Should characters even have different combat numbers?

[PhoneLobster]

I'm going to offer this one bit of design advice before I abandon this thread: go onto youtube and watch people play various RPGs. Really pay attention to what the average player is capable of doing, what he/she is capable of remembering, and just how much of the rules they actually have mastery of. I promise you that the experience will be informative from a game design standpoint.

You are seriously going to attempt "players don't know the rules!' as a defence of "race rules need to be fixed so that players will know which rules you are using when you say which race you are using!".

Pick one. Players are ignorant of the rules, or players know immediately all the relevant rules for the fucking Blue Goblin the moment the race gets name dropped. You don't get to have both.

My suggestion that players just might be fairly familiar with rules they see in use right in front of them while admittedly a stretch for some players, yes I know the ones. Is actually notably LESS reliant on rules mastery than your suggestion that players know the rules for all the races anyone might care to suddenly name drop out of the blue in any given system.

[Kaelik]

Also, there are players who habitually make their characters on their own even when you express the desire to have a character building session. My friend can say he's playing a paladin, but beyond "detect evil, smite, maybe a mount" that means nothing to me until I look at his character, because no matter how many fucking times I ask, he will always make his character on his own.

The only thing weird about that is that you find it weird. People shouldn't make (D&D) characters together. Even if they are coordinating, the Coordination is better done in general terms than specific.

[Prak]

I've found that characters tend to be more interesting when a group makes them together, but that's completely anecdotal. My current game and last two games had new players, so even beyond that, I felt it would be good to do character creation communally since if otherwise have to meet with multiple people individually for character creation. But, sure, individual character creation is fine, and groups that can make more interesting characters in a charge session and figure out how the group got together can do so with characters they brought already made too, and people who can't do it with premade characters can't do it in a charge session either, usually.

[Whipstitch]

I find that group creation tends to take a fuck off huge amount of time and is a big part of why many games never get off the ground at all.

[PhoneLobster]

I find that group creation tends to take a fuck off huge amount of time and is a big part of why many games never get off the ground at all.

I can usually manage to get groups through a rules set I'm familiar with quickly enough to just play, but many GMs can't and I also do prefer smaller groups in the 3-4 player range rather than 5-6+.

But it's doesn't especially matter if they see the character created right in front of them, because they still see it continue to be used right in front of them.

Then it's a simple matter of K claiming it takes more rules mastery to become familiar with probably at most 6 "race" options being used right in front of you than it takes to become familiar with probably at least six "race" options in the books most of the group never even reads.

[Username17]

The idea that other players know everything your character can do is so absurd that at first I didn't know why the proposition was even being discussed. Then I realized that it was because PhoneLobster is still a dishonest asshole and Prak is a kneejerk contrarian. Then it all made sense.

Look, characters have abilities that are used infrequently. Also they tend to gain abilities over the course of play. Ain't nobody at the table tracking all this shit for your character except you. That is why you have a character sheet for your character and you don't have the character sheet for the guy sitting next to you.

And that is why stereotypical abilities are so fucking valuable. If you come to the first challenge in the game where it would be nice if someone had forgery, it's fucking convenient to know that the Rogue probably has that ability and the Druid probably doesn't. It means that when Jacob gets back from the bathroom you can ask him if his Rogue has forgery. You absolutely didn't learn that information from watching Jacob play his character because as we've established this is the first challenge in the campaign where you'd like to try to solve it with forgery.

You're going to have these firsts all the damn time. Several times an evening if you do much problem solving beyond grinding down the hit points of monsters. Even if characters never advance and you keep playing them for an entire school year, you're still not going to see everything every character can do unless the game is Feng Shui levels of simple. And even in that contrived example, the idea that you'd remember every trick that every character pulled off (and remember whichplayer's character did each of those things) is completely ridiculous. It's such an obviously incorrect proposition that the only correct response is just to stare at the person making it with undisguised contempt until they walk away in shame.



-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

Franks argument relies on simultaneously claiming that no one cares about or knows your characters abilities but you, except when they are selected off a huge list of fixed racial abilities, instead of the same or even a smaller list of not so fixed racial abilities.

Because then they do know and care. Somehow.

What a lot of fucking bullshit. Look, I wasn't the one who pulled out the "waaah game mastery is terrible amongst the majority of players!" thing. But now it IS out there...

...how many actually players really CAN tell you what all the D&D races actually do, in any given edition of D&D? Because in all honesty I played 3.x for years with a wide variety of groups and I would be pretty damned surprised if EVEN ONE of those players could actually accurately enumerate all the abilities of just the players handbook 3.5 races alone. Hell out of the people I played with I'd be the one most likely to manage it, and I don't think I even could anymore, if I ever could. Include anything past the players handbook and you are utterly insane to pretend any significant portion of the player base actually knows this stuff.

The "fixed racial stereotypes are for familiarity!" argument is founded in utter fantasy on the level of familiarity most players have with the actual fixed race abilities in any form of D&D (much less the lesser known fantasy heartbreakers out there) ever.

[Prak]

Just being contrary wasn't my intent. I can see how I come across that way, though. My post was dumb "I'm a paladin" doesn't tell me what weapons or exact tactics my friend's character uses but it does set up some expectations. I walked back my stupidity about chargen sessions a bit already, but what I should have said, rather than any bullshit about knowing what other people can do, is that they can produce some good results for some groups. Multiple people involved in the process of creating a character will always generate more ideas, and some will be taken, some won't. But that has fuck all to do with knowing the Soldier has Brutal Strike.

...fuck, I'm the GM right now and I have no fucking clue what stances the Soldier has. I need to bug him for his sheet again. And sometimes all that comes out of chargen sessions is that the guy one of your friends brought along to fill out numbers apparently has no fucking clue what they're doing with the system and all you can say is "well at least that got sorted out before we started playing."

However, because I am a contrarian-

...how many actually players really CAN tell you what all the D&D races actually do, in any given edition of D&D? Because in all honesty I played 3.x for years with a wide variety of groups and I would be pretty damned surprised if EVEN ONE of those players could actually accurately enumerate all the abilities of just the players handbook 3.5 races alone. Hell out of the people I played with I'd be the one most likely to manage it, and I don't think I even could anymore, if I ever could. Include anything past the players handbook and you are utterly insane to pretend any significant portion of the player base actually knows this stuff.

The "fixed racial stereotypes are for familiarity!" argument is founded in utter fantasy on the level of familiarity most players have with the actual fixed race abilities in any form of D&D (much less the lesser known fantasy heartbreakers out there) ever.

At the risk of belying what a fucking loser I am...

• Humans- bonus feat, bonus skill points. Saturday morning cartoon villain subrace has limited pool of feats to select, but Willing Deformity isn't a bad option if you're allowed to use Elder Evils. Know common, favored class any, no one cares about bonus language rules
• Dwarves- Know stonework, stable, bonuses vrs. Goblins, Giants, bonus to Con, penalty to Cha. Know common and dwarven, favored class fighter.
• Elves- Proficient with rapiers, longswords, all bows, auto-search doors, immune to magic sleep, 4 hour trance, bonus vrs. enchantment, bonus on search, spot, listen, low-light vision, bonus to Dex, penalty to Con. Know elven and common, favored class wizard
• Gnomes- speak with animals, dancing lights, ghost sound, bonus to craft alchemy because large noses, bonus vrs. kobolds, bonus vrs. Giants, small, bonus to Con, penalty to Str. Know gnomish (shares dwarven alphabet) and common, favored class bard.
• Halflings- Bonus to saves, bonus vrs fear, bonus to climb and jump, bonus to thrown weapons, small, bonus to Dex, penalty to Str. Know halfling (I believe this shares the alphabet of elven) and common, favored class rogue.
• Half Elves- Lesser bonus to search/listen/spot, Elven blood lets them count as elves for magic, no ability mods. Know common and elven, favored class ranger.
• Half Orcs- orc blood lets them count as orcs for magic, darkvision, bonus to Str, penalty to all mentals. Know orcish and common, favored class barbarian.

That's all off the top of my head, lets see what I got wrong or missed.

Oh, I forgot speeds, but human, elf, half elf and half orc are 30, dwarf, gnome and halfling are 20. Now let's see what I missed.

I forgot dwarven darkvision, bonus vrs. poison and spells/spell-likes, as well as their weapon familiarity being specified in core.

Forgot gnomish low-light vision and that their weapon familiarity is also specified in core. I think that's actually errata, I'm looking at the online srd, not a book. Forgot their bonus against and with Illusions and that the kobold bonus applies to goblinoids too, and their listen bonus. Oh, and that they have Prestidigitation 1/day.

Forgot half-elves share the elven sleep immunity/bonus vs enchantment, their bonus to gather info/diplomacy and low-light vision. Also that their favored class is any like humans.

Forgot halfling bonus to listen and move silently and that slings are included in thrown weapons.

So... ok, I don't know gnomes, and I forgot a couple skills here and there. But, yeah, I don't think it's a fantasy that people will know the races. "I'm a halfling" tells me a lot about your character, even I forget that you get a +2 to listen and move silent and a +1 to slings. "I'm a gnome" just tells me you can fuck right off.

[PhoneLobster]

I don't think it's a fantasy that people will know the races.

You... just tried and failed to outline their actual abilities accurately, how the hell does that lead you to think that people will know the races?

Especially when the bar for the rules mastery of the people in question was set where K chose to set it.

You, me, anyone posting on this thread or reading this forum are very likely in the tiniest minorities of people with the very most familiarity of what those races do. And you failed to actually accurately outline the abilities of those races. Pretty much in exactly the way I would predict I would fail at it.

And that's for something you've probably played with, and very probably run (so probably been the most familiar player at the table with) for years.

Now consider your midguard race list you just posted on here. Run that past a group of "real players" of the competence levels K is concern trolling over with the "racial stereotypes provide rules familiarity!" argument.

You've given them print outs, you've gone over it point by point, they make their characters where-ever the hell you want them to make them. When they sit down to play, or even when they come back for their third or fourth session of the campaign. How many of them will be able to actually enumerate the abilities of those races? How many of them will be able to enumarate the abilities of a race they don't regularly see in play? What about of a race they haven't seen since whatever minimal attention they paid at chargen.

How many of them will even be able to remember the god damn names and fluff? The whole "Lagrkin" and "Lokin" thing, do you think that's not just going to be a "wait... these guys are orcs, I thought they were those gnome guys with the same L name, what the hell do you mean they aren't even gnome guys?" moment.

And that's for a system where you mostly just poured boring generic norseyness ontop of generic D&D races. Imagine if you had tried to do something interesting instead.

[Omegonthesane]

I don't think it's a fantasy that people will know the races.

You... just tried and failed to outline their actual abilities accurately, how the hell does that lead you to think that people will know the races?

Your point would be stronger if you had links to show which bits he got wrong (half orcs don't get a Wis penalty, half-elves are Favoured Class: Any, a few other minor details).

Nonetheless Prak did indeed fail to list all the bullshit abilities of all the PHB races. I suspect however that the task was made harder by the sheer extent of those bullshit abilities; it might be easier to remember all the special abilities of Orcs if it was just "+2 Str, +2 Con".

Which is to say that having lots of fiddly bullshit that your race affects directly is bullshit even if you are convinced that you must have fixed effects for being a Chryssalid Wizard as opposed to a Sectoid Wizard.

[Leress]

Your point would be stronger if you had links to show which bits he got wrong (half orcs don't get a Wis penalty, half-elves are Favoured Class: Any, a few other minor details).

Prak's post has what he got wrong. Why would Phone need to post show links to for something in the post above his?

[Omegonthesane]

Your point would be stronger if you had links to show which bits he got wrong (half orcs don't get a Wis penalty, half-elves are Favoured Class: Any, a few other minor details).

Prak's post has what he got wrong. Why would Phone need to post show links to for something in the post above his?

Because I can't read.

[PhoneLobster]

Which is to say that having lots of fiddly bullshit that your race affects directly is bullshit even if you are convinced that you must have fixed effects for being a Chryssalid Wizard as opposed to a Sectoid Wizard.

Complexity isn't (much of) an issue, presumably whatever you do with races or not your overall system has some level of complexity, and it's probably "pretty standard for an RPG" level of complexity. Which is to say, it's full of fiddly bullshit.

You can increase or decrease the portion of it assigned to "Race" or "physical race abilities" or "compulsory physical race abilities"... but as you somewhat identify, the familiarity "races must mean things in ways or else bad things!" argument at no point sets out to do so.

The familiarity argument, if we were to try and contextualize it for fiddlyness would be more like "If your race abilities became selectable for individual variation then it would just as meaningless as your choice of X Feats (where X represents the number of feats worth of approximate fiddlyness involved in a fixed/unfixed race)."

And god forbid the physical abilities of your character be reduced to the mere "meaninglessness" of the choice involved in selecting some equivalent number of feats.

Reducing the number of feat equivalent selections/inflexible stereotype effects, does presumably make them easier to remember, but with the player competence levels concern trolled over... there is no reasonable lower bound of feat equivalent value at which there is any reliable "familiarity" going on no matter what you do. You could reduce it to one thing per "Race" (which isn't really what's being argued for with the familiarity/meaningfullness concern trolling) and it still would be too much.

And anyway, it doesn't especially matter what a simpler stereotypical fixed race system would look like or do, because in practice they typically look like the 3.x edition ones or Prak's midguard ones instead.

[Shady314]

If you come to the first challenge in the game where it would be nice if someone had forgery, it's fucking convenient to know that the Rogue probably has that ability and the Druid probably doesn't. It means that when Jacob gets back from the bathroom you can ask him if his Rogue has forgery. You absolutely didn't learn that information from watching Jacob play his character because as we've established this is the first challenge in the campaign where you'd like to try to solve it with forgery.-Username17

But you don't actually have to know so and so might have X. My experience at the table has always been.

Player 1: I have an idea! Does anyone know forgery? Can anyone disguise themselves as this person etc.
Player 2: Nope.
Player 3: I have forgery skill.
Player 4: I have disguise.

Alternatively no one has it but a character does have a criminal contact. Or a spell that can be prepared etc.

In your example there's no reason Jacob can't say well yeah but I've got a
-1 to forgery while the Druid pipes up that they have +5 because the player had some sort of theme going. In fact these expectations get fucking annoying when someone has optimized in a different way than usual or is otherwise going against type. I mean look at free form systems. They don't fall apart just because you can't assume Player X has forgery. If you have an idea you just ask.

TL:DR You don't have to know what a particular character may or may not be able to do. Just what may possible within the game rules and then ask the table. Which is really just as fast, usually yields better results and is far easier than trying to remember what every class and race(expecially non-core) can do.

[silva]

TL:DR You don't have to know what a particular character may or may not be able to do. Just what may possible within the game rules and then ask the table. Which is really just as fast, usually yields better results and is far easier than trying to remember what every class and race(expecially non-core) can do.

This.

[OgreBattle]

From what I envision a character's race is worth as much as a feat or three, and the biggest part of what they do is their class. Most people on TGD are supportive of "Classsplosion" design though where there are dozens and dozens of classes to bring to the table. So any problems caused by "I don't know what minor ability your made-up race does" seems much smaller than "I don't know what a level 6 Koumei Ninja does".

---

PhoneLobster, you ever make a sample list of "generic D&D races done with Mouse Trap?" I looked at:

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=55868& ... sc&start=0

you mention "you'd check this document to make your elves", but I don't think there's any sample "this is what a generic fantasy elf/dwarf/ogre looks like in Mouse Trap"

[Username17]

But you don't actually have to know so and so might have X. My experience at the table has always been.

Player 1: I have an idea! Does anyone know forgery? Can anyone disguise themselves as this person etc.
Player 2: Nope.
Player 3: I have forgery skill.
Player 4: I have disguise.

Fucking seriously? You want to get damage healed and you ask the Wizard how many cure light wounds he has lying around? You just kill a monster that would make an awesome skeleton and you ask the Barbarian if he has animate dead?

No. You don't do that. Because that would be a waste of time. Stop lying.

As for the point about D&D races having too many fiddly details: I don't think the "no fixed expectations" people fully realize how thoroughly they are own-goaling themselves by talking about that. Yes, it's hard to remember all of the special minor abilities of Elves and Dwarves in Dungeons and Dragons. It really is. But the comparison isn't between races that have lots of fiddly abilities and races that don't. The game simply gives you as many fiddly abilities and things to track as it gives you - the only question is how stereotyped into packages they are. In Shadowrun or D&D, you have a lot of fiddly details, while in Feng Shui or Fate you have very few. But that toggle doesn't actually change in the slightest if you move from stylized classes (or races, occupations, or whatever other stylized packages your game uses) to open ability lists and point buy systems (or whatever).

The comparison isn't between D&D and Feng Shui. Yes, Feng Shui doesn't bother having specific packages for racial or cultural background or whatever, but that is because Feng Shui is ultimately a simple game compared to D&D where characters have a lot less of their capabilities defined by what is on their character sheet and a lot more defined by magic teaparty at the table. The comparison is between D&D and GURPS, where players define all their fiddly capabilities from points.

And of course, knowing and keeping track of what your fellow players are capable of in a GURPS game is basically impossible. So there you go.

-Username17

[Omegonthesane]

But you don't actually have to know so and so might have X. My experience at the table has always been.

Player 1: I have an idea! Does anyone know forgery? Can anyone disguise themselves as this person etc.
Player 2: Nope.
Player 3: I have forgery skill.
Player 4: I have disguise.

Fucking seriously? You want to get damage healed and you ask the Wizard how many cure light wounds he has lying around? You just kill a monster that would make an awesome skeleton and you ask the Barbarian if he has animate dead?

No. You don't do that. Because that would be a waste of time. Stop lying.

[Prak]

But you don't actually have to know so and so might have X. My experience at the table has always been.

Player 1: I have an idea! Does anyone know forgery? Can anyone disguise themselves as this person etc.
Player 2: Nope.
Player 3: I have forgery skill.
Player 4: I have disguise.

Fucking seriously? You want to get damage healed and you ask the Wizard how many cure light wounds he has lying around? You just kill a monster that would make an awesome skeleton and you ask the Barbarian if he has animate dead?

No. You don't do that. Because that would be a waste of time. Stop lying.

[PhoneLobster]

As for the point about D&D races having too many fiddly details: I don't think the "no fixed expectations" people fully realize how thoroughly they are own-goaling themselves by talking about that.
...
But the comparison isn't between races that have lots of fiddly abilities and races that don't. The game simply gives you as many fiddly abilities and things to track as it gives you - the only question is how stereotyped into packages they are.

OK, so that proves you aren't even reading the conversation. I for one covered exactly that point already.

You talk about it like it's a revolutionary new point in your favor somehow that we all missed. Then further misrepresenting it by adding additional complexity to one side for no reason.

But mostly just making a damn fool of yourself since it's damn well been said and done. We already know that the fixed or flexible choice isn't about adding or removing complexity and if you read anything instead of running around waving your arms posting lame smug images and obfuscating with strawmen and other dishonest bullshit you might have noticed that.

[momothefiddler]

The whole "Lagrkin" and "Lokin" thing, do you think that's not just going to be a "wait... these guys are orcs, I thought they were those gnome guys with the same L name, what the hell do you mean they aren't even gnome guys?" moment.

Eh. I mean I read that post exactly once, when it was posted, and I know off the top of my head that the Lagrkin are the bunny ones and the Lokin are the loki ones. I wouldn't have been able to come up with the names, but once you mention them I recognize them.

Of course I'm not really countering your point, either, because I don't have the slightest clue what either of them are or do; I'm assuming the Lagrkin are small since you said "gnome guys" and I think I recall the Lokin having +Cha? Point is the names and fluff actually work pretty well for me here, but you're being generous in assuming all the D&D players are gonna remember their own racial abilities. Mine sure as hell don't. Fuck.

[PhoneLobster]

you're being generous in assuming all the D&D players are gonna remember their own racial abilities. Mine sure as hell don't. Fuck.

It's a holistic process. Some will remember. Some of them will have to check their character sheet (it's what it's for don't you know). Some of them will have to ask someone else, very possibly me. And some rare and special players, you know the ones, will need me, or someone, but probably me, to tell them in the first place that they need to check/ask because they won't even know that something they are forgetting might be there.

[Shady314]

But you don't actually have to know so and so might have X. My experience at the table has always been.

Player 1: I have an idea! Does anyone know forgery? Can anyone disguise themselves as this person etc.
Player 2: Nope.
Player 3: I have forgery skill.
Player 4: I have disguise.

Fucking seriously? You want to get damage healed and you ask the Wizard how many cure light wounds he has lying around? You just kill a monster that would make an awesome skeleton and you ask the Barbarian if he has animate dead?

No. You don't do that. Because that would be a waste of time. Stop lying.
-Username17

No, not fucking seriously, because I never said that. Are you being obtuse or do you seriously think I said that?

I said I ask the table. So your stupid fucking example where I turn to one player with a martial character and ask him, expecting a yes, if he has spells is obviously fucking retarded and obviously I don't ask the table every time. Once I know Joe with the bard/druid/UMD is master of the Wand of CLW I will let Joe know I need healing. That's assuming I even bother with that instead of just saying we heal up. And when I was a brand new player yeah I didn't fucking know that wizards can't activate divine wands/scrolls or cast healing spells (usually). I'm willing to bet most new players don't. So asking the table isn't the obvious lie you want to claim.

If I know the player has made a straight up barbarian and not something like a primalist bloodrager I don't ask him if he can swing an animate dead. But if I come to the game blind then yes I certainly will fucking ask to find out exactly what the hell everyone at the table has. Now obviously this is mostly theoretical because I don't think Ive ever played a game where players didn't let each other know something as basic as the class they are playing and what they built them to do. But thanks to classplosion seeing a character rage is no guarantee that they are a barbarian so yeah I do have to fucking ask. Either out of game or in game.

Finally there is an obvious difference between iconic core class features and who has a skill like in your original example I responded to. One is rare to see on other classes and one is literally something anyone could do. So while I would probably learn who can cast spells 2 minutes into the game from basic observation, finding out who has goddamn forgery is something I probably have to ask the whole table when it comes up.

So if we've moved past this strawman let's actually look at the content of the message. You said there's a benefit to players having pre-conceived expectations of other players characters and I continue to disagree. In my experience this is what leads to shit behavior like thinking someone is playing the character wrong or banning something because that's not what the class is supposed to do. It also isn't any slower to ask the table than turning to a specific person and asking.

So seriously? Veteran players specifically asking Tom because he'll probably say yes is supposed to be a meaningful benefit over asking Tom, Dick and Harry at once? A question you only have to ask once and never again when you have your answer?

Stop lying.

[Username17]

I said I ask the table.

Asking the table is asking every person at the table. You are asking each person to check their character sheets and give you an answer. It requires you to get the attention of every player and then get an answer from every player. You may accept a certain time of silence as a "No" or whatever, but that does not in any way change what you are doing.

If I know the player has made a straight up barbarian and not something like a primalist bloodrager I don't ask him if he can swing an animate dead.

So by your own admission you don't ask the entire table. And you don't do that because stereotyped character abilities is a thing that has value and imparts real information to other people playing the game. Because K and I are right and PhoneLobster is wrong.

Get it?

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

Aside from the fairly typical dishonest crazy that Frank is rapidly descending into like he does EVERY time he is so damn obviously wrong and starts repeatedly headbutting reality and screaming at everyone...

I just want to dig out this little gem...

It requires you to get the attention of every player and then get an answer from every player.

... notice how the entire argument he is making has relied on not just constantly shifting goal posts and crazy claims, but also a rapidly degenerating and extreme game play scenario.

I mean first it was "real gamers" then it was "you know the ones, can't system mastery for jack", but NOW it's descending into requiring the players to ALSO be utterly inattentive and utterly unresponsive.

I might just suggest, that if your are arguing for a piece of rules design that actually requires you to essentially claim "You should never try to talk to the other players about the game rules!" or "Even maybe perhaps refer to character sheets? Are you mad! Players cannot/should not/will not do that!" or "Players cannot so much as pay attention and interact for even a single incredibly simple question!"

Then you have backed yourself into a crazy man corner.

Because if the players cannot manage to detect and respond to something as simple as "so, anyone got healing?" then fuck you, your scenario is playing a game with a bunch of bricks with faces painted on them and your argument that anyone should design rules systems for that is fucking insane.

(Not to mention at that point your scenario that requires players as dumb as bricks with faces painted on them undermines your whole counter claim, that bricks with faces painted on CAN somehow learn and memorize entire books worth of races then connect that to the races the other bricks with faces painted on them are using, apparently without asking what their races are since THAT would be impossible)