@Three-Eyed-Crow said in FS3:
Had one of my snipers miss a 96% shot last time I rolled up a game. Haunts my goddamn dreams.
I'm becoming of the mind that that's a glitch the programmers left in because they thought it was hilarious, like the Gandhi nuke thing in Civ. It's probably only a 69% chance.
@Thenomain said in FS3:
The trust thing I just think is ridiculous, to be blunt. Not that I disbelieve it, but... if you don't trust staff, idk, what are you even doing and how is some text of pretend dice making you trust where you didn't before?
Trust in what, exactly? Trust is not a binary, and is not all inclusive.You can trust the system and not trust staff. I have done this so many times that it's not funny. I admit, doing it once isn't funny, but no less true.
The opposite can also be true. I can be trusted to code but god forbid someone ask me to lead or to create a playable game situation. I would probably not trust @EmmahSue to make an RPG system based on statistics, but I would run over most you (on my bike; I'm not mean) to play in a plot she's constructed.
Different people need different things to trust systems. Computer game programmers are aware of this, tho we end up with pretty shit games anyway because knowing what's important and knowing how to apply it is a huge leap.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
@Thenomain Yeah I don't think it was a personal distrust, just skepticism about the system math. I mean , say you're that sniper who botched the 96% chance of success? What's your first thought? For a lot of people it's probably something unprintable followed by wondering if the system is broken. Whereas if they understand the dice mechanics and you show them the results, it tends to be more of, "Man the dice hate me tonight."
Another reason to use familiar-ish dice mechanics over more complex math even wen used on computers is Cgen.
There is a fairly sizable portion of MU* who absolutely agonize over C-gen, (Thankfully I am not one of them) and worry that a poor decision during the process will end up crippling their character. (In some systems it can) this is with pretty straight forward mechanics present a complex mathematical system that is unfamiliar along with the rest of c-gen will lead to a lot a folks hitting a big wall when they try to make characters.
@Thenomain Yeah I don't think it was a personal distrust, just skepticism about the system math. I mean , say you're that sniper who botched the 96% chance of success?
On Tuesday the NBA draft took place. In it the Los Angeles Lakers' chances of landing a top-3 pick were 46.9%.
The way this works is literally through gold balls being put in a container which then spins. Representatives of all teams are physically present in the room, observing everything, and as this is a multi-billion dollar business you better believe they are watching closely.
When the Lakers got their pick the allegations of rigging were strong.
It's not just the system, it's humans too. We can't accept things we don't like, sometimes.
@ThatGuyThere Much of the issue with agonizing over cgen can be avoided by:
@Misadventure
Never been a fan of allowing respecs myself. And this is coming from someone who made a Werewolf once without the skills that two of the three gifts i got in c-gen used.
Respeccing because you are learning the system is one thing I would agree with, as is respeccing to fill a Sphere need discovered when things slow way down. But players respeccing in order to specialize a character to be more uber-badass, eh, I'm not so much a fan of.
Requiring characters to be an uber-badass is worse than allowing respecs, in my view. Half the time people are agonising over chargen is because they don't want to be useless. Giving even the most 'useless' character a chance to shine in the story is vital.
He/Him
@Tinuviel Yeah, I mean, why on earth would you want characters to be useless? What the heck kind of game is that? But everyone has a different definition of "useless", so - there will always be min/maxing to stay ahead. I'm not a fan of respecs because it's like a form of retcon. But if somebody made a goof in chargen and wants to adjust something a couple weeks after they get used to the game, I'm fine with that.
@faraday My point was more that if it is possible to accidentally make your character useless (not taking X merit or feat or whatever), then there is a problem with the system as it is being used and/or explained.
I'm not at all saying that FS3 is that, it's pretty neat, just that the idea of needing to min-max to be relevant to the story is stupidpants.
He/Him
@Tinuviel I have "fond" memories of '80s-era games that had gigantic skills lists (Space Opera leaps to mind with a character sheet that was in the tiniest print I've ever seen for a character sheet, most of which was skills, and didn't even cover all possible skills at that) and no meaningful defaults.
In these games it was incredibly easy to overlook something your character would obviously have, especially given the militaristic nature of most character paths where you would, in a plausible universe, have training regimens giving you basic grounding in your core skills. Many an idiot GM, however, refused to allow respecs to cover obvious oversights leaving you nerfed with the only guy in an advanced, technological civilization who can't figure out how to turn on an electrical appliance. Even though he's a computer programmer...
My point was more that if it is possible to accidentally make your character useless (not taking X merit or feat or whatever), then there is a problem with the system as it is being used and/or explained.
Oh yeah, I totally agree.
With FS3, if the game follows the system setup advice (10-12 action skills, 2-3 core professional skills, profession-based minimum skill alerts) I think it's really hard to accidentally hamstring yourself. You can end up not having quite as many dice as someone else, but in a PvE game that's very different from being "useless".
Of course, FS3 is configurable and games don't have to follow that advice. Dilute the Action Skill list too much and there ceases to be a meaningful distinction between Action/Background skills. Then you end up with a lot of min-maxing ("Eh, I can skip swimming I guess") and weird stuff like "Wait, you're saying my doctor doesn't know basic science because I didn't pick up Biology and Chemistry too?"
@ThatGuyThere said in FS3:
@Misadventure
Never been a fan of allowing respecs myself. And this is coming from someone who made a Werewolf once without the skills that two of the three gifts i got in c-gen used.
Any system that uses hard XP caps should also offer respecs. Else it's really easy to screw yourself over and you might not even realize it for a while.
Also Mage falls under that umbrella. Gnosis limits what Arcana you can buy high enough, and you can find you've already 'bought wrong' and now you can't get that one spell you based your entire character concept around.
Of course, FS3 is configurable and games don't have to follow that advice. Dilute the Action Skill list too much and there ceases to be a meaningful distinction between Action/Background skills. Then you end up with a lot of min-maxing ("Eh, I can skip swimming I guess") and weird stuff like "Wait, you're saying my doctor doesn't know basic science because I didn't pick up Biology and Chemistry too?"
Or me, where I shoved too many points into my Sciences, and was politely told that my PC was probably too good at them, based on her background.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
Or me, where I shoved too many points into my Sciences, and was politely told that my PC was probably too good at them, based on her background.
Heh, that actually happens a lot and makes me wonder sometimes if I'm being overly pedantic about it or if the BG skill levels are either wickedly unclear or out of whack. I think it's probably one of the things I've written most on apps: "Sooooo you've got Math at Expertise. Did you really mean to be a PhD? If so fine but... I'm guessing not."
Heh, that actually happens a lot and makes me wonder sometimes if I'm being overly pedantic about it or if the BG skill levels are either wickedly unclear or out of whack. I think it's probably one of the things I've written most on apps: "Sooooo you've got Math at Expertise. Did you really mean to be a PhD? If so fine but... I'm guessing not."
Look, I just thought it would be cute to have my scout get lost in examining water patterns while out on a recon mission.
@faraday Half of those apps were probably mine, ha!
Look, I just thought it would be cute to have my scout get lost in examining water patterns while out on a recon mission.
@DownWithOPP said in FS3:
@faraday Half of those apps were probably mine, ha!
No but seriously - I have been wondering if the ratings need adjusting. It is still in beta, after all.
I initially thought that the levels had a good spread. Interest for hobbies and modest studies, Proficiency for something you could actually do for a living and Expertise for hot stuff (world class / PhD). But I get a ton of people with "professional" level hobbies (like Pyramid, Triad, Mountain Climbing, etc.) and a larger-than-expected number with Expertise in things that it doesn't seem they've spent a lot of time on.
I don't care if someone wants to be a world-class mountain climber, as long as they understand that's what it means. Most folks lower the level, though, when I point that out.
So where's the disconnect? Is it documentation? Expectation? I'm just being too nitpicky?
@Three-Eyed-Crow said in FS3:
Had one of my snipers miss a 96% shot last time I rolled up a game. Haunts my goddamn dreams.
I'm becoming of the mind that that's a glitch the programmers left in because they thought it was hilarious, like the Gandhi nuke thing in Civ. It's probably only a 69% chance.
