Cryptomancer: is this game actually any good?

[koz]

Can be found here. I wanted to hear the opinions of all the nice people here about whethet this is worth the paper it's printed on.

[...You Lost Me]

Looks like 1 resolution system for everything, only 3 grades of task difficulty? Can't tell much else because it costs $10.

[angelfromanotherpin]

The dice mechanic is an offense not just against God and man, even Satan thinks it's in bad taste. It really looks like someone came up with a unique system for its own sake, with all the usual results. And also their starting point was 1st Edition Vampire: The Masquerade.

Buckle up.

It's a dice pool system where the TN changes. That's bad. But you always roll the same number of dice, so maybe the number of variant inputs is small enough that it could work? No. Very no.


This table looks like a good and reasonable thing to have in a game, until you actually read it.

The way it works is that you have a stat between 1 and 5, and that's how many d10s you roll against a TN of 4, 6, or 8, depending on how hard the task is supposed to be. Dice that meet/beat the TN are successes. Also 1s are botches that count as negative successes because uuuggghhh.

But you always roll the same number of dice, right? The only element of this system that offered any hope? <insert Joker laugh of choice> If your stat is less than 5, you also roll d6s until you are rolling five dice, but the d6s aren't even compared to the TN, they're flat. 6s are successes, 1s and 2s are botches.


He knows what this is.

I'm not going to analyze the many ways this is terrible. Look at whichever one of the Anatomy of Failed Design threads covered the WoD dice mechanics, and then realize this is more fucked than that, if that's even possible.

The good news is that the setting looks pretty interesting. A fantasy skin on an IT skeleton, abstracted to make it accessible to laypeople? That's so intriguing I'm probably going to drop the ten bucks on it just for the fluff. Maybe the dice mechanic can be spot-replaced with something reasonable.

[Voss]

Soo, that's terrible. And if I'm reading the pregen characters correctly, what you obviously should do is set each stat group to 6, set one stat to five, and the other to one, and absolutely refuse to do anything that you don't have a 5 in. Ever.

And honestly the no magic face build with a Dex focus and either knowledge or cunning looks like the winner build. Can dodge or resist everything, and multiple useful things to be excellent at (or given botches, at least somewhat mediocre if you max it). A case could be made for 8s in both these areas and fuck wits and power in the ass. Then stack up on ignore botch talents for the things you can actually do.

Also, the setting looks like shit from the brief description, filled with buzzwords, bullshit and no substance. Elves control land too big for their numbers to control so they can slash and burn it? Yeah, ok. By hackers, for hackers? What do they think that even means?



I seriously don't get botch systems, and this one doubles down on the stupid. Refusing to hide is actually better than trying and failing, especially if you are really bad at it, as you are more likely to botch than succeed. And on a botch, something worse than failing to hide will happen to you. The system implicitly encourages you to go prone and go fetal if you aren't perfect at a skill. It's honestly better than trying.

[momothefiddler]

Okay, so the expected values work out as follows:

Code: Select all

TN 4
Stat 1: 1d10+4d6 = 1(-1*1/10+0*2/10+1*7/10) + 4(-1*2/6+0*3/6+1*1/6) = -0.07
Stat 2: 2d10+3d6 = 2(-1*1/10+0*2/10+1*7/10) + 3(-1*2/6+0*3/6+1*1/6) = 0.70
Stat 3: 3d10+2d6 = 3(-1*1/10+0*2/10+1*7/10) + 2(-1*2/6+0*3/6+1*1/6) = 1.47
Stat 4: 4d10+1d6 = 4(-1*1/10+0*2/10+1*7/10) + 1(-1*2/6+0*3/6+1*1/6) = 2.23
Stat 5: 5d10+0d6 = 5(-1*1/10+0*2/10+1*7/10) + 0(-1*2/6+0*3/6+1*1/6) = 3

TN 6
Stat 1: 1d10+4d6 = 1(-1*1/10+0*4/10+1*5/10) + 4(-1*2/6+0*3/6+1*1/6) = -0.27
Stat 2: 2d10+3d6 = 2(-1*1/10+0*4/10+1*5/10) + 3(-1*2/6+0*3/6+1*1/6) = 0.30
Stat 3: 3d10+2d6 = 3(-1*1/10+0*4/10+1*5/10) + 2(-1*2/6+0*3/6+1*1/6) = 0.87
Stat 4: 4d10+1d6 = 4(-1*1/10+0*4/10+1*5/10) + 1(-1*2/6+0*3/6+1*1/6) = 1.43
Stat 5: 5d10+0d6 = 5(-1*1/10+0*4/10+1*5/10) + 0(-1*2/6+0*3/6+1*1/6) = 2

TN 8
Stat 1: 1d10+4d6 = 1(-1*1/10+0*6/10+1*3/10) + 4(-1*2/6+0*3/6+1*1/6) = -0.47
Stat 2: 2d10+3d6 = 2(-1*1/10+0*6/10+1*3/10) + 3(-1*2/6+0*3/6+1*1/6) = -0.3
Stat 3: 3d10+2d6 = 3(-1*1/10+0*6/10+1*3/10) + 2(-1*2/6+0*3/6+1*1/6) = 0.27
Stat 4: 4d10+1d6 = 4(-1*1/10+0*6/10+1*3/10) + 1(-1*2/6+0*3/6+1*1/6) = 0.63
Stat 5: 5d10+0d6 = 5(-1*1/10+0*6/10+1*3/10) + 0(-1*2/6+0*3/6+1*1/6) = 1

In addition, we have the odd situation where "might as well not have tried" is on the table at -1, but actual success (even with a complication) isn't til 1, which basically breaks tasks into two categories - Optional tasks, where you'd rather not get involved than to prompt a failure (even with a silver lining), and Mandatory tasks, where no attempt at all is the equivalent of a failure, so you might as well shoot for the silver lining.

The latter group are, statistically always worth rolling for - no combination of Stat and TN gives you an expected value below -1, or even below -0.5. That said, obviously sometimes you want the certainty of failure over the risk of botching (a risk you can find using this anydice program - just enter the TN and it'll give you the probabilities for stats 1-5).

But, going back to averages, you should only attempt Optional tasks of TN 4 when your Stat is 3+, of TN 6 when your stat is 4+, and of TN 8 when your stat is 5 I guess. Don't even expect a clear success unless it's TN 6 or lower, and even then it's TN 6 with Stat 5 or TN 4 with Stat 4+.

[koz]

OK, so it's bullshit-flavoured-bullshit mechanically. Good to know!

[angelfromanotherpin]

A bad dice mechanic doesn't mean all the mechanics are bad, but it does mean that any non-bad mechanics are going to have to be salvaged from the wreck. Frank's been talking about trying to do a decently-abstracted hacking system for a while now, frex, and the structure for that doesn't depend much on what the dice do. But it's not promising. 'By hackers for hackers' really sounds like its going to go down some sort of detailed simulation hole.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Well, I bought it, and I think it has a lot of interesting and even worthwhile ideas, but does poorly by them. If there's demand, I'll do some form of fuller review on it, but the short version is: I don't recommend it.