The Gaming Den

Troll has a base 12 at break dancing. Good enough for me.

FrankTrollman wrote:The key concept is that every creature has an "everything else" line that is in this case 12. And yeah, if they have a single attack stat and a single defense stat that are noticeably higher or lower than their "everything else" stat, then they are already at least as interesting from a numeric standpoint as a 4e monster.

Right. And if the best thing you can say about a Numenera monster is that it's about as interesting as a 4E monster, that's a failure in my opinion. YMMV, of course.

hogarth wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:The key concept is that every creature has an "everything else" line that is in this case 12. And yeah, if they have a single attack stat and a single defense stat that are noticeably higher or lower than their "everything else" stat, then they are already at least as interesting from a numeric standpoint as a 4e monster.

Right. And if the best thing you can say about a Numenera monster is that it's about as interesting as a 4E monster, that's a failure in my opinion. YMMV, of course.

You genuinely just pissed me off. That was such a casual and obvious twisting of what he said that I cannot help but feel legitimate anger. I am certain that you know that 'already at least' and 'about' mean different things, and I am certain that you understand your omission of the 'numeric' qualifier totally changes the meaning.

Seriously, be ashamed. That was really bad. You shouldn't do that anymore.

hogarth wrote:The boring part is the implication that most creatures are identical. For instance, in 4E a creature has 4 defenses, so in theory you can try to target whichever one you think is weakest. In Numenera, it looks like there will be one defense, and by default it's exactly the same for each creature of the same level.

hogarth wrote:Right. And if the best thing you can say about a Numenera monster is that it's about as interesting as a 4E monster, that's a failure in my opinion. YMMV, of course.

Oh look, it's the incredibly shifting goalposts. Go fuck yourself.

There are lots of potential pitfalls with a Ninjaburger-like system of having specific named bonuses and an "Other Stuff" bonus that covers anything not named. For example:

• the difference between a "high" defense and a "low" defense (whether those are both named or simply the difference between using a named defense and "other stuff") has to be greater than the difference between a player using their best attack and the same player falling back on "other stuff". Because if it isn't, players are just going to use their best attack over and over again no matter what the opposition is or does - like 4e D&D attack "choices".
• the bonus explosion has to be sharply curtailed, otherwise the difference between using a named bonus and using "other stuff" will become so great that challenges can't accommodate trained and untrained actions - which in turn will end up making it so that all of a character's "other stuff" actions are basically meaningless. See untrained skill actions in 3rd edition D&D.
• the number of named bonuses that people have needs to be kept in check - if people have double digits of non-"other stuff" numbers to deal with, the advantages of the "other stuff" category are lost.

And so on. But those are all things that can rather easily be worked around. The entire section that Previn quoted is 100% compatible with a completely workable game, and ranting that it is doomed to failure because of anything in that quoted section is at best premature.

There are two things that fill me with dread:

• The statement that you can take your trait in "having illusion magic" or spend the same trait on "being really good with a specific weapon". That isn't unworkable necessarily, it's just very unlikely to be workable. What it probably means is that you have the choice between power diversity and boosting your favorite attack number - a choice between straining the RNG and pushing the limits of RPS. In a rules-light game with few sources of numerical addons, such a choice could theoretically be balanced. But in reality, attempts to make such systems almost invariably end in tears.
• The thing where you can spend XP in-game for bonuses right now in exchange for not having those XP later to buy permanent bonuses with. That kind of system is, I believe, literally unsalvageable. I do not believe it is even possible to give players access to that kind of tradeoff without it being a horrible thing for everyone involved. It's been tried numerous times, from Shadowrun to Star Wars to Dungeons & Dragons, and the reality is that games are not really open ended in length and short-term/long-term tradeoffs are distressingly solvable problems.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:

hogarth wrote:The boring part is the implication that most creatures are identical. For instance, in 4E a creature has 4 defenses, so in theory you can try to target whichever one you think is weakest. In Numenera, it looks like there will be one defense, and by default it's exactly the same for each creature of the same level.

hogarth wrote:Right. And if the best thing you can say about a Numenera monster is that it's about as interesting as a 4E monster, that's a failure in my opinion. YMMV, of course.

Oh look, it's the incredibly shifting goalposts. Go fuck yourself.

I don't know what to tell you. Both of those situations (worse than 4E, about the same as 4E) would be a failure to me. Like I said, if you feel differently, good for you. Certainly my opinion on Numenera shouldn't make you feel butthurt.

Frankly, I think "if some ability is not in a monster's description, make something up" is more sensible than "if something is not in a monster's description, assume that the monster is pretty good at it", as suggested by MGuy's example of breakdancing trolls (or whatever).

hogarth wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:

hogarth wrote:The boring part is the implication that most creatures are identical. For instance, in 4E a creature has 4 defenses, so in theory you can try to target whichever one you think is weakest. In Numenera, it looks like there will be one defense, and by default it's exactly the same for each creature of the same level.

hogarth wrote:Right. And if the best thing you can say about a Numenera monster is that it's about as interesting as a 4E monster, that's a failure in my opinion. YMMV, of course.

Oh look, it's the incredibly shifting goalposts. Go fuck yourself.

I don't know what to tell you. Both of those situations (worse than 4E, about the same as 4E) would be a failure to me. Like I said, if you feel differently, good for you. Certainly my opinion on Numenera shouldn't make you feel butthurt.

Frankly, I think "if some ability is not in a monster's description, make something up" is more sensible than "if something is not in a monster's description, assume that the monster is pretty good at it", as suggested by MGuy's example of breakdancing trolls (or whatever).

Well, if the PCs challenge a Troll to a dance-off to the death in lieu of combat to the death and the Troll accepts, then we can assume that the troll is at least as good dancing as he is at combat, otherwise he wouldn't have agreed to it.

This system also happens to explain why the Devil is good with a fiddle.

Blizzard taught me that Trolls are freaking amazing at breakdancing.

sabs wrote:Blizzard taught me that Trolls are freaking amazing at breakdancing.

This guy gets it.

hogarth wrote:Frankly, I think "if some ability is not in a monster's description, make something up" is more sensible than "if something is not in a monster's description, assume that the monster is pretty good at it", as suggested by MGuy's example of breakdancing trolls (or whatever).

To be fair, "this number describes everything not part of its main schtick" and "this monster is actually good at everything not part of its main schtick" aren't necessarily the same thing. One of the specific numbers could be lower than the 'everything else' number if it's a weakness (e.g. a big lumbering troll might have Reflex 9 to go with Fortitude 15 and Everything Else 12) or the 'everything else' could be set fairly low if you want a creature to be bad outside its specialty (e.g. Everything Else 5 instead of 12 for a particularly dim troll).

It could even be a game-wide variable, for instance, "If you want your game to run like 3e's 'no ranks = you suck at it' skill system, set a creature's Everything Else to [lowest specific number] - 10, while if you want it to run like 4e's '1/2 level to everything' skill system set it to [lowest specific number] - 3 instead," or something along those lines.

What I don't understand is why you people think this stat block:

Claws 14
Angry Bite 13
Fortitude 15
Reflex 9
Regen Fire/Acid
Base 12

Fits in a game that specifically advertises, "It's stat block is 12."

hogarth wrote:Frankly, I think "if some ability is not in a monster's description, make something up" is more sensible than "if something is not in a monster's description, assume that the monster is pretty good at it", as suggested by MGuy's example of breakdancing trolls (or whatever).

But the point is that the Troll is a "level 4" creature. Level is measure of the creature's inner awesome, so the troll must always react in an appropriately awesome way for the world to make sense.

That the troll is better at Breakdancing, Literary Criticism and Brain Surgery than any first level PC (assuming they start at level 1 and bonuses don't get too crazy) is a feature, not a bug. Adventures pratically write themselves with a system like this:

"The college's cranky professor's become a recluse, at the same time that his academic production got better! After his latest paper (the compelling thesis that Moby Dick is really about delicious blubbery meat) began to earn top reviews, the party is tasked with investigating what's happening! (spoilers for the big reveal: a troll ate the professor and is writing in his place)"

Genius.

nockermensch wrote:Genius.

Kaelik wrote:What I don't understand is why you people think this stat block:

Claws 14
Angry Bite 13
Fortitude 15
Reflex 9
Regen Fire/Acid
Base 12

Fits in a game that specifically advertises, "It's stat block is 12."

How could you possibly not understand that? The writeup specifically says that creatures will have exceptions using the nomenclature of the named ability followed by a number other than 12.

Monte Cook wrote:So a level 4 automaton that blasts foes with an extremely accurate energy blast might be a 12 on everything, but a 15 with its blaster.

And as previously noted, there are already real games that really work this way. Hell, there are really good games like Ninjaburger that already work this way. So what is to understand?

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:

Kaelik wrote:What I don't understand is why you people think this stat block:

Claws 14
Angry Bite 13
Fortitude 15
Reflex 9
Regen Fire/Acid
Base 12

Fits in a game that specifically advertises, "It's stat block is 12."

How could you possibly not understand that? The writeup specifically says that creatures will have exceptions using the nomenclature of the named ability followed by a number other than 12.

Monte Cook wrote:So a level 4 automaton that blasts foes with an extremely accurate energy blast might be a 12 on everything, but a 15 with its blaster.

And as previously noted, there are already real games that really work this way. Hell, there are really good games like Ninjaburger that already work this way. So what is to understand?

-Username17

Because: "most monsters are just 12, and some exceptional monsters might have 12 with a single non 12 number" is way the fuck obviously different from a basic monster having 4 non 12 numbers which make up most of the rolls it ever makes and a whole separate statistic that has nothing to do with numbers.

I'm not saying that your system is bad, I am saying that I would never describe it as it is described in the block as "Its entire “stat block” is 12."

An everything else number is in no way a bad mechanic, but the game we are talking about explicitly does not have an everything else number. It explicitly has an everything number. It says that in some exceptional some monsters might have one single number that is not the everything number.

FrankTrollman wrote:Hell, there are really good games like Ninjaburger that already work this way.

After hearing everyone say Game X is "terrible" on this board, it's kind of shocking to hear someone say a game is "really good". I'm especially surprised to hear it applied to a game about....well, what Ninja Burger is about.

echo

what is ninja burger about?

Ninja Burger is the most awesome game ever.
You work for a Fast Food Chain, and you play Ninja. You do missions to deliver your food.

Each character has stats and special powers, and the point of the game is to try and become the new Manager of the store. You do that by having the most honor. It's really just a ridiculously fun game. It takes itself about as seriously as Illuminati does.

echoVanguard wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:Hell, there are really good games like Ninjaburger that already work this way.

After hearing everyone say Game X is "terrible" on this board, it's kind of shocking to hear someone say a game is "really good". I'm especially surprised to hear it applied to a game about....well, what Ninja Burger is about.

echo

It seems good here has everything to do with "being exactly what you set yourself to be."

Ninja Burger sets itself to be the completely silly game about ninjae delivering fast-food. It then delivers exactly that. Zero disconnection between the marketing-talk and reality.

I get that one may think after reading the Den scathing reviews that people here are impossible to please, get-out-of-my-lawn, stop having fun guys. I think it's more people hating being lied to on the game package.

I still think Ninja Burger should have been Ninja Pizza...

Prak_Anima wrote:I still think Ninja Burger should have been Ninja Pizza...

Nah, that's for the next edition. Then the grognards can complain that pizza toppings are too customizable, and they were just fine with "choose kind of meat, choose kind of bun, go" (and the optional Non-Meat Proficiency system, but real roleplayers think there's too much cheese in there), while new players will enjoy picking all their toppings and crust types and otherwise customizing everything to suit and will constantly deride the previous system as being too limited and clunky (wait, prices go down instead of up for combo meals!?).

nockermensch wrote: I get that one may think after reading the Den scathing reviews that people here are impossible to please, get-out-of-my-lawn, stop having fun guys. I think it's more people hating being lied to on the game package.

I think that the contempt for Pathfinder and 4th Edition fans gives weight to the former label. That, and several Den regulars spend a lot more time focusing on what they hate in RPGs rather than what they like.

The Den does have some very good analysis on flaws in RPGs, but the way it goes about this doesn't give it a good reputation.

Libertad wrote:

nockermensch wrote: I get that one may think after reading the Den scathing reviews that people here are impossible to please, get-out-of-my-lawn, stop having fun guys. I think it's more people hating being lied to on the game package.

I think that the contempt for Pathfinder and 4th Edition fans gives weight to the former label. That, and several Den regulars spend a lot more time focusing on what they hate in RPGs rather than what they like.

The Den does have some very good analysis on flaws in RPGs, but the way it goes about this doesn't give it a good reputation.

Yet it's very easy to argue that 4e/Pathfinder both were lying on the label, thus not really invalidating his statement.

Seerow wrote: Yet it's very easy to argue that 4e/Pathfinder both were lying on the label, thus not really invalidating his statement.

Yes, but fans of both games are derided and implied to be unintelligent, even though they're having fun playing a game with flaws. I wasn't saying that he was wrong in the "hate being lied to," just that the former "stop having fun guy" line had some weight to it.

And it's not just those two RPG fandoms which are derided, either. TGD has a very negative atmosphere towards tabletop games in general, even towards 3rd Edition.

Emerald wrote:

Prak_Anima wrote:I still think Ninja Burger should have been Ninja Pizza...

Nah, that's for the next edition. Then the grognards can complain that pizza toppings are too customizable, and they were just fine with "choose kind of meat, choose kind of bun, go" (and the optional Non-Meat Proficiency system, but real roleplayers think there's too much cheese in there), while new players will enjoy picking all their toppings and crust types and otherwise customizing everything to suit and will constantly deride the previous system as being too limited and clunky (wait, prices go down instead of up for combo meals!?).

Someone was following that mess on theRPGsite.