Quote from: 1of3;617475The phenomenon does not occur [...] when one or both stats are created at random.

But that causes other problems, like rolling up a character you don't want to play.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just the opposite: rolling those two scores offers benefits and penalties, so does buying them and so would any other generation method (a standard array, for example).

All design decisions involve trade-offs. To design, you make decisions and accept the bad side-effects of your decisions.

Quote from: 1of3;617475I think, the difference between rules, house-rules, GM rulings etc. is very fuzzy. The content is pretty much the same, so the only difference is presentation and origin.

I agree that this one is more about more into design and presentation than the underlying system. Much like structuring your text etc. If that does not fit your intention for this topic, that's OK. Otherwise, feel free to copy anything I said.


Imagine there is attributes and abilities. Attributes cost *5, abilities *2. You only ever use attribute+ability. Now there is a particular problem. Where otherwise players would think: "What stats do I like?", they will now consider: "Which combination do I like, and how can get those spending as little points as possible?" So there is a new layer of complexity.

You might want to have this, personally I usually avoid it. The phenomenon does not occur in this manner, when one or both stats are created at random.


Certainly true. And it's very interesting how this might be done. As a hyothetical scenario, if nothing else. Gives you a better grasp, on what you want a GM to do.

* However, when costructing and designing a game, there is a notable difference between Rules and "Advices to the GM".
Remember that "house rules" seize to be that, when actually written into a game.
The difference between them may be fuzzy to a GM, but it isn't to the game designer.

Essentially, one may make handouts of the most common rules and put them into the game to begin with, saying "do this", or one may make them and suggest them be photocopied and that the GM hands them out for ease, or one may just suggest that the GM makes some and hands them out.

* Yes, that is a sidefeffect that may occur, but it is just as possible that only the Attribute is rolled .... but it is a good idea to point out to the designer, that is clear.
... Question is how to re-formulate the sentence ....
Oh, and Daddy Warpig pointed out something in your comment there, too.
I agree with him.

* Not all can think out good ways to exclude a GM, and some thinks "a real rpg must have a GM" ....
However, one might, or migh not, want to add in possible ways for running GM-less, in order to make variated solo adventures possible.

Quote from: 1of3;617475Imagine there is attributes and abilities. Attributes cost *5, abilities *2. You only ever use attribute+ability. Now there is a particular problem. Where otherwise players would think: "What stats do I like?", they will now consider: "Which combination do I like, and how can get those spending as little points as possible?" So there is a new layer of complexity.
 
You might want to have this, personally I usually avoid it. The phenomenon does not occur in this manner, when one or both stats are created at random.

Is it bad that the players are trying to break the system, or bad if they do break the system?
Point optimizing is something to be wary of, but what about just setting costs so that nothing is clearly hugely optimal? Maybe by calculating it fairly precisely (if each stat affects 4 skills, skills are 1/4 the cost), maybe by making it sufficiently complex that its hard to work out (attributes sometimes cross over, are rolled individually, etc).
 

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;617480All design decisions involve trade-offs. To design, you make decisions and accept the bad side-effects of your decisions.

Amen.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;617480But that causes other problems, like rolling up a character you don't want to play.

Sure. I never intended to say that there was a single right way. I'm sorry, if I made that impression.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;617500Is it bad that the players are trying to break the system, or bad if they do break the system.

I think, you cannot "break" a system. You can employ a system cleverly, you can play it. If it appears that a system doesn't work when used by a clever player, that's not the player's fault.

The phenomen I described is not a problem with clever players who will understand the trick, and are willing to do it. But if there are other players who do not understand what would be the optimal way or are not willing to do such calculations (such as myself), it might be a problem for these people.

That does not mean that you cannot add such complexity to your game. It just appears to me that often authors do not consider what they are doing there. "Sure, we need attributes and skills. That's realistic", they might say  or whatever.

Quote from: 1of3;617501I think, you cannot "break" a system. You can employ a system cleverly, you can play it. If it appears that a system doesn't work when used by a clever player, that's not the player's fault.

The phenomen I described is not a problem with clever players who will understand the trick, and are willing to do it. But if there are other players who do not understand what would be the optimal way or are not willing to do such calculations (such as myself), it might be a problem for these people.

That does not mean that you cannot add such complexity to your game. It just appears to me that often authors do not consider what they are doing there. "Sure, we need attributes and skills. That's realistic", they might say  or whatever.

Hm ...
I understand the sentiment, but i have personally always gone for "what suits the character best?" during character creation, and the possible dilemma you are speaking of has mainly occured to me when using experience points.

I think, if anything should be "done about it", it is to, as a designer, point out to the Games Master, that rpgs is supposed to be entertaining for everyone involved, no matter wether they are min-maxers, basketweavers or the GM.
... And it is normally the GM's duty to see to this.

Quote from: 1of3;617501I think, you cannot "break" a system. You can employ a system cleverly, you can play it. If it appears that a system doesn't work when used by a clever player, that's not the player's fault.

The phenomen I described is not a problem with clever players who will understand the trick, and are willing to do it. But if there are other players who do not understand what would be the optimal way or are not willing to do such calculations (such as myself), it might be a problem for these people.

That does not mean that you cannot add such complexity to your game. It just appears to me that often authors do not consider what they are doing there. "Sure, we need attributes and skills. That's realistic", they might say  or whatever.

Sorry, I'm guilty of using 'broken' in the weenie sense, to mean "unbalanced".  There are real broken things (infinite power loops and stuff) but they're fairly rare.
I'd agree that authors often don't consider how best to do things. I think though that offering choices is fine though, as long as those choices are fairly equal, or an advantage requires a trade-off somewhere else.

Something else that I just thought of...

Quote from: Catelf;617095* Adding unusually powerful things to the game may mess the game up fast, unless the GM is cautioned about it, to be careful with those things.

Or sometimes adding more unusually powerful things can un-mess-up the game, because they form a new sort of balance...

For instance, characters with larger hit point totals can be too powerful, but if there are more ways for people to be taken out other than just damage, then larger hit points aren't as powerful any more.
You could perhaps build up strategies in the game based on this, where some characters have lots of HPs but can still be taken out by being knocked out or killed with spells or stun weapons.

i.e. you can balance up a game by either adding to it, or subtracting from it.

I discovered this principle the hard way playing Rifts