Trap Options and Chargen Feel-Good

[Voss]

Yes, I can see how character creation choices are completely solved by a failure to understand that a persistent, level based game and a ~30 minute arena deathmatch game (where the characters reset for each battle) have completely different design requirements.

Not farming the Temple of Low Level Shit for Just Plain Axes isn't an example of power creep, its a gear treadmill, and keeping the numbers level appropriate. Most MOBAs do the same thing, actually, except the gear is behind gold gates, and you can't buy Real Ultimate Power Items until X minutes into the match, often after working your way up through tiers.

As for his 'incomparables' which has something to do with whatever point you're trying to make... his examples aren't. If you've got a game (or build) that focuses on stun locking fools and ganking the fuck out of them, the stun is strictly better. If you need to get the fuck out of dodge to give yourself time to set off your nuke attack (or escape) the teleport is better. Even worse for his specific examples, in the type of games he's talking about, it is quite often not even a choice between the two. Almost all characters get some sort of stun, and you can just fucking buy teleport boots or whatever. So not only is he wrong (you can make a comparison and choose the better option, based on the other choices you've already made), it isn't even an either/or situation.

[PhoneLobster]

If white wolf can manage to solve that design problem,

Stopped reading.

But seriously. No. "Skill based systems" suck. It's a shitty lazy way of writing something just slightly less than meaningless numbers on top of fairy tea party. White wolf's systems suck notably more. Shadow run sucks a little less, but still actually fucking sucks. Throw in dice pools and you are in justifiably obscure and unloved RPG product hell.

And Lago is talking about distinct specific ability acquisition causing redundancy on their basic utility not a dot in some shitty broad bullshit skill in a shitty failed methodology.

Not to mention the White Wolf "solution" doesn't even come close to what Tiac wants to do. Because the White Wolf solution doesn't give you a discount for taking a second ranged attack skill it gives you a discount for starting ANY new skill. And that's a whole different kettle of fish.

For applying Tiac's "make it cheaper" solution to Lago's "problem" you need a system where your second ranged attack is cheaper, but when you invest in flight after your ranged attack it is more expensive. White wolf style "skills get more expensive as you get better at them" mechanics don't actually provide that, since flight and ranged attack A are separate skills.

edit: No really seriously. Lago's example is that star fire with 1 dot in ranged, melee, and flight is worse than star fire with 1 dot in ranged, flight, and illusions or some shit. White wolf style pricing doesn't solve this by pricing those examples differently. Spell acquisition at "X dot's of thaumaturgy" is in no way balanced for Lago's redundancy fetish. And at the base system White Wolf style prices for skills leave Lago's "OMG it's different!" examples are priced as the same value.

edit edit: I guess the sheer rage at seeing some fool dare mention white wolf positively is causing all these additional notes. But...

...expensive to have...good spellcasting ... for your mana bolt ...it's cheap to... apply that same... to stun ball

Now maybe I'm reading your stun ball wrong, but I think I'm not and your own example seemingly is one where differing utility of gaining a stun rather than just "ranged damage again" is cheap. That's directly counter to Lago's example and quest, Lago would need stun ball to be priced higher and "different colored ranged damage" would have to be the cheap option.

[TiaC]

Eliminating redundancies is one of those goals that you never really expect to reach. However, reducing them is still doable. If your system has tags like [mobility], [senses], and [melee] on it's powers, you can easily say that you only pay full price for the most expensive power with each tag and half or less for subsequent ones. It won't fix everything, but it will help.

[Username17]

Ah, that's fucking adorable. I love it when you completely miss the point and fly off the handle in impotent and hilarious rage, PL. It really makes my day. The point, because you're obviously too retarded to figure it out on your own, is that your entire "how could this be?" incredulity act about the implausbility of charging less for a second semi-redundant attack than for the first is in fact a really simple and easily solved problem. So simple in fact, that fucking Warhammer Fantasy Battle figured it out in the early eighties. They charge you for the Elf, then they charge you for the weapon upgrades. So Elf with Bow or Elf with Greatsword costs less than Elf with Bow and Greatsword, but not by as much as the difference between Elf with Bow and nothing.

-Username17

[hogarth]

"I'm saying that, in my experience, a game that has enough options so that I enjoy making characters as a minigame in itself will have bad combinations of options. And I hardly think I'm alone in finding the problem solving part of character generation entertaining."

Here is the solution to your problems. Pay attention to the bit after the 4:00 mark especially.

I have no idea what problems you are referring to. There are lots of RPGs where I think the character generation minigame is fun.

[Mistborn]

Here is the solution to your problems. Pay attention to the bit after the 4:00 mark especially.

Yeah I'm going to stop you there. "Incomparables" are not going to solve TTRPG balance, at least not in the way you want to. If options are different enough to be incomparable that's going to mean any two of those options are going to have vastly different synergy, It's imaginable to balance every option but balancing every single combination requires exponential amounts of play-testing.

[MGuy]

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. If I have a game that allows people to choose to not do that and doesn't overtly punish them for collecting a bunch of different attacks instead of other options (in that they still get to do what they want to do on the adventure) then I don't really see a problem. Yes Starfire could probably get more utility out of having another kind of power completely she doesn't overtly suffer for not doing that. The problem with fighters isn't the fact that people want to have a bruiser that just bruises, it has no options that allow it to do anything other than hitting someone with a sword. If hitting someone with a sword only forever is something that someone can choose to do (much like a sorcerer that only gets damage spells) then I don't really care if a person chooses to do that.

Now if something is required just to handle standard adventures at certain levels then I believe it shouldn't be a choice or there should be so many choices that a person would have to work to miss the opportunity to grab an ability that allows them to handle base encounters relevant to any given level.

[Laertes]

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

[Stubbazubba]

I'm assuming the redundancy argument only holds so long as given abilities are unlimited use. If, in the same encounter, Starfire can only use Melee, Ranged, and Flight a very limited number of times, then purchasing the third option does in fact open up new options in the point of the battle where the others would have run out. Correct?

[rampaging-poet]

No, you just make the second ranged attack cheaper.

How?

In addition to FoxWarrior's suggestions, Mutants & Masterminds style alternate powers could work for something like that. Basically you can spend one point to add a new power to an "array" that's as good as the main power, but can only use one power from the array each round. As long as everything in your array takes a standard action or longer to use that isn't much of a penalty.

[ishy]

I'm assuming the redundancy argument only holds so long as given abilities are unlimited use. If, in the same encounter, Starfire can only use Melee, Ranged, and Flight a very limited number of times, then purchasing the third option does in fact open up new options in the point of the battle where the others would have run out. Correct?

No. Getting something else, means you can now choose between optimal usage. While getting the same stuff just means you can use the same stuff longer.

[Stubbazubba]

I'm assuming the redundancy argument only holds so long as given abilities are unlimited use. If, in the same encounter, Starfire can only use Melee, Ranged, and Flight a very limited number of times, then purchasing the third option does in fact open up new options in the point of the battle where the others would have run out. Correct?

No. Getting something else, means you can now choose between optimal usage. While getting the same stuff just means you can use the same stuff longer.

So we're assuming that any 2 of Starfire's options are not equally optimal choices in the first place? Otherwise, an additional turn of combination A which produces output level N would be just as optimal a choice as a turn of combination B which also produces output level N.

[ishy]

So we're assuming that any 2 of Starfire's options are not equally optimal choices in the first place? Otherwise, an additional turn of combination A which produces output level N would be just as optimal a choice as a turn of combination B which also produces output level N.

I'm assuming different options are different. And as such, some are better in some situations and others are better in other situations, regardless whether picking any is the optimal choice.
For example area attacks are usually balanced to be better when encountering multiple enemies and worse when encountering a single one.

[Stubbazubba]

So it's necessarily better to be optimal in more diverse situations than it is to be optimal longer in certain situations?

[MGuy]

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.

[Laertes]

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.... I don't think its a trap option just to be less than optimal.

This is a good point and it's well made; I abbreviate for brevity. A trap option and a suboptimal option are not the same thing. Certainly, groups of new players can have blissful fun all being suboptimal and not realising it. I remember those days of innocence fondly.

However, when you start playing with people who do manage system mastery, then it ends up quickly apparent that you're doing something wrong. You don't know what you're doing wrong but you're doing something wrong because even when you're playing the same game, you're not playing the same game. As a result you end up frustrated, confused and not having fun; which means a lot of people simply quit playing.

Therefore: having a wide gap between what the expert can do and what the newbie who picks options based purely on flavour can do, is detrimental to your player base.

[ishy]

So it's necessarily better to be optimal in more diverse situations than it is to be optimal longer in certain situations?

Not necessarily so, no. It depends on the game and powers in question. For example if you can always control what situation everyone will be in when you need to choose between your options, then being optimal for longer can be better.
But usually diversity is better.

[MGuy]

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.... I don't think its a trap option just to be less than optimal.

This is a good point and it's well made; I abbreviate for brevity. A trap option and a suboptimal option are not the same thing. Certainly, groups of new players can have blissful fun all being suboptimal and not realising it. I remember those days of innocence fondly.

However, when you start playing with people who do manage system mastery, then it ends up quickly apparent that you're doing something wrong. You don't know what you're doing wrong but you're doing something wrong because even when you're playing the same game, you're not playing the same game. As a result you end up frustrated, confused and not having fun; which means a lot of people simply quit playing.

Therefore: having a wide gap between what the expert can do and what the newbie who picks options based purely on flavour can do, is detrimental to your player base.

This only matters if there 'is' a wide gap between what you can do and what others can do. The situation that Lago is on about is merely that Starfire has two abilities that do nominally the same thing instead of having an ability that does something different altogether. I'm not talking about a case where you get to a situation where you can't keep up with the rest of the group, "I'm" talking about a case where a character is keeping up with the group just fine but just is less efficient than she can be,

[K]

Here is the solution to your problems. Pay attention to the bit after the 4:00 mark especially.

Yeah I'm going to stop you there. "Incomparables" are not going to solve TTRPG balance, at least not in the way you want to. If options are different enough to be incomparable that's going to mean any two of those options are going to have vastly different synergy, It's imaginable to balance every option but balancing every single combination requires exponential amounts of play-testing.

Playtest time depends entirely on whether your game is made of characters who have synergy opportunities built into their design or not.

For example, Shadowrun abilities have relatively little synergy because of built-in limits for the game on how abilities interact. Playtesting that is going to be dramatically easier than playtesting DnD's synergy-orgy of a game where spells, feats, class abilities, and magic items form Voltron characters because of unlimited stacking potential.

Even if some bad combos sneak through, you correct in the next edition after you get player feedback. You don't have to repeat the WotC method of game design where every new edition is an entirely new game engine and incremental improvement is not possible.

[PhoneLobster]

I love it when you completely miss the point

So then you provide no explanation as to how your example pricing scheme doesn't actually price things in a way that "helps" with Lago's problem?

You just dig up another archaic failed game system from an even less relevant source and dishonestly back away from your White Wolf example which managed to price the things Lago demanded be differentiated at the same fucking cost.

I call bullshit.

[Grek]

To put it into D&D terms: Imagine if instead of wizards getting spells known/level, they got Proficiency with Evocation spells and the option to buy the knowledge of how to cast Flame Spear (a spell which does 1d8+Str fire damage to a single target within 100' on a successful ranged attack roll) for 100gp + 5cp in bat guano per casting. If you're already an archer with a longbow, picking up Flame Spear effectively is rather cheap - you already have the Dex for it, you just need proficiency and a scroll.

[PhoneLobster]

To put it into D&D terms: Imagine if instead of wizards getting spells known/level, they got Proficiency with Evocation spells and the option to buy the knowledge of how to cast Flame Spear (a spell which does 1d8+Str fire damage to a single target within 100' on a successful ranged attack roll) for 100gp + 5cp in bat guano per casting. If you're already an archer with a longbow, picking up Flame Spear effectively is rather cheap - you already have the Dex for it, you just need proficiency and a scroll.

Your example is broken.

"In D&D Terms" the options available in even Evocation spells alone at the same pricing are sufficiently diverse to break Lago's demands that redundancy be banned and TiaC's idea that you could just discourage it with pricing. In Lago's own example he sees a wall/barrier ability or defensive ability as better than an extra ranged attack, but you know what evocation has? Wall abilities, defense abilities, and various other different options not made partially redundant by having a ranged attack already.

Your example only gets to work if you are dividing your ability sets in order to price redundancy properly. Your stupid evocation example fails expressly because evocation is a large fluffy category of little meaning.

You LITERALLY have to change your example to "Advance X Levels in [Ranged Attacks and Things Made Partially Redundant By Ranged Attacks] and cheaply get [more things made partially redundant by ranged attacks] OR more expensively go and try and advance in levels of [things not made partially redundant by ranged attacks]."

That is not your example. That is not any existing example and there are REASONS that you won't find that example. Because it's a stupid way to do things, because it doesn't actually deliver the game play or setting/genre flavor people want, and most of all because actually splitting your abilities into subsets WITHOUT overlapping redundancy is fucking impossible.

Even if you sat down and split every ability in the game into "made partially redundant by ranged attack" and "not made partially redundant by ranged attack" there will STILL be abilities in set 1 that are made partially redundant by abilities in set 2. AND there will be abilities in set 1 (other than ranged attack) that are not even partially made redundant by OTHER abilities also in set 1!

To even start this task you need to sit down with all your abilities in your RPG, then you need to divide them entirely into subsets where no entry in any one sub set makes an ability in any other sub set partially redundant. BUT also where no ability in any subset is ever allowed to NOT be made partially redundant by ALL other abilities in it's subset. AND because the discount is flat the redundancy isn't allowed to get worse the more abilities you take from the same set of "abilities that make each other redundant". I don't think you can do that. Not without some laughably shitty incredibly simplistic fake RPG.

[Grek]

In our example, both Longbows and the Flame Spear spell both benefit from a high BaB, high Dex and the feats Point Blank Shot, Mounted Archery and Rapid Fire. The spell Mystic Wall (also an evocation) does not benefit from any of those things because it doesn't involve an attack roll, isn't based on Dex, doesn't do damage and is performed as a standard action rather than an attack action. You need to get increased Charisma, a higher caster level and Extend/Widen Spell to make Mystic Wall better.

Assuming that you already have martial weapon proficiency, high Dex, high Str, full BAB and a bunch of ranged combat feats, adding "evocations proficiency" to your shopping list is obviously much cheaper than adding "evocations proficiency, high Charisma, Extend Spell, Widen Spell and a caster level booster" to the list.

The fact that the Wizard is choosing off a list that contains both magical ranged attacks and magical walls doesn't mean that trying to balance the two is somehow futile. Evocations can have as many or as few options as you want, as long as you have the discipline to make all your ranged attacks run off a single system with the same numbers and not be fucking retarded like D&D and make all wizard powers run off a single stat no matter what they actually do.

[Cyberzombie]

Yeah, I have to agree with PL. Like avoiding synergy, avoiding redundancy is basically impossible unless you want a super simple RPG. The only thing you can do is try for situational balance where you design monsters such that you want a good range of abilities to combat them to get the ideal attack type.

If elemental resistances are common, it becomes advantageous to have not only fireball, but also iceball and shockball. If there's monsters that have powers that make them resistant to ranged attacks, it helps to have melee and ranged powers. If the enemy has ranged attacks, you'd probably wish that you took increased AC instead of flight as a power, and so on.

The big problem D&D has is that its monsters are generally not all that diverse. The majority of them are very powerful in melee range and weak at ranged combat, to the point that you basically always want to use ranged combat.

[PhoneLobster]

The fact that the Wizard is choosing off a list that contains both magical ranged attacks and magical walls doesn't mean that trying to balance the two is somehow futile.

No one said that it is futile to somehow balance the two. I'm saying it is futile to try and balance for contextual redundancy. Which is what Lago wants, and what TiaC thought you could price, and what you continue to claim can be priced and is priced in a system which doesn't fucking work like that.

Evocations can have as many or as few options as you want, as long as you have the discipline to make all your ranged attacks run off a single system

This is a retreat from Franks claim, and your claim that just "adding spells to level X spell casting" worked. Bringing in attribute dependency, especially Multiple Attribute Dependency, is new. It's also failed because attribute dependency doesn't reliably work like that in D&D so you weasel out of that in advance...

.. with the same numbers and not be fucking retarded like D&D and make all wizard powers run off a single stat no matter what they actually do.

The fact is your example doesn't work like you want it to so you want to pretend there is an ideal where you give every fucking class and ability set MAD and that would be a good thing rather than a massively bad thing.

Your current proposal is not to use the subsets of skills with discounted pricing scheme. Your current proposal is to have basically all the cost fall on the MAD, and then to apply MAD "discipline" so you cannot be good at ranged attacks unless you invest in the exact same fucking attributes as everyone else who does ranged attacks. And that really is where your strategy takes you this time.

Because if your means of segregating redundant abilities is ability dependency then that means you have a game like "Ranged Attacks are Dex, AND ONLY DEX FUCK YOU INT WIZARDS AND STRENGTH WARRIORS" then "Walls are INT AND ONLY INT FUCK YOU STRENGTH WARRIORS AND DEX RANGERS" and so on with separate ability dependency for separate functions.

And it DOES have to be separate because if high dex were to add to your ranged attacks AND to your fucking defenses then your fucking dumb ass strategy just failed because you have actually created a situation where you discounted separate abilities that compliment rather than obsolete each other and your "Ranged Attack + Agile Defence" character just became, the same cost as an inferior "Ranged Attack +Ranged Attack" character and cheaper than your inferior "Ranged Attack + Melee Attack" character with higher MAD limitations. And at that point you failed Lago's basic examples/requirements on the first hurdle.

Meanwhile everyone is sad because if they became a high int wizard the only thing they are allowed to do well is make walls and other things made redundant by their ability to make walls.

Attribute Dependency is bad enough already. Multiple attribute dependency is bad enough already. Making every attribute have some value to everybody might be a positive move, but trying to wrangle your attribute system into a system to discount/enforce ability redundancy restrictions just makes it all massively worse.