WFRP: I think I just crapped my pants with joy.

SunTzuWarmaster · Post by **SunTzuWarmaster** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:27 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

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:34 pm

Frantic = Iron Mongrel. Just saying.

Thymos · Post by **Thymos** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:03 pm

SunTzuWarmaster:

I take issue with this

If a game system does not have balance, then it is NOT A GOOD SYSTEM.

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.

That said imbalance is a bad thing. It just isn't the sum total of a gaming system.

MartinHarper · Post by **MartinHarper** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:24 pm

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.

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 · Post by **SunTzuWarmaster** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:42 pm

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.

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.

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.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:13 pm

Thymos wrote:SunTzuWarmaster:

I take issue with this
If a game system does not have balance, then it is NOT A GOOD SYSTEM.
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.

That said imbalance is a bad thing. It just isn't the sum total of a gaming system.

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.

As soon as a game becomes multiplayer, it needs to have balance.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:48 pm

cthulhu wrote: As soon as a game becomes multiplayer, it needs to have balance.

Or else...?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:59 pm

hogarth wrote:
cthulhu wrote: As soon as a game becomes multiplayer, it needs to have balance.
Or else...?

Or else This. Or worse, This.

-Username17

Kobajagrande · Post by **Kobajagrande** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:04 pm

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.

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.

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.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:42 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
hogarth wrote:
cthulhu wrote: As soon as a game becomes multiplayer, it needs to have balance.
Or else...?
Or else This. Or worse, This.

-Username17

A bad game is going to be a bad game whether it's balanced or not.

An unbalanced game (like Call of Cthulhu, the epitome of "bad guys get cool stuff, good guys get squat") can be fun to play.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:49 pm

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.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:06 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.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:10 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:In those games, however, the PCs are balanced against each other.

The context was specifically PCs vs. NPCs, I thought.

"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."

SunTzuWarmaster · Post by **SunTzuWarmaster** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:29 am

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.

Thymos · Post by **Thymos** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:07 am

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.

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:13 am

FrankTrollman wrote:
hogarth wrote:
cthulhu wrote: As soon as a game becomes multiplayer, it needs to have balance.
Or else...?
Or else This. Or worse, This.

-Username17

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.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:34 am

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."

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:54 am

hogarth wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:
hogarth wrote: Or else...?
Or else This. Or worse, This.

-Username17
A bad game is going to be a bad game whether it's balanced or not.

An unbalanced game (like Call of Cthulhu, the epitome of "bad guys get cool stuff, good guys get squat") can be fun to play.

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)

shau · Post by **shau** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:59 am

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."

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.

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:45 pm

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.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:21 pm

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?

Akula · Post by **Akula** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:27 pm

I think the idea was, "This makes no sense."

MartinHarper · Post by **MartinHarper** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:12 am

Vagina-ghosts are totally imba.

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:32 am

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.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:38 am

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?

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.

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.