Trap Options and Chargen Feel-Good

[Grek]

First, a minor quibble about terminology: Multiple Attribute Dependency is only a bad thing in D&D because some classes have it and other classes don't. Paladin is a bad class in part because it wants Wisdom and Charisma and Strength to all be high, while a Wizard mostly just wants high Intelligence. But if you're designing an RPG from scratch, you can elect to have everyone require the same number of attributes from the get go. If every class depends on the same number of attributes, it doesn't really matter what that number is in the abstract. If everyone needs one and only one attribute, you balance around that being as high as possible. If everyone needs a bunch of attributes, you make the attribute generation system discourage players from screwing themselves by putting every point into Int. It can even be zero if you like, and then you just have your "ranged fighter" investment be a bunch of powers that apply to all ranged attacks, be they arrows, fire blasts or laser eye beams.

But more importantly: The specifics of how attributes work in D&D aren't the point here. The specifics of V:tM thaumaturgy aren't the point either. Both of those systems aim to make things that are thematically similar cost less to buy in bulk, so that characters who have a single unified theme spend less points than a special little snowflake who's good at lots of unrelated things. They do not aim to prevent ability redundancy because most game designers don't recognize that as a problem that needs addressing.

The same general principles apply, even though the specifics would differ: You'd arrange things by mechanical effect rather than by theme. You'd have things that add to just one thing and don't get added together like "Ranged Accuracy" or "Evasion Defense" as basic attributes instead of stuff like "Dexterity" or "Thaumaturgy" that add to lots of different things and occasionally sum with each other. And instead of making people pick a limited number of character themes, you'd make them pick a limited number each of attacks, defenses, battlefield control and narrative abilities.

[PhoneLobster]

First...

Your post breaks down to two main things.

1) You think ability dependency, even multiple ability dependency, is a good thing and the only problem is there isn't enough of it.

Well. Too bad, attribute dependency has a lot of negative effects on RPGs, there are very good reasons that the drastic measure of removing them outright is on occasion discussed.

2) You continue to insist it is totally possible to take something like the D&D spell list and segregate it into sub sets such that no item in any sub set makes an item in another subset redundant and all items in the same sub set make each other equally (but not cumulatively) redundant. And not only will you do that. You will NOW (as of backing away from all prior examples), do it indirectly with attribute dependency.

To which I simply continue to insist. No. You can't. That is totally crazy.

Oh. And you decided suddenly the specific point is not the specific systems specifically pointed to as specific existing "solutions" to Lago's problem. That bit was just pure internet weasel right there.

Though somewhere near the end there you (this time accidentally) back away from your attribute dependency plan, and away from the pricing plan, and just go with hard restrictions of the number of items from each "complimentary" impossible sub set players can pick from. An improvement, but still a crazy plan. Minus points for making more than two of your existing arguments redundant.

[TiaC]

Would it kill you to not make an argument based on "perfect is the enemy of good"? So far, all your objections have boiled down to strawmanning everyone else as saying that they will have perfect balance. You'd prefer that a player can spend all their build resources on mastery of individual melee attacks, because a unified melee attack bonus is somehow this great evil.

[PhoneLobster]

Would it kill you to not make an argument based on "perfect is the enemy of good"?

I'm sorry but Isn't that Lago's position?

After all the core complaint you are trying to fix here is partial ability redundancy.

Partial. As in minor. As in a small imperfection. Your solution has to be significantly closer to perfect than the relatively small flaw it is supposed to fix.

If the complaint, and strategy, was simply "your character needs at least one attack and at least one defence" you might make an "imperfect" mechanic that fixes it easily enough. But the complaint is significantly more quibbling at "If you have fly and a specific ranged attack the system should make you pick walls or illusions". That is a very high perfection requirement.

It's your own hat. Eat it.

[TiaC]

Would it kill you to not make an argument based on "perfect is the enemy of good"?

I'm sorry but Isn't that Lago's position?

After all the core complaint you are trying to fix here is partial ability redundancy.

Partial. As in minor. As in a small imperfection. Your solution has to be significantly closer to perfect than the relatively small flaw it is supposed to fix.

If the complaint, and strategy, was simply "your character needs at least one attack and at least one defence" you might make an "imperfect" mechanic that fixes it easily enough. But the complaint is significantly more quibbling at "If you have fly and a specific ranged attack the system should make you pick walls or illusions". That is a very high perfection requirement.

It's your own hat. Eat it.

Well, no, you see. I can agree with Lago in the general without becoming him. You could try to argue his example with him, but you can't pin it on me.

Let's look at two ways of handling firearms. Some games will have you buy ranks in each weapon separately, ensuring that using more than one is a trap. Other games will just give you a Firearms skill or even just Attack. This means that the player who has chosen redundant options finds that they have only spent a little more than for the first ability.

If you make abilities with similar effects all based on the same stats (not necessarily attributes) you encourage players to have similar levels of diversity in their builds.

[PhoneLobster]

Well, no, you see. I can agree with Lago without agreeing with Lago

Fixed that for you.

If your position all along has been "there is this other thing unrelated to this redundancy stuff and despite the fact I directly claimed it was a pricing scheme that could do what Lago wanted with this redundancy stuff, I never actually was talking about that!". Then your position is stupid. It's also a fucking lie about what you have been saying up to now, so basically, fuck you.

[TiaC]

Tell me, when did I ever say that I agree with Lago? I do to some degree, but I never acted like I thought I had a solution to the whole issue of redundancy. You continue to pin an example he made and I never mentioned on me. My way of handling Starfire would be to make the power of both of her attacks depend on the same stat. I have never said that the game should force you to have a minimum diversity rating, I have just said that a character who has a lot of ways to do the same thing is worse that a character who has a lot different things to do and the game should reflect that. Now can you stop trying to make me answer for other people's arguments or do I have to start blaming you for the mistakes of people only tangentially related to you too?

My second post was all about removing direct redundancies. Flight and Teleportation are so similar in their uses that they really can be treated as always redundant to each other. Once you've bought one movement power, the second should always be cheaper. Figuring out how they interact with every other ability is impossible, so you just deal with abilities that do basically the same thing.

[PhoneLobster]

Tell me,

Lets just point out how I outlined the ridiculous nature of Lago's "problem", and the implications and difficulties in "fixing" it and you responded with "No, you just make the second ranged attack cheaper."

Now you are going to lie through your teeth and pretend you never really disagreed with me or defended Lago's position with a "oh you can just do what he wants by pricing it! Easy!" post, but that IS what you did and it is what you gradually backed away from to get to where you are currently which is basically... nowhere at all.

[TiaC]

Tell me,

Lets just point out how I outlined the ridiculous nature of Lago's "problem", and the implications and difficulties in "fixing" it and you responded with "No, you just make the second ranged attack cheaper."

Now you are going to lie through your teeth and pretend you never really disagreed with me or defended Lago's position with a "oh you can just do what he wants by pricing it! Easy!" post, but that IS what you did and it is what you gradually backed away from to get to where you are currently which is basically... nowhere at all.

No, I responded to your post where you said "Fuck you for wanting to play the guy with two ranged attacks, I'ma make that so inefficient that it's a horrible trap option." The example you used was that of complete redundancy, so I pointed out how easy heavy redundancy is to avoid. We might not have a problem if you could tell the difference between partial and complete redundancy.

Then you go into "Balance is hard, let's just ignore it completely." The problems you've pointed out are all about how it is impossible to make things perfect. There are a lot of quick fixes that will make things better, but you just skip over them.

Also, you keep bringing up the strawman that I want some ridiculous "Pick one from each list" restriction. I have at no point suggested that you remove player choice, so stop that.

[PhoneLobster]

...so I pointed out how easy heavy redundancy is to avoid...

Odd, because all I'm seeing is you STILL weaseling out of your own argument and trying to back track and pretend you weren't engaging in the same conversation as everybody else.

Now if the conversation YOU want to have is "it's very easy to limit people to selections off arbitrary lists without doing a damn thing to limit the Redundancy or Synergy Lago is wringing his hands over!" Then good for you little fella. But if so you are the only person having that conversation and maybe you shouldn't try and have it in the middle of the one everyone else is having.

Though, I think we all know that isn't actually the case and you are just suffering a bad case of backing out of your own argument disgracefully.

[TiaC]

...so I pointed out how easy heavy redundancy is to avoid...

Odd, because all I'm seeing is you STILL weaseling out of your own argument and trying to back track and pretend you weren't engaging in the same conversation as everybody else.

Fuck you, you strawmanned Lago's argument such that it became stronger and I called you on it. (Tip: when trying to argue that partial ability redundancy is fine, don't use total ability redundancy as your example. It will mean that you have to "weasel out of your own argument" later.) Then I presented the skeleton of a solution to a question you asked and you completely ignored it.

Now if the conversation YOU want to have is "it's very easy to limit people to selections off arbitrary lists without doing a damn thing to limit the Redundancy or Synergy Lago is wringing his hands over!" Then good for you little fella. But if so you are the only person having that conversation and maybe you shouldn't try and have it in the middle of the one everyone else is having.

Hey, you know how I pointed out this exact strawman in my last post? You look like a real idiot for using it in your next post. You are the only person to bring up limiting selection here.

I admit that I haven't talked about fixing synergy at all, because that is actually very difficult. However, everything I've said has been about making redundant abilities not trap options. The new player who decides that they want to shoot fire and lightning shouldn't be crippled for it. You can either do that by marking the abilities that do this as similar and discounting similar abilities or by having them both rely on the same stat for their damage.

Though, I think we all know that isn't actually the case and you are just suffering a bad case of backing out of your own argument disgracefully.

I have no clue what you even think I'm arguing because you don't respond to anything I say, you just talk about things other people said.

[PhoneLobster]

Hey, you know how I pointed out this exact strawman in my last post?

My bad I SHOULD have presented your position as "It is really easy to do [latest thing that it is convenient for me to temporarily pretend I was talking about all along] that is completely irrelevant to everyone else's conversation." Because hey, irrelevant pricing mods off the same arbitrary lists that don't interact with the redundancy conversation is TOTALLY different to limited picks off those lists! Same with irrelevant attribute dependency... in groupings based on those same fucking lists, and all other eerily similar obfuscations are so clearly totally different.

And again, if you are doing that and not being a dishonest goal post shifting little shit, well. Good for you little fella but then you should really take it outside where your irrelevant child like gibbering wont be confused for part of the actual fucking conversation.

[TiaC]

Well, you see, one way prevents people from building the character they want, while the other just allows them to not be gimped for doing so. Your position seems to be "let's just randomly gimp characters that happen to select similar abilities." The net effect of which is of course that you will have characters who pick abilities such that exactly one of them would fall on each list.

In my first suggestion, once you can shoot lightning, shooting fire is actually easier. This is the exact opposite of a system where once you can shoot lightning, shooting fire is impossible. Pricing mods that give characters with redundant abilities more abilities overall do actually alleviate redundancy.

As to the other suggestion I made, I specifically pointed out that stat ≠ attribute. I'm talking about things like BAB, where picking up a new weapon is easy, but to use it well you need the BAB. Once you've bought up your lightning bolt to level appropriate, just buying the first rank of fire bolt gets you a level appropriate attack.

As to moving goalposts, I was never talking about synergies and I have always been paying attention to heavy redundancy rather than the "Killing things is at odds with talking to them" weak overlaps. You might have guessed this from my first post where I said that you should do something about two abilities that do the exact same thing. (Again, I'm rather impressed that you misrepresented his argument such that it became stronger.)

All I have to say about synergies is to try to make sure that new players aren't shut out by experts. Other than that, go wild, finding synergies is fun and makes players feel smart. Now can you stop trying to make the argument about synergies? I think we basically agree there.

[animea90]

I feel that this is relevant, Monte Cook on Ivory Tower Design: http://web.archive.org/web/200802211744 ... mc_los_142

A very simple example should illustrate. In Dungeons and Dragons, Fighters base their attacks on Strength. A Fighter's player can choose their character's Strength within limits, meaning that it is possible for them to intentionally or unintentionally choose a low Strength. You can eliminate this trap option by stating in the rules that "all Fighters start with a Strength of 16," but then we also eliminate the possibility for the player to be creative in chargen and to come up with something interesting.

Having 14, 16 or 18 strength is not interesting though. Don't waste time on letting people make uninteresting choices nobody cares about.

Strength can be interesting. Raising strength increases damage and accuracy at the cost of raising something else(typically defense). Or I could go dex fighter and put enough points in dex to meet prerequisites.

[animea90]

Ok, I do see how having two attack abilities allows you to solve less problems than an attack and flight, etc, but I don't see how that is something I should really care about protecting people from.

Because having trap options makes a game less accessible and enjoyable to new players, and new players are the lifeblood of any game. A game which requires system mastery - especially if the fluff doesn't present the optimal choices as being the correct ones - is a hostile place for new players and may lead to them not continuing with the game, or in the worst cases the hobby

I can't agree with you here. While I am against having trap options I don't see having a melee attack + ranged Attack + (space)flight as a failed character in a game (teen titans) mostly about combat. Having combinations that simply aren't as efficient as other combinations but still allow you to participate in the game is not the same as building yourself in a way that doesn't allow you to actually participate. When I think of trap options I think of options that either don't work together or prevent a character from performing level appropriate tasks. I don't think its a trap option just to be less than optimal.

Any many games, going blaster bolts and super strength would be a massive trap. It's trying to be a jack of all trades which is bad in a team game.

[Mord]

What is wrong with this website where quote tags can destroy pages like this? I've run my own phpbb3 site for years and have never experienced fuckery of this nature from basic tags.

[GreatGreyShrike]

Perhaps the issue was somehow inherited from the bb.bbboy message board that the Den was originally hosted on, where this sort of problem was quite common? If when importing, the database had threads with this sort of problem still in them, then importing them would might require either manually fixing the threads or allowing them to remain with broken open tags if there was no automated way to fix the open quotes?

[Cyberzombie]

As to the other suggestion I made, I specifically pointed out that stat ≠ attribute. I'm talking about things like BAB, where picking up a new weapon is easy, but to use it well you need the BAB. Once you've bought up your lightning bolt to level appropriate, just buying the first rank of fire bolt gets you a level appropriate attack.

If you're doing a point based system, it's pretty easy to just do what Mutants and Masterminds does with alternate effects. The tough part always comes with trying to do that in something like D&D where you're not spending points but rather picking stuff off a list.

[TiaC]

As to the other suggestion I made, I specifically pointed out that stat ≠ attribute. I'm talking about things like BAB, where picking up a new weapon is easy, but to use it well you need the BAB. Once you've bought up your lightning bolt to level appropriate, just buying the first rank of fire bolt gets you a level appropriate attack.

If you're doing a point based system, it's pretty easy to just do what Mutants and Masterminds does with alternate effects. The tough part always comes with trying to do that in something like D&D where you're not spending points but rather picking stuff off a list.

However, M&M doesn't require that the abilities be at all similar. This means that there are some abilities that they can't really have in their game.