Quote from: gleichman;641852It so, it was a mistake. I aimed for the target that you presented or at least the one I thought you presented.

Perhaps I was wrong, please restate using different words and an example.

Here, I'll walk you through it:

Me: My point was that worrying about the defender probably isn't going to work. Mostly because defense can't work unless everyone has it, as one person with high defense just says attack someone else... especially if he cannot attack effectively in turn.

You: And this is an excellent example of over-thinking something, it blinds you to even considering the conditions under which it might be important to attack an high defense target or how a game with high defenses for everyone might work.

See what you did there? Let's continue:

Me: Anyways, I already know how a game with high defenses for everyone would work because I designed and run it. But when 99.9% of people start talking about defenders, they mean some guy that goes out and "tanks" enemies for their less defended fellows. And when asked why, or how, there is never any answer.

You: Then you should know that claiming "all" RPGs was wrong. Why do it then?

See what you did here?

You then claimed understanding the first time. That was a lie. If you did you wouldn't attack a point I already countered.

QuoteIt that the only way you can imagine something working differently than in D&D? It's a honest question because the rest of your post directed at beejazz indicates D&D is still your only guidepost in this debate.

Stop. Right there.

Are you seriously telling me having a warpike be able to stab at a greater distance than a dagger is D&D specific?

That a longbow being able to shoot well outside melee range is something only one system models? Because I don't think that low of them.

QuoteCan you imagine a reason that someone would have that a goal in the game's designs? If yes, can you imagine a way to make it that true in game design?

Have what exactly? Magic doors?

And what the hell are you trying to prove? That you can make your gameworld retarded so some chucklefuck can play door?

...Wouldn't that be a red flag?

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641865See what you did there?

Yes, but I see that you didn't. You also didn't rephrase it as I asked.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641865Stop. Right there.

Are you seriously telling me having a warpike be able to stab at a greater distance than a dagger is D&D specific?

Don't look for stupid answers, look for ones that make sense. Can you actually not think of any?

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641865Have what exactly? Magic doors?

I'm not using doors for examples, beejazz is. I'm asking about concepts.

Again, look for a answer that makes sense. Can you actually not think of any?

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641865And what the hell are you trying to prove? That you can make your gameworld retarded so some chucklefuck can play door?

Yeah, those dudes at Thermopylae were very retarded. Holding the narrow way and all. Good thing their foes didn't know about your combat theories or they wouldn't have lasted five minutes.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641847You know what system tried to make attack and defense scale at the same rate? 4th edition D&D. Look at what actually happened.

This is also why I asked for you to explain what you meant as I'm not going to believe it otherwise.

The formulas are identical. The same rate is the same rate.

QuoteSo A cannot shoot, stab, or cast past D to hit V? D being "in a door" somehow automagically makes V untargetable unless A goes derping in the door after them?

No, the wall makes V untargetable, unless people can move and target through walls. V is not hugging D; rooms are not closets.

QuoteSomehow, D playing doorstop prevents A from detonating a Fireball (or any AoE attack) and hitting V (and likely D as well)?

Unless they can get line of sight through a wall, or though the cover D provides, yes.

QuoteHm. Know what else 4th edition does? Has random illogical shit happening for no discernable reason in world.

...I am just misunderstanding, right? That isn't actually how things work?

If "people can't target through walls and suffer significant penalties targeting through partial cover" qualifies as "random illogical shit," then yes, you are misunderstanding how walls work.

QuoteBut let's say that actually is how things work. Unless this is a super low lethality game, if all the enemies in an encounter target a single creature they're most likely dead in one round no matter what. To give you an idea, even 4th edition D&D (yes that again) will result in dead PCs quickly from focus fire because the enemies there actually do 3.5 enemy damage - it just gets split about a half dozen ways and you encounter about a half dozen times as many enemies at any given time. Meanwhile, the characters are lacking on defense.

So even if that's how the game actually works, and we ignore the whole magical doors thing, anyone stupid enough to stand in one isn't going to last very long at all.

First of all there's a whole party. So if 3(A) focus on 1(D), no one is doing shit to (let's say) interrupt the spellcaster, who might wreck 3(A)'s shit, if he isn't distracted. Or no one is doing shit to (let's say) defend against the rogue, who might wreck (A) party's spellcaster, and so on.

Basically, what you're asking is "What if it's a 3 on 1 fight and everyone's the same level?" To which the only valid response is "Unless 1 does something remarkable or 3 do something stupid, 1 loses." Again, not seeing the problem.

The soldier has stances and such that can specifically extend survivability against groups, both in general and in cases where he has to defend. For example his high armor lowers his odds of being wounded and extends survivability, he's got a stance that boosts passive AC (both to help him handle larger groups and save his reactions for AoOs only), etc.

Quote from: gleichman;641867Yeah, those dudes at Thermopylae were very retarded. Holding the narrow way and all. Good thing their foes didn't know about your combat theories or they wouldn't have lasted five minutes.

I probably am wasting my time with Charlie, but this at least was chuckleworthy.

The thing that makes Toon work so well is that it never steps outside its boundaries.  What are modifiers?  You roll the dice and if you succeed you succeed and if you fail well sometimes that's even better.  It's an entirely self contained system that does what it does very well by never trying to do anything else. The natural result of this is that it fails utterly at anything else.  

It is a game that calls the GM the Animator.  In this case I think it's forgivable.  Really, a good appropriate name doesn't bother me much.  Honestly, I favor Referee over GM but that might be because too many of my sessions resemble hockey fights.  But in the case of Toon it's extremely apt.  Paranoia's High Programmer gets a by for the same reason.

How does this apply to sure signs of sucky game design?  Intent.  A game that does what it sets out to do doesn't suck.  It might not do what I want it to but it doesn't fail as a design.  Greg Coystakin did write a couple hex and counter games IRRC.  Many games fail by over reaching themselves or muddying their intent by trying to be all things to all people.  GURPS certainly dances on this line but its failings come from not being all things to all people when that is its expressed intent.  I liked first edition best, I suppose that makes me a grognard.

Quote from: Imperator;641824Yup.

I see, I just thought a professor presumably of psychology would have known how to spell psychoanalys(z)e.

Quote from: Imperator;641824So, if you are right, what it has to do with anything I said? If you are right, I make certain divisions and you make others. So what?

I begin to understand why you'd rather stick with declamations.

Quote from: The Traveller;641892I see, I just thought a professor presumably of psychology would have known how to spell psychoanalys(z)e.

Oooops, apologies if I made a spelling mistake, English is not my first language.

QuoteI begin to understand why you'd rather stick with declamations.

What?

Quote from: David Johansen;641888How does this apply to sure signs of sucky game design?  Intent.  A game that does what it sets out to do doesn't suck.

If only intent actually determined outcome. And even then, if only every intent was worthwhile. But if one assumes a worthwhile intent, and if one assumes a success in reaching it... well duh!, of course it's going to be worthwhile.

The important question if this: is Toon worthwhile and the apex of RPG design that you feel it is? I don't think so, I don't even think of it as much of an RPG for the game isn't played for the characters- it's played for the players.

In fact I'd almost call it the first Story Game (except that I'm sure there was something somewhere that predated it).

Quote from: gleichman;641867Yes, but I see that you didn't. You also didn't rephrase it as I asked.

You understood, yet need it rephrased so... you can understand...

Goddamnit Gleichman, are you trying to steal the title belt from the resident chief idiot?

QuoteDon't look for stupid answers, look for ones that make sense. Can you actually not think of any?

I'm not using doors for examples, beejazz is. I'm asking about concepts.

Again, look for a answer that makes sense. Can you actually not think of any?

Empty, meaningless statements. Yawn.

QuoteYeah, those dudes at Thermopylae were very retarded. Holding the narrow way and all. Good thing their foes didn't know about your combat theories or they wouldn't have lasted five minutes.

This is a prime example of why you don't go derping into the door and instead bring some spears or spells or some kind of range. Then, instead of the attackers nicely allowing themselves to be killed a few at a time they chill out here and fire off with impunity and they'll either come out or die.

Quote from: beejazz;641874The formulas are identical. The same rate is the same rate.

That's what 4th edition said.

QuoteNo, the wall makes V untargetable, unless people can move and target through walls. V is not hugging D; rooms are not closets.

Unless they can get line of sight through a wall, or though the cover D provides, yes.

I don't think you realize how small rooms are.

A typical melee character has 10-20 foot reach, ranged attacks have much longer range. Now one standing in a door like a dumbass would have less, but when you have a 20 foot room like so, with a defender positioned like so:

. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . D

There's still plenty of places both of them can be hit from no matter where V stands, especially by AoEs. And that's being the most generous to your silly little notions and putting doors at the corner of rooms when they tend to be somewhere in the middle of the wall. It's also assuming a medium sized room. Go down to 15 or 10 foot square? Forget it.

QuoteFirst of all there's a whole party. So if 3(A) focus on 1(D), no one is doing shit to (let's say) interrupt the spellcaster, who might wreck 3(A)'s shit, if he isn't distracted. Or no one is doing shit to (let's say) defend against the rogue, who might wreck (A) party's spellcaster, and so on.

Well, you're certainly not talking about D&D at this point. Here's what I'd like for you to understand. I'm barely mentioning it either and nothing I say is contingent upon it.

That being said, if there's a spellcaster and a Rogue that somehow managed to be actually dangerous hiding behind the derpadoorer, why the fuck are you not focus firing them instead?

"If there's only one guy with high defense you attack everyone that isn't them first, because either:

The other guys have better offenses in addition to lower defenses, so killing them makes you safer.
The other guys have the same offense, but worse defense, so killing them makes you safer.
This one guy is better at both offense and defense... but unless it's by a large margin you still take less damage if you clear the field first. If for some reason it IS by a large margin, that's some serious group balance problems at work."

Oh hey, would you look at that. It's as if I understand the most rudimentary of tactics and you don't after all.

But hurr durr different games are different... Of course a Star Trek game, which is set in a very futuristic universe would play differently than one effectively set in the past. Star Trek characters also wouldn't have to worry about whether or not long pikes are long, because their weapon of choice would be a phaser which doesn't seem to have any practical range limit.

But know what your game is? Set in the past. And so there might be a few differences, but if those differences end up retarded, such as warpikes with dagger range, or longbowmen who can't hit a target that isn't in front of their face then your game is bad and you should feel bad. And I'm going to point and laugh at you for it. When your system requires enemies to be as dumb as it is, by walking into the derpadoors instead of playing intelligently same deal.

True, I don't respect systems that aren't D&D because they lack the playerbase to be playable, making them completely irrelevant on the gaming landscape. But ultimately I'm indifferent to them for the same reason, and you guys are the ones making them look objectively terrible.

Go ahead, try and claim people are running around constantly meleeing but it isn't set in the past.

The thing is Brian, badly designed games rarely achieve their intent.  And Tunnels and Trolls is the first story game, beating Toon by about ten years.  Toon also features heavy levels of player verses player actions and almost never manages to follow any kind of a thread in play let alone a railroad track.  It's played for the laughs but that's pretty genre specific, somehow I can imagine you and your friends sitting around a table playing it dead-pan serious and using the maps and counters from Wabbit Wampage.

I don't play Toon much.  But it's a fantastic one-off that doesn't try to be anything else.  Its intents don't match mine for the most part but I like it as a design because things that perfectly thought out don't just happen spontaneously.  It's also pretty much teflon when it comes to pretentious notions.  That stuff just doesn't stick to a game about falling anvils and getting a pie in the face.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641938A typical melee character has 10-20 foot reach

You really don't know anything about anything. It has become apparent that this conversation was a waste of time.

Quote from: gleichman;641934The important question if this: is Toon worthwhile and the apex of RPG design that you feel it is? I don't think so, I don't even think of it as much of an RPG for the game isn't played for the characters- it's played for the players.

Umm..   Every damn rpg game I play is for the players (including the GM). The characters are just made up stats. They cannot "enjoy" anything nor can they have any actual fun, which is what games are played for.

Playing a game of lets pretend for an audience of no one doesn't make much sense.

It is the player who is challenged and entertained by the game not the make believe pieces that are used in playing it. Based on your own idiot-logic of an rpg needing to play out well without any rp, it would be like playing chess to challenge the strategy skills of a bishop or a king. Those pieces cannot be challenged or entertained by the contest any more than an rpg character can be.

Quote from: David Johansen;641940The thing is Brian, badly designed games rarely achieve their intent.

I think a poor selection of intent would produce a poorly designed game even if it met the goal. And for those who's goal is simply to sell the game, badly designed works every bit as well as not and requires far less effort.

Interesting that you'd consider Tunnel and Trolls to be a story game btw.

Quote from: David Johansen;641940It's played for the laughs but that's pretty genre specific, somehow I can imagine you and your friends sitting around a table playing it dead-pan serious and using the maps and counters from Wabbit Wampage.

I can't, except maybe on a night where too many players don't show, there are no good DVDs or movies out, and we end up playing something like Nuke War. But then, we'd end up playing Nuke War and not Toon.

It's just not my thing.


Edit: Wanted to add that Age of Heroes is an example of a poorly designed game that reached it's goals.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;641943Umm..   Every damn rpg game I play is for the players (including the GM). The characters are just made up stats. They cannot "enjoy" anything nor can they have any actual fun, which is what games are played for.

I see you didn't understand my statement. Do you even want to?

Quote from: beejazz;641941You really don't know anything about anything. It has become apparent that this conversation was a waste of time.

He knows D&D, or rather he knows the version played at his table. I leave it to other D&D fans to say if it matches any actual version of the rules although I will say that I agree that D&D is heavily offense biased by default.

That he would extend that limited field of knowledge to include things such as other completely different games he's never read and even real life events like Thermopylae makes him an interesting example of a type of obsession.

In this, he's very similar to a mirror version of the OSR crowd who claim that playing RAW means you're roll-playing and not role-playing. But he's one upped them by saying that if you're not playing his version of D&D, you're not doing anything right- be it playing an RPG or fighting a real life war.

All that said, I think he's rather harmless once you know where he's coming from.

Quote from: gleichman;641948I see you didn't understand my statement. Do you even want to?

So what does:

" I don't even think of it as much of an RPG for the game isn't played for the characters- it's played for the players."

mean exactly?