TheRPGSite

Across the intartubes I read about 'niche protection'. I read about 'game balance' I read about... stuff. Metagamey stuff, and you know...

... I think it's all bollix.


Just the other day I was discussing 'Synthecardium' in Shadowrun in relationship to 'gymnastics dodging'. The Developers had spoken: Sythecardium added it's bonus dice to all athletics tests, including Dodging tests using the gymnastics skill.  This made the Synthecardium the cheapest, most effective bonus stacking defensive device in the game, a must have if you don't like getting shot. It also put a nail in the coffin of the ordinary Dodge skill.

Why do this? Because from a metagame perspective, trying to rule synthecardium as anything but absolute was nightmarishly convoluted.


Today people are talking about why assault rifles have their own special skill compared to regular rifles (and shotguns) and the answer that has the concensus? They did it so there are more skills needed to be good at 'shadowrunning'. Again a metagame thing.

Despite having an 'open' character creation, people talk about hyperspecialized runners and 'niche protection' then bitch about 'what is the hacker going to do during the gunfights'... then make up some wonky houserules that allow hackers to brainfry anyone, regardless of connectivity.

Niche protection.


Ah, but you say: that's shadowrun, take it to dumphsock jackass!

Really now?

Why does D&D have classes?  Could it be that it was simply an easy way to model fantasy wargame minatures?  It was a simple solution to a simple problem, but we can't ditch the idea even now because.. often.. Niche Protection as some holy grail to be sought and protected.

Adventures are designed around balanced parties, players make sacrifices of what they want to play so their party will have at least one representative of each class.

I cry foul.

I watch a 'team' movie like Predator, and I see a fuckload of sneaky melee guys with big fucking guns. You have the redneck big motherfucker with guns, the nerdy big motherfucker with guns, the angry black big motherfucker with guns and even the racist stereotype indian big motherfucker with guns.

Wait.. they are ALL big motherfuckers with guns!!!!

Holy Shit! Imagine that! No niches!!!

Its funny, but when Obama talks about race people go on and on about finally treating one another as adults, but when it comes to gaming its all about protecting our immature childish minds. Gotta have dedicated roles, gotta protect those niches. Gotta limit the ability of characters to be awesome.

Hell, I've seen combinations of mechanics and character creation rules that force you to makes idiot savants to be any good at anything! Often some other knucklehead then comes around and suggests limiting the savant portion of it... meaning... HEY! lets all play Idiots!

Brilliant fucking plan, man...


Maybe its me. I mean, by some accounts I could be accorded the dubious distinction of being a simulationist.  I like my rules to mimic both reality to an extent, and movie reality, or even action adventure novel reality.  They aren't totally compatable, but they sure as shit are ten times as compatable as RPG reality and any other... Mostly because there aren't idiot designers, then idiot 'Game masters' trying to keep everyone balanced... which seems to be local lingo for 'morons'.

We, as gamers, are responsible for this plague of munchkins and hyper optimized character makers.  We are, for allowing, even demanding that our rules systems only allow us to make broken characters.

Hell, pain me as it might, maybe the Pundit was on to something when he talked about superheroes and protagonism.  Maybe the best game system is one where the hero can do anything in his schtick and the only thing worth comparing his how 'cool' he is (protagonism).

Maybe 'There Is No Spoon' is the motherfucking HEIGHT of game design as we understand it.

QuoteIt also put a nail in the coffin of the ordinary Dodge skill.

The Dodge skill was already dead, in a fully nailed shut coffin, and buried with a 21-Slivergun salute because the Dodge action is the choice of losers. "Qui audet adipiscitur."

QuoteWhy do this? Because from a metagame perspective, trying to rule synthecardium as anything but absolute was nightmarishly convoluted.

Well you do still have to play the game, hopefully finishing sometime this decade. F*ck convoluted.  Someone just asked me yesterday to play SR3. F*ck them too.

QuoteDespite having an 'open' character creation, people talk about hyperspecialized runners and 'niche protection' then bitch about 'what is the hacker going to do during the gunfights'... then make up some wonky houserules that allow hackers to brainfry anyone, regardless of connectivity.

Niche protection.

I call that a bad reaction trying to break down a fairly natural and soft 'niche protection' type result of hyper specialization. You are pointing at the wrong culpert. Point at the dumb people. :)

Quote from: SpikeAh, but you say: that's shadowrun, take it to dumphsock jackass!

My first reaction was "Stay away from Dumpshock if people saying stupid shit bothers you". Wonky doesn't begin to cover some of the houserules that come up there. :haw:


EDIT: But yeah, I agree with the part Stuart agrees with. If you are cool with limiting your game to whatever those sneaky melee guys with big fucking guns can do, rock on!  But some people want unique and beautiful snowflakes and aren't happy with how much being a stereotype indian big motherfucker in that group makes you one. :shrug:

Quote from: SpikeAdventures are designed around balanced parties, players make sacrifices of what they want to play so their party will have at least one representative of each class.

I cry foul.

I watch a 'team' movie like Predator, and I see a fuckload of sneaky melee guys with big fucking guns. You have the redneck big motherfucker with guns, the nerdy big motherfucker with guns, the angry black big motherfucker with guns and even the racist stereotype indian big motherfucker with guns.

Wait.. they are ALL big motherfuckers with guns!!!!

Holy Shit! Imagine that! No niches!!!

Yes! :D

Quote from: SpikeWait.. they are ALL big motherfuckers with guns!!!!

I saw niches in that movie, a great number of them in fact.

Did this need a new thread?

Quote from: gleichmanI saw niches in that movie, a great number of them in fact.

I'm curious which ones you see, in the protogonist group?

Of course you always get roles within the domain that characters will take up but it's a matter of how strongly they get imposed upon you by the rules. Say some arbitrary rule that you can't talk on the radio if you have an M60.

Ironically this is all linked back to that Sett thread about your tactics/strategy article. Those niche creations aren't really about tactics/strategy at all, they are about creating snowflakes and ultimately dilute the purity of tactics/strategy. Which I've made my peace with because RPGs aren't about tactics/strategy, they are about individuals. So tactics, and especially strategy get the backseat. :shrug:

Of course that isn't the only shortcoming I saw in that article of yours, there was another much bigger down at the bottom. But that's something for yet another thread....

QuoteDid this need a new thread?

Different forum and the other one is >100 posts. :haw: I long ago stopped reading it.

Quote from: blakkieI'm curious which ones you see, in the protogonist group?

Just from memory, it's been a while since I've seen it...

I saw the Scout (complete with Native-America 'danger sense').

I saw the BFG wielder with mini-gun and semi-auto GL.

I saw the electronics nerd.

I saw the classic demo man.

I saw the all-around Miltary Leader.


I'm sure each were crossed-trained in the skills of the others, but each of these had the best bonuses for their niche of the group. Thus, niches.

Quote from: blakkieIronically this is all linked back to that Sett thread about your tactics/strategy article. Those niche creations aren't really about tactics/strategy at all, they are about creating snowflakes and ultimately dilute the purity of tactics/strategy. Which I've made piece with because RPGs aren't about tactics/strategy, they are about individuals.

Of course that isn't the only shortcoming I saw in that article, there was another much bigger down at the bottom. But that's something for another thread....?

If you wish. I agree I'd rather debate it somewhere other than here.

Quote from: gleichmanI'm sure each were crossed-trained in the skills of the others...

Exactly. If any of those big sweaty motherfuckers would have taken the lead or blown stuff up or gone on recon we'd bat nary an eyelash.

Quote from: blakkieExactly. If any of those big sweaty motherfuckers would have taken the lead or blown stuff up or gone on recon we'd bat nary an eyelash.

Doesn't change the fact that there is moderate niche protection going on.

Of course to understand what I mean by moderate niche protection, you'd have to read the other thread. I think it actually started to see common ground...

There's a difference between characters each having traits that make them recognizable and different from one another, and having a group of characters who are *very* different from each other.

Predator and Aliens has soldiers who are all very similar from a "skills and abilities" point of view.

League of Extraordinary Gentlmen... pretty different.

Is this "moderate niche protection" stuff from some other discussion?  I have no idea what you mean between light, moderate, chocolatey, and heavy niche protection.

Quote from: StuartIs this "moderate niche protection" stuff from some other discussion?  I have no idea what you mean between light, moderate, chocolatey, and heavy niche protection.

See One Horse Town's post here:
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=189432&postcount=125

And my reply here:
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=189442&postcount=130

Inbetween and around there were some worthwhile things too. Not all thread get worse the longer they go. But that one is now wandering a bit.

QuoteOf course you always get roles within the domain that characters will take up but it's a matter of how strongly they get imposed upon you by the rules. Say some arbitrary rule that you can't talk on the radio if you have an M60.

Quote from: gleichmanI think it actually started to see common ground...

Yeah, probably. I was seeing some of it in the other thread before I gave up reading it. But I see 'niche' falling away to 'role', especially in games that allow you to match or surpase the original 'expert' in that role. Either momentarily (for example stuff like Edge in Shadowrun 4 or with gear) or in a more permanent way through character growth or just an intersection with some other aspect of your character (Scouting in your own hometown). I see little if any niche, muchless niche protection, where that's the case.

Quote from: blakkieBut I see 'niche' falling away to 'role', especially in games that allow you to match or surpase the original 'expert' in that role.

I agree with you here, and labeled that under weak niche protection.

Weak as opposed to none, as while it's not mechanically enforced (or even suggested) it can be socially enforced.

I am coming to the conclusion that this is a pretty useless topic. Great for generating discussion but lousy for any conclusions. For instance. a lot of it depends on your definition of niche protection. Some folks hold that just about every game has some form of niche protection. Rarified is the game that has no niche protection. One could almost make a bell curve out of the rarity of niche protected games with non on one side and strong "you have one role" on the other.

Me, I tend to be skewed on this. I tend to think there are very few with strong niche protection, some with moderate, more with light and a fair number with none. However, again, this is dependant on my experience with games and definition of niche protection. To me, as long as characters can take everyones skills, advance at an equal rate, and there are not artificial caps...well that isn't niche protection. Basically, when you have a "you cannot take x skill form that class" or "It costs y times 2 for you to take out of class skills" you have niche protection.

That said, niche protection is valid for game design but I do not think it speaks to the current market. Only my opinion, but players seem much more interested in what makes their character special than whether being a fighter makes them special. So, if you offer them the option of getting special thing x then they will be happy, better if they can apply special ability x in their own clever way.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI am coming to the conclusion that this is a pretty useless topic. Great for generating discussion but lousy for any conclusions. For instance. a lot of it depends on your definition of niche protection. Some folks hold that just about every game has some form of niche protection. Rarified is the game that has no niche protection. One could almost make a bell curve out of the rarity of niche protected games with non on one side and strong "you have one role" on the other.

Was it you or flyingmice that once said that the resolution mechanic itself was a meaningless topic?

I fail to see how just because there is a range of niche protection, the topic isn't worth talking about. But if it was a yes/no, it would be there a useful topic.

It would seem to me that any designer should be aware of the range, and thus determine the best place on it for his design. Players should be aware of it in order to select games that suit their needs.

Quote from: HinterWeltThat said, niche protection is valid for game design but I do not think it speaks to the current market.

To reference the market if you must provides one answer. D&D current rules it with moderate to strong niche protection leaving you as the one out of step.

If you just referencing the market you sell to, I think that's a self-defining answer which you're correct about- it's not a very interesting topic to anyone but perhaps you and your customers.

Quote from: gleichmanTo reference the market if you must provides one answer. D&D current rules it with moderate to strong niche protection leaving you as the one out of step.

Perhaps you are unaware D&D has been beating feet for the last 3 major editions (if you count 4e and don't count 3.5e as a major) and two decades to thwart it's own initial niche protection. Selling a pile of splat books along the way.

Quote from: blakkieD&D has been beating feet for the last 3 major editions and two decades to thwart it's own initial niche protection. Selling a pile of splat books along the way.

To thwart it's own?

Hardly, to me it's indicated a move from Strong to Moderate niche protection. Niche protection that in turn inspires the sales of splat books making money along the way. If anything it's making the best possible use out of niches.

It's a bit awkward having the same conversation in 2 places (and apologies to Spike, if your thread has been hijacked somewhat! :( ).

Yeah, the little bits of info from 4e suggests that skills, at least, have been opened up to everyone. However, class specific abilities are still there (although, from first glance, they appear to be little more than variations on how to damage things).

It is still a strong niche protection game - the difference is that now, the basis seems to have changed to a specific niche within combat.

Subject to later info discrediting that comment. :D

Quote from: gleichmanTo thwart it's own?

Hardly, to me it's indicated a move from Strong to Moderate niche protection.

:rolleyes:

QuoteNiche protection that in turn inspires the sales of splat books making money along the way. If anything it's making the best possible use out of niches.

Yes, they work hard to sell books to thwart it. Because of the vast number of people that when they come face to face with it think it stinks. Hinterwelt, to his credit, seems to be more about selling someone the game they want right out of the gate. ;)

Quote from: blakkie:rolleyes:

Yes, they work hard to sell books to thwart it. Because of the vast number of people that think it stinks. Hinterwelt, to his credit, seems to be more about selling someone what they want right out of the gate. ;)

Selling Splat books doesn't thwart niche protection, it enhances it by offering additional niches which are fun and exciting. An approach that market wise seems to be the most successful by far.

HinterWelt so nailed it.

EDIT: I can't shake the feeling that it's like you haven't actually played the game muchless the supplements?

Quote from: blakkieHinterWelt so nailed it.

EDIT: I can't shake the feeling that it's like you haven't actually played the game muchless the supplements?

I have played (D&D 3x) it although not extensively. I frankly dislike the game.

But a look at the rules as well as what experience I have (including examing long term characters of other players) tells me there is significant niche protection. Hit points vary by class, they have different spells, certain skills are doubled in cost for certain classes and the ability to buy them is in general restricted unless lots of skills are part of the class niche.

Even if one multi-classes to gain the some abilities of other classes- you leave other things on the table.

The whole design screams moderate to strong niche protection.

I don't see how you could seriously suggest otherwise.

QuoteEven if one multi-classes to gain the some abilities of other classes- you leave other things on the table.

The whole design screams moderate to strong niche protection.

...and that is going in which direction? Then you've got healing arcane spells, spells to make Wizards ass kicking swordsmen, relaxing of Alignment requirements, relaxing of race requirements, more support for multiclass, further degratation of the innane "can't cast in armour", the splat books PrCs/Feats to patch up the multiclass problems with spellcasting, more classes/PrCs to blur the sword swinger/caster roles, stuff to make 'Paladins' for other alignments, and the list goes on.

But of course all you see a "niches". It's like saying there are so many trees there isn't room for a forest.  I think that pretty much wraps it.....

Quote from: blakkieBut of course all you see a "niches". It's like saying there are so many trees there isn't room for a forest.  I think that pretty much wraps it.....

I"m really only concerned with the core books and products considered core by WotC. Those have Moderate to Strong niche protection.

Optional and experimental expansion are just that, optional and experimental for those who what something different from the original game design.

Third party expansions and the like aren't under their control and are likely to move outside the original intent. In fact, I understand that WotC intends to narrow their license to prevent this exact thing from happening with 4th edition.

Frankly I don't see this point as really being in contention. It's almost a post-modernist argument in fact.


Who here agrees that D&D 3.x offers little to no niche protection (i.e. no significant difference between characters based upon class choice and/or skill choice)?

I'm NOT talking about 3rd party, I'm talking core books and official general use WotC splat books. :rolleyes: That stuff, and more, is all in there. I suggest you play/read some more.

Quote from: gleichmanIt would seem to me that any designer should be aware of the range, and thus determine the best place on it for his design. Players should be aware of it in order to select games that suit their needs.

In a focused group, very useful. On an internet forum, less so. I think there could be merit in such a discussion with other designers or publishers. About a year ago I had a really good one with some mid-tier publishers on a closed forum.

Quote from: gleichmanTo reference the market if you must provides one answer. D&D current rules it with moderate to strong niche protection leaving you as the one out of step.

See!! This is the problem. Definitions.

Bill

My most successful thread ever and I'm not even sure they're talking about what I was talking about....



Huzzah!

Quote from: blakkieI'm NOT talking about 3rd party, I'm talking core books and official general use WotC splat books. :rolleyes: That stuff, and more, is all in there. I suggest you play/read some more.

I'm sorry blakkie, but your claim flys in the face of reality. I see significant differences between characters in D&D due to its mechanics unless they specifically try for the same niche. I don't see how playing more would change that.

I'm afraid I'm going to have dismiss this line of debate unless I see significant support from other people here that agree with you that there is basically no differences between classes, skill and feat choice in D&D 3.x

Perhaps if you posted examples from the books where different classes produce exactly the same results.

Quote from: HinterWeltIn a focused group, very useful. On an internet forum, less so. I think there could be merit in such a discussion with other designers or publishers. About a year ago I had a really good one with some mid-tier publishers on a closed forum.

Ah, so we make the same claim as the Forge does. Only the elite may speak and have meaningful exchanges about game design.

Very well, I'm not a member of the elite. You may feel free therefor to ignore me.

Quote from: HinterWeltSee!! This is the problem. Definitions.

l[/QUOTE]

I believe we already discovered this. But few here seem interested in reaching agreement on those definitions.

Quote from: gleichmanI'm sorry blakkie, but your claim flys in the face of reality.

:tears:  Whatever, if you manage to convince yourself of that there isn't much use in having a discussion with you.

Quote from: blakkie:tears:

Very well, the discussion between us on this subject is over.

Pity, previously you seemed to have interesting things to say.

Quote from: gleichmanVery well, the discussion between us on this subject is over.

Pity, previously you seemed to have interesting things to say.

Pity you apparently can't even be bothered to list what you think isn't in there from the list I gave. Not that I want to be bothered to track down the books to give you page references for someone with that sort of attitude.

Quote from: SpikeMy most successful thread ever and I'm not even sure they're talking about what I was talking about....

I rather certain that outside the predator has no niche characters claim, I wasn't. And I've learned that I had no idea what blakkie was talking about either.

Is this how you measure a successful thread? If so, I think I'll be slightly depressed now. I was hoping for something better.

Quote from: SpikeI watch a 'team' movie like Predator, and I see a fuckload of sneaky melee guys with big fucking guns. You have the redneck big motherfucker with guns, the nerdy big motherfucker with guns, the angry black big motherfucker with guns and even the racist stereotype indian big motherfucker with guns.

Wait.. they are ALL big motherfuckers with guns!!!!

Holy Shit! Imagine that! No niches!!!

Yup... it's also a movie.  The characters are really only worried about the invisible thing that's hunting them down and picking them off one-by-one.  They don't care that Arnold outclasses all of them in every area.  I believe that it's nice to be able to think "If the party needs to rig some electronics, I'm their guy."

Besides the "scout" did anyone else in the movie do any "niche" stuff ? I mean in films like Guns of Navarone and The Dirty Dozen, I see some niche protection going on, but Predator.....not really. I mean  another film without NP is Aliens. Tech is the great equalizer....except Bishop of course....fuckin' GMPC.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RBesides the "scout" did anyone else in the movie do any "niche" stuff ?

Not successfully.

The radio guy did radio stuff, but it didn't help.

The demo guy did demo stuff, but caught himself a pig.

The BFG guy did BFG stuff and killed mooks, but never got a shot off at the big bad.

Heck, even the Indian Scout wasn't really successful (his screaming at his death was quite the disappointment, not part of the cliche).



But it wasn't that kind of a movie, there were there to set up the final man-vs.-alien conflict and die. So it makes a rather poor example for mapping into a traditional rpg design.

Quote from: gleichmanSo it makes a rather poor example for mapping into a traditional rpg design.

It's a good example though if one does not consider NP an essential element of game design.

Regards,
David R

I wrote two games where all the characters are fighter pilots. Another one where all the characters are naval officers in the age of sail. Are there niches? Sure, if the players want to make them. Are these niches protected? Not at all. What if two players choose the exact same skill sets? They could - nothing stopping them. The game won't fall apart, any more than two people wearing the same outfit to a party is really a problem. If they don't care, it doesn't matter mechanically.

BTW, Mr. Gleichman - I don't think I ever said it was useless to talk about mechanics. I have said before that mechanics are not the whole of a game system, and may be the least immportant part of a system, maybe that's what you are remembering as being particularly heretical?

Quote from: gleichmanAh, so we make the same claim as the Forge does. Only the elite may speak and have meaningful exchanges about game design.

Very well, I'm not a member of the elite. You may feel free therefor to ignore me.

What the hell is your problem? Seriously man, I did not say anything about elite. You want another example, a discussion between a group of players and their GM. I have had that discussion often from both player and GM sides. It can be very useful. However, such discussion on the internet bring people from all walks with their own definitions. This makes for a much less useful discussion.

Quote from: gleichmanI believe we already discovered this. But few here seem interested in reaching agreement on those definitions.

Translation: Everyone wont agree to my definition. And there in lies the rub.

Bill

Quote from: David RIt's a good example though if one does not consider NP an essential element of game design.

Illogical. Niche Protection had nothing to do with it, from that PoV the characters just failed their rolls,  good as those rolls were.

What has something to do with it is that one would be hard pressed to find players willing to have all their characters killed just to set up a one-on-one battle for the GM's favorite player...

Quote from: HinterWeltTranslation: Everyone wont agree to my definition. And there in lies the rub.

I'm willing to accept a different term for what I'm talking about. Call it JoeNiche or whatever.

Also since this was sparked by my article, common courtesy would have required that author of said article had the right to define the terms he was using.

Quote from: HinterWeltHowever, such discussion on the internet bring people from all walks with their own definitions. This makes for a much less useful discussion.

That's a different statement than your first one. One that I agree with.

I was hoping for an exception for a day or so, from at least one or two people. It wasn't to be.

Quote from: gleichmanIllogical. Niche Protection had nothing to do with it, from that PoV the characters just failed their rolls,  good as those rolls were.

It's only illogical if you're seeing NP where there's none (or in this case, you're finding it difficult to make a case for NP with these characters) Take heist films for instance. You'll normally find NP in most heist films. Then you get something like Reservoir Dogs, where the only niche, is how badass you are.

QuoteWhat has something to do with it is that one would be hard pressed to find players willing to have all their characters killed just to set up a one-on-one battle for the GM's favorite player...

What's this got to do with the topic at hand :confused:

Regards,
David R

Quote from: gleichmanIs this how you measure a successful thread? If so, I think I'll be slightly depressed now. I was hoping for something better.

I speak of success by number of posts in a single day. I think my previous record for posts (not counting my own) was maybe a handful a week.

Yes, depressing.

Since a great number of 'gamer' films don't actually involve teams, much less teams of equals/near equals (its debatable if Arnold really was much better than his team, he just was last, so he had more time to figure out what to do to survive... don't forget others saw it long before he did... low perception maybe?) its hard to cite too many. If you want Diehard 4 as counterbalance, your two man team had the 'hard core motherfucker' and the 'smart but somewhat girly non-fucker' as the team. Definitely niche protected.

What makes predator a good choice is the very solid team foundation of characters.  yeah, Arnold is the star, and the lone survivor, but for a good chunk of the movie he's surrounded by guys who are... leaving aside actor wattage, just as cool/badass as he is.. in other words 'equals'.

What of the Seven Samurai? Is 'noble sword swinger' a niche compared to 'savage sword swinger' vs 'old cunning sword swinger'?  

Is the noble sword swinger really going to be put out if there is another noble sword swinger in the group?  Its not niche, its characterization.


To go back to my comment: it wasn't about niche protection by itself, but the entire idea of altering games purely around metagame considerations, often without thinking through how those metagame considerations are really reflected by the reality you are simulating.  Is it synthetic hearts that let you dodge like crack-yoda but do fuck all else in combat? Is it 'learning to shoot rifles is more complex than learning to build a car from spare parts'?

Is it: once you pick up a sword, the magic forever leaves your body, but if you learn magic you'll forever be a wimp no matter how heavy a backpack you can lug around?

Is it: allowing snipers to kill orcs with single arrows to the head at the start of the game is broken,so therefore all creatures can essentially ignore a yard long pointy stick stuck in their vitals?

Is it wanted to model every possible thing you could learn, but to keep character creation under control, your character will never know how to do half the things YOU know how to do because if we did that everyone would wind up playing superhumans that dont know how to do anything at all?

Quote from: gleichmanI'm willing to accept a different term for what I'm talking about. Call it JoeNiche or whatever.

Also since this was sparked by my article, common courtesy would have required that author of said article had the right to define the terms he was using.

Que?!? Spike started this thread and I started the other one...you have a thread somewhere that you started that has something to do with niche protection? Sorry, I did not see it and did not realize you had a lock on defining these terms...

Quote from: gleichmanThat's a different statement than your first one. One that I agree with.

I was hoping for an exception for a day or so, from at least one or two people. It wasn't to be.

Quote from: MEIn a focused group, very useful. On an internet forum, less so. I think there could be merit in such a discussion with other designers or publishers. About a year ago I had a really good one with some mid-tier publishers on a closed forum.

My emphasis. In a focused group, then an example of a focused group.

Honestly, do I know you from somewhere? Did I piss in your cornflakes this morning and not realize it? You seem to take any possible interpretation of what I type and take the worst, most insulting interpretation of it. To say the least, you have a confrontational posting style.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltQue?!? Spike started this thread

Sett started the first post with a reference to an old (and worthless) article of mine that spoke of nich protection in tactical game design. That seemed to spawn another thread on nich protection (which was a sub-subject of the first one) and this one also thread also seemed to directly reference some of the material found in the first two.

If they're truly unrelated. The error is mine. I thought that unlikely, but upon reflection I realize I don't actually know that.

Quote from: HinterWeltSorry, I did not see it and did not realize you had a lock on defining these terms...

I don't have a lock outside of references to that article. Nor frankly all that much interest. I just wanted to respond to critism of the original article to either make myself clear or to learn where I went wrong.

Quote from: HinterWeltHonestly, do I know you from somewhere? Did I piss in your cornflakes this morning and not realize it? You seem to take any possible interpretation of what I type and take the worst, most insulting interpretation of it. To say the least, you have a confrontational posting style.

I could say the same of you.

Quote from: SpikeTo go back to my comment: it wasn't about niche protection by itself, but the entire idea of altering games purely around metagame considerations, often without thinking through how those metagame considerations are really reflected by the reality you are simulating.  Is it synthetic hearts that let you dodge like crack-yoda but do fuck all else in combat? Is it 'learning to shoot rifles is more complex than learning to build a car from spare parts'?

Is it: once you pick up a sword, the magic forever leaves your body, but if you learn magic you'll forever be a wimp no matter how heavy a backpack you can lug around?

Is it: allowing snipers to kill orcs with single arrows to the head at the start of the game is broken,so therefore all creatures can essentially ignore a yard long pointy stick stuck in their vitals?

Is it wanted to model every possible thing you could learn, but to keep character creation under control, your character will never know how to do half the things YOU know how to do because if we did that everyone would wind up playing superhumans that dont know how to do anything at all?

So, trying to get a grip on what you are asking. Are you asking about the effect of meta-mechanics on a game? Or is it more in-setting modelling via the rules?

I mean, yeah, if you make it so that your fantasy game arrow kills a man in plate mail with one shot 90% of the time vs 1% of the time, hells yea, that will effect play, the setting and your players love of you for suggesting such a system. ;)

If the root of this is your comment in another thread about SR4 and syth-something-or-other basically making dodge a super pool of combat goodness, well, yeah again, if you monkey with the underlying mechanics you can have all manner of unforeseen and foreseen effects. You always need to be aware of what I call fundamental factors of your system. The factors are things like stats in a stat+skill system. Stats can carry across a lot of skills and effect the basic functioning of the character.

If I missed, then sorry...:o

Bill

Quote from: gleichmanSett started the first post with a reference to an old (and worthless) article of mine that spoke of nich protection in tactical game design. That seemed to spawn another thread on nich protection (which was a sub-subject of the first one) and this one also thread also seemed to directly reference some of the material found in the first two.

If they're truly unrelated. The error is mine. I thought that unlikely, but upon reflection I realize I don't actually know that.

I don't have a lock outside of references to that article. Nor frankly all that much interest. I just wanted to respond to critism of the original article to either make myself clear or to learn where I went wrong.

I missed the references. This does explain though, why I keep feeling like I am only in on part of the conversation.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI missed the references. This does explain though, why I keep feeling like I am only in on part of the conversation.

I don't think getting the references would have helped that. I was in all the threads and it was basically still half a conversation.

Quote from: gleichmanI don't think getting the references would have helped that. I was in all the threads and it was basically still half a conversation.

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. I thought you tried at least. ;)

Bill

Quote from: David RIt's only illogical if you're seeing NP where there's none (or in this case, you're finding it difficult to make a case for NP with these characters) Take heist films for instance. You'll normally find NP in most heist films. Then you get something like Reservoir Dogs, where the only niche, is how badass you are.



What's this got to do with the topic at hand :confused:

Regards,
David R

Ya know, David, let me get back to you on Reservoir Dogs.  I bet if you looked at it through a specific prism....hmmm...I'd have to watch it again...

Quote from: HinterWeltSo, trying to get a grip on what you are asking. Are you asking about the effect of meta-mechanics on a game? Or is it more in-setting modelling via the rules?


If I missed, then sorry...:o

Bill

I meant, initially to start a serious, probably boring, discussion of why we use so many 'meta-game' mechanics in design, and how they can be, and when they shouldn't be avoided.

Of course, since I'm bitchy and stressed out, and I was growing increasingly aware of some truly bizarre reasoning coming out of some players mouths it degenerated into frothing at the mouth style ranting pretty quick.

Niche protection, at least as it's usually defined tends to crop up a lot, in a lot of different game discussions, and usually gets me riled quick.  Co-incidentally, Gliechman's been talking a lot about it elsewhere, in threads I generally avoided, but since his defintion of weak or moderate nicheprotection is weak to the point of uselessness (characterization is now niche protection? Re he heallllyyyy now....) I'm not sure how to take it.

I pointed out a few other things that fall into 'bizarre metagame designing'... for example subdividing weapon skills to the point where to be remotely good at shooting someone either requires stupid levels of specialization or enough training to make a PHD of someone.  In the same system you might find a single skill that allows complete mastery of the mechanics of crafting a bike, a car, a truck, and APC, a main-faaking-battletank... without batting an eye. Why does one character ostensibly need three skills to cover a single area of competence while another needs only one?

Its a metagame decision, even openly admitted as such, that has no real logical reason behind it, much less a 'setting based rationale'.

The Synthecardium argument requires a little too much in depth understanding of the shadowrun system.  To sum it up generically: there are no items that allow distinct improvements to combat defense specifically, but due to a minor glitch in skills design, an athletics skill can be used to defend against ranged attacks equally to the combat specific dodge skill, yet can get a nice cheap bonus that is essentially unmatched from this item designed for athletics improvements.

The designers made the only rational call when this was pointed out in allowing that athletics are athletics, regardless if its used for combat or rock climbing... making the non-combat dodge objectively better than the combat dodge skill.

Not that it needed much help, since the Dodge skill was ONLY good for dodging, while Gymnastics (the athletic skill) covered a wide variety of physical tasks PLUS dodging... with no penalty.


Now: I do propose that a more rational design would have limited the feasability of non-combat dodge skills from teh get go, or a smarter design of said item would have given it a different sort of functionality that 'skill boosting' more in line with its stated use.  Meta-design, if only by way of  illustrating general laziness....

Hope that cleared up the OP a bit for you.

Quote from: SpikeCo-incidentally, Gliechman's been talking a lot about it elsewhere, in threads I generally avoided, but since his defintion of weak or moderate nicheprotection is weak to the point of uselessness (characterization is now niche protection? Re he heallllyyyy now....)

I'm basically done with this, but I didn't say say characterization is niche protection. I was speaking only of mechanically or socially enforced rules.
Or at least that was my intent.

The term that covers that (that I've used and seen used in the past) is Shtick.

But whatever. Checking the other threads I note that they're back to everyone is using whatever meaning they wish. After that whole exchange I had with Stuart on how Niche Protection <> Functional Group (or rather the latter is a subset of the former), they're back to "but you have to a fighter, thief, cleric, and wizard" crap and calling it the whole of niche protection.

So I leave you to it, agreeing with HinterWelt. This place just isn't a worthwhile location to talk about game theory.

Spike, the specific examples of synthecardium and weapons skills sound to me like they're the same as the fundamental problem with point-based systems that try to incorporate "realism" into point costs. GURPS has this problem, at least in some cases pre-4e.

It can be summed up as: you can't assign points from a single pool to traits based on both usefulness and rarity. And furthermore even if you assign them based only on rarity, you still won't achieve a "normal" balance of characteristics in a group of PCs, because PCs are designed by players, not selected randomly from the population.

I don't know SR at all, but from what you're saying, I'd recommend that you simply increase the point cost of synthecardium and group long arms into a single skill that costs more.

Quote from: SpikeI meant, initially to start a serious, probably boring, discussion of why we use so many 'meta-game' mechanics in design, and how they can be, and when they shouldn't be avoided.

Of course, since I'm bitchy and stressed out, and I was growing increasingly aware of some truly bizarre reasoning coming out of some players mouths it degenerated into frothing at the mouth style ranting pretty quick.

Niche protection, at least as it's usually defined tends to crop up a lot, in a lot of different game discussions, and usually gets me riled quick.  Co-incidentally, Gliechman's been talking a lot about it elsewhere, in threads I generally avoided, but since his defintion of weak or moderate nicheprotection is weak to the point of uselessness (characterization is now niche protection? Re he heallllyyyy now....) I'm not sure how to take it.

I pointed out a few other things that fall into 'bizarre metagame designing'... for example subdividing weapon skills to the point where to be remotely good at shooting someone either requires stupid levels of specialization or enough training to make a PHD of someone.  In the same system you might find a single skill that allows complete mastery of the mechanics of crafting a bike, a car, a truck, and APC, a main-faaking-battletank... without batting an eye. Why does one character ostensibly need three skills to cover a single area of competence while another needs only one?

O.k., Spike, I will give it a shot. This sounds like a lot more rant than question so I suspect you know this already but I will explain my motives in design.

Wht you describe is something I battle with every design. The "Expert Skill" vs the "Plebian Skill". With Expert skills, say brain surgery, you want the character trained in it rather than allowing unskilled attempts, easy access or the like. You have some tools at your disposal but the most common is skill trees. I try my best to avoid them since they require a level of researching the system to understand but Iridium V2 may have some. Alternatively, you can make an action dependent on multiple skills. In the example, you could have a Surgery, Anatomy and Neurology check to accomplish the goal.

Where does this lead us? To Weapons and how the roots of weapons are in fantasy games. One issue with modern settings is that guns have been made, for the ost part, so that an untrained person can pick one up and kill someone;i.e. point and click interface. However, it takes a lot of training to sit 2 km out with a highly specialize rifle and hit a target the size of a walnut. So, you run int the issue, as a designer, which do you accommodate? The problem is that most designers say "Both!". To do this, you end up with ridiculously complex and expensive weapons specialization mechanisms with the ability to pick a gun up and shoot at one end and shooting the ey out of an eagle at 50000 paces with on thumb up your but at the other.

Quote from: SpikeIts a metagame decision, even openly admitted as such, that has no real logical reason behind it, much less a 'setting based rationale'.

The Synthecardium argument requires a little too much in depth understanding of the shadowrun system.  To sum it up generically: there are no items that allow distinct improvements to combat defense specifically, but due to a minor glitch in skills design, an athletics skill can be used to defend against ranged attacks equally to the combat specific dodge skill, yet can get a nice cheap bonus that is essentially unmatched from this item designed for athletics improvements.

The designers made the only rational call when this was pointed out in allowing that athletics are athletics, regardless if its used for combat or rock climbing... making the non-combat dodge objectively better than the combat dodge skill.

Not that it needed much help, since the Dodge skill was ONLY good for dodging, while Gymnastics (the athletic skill) covered a wide variety of physical tasks PLUS dodging... with no penalty.


Now: I do propose that a more rational design would have limited the feasability of non-combat dodge skills from teh get go, or a smarter design of said item would have given it a different sort of functionality that 'skill boosting' more in line with its stated use.  Meta-design, if only by way of  illustrating general laziness....

Hope that cleared up the OP a bit for you.

Yes, it did clear it up a bit. All I can say here is that I faced a similar issue (although not precisely the same) in the addition of Dodge skill to Iridium. With modern settings, I added a Dodge skill that allowed one to increase Defense (making you harder to hit) when moving from cover to cover. The first thing players asked was if the Movement Skill bonus for Agility applied and I had to say no. It would just make Dodge to easy a skill check. However, it never sat well with me because it was a meta-game decision, not a "rooted in the setting" decision. What I mean is, if Acrobatics gets movement bonuses why the hell wouldn't Dodge? Essentially the same thing but I had to take it from the "How will it effect combat pacing?" point of view.

So, sometimes you screw up. Sometimes you have to look to the next version to iron these things out or some quickfix rules on your site. Sometimes, you have no choice since that is where your logical design choices have taken you and other times you just screwed up.

Bill

Eliot: that's one reason I always point to White Wolf games as paragons of excellence in the character design phase. They know attributes and abilities shouldn't be weighted the same, so they seperate them.

Sure, they've got other areas that screw up on with stunning indifference... but the core method of making a character always seemed remarkably elegent.

Of course, technically Sythecardium is bought with money...


Bill:  I can see where you are going and I pretty much agree. I DO think that making guns that work both ways is do-able, and fairly easy depending upon how you structure your combat system and skills (as in: guns can be fired with no (or little) penalty without any skill at all (fer ex)...) with the high end problem being a pure function of skills scaling up... bah, I'm starting to talk gibberish.

We run into an issue with game play (relating to your dodge thing) in that game combat is remarkably 'wiffless' in most cases. Statistics tend to show that hits are FAR more common than misses, even when dealing with trained combatants.  On the other hand, it slows game play down and is remarkably unfun.  This is where D&D's abstracted combat rounds first started coming into play.

I should point out that I don't think eliminating meta-game thinking from rule design is a goal, just that it shouldn't be the excuse/rationale for stuff that otherwise doesn't make sense.

I might have handled your dodge issue seperately (make dodge computation less tied to straight skill checks or something... its a one time calculation essentially so you can make it reasonably complex...) but then again, you're the guy with the game company and I'm the guy with a full time, non-gaming, job.... :keke:

Quote from: SpikeBill:  I can see where you are going and I pretty much agree. I DO think that making guns that work both ways is do-able, and fairly easy depending upon how you structure your combat system and skills (as in: guns can be fired with no (or little) penalty without any skill at all (fer ex)...) with the high end problem being a pure function of skills scaling up... bah, I'm starting to talk gibberish.

We run into an issue with game play (relating to your dodge thing) in that game combat is remarkably 'wiffless' in most cases. Statistics tend to show that hits are FAR more common than misses, even when dealing with trained combatants.  On the other hand, it slows game play down and is remarkably unfun.  This is where D&D's abstracted combat rounds first started coming into play.

I should point out that I don't think eliminating meta-game thinking from rule design is a goal, just that it shouldn't be the excuse/rationale for stuff that otherwise doesn't make sense.

I might have handled your dodge issue seperately (make dodge computation less tied to straight skill checks or something... its a one time calculation essentially so you can make it reasonably complex...) but then again, you're the guy with the game company and I'm the guy with a full time, non-gaming, job.... :keke:

Well, Basically, we have Defense which is based on (STR+AGL+CON)/3. This is your chance of being hit or your opponent's target number. Dodge was meant as a skill for modern settings, specifically Shades of Earth (1938). It was meant to help there be fewer hits since healing was less common. At the same time, it was meant to maintain suspense and action. I guess we could have made it be a static bonus enacted when you "Dodged". An idea for V2.

Thanks,
Bill