Resource mechanics, ambushes, et cetera
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 593
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Resource mechanics, ambushes, et cetera
So there's been some discussion on acceptable resource schedules. And one that people like a lot is the "charge up" mechanic, even though it really sucks for creating a system that doesn't cause ambushes to win automatically. Of course, sometimes you want a system where ambushes win (like in aWoD, to some extent) as there are good and bad times to attack. But for much fantasy genre emulation, this is unacceptable. So this is why Winds of Fate is a popular suggestion from Frank's corner. We've also discussed Guilty Gear-style "tension gauge" mechanics, and how attacks on other people doesn't work as a resource mechanic as you wind up with the "hitting chickens/bag of rats" problem. Just to recap.
However, in my wanderings I stumbled across a set of interesting ideas, and wanted to discuss them here. Briefly, two possibilities, that are separate, albeit a bit related.
A) Winds of Fate... for everyone?: Is it more fair if everyone gets equally subject to the same Winds of Fate roll, or more boring?
B) The Powerup Sequence Heard Round the World: Presuming characters are allowed to accumulate resources round to round, which usually is problematic due to chicken-choking or similar nonsense, wouldn't these problems be largely resolved if activating your powerup sequence automatically betrays your location, effectively allowing your opponent to automatically respond?
However, in my wanderings I stumbled across a set of interesting ideas, and wanted to discuss them here. Briefly, two possibilities, that are separate, albeit a bit related.
A) Winds of Fate... for everyone?: Is it more fair if everyone gets equally subject to the same Winds of Fate roll, or more boring?
B) The Powerup Sequence Heard Round the World: Presuming characters are allowed to accumulate resources round to round, which usually is problematic due to chicken-choking or similar nonsense, wouldn't these problems be largely resolved if activating your powerup sequence automatically betrays your location, effectively allowing your opponent to automatically respond?
B) Would depend on the amount of advantage you could wring from a chicken's neck in the time it takes for the enemies to get themselves together and attack you. Too much and it wouldn't work.
A) You mean only one WoF roll that everyone then uses, right? I'm in favor of this. Less rolling and adds a little bit of strategy to the party's ability placement.
A) You mean only one WoF roll that everyone then uses, right? I'm in favor of this. Less rolling and adds a little bit of strategy to the party's ability placement.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Since when does 'so fucking random you can't plan at all' qualify as balanced? Yes, it does block auto attacks, but that's about all it has going for it.
Draco_Argentum wrote:Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Since when does balance require things to be predictable? If you and your opponent have identical abilities with identical bonii and identical strategies etc., having randomly selected subsets of your abilities on each turn, you'll still win roughly 50% of the time. That's balanced. Whether or not you personally like randomness, it's balanced.Roy wrote:Since when does 'so fucking random you can't plan at all' qualify as balanced? Yes, it does block auto attacks, but that's about all it has going for it.
Here's the first mention of the scheme, looks like it was actually for D&Discourse. There's enough predictability that you can actually plan things out - you can always count on having your "1" abilities, and it's very likely that you'll have your "2" or even "3" abilities, and any decent plan will take into account unknown variables (i.e., "if I roll a 1, I'll use X, if I roll a 2, I'll use Y...").
It looks like the entire point was to incentivise you to use a variety of attacks, so not doing more than that isn't really a weakness of the system, any more than "not flying" is a weakness of your toaster.
Last edited by Quantumboost on Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Given the number of people here that throw whiny shit fits just because you have enemies use greataxes or scythes, with associated high critical hit modifiers in D&D I would say quite a few people require balance = predictable. And that's without considering the 'No items, Fox only, FINAL DESTINATION' crowd that for those unfamiliar with the Smash Brothers series are aiming to make battles as predictable as possible for the sake of balance.
And if all it were meant to do is to do all sorts of random stuff, then it would be fine since it does that. But there are people here claiming this is balance, and that's who I'm talking to.
And if all it were meant to do is to do all sorts of random stuff, then it would be fine since it does that. But there are people here claiming this is balance, and that's who I'm talking to.
Draco_Argentum wrote:Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
-
- Duke
- Posts: 1727
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm
I have no real opinion of Winds of Fate either way, but would you please resolve this denouncement of predictability with your prior tirades against Iterative Probability?Roy wrote:Given the number of people here that throw whiny shit fits just because you have enemies use greataxes or scythes, with associated high critical hit modifiers in D&D I would say quite a few people require balance = predictable. And that's without considering the 'No items, Fox only, FINAL DESTINATION' crowd that for those unfamiliar with the Smash Brothers series are aiming to make battles as predictable as possible for the sake of balance.
And if all it were meant to do is to do all sorts of random stuff, then it would be fine since it does that. But there are people here claiming this is balance, and that's who I'm talking to.
I'm not calling you out to be a dick, I'm genuinely curious because you seem to be arguing against both ends of a continuum. Am I to believe that you endorse some middle route?
What would your ideal conflict resolution scheme look like? Should failure be randomized? Should it be something entirely avoidable via system mastery and smart play?
Iterative Probability is a (presumably small) chance of something going wrong, repeated many times when that thing only needs to happen once. In other words, even the smallest amount of unpredictability can snowball when the consequences for failure are severe. And when they aren't severe, it doesn't really matter what you do. Similarly, as the PCs you need consistent and reliable results because if you are dependent on luck based tactics such as critical hits, well sooner or later you aren't going to manage that and then you will get annihilated for failing. How is this a contradiction?violence in the media wrote:I have no real opinion of Winds of Fate either way, but would you please resolve this denouncement of predictability with your prior tirades against Iterative Probability?Roy wrote:Given the number of people here that throw whiny shit fits just because you have enemies use greataxes or scythes, with associated high critical hit modifiers in D&D I would say quite a few people require balance = predictable. And that's without considering the 'No items, Fox only, FINAL DESTINATION' crowd that for those unfamiliar with the Smash Brothers series are aiming to make battles as predictable as possible for the sake of balance.
And if all it were meant to do is to do all sorts of random stuff, then it would be fine since it does that. But there are people here claiming this is balance, and that's who I'm talking to.
I'm not calling you out to be a dick, I'm genuinely curious because you seem to be arguing against both ends of a continuum. Am I to believe that you endorse some middle route?
What would your ideal conflict resolution scheme look like? Should failure be randomized? Should it be something entirely avoidable via system mastery and smart play?
What I am doing is trying to consolidate people calling out winds of fate as balanced (as opposed to merely different) with the typical mindset that seems to hate high critical multiplier weapons but rarely has any problem with win spells. In other words, why is some total randomness acceptable for balance purposes and other sorts not?
The other question would probably warrant a new thread, and I don't care enough to discuss it right now.
Draco_Argentum wrote:Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
I don't like the "Winds of Fate" idea so much. I would much prefer that dynamic combat flow was created more "naturally" than enforced so artificially by a die roll saying "this is what abilities you can use." That is, changing conditions in combat and the way abilities and ability activation and so forth interact can naturally encourage players to change up their attack routines without resorting to heavyhanded randomness.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Good luck with that.Caedrus wrote:I don't like the "Winds of Fate" idea so much. I would much prefer that dynamic combat flow was created more "naturally" than enforced so artificially by a die roll saying "this is what abilities you can use." That is, changing conditions in combat and the way abilities and ability activation and so forth interact can naturally encourage players to change up their attack routines without resorting to heavyhanded randomness.
But in a dice-based resolution mechanic the positions of the combatants that you are responding "naturally" to are the results of die rolls. Why fuck with the players by making them work out what abilities are usable with multiple inputs and charts when t can be reduced to a single die roll?
The 4e skill challenge system isn't better than just rolling a die. If you're only interested in one result there is nothing to be gained from rolling and comparing lots of die rolls as opposed to just making one die roll.
-Username17
Within the context of 4e its probably not worth the effort, but simply assigning a Tag to whatever power/maneuver/etc you're using and then having those Tags persist over a round and provide a Paper-Scissors-Rock element (ie, a Reckless attack means you're vulnerable to Precise attacks but more resistant against Defensive maneuvers) is a easy and good way to do the dynamic.
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
Then what you would end up with is a 'Five Moves Of Doom' thing where players intentionally or unintentionally cycled through the same list over and over for the best attack. So when the enemy had the 'scissors' tag they would use the 'rock' attack. And next round, now that they have the 'rock' tag the player would then use the 'paper' attack. And so-on.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Like the Top Secret martial arts chart?mean_liar wrote:Within the context of 4e its probably not worth the effort, but simply assigning a Tag to whatever power/maneuver/etc you're using and then having those Tags persist over a round and provide a Paper-Scissors-Rock element (ie, a Reckless attack means you're vulnerable to Precise attacks but more resistant against Defensive maneuvers) is a easy and good way to do the dynamic.
Or the AD&D psionic attack/defense modes?
(Although I think those were both chosen simultaneously, come to think of it.)
Last edited by hogarth on Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Let's consider a situation where you have an "Unbalancing Strike" that changes the battlefield when used. If it works, your enemy wants to use a "Yellow" maneuver because that resets their footing. And if it does not work it makes your enemy want to use a "Red" maneuver because now you are off balance and are vulnerable to Red attacks. That's a system that "naturally" encourages people to use moves in response to the tactical situation, right? Wrong. It's a completely arbitrary set of rules that gives people completely arbitrary and randomly generated sets of incentives and restrictions.
You're not actually swinging a warhammer around, you're telling a story and generating the results of contests between characters with abstract dice rolling and filling in the narrative based on those results. The character swings his hammer and his follow through leaves the hammer up high opening him up for a devastating overhand chop. But that's all flavor text that the players generate in the middle of the game based on the die rolls. There is nothing to be gained by having the game generate the position of the hammer and then having the player figure out that a devastating overhand chop would be effective. The game simply generates that the character has an opening for a devastating overhand chop and the precise reason for this is left to the imagination.
To do anything else is simultaneously too much work and bad for the narrative.
-Username17
You're not actually swinging a warhammer around, you're telling a story and generating the results of contests between characters with abstract dice rolling and filling in the narrative based on those results. The character swings his hammer and his follow through leaves the hammer up high opening him up for a devastating overhand chop. But that's all flavor text that the players generate in the middle of the game based on the die rolls. There is nothing to be gained by having the game generate the position of the hammer and then having the player figure out that a devastating overhand chop would be effective. The game simply generates that the character has an opening for a devastating overhand chop and the precise reason for this is left to the imagination.
To do anything else is simultaneously too much work and bad for the narrative.
-Username17
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
We went over this a zillion times in the last Winds of Fate thread, but what's one more time?The game simply generates that the character has an opening for a devastating overhand chop and the precise reason for this is left to the imagination.
The disconnect comes when the player wonders why he can't even try to use the overhand chop. Like the dwarf goes 'okay, I want to use my Triple Axe Slash' attack and then the game goes 'sorry, no, but you CAN use the Cut Two Ways' attacks and the dwarf player is left wondering why he can't attempt to swing an axe one way but not another.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
If your opponent is in the crane stance you gotta sweep the leg. You can't pull them in the direction of their momentum because they don't have any fucking momentum. You are sparring, and there are maneuvers that you can do, and other maneuvers you can't do. And that makes perfect sense and is totally explicable to someone participating in or watching that combat.
But in a fantasy combat game, the relative positions of the target are totally unclear. You have no idea if your opponent is looming over you (preventing an overhand chop but leaving him open for an upward thrust) or ducking under a raised weapon (preventing an upward thrust but leaving him open for a downward smash). Both combatants are represented by a fucking miniature on the board. And both miniatures are in a Vallejoesque action pose that never changes because they are made of pewter. But the characters are in a dynamic fight for their lives and their position is changing constantly in relative and absolute terms. And all of this micro level position information like who is standing inside whose guard and where peoples' momentums are going is all generated by magic teaparty. The rules flat don't say. And they should not say.
The only important information is what abilities you have an opening for. So that is the information that the game rules should generate. Explicitly. And as simply as possible. The exact reason why those abilities are usable or not can be left to magical teaparty. Should be left to magical teaparty. Because the specific circumstances that you're fighting in are going to be different every time and rules complex enough to generate the kind of micro level positioning information required to be able to derive what abilities are usable and which are not is simultaneously impossible and undesirable.
If you can't come up with a reason on the fly for why your character can use power thrust but cannot use spin attack you are too uncreative and shouldn't be trying to play actual role playing games. Seriously, just go play Final Fantasy XI or any other game where your imagination is not required.
-Username17
But in a fantasy combat game, the relative positions of the target are totally unclear. You have no idea if your opponent is looming over you (preventing an overhand chop but leaving him open for an upward thrust) or ducking under a raised weapon (preventing an upward thrust but leaving him open for a downward smash). Both combatants are represented by a fucking miniature on the board. And both miniatures are in a Vallejoesque action pose that never changes because they are made of pewter. But the characters are in a dynamic fight for their lives and their position is changing constantly in relative and absolute terms. And all of this micro level position information like who is standing inside whose guard and where peoples' momentums are going is all generated by magic teaparty. The rules flat don't say. And they should not say.
The only important information is what abilities you have an opening for. So that is the information that the game rules should generate. Explicitly. And as simply as possible. The exact reason why those abilities are usable or not can be left to magical teaparty. Should be left to magical teaparty. Because the specific circumstances that you're fighting in are going to be different every time and rules complex enough to generate the kind of micro level positioning information required to be able to derive what abilities are usable and which are not is simultaneously impossible and undesirable.
If you can't come up with a reason on the fly for why your character can use power thrust but cannot use spin attack you are too uncreative and shouldn't be trying to play actual role playing games. Seriously, just go play Final Fantasy XI or any other game where your imagination is not required.
-Username17
- angelfromanotherpin
- Overlord
- Posts: 9745
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
I don't experience that as a disconnect at all. In a real-life fight, the openings you are presented with and your available moves frequently do not match up, and if you take the time to reposition yourself to exploit the opening, it has probably closed in the meantime.Lago PARANOIA wrote:The disconnect comes when the player wonders why he can't even try to use the overhand chop. Like the dwarf goes 'okay, I want to use my Triple Axe Slash' attack and then the game goes 'sorry, no, but you CAN use the Cut Two Ways' attacks and the dwarf player is left wondering why he can't attempt to swing an axe one way but not another.
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
Right, but even if the boxer can't actually land his patented Double Uppercut unless his opponent is reeling, what is stopping him from trying?I don't experience that as a disconnect at all. In a real-life fight, the openings you are presented with and your available moves frequently do not match up, and if you take the time to reposition yourself to exploit the opening, it has probably closed in the meantime.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
- CatharzGodfoot
- King
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: North Carolina
Are you suggesting that players should be able to use all of their abilities every round, but only a small subset actually do anything?Lago PARANOIA wrote:Right, but even if the boxer can't actually land his patented Double Uppercut unless his opponent is reeling, what is stopping him from trying?I don't experience that as a disconnect at all. In a real-life fight, the openings you are presented with and your available moves frequently do not match up, and if you take the time to reposition yourself to exploit the opening, it has probably closed in the meantime.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
If your opponent is in the crane stance you cannot pull them n the direction of their momentum because they have no directional momentum. Period. End of story.Lago PARANOIA wrote:Right, but even if the boxer can't actually land his patented Double Uppercut unless his opponent is reeling, what is stopping him from trying?I don't experience that as a disconnect at all. In a real-life fight, the openings you are presented with and your available moves frequently do not match up, and if you take the time to reposition yourself to exploit the opening, it has probably closed in the meantime.
-Username17
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
I did propose a mechanic in this thread that should cover it. Just scroll down to 'Deathblow'.Are you suggesting that players should be able to use all of their abilities every round, but only a small subset actually do anything?
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.