Quote from: MGuy;558588People already bonus hunt. That's how you get Cleric Archer builds and other shit from CharOp boards. With this I harshly limit the amount of bonuses they can accrue no matter how hard they hunt for them.

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean when you say they will refrain from trying anything risky.

You said there is no limit to penalties so anything risky may give a penalty and at a certain point it's just safer to stay with the "red shirts" and "10 foot pole" mode of play. Which isn't a bad playstyle but heroic it isn't. At least as commonly defined.

Quote from: Marleycat;558591You said there is no limit to penalties so anything risky may give a penalty and at a certain point it's just safer to stay with the "red shirts" and "10 foot pole" mode of play. Which isn't a bad playstyle but heroic it isn't. At least as commonly defined.

It is a little asymmetric - though I'd hope that the cases where a dozen penalties apply are going to be fairly rare? May just need to be careful that penalties given out by attack powers are typed, so that its harder to produce opponents that repeatedly give out penalties until the target is helpless.
 
In general there could be abilities that provide penalty mitigation as well as bonuses, so that a PC can have an ability that reduces some of the penalties (for a specific situation perhaps)?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;558598It is a little asymmetric - though I'd hope that the cases where a dozen penalties apply are going to be fairly rare? May just need to be careful that penalties given out by attack powers are typed, so that its harder to produce opponents that repeatedly give out penalties until the target is helpless.
 
In general there could be abilities that provide penalty mitigation as well as bonuses, so that a PC can have an ability that reduces some of the penalties (for a specific situation perhaps)?

As I said game design isn't my thing but that is something that jumps out at me. I do hope that what you listed would be in play though. It's not a critisim just a bit of feedback.

Quote from: Marleycat;558599As I said game design isn't my thing but that is something that jumps out at me. I do hope that what you listed would be in play though. It's not a critisim just a bit of feedback.

Not picking on you. Its not everyone's thing. Despite that I thought you raised an interesting point, just that its hard to say if its correct or not based on the game outline we have here so far.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;558598It is a little asymmetric - though I'd hope that the cases where a dozen penalties apply are going to be fairly rare? May just need to be careful that penalties given out by attack powers are typed, so that its harder to produce opponents that repeatedly give out penalties until the target is helpless.
 
In general there could be abilities that provide penalty mitigation as well as bonuses, so that a PC can have an ability that reduces some of the penalties (for a specific situation perhaps)?

Hit it on the nose. Yes, penalties given from the same source or the same thing also don't stack. So if you have two situation specific penalties (Fighting Underwater/ Squeezing in a corridor) only the largest of that set of penalties will be applied. Likewise penalties (and general effects) of abilities do not stack. For example if two people use "obscuring mist" the effects don't stack. They just provide one general effect.

However it IS possible for teams to levy different kinds of penalties such that they can stack them and there are various abilities that mitigate various kinds of penalties. This encourages people to combo different abilities onto a target or targets and encourages the collection of penalty mitigating abilities.

Quote from: MGuy;558579Details please.

Quote from: Marleycat;558581Now game design isn't my thing....But this can get way out of balance so much so that players will either bonus hunt like crazy or be too petrified to try anything with a risk.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;558598It is a little asymmetric - though I'd hope that the cases where a dozen penalties apply are going to be fairly rare? May just need to be careful that penalties given out by attack powers are typed, so that its harder to produce opponents that repeatedly give out penalties until the target is helpless.
 
In general there could be abilities that provide penalty mitigation as well as bonuses, so that a PC can have an ability that reduces some of the penalties (for a specific situation perhaps)?

It doesn't matter whether bonuses or penalties are unlimited, it will cause problems.  Five bonuses worth +1 each are canceled out by three penalties worth -2 each, but the penalties can keep rolling in.  And it gets even worse if we take the opposite of BSJ's penalty mitigation and instead apply a bonus mitigation.  Now you have five bonuses, but one or more of them might not even apply, while the penalties can keep accruing normally.  So you will have to switch out the mitigated bonus for something that isn't going to be mitigated.  Which may not even be something you can do during or immediately prior to combat.  The Cleric casts bless on the party (in addition to four other bonuses already in place), but the opponent has an unholy aura that negates it.  Now they are stuck with a bonus they can't switch out immediately, and their bonus 'slots' are still filled.  The Fighter would reasonably already have a Strength bonus (or some other bonus in combat) that is inherent to the class and can't be switched out under any circumstances.

Some general advice

Quote from: MGuy;558571Supplement. Bonuses of the same type won't stack. I'm  going to be very hard on the numbers so that designing the rest will be  easier. If I can keep the numbers under control I won't have to worry  about people finding ways to screw them.

Quote from: MGuy;558579I'm also building this section to codify exactly how much your GM can "mess" with your stuff.

It really isn't your job to make sure people play your game the "right" way.  That is a Forge-ism of the highest order.  Make a solid set of rules that stand on their own, and don't worry about how people will use them.  Unless you are going to make a boardgame.  Those can be much stricter with the rules.

Quote from: MGuy;558574Kind of. I'm thinking first of role/theme protection  when doing classes. I want classes to be a general enough that one class  can fit a bunch of archetypes but "protected" enough such that they  "feel" different then when you play other classes. I'm not sure how I  would be able to design a class based system for a generic fantasy game  by starting in any other fashion.

Don't do this, either.  4e did this explicitly, and it blew up in their faces.  Unless you want to write a heavily narrative story game, you shouldn't be thinking of 'role' protection.  Players will take on the roles they want to take on, all you have to do is provide archetypes.

And very broadly, read up on some game theory, but don't worry too awful much about Nash.  It's good to be familiar with his work, but he wasn't writing that with an eye towards rpgs, boardgames, or any other recreational activity.  A Wikipedia-eye survey of other fantasy games from the early days until now would also be helpful in order to avoid common pitfalls and draw from the 'best practices' they have to offer.

@Stormbringer, I told you I know between jack and shit about game theory and making a game but you explained my worry about the asystemetrics of the bonus/penalty thing better than myself. It just seems off in a way I can't explain.

@Mguy, he is giving you good advice with no snark and that sir was the point of my request.  By the way, I'm flattered you took it. This thread is without snark and that was my goal because you're a gamer like myself right.

An easy way to do what you're doing would be to limit things to three bonus/penalty types. I would suggest circumstance/terrain, powers/features, and conditions or equipment. All depending on the rest of your system of course.

I can definitely relate to wanting to minimize this kind of bonus/penalty mongering. But the top down rule isn't going to fix everything no matter how good it is. The devil's going to be in the details.

Quote from: StormBringer;558664It doesn't matter whether bonuses or penalties are unlimited, it will cause problems.  Five bonuses worth +1 each are canceled out by three penalties worth -2 each, but the penalties can keep rolling in.  And it gets even worse if we take the opposite of BSJ's penalty mitigation and instead apply a bonus mitigation.  Now you have five bonuses, but one or more of them might not even apply, while the penalties can keep accruing normally.  So you will have to switch out the mitigated bonus for something that isn't going to be mitigated.  Which may not even be something you can do during or immediately prior to combat.  The Cleric casts bless on the party (in addition to four other bonuses already in place), but the opponent has an unholy aura that negates it.  Now they are stuck with a bonus they can't switch out immediately, and their bonus 'slots' are still filled.  The Fighter would reasonably already have a Strength bonus (or some other bonus in combat) that is inherent to the class and can't be switched out under any circumstances.

You've got me scratching my head here. There are two things you can be suggesting that Unholy Aura does. It either A: Gives you a penalty equal to the bonus you get with Bless or B: Makes it so that you can't get a bonus from Bless at all.

If A applies you're worse off without the bonus.

If B applies then you just don't have the bonus at all and may get another bonus in its place.

QuoteIt really isn't your job to make sure people play your game the "right" way.  That is a Forge-ism of the highest order.  Make a solid set of rules that stand on their own, and don't worry about how people will use them.  Unless you are going to make a boardgame.  Those can be much stricter with the rules.

Rules always shape the way people play the game. I haven't presented a "right" way to play the game I'm presenting a set of rules for things that generally come up during play. Various rules encourage/discourage certain styles of game play whether intentional or not. I'm aiming to make it so that as many play styles may be covered by my rules as possible so that DMs don't have to do as much houseruling.

QuoteDon't do this, either.  4e did this explicitly, and it blew up in their faces.  Unless you want to write a heavily narrative story game, you shouldn't be thinking of 'role' protection.  Players will take on the roles they want to take on, all you have to do is provide archetypes.

Fighters in earlier editions of the game on up to 3rd edition are concentrated on fighting. Thus when people play a fighter they expect to be able to fight the best and expect that some other class doesn't show up with a sword and fight better than they do.That is why people don't like the Cleric Archer. My classes are more general than that in that while they encourage you to play a certain way you don't have to. Champions are the best at defending people but as I mentioned, they can hold their own in a straight up fight. Why? Because they get a mix of abilities that allow them to pump up their own defenses along with abilities that allow them to take damage for others. So if a player wants to be a solo Champion, going off to brave dungeons on his own, he can choose an ability set that just makes him more indestructible and make it on his own. You read role protection but not "theme" protection. I want the Champion to be a good choice for a defender because that fits the theme of the chivalrous knight and the bodyguard. So I made him able to actively force enemies to damage him. The Barbarian can likewise fill the gap except that he does so by yanking opposition to him or charging his way to them, making sure to be a general nuisance not likely to be ignored. He however can't force enemies to target him instead of another making him the not the optimal choice for the job. He's a solid choice but not the optimal one.

QuoteAnd very broadly, read up on some game theory, but don't worry too awful much about Nash.  It's good to be familiar with his work, but he wasn't writing that with an eye towards rpgs, boardgames, or any other recreational activity.  A Wikipedia-eye survey of other fantasy games from the early days until now would also be helpful in order to avoid common pitfalls and draw from the 'best practices' they have to offer.

I have read a bunch of game theory stuff. I've read and played a bunch of different systems. I've asked friends about what they liked/disliked about various game experiences. I have a good idea about what I want out of my game and the feel I'm going for.

Quote from: Marleycat;558674@Mguy, he is giving you good advice with no snark and that sir was the point of my request.  By the way, I'm flattered you took it. This thread is without snark and that was my goal because you're a gamer like myself right.

I'm glad that you are flattered. It was a simple request and, though my idea is still very much in the works I'm not afraid to throw my ideas out there upon request.

Quote from: beejazz;558675An easy way to do what you're doing would be to limit things to three bonus/penalty types. I would suggest circumstance/terrain, powers/features, and conditions or equipment. All depending on the rest of your system of course.

I can definitely relate to wanting to minimize this kind of bonus/penalty mongering. But the top down rule isn't going to fix everything no matter how good it is. The devil's going to be in the details.

I know that bonus accruing can get a little hectic which is why I limited them but it has been my experience that not many groups seek a lot of ways to slam penalties on someone. Most people go bonus hunting or go directly for damaging or combatant removal abilities. Even if they do (go penalty hunting), it'll eat of actions to do so without making things hopeless. If that's the case then I'm not losing anything in round length or strategic depth of the game.

Quote from: MGuy;558679I'm glad that you are flattered. It was a simple request and, though my idea is still very much in the works I'm not afraid to throw my ideas out there upon request.

Best thing in the world was to throw it out there. We all love games, math maybe less(lot less in my case). But good advice will be there, up to you whether you incorporate it or not.

As a personal note I find the very idea of a 'punching bag' class somewhat offensive.  I won't go so far as to suggest people won't play it (I know guys in WoW who love to play tanks, though I'm gonna guess that 'taking damage' isn't actually the appeal there... maybe it's playing an actually crucial role that is relatively uncommon, utilizing a number of social factors that are mitigated, if not entirely absent on a table top), but it is somewhat immersion breaking. How do you conceive of a guy who goes through life with the PLAN on getting hurt. 'Man, bobby just fell out of a tree. I wish I could have broke my arm for him!'?


As a mechanical element regarding bonuses and penalities: Your entire system is balky.  My suggestion would be to only take the biggest bonus available and/or the biggest penalty.  A few exceptional edge cases (plusses on weapons/armor in the D&D sense, for example... you could make it a singular exemption for 'permanent' bonus/penality providers) could exist.

The more complex the rules, the more likely people are to ignore or forget them, and then you'll also have people playing the bonus minigame as well.

Quote from: Spike;558700As a personal note I find the very idea of a 'punching bag' class somewhat offensive.  I won't go so far as to suggest people won't play it (I know guys in WoW who love to play tanks, though I'm gonna guess that 'taking damage' isn't actually the appeal there... maybe it's playing an actually crucial role that is relatively uncommon, utilizing a number of social factors that are mitigated, if not entirely absent on a table top), but it is somewhat immersion breaking. How do you conceive of a guy who goes through life with the PLAN on getting hurt. 'Man, bobby just fell out of a tree. I wish I could have broke my arm for him!'?


As a mechanical element regarding bonuses and penalities: Your entire system is balky.  My suggestion would be to only take the biggest bonus available and/or the biggest penalty.  A few exceptional edge cases (plusses on weapons/armor in the D&D sense, for example... you could make it a singular exemption for 'permanent' bonus/penality providers) could exist.

The more complex the rules, the more likely people are to ignore or forget them, and then you'll also have people playing the bonus minigame as well.

I can easily conceive of a guy who's plan is to save other people from getting hurt. When you play a Champion your plan isn't to make sure you break a leg for today. Your plan is to make sure no one on your team breaks any legs. Your legs are made of iron so you are less likely to even start to limp. Protecting other people is what bodyguards do. Its something that comes with the job. Why do you think movie depictions of secret service agents have them pile on the POTUS the instant a gunshot is fired or an explosion occurs? I'm actually not sure how you find it hard to believe that there's a person who specifically guards everyone else when that's the generic assumption when you think of front-line fighters protecting squishy wizards in DnD.

AS for bonuses/penalties: 5 bonuses are all you get and at least 2 of the 5 will be on your character sheet before you even "do" anything to find others. Then there are specific weapon/armor bonuses. If you have that it will be on your character sheet as well and be 3 out of 5. Situation bonuses already have you looking for the largest out of them because situation bonuses don't stack. So that leaves players with basically looking for maybe 2 more bonuses.

At worst the penalty stacking could get ridiculous at higher levels. That's a big maybe but still a legitimate danger. If I find penalties to be getting out of hand I'll shackle a limit onto them but, in theory, I don't expect it to be an issue.

Since I don't care and bored which avatar would you rather see? Garbage or No Doubt?  It's up to you guys.

Sorry, I should have made a thread or a poll. Hmm...a poll should I do it?