The No Bad Choices Thread

[PrimeJunta]

Yeah THAC0 is just plain weird. The DnD3+ attack bonus vs positive AC ends up in exactly the same place without being such a mind... kiss.

[Katarack21]

It's pretty much the least intuitive system ever designed by man. I swear, megadamage makes more sense.

[Moirnelithe]

What, you can kill the backer NPCs and loot their outfits?!  Awesome!  *goes on a rampage* 

[PrimeJunta]

Yes you can! If you do it so nobody's looking, e.g. in the privacy and comfort of their homes, you can do it with complete impunity!

 

(The hats... Oh, the hats!)

[Pixies]

 

 

You see, no matter how much you move bonuses around, no matter how you rename stats, there will be min-maxing.

 

That's not the problem. The problem is that there is only one kind of minmaxing, and it is unintuitive and dumb.

 

Well, I think all min-maxing is dumb, but whatever floats your boat.

 

 

Not any dumber than the notion of being able to assign stats at random and still be effective, really. Like in RL, if you want to be good at a certain job you will require the skills and/or the attributes for it. "Hey, I can't run, I'm 5'1 and my hands are too small to hold a ball, but I think I'll go for the NBA because none of that matters!"

[gkathellar]

 

 

 

 

You see, no matter how much you move bonuses around, no matter how you rename stats, there will be min-maxing.

That's not the problem. The problem is that there is only one kind of minmaxing, and it is unintuitive and dumb.

Well, I think all min-maxing is dumb, but whatever floats your boat.

That's cute, but any attempt to build a character who is effective at some things by sacrificing their efficacy in others constitutes minmaxing. This is not the entire spectrum of character creation, but it's a big part of such. It needs not be taken to extremes to be the same essential process, and likewise, it needs not be taken to extremes for the problems of a game to show themselves - subtly.

 

The thing is, when we do take it to extremes (inevitable, as every system allowing for choice can be stretched and twisted), the problems become clearly visible. That doesn't mean said problems aren't systemic, only that they're much easier to see in an optimized environment - like a piece of wood about to be broken, the flaws it will splinter along are embedded in the grain. And there ARE problems, especially considering that PoE at least wanted to be a system in which a character with a block of 13s could stand up next to one with 20s and 3s. That was a design goal, and there's been a complete failure to meet it.

 

Every system can be approached optimally: good choices and variety at extremes of optimization results in better choices and variety closer to the center. Right now, there only one big choice at the extreme, and this has a real impact on the game as it's played by someone who minmaxes less.

 

You may not like optimizers, but don't dispute their premises because you think optimization is dumb.

[Kveldulf]

^ whatever system is developed, people are going to optimize. You shouldn't design a system around its possible abuse.

 

Also, I would rather use thaco if that meant getting rid of Might.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Kveldulf

[PrimeJunta]

I'd prefer a system with no attributes at all, or with really minimal attributes. My homebrew one uses only two, Mind and Body, and I don't care that you can pick Traits which let you make one of them irrelevant.

[Katarack21]

^ whatever system is developed, people are going to optimize. You shouldn't design a system around its possible abuse.

 

Also, I would rather use thaco if that means getting rid of Might.

Dude...seriously, dude...the ****....I can't even...

[Longknife]

If I made my own RPG, the stats would be:

 

Stronkness

Thinkability

Alcoholism

Sanic intimidation capacity

Ugliness

 

 

Ugliness and Alcoholism effect how well liked you are, but inversely, high alcoholism has the penalty of effecting accuracy whereas low Ugliness means you're less durable to being punched, so both stats have upsides and downsides.

 

Sanic Intimidation Capacity is your quickness and ability to dodge but also comes with a penalty to how liked you are because why is the Sanic fanbase so awkward wtf.

 

Stronkness and Thinkability would be the two I'd have to nerf with patches that are OP at the start.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Longknife

[anameforobsidian]

On armor:

I disagree with the armor.  Certain enemies destroy your normal send tanks in first, nuke strategy.  Shades and Fampyr's particularly.  When the front line is overwhelmed, it generally helps to have someone who can take a few hits while the softest members of your party retreat.  Armor can really make a difference there (especially on normal).  I have a leather armor cipher with a flail/stiletto and shield weapon set in reserve for that time, they can take a hit or two and then blind enemies when they need to get out.  By min-maxing armor, you have a lot of strength, but its an incredibly brittle kind of strength.

 

I also think it plays really well with the range system that most people haven't commented on.  Characters like chanters, mages, and ciphers have to get close to use some abilities, the closer you get the more vulnerable you are.

 

The armor debate assumes perfect tactics every time, when in reality it takes a lot of gameplay experience to get there. You said the exact same thing in your post.

 

On stats:

Two things with stats.  One is that by having you chose tradeoffs between three stats instead of one, that's already a limited success.  Would you rather max dex, int, or might is still a better decision than make a mage with 18 int.  And, I think your analysis is hobbled by little experience with barbarians and monks.  If a fifth of the classes in the game keep breaking the blanket statements, that means the blanket statements are inaccurate.

 

That said I think they could make perception more attractive by having enemies use AoEs more often.  In DnD enemies fireball / etc. you all the time so you want to build up your reflex score.  Also, interrupts could use a boost.  I'd really like to run a high might / dex / perception ranger who focuses on keeping enemies locked down and only the current balance is keeping that from happening.

 

 

Resting:

The resting system is much better.  It allows you to go fairly far on level, doesn't let you rest spam your way through difficult areas, and gives you a reason to sleep in inns.  If you have problems with wizards, clerics, druids, just buy rings of wizardry.

Edited April 3, 2015 by anameforobsidian

[Monte Carlo]

OT but yes, slaying backer NPCs is the best mini-game in PoE. Guns, phat lewt, flashy threads. And they suck at fighting back!

[Longknife]

OT but yes, slaying backer NPCs is the best mini-game in PoE. Guns, phat lewt, flashy threads. And they suck at fighting back!

 

 

I wonder how the bigger backers feel about everyone feeling encouraged to slaughter them.

[PrimeJunta]

Re the armor, I keep two or, tops, three armored characters for insurance. I'm on a Trial of Iron run on Hard, got to Defiance Bay, and haven't been in serious trouble yet; the closest I've gotten to that more armor wouldn't have saved me. (Raedric's Hold boss battle; Edér got knocked out in the opening and things got a little tense but I ended up with everybody else still standing.)

[Caerdon]

That's cute, but any attempt to build a character who is effective at some things by sacrificing their efficacy in others constitutes minmaxing. This is not the entire spectrum of character creation, but it's a big part of such. It needs not be taken to extremes to be the same essential process, and likewise, it needs not be taken to extremes for the problems of a game to show themselves - subtly.

 

The thing is, when we do take it to extremes (inevitable, as every system allowing for choice can be stretched and twisted), the problems become clearly visible. That doesn't mean said problems aren't systemic, only that they're much easier to see in an optimized environment - like a piece of wood about to be broken, the flaws it will splinter along are embedded in the grain. And there ARE problems, especially considering that PoE at least wanted to be a system in which a character with a block of 13s could stand up next to one with 20s and 3s. That was a design goal, and there's been a complete failure to meet it.

 

Every system can be approached optimally: good choices and variety at extremes of optimization results in better choices and variety closer to the center. Right now, there only one big choice at the extreme, and this has a real impact on the game as it's played by someone who minmaxes less.

 

You may not like optimizers, but don't dispute their premises because you think optimization is dumb.

 

Min-maxing is not about building a character that's good at something and bad at something else. It's about recognizing the most desirable stats and maximizing them at the expense of everything else, which get minimized. Min-maxing is taking it to extremes.

 

Sure, everyone will try to creat "optimal" characters one way or the other, there's nothing wrong with that. But when you combine that with a system that gives you obvious "best builds", where there's no question that stat A is always better than stat B for a particular build, things get mindless and boring. What I'm suggesting is a system where you actually have to think about how much you're willing to sacrifice in order to put yet another point in that MIG or DEX.

[Caerdon]

I'd prefer a system with no attributes at all, or with really minimal attributes. My homebrew one uses only two, Mind and Body, and I don't care that you can pick Traits which let you make one of them irrelevant.

 

I'm really liking Numenera. Just Might, Speed and Intellect - really broad categories and expendable resources that even double as hit points.

[PrimeJunta]

Problem with Numenera is that the Effort mechanic makes everything very same-y, as do cyphers and the wide-open skill system where you can Train and Specialize in anything. There's ultimately not that much differentiation between characters. 

 

There is such a thing as too-light mechanics, and IMO Numenera is pretty far in that direction. It's very easy to play with but ultimately more of a way to structure storytelling than actually... you know, play a game.

 

PS. I know what I'm talking about, I've run a campaign and wrote this http://www.prime-junta.net/numenera/

Edited April 3, 2015 by PrimeJunta

[Caerdon]

Problem with Numenera is that the Effort mechanic makes everything very same-y, as do cyphers and the wide-open skill system where you can Train and Specialize in anything. There's ultimately not that much differentiation between characters. 

 

There is such a thing as too-light mechanics, and IMO Numenera is pretty far in that direction. It's very easy to play with but ultimately more of a way to structure storytelling than actually... you know, play a game.

 

PS. I know what I'm talking about, I've run a campaign and wrote this http://www.prime-junta.net/numenera/

 

Well, to me (table-top) RPGs have always been more about collective, interactive storytelling than rule-oriented playing, but you certainly have a point.

 

Characters in Numenera can certainly be "same-y", but I think a strength of the system is that it really allows you to create the kind of character you want that conceptually plays the way you want (though that, of course, depends largely on how your game master likes to handle things), even if they play the same way mechanically.

[Monte Carlo]

 

OT but yes, slaying backer NPCs is the best mini-game in PoE. Guns, phat lewt, flashy threads. And they suck at fighting back!

 

 

I wonder how the bigger backers feel about everyone feeling encouraged to slaughter them.

 

 

Pretty cool I hope. They are helping me make some much-needed coin.

[wanderon]

I think the in-game backers have contacted Josh and demanded an upgrade in combat prowess and a back up disappearing act when health reaches low levels for the next patch - get your hats while you can! 

[Caerdon]

After the patch Arkanis Gath will arrive to protect the backers when you attack them.

[Kveldulf]

 

Problem with Numenera is that the Effort mechanic makes everything very same-y, as do cyphers and the wide-open skill system where you can Train and Specialize in anything. There's ultimately not that much differentiation between characters. 

 

There is such a thing as too-light mechanics, and IMO Numenera is pretty far in that direction. It's very easy to play with but ultimately more of a way to structure storytelling than actually... you know, play a game.

 

PS. I know what I'm talking about, I've run a campaign and wrote this http://www.prime-junta.net/numenera/

 

Well, to me (table-top) RPGs have always been more about collective, interactive storytelling than rule-oriented playing, but you certainly have a point.

 

Characters in Numenera can certainly be "same-y", but I think a strength of the system is that it really allows you to create the kind of character you want that conceptually plays the way you want (though that, of course, depends largely on how your game master likes to handle things), even if they play the same way mechanically.

 

 

Once, long ago, there existed a few games that were headed toward marrying tactical wargame to RPG.... it was called Warhammer, Warhammer Realm of Chaos & WFRP 1st. Then something happened and the design studio progressively split from the RPG realm. No one revisited the idea seriously until mordheim and necromunda but those were mere skirmish games with light narratives.

 

Man, would I like to see a career based system based on D6 & D66 with the warhammer stat line. I could see it catering to the people wanting a bit of simple and the people wanting good tactical depth.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Kveldulf

[Alweth]

The only way to fix that is to make stats give you diminishing returns. In simple terms, going from 5 to 6 in a stat should give you more bang for the buck (either by giving larger bonuses or having smaller "cost") than going from 18 to 19. This way even if stat A is more preferable for you than stat B, there would come a point at which you wouldn't want to raise A on B's expense anymore. A major benefit of this system is that there'd be no obvious threshold at which point this happens, everyone had to go with what they prefer on a personal level instead of a no-brainer, clear-cut best build.

 

There's another way to fix that: make stats come with negatives that matter. This can be hard to do in a way that makes intuitive sense, but if strength, for example, comes with a little expense to speed, then a lot of strength comes with a significant expense to speed. Eventually the negatives will make your character so weak in one area, you'll question whether you really need to be that strong if everything's just outrunning you. It makes being balanced more attractive, without forcing you into it. It's also more realistic in the sense that in real life almost everything comes with a corresponding downside.

[Hatred]

 I have hit level 10 in game. I am starting to think there are no longer any wrong answers.

[Awathorn]

Classes - partial success 

 

Some really interesting ideas, but most of it feels half-done. Like wizard. 

 

Why not go with less classes but more options. You choose fighter, and then make it into regular tank, ranger, barbarian or whatever through stats and talents. 

 

Better to go with 5 fully developed and wildly different classes than 20 half-done. 

 

Stats - fail

 

Things are more confusing, less exciting and it didn't remove the weakness of previous systems. Pretty much agree with OP. 

 

Oh, and there must be a better and nicer way to present the statistics to a player. 

 

Armour - fail

 

Steel clad wall and "naked" dudes doing damage. Good way to ruin one of the more interesting aspect of gaming. 

 

Weapons - partial success

 

It makes some sense, it can be fun, but there is no real progression. You don't need to be good at something. 

 

I would like to see more stuff that improves character proficiency with weapon group. The way it's now you can use whatever you want, and let's say a noble knight or a former soldier just barely outshine ex-farmer in weapons use. BG1 system was very limiting and not good, but at least it was logical. 4 levels in swords beat the hell out of 0 levels in swords.

 

Guns are cool. 

 

Talents and abilities - partial success

 

Needs more meaningful choices and more things you will aspire. At some point of the game I just didn't know what to choose between half-useless stuff. This seems to be general direction in which games are going.