Posts made by faraday

@the-sands said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

Ok, but can you honestly look me in the eye (metaphorically) and tell me that they skill descriptors were intended to be 'rules' and not 'guidelines'? They are so hysterically badly written that it says that a General Practitioner only has to go through 6 years of school and that driving a stickshift requires the same rigor to master as a college (pre-med) degree.

Having not picked up a WoD book in almost 20 years, I would not venture an opinion as to the current state of WoD skill descriptors. I was just musing about the general importance of fluff text in rulebooks.

That aside, lots of things in RPGs are hysterically badly written when compared to reality. That's why there's a GM involved - to interpret the rules and keep players from trying to take out a tank with a dikoted crossbow bolt (true story - just not WOD related) just because the rules say they can.

Random side note - becoming a general practitioner does typically take 7 years of medical training so it's not like they were off by a mile or anything.

@the-sands said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

Thus this is a strawman argument unless you would let someone with Medicine-4 + Int-1 do brain surgery.

It's debatable whether someone with Int-1 should be allowed to have Medicine-4 (Surgery) in the first place unless there were a compelling story attached about how exactly they managed to make it through college, medical school and the exceptionally challenging specialty of neurosurgery with such a low IQ. Just as I would have a hard time buying someone with Dex-1 Piloting-5 claiming they were an elite fighter pilot. I believe that sheets and backgrounds should hold together in a logical fashion.

But assuming you let them get it then sure - they should be able to do it.

@jennkryst said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

So massive Int is not a requirement.

I think someone with average (2) could argue they just worked really hard. But 1 is pushing it for me.

Either way - a GM's job is to use the rules to enable other players to have fun and tell a good story, not to be a blind slave to said rules and allow situations that defy common sense.

@the-sands said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

The subject is 'should skill descriptions be treated as rules?'

I think a better way to frame the question is: "when mechanics and fluff text are in conflict, which do you believe?"

Because really... how do you define "rules"? Lots of stuff in the player's guide describing a given nationality/clan/world/faction/classes/weapons/etc. is "fluff text". None of it has any mechanics associated with it. That doesn't mean it's not important, it just serves a different purpose. It provides information about the game world or - in the case of the skill descriptions - indications as to the game-designer's intent.

Do you really think the authors of WoD intended the guy with Medicine 1 + Int 4 to be able to do brain surgery just because he's got 5 dice? Or the guy with Piloting 1 + Dex 4 to be able to fly a space shuttle? I really don't. As a GM I would have absolutely no problem telling those characters: "Lol, no." And I daresay my players would agree with me.

@lithium said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

Also, I have no idea why you think these aren't games. They use rule systems. They aren't reality. They aren't us. They are fictional characters.

Duh. Nobody is saying they're reality or that they're us, the players. But MUSHes are a collaborative storytelling game. They're not a pure simulation. They're not a video game where you're completely bounded by the physics of the game engine. They're a game of imagination.

And to the whole "they're based on tabletop RPGs with rules" argument - I call BS because I've played in tons of tabletop RPGs where the GM and players are all: "Well, yes the rules say that, but that's complete nonsense so let's ignore it." Where story trumps mechanics. Where GMs fudge rolls in the interests of making the game more fun.

You can claim all day that those people were playing "wrong" but to me that's about as sensible as someone saying that people who like comic book movies are wrong/dumb just because they personally do not find that genre appealing.

ETA: And just as you're apparently not including games that flat-out state their consent rules in your arguments, nobody talking about player agency is claiming that they should be exempt from rules on a given game that's fully non-consent. It's the difference between saying "TGG has permadeath - I really don't like that because <reasons>" and "TGG has permadeath but that shouldn't apply to me." The first is a discussion. The second is absurd and I haven't seen anybody saying that.

@lithium

I was unduly snarky too, sorry.

@lithium said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

The whole idea of player agency is something I don't understand.

Likewise, the "you're cheating" argument is something I don't understand because games have different rules.

On a full-consent game ... you're not cheating because the game literally has 100% player agency.

On BSGU... you're not cheating because the game policies expressly give you agency.

On Fate... you're not cheating because (as I understand it... please don't nuke me if I got it wrong from 2nd hand information) the game rules provide "outs".

Even on WoD, the game rules acknowledge that some things are not possible no matter the die roll, and that other things require modifiers - sometimes extreme modifiers depending on the situation.

So unless a game system has an expressly written rule for resolving social conflict with expressly listed available modifiers and limits, this whole "you're cheating" thing doesn't hold any water for me.

@lithium said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

We're not writing a book here. We really aren't. We're playing a game in a medium that involves writing, not writing a book and using dice to determine the outcome.

You can't make a blanket statement about "we" are doing. That may be what you are doing, but that doesn't mean it applies to everyone equally.

MUSHes are not a book. They're also not a game. They're somewhere in-between and different people view them differently. It's that Narrative->Simulation continuum I'm always going on about. I fall more heavily on the Narrative side and you fall more on the Simulation side. That doesn't mean you're a bad person or you're wrong or anything - it just means you like to play differently.

Why the heck can't people just leave it at that and stop attacking each other?

@kitteh I'm going out of my way to disagree politely, and the response is to accuse me of making it contentious and personal and painting you as unreasonable. Fine, whatever. I'm done trying to express an opinion.

@lithium And here we go again, with "my way is the only possible way for anyone to play and if they dare to suggest that maybe different rules would be better they're rules-breaking lunatics who shouldn't be playing in a virtual world" nonsense.

Yeah. This is productive.

@kitteh said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

But yeah I do think the dice-vs.-expectations thing can be tricky to manage. When you have highly min-maxed people... doing predictably, consistently well, 'oh they really don't have much of an advantage' is unsatisfying to hear whether its true or not. Maybe it's only 17% (or whatever) but when you roll as often as you do in FS3 I do think that stuff adds up. It's fine to let the super-leet be leet, but if you're gonna design the game that way you probably want to create alternate lower-stakes things the 'mere mortals' can do so they can actually feel like they're part of things and not irrelevant spectators to the cool people.

But, see.... I really don't mean to piss you off or disregard your feelings, but your opinion seems to be the minority there from all the feedback I've received. That doesn't mean your experiences aren't valid just.... no system can please everyone.

There are plenty of people who didn't have maxed-out stats at all who did perfectly well in combat, both on the marine side and the pilot side. AND there were several people who actually did have maxed-out (or nearly so) stats who were often griping about feeling "useless" just because they didn't get any kills or didn't do much damage in a couple missions. It was definitely more common on the pilot side because of the kill board, because there IS an IC competitiveness among pilots.

So yeah... perceived performance versus expected performance is definitely a valid issue for game systems to address, but... how? Short of dispensing with dice entirely and just leaving it up to skill vs skill... what on earth are you supposed to do? (Serious question.)

ETA: To clarify - I'm not saying nobody complains about FS3. Lordy do they. But "the newbie can't hold their own against the vets" is really just not a complaint I've received repeatedly.

@lithium said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

That's not to say anyone here is doing that, but there comes a point when: You are playing a game, the game is going to take you out of your comfort zone eventually (Sooner in some game systems), and if it's so far out of your comfort zone, that you have to try and make rules not apply then... maybe it's you, not the system.

As someone who will die on the social combat hill... I 100% agree with you there. If I choose to play on a game with social combat, then I'm honorbound to follow the rules, whatever my preferences may be.

Where I find value in this thread is seeing where potential compromises can be found. For instance - after this thread @Seraphim73 and I went off and worked on social conflict systems independently. His was obviously more non-consent oriented and mine more consent-oriented, but it was hilarious how similar they were otherwise. If I was going to venture onto a game with social combat, I would be far more comfortable on a system like his that with the traditional "roll Persuasion vs Willpower and do what they say". There IS room for compromise here.

@kitteh We can certainly disagree on how things should be - and I did make some tweaks to combat (armor wasn't working quite right) and XP costs after you left. But regardless, I meant no offense.

Back to the original topic though.... I mean, what others have said is factually accurate about systems in general (and FS3 in particular):

• Having a linear chargen cost system and exponential XP system absolutely encourages people to start off as awesome as they wish to be, since it'll be hard to raise later.
• If left unchecked by other means, this can lead to ludicrous min-maxing. (On the flip side, there are countless ways to check this: staff review, skill package minimums like the BSGU 'basic training' skills, mandatory background skills, maximum limits on points spent on certain skills, limits on specialty skills, just to name a few).
• You can't do the prototypical "hero's journey" trope where you go from zero to hero in a short timespan with most exponential XP costs.
• The person who starts off ahead (re: higher XP value because they bought skills up higher) will always be ahead.
• It's important to set expectations so players aren't disappointed.

@seraphim73 said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

It was totally frustrating, especially watching other characters soar ahead of him. But it totally happens. Not just a "low skills" thing, just a luck-of-the-dice thing. Which doesn't, of course, make it any easier.

Yeah honestly from what I saw behind the curtains - some people just had crappy luck. Which comes down to what someone said a few posts ago... how much responsibility does the GM have to make the players feel like they're playing up to their skills, as opposed to just saying: "Ah, well, them's the breaks, the dice hate you tonight." I mean, I know the latter was more my experience in tabletop RPGs. I try to err more on the side of story in games but as long as there's automated dice involved, there's really only so much you can do.

@kitteh I stated earlier in the thread that FS3 allows you to go from Everyman to Good in 6 months. To get to Great is another 4 months after that. Like @Ganymede, I thought you were complaining that these 10 months to get to Great was too slow, so I picked the atbitrary comparison of 6 months. It was not my intention to belittle anyone and I’m sorry if it came across that way.

Incidentally the system imposes no special restrictions on the transition from Good to Great. If T8S does so, that’s a house rule I have no control over.

@kitteh I can’t argue with perceptions because they are, of course, in the eye of the beholder. I can only speak to the math. Dice suck sometimes, whether you’re Good or Great, and different situations can contribute to negative experiences.

But yes, if your goal is to come in at poor and get to Expert in 6 months then FS3 isn’t the system for you. Just as D20 isn’t the system for me for very different reasons.

@d-bone said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

2 IG years seems pretty adequate amount of time to acquire a level of mastery that should be feasible ... A game with a multiplicative system really makes such advancement infeasible.

Does it? In FS3 3rd ed (using the stock configuration) you can go from "Fair" to "Extraordinary" in 2 years. That seems pretty comparable to what you're suggesting, even with an exponential advancement curve.

@d-bone Nobody's saying that there shouldn't be character advancement. We're just saying that not all stories require dramatic and fast changes to a character's stats. It is a trope, yes, and even a common one - but not all game systems need to respect every trope in existence.

ETA to your edit: And character growth can be completely independent from stat growth, as in the Han example you mentioned.

@kitteh said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

I have to say, I hate hate hate this kind of stuff and I wish games wouldn't do it.

Everything's a tradeoff.

Look, it's easy to say, as @Misadventure and @Seraphim73 have, "Just make chargen use XP"

Mathematically that's easy, but there's a people-cost to that. The #1 thing that people love about FS3 (and its #1 design goal) is "Wow chargen is so fast and easy!" Guess what - if you make chargen use XP costs? It won't be. I've played systems that have tiered costs in chargen. It's a PITA to figure out how to spend your points, and personally I've found that it penalizes people who want to be expert at something. They end up having to spend all their points in that and have nothing for the basic "human being" type stuff. I've seen more min-maxing in those systems, not less.

With FS3, I choose not to penalize people for being experts. Yes, that means that a min-maxer can end up with a few more "dots" than a non-min-maxer. But guess what again? Mathematically, those extra dots don't matter very much. Seriously, the difference between 8 dice (someone who took good/good for attribute + skill) and 12 dice (someone who took exceptional / legendary) is 3% on an unopposed roll and 17% on an opposed roll. On a PVE game, those differences are nigh-irrelevant, and even on a PVP game 17% is hardly "OMG I'm going to be left in the dust and be completely irrelevant in plots."

ETA: You can argue those differences "should" be greater, but again that's a design choice. And the extra dice do come into play when there are wound modifiers and whatnot. The legendary guy won't be slowed down as much by the bullet in his shoulder, can make the hit at super-long range, etc.

Again, there are different ways to solve problems, but first you have to decide what problems are most important to you. Different people have different ideas about what those should be.

Man, I don't know what kinds of games you guys are playing on, but I don't have "brain-damaged idiot savants who only know one skill" coming out of chargen on my games. The overwhelming majority of characters are perfectly reasonable and balanced. Then again, I run PvE games where people aren't at each others' throats all the time, so there isn't this insane one-ups-manship you seem to envision going on. There are no cross-functional glory hogs running around stealing the spotlight from everyone else. And with very rare exceptions, nobody gets bent out of shape that Bob the Expert started off with more points than they did. Heck, I've got a large percentage of players who don't even bother to spend their XP and are perfectly content because chargen let them make the character they wanted.

I'm not saying my games are perfect or that they're for everyone. They're not. They have issues too, just not those issues.

You're describing a doomsday scenario that doesn't exist if you have a halfway competent staff. There are lots of different ways to solve problems, and refusing to acknowledge that is either willful ignorance or a failure of imagination.

@Sockmonkey - Good luck with your system. Seriously. I shared those same goals once. My advice now? Make the system you like and then never share it with anyone.

@the-sands said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

Except that the expert in a lot of systems won't always be ahead of the generalist. They'll hit a skill cap limit and the generalist can catch up.

If the game runs for several years, yes. Just as I will someday catch up to my buddy the fourth degree black belt even though they had a several degree head start. Because the time between levels goes up exponentially and eventually we reach a practical plateau. Again, I file that under “operating as intended”.

Both characters went through CG. Both characters have earned the same amount of XP. However, Sam has Brawl-5 while George only has Brawl-3 because Sam has taken advantage of a flaw in the system. Other than that they are completely identical.

Again, as intended. Because even though they started with the same number of chargen points, they did not start off even.. That is the mathematical fact of a linear chargen system coupled with an exponential xp system. Whether you see that as a benefit or a flaw is a matter of perspective and opinion.

@bored said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

The issue isn't whether or not the generalist can (or should) catch up with the specialist. It's probably perfectly fine that they can't, and assuming there's infinite places to spend XP (possibly true in WoD with enough splat books), the specialist will stay ahead in either linear or geometric.

And that, fundamentally, is the difference in our opinions. You see that as a problem. I see that as the system reflecting reality.

It's January 1st, 2018. You're an expert in Basketweaving - you've got ten years' experience and are a renowned expert. I have taken a few Basketweaving classes but I don't really know what I'm doing. My New Year's Resolution is to become a Basketweaving expert, so I devote all my time to that. While I'm playing catch-up, you decide you are going to take a Zumba class. You do that for a bit then take up Martial Arts. In your spare time you take a couple online Sketching classes.

Fast-forward six months. Have I made an appreciable dent in catching up to you? Probably not. But you've earned a few levels in all those other skills.

The expert will always be ahead of the generalist because they started off awesome.

The real issue is what you said here:

@bored said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

At that point, the generalists often find themselves pushed out of the story spotlight,

Don't let that happen. Set up your game with safety rails or faction-only plots or whatever else you want. But don't let that happen, because not only does that sort of issue affect the generalist playing catch-up, it also affects new players versus experienced ones.

For example, on BSGU it doesn't really matter if the Raptor Pilot spent their XP learning Firearms on the side. They still can't go on Marine missions. There's also a blocker on the transition between amateur and professional ratings (2-3 in 3rd edition) in certain specialty skills so you can't advance past that hurdle without formalized training. This preserves the utility of specialists so not everybody can take the place of a combat medic or a demolitions expert just because they had some extra XP to burn.

The solutions will vary depending on the game, but the point is - there are other ways to solve that problem.

@thatguythere said in Social 'Combat': the hill I will die on (because I took 0 things for physical combat):

I have both played in and ran games using FUDGE the same as I have any other game system.

I have too so I don't quite understand the distinction.

@d-bone Groovy. As long as you don't want him to go from 'never picked up a pen' to 'God's gift to journalism' overnight you can absolutely do that sort of story in on of my FS3 games. You can go from 0 to "Good" in 6 months of determined XP spends, which I find more than reasonable for the "I never picked up a gun but now it's the zombie apocalypse and I'm forced to survive" type situations. The jumps are only big at the higher levels.

(And yeah, I probably should've stopped with movie 3 for the Die Hard example because after that the movies got utterly insane. No analogy is perfect.)

But this is all probably way off-topic so I feel bad now for helping to take the thread off on a tangent.