a weaker character useful by giving it special attention than by boosting the weaker character mechanically and having even more work to challenge the party. That goes doubly so if by giving the character special attention the DM also makes sure the player has more fun.

For example if there are regular opportunities for bards to shine with performances and bardic lore, and the campaign fluff has bards being honored guests in almost all cultures, not just civilized ones, then such "special attention" may be enough for some players to have fun - even more fun, in some cases, than if the DM simply had the bard's combat power boosted without such special attention.
Draco_Argentum
Duke
Posts: 2434
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Draco_Argentum »

Previn wrote:Yes it is worth it if done properly. If it adds something unique to the game and increases fun, then it is fine being less powerful than other things. If it is so weak that detracts from fun, or makes things effectively unplayable, then it is not worth it.
Thats a red herring. The question isn't can an option that is less powerful be fun enough to play? It can be and will be. Especially true since in an actual game player ability and campaign specific events will modify the raw power. I'm not actually any good at D&D, it'd be easy enough for me to play a druid and get outclassed by a rogue.

The real question is: what power level should the designers aim for when adding content to an imperfect game? As opposed to: is it okay if an option turns out to be a bit weaker than the most powerful stuff in the game? Remember that the devs are fallible and will miss whatever they aim at.
Fuchs
Duke
Posts: 2446
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Zürich

Post by Fuchs »

Well, given how fallible they are, what does it matter what they aim at if they can miss by as much as they did?
User avatar
Absentminded_Wizard
Duke
Posts: 1122
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Post by Absentminded_Wizard »

Well, any set of devs will be at least somewhat fallible, since they're all human beings. If Previn was arguing that it's okay for something to turn out slightly weaker but "cooler" than something else, he might have a point. When he starts saying it's okay to aim for that as a starting point, he's off the reservation.

After all, in addition to the inevitable errors in game balance, there's the fact that coolness is subjective. What if, in addition to a lack of design skills, the devs have idiosyncratic tastes?
User avatar
Murtak
Duke
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Murtak »

Draco_Argentum wrote:The real question is: what power level should the designers aim for when adding content to an imperfect game? As opposed to: is it okay if an option turns out to be a bit weaker than the most powerful stuff in the game? Remember that the devs are fallible and will miss whatever they aim at.
We have the web now, there is no reason at all to not simply have everything available online and errata as needed. "Needed" meaning: everything blatantly over- or underpowered gets fixed. Given errata developers should aim for new content to be in the top 20% (though that should be damn close to the bottom 20% anyways).

Of course all companies are too damn afraid of no one buying their books anymore if free online content is available (which I think is silly, but that's a rant for another day). Under these conditions it depends, but I still believe new stuff should be useful, so they should at the very least aim somewhere between the middle and the top of the heap.

Heck, devs should probably simply use some decent testing method (like Frank's 10 varied encounters). If [new ability] passes the test it's fine, if it doesn't it needs to get fixed and if it passes but later turns out to be too good or too bad the test needs to get fixed. Of course that would require said devs to have brains and knowledge of the game in question, which is probably the main source of the problem anyways.
Murtak
User avatar
Previn
Knight-Baron
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 2:40 pm

Post by Previn »

Draco_Argentum wrote:The real question is: what power level should the designers aim for when adding content to an imperfect game? As opposed to: is it okay if an option turns out to be a bit weaker than the most powerful stuff in the game? Remember that the devs are fallible and will miss whatever they aim at.
The devs will -always- miss at what they're trying to design? Really? So any balance in a game is purely accidental? Anything that is actually balanced they were trying to make over or under powered?
Absentminded_Wizard wrote:Well, any set of devs will be at least somewhat fallible, since they're all human beings. If Previn was arguing that it's okay for something to turn out slightly weaker but "cooler" than something else, he might have a point. When he starts saying it's okay to aim for that as a starting point, he's off the reservation.
Why exactly? If the balance is so close as to be technically weaker, but not actually effect how the game plays, or the fun of the players, why exactly is it a bad or crazy idea? What does it hurt? Why is it ok to have a weaker but cooler ability by accident, but not is to actively design with that in mind?
After all, in addition to the inevitable errors in game balance, there's the fact that coolness is subjective. What if, in addition to a lack of design skills, the devs have idiosyncratic tastes?
Balance is just as subjective as coolness. If it wasn't everyone would agree and what was and wasn't balanced, and that's clearly not the case as 4th shows.

If I'm wrong in this, I'd like to understand why.
Last edited by Previn on Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fuchs
Duke
Posts: 2446
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Zürich

Post by Fuchs »

The problem is that "balance" is hard to judge. If say two powers give the same bonus in combat, but one of them also offers a non-combat option, then the second one is objectively better. But what if power a offers +3 and power b +2 bonus, but b also offers option X?
violence in the media
Duke
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

Post by violence in the media »

Fuchs wrote:
violence in the media wrote:Look, there is nobody who cares so little about effectiveness versus cool that they'll willingly play a Monk in a game where everyone else is a Wizard, Cleric, or Rogue. After a few game sessions it becomes clear that they add nothing to the party and exist only as a mobile hit point battery. It doesn't matter how cool their Leap of the Clouds or twin-kama style looks, because the graphics on this game are really bad and those things don't fucking contribute meaningfully.

Four hours of uselessness-for-fun will wear on anybody. And don't you dare suggest that the DM fix it--nobody should get special attention because the game designers failed and their character sucks ass.
I expect everyone to get special attention from teh DM, no matter their class. That can range from incorporating the background hooks into the adventures to tailoring the opposition so everyone has fun.
Don't be dumb. I'm talking about the special attention that stems from the fact that someone drew up a turd of a character and now needs a stream of Very Special Episodes and plot contrivances to justify their existance. That isn't fair to the other players at the table. Moreover, you'll get attention-whore players that will pull this sort of shit specifically because so many people coddle it and it gives them more screen time.

@Previn--A CON 3 Wizard? Really? How did you avoid killing him, even on accident? I mean, Magic Missle gains damage increases faster than he gains HP. Was this in a particularly large party?
Last edited by violence in the media on Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Roy
Prince
Posts: 2772
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

Post by Roy »

To be fair, Wizards are the best at avoiding damage, so that's actually more plausible than anything else with a Con that low. Not that that says much.
Draco_Argentum wrote:
Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
Fuchs
Duke
Posts: 2446
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Zürich

Post by Fuchs »

violence in the media wrote: Don't be dumb. I'm talking about the special attention that stems from the fact that someone drew up a turd of a character and now needs a stream of Very Special Episodes and plot contrivances to justify their existance. That isn't fair to the other players at the table. Moreover, you'll get attention-whore players that will pull this sort of shit specifically because so many people coddle it and it gives them more screen time.
As I said I expect every character to get such "very special episodes", and "plot contrivances". I expect the DM to tailor the campaign to the characters to that degree. And then it is fair to all players - and often balanced as well.
Last edited by Fuchs on Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
violence in the media
Duke
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

Post by violence in the media »

Roy wrote:To be fair, Wizards are the best at avoiding damage, so that's actually more plausible than anything else with a Con that low. Not that that says much.
I know, but it's still 1 HP per level and a negative Fort save. A level-appropriate fireball will incapacitate him, and it doesn't even have to be gunning for him.
violence in the media
Duke
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

Post by violence in the media »

Fuchs wrote:
violence in the media wrote: Don't be dumb. I'm talking about the special attention that stems from the fact that someone drew up a turd of a character and now needs a stream of Very Special Episodes and plot contrivances to justify their existance. That isn't fair to the other players at the table. Moreover, you'll get attention-whore players that will pull this sort of shit specifically because so many people coddle it and it gives them more screen time.
As I said I expect every character to get such "very special episodes", and "plot contrivances". I expect the DM to tailor the campaign to the characters to that degree. And then it is fair to all players - and often balanced as well.
I agree with what you are saying. I am disputing the idea that the ratio of VSE and PC breaks down from a 1:1 ratio across all players because someone drew up Aquaman.

It is not a consolation prize. The DM should not be saying, "Here, you drew up a total turkey that's pretty much useless in most aspects of the game, let's give him more Magical Tea Party time to compensate."
Fuchs
Duke
Posts: 2446
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Zürich

Post by Fuchs »

violence in the media wrote: I agree with what you are saying. I am disputing the idea that the ratio of VSE and PC breaks down from a 1:1 ratio across all players because someone drew up Aquaman.

It is not a consolation prize. The DM should not be saying, "Here, you drew up a total turkey that's pretty much useless in most aspects of the game, let's give him more Magical Tea Party time to compensate."
Yeah, but then, some players don't really care about being effective in all aspects of the game. They might not even care if they suck in combat, as long as they get equal "spotlight time" in other situations where they can shine. I could also aim to beef that character for combat, but why bother if the player doesn't care about it?

At the end of the day what matters is whether or not all players had fun, not whether or not all characters pulled their weight in combat.
Roy
Prince
Posts: 2772
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

Post by Roy »

violence in the media wrote:
Roy wrote:To be fair, Wizards are the best at avoiding damage, so that's actually more plausible than anything else with a Con that low. Not that that says much.
I know, but it's still 1 HP per level and a negative Fort save. A level-appropriate fireball will incapacitate him, and it doesn't even have to be gunning for him.
Well, that's what energy resist stuff is for. But yeah. It's still a total gimp, but as Wizards are the 'doesn't take HP damage' class, doing something that makes your HP made of Fail is not as bad as it would be for anyone else.

Of course, you should still have at least 14, because maxing out your main stat only takes 16 points and a 14 only costs 6 more so even if you have a gimp producing system like 25 PB you can still easily manage it. And that is literally six times as good.

Also, ignoring hurk durk basket weavers.
Draco_Argentum wrote:
Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
violence in the media
Duke
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

Post by violence in the media »

Fuchs wrote: Yeah, but then, some players don't really care about being effective in all aspects of the game. They might not even care if they suck in combat, as long as they get equal "spotlight time" in other situations where they can shine. I could also aim to beef that character for combat, but why bother if the player doesn't care about it?

At the end of the day what matters is whether or not all players had fun, not whether or not all characters pulled their weight in combat.
I'm not communicating effectively here or something. I'm not talking about just combat. Your fighter can be just as inept and useless (and probably is) in the non-combat parts of the game. By indulging in that sort of bullshit, you are dowing two things to the other players at the table:

1. You're wasting their time and ruining their enjoyment of combat. Either all fights are harder because of the weak character, or they're trivially easy for competent players because the DM has designed to the lowest common denominator.

2. You're rendering the weak character a continual focal point, or totally excluding that player, for everything else. If that character can't pull their weight in combat, and gets outclassed in most everything else, then they wind up being the center of the universe, or totally left out of the loop, because she can't contribute meaningfully in anything that isn't MTP.

As a player, I don't want the consequence of your desire to play Jar-Jar Binks to be more talky-time and a sidelining of my character's actual, quantifiable abilities. Do you even see where you are taking time and fun away from the other players in order to make the game more enjoyable for the "real" roleplayer?
Fuchs
Duke
Posts: 2446
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Zürich

Post by Fuchs »

violence in the media wrote:I'm not communicating effectively here or something. I'm not talking about just combat. Your fighter can be just as inept and useless (and probably is) in the non-combat parts of the game. By indulging in that sort of bullshit, you are dowing two things to the other players at the table:

1. You're wasting their time and ruining their enjoyment of combat. Either all fights are harder because of the weak character, or they're trivially easy for competent players because the DM has designed to the lowest common denominator.

2. You're rendering the weak character a continual focal point, or totally excluding that player, for everything else. If that character can't pull their weight in combat, and gets outclassed in most everything else, then they wind up being the center of the universe, or totally left out of the loop, because she can't contribute meaningfully in anything that isn't MTP.

As a player, I don't want the consequence of your desire to play Jar-Jar Binks to be more talky-time and a sidelining of my character's actual, quantifiable abilities. Do you even see where you are taking time and fun away from the other players in order to make the game more enjoyable for the "real" roleplayer?
Don't put words in my mouth. The goal is to make sure everyone has fun at the table, as I clearly said.

If one player is fine with sucking in combat, then I don't need to make allowances in combat for that player as long as the combat aspects are fun for the rest. If the rest of the players can't have fun unless everyone is "pulling their weigth", despite assurances from the DM that the combat encounters do not expect every character to be effective, then the group better splits, obviously there's no trust.

I am not talking about playing Jar-Jar binks, I am talking about playing a face character concept, which pretty much works fine in Shadowrun, and has not many problems being adapted to a D&D campaign.

Also, I don't know why you assume other players would get sidelined. If we have Bob the Bard, Fritz the Fighter and Magus the mage in the group, I'll make sure Bob will get equal "spotlight time" as Fritz and Magus. How exactly that spotlight will be played out, social encounters, combat, duels, mystery solving etc. depends on the preferences of the players.

If Bob's player likes diplomacy and court intrigue, Fritz likes mounted combat, and Magus likes fireballs then I'll structure adventures where everyone can shine. They won't be facing mindless undead who are immune to fire and holed up in a tunnel system. Instead they'll have adventures with jousting tournaments, spys and assassins that need to be identified and overcome, and situations where creative and not so creative uses of fireballs are possible.
Roy
Prince
Posts: 2772
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

Post by Roy »

Except that being a 'face' 1: Does not require many resources. 2: Does not require the same resources as combat. Being a face is about skills. Being effective in combat is about feats, gear, spells... pretty much anything that is not skills. Though a few skills help a little.

Bards for example still are throwing large +to hit and damage to the whole party, have a side of win spells in the form of mind affecting stuff and Glitterdust, and this in no way impedes their ability to convince the queen to fuck them in front of the king by talking to her for six seconds.

And this is just a Bard, hardly a powerhouse class.

Obvious Straw Man is Obvious.
Draco_Argentum wrote:
Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
User avatar
Previn
Knight-Baron
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 2:40 pm

Post by Previn »

violence in the media wrote:@Previn--A CON 3 Wizard? Really? How did you avoid killing him, even on accident? I mean, Magic Missle gains damage increases faster than he gains HP. Was this in a particularly large party?
Forgive me, I should have been more clear, I wasn't the DM in the second example, just another player. It was also back in 2nd edition so the draw back was slightly different in actual play.

I suspect it was a combination of us being less combat focused and more stealth/investigative, that the game took place mainly in a city, and a bit of luck.
User avatar
Previn
Knight-Baron
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 2:40 pm

Post by Previn »

Roy wrote:Except that being a 'face' 1: Does not require many resources. 2: Does not require the same resources as combat. Being a face is about skills. Being effective in combat is about feats, gear, spells... pretty much anything that is not skills. Though a few skills help a little.
Social skill checks can be improved with feats, gear and spells in 3.x, the same as combat. Choosing to improve upon your skills in this way does use up resources that would have otherwise gone toward combat most likely.
User avatar
Absentminded_Wizard
Duke
Posts: 1122
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Post by Absentminded_Wizard »

Previn wrote:
Absentminded_Wizard wrote:Well, any set of devs will be at least somewhat fallible, since they're all human beings. If Previn was arguing that it's okay for something to turn out slightly weaker but "cooler" than something else, he might have a point. When he starts saying it's okay to aim for that as a starting point, he's off the reservation.
Why exactly? If the balance is so close as to be technically weaker, but not actually effect how the game plays, or the fun of the players, why exactly is it a bad or crazy idea? What does it hurt? Why is it ok to have a weaker but cooler ability by accident, but not is to actively design with that in mind?
It has to do with the fact that all devs are fallible. And they're working on complex systems of rules. Basically, if you shoot for a given power level, a lot of your stuff will miss it. If, when designing a supplement, you use the most powerful core elements as your baseline, then most of your stuff will be slightly more powerful or slightly less powerful (assuming you're good enough to avoid WotC-like spreads). Some of the stuff might end up in your "slightly inferior but cool" zone.

Now, if you take "slightly inferior but cool" as a baseline for some of your material, the odds are that you won't hit that benchmark. If your error is on the negative side, the resulting class ends up being so underpowered that "coolness" can't save it. The potential for such error is the reason you don't want to intentionally set your baseline that low.
Draco_Argentum
Duke
Posts: 2434
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Draco_Argentum »

Previn wrote:The devs will -always- miss at what they're trying to design? Really? So any balance in a game is purely accidental? Anything that is actually balanced they were trying to make over or under powered?
Don't be a tool about this, its a basic fact of life. The human race has never produced anything perfect and rpgs are no exception. Whenever the devs write something it is going to be at least a little different from what the design intent was.

You didn't answer the question either. What level of power should the devs aim for?
Fuchs
Duke
Posts: 2446
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Zürich

Post by Fuchs »

They should aim at what they want to achieve.
Post Reply