Posts made by ThatGuyThere

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

@thatguythere said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

Edit: Over in the social skills section you mention seduction shouldn't be able to work in some situations, yet in the write up for seduction as an action in WoD 1st edition there is no mention of the a target needing to be attracted to the seducer, having a significant other is listed as a bonus for the resistance roll though doesn't negate the attempt either, wouldn't a GM deciding a seduction didn't be just as arbitrary as my medicine example?

In that context I'm talking about designing a system. I'm saying that when you write up said system you should take these things into account.

So then by that logic in a game using WoD 1.0 whether a character is attracted to the attempted seducer is irrelevant, it would just be a presence + persuasion with maybe a modifier due to the last of attraction, because that is your rules as written standard.

@thatguythere said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

I don't think I would be a terrible Gm just one with a different view than you prefer. there are many style, for example where do you stand on GMs fudging dice? I personally would leave a game where the Gm did that, other people see no issue with it.
The Gm who fudges is not terrible just not to my taste, much like my not fudging resulting in PCs losing and in some cases dying has cause others to leave my games
To be the skill thing is along the same lines, the rules provide a story framework they are not a set of fictional physics. And I would be consistent, I would not let Bill try to perform surgery with medicine one nor Bob nor anyone.

Edit: Over in the social skills section you mention seduction shouldn't be able to work in some situations, yet in the write up for seduction as an action in WoD 1st edition there is no mention of the a target needing to be attracted to the seducer, having a significant other is listed as a bonus for the resistance roll though doesn't negate the attempt either, wouldn't a GM deciding a seduction didn't be just as arbitrary as my medicine example?

I don't think I would be a terrible Gm just one with a different view than you prefer. there are many style, for example where do you stand on GMs fudging dice? I personally would leave a game where the Gm did that, other people see no issue with it.
The Gm who fudges is not terrible just not to my taste, much like my not fudging resulting in PCs losing and in some cases dying has cause others to leave my games
To be the skill thing is along the same lines, the rules provide a story framework they are not a set of fictional physics. And I would be consistent, I would not let Bill try to perform surgery with medicine one nor Bob nor anyone.

Since it is on topic and because I am somewhat curious what other people think about it I will share how i handle social rolls in table top, both against PCs and NPCs. (I am a big believer in the mechanics of anything effecting PCs and NPCs in the same manner.)
Not non-supernatural social skill instead of the roll controlling action modifies them.
For example intimidate, if one character is trying to intimidate another and succeeds then while the targets character still has autonomy of action acting against the character that intimidated him would incur a penalty.
Or for everyone's favorite seduction no roll should force sex but instead the seducers would apply a penalty to the targets actions because the targets is distracted by thinking desirous thoughts whether they are ever acted on or not.
Or if you want to use social combat to benefit someone use leadership to give an inspiring speech and those following your goals for the next scene get a bonus.
That why the social combat crowd does get some bang for their buck, while the agency crowd still has final say over the actions of the character even if those action become less likely to succeed.
As much as I dislike the world of NWoD 2.0 one good thing is the conditions, and this could be used to codify this a bit, for example a successful seduction gives the condition call Flustered and it is given a set effect and a set way to resolve it. Leadership could give an inspired Condition that gives a bonus until resolved, etc. It would involved more overhead in the initial set up but would be a middle ground.

@the-sands
Yes if i was running the scene I would give whatever modifiers on skills that I found warranted including flat out saying things don't succeed or sometimes that things automatically succeed. One rule I have seen in most games and definitely in every WoD one was that the GM/storyteller is the final arbiter of things. No if someone disagree they are free to leave the scene or in the case of table top the campaign.
In a GM less scene I it is a different matter but if someone with low skill wanted to do something I thought was out of whack I would also pause things to call in staff to act as the arbiter of the situation.

@the-sands
Not really since shooting most guns works the same you point and pull trigger, but I would tell someone with low firearms they couldn't field strip a weapon, and yes I have made someone without firearms skill roll to figure out they needed to take the safety off on a weapon before firing it.

@three-eyed-crow said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

This sort of gets at...how much is a dice system responsible for making players feel validated and important to the story? And this is not a minor thing. This is maybe the most important responsibility a GM has.

I would disagree with this statement completely, to me it is not the responsibility for the GM to do anything by be fair and upfront. For example if i am running a heavy combat plot to mention that so people can make a decision about participating. Or if it is something investigation heavy mention that etc.
If a runner says hey this will be fight-y I don't think they have any obligation to throw in something to let a non-fighty person have a moment to shine. I also do thing that if a plot is billed as an investigation the GM should though in a combat just because a tank showed up and wanted someone to punch.
No one feeling of validation is ever anyone else's responsibility especially not in a game.

Not exactly on this line but I think the rules and fluff should ideally in any game be in tune with each other.
Though when the disagree I will tend to side with fluff mainly because if the point of the game is to tell stories which is the stated goal of every published RPG I have read, then the story should have primacy.
If the point is not to tell stories we are essentially playing poorly designed wargames and should be cracking open Advanced Squad Leader for our small unit combat sims, or any of the various small unit scale wargames out there. (This is not to denigrate ASL at all I loves me that game but it is not an RPG nor does it claim to be.)

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

@the-sands But that's the entire reason modifiers exist in nWoD. For situational advantages/disadvantages. They would still have the same dice pool for treating a gunshot wound, for the reasons I previously mentioned, but a test on the subject matter that the int 5 guy never actually went to school on, I would most definitely say he would take a -modifier for. That's not the ST being a dick, that's just looking at the situation and going 'yeah that is probably a factor in this roll' the same as doing parkour in an arena evenly coated with crisco.

@Wretched is being more generous than I would be here, I was was running a tabletop or a scene and the Int 5 Med ! guy was wanting to do much beyond first aid stuff I would just tell them with medicine one your character lacks the knowledge and move on.

@the-sands
But would would be the incentive not to make the idiot savant and then use xp later to round out? You might not get a mechanical advantage, but coming out of c-gen with a 5 and a zero in two skills than it is to come out with a 2 and a 3 even if eventually getting both to a combined number later cost identical XP.

@packrat
My question in your example is unless there is an outside limiter on how many people you can bring with storming the castle bring Sword 8 guy and find a Polearms 8 guy Let the pole arms 8 guy handle the courtyard fight while you and Sword 8 guy move on into the castle.
To me i have just never seen the point of the generalist in most game systems, either they become ineffective against the difficulty levels the game has due to lack of specialization or they become oh I don't need a party I can do all things, in which case I would wonder why they bothered with dealing with others and just didn't do the things themselves.

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

At that point, the generalists often find themselves pushed out of the story spotlight, because why bring the guy who can sneak, handle security systems, and negotiate, and is an OK marksman, when the elite sniper can also do all of those things.

My thought is the generalist will get pushed to the side anyway unless he is a far superior RPer.
For example lets say I make a face and put together a team for a shadow run, I am gonna look for the best street sam available, the best decker, the best mage etc, in most games regardless of the xp system generalists do get left by the wayside. Which is why people do tend to min max, if my character needs an X there is little reason not to seek out "Best at X" other than personal issues with "Best" (either IC or OOC) or I can't afford the resource cost of hiring the best. In most cases it is far better to be the best at X than be the good or even very good at X, Y and Z.
There is a reason that IRL a master electrician gets paid a crap ton more than the handy man who can do some wiring, do some plumbing, do some carpentry. the handy man might have a lot more job opportunities but he will also make a crap ton less on each job.

@bored
I don't see how linear advancement eliminate the gain for min maxing, if Character A has ten points to spend and spends 4 on pie chart creation (wacky example skill) and spreads the other 6 around, and Character B spends his ten points on 8 pie chart creation and dumps the other two else where, at equal rate of XP advancement A will still never catch up he will always be 4 points down unless B decides to spend else where or hits a system imposed limit. the advantage of the min maxer is still there.

@d-bone
No in chargen I first focus on being good at what matters to the character concept regardless of systems, which usually results in a fairly specialized sheet.

The difference is that with multiplicative xp costs I use xp to round out because the low skills cheaper than the one I am already high in, but when the xp is the same yes I dump it all into the things I use most which also tend to be the things I bought up high in c-gen.
To me the flat xp cost encourages the specialization more because there is no point of diminishing returns.
Doe example lest say my char has computer 0 and brawl 4, in a multiplicative set up I am much more likely to by computer 1 over brawl five because it is a lot cheaper. In a system where the fifth point of Brawl cost as much as that first dot in computer I see no reason to buy that dot in computer until I have maxed out the allowable number for brawl at least.

@thenomain
To me Fudge is a game system as well. I have both played in and ran games using FUDGE the same as I have any other game system.
the main differences I see between the two are the Aspects and the Fate Point economy. Which to me both qualify at bells and whistles, (One I like the Aspects, and one I have never cared for, fate points) but to me playing FATE is basically playing FUDGE with a few wrinkles.

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

So in systems like Faraday/WoD/L5R/Etc I tend to always min-max because they have multiplicative xp costs. This is justto get what I want to get out of cgen. I then try and fill in the cheaper gaps and flesh out a sheet. If the system is designed with a flat additive systems where everything costs the same amount at all times, then I'm willing to 'waste' points on skills that won't make me the most super optimized at everything. This is contingent on the expectation that as a player I can achieve my goals during the course of play.

I tend to be the opposite, regardless of system I first build a character that is competent at their primary task as priority one but in systems with multiplicative costs I spread points around more with xp because the side things are relatively cheap. If the coast is flat I just keep piling point into the core skills for the character until I hit the limit either imposed by the system or the person running the game, because if everything costs the same there is no sane reason not to spend on what you will be rolling the most, because for any skill in existence I can come up with a perfectly IC reason for a character not to have it.

@surreality
Fate is Fudge with a lot of bells and whistles added.
I am not sure why everyone hates it, it is a perfectly fine low complexity setting independent game system, though I think a lot of people are put off by the free form nature of aspects.

@thenomain said in Repurposing a Tabletop RPG for MU* Play:

@the-sands

What do you need to consider in turning a tabletop RPG into a Mu*?

I don't think you have to use a tabletop system but I know nothing would get me to not consider a game faster than an undocumented system.
I would not play a card or board game where I was not allowed to see the rules either.

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

But the example given is WoD. Faraday quite literally was presenting the position that the other players should be expected to buy Drive in WoD so they wouldn't have an advantage over the newbie, despite the fact that the WoD rules say that they don't need it.

NWoD you are correct says they do not, However 2oth Annversary for OWoD no longer uses the manual transmission description but on Page 280 of 20th anniversary of mage described drive 2 as being "Practiced: Typical American" Changleing 20th uses a different set of descriptors on their write up for drive found on page 165 but for them drive one states, "Novice: You can drive an automatic. "
So yes depending on the flavor WoD still has this issue.

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

Should there be +census for attribute and skills so players get a sense of what the actually playerbase spread is?

Fallcoast does have this at least in regards to certain stats.