Posts made by The Sands

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

My general coder response to that is: You worry what's best for the game, let me worry about how possible it is.

The danger with that is if someone else has to maintain your code after you're gone. Lots of exceptions can make that difficult.

Honestly though, while I emphasized issues with coding I think it is only a small portion of the problem. Nearly always when you start doing things like saying 'well, this Bloodline is special and the only people who get access to the supa-sektrit Discipline it's because in the back of your brain you don't want everyone running around with it and the reason for that is because deep down you know it is unbalanced or broken (again, this doesn't really apply in a situation where you decide every single Bloodline gets an exclusive Discipline. In that case you are probably more interested in making sure each Bloodline feels unique).

Even speshul Disciplines aren't really the issue, however. The area you get into big trouble is when, as happens with WoD, you have one system by which the Vampires build their magical items, a second system by which the Werewolves build their magical items, and a third system by which Mages build their magical items. I'm not really referring to the specific rolls or conditions that have to be met to create the items but simply the mechanism that determines 'this is a 1 point magic item' and 'this is a 2 point magic item'.

When you do that you end up with one group that makes items far stronger than another, usually. Now this can be all right if that's the plan (e.g. You want Mages making more powerful magic items because that's their thang) but that usually isn't what happens. Instead the group that makes the strongest item is whatever group has the poorest written rules and there's no intent to who actually makes the strongest items. Instead, if you want mages to make stronger items then just give them some extra points to work with or something, but use the same system.

This is good for a variety of reasons. A) it is way easier to code since you only need to write the code once. B) It's one system with modifications so it balances against itself. Trying to balance three disparate systems against one another is a nightmare. C) Players who move from one sphere to another don't have to completely relearn the system.

Are these things 'simple'? No, not really. In fact I wrote up a magical item system for Fear and Loathing that people pretty much both Feared and Loathed and I'm sorry about that. I thought it was the best way to keep things balanced but I really was never able to find that sweet spot of design that people seemed to enjoy while providing what I thought was a good balance.

So instead I would call the principle K.I.C.K. (for Keep It Consistent, Knucklehead). If I had to 'redesign' WoD for a MU* I would probably do something like pick Vampire and then make the other spheres work in more or less similar fashion. Roughly the same number of 'Disciplines' for each sphere and the abilities of the respective 'Disciplines' would probably equate across the board (meaning that if the Mages have the ability to gain Roteskill on their rolls because of one of their 'Disciplines' then the Vampires would probably have some 'Discipline' that provides roughly the same thing. It doesn't mean everything is exactly identical. Werewolves don't need to steal Rage from humans. Mages don't frenzy. However there should be enough similarity that while someone in the Vampire sphere might wish they had some ability that only Mages get there won't be any feeling that 'Well, yeah, of course she threw 30 dice. She's a Sin-Eater'.

@thenomain My first K.I.S.S. is mostly as a kindness to your coders. Having to build a CG system where there are 10 million exceptions is horrible. If, as an example, people can buy Disciplines outside their Bloodline, then make it all Disciplines. Don't create Strange Discipline-4 which is only available to Bloodline 17 unless every single Bloodline has a Discipline that only they can buy (at which point your coder will be able to commit to building a system that allows them to specify that a Discipline is special and can only be bought by one Bloodline). Having to add in code for just one single Bloodline that does something different from every other one sucks.

My second K.I.S.S. could arguably make things more complex. Now you have to write up rules for what it means when a person is intimidated, but at least now people will all know what is expected of them when that occurs. You won't get people just shrugging it off with no effect because they are so badass and you won't get people demanding that the other character has to do something unreasonable because they won the roll.

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

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.

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 then the generalist can catch up. This isn't the specialist deciding to take Zumba classes. They can continue to be as focused on their skill as the system will allow and the generalist will catch up because the game is written so there's a cap.

That's not really min-maxing, though. That's an issue with systems having skill caps, something which is often necessary when you use a linear progression system.

With min-maxing your problem is this; Sam the specialist takes Brawl-5 while George the Generalist takes Brawl-2, Drive-1, Weaponry-1, and Firearms-1. Because you are using a linear system at CG it costs the exact same thing either way. Both of them put 5 points into physical skills. However, after CG both characters have earned 9 XP which is spent using the geometric (or at least pseudo-geometric) WoD scale. George spends his 9 XP to buy Brawl-3. Sam spends his 9 XP to buy Drive-1, Weaponry-1, and Firearms-1.

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.

@thatguythere True. If Character B always spend points on increasing Pie Chart Creation they will stay ahead, but that's just spending more points on a skill. That's not min-maxing.

Min-Maxing is when, after CG, Character B spends 4 points on other skills, Character A spends 4 points on Pie Chart Creation, and Character A still has a lower score than Character B because CG was linear while XP was geometric.

@bored I know you weren't promoting linear-linear. Like I said, I was just expanding on your post, not saying why I thought it was wrong. I mentioned linear-linear in my last post simply to say why I didn't address it in my earlier post.

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

This is precisely the point my post, why did you bother to write the rest of that?

I got it. I was just expanding on it. I'm pro-geometric curve which is why most of my post was dedicated to the advantages of it but I think for meaningful discussion you also need to detail flaws you can see rather than pretending they don't exist or trying to sweep them under the rug (and no, I'm not saying you were trying to do that).

A linear-cg then linear-xp system would cut down on some of the min-maxing but I think it opens up too many other issues.

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

The linear vs. exponential CG thing is just it's own category of problem, and one that game designers should have learned better by now (sorry @faraday). Or maybe they have learned, but its the easier option. Path of least resistance.

There are huge advantages to an exponential system. The biggest is that it helps to minimize the gap between your dinos and your (relatively) new players. For an example if your system assumes you're using a simple 2^X system for the amount of XP required to gain a level than a person who has been playing for 2 years has a 1 point advantage over someone who has been playing for 1 year and a 2 point advantage over someone who has been playing for 6 months.

It also means that while there's an advantage to being specialized but it isn't overwhelming. My knight has spent all of his points on Sword and nothing else. He's got an advantage over someone else who has spent half their points on Sword and the other half has been split up between Axe, Crossbow, and Lance, but his advantage isn't overwhelming and in fact there's every opportunity he will lose in a fight (because a smart opponent will stand back and shoot me. Why engage me in the skill I spent all my point on?)

You'll have to tune aspects of your game so that a 1 or 2 point advantage ends up about where you want, of course. If the Challenge Resolution System is roll 1d6 and add your score than a 2 point advantage is pretty significant. If it is roll 1d100 and add your score than the advantage is miniscule. I'm a huge fan of using a sigmoidal probability curve, but that's a whole different thing.

The problem that this system has is the math is harder than simple linear math. If your using 2^X it's pretty simple but you may discover that 1.5^X or 2.8^X works better for the progression that you want. I'll be real honest and say that this is a component I would normally 'hide' from the players. I would just have them dump XP into the stat as they want. Of course this means you have to use a discontinuous system (meaning having a skill with a value of 3.42 actually means something, so most systems where you are rolling X dice go right out the window).

The other thing you really can't do is use a linear system for character generation. You need to use a system more along the lines of 'everyone starts with 1 year of XP, buy your stats'. Otherwise you will absolutely have people min-max the Hell out of the system. It's not that they are bad people. You've created a system that encourages that.

Incidentally, if I absolutely had to build a MU system from scratch this is probably the position I would start from. Attributes would never add directly to a skill to determine if you successfully used the skill. Instead they would modify the XP that has been spent. The most dexterous guy in the world is still going to suck pretty badly the first time he tries to drive because he has absolutely no skill at it, however it won't take him very much XP before he has a high enough score to qualify for a license. Since the system is geometric people won't end up sacrificing much from their 'critical skills' so they can handle basic tasks like driving, reading, or doing basic math.

Sure, if someone wants to sacrifice those skills so that they can get an edge on being a swordsman they could, but the gain would be pretty minimal. More importantly, if they decide to 'buy off' the fact they are missing those skills they will end up at the same point as someone who started with them and took slightly lower critical skills. There is no incentive to sacrifice something and then immediately buy it off after you've cleared CG. Sacrifice it and keep the sacrifice? Sure. Not take the skill at CG because you know you'll have the XP in a week to buy it and you'll end up with higher stats? Not so much.

@thenomain Having a better idea what you're looking for now:

Standardize how various things work. Most tabletop games do an awful lot of 'things work this way, except when they work this way. Occasionally they will work this way and on rare occasions they will work this way'.

Probably the biggest thing, though, is don't just assume something (especially a social skill) is going to be used on an NPC. Provide some kind of real framework for what things mean (if someone is intimidated, wtf does that mean? Can they not attack the person who intimidated them? Do they need to make a willpower roll? Do they have a penalty if they attack? Don't just say 'the person has been intimidated).

@thenomain The basic path I should be using is

Step 1: Be capable of storing a complete character. This just means that a person with the proper rights could look at the data and write out a charactersheet if they were so inclined. It doesn't mean the player has that ability, just that you have a format in place that can handle (more or less) any character. There might be some extreme outliers that require a bit of information stored in the form of +notes but for the most part everything uses a dedicated data setup. (Lots of games don't fully implement Step 1 since, as an example, a mortal with Professional Training-5 often needs a note detailing what their asset skills are).

Step 2: Create code that can extract that data. This includes functions that can retrieve the value of a stat, +prove style commands, and +sheet commands.

Step 3: Create commands that allow you to manipulate that data. Up to this point data has been set 'by hand' by a wizard (or whatever the equivalent is for the codebase). By the time this is done it should be possible to set up a completely new character without any hardcoded commands.

Step 4: Build a CG. This should be robust enough to allow the vast majority of characters to be created. There might be some outliers that require staff intervention at the end (such as a feral for a completely new race) but for the most part nearly any gameplay legal character should be able to be created. Bonus points if the system can quickly confirm to staff that everything is legal (e.g. a CG system might allow people not to spend all their skill points but will present a flag to staff that the character has done this).

Step 5: Add ancillary systems. These would be things like dice rolling, code for recording injuries, and spending points for temporary bonuses (such as Willpower in WoD). When this is done two characters should be fully capable of interacting with one another in most capacities (such as combat or passing resources back and forth) without GM intervention.

Of course this is the roadmap I drew out for myself and then I immediately veered off road and started building a CG before I even finished the system to store all the data required for a character, and now I'm paying for it.

@thenomain I'm not quite sure what you're asking. How would you turn most table top rpgs into a MU setting? What table top system would you use? What parts need to be coded?

Right now I'm trying to get Eclipse Phase into a form that could be used for a MU and I can tell you it is a bear and a half. I can see the overall path and the fact that I'm using an SQL database makes some things far easier but there's still just so much 'oh, because you bought this trait then your characteristic maximum for one specific characteristic is 10 points higher/for all characteristics is capped at 10).

@saosmash Actually, I'm not sure these arguments (assuming you mean the whole Drive thing) are a good reason to avoid WoD/CoD. There are plenty of good reasons to maybe look at something else (many listed just above) but the fact that people argue over a stat like Drive and fluff is probably endemic to most systems.

@surreality I suspect that its because A) a lot of people like the overall setting and B) there's lots of code support for it.

@surreality Additionally there's just the fact that it is a problematic system. It was designed for friends gathered around a table. Granularity is fairly abysmal, there is a terrible balance between skills and attributes, and several skills are far too broad (Crafts and Expression being the biggest criminals in the lot).

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

It's badly written fluff in the rulebook.

It's really not. People are dredging up ghosts of Christmas long past. It's not in the book at all anymore.

The idea that it's a beginner's own fault for not understanding where the contradictions or misleading text is in a sourcebook is a wildly unwelcoming attitude.

It isn't a good attitude to have, you're right, and I apologize. Somehow I am failing to make myself clear but I'm really not trying to say 'too bad, so sad. Should have read the books more carefully'.

What I am trying to say is that blaming other people for having better stats than the newbie because the newbie made mistakes is an even worse attitude to have.

Uh, as Faraday said, WoD is not the only system we're allowed to discuss in this thread. This is not a WoD thread.

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.

@faraday If you want to complain about people in other systems using skills that they aren't allowed to then by all means. Maybe you should pick a different example and stop trying to defend this one. I will actually support your argument if people are really using skills they don't have in a game (much as I have repeatedly said that the NASCAR driver without drive is a bad player, because even if he never has to roll the skill he is still roleplaying a stat he doesn't have) but the example you're using is flawed.

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

Yeah, I very much like systems where your stat/attribute and skill have different weights in the roll. And I like skill being the one that has more weight. It feels more accurate to life.

Agreed, but that is not the system being discussed. There are quite a few things I don't like about the WoD/CoD system and one of them is the relative cost and balance between skills and attributes. However, it's the system in use in most places.

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

That's absurd. If the rules say "Drive 1 means the average person who can drive well enough to get to the grocery store without incident" and I take that level because that describes my character then I haven't done anything wrong.

Except the rules don't say that. The rules say that you add your attribute and your skill to get your die pool whenever you try something. Ever since first edition they have used wording such as 'with each score suggesting your character’s relative level of proficiency and knowledge in that area.' Suggesting not defining (this particular quote was from WoD 1e but the same basic terms have been used ever since V:tM 1e).

New players can't be expected to psychically know which rules to follow and which rules not to follow. It's a game designer's mistake for writing the rules that way and a staff mistake for not saying in their house rules "this rule as written is stupid and we're ignoring it" but in no way, shape or form is it a player mistake.

What you're talking about isn't a rule. You can keep saying it is, but it isn't. It's badly written fluff.

I'm not blaming them. I'm just saying that gives them an advantage over the player who tried to play the game with the rules as written.

Not a rule. What you're doing is complaining that someone made a better character than you because they know the rules. I honestly have no real idea how to respond to that. Yes, there are cases where people abuse the system by finding loopholes, but this isn't one of them. This is a case of someone knowing 'that's fluff and has no direct bearing'.

I don't see how that's really debatable. Your RP your character as "an average day to day driver" and so do I. But I paid two extra points for it. That means your character is two points better at things that actually matter in the game.

And if I bought 5 dots in Expression and say my character is "an average speaker" you would have three points more than me at things that actually matter in game. My decision to do that means I made a mistake.

Also, if the staff really does mean the rules as written (which some places do), then RPing being an average driver when the rules say you aren't is cheating.

Yes, but again, not a rule.

It's no different than RPing a doctor-level medicine knowledge when you have First Aid 1.

If I've got a 5 Int and Medicine 1 then I absolutely am allowed to RP as if I have a 6 die pool. If you want to argue that a 6 die pool isn't sufficient to be a Doctor that's up to you but that's how the game works.

It seems like you want to complain people aren't following the rules but what you really want is for people to follow rules that don't exist and I'm sorry, but I can't "be expected to psychically know" to follow rules that don't exist anywhere.

(incidentally, just to illustrate how utterly pointless your argument is, "The Drive Skill allows your character to operate a vehicle under difficult or dangerous conditions. Characters don’t need this Skill simply to drive a car. It’s safe to assume in a modern society that most individuals are familiar with automobiles and the rules of the road." (WoD p. 69). It's been a rule for 14 years that you don't need Drive to operate a car.)

@roz We can quibble on that. We'll get into issues about exactly how much 'common sense' knowledge they need to provide. Again, my real point is that you can't blame the person who didn't take Drive (which was what was initially being implied).

@insomniac7809 said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

Does Drive 0 mean "can't drift" or "can't drive"?

Drive 0 means you think Drifting is a faster way to drive.

@roz As I said, I don't want to blame them. I want to blame the poorly written material.

I am only blaming the newbie before blaming the experienced player who realizes that the description is nonsense. And once again, I'm not talking about the 'experienced player' who is playing a professional NASCAR driver with no Drive because they realize that on a MU* the skill will never be rolled. I'm talking about the experienced player who knows that you don't have to roll for trivial mundane activities. The person playing the NASCAR driver is absolutely a crappy player, IMO.