@Thenomain
What gets people excited is how easy it is to run +combat. All you have to do is set up your armor, weapon, and target, and then just about everything after that is automatic.
That's what gets people excited. No more fumbling around with rules, no more questioning addition, just automatic combat that works smoothly and easily.
@Apos said:
I'd be less concerned by twinks and more concerned with completely new players getting through CG, playing a month, then feeling 'cheated' later when they realize they could have designed their sheet a different way to save XP. In making a newbie friendly system I think that case is significantly more worrisome than random assholes (see @bored ).
Assuming you're not calling me the random asshole (well, or at least, hopefully, not a random twink, I probably qualify as a random asshole for other reasons) this is absolutely something I tried to get across and that people like to ignore to shout twink. It is every much a TRAP for all the absolutely not a powergamer superior roleplayer bambis who don't mean anyone harm, as it is an exploitable playground for the evil, mean, dastardly twinks who learned how to do arithmetic and selfishly decide not to gimp themselves horribly.
You can look at it from either perspective, but it will always generate huge gaps in effective XP, and this will exacerbate real problems (like the oft-discussed issue of niche protection vs toolbox dinos).
That was an awful lot of words. None of them remotely invalidate anything I've said.
It's still absolutely used as a playable out of the box system by lots of games, and whatever pedantic magic you want to attempt doesn't change that, nor does it justify the base framework, system, system of systems or whatever you want to call it for having a fundamentally, deeply flawed CG/XP model that produces, almost as a matter of course, huge XP disparities between CGs.
All of this sounds like it could be easily fixed by just having the option for non-exponential XP costs. Like, I'm pretty sure @faraday could add an option that switched Skill costs to "2 XP per point, period" from whatever it is. And then game runners who agree with @bored's point of view (which I do, even if not as insultingly) could do that, and other game runners who prefer the exponential progression could use that (and avoid having to deal with @bored, assuming he stops playing on game with progressions he doesn't like--unlikely).
I mean--it's your system, @faraday, but it sounds to me like you want people to use it. If it's not too difficult and would open it up to more options, and make it palatable to more people, it kind of sounds like a no-brainer.
P.S. How does +combat deal with characters who have specific powers that function turn to turn and can be used or not? Do those have to be accounted for each roll? What's up with that? If everything is automated it feels like there might be a gap in using strategy when it comes to your character actions.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
No it's not. If you are going to be contrary, you could at least provide one shred of evidence.
(See, I'm pretty good at hyperbole as nuh-uh too.)
@Coin said:
P.S. How does +combat deal with characters who have specific powers that function turn to turn and can be used or not? Do those have to be accounted for each roll? What's up with that? If everything is automated it feels like there might be a gap in using strategy when it comes to your character actions.
There is some strategy involving your selection of attack (normal / called shot / full-auto / disarm / keep their heads down) and your selection of stance (evasive / cautious / aggressive / etc. )
But FS3 combat was designed for Battlestar, with an eye towards working for modern games too. Thus there really aren't any "powers" like the kind you speak of. Someone would have to code that in and figure out how they wanted it to work.
@faraday said:
@Coin said:
P.S. How does +combat deal with characters who have specific powers that function turn to turn and can be used or not? Do those have to be accounted for each roll? What's up with that? If everything is automated it feels like there might be a gap in using strategy when it comes to your character actions.
There is some strategy involving your selection of attack (normal / called shot / full-auto / disarm / keep their heads down) and your selection of stance (evasive / cautious / aggressive / etc. )
But FS3 combat was designed for Battlestar, with an eye towards working for modern games too. Thus there really aren't any "powers" like the kind you speak of. Someone would have to code that in and figure out how they wanted it to work.
Then part of my feedback would be an inclusion of that sort of thing. Simple systems are great, but the problem is that they tend to fall apart when you introduce more options (naturally).
It's kind of a disappointment that there's no, for example, urban fantasy possibilities for FS3. To be clear, a disappointment isn't your fault, but rather born from my own expectations.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
@Coin said:
Then part of my feedback would be an inclusion of that sort of thing. Simple systems are great, but the problem is that they tend to fall apart when you introduce more options (naturally).
Thanks for the suggestion. The problem I've run into when discussing this with others before is that it's very hard to do generic "powers". Each system tends to have very specific expectations, which will need very specific code.
I play on a pseudo-X-Men game that's using it now and I've liked the way they've customized things so far. http://xfnyc.riverdark.net/wiki/Main_Page I play a fire-starter with a customized blowtorch weapon. With stuff like that it's fairly easy (you can make a pretty wide variety of custom weapons), but a lot of powers are handled through +rolls.
Speaking as one of the staffers on the game 3EC is referencing, we had to think a lot about how mutation would work in FS3's system. For powers that have pretty clear weaponized capabilities, we're able to do what 3EC said and make custom weapons within the system. You have someone with superstrength, for instance, we start with the usual unarmed weapon and start cranking shit up. For mutants with speed-based powers, we've actually added custom stances to the system (which by default are things like normal, banzai which ups your attack and lowers defense, cautious which does the opposite, etc.) that allows for a higher attack without lowering defense to replicate how their speed would make them better attackers. Invulnerable folks get custom armor. That sort of thing.
For other instances of things, we're free with utilizing +rolls and letting GMs kind of mold the scene around the mutation use. We used to run the old X-Men Movieverse MOO, which didn't have any stats or coded combat, so a lot of us are more than used to GMing all of these things freeform anyways.
@Roz said:
For other instances of things, we're free with utilizing +rolls and letting GMs kind of mold the scene around the mutation use.
Yeah, you've hit upon a lot of the things that can be modeled using the combat variables - attacks, defense, initiative, damage resistance and damage. But a lot of superpowers just don't relate directly to combat, and thus I'm not sure how you would model coded effects for them. Even if you could, it would be highly system-dependent, and I'm not convinced you could make it generic in a satisfactory way.
@seraphim73 I'm sure @faraday would be able to help you with that lightsaber problem in no time at all.
As far as super powers, you could go a little broader, and use the approach many design a super-power/magic spells systems use: define the effect.
More specifically in this case, design a move or effect that would matter in +combat rolls. Then make that an optional module.
I know the topic has shifted, but I like the exponential xp cost thing because it encourages me to round out my character as they gain experience.
I know in the flat cost systems I simply don't at least not beyond what the game runner or staff forces me to. If brawl five cost the same as drive one why would anyone ever buy drive one I guarantee that you will use brawl 5 more often. Trust me I have written background for modern games where the player was from a major city with extensive public transportation just so I did not have to buy drive one.
@ThatGuyThere said:
Trust me I have written background for modern games where the player was from a major city with extensive public transportation just so I did not have to buy drive one.
Heh. It's a rare game that truly needs "Drive" as an action skill. Unless you're routinely doing James Bond style car chases or whatnot. Swimming is another one I see sometimes. Forcing people to buy points in pointless "action" skills they don't need or want just dilutes the focus from the important ones and exacerbates the difficulty of balancing the number of points available to folks.
Pet peeve #48: Players passive-aggressively promoting their own numeric roundedness as a sign of good roleplay as opposed to everyone else who's obviously a powerhungry twink.
I don't care about roundedness, I just care that everyone has the same opportunities befor and after cgen.
And to vex @Arkandel whenever I can.
Yo, if I don't have an underwater basket weaving skill, my concept is nigh useless. So, don't leave that one out.
You don't buy drive because it's useful, you buy Drive because one day in the future, there will be that guy, who tells you to roll that skill and you will be the only person in your crew with that skill and then you'll be like this:
@Alzie LOL! My main issue with Drive is that if you do have it as an action skill then I feel obliged to get it at rating 3 at least, unless of course my character is still a student driver.
But then I'm obsessive in my literal interpretation of the skill rating descriptions. Novice means novice, blast it! </rant> 
Thing is I don't mind being the pilot/Driver and quite frequently make that.
What i hate is being not that guy but having folks trying to guilt me into blowing points on a skill I will never use for the nebulous reason of "you should have that."
