WFRP: I think I just crapped my pants with joy.
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 948
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Okay, what the fuck is up with the new people in this thread? Are you guys seriously spawning other accounts to try to make your goddamned points?
I'm looking at you: Kobajagrande, and you: Frantic. If you are legitimate new people, then please feel free to make a point and have a net positive contribution on a thread. *Hint* you ain't doing it right now.
Yes, it is a huge goddamned problem if taking levels in Evil Wizard makes you flat out better than taking levels in Good Wizard. This is the opposite of balanced. Let me get your quote on the subject...
"There's no CR in this game, so saying the uber good guys aren't as strong as the uber bad guys is pretty meaningless...since both only appear on whims, there's nothing to prevent 1.3 super good guys appearing for every ONE bad guy, if the odd and design contraindicated goal of 'balance' is desired at some point."
The only problem with the above is that characters are taking levels in things like "Wizard" and "Cataclyst". Characters do not appear on a whim. Yes, balance is a DESIRED FEATURE OF A GAME SYSTEM. If a game system does not have balance, then it is NOT A GOOD SYSTEM. Yes, you can DM fiat away this problem (like almost every problem in a game system, if the DM realizes that it exists). No that is not a real argument. Indeed, there was a special fallacy created for this kind of shitty reasoning.
"Still, I don't see Dungeons and Dragons characters ever having the stats of a god or even some of the more epic monsters."
Are you fucking serious? If you play D&D for 2 more levels you will be better than the monsters that you fought 2 levels ago.
Let's take a quick trip down the goddamned monster manual, shall we?
At level 1, your party fights a camel (19 hp, +0/d4+2, AC 13, low light vision, scent, +5/+6/+1 saves, +5 to 2 skills).
At level 3, the party barbarian* is better (30 hp, +3/2d6+3, AC 15, fast movement, rage, +5/+2/+2 saves, +6 to 5 skills)
At level 5, your party fights a Troll (63 hp, AC 16, +9/+9/+4/d6+6/d6+6/d6+3, 2d6+9 Rend, Regen 5, +11/+4/+3 saves, +6 to 2 skills)
At level 7 your party barbarian is better (65 hp, AC 19, +11/+6/2d6+5/2d6+5, Rage, DR1, +8/+4/+4 saves, +10 to 5 skills)
I gave the level 7 barbarian a +2 weapon, mithril full plate, and a cloak of resistance. I'm not going any further than this because it actually involves picking gear and feats. Take note, he looks very suspiciously like a Troll in raw stats.
You can ask nearly anyone on this forum to make a character that is comparable to an Old Silver Dragon or whatever in 20 levels. Many of us have. So yes, you do see D&D characters have abilities comparable to CR 18-20 monsters. Level 9 spells at things such as "Summon Elemental Monolith" and "Cast in Stone" (grants free action 'turn to stone' within 30' for LVL rounds ). Although the Barbarian has lost traction at level 18, the Cleric, Druid, Rogue, Wizard, and Sorceror are all gaining abilities like "you are on fire all day". Yes, high level D&D character look just like monsters.
* assumes all 12s and 2 14s in Str and Con
I'm looking at you: Kobajagrande, and you: Frantic. If you are legitimate new people, then please feel free to make a point and have a net positive contribution on a thread. *Hint* you ain't doing it right now.
Yes, it is a huge goddamned problem if taking levels in Evil Wizard makes you flat out better than taking levels in Good Wizard. This is the opposite of balanced. Let me get your quote on the subject...
"There's no CR in this game, so saying the uber good guys aren't as strong as the uber bad guys is pretty meaningless...since both only appear on whims, there's nothing to prevent 1.3 super good guys appearing for every ONE bad guy, if the odd and design contraindicated goal of 'balance' is desired at some point."
The only problem with the above is that characters are taking levels in things like "Wizard" and "Cataclyst". Characters do not appear on a whim. Yes, balance is a DESIRED FEATURE OF A GAME SYSTEM. If a game system does not have balance, then it is NOT A GOOD SYSTEM. Yes, you can DM fiat away this problem (like almost every problem in a game system, if the DM realizes that it exists). No that is not a real argument. Indeed, there was a special fallacy created for this kind of shitty reasoning.
"Still, I don't see Dungeons and Dragons characters ever having the stats of a god or even some of the more epic monsters."
Are you fucking serious? If you play D&D for 2 more levels you will be better than the monsters that you fought 2 levels ago.
Let's take a quick trip down the goddamned monster manual, shall we?
At level 1, your party fights a camel (19 hp, +0/d4+2, AC 13, low light vision, scent, +5/+6/+1 saves, +5 to 2 skills).
At level 3, the party barbarian* is better (30 hp, +3/2d6+3, AC 15, fast movement, rage, +5/+2/+2 saves, +6 to 5 skills)
At level 5, your party fights a Troll (63 hp, AC 16, +9/+9/+4/d6+6/d6+6/d6+3, 2d6+9 Rend, Regen 5, +11/+4/+3 saves, +6 to 2 skills)
At level 7 your party barbarian is better (65 hp, AC 19, +11/+6/2d6+5/2d6+5, Rage, DR1, +8/+4/+4 saves, +10 to 5 skills)
I gave the level 7 barbarian a +2 weapon, mithril full plate, and a cloak of resistance. I'm not going any further than this because it actually involves picking gear and feats. Take note, he looks very suspiciously like a Troll in raw stats.
You can ask nearly anyone on this forum to make a character that is comparable to an Old Silver Dragon or whatever in 20 levels. Many of us have. So yes, you do see D&D characters have abilities comparable to CR 18-20 monsters. Level 9 spells at things such as "Summon Elemental Monolith" and "Cast in Stone" (grants free action 'turn to stone' within 30' for LVL rounds ). Although the Barbarian has lost traction at level 18, the Cleric, Druid, Rogue, Wizard, and Sorceror are all gaining abilities like "you are on fire all day". Yes, high level D&D character look just like monsters.
* assumes all 12s and 2 14s in Str and Con
Frantic = Iron Mongrel. Just saying.
Draco_Argentum wrote:Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
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.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
SunTzuWarmaster:
I take issue with this
That said imbalance is a bad thing. It just isn't the sum total of a gaming system.
I take issue with this
Imbalance does not automatically make something bad. It might have other good parts that outweigh it's faults. Oblivion (the computer game) is horribly balanced, but still a fun/good game frex.If a game system does not have balance, then it is NOT A GOOD SYSTEM.
That said imbalance is a bad thing. It just isn't the sum total of a gaming system.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 703
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
If, in the campaign setting, evil magic is a better and faster route to ultimate power than good magic, then Evil Wizard should grant power more quickly than Good Wizard. Otherwise the setting doesn't match the mechanics.SunTzuWarmaster wrote:Yes, it is a huge goddamned problem if taking levels in Evil Wizard makes you flat out better than taking levels in Good Wizard.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 948
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
More quickly gaining power is represented better by more quickly gaining XP. A level 2 cataclyst will have slightly more power than a level 2 wizard, but significantly more power at the level 3 benchmark, and overwhelmingly more at the level 4 benchmark (roughly an entire extra 'level'). While it is fine for Evil Wizards to get better more quickly by 'turning to the dark side', it shouldn't be system-represented as an equal amount. There should be a built-in function for saying that the level 4 Good Wizard should be fighting level 3 Bad Wizard. But there isn't, the above system says that they are the same, which is a lie.MartinHarper wrote:If, in the campaign setting, evil magic is a better and faster route to ultimate power than good magic, then Evil Wizard should grant power more quickly than Good Wizard. Otherwise the setting doesn't match the mechanics.
2e D&D didn't quite get the 'level benchmark' in the sense that a level 3 wizard had enough XPs to be a level 5 fighter (or so). In this system a level 3 wizard is better than a level 3 fighter, but they are not supposed to be on the same ground. Level 3 wizards fight level 5 fighters.
You can make it setting-consistent to have evil have more power (or gain it quicker) than good, but the system in question did a lousy job of it.
Because it's single player - its much easier to make pretty arbitary design choices because as long as the player is progressing the plot, he's doing what he;s supposed to do.Thymos wrote:SunTzuWarmaster:
I take issue with thisImbalance does not automatically make something bad. It might have other good parts that outweigh it's faults. Oblivion (the computer game) is horribly balanced, but still a fun/good game frex.If a game system does not have balance, then it is NOT A GOOD SYSTEM.
That said imbalance is a bad thing. It just isn't the sum total of a gaming system.
As soon as a game becomes multiplayer, it needs to have balance.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
-
- Master
- Posts: 231
- Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:55 am
The thing is in WFRP you don't advance by levels in the career, you advance by spending XP (everything has the same cost, no matter what you buy) to gain skills, talents, and increase stats by +5%. Those stablocks you see in the career are the potential by how much can a single stat be increased in that specific career. So in theory, the two characters with the same number of XP have the same number of advances and everything is ok. In practice, of course, one character can spend XP to increase his nosepicking skill while the other increases his weapon skill, so traps are still possible.SunTzuWarmaster wrote:You can make it setting-consistent to have evil have more power (or gain it quicker) than good, but the system in question did a lousy job of it.
Also, in theory, the good wizard guy will finish his career sooner and be able to enter a new career which will give him better stuff while the evil wizard is still purchasing unimportant stuff he needs to finish his current career. In practice that doesn't work so well since you have to pay for that career change, which is a rather stupid move, but whatever.
Finally, what I think they relied on mainly, was that the setting heavily implies that good guys and bad guys don't mix. Its also partially mechanically enforced, because bad guys will get visible signs that shout "kill me" to pretty much anyone in any civilization, and your activities and social life will pretty much come down to "find a random small village and burn it". So the good and the bad guys are intended as two large groups which do not interact except during the final conflict when the only important question is "can that thing be defeated?". And the answer is yes.
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
In those games, however, the PCs are balanced against each other.
It's perfectly fine for a game to have certain archetypes inferior to other archetypes. For example, in Ars Magica, the setting tells you straight-up that muggles suck wizard cock. So it wouldn't necessarily be unbalanced if all of the PCs got to be mages or if all of the PCs were muggle.
It is unacceptable from the get-go to have one player be a muggle and the other be a mage.
It's perfectly fine for a game to have certain archetypes inferior to other archetypes. For example, in Ars Magica, the setting tells you straight-up that muggles suck wizard cock. So it wouldn't necessarily be unbalanced if all of the PCs got to be mages or if all of the PCs were muggle.
It is unacceptable from the get-go to have one player be a muggle and the other be a mage.
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.
- Psychic Robot
- Prince
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm
If one PC wants to be a muggle, let him. There's nothing wrong with playing something that's underpowered. Now, if your game's focus is on combat--like D&D's--yes, then balance is a good thing. But imbalance isn't necessarily a bad thing. The only way to achieve perfect balance is to make everyone a dwarf named Carlos. I'd much rather play an imbalanced game (like 3e) that has interesting options and a lot of variety in character concepts than a bland turd of a balanced game (like 4e, which is only partially balanced anyhow).
Now, glaring balance discrepancies, like the fighter in 3e? Those need to go because 3e lies and tells you that the fighter of level X is equal in power to a wizard of level X. And your players might believe that lie, and then they find out that their diamond turned out to be a lump of coal, and then that's not fun. But if the game is upfront and says, "Look, you can play as a kobold, but kobolds have severe disadvantages," then it's okay for the kobold to suck. You're at least being honest about it, and anyone playing a kobold wants to play the underdog race.
Most folks that I've played with don't really care about balance one way or another, though.
Now, glaring balance discrepancies, like the fighter in 3e? Those need to go because 3e lies and tells you that the fighter of level X is equal in power to a wizard of level X. And your players might believe that lie, and then they find out that their diamond turned out to be a lump of coal, and then that's not fun. But if the game is upfront and says, "Look, you can play as a kobold, but kobolds have severe disadvantages," then it's okay for the kobold to suck. You're at least being honest about it, and anyone playing a kobold wants to play the underdog race.
Most folks that I've played with don't really care about balance one way or another, though.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:You do not seem to do anything.Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
The context was specifically PCs vs. NPCs, I thought.Lago PARANOIA wrote:In those games, however, the PCs are balanced against each other.
"Yes, it is a huge goddamned problem if taking levels in Evil Wizard makes you flat out better than taking levels in Good Wizard. This is the opposite of balanced."
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 948
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
PCs vs. PCs, and NPCs.
Monsters can be crazy-awesome (dragons, Call of Cthulhu) or very underpowered (kobolds, at almost in level in almost any game), and the PCs will respond to that appropriately ("Run away!" is an appropriate response sometimes).
Most folks I play with don't know that they care about balance until they have half the combat/social contribution of another player.
Monsters can be crazy-awesome (dragons, Call of Cthulhu) or very underpowered (kobolds, at almost in level in almost any game), and the PCs will respond to that appropriately ("Run away!" is an appropriate response sometimes).
Most folks I play with don't know that they care about balance until they have half the combat/social contribution of another player.
Actually I think that's a good point against balance being everything.
Even if 4e was balanced, we would probably want to play 3.x instead.
Balance isn't the same thing as fun, and what makes a game good is fun.
Balance contributes massively to making a game more fun but it isn't the end all be all.
Even if 4e was balanced, we would probably want to play 3.x instead.
Balance isn't the same thing as fun, and what makes a game good is fun.
Balance contributes massively to making a game more fun but it isn't the end all be all.
Last edited by Thymos on Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Judging__Eagle
- Prince
- Posts: 4671
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada
Ok, the first I understand, b/c I play WoW, and have noticed how representation of classes in Arena Matches has radically affected the buffs and nerfs that certain classes get.
I ... don't get the second link though. It's funny, as hell. I just don't know what's going on.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
It's from the worst comic in existence - yes, even beating out the Doom comic. IIRC, the plot was "some evil doctors took living patients and used them as organ donors without their consent, and they died horribly. Now the ghosts are out to kill the recipients of the donors (yeah, not the doctors), by possessing the organs, skin grafts etc."
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
A game based on asymetric sides with asymetric win conditions can work
But it also only works when its balanced - in that both sides have an equal chance of achieving their different win conditions.
Two sorts of balance are required in Team based game - all roles have to be contributors equally, and Team A needs to have to have a chance of 'winning' vs Team B
If you want to seriously dispute those points
A) The entire point of this site is the proposition that Mages Rule and Fighters Drool - a lack of balance that makes D&D suck.
B) Can you imagine playing tennis where one side started 2 sets up every match? That would suck.
So I think we can see that playing games with unbalanced contributions between team members and between teams is unfun, but we can structure games with asymmetric win conditions and teams and succeed if we want. You can have a game with asymmetric teams and symmetric win conditions that is balanced - starcraft
You can also have a game with asymmetric teams and win conditions - like Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation - but it's harder going typically they actually have symmetric win conditions (If one team does A B loses, otherwise B wins)
Last edited by cthulhu on Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 am, edited 3 times in total.
Also, the comic is pretty much all porn. I think the only reason that line made it in is because nobody actually buys it for the story.Koumei wrote:It's from the worst comic in existence - yes, even beating out the Doom comic. IIRC, the plot was "some evil doctors took living patients and used them as organ donors without their consent, and they died horribly. Now the ghosts are out to kill the recipients of the donors (yeah, not the doctors), by possessing the organs, skin grafts etc."
- Judging__Eagle
- Prince
- Posts: 4671
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada
Srsly gais. Srsly. 4chan to resquoo!!!eleventy@11!
Use http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/dhroller.html
No maor bitching about long process of making cartakters. Kthxbai.
Use http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/dhroller.html
No maor bitching about long process of making cartakters. Kthxbai.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
I still do not understand what a haunted vagina has to do with shitty game design. Is the point that WFRP is as shitty as a story about haunted vaginias? Or is there some sort of game based on that webcomic with vagina-ghosts as enemies?
FrankTrollman wrote:I think Grek already won the thread and we should pack it in.
Chamomile wrote:Grek is a national treasure.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 703
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Judging__Eagle
- Prince
- Posts: 4671
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada
Shut up Martin, you keep forgetting to use your soul penors properly, and you need to be on top of using your protoplasmic prophylactics when it goes off of cooldown.
Fucking nab. Go pewpew, not QQ.
Fucking nab. Go pewpew, not QQ.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
My take home message for that context is that one character is dealing with the big bad, in this case vagina ghost, and the other character is being told to run for it since they are no match for this coochie spirit foe.Grek wrote:I still do not understand what a haunted vagina has to do with shitty game design. Is the point that WFRP is as shitty as a story about haunted vaginias? Or is there some sort of game based on that webcomic with vagina-ghosts as enemies?
I've played games which when unbalanced were exactly like that. Well, not exactly, but the relationship was similar.
If DM's raised the bar to where basically the strong characters had to handle the challenging combats, then the weak characters had to either hide or they died. If the weaker characters fought acceptable foes, then the stronger characters would just curb-stomp that combat in no time.