FS3 3rd Edition Feedback
-
Then
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos -
@Thenomain Then?
-
@faraday then this system is ass for deleting posts on mobile, and I was going to reform my thoughts later.
-
@faraday said:
Perhaps you missed the part where I specifically said "And, btw, I'm not saying the people who do #1 or #2 are "ZOMG evil min-maxers" or anything. It's just a different approach, totally valid on some games. But that's not what I want on mine." I don't want automated bots or character classes/levels on my game either. That doesn't mean I look down on people who play MMOs. In fact, I quite enjoyed Star Wars Galaxies and WoW. It's just a different style of play.
I didn't miss it, I just don't think its genuine. It's like adding a smiley to a nasty remark, or saying 'no offense' before you offend someone.
No offense, but you seem like a smug elitist with a poor grasp of the narrative-mechanical relationships you claim to be promoting with your badly designed XP system
See how that works? I harp on it because its a really pervasive attitude and I think you're doing a lot to promote it here, including by stamping your feet down at a widely-made suggestion in a thread where you were supposedly looking for feedback. Even in your supposed clarification above, the attitude is there. 'Some games' and then you start talking about MMOs. Right. You're totally not painting in people who know and care about the rules as much as, or alongside of and in support of RP as some kind of vagrant tribe of powergamers, inferior to your soulplaying contingent of deeply immersive writers who don't care about those rules things because RP first man (who, I think history tells us, have just as many shitty twinks in their ranks).
I cannot physically roll my eyes harder.
It's also totally bizarre, because your concept of design-promoting-philosophy is actually backward. Your design doesn't promote your philosophy; it promotes min-maxing in the extreme (as I've demonstrated repeatedly with the basic math). All your 'well your BG has to justify it' shtick does is force people to come up with BGs to support their twinkery, which isn't hard (see my 'rural hunter turned weapon specialist').
-
@Thenomain "I want it to be a system, tho."
Here's the problem. FS3 isn't what you want it to be. So far as I know (and please, @faraday, correct me if I'm wrong), Faraday designed FS3 for use on a game that Faraday was running. The fact that other games use the code is because Faraday is nice enough to put it out there for free and run installs for other games (and because they like +combat, or the simple chargen).
You want a professionally-released, purchased game system balanced for all genres and for all people. But that's not what Faraday put together. Faraday put together a codeset that--when run by Faraday--promotes the type of game that Faraday wants to play on.
The fact that other people use it (the way Faraday intended or not) is a testament to 1) the quality of FS3 and 2) the lack of quality coders out there with time to design custom code.
Now, does FS3 (without strong Approval Staff oversight) encourage min-maxing at chargen? Absolutely. Does it mean that someone who creates a more rounded, less specialized character at chargen will never catch up to a more specialized, less rounded character in play? Absolutely.
Does that mean that it's bad game design? Only if the Approvals Staff allows it to go bad, and if the Game Staff intends for all characters to come out of chargen on an even footing with one another. But since the design of FS3 pre-supposes Approvals Staff that will be watching for min-maxed characters whose backgrounds don't match their sheets, that's a failure on the part of the Approvals Staff for letting the imbalance get through, or on the Game Staff for choosing the wrong codebase for the game they want to run.
If you don't like FS3, don't use it. It's not about what you want it to be, it's about what the creator, Faraday, wants it to be.
-
@Seraphim73 said:
So far as I know (and please, @faraday, correct me if I'm wrong)...
I think you're pretty spot on, and thanks.
But I'm still not quite sure what it would take to make it "a system" like @Thenomain is describing. Like, are we talking something like the FUDGE or FATE core rulebooks? I'm not super-familiar with FATE but FUDGE I know has no inherent "balance" across genres. Or are we talking a specific implementation like Spirit of the Century?
-
Is it okay to correct you if I think you're wrong?
You want a professionally[...]
Nope nope nope a thousand times nope. What we have is a framework that people are attacking as a system and Faraday is defending as a pet project. I keep trying, in my head, to treat it as a system because of the original question:
I'm mostly interested in feedback on the changes that were added in 3rd edition, or things that maybe you wish had been added but weren't.
I think Faradizzle has admitted maybe here wasn't the best place to ask this question, but I don't think the feedback has been entirely horrible. My place in it has been, "Okay, what's the game design?" The over-simplified answer has been, "Whatever you want."
That doesn't work. The answer is that there is no answer. There can't really be any feedback outside of existing implementation, and hereabouts there is no existing implementation.
Back to what Seaphim said:
If you don't like FS3, don't use it.
Now this I find pompous, missing the point that Faraday herself keeps admitting to, that she was looking for feedback. You do not need to like something to give useful feedback. That some of the feedback is brutally trying to make her choke on their dick is entirely their derangement, and I feel pretty sorry that Faraday has to endure it.
Or maybe you're attributing to me things said by others. If you are, please stop.
--
@faraday said:
But I'm still not quite sure what it would take to make it "a system" like @Thenomain is describing.
The answer was there in that post I made but MUSoapbox decided it would be funny to make it one word instead. What I'm going to do, though, is take some of the explanations from this thread and answer the original question, and separately pontificate (yes, I'm a rules pontiff) on game design. It make take a few days to gather all the thoughts and time necessary.
-
Having played with both the first incarnation of FS3 and the current version, I really like the look of the third one. It streamlines things quite a bit (I actually like Background skills and the occasional fun I get out of putting random lulzy stuff on my sheet, but it's absolutely correct that they confused a lot of players). I wouldn't mind a first edition style GM guide, honestly. I feel like, with any system, most of the complaints about it boil down to what the GM did (occasionally wrong-headedly) far more than they did the dice themselves.
-
I really like breaking 'background' skills into expertise and interests - in setting up FS3 (but never having played it previously), I found the concept of background skills to be kind of hard to wrap my mind around, and I've seen players fight similar confusion. These terms better reflect what they're meant to be, I think.
I'm of two minds about dropping from 12 to 5. We do use all 12 levels and stare hard at sheets to be sure that they match the little chart I made after reading lots and lots of documentation, so part of me is attached to the level of granularity we can get - I mean, we can reflect whether, say, you're a professional cop who can fire his gun /well/ or one who just managed to pass testing.
That said, I had to read a lot of documentation to fully understand that, and I do think it's confusing to players, and my understanding of the way the dice work is that there's not actually a HUGE difference in the upper levels when it comes to chance of success (?) anyway. The biggest difference would maybe be in vs. rolls?
I'm glad quirks are gone, I hated them (we removed them). I like the idea of RP hooks and goals and I'm now trying to decide if we can retroactively incorporate them.
I second @Tez's suggestions regarding customizable defaults - we have a LOT of customized weapons and armor and stances to match mutations, and it'd make life a lot easier.
I also share her question regarding NPCs, because that's also something I struggle with. In fact, it's one of the places I might suggest could use more documentation. I'm never entirely sure how my NPCs are going to match up against my PCs and end up having to mod things more than I'd like (though I'm glad I can)!
-
@Thenomain said:
My place in it has been, "Okay, what's the game design?" The over-simplified answer has been, "Whatever you want."
I apologize if I'm still being dense, but this is the part I don't quite get.
I'm gonna use "system" here by my definition, since yours is forthcoming
2nd edition is a system where there are attributes (representing physical characteristics like Body and Mind) rated from 1-4, action skills rated from 1-12, background skills rated from 1-12 and unrated language skills. Characters also have this goofy thing called Quirks. In chargen, skills cost (this), dice work like (that) and XP is completely customizable but the default recommendation is (this geometric progression).
3rd edition is a system where there are aptitudes (representing talents like Athletics and Technical) rated from 1-5, action skills rated from 1-5, and unrated interests, expertise and languages. Characters have RP hooks and Goals. In chargen, skills cost (this), dice work like (that) and XP is still completely customizable but the default recommendation is (this other geometric progression).
Is it really so impossible to provide feedback about the 3rd ed changes without knowing exactly what's on the action skill list, which is the 'whatever you want" part?
You do not need to like something to give useful feedback.
Quite true. But likewise, I do not need to implement all feedback given.
I have tried to explain why I have chosen not to implement the particular piece of feedback about geometric skill cost in chargen, rather than just putting my foot down and saying 'thanks but no'. Perhaps I beat the dead horse too much but I honestly felt like there was some serious misunderstanding/miscommunication going on.
And just to be clear - I do not mind that feedback. What I mind is the repeated badgering that says that the system is utterly broken/unusable without it and I'm a crack-smoking idiotic despot if I disagree.
-
Is it really so impossible to provide feedback about the 3rd ed changes without knowing exactly what's on the action skill list, which is the 'whatever you want" part?
No, but it is impossible to do so without knowing what's changed, and without what the design is. Ferreting out thoughts from vitriol, the quality of the change is also going to depend on how many skills of each type that you have, and on the gameplay goals not explicitly stated.
For instance, one moment it's "make whatever kind of game you want" and another it's "I don't do it that way and I designed the core system around how I do things". Again grossly oversimplified, but these two statements are mutually exclusive, or close enough in my book that I'm going to make the assertion. It tells me that there's a wrong and therefore a right way to implement the toolkit. This way may not have straight-up rules, but we've seen at least one guideline for it come from your posts.
You do not need to like something to give useful feedback.
Quite true. But likewise, I do not need to implement all feedback given.
Nobody who understands the nature of "feedback" in the design cycle has said that you must. I don't know how I got roped into this category, but it's 110% wrong.
I was responding specifically to @Seraphim73, who was going so far as to say not to play something that you don't like. This seemed to be a veiled attempt to stave off criticism, which is a terrible thing to do. Criticism is beautiful. Hate-vomit isn't criticism.
And just to be clear - I do not mind that feedback. What I mind is the repeated badgering that says that the system is utterly broken/unusable without it and I'm a crack-smoking idiotic despot if I disagree.
This horse, she is dead. I think your ignoring of whining was a winning plan.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos -
@Thenomain said:
For instance, one moment it's "make whatever kind of game you want" and another it's "I don't do it that way and I designed the core system around how I do things". Again grossly oversimplified, but these two statements are mutually exclusive, or close enough in my book that I'm going to make the assertion. It tells me that there's a wrong and therefore a right way to implement the toolkit. This way may not have straight-up rules, but we've seen at least one guideline for it come from your posts.
I think part of what you're seeing is simply the disjointed nature of forum posting, replying to individual thoughts and comments.
The coherent viewpoint is more like: Here's a toolkit. Here are guidelines for how the system is intended to work and how I believe it works best. (Those guidelines could be better but they do exist.) At the end of the day it's your game and open source code so you're free to use the system however you want.
-
I know I'm late to this party but I'd like to ask a couple questions to @faraday .
When you developed the roll-count-successes system for FS3 did you initially intend it to be a strict 25% chance for success across the board? If so, why?Secondly, what would be the best method for me to adjust the dice roller code so to reflect a more gradual improvement to a character's chance for success? Such as, ranks 1-4 are 7s and 8s, 5 - 9 is 6s, 7s, and 8s, and 10+ includes 5. Currently it's trapped behind so many calls to different functions that it's like trying to unravel a rubber band ball to get to the tootsie roll center.
I like your new FS3, it has some nice alterations to the skill system that does seem to simplify things, but I'm curious if the above alteration to the dice might have solved issues for a lot of games out there. I liked quirks though, personally, but I can see an advantage to how you split up bg skills and I can see good use for advantages as an incentive tool for driving PrP between factions. All around a big fan of your coded works -
@NightAngel12 I have no idea what you're talking about with "strict 25% chance". The 2nd edition die rolls have a graded improvement for success chance with skill level. The 3rd edition numbers are almost the same.
There's a detailed analysis comparing it to other systems (WoD, D20) here, but here are the success levels for a routine roll with an average attribute at different skill levels:
- 1 - 57%
- 5 - 86%
- 8 - 94%
- 11 - 98%
-
My only complaint with the way the system seemed to work on the couple games I played it, was that background skills seemed useless unless they were ranked higher than the action skill in question.
Skills default to action skills (at least on the most recent game I played on that used FS3) so buying a background skill was silly unless it was /higher/ than the default action skill.
This to me meant backgrounds were generally a waste of time.
For example: I could buy my Psychic action skill say at level 5, then I would have to buy individual background skills for my psychic abilities at higher than 5, or else I'd be better off just using my default psychic skill.
It seemed incredibly easy to nerf yourself at chargen, when you theoretically should be making yourself /better/ by having the specialized knowledge a background skill would give.
For a more specific example: Examine a 'Melee' action skill, which handled all weapons in h2h combat. So you could purchase that skill at a high level and have high ability with every weapon (Say your character is a gladiator which has to be good with every weapon) but then you want to specialize in the net and trident, so you take Net & Trident as a background skill. In order to actually be better with net and trident, you have to take that background skill at a higher level than Melee.
So backgrounds hurt more than they help in most situations.
Hello! Long time listener, first time caller...
-
@Lithium Yeah, that's a matter of how an individual game is choosing to apply background skills, and I agree it's wacky.
Background skills arent meant to be specializations of action skills. FS3 has no concept of specialization. BG skills are designed to be other skills, not particularly important to gameplay, that round out your char.
I would never approve someone with a BG skill in Tridents because it's already covered by Melee.
So it sounds like some game really wanted to have specializations and tried to graft it onto the system in a way that's kind of weird.
