Re: Ignoring things that ignore the ignoring of...
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 5:48 am
I pondered the use of the name "Hypoborea" for an extremely southern location the other day.
Welcome to the Gaming Den.
http://www.tgdmb.com/phpBB3/
I pondered the use of the name "Hypoborea" for an extremely southern location the other day.
If the game has rank 2 fires but nothing in the current encounter can deal rank 2 fire damage is the character immune to fire? No. They have rank 1 fire resistance and the game designer forgot to fully implement the fire damage ranking system, making rank 2 fire protection a trap option that nobody should spend real resources to get.Foxwarrior wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 1:58 amSo if you had a protection system with ranks, like you have rank 1 fire protection that made you take no damage from fires of rank 1 or less, but full damage from rank 2 or greater, and so on, and then the game only ever has rank 1 fire, would this mean that a character with rank 1 fire protection isn't immune to fire?
The design intent. No. The presumed design intent changes the functional outcome for you?
I did did:Neo Phonelobster Prime wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 5:19 amThey didn't didn't. And let them explain themselves. Don't put words in their mouth.
Especially when those words take the statement I was critical of that was the conclusion of their point on "why Ignore X Immunity is wrong" and turn those words into a total non-sequitur only a babbling moron would end such a point with.
Mguy is exactly right, and you are the one who out words in someone's mouth.If the new subsystem is implemented well, it probably won't even feel like layers of immunity and bypass. Done poorly, you basically just recreate the system you were opting out of (armor vs armor pierce vs mega armor vs mega pierce). Done exceptionally poorly, you begin to parisitize other subsystems (like DnD's tendency to overload the feat system with patch feats).
Then they intentionally made a bad system.Neo Phonelobster Prime wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:12 amWhat if they didn't forget. What if they did it intentionally?
Explain it. Properly. In your words.
So. Why did you say no first and attribute "good" intentions to the designer? Why do you STILL have to attribute bad intentions to them now? Why wasn't RAW ever an option for you?
Sentence hey. MGuy. The guy who can read.
Oh for fuck sake just fuck off with your passive aggressive holier than though bullshit. You absolutely were taking a side on an argument. A stupid and deceitful side, and try very hard to defend a frankly malicious attribution of feats systems exploding to the act of daring to use an ignore X mechanic.
The guy you defended agreed that you were successful in defending him.That's already been decided. I was correct.
And this is also what you do, every time you pull this shit and get called on it. Holier than though tone trolling as an argument.Just take a step back and ask yourself a few important questions. "What are you doing here?" Presumably it's to convince someone of something.
PL..... The post doesn't attribute an exploding feats system to the act of using an ignore mechanic.Neo Phonelobster Prime wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:41 amOh for fuck sake just fuck off with your passive aggressive holier than though bullshit. You absolutely were taking a side on an argument. A stupid and deceitful side, and try very hard to defend a frankly malicious attribution of feats systems exploding to the act of daring to use an ignore X mechanic.
Look. For fuck sake. Just read a whole paragraph and acknowledge that sentences link together, especially when you have a chain of them opening by referring to "Done Well/Done Poorly/Done Very Poorly". All referring back to the thing being done as whether or not Sashi feels sufficiently distanced from knowing that something is an immunity by a complex enough set of obfuscations. Passing through Ignore X Immunity, and when that is somehow taken further, resulting in "parasitized" feat like subsystems exploding.
Have I achieved anything here? Doesn't seem so. Thing is, I tried. What you see as "do-gooder posturing" I really see as trying to be reasonable. Offering alternative, constructive, things to argue about for most is useful for offering them an 'out' of a hole they dug for themselves. On the other hand you've made no attempt to be reasonable or show that you are willing to argue in good faith here. You've accused me of white-knighting, posturing, projecting, being a scumbag, etc. You are mad that I have not taken a side in the face of you denying the very reality of what someone said. If these are your assumptions from the start it means you're are indeed being as bad faith as you are very often accused of.NPL wrote:Have YOU achieved anything other than your usual tone trolling performative nonsense? Or did all you manage was to insert yourself into an argument you don't even have the spine to claim you are taking sides on while mostly just derailing it in some incredibly vain and empty attempt to posture as a do gooder?
What on earth is the point of this post? If it is because you actually want to know the answer, I can't help but notice that you have picked the method most calculated to not produce that result.
Sure.
Code: Select all
If FireImmune = True and AttackDamageType = Fire
Then Damage = 0
Code: Select all
If FireImmune = True
Then FireImmune = False
Code: Select all
If FireImmune = True
Then AttackDamageType = Radiant
Which, yeah, true. Treating the above pseudocode as a black box where the only thing you know is what damage type goes in and whether damage is dealt or not, both methods of immunity bypass are mechanically identical. But so what? We're not trying to implement immunity and bypass using the absolute smallest number of words. We're trying to have good and useful game mechanics. This becomes obvious when you get to the next step of having a fire elemental igore the ignoring of fire immunity:Neo Phonelobster Prime wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 10:08 pmIn fact. Localized meaning is pretty much one of the values I had just used to point out that "X Immunity" and "Ignore X Immunity" is a better game mechanic than the recently proposed "solution" of the mechanically identical interaction described with "X Immunity" and "Radiance, Scintillating, Cryogenic...etc...".
Code: Select all
If FireImmune = False
Then FireImmune = True
My point about about horse archers is that your argument has simplified and abstracted things to a level that compresses horse archers to a function like this:Neo Phonelobster Prime wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:42 amWhy do you STILL have to attribute bad intentions to them now?
Code: Select all
If HorseArcher = True and AttackDamageType = Melee
Then Damage = 0
This is going to be good... i haven't worked, or coded, for decades now, but you know I'm a Computer Scientist right?
And this is where it starts to break down because of that.Let's use some pseudocode to represent fire immunity:So we have a Pyromancer and want to give them the ability to damage fire immune targets. One way would be "Ignore Fire Immunity"Code: Select all
If FireImmune = True and AttackDamageType = Fire Then Damage = 0
Code: Select all
If FireImmune = True Then FireImmune = False
And then it gets worse.Another way would be to deal Radiant damage:Code: Select all
If FireImmune = True Then AttackDamageType = Radiant
OK so. Why use pseudo code then?Which, yeah, true. Treating the above pseudocode as a black box where the only thing you know is what damage type goes in and whether damage is dealt or not, both methods of immunity bypass are mechanically identical. But so what?
And code doesn't precisely try and use the smallest number of words either. Real code WOULD check a whole bunch of variables on an attack while processing it and would easily account for both the Ignore X Immunity AND the Radiant dual type examples, which your code fails to.We're not trying to implement immunity and bypass using the absolute smallest number of words.
You are going further than my claim that just one Ignore X Immunity is fine. That's OK I have also said two is probably fine too. BUT if you need to go HERE to prove your point and cannot do so otherwise, you concede that ONE layer of Ignore X immunity is fine.igore the ignoring of fire immunity:
Code: Select all
If FireImmune = False Then FireImmune = True
It doesn't toggle any variable back and forth. It is a tag on an attack that you check while processing damage. All of them are. In all the presented arguments.a mechanic that just toggles the same variable back and fourth
Code elegance and TTRPG rule elegance are two different things. Good thing for both of us because I now know you can't write elegant code, and frankly doubt if I can anymore either.That's not "elegant", that's the Argument Clinic sketch and you're John Cleese.
I've never defended Ignore X Immunity as the right solution for every TTRPG. I just defended it as a good one that would be fine to use.Now there are some cases where that's the "right" solution.
Loading your system down with more damage type tags, then loading more damage types onto more attacks to represent bypass functionality without saying the words, is NOT a more robust starting system. It is a messier, more complex one. There might be reasons to do it, but avoiding the words "Ignore X Immunity" is not among those reasons. In fact, as I have previously mentioned, the Radiance "solution" does not even ward off the possibility of using that tag in conjunction with it.Most of the time what you want is a better, more robust starting system. Which is what everyone else in this thread is talking about when referring to Radiant damage.
Stop right there. That's that thing again. You are attributing something to Ignore X Immunity that you aren't attributing to your preferred alternatives despite it being unrelated to either.Not only does the radiant solution prevent infinite loops
Nothing about Ignore X Immunity has any bearing of how many different things X can be. Nothing about refusing to use Ignore X Immunity has any bearing on how many types of X there can be.but it also implies some kind of interesting elemental damage system beyond just "Fire damage yes" versus "fire damage no".
Oh god the pseudo code is back. Look. That might look to you like the same code fragment you tried to use to represent Fire Immunity. (Which if you might recall crashed and burned pretty badly).My point about about horse archers is that your argument has simplified and abstracted things to a level that compresses horse archers to a function like this:
Code: Select all
If HorseArcher = True and AttackDamageType = Melee Then Damage = 0
Odd that. It's like your pseudo code was a wild misrepresentation.Which just isn't what anyone is talking about when they refer to the "horse archer problem". The horse archer is an emergent property of the tactical minigame, not a variable that players toggle off and on.
So. If when the practical outcome of the specific scenario IS immunity to melee damage... then you can say the words with me "THEN they are immune to melee damage".This is my point about "feeling like" layers of immunity. Even if the practical outcome of your tactical minigame is that horse archers are immune to melee damage
No. If you COULD knock them off their horse they weren't in a scenario where they were immune. They are in a scenario where they are immune when melee guys does not have any such option. That option, gaining the ability to knock them off their horses, that itself is the equivelent of the Ignore X Immunity ability that you are grasping for here.and the solution is knocking them off their horse
Feels arguments are only flavor related. And the "but I need more obfuscation" is not just flavor, its very subjective and absolutely damaging to discussions.... probably won't feel like you're toggling the "horse archer" variable
Hey look an appearance of the thing your post was supposed to be explaining.Feats aren't the only system that can be parisitized, just obvious example of possibly the most parisitized system in any RPG ever.
Aside from your redefinition of "immunity" you are now I think redefining minigame.If you implement anti-immunity as putting them back in the minigame that's not "elegant"
Hey, congrats on being better with pseudocode than a computer scientist. The point of pseudocode is to be understandable, not compilable or to follow a specific syntax. PL snarking on it for not having C++ style logical tests (== instead of =) is straight-up asinine.
Incorrect. I do not believe immunity + ignore immunity is bad because it's been done poorly before. I even cited an example of a system (MtG) that has happily implemented immunity (prevent all damage) and ignore immunity (damage can't be prevented). But I think it's also really important to recognize that M:tG rules are a state machine built to handle these effects and even then they are very careful to keep these exceptions to exceptions at a minimum (there is no "prevent damage that can't be prevented"), and I do think that's for good reason.MGuy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 6:21 amYou believe this because there are a number of existing games where once immunity bypass abilities became a thing it can lead to negative results. Your main argument for this is the, in your mind, doing this will likely lead to the emergence of numerous avenues for bypassing immunities. You also believe that most implementations then ended up being bad with only a few edge cases that ended up functioning.
I think it's okay because it's not an exception to an exception. The dragon is immune to fire damage but not fire+radiant. I deal fire+radiant damage, the dragon takes damage without my adding an exception of "immune to fire except when I feel like it" to their immunity. This is no different than if I dealt slashing damage to the dragon. Fire Immunity isn't an exception to slashing damage. Armor piercing isn't forcefield piercing. That is the most straightforward English interpretation of those effects.MGuy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 6:21 amOn the other hand you believe that dual damage types bypassing this immunity is alright because it is not 'actually' bypassing immunity but instead getting through because it is comes with an additional different tag that is not stopped by that immunity. In the example case radiant fire damage would bypass fire damage immunity because of the radiant factor.
The funny thing is that I thought I was making an absurd reduction. But, in fact, that is exactly what M:tG does. A flying creature is immune to being blocked by nonflying creatures. Giant Spider can block flying creatures. That's not an emergent property of flying speeds and attack ranges, just straightforward tag interactions. MtG even has a horse archer (reach, horsemanship) implemented through keywords and not emergent effects of movement and range rules. (yes, I did end up TVtropsing through the MtG fan wiki despite only ever being a casual player and having no itention to play the game in the future)MGuy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 6:21 amI can agree to the first bit for the sake of centering a discussion on a more narrow topic. Though I don't personally think that flying creatures = immune to melee myself when I'm thinking about an 'immunity' tag, I don't see a problem in pointing that out at the outset.
Absolutely true. Part of the disagreement is how to handle and evaluate rules that are functionally equivalent. At this point PL has tried to defend "ignore X immunity" by using designer intent, ignoring design intent in favor of RAW, massively general solutions, tightly specific solutions, emergent mechanics, avoiding emergent mechanics, accomplishing something for flavor reasons, and ignoring flavor. Given all that, I want to address what I believe, is PL's thesis for defending ignore ignore ignore mechanics:MGuy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 6:21 amIn the abstract I can agree that radiant part of the radiant fire bypassing fire immunity is different than straight up fire immunity, that difference would not be all that important to me effectively at the table. As a player, practically, I'd know that this is my bypass fire immunity button even if, strictly speaking, I'm just doing another type of damage.
Neo Phonelobster Prime wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 11:52 amBut elegant TTRPG rules? Immune to Fire and Ignore Fire Immunity as presented are rules which rather clearly communicate their full function to the average English speaking player in their titles Something the Radiant damage solution not only does not do, but has been defended as INTENTIONALLY not doing.
Got that? "Fire Immunity" is great because it communicates the full function in its title and you're whiny baby for expecting "Fire Immunity" to apply against fire attacks from fire wizards. Not only is it serious special pleading to ask that we accept the clearest interpretation of "Fire Immunity" is not "Immune to all Fire" but it's also self-negating, because "Fire Immunity" and "Ignore Fire Immunity" cannot both clearly communicate their full function at the same time, one of them must be incomplete despite PL trying to pretend they do with the whole "localized meaning" argle bargle. A rule that is negated in some circumstances by another rule cannot be self-contained. That is right up there with "The next statement is true" "the prior statement is false" as a self-evident paradox.Neo Phonelobster Prime wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 10:08 pmYou insist that if you put "Fire Immunity" on a monster it is a shocking betrayal to ever discover fire they are not immune to, especially from a specialist fire wizard. To which I say first of all "You poor baby" and second of all it said "Fire Immunity" not "Fire Wizard Immunity" and third of all, most important of all, the ability that bypasses fire immunity should say "Ignores Fire Immunity" and ITSELF has localized meaning.
Absolutely true. But by PL's own criteria we can't discard the elemental damage system out of hand just because games often do it poorly. After all, I can't say Ignore X immunity is bad because feats suck (which I never said, but PL said I said, so I guess I'm pretending I said it) so we also can't say Fire+Radiant damage is bad just because DnD's elemental damage system sucks. Presumably, a really really well done Avatar: The Last Airbender RPG would super care about the difference between fire/lightning/lava attacks and dragons could be immune to fire but have to redirect lightning and be trapped by lava. A related question is that if the game system you're using is so bad at dealing with damage types why are you trying to make a pyromancer in it?MGuy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 6:21 amMy guess is that the immediate answer to that is the assumption that 'radiant' might also have its own set of relevant interactions with the game making it more interesting as a damage bypass just because of the potential. However, if we are going by what games have done in the past then using damage types as your example wouldn't help here because most of the time that's all it really is... A damage type. While there are ways you 'could' make that more complex, historically, that has not been the case. So practically, in game, it's essentially having one or two types of immunity bypass in the same ability. Whether or not this is the case I think any implementation of this would put a designer in the spot where they are heavily pushing their players to get the dual tags whenever possible which might be considered a worse outcome than just placing a fire immunity bypass on a few abilities.
I would avoid it by going back to the design intent, which is to let pyromancers deal with red dragons and fire demons by being awesome instead of by running away, but also not be able to kill fire elementals with fire. Possible solutions to that would be a) errata all the monsters I want pyromancers to be able to kill with fire to have fire resistance instead of immunity, and maybe give demons and red dragons immunity to "nonmagical fire" or something if I still need them to bathe in lava flows b) give pyromancers a completely different way of dealing with fire immune creatures. Animal empathy or turn undead but for fire types, lightning attacks, whatever c) just accept that pyromancers are boned if they meet an angry red dragon the same way they're boned when meeting an angry fire elemental, d) accept that I have made a game that is not conducive to pyromancers and don't push the concept by making a pyromancer class. e) Anything other than "Dark Schneider is so awesome he can kill Fire Demons using fire! How? Don't care, I decided he can so now he just can. #elegance"
Toggling someone else's fire immunity back and forth during an attack is a really weird thing to do... Might be funny to discuss that sort of mechanic, but it almost nothing to do with piercing immunities.