Lago, you are being stupid. I didn`t troll you, I did the same thing Frank did that you also ignored when he did it.
I pointed out that there are lots of resource managment systems that are as good as WoF. If WoF was in fact better than at will, vanacian, token pool, power points, stances, and encounter reset, we would all agree with you that unified wof system is best.
But no one agrees with you. Everyone who has posted in this thread has made it clear that they like other resource systems as much or more than wof. I have made 20 D&D classes, none of which use WoF. Because I do not consider it better than the other resource managment systems I did use.
Likewise, everyone in this thread has suggested that non wof is equal to or better than wof.
When I suggested you make the thread about your Actual controversial premise, I was serious. Nobody understands you when you say "shouldn`t everything be unified" because they don`t understand why you don`t want characters with other resource systems in the game.
Because literally no one but you believes that WoF is better than every other system.
So you should attempt to convince people of that before you start talking about unified power systems.
WTF is with peoples' objections to a unified power system?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Lago PARANOIA
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
That's beyond the scope of this thread; if you want me to actually sell you on it I'll have to tell you in another thread. Or if you don't feel like it or already know you don't like it, you can just call me full of shit and feel free to ignore my dodgy points.MfA wrote:The only metric for testing taste is democracy ... so the question becomes, how many of us insane grognards are there and how badly do you want us to buy your game?
You're not selling me on WoF I can guarantee you that.
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.
I want my five moves of doom. I don't want there to be one set of moves optimal all of the time, I don't want sequence to be uninterruptible, but I do want a planned sequence being possible more than 1/3^5 part of the time due to WoF rolls.
I want things to go according to keikaku occasionally, if the opponents play along ... not according to the random path chosen by WoF rolls.
I want things to go according to keikaku occasionally, if the opponents play along ... not according to the random path chosen by WoF rolls.
I have to agree with Kaelik. It does seem like you're spouting "WoF" is better than every other system a lot. I posted my apprehension about WoF in another thread but I'll repost it here as well since the whole "complexity" thing fits. I don't really see a way you're going to have a WoF system without other mechanics being more complicated in order to keep it interesting.
I don't think he is claiming WoF is inherently better than all other systems. Just that it is good and valuable and has things it does well and thusly has a place. A place in design it has yet to be given.
I like WoF. I think it is the best resource management system available to generate diverse and interesting looking and feeling combats amongst those available today. It is simple, fairly elegant, and should be used in game design in the future.
I like WoF. I think it is the best resource management system available to generate diverse and interesting looking and feeling combats amongst those available today. It is simple, fairly elegant, and should be used in game design in the future.
DSMatticus wrote:Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. I am filled with an unfathomable hatred.
I think you haven't been reading. He has explicitly said that WoF is so much better than any other system that if you have a choice between a game with characters to accomodate all the styles of resource management so that everyone can play what they want, or a game where everyone is WoF and no one is anything else ever, that the second one is objectively superior.deanruel87 wrote:I don't think he is claiming WoF is inherently better than all other systems. Just that it is good and valuable and has things it does well and thusly has a place. A place in design it has yet to be given.
I like WoF. I think it is the best resource management system available to generate diverse and interesting looking and feeling combats amongst those available today. It is simple, fairly elegant, and should be used in game design in the future.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
-
Ganbare Gincun
- Duke
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:42 am
Balancing a chance of failure and players not wanting to fail isn't a new problem. Its' a problem that's like 30 or 40 years old, and has largely already been solved.
When you have to balance players who want to live and continue living, and, in this case, players who also want there to be a chance of failure, you have to come up with a compromise. You can either trick them into thinking that they have a chance of failure, or you can simply select for a quality. In my opinion the best option is
It will be much harder to write and it'll be much harder to run than 4e at least, but I think that a game with this sort of system will be incredibly fun to play and to hear about. We've invented games like Chess and Shogi and Go and Poker, so I'm fairly certain at least one of us is capable of coming up with a roleplaying game combat system that can reach the level of those games.
When you have to balance players who want to live and continue living, and, in this case, players who also want there to be a chance of failure, you have to come up with a compromise. You can either trick them into thinking that they have a chance of failure, or you can simply select for a quality. In my opinion the best option is
Unfortunately, while this works great in arcades and video games, when you throw it into a traditional game it usually turns into "Only people who read/post on charOp boards may live". System mastery like the kind you see in 3.x, which consists of reading a shit ton of badly written books, is kind of boring. We should be writing our games so that player guides are more like K's guide to using illusions - guides devoted to using your abilities in play and good strategies for dealing with opposition. Guides for MCs which instruct them on how to make their plots not entirely predictable the moment the shady vizier shows up should be a part of this too. Winds of Fate has potential for this sort of thing, but I think the best option is to give you powers that are situational and can work together well. When you have Whirlwind, Zantetsuken, Excalibur and Gate of Babylon you aren't going to see five moves of doom.Only the skilled may live - the rest must die.
It will be much harder to write and it'll be much harder to run than 4e at least, but I think that a game with this sort of system will be incredibly fun to play and to hear about. We've invented games like Chess and Shogi and Go and Poker, so I'm fairly certain at least one of us is capable of coming up with a roleplaying game combat system that can reach the level of those games.