Whipstitch wrote:If you give everyone a way of getting around every situation than that's just going to lead to the guy who really understands the system solving every scenario without even having to bother talking to anyone else much like how sufficiently high level wizards do in D&D.
That depends entirely on how it's done. You seem to be assuming a system where cooperation is not necessary, (like earlier iterations of D&D) where you had genuine "rock, paper, scissors" mechanics. "I cast rock." "Paper challenge is defeated." Instead of a system using binary "pass/fail" for every situation, you'd use a more granular system of success.
There's still certainly room for "pass/fail" on very simple things, (esp. in instances where the whole of the group is not/does not want to be involved, to get back to group play quickly.) but any situation that is a genuine challenge to the whole of the group, a granular system of success allows contribution of more than one individual.
Whipstitch wrote:Meanwhile if team avatar needs to build a dam then the earth and water benders have obvious things to offer the project and it'd be dumb to not include them even if it was the Fire Bender who came up with the idea. It's not a perfect solution, but it does give options to work as a team while still giving people the ability to point at their sheet and say "I have things I bring to the table that nobody else does."
Again, I don't have much to contribute within the cannon of this analogy, because I'm not really familiar with it. From sake's description the canon seems to be based on a certain inequity that I'd be trying to avoid.
Anyhow, assuming we were willing to bend the inequitable rules of cannon to create a more equitably playable game, why wouldn't our little airmonkey be using wind to uproot trees for supports or our firemonkey be cooking off water before it gets there, baking the ground or even melting stone for a more structurally sound base? No, these answers are not as immediately obvious as "I use my magic water power to hold back water" or "I use my magic earth power to just make a whole fucking dam immediately and make everyone else of no real use." On the other hand, they seem to be valid contributions to me, and when you encourage such stipulations as "your magic earth power will not create a dam [of a size that is a pretty big task for individuals of your character advancement] immediately" you encourage cooperation through necessity. Permissiveness likewise encourages creativity in use.
RadiantPhoenix wrote:Why build a system without really long combats just so Senior doesn't feel like a burden?
I didn't say that you should build a system that prohibits long combats. I said that I don't see a point in creating a system in which the only time one player will be of any substantive use is in long combats, and then be forced to include them so that individual can be of use.
You can (admittedly, not nearly as easily) build a system in which there is something approaching equitable contribution, whatever the length of combat may be. If you choose to have short combats because your group doesn't like spending a lot of time in combat, then you don't have to. If you choose longer combats because you like them or because they are narratively appropriate, you can do so at your whim without having to artificially even them out in order to avoid keeping one player out in the cold: In short, the choice for "length of combat" becomes based entirely on the question "how long do
we like combat to be" rather than "how long does combat need to be so that we are not excluding players."
RadiantPhoenix wrote:You really don't get it, do you?
Assumptions of ignorance or stupidity on the part of your audience because of a lack of communication on your on part is a sure sign of failure in that endeavor.
Still, I think I understand very clearly what you are trying to say. You're working under a different set of assumptions than I am, and I'm trying to explain that those assumptions are not only unnecessary, but harmful to the end product. You seem to essentially be saying "it's okay, because the MC can adjust how the game is run to fix it." I'm asking you why it should be something that the MC has to fix in the first place.
RadiantPhoenix wrote:Everybody contributes something in each scenario, it's just that you arrange the scenarios so that, on average, all the players get approximately the same amount of, 'time to shine'.
Agreed, but there are stark differences in between being the guy contributing what can be accomplished by "an NPC class" and being the guy contributing in a way that is unique within the party. The more you move away from binary success, the greater the possibilities for "party contribution" become.
To harp on older D&D for a minute, you had two tracks for victory in combat. One was hitpoint damage, the other was usually the save/no save track. At high levels you had casters with the ability to choose tracks and the rest of the party stuck on hitpoints. Casters generally went for the save track, so, in essence, the casters were actually playing a different game for victory. That gave us situations where the caster walks in, does their thing, and victory is achieved with little (or minimal) need for the remainder of the party. You had granular success and binary success, and granular success was the "chump game."
If you can introduce multiple instances of granular success that all contribute towards victory, then you have all individuals playing the same game and contributing in different ways. Consider something similar to Shadowrun's damage tracks. (it's been a good long while since I had a chance to look at old SR sadly, so forgive me if I'm a bit off on some of the details--it's the abstract concept that's important here anyhow.)
You had two damage tracks of the same length, and (for the most part) an unconscious individual is no more of a threat than a dead one--pursuing either track was generally just as effective, assuming equal defenses on each. I don't recall if dice pool penalties from each stacked, but let's assume they do for a moment: any track a player works against contributes to victory. Any track a player works against also eases the burden of the rest of the party as the effectiveness of the enemy decreases, making their cumulative success and victory easier. (this mechanic also creates a death-spiral, where initiative becomes increasingly important, but we'll skip that for now.)
RadiantPhoenix wrote:Maybe my RPS metaphor was bad. Maybe imagining it like Pokemon is better.
I am terrified of where this is going on general principle.
RadiantPhoenix wrote:If the Characters are Charizard and Venusaur, but Venusaur is feeling like a third wheel, then you can throw out enemies that are either faster than Charizard or slower than Venusaur to mitigate Charizard's speed advantage over Venusaur.
I'm again not really familiar with the source, but I think I get the gist.
In an initiative system where you're also tracking time between actions(?) you can introduce opponents that either move faster than player one or slower than player 2 to highlight the differences. Player 2 might feel better about being slower than player 1 because either Player 1 is now also slower than the enemy or he can say to himself "well at least I'm faster than the enemy" depending on choice of opponent.
I agree that in an instance such as this, this would be one of many ways to make Player 2 feel better about being slow, whether they are actually an equal contributor to victory or not. And the experience and perception of the player is a very important part of creating a satisfying game, but my point is this: if they're not actually an equal contributor, they're going to notice eventually. Contrast with a system where speed is less of a factor, and the MC is free to use enemies of whatever speed they wish, as is appropriate to their story, or satisfies the wants of the players.
If you put the burden of making them an equal contributor on our MC, rather than on yourself as a designer, then you've created a reason for our MC not to buy your product in the first place--he's having to devote additional time to actual game design considerations rather than setting up his part of the game--story, hooks, narrative, handouts or whatever. You may have a million other reasons for the MC to buy your game, and they may
very much outweigh that one reason not to. But why have that reason there in the first place if you can avoid it?
shadzar wrote:daily/encounter powers are pretty much miniature wargames constructs and have no sense being in something that doesnt intend to be used that way.
Yeah, it's a good thing 3e totally bypassed any idea of any powers based on a daily allowance or else it would have totally sucked too. So glad it had absolutely zero instances of powers linked to any sort of daily tracking. So. Very. Glad.
Also, I'm not really sure how something linked specifically to a "once per scene" use is at all a "miniature wargame" construct, but I'll take your word for it, since you clearly seem to know what you're talking about.
FrankTrollman wrote:As for Leper's rant that casting a save or die and winning on turn 1 would be better than laying down a solid fog and area nuking the place while your abilities continually recharged - that's retarded. The first part of save or die is "save or" as in there is a very real chance that a SoD does nothing when you cast it. A regenerating kite effect would basically make you win every time against enemies that lacked area counters.
Sure, if you assume that regenerating effects are also automatically successful--which I do not recall mentioning.
In short, I was discussing the difference between "save or instant win" vs. "save(defend) or work a little bit towards some measure of overall success." One is quite clearly better, and obviates the need for other players.
shadzar wrote:christmas lay-offs again? will Monte survive them to complete 5th edition? will ANYONE survive them to make 5th edition?
Holy crap, we're back on topic.
(sorry folks)
Another round of layoffs wouldn't really surprise me, but I don't think they're necessarily a certainty. Monte will most certainly still be there as long as Mearls is. And I'd say the only reason 5th won't make it out would be if Hasbro decides to shelf the whole IP for a few years to wait for some sort of renaissance in interest to re-release it. Given that you've got a pretty big anniversary coming up soon, I would say that's unlikely.
On the other hand, I don't expect 5th edition to be a genuine step forward in gaming, either.
