Math That "Just Works"

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

baduin
Master
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:12 pm

Post by baduin »

Shazbot79 wrote: My understanding is that characters should be getting steadily better against level appropriate challenges as they progress.
If a character is getting better against level-appropriate challenge, the challenge stops being level appropriate. Your feeling of advancement comes from becoming stronger against the green level 1 orcs. The red level 10 orcs are as dangerous at level 10 as green orcs were at level 1. On the other hand, when you are at level 10 the pink level 8 orcs are weakish and have to be fought in groups. If the GM wants you to feel stronger, he can send pink orcs instead of red orcs at level 10. That is a feature, not a bug.

If you want to easily defeat ALL opponents at level 10, the combat subgame stops being a game. If you want to fight weaker enemies in big groups, it is possible, but the game must be set up so that fighting masses of enemies is neither slow not boring.
"Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat."
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

While challenges need to stay roughly as challenging for higher level characters as they were for lower level characters, remember that a challenge is not "a monster" it is "the monsters". In a standard fantasy system, the assumption is that as you go up in levels the number of enemies on the field increases and there are more crowd control powers. The amount of a challenge represented by a single enemy thus drops as levels go up. A 1st level monster might show up with 2 or 3 friends, while a 10th level monster might show up with 10 or 12. But the threat posed by all of those enemies together is still roughly the same as for the much smaller group you faced 9 levels ago.

This is not true of all genres. If you were talking about Wuxia, the trope is generally that a low level challenge is a lot of mooks, a mid level challenge is a small number of ninjas, and a high level challenge is one enemy with a name and a unique fighting style. But again, while the number of enemies that constitute "a challenge" changes over time, the threat represented by "a challenge" should not.

-Username17
baduin
Master
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:12 pm

Post by baduin »

FrankTrollman wrote:While challenges need to stay roughly as challenging for higher level characters as they were for lower level characters, remember that a challenge is not "a monster" it is "the monsters". In a standard fantasy system, the assumption is that as you go up in levels the number of enemies on the field increases and there are more crowd control powers. The amount of a challenge represented by a single enemy thus drops as levels go up. A 1st level monster might show up with 2 or 3 friends, while a 10th level monster might show up with 10 or 12. But the threat posed by all of those enemies together is still roughly the same as for the much smaller group you faced 9 levels ago.
I think it is mostly a matter of terminology. In D&D, CR is supposed to work on individual level. A CR 10 monster should be equal to a level 10 character. If one wants to have more monster, one sends lower CR monsters.

Of course, it is possible to explicitly design monsters in such a way that CR 1 is equal to one level 1 character, but four CR 10 monsters are needed to equal one 10 level character. This could easily lead to confusion, however.

I think it is better to use clear terminology, eg D&D 4ed style minion/ordinary/elite.
"Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat."
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5201
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

Sashi wrote:Wait, what? Make sense.
Okay. I'm not sure if what Frank is saying is tying into what I'm saying, or not. Still, that +5 bonus is not from a +5 sword. It's your character's total non-level dependent bonus to sword things in the face. So, a guy with Face Stab +0 is really shitty at stabbing things in the face equal to his level. The guy with a +5 is good. A guy with +3 is intermediate.

Level just adds on top of that, so that way a mid level wizard (shitty Face Stabber) could fight a low level fighter (good Face Stabber) and be on par (that's just counting going toe-to-toe, not spells or abilities or anything).

Likewise, if you reverse it, a mid level fighter should totally dominate a low level wizard in toe-to-toe combat. The fighter gets his +5 good bonus plus his level bonus, and the wizard's sitting there with a piddly bonus that can't compete.


Again, I don't care where the +0 to +5 bonus comes from. I don't care if it's a table lookup or a sum of other things (Str + skill). The point is, that number measures your Face Stabbing ability against equal level foes.

Would some examples help?

Shazbot79 wrote:Here the math "works" and is balanced, assuming of course that challenge numbers are commensurate with this value...but characters are pretty much on a treadmill where they never gain any real ground, except against challenges below their level. Is this the way it's supposed to work?
Yes. Why should a 5th level fighter be better at fighting 5th level things than a 1st level fighter is against 1st level things? You get better because you get cool abilities on top of that. These are your ToB maneuvers, or spells, or whatever.

The bonuses I was talking about are just strictly the math side of things. I hadn't yet gotten into the aspect stabbing everyone adjacent to you or ignoring hardness or something. Those things are separate.
baduin
Master
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:12 pm

Post by baduin »

The 0 to 5 range of the level dependent bonuses is only for the abilities which are supposed to be used in combat. Characters can have in addition vestigial abilities which are not supposed to be level adequate.

Eg if a wizard is supposed to attack enemies only with magic, his ability to attack them with a melee weapon can fall below the allowed range. He still will have some ability to hit them with a dagger for the reason of plausibility - everyone can hit things with a dagger. But it will not be level adequate.

On the other hand the ability of wizard to defend against melee attacks should probably be level appropriate- but only after taking into account the buffing spells he is supposed to use.
"Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat."
Sashi
Knight-Baron
Posts: 723
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 6:52 pm

Post by Sashi »

Robby, just to be clear, this:
RobbyPants wrote:Maybe if you get some +3 armor, you might have incentive not to boost your Dex mod to +2.
So when you say
RobbyPants wrote:Still, that +5 bonus is not from a +5 sword.
I agree with you, but I was confused because I was saying that and you were disagreeing with me.
Last edited by Sashi on Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:11 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 »

I'm not getting that Sashi. What I'm seeing with all this is that you have a baseline face-stabbing capability for everyone that is level X. By virtue of being a "fighter", your face-stabbing capability is X+5.

With Frank's view of magic swords, there is also the bonus you could get from one on top of all that. So, a +4 sword will give our hypothetical fighter face-stabbing skill of X+9. If you take that sword away, the fighter is still at X+5, but the wizard that you gave that same sword to is now at X+4.

Did that help any?
Sashi
Knight-Baron
Posts: 723
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 6:52 pm

Post by Sashi »

I totally get that. Again, it comes down to the line "Maybe if you get some +3 armor, you might have incentive not to boost your Dex mod to +2." Which is totally not true. If you get +3 armor you either try and get a +3 dex bonus so you can overflow into a higher-than-level-appropriate bonus, the game assumes you're supposed to have that +3 bonus and makes you suck if you put the armor down, or the game clamps down and says "I don't care if you have a +6 bonus total, it's capped at +5".

My point was that if the game assumes you're supposed to have a +3 bonus from the armor at level 9, then you've really just split the level progression from "Level 9: +12 AC bonus" into "Level 9: +9 AC bonus and +3 enhancement bonus to armor", which is needlessly complex and obfuscates that a level 9 character with +4 armor actually has level appropriate +1 armor.
violence in the media
Duke
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

Post by violence in the media »

I think, and this is based on the comments about swords greater than +2 being artifacts with histories and going back to AD&D style magic item acquisition, that the game will NOT be assuming you have a particular gear bonus by a certain level. Getting that gear bonus will allow you to function as a higher level creature in whatever mechanics that gear affects. If you do happen to have a +4 sword, then physical battles against level-appropriate enemies become that much easier AND it opens up the possibility of successful fights against higher level foes.

I'm kind of ignoring that quote you're citing from RobbyPants, as he admitted it was rough and it was early in the discussion.
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5201
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

Sashi wrote:Robby, just to be clear, this:
RobbyPants wrote:Maybe if you get some +3 armor, you might have incentive not to boost your Dex mod to +2.
So when you say
RobbyPants wrote:Still, that +5 bonus is not from a +5 sword.
I agree with you, but I was confused because I was saying that and you were disagreeing with me.
Okay. My bad. Sorry.


violence in the media wrote:I'm not getting that Sashi. What I'm seeing with all this is that you have a baseline face-stabbing capability for everyone that is level X. By virtue of being a "fighter", your face-stabbing capability is X+5.

With Frank's view of magic swords, there is also the bonus you could get from one on top of all that. So, a +4 sword will give our hypothetical fighter face-stabbing skill of X+9. If you take that sword away, the fighter is still at X+5, but the wizard that you gave that same sword to is now at X+4.

Did that help any?
That's what I'm thinking, although, personally, I wouldn't allow +4 swords in the first place. It would simply be X+5 for fighters and X+0 for wizards. Otherwise you run into the crap where you have to have a +4 sword to be competitive at various levels, and that's the fail that 4E brought us.

Personally, I'd rather magical swords do things rather than add plusses. It makes them more interesting, and it's less to take into account with getting the math to work.
TheFlatline
Prince
Posts: 2606
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:43 pm

Post by TheFlatline »

FrankTrollman wrote:
Personally, I prefer option 1. Once the game has been set up where the math works, and beating enemies beyond your level means something, getting tools that let you fight enemies beyond your level and then fighting them is fun. But that being said, you'd have to go back to an AD&D model of weaponry where you couldn't expect to buy or produce a +4 sword. Possibly a model in which you could make +2 magic items, but higher bonuses happened when swords were used in historically significant ways and leveled up. So literally every magic item with a higher than standard bonus was an artifact with a history.
I love the idea of magic items being something that elevates you beyond your normal capabilities, so you could take on even more badass monsters sooner.

But that means from a design standpoint that you're going to have to have fighters who can address flying NPCs and DR and other sh*t without relying heavily on magical items. Which is cool, but it is a design consideration.

And just to comment, big thumbs up on someone saying that the Wizard ends up saying "there's an app for that!" to just about every situation. The problem with making one character or another excel in some way is that you eventually, sooner or later, get some whiny pissant who needs to come up with 12 new spells for padding in their new supplement, and says "why can fighters cleave through monsters but Wizards can't? I'll just make a spell for that." Without some hard, and probably arbitrary rules, you'll always get magic that power creeps.
Manxome
Knight-Baron
Posts: 977
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Manxome »

TheFlatline wrote:who needs to come up with 12 new spells for padding in their new supplement
I think there's a more fundamental problem here: if some classes get new powers written into each supplement and others don't, there's really no good outcome possible. Either the options are traps, which means they confuse newbies and waste space, or they're worth using, in which case we know the affected classes are power creeping, no matter what the details are.

In short, you probably shouldn't be allowed to write new wizard spells into a supplement. You should instead write a new class with a different (possibly overlapping) spell list, or add options to some generic list that is accessible to all classes.

Or at least, if you do write new wizard spells, the game needs to give similar buffs to all classes. Including classes that, themselves, are from supplements. And maybe all monsters, too, since they need to be balanced against the PCs. Which is probably not an enforcable plan in the long run.

But in any case, the thing where some classes get new toys in every splatbook and others don't is a non-starter.
User avatar
CatharzGodfoot
King
Posts: 5668
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by CatharzGodfoot »

Manxome, if you're actually trying to sell books then a small degree of power creep (in terms of good new options) is good. Ideally none of your core options will be traps, and the slight variation is usefulness of powers will not cause a big power-up when an old class gains new options.

If you're not trying to sell books, then you can work from the idea that you'll keep the total number of options for each class approximately equal.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France

Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.

-Josh Kablack

Manxome
Knight-Baron
Posts: 977
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Manxome »

Even if you're doing scheduled power creep, I don't see any possible justification for creeping just the spellcasters, unless those are the only PC classes in your system.

And while power creep may be good from a marketing standpoint, I don't see why it would be good from a game balance perspective. So unless I'm missing something, in a thread is about fixing the math, your argument would probably be better phrased not as "power creep is good" but "power creep will be demanded by external concerns, so breaking the math a little bit is unavoidable."
User avatar
PoliteNewb
Duke
Posts: 1053
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:23 am
Location: Alaska
Contact:

Post by PoliteNewb »

Manxome wrote:Even if you're doing scheduled power creep, I don't see any possible justification for creeping just the spellcasters, unless those are the only PC classes in your system.

And while power creep may be good from a marketing standpoint, I don't see why it would be good from a game balance perspective. So unless I'm missing something, in a thread is about fixing the math, your argument would probably be better phrased not as "power creep is good" but "power creep will be demanded by external concerns, so breaking the math a little bit is unavoidable."
Power creep via class boosting (new class abilities, and that includes spells) is shitty, because it means you don't really have a coherent game...you have people playing with the core books, and then you have people playing with the 40 splatbooks that came out...and those two games will look nothing alike. More importantly, things with the same NAMES (like "wizard" and "fighter") will look nothing alike.

If you tell me "I'm playing a D&D wizard" and I can't know what the fuck that means without knowing what additional books you own (or the DM allows), the game is fucked.

Some power creep probably IS unavoidable, but it should be as separated from core concepts (like class/race) as possible...magic items is a strong (and likely) possibility. If you tell someone "I have a Sword of Penultimate Slicing", that has an easy to understand meaning...it means this guy bought "Eldritch Crafting" and has a cool sword from that book.

But yeah, rather than stealth-buffing old classes, just introduce new ones...new races too, while you're at it.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

So now let's talk about balancing PC offensive output. Of course the immediate thing that springs to mind is "Can't we just divide enemy resilience by the number of rounds we want combat to last and call those damage benchmarks?" And the answer of course is yes. But, there's a hearty but coming after that, because "enemy resilience" is not the resilience of one enemy, it is the resilience of the entire enemy encounter. And the number of rounds you want combat to last won't be static. It's usual to want combats to last longer at higher levels so that players can show off their deeper ability lists - but some people like a more rocket launcher tag setup at higher level, try to know your audience.

So anyway, having set benchmarks for player resilience, and for monster damage output, and decided on a number of rounds you want battle to progress, you can now calculate how many enemies you should have in a "Standard" encounter at each level. And you do that by simply totaling up enough enemies that they should take out the players in a couple more turns than the battles are projected to last.

Then you have a set of enemies, so you give them a set of resilience numbers individually (and arbitrarily), and then you have real benchmarks for how much enemy there is to cut through on Team Monster at each level. Now divide up that effort amongst the number of players and then pace it out so that it is on average completed in the proper number of turns.

This is not particularly difficult, but it is fairly time consuming.

-Username17
Manxome
Knight-Baron
Posts: 977
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Manxome »

Though it becomes difficult (as well as time-consuming) when you start to throw around effects that deal circumstantially-dependent amounts of damage.

For example, the total damage out put of a fireball changes depending on how many enemies you can get in its area of effect when you cast it. That, in turn, depends on the number of enemies you're fighting, the environment you're fighting them in, your ability to force or entice enemies to move where you want them, whether you're willing to catch allies in the blast (at a penalty affected by your allies' defensive abilities), etc.

Obviously, that means that fireball will be better than other attack options in some circumstances and worse in others. Choosing parameters that make it "balanced overall" involves choosing an arbitrary standard for how much and how often a specialized attack should help you, and then making a lot of incredibly complicated and subtle estimates in order to apply that standard in a vaguely fair fashion not just to fireball but also to chain lightning, poison cloud, and all your other attacks that deal different total amounts of damage depending on the circumstances.

As an example, while designing Descent: The Enduring Evil, I made a complicated spreadsheet for comparing hero attacks to monsters resilience as a balancing aid. "Normal" attacks used exact calculations to determine the average number of swings needed to bring down a monster. But in order to support other weapons, I had to plug in algorithms for estimating the utility of various forms of area damage, damage-over-time, and other effects. I think I did pretty well, but having played the finished product for a while, I also think that weapons with certain abilities ended up systematically over- or under-powered because my estimate for how often their ability would apply was off.


Of course, that's kind of a good thing. If a game is entirely straightforward to balance, that usually means the optimal strategy is obvious, which isn't so good for gameplay.



Also, side note, if an encounter is supposed to have enough damage output to take out an individual PC before the combat ends, then you need to take attrition into account when setting damage benchmarks.
User avatar
Echoes
Journeyman
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:58 am
Location: Ohio

Post by Echoes »

RobbyPants wrote: Personally, I'd rather magical swords do things rather than add plusses. It makes them more interesting, and it's less to take into account with getting the math to work.
This. The system should, ideally, be set up so that any random fighter can grab a random weapon and face-stab level-appropriate monsters effectively. He shouldn't need a special weapon to do this. Magical weapons should have properties like "On Fire: hitting people with this sets them on fire". In short, the flaming katana should be special because it's on fire. That's all it does, and everyone thinks that's plenty badass. It shouldn't get tossed aside because it's not also a +4 weapon.
For CaptPike: 4E was a terrible game and a total business failure. These are facts that I am stating with absolute certainty.
Sashi
Knight-Baron
Posts: 723
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 6:52 pm

Post by Sashi »

I think one of the things 4E has conclusively proven is that if the math is even close to "just work"ing, then static +X bonuses need to be literally exclusionary: instead of just requiring a rare resource like a feat or magic item slot, the choice needs to be explicitly between +1 attack or +1 defense (or just excluded altogether). Even if +2 attack in a situation that occurs 80% of the time is mechanically better than +1 100% of the time, the +1 has the added value of "don't need to remember when this applies" and "DM can't screw you over by denying you 'special situation'" that means the choice isn't "take +1 to attack or +1 to defense feat" but which order to take them in. Which means the choice need to be "do I attack like I'm 1 level higher, or defend like I'm 1 level higher" and not "do I need to attack like I'm 1 level higher before I defend like I'm 1 level higher".
Manxome
Knight-Baron
Posts: 977
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Manxome »

Sashi, I read that entire post twice and I have no clue what you're trying to say. You mention about 4 different possible choices a player might be asked to make, and I can't figure out how you think they're related, which one(s) you're recommending, or why.

Which might be related to you averaging 57 words per sentence.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Manxome wrote:Though it becomes difficult (as well as time-consuming) when you start to throw around effects that deal circumstantially-dependent amounts of damage.
It gets worse than that. There are attacks that don't do damage at all, but which nonetheless improve the party's chances of beating team monster. Some of these might be Save or Die setups, others might be Save or Suck or battlefield division techniques.

Putting a value on things other than single target attacks that do some amount of damage and have some chance of failure between 0 and 100% is extremely tricky. Not impossible, but very tricky. But it can be done, and if you're trying to make the math "just work" you're going to have to put in some effort in making it work.

And yes, when the rubber hits the road and people are playing actual games, your assumptions will almost invariably be wrong. In reality, the players won't be playing in a generic campaign, they will be in a specific campaign. And while they are in Against The Giants they are going to prioritize things that are effective against big strong brute monsters, because that will be a disproportionate amount of the opposition.

Anyway, another thing you have to do is figure out how to avoid having group monoculture be the wave of the future like it is in 4e D&D. There is a predisposition in abilities that march towards victory on some axis or another to self synergize and thus encourage the whole group to do the same thing. That sort of thing is why Knights of the Round exists in 4e, and it's basically a bad thing. There are ways around it, but it's something to look out for - because it's an emergent property that is quite easy to derive from a simple mathematical basis, whether the math "works" or not.

-Username17
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Manxome wrote:Though it becomes difficult (as well as time-consuming) when you start to throw around effects that deal circumstantially-dependent amounts of damage.
It gets worse than that. There are attacks that don't do damage at all, but which nonetheless improve the party's chances of beating team monster. Some of these might be Save or Die setups, others might be Save or Suck or battlefield division techniques.

Putting a value on things other than single target attacks that do some amount of damage and have some chance of failure between 0 and 100% is extremely tricky. Not impossible, but very tricky. But it can be done, and if you're trying to make the math "just work" you're going to have to put in some effort in making it work.

And yes, when the rubber hits the road and people are playing actual games, your assumptions will almost invariably be wrong. In reality, the players won't be playing in a generic campaign, they will be in a specific campaign. And while they are in Against The Giants they are going to prioritize things that are effective against big strong brute monsters, because that will be a disproportionate amount of the opposition.

Anyway, another thing you have to do is figure out how to avoid having group monoculture be the wave of the future like it is in 4e D&D. There is a predisposition in abilities that march towards victory on some axis or another to self synergize and thus encourage the whole group to do the same thing. That sort of thing is why Knights of the Round exists in 4e, and it's basically a bad thing. There are ways around it, but it's something to look out for - because it's an emergent property that is quite easy to derive from a simple mathematical basis, whether the math "works" or not.

-Username17
Koumei
Serious Badass
Posts: 13879
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: South Ausfailia

Post by Koumei »

FrankTrollman wrote: It gets worse than that. There are attacks that don't do damage at all, but which nonetheless improve the party's chances of beating team monster. Some of these might be Save or Die setups, others might be Save or Suck or battlefield division techniques.

Putting a value on things other than single target attacks that do some amount of damage and have some chance of failure between 0 and 100% is extremely tricky. Not impossible, but very tricky. But it can be done, and if you're trying to make the math "just work" you're going to have to put in some effort in making it work.
Wasn't the 4E playtesting all about writing, round by round, how much damage or healing they did, and to just put an asterisk if they performed some non-hurty non-healy action? Thus showing that the emphasis is all on HP, and they still don't seem to understand the value of "misc", which served as a wonderful hint at the time that the game was going to be bad?

Basically it sounds like that's exactly what not to do if you want your math to work, because those abilities have a value that isn't "other", and thus need that value understood and recorded.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Koumei wrote: Wasn't the 4E playtesting all about writing, round by round, how much damage or healing they did, and to just put an asterisk if they performed some non-hurty non-healy action? Thus showing that the emphasis is all on HP, and they still don't seem to understand the value of "misc", which served as a wonderful hint at the time that the game was going to be bad?

Basically it sounds like that's exactly what not to do if you want your math to work, because those abilities have a value that isn't "other", and thus need that value understood and recorded.
Yes. Noonan's tirade about bean counting damage round by round and then treating all "other effects" as a minor and interchangeable perk was an essential declaration that even if the math worked for 4th edition that it wouldn't matter.

Average damage outputs for the PCs aren't even really very important or interesting. The key is average victory times. It has to be shorter than the amount of time it will take Team Monster to defeat the players. But whether it is done through damage or fear effects doesn't actually matter. The methods of evaluating PC offensive output are going to depend massively on what kind of offensive output there actually is. But what you're concerned about is intra-party synergy and victory times. Not Bean Counting damage. You're concerned about to-hit chances only because you're trying to maintain die tension and keep individual players from feeling ineffectual.

-Username17
User avatar
Previn
Knight-Baron
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 2:40 pm

Post by Previn »

FrankTrollman wrote:Yes. Noonan's tirade about bean counting damage round by round and then treating all "other effects" as a minor and interchangeable perk was an essential declaration that even if the math worked for 4th edition that it wouldn't matter.
Do you have a link to this? It would be an interesting read, and I'm not turning anything up quickly with google.
Post Reply