PDA

View Full Version : What's your pleasure?



Lacco
2020-08-20, 02:54 PM
I've been thinking about my gaming choices lately and noticed a pattern. I prefer playing games that have no "one true" way, where solutions usually do not work 100% and you have to improvise on your way. Where quick thinking and ability to keep calm usually marks the victor.

Lately, my guilty pleasure was oh-so-faulty Objects in Space. It scratches my itch for walking through a spaceship to quickly disconnect the reactor, switch faulty components for working ones and then run back just in time to switch the reactor on to be able to shoot the damn torpedo -which just barely managed to power up from the battery - at the pirate.

The pleasure I take from the knowledge it worked because I upgraded the battery and had just the spare parts I needed almost equals the one I got from quick thinking and seeing the pirate blown to smithereens.

I tend to immerse myself into games I play a lot. But this specific "itch" I have is something I realised only lately. But it's also in RPGs - my favourite one was summed up by one of my players as:


Mind you it's view of tactics are possibly different than what you want. The game has two levels of tactics, those on the individual fighting level and those on the entire encounter level.

Now there are individual tactics, certainly, most of the time you'll be attacking. But there is no simple "I attack" you have to choose what to aim for, how many dice to use in the attack and how many to hold back for your defense. It's very fun.

But encounters are truly won or lost on the encounter level tactic level. If you enter a fight without a plan one or all of your players will probably die. Actually death is so frequent in this game that it has different rules on how to create every subsequent character in a campaign based on the deeds your previous character performed. In any case, entire encounters can be basically won or lost before a single dice has been thrown depending on if the players were clever enough to set an ambush, or if they missed all the GMs hints and stumbled into a combat they were not prepared for.

While I love it, I'm certain others will find that too trying.

I also love it. Mainly because while encounters can be decided, the road to the victory can be rather thorny despite the preparations. It's not about the plan being perfect - it's about the moment when things go wrong, when chips are down and when you start to patch the plan & push against all opposition. When you have to make a split-second decision and you make it and see the result - and then see how your preparations work and it makes you feel smart.

So... my question is: what's your pleasure? What do you like in your games? What's the "itch" you have and what scratches it?

Man_Over_Game
2020-08-20, 06:32 PM
So... my question is: what's your pleasure? What do you like in your games? What's the "itch" you have and what scratches it?

I like seeing something that randomly looks like a square-shaped hole, and then solving it with my square-shaped block. Problem solving.

But not so much "Problem A gets solved by Solution A", but in ways where the problem was solved as a choice in the moment.

Like your Barbarian has a Vampire in a headlock, so you blast a hole in the roof to have the sun burn that sucker to ash.

But the catch is that it has to be tactical, not narrative. Problem with narrative options is that there's no real "expectation" on how things work, so there's no real strategy other than just being cool or weird.

So on one hand, I want a strategy game, I just want it to be strategic to do narratively cool things off of circumstance. "The worst thing you can do is the thing you did last time" kinda mentality, where players adapt rather than strategize a player sheet.

Most games that would allow something like the example above would require so much damage to blast through the ceiling that it would likely have been more beneficial to just hit the Vampire with it.

When the Barbarian has the choice to swing from the chandelier to jump-strike on the monster, how many tactical games would make that almost guaranteed to be better than just running up and swinging at the monster on foot?


As to what gives it to me? I have no idea. I haven't come across anything that gives me that fix, although DMing is the closest I've gotten.


Everyone has different ideas for what a scene looks like, and what their characters are able to do.

So rather than having one guy develop everything for everyone, everyone adds things to the environment that they want to interact with, thereby creating more of an environment for everyone else (including badguys) to interact with.

For example, there wasn't a chandelier, until the Rogue said their was, shot it with his crossbow, causing it to fall on top of the goblins and leaving behind a piece of Rough Terrain. The Assassin then grabs one of the living goblins, breaks his arm against the frame of the chandelier, and takes him in for interrogation. Probably has already been done, but if anyone has seen something like this let me know!

Celestia
2020-08-20, 08:51 PM
Personally, I like it when my partner gets the butter and...

OH! You mean a different kind of pleasure. Right.

I like games that make me feel smart because it's not something I get in my day to day life. So, games that allow creative solutions and outside the box thinking. This tends to come down to GM more than system, though. Any game can allow ad hoc actions. It all depends on whether the GM allows them or says that's against the rules.

Grod_The_Giant
2020-08-20, 09:27 PM
This makes me feel kind of bad to say, but... when playing RPGs, I like using mechanical abilities to solve problems. I enjoy having a big stack of special skills and spells and powers and whatnot and figuring out what specific combo will let me "solve" the encounter. A lot of my absolute favorite moments have come when playing Mutants and Masterminds, where "power stunt" rules put a nigh-infinite amount of options into play and the underlying system does a surprisingly good job of following superhero logic. On the other hand, I also enjoy playing the big friendly idiot in the party and clowning around, so make of that what you will.

(The best experiences, of course, are when I can do both at once. In a recent M&M game I played a character who was basically Thor with rocks instead of lightning--but the goofy sort of Thor, the one who's suicidally brave, a little bit dumb, and who always has some mead around to quaff. Very experienced with his powers, justifying all sorts of snazzy geokinetic tricks, but also just over-the-top four-color cheese. Like, "stop in the name of justice, villain!" levels of cheese.)

Wizard_Lizard
2020-08-20, 10:37 PM
I personally like games that other people will play, mainly because it gives me an excuse to have friends over and talk to them..

Dimers
2020-08-21, 02:16 AM
when playing RPGs, I like using mechanical abilities to solve problems.

Right there with ya, brother. I get plenty of unguided problem-solving to handle in everyday life -- work, cooking and socializing, especially, but all kinds of situations over time. When I game, I most want a character sheet where I can see a percent-chance of solving a thing.

Seto
2020-08-21, 03:48 AM
Everyone has different ideas for what a scene looks like, and what their characters are able to do.

So rather than having one guy develop everything for everyone, everyone adds things to the environment that they want to interact with, thereby creating more of an environment for everyone else (including badguys) to interact with.

For example, there wasn't a chandelier, until the Rogue said their was, shot it with his crossbow, causing it to fall on top of the goblins and leaving behind a piece of Rough Terrain. The Assassin then grabs one of the living goblins, breaks his arm against the frame of the chandelier, and takes him in for interrogation. Probably has already been done, but if anyone has seen something like this let me know!

Have you looked into FATE? Introducing a new aspect to the scene is a use of FATE points I think. (Or creating an aspect through the Create an advantage action)

Xervous
2020-08-21, 09:21 AM
With a decent sampling of 100% free form cooperative storytelling filling my spare time when I sit down for a round of tabletop it’s for similar and different forms of enjoyment.

Regions of uncertainty. Dice rolls having a final say on some events, incomplete information. A fully open chess board is pure emotionless strategy. Having some events be weighted wagers allows for a range of expression and the occasional surprise when odds being different than expected reveals something is not as you assumed.

A consistent avenue for dialogue. For the system to serve well it should provide, at the least, ample guidance for the how of getting everyone on the same page if the rules do not make such things clear by themselves. If it is necessary for us to play numerous sessions as a newly gathered but experienced group for understandings to align it feels more like a play test than a refined game. Of course if I’m expressly signing up for a play test that’s just truth in advertising.

Player choices matter when they are informed choices. Choices the players make that are important should generally be well informed. This covers character creation and making competent characters. It touches upon narrative options, crossroads and consequences. This does not exclude surprises or moments where players are given no true choices in a matter, it merely suggests that the players be made generally aware of their potential impact in the situation and the Why of that. Give them the rope, but let them describe how they’ll go bungee jumping wearing it as a noose trusting the strength of their neck.

Lacco
2020-08-21, 10:04 AM
@Man_Over_Game: I'd second Seto's suggestion. FATE actually handles what you described within its ruleset. You can use your Shoot skill to just shoot the goblin for some damage, or you can use it to create an advantage (falling chandelier) which other players can also use then for advantage to their rolls.

You should give it a shot. It's a strange game, but runs the tight line between "strategic" and "narrative" options nicely - in my opinion. But I have played it only few times.

Still, if you play it with exactly the problem-solving approach you mentioned, you'll easily crush anyone that plays the "just roll Fight to damage the other guy" game. The best part is - it gives you a limited access to "GM" powers through its ruleset (creating advantages, using stunts to actually break rules) - so you'll get to be creative while having fun. It runs fast but it's complex enough that single high skill will not guarantee victory in everything.

The other example - barbarian & chandelier - reminds me of a variant play rules I have read once. In which GM actually gives additional dice for cool stuff like that (it was to support more "swashbuckling" style of play).


As to what gives it to me? I have no idea. I haven't come across anything that gives me that fix, although DMing is the closest I've gotten.

What games did you try out and which came closest?


Personally, I like it when my partner gets the butter and...

OH! You mean a different kind of pleasure. Right.

...aren't the dice hard to grasp when buttered...? :smallconfused:


I like games that make me feel smart because it's not something I get in my day to day life. So, games that allow creative solutions and outside the box thinking. This tends to come down to GM more than system, though. Any game can allow ad hoc actions. It all depends on whether the GM allows them or says that's against the rules.

Feel smart in what way? Can you give an actual example?


This makes me feel kind of bad to say, but... when playing RPGs, I like using mechanical abilities to solve problems. I enjoy having a big stack of special skills and spells and powers and whatnot and figuring out what specific combo will let me "solve" the encounter.

Why does it make you feel bad...?

While I do not like RAW/RAI shenanigans, I think it's enjoyable when a player finds something in the system that serves as tool to show both the skill of the character & the player.

I've had one player that consistently managed to outwit me combat-wise and usually crushed through my opposition using extremely smart tactics and thinking outside the box but inside the system - and I enjoyed playing with him, as his character was exactly the kind who would resort to such tactics...


A lot of my absolute favorite moments have come when playing Mutants and Masterminds, where "power stunt" rules put a nigh-infinite amount of options into play and the underlying system does a surprisingly good job of following superhero logic. On the other hand, I also enjoy playing the big friendly idiot in the party and clowning around, so make of that what you will.

(The best experiences, of course, are when I can do both at once. In a recent M&M game I played a character who was basically Thor with rocks instead of lightning--but the goofy sort of Thor, the one who's suicidally brave, a little bit dumb, and who always has some mead around to quaff. Very experienced with his powers, justifying all sorts of snazzy geokinetic tricks, but also just over-the-top four-color cheese. Like, "stop in the name of justice, villain!" levels of cheese.)

One of my favourite experiences was having a dumb strong character - it was extremely enjoyable to just roleplay someone whose decisions are rather simple, quick and usually binary, as opposed to my usual state. So I think I understand pretty well.


Regions of uncertainty. Dice rolls having a final say on some events, incomplete information. A fully open chess board is pure emotionless strategy. Having some events be weighted wagers allows for a range of expression and the occasional surprise when odds being different than expected reveals something is not as you assumed.

100% agree. Just for my understanding...what systems do you enjoy playing the most?


A consistent avenue for dialogue. For the system to serve well it should provide, at the least, ample guidance for the how of getting everyone on the same page if the rules do not make such things clear by themselves. If it is necessary for us to play numerous sessions as a newly gathered but experienced group for understandings to align it feels more like a play test than a refined game. Of course if I’m expressly signing up for a play test that’s just truth in advertising.

Can you expound on this? I *think* I understand, but would like to have it explained a bit more.

If I get it right, it's about the flow of the game at the table - correct?


Player choices matter when they are informed choices. Choices the players make that are important should generally be well informed. This covers character creation and making competent characters. It touches upon narrative options, crossroads and consequences. This does not exclude surprises or moments where players are given no true choices in a matter, it merely suggests that the players be made generally aware of their potential impact in the situation and the Why of that. Give them the rope, but let them describe how they’ll go bungee jumping wearing it as a noose trusting the strength of their neck.

Yes. The tone/genre/theme should be clear and in line with mechanical stuff and fluff. If you play epic heroes and are about to fight against 20 goblins, you should know if it's risky or something your characters do before breakfast. It should be obvious that insulting the king's advisor - when playing poor peasants-turned-adventurers in medieval world - will bring trouble. Especially in games like Paranoia (which can be played anywhere on scale from serious 1984-like drama related to living in terrible postapocalyptic society to slugfest where shouts of "Mutant-commie-traitor!" are as frequent as sounds of new clones arriving).

So - being able to see the world clearly through the lens of the character?

Kyutaru
2020-08-21, 10:15 AM
I like being challenged to think beyond the obvious solutions. Forced to become creative in approach and handling.

This might mean facing a boss that takes almost no damage from physical hits or counterattacks every hit I give him. It might mean facing an iron golem that is immune to both spells and non-crushing weapons and has way better AC and health than our tank does. Or a dragon that can barbecue the party in an instant with claws that can't be stopped by the thickest platemail bearing a coat of magically resilient thick scales and wings that render flight abuse a non-option.

I like being tossed into a room with explosive barrels that make the prospects of using my fireballs to kill the flame-weak enemies are very risky proposition.

I take pleasure in facing odds that are seemingly hopeless against an enemy that completely outmatches the group and laughs at the feebleness of our attacks. It's something of an anime-inspired addiction. Yet there is always another way to deal with the problem. A different way to use spells or a way to abuse the terrain.

I like killing rancors by dropping metal gates on their head.
I like slaying dragons by exposing their weak points.
I like tripping hulking giants into falling off cliffs.
I like disarming a squad of soldiers with heated metal.
I like drowning sharks in pockets of air.
I like imprisoning the monster in a tomb of stone.

Or for a more gamist approach, stacking enough buffs and debuffs to eliminate the disadvantage gap.

Xervous
2020-08-21, 10:51 AM
100% agree. Just for my understanding...what systems do you enjoy playing the most?



Can you expound on this? I *think* I understand, but would like to have it explained a bit more.

If I get it right, it's about the flow of the game at the table - correct?



Yes. The tone/genre/theme should be clear and in line with mechanical stuff and fluff. If you play epic heroes and are about to fight against 20 goblins, you should know if it's risky or something your characters do before breakfast. It should be obvious that insulting the king's advisor - when playing poor peasants-turned-adventurers in medieval world - will bring trouble. Especially in games like Paranoia (which can be played anywhere on scale from serious 1984-like drama related to living in terrible postapocalyptic society to slugfest where shouts of "Mutant-commie-traitor!" are as frequent as sounds of new clones arriving).

So - being able to see the world clearly through the lens of the character?

On the topic of systems I don’t have an extreme breadth of experience in play as I frequently end up as the GM. That being said I appreciate a smattering of systems for what experiences they can deliver. 3.5 covers a nice range for potato to planetary hero progressions but hovers just on the edge of “if we feel compelled to make these many corrections why don’t we just build a system?” Paranoia could fill an evening that might otherwise have been a montage of Cards Against Humanity. Shadowrun has treated me well with its atmosphere and “rocket tag is the design” approach. I’ve read at least a dozen other systems out of curiosity but probably will never play L5R, seventh sea, PF2e or what have you. Currently I’m tied up in a collaborative development/play test that wields dicepools through a M:TG inspired ability access system that is aiming to hit the playgroups’ desired range of character growth, character build expressiveness and identity, and balance out an acceptable degree of fiddly minutiae while trying to avoid pure numeric modifiers.


On the avenue for dialogue it’s about things that are needed for the game to function being in place before you start playing. Specifically assumptions about the world and (especially) how a player’s permanently committed choices in their character build can be expected to work. All the rules are tools for telling the story. I want my players to know what they’re filling their utility belt with. I as a player want to be able to make informed choices and reactions to basic things without having to wait out the fifteenth blurb this night on how X differs from standard assumptions but wasn’t noteworthy enough to pitch in session 0 or earlier. I want to sit down to play, I don’t want to sit down to learn what feels like the six new rules of the week.


The above ties into the tone and theme. You’ve done a nice job in your summary of seeing the world clearly through the character’s eyes.

Grod_The_Giant
2020-08-21, 10:58 AM
Why does it make you feel bad...?
<shrug> Especially typing it out, it makes me feel like an obnoxious munchkin. Which... well, I am probably a munchkin whether I want to be or not, but I try not to be obnoxious about it. Probably one reason why I prefer playing in solo/small group games to full sized parties...

Man_Over_Game
2020-08-21, 12:44 PM
<shrug> Especially typing it out, it makes me feel like an obnoxious munchkin. Which... well, I am probably a munchkin whether I want to be or not, but I try not to be obnoxious about it. Probably one reason why I prefer playing in solo/small group games to full sized parties...

Some of us see a system of moving parts and instantly want to tinker with those pieces and make up tools and solutions. Others don't. Problem is, when there is that disconnect in a multiplayer game where both of you have the same limitations, one player is inherently going to be able to do more, accomplish more, from a mechanical perspective. And if you have mechanical support for the narrative elements of the game, that makes it worse, since now the "munchkin" is better at narrative stuff too. It makes the nonmunchkin into a sidekick, or worse, a spectator.

And unfortunately, people like us are the odd-man out. We're the jerks for jumping into a table and making everyone feel worse about how they're playing the game. So it's kind of toxic for us to play the way we want to. So we suck it up, and find another way to play the way we want to that doesn't hurt anyone else.

For me, that comes down to being narratively and creatively powerful. I don't create combat characters, because it's both fairly limited (most TTRPG combat is actually terrible for an experienced gamer, not sure why TTRPGs suck at what boardgames don't seem to run into), but it's also a quantified way to show how much better I am than you (Pssh, I just throw in a Fireball and trivialize the fight). But narratively, I can just do something that you're not doing, and it doesn't really matter how well I do it since we both got our own things to work on.

So who cares if I'm watching the target through my crow familiar while I pick their pockets with telepathy, so that it's impossible to catch me (level 3 Rogue, 5e)?

Or changing how I look, sound, act, and even smell after watching someone for one minute, permanently adding it to my repertoire of magical disguises that I can change to at any second and any number of times I want to (level 2 Warlock, 5e)?

So I either get to munckin (as a narrative powergamer), or I get that fix as a DM. Right now, I'm the DM.

I get you, Grod.

Telok
2020-08-21, 01:00 PM
<shrug> Especially typing it out, it makes me feel like an obnoxious munchkin. Which... well, I am probably a munchkin whether I want to be or not, but I try not to be obnoxious about it. Probably one reason why I prefer playing in solo/small group games to full sized parties...

Nah, you're fine. It sounds like you mostly want a system that mechanically supports the character concepts that it tropes, allows & encourages stunts instead of punishing you, and isn't mostly about spamming standard attacks until one side runs out of HP.

On topic: When I first saw the thread I thought any answer I gave would pretty much get ban-hammered for sexual innuendo.

For games I take pleasure in random lifepath or pseudo-lifepath character generation that produces a range of belivable and fully playable characters. Also in char gen that lets you realize a character concept from the start without forcing you to include random inappropriate abilities or waiting half a campaign to get your character appropriate abilities.

I enjoy systems where crippling over-specialization is both actually crippling and requires intentional effort to accomplish if its even possible. Where a jack or all trades type character is possible and viable from beginning to end, and again doesn't have to wait 4 to 6 levels to reach its basic broad competency.

I enjoy systems that provide real, useful, mechanical, in game incentives to play a character with flaws and ideals not a sheet of stats and numbers. Where characters are tied to the setting and to each other, and murder-hobos are shunned pariahs and criminals.

I like games where character advancement isn't the goal. Games where advancement means more than increased hit points, damage, and gear with bigger plusses. Where increasing skills and abilities means you can do more things and do them better, not just fail a few percentiles less often.

I like stunting and being able to use abilities to solve problems in weird unexpected ways. I like GMing games where I can say "I have no idea how they'll get out of this one. But they've managed everything else so far". Where the players and dice can surprise me, defeat doesn't need to mean losing, and success dosen't need to mean winning.

I like clear rules, guidelines, and advice for when I don't know how to rule something. A good index, well organized section, and useful compiled lists. I like game creator notes that tell my why certain things are set up the way they are, what assumptions the game is based on, and where you might have issues if you go off the rails.

I like silly, serious, heroic, gritty, and a game that which one it wants to be. I like games that succeed at that or tell you how to successfully switch between them.

I like setting PCs on fire, decapitations, and severed limbs. I like the line "It's only a flesh wound." as both comedy and as a straight faced comment whike beating someone with your own severed limb.

Lacco
2020-08-21, 03:08 PM
<shrug> Especially typing it out, it makes me feel like an obnoxious munchkin. Which... well, I am probably a munchkin whether I want to be or not, but I try not to be obnoxious about it. Probably one reason why I prefer playing in solo/small group games to full sized parties...

We are all munchkins. More or less.

I'm the obnoxious kind that wants to play specific character and will squeeze everything I can to be able to play the character. Luckily, with my rolls I seldom overshadow anyone. But I've been exceptionally good at coercing my past GMs to work with my plans (which usually spectacularly backfired).

Also, I don't get to play.


Some of us see a system of moving parts and instantly want to tinker with those pieces and make up tools and solutions. Others don't. Problem is, when there is that disconnect in a multiplayer game where both of you have the same limitations, one player is inherently going to be able to do more, accomplish more, from a mechanical perspective. And if you have mechanical support for the narrative elements of the game, that makes it worse, since now the "munchkin" is better at narrative stuff too. It makes the nonmunchkin into a sidekick, or worse, a spectator.

And unfortunately, people like us are the odd-man out. We're the jerks for jumping into a table and making everyone feel worse about how they're playing the game. So it's kind of toxic for us to play the way we want to. So we suck it up, and find another way to play the way we want to that doesn't hurt anyone else.

This would be an interesting topic: Are there game systems in which munchkins are able to turn the others into stars using their munchkin powers...? To make everybody feel better?

What would that take?


For me, that comes down to being narratively and creatively powerful. I don't create combat characters, because it's both fairly limited (most TTRPG combat is actually terrible for an experienced gamer, not sure why TTRPGs suck at what boardgames don't seem to run into), but it's also a quantified way to show how much better I am than you (Pssh, I just throw in a Fireball and trivialize the fight). But narratively, I can just do something that you're not doing, and it doesn't really matter how well I do it since we both got our own things to work on.

Wait wait wait. Emphasis mine. I'd like to hear about this part specifically.

Especially when combat is one of my favourite parts (social combat being close second, but I've done that only twice now).


So I either get to munckin (as a narrative powergamer), or I get that fix as a DM. Right now, I'm the DM.

I get you, Grod.

I think I understand you both better now.

Also, I don't think what Grod wants is something to feel bad about - that's why I asked for his reason.


Nah, you're fine. It sounds like you mostly want a system that mechanically supports the character concepts that it tropes, allows & encourages stunts instead of punishing you, and isn't mostly about spamming standard attacks until one side runs out of HP.

...yes.


On topic: When I first saw the thread I thought any answer I gave would pretty much get ban-hammered for sexual innuendo.

Innuendo...? :smalleek:

Oops. Well.


For games I take pleasure in random lifepath or pseudo-lifepath character generation that produces a range of belivable and fully playable characters. Also in char gen that lets you realize a character concept from the start without forcing you to include random inappropriate abilities or waiting half a campaign to get your character appropriate abilities.

I LOVE lifepath character generation. Actually, I've tried several times to create a lifepath character generation for several games, severely underestimating the effort that goes into it.

It's actually one of the things that bring me actual pleasure, chargen-wise. Picking a class/race combo is fine for quick character generation, but if I can choose, it will be either lifepath or priority pick.


I like stunting and being able to use abilities to solve problems in weird unexpected ways. I like GMing games where I can say "I have no idea how they'll get out of this one. But they've managed everything else so far". Where the players and dice can surprise me, defeat doesn't need to mean losing, and success dosen't need to mean winning.

Quite recently there was a thread in which one poster mentioned "boring filler fights" - your comment made me remember it. I like systems, in which there is no filler fight - if there is a fight, it has reasons, stakes and players are going in with their own intentions - even if those are just "survive". And having no idea how (or even IF) they will get out of the fight is one thing that matters for me - I'm their biggest fan, after all - but there's actually a bit of pleasure in knowing you set up the situation (including picking the system) in such a way that the players are invested in the fight and will take time & effort to beat it. And even more: the look on their faces when they know they found the way to beat it, using something their characters would figure out. The moment when they throw caution to the wind, take the dice and basically go all "To hell with it, I'm betting it all on this one..." and they win. Priceless.


I take pleasure in facing odds that are seemingly hopeless against an enemy that completely outmatches the group and laughs at the feebleness of our attacks. It's something of an anime-inspired addiction. Yet there is always another way to deal with the problem. A different way to use spells or a way to abuse the terrain.

Something in this really resonates within me.

I once set up a situation, in which my players ran away from a significant group of goblins (something like 400+) across a narrow bridge. Any one of them could have stopped - and would have stopped the goblins for some time. The reward for doing so would be safe escape of the others and a large dose of metagame currency (used for advancement & rerolls).

None of them did bite. They ran.

The question would be: would they be able to find some way to survive? Fighting would mean death (if goblins did not kill them, exhaustion would), but would there be another option? Maybe. But it remains to be seen (I plan to reuse the bridge situation in my games). I think there are bridges that are worth standing on, even if the whole world tells you to move.

Man_Over_Game
2020-08-21, 04:50 PM
This would be an interesting topic: Are there game systems in which munchkins are able to turn the others into stars using their munchkin powers...? To make everybody feel better?

What would that take?

[...]

Wait wait wait. Emphasis mine. I'd like to hear about this part specifically.

Especially when combat is one of my favourite parts (social combat being close second, but I've done that only twice now).

[...]

I think I understand you both better now.

I know of two different examples.

One is Exalted. I haven't actually played it, but from my understanding it has a sort of experience system that gives bonuses for either supporting your allies or leaning on your faults (so that your allies can take the spotlight). As a result, powergamers are still able to min-max in a party of casuals, they just end up with more limitations (fewer levels) than everyone else. The more someone else starts winning, the more bonus EXP you get, so eventually the handicap balances out until everyone's an equal.

The other example I've seen are Clerics in 5e. In that system, they get the heavy armor and weapons of a Fighter, the HP of a Monk, and as much casting as a Wizard. The catch is that their weapon-use never goes past sub-par, and spells are limited to mostly buffs or other effects that improve your allies. They suck at being selfish.

So either making it more beneficial to help your teammates, or giving a lot of power to class builds that are weak at being "nonsupportive". In the end, you need to provide incentive, as that's the only reason players powergame in the first place (because it works).

--------------------

About combat in particular, most combat I've seen in TTRPGs are things like "I do something to you, one of us rolls to see if it works, whether it works or it doesn't then resolves". The problem is, at no point did you actually ask the target what he thought about your action. There's very little telegraphing or trading resources (both very important for game design).

They generally aren't very adaptive, focusing mostly on prebuilt powers, and introducing powerful/creative environmental effects are often difficult for the DM with not much support in the official guide to implement these in a way where players use them more than their default powers.

On top of that, most class-based powers are created with the owner in mind, not your allies. It's almost like most TTRPGs are designed around playing by yourself, which is ridiculous. Rather, it's generally more synergistic to focus on yourself than helping your allies, which I think is the exact opposite approach most of these games should take (as this also improves telegraphing powerful effects and rewards adapting).

Most counters to certain effects are things like "Immune to Cold damage", or is a flying creature when a player option is limited to melee attacks, which is just meaninglessly cruel to those that went for a specialized theme. It's often hard denial, as opposed to just making certain playstyles more expensive or painful.

And that's before answering the question of how narrative-type powers impact combat, which many games leave a blur (for example, how illusions can impact combat).

Most decent board games reward adapting to what's happening right now, usually in a different way that happened the last time you played, and most TTRPGs I've seen do not. In the cases where they do allow adapting, it's generally a specific feature or power, not something ingrained in the heart of the system.

Taking the world's most popular tabletop game right now, 5e, Fireball deals almost as much damage on a miss than a Fighter does hitting with both attacks against a single creature, at the level you get Fireball. Fireball hits an 8x8 grid, when you're usually not moving more than 5 squares in a turn, has a long enough range to hit the enemy group before the DM would probably need to draw the battle map, it ignores cover, and it has no delay. Your "Adaptation" to Fireball is basically "Did the Wizard cast it, and did I halve the damage I take from it", which doesn't leave much room for putting the blame on the loser.


That's what I think is missing in most TTRPGs: A game where my successes and failures is something I can easily blame on what I chose in combat, not what I chose to put on my character sheet.

Kyutaru
2020-08-21, 05:08 PM
Something in this really resonates within me.

I once set up a situation, in which my players ran away from a significant group of goblins (something like 400+) across a narrow bridge. Any one of them could have stopped - and would have stopped the goblins for some time. The reward for doing so would be safe escape of the others and a large dose of metagame currency (used for advancement & rerolls).

None of them did bite. They ran.

The question would be: would they be able to find some way to survive? Fighting would mean death (if goblins did not kill them, exhaustion would), but would there be another option? Maybe. But it remains to be seen (I plan to reuse the bridge situation in my games). I think there are bridges that are worth standing on, even if the whole world tells you to move.
"YOU - SHALL NOT - PASS!"

Yes, it's quite exhilarating to do things like defeat a dragon with a golden shower, redirect a river to stop an immortal foe, abuse the weakness to light of shadows, end the menace of a balor with fall damage, animate a forest to wreck an army encampment, summon ghosts to fight an overwhelming horde of orcs, win against an overpowered witch by exploiting a prophecy's wording, or end the campaign by hurling the lich's phylactery into a volcano.

Quertus
2020-08-21, 06:01 PM
Hmmm… I suppose I like a game that is "all things to all people". That probably didn't help much. Let me try again.

I want a game where the guy who is just there to hang out with his friends, and wants to play something dead simple with just one button to push, can. I want a game where the war gamers who want to make complex tactical and strategic decisions, can. I want a game where someone who wants to play strategic 5d chess, can. I want the agency to run anything from a BDH wading through the encounters like they were humans to someone in over their head, desperately trying to stay alive (never mind actually completing objectives). I want my character to be able to succeed or fail - and to do so "by their own merits". I want the ability to have enough buttons to push to make an engaging tactical game, *and* the ability to go off the reservation with options not explicitly covered in the rules (that's what makes RPGs better than war games).

And I want the game to lend itself to good, memorable scenes.

What else?

I want to have a fun character from the get go (ie, not wait 20 sessions until my schtick comes online).

I think "best practices" is a series of one-shots, for everyone to display their range, and establish a vocabulary, and to allow the group to make an informed decision regarding what they might find fun.

And I would love to find a table where I could play a high-op character all-out, and not worry about overshadowing the other PCs / making the other players not have fun. To get to actually play as a shapeshifter, tactical genius D&D Wizard, or character with matter control powers, and everyone enjoy it.

So, I want to be able to solve or not solve problems using whatever combination of button(s) and creativity I feel like using at the time, in a system which allows a vast array of characters that grant the agency for different characters to produce different results.

Grod_The_Giant
2020-08-21, 06:30 PM
One is Exalted. I haven't actually played it, but from my understanding it has a sort of experience system that gives bonuses for either supporting your allies or leaning on your faults (so that your allies can take the spotlight). As a result, powergamers are still able to min-max in a party of casuals, they just end up with more limitations (fewer levels) than everyone else. The more someone else starts winning, the more bonus EXP you get, so eventually the handicap balances out until everyone's an equal.
At least in the current edition that's unfortunately not really the case-- while you can get experience points through roleplaying, it's capped to just below the normal session reward (4xp vs 5xp) and it's almost hard not to earn. You earn 2xp for playing up your Intimacies or getting challenged in pursuit of your Intimacies, and 2xp for doing something appropriate for your caste or helping someone do something appropriate for theirs. Most tables I've played at just give out the same amount to everyone at the table; I can't really argue, given how much of a (gloriously) misbalanced mess the system is. There are some system-specific differences between "normal xp" and "solar xp" that make it worth tracking them separately, but... eh.

-----------------

Apart from systems like D&D where you can choose to build characters around support powers, I'm going to third Fate as a system that encourages teamwork. Particularly in my experience of the Dresden Files hack, the best combat strategy is usually for most of the party to spend their actions creating Advantages, and then the combat monkey tags all of them to land a devastating attack. My system, STaRS, has a similar mechanic. You can stack up to three bonuses on an attack--a character skill, an environmental/stunt bonus, and another character aiding you-- and it's possible to set up encounters such that doing so is the only way to win. Especially if you play with the optional Scale mechanics.

Fate, STaRS, and other systems that use purposely generic "overcome" actions and plot-armor-hit-points can also handle unconventional attacks by turning them into, basically, re-fluffed attacks. Ie, normally in Fate you'd roll Fight verses the target's Fight to try and force them to take stress damage or become injured, but you could handle chandelier-dropping in the same way, just swapping out Fight for Might (on your end) verses Athletics (on their end). You do your cool thing, and it progresses the fight in the same way that a boring punch does.

Cluedrew
2020-08-21, 08:22 PM
My main one: I like it when a character clearly comes across. When the mechanical choices and the narrative choice align and you just get a "this is what this character is about". Now the most iconic of these are when they save the day, show their true power and alter the course of the campaign. There are also much smaller moments where this happens which are not as exciting but about as satisfying.

To lacco36: What is that system called?

Dienekes
2020-08-21, 10:00 PM
My main one: I like it when a character clearly comes across. When the mechanical choices and the narrative choice align and you just get a "this is what this character is about". Now the most iconic of these are when they save the day, show their true power and alter the course of the campaign. There are also much smaller moments where this happens which are not as exciting but about as satisfying.

To lacco36: What is that system called?

Riddle of Steel. Still the best swordfighting ttrpg I've ever played.

Anyway, I can usually find my fun anywhere. In my heart I'm a roleplayer first. As long as I'm allowed to play my character, or since I'm usually the GM a couple hundred characters and a growing world, I'll have fun.

All that said, having played a fair few different ttrpgs now I can pretty safely say I tend to enjoy playing games that 1) allow thoughtful different actions every round. Preferably where there are multiple potential "best" options. And 2) where the game's mechanics -no matter how abstracted- attempt to get the player to actually feel like how they're supposed to feel in character.

To give an example. Riddle of Steel really wants you to focus on being in a sword fight. And as a HEMA practitioner, it's somewhat remarkable how well the system does just that. The base mechanics really get the feeling of stepping back, plotting your next strike and counterstrike, stepping in with a flurry of motion where you don't quite know what your opponent is going to do. And then back up and pray you didn't suffer too great a wound. It's fantastic at it. And I loved it.

Dread is a system that creates tension by making the players play Jenga as they make riskier and riskier moves. And as the game goes on, players are on the edge of their seat worried about who is going to knock the jenga tower over and die.

Which is all the more annoying because I've been GMing D&D 5e for the most part for the last couple years. And I can't really think of a game that does this worse. It's attempts to portray swordfighting is probably the worst I've seen in a modern game. While some of the (magic) classes do a decent enough job of creating a good breadth of player options, they all seem so divorced from being anything but a sack of mechanics. I don't feel like a swordsman when I play a fighter. I don't feel the mechanics of the barbarian urging me to let loose and murder everything in sight. In fact the barbarian seems so odd since the mechanics seem far more focused on being contemplative finding the right moment to use your abilities. The cleric has no reason to be devoted to a deity. The Paladin has nothing really tied to following their oath. They can break everything they stand for, and there's just a suggestion to the GM to maybe possibly have them change oaths or maybe fall. As a variant rule. If you really want to.

There is so much potential to wed flavor and mechanics and they just don't do any of it. Which leads to me trying to endlessly tinker with it. And I am not a particularly good homebrewer.

This seems to have turned into a weird rant. Sorry.

Lacco
2020-08-24, 05:20 AM
So either making it more beneficial to help your teammates, or giving a lot of power to class builds that are weak at being "nonsupportive". In the end, you need to provide incentive, as that's the only reason players powergame in the first place (because it works).

Well, there are games that provide even mechanical benefits to characters that play friends, rivals, lovers or family. Or even those bound by oaths & promises.

It makes the group a bit more cohesive than standard "we meet in the inn" - especially when you are adventuring with your stepbrother, his best friend (who is your rival for the title of best swordsman) and your childhood secret crush, whom you have not seen for last 15 years.

So you get bonus to protect your brother & crush, and to defeat the meanest enemy just to show your rival who's the best.


About combat in particular, most combat I've seen in TTRPGs are things like "I do something to you, one of us rolls to see if it works, whether it works or it doesn't then resolves". The problem is, at no point did you actually ask the target what he thought about your action. There's very little telegraphing or trading resources (both very important for game design).

Yeah, since too many games follow the d20 model, this is something you notice a lot. It's much better when there is a "dialogue" - after all, there is a difference between trying to evade the axe swing at all costs, just barely trying to evade to get yourself a chance to respond, blocking it with a shield and parrying it with a blade. D20 abstract it because it's not important - especially in the timeframe. When one round consists of multiple attacks & parries, it makes little to no sense to go into depth.


On top of that, most class-based powers are created with the owner in mind, not your allies. It's almost like most TTRPGs are designed around playing by yourself, which is ridiculous. Rather, it's generally more synergistic to focus on yourself than helping your allies, which I think is the exact opposite approach most of these games should take (as this also improves telegraphing powerful effects and rewards adapting).

Most counters to certain effects are things like "Immune to Cold damage", or is a flying creature when a player option is limited to melee attacks, which is just meaninglessly cruel to those that went for a specialized theme. It's often hard denial, as opposed to just making certain playstyles more expensive or painful.

Yeah, it's not like you can not throw your blade at the pterodactyl that hovers close enough for it to strike you - or you can wait for it to swoop down and try to hit it.

But in most cases, you can not cut its wing to make sure it stays down, so you can finish it on ground.


Taking the world's most popular tabletop game right now, 5e, Fireball deals almost as much damage on a miss than a Fighter does hitting with both attacks against a single creature, at the level you get Fireball. Fireball hits an 8x8 grid, when you're usually not moving more than 5 squares in a turn, has a long enough range to hit the enemy group before the DM would probably need to draw the battle map, it ignores cover, and it has no delay. Your "Adaptation" to Fireball is basically "Did the Wizard cast it, and did I halve the damage I take from it", which doesn't leave much room for putting the blame on the loser.

That's what I think is missing in most TTRPGs: A game where my successes and failures is something I can easily blame on what I chose in combat, not what I chose to put on my character sheet.

Let's take the example you made - a fighter & mage, mage uses AOE fire spell similar to fireball - how would you like to see it solved in TTRPG which works on the premise you proposed?


"YOU - SHALL NOT - PASS!"

Yes, it's quite exhilarating to do things like defeat a dragon with a golden shower, redirect a river to stop an immortal foe, abuse the weakness to light of shadows, end the menace of a balor with fall damage, animate a forest to wreck an army encampment, summon ghosts to fight an overwhelming horde of orcs, win against an overpowered witch by exploiting a prophecy's wording, or end the campaign by hurling the lich's phylactery into a volcano.

Heh. Nice.

First three references flew right above my head. Which were those?


I want to have a fun character from the get go (ie, not wait 20 sessions until my schtick comes online).

Fun or competent...? :smallwink:


My system, STaRS, has a similar mechanic. You can stack up to three bonuses on an attack--a character skill, an environmental/stunt bonus, and another character aiding you-- and it's possible to set up encounters such that doing so is the only way to win. Especially if you play with the optional Scale mechanics.

Scale mechanics?


My main one: I like it when a character clearly comes across. When the mechanical choices and the narrative choice align and you just get a "this is what this character is about". Now the most iconic of these are when they save the day, show their true power and alter the course of the campaign. There are also much smaller moments where this happens which are not as exciting but about as satisfying.

Can you give an example?


To lacco36: What is that system called?

Well, you got your answer from Dienekes. It's the crazy one which sounds slow & clunky until you play it :smallbiggrin:


Riddle of Steel. Still the best swordfighting ttrpg I've ever played.

I agree with this statement :smallbiggrin:


All that said, having played a fair few different ttrpgs now I can pretty safely say I tend to enjoy playing games that 1) allow thoughtful different actions every round. Preferably where there are multiple potential "best" options. And 2) where the game's mechanics -no matter how abstracted- attempt to get the player to actually feel like how they're supposed to feel in character.

These two are rather clear. If there's clearly the "best" choice every round, why not take it? Of course, several choices may seem like the best ones, but each should have its advantages.


To give an example. Riddle of Steel really wants you to focus on being in a sword fight. And as a HEMA practitioner, it's somewhat remarkable how well the system does just that. The base mechanics really get the feeling of stepping back, plotting your next strike and counterstrike, stepping in with a flurry of motion where you don't quite know what your opponent is going to do. And then back up and pray you didn't suffer too great a wound. It's fantastic at it. And I loved it.

Sword fight, axe fight, ranged fight - but you are correct. That's what I like most - there is no dissonance between the actions you as the player choose and mechanics. And it gives you choices - meaningful choices - at every moment. You can paint yourself into a corner - and you can make it so the opponents has little chance to succeed - but there is always a choice.

It also makes you care about the character in very strange, intimate way. Can't really put my finger on the reason, but it makes looking through their eyes quite easy to do.


Dread is a system that creates tension by making the players play Jenga as they make riskier and riskier moves. And as the game goes on, players are on the edge of their seat worried about who is going to knock the jenga tower over and die.

Dread is one of the games on my "to play" list. Since some of my players are OK with horror & drama, it will work once I get the correct combination to a remote cottage... :smallamused:


There is so much potential to wed flavor and mechanics and they just don't do any of it. Which leads to me trying to endlessly tinker with it. And I am not a particularly good homebrewer.

This seems to have turned into a weird rant. Sorry.

Rants have their place too - but I do not view this as rant.

In several cases - not only here, but even in RL - I have experienced quite the pushback for limiting certain behaviour in game. In my case the system solves this issue for me - if players go against their characters' stated drives (goal)/passions/oaths, they do not gain points in the category. So if there is a warrior that gave oath never to retreat from a fight, but their loved one (passion) asks them to accompany & protect them, they gain Passion. If they decide to honor the Oath, they gain point in Oath. It's a simple decision. Is it a punishment? Not really - only for those players that choose passions irrelevant to game (usually specifically to not give me any chance to tempt them). But many would view it as punishing. Question would be - why?

Quertus
2020-08-24, 08:38 AM
Fun or competent...? :smallwink:

Hmmm… trick question.

"Competent" is a requirement for "fun" for most players for most characters.

However, when you look at the space where those don't overlap? Like my Sentient Potted Plant, or Quertus my signature academia mage for whom this account is named? Or a chess piece or… something else competent but not fun (the spelling correction on my phone, perhaps?)? I'd say that I'm talking about fun.

If my idea is to play a Playgrounder Wizard playing 5d chess, and I'm spending 40 hours playing Sam the 0-level gardener before even learning my first spell, that's not gonna be fun.

OTOH, if my idea is to play "zero to hero beyond the gods", and then spend 40 hours playing Sam the 0-level gardener before even learning my first spell? So long as we spend 400 or more additional hours on the character, covering the rest of the power range at this level of detail, that could be OK.

My usual example here is being a "shapeshifter". There just aren't (afaik) any good Fantasy systems where one could play a proper shapeshifter - someone whose "sole" source of power is the ability to assume alternate forms - along a reasonable power curve.

Or, more directly along the lines of my complaint, imaging playing a team game of MtG, and being handed a deck that does nothing but make land drops until turn 7. While everyone else is having fun, playing the game, you're not.

So, I want a character who can play the game - and do so in the intended way - from the get go.

Kyutaru
2020-08-24, 08:45 AM
First three references flew right above my head. Which were those?
Chasing away Smaug from the mountain with a bath in molten gold
Arwen summoning the flash flood on the Nazguls at the Ford of Bruin
Aragorn rescuing the Hobbits at Weathertop with little more than a torch

Grod_The_Giant
2020-08-24, 08:50 AM
Scale mechanics?
They're my way of quantifying superhuman potential (and weakness), basically, letting you to fit characters with wildly different power scales into the system without having to strain the underlying math.

Any potential action you want to take gets assigned to a Competence Level. If carrying an unconscious party member would be "Normal Competence," lifting a car off of them would be "Exceptional Competence," and carrying them around in the car would be "Superhuman Competence"-- dragging them down the street, on the other hand, would only be Subpar Competence. Though that's assuming a standard reality-adjacent campaign; by shifting what you can do with each level up and down (and possibly renaming the levels), you can easily change the overall feel. For a superhero game, you might set your benchmarks at "wounded human, human, Batman, Spiderman, Superman;" for a horror game, something like "baby/injured amateur/amateur/professional/action movie star" would be more appropriate.

You start at Normal Competence for everything, with build options for increasing that in specific circumstances. You only need to roll for tasks that fall within your Competence Level-- those that require lower levels automatically succeed, and those that require higher levels automatically fail. You can use an "Adrenaline Surge" to attempt tasks one level higher than normal... but at a huge penalty. Without any bonuses, it's impossible to succeed unless the relevant ability is maximized, at which point you have a whopping ten percent chance of success. Using build resources, you can get that up to thirty percent for specific tasks, but in general if you want to pull off an Adrenaline Surge, you've got to start stacking bonuses.

And thus, enforced cooperation. If you have a foe that requires Exceptional Competence to hit, and none of the party members have that, their only chance of winning is to start helping each other out and taking advantage of the environment.

(It probably sounds kind of clunky here, but it works smoothly in play)

Kyutaru
2020-08-24, 09:01 AM
They're my way of quantifying superhuman potential (and weakness), basically, letting you to fit characters with wildly different power scales into the system without having to strain the underlying math.
It's similar to how White Wolf does things with their 5-pip system for skills and attributes. Due to that I'm going to recommend there be a 6th baseline, the "No Competence" one. Some things you simply can't do at all. This includes debuffed characters or someone who simply doesn't have the training. Maybe either bar them from it entirely or give a hefty disadvantage to trying to wing it.

There's an ocean's breadth between the apprentice and the uninitiated.

Telok
2020-08-24, 10:21 AM
My usual example here is being a "shapeshifter". There just aren't (afaik) any good Fantasy systems where one could play a proper shapeshifter - someone whose "sole" source of power is the ability to assume alternate forms - along a reasonable power curve.

Fantasy Hero should manage. It's just the Champions/HERO system with lower point buy, certain optional rules turned on/off, and a fantasy setting instead of the usual supers setting. And I imagine that you could find a way to do it with Gurps or one of the lighter narrative systems.

Man_Over_Game
2020-08-24, 11:34 AM
Well, there are games that provide even mechanical benefits to characters that play friends, rivals, lovers or family. Or even those bound by oaths & promises.

It makes the group a bit more cohesive than standard "we meet in the inn" - especially when you are adventuring with your stepbrother, his best friend (who is your rival for the title of best swordsman) and your childhood secret crush, whom you have not seen for last 15 years.

So you get bonus to protect your brother & crush, and to defeat the meanest enemy just to show your rival who's the best.

I agree that those do provide incentive, but to some they can feel somewhat forced. For someone who looks for mechanical complexity in a system, being forced to protect someone because it fits my narrative doesn't feel organic. However, there's nothing stopping a good RPG from doing both (you have a mechanical benefit to protecting someone that's important to you).


Yeah, since too many games follow the d20 model, this is something you notice a lot. It's much better when there is a "dialogue" - after all, there is a difference between trying to evade the axe swing at all costs, just barely trying to evade to get yourself a chance to respond, blocking it with a shield and parrying it with a blade. D20 abstract it because it's not important - especially in the timeframe. When one round consists of multiple attacks & parries, it makes little to no sense to go into depth.

I think there's room to allow both - something simple and resolved quickly, but also costs resources to deal with. Something that has both sides spend dice on to land or avoid hits comes to mind, to resolve quickly, although I'm sure something like that has already been done.


Yeah, it's not like you can not throw your blade at the pterodactyl that hovers close enough for it to strike you - or you can wait for it to swoop down and try to hit it.

But in most cases, you can not cut its wing to make sure it stays down, so you can finish it on ground.

They don't usually address them in good, mechanical ways, though. Grabbing onto something to stop it from flying away probably uses some variant of game's Grappling rules, which may require feats or skills and have a bias towards a specific stat (like Strength vs. Dexterity).

It can also come from poor implementation of expecting an enemy to do something and reacting to it. Taking 5e as an example, there are a lot of penalties to Readying an Action to react to something you expect an enemy to do, including having fewer attacks, spending more of your action economy, having more expenses on your casting, spending less movement, and simply the risk of wasting your turn if the enemy didn't do what you expected. Although this may be a problem specific to 5e.


Let's take the example you made - a fighter & mage, mage uses AOE fire spell similar to fireball - how would you like to see it solved in TTRPG which works on the premise you proposed?

A delay of some kind, and maybe some kind of initial effect that could itself be beneficial for both the Wizard and the Defender in different ways.

For example, you could change Fireball to be something like "Fire a small meteor from your finger that hits a point on the ground, dealing X damage if the target fails to dodge. At the start of your next initiative, the Fireball explodes." That's what an example of what Fireball should be in a DnD-type spell, although it could be changed to do something like "Channel an amount of fire in an area, dealing X damage this turn in the area and dealing 4X next turn as the heated area ignites", or even "The enemy Wizard is visually channeling a spell (implying a powerful spell), with your Sorcerer sensing an Arcane Flux about 15 feet to his right".

Alternatively, if you wanted it to be an instantaneous effect, it could simply be mitigated by a widely-available counter-effect. For example: The Wizard Surged the Fireball to get it out faster without Channeling, but the enemy Sorcerer was expecting and nullified the Wizard's sloppy casting! Or the Wizard launches out the initial Fireball spell before it explodes, for the Fighter to react by deflecting the orb before it explodes off to the side of the battlefield.

Or, put simply:

Power / Cost = Interactivity (how easily it is to disrupt).

Things used to surprise the opponent without much warning or prevention need to be weak or capitalizing on a telegraphed circumstance (such as a character that's knocked Prone being susceptible to a Mighty Blow), while things that are powerful must allow room for your opponent to reasonably interrupt them.

Kyutaru
2020-08-24, 11:43 AM
Or, put simply:

Power / Cost = Interactivity (how easily it is to disrupt).

Things used to surprise the opponent without much warning or prevention need to be weak or highly circumstantial, while things that are powerful must allow room for your opponent to reasonably interrupt them.

Part of why I miss casting times. They balanced spells by making some take longer than others. Power Word Kill was especially noteworthy as one of the strongest spells in the game because unlike other 9th level spells it had a casting time of only 1.

Man_Over_Game
2020-08-24, 11:57 AM
Part of why I miss casting times. They balanced spells by making some take longer than others. Power Word Kill was especially noteworthy as one of the strongest spells in the game because unlike other 9th level spells it had a casting time of only 1.

I came up with a 5e solution to that, just haven't had a group that's wanted to use it yet:
If a spell you cast has a spell level that isn't less than your Proficiency Bonus, you first Channel it. A Channeled spell is basically Readied until the start of your next turn.

Then there's a bunch of rules for when you might want to cast something else with your Reaction, or if you want to change what spell you want to cast when it comes to your turn. So if you wanted to cast Fireball, but it's no longer beneficial to at the start of your next round, you can change the spell to cast anything with the channeled spell slot as long as the spell level is less than the slot's level (So you spend a level 3 spell slot to Channel Fireball, next turn comes around and you can instead use the level 3 slot to cast Flaming Sphere instantly with that level 3 slot).

So it doesn't really mess with your Action Economy too much, since you cast the spell just before your next turn starts. Mostly, it just adds a lot more risk to casting larger spells, and still makes the caster adaptable even when gambling on those big spells (so you're still given incentive to attempt the big spells in combat despite the risk of failure). What this ends up doing is making it so that a low level character spends the resources needed to cast Fireball without often being able to actually cast it, causing Fireball to feel like a trump card instead of a default playstyle.

Since Readying a spell also requires your Concentration, it also pulls power away from the constant Concentration spells that casters rely on in combat, like Wall spells or Summoning spells (both very powerful in 5e).

Because of how Proficiency scales compared to casting levels in 5e, the (Spell Level < Proficiency Bonus) requirement to fast-cast a spell means that only characters with Full Casting levels are impacted, and it only starts taking effect after level 3+. Half-casters, like Paladins or Rangers aren't ever affected by the Channeling rules (which is good, as they're generally front-men that want to take hits).

The overall power nerf to combat in casters this way also helps compensate for the lack of features for martial-types in comparison to casters out of combat.

It rewards groups that focus on planning around their enemies, as they can utilize stealth and ambushes to cast a Channeled spell into an area.

It also makes Bosses more predictable and adaptive against, since they're having to deal with the same limitations.

It also has the benefit of having mages rely on their martials for protection, making big spells feel like a group effort instead of the actions of an individual (which is the reason my current group didn't want to use it, unfortunately).

Grod_The_Giant
2020-08-24, 02:15 PM
It's similar to how White Wolf does things with their 5-pip system for skills and attributes. Due to that I'm going to recommend there be a 6th baseline, the "No Competence" one. Some things you simply can't do at all. This includes debuffed characters or someone who simply doesn't have the training. Maybe either bar them from it entirely or give a hefty disadvantage to trying to wing it.

There's an ocean's breadth between the apprentice and the uninitiated.
That's the role of Pathetic and Subpar competence levels-- you start at normal, and can go forward with bonuses or fall back with penalties.

Lacco
2020-08-24, 03:07 PM
Hmmm… trick question.

Not really.


My usual example here is being a "shapeshifter". There just aren't (afaik) any good Fantasy systems where one could play a proper shapeshifter - someone whose "sole" source of power is the ability to assume alternate forms - along a reasonable power curve.

Question: what would you expect from a shapeshifter? What powers, forms...? What tradeoffs would be acceptable for you?

I mean: I have strong objections against characters that just see someone and can shapeshift into their form within 2 minutes. My take on shapeshifter mage would be, that they have to grow into the power - starting by shapeshifting -parts- of their body - e.g. eagle eyes, cat's eyes, bear claws; continuing by changing their form (growing larger/smaller/taking attributes from the animals, changing their face - but mostly just reforming it), then being able to turn into animals. Each animal would require its own spell or power. Only masters of the art would be able to change their form into different people and copy their body & manners - even mind.
The tradeoff would be time it takes to become one, steep learning curve and not being able to change on the fly - you have to study the damn bird before you get to turn into it.
Every mage would be able to learn an illusion spell to make their face seem like other people's faces. But to become the person? That would be different stuff.


Or, more directly along the lines of my complaint, imaging playing a team game of MtG, and being handed a deck that does nothing but make land drops until turn 7. While everyone else is having fun, playing the game, you're not.

So, I want a character who can play the game - and do so in the intended way - from the get go.

That is acceptable and understandable.


Chasing away Smaug from the mountain with a bath in molten gold
Arwen summoning the flash flood on the Nazguls at the Ford of Bruin
Aragorn rescuing the Hobbits at Weathertop with little more than a torch

Ok, the first one I missed because I did not see the Hobbit.

The other two... I'm getting old. :smallbiggrin:

On completely different note: I loved the idea of Weathertop. Tried several times to get a group to rest in ruins like that - did not work. I managed to sneak Amon Hen into one of my games, but the players decided to ignore it completely - only one sat in the seat, but decided not to tell anyone about what he saw.


They're my way of quantifying superhuman potential (and weakness), basically, letting you to fit characters with wildly different power scales into the system without having to strain the underlying math.
*SNIP*
(It probably sounds kind of clunky here, but it works smoothly in play)

On the contrary, seems like a good system to break down different power levels smoothly. It can be made into simple graphic on the sheet, which shows you where you are, what you need - so no problem.

I'm used to systems that sound kind of clunky but work smoothly in practice :smallbiggrin:


I agree that those do provide incentive, but to some they can feel somewhat forced. For someone who looks for mechanical complexity in a system, being forced to protect someone because it fits my narrative doesn't feel organic. However, there's nothing stopping a good RPG from doing both (you have a mechanical benefit to protecting someone that's important to you).

Not forced.

Rewarded.

That's the difference: you - the player - select the passions/oaths, etc. It's not GM's work - it's yours. You can swear an oath and not take it as spiritual attribute - it's then just an oath. You can have a lot of friends (PCs, NPCs)... but if it's important for you - the player - and it's important also for your character, it's definitely worth doing. So it's incentive.

You are not forced to do anything - the only "penalty" you get is that if you go against them too forcefully, the GM may ask you to empty them (use or transfer into general bennie points called Drama) and change your spiritual attributes to more fitting ones. You can change these in play, even in the middle of an adventure.

It can fit the narrative nicely. Let's say your character was saved from slavery (Hatred: local slave lord; 2) by an elderly knight (other PC). You decide your character considers the knight worth your loyalty (Passion: Loyalty to the knight; 1) and you swear an oath to save his life 3 times to repay your debt to him (Oath: save knight's life 3 times; 0).

The values represent bonus dice you get. Also, these are used as XP to advance your character.

So, in game - when the local slave lord tries to get revenge on the knight, you get bonuses from first two to fight them off. That means 3 additional dice (which is pretty nice when your dice pool for combat with new character is usually somewhere between 8 and 12). Let's assume the knight gets wounded in battle, and needs healing and you have to decide whether to pursue the wounded slave lord and finish him or save knight's life. It's up to you:

When you go hunt the slave lord, your hatred will get a bonus (raises to 3 or 4). You may fail your oath if the knight's on brink of death, but why not swear another oath, to avenge him?
When you stay with the knight and try to heal him, you'd get loyalty +1 and oath +1 if you manage to save him (or at least try).
If you find out some third way - e.g. you patch him up quickly, find a local healer and pay some mercs to guard him so you can go hunt the slaver, exhausted from the ordeal - you would get both.

The best thing about this is that the players actually tell the GM - through their spiritual attributes - what kind of game they want to play and what decisions they want to face.


I think there's room to allow both - something simple and resolved quickly, but also costs resources to deal with. Something that has both sides spend dice on to land or avoid hits comes to mind, to resolve quickly, although I'm sure something like that has already been done.

Shadowrun comes to mind first - but the rule bloat makes the game rather slow for my tastes (and coming from the guy who GMs RoS that's quite formidable critique).

Also, RoS does that.


They don't usually address them in good, mechanical ways, though. Grabbing onto something to stop it from flying away probably uses some variant of game's Grappling rules, which may require feats or skills and have a bias towards a specific stat (like Strength vs. Dexterity).

It can also come from poor implementation of expecting an enemy to do something and reacting to it. Taking 5e as an example, there are a lot of penalties to Readying an Action to react to something you expect an enemy to do, including having fewer attacks, spending more of your action economy, having more expenses on your casting, spending less movement, and simply the risk of wasting your turn if the enemy didn't do what you expected. Although this may be a problem specific to 5e.

The more I read your posts, the more I am tempted to suggest you try out RoS or Blade of the Iron Throne. I think you'd like the system, even though base RoS does not handle "monstrous" enemies easily (e.g. the pterodactyl example could be handled, but no beholders).


A delay of some kind, and maybe some kind of initial effect that could itself be beneficial for both the Wizard and the Defender in different ways.

For example, you could change Fireball to be something like "Fire a small meteor from your finger that hits a point on the ground, dealing X damage if the target fails to dodge. At the start of your next initiative, the Fireball explodes." That's what an example of what Fireball should be in a DnD-type spell, although it could be changed to do something like "Channel an amount of fire in an area, dealing X damage this turn in the area and dealing 4X next turn as the heated area ignites", or even "The enemy Wizard is visually channeling a spell (implying a powerful spell), with your Sorcerer sensing an Arcane Flux about 15 feet to his right".

While I like the idea of chucking fireballs at people, I'd move it much higher in the level area. After all, exploding stuff is not easy.

I'd go for gradual effect:
1st round - everybody in the zone feels sudden heat;
2nd round - grass, paper and flammable stuff starts to burn, metal items are hard to hold/wear
3rd round - everything flammable burns, red-hot iron, metal armor starts to burn the people who wear it
4th round - well, melting stuff.

Of course, the wizard has to hold the effect, reciting incantations all the time and keeping focused.

It would also allow fun combinations - if skilled, the wizard will be able to throw in a "conjure oil" spell in round two, combining the effects for an actual fireball.

Balanced? Nope. Fun? Well, my kind of fun. It gives the fighter enough time to see the threat and try to disable the wizard (e.g. even by making him cast some protective magic on the fly).


Alternatively, if you wanted it to be an instantaneous effect, it could simply be mitigated by a widely-available counter-effect. For example: The Wizard Surged the Fireball to get it out faster without Channeling, but the enemy Sorcerer was expecting and nullified the Wizard's sloppy casting! Or the Wizard launches out the initial Fireball spell before it explodes, for the Fighter to react by deflecting the orb before it explodes off to the side of the battlefield.

Or, put simply:

Power / Cost = Interactivity (how easily it is to disrupt).

Things used to surprise the opponent without much warning or prevention need to be weak or capitalizing on a telegraphed circumstance (such as a character that's knocked Prone being susceptible to a Mighty Blow), while things that are powerful must allow room for your opponent to reasonably interrupt them.

This is one advantage of dice-pool mechanics: you need a powerful effect? You need multitude of dice. Casting over prolonged time = more dice... so yeah.

What I also like and want to implement is simple warding magics. As in Pratchett's Sourcery, every mage should have the opportunity to weave some protective spells into their spellcasting - weak ones, that work like ablative shields, but giving a disposable "shield".

That can be broken if you swing your sword enough times.


It also has the benefit of having mages rely on their martials for protection, making big spells feel like a group effort instead of the actions of an individual (which is the reason my current group didn't want to use it, unfortunately).

I can not really make comments regarding the 5e spells/rules you propose, but I like the idea of big spells feeling like group effort. After all, the fighters are there as meat shields for a reason: the glass cannon that nukes the area. Of course the mage should be able to buff himself & try to fry the bad guy if situation calls for it, but if they want to bring the really big guns, they'll need time.

It makes for nice RP moment. "I can destroy them, but I'll need time," says the mage. The ranger looks at the fighter who nods. "You'll have time."

I like group effort in roleplaying. I know - there are moments when individual shines - those feel great - but when the team works together, achieving something epic? Those are the tales you can tell even to those who did not play the game.

Man_Over_Game
2020-08-24, 06:30 PM
The more I read your posts, the more I am tempted to suggest you try out RoS or Blade of the Iron Throne. I think you'd like the system, even though base RoS does not handle "monstrous" enemies easily (e.g. the pterodactyl example could be handled, but no beholders).

That actually could be a boon in disguise.

Combat in DnD, by default, is very boring and straightforward, which is why most complex and interesting enemies you fight later on have to have a bunch of weird, otherworldliness to them to justify why they aren't making combat boring and straightforward. Heck, Dragons are supposed to be these big, scary, colossus-style lizards, and they generally don't to much more than be big, fly, take hits, make a breath-cone attack, and make some high-damage basic attacks.

The fact that something like a Pterodactyl is interesting enough to be considered a "weird monster" relative to the series is actually a good thing. You don't need things to look weird to justify it being weird, which leads into good prospects for someone who's looking for a Fighter to be more than the guy that spams the Attack button over and over.

Quertus
2020-08-24, 10:59 PM
Fantasy Hero should manage. It's just the Champions/HERO system with lower point buy, certain optional rules turned on/off, and a fantasy setting instead of the usual supers setting. And I imagine that you could find a way to do it with Gurps or one of the lighter narrative systems.

:smallredface: OK, Fantasy Hero is one of two that I know of that qualify for what I *said*. But, what I *meant* actually includes another caveat: an extensive library of real and fantastical creatures. A bestiary of forms for transformation, a library upon which to perform the "search effect" of shapeshifting. Rather than me or the GM having to make up the fly speed of a pterodactyl during the game.

Does Fantasy Hero, unbeknownst to me, have such a library?


Question: what would you expect from a shapeshifter? What powers, forms...? What tradeoffs would be acceptable for you?

I mean: I have strong objections against characters that just see someone and can shapeshift into their form within 2 minutes. My take on shapeshifter mage would be, that they have to grow into the power - starting by shapeshifting -parts- of their body - e.g. eagle eyes, cat's eyes, bear claws; continuing by changing their form (growing larger/smaller/taking attributes from the animals, changing their face - but mostly just reforming it), then being able to turn into animals. Each animal would require its own spell or power. Only masters of the art would be able to change their form into different people and copy their body & manners - even mind.
The tradeoff would be time it takes to become one, steep learning curve and not being able to change on the fly - you have to study the damn bird before you get to turn into it.
Every mage would be able to learn an illusion spell to make their face seem like other people's faces. But to become the person? That would be different stuff.

Well, certainly the "body parts only" idea is one of several ways to have a low power shapeshifter.

The time I broke the game with a shapeshifter, the GM added the power to an existing character to instantly transform partially or wholely into any creature with which they were familiar; the only limitation was that they maintained mass.

In 3e terms… heck, I'm not sure if 3e has a close equivalent. Shape Change plus infinite Assume Supernatural Ability, but with a limitation of constant mass? So, a human-sized body yields a rather small Dragon, a very small Iron Golem, or a rather large Lich.

In 3e, I'd expect the character to go beyond that in Epic, grossly violating conservation of mass, mixing and matching parts, becoming creatures that had never existed before.

In another system? I would expect its high-end to roughly match other characters' high end performance.

But which variables - partial vs complete vs wuzzled transformation, learn speed, transformation speed, abilities granted, cool extras like indirect mind reading or imaginary forms, etc - get granted when is a bit fuzzier. And maybe should be under the character's control - selectable like Fighter bonus feats or something.

Maybe one "low/mid-level" shapeshifter can instantly transform in whole or in part into a single form (like an eagle), while another can mix and match parts (and only parts) of anything he eats, and a third steadily builds his library of forms through careful study and observation of the diverse creatures he collects, and must gain familiarity with the form by transforming into it in order to achieve maximum performance ("great, I'm a bird. But… how do I fly?").

And there's many, many more possible paths a shapeshifter could take. I certainly wouldn't want to exclude *any* of them from the hypothetical potential stage.

Telok
2020-08-24, 11:31 PM
:smallredface: OK, Fantasy Hero is one of two that I know of that qualify for what I *said*. But, what I *meant* actually includes another caveat: an extensive library of real and fantastical creatures. A bestiary of forms for transformation, a library upon which to perform the "search effect" of shapeshifting. Rather than me or the GM having to make up the fly speed of a pterodactyl during the game.

Does Fantasy Hero, unbeknownst to me, have such a library?

Probably effectively yes-ish.

The system has been around a good long time and everything in it is basically cross compatible with little to no conversion work. I know of an old general beastiary, a supers threat book, at least one book of nothing but predefined powers for the supers side, and that's without looking for anything on the fantasy side. I'll take a look and see what else turns up.

Edit: Got a link to the wiki page for the general beastiary en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_System_Bestiary

Lacco
2020-08-26, 05:47 AM
That actually could be a boon in disguise.

Combat in DnD, by default, is very boring and straightforward, which is why most complex and interesting enemies you fight later on have to have a bunch of weird, otherworldliness to them to justify why they aren't making combat boring and straightforward. Heck, Dragons are supposed to be these big, scary, colossus-style lizards, and they generally don't to much more than be big, fly, take hits, make a breath-cone attack, and make some high-damage basic attacks.

Well, killing a dragon in RoS is nigh-impossible. A feat of legends. An adult dragon is tough enough to ignore anything with the exception of heavy weapons & its armor also means it's going to ignore even those most of the time.

Some of them may melt heavily armored fighters easily with their breath.

So, without element of surprise? Heavy weapons? Maybe few traps and a ballista? No chance. Dragons are just too dangerous.


The fact that something like a Pterodactyl is interesting enough to be considered a "weird monster" relative to the series is actually a good thing. You don't need things to look weird to justify it being weird, which leads into good prospects for someone who's looking for a Fighter to be more than the guy that spams the Attack button over and over.

What Dienekes said is true - the fight is where RoS shines. You spend most of your time fighting other fighters - and there will be definite difference between fighting an experienced spearfighter and amateur swordsman. You'll have to pick the right approach, right moves.

And if you pick the right tactics...

When you finally get to fight a monster - like the pterodactyl - it will be VERY strange. Completely different tactics, maneuvers and even combat style - if you can get it to fight on your conditions and have a relatively solid plan, it should be a cakewalk, but not with every monster. There are surprises all around.

Ending my advertising speech.


Well, certainly the "body parts only" idea is one of several ways to have a low power shapeshifter.

This is something I plan to incorporate into my game. If I ever finish it.


The time I broke the game with a shapeshifter, the GM added the power to an existing character to instantly transform partially or wholely into any creature with which they were familiar; the only limitation was that they maintained mass.

Broke the game = good?


In another system? I would expect its high-end to roughly match other characters' high end performance.

Now this is something I mostly ignore. While I know the "linear warrior, quadratic wizard" argument, I usually skip over: the RPGs I play are usually limited on basis of your "balance to the table" argument - so I as the GM check closely on character generation and the power level is usually quite limited & easily controlled.

So while an epic wizard is able to call drought and blight on a part of country, conjure firestorms and destroy castles, an epic warrior will lead an army that can besiege the castle or pillage the part of country. A "high end" PCs are able to fight whole groups of enemies - be it warriors or mages - but they are still in danger - a stab into a one's gut is still a stab into one's gut.


But which variables - partial vs complete vs wuzzled transformation, learn speed, transformation speed, abilities granted, cool extras like indirect mind reading or imaginary forms, etc - get granted when is a bit fuzzier. And maybe should be under the character's control - selectable like Fighter bonus feats or something.

Maybe one "low/mid-level" shapeshifter can instantly transform in whole or in part into a single form (like an eagle), while another can mix and match parts (and only parts) of anything he eats, and a third steadily builds his library of forms through careful study and observation of the diverse creatures he collects, and must gain familiarity with the form by transforming into it in order to achieve maximum performance ("great, I'm a bird. But… how do I fly?").

And there's many, many more possible paths a shapeshifter could take. I certainly wouldn't want to exclude *any* of them from the hypothetical potential stage.

I'd say building several possible "traditions" or schools would work in this way. The "eater" would be one approach (you eat it, you can change into it... have fun learning a form that is poisonous), the scholar another. Casting a formalized spell would be easier than "on the fly" approach.

Or setting targets for transformation: if you wish to transform one bodypart into being you know, it's X successes. Breaking law of conservation? X+1 per magnitude. Transforming whole body? 2(X+1). Doing this "on the fly" (e.g. doing a partial transformation - e.g. turning hands into claws just for the fight - as opposed to taking your practiced & formalized brown bear form) doubles the difficulty.

So depending on the shapeshifter, they may decide to change into a raven (known form). Base 3 successes (whole body 1 + matter 2). Can be done with a beginning character. But they should get the Flight skill...

Quertus
2020-08-27, 09:16 PM
Broke the game = good?

No, it's as bad as it sounds. I ran wild with those powers for 1 session, and the GM called the game.

It's one of several "library search" powers that I both really enjoy, and am really good with. I just hadn't realized that the GM *hadn't* given the rest of the party gifts that were as good as mine until *after* the session. (Which… the GM gave X powers to X PCs, and intended them to be used to solve X challenges. They put my challenge first. I spent a long time investigating my power while the rest of the party failed to overcome "my" challenge. Then I breezed through everyone else's challenge (not realizing until after the fact that they were "everyone else's challenges") - or most of them, at any rate (if they came up with a solution *quickly*, they could solve their own challenge).

Everyone got to engage in a few fights, so they got to *use* their abilities. But this also threw off my recognition of "X challenges" until after the fact.


Now this is something I mostly ignore. While I know the "linear warrior, quadratic wizard" argument, I usually skip over: the RPGs I play are usually limited on basis of your "balance to the table" argument - so I as the GM check closely on character generation and the power level is usually quite limited & easily controlled.

Actually, "balance to the table" is advice / an admonition to the *players*; having the GM manage balance is (usually) a different beast.

Case in point: if, after the session, after I realized that my shapeshifting was too OP, if i couldn't figure out any way to make things balanced, "balance to the table" would have me appeal to the table for a solution. (And yes, having the GM mechanically limit the power (or boost everyone else) is about the only way to make that work, short of having my character incongruously hold the idiot ball).


I'd say building several possible "traditions" or schools would work in this way. The "eater" would be one approach (you eat it, you can change into it... have fun learning a form that is poisonous), the scholar another. Casting a formalized spell would be easier than "on the fly" approach.

Or setting targets for transformation: if you wish to transform one bodypart into being you know, it's X successes. Breaking law of conservation? X+1 per magnitude. Transforming whole body? 2(X+1). Doing this "on the fly" (e.g. doing a partial transformation - e.g. turning hands into claws just for the fight - as opposed to taking your practiced & formalized brown bear form) doubles the difficulty.

So depending on the shapeshifter, they may decide to change into a raven (known form). Base 3 successes (whole body 1 + matter 2). Can be done with a beginning character.

You've… given this some thought, then?


But they should get the Flight skill...

Although *I* would likely never play such a character, I believe that some people would want to play characters where the form is completely intuitive, and things like "flight skill" (or swim skill, or chameleon skill, or prehensile tail or "pivot eyes" or 6-arm usage) come with the transformation.

Especially when you're changing *someone else*, it's pretty weak to turn them into a flightless bird.

Reathin
2020-08-29, 11:16 AM
I adore playing characters with supernatural abilities. Even in settings where pure physical power is a viable, or even optimal, option, I adore playing casters and caster-analogues to the point where the only physical types I can bring myself to play are those with at least a little bit of supernatural augmentation. I feel naked without it. With it, though, it brings about a whole extra dimension to what I can do, and the world feels paradoxically more real.

The fact that these abilities tend to be associated with intelligence-focused characters is a side benefit. I have a hard time playing a genuinely stupid character, and every time I try, I tend to slip up a bit. I like being "the person with the answers", especially in-game. Being powerful is nice, but optional. Being the center of attention is only nice in small doses. But always having something to contribute to the group's options, especially if it's made possible by supernatural means? That REALLY works for me.