Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

[Talakeal]

I won't directly argue there, just point out that for that role, there are far more optimal ways of pulling it off.

Sure. There is always a better character build for any given situation, but as is that is a pretty good one for most leadership / support roles, and scales really well so that it would be amazing with a minionmancer of some sort.

I mean, it depends on the GM. I would assume the chance of a landmine being in the middle of a place where people were fighting a current battle to be non-existant, so it sounded like it summoned stuff in to allow the spell to work, and it would only fail if the change couldn't be easily hidden in the scene.

No, it doesn't summon anything, it explicitly twists probability and will not go off until it would be plausible for it to do so. Someone could be waiting for years before the spell triggers.

Honestly though, that is a rather common interpretation of synchronicity both in games and irl; I remember many players, even even a few authors, who insisted that it was a coincidental effect to conjure thin air when nobody was looking.

I would expect to likely see them, but at the same time they will be worse off than this extra in other areas to do so. Seeing as you've stated that a character's weaknesses should come up, there's a good argument that this extra might have an easier time of play, as they are equally paired against similar level foes, and they lack weaknesses that a GM would be looking to make matter.

I can't imagine a game where that would be the case.

The idea of crafting a game for the PCs goes both ways; its not just the weaknesses you work in but the strengths as well, and in an ordinary game there is enough variety of scenarios that you shouldn't really have to do either unless the traits in question are super obscure and or specific. It's odd, most players act like there are killer GM's everywhere, and interpret the world in that light, when the opposite is far, far more common.

If you believe that, you have a lot of rewriting to do. I think with all the discussions around the game, that it's very clear that players do not have such a grasp of weaknesses, and if you feel they should, you'll need to make sure that such things are made clear to them.

Out of curiosity, what would that actually look like?

"Having a low dodge means you will be hit more."
"Having no ranged attack means you will be unable to fight back against people on elevated ground"
"Having a low vitality means it takes less damage to kill you."
"Having a low strength makes you susceptible to being grappled."
"Having an excessive amount of wealth makes you a target for robbers."
"Having a low fortitude makes you more susceptible to poison."
"Having a weakness from fire means you at a disadvantage when your opponent uses fire."
"Having powers that require you to speak means you are at a disadvantage when you are gagged."

Etc. etc.?

This is all common-sense stuff that Quertus' proverbial four year old can figure out, I don't see how the game would be improved by spelling it out as, IMO, it would come across as exceedingly wordy and condescending, and I am not aware of any RPGs that do it except in certain extreme and counter intuitive situations.

And by "my players" do you mean Bob? Because Bob does this in every game he plays, regardless of who is the GM or what system we are using, and it isn't that he intellectually doesn't understand what a weakness is, it's that he either a: is so narcissistic that he assumes himself as infallible and dismisses any failures as other people cheating / persecuting him or B: is using "gamemanship" to make the act of targetting him so unpleasant that the other players go out of their way not to. The jury is still out on which.

This is a very interesting philosophical question. Where I personally come down on it, is that player skill should only matter when the player has an opportunity to improve. Thus clever tactics at the table should be rewarding, but that clever optimization shouldn't. You can become more skilled at tactics and put them into play as the game goes on, but having to start a new character every few sessions as you learn and understand the system more just ends up with boring characters and a disinterested player.

Weirdly, as a CharOp lover, I actually believe that rewarding players for CharOp is a negative thing for games.

I see far more people grow bored from playing the same character or not liking the feel of it than I ever have someone abandon a character because it was bad.

I don't really believe in "bad" characters. In my system its mostly about synergy, both within the build and, far more importantly, with the rest of the party. And then there is such a variety of goals and scenarios, you ultimately have to ask yourself "bad at what?". And the game is so forgiving that no matter how poorly you synergize, you can always rework it with relatively little effort.

I didn't see that anywhere, so if I could have a page number? Also, do you get Animus that you convert into ambrosia back as well? This is important for when a Permanency spell that has been cast is dispelled.

Pages 157 and 162, the last paragraphs of the Heirloom and Relic traits.

Character points that have been converted into ambrosia are not refunded by default if you lose them as one of the major uses of creating ambrosia is gifting or selling it to others, but the cannibalize magic spell can reclaim it in some circumstances.

There probably should be a way to recollect the ambrosia from a permanent spell that is broken.

I strongly disagree with this. Telling a player - Hey this is possible, and then having them be worse than if they hadn't tried because they didn't fully know the system or the setting, feels like baiting a trap to me. Here's a cool thing, oh look, you failed at doing it, and now you'll suffer for the rest of the game. It's much the same reason I don't like rolling for attributes tbh. An issue at character creation shouldn't preclude a fun character to play.

Ok. But that isn't the definition of trap option I, or anyone else that I am aware of, uses.

Even going by that definition, I am not sure what mechanics you could be talking about. Best I can figure, the person in this example is too impatient to get / do something normally, so they pile on so many weaknesses in their attempt to rush it that they make a character who suffers in a bunch of other areas?

Like, every power in the game should be available to a moderately focused character in Tier 2 or 3 without any drawbacks. What cool powers are making you worse off than if you hadn't tried?

I strongly disagree with this. Telling a player - Hey this is possible, and then having them be worse than if they hadn't tried because they didn't fully know the system or the setting, feels like baiting a trap to me. Here's a cool thing, oh look, you failed at doing it, and now you'll suffer for the rest of the game. It's much the same reason I don't like rolling for attributes tbh. An issue at character creation shouldn't preclude a fun character to play.




I'm confused, I thought just above this you said that you were fine with character types under-performing if built poorly. Why is it worse for someone to under-perform on purpose than by accident? Why can't a skilled player take a few handicaps to bring their character down to the level of players that aren't as good at system mastery. If you're fine with players being able to make better or worse characters (and you said you valued freedom in building characters), then why not make it easy and clear how to build a substandard character. Put all possible main options at the same level of power, then have 'Over Powered' options that require GM approval to make stronger characters, and 'Under Power' options that allow a player to make weaker characters than expected. It would give the same, if not more freedom to the players, and it would be more honest.





I mean, it has though hasn't it? I gave you that build challenge as a way to simulate someone attempting a build that they lacked the skill to make. From the perspective of someone who doesn't have time to read and memorize a nearly 600 page book, down to the smallest minutia (because later, you point out that there is a line of text around a hundred pages away from a spell that when interpreted in a certain way, could change how the spell works).





Of course RLNFS requires GM permission. I'll wait on seeing the page that immediately allows all CP from a lost artifact to be regained instantly before I comment on the rest of the build. As it is though, assuming you can't respec. It will be too slow to escape from combat, and will then be easily grappled an killed, as GMs are supposed to make character weaknesses matter, and the character has only 1 strength and 1 agility. If the GM truly makes those flaws matter, I'm not sure that it would survive the first adventure.

Basically, your plan relies entirely on GM mercy.






Then this:

Spoiler: Cataract

Show

The ultimate refinement of the illusionist's trade is to create something so perfect that the universe itself cannot tell that it is fiction. Cataract is used to turn deceptions into reality; it can change other illusion spells into real objects, shift a being's identity to match a disguise or an assumed role, or otherwise bring fantasies to life.

is not fluff, and is an actual effect of the spell. It can make an illusion of ambrosia real, because this isn't fluff, but actually what the spell does.

I've written and deleted about 4 differant paragraphs of responces to this, but I just leave it at this: This attitude really bothers me, rubs me the wrong way, and makes me want to take the most bad faith readings possible.

I will do my best not to do this.



Sure.




Just because something is hard, or even outside our personal capabilities, doesn't mean that it's not a goal worth striving for. Settling for mediocrity because one doesn't want to aim for the moon is really frustrating to see.



I'm going to need to see the exert, as I've searched both 'universal' and 'subconscious' and I'm not seeing either. I'm also not seeing it when I read that section of the rule





I see.






If as you say, there is no fluff in your system, then yes, you'll need to write that section (and many others) out much more clearly.




I'm sorry, I guess I just expected that when I asked the designer of the game how the rules worked, they would tell me the actual rules. Since you're arguing here that advice you give outside the book isn't to be followed, I'm really not sure where to go from here. If I can't discuss your intentions with you, without you pulling these Gotcha's it feels like there's not much point discussing things further, or trying to follow any rules changes you make, as following them is just setting myself up to be shut down by you.



But it is what the rules say, so going forward I will assume that any reference to attributes can only affect PCs





This is actually where you're completely wrong. Empower doesn't add +2 to it's attributes. It's much worse than that.

Spoiler: Force of Nature

Show

Each level of the empower metamagic provides the force of nature with a +2 bonus to all of its scores, including size rating.

So what do scores cover in the system? I think the most applicable quote is here:

Spoiler: 168

Show

An entry marked with a * can be taken any number of times so long as it does not bring a character's scores beyond a value that would be possible with key attributes between one and ten.

So from this, it seems that a Score, is anything with a number. But let's double check:

Spoiler: 553

Show

Extras use their good score for trained skills and their bad score for untrained skills.

So the Good and Bad Scores are Scores, and are thus effected. What else though is effected?

Spoiler: Also 553

Show

An extra’s animus score is determined by its template, with an equivalent number of base chakras.

So then, the Force of Nature that we would summon, rules as written, has an Animus Score of 25, with 25 open Chakras.

Since you've made it clear that listening to what you think of the rules in this forum leads to you Gotcha'ing me, I can only assume that this is the explicit intent of the game, and build around this.



Doesn't matter, as you've made it clear that only PCs have attributes, and that anything you've said in this thread might just be misinformation.



I'm willing to discuss you system in the future. But only if you refrain from playing games just so you can protect your system. If you say something as it's designer, I need to be able to take what you say as truth, and you can't go back later and tell me that you were just messing with me.

So one last thing before I leave then, because I worked this out before you gave your reply, and it would be a shame not to share it.

Having inept is better than not having inept on a character. Each level of Inept increases the average result of a check for that proficiency by +0.5 of a point. IE: A skill of 0 will have an average result of 10.5. An inept of 10 will have an average result roughly a 15.5 by comparison. This is assuming you go through with the change you insinuated you were planning to make to the fortune dice system. I'll leave you to do with that information as you will.

I'm confused, I thought just above this you said that you were fine with character types under-performing if built poorly. Why is it worse for someone to under-perform on purpose than by accident? Why can't a skilled player take a few handicaps to bring their character down to the level of players that aren't as good at system mastery. If you're fine with players being able to make better or worse characters (and you said you valued freedom in building characters), then why not make it easy and clear how to build a substandard character. Put all possible main options at the same level of power, then have 'Over-powered' options that require GM approval to make stronger characters, and 'Under Power' options that allow a player to make weaker characters than expected. It would give the same, if not more freedom to the players, and it would be more honest.

I am not following at all.

If you want over or under powered characters, just give some people more or less character points; indeed that is already an option in the book.

You seem to be assuming that I am way smarter than I am and my players way dumber than they are; that I can somehow rate every possible build in every possible party comp in every possible scenario with every possible character goal, but at the same time my players can't figure out that having a high strength means they hit harder and that having a deaf orator is counter-productive, and that the lack of those assumptions is somehow dishonest?

I mean, it has though hasn't it? I gave you that build challenge as a way to simulate someone attempting a build that they lacked the skill to make. From the perspective of someone who doesn't have time to read and memorize a nearly 600 page book, down to the smallest minutia (because later, you point out that there is a line of text around a hundred pages away from a spell that when interpreted in a certain way, could change how the spell works).

Are you really trying to say that strangers making TO builds on a forum is the exact same as making a character for play at the table?

Even within that example, an archer reading the combat maneuvers and a wizard reading their spell lists does not in any way equal memorizing 600 pages down to the smallest minutia.

Even more so, a single "optimization trick" is not a character, or even a solid foundation for one, because it requires the GM to both agree with your interpretation and not just step in and rule zero it.

Of course RLNFS requires GM permission.

Just like Turn Back the Clock, no, it does not say that. It says the caster and the Gamekeeper work together to determine the shape of the new timeline.

The adding or removing traits is a separate paragraph, and not meant to be dependent on the above, although that dovetails back into the earlier conversation about reading separate parts of an entry and context.

As it is though, assuming you can't respec. It will be too slow to escape from combat, and will then be easily grappled and killed, as GMs are supposed to make character weaknesses matter, and the character has only 1 strength and 1 agility. If the GM truly makes those flaws matter, I'm not sure that it would survive the first adventure.

Basically, your plan relies entirely on GM mercy.

Look, I know you have been looking to throw that line back in my face, but do you legitimately not understand the difference between 1: an impartial GM, 2: a GM who warps the rules / setting to kill a character, and 3: a GM who warps the rules / setting to keep a character alive?

Because you seem to keep assuming I am talking about number two when I am talking about number one.

Let me clarify again: IF a character takes an obscure trait that will never come up in the game, good or bad, then the GM should either work it into the narrative or tell the player it isn't worth any points / to choose something else. Again, this could be a good trait or a bad trait; undead slayer and weakness to undead are both treated the same. Some traits, like Enemy, Title, or Ally almost always need to have the GM work them into the scenario as there is virtually zero odds that they would just come up by chance.

Having low stats isn't something that the GM needs to work into the game, its baked into the core mechanics.

An impartial GM should have enemies target the character as much as it makes sense for them given their knowledge and motivation. I am not, nor have I ever been, saying that a GM should intentionally try to kill a character to punish the player. Now, as I said above, Bob claims that any tactic that works against his character must be cheating or antagonism, either out of narcissm or gamesmanship, but that was never actually the GM's intention as far as I can tell.

As for that particular build, like any character it really depends on party synergy and the specifics of the scenario. It may legitimately be in the enemy's best interest to target said character first (much less likely that they would keep beating on her after she was down), but I can tell you that if that character were dropped into my current party, I would be able to keep her safe from most anything, and would have a field day chopping down and reanimating any NPCs who are stupid enough to go after the non-threatening party face while ignoring the actual threats.

Heck, if the GM is that determined to punish the player by targeting the character, she's probably worth the cost of reviving her after each adventure just for the sake of the lure!

Then this:

The ultimate refinement of the illusionist's trade is to create something so perfect that the universe itself cannot tell that it is fiction. Cataract is used to turn deceptions into reality; it can change other illusion spells into real objects, shift a being's identity to match a disguise or an assumed role, or otherwise bring fantasies to life.

is not fluff, and is an actual effect of the spell. It can make an illusion of ambrosia real, because this isn't fluff, but actually what the spell does.

Whether or not something is "fluff" has little to nothing to do with whether or not you can read something in context.

Saying "Here is what something does. Here is how it does it." is a very common linguistic construction, even outside of games.

Likewise, as I said above, people do talk in generalizations, metaphors, poetic exaggerations, figures of speech, etc.


Reading things in context is a skill, and I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. Heck, I can't give specific examples here, but there have been high profile legal ases where the judge threw out laws where the wording wasn't crystal clear about which clauses applied to which even if the intent was obvious.

On this very site someone once recommended that any rules lawyer or GM read Adler and Doren's "How to Read a Book" to make better sense of rules in context, and it has been sitting on my shelf ever since. Maybe its finally time I gave it a read.


Let's take a simpler example:

"The cure light wounds spell repairs the subject's injuries. Each casting heals 1d8 points of damage." Would you really say that it is only the nebulous concept of "fluff" that keeps you from insisting that only the first sentence matters and thus a single casting of rejuvenate should completely heal the subject because all of their injuries must be repaired?

I've written and deleted about 4 differant paragraphs of responses to this, but I just leave it at this: This attitude really bothers me, rubs me the wrong way, and makes me want to take the most bad faith readings possible.

I will do my best not to do this.

You may not like it, but I would argue that any game which can cleanly sever the fluff from the mechanics is no longer a roleplaying game.

There is just too much open-ended stuff. You can have a sword of reptile slaying. Or a circle that repels organic matter. Or a magic door that will only open to members of a certain bloodline. Or a force-field that can block anything but the color yellow. Or a demon who is bound to attack anyone with brown eyes.

Likewise, players should be able to use the "fluff" to come up with clever plans. Like if detect magic makes someone's eyes glow blue according to the fluff, the players should be allowed to scan the crowd for anyone with glowing blue eyes to tell who is scanning them.

Just because something is hard, or even outside our personal capabilities, doesn't mean that it's not a goal worth striving for. Settling for mediocrity because one doesn't want to aim for the moon is really frustrating to see.

Sure. And I am striving to be clear and to rewrite confusing stuff.

But that doesn't mean that a 5000 page rulebook that reads like a standards and procedures manual is preferable to a rulebook that is concise and evocative but occasionally requires GM interpretation even if the latter were a realistic possibility.

I'm going to need to see the exert, as I've searched both 'universal' and 'subconscious' and I'm not seeing either. I'm also not seeing it when I read that section of the rule.

Sorry, the exact phrase is "collective consciousness" on page 277. It is also alluded to on page 270 and probably elsewhere.

But again, this knowledge isn't really necessary for determining what Genesis does or how it does it, but rather about why it functions the way it does.

And keep in mind that I have already said that spell is a little redundant and confusing and could use a revision.

If as you say, there is no fluff in your system, then yes, you'll need to write that section (and many others) out much more clearly.

I feel like kind of the opposite maybe?

If one can safely ignore the opening as meaningless "fluff" then there is no reason why the force of nature (or almost any other creature) is or isn't alive as that condition is seldom spelled out as a game mechanic, but if you take it as part of the rules, then the force of nature is clearly said to resemble a kami, and kami are clearly said to be unliving.

I'm sorry, I guess I just expected that when I asked the designer of the game how the rules worked, they would tell me the actual rules. Since you're arguing here that advice you give outside the book isn't to be followed, I'm really not sure where to go from here. If I can't discuss your intentions with you, without you pulling these Gotcha's it feels like there's not much point discussing things further, or trying to follow any rules changes you make, as following them is just setting myself up to be shut down by you.

Great, I see the forums habit of labelling any misunderstanding at the table has gone meta and now applies to any misunderstanding on the forum as well.

Do you really think I am intentionally giving you misleading information for the sake of making you look foolish?

You asked me a question, devoid of context, and I gave you the under the hood answer, and specifically prefaced it with "generally". I was trying to explain my thought process in designing the game, I did not realize you were asking for an "official ruling" for which to hang your build from.

As is written, extras do not have attribute scores. If you need to know an extra's precise score, the GM will come up with one. It is USUALLY equal to their bad attribute, but this isn't set in stone.

In the future, if I use a "wiggle word" such as like, or usually, or generally, or if i recall, or i believe, and you really need an official word of god answer, please ask me a follow up question rather than just assuming I am giving you some set-in-stone promise or maliciously trying to supply you with false information.

But it is what the rules say, so going forward I will assume that any reference to attributes can only affect PCs.

Hmmm.

Yeah, thinking more deeply, that doesn't make a lot of sense as you don't know what will happen to an extras attributes if they are modified by spells or artifacts. I'll fix it in the next revision.

This is actually where you're completely wrong. Empower doesn't add +2 to it's attributes. It's much worse than that. Each level of the empower metamagic provides the force of nature with a +2 bonus to all of its scores, including size rating.

Yes. I am well aware of that.

My point was that it will only increase the scores it has, it won't suddenly give it new scores.

Extras do not typically have attributes, enlightenment, destiny, concentration, or mana.
They do typically have size, dodge, resilience, damage, accuracy, initiative, speed, encumbrance, might, and skills.
Depending on whether or not they are a mook, they also have vitality and tenacity.

Actually, the situation gets even weirder if the force of nature DOES have attributes, because when an attribute is changed, the skills and aspects for which it is key are also recalculated, so this would actually end up giving the force of nature +4 to most of its scores.

An extra’s animus score is determined by its template, with an equivalent number of base chakras.

Yes, animus and chakras are both scores.

Animus is explicitly listed as never being modified by traits, spells, or equipment however, and shouldn't be effected, although I suppose one could rules-lawyer it and say that it is the meta-magic, not the spell, which is modifying it.

Although for the purposes of this build, I am not really sure how much the increased animus is going to do for you as when you fuse with it your animus takes precedence over its and immediately recalculates the chakras accordingly.[/QUOTE]

Since you've made it clear that listening to what you think of the rules in this forum leads to you Gotcha'ing me, I can only assume that this is the explicit intent of the game, and build around this.

Again, could you please for the love of gosh stop attributing malice to everything I say?

You asked a question devoid of context, I gave you a general answer. Trying to somehow trick you or make you look foolish was the furthest things from my mind.

As I said, I appreciate and enjoy your feedback, but when you assume malice behind everything I say it really turns the conversation into a bummer.

Doesn't matter, as you've made it clear that only PCs have attributes, and that anything you've said in this thread might just be misinformation.

I'm willing to discuss you system in the future. But only if you refrain from playing games just so you can protect your system. If you say something as it's designer, I need to be able to take what you say as truth, and you can't go back later and tell me that you were just messing with me.

Dude. This is not how rational people converse, and it is a hair away from violating forum rules.

You asked me a question and I answered it honestly. You don't get to come in here and take a reply that begins with "can usually be assumed to" as evidence that I am trying to trick you and that you can no longer believe anything I say because it isn't a 100% concrete fact. That is completely unreasonable.

I am still really curious about how you get to spirits having above 15 attribute scores, but I am not *that* curious.

Having inept is better than not having inept on a character. Each level of Inept increases the average result of a check for that proficiency by +0.5 of a point. IE: A skill of 0 will have an average result of 10.5. An inept of 10 will have an average result roughly a 15.5 by comparison. This is assuming you go through with the change you insinuated you were planning to make to the fortune dice system. I'll leave you to do with that information as you will.

Out of curiosity, is this only because the first and second ranks provide +3 and 2 respectively?

It's funny, my play-testers insist that indept is just a flat out "trap-option" and that nobody should ever take it, but online people seem to love it.

[Talakeal]

So, where was I?... Ah, fire blast. It reads as an area effect spell. You may not intend it that way, but it read that way. I spent a couple hours cross referencing and page numbering and it seems that a zone is a pace. So it the spell fills a zone with fire then it fills it with fire. Of course I also have a fondness for a magic system where stuff was split into the power (necromancy, pyromancy, chronomancy) and the method (conjuration, evocation, apportation). That system had a whole page of fireballs; pyromancy-evocation as trad, chronomancy-apportation to reverse the flow of time on some ashes you threw, necro-conj to summon the spirit of a dead bonfire. So "same effect by a different path" is something I trend towards there. But yeah, you need something to differentiate the zone/pace difference in area/calling because it reads the same.

That's odd.

It does function like an area spell in that it is evaded (that's its gimmick) rather than resisted with resolve like most single target spells, but aside from that calling spells and area spells are distinct types with distinct rules, and I am not sure where the confusion is.

All calling spells occupy a zone on the board, be they summoning a minion, a fire burst, an insect swarm, or a living spell. Although in the case of large creatures, they might occupy multiple zones.

All area spells measure their range from a point on the board and don't occupy zones at all.

Although their might be some weirdness with diagonals I need to look at in the morning.

On blasting: The journeyman level extra was called out as a typical person for pcs to interact with while minions and open-ended damage are in optional sidebars. The idea of blaster is, when coming from D&D style & influenced games/crpgs, about fireball KOing or one shotting a bunch of non-trivial targets.

Maybe I need to make it more clear that you should really be using mooks for most NPCs you encounter.

I have never thought of fireball as a one-shot spell in any game; it's always been a moderate damage over a moderate area spell for me.

On describing the game: Don't compare Heart of Darkness to D&D. People have way too much D&D baggage, especially this site, to get much useful when they make D&D assumptions about stuff unread. Instead HoD has much more DNA from games like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and Palladium than it does from D&D. Heck, I think it's closer to Mörk Borg than the current version of D&D. Although more accurately I'd say 1st level OD&D or hardcore AD&D 1e is still a bit north of Mörk Borg and HoD is well north of 1st level AD&D, but they're all a tighter range that's well south of WotC D&Ds. Having played starter characters in all the games in this paragraph except HoD, your game is closer to Palladium, AD&D, WHFRP, than to the last 20 years of D&D.

D&D is what most people are familiar with and in my experience people tend to have a visceral reaction to anything new or unfamiliar.

I have never actually played anything by Palladium. The game absolutely has a lot of WHFRP in its DNA (and by extension similar systems loke Rolemaster and Runequest).

As I said upthread, I feel like it is, at least mechanically, a cross between WHFRP and Exalted.

But D&D is the lingua franca of RPGs, and it is easiest to discuss RPGs or calibrate expectations using D&D, and it has obviously had a vast influence on the entire hobby, my game included.

[Jakinbandw]

You asked me a question, devoid of context, and I gave you the under the hood answer, and specifically prefaced it with "generally".

You asked a question devoid of context, I gave you a general answer.

It also spiritually fuses with a 5 times empowered Force of Nature. I'm honestly not sure what effect that has, as Fusion references attributes, but extra templates don't have attributes.

{Scrubbed}

[Kish]

Hm. I'm wondering something. Question, Talakeal. Does Bob react negatively to other group members' successes?

[Talakeal]

Hm. I'm wondering something. Question, Talakeal. Does Bob react negatively to other group members' successes?

Actually no.

He occasionally gets jealous of other players, but its not too bad.

I have seen other players who try and steal the spotlight or sabotage their companions, or pout when they aren't the one to save the day, but that is not Bob's MO.


Mostly its just he is concerned with his own character power and always feels like he should be stronger than he is; like in the case of the OP he has the highest overall damage output of the party but still complains that he is under-powered.

Edit: @Telok: Ok,having reread the rules for area spells, I see where the confusion is coming from. I will clarify it. Thanks for pointing that out!

[neriana]

D&D is what most people are familiar with and in my experience people tend to have a visceral reaction to anything new or unfamiliar.

Your experience is certainly... unique.

People who are narcissistic are jealous of others' success. So maybe Bob is self-absorbed, but "narcissistic" is an extremely strong accusation that should be used sparingly. It sounds to me like Bob likes playing for the power fantasy aspect, and if he's not undermining other players, there's nothing wrong with that.

[Talakeal]

People who are narcissistic are jealous of others' success. So maybe Bob is self-absorbed, but "narcissistic" is an extremely strong accusation that should be used sparingly. It sounds to me like Bob likes playing for the power fantasy aspect, and if he's not undermining other players, there's nothing wrong with that.

For sure.

I would never actually say he is a narcissist, just that he sometimes shows behaviors that seem narcissistic, and I don't even know if he is legitimately feeling that way or if he has just discovered that if he acts that way people will let him have his way more often than not.

Bob is absolutely jealous of other players, but doesn't go so far as to sabotage them or complain when they succeed. He will however, complain that he isn't as powerful as he should be, and even if he is objectively "the best" he still complains that his margin of success isn't wide enough.

But what he mostly does is, if he fails at something or when something bad happens to his character, sulks and accuses other people of picking on him. He will constantly accuse the GM of tailoring the adventures specifically to counter his character. Likewise, he constantly makes "glass cannon" characters that are all offense and no defense, and then says that it is cheating for the GM to have intelligent enemies make the obviously correct tactical move of attacking his character.

[neriana]

What players do you have whose playstyles you approve of?

[Talakeal]

What players do you have whose playstyles you approve of?

All of them?

I mean, everyone (myself included) has their quirks and isn't perfect, but all of them are overall good players.

Bob is the closest thing to a "problem player" but I still feel he is a new positive for the group and keep him around despite lots of suggestions that I do otherwise.

Although I suppose the new girl might end up being worse than Bob and might not make the cut in the long run, as unlike Bob she actively lies and cheats at the table, but she hasn't been around long enough for me to make that call.

I have had a few people who have been net negatives over the years and haven't worked out with the group, but they are by far the minority, and mostly its their behavior away from the table that ends up getting them cut.

[Talakeal]

Thread is kind of dying down.

@Jakinbaw: Thank you for your feedback. I genuinely mean it, you had some brilliant ideas and very good critical analysis in there.

@Kish: Were you going somewhere talking about Bob or the definition of power gaming?

@Telok: Was there anything more in your builds you wanted me to look over?

Also, our last conversation about blasters really has me thinking about the two big waffles in my game; whether to use open ended damage and impervious bulk as the default rules rather than the options. Any thoughts?

[Telok]

@Telok: Was there anything more in your builds you wanted me to look over?

Also, our last conversation about blasters really has me thinking about the two big waffles in my game; whether to use open ended damage and impervious bulk as the default rules rather than the options. Any thoughts?

Nah, I'm good. Still uncertain on the pace/zone difference, but that's basically a niggly detail. Oh, and don't let the staff of power apply to imbuing artifacts. That way lies free piles of glyphed spell-blade imbued ammo that apply on hit a baleful flash restrained(vitality) 4x piercing 2x empowered sanguine health spell at dc 22 to cast (or a basic 'on hit resist magic or test for magic damage in addition to weapon damage').

No opinion on the open damage & bulk thing. I wasn't looking at the optional bits.

[Talakeal]

Nah, I'm good. Still uncertain on the pace/zone difference, but that's basically a niggly detail. Oh, and don't let the staff of power apply to imbuing artifacts. That way lies free piles of glyphed spell-blade imbued ammo that apply on hit a baleful flash restrained(vitality) 4x piercing 2x empowered sanguine health spell at dc 22 to cast (or a basic 'on hit resist magic or test for magic damage in addition to weapon damage').

No opinion on the open damage & bulk thing. I wasn't looking at the optional bits.

Ok. You posted a lot of very long very technical posts that my eyes kind of glossed over, and the other conversations were getting so heating I was afraid I missed something really crucial you said in those posts. There was some good number crunching in there!


A pace is a measure of distance.
A zone is a section of the board (that is one pace across).

To use D&D terminology, a pace = 5' and a zone = a square.

Good idea about baleful sanguine health debuffs, that's a pretty solid alternative to damage.

I think Staff of Power probably shouldn't work with creating artifacts at all as artifacts probably shouldn't be created with specific spells but with schools, but I need to tighten up the phrasing to make that RAW.


Open-ended damage is an optional rule where people have (roughly) twice as much base vitality and tenacity, but rather than all wounds inflicting two points of damage, they inflict damage equal to the amount they succeeded by. Its a much deadlier and more "realistic" game, but a bit more math intensive and with a wider survivability gap between character archetypes. But as is, if you don't use that rule or the mooks rule, combat is pretty slow and non-lethal, as you pointed out with your master evokers needing several spells to kill random villagers.

[gatorized]

Don't apply a penalty for shooting into close combat. This basically saying "everyone should be melee". If you want a choice to be considered, it has to be incentivized.

Limited uses should be a disadvantage that players can choose to apply to a power.

[Talakeal]

Don't apply a penalty for shooting into close combat. This basically saying "everyone should be melee". If you want a choice to be considered, it has to be incentivized.

Limited uses should be a disadvantage that players can choose to apply to a power.

Doesn't this kind of make everyone else obsolete though?

Why bother with the danger and positioning involved in using a melee weapon if ranged weapons have no drawbacks?

Likewise, why bother with mundane skills if there is no cost involved in using supernatural means?

[gatorized]

Doesn't this kind of make everyone else obsolete though?

Why bother with the danger and positioning involved in using a melee weapon if ranged weapons have no drawbacks?

Likewise, why bother with mundane skills if there is no cost involved in using supernatural means?

skills (talents) are far more broad than any power*, and there's no such thing as a power that automatically succeeds where a talent wouldn't. either you have to roll for it or you don't.

most of the time, a talent roll can't be substituted by a power roll anyway, and even if they can, no character can afford enough powers to cover the entirety of every talent. there's no specific power that will make you good at heart surgery, for example, but enough points in Medicine will.

what a character specializes in depends on their concept and what the players' preferences are. that said, I don't see any particular reason why melee / ranged should be a mutually exclusive choice. I can buy blast : fire and strike : fire on the same character, and I'll use whichever one makes sense for the situation I'm in.

and of course, there's no reason that you can't create situations where keeping your distance is more dangerous than closing it.

*possible exception for powers like elemental control, constructs etc., though it really depends on which talent you're comparing to and how the particular instance of the power is designed.

[gbaji]

Don't apply a penalty for shooting into close combat. This basically saying "everyone should be melee". If you want a choice to be considered, it has to be incentivized.

It is incentivized. When firing into melee, you aren't actually in melee yourself, and thus not subject to being attacked in response. The advantage is "my buddy the tank stands in a chokepoint fighting the bad guys, and I get to plink at them with my ranged attack without having to risk being attacked myself". The disadvantage is "I might hit my buddy" and/or "I take some minuses to hit my targets" (either system works).

Being able to do damage to someone else when they can't do damage to you is a *massive* advantage. There has to be some negative in place to balance that out.

And hey. Bonus points for being realistic too. Have you ever actually tried shooting someone who is in a physical fight with someone else? Ok. Let's assume none of us have tried to do that with actual firearms, but let's pretend we're in an SCA style fight, and I've got my soft tipped arrows and I'm trying to help defeat the enemy "army". I've got my melee folks in a scrum with their melee folks. Guess who I'm *not* going to shoot at? The folks in the front line of the enemy formation. Because it's about 90% likely that I'm going to hit one of my own guys in the back if I do that, and that will be realy really frowned upon (and likely result in me being someone's cup holder for a really really long time if I'm lucky. And if I'm really lucky, we'll be talking about a drinking cup). I will, however, move to the side (if the combat "rules" allow this), and fire at the folks standing around in the back of their formation. Or fire over the scrimage line and hope to hit folks in the back.

Key point is that you fire at anyone on the enemy side *except* the people actively engaged in melee with your own side. This isn't arbitrary rules. It's how the actual physics of firing into melee work.

Game systems can (and should) have special feats/skills to allow for doing this more safely, for archery focused character builds. I just think it's a terrible idea to not have your "base rules" penalize trying to do this. It's unrealistic and frankly provides for less range of "things really skilled people can do that regular people can't". You want your highly skilled characters to be heroic and be able to do heroic things. When Legolas shoots right through a crowd of his friends and hits an enemy right in the eye, that's heroic. If any random person, picking up a bow for the first time, can make the same shot, then it's kinda... not.

[Kish]

It is incentivized. When firing into melee, you aren't actually in melee yourself, and thus not subject to being attacked in response. The advantage is "my buddy the tank stands in a chokepoint fighting the bad guys, and I get to plink at them with my ranged attack without having to risk being attacked myself". The disadvantage is "I might hit my buddy" and/or "I take some minuses to hit my targets" (either system works).

That's only an advantage if you're already established as more breakable than the "tank." I'm only seeing negatives here: your attacks are worse than melee attacks and you're more fragile than a melee combatant. With a sleight-of-hand trick: because you're more fragile than the melee combatant, being able to be at range (assuming you can, of course; arranging that and preventing your enemies from arranging you being in melee range is your problem) is itself enough of an advantage to go with your attacks being less effective.

[gatorized]

I've never been in a game where players only took a ranged power and no melee powers or vice versa regardless of the advantages involved. Of course, I don't play trash like D&D that forces players to hyper specialize just to have a hope of being relevant.

Realism is not inherently desirable. I'm not interested in what happens in a boring larp fight. I'm interested in creating the kinds of fantastical battles that are actually fun to participate in.

Game systems can (and should) have special feats/skills to allow for doing this more safely, for archery focused character builds

Friendly fire isn't fun. Games should be fun.

When Legolas shoots right through a crowd of his friends and hits an enemy right in the eye, that's heroic. If any random person, picking up a bow for the first time, can make the same shot, then it's kinda... not.

There's nothing inherently heroic about skill. Heroism is about courage and principled action. No matter how it manifests. A random average Joe can and should be able to conduct himself heroically.

[Talakeal]

I've never been in a game where players only took a ranged power and no melee powers or vice versa regardless of the advantages involved. Of course, I don't play trash like D&D that forces players to hyper specialize just to have a hope of being relevant.

Realism is not inherently desirable. I'm not interested in what happens in a boring larp fight. I'm interested in creating the kinds of fantastical battles that are actually fun to participate in.



Friendly fire isn't fun. Games should be fun.



There's nothing inherently heroic about skill. Heroism is about courage and principled action. No matter how it manifests. A random average Joe can and should be able to conduct himself heroically.

Even on those terms, is it really fun to be stuck with a melee weapon against ranged attackers who can hit you without you being able to retaliate; such as flying, having high ground, or being on horseback?

[NichG]

If you want to ensure fun, don't make games with archetypes that are categorically incapable of things that are almost certainly going to be relevant. E.g. don't have 'melee character' and 'ranged character' be things the system or fluff communicates as a reasonable choice to play, if going the one or other route means you're going to likely be helpless in situations that are expected to arise during play.

If e.g. 'ranged fliers' is a thing or if somehow being on horseback is all it takes to be more or less immune to melee, well then everyone should have both melee and ranged options without the system saying 'by the way, if you choose to suck at your ranged option and specialize at melee, you can be really awesome at it'.

You can have characters with different capabilities, but if you notice a bit of setting or system logic that would render someone incapable of participation, that's a good sign to change it and approach the diversification of capabilities from a different direction instead.

You don't *have* to design a system in such a way as to ensure fun like this. You can make it the responsibility of the players, with the possibility that someone dead-ends into an un-fun playstyle or build, or ends up having a bad session, and then deal with that as it comes up. But then its important to lead with that and help the players realize when they're making that kind of choice from the GM role rather than from the system text.

[Satinavian]

Have you ever actually tried shooting someone who is in a physical fight with someone else?

Actually yes. LARP with crossbow. Now LARP crossbows have a pityful range and are unrealistically easy to evade, so shooting at distracted people in melee isquite effective. While you would not soot from behind your shieldwall at the enemy shiled wall you would totally do this in more skirmish like engagements.

But the real problem in tabletop games is this

Even on those terms, is it really fun to be stuck with a melee weapon against ranged attackers who can hit you without you being able to retaliate; such as flying, having high ground, or being on horseback?

True. That is not fun. This is why nearly all engagements in most games start at very short distance an make it trivial to engage in melee. While that does solve the problem of the melee fighter having nothing to do, it also means that occasion where ranged fighters can do anything better than shoot into melee are pretty rare. Penalizing that too much means that ranged combat stops being a viable concept at all.
Now having a penalty and a build option to get rid of it and which every proper ranged character takes anyway, surely works.

[Telok]

This is why nearly all engagements in most games start at very short distance an make it trivial to engage in melee. While that does solve the problem of the melee fighter having nothing to do, it also

The "most games" is very important. There are two contributors here, the assumption that attacking is the only generally viable action in combat, and the assumption that characters are so specialized that switching methods is crippling. Now, while those assumptions are true in D&D and its close relatives, they don't hold for most other game systems. If I recall correctly, the system that started this specific thread does not require crippling specialization. It helps at starting character levels, but isn't actually needed like in D&D, and gets counterproductive after a point.

[Talakeal]

My system still runs on real-world logic; if people want to be firing from an elevated position or from a moving vehicle I am not going to somehow stop it or say that swords can be used at 100 paces to counter it.

I personally encourage every character to have both melee and ranged weapons as there are situations where each is optimal, but if you want to build someone who is hyper-specialized in one or the other, some combats you might not contribute effectively. If this bothers you, its trivially easy to expand your build to be able to cope with the situation.

I much prefer the ability to be useless to something like D&D 4E which forces every character to be dealing damage at all times. Ironically though, I recall my 4E paladin being one of the least competent characters I have ever played when dealing with enemies that flew / climbed / jumped / had high ground and refused to close into melee, and there wasn't a whole lot I could do about it; even taking off my armor or switching to a bow took so long that it wasn't an option.

And the penalties for firing into melee aren't that severe unless you have really big allies and can't get a clear line of fire. Brian is playing a marksman character right now and easily out-damages the rest of the party even in a melee heavy dungeon crawl, as did Bob's blaster wizard which inspired this thread.

[NichG]

Not saying a sword should be able to attack someone 100ft away up a cliff, but rather that e.g. it'd be good to downplay weapon specialization as a trope since people are conditioned towards that from D&D. Then all you really need is for there to be a sort of 'advance under cover' action that is more effective vs ranged than melee (allowing shields in particular to provide this cover, otherwise requiring stuff in the environment), and for ranged accuracy to be reduced against enemies closer than 20ft (or even just enemies within 20ft who moved on their last turn). Firing into a melee at no penalty is then good, because it encourages a synergy between one character locking down the enemy to remove the accuracy penalty, while a second character takes advantage and amplifies the effectiveness of that lock-down action; plus creating space for a niche where someone who do melee effectively while also moving will be particularly robust against being picked off at range.

You then just have to be a bit careful not to specialize build customizations into separate 'ranged customizations' and 'melee customizations' tracks, but instead find things that both melee and ranged might share and have those customizations do something for both tracks but in different directions. A feature that adds extra consequences on both AoOs as well as overwatch-type actions; a feature that allows sharing enchantments from a main hand weapon to an offhand; etc, rather than stuff like 'Point Blank Shot'

[gatorized]

Even on those terms, is it really fun to be stuck with a melee weapon against ranged attackers who can hit you without you being able to retaliate; such as flying, having high ground, or being on horseback?

Why did you make a character who can only attack in one specific way?

[Talakeal]

Why did you make a character who can only attack in one specific way?

Good question; not really sure if I have an answer in my system.

Although in your proposed system, if there are no downsides to ranged combat, why would you bother wasting your time with melee?

[gatorized]

Good question; not really sure if I have an answer in my system.

Although in your proposed system, if there are no downsides to ranged combat, why would you bother wasting your time with melee?

Because being a badass with a giant hammer is fun and I don't give a **** about what's optimal. If somebody's airborne, that's what being able to jump thousands of feet is for.

[Talakeal]

Because being a badass with a giant hammer is fun and I don't give a **** about what's optimal. If somebody's airborne, that's what being able to jump thousands of feet is for.

So you don't give a **** about being optimal, but at the same time an accuracy penalty for firing into melee ruins your fun?

[Kane0]

So you don't give a **** about being optimal, but at the same time an accuracy penalty for firing into melee ruins your fun?

Optimal vs viable.

[gatorized]

So you don't give a **** about being optimal, but at the same time an accuracy penalty for firing into melee ruins your fun?

Yes. Dealing damage to allies unintentionally isn't fun. Whether it's optimal never enters into it.