The concept of level

Sunwitch · Post by **Sunwitch** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:14 am

Rock, paper, and scissors are all the same "level" (which would be to say that they all can take on level-appropriate challenges roughly 50% of the time, rock, for instance, losing against paper and kicking scissors' ass while drawing versus itself), and yet every victory is achieved flawlessly and predictably within that context.

So one could say 3) One guy's weak to another guy.
Or something.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:15 am

God_of_Awesome · Post by **God_of_Awesome** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:17 am

When the fuck did I mix up class and race, man? Just because you and I argue alot about thing doesn't mean you should shove words in my mouth.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:23 am

God_of_Awesome · Post by **God_of_Awesome** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:42 am

Yeah, I've given up on Fighter and I've taken the RoW Knight to fill that sword shaped hole in my heart.

Sunwitch · Post by **Sunwitch** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:51 am

ubernoob wrote:No. Wrong. In an RPG with levels, level is explicitly a measure of your power. If it is not, then your RPG has no concept of balance and is a shitty RPG that shouldn't be using levels. End of discussion. QED.

And why is it unreasonable to say that your "power" just works better against certain guys than others? I don't see anything wrong with allowing the giant-hunter to be better at killing giants while the wind mage fucks up flying targets. It potentially allows for better strategy while also allowing the GM to throw in more birds if the wind mage isn't getting enough attention. Not only that, but it seems only natural; making all decisions equally viable under all scenarios seems both infeasible and undesirable.

Though yes, there's no good reason for two characters of the same level to have one guy who's just plain "better" than the other.

ggroy · Post by **ggroy** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:54 am

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:00 am

Archmage · Post by **Archmage** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:07 am

ubernoob wrote:It's fine to have marginal advantage, but when you get into RPS determinism in a game where you are effectively the rock or scissors you change it into a game of "Look for A while running the fuck away from B every single time" and that isn't a good game.

Yeah, in a game where you as a single player have access to rock, paper, and scissors for different scenarios, an RPS design is fine. This is the case in a lot of video games. You rotate through your arsenal and use the right tool for the job, because that's how those games work.

But in a tabletop game, you just play one character with one set of powers. So if you essentially choose rock, paper, or scissors one time and are then forced to make the same choice for the next 1,000 games of RPS, the end result isn't very interesting at all.

In order for an RPS system to work, each player needs to be able to switch between rock, paper, and scissors options each "round," and that's just the beginning of making RPS a good play model.

Sunwitch · Post by **Sunwitch** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:09 am

ubernoob wrote:
Mauver wrote:
ubernoob wrote:No. Wrong. In an RPG with levels, level is explicitly a measure of your power. If it is not, then your RPG has no concept of balance and is a shitty RPG that shouldn't be using levels. End of discussion. QED.
And why is it unreasonable to say that your "power" just works better against certain guys than others? I don't see anything wrong with allowing the giant-hunter to be better at killing giants while the wind mage fucks up flying targets. It potentially allows for better strategy while also allowing the GM to throw in more birds if the wind mage isn't getting enough attention. Not only that, but it seems only natural; making all decisions equally viable under all scenarios seems both infeasible and undesirable.

Though yes, there's no good reason for two characters of the same level to have one guy who's just plain "better" than the other.
Because any game where Enemy Type X beats Enemy Type Y every single time is a bad game? It's fine to have marginal advantage, but when you get into RPS determinism in a game where you are effectively the rock or scissors you change it into a game of "Look for A while running the fuck away from B every single time" and that isn't a good game.

I'd say it could possibly be good in something that isn't an RPG, specifically something where any one player will have a bunch of guys who are either rock, paper, or scissors and stay that way, yeah, it kind of shafts any game where characters are actually supposed to be important. I didn't quite get that by "fairly easily" you meant "100% of the time".

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:16 am

Mauver, your problem is you are misquoting him. Read the below:

ubernoob wrote:If someone is more powerful than someone (not powerful in different ways, but meaningfully more powerful)

The thread is explicitly dealing with people who say things like:

Rogues aren't supposed to be as good in combat as fighters! Because Rogues are not combat classes.

Or JEs Fighter rants of stupid. "Fighters fight better than everyone else. If a fictional character fights at all, they are definitionally a fighter, and that's why the Fighter class shoudl be better than every other character class."

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:42 am

Always with the putting of words in my mouth.

I never said Fighters have to fight better than anyone else. They should be on par with other people that fight. The problem is that two characters of the same class can seriously have diverging amounts of power; and as more levels are added, and more time is put into looking over material, that certain combinations get added to a character.

Stuff like TWF is on... a lot of builds, since it doubles your attacks. Whirlwind is on a lot of "fast" characters, be they monk, Barbarian, or Monk/Barbarian. Fiends with lots of natural attacks pick up stuff like Carrier.

While some feats, like say... Ghost Hunter and Murderous Intent are usually used in more fringe or specialist builds.

Regarding fictional characters; yes, trying to shoehorn in a character into a class often doesn't work, but then most of D&D has very little to do with real stories. Gandalf was as much a wizard as Thorin Oakenshield was a fighter. Neither were. At least not by any standards that D&D uses. Thorin was able to cast spells to protect and hide treasure, and could talk to birds that recognized him, and could call in an army of dwarves when he had taken a castle. Nothing in D&D can replicate that, save for a "King under the Mountain" Prestige Class.

The thing is, we're still going to try and make classes that can replicate characters from stories. The story of the guy who leaves the battle after running out of +1 flaming burst arrows for his +5 composite longbow is a D&D story, but it's also one that bothers people.

Either really niching things like class, or using an overlaying set of rules to allow for more similarities to fiction are two options. I'm not sure which is better, or if either is right.

Also, regarding level. Fights by nature are not balanced. They never are, and the basic tenets of the art of war are all about creating inbalances, or exploiting inbalanced situations.

I think that an other main difference is that I expect characters to have the same amount of lethality at higher levels, as they did at lower levels.

Killing an orc every round is possible at 1st level play. Killing a Fire Giant, or two, every round should be possible at 11th level play. They're slightly weaker than you, and your power has been increasing (ideally) in a commensurate manner.

I'm not a big fan of "you're level X, fights last forever, even against creatures your CR" ever being something that should be part of the game. The point of creatures is to die, fast. Only named characters should last an appreciable amount of time in a fight.

Having mooks last more than two rounds against equal level PCs means that they mooks have some sort of special defense (puzzle monster); or the game has it's Heroism setting all the way down to "Warhammer Fantasy RPG"; where the PCs are barely capable rat-catchers and scullery maids.

When I say mook, I mean, everything that wasn't supposed to talk to a PC, or a BBEG. Fire Giants in a lvl 11 game? Mooks. Rhemorazzes at lvl 7 games? Mooks. CR 15 Red Dragons in a lvl 15-16 game? Also, mooks.

The only thing that the PCs should ever care about, are named encounters. Everything else they can stomp all over, avoid, sidestep, or kill via something I wasn't expecting and I don't give a shit about them doing so.

Meaning that I'm probably not playing or running the same D&D everyone else is. Like, at all. I think that may cause a lot of the problems I have with you two, Kaelik and Ubernoob. I feel that trash mobs are trash, and don't matter, so if the PCs can kill them in 2 rounds; then so be it, the game moves faster and the story advances with less time wasted in round after round of combat.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:53 am

1) JE, you just proved me right.

You just said "All fighters should be imbalanced." IE more powerful than other people of their level.

2) No you fucking idiot.

A creature of equal CR to you is not a mook that you should kill with ease.

Orcs are half your CR at level 1 and they can kill you in a single round to.

You do not get to take a single CR 10 character and wade through like 30 "mook" CR 10 characters.

That's fucking retarded.

The problem you have with all sane people is that you don't know what the word "trash" means.

Anything that is by definition your equal is not a trash mob.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:56 am

If you can kill someone else in an RPG fairly easily either one of two things is happening:
1) Your game isn't balanced at all and levels have no meaning. This means you have a shitty game, so you should avoid this.
2) One guy is higher level.

Or...

3) The game is PVE, not PVP. Your PVP stats mean as much and no more than your stats versus Unicorns or Charmanders.

Mauver got it in the first response. Rock Paper Scissors is a balanced game, and all choices are equal. They are all the same "level" in any definition you care to name. However, while they all have the same winning percentages, those winning percentages average out from starting points of 100%, 0%, and 50% against different foes. It's not only easy to imagine having a balanced game where one piece can easily kill another piece of the same level in direct confrontation - that shit predates dice at all. Diceless games essentially just give the victory to whoever has the advantage, and thus hand out victory percentages in specific direct confrontations of 100% or 0%. That they can be balanced overall merely means that the aggregate number of challenges bested 100% or 0% of the time by each character is equal.

So no, Ubernoob, you're wrong. Directly, obviously, and factually wrong. Shut up, because you're embarrassing yourself. And insulting other people to do it.

-Username17

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:03 am

FrankTrollman wrote:Your PVP stats mean as much and no more than your stats versus Unicorns or Charmanders.

In most RPGs you're more likely to fight unicorns or Charmanders than other players.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:04 am

Okay, again Frank. It's not about Rock paper scissors.

It's a direct contradiction to MGuy and JE saying:

"Rogues should not fight as well as fighters, Rogues should stand in a corner during fights."

And JEs:

"Fighters are unbalanced, That's what Fighters do. Fighters beat everyone in combat all the time because they are just that awesome. Fighters should be better than every other class. FIGHTERS JIZZ IN MY PANTS!"

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:05 am

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:06 am

Amber functions just fine on the extended RPS metaphor. Stop being an idiot.

-Username17

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:13 am

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:39 am

The RPS analogy is a solid one uber, and has everything to do with telling a story when it's the foundation of a roleplaying game mechanics. However, it seems to be a different type of power than what you are assigning to level. It's situational power vs. absolute power.

For instance: Rock, Paper, and Scissors are all on the same level. They have the same aggregate power (beat one tie one lose one). Rock has situational power over Scissors, while Paper has situational power over Rock.

Now, introduce a Machine Gun. Machine Gun beats Rock and Paper. This gives it a higher aggregate power (beat two lose one), thus with what uber is saying would make it a higher level. It holds absolute power over the other three because the odds are better for it.

If the concept of this thread is actually about the concept of a level and not "herp derp JE is teh retardz", Frank's points are perfectly valid.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:10 am

RPS game design is fundamentally stupid in table RPGs for the exact same reasons that disadvantage abilities that you trade for real power are generally pretty damn bad in RPGs.

But don't even TRY and argue that here because Franky likes his RPS and no amount of reason on the topic will change that or change the opinions of the but kiss brigade.

Absentminded_Wizard · Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:03 am

The first thing I thought of when Mauver posted his RPS example was the Same Game test. Basically, in RPS you pick one of three objects to represent you, and your opponent can be one of the same three objects. Each object beats one of the two others 100% of the time, loses to one of the others 100% of the time, and always ties with its mirror match. By Same Game standards, this is balanced.

Granted, the Same Game test was developed for a game with dice where your odds of winning are usually going to be a percentage between 0 and 100. However, it looks like such a pure RPS setup could work in an RPG, since the game's supposed to be based on cooperation and your teammates making up for your weaknesses. I'm not sure how that would work out in Amber, specifically, though. From everything I've heard about the game, the PCs are spoiled, contentious godlings who may or may not have reason to have each other's back. And also may attack each other at any time.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:11 am

I posted what example? Mauver posted the Rock Paper Scissors thing not me. I haven't posted in this thread because it has nothing to to with me or anything that I've posted on this site. I don't even know why Uber even posted my name on this stupid shit. I haven't been in any discussions about what level and race mean.

Absentminded_Wizard · Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:14 am

Oops, sorry. Both names start with M and I'd read the fighter hate thread right before this one. The post has been corrected.

The Gaming Den

The concept of level

The concept of level

Re: The concept of level