TheRPGSite

Now before Ben yells at me for #1, posting stuff from another site, and #2 posting Frank, who he hates with a passion, there is a point I will get to.  Anyway, here's his take.

Quote from: Frank TrollmanSo I've stated that 5e is Vaporware. I'm pretty sure of it. The more of the release teasers I see, the more convinced I am. Why should you be convinced that 5e D&D is a Vaporware Product? It goes to who is making it, what they've said about what they are making, what they've made recently and in the past, and so on.

First, let's look at the track record of Mike Mearls. Remember when he fixed Skill Challenges? Sorry, remember the first seven times that he announced that he was fixing skill challenges? Remember Iron Heroes? The man has a history, going back several years and literally dozens of instances, of announcing with great fanfare that he was going to make a new subsystem, then announcing the subsystem was ready for publication, then announcing that criticism of that subsystem was unfair because it "wasn't really finished" and he was "working on something new and exciting".

Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twenty eight times, what the fucking fuck?

Now 5th edition is supposed to be layer upon layer of Mike Mearls blessed subsystem. Each one done up to the specifications of a different section of the fanbase. Each one interacting in some odd way with all the others, but every one of them optional. So, for example: if you make a cogent condemnation of the way they track movement or durations or whatever, they can claim openly that this version is "not for you" and is nebulously for some other group and obviously you should be using some other movement or duration tracking subsystem instead.

They have announced a platform that is perfectly suited for denial in depth of non-functionality. In order to show that there is a problem to the satisfaction of their ability to not simply dismiss it for you supposedly not being the target audience, you'd have to do each separate variant together. And then they could dismiss your complaint for being TL;DR.

In short: they've made an edition that would take months or years to expose as vaporware and the project leader is a man who has made nothing but vaporware since Kerry was running for president. And his second in command is a man who hired out his name to promote that guy's actual Vaporware in 2005. Remember: it was originally called "Monte Cook Presents: Iron Heroes" when it was originally released and sold for real money despite the fact that none of the subsystems worked properly and even Mike Mearls admitted that the magic system was just a draft taken from a brainstorming session. The number three guy is Bruce Cordell, who apparently didn't read any of the rules or setting material for 4th edition before writing rules and setting material for 4th edition. In short: a man whose design work has been literally monkeys on typewriters style vaporware paycheck writing for at least four years.

So the entire core group of authors have a clearly demonstrated history of making vaporware, and the hype is completely consistent with and even suggests a vaporware product. But how do we know that this is actually vaporware? Well, there are clues.

Let's talk about they admit they haven't done: higher levels and hard numbers. That's... the entire design. It's a level based system, therefore if you haven't tested the leveling or the system, you haven't actually done anything. They are already putting up sign-ups for beta testers, but their actual product has been admitted to being in a pre-alpha state.

Now let's talk about the things they've promised. They have promised that a character who gets pure numbers will be balanced with a character who gets abilities instead. We already know that's impossible, because we've played BESM and Champions. So we know we're being promised things that we know can't be implemented. Either they know that they can't really deliver and are jerking our chain because it's Vaporware, or they haven't actually gotten far enough down the design rabbit hole to recognize that fact, because it is fucking Vaporware.

Now let's talk about the things they've actually shown people: Magical Teaparty. MTP, all the way down. The actions people took at the D&DXP were not on the character sheets, the DMs did not have DC charts. The DMs used their judgment to determine whether actions succeeded or failed. The actual game system, if there was one, was not used.


Now let's get into the "how did we get to this point?" part. In short: job security. WotC has held Christmas Layoffs every year (except last year, when the layoffs were in early Summer) for as long as they have been owned by Hasbro. The head of 4th edition D&D has been fired every year since 4th edition D&D was created. It's entirely possible that the people left at WotC believe that the only way they can keep their jobs is by releasing a faulty product that needs to be patched so that they will be retained. It's possible that they believe that their jobs are completely unrelated to their performance and that they will probably have to go look for work in the near future and are simply phoning it in.

Regardless of the motivations on the ground, it is clear that having an office filled entirely with new blood means that there is no process. There are no working relationships or project schedules, because heads roll too often for a corporate culture to actually show up. A half-assed, overly ambitious project is probably inevitable with a core set of demoralized hacks who are already looking for a new job leading a group of untested fanboys who don't know what they are doing.

But the promises being made for 5e are on the face of it absurd, the people in charge have a long and storied history of booting projects out the door in a totally nonfunctional state, they lack enough confidence in their mechanics to actually use them, and they've admitted that they haven't even tried to do so in-house. This is what Vaporware looks like.

Now the bolded part is what I am interested in, because I was thinking it myself.  I think a lot of people are saying the preview seems old school because the GMs were just winging it.  They were making rulings without really any rules behind them other then the core "roll to hit", "roll to damage".  Any of us could basically do the same thing with any system if we wanted to.

I have no problem with this. You provided a context and a thought of your own to spark the conversation. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

And Frank Trollman is totally full of shit, as usual, by the way. ;)

Outta curiosity, who the hell is this guy anyway?

Onto the actual meat - I think he is a bit delusional with 5e being vaporware illusion created just that WotC can save jobs. If such was true, they probably would've run another 4e line, as it'd be just cheaper then a brand new line and dealing with the fallout etc. etc.

Then again, in the sea of rubbish that this post is, he raises an interesting point somewhat - that indeed, so far the WotC has been catering very, very directly to the old school crowd. It's a rather interesting motion how much they want their "prodigal sons" to return home.

Perhaps this is a money problem. The "old schoolers" had grown up, they have about 30 - 50 years now. They have their own money, as they work, and they can spend it on the hobby. The age that 4e was marketted - the 15 - 25 range, are people who are mostly at school & college/university etc. etc. People who are too busy either educating themselves, or usually making it in small jobs, to have money to spend on frivolities such as RPG books.

he's mad because people improvised.  tee hee!

Does he actually know what Vaporware means?

So who is this guy anyway. Or it's just "people on the Internet saying stuff".

Quote from: CRKrueger;513293Now the bolded part is what I am interested in, because I was thinking it myself.  I think a lot of people are saying the preview seems old school because the GMs were just winging it.

I don't think "vaporware" means whatever the heck it is Trollman thinks it means, but I would tend to agree that:

(1) Anyone having an opinion about what 5E is or isn't at this point is just kidding themselves. There's nothing to have an opinion about.

(2) These specific comments about the new edition remind me very, very strongly of what we were hearing about skill challenges before 4th Edition came out: How flexible they were in play; how the DM could do almost anything with them; yada yada yada. And then the actual skill challenge system was a poorly balanced mess that mandated a railroad (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1665/roleplaying-games/skill-challenges-wtf).

Which, ultimately, leads me in a big loop back to #1: There's absolutely nothing to have an opinion about. Even if you were sitting at the tables playing the game at DDXP there's nothing to have an opinion about.

Although, I will say this: Mike Mearls, Monte Cook, and Bruce Cordell have designed some of my favorite adventures of the past 15 years. But with the exception of Cook's work on the original 3.0 core rulebooks, I haven't been a real fan of any of the mechanical design work they've done. So I think there's good cause to be skeptical.

Quote from: Rincewind1;513300So who is this guy anyway. Or it's just "people on the Internet saying stuff".

He's very active (runs?) the Gaming Den. He's basically the self-crowned king of the armchair theorists (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2434/roleplaying-games/on-the-importance-of-spherical-cows).

Quote from: Rincewind1;513300So who is this guy anyway. Or it's just "people on the Internet saying stuff".

He is a poster here. I'm sure this thread will summon him.

BTW I don't "hate" Frank. I think he is a moron full of himself with zero experience of actual play, an obsession with rules taken in a complete vacuum, and a hatred of Mike Mearls that makes me suspect he is just jealous he could not get his jobs and opportunities for reasons that completely elude him, but I don't "hate" the guy, no.

I can't fault his hatred for Mearls.  Because fuck that guy.

Fuck Cook too.  I haven't bought shit with either of those names since the first time they fooled me.

Cordell?  His last good work was in 2001.

Even if he's hit-and-miss (to say the least) on other subjects, Frank knows his games.

That said, it's way too early to label 5e vaporware, even if that word applies.

What *is* the word for a tabletop RPG that's announced and developed but never, ever, materializes? Because if 5e never happens, it would be the equivalent to vaporware, which usually applies to software (as in, PC games) that never comes to market. As it is, 5e has only been in development a matter of months, with no reason to believe it will be/could be 'cancelled', so I just can't see calling it vaporware just yet. There's nothing developed as yet.

FWIW, I still have a few t-shirts from E3 from various vaporware games (if they'd spent more money on development, and less on t-shirts...). Vaporware isn't nearly as common nowadays, since download sites means there isn't much of an obstacle to taking a game commercial.

I've never understood Trollman or his followers. Why talk so extensively about RPGs if you virulently hate each and every one that has ever been written? Actually, scratch that, now he's criticizing one that hasn't even been written yet.

He also seems to have difficulty with the term "Vaporware" as he doesn't even keep his (wrong) definition of it consistent throughout the article.

Quote from: Benoist;513304and a hatred of Mike Mearls that makes me suspect he is just jealous he could not get his jobs and opportunities for reasons that completely elude him

I've only personally known a few individuals offline who were very vocal about their virulent hatred, concerning a particular person, place, and/or "thing".

The commonality I've notice amongst these particular individuals, was that they truly believed (in their own minds) that the world revolved around themselves, and that everybody else was "conspiring" against them.  Anything or anybody that was a threat to their ego (whether real or perceived), was always a target of their virulent hatred.

Frequently these individuals would create their own enemy "targets", regardless of whether their "targets" are even aware of these individuals' existence.  Essentially it was a form of "unrequited hate".  What was hilarious was when the targets of their virulent hatred, responded with "Who's that?"

Frank Trollman posts something petulant and verbose, news at 11:00.

Quote from: ggroy;513318I've only personally known a few individuals offline who were very vocal about their virulent hatred, concerning a particular person, place, and/or "thing".

The commonality I've notice amongst these particular individuals, was that they truly believed (in their own minds) that the world revolved around themselves, and that everybody else was "conspiring" against them.  Anything or anybody that was a threat to their ego (whether real or perceived), was always a target of their virulent hatred.

Frequently these individuals would create their own enemy "targets", regardless of whether their "targets" are even aware of these individuals' existence.  Essentially it was a form of "unrequited hate".  What was hilarious was when the targets of their virulent hatred, responded with "Who's that?"

hmmm.... that kind of sounds like someone here...  ;)

Quote from: Rincewind1;513296Outta curiosity, who the hell is this guy anyway?

.

He was a freelancer on the last edition of Shadowrun who quit in high dudgeon over the haphazard way they did magic (or something... to be honest I don't really know the details nor care). I think he's a newly minted doctor doing time(metaphorical) in poland(or somewhere...) and he posts some truly vitrolic rants about idiots and morons of all strips in 'the industry'.  He gets bonus credits for actually having worked with some of the idiots he rants about.  

He can, and does, make good points quite often. He also says some truly dumb shit alongside it but he is never wrong.   On the other hand, he does put his money where his mouth is, posting his own versions of fixes for free on his forum.  I don't really like them myself, but full credit for doing it.

I think he might actually be fat and bearded, though I wouldn't testify to that in court.

-helpful spike, being helpful.

Quote from: mhensley;513346hmmm.... that kind of sounds like someone here...  ;)

I see what you did there.

More seriously, Frank has some good ideas (I've been using his suggestions to make BRP a roll-over system and it's been great), and some things I disagree with. I don't think (as Ben says) that the guy is a BNG.

Anyway, I haven't read any AP reports because, frankly, I don't give 2 shits about D&D Next or whatever the fuck they call it. I will care when it's released. The hype around the playtest is hysterical.

Quote from: Spike;513348he is never wrong.

No, that is how he sees himself, that is the image he projects, and that is the reality that the slavish tools on TGD accept.  Frank is wrong and has been proven wrong on multiple occasions, but his sycophants think he's some kind of game designer god and refuse to challenge him.  There are a couple of people over there that will call him on his bullshit--either in terms of gaming or in terms of his politics (which are basically cribbed from socialist.net)--but the rest sort of accept that when Frank says something, he's right because.

Frank is a Marxist both in the economic and cultural sense, which tells you all you need to know about how he perceives reality.  When he's not surrounded by his cronies at TGD, he fares much more poorly in debates, such as when he claimed that orcs were totally racist (on this site) and people unequivocally proved him wrong.  (Shit, his misuse of the term "vaporware" in the original post proves that he's wrong.)

That being said, I have no particular axe to grind with him, and I do enjoy reading TGD from time to time.  I just dislike this "Legend of FrankTrollman" crap and the absolute fawning over him that I see.

As a sidenote, I recently read through a thread where people were claiming that forcing women to have an ultrasound prior to an abortion was raping her.  Thus, you can see the kind of person that TGD attracts and why they gravitate toward Frank's personality--weak, amoral half-men need someone to lead them in their bitter frustrations at a society they are powerless to change.  TGD is Tangency with a few more "fucks" and a little less whining about privilege.

QuoteOn the other hand, he does put his money where his mouth is, posting his own versions of fixes for free on his forum.

The Tomes are shit.  I would rather play Pathfinder than the Tomes.

Quote from: CRKrueger;513293Now the bolded part is what I am interested in, because I was thinking it myself.  I think a lot of people are saying the preview seems old school because the GMs were just winging it.  They were making rulings without really any rules behind them other then the core "roll to hit", "roll to damage".  Any of us could basically do the same thing with any system if we wanted to.

What Frank complained about in the bold part seems great to me, but then I play "Old School" where the game depends on GM rulings and players decide what they want to do based on the game situation and the GM figures out how to do it using the rules. Also, from descriptions of the play at various tables, it looks like there was "game system" used: the basic D20 rolls/combat system and the attribute rolls are plenty of system to for a basic "old school" GM rulings not rules game. However, I realize this isn't nearly enough system for those players who want the rules to clearly define most of options they have to select from in the game.

Kudos to Frank for having the balls for being the first one to call Bullshit on the editionless edition via options talk.

I still am too hopeful that they somehow, magically, can make it work. But my intellect tells me, unless 4e's legacy is utterly negated and neglected, the 5e mission is impossible.

Quote from: Rincewind1;513296Perhaps this is a money problem. The "old schoolers" had grown up, they have about 30 - 50 years now. They have their own money, as they work, and they can spend it on the hobby. The age that 4e was marketted - the 15 - 25 range, are people who are mostly at school & college/university etc. etc. People who are too busy either educating themselves, or usually making it in small jobs, to have money to spend on frivolities such as RPG books.

Yarp.

Back before the economic downturn, jobs were plentiful and young people who didn't really need them had money to spend on whatever they wanted.

Right now, going after the youth market is a tough proposition because a lot of the jobs that kids used to have are being filled by adults desperate enough to need them to make ends meet.

What rpg money there is to be made right now is going to come from the older players making decent salaries, and this crowd won't be buying the same kinds of products as the younger crowd.

Then again, the AFN (Adult Fat Neckbeard... ;) ) business model did not work that great for Games Workshop. Then again, GW probably still earns more on the models then WotC on DnD.

Quote from: Settembrini;513355I still am too hopeful that they somehow, magically, can make it work. But my intellect tells me, unless 4e's legacy is utterly negated and neglected, the 5e mission is impossible.

I am wondering about this myself in regards with 4e. There are stuff from 4e in the current playtest (there are stuff from all editions) but not what makes 4e feel like well 4e.

It could be they are betting on the fact combat in 5e takes way less time than 4e, similar to any older edition D&D, combined with the class options nobody haven't seen yet.

Frank Trollman once claimed that all orcs are racist parodies of blacks based upon a single miniature. His claim was disproven.

That really is the man in a nutshell.

Quote from: Settembrini;513355Kudos to Frank for having the balls for being the first one to call Bullshit on the editionless edition via options talk.

I read the thread over on Frank's Forum. I see how he develops his conclusions from Wizard's public statements. But in the end he is making shit up due to his ignorance of what the rules are actually like. For example his comment on a 15 Dex giving +15 to a roll is not the how that rule works in the playtest. And it is obvious his bias is influencing his conclusion in that he paints everything vague statement in the worst light.

I am thinking the RPG Pundit is right that Wizard should be as public as they can be and jettison the NDAs.

NDA are crucial to the oldest tactic in the PR book - the self - spinning circle of customer interest and customer conflict & controversy. It's SUPER EFFECTIVE when it comes to such things as movies, computer games, books...or well, RPGs ;).

In other words - the less information you give out, while giving some at least, the more pseudohype can built in discussion of those slivers, giving you free publicity without giving any sort of substance that you may regret later, as you'd have to force yourself to write something that you actually promised to the people, for example.

Frank is a lot like Bill Maher or Ann Coulter in that he has a mix of well thought out analysis and strong arguments mixed with batshit crazy hysterics. I find him entertaining in the same way I do both of them.

Frank is definately a heavy number cruncher and looks for spherical cow rules the way a prospecter with gold fever looks for gold.

That said, he's often right and correctly points out how weak a lot of game designs are.

In this case, clearly he is mis-using the term "vaporware" from its traditional use. He doesn't mean 5e won't be released, he's just pointing out that it probably won't actually play the way WotC is talking about.

And I would bet he's right. To the OP's point - what WotC is showing us so far is nothing more than an illusion and Frank is right to criticize it.

The more I read about the 5e "playtests", the more I realized that they weren't really playtesting anything at all, just playing magical tea party.
DMs playing off the cuff is fine. Simplified rules is fine. No arguments from me there. But at this point, there doesn't appear to be any actual rules there yet - it was all smoke and mirrors.

The end product could look like anything at this point. I think way too many people (especially anti-4e people) are being way too quick to project their own desires onto the blank canvas that WotC has given us about what the new edition will actually be like. Skepticism in this case is the smart move.

Will actual, good rules emerge for 5e? Too early to say. But I really, really wouldn't put much stock in the bombastic promises by the designers or the smoke and mirrors show of the "playtests" they had so far.

Hope is for pussies. Real men grind hope into the ground, then rape it's dead carcass.

Then again, I'm supposedly a nihilist, so I ought to applaud.

Quote from: jgants;513375The more I read about the 5e "playtests", the more I realized that they weren't really playtesting anything at all, just playing magical tea party.

DMs playing off the cuff is fine. Simplified rules is fine. No arguments from me there. But at this point, there doesn't appear to be any actual rules there yet - it was all smoke and mirrors.

What been released to the friends & family playtest has the same scope as the Holmes rulebook, or either one of the Basic sets (Moldvay or Mentzer).

Quote from: B.T.;513351No, that is how he sees himself, that is the image he projects, and that is the reality that the slavish tools on TGD accept.  Frank is wrong and has been proven wrong on multiple occasions, but his sycophants think he's some kind of game designer god and refuse to challenge him.

Usually, when you say 'he is never wrong' about someone when describing them it is a given you mean it faceticiously   Sorry I was not explicit enough on that.

QuoteFrank is a Marxist both in the economic and cultural sense, which tells you all you need to know about how he perceives reality.

That is a factual statement, but given the political tenor of this site, much as his own, I felt there was no profit in getting into the semantics of what flavor of Fellow-Traveller he really is or is not.

QuoteI just dislike this "Legend of FrankTrollman" crap and the absolute fawning over him that I see.

I felt no need to rehash my long standing mockery of his idea that deckers in Shadowrun should find it easier to hack brains that lack an I/O port than those that do.  Likewise, I felt no need to drag in the brief but vitrolic debate over time vs finance in D&D I had with one of his major partners in TGD. If you thought my post was fawning I'm not sure what to tell you.

QuoteThe Tomes are shit.  I would rather play Pathfinder than the Tomes.

Agreed. But relevant to my post how?

So this is the first time I've ever heard of this guy except for his occasional posts here, so I went to his site and dug around and man...what a bunch of crap.  Spherical cows?  WTF?  A broken rule you say "I can fix" is too broken to fix?  Does this guy even comprehend how to have fun with an RPG?  I'm so glad he's into the hobby now, him trying to play OD&D or Warriors of Mars or Traveller would've been hilarious to watch, assuming you weren't covered with dura matter and bone when his head exploded in apoplexy.  I mean, sorry if/when you read this Frank but you're hanging on too tight man.

Quote from: Benoist;513304an obsession with rules taken in a complete vacuum

This is his biggest (and The Gaming Den's) failing: the idea that rules are separated by context, and characters do not grow one step at the time with the players making choices according to both the long term strategy and the current situation (the Wizard that knows he will face an adventure full of enemies vulnerable to cold with take Cone of Cold fast, and not "the next step for the perfect build). I.e. that characters are not decks of M:tG cards to be built by having all the cards available to choose from, for games taking places in the void.

To be clear, it is the epitome of the old "The Gnome Giant Slayer prestige class is broken!!!!!!111" and then you find yourself on an island of gnomes suffering from frequent raids by giants - not to mention how, for a gnome character to want to specialize in that, is a given that in his world giants are a major problem.

My feeling about TGD is that it gathered some players who suffered from a serious nervous breakdown while playing D&D during the Math terms - and never recovered. Now they spend their days by publishing research on GdR, done on immense blackboards full of hyper-complex formulas, and not a sign of "but do Dark Elves actually exist in this campaign, uh?" in sight.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;513416Spherical cows?

Can you give me a link to this? I really want to know what this term means, because it's evoking nothing.

That's a bad sign. Good terminology should hint at its own meaning. It should illuminate, not obfuscate.

(And on that note, and near non sequitur, fuck the Forge.)

I believe the point about broken rules is actually sensible:

I bought your product hoping to have a usable rule set. If it includes broken rules that I have to fix, regardless of wether or not I can, you have failed.

But i could be wrong.

I do know, for example, that there is a lot of fairly sensible discussion about the un-fixable mess of Skill Challenges in 4e.  its not that the idea is unfixable, its that the stated approaches are unfixable (two mutually incompatable goals are being applied).

But yes, a lot of shit they go on about is in fact nonsense.  Hand waving away arbitrary amounts of time and labor does not prove a game or economic system is broken, for example.*




*In specific the example involved moving hundreds of tons of iron cannon balls from a trap to make hundreds of thousands in gold. Without getting into market saturation, I pointed out that logicistically an army of serfs (and donkey carts) would take ten years and 70% of the gold to actually pull this off and did not at all discuss the role of various nobles and bandits in disrupting this effort.  Scrolls of high level spells, like Gate, or 'chain binding' demons simply involved other hand-waves.

Was repeatedly told that I would be 'anti-fun' to not hand wave a decade to put free gold in players pockets, thus D&D's economy was broken.


Also: If you have the power to kill the king, you will automatically be the new king. John Wilkes Boothe most upset at news.

Spherical cow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow)

Also Jason Alexander has a good essay (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2434/roleplaying-games/on-the-importance-of-spherical-cows) on how the concept applies to RPG rules discussion.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;513418Can you give me a link to this? I really want to know what this term means, because it's evoking nothing.

That's a bad sign. Good terminology should hint at its own meaning. It should illuminate, not obfuscate.

(And on that note, and near non sequitur, fuck the Forge.)

Good luck with that. Most of the terms come out of various rants by Frank over various games or subsystems of games. There is no good collection of terms, and despite being a semi-regular reader of the site I frequently have no idea what they are actually referencing.

Spherical Cows, for example. No idea.  

Unlike the Forge, however, its less a deliberate creation of Jargon and more an insider group using inside references to exclude outsiders organically.

I view the gaming den of a place where they think in absolutes. It is always about zero or infinity. This is their sport. And this is also why I find it intellectually disgusting. It still is USEFUL. And often, they do indeed find zero or infinity in something someone else designed. Add they are then correct in pointing out that any system with infinity in it is utterly broken beyond repair.
Think about a communicating tubes, one whole somewhere, or one input that never stops, and everything is fucked.

But in their search for the infinites and zeroes, they often have to make assumptions that are inane, themselves falling into the very intellectual pitfalls that produced the designer's errors to begin with. So their method also needs common sense to distinguish between faulty assumptions and sound ones. Logic (and indeed they are way more using logic than what is sometimes called "math") always does.

Another way to put it is to say: TGD is using inductive reasoning.
And the whole point in inductive reasoning is to come upt with unexpected results that run counter to intuition and daily experience. Which explains the bad press he gets.

That also explains the use of "Vaporware". A product that does not do what it advertises is a non-product. Just imagine a Socratic dialogue, where Socrates keeps asking you of what price product and service are all about, and soon you might be forced to say yes to:

 "Oh and then, Posteropheles, is it not you who said something which does not what it was made for might as well not exist? And did you not agree that selling a hammer knowingly made never to function is the same as theft?"

And to be honest, after ~5 years of WotC bullshit, I can sympathize with radicalization. It is not like Frank and the Den are the only subgroup that radicalized itself...

Oh, I think Frank is right that 5E right now is (to use Justin's analogy) in the same state as skill challenges were prior to release. A half-baked, nearly non-existent entity with wild expectations attached to it. Because of that 'nearly', the term 'vaporware' does not apply.

And as I said on Frank's own board, even the playtesters confirm his thesis.

Quote from: Windjammer

Quote from: OgreBattleThis report from the playtest is more thorough as the guy pretty much delivers everything that's not in the NDA:

He cross-posted his playtest report at Enworld (http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/318038-considering-d-d-next-playtest-light-wizards-coast-seminars.html) to which the following reply was promptly made:

QuoteI feel like I missed DDXP. I was there, I did the play test. Your experience in all aspects but one, is nothing like mine. Either I got a seriously bum DM, or the rules are in a very loose and open to interpretation state. The only part I had the same experience is, yeah, level 1 is not about victory, it's all about survival. In 6 combats, we fled 4 times, 3 of them all the way back to town.

Frank should collect these price quotes for his '5E = vaporware' thesis.

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=250779#250779

The short discussion of spherical cows for gaming is "you make one ridiculous assumption that you refuse to ever let go of...and come to ridiculous conclusions that you insist are actually relevant."

In this case, you assume all cows are spherical, and conclude that cows could never exist in the real world since they'd never be able to manage slopes. (I know, JA's post on this goes slightly different, but this is the short form). And you can't be corrected, ever, because you cannot abandon your assumption.

It's a very popular method of thought at TGD, especially in their politics threads.

And yeah, Spike, when you said "he is never wrong", it was tough to take that at your sarcastic intent. I'm glad I waited until someone else asked about that. ;)

The Diplomacy check rant though is an example of broken thinking, not a broken rule.  Frank goes, "Why, Frodo could just ask Sauron to be his best buddy and he'd have to, because Diplomacy check!"

Wait wait wait so a hypothetical scenario arises where Frodo is facing down Sauron.  Face to Face.  And Frodo hasn't just collapsed in sheer terror.  And Frodo is going to try and convince Sauron to be his best buddy, forever, because that's what the rules say he can do.

let's ignore for a second the lunacy behind Sauron even pausing to listen to Frodo.  Let's ignore for a second that Sauron would simply reach inside Frodo's mind and snap it like a twig (or just draw his sword and slay him outright).  Let's even ignore the possibility that any of this might come to pass and focus on the circumstances.

Any DM worth his salt should have the player explaining specifically what he's telling Middle Earth's anti-Christ to try and convince him to sit down for some pipe-weed.  Allowing the player to simply roll the dice and say "Yo, major dippy roll.  I win."...?

That doesn't mean the rule is broken, it means the DM is broken.

EDIT:

we used to make fun of the stuff in the old SJG "Murphy's Rules" book (the actual column was a little early for us)...but it sounds like Frank may actually try to take some of the rules to heart in his games.

"So! You wish to play Avalon Hill's Speed Circuit with me?  Be warned - I will simply drive in reverse and bump you all off the track to no adverse effect to me!  Cars that are involved in a rear-end collision have a 50% chance of spinning out and wrecking, but the car that was struck in the rear is unaffected!  What do you mean 'that's ridiculous'?  It's right here in the rules!"

Quote from: jgants;513375The end product could look like anything at this point. I think way too many people (especially anti-4e people) are being way too quick to project their own desires onto the blank canvas that WotC has given us about what the new edition will actually be like. Skepticism in this case is the smart move.

There's a section in Paul Arden's "It's not How Good You Are" marketing bible which basically recommends this.

If a client comes to you, and your project is not ready, you show him a white panel.

Then you take it from there. The trick is to involve the client in a conversation, leading questions and so on, and you start drawing stuff on the panel as the conversation progresses.

The end result has nothing to do with your work on the project - because you have not done any - but only with gathering the client's wishes for his project. You're just bullshitting him and sweet talking him, and he'll kiss your ass on the way out and hand you the paycheck.

In other words, you make the client do the work he pays you for.

Now if that's what Mearls & co. are doing, then 5E is even more intellectually bankrupt than 4E was, where they met a deadline with half-baked core books by copy-pasting stuff from Wiley "D&D for Dummies" books.

And I wouldn't put it past him. Frank's subsidiary thesis that 5E exists to save Mike Mearls' ass from the axe looks remotely plausible, when it shouldn't look plausible in the slightest. And that's about the greatest insult I can think of, not of Mearls, but to the fanbase.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;513435The Diplomacy check rant though is an example of broken thinking, not a broken rule.  Frank goes, "Why, Frodo could just ask Sauron to be his best buddy and he'd have to, because Diplomacy check!"

Wait wait wait so a hypothetical scenario arises where Frodo is facing down Sauron.  Face to Face.  And Frodo hasn't just collapsed in sheer terror.  And Frodo is going to try and convince Sauron to be his best buddy, forever, because that's what the rules say he can do.

let's ignore for a second the lunacy behind Sauron even pausing to listen to Frodo.  Let's ignore for a second that Sauron would simply reach inside Frodo's mind and snap it like a twig (or just draw his sword and slay him outright).  Let's even ignore the possibility that any of this might come to pass and focus on the circumstances.

Any DM worth his salt should have the player explaining specifically what he's telling Middle Earth's anti-Christ to try and convince him to sit down for some pipe-weed.  Allowing the player to simply roll the dice and say "Yo, major dippy roll.  I win."...?

That doesn't mean the rule is broken, it means the DM is broken.

EDIT:

we used to make fun of the stuff in the old SJG "Murphy's Rules" book (the actual column was a little early for us)...but it sounds like Frank may actually try to take some of the rules to heart in his games.

"So! You wish to play Avalon Hill's Speed Circuit with me?  Be warned - I will simply drive in reverse and bump you all off the track to no adverse effect to me!  Cars that are involved in a rear-end collision have a 50% chance of spinning out and wrecking, but the car that was struck in the rear is unaffected!  What do you mean 'that's ridiculous'?  It's right here in the rules!"

TL;DR If you are retarded, don't GM.

For Frank's own peace of mind, he should play ASL.

re: intellectual bankruptcy

Indeed 4e was at least an attempt to come up with something new. Now, I always said it was ethically corrput int he values supported. But nevertheless they TRIED to do SOMETHING.

I agree that a half-assed attempt to pander to everyone with nothing to show looks crooked/desperate/not even trying.

Also: The recipe for 3.xs success cannot be the recipe for a new edition. Just as dwindling record sales cannot be fought with hiring Beatles-impersonators or even the remaining Beatles themselves.

EDIT: There is still hope in me they get it magically done. But then I am an "still half of my Hitpoints left" kind of guy.

The problem with all this horseshit is equating the game with the rules in the first place. In a nutshell, in an rpg if the game is nothing more than the sum of the rules I don't want to fucking play it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;513445The problem with all this horseshit is equating the game with the rules in the first place. In a nutshell, in an rpg if the game is nothing more than the sum of the rules I don't want to fucking play it.

But but but the book says so!!!!!!1

Quote from: Exploderwizard;513445The problem with all this horseshit is equating the game with the rules in the first place. In a nutshell, in an rpg if the game is nothing more than the sum of the rules I don't want to fucking play it.

The game is not the rules. The rules are not the game.

Absolutely agreed.

But this is horseshit, too! A PRODUCT must be evaluated on its own merits. And the rules, they are a part of them.

Why oh why is the world filled with manicheans and dogmatists all over?

From Frank's dogma to Benoist's...two faces of the same medal.

What do you guys expect? He's a frank troll, man.

Sorry, had to do it.

Quote from: Windjammer;513436Now if that's what Mearls & co. are doing, then 5E is even more intellectually bankrupt than 4E was, where they met a deadline with half-baked core books by copy-pasting stuff from Wiley "D&D for Dummies" books.

And I wouldn't put it past him. Frank's subsidiary thesis that 5E exists to save Mike Mearls' ass from the axe looks remotely plausible, when it shouldn't look plausible in the slightest. And that's about the greatest insult I can think of, not of Mearls, but to the fanbase.

It doesn't sound like this is what they are doing. From what I have heard they have a core system and concept in mind (and frankly I find the whole idea so far somewhat original). The playtests are so they dont make the same mistake they made with 4E: not listening to their customers and not giving their customers what they want. Nothing wrong with building a product your customers want.

I do think Mearls is hanging on this. If 5E bombs, he will probably be let go.

Quote from: Settembrini;513449But this is horseshit, too! A PRODUCT must be evaluated on its own merits. And the rules, they are a part of them.

Why oh why is the world filled with manicheans and dogmatists all over?

From Frank's dogma to Benoist's...two faces of the same medal.

Nope. That's because you misunderstand what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that rules don't matter at all, or that they can't be evaluated in any way, shape or form. I'm basically saying that completely divorcing a rules system from its actual possible applications in actual play, in a social hobby like ours, where so much depends on the imagination, psychology and behaviors of the people assembled around the game table is total bullshit.

That's what I'm saying.

Quote from: Benoist;513447The game is not the rules. The rules are not the game.

However, the caveat to that phrase, Ben, has always been that some rules match their intended goal, and others do not.

It is true that I can take a game like Harnmaster and run it like Barbarians of Lemuria if I want, but at that point, I'm agreeing to jettison most of the rules, which is totally fine.  However, as a customer, if I buy Harnmaster and find out that the rules they include have obvious mathematical errors, have loopholes you could fly a Great Wyrm through and generally do not match the stated intent of the game, then I would be a bit miffed if I end up running it like Barbarians of Lemuria simply because the rules they gave me don't work like they say they do on the tin. (Harnmaster used just as an example of Heavy Crunch, I actually like the system).

"The Rules are not the Game, the Game is not the Rules" is not a binary switch with the opposite being "RAW is GOD".  There is a very large excluded middle, and in there is where analysis like Frank's has a whole lot of use.

The concept of the Spherical Cow (which is a common joke in physics, btw) has been overused lately on these boards I think.  While I think JA does some great work, I also think he can be a bit too quick to deflect rules criticisms against his chosen system (3.5) by tossing out a "Spherical Cow Dismissal(TM)".  Add to that the old school oversimplification of "no rule is ever broken because you can always change it" and "Spherical Cow" is becoming a discussion shutdown technique when someone doesn't want to talk about rules holes.

No one is ever right all the time, with the corollary that no one is ever wrong all the time either, Frank being no exception.

Quote from: CRKrueger;513455However, the caveat to that phrase, Ben, has always been that some rules match their intended goal, and others do not.

See my post above yours.

The phrase actually means there is more to the game than its rules, and than the rules do not encompass the entirety of the game experience. Rules have a purpose to participate to the game experience, and serve as a tool to enhance it in a number of different ways, following different design patterns or logic, but they are not a substitute to this game experience themselves. They should not be conceptualized, thought of, or criticized on such a basis. It is completely missing the boat on their actual purpose at a game table.

I don't think anyone can deny that there are, sometimes, indeed, broken rules. I think however that the most important factor in games rules should be:

1) The clarity of their writing
2) The ease of  their use.

Bear in mind that unbalanced rules do not equal broken rules though.

Quote from: Settembrini;513449But this is horseshit, too! A PRODUCT must be evaluated on its own merits. And the rules, they are a part of them.

Quite correct. The problem lies in the perception of what constitutes BROKEN.

There is a rule that says I may actually have to think. Unfun/broken

There is no rule in here that guarantees I will get the same degree of spotlight as the other characters at all times in amounts equal down to the footcandle unfun/broken.

Dave's barbarian gets to do 1 more point of damage than I can on average per round!! unfun/broken.

Yes, the perception of waht is broken. And there, the problem of inductive reasoning comes in.

Again, the Diplomacy rule and Frank's take on it, are very good examples of what I said earlier about infinity.

What the Frodo&Sauron argument highlights: a FIXED DC-scale will ALWAYS break down at some point. That is the nature of it: the skill value in 3.x is open ended. No upper maximum value. The highest DC for dimplomacy though, is set in stone.

That is all that is needed to know to see the problem.

And as infinite skill values meet fixed DCs, Frank is right to conlcude bathsit insanity from it. Because it will happen.

What does this MEAN though? The MEANING of that is in the peculiars, and there TGD lacks.

Quote from: Benoist;513304BTW I don't "hate" Frank. I think he is a moron full of himself with zero experience of actual play, an obsession with rules taken in a complete vacuum, and a hatred of Mike Mearls that makes me suspect he is just jealous he could not get his jobs and opportunities for reasons that completely elude him, but I don't "hate" the guy, no.

Figure of Speech, I know you don't hate Frank, you can't, he's not English.  :D

Any rules system, any theory, any criticism that loses sight of the fact that rules are meant to be used by actual real people with different modus operandi, personalities, psychologies and philosophies of what it means to have fun playing a game has lost sight of the central question that lies behind all game design.

The point of a game is to be played. The natural questions that should follow are "Played by whom?" from which derives the "How?" which then informs the way rules, if and when necessary, play into this picture.

Any theory that starts with the concept that a rule is "broken" as some sort of objective fact has lost track that we are speaking about games that are not only played, but literally owned by the people who play them. This is a social activity first, with all that entails of social dynamics, leadership, collaboration, improvisation, interpretation and many more.

Reasoning about rules in a vacuum is not only a waste of time, it's anathema to the very reason these rules exist in the first place. It is fundamentally dumb, moronic, stupid bullshit born out of crippled minds that literally cannot think outside the box. It's bad game discussion and bad game design at its worse.

Quote from: Rincewind1;513458Bear in mind that unbalanced rules do not equal broken rules though.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;513460Dave's barbarian gets to do 1 more point of damage than I can on average per round!! unfun/broken.

(http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/572/hnefetafl.jpg)

"Here you can see young Viking lads playing a tactical game called hnefetafl.  (Chess probably didn't arrive in the British Isles until later--as far as I know the Lewis chessmen are the first evidence for chess we have.)

The game's quite instructive about Viking modes of thought.  It's played between two unequal sides (black has twice as many pieces as white), because who fights when it's fair?  Also, a piece isn't taken unless it's surrounded front and back, which leads to the formation of shield walls."

http://www.gamecabinet.com/history/Hnef.html

(Thanks to Paper & Paychecks for posting this in the first place; picture and commentary are his)

Quote from: Rincewind1;513360Then again, the AFN (Adult Fat Neckbeard... ;) ) business model did not work that great for Games Workshop. Then again, GW probably still earns more on the models then WotC on DnD.

Games Workshop makes more on any two Skaven models than WotC makes on D&D.  ;)

Quote from: Benoist;513304I think he is a moron full of himself with zero experience of actual play, an obsession with rules taken in a complete vacuum, and a hatred of Mike Mearls that makes me suspect he is just jealous he could not get his jobs and opportunities for reasons that completely elude him, but I don't "hate" the guy, no.

That's pretty much the motivation for every single thing he writes about games. I mean, he's kicking around ideas for his self-described "Shadowrun heartbreaker" basically out of spite.

Quote from: Benoist;513470*snapped photo for smaller post*
"Here you can see young Viking lads playing a tactical game called hnefetafl.  (Chess probably didn't arrive in the British Isles until later--as far as I know the Lewis chessmen are the first evidence for chess we have.)

The game's quite instructive about Viking modes of thought.  It's played between two unequal sides (black has twice as many pieces as white), because who fights when it's fair?  Also, a piece isn't taken unless it's surrounded front and back, which leads to the formation of shield walls."

http://www.gamecabinet.com/history/Hnef.html

(Thanks to Paper & Paychecks for posting this in the first place; picture and commentary are his)

I played hnefetafl - the rules aren't broken. The white side works a bit different as they have advantage of early placement. Most of you actually came across a variant of the rules for the game - Prachett's "Thud!" and the fan - made rules for Thud! are based on hnefetafl. Competitive board games shouldn't be an example for RPGs, because they DO need to be balanced. You can have fun playing an unbalanced board game, because it's with friends, but that really applies to any activity with friends. It's about the mental gymnastics - and for that, there should be no crutches in the mechanics. Of course - sometimes the various advantages/disadvantages of factions/races/sides in a board game will require rule mastery to learn etc. etc.

RPGs on the other hand, are a cooperative game (at least 99.9% of them), so the lack of balance does not hurt them that much, as long as the players are a team that works together.

Quote from: StormBringer;513471Games Workshop makes more on any two Skaven models than WotC makes on D&D.  ;)

Touche. I can't forgive the fuckers for selling out on the RP though.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;513435The Diplomacy check rant though is an example of broken thinking, not a broken rule.  Frank goes, "Why, Frodo could just ask Sauron to be his best buddy and he'd have to, because Diplomacy check!"

Wait wait wait so a hypothetical scenario arises where Frodo is facing down Sauron.  Face to Face.  And Frodo hasn't just collapsed in sheer terror.  And Frodo is going to try and convince Sauron to be his best buddy, forever, because that's what the rules say he can do.

let's ignore for a second the lunacy behind Sauron even pausing to listen to Frodo.  Let's ignore for a second that Sauron would simply reach inside Frodo's mind and snap it like a twig (or just draw his sword and slay him outright).  Let's even ignore the possibility that any of this might come to pass and focus on the circumstances.

Any DM worth his salt should have the player explaining specifically what he's telling Middle Earth's anti-Christ to try and convince him to sit down for some pipe-weed.  Allowing the player to simply roll the dice and say "Yo, major dippy roll.  I win."...?

That doesn't mean the rule is broken, it means the DM is broken.

EDIT:

we used to make fun of the stuff in the old SJG "Murphy's Rules" book (the actual column was a little early for us)...but it sounds like Frank may actually try to take some of the rules to heart in his games.

"So! You wish to play Avalon Hill's Speed Circuit with me?  Be warned - I will simply drive in reverse and bump you all off the track to no adverse effect to me!  Cars that are involved in a rear-end collision have a 50% chance of spinning out and wrecking, but the car that was struck in the rear is unaffected!  What do you mean 'that's ridiculous'?  It's right here in the rules!"

That last part is pretty much the point, dare I say, of almost all the arguments at TGD.  Of course, no sentient or conscious DM is going to let Frodo get anywhere near Sauron, let alone talk to him.  But the Diplomacy rules are set up so that if he did, it would be a near certainty that Sauron would do whatever Frodo asked.

The undercurrent to pretty much any discussion there is that a fixable rule still means it was 'broken' in the first place.  For certain values of 'broken'.  It's practically an axiom, and if you don't view the discussions over there with that in mind, it ends up being something of a confusing experience.

And for the love of all that is fucking holy, Frank, put up a goddamn FAQ so everyone knows what the hell your dozens and dozens of TLAs mean!

Quote from: Rincewind1;513475Touche. I can't forgive the fuckers for selling out on the RP though.

They went public. They had to squeeze every dime out of every product.

I'm sure they spend a fair amount of effort researching the design on their paint pots to let in enough air to dry the fuckers out after a few months.

Quote from: Rincewind1;513475I played hnefetafl - the rules aren't broken.

My point is that unbalanced isn't necessarily "bad", and that it doesn't mean "broken" either. That the point of a game is what is fun and what isn't, and that therefore, it's about who is having fun with the game, how and why, and how from there the rules play into this picture.

I'm actually agreeing with the line I quoted from you and providing a practical example with this game.

Quote from: StormBringer;513476That last part is pretty much the point, dare I say, of almost all the arguments at TGD.  Of course, no sentient or conscious DM is going to let Frodo get anywhere near Sauron, let alone talk to him.  But the Diplomacy rules are set up so that if he did, it would be a near certainty that Sauron would do whatever Frodo asked.

I really feel tempted to roll a two shot of 3e with "RAW, all rules you can find apply", to see how much of a trainwreck it'd turn out to be.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;513477They went public. They had to squeeze every dime out of every product.

I'm sure they spend a fair amount of effort researching the design on their paint pots to let in enough air to dry the fuckers out after a few months.

"Lightbulb conspiracy" is rather scary once you learn of it, isn't it? ;)

Quote from: Benoist;513479My point is that unbalanced isn't necessarily "bad", and that it doesn't mean "broken" either. That the point of a game is what is fun and what isn't, and that therefore, it's about who is having fun with the game, how and why, and how from there the rules play into this picture.

I'm actually agreeing with the line I quoted from you and providing a practical example with this game.

True, true. But as I said many times - we shouldn't mix competitive with cooperative when issues of balance come into play. In a competitive play, it is a logical assumption that rules of the game make it that all players of a game have same chance of victory, bar their actual skill at the game.

On the other hand, there is of course the wargaming tradition of historical scenario recreation, where the fun comes from the fact that you get to see how you would do in the circumstances in which your defeat is almost assured.

Quote from: Rincewind1;513480I really feel tempted to roll a two shot of 3e with "RAW, all rules you can find apply", to see how much of a trainwreck it'd turn out to be.
? ;)

I've done this and it is totally maneagable. You have to keep an eye on 3E because it is so flexible. But I never really had any issues once I understood the system.

Keep in mind some of the RAW material (like prestige classes) are still discretionary. The GM has ultimate say on that stuff.

Quote from: Benoist;513467Reasoning about rules in a vacuum

This right here is where Spherical Cow can get overused.  Looking at any system only in theory and not as it will actually be applied can be anywhere from less then useful to outright Apocalypse-spawning. (http://www.cracked.com/article_18503_how-biotech-company-almost-killed-world-with-booze.html)

However, looking at rules as they are intended to be applied is not the same thing.  AT.ALL.

WotC has as a primary design goal - balance.  If they do not meet that goal, that deserves to be pointed out.  Now, can you go overboard into Rainman territory, sure you can, and sure the CharOp culture did, and a huge part of TGD is exactly that, Rainman territory.

It's also gold for pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes, when that fact might not be readily apparent because you are not Rainman.

Personally, I realized WotC D&D had gone off the rails the very first time I read the 3.0 PHB.  WotC apparently hadn't considered the fact that putting in the rules that once someone gets 8 ranks of Move Silently, 10 ranks of Hide, and 5 ranks of Dance, that they can then gain the power to teleport by gating through the Plane of Shadow, they were declaring a whole hell of a lot about the cosmology and planar structure of every single D&D campaign.  As Monte Cook admitted, someone forgot to tell the players that all this shit was optional, and your GM's world might be radically different.

So I just tossed all of WotC class and race balance out the window, and made every single class from the ground up using all the splats as building blocks that I could plug in to make D&D work for my world.  I realized that although for most, D&D would become a CharOp nightmare, for me it became a better toolkit system then most toolkit systems.  The reason I eventually dumped it was I just got burned out on doing that for my own setting, Scarred Lands, Hyboria, etc. not to mention the normal reasons people get burned in 3e, like the NPC prep.

For me, it's trivial to look at a Frank or other Gaming Den rant and determine whether this is going to be useful analysis or just CharOp/Rainman drama.  For example, Frank's work on deconstructing the Shadowrun 4 rules on Dumpshock was just brilliant.

Telling a guy he's full of shit because he says the rule is "broken", doesn't mean he's full of shit in that the rule doesn't do what it is supposed to.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;513481I've done this and it is totally maneagable. You have to keep an eye on 3E because it is so flexible. But I never really had any issues once I understood the system.

Keep in mind some of the RAW material (like prestige classes) are still discretionary. The GM has ultimate say on that stuff.

Heh, I know. As much as I dislike the amount of 3e's crunch, I had GMed some fun sessions with it - my favourite being the Planescape game, with me making up quick rules how throwing a frenzied kobold berserker in combat'd work.

A key to having fun in 3e is just putting your DMing manuals a bit too far for easy reach, and just use them in case of emergency. We played that entire game with 20 on attack hit being a straight crit (forgetting about Threat Roll rule) and nobody complained. I should try to really continue that game.

Quote from: Rincewind1;513475Touche. I can't forgive the fuckers for selling out on the RP though.

Never forget, never forgive!  I hope I outlive the owners so I can piss on their graves and smear "He owned a Toy Soldier Company" on their gravestone in shit.

Ok, so I'm only semi-serious.  :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;513482WotC has as a primary design goal - balance.

This (ultimate, perfect rules balance in a vacuum) is a completely brainless design goal, because actual real people playing a role playing game around a table are not themselves balanced between each other in their social skills, imagination, improvisation, interpretation, collaboration, introverted v. extraverted, charisma, IQ levels, etc etc.

All it does is catter to socially crippled individuals who can't help but whine as soon as a role playing game doesn't go their way.

You know the standard definition of "Vaporware" is a game that never actually gets released.

I figure that the rest of Trollman's ramblings are about as accurate as his use of the above term.

RPGPundit

CRKrueger - thanks for injecting some karmatic balance in this bizarre thread.

Quote from: Benoist;513486This (ultimate, perfect rules balance in a vacuum) is a completely brainless design goal

Here you're preaching to the choir, however, assuming I'm just going to toss out any Rainman balancing I don't want doesn't mean I don't want to be aware if there is some weird grossly-unbalanced rules hidden in a supposedly balanced system.

Like I said, the analysis itself can be useful. The attitude associated with it is not something I would necessarily attribute to healthy gaming, but I can't make WotC see that, they have to get there themselves (and it remains to be seen if they have).

Quote from: Benoist;513486This (ultimate, perfect rules balance in a vacuum) is a completely brainless design goal, because actual real people playing a role playing game around a table are not themselves balanced between each other in their social skills, imagination, improvisation, interpretation, collaboration, introverted v. extraverted, charisma, IQ levels, etc etc.

Addendum: From there, one very bad option you can take is try to design rules to control player behavior and contain it so that disparities between them are not felt at all on the game's outcome. Basically, it's replacing player's skill with character's skill, replacing role playing with skill checks, and then skill challenges, caps and caveats and limits and containment zones everywhere. It's adding procedures upon procedures so that the process is contained and its outcomes entirely controllable.

It's horribly bad as a game design philosophy for a role playing game because the game itself thrives on being a game of the imagination where players can experience the freedom to do what they want as though they were someone else through their character in a make-believe situation. Each time you try to contain that, you basically are running through a conundrum that you are raising a barrier to some people's enjoyment of the game, versus the notion that the rule might help other people take advantage of the make-believe better. You are designing something that is not fun for some people in order to be able to make some other people more happy about the game.

How can it not be obvious from there how ultimate rules balance as a design goal is bound to go overboard and destroy the very intent of the game in the first place?

Instead of making the game broadly appealing to varying types of people by including various approaches for players to interact with the make-believe (like for instance providing fighters to people who don't want to bother with the rules and want to imperson active characters that "do stuff" directly in the make-believe versus magic users who are playing with spells and organizing their game play following a system of resource management that can be fun to other players of the game), you are cutting down on the audience of the game until only a very specific subtype remains.

The notion that game balance ought to be enforced through the rules system instead of the interactions of people around the game table is a premise that actually acts in a counter-intuitive manner in regards to the way the game itself operates. At best, it will appeal to an extremely narrow percentage of gamers who thrive on that notion, and at worse, it will wreck the very purpose of the role playing game to change it into a series of dice rolls, rules procedures and other processes which will be completely divorced from the act of play itself to the point the act of play ceases to be the point of the game, but the rules themselves are. It's completely antithetical to the fundamental draw that makes so many people fall in love with role playing games in the first place.

It is a crippled philosophy from a game design point of view, and it needs to die, once and for all.

Quote from: CRKrueger;513492Like I said, the analysis itself can be useful. The attitude associated with it is not something I would necessarily attribute to healthy gaming, but I can't make WotC see that, they have to get there themselves (and it remains to be seen if they have).

When your rules start pushing the edge cases out in the middle, there is a problem.  :)

First, I suppose I owe some posters an apology. From where I sit it is perfectly easy to see that 'He is Never Wrong' is a statement of Ridicule. After all, I am Spike, and I am never wrong myself, so if I have had a debate with someone then it follows, from a to b that they must, ergo, have been wrong.

Mea Culpa.


Now, since this thread is at least halfway about Frank's general contribution to gaming topics...

As risible as TGD's opinion of Diplomacy is (attributing to it magical powers among other things...) the entire topic, along with several of their comments regarding skills in general (of which Diplomacy is just one of the most visibly flawed) in the D&D model does lead one to serious contemplation of the D&D skill model.

Obviously one needs enough Ego to ignore the easy, and frequently foolish, answers that are provided by the helpful idiots of that place and engage in the serious quest for answers within the sanity (did I mean Sanctity? Did I?) of your own mind first.

And really, the value of places like the Den and people like Frank, who do call it like they see it, and who do see problems were other people just see cows, lies in the fact that they can give you the excuse you need to second guess your own assumptions.  The trick, as I stated, is finding your own answers to those questions.

The Den's answer to broken skills is to do away with skills and give everyone moar magik.

Mine is not.

But I've chosen to opt out of redesigning D&D for the most part. I'm actually rather happy with my Traveller books (sadly underused) and my Runequest books (not so much underused and raped, pillaged and burned... with love!).

With dalliances in other game systems for reasons best left unmentioned, lest they scare the womenfolk.

Benoist could you please explain what is your point?
You keep repeating one that judges rules should not take them out of context, over and over and over.

Can you give an an actual example of applying your argument in a helpful manner for improving any rules?

Could you say that some rule is used in that way and not in that way?

For example regarding the "diplomacy rule" matter. Ok, there is this rule and some criticism about that rule. You claim that this criticism does not take into consideration context. Can you give an example of context? Can you define it in a helpful way, like for example where or when one should use the rule and when one should not, compare the two and come out with an actual applicable and useful conclusion?
If not, you just come out as a frank hater.

Quote from: CRKrueger;513455The concept of the Spherical Cow (which is a common joke in physics, btw)

This was not a common joke amongst the physicists I've known in person over the years.  Prior to reading rpg message boards, I've never heard of the term "spherical cows" being used.

The term I've heard being used more commonly, is "idealized models" or "toy models" by mathematicians and physicists.

Quote from: xech;513514Benoist could you please explain what is your point?
You keep repeating one that judges rules should not take them out of context, over and over and over.

What I'm saying is that rules are meant to be used by actual people with each a particular set of personalities, ideas, goals playing a game, manners to have that fun game. I'm saying that considering a rule without giving any thought about people playing the game, and the way it can be used in a variety of ways by varying people at a game table, is failed game design and theory, by definition.

Quote from: xech;513514Can you give an an actual example of applying your argument in a helpful manner for improving any rules?

For instance, in the way you are balancing out all classes in 4e, what you are giving in effect is the same game play to all the players of the game. Same amount of resource management. Same amount of tactical play. Same everything, while the player base itself is made of varying personalities and varying tastes and varying desires concerning roleplaying games, and so on.

These desires are far better adressed by a design where you have different archetypes in the game which players with different tastes will play or not play, back and forth, switch between and so on. A player might want resource management, a very hard game at low levels for greater gratification later in the campaign, while the other doesn't care that much, wants to bother with less rules for more instant gratification through the game itself. The former will be happy with a magic user, the latter with a fighter. Some players will want one thing at one point, and then another later. They play different characters using different archetypes that give them those things when they want them.

That's an example. Of course there would be other possibilities, other types of designs and so on. I'm just giving an example as to the manner in which you either address a spectrum of realities around the game tables, or design in a vacuum that appeals to a narrow number of players by sheer coincidence or after-thought/effect (by drinking the kool aid and otherwise) instead.

Quote from: xech;513514Could you say that this rule is used in that way and not in that way?

That's not the right question, because personalities, inclinations, sociability, tactical skills, levels of abstraction, IQs, etc etc vary between players. The question is "how does this rule play with which type of player?" and from there "what is the audience of my game?" "Who are these people I am designing this game for?" "What do they like?" "How do they like it?" "How do I provide a rules system that supports the varying game plays they want?"

It's a question of spectrum, not a question of a single virtual thing divorced from reality, and then how this or that rule applies to a spectrum of possibilities, and why, not in a corner case or worse, without concern for any actual play at all.

Quote from: xech;513514If not, you just come out as a frank hater.

Well see, that's basically dumb. You're not reading what I'm saying, for one thing, and for a second thing, you're revealing here that the only point of your post is basically to discredit what I'm saying because that is rubbing your sensibilities in the wrong places. Well. Fuck that. We're not going to have a productive conversation from there, there's no point.

What I'm saying is actually very clear, and simple. The thing is, it happens to make everything Frank is harping about endlessly completely pointless, because he systematically neglects the reality of the game table in favor of an circular argumentation in a theoretical vacuum.

If Frodo has a high enough Diplomacy score to persuade Sauron, then isn't it more like Otto Bismarck meets Sauron, than Frodo, who if I recall correctly probably couldn't talk his way out of drinking poison tea (it wouldn't be polite to refuse, you know).

Quote from: Spike;513394Agreed. But relevant to my post how?

His "fixes" are not fixes at all.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;513435The Diplomacy check rant though is an example of broken thinking, not a broken rule.  Frank goes, "Why, Frodo could just ask Sauron to be his best buddy and he'd have to, because Diplomacy check!"

Wait wait wait so a hypothetical scenario arises where Frodo is facing down Sauron.  Face to Face.  And Frodo hasn't just collapsed in sheer terror.  And Frodo is going to try and convince Sauron to be his best buddy, forever, because that's what the rules say he can do.

let's ignore for a second the lunacy behind Sauron even pausing to listen to Frodo.  Let's ignore for a second that Sauron would simply reach inside Frodo's mind and snap it like a twig (or just draw his sword and slay him outright).  Let's even ignore the possibility that any of this might come to pass and focus on the circumstances.

Any DM worth his salt should have the player explaining specifically what he's telling Middle Earth's anti-Christ to try and convince him to sit down for some pipe-weed.  Allowing the player to simply roll the dice and say "Yo, major dippy roll.  I win."...?

That doesn't mean the rule is broken, it means the DM is broken.

This is all true, but the 3e Diplomacy rules are really shitty.  Per the rules, it's a DC 50 check to turn someone from hostile to friendly, so technically, Frodo is capable of doing such if he has a high enough Diplomacy score.  This is mostly due to the 3e rules being terrible overall, however.

Quote from: mhensley;513346hmmm.... that kind of sounds like someone here...  ;)

Singular?!

Quote from: ggroy;513516This was not a common joke amongst the physicists I've known in person over the years.  Prior to reading rpg message boards, I've never heard of the term "spherical cows" being used.

The term I've heard being used more commonly, is "idealized models" or "toy models" by mathematicians and physicists.

Non-RPG context. (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/what-is-up-with-the-spherical-cow/)
Again, this time as a book title. (http://www.uscibooks.com/harte.htm)
Once more for the cheap seats. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100203101124.htm)
Another term for it: Spherical Horse (http://episteme.ca/2007/07/20/a-spherical-horse-in-a-vacuum/)
Actual use in a Physics problem. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=171655)

First heard of our rotund bovine in high school Physics, so would have been '85 or so.

A good product creates its market. A good game can creates its player base, its own pubic.

Today, in the era of internet, for a game to achieve this it has to be through the rules that make it what it is. Long past are the days that just presenting a new approach or idea to what people are already messing with, like D&D did back in the 70s, can be of any importance to the tabletop public.

The problem with spectrum and corner cases is the actual thing Frank discusses about. If such a distinction is clear, as is in exception based design, it becomes less of a problem. The thing with 3.xe though, is that 3.xe tries to use a mechanism inclusive for as a broad spectrum as possible and fails at that. It tries to codify everything within one common spectrum. When a player tries to choose a feat, he rather takes the game mechanics into consideration. It is like meta-gaming the game. Now, if 3.xe were successful at taking care to protect the player and the DM to make the right choices and exclude any wrong ones so that corner cases would not be a problem, then there would be no problem and everyone could focus beyond the mechanics. But this is not the case. 3.xe does not clarify context because it wants to codify and does codify everything. If the DM reaps this apart the system and perhaps player expectations may very well break.

Quote from: Benoist;513524The question is "how does this rule play with which type of player?" and from there "what is the audience of my game?" "Who are these people I am designing this game for?" "What do they like?" "How do they like it?" "How do I provide a rules system that supports the varying game plays they want?"

It's a question of spectrum, not a question of a single virtual thing divorced from reality, and then how this or that rule applies to a spectrum of possibilities, and why, not in a corner case or worse, without concern for any actual play at all.

Frank has actually cared to address what you are exactly talking about. Take a look at his post regarding theory of game design.
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=31521

Quote from: CRKrueger;513533First heard of our rotund bovine in high school Physics, so would have been '85 or so.

Perhaps you were more in the loop than I was.  :)

What level of physics courses did you go up to?

I only took a few physics courses in college.  The furthest course I took was a graduate level course in quantum mechanics.  (I ended up dropping it after a month or so.  Too much homework for an optional course, that wasn't mandatory).

Quote from: xech;513536A good product creates its market. A good game can creates its player base, its own pubic.

Never judge a game by the grooming habits of its fans!

Quote from: xech;513536stuff

Way to miss the point. It's ironic, in a way.

Quote from: B.T.;513528His "fixes" are not fixes at all.

This is all true, but the 3e Diplomacy rules are really shitty.  Per the rules, it's a DC 50 check to turn someone from hostile to friendly, so technically, Frodo is capable of doing such if he has a high enough Diplomacy score.  This is mostly due to the 3e rules being terrible overall, however.

You must have missed my high handed post from an hour or two ago. The value of guys like Frank and the Gaming Den is to magnify all the little flaws and cracks in a system. If you think their doomsaying has merit, you may then check your own assumptions and evaluate it for yourself.

I don't particularly advocate taking solutions to problems from other people wholesale.  Thus the validity of his fixes is irrelevant to me.

The point made, and it is an accurate one for what its worth, is that when your fixed numbers (on both sides of the equation) far outstrip your randomizer, your methodology is horribly flawed.  There are any number of other tangents that also follow from that, but the logic of modifying a d20 roll by 50 points (for example), boggles the mind.  Likewise, the idea of ever scaling difficulties as one gets to higher levels of game play (not necessarily higher level characters, though they do go hand in hand...). Once you've climbed the verticle slick wall of DC 30 a few dozen times, the GM needs to invent the 'Inverted wall of telekinetically shoving you away for DC 40) to continue to challenge your rogue.

Meanwhile, the wizard casts fly and ignores it exactly the same.

Notice I merely call attention to a potential problem with the system as designed. I don't say: And Franks Says We Fix It by Ditching Skills All Together... And Giving Fighters A Fly Spell!

WHich is, honest to god, the Den's solution.  Because some idiot didn't think too hard about escalating DCs and a limited randomizer, and 'how to challenge your high skill player at 'endgame'.  Its not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, its seeing the baby in the bathwater and... moving to the woods so you don't have to take baths.

Quote from: Benoist;513540Way to miss the point. It's ironic, in a way.

Yep, the ironic thing is your post here.
The point of my first post was to ask you to clarify if you had any actual point beyond ranting against frank.

You answered back, trying to explain that your point was about not ignoring the expectations of your public. And I replied back, trying to explain to you, that in fact no one does that, certainly not frank, if you cared to read the link I posted.

We are back at point 0. You still have to explain the point of your rant.

Quote from: ggroy;513537The furthest course I took was a graduate level course in quantum mechanics.

That's way the hell farther then I ever got, I think my teachers were just wackier.  :)

Quote from: xech;513542We are back at point 0. You still have to explain the point of your rant.

I don't feel like going over it again.
You basically made your decision already, and I'm fine with it.

Quote from: Benoist;513544I don't feel like going over it again. You basically made your decision already.

Is it me or you? I am open to discussion. It is you that want to avoid it.
You did not even try to address any of my arguments.

EDIT: Do you understand what "exception-based design" or any of that jargon means or is it that you just do not care about this sort of discussion?

Quote from: xech;513545Is it me or you? I am open to discussion. It is you that want to avoid it.
You did not even try to address any of my arguments.

Maybe, yes. I'm tired, and I don't want to go over ten pages of tetrapilectomy over this.

You don't get it, I don't feel like explaining it again.

Try reading my posts again to make sense of them on your own. If that doesn't come to you by then, then I'm sorry I couldn't be more clear. Maybe we'll have another occasion to talk about it from another angle in another conversation or whatnot. Over and out for now.

As a thought experiment, DC 50 means our Frodo von Bismarck needs a +30 to the roll for a %5 chance of success. Let's say he wants to be able to have at least a %50 chance of success, since a failure probably means Sauron smites him out of hand, so he needs a +40. Now it's been a long time since I've played 3e, so my numbers might be off. But I believe you can have +4 at first level, plus Skill Training (+3, right?), plus ability score bonus. Let's be generous and call that a +4, and he might be able to manage some kind of synergy bonus for another +2, and let's pretend he managed some kind of +2 circumstantial bonus. So Frodo von Bismarck is sitting at a +15 right out the gate. That's a hefty bonus to the roll, but he's still only half way to a faint hope. If he pumps his Diplomacy every level, and his Charisma at 4th and 8th he won't even be at the  +30 mark until level 15, well beyond any normal human level of ability. At that point he should be able to pull of crazy-ass shit, like talking Sauron into giving it all up for a place in the sun. Do I have that math right?

Quote from: two_fishes;513549As a thought experiment, DC 50 means our Frodo von Bismarck needs a +30 to the roll for a %5 chance of success. Let's say he wants to be able to have at least a %50 chance of success, since a failure probably means Sauron smites him out of hand, so he needs a +40. Now it's been a long time since I've played 3e, so my numbers might be off. But I believe you can have +4 at first level, plus Skill Training (+3, right?), plus ability score bonus. Let's be generous and call that a +4, and he might be able to manage some kind of synergy bonus for another +2, and let's pretend he managed some kind of +2 circumstantial bonus. So Frodo von Bismarck is sitting at a +15 right out the gate. That's a hefty bonus to the roll, but he's still only half way to a faint hope. If he pumps his Diplomacy every level, and his Charisma at 4th and 8th he won't even be at the  +30 mark until level 15, well beyond any normal human level of ability. At that point he should be able to pull of crazy-ass shit, like talking Sauron into giving it all up for a place in the sun. Do I have that math right?

I think that the problem with some people around here is that a skill like diplomacy is no way applicable with some dude like Sauron. His ego is the whole point of Sauron's existence so it is kind of moot to try to "diplomance" something like Sauron. After all, could one use their diplomacy skill against a skeleton or a zombie?

Quote from: CRKrueger;513543That's way the hell farther then I ever got, I think my teachers were just wackier.  :)

It was a strange confluence of factors, which led me to that graduate level course on quantum mechanics.

Previously to that time, I already took the freshman/sophomore sequence of physics courses for engineering majors, and an additional junior year physics course which covered topics in modern physics and introductory quantum mechanics.  I wanted to take the next undergraduate course on quantum mechanics, but the professor was a hardass and wouldn't let anybody who didn't have the proper prerequisites enroll in the course.

Just for fun, I looked through the textbook they were using for the graduate level course on quantum mechanics, and thought I could do it with my background.  (At the time, I already had three years of undergraduate level math and engineering courses).  So I went to the professor who was teaching the graduate level quantum mechanics course, and found out that he wasn't too picky about prerequisites.  I ended up enrolling, just to find out the hard way how much homework that class required.  (It was a graduate level course which almost all of the incoming physics graduate students took.  Hence the large amount of homework, in the form of a new problem set every week).

In such a crowd, I never heard them once using the term "spherical cows".  But the term "toy model" was used quite often.

Quote from: two_fishes;513549As a thought experiment, DC 50 means our Frodo von Bismarck needs a +30 to the roll for a %5 chance of success. Let's say he wants to be able to have at least a %50 chance of success, since a failure probably means Sauron smites him out of hand, so he needs a +40. Now it's been a long time since I've played 3e, so my numbers might be off. But I believe you can have +4 at first level, plus Skill Training (+3, right?), plus ability score bonus. Let's be generous and call that a +4, and he might be able to manage some kind of synergy bonus for another +2, and let's pretend he managed some kind of +2 circumstantial bonus. So Frodo von Bismarck is sitting at a +15 right out the gate. That's a hefty bonus to the roll, but he's still only half way to a faint hope. If he pumps his Diplomacy every level, and his Charisma at 4th and 8th he won't even be at the  +30 mark until level 15, well beyond any normal human level of ability. At that point he should be able to pull of crazy-ass shit, like talking Sauron into giving it all up for a place in the sun. Do I have that math right?

The highest Diplomacy roll I've ever seen from a PC in 3.5 was an 87.
This was a completely insane game I was running with actual demigod characters (the PC in question was about level 12 at the time with about a 50 Charisma), but even before they got divine ranks the guy was cracking 30 or 40 regularly. Also had the Silver Tongue feat from Dragon magazine, which let him  actually make female NPCs fall in love with him with about a DC 40 - a  number of female BBEGs fell to his charms.  After this game, the actual Diplomacy skill was permabanned from our table.
The main trick he was using was Marshal, which gave him free Skill Focus (diplomacy) for +3, and then the Motivate Charisma power that let him twice his Charisma bonus to the check.

EDIT: I definitely remember the number, but trying to figure out how he got all the bonus there. It might have been a 20, since we were using the optional rule from the Epic Level Handbook where you roll up on 20s.

Quote from: two_fishes;513549Do I have that math right?

No.  Depending on how much you min/max, the diplomancer is doable very early on.  Using skill synergies and various class combos, you can get bonuses that far exceed what ought to be allowed.  Knowledge (nobility), Sense Motive, and Bluff all grant a +2 bonus, so you're already up +6 there.  With Skill Focus: Diplomacy and Negotiator, you have an additional +11 total.  A circlet of persuasion grants a +3 bonus (and only costs 4,500 gp) for +14.  If you have 18 Charisma, that's another +4, for +18 in all.  Add in 3 + your level skill ranks, and you have a +26 by level five.  Turn Frodo into a half-elf for +28 total.  And this is without getting into multiclass shenanigans--the "ultimate" diplomancer has levels in marshal, binder, warlock, and possibly dragonfire adept, human paragon, and half-elf paragon.

The diplomancer is a thought experiment and shouldn't be taken seriously, but it does highlight how retarded the 3e Diplomacy rules are.

Ben: Rules can't be balanced or broken in a vacuum!
Frank: If your diplomat meets Sauron, he can talk Sauron into whatever.
Ben: Your diplomat shouldn't meet and get a chance to talk to Sauron.
My question: So if your party has a diplomat, they can't have a conversation with the villain ever?

Basically you shouldn't encounter a situation because one of your PCs is good at it and the rule is crap? Why not just have a rule that isn't crap so you don't have to avoid situations?

I'm starting to wonder who's talking about situations in a vacuum. If a rule is so bad that it flat out cuts you off from certain things happening, I think there's a problem.

I see similar arguments provided for Vancian magic and why the fifteen minute day shouldn't happen.

A: You can't sleep, you have to defend yourself from wandering monsters!
B: What if we're not in the dungeon or the wilderness?
A: All your quests should have deadlines.
B: And if every single session ever doesn't have one of those two.
A: You're being lazy because you can't force these contexts into your adventure to fix the rule.

Not saying that Vancian magic is broken, given the context of your games, but its functionality is kind of fragile and context sensitive. Especially when there is little specific guidance in 3x telling new DMs what kind of contexts justify the rules. New DMs aren't going to just know this stuff.

Never mind that there are issues of apples-to-apples comparison. Like "bat wizard" vs rogue. All characters shouldn't be equal in all fields certainly, but if people are fighting better than the fighter, healing better than the healer, thieving better than the thief, or wizzing better than the wizzard it's still bad design.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;513557EDIT: I definitely remember the number, but trying to figure out how he got all the bonus there. It might have been a 20, since we were using the optional rule from the Epic Level Handbook where you roll up on 20s.

This guy should have been able to convince Sauron to convert to Jainism and starve himself to death.

Quote from: beejazz;513560Ben: Rules can't be balanced or broken in a vacuum!
Frank: If your diplomat meets Sauron, he can talk Sauron into whatever.
Ben: Your diplomat shouldn't meet and get a chance to talk to Sauron.
My question: So if your party has a diplomat, they can't have a conversation with the villain ever?

Basically you shouldn't encounter a situation because one of your PCs is good at it and the rule is crap? Why not just have a rule that isn't crap so you don't have to avoid situations?

I'm starting to wonder who's talking about situations in a vacuum. If a rule is so bad that it flat out cuts you off from certain things happening, I think there's a problem.

I see similar arguments provided for Vancian magic and why the fifteen minute day shouldn't happen.

A: You can't sleep, you have to defend yourself from wandering monsters!
B: What if we're not in the dungeon or the wilderness?
A: All your quests should have deadlines.
B: And if every single session ever doesn't have one of those two.
A: You're being lazy because you can't force these contexts into your adventure to fix the rule.

Not saying that Vancian magic is broken, given the context of your games, but its functionality is kind of fragile and context sensitive. Especially when there is little specific guidance in 3x telling new DMs what kind of contexts justify the rules. New DMs aren't going to just know this stuff.

Never mind that there are issues of apples-to-apples comparison. Like "bat wizard" vs rogue. All characters shouldn't be equal in all fields certainly, but if people are fighting better than the fighter, healing better than the healer, thieving better than the thief, or wizzing better than the wizzard it's still bad design.

well said

Quote from: B.T.;513559The diplomancer is a thought experiment and shouldn't be taken seriously, but it does highlight how retarded the 3e Diplomacy rules are.

Ultimately I think people on both sides of many mechanical arguments make the mistake that thought experiments like this are really meant for play, though I stand by my assertion that if a rule depends on a specific context to function, it should really be called out in the advice section.

EDIT: I know I'm on an RPG relevant topic tangentially related to the topic of the thread. But why exactly do we have a thread where half of it has turned into a discussion of some guy who doesn't currently post here AFAIK? Firstly, what does it have to do with anything, and secondly, what use is talking about somebody that isn't here?

Gm: so you are in front of Sauron what do you say.

Player: I try to convince him that he should be my friend.

GM: Ok that's going to be difficult, he seems to have his angry face on, what do you say.

Player: I...


Honestly, who lets the players roll without at least coming up with some kind of reason for what they want to do?  If the player does come up with something, then the roll is very heavily dependent on context.  Maybe he can convince Sauron that he wants to defect from all those human and elf forces.  Fine, Sauron believes him and lets him wander perhaps, or makes him a servant.

It really doesn't matter what the rules say here.  Long standing GM practice at adjudicating skills in many systems trumps whatever shit is supposed to be RAW (That mythical non-existent thing).  It's the same reason the supposed brokenness of skill challenges in 4e doesn't bother me.  I don't need them, I know how to set DCs and adjudicate skill rolls.

Quote from: beejazz;513560Ben: Rules can't be balanced or broken in a vacuum!
Frank: If your diplomat meets Sauron, he can talk Sauron into whatever.
Ben: Your diplomat shouldn't meet and get a chance to talk to Sauron.
My question: So if your party has a diplomat, they can't have a conversation with the villain ever?

Basically you shouldn't encounter a situation because one of your PCs is good at it and the rule is crap? Why not just have a rule that isn't crap so you don't have to avoid situations?

I'm starting to wonder who's talking about situations in a vacuum. If a rule is so bad that it flat out cuts you off from certain things happening, I think there's a problem.

I see similar arguments provided for Vancian magic and why the fifteen minute day shouldn't happen.

A: You can't sleep, you have to defend yourself from wandering monsters!
B: What if we're not in the dungeon or the wilderness?
A: All your quests should have deadlines.
B: And if every single session ever doesn't have one of those two.
A: You're being lazy because you can't force these contexts into your adventure to fix the rule.

Not saying that Vancian magic is broken, given the context of your games, but its functionality is kind of fragile and context sensitive. Especially when there is little specific guidance in 3x telling new DMs what kind of contexts justify the rules. New DMs aren't going to just know this stuff.

Never mind that there are issues of apples-to-apples comparison. Like "bat wizard" vs rogue. All characters shouldn't be equal in all fields certainly, but if people are fighting better than the fighter, healing better than the healer, thieving better than the thief, or wizzing better than the wizzard it's still bad design.

Yes, Benoist's position is retarded and is based on the Oberoni fallacy (rules aren't broken because you can change them).  He relies on the DM changing the rules to fuck the wizard or using DM fiat to arbitrarily fuck the wizard to balance the game.  There is a middle ground between the Asperger's-riddled Frank position and the asshole Benoist position.

Quote from: beejazz;513563Ultimately I think people on both sides of many mechanical arguments make the mistake that thought experiments like this are really meant for play, though I stand by my assertion that if a rule depends on a specific context to function, it should really be called out in the advice section.

I agree with B.T.
Diplomacy rules are just stupid. Not just at their implementation but right there as an idea.

The game only needs a wisdom or charisma check in place of the "diplomacy" skill. Do you have any advantages like good use of language or knowing the character you are discussing with? Ok, get a bonus to your roll.

In some way, 5e has some good ideas. I hope it does not end to be the "vaporware" Frank implies, but Frank is really caustic you know.

Quote from: beejazz;513563Ultimately I think people on both sides of many mechanical arguments make the mistake that thought experiments like this are really meant for play, though I stand by my assertion that if a rule depends on a specific context to function, it should really be called out in the advice section.

Yeah, maybe not.  But the theoretical exercise depends on the whole problematic notion of RAW.

There's a kind of hidden victory condition where you win by forcing the DM to house rule (even if it's only a theoretical DM making theoretical house rules.)

If you don't accept the notion of RAW then purely theoretical builds are a complete nonsense.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;513565Gm: so you are in front of Sauron what do you say.

Player: I try to convince him that he should be my friend.

GM: Ok that's going to be difficult, he seems to have his angry face on, what do you say.

Player: I...


Honestly, who lets the players roll without at least coming up with some kind of reason for what they want to do?  If the player does come up with something, then the roll is very heavily dependent on context.  Maybe he can convince Sauron that he wants to defect from all those human and elf forces.  Fine, Sauron believes him and lets him wander perhaps, or makes him a servant.

It really doesn't matter what the rules say here.  Long standing GM practice at adjudicating skills in many systems trumps whatever shit is supposed to be RAW (That mythical non-existent thing).  It's the same reason the supposed brokenness of skill challenges in 4e doesn't bother me.  I don't need them, I know how to set DCs and adjudicate skill rolls.

I am an experienced DM who knows better, therefore the rule is not bad.

That said, RP dependent DCs, sane levelling progression, and few to no stat boosting items is my fix. You want a better designed skill from the get-go look at bluff. Context dependent DCs for the flustered new DM who doesn't already have years of play under his belt.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;513568Yeah, maybe not.  But the theoretical exercise depends on the whole problematic notion of RAW.

There's a kind of hidden victory condition where you win by forcing the DM to house rule (even if it's only a theoretical DM making theoretical house rules.)

If you don't accept the notion of RAW then purely theoretical builds are a complete nonsense.

I have no idea how you're not playing with the rules-as-written.

Quote from: B.T.;513559A circlet of persuasion grants a +3 bonus (and only costs 4,500 gp) for +14.  If you have 18 Charisma, that's another +4, for +18 in all.  Add in 3 + your level skill ranks, and you have a +26 by level five.  Turn Frodo into a half-elf for +28 total.

But Frodo's not a half-elf, he's a halfling. And now you're including magic, and although 5th level is not 14th level, we're still talking about someone who is nearly at the very peak of normal human ability, skill, and training (i.e. about level 6 or 7), and he still can't muster up the +30 needed for the 5% faint hope try.

QuoteAnd this is without getting into multiclass shenanigans--the "ultimate" diplomancer has levels in marshal, binder, warlock, and possibly dragonfire adept, human paragon, and half-elf paragon.

Talk about your spherical cows!

QuoteThe diplomancer is a thought experiment and shouldn't be taken seriously, but it does highlight how retarded the 3e Diplomacy rules are.

I don't see how. Creating a ridiculous tricked out example that wouldn't actually exist at a table unless you're playing totally gonzo anyway is hardly evidence that the system is broken. All this shows me is how abuse and cheap tricks look like abuse and cheap tricks.

Quote from: B.T.;513566Yes, Benoist's position is retarded and is based on the Oberoni fallacy (rules aren't broken because you can change them).  He relies on the DM changing the rules to fuck the wizard or using DM fiat to arbitrarily fuck the wizard to balance the game.  There is a middle ground between the Asperger's-riddled Frank position and the asshole Benoist position.

Yeah but there's a question of whether broken rules are trivial or not to fix.  A broken rule that sits in the heart of the system is a problem.  A broken rule that produces a single kind of absurd result will just be changed at the table by most groups.

If every weapon in the game does 1d6 or 2d6 and there's one weapon in the weapons table that says 11D6, it doesn't really matter that the weapon is broken.  Everyone is going to know it's a typo.

Quote from: two_fishes;513571But Frodo's not a half-elf, he's a halfling. And now you're including magic, and although 5th level is not 14th level, we're still talking about someone who is nearly at the very peak of normal human ability, skill, and training (i.e. about level 6 or 7), and he still can't muster up the +30 needed for the 5% faint hope try.

You're taking the idea of "Frodo vs. Sauron" too literally.

QuoteTalk about your spherical cows!

I agree, but I'm showing you how your math was wrong.

QuoteI don't see how. Creating a ridiculous tricked out example that wouldn't actually exist at a table unless you're playing totally gonzo anyway is hardly evidence that the system is broken. All this shows me is how abuse and cheap tricks look like abuse and cheap tricks.

The diplomancer is quite doable even without going totally gonzo, but I've never seen it in play because it is--as I said--a thought experiment.  The 3e system is broken for a number of reasons, the Diplomacy rules being the least of these.  The fact that your skill bonuses can actually get that high is what is truly ridiculous.

Quote from: B.T.;513574I agree, but I'm showing you how your math was wrong.

All I've seen is that gonzo characters get gonzo results. Garbage in garbage out. You say you can get these results without going gonzo but I haven't seen it.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;513572Yeah but there's a question of whether broken rules are trivial or not to fix.  A broken rule that sits in the heart of the system is a problem.  A broken rule that produces a single kind of absurd result will just be changed at the table by most groups.

If every weapon in the game does 1d6 or 2d6 and there's one weapon in the weapons table that says 11D6, it doesn't really matter that the weapon is broken.  Everyone is going to know it's a typo.

There's not just the trivial to fix problem, there's also the trivial to notice problem (a weapon that does 11D6 for example is trivial to notice).

Combos are not trivial to notice in character generation. Because even if you have read all the rules, you probably haven't seen or thought about every combination of two or three or four items. Okay, you can say no to the find city nuke when it looks like it will happen in play. But what about twf and sneak attack? If you're like me you aren't keeping a tally of damage output in play. You really shouldn't have to.

There are some things that turn to dumb when the rubber hits the road. Your monk with toughness will not be tough or a good melee fighter. Your twfing rogue will fight better than the fighter. And so on. These things aren't exactly context sensitive. A fighter who can't beat the crap out of someone as quickly as a rogue can is just not good design.

Problems like diplomancy kind of need to be noticed before they can become problems (you need a pretty specific build to get something like that at the low levels, and as you ease into it the DM will catch on that something's off with the math... as long as you actually use the skill). But that the DCs aren't based on RP (while general consensus is that they should be) isn't a trivial to notice problem with new DMs. Likewise, the context that justifies vancian magic is not trivial to notice for a novice DM.

Quote from: two_fishes;513576All I've seen is that gonzo characters get gonzo results. Garbage in garbage out. You say you can get these results without going gonzo but I haven't seen it.

Diplomancy ain't gonna happen by accident, you're right.

But the fifteen minute adventuring day, the monk with toughness, and the TWFing rogue might.

Blimey. All this over a talking head.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;513435The Diplomacy check rant though is an example of broken thinking, not a broken rule.  (...) That doesn't mean the rule is broken, it means the DM is broken.

The problem with Diplomacy in 3E is that, once the DM eliminates the problematic aspects of the rule, there's no rule left. It provides no useful guidance or resolution whatsoever.

In order to make the rule useful you have to go back to basics and completely re-conceptualize what a Diplomacy check is resolving and how it resolves it.

I haven't played Avalon Hill's Speed Circuit, but I'm guessing that there actually is a meaningful context in which the rear-end collision rule is useful; the fact that there's this oddball case of people trying to abuse the rule by driving backwards all the time doesn't negate the useful qualities of the rear-end collision rule. You can simply ignore (or overrule) the "drive backwards all the time" thing and still get useful mileage out of the rule.

The 3E Diplomacy rules aren't like that. Once you ignore (or overrule) the problematic aspects of the 3E Diplomacy rules, there's no rule left.

(With that being said: I have no idea what Trollman's take on Diplomacy is. It could be batshit.)

Quote from: CRKrueger;513455While I think JA does some great work, I also think he can be a bit too quick to deflect rules criticisms against his chosen system (3.5) by tossing out a "Spherical Cow Dismissal(TM)".  Add to that the old school oversimplification of "no rule is ever broken because you can always change it"

Let's not lump me in with that, please. I coined the phrase "Rule 0 Fallacy" and have almost no patience for it.

With that being said, I think the point Benoist is trying to make is that the rules are only one part of the game. Of equal importance is (a) the scenario and (b) the rulings made by the GM (because RPGs are inherently open-ended game structures).

This division of the totality of the "roleplaying game" may help us understand a few misconceptions:

First, you have the Rule 0 Fallacy. This is where we look at the third part of this equation and elevate it above everything else. We say, "The rules and the scenario don't matter, because the GM can always fix it!"

Second, you've got your Spherical Cows. This is where we look at the first part of this equation and elevate it above everything else. We say, "If the wizard always has the perfect spell prepared, then blah blah blah." But if these are not scenarios which are likely to ever appear at the gaming table, is this really a shortcoming in the rules or the game? And if there's one, narrow way of designing scenarios which causes problems with the rules, does that mean we should abandon the rules or that we should avoid that narrow style of scenario design?

There's probably also a way of elevating the scenario above all else -- railroading by means of fudging maybe? -- but whatever.

My point is that trying to analyze an RPG based solely on its rules is like trying to analyze Monopoly's rules without taking into consideration the game board, the cards, or the property values.

Quote from: Rincewind1;513475RPGs on the other hand, are a cooperative game (at least 99.9% of them), so the lack of balance does not hurt them that much, as long as the players are a team that works together.

Within certain limits, yes.

The discussion is also complicated by the fact that there are many types of balance (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2500/roleplaying-games/the-many-types-of-balance).

Quote from: Settembrini;513355Kudos to Frank for having the balls for being the first one to call Bullshit on the editionless edition via options talk.

I still am too hopeful that they somehow, magically, can make it work. But my intellect tells me, unless 4e's legacy is utterly negated and neglected, the 5e mission is impossible.

A good point. I can see very clearly how you could design a modular system which would let you play more-or-less in the style of every pre-4E version of the rules. Because, frankly, that's the history of pre-4E D&D: With a couple of exceptions (like BECMI race-as-class) it's all OD&D with different sets of "extra bits" bolted onto it. And even the exceptions are generally just swap-able (you could swap in a "race-as-class" character creation module to replace the "race-and-class" character creation module).

Once you toss 4E into the pot, however, I'm not seeing it.

Quote from: ggroy;513555In such a crowd, I never heard them once using the term "spherical cows".  But the term "toy model" was used quite often.

How relevant do you really think that is, however?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;513586

Quote from: ggroy;513555In such a crowd, I never heard them once using the term "spherical cows".  But the term "toy model" was used quite often.

How relevant do you really think that is, however?

Relevant in what sense?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;513586With that being said, I think the point Benoist is trying to make is that the rules are only one part of the game. Of equal importance is (a) the scenario and (b) the rulings made by the GM (because RPGs are inherently open-ended game structures).

And (c) the personalities of the players involved and how they play the game/how they use the rules that are under their characters' purviews themselves, yes. That's basically what I'm trying to say. Thank you.

I'm not talking about the Rule 0 Fallacy, which basically places (b) above everything else as you noted. What I'm saying is that all these elements are tied and that basically the rules are joined to the hip with those others aspects of the game.

If we take ability score checks in place of skills, for instance. This system isn't "broken". It's going to be used in a certain way by players and DM searching for a specific way to entertain themselves through the game, and in some other way by another table having a different way to reach the same goal. Some tables will find the rule perfectly adequate, others will find the rule far from satisfactory. Ability score checks in place of "skills" are not "broken". They are not adapted to some particular tables' needs, maybe, but they work under certain conditions. Same thing with wizards versus fighter. Same thing with XP for GPs. Same thing for ACs and Hit Points. Etc.

Quote from: two_fishes;513571But Frodo's not a half-elf, he's a halfling. And now you're including magic, and although 5th level is not 14th level, we're still talking about someone who is nearly at the very peak of normal human ability, skill, and training (i.e. about level 6 or 7), and he still can't muster up the +30 needed for the 5% faint hope try.
.

All of that just lets him do it faster.

A cha 10 (at level 1) boring as fuck dude with Diplomacy as a skill focus can hit +30 easy. It takes a lot of levels and, yes, putting his bonus attribute points into only charisma... and if the GM is really cruel and denies him any cloaks of charisma, like, ever... he can still do this trick to any and every bad guy he meets to include Sauron (or equivilent) by level... hm... 20 for sure. Starting from boring as paste and with no magic at all.

Sure, 20 is a lot (the ult in some cases), but its still pretty ridiculous. And since no GM I know is going to deny somethign like charisma boosting magic items in a normal game, we can pare that down to level 15. Still started boring as paste. Now, if we give him at least a 16 charisma (which, using standard distribution for PCs and the fuckign IDEA that he's gonna fast talk the lord of darkness into being his gimp suit bitch..) We can pare it down to 12 easy enough.

The ONLY requirement here is that he comes from a class with Diplomacy as a class skill.

So, while a 12th level character may seem sorta high... he's telling Thor that 'hey, that's a sweet hammer. IF you liked me you'd totally give it to me'... and succeeding.

Now, since we know players will try to get an 18 to start with, and some asshole who really wants to do this WILL play a race like half elf... he's doing it at what? Ten now? 9th level?

At ninth level this guy doesn't use armies, but he rules the world. He walks up to kings and tells them 'Hey man, Wouldn't you rather be a gardner? Maybe a pimp?" and they give him the crown. A dread necromancer raises and army of the dead, he walks out and convinces them they'd rather live in a hut with kittehs!  Evil soul destroying God incarnates? Get in teh gimp suit, bitch!

At level... 9* was it? That's doing it the most straight forward and dead simple way. One magic item that is entirely passive in its effects.

Nobody was reasonably saying DC 50 was getting hit by 1st level commoners, mang. Only that it was relatively easily achievable, and horrifically broken in the wrong hands... either conceptually or mechanistically.



*Please don't split hairs regarding the exact accuracy of this number. I know, as the levels peel back, so do the bonus stat points and the believable bonuses from magic items. Further, that was for the 5% chance. Even so, we are looking at a midrange character with a chance to convince the devil himself to be his footsoldier rather than his enemy.  Not just 'don't attack, its not nice', as I recall that dc 50 is to move from hostile to loyal buddy territory.  But then again, I throw bricks at my players, so what do I know about hacks of the game?  Hey, good news is I'm down to three lawsuits this year. Progress...

Quote from: xech;513552I think that the problem with some people around here is that a skill like diplomacy is no way applicable with some dude like Sauron. His ego is the whole point of Sauron's existence so it is kind of moot to try to "diplomance" something like Sauron. After all, could one use their diplomacy skill against a skeleton or a zombie?

Exactly. If Frodo tried this in a game I was running it simply would not work.

Sauron is NOT going to listen to the hobbit who "stole" his ring of power and become best buds. Sauron's anger at the hobbit's theft of his ring will give the Frodo's diplomacy a huge negative modifier, say -100, maybe more if Sauron suspected he was trying to get to Mount Doom to destroy it. Rules to support this? Rule Zero and common sense knowledge of the Middle Earth setting.  Yes, this would upset all the people who hate Rule Zero and all the people who think the rules mechanics should trump the setting, but they are playing in my game and I use Rule Zero and the setting trumps the rules every time.

Quote from: Benoist;513457See my post above yours.

The phrase actually means there is more to the game than its rules, and than the rules do not encompass the entirety of the game experience. Rules have a purpose to participate to the game experience, and serve as a tool to enhance it in a number of different ways, following different design patterns or logic, but they are not a substitute to this game experience themselves. They should not be conceptualized, thought of, or criticized on such a basis. It is completely missing the boat on their actual purpose at a game table.

"The game" isn't what you buy when you buy an RPG book, though; what you buy is the rules.

If the rules aren't functional, then the product that you have bought isn't functional. I shouldn't have to edit the game myself to make the basic concepts playable; that's the games developer's job, and that's what I paid for when I bought the book.

Quote from: Ladybird;513593"The game" isn't what you buy when you buy an RPG book, though; what you buy is the rules.

If the rules aren't functional, then the product that you have bought isn't functional. I shouldn't have to edit the game myself to make the basic concepts playable; that's the games developer's job, and that's what I paid for when I bought the book.

Unless you've got a gazillion page book, though, in my experience no system covers everything - therefore, houserules.

Quote from: Ladybird;513593If the rules aren't functional, then the product that you have bought isn't functional.

The rules have no positive existence beyond the confines of your game table.
They do not exist until you actually play them.

Quote from: One Horse Town;513594Unless you've got a gazillion page book, though, in my experience no system covers everything - therefore, houserules.

This, too.

Quote from: xech;513545EDIT: Do you understand what "exception-based design" or any of that jargon means or is it that you just do not care about this sort of discussion?

Exception based design is a simple way of designing a game that doesn't make sense. Since the RAW trumps making any sense in these sorts of games any problems with such rules are imagined and should be ignored.

Quote from: Benoist;513595The rules have no positive existence beyond the confines of your game table.
They do not exist until you actually play them.

Now Ben, here is where you're not exactly doing a Rule 0 fallacy, but it's easy for people to think you are.  What you are saying amounts to 2+2 doesn't equal 4 until you actually begin to count something physical, so the fact that someone sold you rules that say 2+2=5 is of no consequence.  That might not be the letter of the Rule 0 Fallacy, but it sure is in the spirit of it.

Back to what I said a while ago, if I buy a game with the detail of Harnmaster, that comes with some built in assumptions, namely that a dagger doesn't weigh more then a two-handed sword, a weak human can't outlift a strong human, and that chainmail, while great against slashing, suffers against piercing and blunt damage.

If, as I begin to play Harnmaster, I find out that a dagger does weigh more then a two-handed sword, a weakling can outlift a strongman and that chainmail is lousy protection against slashing and the best vs. piercing, then I am pretty pissed as a customer.  Harnmaster's rules have a goal and focus that they are failing to achieve.  Yeah, I can fix that, but claiming the fact that I can fix it doesn't make the rules bad is the very definition of the Rule 0 Fallacy.  

Claiming that the rules for Harnmaster chainmail don't exist until a character at my table actually wears a set isn't a gaming argument, it's a philosophical argument about the reality of the written word.

Now, I will admit, I have never, EVER, ran a RPG 100% RAW.  As I read the rules, I change whatever I feel like, however I feel like, either before or after dry runs and testing.  However saying that in essence RAW can never be wrong because no one plays RAW is basically Rule 0/Oberoni restated.

I'm honestly surprised at people completely misunderstanding this for the Rules 0 Fallacy. It isn't. Never was.

It means that a rule may not be functional with certain personality types, certain circumstances, certain players and DMs with certain ways to play the game, and that the rule may be exactly what some other players, DMs, etc. are actually searching for.

If the rule isn't working for a majority of gamers out there, such as the Diplomacy rules there (I haven't checked my 3rd ed books or the debates on the question for ages - I'll just say this, though: the way 3rd ed skills were defined by edges, to take Clash's phrasing, with a list of stuff you can do with them and no more, has always been bothering to me. I like Skills to be defined by center, with the edges being left to interpretation and adjudication on the part of the participants of the game), then it means it's inappropriate, badly thought out, sure.

You'll notice when I'm making a review of something I'll generally say stuff like "if you like this and this in a role playing game, this probably isn't going to work. If you like that and that, then maybe you could use it," because really that's how elements in the books are meant. The game itself, the actual experience of play, actual play, is a mix of different elements, the players, the DM, their personalities, individual skills and social dynamics, the components of the world and scenario being played, the player characters, etc. with the rules helping for some tasks resolutions and setting things up in terms of baseline of the world setting. "This works like this, not like that. An 8th level character is generally more experienced than a 4th level, takes more abuse, is more seasoned, etc. This character can cast fireball. This one can beat the crap out of people with his stick." Those kinds of things. It's just a tiny part of the whole. It isn't the whole itself.

The extension of all this is that rules should be thought of as means, tools which address certain particular needs for certain particular playing styles, individually taken at a game table, or between separate game tables. Either you create a game focused on a certain style, or several styles, or you try to create a game with several layers that satisfy different people and their inclinations in different ways (as the example I gave earlier). To design a rule, you think first of who's going to use it, and how they might use it, abuse it, break it etc from there.

The problem with the rules in a vacuum bullshit is that it generally takes extreme cases, spherical cows and otherwise, and completely divorce the discussion of the worth of the rules from their utility to different types of people and actual play scenarios that come from them. The ultimate offenders and best examples of this is when one claims a rule is "broken", or a system is "not functional", simply because you find something problematic with it. It's over the top all-or-nothing rhetoric that is basically useless, to me.

Quote from: two_fishes;513576All I've seen is that gonzo characters get gonzo results. Garbage in garbage out. You say you can get these results without going gonzo but I haven't seen it.

What part of "character with skill points in Sense Motive, Knowledge (nobility), and Bluff and two feats" is gonzo, exactly?

Here was your post?

Quote from: two_fishes;513549As a thought experiment, DC 50 means our Frodo von Bismarck needs a +30 to the roll for a %5 chance of success. Let's say he wants to be able to have at least a %50 chance of success, since a failure probably means Sauron smites him out of hand, so he needs a +40. Now it's been a long time since I've played 3e, so my numbers might be off. But I believe you can have +4 at first level, plus Skill Training (+3, right?), plus ability score bonus. Let's be generous and call that a +4, and he might be able to manage some kind of synergy bonus for another +2, and let's pretend he managed some kind of +2 circumstantial bonus. So Frodo von Bismarck is sitting at a +15 right out the gate. That's a hefty bonus to the roll, but he's still only half way to a faint hope. If he pumps his Diplomacy every level, and his Charisma at 4th and 8th he won't even be at the  +30 mark until level 15, well beyond any normal human level of ability. At that point he should be able to pull of crazy-ass shit, like talking Sauron into giving it all up for a place in the sun. Do I have that math right?

And then I said, "No, you don't have your math right because you can get way higher results."  Then I proved how you were wrong.

16 Charisma: +3.
Skill ranks: Level + 3.
Skill synergies: +6.
Circlet of Persuasion: +3.
Feats: +5.

This is all core stuff, no gonzo involved, and it's not even high level.  It requires a single magic item that costs 4,500gp.  I'm even toning the Charisma score down.  If you want to go gonzo, you can pump it up way higher.  But in the core rules, you can get much higher Diplomacy checks than what you suggested--you're rolling 1d20 + 20 + your level.  At which point, you can take a -10 penalty to make a Diplomacy check as a full-round action and turn Sauron from hostile to indifferent (DC 25) fairly easily.

Quote from: One Horse Town;513594Unless you've got a gazillion page book, though, in my experience no system covers everything - therefore, houserules.

And unless you have a gazillion pages of house rules they will not cover everything either. Therefore (at least IMHO) GM rulings make more sense than very detailed rules. The rules should cover the most common things (and the most dangerous to the characters things like combat) and leave the rest to the GM wh can decide based on his knowledge of what the players in his group expect, the specifics of the setting and the situation.

Quote from: RandallS;513613And unless you have a gazillion pages of house rules they will not cover everything either. Therefore (at least IMHO) GM rulings make more sense than very detailed rules.

At least where i'm concerned, GM rulings become house rules.

Quote from: One Horse Town;513594Unless you've got a gazillion page book, though, in my experience no system covers everything - therefore, houserules.

That covers the absence of a rule. Not a bad rule.

Rules that exist should still be held to certain standards.

To me, this Diplomacy example is ignoring two important factors (as with all "broken" exception examples):

1) How does Frodo get into a position to have a conversation with Sauron long enough to convert him?

2) Did the player actually play the character from the first level?

The second point would be the only way to go with Rules As Written.

Quote from: beejazz;513615That covers the absence of a rule. Not a bad rule.

Rules that exist should still be held to certain standards.

Much like beauty, bad rules are in the eye of the beholder.

Quote from: One Horse Town;513619Much like beauty, bad rules are in the eye of the beholder.

Much like technology rules have purposes they are made to serve. I may never need a breast pump for myself, but I could still tell you that one that doesn't suck is useless.

There's taste, and then there's rules that serve no purpose well.

Any comparison between RPGs and technology is fundamentally broken. ;)

Quote from: Benoist;513608The ultimate offenders and best examples of this is when one claims a rule is "broken", or a system is "not functional", simply because you find something problematic with it. It's over the top all-or-nothing rhetoric that is basically useless, to me.

True, however, just because the boy who cried Wolf is crying Wolf, doesn't mean there isn't one.  What I mean by that is of course oWoD isn't broken and non-functional because people have been playing happily for 20 years.  Same with whatever game you want to talk about.  However, I would rather the Rainmen be out there pointing stuff out to me because then I have information to make a determination if that rule issue will effect me.  

The Diplomancer (or Pornomancer from SR4) isn't a problem for me because I'm not going to let the skill do that, it's asinine.  Same with Pun-Pun.  The problems with SR4 Wireless Hacking - pretty much a problem for me.  The cannonball salesman problem - not a problem for me for all the reasons Spike came up with.

You talk about rules in a vacuum vs. actually hitting tables, but there are, unfortunately, a lot of tables out there where what hits is RAW.  So if RAW doesn't do what it sets out to do, there are problems.

Now we can talk about the MMOGification of RPGs, the Cult of the Designer, WotC bringing Magic design philosophy to RPGs, and how all this has created a  cancer eating away at the heart of the hobby, but that has nothing to really do with Frank.  True he's not trying to cure the cancer, but he sure is good at identifying it's various forms.  :D

Now all the other crap, like Black Orcs, all of Medieval Europe was Mad Max with swords, etc... is a whole nother brand of bullshit.

Nah, see. That's where we disagree, Krueger. I have had enough of the Rainmen. These guys have highjacked the hobby for the last ten years to the point the rules quite literally became the game, and vice versa. Enough is enough.

Quote from: beejazz;513623There's taste, and then there's rules that serve no purpose well.

If you can quote some that no-one in the ether disagrees with, then i'll concede the point.

There's always someone that'll say that a rule agrees with their group. All you have to do is look at some threads about one of the more contentious Forge games to realise that this is true.

Likewise, there's always someone to say that a rule disagrees with their group - which is why the cult of the 'designer knows best' is a crock of shit.

No game, adventure, or supplement survives contact with the playing group.

Fact.

Quote from: Benoist;513628Nah, see. That's where we disagree, Krueger. I have had enough of the Rainmen. These guys have highjacked the hobby for the last ten years to the point the rules quite literally became the game, and vice versa. Enough is enough.

Ok, so you wanna see that whole aspect of the hobby go away.  I can empathize, I just don't think that's gonna happen, although hopefully 5e can tone it down some.

I don't want it to go away entirely, no. I want it to be part of the whole spectrum the game talks to. I just don't want it to highjack the entirety of the game's design process, or to be considered the only audience that matters.

Quote from: One Horse Town;513619Much like beauty, bad rules are in the eye of
the beholder.

So there is no need, or any way, to decipher any practical consequences of rules since roleplaying gaming is subjective and there are other factors like GM houseruling, player psychology and scenario that condemns rules analysis to spherical cows.

Is this thread for real?

Of course, things like player psychology are real, especially for those that have some playing education by their past experiences. This does not mean though that one should not analyse rules as what they are or by doing so they are losing their time instead of doing things more useful.

Ok, there is OD&D, sure. Modern games though need more solid structure for some reason or another. Mostly due to people's time restraints and increased demands. Most probably, what most DMs want to be running, it better be as easy, straightforward and intuitive as possible but based on solid rules that everyone on the table respects rather than his own handwavium of the moment.

Quote from: One Horse Town;513629If you can quote some that no-one in the ether disagrees with, then i'll concede the point.

You have met this internet you refer to, haven't you? :p

QuoteThere's always someone that'll say that a rule agrees with their group. All you have to do is look at some threads about one of the more contentious Forge games to realise that this is true.

Main thing is I think the RAW is bad for most groups in the case of diplomacy, and a few other things.

When I talk about Vance requiring specific in-game contexts to work though, it's not about being bad design for everybody. It's about narrowing the range of scenarios the game handles well. For an example.

If every time you run a game without wandering monsters or a deadline, things get super easy, then maybe there's a problem. If the same happens every time you have fewer than four fights per session, again that significantly narrows the utility of the game.

QuoteLikewise, there's always someone to say that a rule disagrees with their group - which is why the cult of the 'designer knows best' is a crock of shit.

No game, adventure, or supplement survives contact with the playing group.

Fact.

Really, though, there are ways to minimize damage. The fact that people have different needs and tastes in cars is no excuse for glass tires.

Quote from: xech;513633So there is no need, or any way, to decipher any practical consequences of rules since roleplaying gaming is subjective and there are other factors like GM houseruling, player psychology and scenario that condemns rules analysis to spherical cows.

Is this thread for real?

Of course, things like player psychology are real, especially for those that have some playing education by their past experiences. This does not mean though that one should not analyse rules as what they are or by doing so they are losing their time instead of doing things more useful.

Ok, there is OD&D, sure. Modern games though need more solid structure for some reason or another. Mostly due to people's time restraints and increased demands. Most probably, what most DMs want to be running, it better be as easy, straightforward and intuitive as possible but based on solid rules that everyone on the table respects rather than his own handwavium of the moment.

Thy name is excluded middle.

Quote from: B.T.;51361216 Charisma: +3.
Skill ranks: Level + 3.
Skill synergies: +6.
Circlet of Persuasion: +3.
Feats: +5.

This is all core stuff, no gonzo involved, and it's not even high level.  It requires a single magic item that costs 4,500gp.  I'm even toning the Charisma score down.

Okay, by including a magic item, you found +9 (+4 synergy, +3 circlet, +2 feats) that I didn't.  

QuoteIf you want to go gonzo, you can pump it up way higher.  But in the core rules, you can get much higher Diplomacy checks than what you suggested--you're rolling 1d20 + 20 + your level.  At which point, you can take a -10 penalty to make a Diplomacy check as a full-round action and turn Sauron from hostile to indifferent (DC 25) fairly easily.

Well, now you're shifting goalposts, but whatever. So the PC is able to convince Sauron to ignore him and have him sent away rather than simply kill him on the spot. Shouldn't a talented and trained diplomat be able to soothe his enemies, especially if he's using magic to help him? This doesn't sound horrible to me, at this point. If a player is spending his resources to be good at diplomacy, he should be good at it.

"Rules as what they are" is nothing. At all.

A rule has to be played in a particular context with particular people, particular circumstances, a whole game system in play around it, using particular characters, a particular setting, etc. to mean something, anything at a game table.

Let me take an example of a demi-human character with level caps, or the disparity of power between a fighter and MU in AD&D. If you account for the lethality of the game, reaching level X is a feat by itself. What you get in practice is players playing multiple characters of different classes, often simultaneously, at different levels of experience, multiple groups, including demi-humans and humans, whatnot. By the time your multiclassed demi-humans reach anywhere near their level limits, you have your single classed human already tackling the Tomb of Horrors. You play a fighter with this group and a MU with that one, and your buddy wizard when you play your fighter in this particular session does the same. Of course, you would not know that if you fudged rolls to let characters survive at first levels, if you let the players only play one single character in the campaign as though this were a "story" and so on.

Actual play. Context. Circumstances. These things are universally missing from the arguments of the armchair theorists.

Quote from: Ladybird;513593"The game" isn't what you buy when you buy an RPG book, though; what you buy is the rules.

If the rules aren't functional, then the product that you have bought isn't functional. I shouldn't have to edit the game myself to make the basic concepts playable; that's the games developer's job, and that's what I paid for when I bought the book.

I completely disagree with this. The RPG is not the rules. I don't buy RPG books just for their rules. I buy them for their settings and their inherent conceits that creates its own logic, and thus births appropriate rules. I buy their own "world logic"; I am buying a packaged deal on an alternate way to think. And I don't expect any logical discipline to be completely perfect (none is in the real world, so why for just a game?) -- so just functional enough.

I am not just buying the logic of the book's math and rules. I'm buying the logic of the book's world. I am buying context with which to choose which functions are relevant to apply. This is comprised of conceits a) which guides permissible rules decisions (i.e. no Create Water spell in original Dark Sun), b) which empower GM override of rules (Sauron is a non-negotiable figure), and c) which allow delightful gray area tailoring where players, both GM and PCs, negotiate the application of Core Rules, GM Fiat, and Setting Conceits within the world's own logical context.

Quote from: Benoist;513638"Rules as what they are" is nothing. At all.

A rule has to be played in a particular context with particular people, particular circumstances, a whole game system in play around it, using particular characters, a particular setting, etc. to mean something, anything at a game table.

I don't think one would argue that you can't analyze the rules of chess outside play. Rules are for play. If a rule is consistently ignored it should be excised. If it is frequently altered it should be changed. If people want an absent rule, something should be written in. If a rule depends on an in-game context (like wandering monsters or deadlines) it should damn well say in the advice.

DMs do not begin play as experts.
Rules have consequences that are not always predictable.
Yes rulings over rules.
But the rules most overruled are still generally bad rules.

QuoteLet me take an example of a demi-human character with level caps, or the disparity of power between a fighter and MU in AD&D. If you account for the lethality of the game, reaching level X is a feat by itself. What you get in practice is players playing multiple characters of different classes, often simultaneously, at different levels of experience, multiple groups, including demi-humans and humans, whatnot. By the time your multiclassed demi-humans reach anywhere near their level limits, you have your single classed human already tackling the Tomb of Horrors. Of course, you would not know that if you fudged rolls to let characters survive at first levels, if you let the players only play one single character in the campaign as though this were a "story" and so on.

Actual play. Context. Circumstances. These things are universally missing from the arguments of the armchair theorists.

Someone made an invalid criticism of rules you like therefore criticism of rules is invalid.

Criticism that takes play into account can still find ways to improve on the rules. That's where houserules come from, after all.

Quote from: Benoist;513638If you account for the lethality of the game, reaching level X is a feat by itself.

This speaks for itself.
It is one gameplay condition so extreme, that every other rules imbalance matter pales in comparison. The deal though is that modern games do not want to adhere to such strict gameplay conditions. Most people do not have the time to bother with multiple campaigns either.

What I believe most people want, since their game table time is limited, is to create/build and then bring at the table the character concept they want to identify themselves with and go on some cool adventure with other people where they can show their character concept in a cool and engaging way, and for this kind of investment to succeed, especially in the long term, rules do matter. It is not about corner cases. It is about rules as rules: how straightforward they are, if they allow corner case problems or not, if they are annoying or intuitive...

You fail at understanding what I am saying, beejazz. Try again.

As for Xech. Dude. You're not even trying yet.

Quote from: Spike;513501The Den's answer to broken skills is to do away with skills and give everyone moar magik.

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said, but this is the part that rather stands out for me.  It is a very odd stance for the 'linear Fighter quadratic Wizard' folks to take.  Giving everyone more magic would seem to include the Magic User, so they would be even more quadratic.

Quote from: StormBringer;513643Giving everyone more magic would seem to include the Magic User, so they would be even more quadratic.

Polynomial or non-polynomial scaling?

(ie. P or NP?)

Quote from: xech;513641What I believe most people want....

I don't give a damn what "most people" want. The only players whose wants I really care about are those playing at my table. The rules need to meet the needs of my players, not most players. The wider the assumptions of the game designers about the needs players of their game may have, the more likely the game will work for tables like mine, tables like yours, tables like Ben's, etc. Games designed to specifically meet the needs some designer thinks are those of "most players" aren't likely to actually meet the the needs of a broad range of actual tables of players.  

Look at 4e, it meets the needs of the range of D&D players the designers decided were "most players" probably better than any other version of D&D. However, it turned out that what the designers decided were the needs of "most players" were actually just the needs of a much smaller than expected subset of players. That subset is insanely happy with those laser-focued on their desires rules, but that subset of D&D players turned out to be too small to met the profit goals of Hasbro/WOTC.

Quote from: xech;513514Benoist could you please explain what is your point?
You keep repeating one that judges rules should not take them out of context, over and over and over.

Couldn't this be "the point" :rolleyes:

QuoteCan you give an an actual example of applying your argument in a helpful manner for improving any rules?

(Waves)

Did anyone read my "Gnome Giant Slayer" PrC example? I feel ignored. :(

Quote from: ggroy;513646Polynomial or non-polynomial scaling?

(ie. P or NP?)

Honestly, I don't quite understand the argument, nor if they are using it in a strictly mathematical sense.  For example, I assume 'linear Fighter' means the 3.x Fighter generally increases BaB, Saves, and overall combat skills by a constant, whereas Wizards increase exponentially-ish.

I wouldn't even begin to try explaining how the myriad of spells available is quantified to come up with that idea.  For example, TGD thinks that Fly is essentially an "I win" button and obliterates the need for a Thief.  And if the Magic User took that spell, and that spell only, for all their 3rd level spell slots, that makes sense.  You would be able to negate the Thief's Climb Walls skill several times a day.  But that is pretty much all you would be doing.  Forget Fireball, forget Lightning Bolt, forget all the other useful 3rd level spells you could be memorizing.  Hurting the Thief's feelbads is all that is important!

I understand this is kind of similar to the Diplomacy stuff, in that a player would really have to work at it to exploit the matter in this way.  In my mind, the difference is that Fly would piss the other players off, and would be dealt with through 'peer pressure' ("Hey, man, how about you stop playing your Wizard like a complete fucking douchebag?"), while Diplomacy is ultimately good for the party, and would generally get support from the players.

How many walls do your thieves climb in a day?

Quote from: StormBringer;513652Honestly, I don't quite understand the argument, nor if they are using it in a strictly mathematical sense.

If something is difficult to quantify precisely, there's not much further one can go mathematically.

For example, I've attempted to figure out how to precisely quantify the difference between a melee attack and a ranged attack on an opponent.  I have not been able to figure how the "rules as written" D&D/AD&D functions in a precise quantified manner, in regard to the difference between a melee and ranged attack.

At times I wonder if there is any underlying precise quantification for D&D/AD&D, other than "trial and error" or "Gygax decree".

Quote from: Reckall;513648Couldn't this be "the point" :rolleyes:

It's a common TGD tactic.

1) Completely misunderstand/misread/blatantly misquote what victim said.

2) Completely ignore any attempt by victim to clarify/correct misinterpretration.

3) Insult victim repeatedly for not defending what was "said".

So, don't feel ignored, instead be happy to get a taste of that place.

Quote from: Reckall;513648Couldn't this be "the point" :rolleyes:



(Waves)

Did anyone read my "Gnome Giant Slayer" PrC example? I feel ignored. :(

I did read it, and I did find it relevant.

Quote from: ggroy;513654If something is difficult to quantify precisely, there's not much further one can go mathematically.

Exactly, which is why I assume Frank and his crew use it as a moderately hyperbolic catch-phrase rather than a strictly accurate assessment.

QuoteFor example, I've attempted to figure out how to precisely quantify the difference between a melee attack and a ranged attack on an opponent.  I have not been able to figure how the "rules as written" D&D/AD&D functions in a precise quantified manner, in regard to the difference between a melee and ranged attack.

Maybe set up some kind of limit and try dividing the damage by the distance or something.  For missile weapons, as range approaches zero, the formula approaches undefined (can't use missile weapons under a certain range).  For melee weapons, as range approaches 3 or 4, damage approaches 0.  Something like that.

QuoteAt times I wonder if there is any underlying precise quantification for D&D/AD&D, other than "trial and error" or "Gygax decree".

A lot of it comes from Chainmail, which had a somewhat different set of assumptions, but largely it was what Uncle Gary and his groups found enjoyable.  None of it is strictly derived from physics or integral calculus, but I think most of it proceeds from the general principles and shaped as required by 'fun' more than 'accuracy'.

Sorry if I come late, but here are my two bits:

Re: Diplomacy. I agree that it is an example to a rule that, took to its extreme, is broken. Without molesting Sauron, does anyone think that having +50 in Diplomacy will steer a Forgite from his delusions? I guess not, and I agree that a DM that allows that is a sign of a broken DM, not of a broken rule (since all rules, soon or late, break up).

I think that it was Tom Clancy who said "God gave us math and physics, but also a brain - there is a reason for that, pilgrim!" IMHO, RPGs should be the epitome of this.

Then there is what I call "The Jason Bourne Factor". A game tells you what you can do with a magazine: learn a skill, get some info, or make someone happy because he was looking for that issue (+2 Diplomacy with him).

Then Jason Bourne comes along, rolls the magazine, and first mauls with it a trained enemy agent, and then uses the same magazine to blow up a house (just watch "The Bourne Supremacy").

So, is the magazine "broken"? Not at all. Truth is, anyone can put together things in a way so out of the loop as to break the common, shared conception we have of them - from magazines to game rules.

More importantly, we cannot even say that it is a bad thing. But here comes the need for the DM's brain: blowing up a house with a magazine isn't in the rules, but if the thing makes sense a brain will tell you: "That's cool! Go with it!"

I even experimented it by myself, in a debate on a Forgite forum (I know, bad idea outright). I made the case that Jason Bourne can survive better in a GDR that in a wargame, because a wargame is deterministic, while a GDR allows for flexible judgement.

This started the usual Forgite rumbling about "DMs" to which I answered (I know, very bad idea) that you cannot judge "the DM" but "a DM". But also that, more to the point, the passage from determinism to free will and flexibility is symbolic of the evolution from Chainmail to D&D - and that this is a way as good as another to explain why 4E was an involution.

At this point a moderator (sorry, "facilitator") comes along and rants about how I had "blown up the intellectualism scale" or something, to which I answered "and starting with a rolled magazine, too!"

Thread locked.

So, I can honestly say that once I blew up a Forgite thread with a rolled magazine. Find the rule for that anywhere: from a game to the real world. Still, it happened :)

Quote from: StormBringer;513658None of it is strictly derived from physics or integral calculus, but I think most of it proceeds from the general principles and shaped as required by 'fun' more than 'accuracy'.

This is probably similar to the sort of "expediency" which is done for stuff like sci-fi/fantasy literature and tv shows + movies.

If one tries to do the science precisely, it bogs everything down.

Quote from: ggroy;513660This is probably similar to the sort of "expediency" which is done for stuff like sci-fi/fantasy literature and tv shows + movies.

If one tries to do the science precisely, it bogs everything down.

Exactly, and it makes certain tropes impossible, like FTL, which generally negates most of the genre.  I mean, I dug the hell out of Moon, but as a game or ongoing campaign?  Not gonna happen.

Quote from: StormBringer;513662Exactly, and it make certain tropes impossible, like FTL, which generally negates most of the genre.  I mean, I dug the hell out of Moon, but as a game or ongoing campaign?  Not gonna happen.

When I was younger, I use to like reading and watching a lot of sci-fi stuff.  As I got older, I found a lot of sci-fi stuff harder to "suspend disbelief".

These days, I largely see most sci-fi/fantasy tv shows + movies, as something resembling James Bond or Rambo.  Basically not much different than a traditional "western" movie in the wild west, but in space (sci-fi) or an alternate "ancient" time period (fantasy).

Quote from: two_fishes;513637Well, now you're shifting goalposts, but whatever. So the PC is able to convince Sauron to ignore him and have him sent away rather than simply kill him on the spot. Shouldn't a talented and trained diplomat be able to soothe his enemies, especially if he's using magic to help him? This doesn't sound horrible to me, at this point. If a player is spending his resources to be good at diplomacy, he should be good at it.

They weren't my goalposts to begin with, but the point is that Sauron should be ruthlessly implacable and hateful.  He should be unable to be reasoned with because he is the embodiment of evil who desires to rule over Middle Earth with the free people enslaved to his will.  Diplomacy should automatically fail against him in all circumstances.  And in my games, it would, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm not changing the rules.  The rules are garbage, so I'm ignoring them entirely--but the difference is that I am willing to fully admit that the rules are junk, unlike certain people on this website who claim that they aren't broken because the GM just has to write new ones.

For instance:

Quote from: Benoist;513638"Rules as what they are" is nothing. At all.

This is idiotic.  If I give a fighter +300 to attack and damage at level one, we can objectively say that this is overpowered.  But according to Benoist and people who think like him, you can't prove that this is overpowered because you're not taking the rest of the game into consideration.  After all, it's not overpowered because:

a) The DM can simply change the rule.
b) The DM can deliberately screw the fighter over.
c) The DM can fight fighters with fighters.
d) The DM can put the fighter into situations where fighting isn't a solution.

Of course, the only one of those that isn't borderline Down Syndrome-level of thinking is option d), and even then you're still looking at a class that can solo a balor at first level.

Quote from: StormBringer;513643I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said, but this is the part that rather stands out for me.  It is a very odd stance for the 'linear Fighter quadratic Wizard' folks to take.  Giving everyone more magic would seem to include the Magic User, so they would be even more quadratic.

It doesn't really include the spellcasters, but they are already operating under the assumption that the DM allows Spell Compendium and all overpowered splatbooks into the game.  The Tome classes are arbitrarily matched against a power level rarely seen in-game, which means that allowing said material into the game is a disaster waiting to happen.  TGD posters generally assume that all rogues are using rings of blink with acid flasks and an epic-level feat to sneak attack to put out something like 88d6 damage each round.

Yes, the Tomes are balanced with that mindset.

The main problem with the fighter is that it doesn't have anything to do outside of combat.  Give him the option to sneak and notice things and be diplomatic and the class would be fine.  You're still going to have to deal with the bad math of the 3e system, but you can work around that.  If the fighter had six skill points per level and the Weapon Focus line didn't suck so much, I'd be completely fine with the class as-is, even if did wind up weaker than the spellcasters.  (Although the feats in the 3.5 PHB desperately need rebalancing.)

Quote from: Benoist;513642You fail at understanding what I am saying, beejazz.

You claim context's importance for the analysis of rules. I don't totally disagree.

But context is claimed in defense of specific rules unfairly again and again. A DM shouldn't have to build a campaign around a character who can talk down literally any hostile foe. Sauron is an extreme example. Sub in the phrase "any hostile foe" and try it on for size.

It's an extreme case that points out holes in the rule. Uncontroversial holes that most people have a problem with. Or rather have "fixed" by using some other ruling. For example:
1) RAW diplomacy doesn't include roleplaying in the DC, when instead it should be central (see again: bluff as a comparison case).
2) There's a cap on DCs in the RAW, which can be surpassed in skill ranks trivially.
3) Sauron is used as the example both because it is game-disruptive and because people probably have the impression that higher level NPCs should be tougher to convince in their games.

The fact that the DM makes rulings is taken into account. But if there is a rule that is frequently overruled, maybe the common DM rulings are more valid than the rule as written.

My main point is that assuming the party will never have a conversation with the villain, that there will always be deadlines or wandering monsters, or that you're going to have 4+ fights per day are all assumptions. Assumptions that are often not borne out in the context of real play. Same as any other spherical cows.

Then there's the fact that rules issues aren't obvious. It's obvious that the gnome giant hunter is for your giant campaign (there you go). It's obvious that the 12d6 weapon should be left out. It's not obvious that toughness won't make you tough, and isn't really for any particular circumstance ever. It's not obvious that diplomacy offers a method for defeating foes with no scaling difficulty ever. Assuming that the DM will resolve conflicts at the table and run a cool session is fine. Assuming system mastery to fix the game makes the game shit for new players.

There are those who shine a spotlight on ridiculous edge cases, yes. Pun-pun isn't showing some core failing of the game. The find city nuke is a dumb combo technicality. No one actually wants to play as a psychic sandwich. But that doesn't mean that you can't read the rules and say "well... looks like these are shit and don't do what they are intended to do" on the basis of the rules themselves now and again.

Treat diplomacy DC as guideline rather then ironclad rule.

WHOAH WORLD DISAPPEARS.

Then again I agree that the presentation of the rule is broken in the game. But it's same to presume that in Warhammer 1e, you can persuade everyone to anything, because it's just the test of Fellowship, rather then the GM should consider proper modifiers :P

QuoteThe main problem with the fighter is that it doesn't have anything to do outside of combat. Give him the option to sneak and notice things and be diplomatic and the class would be fine. You're still going to have to deal with the bad math of the 3e system, but you can work around that. If the fighter had six skill points per level and the Weapon Focus line didn't suck so much, I'd be completely fine with the class as-is, even if did wind up weaker than the spellcasters. (Although the feats in the 3.5 PHB desperately need rebalancing.)

Fighter is John Galt.

Quote from: beejazz;513668It's an extreme case that points out holes in the rule. Uncontroversial holes that most people have a problem with. Or rather have "fixed" by using some other ruling. For example:

Extreme cases are where the whole argument breaks down.  They're meant to be a reduction ad absurdum which reveals the faults in a rule when applied to their logical extreme.

The problem here is that:

1) Absurd problems are easy to deal with - they are obviously absurd, you can expect agreement that there is a problem which needs overuling at the table.

2) Extreme situations usually require extreme effort to become actual in game situations.  4E has similar problems with Intimidate which can be completely broken at high enough levels of optimization.  Yet I'm relaxed about it because:  it would need both players who are madly and obviously optimizing; and collusion on my part to give them the correct magic items.  (The real problem for newbie DMs, I feel, is to feed them the expectation that they can always trust the rules.)

A rule is more a problem when it doesn't work in the situations in which it is most likely to be used.  This is what needs to be demonstrated.

Quote from: B.T.;513666They weren't my goalposts to begin with, but the point is that Sauron should be ruthlessly implacable and hateful.  He should be unable to be reasoned with because he is the embodiment of evil who desires to rule over Middle Earth with the free people enslaved to his will.  Diplomacy should automatically fail against him in all circumstances.

To use Sauron in a 3e game, you have to stat him up.

Sauron as a monster, 3e style writeup:

Implacable Will. (Ex) Sauron is wholly dedicated to his own goals and desires. No one, not even Iluvatar, can dissuade him from his goals. Sauron is immune to Diplomacy checks and all spells, spell-like abilities, and extraordinary abilities which act in a similar manner.

(Rough first draft, and I haven't looked at 3e rules in 6 years or so, but that's the essential idea. If this particular being needs to be immune, make them immune. That's why monsters have abilities, to tailor them within the mechanics of the game.)

EDIT: Also, this isn't meant as a defense of the Diplomacy skill rules. Just an explanation of how to use the extant mechanics of the game to model a monster that can't be Diplomatisized.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;513672To use Sauron in a 3e game, you have to stat him up.

Sauron as a monster, 3e style writeup:

Implacable Will. (Ex) Sauron is wholly dedicated to his own goals and desires. No one, not even Iluvatar, can dissuade him from his goals. Sauron is immune to Diplomacy checks and all spells, spell-like abilities, and extraordinary abilities which act in a similar manner.

(Rough first draft, and I haven't looked at 3e rules in 6 years or so, but that's the essential idea. If this particular being needs to be immune, make them immune. That's why monsters have abilities, to tailor them within the mechanics of the game.)

EDIT: Also, this isn't meant as a defense of the Diplomacy skill rules. Just an explanation of how to use the extant mechanics of the game to model a monster that can't be Diplomatisized.

I thought of that earlier.  However this is basically the same as the DM simply ruling that "you fail".  It just has the added factor of "here's something I prepared earlier".

Of course if you have a real dick player it might help shut them up, but if a player believes you are making things up on the spot purely to spite them, then you have a real world diplomacy problem.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;513673I thought of that earlier.  However this is basically the same as the DM simply ruling that "you fail".

Then so are all the monster abilities which grant immunities. Like Elf immunities to Sleep spells and the like.

Which doesn't make them invalid or bad. Those are perfectly valid abilities which exist for a good reason.

Like I said, I wasn't defending the Diplomacy rules. Just pointing out that, if you have one specific monster who needs to be immune to Diplomacy checks, they can be and it's well within the rules.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;513675Then so are all the monster abilities which grant immunities. Like Elf immunities to Sleep spells and the like.

Which doesn't make them invalid or bad. Those are perfectly valid abilities which exist for a good reason.

Like I said, I wasn't defending the Diplomacy rules. Just pointing out that, if you have one specific monster who needs to be immune to Diplomacy checks, they can be and it's well within the rules.

Yes.  Which is why it was a poor example for trying to demonstrate the Diplomacy rules are broken.  

Now if you have to apply that immunity to every monster when dealing with a non corner case twinked out character then you really do have a problem (but you're example should be an Orc Chief, rather than Sauron).

I can't remember well enough how Diplomacy worked in 3E to say if that is the case or not, but the example of Frodo vs Sauron doesn't really illustrate anything.

(Or if Diplomacy is both a big enough part of the game, and hard enough to fix to make a real fuss about, I doubt it's anything like at the same level as overpowered wizards.)

Quote from: Dog Quixote;513677I can't remember well enough how Diplomacy worked in 3E to say if that is the case or not, but the example of Frodo vs Sauron doesn't really illustrate anything.

That I agree with. If there is an underlying problem, this specific case is a useless formulation of it.

"Explain the problem better", I would say to people advancing this example.

(And, while I haven't looked at the 3e rules in 6-ish years, the Diplomacy skill may well have problems. Which using Bluff as a guideline could well fix. I refuse to have an opinion, because I lack the necessary information. Strange, I know, especially on the Internet. But there it is.)

Well, I whipped up the "Epic Levels Handbook" (which I actually bought because it is really fun to read, never used it) and it says that:

"Diplomacy can turn someone into a Fanatic" (if you make a supercheck). Once someone is "Fanatic", the Diplomacy skill will not influence him anymore.

Couldn't we just say that Sauron is Fanatic about himself and move on?

(Real world examples abound: I think that mentioning Hitler here doesn't violate Goodwin Law).

Still, Frodo von Bismarck is an epic name & concept for a halfing character.

Quote from: Reckall;513679Well, I whipped up the "Epic Levels Handbook" (which I actually bought because it is really fun to read, never used it) and it says that:

"Diplomacy can turn someone into a Fanatic" (if you make a supercheck). Once someone is "Fanatic", the Diplomacy skill will not influence him anymore.

Couldn't we just say that Sauron is Fanatic about himself and move on?

(Real world examples abound: I think that mentioning Hitler here doesn't violate Goodwin Law).

For you, it's Mussolini. ;)

Quote from: Rincewind1;513296Perhaps this is a money problem. The "old schoolers" had grown up, they have about 30 - 50 years now. They have their own money, as they work, and they can spend it on the hobby. The age that 4e was marketted - the 15 - 25 range, are people who are mostly at school & college/university etc. etc. People who are too busy either educating themselves, or usually making it in small jobs, to have money to spend on frivolities such as RPG books.

It's true that us old grognards have way more money to spend on RPGs than do the newbies in their late teens/early twenties.  OTOH as a 4e GM, at my game table I do quite like looking out over a sea of attractive young ladies, new players attracted to 4e - a sea of crusty old grognards would not be so nice. :D

Quote from: Ladybird;513593"The game" isn't what you buy when you buy an RPG book, though; what you buy is the rules. If the rules aren't functional, then the product that you have bought isn't functional.

Sure. But that's a silly strawman of what Benoist is actually saying.

If we take this in the context of what Benoist is actually saying, what you're saying here boils down to, "If Toon doesn't work for a gritty cyberpunk campaign, then it's a completely nonfunctional product."

Quote from: beejazz;513615That covers the absence of a rule. Not a bad rule.

Rules that exist should still be held to certain standards.

The pertinent question, however, is: What standard?

Claiming that a rule is completely worthless because it breaks under extreme hypothetical circumstances that 99% of the people playing the game will never see at their gaming table... well, ok. But does it really matter?

This was, IMO, WotC's biggest miscalculation with 4E: They enacted radical revisions of their ruleset in order to fix problems that the vast majority of their players were not experiencing.

It's not that the problems weren't real. It's that the problems were roughly the equivalent of saying, "Huh. The rules for Monopoly don't really work if the board is laid out in a straight line instead of in a loop." I mean, it's true. It just doesn't matter to the vast majority of Monopoly players. In fact, it probably wouldn't matter to them even if the Monopoly community was made up of people who spent a lot of time making and playing on customized boards.

People like Trollman think that 3.5 and Pathfinder players are all just self-deluded masochists. But the reality is that they just don't play Monopoly on linear boards.

Quote from: Reckall;513659Re: Diplomacy. I agree that it is an example to a rule that, took to its extreme, is broken. Without molesting Sauron, does anyone think that having +50 in Diplomacy will steer a Forgite from his delusions? I guess not, and I agree that a DM that allows that is a sign of a broken DM, not of a broken rule (since all rules, soon or late, break up).

To return to an earlier point, however: Where, exactly, is the rule useful then?

The entire structure of Diplomacy in 3E is "make a skill check against a flat DC to permanently modify an NPC's relationship with you". Once you've said "well, that's stupid and the DM should never let that happen", what guidance or utility is the rule providing?

Zilch. That's why it's a craptacular rule.

I obviously agree with you that rules that only break down under unlikely and extreme conditions are not inherently problematic. But Diplomacy isn't like that. Partly because you can get broken results from a PC who just drops a skill point into it every level. Mostly because the rules don't actually provide utility at any level. The mechanic is fundamentally broken at a conceptual level.

Quote from: One Horse Town;513629If you can quote some that no-one in the ether disagrees with, then i'll concede the point.

3E Diplomacy is actually a pretty good example. The only defense I've ever heard for it was some variation of "no decent DM would ever use those rules". Even two_fishes is just using a variant on that theme.

Quote from: two_fishes;513637

QuoteAt which point, you can take a -10 penalty to make a Diplomacy check as a full-round action and turn Sauron from hostile to indifferent (DC 25) fairly easily.

Shouldn't a talented and trained diplomat be able to soothe his enemies, especially if he's using magic to help him? This doesn't sound horrible to me, at this point. If a player is spending his resources to be good at diplomacy, he should be good at it.

I'm not sure you're fully appreciating what this means: It means that your PCs will never fight a battle against intelligent foes again. It is, quite literally, the ultimate "win button".

And that's before your relatively low-level PCs can automatically start turning gods and demi-gods into helpful or even fanatic allies. (How could they possibly get access to gods and demi-gods? Well, you have toremember that they can automatically turn everyone else into a helpful and/or fanatical ally, too. They just have to climb the ladder.)

Quote from: StormBringer;513658Maybe set up some kind of limit and try dividing the damage by the distance or something.  For missile weapons, as range approaches zero, the formula approaches undefined (can't use missile weapons under a certain range).  For melee weapons, as range approaches 3 or 4, damage approaches 0.  Something like that.

If I'm understanding the point of the exercise correctly, I suspect the difficulty is that you then have to factor in average encounter starting distances vs. the speed at which opponents will close and the degree to which ranged combatants can attempt to control or limit that closing speed.

If you could get DMs to actually use the spotting distance rules, you could start calibrating for some of that.

(OTOH, it probably simplifies out considerably if you simply assume that ranged combatants will try to stay at range and melee combatants will try to stay in melee. As long as you don't make either state particularly "sticky", you can probably assume that enlightened self-interest and random chance will tend to even these things out.)

Quote from: xech;513514Benoist could you please explain what is your point?
You keep repeating one that judges rules should not take them out of context, over and over and over.

This is the origin of what you see in this thread:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=18653

Quote from: Justin Alexander;513586With that being said, I think the point Benoist is trying to make is that the rules are only one part of the game. Of equal importance is (a) the scenario and (b) the rulings made by the GM (because RPGs are inherently open-ended game structures).

And yet neither (a) nor (b) are important to assess the coherence of a rules system. See thread linked above.

As for Frank looking at 'the rules' in total isolation of a social context, his critique (and remedy) of the SR matrix rules give that the lie, as does much else in his work. I have my personal ad hominem explanation for much behaviour in this thread, but I'll not contribute to dragging it down further than other people already have.

QuoteTo return to an earlier point, however: Where, exactly, is the rule useful then?

The entire structure of Diplomacy in 3E is "make a skill check against a flat DC to permanently modify an NPC's relationship with you". Once you've said "well, that's stupid and the DM should never let that happen", what guidance or utility is the rule providing?

Zilch. That's why it's a craptacular rule.

I obviously agree with you that rules that only break down under unlikely and extreme conditions are not inherently problematic. But Diplomacy isn't like that. Partly because you can get broken results from a PC who just drops a skill point into it every level. Mostly because the rules don't actually provide utility at any level. The mechanic is fundamentally broken at a conceptual level.

Which is why they probably should had printed with really big bold letters

"All the DCs are guidelines rather then ironclad rules"

Then, after peopel'd start the ridicule with Diplomantomancers, they could just say "Okay, so the guideline is flawed. Ignore".

Quote from: Windjammer;513706I have my personal ad hominem explanation for much behaviour in this thread, but I'll not contribute to dragging it down further than other people already have.

I would be very interested.

Also: the Sauron example is especially trying to provide the context that allegedly is not there.

It's threads like those in which I thank the High Powers, if any, that they did not make me a mathematician at heart. It took me 5 frigging minutes, as I read 3e, to figure out that diplomacy guidelines are broken. It took me 5 more minutes to explain to my players, that I'm setting the DC for that stuff.

Actually, this is the problem with systems that are too complex, without focusing on narration conflict resolution. Sooner or later, you will make mistakes. And to me, 3e is indeed more complex. Is it a broken system though?

Not really more then Warhammer's "Toughness as DMG reduction" broken.

The problem i found with diplomacy is the rule should have given the GM much more leeway to determine what success actually meant (and this how we used it). The player can say "i am going to try to talk sauron into letting us go", but the GM should ultimately decide what smooth talk can actually achieve against sauron (or any character). There are some people who simply wont budge on certain things. To use a modern example, should a player playing a cia agent be able to talk Osama Bin laden into loving america? Probably not. As a gm i would interpret a successful diplomacy roll against bin laden as the pc earning his respect as an adversary or something to that effect. It wouldn't really change things much but might lead to a "you and I aren't so different agent Smith afterall" kind of dialogue.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;513715The problem i found with diplomacy is the rule should have given the GM much more leeway to determine what success actually meant (and this how we used it). The player can say "i am going to try to talk sauron into letting us go", but the GM should ultimately decide what smooth talk can actually achieve against sauron (or any character). There are some people who simply wont budge on certain things. To use a modern example, should a player playing a cia agent be able to talk Osama Bin laden into loving america? Probably not. As a gm i would interpret a successful diplomacy roll against bin laden as the pc earning his respect as an adversary or something to that effect. It wouldn't really change things much but might lead to a "you and I aren't so different agent Smith afterall" kind of dialogue.

Exactly. The mistake they made there was giving some clear rules for "how to make NPCs your bitch", rather then give a few examples of various DCs you need to, for example, persuade the bandits to let you go, persuade the guards not to arrest you, persuade the judge to not sentence you for hanging. You can have just as absurd situations, if in AD&D you rule that "Roll under or equal to Charisma to change people's attitude to you in positive way", then you see your players chugging Potions of Charisma like Coke.

Also, this is another reason why I think an idea of "Social combat" should spread from narrative RPGs towards classic RPGs. Of course, bribing a guard to let you past the gate, if the guard is lazy, is just a diplo check. If you are however trying to wriggle your way out of a murder, it's social conflict, which should be as complex as combat. This is perhaps why Diplomacy in 3e is more dumb then broken - because it treats complexity of human interaction in a same manner as jumping a far ledge.

Then again, if you write just guidelines, you will end up with people complaining that there are no real rules. It's Sophie's Choice, except nobody dies.

Generally i avoid social skills and let people deal with stuff in character. But because some of my players like having social skill mehanics, i use them as a back up device. If a player has lots of ranks in persuade tries to put together a sales pitch to an npc but but keeps bungling, i. May cal for a persuade roll after all the rp and factor in the result. Or if a character has no ranks keeps making sweet pitches, i may ask for a check to reign him in a bit. But these days i find the game is more fun for me when social skills are removed or ignored. I ran a game last year with no social skill rolls and found it really put us into character, cranked up the rp, and made the characters decisions matter a lot more. We also didn't use stuff like perception. So everyone really had to interact with the setting and npcs, like we did when we played in the 80s/90s.

Playing without these things is jarring at first if you havent done so for a while, but after a couple of sessions it really makes a difference (at least it did for me). I even had people in my group who were adament that social skills don't dampen rp adit it made a huge difference.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;513719Generally i avoid social skills and let people deal with stuff in character. But because some of my players like having social skill mehanics, i use them as a back up device. If a player has lots of ranks in persuade tries to put together a sales pitch to an npc but but keeps bungling, i. May cal for a persuade roll after all the rp and factor in the result. Or if a character has no ranks keeps making sweet pitches, i may ask for a check to reign him in a bit. But these days i find the game is more fun for me when social skills are removed or ignored. I ran a game last year with no social skill rolls and found it really put us into character, cranked up the rp, and made the characters decisions matter a lot more. We also didn't use stuff like perception. So everyone really had to interact with the setting and npcs, like we did when we played in the 80s/90s.

Playing without these things is jarring at first if you havent done so for a while, but after a couple of sessions it really makes a difference (at least it did for me). I even had people in my group who were adament that social skills don't dampen rp adit it made a huge difference.

I think that there is a place for social skills. On the NWN servers I played, they were treated as RP guidelines - you did not roll a Bluff check when you tried to lie to your fellow player. But it was expected of you, that if you had a low Bluff skill, your character would not know to lie, so you'd rp accordingly, for example by emotiong "Of course, erm, that, uh *he shifts his eyes uncomfortably* I killed the guard, as you asked, boss." While if your bluff was high, you'd just go "Killed the bastard just as you asked, boss". At first I was not too cool with that, as metagaming was a possibility, but it's all about trust - people stuck with it. And in pen and paper stuff, it'd be even easier to enforce/be honest about. And that's where social skills become cool stuff rather then mechanical balance - because if you want to RP a master of lies, invest 20 points into Bluff, and RP likewise. Lie all you want, and the GM will accept most of the stuff, because you have 20 Bluff, you are a cold blooded liar.

Part of the problem is, that if the player is less talky, he'd be unable to play a very diplomatic character by your and partially mine method. On the OTHER hand, if such a player does try, it turns into "I try to persuade the guard to let us through, rolled 20, I succeeded, right?"

Again, this might be part of RPG experience and personality. For example - Scion has this whole "Values of Character" mechanic, that I find a good idea (it's sorta like alignment in DnD), but the actual MECHANIC execution of it ("If the character has Brave, he needs to fail the check or he charges into combat") is bizarre as fuck for me.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;513715To use a modern example, should a player playing a cia agent be able to talk Osama Bin laden into loving america? Probably not. As a gm i would interpret a successful diplomacy roll against bin laden as the pc earning his respect as an adversary or something to that effect. It wouldn't really change things much but might lead to a "you and I aren't so different agent Smith afterall" kind of dialogue.

That seems like a valid interpretation of changing hostile to friendly to me. Do the rules explicitly block this sort of interpretation?

Quote from: StormBringer;513643I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said, but this is the part that rather stands out for me.  It is a very odd stance for the 'linear Fighter quadratic Wizard' folks to take.  Giving everyone more magic would seem to include the Magic User, so they would be even more quadratic.

Well, that is MY interpretation of their attitude. I don't think they've bothered to sum it up so pithily.

Of course, from how I understand their point of view you really can't give the wizard and/or cleric moar magik because, well, they are already godlike. Its really giving everyone else the chance to catch up.



Which, yes, does tend to ignore the occasional calls to break up spell casters to allow more thematic casters (rather than, you know, just letting players decide to limit themselves to necromancy spells and call themselves a necromancer... gotta build in the limit, you see...) or the calls for wizards to actually create world destroying armies of minions like the bad guys always seem to do in cheesy swords and sorcery movies...

That's the problem with pithy summaries, I'm afraid...

Quote from: Justin Alexander;513699The pertinent question, however, is: What standard?

To start with, does anyone actually use the rule as written? Because if it's overruled in every game, odds are it's actually probably a bad rule. Easy standard right there.

Content is less predictable/adjustable, so I would just say that if the typical response to its use is regret or disappointment (toughness, the monk) it's probably time to fix something.

And I was arguing against Ben because rules are for play. People finding problems with the rules usually find them in play, but it doesn't matter because there's no special context that makes toughness a feat worth having. Pretty much ever. Nor is there any context that makes the diplomacy rules (as written) good. Pretty much ever. For the reasons I described (scaling capability vs fixed DC, doesn't take RP into account, etc.).

QuoteClaiming that a rule is completely worthless because it breaks under extreme hypothetical circumstances that 99% of the people playing the game will never see at their gaming table... well, ok. But does it really matter?

Except when rules break at low levels that many people will see at their table, as in the case of toughness, the monk, and the procedures behind diplomacy.

Also, I bought the rules for high level play with the rules for low level play. If I want to play a high level game (as many of us did in the 3x days) I don't want to have to rewrite more than half the system (as many of us did).

I mentioned earlier how if I complain about how magic is messing up my 1 fight per session mystery game, people will tell me to put a deadline or wandering monsters in it, and if I tell them those things don't fit the context of the adventure they'll tell me I'm being lazy. If I say high level play breaks down, the answer is not to use high level play. Why not? I payed for those rules same as any others in the book. Why should I not expect for the high level rules to just work?

QuoteTo return to an earlier point, however: Where, exactly, is the rule useful then?

The entire structure of Diplomacy in 3E is "make a skill check against a flat DC to permanently modify an NPC's relationship with you". Once you've said "well, that's stupid and the DM should never let that happen", what guidance or utility is the rule providing?

Zilch. That's why it's a craptacular rule.

This is what I'm getting at really.

Quote from: two_fishes;513735That seems like a valid interpretation of changing hostile to friendly to me. Do the rules explicitly block this sort of interpretation?

No they don't but I think a lot of people interpret them to mean you magically convince the target of your position. Looking at the SRD right. Nw, and it isn't as bad as I recall, but I do think some characterz simply wont budge on those categories. But bin laden having respect for you, isn't the same as wishing you well. Diplomacy can only do so much. If Obama sits down with Glenn beck, i dont think there is anything either side can say to get the other to "go out of his way to help". These sorts of rules are fine if people like them, i just would just like to see more respect in them for character personality and motives. Sometimes players shouldn't be able to shift thoses categories.

I probably should leave this topic alone, but for me it reminds me of when people complained about "balance" in In Nomine. The powers had no real "balance" between them at all if taken from a firepower perspective, or any perspective in its particular. However, since the game had various specialists operating under wholly different contexts, there was no real way to "balance" powers because there was no real equivalence. Games couldn't have PCs try to be powerful in all things or stay within the tight confines of their specialty. There was no way to take one part and from its lens judge the whole because you ran into competing parts that checked such usage.

The end result was "balance" between powers was a pipe dream in actual play. It just didn't make sense because setting context and its ensuing world logic threw any mechanical presuppositions out the window. Throw in player alterations to world conceits (adjusting the game's dials as it were) and even more power disparity expectations became irrelevant. And the most tragic part in me trying to relate this is you sorta have to see it to believe it.

Then again, In Nomine was shit because it slaughtered great iconoclastic original  rather then anything related to actual mechanics of the game ;).

I always viewed DCs in the rules as guidelines or examples, there for the DM to reference when determining thier OWN DCs for particular actions. I would never set a cap on DCs, and never have.

Also, not once in 10 years of playing 3e has anyone in my group EVER used the Diplomacy skill - that's what Role Playing is for.

Quote from: Werekoala;513745I always viewed DCs in the rules as guidelines or examples, there for the DM to reference when determining thier OWN DCs for particular actions. I would never set a cap on DCs, and never have.

Also, not once in 10 years of playing 3e has anyone in my group EVER used the Diplomacy skill - that's what Role Playing is for.

Rules as guidelines?  That's just CRAZY TALK!

Quote from: thedungeondelver;513746Rules as guidelines?  That's just CRAZY TALK!

Silly person - Difficulty Check mechanics are the RULE , how to set the number is a guideline.

*whap*

Quote from: Rincewind1;513741Then again, In Nomine was shit because it slaughtered great iconoclastic original  rather then anything related to actual mechanics of the game ;).

And yet I'm not all that interested in INS/MV's iconoclastic world as I am IN SJG's more muted world. I felt I had more atmosphere dial options for the types of games I wanted to play. Now there's a good example where buying a game is not explicitly for its rules! Tone mattered on both sides.
:p

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;513715The problem i found with diplomacy is the rule should have given the GM much more leeway to determine what success actually meant (and this how we used it). The player can say "i am going to try to talk sauron into letting us go", but the GM should ultimately decide what smooth talk can actually achieve against sauron (or any character). There are some people who simply wont budge on certain things. To use a modern example, should a player playing a cia agent be able to talk Osama Bin laden into loving america? Probably not. As a gm i would interpret a successful diplomacy roll against bin laden as the pc earning his respect as an adversary or something to that effect. It wouldn't really change things much but might lead to a "you and I aren't so different agent Smith afterall" kind of dialogue.

You mean like...actual Diplomacy?  You damn roleplayers.  :D

The fact that no one uses the material written (whether you call it a rule or a guideline) is still a pretty good indicator that the material is bad, and people would be better served with something more useful. More useful guidelines, if you want to quibble about what to call them.

Quote from: beejazz;513760The fact that no one uses the material written (whether you call it a rule or a guideline) is still a pretty good indicator that the material is bad, and people would be better served with something more useful. More useful guidelines, if you want to quibble about what to call them.

I dislike 3e, so I'd love to agree with you.

But - there are no perfect systems. So in a way, I like to think that Good RPG is when The Amount Of Rules/Guidelines Used > The Amount Of Rules/Guidelines Mandatory Removed.

And 3e, by a veeeeery small margin, falls on the former rather then latter.

Quote from: Rincewind1;513761I dislike 3e, so I'd love to agree with you.

But - there are no perfect systems. So in a way, I like to think that Good RPG is when The Amount Of Rules/Guidelines Used > The Amount Of Rules/Guidelines Mandatory Removed.

And 3e, by a veeeeery small margin, falls on the former rather then latter.

Hey, I actually like 3e and its offspring. My game of choice. I use it as an example of when rules criticism is valid only because I actually know the rules for that one.

So I'm not saying "it has bad rules therefore it is a bad game and needs fundamental 4e style alteration." I'm saying "these specific rules are bad therefore these specific rules should probably have been something else." Also a bit of "rules criticism is a valid part of the discourse and not all of it is so context sensitive."

If tgd and the charop board ignore context in cases where it matters, it doesn't follow that it matters in every instance. If they offer bad solutions, it doesn't follow that there was no problem to begin with.

I was wondering if the only things that is breaking up under extreme circumstances is the extreme debate on "Diplomacy". It reminds me of a joke I heard about 3.X grappling rules "Grappling rules were too complex and involved, Paizo's answer was to simplify them, while Wizards' was to change the whole system. Guess who won..."

I mean, are there other examples of skills that break down under extreme circumstances, or are we destroying 3.X because "Diplomacy" is porked? :D

Generally speaking, my feeling is that once you go above certain values you enter in "mythic" or "semi God-like" territory. The Epic Levels Handbook, which, I imagine, is terminally broken but also very fun to read and quite thoughtful, notices how, given an high enough modifier, you can run on clouds, walk on water and stuff. Which, Jesus aside, reminded me at once of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" (where some extreme feats gave more the feeling of an extraordinary ability than the "supermagicKi!" one of many Wuxia movies).

In a similar way, I can imagine the "mythic princess, so charming and eloquent that even bitter enemies became best friends", or "the forest gnome so able in debating that convinced travelers to give him all their possessions by simply talking to them.

Rethinking the "Frodo vs. Sauron" example under this light I think that the example is "broken" simply because Frodo hadn't +50 in Diplomacy, he was never presented this way, and so it looks absurd to us that he could pull the stunt of talking Sauron away from his evil deeds. By using this reasoning we could say that the very Fighter class is broken because "had Pippin been a 20th level fighter he could have killed Aragorn".

BUT had LotR presented a "+50 Diplomacy" hobbit who still failed to diplomatically sway Sauron, then we could say "come on! not even XY managed this! the skill is obviously broken!"

Which made me think about "Watership Down". Those who know the book will agree that when Hazel tries to convince Woundwort not to attack the Honeycomb is as "Frodo vs. Sauron" as you get. And the scene shows how Hazel fails by really a narrow margin. Even more important: the scene, the dialogue and the thoughts of the two characters are realistic.

So, a small, weak creature talking intelligently to a big, powerful enemy, and almost succeeding by itself is not a broken example at all. More so: the small creature can even succeed. Hazel's error - the reason behind his failed roll - was only to overstimate Woundwort's intelligence.

Ever time I read a "Diplomancer" type hypothetical scenario arguement, I can only wonder what kind of lame-ass DM would allow that kind of bullshit in their game. It defies all common sense.

Quote from: jeff37923;513775Ever time I read a "Diplomancer" type hypothetical scenario arguement, I can only wonder what kind of lame-ass DM would allow that kind of bullshit in thier game. It defies all common sense.

Diplomancer is really another stuff - an example of the "combo builds". I'd say that generally MtG logic was indeed a bit too much hardcoded into 3e. Interesting coincidence that it happened in the edition that happened after WotC took over TSR, eh?

:P

Quote from: Rincewind1;513777Diplomancer is really another stuff - an example of the "combo builds". I'd say that generally MtG logic was indeed a bit too much hardcoded into 3e.

Monte Cook openly admitted that, and it wasn't totally a bad thing: the way they finally defined/classified powers, creatures etc. (extraplanar, animal, aberration...) came straight out from M:tG "philosophy", and, IMHO, it is one of the best things in 3.X

Quote from: Reckall;513779Monte Cook openly admitted that, and it wasn't totally a bad thing: the way they finally defined/classified powers, creatures etc. (extraplanar, animal, aberration...) came straight out from M:tG "philosophy", and, IMHO, it is one of the best things in 3.X

Of course. But just like in MtG - it's hard to keep track of all the cards/supplements, without making broken combos. Ironically - the 3e breaking game combos do remind me very much of the combos that used to break MtG, as they usually rely on heavy metagame rather then using the mechanics you should be using, so to speak.

I don't know these days, but I still remember the infamous "Tolarian Academy" deck. And remember that MtG probably has much better R&D department, which is actually concerned about the balance, because you know - bastardly and ruthless competition is part of MtG culture.

Quote from: Rincewind1;513784because you know - bastardly and ruthless competition is part of MtG culture.

True, the key difference being that in M:tG this is a good thing, since it is a competitive game. In an RPG - any RPG - it is only good stuff to wank on for those, you know, unable of doing the deed :p

Quote from: Reckall;513787True, the key difference being that in M:tG this is a good thing, since it is a competitive game. In an RPG - any RPG - it is only good stuff to wank on for those, you know, unable of doing the deed :p

Indeed. Which is why such attitude need to be carefully applied to RPGs - and will be abused by same people who always wanted to construct the next Tolarian Academy (the deck that got 10 - 20 cards banned, if I remember correctly, and only a year ago each of those cards were marked Restricted - one per deck - in the Vintage category), and now they can fulfil their dreams by laughing at 3e.

The feats themselves and synergy between them are not a bad thing - but like with combos everywhere, in every possible product, sooner or later, you will have broken ones. Especially if you are more focused around the fluff of the product, rather then mechanical balance.

Actually, this thread is the first time I've even realised there was anything wrong with the Diplomacy skill - as I said earlier, we've never used it in 10 years.

Quote from: Werekoala;513791Actually, this thread is the first time I've even realised there was anything wrong with the Diplomacy skill - as I said earlier, we've never used it in 10 years.

The funny thing is that I used it for the first time ever in my last session. Out of the blue, the halfling rogue player said "I use my +12 in Diplomacy to talk to the Elves". No one, not even me as the DM, even knew that he had points in that skill.

Anyway it was a good call, since the player's following "performance" would have called for a -20 :p

After this grievous episode I'm thinking about a simple house rule: Diplomacy is for non role-playing situations, i.e. when someone writes a letter, or has a meeting behind closed doors, or "after a day of debate with the elves (roll to see what happened)" or such.

Quote from: Reckall;513792The funny thing is that I used it for the first time ever in my last session. Out of the blue, the halfling rogue player said "I use my +12 in Diplomacy to talk to the Elves". No one, not even me as the DM, even knew that he had points in that skill.

Anyway it was a good call, since the player's following "performance" would have called for a -20 :p

After this grievous episode I'm thinking about a simple house rule: Diplomacy is for non role-playing situations, i.e. when someone writes a letter, or has a meeting behind closed doors, or "after a day of debate with the elves (roll to see what happened)" or such.

Or use it as RP guideline - if you have low social skills & Charisma, you should RP a guy who doesn't know how to talk to people. And vice versa.

My problem is less that it is possible, actually. I've got enough imagination, maybe I've seen enough TV, to believe that anything you can have a conversation with is, essentially, something you can negotiate with.  

Really, on the face of it this isn't too different from Captain Kirk doing something awesome one week.


However, that doesn't mean I DON"T have a problem with Diplomacy as written, or the idea of some guy that opens his mouth and get's Thor's Hammer for being awesome, or Sauron turns good because, well, he can make that awesome DC.


At the very start of the problem is that god damn DC chart in the book. Moving from there is the fixed nature of it, the utter lack of framework to establish how, in the name of god, you could actually use Diplomacy to... say... Make Dracula walk into the sun instead of eating your face.

I mean: I can lay down my own idea for how (as an amateur writer, say) I could have a hero approach 'diplomancing dracula' with a chance for it to work out for Team Player, but that's because a: I'm brilliant, and b: I don't have to come up with a framework that turns into rules which is a hell of a lot different than just doing it.

What I do know is you can't just slap down a target number in a book and leave it like that.


(Now, should I post thoughts on a diplomacy 'framework', or end my post before I drop into lecture mode....)

Why is it so wrong to allow a player to follow the rules and create a "Diplomancer"?  If they can reach higher levels and create world peace - what is the problem?  Shouldn't a player be able to enjoy a character concept of their choosing?

Isn't the DM stopping it at all cost, a little too much of "I'm taking my ball and going home"?

Quote from: Rum Cove;513797Why is it so wrong to allow a player to follow the rules and create a "Diplomancer"?  If they can reach higher levels and create world peace - what is the problem?  Shouldn't a player be able to enjoy a character concept of their choosing?

Isn't the DM stopping it at all cost, a little too much of "I'm taking my ball and going home"?

Because when someone wants to masturbate, it's only courtesy to do it in one's privacy, unless you are being paid to do so in public by fetishists, or paying other to watch to your fetish.

Also, here's the original Fred the Diplomancer, for future reference. I know that there's a 2.0 version of him, which utilises some spell that gives you bonus to skill checks when you take damage, allowing you to rake the diplomacy up to +300 as you are simultaneously healed, allowing you to persuade gods to step down and let you rule the Multiverse. Without much further ado though :


Fred, the Diplomancer.

Drawn up for a recent campaign, Fred is a 6th level character. Using RoD, MiniHB, PHB, CA, CV, UA, BoED, the DMG, and various Dragon magazines, Fred is capable of stopping pretty much any fight before it even starts. I present - Fred:


Race: Venerable Magic-Blooded Half Elf Alignment: Chaotic Good
Flaws: Inattentive, Noncombatant
Traits: Polite, Honest

Level Class Feat(s)
1 Half Elf Bard Substitution Level 1 Sacred Vow, Negotiator, Extra Music
2 Marshal 1
3 Bard 2 Item Familiar
4 Warlock 1
5 Cleric(evangelist option) 1
6 Half Elf Paragon 1 Leadership, Complementary Insight(B)


Stats of Importance:

Charisma: 18
Intelligence: 16 or higher
Dexterity/Constitution: Generically good for any character.

Equipment:

Wendsday's Left Eye (6,000gp)
Ring of Diplomacy +8 (6,400gp)
Mwk Diplomacy Tool [makeup kit] (500gp)
Anything Else (100gp)

His cohort must have at least 9 Wisdom, 11 Intelligence, and 18 Charisma before age adjustments:

Race: Venerable Magic-Blooded Half Elf Alignment: Chaotic Good
Flaws: Inattentive, Noncombatant
Traits: Polite, Honest

Level Class Feat(s)
1 Cleric(evangelist option) 1 Sacred Vow, Negotiator, Skill Focus: Diplomacy
2 Cleric 2
3 Cleric 3 Complimentary Insight
4 Warlock 1




Cohorts check:
7 ranks
7 Charisma
9 Synergy
2 Evangelist cleric
2 Mind domain
2 Herald domain
7 Motivate Charisma (+2 with eagles splendor on main char)
6 Beguiling influence
2 racial
2 negotiator
2 sacred vow
2 Mwk tool
3 skill focus

+53 total (+55 with ES on)

He casts Eagle's Splendor on the main character, and uses the Aid Another rules from Complete Adventurer to roll a Diplomacy check to modify his master's check. He'll get a 65 on average, or +6. He can get between +5 and +7.

Mathematical Breakdown of Diplomacy Check:

9 ranks unnamed
9 Charisma unnamed
9 Synergy synergy
3 Skill Focus unnamed
9 Motivate Charisma unnamed
2 Racial racial
2 Sacred Vow perfection
2 Evangelist cleric unnamed
2 Mwk tool circumstance
6 Beguiling Influence enhancement?
5 Friendly Face circumstance
4 Wednesday's Left Eye unnamed
9 Item Familiar unnamed
4 Herald Domain unnamed
2 Mind Domain unnamed
2 Negotiator unnamed
8 Custom item competance
1 Polite trait unnamed
1 Honest trait unnamed
5 to 7 Cohorts aid another check

1d20+94 to 1d20+96 Total

Summary:

At a mere 6th level, Fred has a minimum of +94 on his diplomacy check. He has soothing voice, so he can stop fights as soon as they start, and he has tons of class goodies. Even with a -20 circumstance penalty on his check, he still automatically converts a creature from hostile to friendly. 7 times per day, Fred can stop fights that have already started just by talking with his Soothing Voice ability (Will DC 104 average negates). And best of all, Fred isn't specific to any campaign setting.

Quote from: Rincewind1;5137991d20+94 to 1d20+96 Total

Summary:

At a mere 6th level, Fred has a minimum of +94 on his diplomacy check. He has soothing voice, so he can stop fights as soon as they start, and he has tons of class goodies. Even with a -20 circumstance penalty on his check, he still automatically converts a creature from hostile to friendly. 7 times per day, Fred can stop fights that have already started just by talking with his Soothing Voice ability (Will DC 104 average negates). And best of all, Fred isn't specific to any campaign setting.

So, the bonus is nearly five times the maximum value of the die.  Whether or not this is allowed at anyone's table, that is simply ridiculous.  And this is also why self-delimited tables like descending AC make for a better game.

Quote from: Rum Cove;513797Why is it so wrong to allow a player to follow the rules and create a "Diplomancer"?  If they can reach higher levels and create world peace - what is the problem?  Shouldn't a player be able to enjoy a character concept of their choosing?

Isn't the DM stopping it at all cost, a little too much of "I'm taking my ball and going home"?

The issue is this strains believability for a lot of players. Obviously it depends on the group, the campaign style and setting, but i think there are a lot of situations where the lomancer is a potential issue. Diplomacy skill isn't magic.

Quote from: StormBringer;513800So, the bonus is nearly five times the maximum value of the die.  Whether or not this is allowed at anyone's table, that is simply ridiculous.  And this is also why self-delimited tables like descending AC make for a better game.

Actually this is why ascending AC is imo better, as you'd never reach a "hard limit" ;). Then again, I like both systems- and it really isn't hard to convert descending into ascending if you want to, per OSRIC.

And as I said - this build doesn't even utilise the masochismo, allowing Freddie to talk down gods.

Quote from: StormBringer;513800So, the bonus is nearly five times the maximum value of the die.  Whether or not this is allowed at anyone's table, that is simply ridiculous.  And this is also why self-delimited tables like descending AC make for a better game.

This was something i realized when i went back to older editions.

Quote from: StormBringer;513800So, the bonus is nearly five times the maximum value of the die.  Whether or not this is allowed at anyone's table, that is simply ridiculous.  And this is also why self-delimited tables like descending AC make for a better game.

Descending AC doesn't have a lower limit. The table just stop at -10.

Quote from: Rincewind1;513799Using RoD, MiniHB, PHB, CA, CV, UA, BoED, the DMG, and various Dragon magazines,

That your bug right there.

Quote from: estar;513805Descending AC doesn't have a lower limit. The table just stop at -10.

Yup - found an old character the other day with a -25 AC.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;513804This was something i realized when i went back to older editions.

I am only impressed with the broken builds when they manage do it with the Core Books.

Have somebody make Fred just using the 3.0 PHB and DMG.

Quote from: estar;513805Descending AC doesn't have a lower limit. The table just stop at -10.

For all intents and purposes, that is a pretty hard limit.

Quote from: Werekoala;513808Yup - found an old character the other day with a -25 AC.

For my own curiosity what gave that character -25 AC?

Quote from: Spike;513794(Now, should I post thoughts on a diplomacy 'framework', or end my post before I drop into lecture mode....)

Honestly, the thread hasn't been about whether 5e is vaporware for a while now. I'd be interested to hear what you have to say, especially if it involves a fix of some sort. Always a little more fun to hear about what people *do* about a given issue, rather than argue whether there is one.

Quote from: StormBringer;513810For all intents and purposes, that is a pretty hard limit.

There no hard limit

The DMG states extrapolate if you go off the table, just remember to add the six repeating 20s.

Plus with bog standard magic items you can have

Base AC 2 Plate + Shield
+5 Plate  -3
+5 Shield -8
+5 Ring of Protection -13
+4 Dexterity -17
+4 Sword of Defending with all bonus towards AC -21

So you can bust the -10 "cap" pretty easily with just the first edition books.

Quote from: estar;513809I am only impressed with the broken builds when they manage do it with the Core Books.

Have somebody make Fred just using the 3.0 PHB and DMG.

Core books have their rough spots too. Easiest for a non-magic character is just TWF plus sneak attack. Easy enough around second level. Doubles the damage bonus from sneak attack, and you can get that bonus every round by way of flanking.

You have the option of cross classing fighter, and starting this combo at level 2 instead of 3, as well as picking up more damaging weapons and better armor. If you go the flanking route, you may as well use the armor anyway.

This is probably a little worse than "bat wizard replaces rogue" because the bat wizard is wasting spell slots on things a rogue can do all day, among other things (the context you mention). But in this case the rogue is fighting better than the fighter, isn't significantly weaker against attacks, and doesn't have an equivalent to sacrificing spell slots. Meanwile the fighter (unlike the rogue) doesn't have as variable a role. If someone fights better than fighter why play fighter?

Not that there aren't also some abusive fighter builds. Just that if one person's being abusive more than one will want to, and it's an example of abuse that can happen accidentally (the two-weapon knife fighter is also a cool character concept, so this can be the opposite problem from the guy who wants to play Bruce Lee and takes monk and toughness).

Quote from: beejazz;513814CNot that there aren't also some abusive fighter builds.

I had a Half-Orc Fighter wielding a Great Axe  that just tore up everything in his path. I figured it out while playing Neverwinter Nights and found that it worked just as well at the tabletop.

Basically with the right selection of items I could outlast any single creature thrown against me. On one Neverwinter nights server I solo a Ancient Blue Dragon. The server made several version of that creature before I couldn't defeat it by myself. This was using all bog standard magic items. I could be killed if I rolled a low save versus a spell. But with the right selections of magic items the odds of that was low. I had similar things happen with the living Greyhawk version of the character.

For those of you don't know Neverwinter Night used the D&D 3.0 rules. The developers did a good job making the game work by the book. For example the combat played continuous but behind the scene was using the same turn based sequence of the core game.

Quote from: estar;513811For my own curiosity what gave that character -25 AC?

I didn't look at him in great detail, I'll check it when I get home. Having all stats at 25 and being 112th level probably had something to do with it.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;513802Diplomacy skill isn't magic.

Yet, has anyone built a "Diplomancer" without the requirement of a magical race (any non-Human), magical items, magical classes (prestige or otherwise) or magical feats?

Quote from: estar;513813There no hard limit

The DMG states extrapolate if you go off the table, just remember to add the six repeating 20s.

Plus with bog standard magic items you can have

Base AC 2 Plate + Shield
+5 Plate  -3
+5 Shield -8
+5 Ring of Protection -13
+4 Dexterity -17
+4 Sword of Defending with all bonus towards AC -21

So you can bust the -10 "cap" pretty easily with just the first edition books.

Ring of Protection doesn't add to the AC of magic armor, just the saves.

Quote from: Rum Cove;513818Yet, has anyone built a "Diplomancer" without the requirement of a magical race (any non-Human), magical items, magical classes (prestige or otherwise) or magical feats?

I would imagine it has been done. If you take max ranks in it, you dont really need to.

Quote from: StormBringer;513800So, the bonus is nearly five times the maximum value of the die.  Whether or not this is allowed at anyone's table, that is simply ridiculous.  And this is also why self-delimited tables like descending AC make for a better game.

More to the point, Fred found ALL he needed within a mile from his home or so. Items, places to train/churches to be accepted... And he was never aced by the stray mindless aberration while questing for Diplomacy.

Quote from: Reckall;513824More to the point, Fred found ALL he needed within a mile from his home or so. Items, places to train/churches to be accepted... And he was never aced by the stray mindless aberration while questing for Diplomacy.

So because a person could die before getting the broken thing, the broken thing isn't broken.

Or because it could be delayed for some levels it isn't broken.

Because being able to make everyone your friend at high levels is like a fighter being able to kill everyone at high levels. It's fine if a fighter can kill most people, but part of that is because there are a very few people or things as powerful as your ridiculous fighter. Likewise it's fine if a character can talk down every mugger or even every king, but now they can talk down every god if they want to. Or if they want to solve a mystery, they can just ask everyone in the city "did you do it?" And if they answer no it's because they are innocent.

I know you don't have to use the rules they give you, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have given us more usable rules.

Quote from: CRKrueger;513820Ring of Protection doesn't add to the AC of magic armor, just the saves.

Yup.

Quote from: beejazz;513814Core books have their rough spots too. Easiest for a non-magic character is just TWF plus sneak attack. Easy enough around second level. Doubles the damage bonus from sneak attack, and you can get that bonus every round by way of flanking.

You have the option of cross classing fighter, and starting this combo at level 2 instead of 3, as well as picking up more damaging weapons and better armor. If you go the flanking route, you may as well use the armor anyway.

This is probably a little worse than "bat wizard replaces rogue" because the bat wizard is wasting spell slots on things a rogue can do all day, among other things (the context you mention). But in this case the rogue is fighting better than the fighter, isn't significantly weaker against attacks, and doesn't have an equivalent to sacrificing spell slots. Meanwile the fighter (unlike the rogue) doesn't have as variable a role. If someone fights better than fighter why play fighter?

Not that there aren't also some abusive fighter builds. Just that if one person's being abusive more than one will want to, and it's an example of abuse that can happen accidentally (the two-weapon knife fighter is also a cool character concept, so this can be the opposite problem from the guy who wants to play Bruce Lee and takes monk and toughness).

I thought we were talking about Diplomacy?

Quote from: StormBringer;513800And this is also why self-delimited tables like descending AC make for a better game.

We've been over this, I'm sure.  The existence of a hard limit on AC has nothing to do with descending AC.  If you wanted to put a hard limit on AC in 3e, you could do so.  You could easily turn THAC0 into THAC10 that goes up to 30.

Quote from: estar;513813There no hard limit

The DMG states extrapolate if you go off the table, just remember to add the six repeating 20s.

Plus with bog standard magic items you can have

Base AC 2 Plate + Shield
+5 Plate  -3
+5 Shield -8
+5 Ring of Protection -13
+4 Dexterity -17
+4 Sword of Defending with all bonus towards AC -21

So you can bust the -10 "cap" pretty easily with just the first edition books.

Uhhhh...  +5 plate, shield and ring, +4 Defender?  Those are bog standard?  What kind of campaign are you running?  That is some of the most powerful magic available.

Also:

Quote from: CRKrueger;513820Ring of Protection doesn't add to the AC of magic armor, just the saves.

And:

Quote from: Reckall;513824More to the point, Fred found ALL he needed within  a mile from his home or so. Items, places to train/churches to be  accepted... And he was never aced by the stray mindless aberration while  questing for Diplomacy.

Quote from: B.T.;513834We've been over this, I'm sure.  The existence of a  hard limit on AC has nothing to do with descending AC.  If you wanted to  put a hard limit on AC in 3e, you could do so.  You could easily turn  THAC0 into THAC10 that goes up to 30.

Sure, you probably can.  The point is, no one does, because the rules clearly don't so much as suggest it.  A table that ends at AC -10 is a pretty clear indication that the best you can do is AC -10.

And while the six 20s Estar mentioned looks like they throw the math off a bit, they don't.  Because you still have to roll 20s for the rest of the results above that.  If the to hit number is 23, you can't roll a 19 with a +4 bonus.  You still have to roll a 20.  So it isn't six 20s, it's all the rest of the to hit numbers after that are also 20, but you also have to have a bonus to hit.

AC -10, for all intents and purposes, is a hard limit on AC.  You can go beyond that if you wish, but it requires a very high level of magic (as shown above), and ends up being more than a little pointless, since you still have only a 5% chance to hit, assuming you have other sufficient bonuses to make up the difference.

Quote from: Windjammer;513706

QuoteOf equal importance is (a) the scenario and (b) the rulings made by the GM (because RPGs are inherently open-ended game structures).

And yet neither (a) nor (b) are important to assess the coherence of a rules system. See thread linked above.

"And yet neither the board nor the property details are important to assess the coherence of the rules of Monopoly."

Bullshit.

It is impossible to judge the rules of an RPG without taking into account the scenarios in which those rules will be used. This doesn't mean that there aren't bad rules or ineffective rules or poorly designed rules. But it does mean that trying to maintain that the only good rule is one which is equally good no matter what conditions you use it under is an intellectually bankrupt position.

Maybe Benoist is a little over-zealous in the "rules aren't all that important department", but it pales in comparison to the "rules are ALL IMPORTANT" nonsense that Trollman and you are touting.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;513715The problem i found with diplomacy is the rule should have given the GM much more leeway to determine what success actually meant (and this how we used it).

I agree. The fundamental problem is not the particular DCs they set. The problem is that the entire concept of what a Diplomacy check does is flawed.

It doesn't matter what the DCs are: As long as the mechanic is "make a check vs. a DC and permanently alter an NPC's relationship with you", the skill is going to make every PC with a few ranks in Diplomacy into the Mule from Asimov's Foundation trilogy.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;513719Generally i avoid social skills and let people deal with stuff in character.

I generally find that social skills are, just like all other skills, useful for determining the outcome of a specific, discrete task: Does the NPC believe that lie? Do the PCs realize that this guy is lying to them? Will the NPC accept the offer the PCs are making? Let's find out!

At that point, it's just finding the level at which you feel comfortable letting player skill activate character skill (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/date/2011/03) in these circumstances. My threshold on social skills is usually a little bit higher than on physical skills: Saying "I search the chest for traps" is enough for me; but "I tell him a lie" isn't. I expect the players to say what the lie is before I use the rules to determine how good the character is at telling it.

Beyond that, there's the broader philosophical issue of whether you want the mechanics for the Jump skill to tell you when a jump is certain/impossible or if you want the GM to make that determination and only use the mechanics for jumps they determine to be uncertain. I generally prefer the former (since it makes for a more reliable "oracle"), but it can easily go either way.

Quote from: beejazz;513737People finding problems with the rules usually find them in play, but it doesn't matter because there's no special context that makes toughness a feat worth having.

Sure there is: 1st level wizards in a one-shot. Low-level thugs that the DM wants to give a little more endurance. Decent for mindless foes up to about 6 HD that you don't want to get too fancy with.

And, according to Monte Cook, that's exactly the sort of stuff the feat was designed for.

With that being said, I'm not going to argue that there aren't better ways to have designed the Toughness feat in order to make it more widely useful. (Personally, I use a variant that gives 2 hp + 1 hp per HD.) But it was designed for a particular purpose (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2498/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-ivory-tower-design) and it serves that purpose pretty well.

Quote from: Rincewind1;513784Of course. But just like in MtG - it's hard to keep track of all the cards/supplements, without making broken combos. Ironically - the 3e breaking game combos do remind me very much of the combos that used to break MtG, as they usually rely on heavy metagame rather then using the mechanics you should be using, so to speak.

It's not like these combos didn't exist pre-3E. They were a common topic of discussion in online AD&D groups pre-2000. And it's not like they went away in 4th Edition, either.

While game-breaking exploits and combos should, of course, be avoided, the reality is that you can only avoid having "better" and "worse" choices by severely limiting either (a) flexibility of character creation; (b) the scope of gameplay; or (c) both. That's the reality of complex systems (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2500/roleplaying-games/the-many-types-of-balance).

Quote from: StormBringer;513800So, the bonus is nearly five times the maximum value of the die.  Whether or not this is allowed at anyone's table, that is simply ridiculous.  And this is also why self-delimited tables like descending AC make for a better game.

Only if you believe that there should be significant uncertainty about whether not characters are capable of tying their own shoes.

And, of course, you can put a cap on AC whether you're ascending or descending. But that, as we've discussed before, actually just makes the randomizer matter even less.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;513838Only if you believe that there should be significant uncertainty about whether not characters are capable of tying their own shoes.

There is a substantial difference between tying your shoes and being able to convince anyone, anywhere, no matter how they feel about you that they are actually your best friend.

Also, when your modifier is almost five times the randomizer, the randomizer is virtually useless.  A monster's hid dice listing in 1st edition was never more than X+4, because a higher bonus than that meant to just add another hit die to the creature.  And that is only half the maximum die result.  Using the above five-fold standard, you would have a one hit die creature with 41-48 hit points.  Not too much like a one hit die creature any more.  Similarly, with a +94 modifier, you are making DC95 tasks automatically.  Things that well over twice the value of  "nearly impossible (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Using_Skills#Table:_Difficulty_Class_Examples)" are instead impossible to fail.  Every single DC under 95 is automatic and doesn't need to be rolled for.  The example of Fred the Diplomancer above shows this is possible at sixth level.  If the character was 20th, 25th, or 30th level, I would have no problem with it.  But they are sixth level, and able to convince Sauron to help them toss the One Ring into Mount Doom.

'Significant uncertainly in tying shoes' has nothing to do with a +94 bonus.  Use your head, for fuck's sake, instead of unrelentingly defending all things 3.x

Quote from: estar;513813There no hard limit

The DMG states extrapolate if you go off the table, just remember to add the six repeating 20s.

Plus with bog standard magic items you can have

Base AC 2 Plate + Shield
+5 Plate  -3
+5 Shield -8
+5 Ring of Protection -13
+4 Dexterity -17
+4 Sword of Defending with all bonus towards AC -21

So you can bust the -10 "cap" pretty easily with just the first edition books.

Rings of Protection don't stack AC with magic armor; only stack on saves.

If I ignore all kinds of common sense I can build the IUDC (http://www.rogermwilcox.com/ADnD/), too.  For example, a centaur with it's Treasure Type Q can potentially be carrying five million GP (and thus five million xp) worth of gems.  If I roll all 18s, if I roll a 20 every time I hit, if if if.

Truth is?  You're not gonna get those things like that.  Or rather, the odds are very remote that you'll get those things.

Quote from: StormBringer;513840There is a substantial difference between tying your shoes and being able to convince anyone, anywhere, no matter how they feel about you that they are actually your best friend.

Which, ironically, is specifically BECAUSE the DC is capped.

And you're the one arguing for capped DCs.

Make up your mind.

QuoteAlso, when your modifier is almost five times the randomizer, the randomizer is virtually useless.

You fail at mathematics.

In a system with uncapped target numbers, there will always be 18-20 point range where a d20 randomizer isn't useless (depending on how you treat natural 1's and 20's). It's only when you cap target numbers that the randomizer becomes useless.

QuoteYou fail at mathematics.

In a system with uncapped target numbers, there will always be 18-20 point range where a d20 randomizer isn't useless (depending on how you treat natural 1's and 20's). It's only when you cap target numbers that the randomizer becomes useless.

To explain what Justin is saying:

If you have a +90 on attack rolls and your enemy has 100 AC, the d20 roll is still valuable.  If you have a +90 on attack rolls and your enemy has 20 AC, the d20 roll is not valuable.  In a system in which bonuses are not capped but there are hard limits on DCs, the d20 roll becomes meaningless.

Quote from: Rum Cove;513797Why is it so wrong to allow a player to follow the rules and create a "Diplomancer"?  If they can reach higher levels and create world peace - what is the problem?  Shouldn't a player be able to enjoy a character concept of their choosing?

Isn't the DM stopping it at all cost, a little too much of "I'm taking my ball and going home"?

Nothing in my book, as long as there is sufficient role-playing to support the Diplomacy skill checks.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;513845Which, ironically, is specifically BECAUSE the DC is capped.

And you're the one arguing for capped DCs.

Make up your mind.

No, it's not because the DC is capped.  It's because the modifiers are not.  Learn how games are designed before you step in next time.

QuoteYou fail at mathematics.

In a system with uncapped target numbers, there will always be 18-20 point range where a d20 randomizer isn't useless (depending on how you treat natural 1's and 20's). It's only when you cap target numbers that the randomizer becomes useless.

As shown above, you are hardly one to be declaring who is and who is not good at math.

For example, if your total modifiers are +94, then there is no rolling for any DC below 95.  See how that works?  When you add 94 and the lowest possible result of the d20, which is a 1, you get that minimum of 95.  It's not possible to roll a result less than 95.  So any DC less than 95 is automatic.  The only time you need to roll is if the DC is between 96 and 114.  See, the highest result on a d20 is 20, which added to 94 yields 114.  You can't get a result above 114, no matter how much you want to.  Here's where it gets tricky.  The odds of rolling 1 or better on a d20 is 100%.  So, the only instance where you would need to roll for anything is if there is a chance to roll below a certain number.  The first opportunity for that on a d20 is with the number 2.  The odds of rolling a 2 or better on a d20 is 95%.  So a DC of 96 is almost a certainty also.  Therefore the only time you would need to roll the d20 is if your DC is 96 or higher.  And before we forget, let's throw out the number that is really critical to this discussion:

Sixth fucking level.

We are talking about a character that is sixth level.  A sixth level character that does not need to roll for any DC under 96.

As pointed out in the SRD, a DC of 40 is "nearly impossible", so the only time you would need to roll the dice is if the task at hand is 2.4 times more difficult than "nearly impossible".  I suppose they could call that "nearly two and a half times impossible" instead, but that's really dumb.

Almost as dumb as your solution of uncapping the DCs, which most people call "always fighting orcs".  In other words, if the total modifier is +94, then the DC has to be between 95 and 114 to be useful (remember those numbers from before?).  Of course, this range is absolutely no different than 45 to 64 and having a total bonus of +44.  In fact, it is exactly the same as having a range of 1 to 20 with no bonuses at all.  See how that works?  You aren't increasing the range of possibilities, you are simply increasing the numbers.  When the total bonuses are +94, there is no valid result less than 95 nor larger than 114.  Exactly like there is no result less than 1 nor greater than 20 on a d20.

Hence, if you don't cap the DC in order to keep up with the bonuses, you completely obliterate the need for bonuses or higher DCs.  The skill system becomes entirely superfluous, because the bonuses are meaningless.  And even more so, if you don't cap the DC, the DCs themselves are meaningless.  A DC of 90 should be three times more difficult than a DC of 30.  Except, it isn't.  It depends on the bonuses involved.  With a total bonus of +94, a DC of 30 is exactly the same as a DC of 95.  And again, this is at sixth level.

So, you might want to brush up on:
a) math
b) game design
c) not talking out of your ass

These are useful skills to have when you want to claim someone else has 'failed' at math.  Or game design.  Or not talking out of their ass.  Because it is clear you have a ways to go on all of these skills.

Quote from: B.T.;513847To explain what Justin is saying:

If you have a +90 on attack rolls and your enemy has 100 AC, the d20 roll is still valuable.  If you have a +90 on attack rolls and your enemy has 20 AC, the d20 roll is not valuable.  In a system in which bonuses are not capped but there are hard limits on DCs, the d20 roll becomes meaningless.

Which is the very definition of "always fighting orcs".  I explain it a bit more above.  Removing the hard limits on DCs doesn't solve the problem.

Quote from: beejazz;513828So because a person could die before getting the broken thing, the broken thing isn't broken.

Exactly. I'm happy to see that you grasped it at the first attempt.

Because we are not talking about something lying in a field, like a train, that can be unreacheable but still broken, buy about something inherent to the person. So if he will probably die before reaching it, that it is broken is basically moot.

I'll share a secret with you: when I am 200 years old I'll get a power so surpassing that I'll be "broken". Alas, I'm an optimist, but I'm not planning my life around when I'll get to that.

QuoteOr because it could be delayed for some levels it isn't broken.

How Fred does the experience needed to level? What about his adventures in (unexpected monster)land while he is questing for Diplomacy? To get to his goal he needs training, feats, churches, whose availability is somehow lying around where he lives (without this attracting other rival Diplomancer-wannabe intelligent enough to bring along a fighter to ace Fred).

Either that or he has to adventure - alone, remember - to get to what he needs, and pray not to be aced by the stray aberration.

"Delayed some levels" indeed. Maybe first Fred toughens up and then becomes a Diplomancer (which makes the whole "AT SISTH LEVELL!!!!!!!1111!" whine moot). By that point, everybody around him will be Epic anyway.

Of course there is another possibility: that Fred is a superspecial character who sprung out Zeus' head perfectly formed and already at sixth level. Which is the only case min-maxed RainMen consider. I.e. (drumroll) ATHENA IS BROKEN! The news :rolleyes:

Quote from: StormBringer;513854No, it's not because the DC is capped.  It's because the modifiers are not.  Learn how games are designed before you step in next time.

So... did you want to cap AC or did you want to cap attack bonuses? You seem to be deeply confused about what you're actually advocating.

Figure out what the fuck you're talking about before attempting to participate in conversations in the future.

Quote

QuoteIn a system with uncapped target numbers, there will always be 18-20 point range where a d20 randomizer isn't useless (depending on how you treat natural 1's and 20's).

As shown above, you are hardly one to be declaring who is and who is not good at math.

For example, if your total modifiers are +94, then there is no rolling for any DC below 95. See how that works? When you add 94 and the lowest possible result of the d20, which is a 1, you get that minimum of 95. It's not possible to roll a result less than 95. So any DC less than 95 is automatic. The only time you need to roll is if the DC is between 96 and 114.

114 - 96 = A range of 18 numbers where the d20 randomizer is relevant

Just like I said.

QuoteAlmost as dumb as your solution of uncapping the DCs, which most people call "always fighting orcs".

WTF?

It's only "always fighting orcs" if the orcs level up with you and always land in the 18-20 point range of relevant numbers. If the AC of an orc becomes easier to hit and eventually irrelevant (because you aren't capping bonuses) that is the exact opposite of "always fighting orcs".

Yet again you are advocating a "solution" which does the exact opposite of what you claim it does.

I do think 3E could have used some caps on the numbers. I think it would be pretty easy to do as a houserule. Haven't played in a while though, so not sure what the right number would be.

Quote from: B.T.;513847To explain what Justin is saying:

If you have a +90 on attack rolls and your enemy has 100 AC, the d20 roll is still valuable.  If you have a +90 on attack rolls and your enemy has 20 AC, the d20 roll is not valuable.  In a system in which bonuses are not capped but there are hard limits on DCs, the d20 roll becomes meaningless.

Yeah, i think you have to cap DCs, AC, BAB and Skill modifiers for caps to achieve the desired result. Having a + 90 when the DCs and ACs are capped at forty pretty much reduces the d20 roll to a fumble checker and critical checker.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;513838"And yet neither the board nor the property details are important to assess the coherence of the rules of Monopoly."

Bullshit.

I agree. I wonder though why elements which are part of the rules of Monopoly are likened to elements which (according to you) aren't part of the rules of an RPG - namely (in your dichotomy) (a) the scenario and (b) GM adjudications outside the rules. I would think that the real estate values and the arrangement of these real estates on the board are an integral element of the rule set, even if these are not separately mentioned in Monopoly's rules book. I can find no analogous way in which your (a) and (b) would be part of a RPG ruleset.

That apart, I earnestly want to see what your point is. I've gathered these salient bits from your posts (in reverse order), feel free to add any I may have omitted:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;513838It is impossible to judge the rules of an RPG without taking into account the scenarios in which those rules will be used. This doesn't mean that there aren't bad rules or ineffective rules or poorly designed rules. But it does mean that trying to maintain that the only good rule is one which is equally good no matter what conditions you use it under is an intellectually bankrupt position.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;513586Second, you've got your Spherical Cows. This is where we look at the first part of this equation and elevate it above everything else. We say, "If the wizard always has the perfect spell prepared, then blah blah blah." But if these are not scenarios which are likely to ever appear at the gaming table, is this really a shortcoming in the rules or the game? And if there's one, narrow way of designing scenarios which causes problems with the rules, does that mean we should abandon the rules or that we should avoid that narrow style of scenario design?

So a 'spherical cow' analysis of a design fault in a game
(A) ignores the conditions under which a rule is used
(B) exploits a condition at the game table which is unlikely to ever show up
(C) exploits a condition at the game table due to faulty scenario design which can easily be circumvented by ditching or altering the scenario design

(A) is from the first quote. I find it too hazy to understand what it means, so I'll focus on criteria (B) and (C) from quote 2.

Please, go ahead and re-read the Iron Heroes thread (already linked to above, in the quote you're responding to) and show me the multitudinous instances where Trollman's critiques of that rules system are guilty of (B) and (C). For that matter, if you can illustrate (A) in that analysis, that would be helpful too. Because your condemnation of Trollman's analysis is so sweeping in scope, I'd expect you can easily show us the many, many instances where he is guilty of (A) to (C).

On my reading, Benoist reacted negatively to Trollman's analysis because that analysis
(D) exploits conditions which never came up at Benoist's game table

But (D) is not the same as any of your (A) to (C). What's more, it's easy to see how (D) shares the problems you have with (B) and (C) once we replace 'Benoist' in (D) with 'a particular player whose particular experiences with the game need not, perhaps cannot, be generalized to the experiences of others'. Suddenly a problem not experienced in a particular scenario (that person's campaign) is not a problem at all. For instance, if Trollman makes a systemic critique of the magic system, and no one ever played a magic-user in Benoist's Iron Heroes game, then suddenly Trollman's analysis is guilty of 'spherical cows'.

I kid you not - that is the use to which your concept is put to use on these boards, and the transition from (D) drawing general ridicule (p. 2 in the IH thread) to it receiving something gravitating to general acclaim (in this thread) is maybe indicative of a change in this board's readership. (Don't know if you know, but we've had a half dozen of long time posters leave the site or getting banned in the last months, to the site's considerable intellectual detriment.)

As with the notion of 'dissociated mechanics', the sweeping application of a valuable concept of yours is doing more harm than good to the discussion on this board, if  through no fault of your own.

The only thing that the diplomancer proves is that common sense is a key ingredient in any well run game. Even if you accepted a) all the assumptions made for building Fred b) a DM lame enough to allow a skill to trump any challenge you would still have to find c) a real life player actually willng to pull that shit and play such a fucking boring character. I mean how can you have fun playing an autowin character and who would play with you? Talk about edge cases...

Funnily enough a few years back I had a PC who was a very rough approximation of Fred inasmuch as he was a 2nd level Paladin/13th level Sorcerer with a 30 charisma and a maxed out diplomacy score and a few helpful magic items. Despite that diplomacy still wasn't an issue because both I and the DM had common sense. It was great for dealing with petty officials or to get an audience with the big shot but if had no place in combat.

If Sir Ronan with his near godly diplomacy had run into the Lord of Mordor he'd have been too busy trying to ram a two handed Holy Avenger up Sauron's jacksie to call time out for a fucking diplomacy check!

Because when you game with adults wankers are rarely tolerated and  cool, at least occasionally, trumps 'I win'.

Quote from: StormBringer;513854As pointed out in the SRD, a DC of 40 is "nearly impossible", so the only time you would need to roll the dice is if the task at hand is 2.4 times more difficult than "nearly impossible".  I suppose they could call that "nearly two and a half times impossible" instead, but that's really dumb.

This is why I cap the total modifiers to a D20 attack/skill/etc. roll to +30 in Microlite74. The suggested DCs are: Easy - 8, Normal - 12, Difficult - 16, Hard - 20, Very Hard - 24, Legendary - 28, Unbelievable - 32.  Even with a +30 a one of 1 on the die still fails. In theory you could be so good at higher levels in skills directly related to your class or background that with magic and positive circumstantial bonuses you total might add up to higher than +30, but those are few and far between. The GM is still advised to limit the total add to +30 no matter what.

How on earth is there confusion by the idea of embracing world defining limits as thus being applied to AC alone? How can the concept of embracing AC caps as an example of world design that would carry through throughout be misconstrued into somehow meaning only specifically one particular value category? It obviously applies to the world logic in toto for all value categories otherwise adoption of such world definition (caps only for AC) would make absolute zero sense.

You don't attempt to contain infinite inflation by plugging just one leak -- you contain it by not using infinite inflation in the first place. In other words you take that AC -10, even if it's just convention, as a guideline to cap everything! The reason why to do this is because infinity chasing infinity has never been an exciting game; it renders bonuses either superfluous or borked -- there's no middle ground with infinity.

When talking about management of game context, which trumps any individual rule, how does one get lost in fixating on the details instead? Obviously we cannot speak clearly to one another in a casual manner because we obviously don't carry the same assumptions while talking. We're all just speaking past each other, hearing our own versions of the echoes.

This conversation is like some Myers-Briggs dark comedy.

(edit: This also sounded far harsher than I intended, too. So I apologize in advance. You RPGsiters get me all riled up and your laissez faire attitude towards vitriol is a bad influence!)

Quote from: estar;513811For my own curiosity what gave that character -25 AC?

Guido Franco Pulverini
Level 112 Cavalier
HP - 979

THACO: -10

All Stats: 25

+8 Full Plate
+8 Kite Shield
+3 Ring of Protection

AC: -25

No idea if the numbers actually equal -25 or not, but there it is.

My rule of thumb is that it's always better to limit the effects of success, not the bonus.  It's not the ability to get +40 to Diplomacy that's broken, or that Diplomacy DCs cap at 40, it's the effect.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;513869So... did you want to cap AC or did you want to cap attack bonuses? You seem to be deeply confused about what you're actually advocating.

Figure out what the fuck you're talking about before attempting to participate in conversations in the future.

Let the flailing begin...

(Since your reading comprehension problems are kicking in early today, I will spell it out for you:  both DCs and Modifiers need to be capped)

Quote114 - 96 = A range of 18 numbers where the d20 randomizer is relevant

Just like I said.

Yes, and a range of 0-96 where the randomizer isn't relevent.  Almost five times the highest value of the die where there is no need to roll.  The modifiers drown out the the randomizer by a ratio of almost five to one.  You have just rendered the entire DC system superfluous.  There is no need to even have DCs less than 96, hence, all DCs need to fall in the 96+ range.  If all DCs fall in the 96+ range, that means everyone needs to have at least 95+ in modifiers.  Which means the only purpose for characters is to chase after every modifier they can find and you have the Christmas Tree problem.

Capping DCs isn't the problem.  It's not capping the modifiers.  Allowing modifiers to increase without limit means you are forced to increase the DCs without limit.  You have not changed anything.  Rolling 10 or better with no modifiers at 1st level is absolutely no different than rolling 90 or better with +80 total modifiers at 20th level.  You are "always fighting orcs".

QuoteWTF?

It's only "always fighting orcs" if the orcs level up with you and always land in the 18-20 point range of relevant numbers. If the AC of an orc becomes easier to hit and eventually irrelevant (because you aren't capping bonuses) that is the exact opposite of "always fighting orcs".

Yet again you are advocating a "solution" which does the exact opposite of what you claim it does.

It's a "metaphor".  I am sure you have heard of those.  You aren't literally "always fighting orcs".  It's a figure of speech.  Picking a simple DC 10 lock at 1st level with no modifiers is exactly the same as picking a masterwork adamantite complex grimdark DC 90 lock with +80 in modifiers at 20th level.  You've added adjectives, congratulations.  It's the exact same 50% odds you have had for 20 levels, which means you haven't actually gotten better at it, you have just made the numbers (and adjectives) bigger so it looks like you have gotten better at it.  Sure, any lock less than DC 80 is automatic.  Which further means you have made every single other lock in the campaign world superfluous.  Any lock that is meant to be even remotely challenging to the players now has to be a masterwork adamantite complex grimdark lock as a minimum.  How many of those will the players run into before realizing that things haven't actually changed since first level?

That is exactly what you claim you want the system to do.  Always fall in the same range of success values.  You are exactly claiming that as long as bonuses keep up with DCs, the system is fine.  As long as all the numbers keep getting huger and huger, everything is peachy.   In this instance, "peachy" means "exactly the same without progress".

Combat in 3.x and later doesn't take hours because of all the cool tactical stuff, it takes hours because you have to track dozens and dozens of modifiers for every player.  When you are trying to hit AC90 and tracking +80 in total situational and static bonuses, the only thing you have done is increase the handle time.  90% of your calculation is the bonuses.  The underlying odds, the actual result determinant, is exactly the same as hitting AC10 with no modifiers to track.  Or AC20 with a reasonable +10 in total bonuses.

Hence, without escalating bonuses, you don't need to escalate the DCs.  It is just an arms race or infinite inflation.  I can cite some examples of those from history if you are fuzzy on how well they work.

So, it's not a matter of capping DCs, it's a matter of capping modifiers.  If you don't cap the modifiers, you can't cap the DCs, and you are forced to increase both at the same rate.  "Always fighting orcs".

The next time you need a game design lesson, schedule an appointment and cut me a check.  I am too busy to teach you the basics for free any longer.

Quote from: Werekoala;513918Guido Franco Pulverini
Level 112 Cavalier
HP - 979

THACO: -10

All Stats: 25

+8 Full Plate
+8 Kite Shield
+3 Ring of Protection

AC: -25

No idea if the numbers actually equal -25 or not, but there it is.

Ok, but clearly that is well beyond what the rules suggest.

Quote from: Opaopajr;513891How on earth is there confusion by the idea of embracing world defining limits as thus being applied to AC alone? How can the concept of embracing AC caps as an example of world design that would carry through throughout be misconstrued into somehow meaning only specifically one particular value category? It obviously applies to the world logic in toto for all value categories otherwise adoption of such world definition (caps only for AC) would make absolute zero sense.

You don't attempt to contain infinite inflation by plugging just one leak -- you contain it by not using infinite inflation in the first place. In other words you take that AC -10, even if it's just convention, as a guideline to cap everything! The reason why to do this is because infinity chasing infinity has never been an exciting game; it renders bonuses either superfluous or borked -- there's no middle ground with infinity.

When talking about management of game context, which trumps any individual rule, how does one get lost in fixating on the details instead? Obviously we cannot speak clearly to one another in a casual manner because we obviously don't carry the same assumptions while talking. We're all just speaking past each other, hearing our own versions of the echoes.

This conversation is like some Myers-Briggs dark comedy.

(edit: This also sounded far harsher than I intended, too. So I apologize in advance. You RPGsiters get me all riled up and your laissez faire attitude towards vitriol is a bad influence!)

The really unfortunate part about this post is that I can't fit the whole thing into my signature.  :)

Quote from: S'mon;513924My rule of thumb is that it's always better to limit the effects of success, not the bonus.  It's not the ability to get +40 to Diplomacy that's broken, or that Diplomacy DCs cap at 40, it's the effect.

Hmmm...  That is an interesting point.  I do see a problem, though, in that players will certainly want a much greater result for a DC 90 than for a DC 30.

I do understand what you are getting at, don't let a Diplomacy check change someone from murderous rage to besties for life.  I am just not seeing the players viewing things the same way.  If they have their +80 in bonuses, they are going to expect something pretty spectacular for getting a roll of 90, 95 or 100.

Upon further reflection, in fact, if the minimum DC they can achieve is 80, they are going to expect everything they do will be pretty spectacular with that skill.  If only the effect is limited, I think the players are going to be really disappointed in having +80 in modifiers.  On the other hand, that might work pretty well in self-limiting bonuses anyway.

Limiting the effect does seem like a pretty effective brake on the other two, but I don't think it will work all by itself.  Still, a good idea to ruminate on for a bit.

Quote from: RandallS;513884This is why I cap the total modifiers to a D20 attack/skill/etc. roll to +30 in Microlite74. The suggested DCs are: Easy - 8, Normal - 12, Difficult - 16, Hard - 20, Very Hard - 24, Legendary - 28, Unbelievable - 32.  Even with a +30 a one of 1 on the die still fails. In theory you could be so good at higher levels in skills directly related to your class or background that with magic and positive circumstantial bonuses you total might add up to higher than +30, but those are few and far between. The GM is still advised to limit the total add to +30 no matter what.

This seems like a pretty good solution, and coming from you, I assume it has been thoroughly tested.  I am not familiar enough with all the nuances and dark corners of d20 to confidently state how easy or difficult it is to get a +30 to begin with, but I am guessing Microlite74 doesn't use all the 3.x splats and Dragon articles that are out there.  So, pretty difficult, I would have to guess.

Quote from: Fiasco;513882The only thing that the diplomancer proves is that common sense is a key ingredient in any well run game. Even if you accepted a) all the assumptions made for building Fred b) a DM lame enough to allow a skill to trump any challenge you would still have to find c) a real life player actually willng to pull that shit and play such a fucking boring character. I mean how can you have fun playing an autowin character and who would play with you? Talk about edge cases...

Because when you game with adults wankers are rarely tolerated and  cool, at least occasionally, trumps 'I win'.

Exactly.  I find the CharOp arguments interesting not because I am worried about that kind of thing coming up routinely, but more because they show what is possible with the rules.

As I mentioned before, the 'quadratic wizard, linear fighter' argument at TGD hinges almost entirely on a player completely optimizing their Magic User to be better than everyone else at the table at everything.  Why would they do that?  How can that possibly be fun?  And as you mention, who the hell would put up with that?  And yet, it can demonstrate a flaw that seems large at the extremes, but may still exist on a small level much earlier on.  If you can catch it when it starts, even if the player isn't doing it intentionally, you can fix it before it becomes a major problem.

Quote from: StormBringer;513928Capping DCs isn't the problem.  It's not capping the modifiers.  Allowing modifiers to increase without limit means you are forced to increase the DCs without limit.  You have not changed anything.  Rolling 10 or better with no modifiers at 1st level is absolutely no different than rolling 90 or better with +80 total modifiers at 20th level.  You are "always fighting orcs".
.

This touches on the big problem with 3e, as opposed to earlier editions of D&D.

A level 1 lockpicker in 3e D&D might have, say, a +5 to pick a lock, and a standard lock would be DC 21. So, a 25% chance to pick the lock. (Yes, I know you can easily minmax to different percents, bear with me).

A level 1 thief in AD&D could also easily have a 25% chance to pick a lock. Of course, it didn't matter if the lock was on an orc's chest, or the gates of the City of Brass on the Elemental Plane of Fire, the chance was still 25% (there were *some* locks that had a penalty, but very few, once every half dozen modules, perhaps).

In 3e, of course, the City of Brass would have much higher DCs, and thus begins the 'always fighting orcs' treadmill, a feeling you don't get nearly so much in AD&D.

Still, quite playable, but what kills things is the "take 10" or "take 20" rule. Now the 3e thief has a 100% chance....and the non-specialist has a 0% chance. The "take X" rules really reward specialists, forcing the DM to take it into account and make his DCs appropriately  (always deciding whether the ultimate chance of success should be 0% or 100%), and screw over any generalists (for whom the ultimate chance is always 0%).

Thus is a 4/4 thief/fighter in AD&D not totally screwed in that game, while doing so in 3e is basically a messed up character (above and beyond what 3e base multiclassing did to spellcasters), as the treadmill and take 20 design forces incredible focus on mechanical optimisation.

Let it be known that this is the first time ever I think Stormbringer is being himself.

Quote from: StormBringer;513928It is just an arms race or infinite inflation.

A treadmill?

Quote from: Windjammer;513878I kid you not - that is the use to which your concept is put to use on these boards, and the transition from (D) drawing general ridicule (p. 2 in the IH thread) to it receiving something gravitating to general acclaim (in this thread) is maybe indicative of a change in this board's readership.

Indeed.  I have tried on numerous occasions to explain why this is wrong to the common offenders.

Quote from: StormBringer;513932Hmmm...  That is an interesting point.  I do see a problem, though, in that players will certainly want a much greater result for a DC 90 than for a DC 30.

They probably also want a to-hit roll of 90 (vs AC 20) to mean a much greater result than a to-hit roll of 30 vs the same AC.

Doesn't mean they're gonna get it.

The d20 system, IME, *only* works for binary pass/fail, hit/miss results.  Trying to use it for gradated results (eg exact distance jumped) gives terrible results.

So, for diplomacy to work:
Player decides what he is trying to achieve.
DM decides if this is possible - no "I talk the moon down from the sky" in a gritty low-fantasy game.
If it is possible, DM sets DC.
Player rolls, pass/fail.

That works fine IME.  Anything else, not so much.

Quote from: Doom;513938Still, quite playable, but what kills things is the "take 10" or "take 20" rule. Now the 3e thief has a 100% chance....and the non-specialist has a 0% chance. The "take X" rules really reward specialists, forcing the DM to take it into account and make his DCs appropriately  (always deciding whether the ultimate chance of success should be 0% or 100%), and screw over any generalists (for whom the ultimate chance is always 0%).

Balls, I didn't even think about take 10 or take 20.  In the Diplomancer example, of course you will be talking for a while.  Take 10 would be almost standard, and take 20 would be nearly so.  Hence, the player would automatically succeed on any DC less than 114, with the +94 in modifiers.

I'm hard pressed to imagine a DC greater than 114 that would map to anything reasonable.  So, a sixth level Frodo would be besties with Sauron in rather short order.  I can't imagine any of Sauron's minions would resist a 114 Diplomacy roll, so Frodo really wouldn't have any problems getting there.

Quote from: S'mon;513948They probably also want a to-hit roll of 90 (vs AC 20) to mean a much greater result than a to-hit roll of 30 vs the same AC.

A fairly natural expectation, however.

QuoteThe d20 system, IME, *only* works for binary pass/fail, hit/miss results.  Trying to use it for gradated results (eg exact distance jumped) gives terrible results.

That works fine IME.  Anything else, not so much.

But that leads to not needing bonuses at all, as any particular roll would just be the results of the d20.

Quote from: StormBringer;513952Balls, I didn't even think about take 10 or take 20.  In the Diplomancer example, of course you will be talking for a while.  Take 10 would be almost standard, and take 20 would be nearly so.  Hence, the player would automatically succeed on any DC less than 114, with the +94 in modifiers.

I'm hard pressed to imagine a DC greater than 114 that would map to anything reasonable.  So, a sixth level Frodo would be besties with Sauron in rather short order.  I can't imagine any of Sauron's minions would resist a 114 Diplomacy roll, so Frodo really wouldn't have any problems getting there.

Only if the DM has no common sense and allows it.

There are plenty of ways to stop the Diplomancer. The most obvious one being the Diplomancer and its target audience not speaking the same language. No communication => no diplomacy. Send in a mook who doesn't speak the language to attack the Diplomancer and see how long it lasts.

This arguement is based upon math and the belief that Players and GMs are nothing but bitches of the rules who cannot think outside of those rules.

Such idiocy gets what it deserves.

Quote from: jeff37923;513957Only if the DM has no common sense and allows it.

There are plenty of ways to stop the Diplomancer. The most obvious one being the Diplomancer and its target audience not speaking the same language. No communication => no diplomacy. Send in a mook who doesn't speak the language to attack the Diplomancer and see how long it lasts.

This arguement is based upon math and the belief that Players and GMs are nothing but bitches of the rules who cannot think outside of those rules.

Such idiocy gets what it deserves.

Actually I think it rather reinforces MY point.

Yes, math nerd-sperging identifies a problem which hasn't or doesn't regularly crop up in games, to whit: Diplomancy.

However, from that we can move into a reasonable discussion of infinite bonuses chasing infinite difficulties vs a limited randomizer, which illustrates a problem.  SB can bring up how this bogs the game down in combat (with increasingly insane AC's requiring squeezing every to-hit bonus out of a fight, meaning that your players are spending far too long chasing bonuses and not enough time screaming "I Rolled a 20, suck it!" or whatever.


As a GM I sit there while one of my players repeatedly 'breaks' the game by having almost 20 points more in Spot and Listen checks than any other player. THings that can 'attempt' to sneak up on her characters are essentially invisible to every other player. Things the others can detect might as well be wearing bells as far as she's concerned.

Obviously this creates a problem in scaling encounters for me. Obviously this suggests something isn't working 'as intended' to me, but generally I'm too busy doing other things.

HEY LOOK!  Some nerd-spergers over at the den are talking about diplomaners, and viola! Here at The Site we are talking about 'always fighting orcs' and now I've got a hypothetical reason why my table keeps breaking down on stealthy monsters....

tl;dr: As I've said, the value of looking at the Diplomancer 'problem' is not looking for solutions for a problem that doesn't exist, its in seeing the problems that lead to diplomancer style issues in the first place clearly.

Quote from: StormBringer;513934This seems like a pretty good solution, and coming from you, I assume it has been thoroughly tested.  I am not familiar enough with all the nuances and dark corners of d20 to confidently state how easy or difficult it is to get a +30 to begin with, but I am guessing Microlite74 doesn't use all the 3.x splats and Dragon articles that are out there.  So, pretty difficult, I would have to guess.

In Microlite74, it would be fairly hard (with one possible exception I'm mention at the end of this post). In combat, for example, the best you can do as a 20th Level fighter would be a total of +25 (+10 from Physical Combat Bonus, +5 from Fighter Bonus, +5 from a magic weapon, +5 from spell buffs/other magic items). You could get an additional GM assigned bonus from environmental/circumstances modifiers, but that's unlikely to be more than +5. Other classes aren't going to do even that well in combat. Of course, like the real 0e, M74 isn't even intended for 20th level play.

The one place were it is relatively easy for a high level to get a +30 bonus is "skill" rolls (when/if the GM decides to use them). A skill directly related to the character's class or background gets +level to the die roll (which is also modified by one's attribute bonus and GM assigned circumstances modifiers). At 20th level you might have a +22 or +23 before circumstances modifiers. However, characters are supposed to be highly competent in things directly related to their class or background so possibility really doesn't hurt anything assuming even a semi-competent GM. The bonus for skills only indirectly related to class or background drops to +level/2 so the issue never really comes up in where the character isn't highly competent. Finally, the dice aren't even rolled if the success or failure is obvious to the GM from the player's description of what his character is doing -- so if CHR 18 Paladin Frodo tries to use diplomacy to to convince Sauron to change sides, the GM can just have Sauron say no.

Quote from: Spike;513960As a GM I sit there while one of my players repeatedly 'breaks' the game by having almost 20 points more in Spot and Listen checks than any other player. THings that can 'attempt' to sneak up on her characters are essentially invisible to every other player. Things the others can detect might as well be wearing bells as far as she's concerned.

Obviously this creates a problem in scaling encounters for me. Obviously this suggests something isn't working 'as intended' to me, but generally I'm too busy doing other things.

HEY LOOK!  Some nerd-spergers over at the den are talking about diplomaners, and viola! Here at The Site we are talking about 'always fighting orcs' and now I've got a hypothetical reason why my table keeps breaking down on stealthy monsters....

Give the sneaky monster some class levels and skill in Move Silently and Sneak. Or just have someone cast Darkness and Silence. Problem character solved.

Quote from: Spike;513960tl;dr: As I've said, the value of looking at the Diplomancer 'problem' is not looking for solutions for a problem that doesn't exist, its in seeing the problems that lead to diplomancer style issues in the first place clearly.

Spike, you had a similar problem with the Vacc Suit skill in Mongoose Traveller. I think the problem isn't in the rules, the problem is that you believe that rules have got you as their bitch when they don't.

Quote from: jeff37923;513965Give the sneaky monster some class levels and skill in Move Silently and Sneak. Or just have someone cast Darkness and Silence. Problem character solved.

I can make sneaky monsters just fine. What I can't do is have sneaky monsters that reasonably challenge more than one segment of the party at a time. Either they OWN every other player to challenge one, or the one can essentially ignore the fact that they are sneaky.

Its the lack of middle ground that is the problem.


But by all means, continue to feel that the problem is actually that I somehow can't figure out how to make a sneaky-critter.

QuoteSpike, you had a similar problem with the Vacc Suit skill in Mongoose Traveller. I think the problem isn't in the rules, the problem is that you believe that rules have got you as their bitch when they don't.

Which goes to show how little you seem to comprehend my points. Fair enough, communication is a two way street, so obviously I can be doing more on my end.

Let me say it slowly then: I should not HAVE to force situations where the 'fighter pilot with Vacc Suit 6 and Pilot 0' can feel like a boss with his bad ass but otherwise probably unrolled skill.  Likewise, I shouldn't HAVE to go around making exceptions to character creation for people who wind up with an idiotic and illogical skill set like that. *





* for those just now tuning in to this rehashed, year+ old argument, I realize that its pretty stastically unlikely, but it is not particularly unlikely that your pilot character not actually rolling any piloting in his career, which was part of the point.  That I also feel like Vacc Suit should not actually be a significant skill (as in: Its a game about people on space ships, can we at least assume they know how the fuck to wear space suits?!, coupled with its shocking prevelance in certain careers where you are more likely than not to roll it several times AND the fact that the game itself suggests that vacc suit is not really rolled so much as used as a 'this high for entry' check that really only goes to 1.... Jeff continues to assume that I can't handle the fact that some guy who really wants to be a fighter pilot will somehow instead wind up a zen master of vacc suits.  I can handle it just fine. I don't want to.

Thanks, Jeff, since that was really useful and/or relevant to wether or not D&D should have characters rolling a d20 with a +90 bonus or not, which is what I was actually talking about. :rolleyes:

If you change the rules, they're not broken anymore!

Has anyone actually seen a "Diplomancer" in play?  Either as a DM or fellow player?

Quote from: Spike;513966I can handle it just fine. I don't want to.

Your problem in a nutshell.

Quote from: Spike;513960As a GM I sit there while one of my players repeatedly 'breaks' the game by having almost 20 points more in Spot and Listen checks than any other player. THings that can 'attempt' to sneak up on her characters are essentially invisible to every other player. Things the others can detect might as well be wearing bells as far as she's concerned.

How do the other players feel about this?

It seems that this discussion is mostly from DMs or people that are making characters without actually using them in an actual game.

I've found that players can deal with these issues among themselves.  A "Diplomancer" would not last a single session with a group of gamers that have spent just as much time optimizing their characters for combat.

Quote from: Spike;513960tl;dr: As I've said, the value of looking at the Diplomancer 'problem' is not looking for solutions for a problem that doesn't exist, its in seeing the problems that lead to diplomancer style issues in the first place clearly.

Quite so.

Allow me to quote myself in order to head off the disingenuous arguments that my position is something like "OMG Dimplomanser wins the game!  D&D is borken LOL!!eleven!!!" or that the Diplomancer is some actual case that needs to be addressed:

Quote from: StormBringer;513476Of course, no sentient or conscious DM is  going to let Frodo get anywhere near Sauron, let alone talk to  him.

I am clearly not concerned about a Diplomancer popping up in every game and ruining the fun.  The Diplomancer, like Pun-Pun, is a thought exercise that can illuminate potential problems very early on, for certain values of "problem".  It is certainly valid to just ignore the edge cases and worry about the little cracks as they come up.  You may end up chasing a dozen cracks that all have the same origin, however.

On the other hand, my argument (as Spike has perceived from my postings) is that you can look at the overall issue of unlimited DCs and unlimited modifiers and conclude there are some potential problems there, if careful attention is not paid.  The modifiers don't even have to be in the 75+ range for a problem to crop up, as Spike points out.  A mere 20 point difference means five party members are almost always getting extra damage from monster Sneak Attacks, while one party member almost never gets the extra damage.  

As he mentioned, this can cause a problem with scaling encounters, or just in setting up a reasonably challenging encounter to begin with.  Assuming the one player has even the faintest concern for her comrades, no monster can ever sneak up on them.  If that one player is absent or incapacitated, almost every monster will sneak up on them.  One player essentially makes or breaks the party.

Diplomancer isn't a realistic problem that needs to be addressed.  But the underlying arms race between unlimited bonuses and unlimited DCs that leads to this case should at least be investigated by each group.  Even if the group is not malicious or virulent min-maxers, it can have unintended consequences just from normal play.

The 3e Diplomacy skill is just fine, considering the DC equivalent for Balance allows a character to stand on a cloud.

Quote from: Rum Cove;513968Has anyone actually seen a "Diplomancer" in play?  Either as a DM or fellow player?

I had a Player attempt this, but he would step on his own dick and failed often. Common sense and good role-playing are paramount in this.

The guy would insult and denigrate the target of his diplomacy and then roll, thinking that the skill bonus trumped the actions of his character in game. He was surprised when the NPC he had just treated like total shit was not disposed to be friendly to him because of a high die roll.

The Diplomancer, like Pun-Pun, is an intellectual masturbation exercise that fails when used in Actual Play.

Quote from: StormBringer;513971But the underlying arms race between unlimited bonuses and unlimited DCs that leads to this case should at least be investigated by each group.  Even if the group is not malicious or virulent min-maxers, it can have unintended consequences just from normal play.

Which should be able to be handled by the GM. If not, the GM isn't worth a damn.

Quote from: Spike;513966Let me say it slowly then: I should not HAVE to force situations where the 'fighter pilot with Vacc Suit 6 and Pilot 0' can feel like a boss with his bad ass but otherwise probably unrolled skill.  Likewise, I shouldn't HAVE to go around making exceptions to character creation for people who wind up with an idiotic and illogical skill set like that.

Agree.  As far as I can tell, 'Vacc Suit' has about as much use as 'Business Suit'.  If you are jetting around the galaxy in a spaceship, you really ought to know how to wear one.  It would be like having an 'Eating' skill to check at every meal; "Nope, sorry, you missed your mouth at dinner, you can try again at breakfast".  If there is some emergency that requires a roll to put a Vacc Suit on, use Dex if you want to simulate quickness or Edu if you want to simulate experience.  Failure means you have a slow leak to track down, not that you blow up like a miner on Io.

Because let's face it, in some situations, "Save or Die" really is shitty.  Not all of them, but there are cases where it can end up being a real dick move.

Quote from: jeff37923;513974The Diplomancer, like Pun-Pun, is an intellectual masturbation exercise that fails when used in Actual Play.

Which is why no one has suggested that it is a problem in actual play.

QuoteWhich should be able to be handled by the GM. If not, the GM isn't worth a damn.

And the first time you sat behind the screen, you were instantly aware of every potential problem, no matter how small it was starting out, right?

Quote from: Rum Cove;513972The 3e Diplomacy skill is just fine, considering the DC equivalent for Balance allows a character to stand on a cloud.

Yes, so you are beginning to see how the problem of not capping modifiers leads to inflationary DCs, which leads to ever increasing absurdity in the results.  Diplomancer is an easy way to demonstrate this, but the underlying problem leaks into all the other skills.

Is the Diplomacy skill in 3e "broken"?  Well, depends on who you ask.

For some, they reason that Diplomacy simply can't work like that, no matter what the rules state, so they houserule it like everything else they do, and don't see the rule as "broken", because no rule anywhere has never been altered on someone's table, that's just the way the hobby rolls.  Table A uses the rule, Table B doesn't.

For some, if you can't play the game as written without houseruling it so it becomes sane, then it is obviously "broken" as it requires fixing via houserules.

The problem starts when both sides become radicalized.  

The CharOp culture is way out of control IMO, to the detriment of the industry as a whole, as well as WotC and FFG bringing their non-RPG style of rules creation to RPGs.  At the same time, being someone who has enjoyed rules-heavy crunchy systems, it's important that those crunchy rules do what they claim without me having to reverse-engineer them all to double-check.

If there are people out there with the skills and inclination to reverse-engineer the systems and double-check, more power to them.  If they could do it from a design/troubleshooting standpoint as opposed to a min/max CharOp standpoint I would prefer it, but whatever.

I like to see a system red-lined to see where it cracks, for me that is extremely useful information, regardless of its direct applicability.  However, the MMOGification of gaming culture, and the effect that has on memes which become "common knowledge" on boards like WotC's are much less useful and serve to simply obscure the useful info out there.

Quote from: StormBringer;513975Agree.  As far as I can tell, 'Vacc Suit' has about as much use as 'Business Suit'.  If you are jetting around the galaxy in a spaceship, you really ought to know how to wear one.  It would be like having an 'Eating' skill to check at every meal; "Nope, sorry, you missed your mouth at dinner, you can try again at breakfast".  If there is some emergency that requires a roll to put a Vacc Suit on, use Dex if you want to simulate quickness or Edu if you want to simulate experience.  Failure means you have a slow leak to track down, not that you blow up like a miner on Io.

Because let's face it, in some situations, "Save or Die" really is shitty.  Not all of them, but there are cases where it can end up being a real dick move.

Then you miss the possibility of using that skill to increase the immersion of your Players in what is really a different world. It doesn't always have to be "Save or Die" unless you are unimaginative and only think in binary.

Quote from: StormBringer;513976And the first time you sat behind the screen, you were instantly aware of every potential problem, no matter how small it was starting out, right?

While I am awesome in my greatness (and thank you for recognizing that), I did not have all the answers. However, even as a neophyte GM, I knew that I could solve whatever problems came up in game without throwing up my hands and screeching that the entire game is broken.

Quote from: jeff37923;513969Your problem in a nutshell.

I agree this is the problem. "I can handle it just fine. I just don't want to." It's basically abdicating the development of skill in game mastery to the game designer and forum pundit. It could be kind of sad or funny, depending on my mood, if it didn't become a trend that ends up altering entire game designs just for the sake of the theoretical argument.

So now we have game systems basically searching to make adjudication, common sense, and skill on the part of the GM really, completely moot. "I could get better at what I do, but I don't want to." No wonder then that games end up sucking ass with these marvellous games designs we've been so graciously given from on high over these last few years. Blimey, it's a wonder game systems still need GMs to operate nowadays. Hey, why not fix that, too? I can handle GMing just fine, it's just... I shoudn't have to, really...

You know, that makes me think, if such a thing as a perfect game system was ever possible to achieve, I don't think I would touch it with a ten-foot pole. I value my and other participants' skills with RPGs way too much to let a game system take charge of everything for me and my buddies at the table, thank you very much.

Quote from: CRKrueger;513978The CharOp culture is way out of control IMO, to the detriment of the industry as a whole, as well as WotC and FFG bringing their non-RPG style of rules creation to RPGs.

It is one thing to have a player cleverly discover the loop holes in a game system and another to have a player hand you a print out of forum posts declaring "this is my character"  (Sadly, this has happened to me as the DM).

This thread (and similar ones) just seems like a waste of time worrying about something outside of the actual game and more of an excuse to continue personal attacks and feuds.

To give my opinion on the original topic of this thread - I agree with Frank Trollman's misuse of the term "vaporware" when describing 5e.  4e was intentionally designed to be in a constant state of flux, the "last edition" that would have exceptions constantly amended.  No doubt, 5e will be the same with (a more reasonable goal) of having a more basic core.

Quote from: jeff37923;513973The guy would insult and denigrate the target of his diplomacy and then roll, thinking that the skill bonus trumped the actions of his character in game. He was surprised when the NPC he had just treated like total shit was not disposed to be friendly to him because of a high die roll.

He might have a high skill check, and the DC might be limited, but situational modifiers are a bitch.

Quote from: Benoist;513980I agree this is the problem. "I can handle it just fine. I just don't want to." It's basically abdicating the development of skill in game mastery to the game designer. It could be kind of sad or funny, depending on my mood, if it didn't become a trend that ends up altering entire game designs just for the sake of the theoretical argument.

I see what you're saying, but; the more the group has to patch up a game system, the less worthwhile buying the books was for them. Eventually they'll reach a point where the group would have had a better game if they'd been playing or developing a different system instead.

Take Rincewind spending ten minutes fixing the diplomacy rules and explaining the fix, from upthread; that's ten minutes of session that could have been spent in play instead. And sure, it's only ten minutes this time, but those mount up over the course of a campaign.

But the important thing is, that isn't a problem. There's nothing wrong with ditching a system that doesn't work for the group and getting something else instead.

There's a happy medium in everything. This includes this very topic. It is my personal conviction, however, that the theorization of game design has gone way overboard in some parts of the "industry" and on the gaming forums that follow them (and vice versa). Frank Trollman is representative of that trend, though he's far from being alone in this field, obviously.

Quote from: Benoist;513988There's a happy medium in everything. This includes this very topic. It is my personal conviction, however, that the theorization of game design has gone way overboard in some parts of the "industry" and on the gaming forums that follow them (and vice versa). Frank Trollman is representative of that trend, though he's far from being alone in this field, obviously.

I strong agree. Unless the charop people and math people find a problem with a game that affects play for most groups, I'm not sure the problems they find need to be priority fixes -- especially if fixing their issues nerf parts of the game that will not give normal groups that don't have "extreme RPG players" in them. I know of a good number of 3.x groups who have never seen most of the problems many of the "broken rules" supposedly cause if you listen to people claiming about broken 3.x rules on the Internet.

Sure, sometimes the math is broken and it affects nearly everyone. For example, the original 1.0 version of Microlite74 was never tested at levels above 5-6 as I never expected anyone would actually play it that long. When first written, I meant it as an intro to old school play for people who only knew 3.x and assumed if people found they liked old school play they would move to a real TSR game or a real clone. It turned out that character abilities advanced far too fast for old school monsters and adventures, but the problem did not become really noticeable until you surpassed 5th or 6th level. Once players started reaching those levels, the problem because obvious and Microlite74 got a quick 1.1 update.  Skill Challenges in 4e are another example of some that was broken and would affect most players if not fixed.

While issues like "Pun Pun" and "The Diplomancer" show the dangers things of open-ended modifiers or allowing players to freely choose classes, feats, skills, and magic without any table/campaign restraints, they really do not deserve to have the game designed to prevent such abuses the "extreme RPG players" who live to find loopholes that will allow them to "win" by ruining the fun for people not interested in abusing the mechanics.

Quote from: jeff37923;513957Only if the DM has no common sense and allows it.

There are plenty of ways to stop the Diplomancer. The most obvious one being the Diplomancer and its target audience not speaking the same language. No communication => no diplomacy. Send in a mook who doesn't speak the language to attack the Diplomancer and see how long it lasts.

This arguement is based upon math and the belief that Players and GMs are nothing but bitches of the rules who cannot think outside of those rules.

Such idiocy gets what it deserves.

Actually, someone who was that preternatural at Diplomacy probably wouldn't need a shared language to get their point across. The right smile, the right body language the right nuance. Shit I pulled a girl on a train in Romania when I was a kid with no shared language and that lasted a week and I have +30 Diplomacy tops .... :)

Quote from: Rincewind1;5137999 ranks unnamed
9 Charisma unnamed
9 Synergy synergy
3 Skill Focus unnamed
9 Motivate Charisma unnamed
2 Racial racial
2 Sacred Vow perfection
2 Evangelist cleric unnamed
2 Mwk tool circumstance
6 Beguiling Influence enhancement?
5 Friendly Face circumstance
4 Wednesday's Left Eye unnamed
9 Item Familiar unnamed
4 Herald Domain unnamed
2 Mind Domain unnamed
2 Negotiator unnamed
8 Custom item competance
1 Polite trait unnamed
1 Honest trait unnamed
5 to 7 Cohorts aid another check

Two things this stack of modifiers proves:

1.) Don't be a game crunch whore. Don't allow every single feat, class, item, or what have you from every single possible source into your game.

2.) There are some really shitty game designers out there. 3.x is designed so that, with a couple of exceptions, named modifiers don't stack.

The sheer number of "unnamed" modifiers in this stack of dreck is proof that some designers/writers needed to pull their heads out of their asses and use the very easily implemented brake built into the system.

As an example: Domain Abilities should be Divine modifiers. That means only 1, and only the highest. Evengelist Cleric, also Divine. Most others should receive similar descriptors. Why is "Negotiator" not a competence bonus, for example?

(Spitballing here, since 3.5 was after I'd been forced out of playing on a regular basis. Damn real life.)

But, there will always be shitty game designers. And the prime defense against rotted crunch is #1—don't be a crunch whore.

(Caveat: I'm not defending the Diplomacy rules, or entering the "infinite skill modifier" debate. Just pointing out some basic truths.)

1l;dr: Don't be a crunch whore.

Quote from: Benoist;513295And Frank Trollman is totally full of shit, as usual, by the way. ;)

He really, really is.

Well, I think that mostly comes from being surrounded by pet trolls...it encourages sloppy thinking.

Quote from: Doom;514030it encourages sloppy thinking.

Sloppy thinking can also be a byproduct of "expediency" and/or "tunnel vision".

Certainly, but when everything you say is greeted with unquestioning cheers, it can lead to saying some pretty asinine things. I mean, when he says "the 20th century was more stable than the 19th century" and "there are no Libertarian thinkers" (to give just a couple quotes), there's nobody either who knows enough to correct him, or wants to deal with the endless troll attacks by doing so.

Similarly, when he uses a word wrong like "vaporware", all that happens is cheering.

The whole idea that 5e is vapourware to help people keep their jobs is frankly retarded. I don't know this Trollman person, but that premise is so idiotic that I can only sneer dismissively in response.

Quote from: jeff37923;513979Then you miss the possibility of using that skill to increase the immersion of your Players in what is really a different world. It doesn't always have to be "Save or Die" unless you are unimaginative and only think in binary.

"Yeah, you missed the roll on your Vacc Suit check, so you forgot to put on the gloves.  Your hands freeze off more or less instantly while your team mates haul you back in the ship."

Or, did you have an actual example of why Vacc Suit 6 is valid?  I am assuming you are just going to fall back on "you are not imaginative" ad nauseum, but I thought I might hold out for the possibility you would back up your assertion for once.  But that is hoping for a bit more integrity from you than you have, which is to say, more than zero.

QuoteWhile I am awesome in my greatness (and thank you for recognizing that), I did not have all the answers. However, even as a neophyte GM, I knew that I could solve whatever problems came up in game without throwing up my hands and screeching that the entire game is broken.

Good thing no one here is throwing up their hands and screeching that the entire game is broken.  It's mostly just people that are screeching about being required to read a topic they have no insight or interest in, then forced to post in it at gunpoint.

Reading comprehension allows us to formulate responses to posts that actually exist.  People can completely ignore that and respond to posts that only exist in their minds.  Or, they could simply be dazzled by all the big words and just skip the reading part and post whatever dribbles out of their heads onto the keyboard.  I am not going to speculate which applies here, but you are not making an argument against any points I have made, so I will leave that decision up to the reader.

In either case, wildly mis-characterizing posts does not make your argument look better.  Now if you could find someone that was throwing up their hands and screeching that the game is broken, you would probably have a point.  Since you don't have the intellectual honesty to even attempt that, I will let you off the hook and just wait for the 'wharblgarbl butthurt' replies to start coming.

Quote from: StormBringer;514040"Yeah, you missed the roll on your Vacc Suit check, so you forgot to put on the gloves.  Your hands freeze off more or less instantly while your team mates haul you back in the ship."

Or, did you have an actual example of why Vacc Suit 6 is valid?  I am assuming you are just going to fall back on "you are not imaginative" ad nauseum, but I thought I might hold out for the possibility you would back up your assertion for once.  But that is hoping for a bit more integrity from you than you have, which is to say, more than zero.

I once addressed this with Spike in a thread about a year and a half ago.  (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=18057&page=2)Since you are beginning to bore me, I will just repost the answer I gave then.

Quote from: jeff37923;400835OK fuckface, you want to know how to use Vacc Suit skill? I figured this one out when I was 12. Here's the Zen Master secret, you use the skill when it helps you to describe or illuminate how dangerous or unEarthly the environment is that the PCs are moving through. In short, you use the skill to help you as Referee maintain a suspension of disbelief and a level of excitement for your Players. Duh.

Are they on a Titan-like world? One with liquid ammonia or methane for lakes and a surface of ice so crystalline solid it doesn't exist outside of a lab? Then with an understanding that could come from 5 minutes of reading a Scientific American article have the PCs make a skill roll when they run, jump, climb, or reasonably engage in any physical activity that may bring them in contact with the terrain.

Are they on a lunar surface similar to our own moon? Then take a look at some NASA footage of astronauts trying to walk. The moondust turned out to be an incredibly slippery surface and there are some funny movies of the Apollo astronauts just trying to maintain their footing. That would be about a Vacc Suit-0 level of skill (higher levels mean more experience moving and operating the vacc suit).

Yes, a vacc suit is not just a set of clothes that you put on. It is a machine and while I think you don't need to bore your Players with them adjusting their air mixtures, it is still a device that can fail in numerous ways. For example, a simple fall could break the radio antenna on a PCs suit and then that PC is effectively deaf and dumb until it is fixed. Another example for the Titan-like world, there has to be a waste heat removal system for the vacc suit and a clumsy or inattentive wearer could sit down wrong and bring the radiator in contact with some ice - the temperature differential would cause the ice to sublime explosively like a grenade going off.

Again Spike, I'm sorry that you lack the creativity to come up with these obvious solutions to your Vacc Suit conundrum. I'll reach out and say that if you need further help in the future, just go ahead and ask for it.

I'll reach out to you as well and offer to help in the future, since you can't seem to extrapolate within reasonable bounds without going off of the deep end. You know, where you screech "Save or Die!!!" while excluding the middle.

And yes, it does show a lack of imagination and reasoning ability.

Quote from: StormBringer;514040Good thing no one here is throwing up their hands and screeching that the entire game is broken.  It's mostly just people that are screeching about being required to read a topic they have no insight or interest in, then forced to post in it at gunpoint.

Reading comprehension allows us to formulate responses to posts that actually exist.  People can completely ignore that and respond to posts that only exist in their minds.  Or, they could simply be dazzled by all the big words and just skip the reading part and post whatever dribbles out of their heads onto the keyboard.  I am not going to speculate which applies here, but you are not making an argument against any points I have made, so I will leave that decision up to the reader.

In either case, wildly mis-characterizing posts does not make your argument look better.  Now if you could find someone that was throwing up their hands and screeching that the game is broken, you would probably have a point.  Since you don't have the intellectual honesty to even attempt that, I will let you off the hook and just wait for the 'wharblgarbl butthurt' replies to start coming.

Your needless exercise in d20 skill math was close enough. As an example of going off the deep end, or in your case The Derp End, it was pretty spergtacular.

And I really have to ask since you keep using hypotheticals that rarely seem to come up in Actual Play. When was the last time you actually gamed?

Quote from: jeff37923;514042The Earth is degenerating these days. Bribery and corruption abound.
Children no longer mind their parents, every man wants to write a book,
and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching.
- Assyrian Stone Tablet, 2800BC

I just felt compelled to mention that your signature, while funny, is a fraud.  There is no Assyrian stone tablet that ever said that.  There were no books in 2800 BC (and the fact it was "written on a stone tablet" is the first clue to that fact).  Oh, and there were no Assyrians either (they wouldn't be around for another 800 years).  As far as folks can tell, it tracks back to 1924 (http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?view=image;size=100;id=mdp.39015001674079;page=root;seq=94;num=76).

Quote from: Mistwell;514045I just felt compelled to mention that your signature, while funny, is a fraud.  There is no Assyrian stone tablet that ever said that.  There were no books in 2800 BC (and the fact it was "written on a stone tablet" is the first clue to that fact).  Oh, and there were no Assyrians either (they wouldn't be around for another 800 years).  As far as folks can tell, it tracks back to 1924 (http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?view=image;size=100;id=mdp.39015001674079;page=root;seq=94;num=76).

Thank you. I still think it is a pretty good quote for a signature.

And I have to wonder what in the Hell made you want to research a signature? I never gave it any more thought than, "That sounds cool."

Quote from: Doom;514038I mean, when he says "the 20th century was more stable than the 19th century"

Wait.  Did he really say that?  Because I'm pretty sure that WWII and the Cold War plus all those other wars happened in the 20th century.

Quoteand "there are no Libertarian thinkers" (to give just a couple quotes), there's nobody either who knows enough to correct him, or wants to deal with the endless troll attacks by doing so.

Hayek, von Mises, and Friedman do not exist in the Trolliverse.  I'm sure there are a great many more who wouldn't have labeled themselves libertarians, but classical liberalism basically founded America, so he's just a dumbass.  Who does he think great left-wing thinkers are?  Marx?  Hitchens?  Krugman?

(http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/images/106/krugman432.jpg)
Indeed, my good chap, the problem with the American government today is that it's not printing enough money.  Perhaps a spot of alien invaders would convince these politicians to step it up a bit.

Quote from: jeff37923;514042I once addressed this with Spike in a thread about a year and a half ago.  (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=18057&page=2)Since you are beginning to bore me, I will just repost the answer I gave then.

Ah, I see.  So bringing up an argument from a year and a half ago isn't stalkeriffic spergerage, it's the very model of a calm, reasoned approach.  Gotcha.  Maybe you could kind of just let it go, since it has been 18mos or so.

Let's take a look though:

QuoteOK fuckface, you want to know how to use Vacc Suit skill? I figured this  one out when I was 12. Here's the Zen Master secret, you use the skill  when it helps you to describe or illuminate how dangerous or unEarthly  the environment is that the PCs are moving through. In short, you use  the skill to help you as Referee maintain a suspension of disbelief and a  level of excitement for your Players. Duh.

And what does this have to do with either putting on or using a Vacc Suit?  Wouldn't this be more of a Dex check?

QuoteAre they on a Titan-like world? One with liquid ammonia or methane for  lakes and a surface of ice so crystalline solid it doesn't exist outside  of a lab? Then with an understanding that could come from 5 minutes of  reading a Scientific American article have the PCs make a skill  roll when they run, jump, climb, or reasonably engage in any physical  activity that may bring them in contact with the terrain.

So, again, how does this have anything to do with the Vacc Suit?  You are talking about the physical difficulties of navigating hostile terrain.  If that same character had similarly difficult terrain to navigate but didn't need a Vacc Suit, would you have them rolling Vacc Suit anyway?

QuoteAre they on a lunar surface similar to our own moon? Then take a look at  some NASA footage of astronauts trying to walk. The moondust turned out  to be an incredibly slippery surface and there are some funny movies of  the Apollo astronauts just trying to maintain their footing. That would  be about a Vacc Suit-0 level of skill (higher levels mean more  experience moving and operating the vacc suit).

Would the moon dust be any less slippery if they had more training with their suits?  Again, if they could survive in the environment without a Vacc Suit, would you still have them roll their Vacc Suit skill to keep their footing or something else?  Or would they be rolling a physical skill, like Dex instead?  Would they need to roll Vacc Suit if there was an atmosphere on the planetary surface, but nothing else was different?  Some kind of pervasively oily surface, lower than normal gravity, but a breathable, non-caustic atmosphere that only required normal clothing.  You would still require a Vacc Suit check?

QuoteYes, a vacc suit is not just a set of clothes that you put on. It is a  machine and while I think you don't need to bore your Players with them  adjusting their air mixtures, it is still a device that can fail in  numerous ways. For example, a simple fall could break the radio antenna  on a PCs suit and then that PC is effectively deaf and dumb until it is  fixed. Another example for the Titan-like world, there has to be a waste  heat removal system for the vacc suit and a clumsy or inattentive  wearer could sit down wrong and bring the radiator in contact with some  ice - the temperature differential would cause the ice to sublime  explosively like a grenade going off.

In other words, save or die/suck.

What circumstances, aside from an asshole GM, would cause a Vacc Suit check to see if a radio antenna broke off?  Sure, a sufficient fall might trigger such a check, but what else?  Two guys just standing around, with the one of them constantly having his antenna fall off his suit for no deterministic reason, while the other guy is doing back-flips and dancing the samba?  And how does "clumsy or inattentive" have anything to do with the suit itself?  That sounds more like Dex and Edu to me.

QuoteAgain Spike, I'm sorry that you lack the creativity to come up with  these obvious solutions to your Vacc Suit conundrum. I'll reach out and  say that if you need further help in the future, just go ahead and ask  for it.

These aren't solutions.  They are wild contrivances to bolster a ridiculous argument.  No one is going to call for a Vacc Suit check to see if a character tumbles down a ravine.  That is a Dex check.  Like it is in every other game out there.

Also, when you whinge about a lack of imagination, you might want to use examples that are farther afield than "straight out of the book".

QuoteI'll reach out to you as well and offer to help in the future, since you can't seem to extrapolate within reasonable bounds without going off of the deep end. You know, where you screech "Save or Die!!!" while excluding the middle.

Oh, no, trust me, I won't be asking.  You have trouble with just grasping the basics of what a skill is intended for, let alone the more complex ideas of what it actually does.  And when you get called on your inability to comprehend the basics, you fall back into this juvenile stance where you lash out at everyone because your honor has been impeached or something.

QuoteAnd yes, it does show a lack of imagination and reasoning ability.

You are not even remotely qualified to judge these characteristics in anyone else.  That mote you see in everyone else's eye is really just the log in your own.  Remove that and we can talk.

QuoteYour needless exercise in d20 skill math was close enough. As an example of going off the deep end, or in your case The Derp End, it was pretty spergtacular.

At least David R could admit he wasn't very interested in game design topics.  Which is far, far better than you jumping into the middle of them and spewing your ignorance all over the discussion.

QuoteAnd I really have to ask since you keep using hypotheticals that rarely seem to come up in Actual Play. When was the last time you actually gamed?

Uh, no shit.  We've been over this.  You keep bringing this up like an OCD squirrel on crack.  Everyone knows they don't come up in play.  Everyone knows they are hypothetical.  Everyone knows already, Jeff.  You can stop pretending this is some clever point you are making that will win the argument and the admiration of millions.  It has been explained patiently and exhaustively in words small enough that even you should be able to understand.  Here, I will quote myself again:

Quote from: StormBringer;513971I am clearly not concerned about a  Diplomancer popping up in every game and ruining the fun.  The  Diplomancer, like Pun-Pun, is a thought exercise that can illuminate  potential problems very early on, for certain values of "problem".  It  is certainly valid to just ignore the edge cases and worry about the  little cracks as they come up.  You may end up chasing a dozen cracks  that all have the same origin, however.

On the other hand, my argument (as Spike has perceived from my postings)  is that you can look at the overall issue of unlimited DCs and  unlimited modifiers and conclude there are some potential problems  there, if careful attention is not paid.  The modifiers don't even have  to be in the 75+ range for a problem to crop up, as Spike points out.  A  mere 20 point difference means five party members are almost always  getting extra damage from monster Sneak Attacks, while one party member  almost never gets the extra damage.

See how that works?  Spike understands the discussion, perhaps you could ask him to read these posts out loud and explain them to you.  It would probably help out, because as it stands, you appear to be intentionally mis-reading everything in some bizarre attempt to 'get back' at people who have embarrassed you in the past when they pointed out your inability to draw even the simplest conclusions from straightforward statements.

Like that other time you played the wounded little bunny recently, you aren't discussing anything people here are saying, but demanding that people treat you like a good-faith participant when you completely make up what people are arguing, or so wholly mis-characterize what they are saying, you may as well be making it up.

But, let's see this stunning imagination of yours at work.  Two things:
a) provide an argument that escalating bonuses and escalating DCs are not a problem in and of themselves.  Not because they don't happen at your table, not because you haven't heard of them happening, and not because GM block FTW.  In fact, address any of the points I made in that regard directly without weasel words and a mealy-mouthed, backhanded swipe at my 'gaming cred' or whatever you think that was.
b) list some examples where Vacc Suit is useful that aren't a direct re-hash of exactly what the book states.  I don't know about you, but directly quoting a previous work isn't what passes for 'imagination' where I come from.  Hell, I won't even demand examples for Vacc Suit-6.  I will be satisfied with Vacc Suit-1 or -2.

Ball's in your court, chief.  Hit it back or play the whinging victim some more.  Your call.

PMed to avoid a thread derail.

You fucking asshole, Stormbringer. YOU ASKED THE QUESTION. If you don't like my answer, then don't ask the fucking question you twat. Quit being the poster child for reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) and go play an actual RPG with people.

EDIT: As far as problems, be they the Vacc Suit skill or escalating bonuses and escalating DCs, I am interested in solutions while you are only interested in demonstrating that they are problems. So again, fuck you. I'm into actual play, you can engage in your intellectual masturbation to your heart's content - but it won't bring you any closer to actual play.

Quote from: jeff37923;514066You fucking asshole, Stormbringer. YOU ASKED THE QUESTION. If you don't like my answer, then don't ask the fucking question you twat. Quit being the poster child for reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) and go play an actual RPG with people.

Yeah, and what I asked you to do is engage that self-assessed superlative imagination of yours to come up with some examples that weren't copy-pasted directly from the Traveller book out of an 18mo old post.  You are the one accusing everyone else of lacking in imagination.  Impress me.  I can read the book; you claimed to have some ultra imaginative examples of using the Vacc Suit skill that would blow away all arguments against it.  I don't even care about a Pilot that has Vacc Suit-6 and Pilot-0 right now.  That is not even on the horizon yet.  First, we need to figure out why a basic skill any spacefarer should have is so awesome that it needs ranks.

Or, you can start working on your defence of infinite bonuses/DCs.  I mean, I gave you the option.

QuoteEDIT: As far as problems, be they the Vacc Suit skill or escalating  bonuses and escalating DCs, I am interested in solutions while you are  only interested in demonstrating that they are problems. So again, fuck  you. I'm into actual play, you can engage in your intellectual  masturbation to your heart's content - but it won't bring you any closer  to actual play.

How can you formulate a solution if you are not aware of the problem or how it arises?  In fact, how can you even claim to be interested in solutions when you refuse to discuss the problem in the first place?

Quote from: StormBringer;514067Yeah, and what I asked you to do is engage that self-assessed superlative imagination of yours to come up with some examples that weren't copy-pasted directly from the Traveller book out of an 18mo old post.  You are the one accusing everyone else of lacking in imagination.  Impress me.  I can read the book; you claimed to have some ultra imaginative examples of using the Vacc Suit skill that would blow away all arguments against it.  I don't even care about a Pilot that has Vacc Suit-6 and Pilot-0 right now.  That is not even on the horizon yet.  First, we need to figure out why a basic skill any spacefarer should have is so awesome that it needs ranks.

Goddamn, you are an idiot.

That post came from my own mind, you will not be able to find it in any Traveller book - but you are welcome to try.  :D

Quote from: StormBringer;514067Or, you can start working on your defence of infinite bonuses/DCs.  I mean, I gave you the option.

No. I do not think it is a problem, so I will leave you to it. You are the one who is convinced it is a problem, after all.

Quote from: jeff37923;514068Goddamn, you are an idiot.

That post came from my own mind, you will not be able to find it in any Traveller book - but you are welcome to try.  :D

LBB, Book 1, Pg 22.  Vacc Suit skill:

QuoteA basic throw of 10+ to avoid a dangerous situation applies whenever a non-ordinary maneuver is attempted while wearing a vacc suit (including running, jumping, hiding, jumping untethered from one ship to another, or other such activity)

And your examples were:

Quote from: jeff37923;400835Then with an understanding that could come from 5 minutes of reading a Scientific American  article have the PCs make a skill roll when they run, jump, climb, or  reasonably engage in any physical activity that may bring them in  contact with the terrain.

Big imagination you have there.

QuoteNo. I do not think it is a problem, so I will leave you to it. You are the one who is convinced it is a problem, after all.

Then why didn't you leave it to me to begin with, instead of sperging all over the discussion about how people shouldn't be talking about this?  In other words, you must have had a pretty good reason to not shut the fuck up in the first place and step right in the middle of it.  So what made you decide my discussion of a hypothetical issue (that didn't involve you in any way) was worthy of your nerdrage initially, and what made you decide that now you want to just back out?

Quote from: StormBringer;514070Big imagination you have there.

Nice editing there. I notice that you entirely skipped the sections where I was describing the different environments and how they can be handled. Or the fact that you are pulling out Classic Traveller when in my original post it was Mongoose Traveller I was discussing.

But you know, this is better.

It convinces me that you have got a hard on to be the angriest, most bitter non-gamer here and I'm fine with letting you have that crown. You can wear it in that empty kingdom of your own forum.

Quote from: StormBringer;514070Then why didn't you leave it to me to begin with, instead of sperging all over the discussion about how people shouldn't be talking about this?  In other words, you must have had a pretty good reason to not shut the fuck up in the first place and step right in the middle of it.  So what made you decide my discussion of a hypothetical issue (that didn't involve you in any way) was worthy of your nerdrage initially, and what made you decide that now you want to just back out?

Because you just aren't worth my time anymore.

I know that breaks your heart, but I'm sure that you will still be able to angrily masturbate over my absence.

I'm pretty sure that I would be better off just going out and playing more than staying on these forums.

Quote from: Richard Baker and Bill Slavicsek, Dungeon Mastering for Dummies v.3.5, page 251The widening attack gap

At 1st level, the difference between a fighter’s melee ability and a wizard’s melee ability is probably about 4 points or so — the fighter has a base attack bonus of +1 to the wizard’s +0, a Strength score about 4 to 6 points higher than the wizard, and might or might not have the Weapon Focus feat. A monster that the fighter hits 50 percent of the time, the wizard hits 30 percent of the time. A monster that the wizard hits 50 percent of the time, the fighter hits 70 percent of the time. This is a significant difference, but it isn’t broken. By the time characters hit 12th level, this gap is much more significant. The difference in base attack bonus is now 6 points, the difference in Strength scores has grown to 10 or 12 points, and the fighter definitely has Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus. The fighter probably has a much better magic weapon than the wizard, too. Now the fighter’s attack bonus is about 12 or 13 points higher than the wizard’s attack bonus, and probably as much as 6 or 7 points better than the cleric’s attack bonus. A monster that the fighter hits 50 percent of the time, the cleric only hits 20 percent of the time, and the wizard only hits on a roll of 20. A monster that the wizard hits 50 percent of the time, the fighter never misses. Rogues do almost as well as fighters because they usually rely on Dexterity-based attacks.

Now, it’s true that the wizard shouldn’t be attempting many melee attacks by the time he or she reaches 12th level (heck, by the time he or she reaches 2nd level, really). But what the widening attack gap means is that you have to decide whether a monster you include in the adventure is there to threaten (and be threatened by) the fighter, the cleric, or the wizard. If the circumstances of combat develop in such a way that the wrong character is in melee with the monster, you have a bad mismatch. The encounter suddenly becomes too easy or too deadly for the player characters.

The best answer to the widening attack gap is to avoid monolithic encounters where all the monsters are the same. It’s better to have two or three different types of monsters in an encounter, some better at dueling with the fighter, some equipped with other ways (such as spells or supernatural abilities) to attack the cleric or wizard.

What's misleading about the 'crunch whoring' diagnosis - and the Pun-Pun type of examples which invite it in the first place - is to believe that the 'widening gap' problems only come about if the DM allows players to cherry pick stuff from every book. The problem Baker and Slavicsek describe is a common one at that level of play. I've experienced it myself, in a campaign which I ran under the idea of 'every PC build can make use of the PHB and one splat book', with stuff like Tome of Battle excluded from the get go.

Thinking that 'I've never played D&D above level 10' entitles one to say 'Anyone pointing out a problem with play above level 10? Spherical Cows!' is a misuse of the term.

This is closely related to the fact that, so far, no one has shown us how Frank's diagnosis of Iron Heroes was guilty of 'spherical cows' as defined by Justin.

Speaking of that definition, observe the final sentence in the quote given above. It illustrates a way in which encounter design can mitigate a rules fault. But that's a far cry from saying 'the circumstances under which a design fault can arise are so rare that we can discount the fault' (one of Justin's definition of a spherical cow).

No, the claim in that final sentence is this: the circumstances in which the fault shows up become so frequent that scenario design (or monster choice, more simply put) has to mitigate it from now on. (And 'mitigate' is not the same as 'making it go away'.)

Quote from: Windjammer;514073And I'll emphasize that no one so far has pointed out, in actual fact, how Frank's diagnosis of Iron Heroes was spherical cows.

I've not played Iron Heroes but if it's anything like his criticisms of 4E I would expect it to be both:
- correct up to a point
- grossly exagerrated

I wouldn't pass up on playing Iron Heroes based on Frank's attack on it.  If I did play it, however, and found it to be flawed, I would look at Frank's criticisms in order to gain some insight into the problems.

Quote from: Windjammer;514073What's misleading about the 'crunch whoring' diagnosis is to believe that the 'widening gap' problems only come about if the DM allows players to cherry pick stuff from every book.

I believe you have dragged me into a different argument, sir. I said nothing about widening gaps, implied nothing about widening gaps, my comments had nothing to do with widening gaps.

(Or Frank. Don't know anything about him. Don't have an opinion.)

All I did was post a good suggestion. A reasonable suggestion. A correct suggestion. Based on sensible analysis:

"There are some really shitty rules out there, so don't crunch whore. It's likely to cause problems."

This advice is correct, on every level. It applies to D&D, Rifts, and most other games, it applies to third party d20, Vampire/any other game's splatbooks, equipment books, campaign settings, modules, house rules posted by some Internet guy, whatever.

So keep me out of your arguments, because I said nothing about them and, for the purposes of this thread, care nothing about them. I am not for you, I am not against you.

I had a point to make. It was correct. I made it.

EDIT:

And, for the record, crunch whoring causes a lot of problems. Cutting back on it mitigates them.

There are also problems unrelated to crunch whoring (which problems I didn't discuss). So cutting back on crunch whoring won't affect those problems, and I never said it would. Why attempt to contradict that which I never said?

Quote from: jeff37923;514071Nice editing there. I notice that you entirely skipped the sections where I was describing the different environments and how they can be handled. Or the fact that you are pulling out Classic Traveller when in my original post it was Mongoose Traveller I was discussing.

Most of us are not interested in your year old quarrels.  Mention it next time, I am not going to read every thread you were involved in for the past 18mos to get the context.  Describing the different environments is just a sort of explanation of 'running, jumping, hiding...' in context.  Don't get all huffy, you were the one that claimed everyone else was terminally lacking in imagination, then pulled examples directly out of the book and claimed they were your own ideas.

But this really doesn't bolster your argument:
Mongoose Traveller, Core Rules, pg 59.  Vacc Suit skill:

QuoteA character will rarely need to make Vacc Suit checks - merely possessing the skill is enough

So... yeah.  Pretty useless to have more than one rank in it, and the only place to find any reason to use it is the examples in CT.  Which you dutifully copy-pasted and claimed as your own.  Then you whinge that I used the wrong book to address your point.

And since you reposted your response in it's entirety, what could I possibly edit?  Are you suggesting that no reply quote should ever be trimmed down for brevity or to highlight the point being addressed?  Is my editing as egregious as...  Oh, I dunno...  replacing an entire post with 'wharblgarble butthurt' in the reply?

QuoteIt convinces me that you have got a hard on to be the angriest, most bitter non-gamer here and I'm fine with letting you have that crown. You can wear it in that empty kingdom of your own forum.

Yeah, that is why I find every thread you are on and make sure to comment directly to you even when the discussion is with someone else.

Oh, wait, I wasn't the one doing that.

QuoteBecause you just aren't worth my time anymore.

I know that breaks your heart, but I'm sure that you will still be able to angrily masturbate over my absence.

It's difficult to miss you when you latch on to every conversation I am involved in and don't actually leave.

QuoteI'm pretty sure that I would be better off just going out and playing more than staying on these forums.

Yes, you would do that, but you desperately want to convince people how little of your time I am worth by seeking me out and posting reply after reply.

Of course, backing out of the conversation is easier than engaging it and having to defend the points you make.

Quote from: Windjammer;514073What's misleading about the 'crunch whoring' diagnosis - and the Pun-Pun type of examples which invite it in the first place - is to believe that the 'widening gap' problems only come about if the DM allows players to cherry pick stuff from every book. The problem Baker and Slavicsek describe is a common one at that level of play. I've experienced it myself, in a campaign which I ran under the idea of 'every PC build can make use of the PHB and one splat book', with stuff like Tome of Battle excluded from the get go.

Thinking that 'I've never played D&D above level 10' entitles one to say 'Anyone pointing out a problem with play above level 10? Spherical Cows!' is a misuse of the term.

This is closely related to the fact that, so far, no one has shown us how Frank's diagnosis of Iron Heroes was guilty of 'spherical cows' as defined by Justin.

Speaking of that definition, observe the final sentence in the quote given above. It illustrates a way in which encounter design can mitigate a rules fault. But that's a far cry from saying 'the circumstances under which a design fault can arise are so rare that we can discount the fault' (one of Justin's definition of a spherical cow).

No, the claim in that final sentence is this: the circumstances in which the fault shows up become so frequent that scenario design (or monster choice, more simply put) has to mitigate it from now on. (And 'mitigate' is not the same as 'making it go away'.)

And this is exactly the problem Spike described with the sneaky monsters and his own party.  Almost nothing could sneak up on the one character, but nearly everything could sneak up on the rest of the party.  And that was a moderate 20pt gap.

Heay, guys, back off Traveller! Them's fighting words.

As to the Vacc-Suit question: Vacc-Suit is also used to pilot Battle Dresses, e. g. some forms of Exo-Skeletons.
And in any game where someone rolled up a high VaccSuit skill he was:

1) VaccSuit Drill Instructor
2) ExoSkeletonIronMan Champion
3) VaccSuit Designer
4) VaccSuit Tester
5) Weird fetishist
6) Underpants collector

I mean really, what kind of adventuring does someone who flips burgers at -6 expect to do? Right, none, but he still has the skill!

Deductive reasoning:

1. Anyone who does not understand Traveller does not understand RPGs properly.
2. Mike Mearls is on record that he does not understand Traveller.
3. Therefore, Mike Mearls does not understand RPGs properly.

Inductive Reasoning

1. 95% of people complaining about Traveller rules have not understood Traveller.
2. Posters in this thread have complained about Traveller rules.
3. Therefore, there is a 95% chance these posters have not understood Traveller

Quote from: Settembrini;514096Deductive reasoning:

1. Anyone who does not understand Traveller does not understand RPGs properly.
2. Mike Mearls is on record that he does not understand Traveller.
3. Therefore, Mike Mearls does not understand RPGs properly.

Inductive Reasoning

1. 95% of people complaining about Traveller rules have not understood Traveller.
2. Posters in this thread have complained about Traveller rules.
3. Therefore, there is a 95% chance these posters have not understood Traveller

Doesn't prevent the fact tbat if you enrole in a pilot career you should be able to autoselect at least 1 rank in um ...pilot.... doesn't exactly break the game does it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;514097Doesn't prevent the fact tbat if you enrole in a pilot career you should be able to autoselect at least 1 rank in um ...pilot.... doesn't exactly break the game does it.

Traveller: Real pilots need no piloting skills.

When trolls collide, reason fails.

On a lighter note I was thinking about the Vac Suit 6 pilot and realized it would be awesome character. Here is someone who is such a phenomenally bad pilot that he crashes the ship on every single mission and ends up floating in space in his Vac suit. This guy has set all kinds of Vac suit endurance records while waiting to be rescued. You could run a totally badarse Gully Foyle type character hell bent on making just One successful piloting mission!

I love how Traveller char gen can throw out these possibilities.

That isn't to say that those Mongoose tables aren't just a teensy bit broken. As GM, I would have allowed the player to re-roll if they wanted to ;-)

Quote from: Fiasco;514099When trolls collide, reason fails.

On a lighter note I was thinking about the Vac Suit 6 pilot and realized it would be awesome character. Here is someone who is such a phenomenally bad pilot that he crashes the ship on every single mission and ends up floating in space in his Vac suit. This guy has set all kinds of Vac suit endurance records while waiting to be rescued. You could run a totally badarse Gully Foyle type character hell bent on making just One successful piloting mission!

So basically the Rincewind/Guybrush Threepwood of spaceship piloting

Quote from: Rincewind1;514100So basically the Rincewind/Guybrush Threepwood of spaceship piloting

Hell yeah. I find that the weak/weird ( in a good way weird) characters are far more interesting and memorable than Mr. Correct/Optimal build.

Having run a Traveller game with a by-the-book (MGT) strictly randomly-generated Traveller crew, I don't think allowing a small degree of player choice (e.g. roll a 5, choose from which applicable list in your career you get skill #5 from) would "break" the game... any more than 4d6-drop-lowest or 3d6-arrange-to-taste "breaks" D&D.

Which is to say, you do miss out a bit on the fun of randomness, but you get to have a bit of a hand in shaping your character. Which I find satisfactory and even lifelike, since IRL we don't always get to choose how strong or fit or smart we are, but we are mostly responsible for our own professional and intellectual development.

My favorite character generation systems combine player choice with random elements.

Quote from: StormBringer;513975Agree.  As far as I can tell, 'Vacc Suit' has about as much use as 'Business Suit'.  If you are jetting around the galaxy in a spaceship, you really ought to know how to wear one.

Having done some research into this area (http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/). A vacc suit or space is a complex piece of a equipment. The advance of technology would miniaturize the components and make maintenance easier. There are certain things then that have to be checked and done to make you are safe in a extremely hostile environment. Similar to how using Scuba gotten easier but still requires a through knowledge of the equipment because the tech can't stop you from violating the requirement to maintain proper dive times.

Now in a space opera game, or science fantasy, then handwaving all this away is perfectly fine. But Traveller has been always about harder science fiction than those genres.

There is a chance for catastrophic failure and in with a Vacc Suit that means death. But most failures are of a more mundane quality that will likely lead to a abort of the activity. That is if the player doesn't decide to try to press it.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;514075I believe you have dragged me into a different argument, sir. I said nothing about widening gaps, implied nothing about widening gaps, my comments had nothing to do with widening gaps.

(Or Frank. Don't know anything about him. Don't have an opinion.)

All I did was post a good suggestion. A reasonable suggestion. A correct suggestion. Based on sensible analysis:

"There are some really shitty rules out there, so don't crunch whore. It's likely to cause problems."

This advice is correct, on every level. It applies to D&D, Rifts, and most other games, it applies to third party d20, Vampire/any other game's splatbooks, equipment books, campaign settings, modules, house rules posted by some Internet guy, whatever.

So keep me out of your arguments, because I said nothing about them and, for the purposes of this thread, care nothing about them. I am not for you, I am not against you.

I had a point to make. It was correct. I made it.

EDIT:

And, for the record, crunch whoring causes a lot of problems. Cutting back on it mitigates them.

There are also problems unrelated to crunch whoring (which problems I didn't discuss). So cutting back on crunch whoring won't affect those problems, and I never said it would. Why attempt to contradict that which I never said?

Thanks for correcting my impression of the thread. I might have lost count of who exactly said what when, and was going from more general recall. I also loosely remember early on that Rob Conley said that the Diplomacy problem is due to allowing too many splats (iirc he quoted the sources used, and then wrote 'This is your problem right there'), and so wanted to respond to that way of dismissing the problem. Sorry if this resulted in some misattributions to (among others) you.

Quote from: Windjammer;514128Thanks for correcting my impression of the thread.

Thanks for being polite about it. I appreciate that.

Quote from: Windjammer;514128I might have lost count of who exactly said what when, and was going from more general recall.

No problem, it's happened to me. I just didn't want to be dragged into an argument I had no part of.

I get into enough on my own. :)

Quote from: estar;514116Having done some research into this area (http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/). A vacc suit or space is a complex piece of a equipment. The advance of technology would miniaturize the components and make maintenance easier. There are certain things then that have to be checked and done to make you are safe in a extremely hostile environment. Similar to how using Scuba gotten easier but still requires a through knowledge of the equipment because the tech can't stop you from violating the requirement to maintain proper dive times.

Now in a space opera game, or science fantasy, then handwaving all this away is perfectly fine. But Traveller has been always about harder science fiction than those genres.

There is a chance for catastrophic failure and in with a Vacc Suit that means death. But most failures are of a more mundane quality that will likely lead to a abort of the activity. That is if the player doesn't decide to try to press it.

.... but that would suggest that using an iPad to find who played third ewok from the left in Jedi would be much more complex that using an AS400 to do it and well that simply ain't the case.

Traveller is a 1970s version of Hard SciFi a far more likely version from where we sit now would be an Iain M Banks Culture-verse and in the Culture a Vacc suit would have an AI that could not only govern all the features of the suit but also play scrabble with you whilst it communicated to a remote drone in Ancient Greek using a 10Gb encryption key.
So the alternate to Vacc Suit - 6 would be buy a Vacc suit with Tech level 13 or higher ....

...just saying (although irrelevent to the thrust of the conversation I will concede)...

Re: Diplomacy

The 3.0 and 3.5 Diplomacy skill description is conceptually flawed. I was going to suggest a different option, but a quick check of Pathfinder showed they had already implemented it. (And a slower check of my 3e house rules from 2002 showed I had done substantially the same thing.)

Permanent change of NPC attitude is a bad idea. Pathfinder allows Diplomacy to do two things: 1. Temporarily change the target's attitude, and 2. ask for a favor. Different uses, requiring different checks.

They also add restrictions, such as needing time, the target having a minimal Intelligence, being willing to listen, being able to understand, and combat not occurring.

Other than adjusting their DC's, that's how Diplomacy should work.

My Personal Diplomacy DC's

The Base DC of a Diplomacy check is the Level or HD of the target. This DC is modified by their Wisdom modifier. It is also modified by their current attitude towards the character attempting a Diplomacy check.

Hostile +15
Unfriendly +5
Indifferent +0
Friendly: -5
Helpful: -10

(I would have broken the skill up into two separate uses, each explicitly dealing with only one of those functions, but that's just a personal preference.)

Also, truly implacable characters should have the extraordinary ability (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=513672&postcount=168) I suggested earlier.

Which raises the question in my mind: if there was a good fix already available, why hasn't anyone mentioned it? It would have been terribly easy:

"3E Diplomacy sucks balls. Pathfinder did it much better."

Has this all just been edition wars, by proxy? An OSR/3e battle where no one cares about solutions, only arguing first principles? A waste of time, if so. IMNSHO.

(Also, Fred proves nothing about anything being broken, other than Internet debates. You know, the kind where people use the most ridiculous, extreme examples and claim they're a typical case, and extrapolate even worse consequences from them, then claim they prove the game is broken. That's the very definition of a "Spherical Cow". 3e Diplomacy is done incorrectly, but Fred is irrelevant to real play under real GM's.)

Everyone should check out After Sundown by Trollman.

It really does tell you all you need to know about the guy; totally devoid of any original ideas yet still adamant about being seen as a game designer. He's like the kid that wanted to be an astronaut growing up so badly and still insists that because he plays with model rockets that he's an astronaut.

The dude's also hilarious for decrying the whole 'Rule 0 Fallacy' while existing on a board that is devoted to houseruling 3E until it doesn't suck. (Hint: it fails)

Oh, and the Bane Guard (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Bane_Guard_(4e_Class)), a class he meant to demonstrate that 4E classes were so easy to build that it could be done in 15 minutes. Note that the class has gone through multiple revisions, is still completely non-functional, and even if it were made functional it's hilariously overpowered in so many ways that display that Frank knows fuck-all about design.

Our hero, once thought lost in the void of the Internet, steps out of the shadows to sneer once again.

Quote from: Darwinism;514178Everyone should check out After Sundown by Trollman.

It really does tell you all you need to know about the guy; totally devoid of any original ideas yet still adamant about being seen as a game designer. He's like the kid that wanted to be an astronaut growing up so badly and still insists that because he plays with model rockets that he's an astronaut.

Go into more detail, please.  Perhaps you could make an "After Sundown sucks" thread instead of returning this thread into a "hate on Trollman thread."

QuoteThe dude's also hilarious for decrying the whole 'Rule 0 Fallacy' while existing on a board that is devoted to houseruling 3E until it doesn't suck. (Hint: it fails)

I think we both know you're smarter than that.  Creating house rules for 3e isn't the same thing as the Rule 0 Fallacy, and you know it.  (The quality of those house rules, on the other hand, is up for debate.)

QuoteOh, and the Bane Guard (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Bane_Guard_(4e_Class)), a class he meant to demonstrate that 4E classes were so easy to build that it could be done in 15 minutes. Note that the class has gone through multiple revisions, is still completely non-functional, and even if it were made functional it's hilariously overpowered in so many ways that display that Frank knows fuck-all about design.

QuoteWhen you shift at least one square or damage an opponent with an attack, you may Mark an opponent you can reach. This mark lasts until ended by a saving throw. When an enemy fails a saving throw to end your Mark, they suffer damage equal to your Charisma modifier if they are within your Melee reach. When an enemy marked by this power inflicts damage, their damage is reduced by your Dexterity modifier.

Quote1[W] + Charisma modifier damage. The target is pushed one square and you may shift one square towards them.
Increase to 2[W] + Dexterity modifier damage at 21st level.

Quote1[W] + Constitution modifier damage.
Increase to 2[W] + Dexterity modifier damage at 21st level.

Quote1[W] modifier necrotic damage. If the target is damaged, it becomes Immobilized until the end of your next turn.

QuoteEffect: Mark one opponent within range. All attacks have Combat Advantage against the target until the end of your next turn.

QuoteEffect: When you are in any kind of civilization ('especially' savage civilization), you can gather the services of minions who follow you around. You can have up to two minions at a time in this way, and both of them must be lower level than you.

Holy lol.

*shrug* There are 30 levels of that class, and those errors could easily just be sloppiness (hardly unusual for a wiki).

At best, it shows how much effort WotC was putting into 4e class creation: as much as one unpaid laborer would do in his spare time.

I should put my war-warrior in there.

Quote from: Spike;513960Actually I think it rather reinforces MY point.

Yes, math nerd-sperging identifies a problem which hasn't or doesn't regularly crop up in games, to whit: Diplomancy.

However, from that we can move into a reasonable discussion of infinite bonuses chasing infinite difficulties vs a limited randomizer, which illustrates a problem...

tl;dr: As I've said, the value of looking at the Diplomancer 'problem' is not looking for solutions for a problem that doesn't exist, its in seeing the problems that lead to diplomancer style issues in the first place clearly.

I do agree with your point. Having people who excel in one discipline look with scrutiny upon a piece of work and offer criticism is useful (in a broad sense). Understanding how any discipline works in practice is good. Through this we can avoid pitfalls in Creation Design or Table Adjudication.

I'm sure we could have linguists harp on how having Common understood as a complete separate language, instead of a pidgin of roughly mutually guessable gestures and sounds, absolutely wreaks havoc upon a world. Also, such linguists could point out how throwing unnecessary amounts of hyphens and apostrophes starts to ruin their meaning and look more random. Also noting how naming conventions become painfully formulaic when structured as "(Noun) of the (Adjective)(Juxtaposing Adjective)(Noun)." Such criticism is important.

But there is also something to be said about keeping such criticism within its relevant spheres. There is no one discipline to rule them all, and that's where you correctly identify where TGD goes to unproductive excess. I'm sure there's quite a bit of frustration being vented here resulting from attributing too much importance upon such myopic fixations.

I still would like to see a "Diplomancer "explaining his point of view to a pack of dire wolves, though.

Quote from: Windjammer;513878I agree. I wonder though why elements which are part of the rules of Monopoly are likened to elements which (according to you) aren't part of the rules of an RPG - namely (in your dichotomy) (a) the scenario and (b) GM adjudications outside the rules.

Because RPGs aren't boardgames.

Is this really coming as a huge surprise to you?

If boardgames were designed like RPGs, then Monopoly would give you rules for moving around the board and buying properties, but then it would say to the GM: "Here are some tips for how you can design your game boards." (Actually, if it were like a lot of RPGs, it would skip the tips and just assume the GM can figure it out.)

But boardgames aren't RPGs. And RPGs aren't boardgames.

QuoteOn my reading, Benoist reacted negatively to Trollman's analysis because that analysis
(D) exploits conditions which never came up at Benoist's game table

That's certainly possible. I can't answer for what's inside Benoist's head.

As a note: I'm not commenting on Trollman's Iron Heroes analysis. I've read Iron Heroes and I've stolen some stuff from Iron Heroes; but I haven't done an in-depth analysis and I've never played it. Some of Trollman's stuff looks pretty devastating; a lot of it looks sensationalistic and exaggerated. But I couldn't really tell you which is which without spending a lot of time digging into Iron Heroes, and I don't really have the time or interest in that right now.

Quote from: Spike;513966What I can't do is have sneaky monsters that reasonably challenge more than one segment of the party at a time. Either they OWN every other player to challenge one, or the one can essentially ignore the fact that they are sneaky.

Capping modifiers/DCs is one way of solving this problem. But this does open up a discussion of a wider philosophy in how the world works.

In order for challenges to be meaningful/reasonable for every member in the party, the total range of modifiers can't be more than 10 or thereabouts. (Assuming a d20.) In other words, if your low end has a +0 then your top end can't exceed +9. (Which means that when the top end has a 75% chance of success, the lower end has a 25% chance of success. Those being the commonly understood boundaries on "not yet a sure thing" and "not yet an unlikely long-shot".)

Now, assuming that we're talking about D&D, we toss in, say, a maximum +5 bonus from magic items. (This, it should be noted, is incredibly small compared to every edition of D&D ever published.) This leaves you with a 5 point range for describing the totality of human skill.

This small range of variance is, by itself, somewhat problematic because it means you're crushing a lot into those 5 points. But it's also problematic because it means that the total difference between Tiger Woods and a guy who's picking up a golf club for the first time is that Tiger Woods is 25% more likely to sink his putt.

On the other end of this capping discussion, we've got DCs. Given the +0 to +9 range we're talking about, you need to cap your DCs at 29. (Anything beyond that is, obviously, impossible by definition.)

But it's pretty easy to set-up some gedanken that suggest that there's a problem: Define lifting a given stone as DC 29. Now, double the size of the stone. It must still be DC 29, right? After all, you've capped it.

This is hypothetical, of course, but it'll crop up in practice at the table. You've design a system in which the limit heads to infinity, but then you've pinned it down to a whole number. Eventually the DM will find that they've defined themselves into a corner.

The other option, of course, is the "Doc Savage" solution: Here, all the characters level up their abilities in unison. They maintain a 10 point spread between the lowest and highest abilities, but DCs can be uncapped so that more challenging tasks become possible (while less challenging tasks become automatic).

The "Doc Savage" solution still has the same problem of limiting differentiation between PCs, but has less weirdness in how the PCs interact with the world around them.

Personally, I prefer to limit the "Doc Savage" stuff to the abilities which are actually crucial for challenges that target entire groups: Attack rolls, armor, and saving throws. You could probably make a case for Perception/Stealth if that's a major component of your game.

(IOW, I'm okay with one guy in the group being able to do stuff with Balance that the other guys can't.)

WARNING: This post is nothing but Stormbringer getting slapped down for being an incompetent illiterate. If that interests you, grab your popcorn. If it doesn't, just skip to the next post.

Quote from: StormBringer;513928(Since your reading comprehension problems are kicking in early today, I will spell it out for you:  both DCs and Modifiers need to be capped)

If you'd said that originally, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, you said that the tables for target numbers should be delimited.

If you meant to say something different than what you actually said, that's not my problem. That's your incompetence.

QuoteIt's a "metaphor". I am sure you have heard of those. You aren't literally "always fighting orcs".

Yes. It's a metaphor that you clearly don't understand.

QuoteThat is exactly what you claim you want the system to do. Always fall in the same range of success values.

That's actually not what I said. Apparently when you started throwing around the "reading comprehension" slur you were really talking about yourself.

(Pro-Tip: Just because there's a range of 18 numbers in which the d20 randomizer is relevant, it doesn't mean that all DCs in the universe fall into that 18 point range.)

Quote from: StormBringer;514077Most of us are not interested in your year old quarrels.  Mention it next time,

He did, dumbfuck. Spike quoted him mentioning it in the post you replied to. Your inability to follow a thread or read the messages you're replying to is duly noted (yet again).

QuoteThe next time you need a game design lesson, schedule an appointment and cut me a check.

Sorry. I have no interest in subsidizing your first grade English lessons with the charity of pretending to indulge your delusions.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;514199WARNING: This post is nothing but Stormbringer getting slapped down for being an incompetent illiterate. If that interests you, grab your popcorn. If it doesn't, just skip to the next post.

Quite an ego, little zebra.

QuoteIf you'd said that originally, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, you said that the tables for target numbers should be delimited.

Ah, so the problem is you don't even read my posts.  I said that AC specifically is better delimited, and later on this led to the obvious statement that any bonuses and target numbers should also have a limit.

QuoteIf you meant to say something different than what you actually said, that's not my problem. That's your incompetence.

I said exactly what I meant.  I can't, however, make you read better.  Everyone else on the thread seemed to understand quite clearly what I was talking about, even if they disagreed with me.  So, my writing appears to be quite comprehensible.

QuoteYes. It's a metaphor that you clearly don't understand.

Really?  Because you thought I was referring to literally fighting orcs and nothing else all the time.  Allow me to demonstrate:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;513869It's only "always fighting orcs" if the orcs level up with you and  always land in the 18-20 point range of relevant numbers. If the AC of  an orc becomes easier to hit and eventually irrelevant (because you  aren't capping bonuses) that is the exact opposite of "always fighting orcs".

You think I am literally talking about orcs as the only monster the players would face when I said 'always fighting orcs'.  It's a metaphor for always facing roughly the same odds for an encounter.  An actual orc with AC20 being attacked by a Fighter with +10 in mods is exactly the same as a grimdark demynchylde with AC90 being attacked by a Fighter with +80 in mods.

I went over this quite extensively before, shall I just re-post all that here, and hope that you read it this time?  Everyone else understood what I was saying just fine.  You are either 'misunderstanding' intentionally, or you need to find someone to explain the big words to you from now on.

QuoteThat's actually not what I said. Apparently when you started throwing around the "reading comprehension" slur you were really talking about yourself.

Very clever.  "I know you are, but what am I?"  Your mind is as a steel trap, sir.  Allow me to get you a Dos Equis.

Quote(Pro-Tip: Just because there's a range of 18 numbers in which the d20 randomizer is relevant, it doesn't mean that all DCs in the universe fall into that 18 point range.)

No, just the relevant ones.  Or do you have your players roll a check when they have more than enough modifiers to exceed the DC?  If they have +40 in bonuses, and the DC is 25, do you have them roll?  Similarly, if they have +40 in bonuses and the DC is 65, do you have them roll?  In other words, if they have +40 in bonuses, the only relevant time they would roll is if the target number falls within the 41-60 range, correct?  So when the DCs and bonuses both escalate without bound, then the only range of numbers worth considering are...   Ta da!  1 to 20.  So the other DCs may as well not exist.  Rather like a first level character facing a DC 75 challenge.  It's not relevant for that character, because they aren't going to make the target number.  See how that works?  Only the results that are possible are relevant.  I don't see much of a fucking point in talking about the irrelevant results, do you?  If the total mods are +90, is there some critical point to be made about DCs 1 through 90?

It means that all relevant DCs fall in the same 20 number range when you allow infinite bonuses and DCs.  When you have +90 in modifiers, the entire range of DCs from 1 to 90 are irrelevant to the game.  As in, 'not pertinent'.  Fuck it, here:

rel-e-vant (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relevant)
                          [rel-uh-vuhnt]
bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand; pertinent: a relevant remark.
 
And just for shits and giggles, here is a list of synonyms (http://thesaurus.com/browse/relevant).

That isn't so hard to figure out, right?  If you have +1,000,000 in bonuses and the DC is 1,000,010, you have to roll.  But it's exactly the same as having no bonuses and rolling a DC 10.  See how that works?  See how the bonuses and the DC mystically cancel each other out?  That's because it's simple fucking math.  Subtract the bonuses from the DC, and that is what you have to roll on a d20 to succeed.  And that is why infinite bonuses coupled with infinite DCs is pointless.  It makes them both superfluous.  And for the entire range of numbers below the minimum result, it makes the randomizer superfluous.

QuoteHe did, dumbfuck. Spike quoted him mentioning it in the post you replied to. Your inability to follow a thread or read the messages you're replying to is duly noted (yet again).

And you went and dug around in the threads that were over a year old to see what the conversation was about before it was linked to?  I had a post about a year and a half ago about this very topic too.  How about you go dig that one up so you can follow what I am saying now, dumbfuck?

How about you shut the fuck up and go back to your blog?  This is instance number 10million where it is shown that your entire worldview implodes when someone dares to challenge your poorly conceived opinions.  It's even more of a spectacular meltdown when it is easily and conclusively shown that you stepped in a big pile of shit and can't admit to it.

QuoteSorry. I have no interest in subsidizing your first grade English lessons with the charity of pretending to indulge your delusions.

Uh huh.  Says the guy that can't even puzzle out simple math problems like 'subtraction' and utterly fails to recognize a 'metaphor'.

As I said before, let the flailing begin.  This isn't your little echo chamber here, you get to defend your arguments when you make them.  Or, you can throw a fit like you have all the sand in the world in your vagina.  It's pretty clear which route you always take, so I shouldn't be surprised.  Go douche the sand out, we can wait until you get back.

So, the next time you want to proclaim your super-coolness by announcing a 'slap-down' at the beginning of a post, you better have a shit-tonne more to back you up than a vacant look.  Especially when you want to announce a 'slap-down' on me.  You goddamn well better bring your 110% best fucking game, and not this weak shit you have been.  Now, scurry back to the "StormBringer anti-fan club" and tell them all how you got to talk to me.

[Edit. I completely rewrote the following post.]

Quote from: Justin Alexander;514198Because RPGs aren't boardgames.

Is this really coming as a huge surprise to you?

If boardgames were designed like RPGs, then Monopoly would give you rules for moving around the board and buying properties, but then it would say to the GM: "Here are some tips for how you can design your game boards." (Actually, if it were like a lot of RPGs, it would skip the tips and just assume the GM can figure it out.)

But boardgames aren't RPGs. And RPGs aren't boardgames.

That's all fine, but it doesn't help me to understand whether or not your analogy of RPGs to Monopoly breaks down or not. I had stated that the real estate values and real estate arrangements on a Monopoly board are part of the rules in a sense that scenario design is not.

You take on that by saying: if Monopoly was like an RPG (but as you say, it isn't) then one guy would run the game for the others (say, the guy controlling the bank) and would also design the game board for the other players. This seems straightforward, mostly, if all he is doing is re-theme the board (as Hasbro has done itself with Harry Potter Monopoly and god knows what else). But that's a given, you don't even need a separate GM for that - the players can agree to refer to the prison field as Montechristo. What's more difficult is to know if any other alteration to the game board still qualifies for what in RPG land corresponds to a 'scenario' choice. Getting rid of the prison field entirely (there's nothing like it) seems to change the rules, not just the board and the cards which refer to it. And that's why I insist on my original point that the board layout is part of the Monopoly rules in a sense that a RPG scenario is not part of a RPG ruleset. E.g. your wonderful critique of the H1 module raises many issues that are quite independent of the 4E rules design and what we can critique about it. There's a relation between the two (I think we both agree that many, many decisions in the rules were made to enable scenarios like H1) but what exactly the relation is, in 4E or another RPG, remains elusive to me, and isn't helped by your posts so far. Not that you owe me anything here, I'm just pointing out that this part in your posts was hard for me to follow.

As to the rest of your post - ok, so your diagnosis of Trollman's writings as frequently guilty of 'spherical cows' are rooted in something other than his critique of Iron Heroes. What they are rooted in is anyone's guess. That his verbiage is histrionic is apparent to everyone. But that's not the question. The question is whether the substance of his analysis is guilty of an intellectual fault you've defined very carefully. I've noted that unlike other posters you've at least shown the intellectual decency (and capability) to distinguish these two questions.

Quote from: StormBringer;514203No, just the relevant ones.  Or do you have your players roll a check when they have more than enough modifiers to exceed the DC?  If they have +40 in bonuses, and the DC is 25, do you have them roll?  Similarly, if they have +40 in bonuses and the DC is 65, do you have them roll?  In other words, if they have +40 in bonuses, the only relevant time they would roll is if the target number falls within the 41-60 range, correct?  So when the DCs and bonuses both escalate without bound, then the only range of numbers worth considering are...   Ta da!  1 to 20.  So the other DCs may as well not exist.  Rather like a first level character facing a DC 75 challenge.  It's not relevant for that character, because they aren't going to make the target number.  See how that works?  Only the results that are possible are relevant.  I don't see much of a fucking point in talking about the irrelevant results, do you?  If the total mods are +90, is there some critical point to be made about DCs 1 through 90?

I wonder if this isn't the key to why many old school games don't have this problem to the extent many new school games do. In many old school games the die roll was only made when the GM could not decide what should happen from the player's description. The obvious successes and failures were simply decided by GM fiat. Rolls were only made when the success or failure wasn't clear from the description and the GM's knowledge of the character's abilities and the specific situation.

Simply having the rules say skill rolls are only used if the GM cannot decide on success or failure based on the situation and the player's description of what her character is doing eliminates most of the problems with edge cases and setting-inappropriate results like Frodo using his outrageously min-maxed diplomacy skill to talk Sauron into giving up. I realize that this type of design would annoy the charop/min-maxer players and those players who refuse to trust GMs because they had a terrible GM once, but the hobby as a whole might be better for something like this being more widely used.

Quote from: RandallS;514219I realize that this type of design would annoy the charop/min-maxer players

Ha! One might wish, but no.

Min-maxers will concentrate on what they've always concentrated on since the beginning of the hobby: combat rules. Which are just as complex, just as prone to abuse, just as fraught with edge cases as anything else.

Turning all checks, save combat, into "DM Fiat" isn't a panacea. Appealing as it may be to the "only combat mechanics should exist" crowd.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;514221Turning all checks, save combat, into "DM Fiat" isn't a panacea.

That's not what I am suggesting. I'm suggesting that skill rolls only be made in those cases where success or failure isn't fairly obvious to the GM. Just like a GM doesn't normally require characters to make a roll to tie their shoes or allow a skill roll if some player says his (normal human) character is flapping his arms to fly like a bird.

IMHO, allowing Frodo the min-maxed Diplomancer to roll to to convert Sauron is just as stupid as requiring Frodo to roll to successfully tie his shoe.  This is even more true in systems that treat a "1 roll" as auto failure and a "20 roll" as auto success, because such systems the character has a 5% (or whatever) of doing anything.

Quote from: RandallS;514223That's not what I am suggesting. I'm suggesting that skill rolls only be made in those cases where success or failure isn't fairly obvious to the GM.

There are 2 possible outcomes to this suggestion, so far as I see it:

1.) It's just like most RPG's. Most RPG's have a "don't roll for stupid stuff" and "don't roll for impossible stuff" rules.

"High jump the moon you say? 20 means auto-success you say? 'No, you can't try that', I say."

2.) It becomes a 3 choice DM Fiat: A is no, B is yes, C is "Okay, I'll let your game stats matter. This time."

So, either it makes no difference, or it turns all non-combat checks into DM fiat. Either way, it isn't an improvement.

(Holding up the three AD&D hardbacks)

AD&D the roleplaying game is not defined by the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and the Dungeon Master Guide. Those are are just rules to a poor wargame. When you add the human referee, using these books as a guidline to adjudicates the actions of players interacting with the setting within a campaign then you have a roleplaying game.

You can't just analyze a roleplaying game based solely on the mechanics of the game. Instead you have to ask, how these rules help or hinder the referee in adjudicating the actions of the player. If they hinder the referee, (take to long to use, poorly written, etc) then it is a bad design for a roleplaying game. If they help the referee then it is a good design for a roleplaying game.

This is separate whether they make a good wargame or not. Many excellent roleplaying are poor wargames and vice versa. Many wargames make for poor roleplaying games. Sometimes a game is both a good roleplaying game and a good wargame.

The issues being brought in the previous posts arise  from treating roleplaying games solely like a warggame. Wargame rules define the "field of play" and the expectation is that the rules are the only things that need to be considered. For example Asteroid Fields in Star Fleet Battles (a star trek starship combat game) are defined in a particular way. And anytime you see asteroids on the playing field that how they are going to be.

In contrast in a Star Trek Roleplaying Game, asteroids may be defined in detail however they are guidelines. There to save the referee some work when he wants a vanilla asteroid field. Referee can and will at times define their own types of asteroid crafted to the needs of the campaign or adventure.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;514221Ha! One might wish, but no.

Min-maxers will concentrate on what they've always concentrated on since the beginning of the hobby: combat rules. Which are just as complex, just as prone to abuse, just as fraught with edge cases as anything else.

Turning all checks, save combat, into "DM Fiat" isn't a panacea. Appealing as it may be to the "only combat mechanics should exist" crowd.

I have to agree with Mr WarPig here.

I ran a game for some kids (my mate's and my daughter all 6 - 9 years).
Fantasy theme
They could pick any character - We had an elf, a witch, a pixie and a digimon
They had +6 to assign to 3 stats, Brains, Charm, and Body (which I explained was their muscles but also their speed , balance and stuff I would have called it Prowess but they were like 7).
They had 3 special 'Abilities' each -  ranging from speedy (for the elf), to shapechange for the digimon - I helped define and 'balance' these
The Game mechanic was 2d6 vers target of 8 with stat bonus

We played for 4 hours they had a great time everyone was involved all loved it and were clamouring for more.
Now .... whilst this worked entirely well after all all the elements of play were there, I wouldn't recommend it as a professional rules system....

I apologize in advance for the long multiquote. I've been out this weekend and this thread (or where it went a few times, if not the original topic) still interests me.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;513832I thought we were talking about Diplomacy?

The thread's about 5e. It became about Frank for a while, became about diplomacy as an example of him overdoing it, and then about diplomacy as sort of a test case for whether rules analysis is valid and when.

My response was to a specific post though. One of many tangents.

Quote from: Justin AlexanderSure there is: 1st level wizards in a one-shot. Low-level thugs that the DM wants to give a little more endurance. Decent for mindless foes up to about 6 HD that you don't want to get too fancy with.

And, according to Monte Cook, that's exactly the sort of stuff the feat was designed for.

Right, I suppose I forgot that one or misspoke, but that right there is a pretty narrowly useful rule. Honestly, vancian magic in a system that assumes situations that call for resource management or attrition is better than toughness in a game that has twenty levels and therefore probably does not assume one shots.

I prefer broad to narrow applicability in rules, but if you're going to narrow things, I also think you shouldn't go for a contradictory narrowing. Toughness might be fine in a game with five levels, but it was placed in a game with 20. As with diplomacy it's a case of a game built for long campaigns and eventual high power... that is also a game that seems hardly to have considered that upper end.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;513838It is impossible to judge the rules of an RPG without taking into account the scenarios in which those rules will be used. This doesn't mean that there aren't bad rules or ineffective rules or poorly designed rules. But it does mean that trying to maintain that the only good rule is one which is equally good no matter what conditions you use it under is an intellectually bankrupt position.

So would you agree that 3x was not built for low levels only (given the wide breadth of high level material) but still included content that would be useless at high levels (toughness) or ridiculously powerful at high levels (diplomacy)?

Is there a case to be made that a game shouldn't be filled with content useless to a context it appears to be built for?

QuoteWith that being said, I'm not going to argue that there aren't better ways to have designed the Toughness feat in order to make it more widely useful. (Personally, I use a variant that gives 2 hp + 1 hp per HD.) But it was designed for a particular purpose (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2498/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-ivory-tower-design) and it serves that purpose pretty well.

I just wonder why you would include things that only seem to function at low levels in a game with twenty levels. The designers really should have kept a closer eye on the manner in which things scaled, and the extent to which they remained useful or functional.

Quote from: Reckall;513868Exactly. I'm happy to see that you grasped it at the first attempt.

Because we are not talking about something lying in a field, like a train, that can be unreacheable but still broken, buy about something inherent to the person. So if he will probably die before reaching it, that it is broken is basically moot.

I'll share a secret with you: when I am 200 years old I'll get a power so surpassing that I'll be "broken". Alas, I'm an optimist, but I'm not planning my life around when I'll get to that.

Except that there's no certainty of death before any particular level. Also there are rules for high level play therefore high level play should work. I don't buy a combination printer/scanner if the scanner doesn't work. D&D is a bunch of things and that's fine. One shouldn't expect just one thing, nor should one expect it to be what it isn't. But I certainly expect it to be what it is well.

Additionally some people like high level play, use the game for that, and just start at high level. There are rules available for that. So again, since the game offers the option to play that way, the design should actually work at that level.

QuoteHow Fred does the experience needed to level? What about his adventures in (unexpected monster)land while he is questing for Diplomacy? To get to his goal he needs training, feats, churches, whose availability is somehow lying around where he lives (without this attracting other rival Diplomancer-wannabe intelligent enough to bring along a fighter to ace Fred).

Either that or he has to adventure - alone, remember - to get to what he needs, and pray not to be aced by the stray aberration.

"Delayed some levels" indeed. Maybe first Fred toughens up and then becomes a Diplomancer (which makes the whole "AT SISTH LEVELL!!!!!!!1111!" whine moot). By that point, everybody around him will be Epic anyway.

Of course there is another possibility: that Fred is a superspecial character who sprung out Zeus' head perfectly formed and already at sixth level. Which is the only case min-maxed RainMen consider. I.e. (drumroll) ATHENA IS BROKEN! The news :rolleyes:

So because you can change the rules (requiring training etc.) the rules aren't broken? Might as well buy FATAL since I can just change every single rule then.

If high level play is offered, high level play should function. Actually this is even more true if you're one of the guys who assert that it should be earned. You gotta work your ass off to earn something, then it is especially true that the thing you earn should not be shit.

Oh, and regarding the idea that the diplomacy character would be weak until he attained the high modifier: Diplomacy runs on skill ranks. Which generally don't get used to pump up combat efficiency or anything equally survival necessary. In other words, all the player has to do is quietly max his ranks every round and the game will eventually break under the stress of it. He does not actually have to be weak in cases where diplomacy isn't useful. He just drops down to useful.

Quote from: jeff37923;513957Only if the DM has no common sense and allows it.

There are plenty of ways to stop the Diplomancer. The most obvious one being the Diplomancer and its target audience not speaking the same language. No communication => no diplomacy. Send in a mook who doesn't speak the language to attack the Diplomancer and see how long it lasts.

This arguement is based upon math and the belief that Players and GMs are nothing but bitches of the rules who cannot think outside of those rules.

Such idiocy gets what it deserves.

High level diplomacy is still necessitating that you prep your games around it. So your players can never face the big bad, never fight an intelligent creature that speaks the same language, never fight in melee because your diplomacy character can break all those situations.

In other words the game has lost a lot of its utility so you can throw some enemies at the party that invalidate one player's decision.

There was a better argument in just identifying that there was something wrong and actually fixing it.

Quote from: Spike;513960As a GM I sit there while one of my players repeatedly 'breaks' the game by having almost 20 points more in Spot and Listen checks than any other player. THings that can 'attempt' to sneak up on her characters are essentially invisible to every other player. Things the others can detect might as well be wearing bells as far as she's concerned.

Obviously this creates a problem in scaling encounters for me. Obviously this suggests something isn't working 'as intended' to me, but generally I'm too busy doing other things.

HEY LOOK!  Some nerd-spergers over at the den are talking about diplomaners, and viola! Here at The Site we are talking about 'always fighting orcs' and now I've got a hypothetical reason why my table keeps breaking down on stealthy monsters....

tl;dr: As I've said, the value of looking at the Diplomancer 'problem' is not looking for solutions for a problem that doesn't exist, its in seeing the problems that lead to diplomancer style issues in the first place clearly.

This exactly. The fact that a problem doesn't come up in every context doesn't make a problem not a problem. And this is a place where rules discussion can help with actual play. DMs chat about what's wrong and share their fixes, game runs smoother, people enjoy their games a tiny bit more.

I honestly can't see why this is something worthy of derision.

Quote from: Rum CoveI've found that players can deal with these issues among themselves.  A "Diplomancer" would not last a single session with a group of gamers that have spent just as much time optimizing their characters for combat.

Forget the sixth level shit for a second. Assume all that's been demonstrated is that this skill breaks down at high levels (because at high levels a killer can kill well, but is still challenged by equals whereas diplomacy necessitates mindlessness or language barriers all the time to defend against it). Assume the diplomancer is just someone who maxes skills as a matter of course (like I do and advise new players to do, because it's easy and gives clearer character concepts) and happened to live to high levels.

All he has spent is skill ranks. He can fight just as well as anybody else.

Quote from: Benoist;513980I agree this is the problem. "I can handle it just fine. I just don't want to." It's basically abdicating the development of skill in game mastery to the game designer and forum pundit. It could be kind of sad or funny, depending on my mood, if it didn't become a trend that ends up altering entire game designs just for the sake of the theoretical argument.

So new players should not be allowed to DM until they have developed system mastery. Only the elite may run a game, as only they have the wisdom and judgement to forsee these issues. No one here is calling for AEDU as the fix. People just want the math to work.

The theoretical arguments can find problems and potential fixes that DMs (especially inexperienced or short-on-time DMs) can use to improve their games. Nothing sad about that.

QuoteSo now we have game systems basically searching to make adjudication, common sense, and skill on the part of the GM really, completely moot. "I could get better at what I do, but I don't want to." No wonder then that games end up sucking ass with these marvellous games designs we've been so graciously given from on high over these last few years. Blimey, it's a wonder game systems still need GMs to operate nowadays. Hey, why not fix that, too? I can handle GMing just fine, it's just... I shoudn't have to, really...

Skill in GMing should not be about fixing a broken thing. It should be about preparing interesting adventures, NPCs, locales, monsters. The fun stuff. If it's a chore that only vets and "spergy" types feel up to or interested in, that's a problem.

QuoteYou know, that makes me think, if such a thing as a perfect game system was ever possible to achieve, I don't think I would touch it with a ten-foot pole. I value my and other participants' skills with RPGs way too much to let a game system take charge of everything for me and my buddies at the table, thank you very much.

Nobody here is asking for perfection, or for the alteration of the whole damn game just because toughness is a bad feat or diplomacy's description would have been more useful if there wasn't a description.

Also having math that works doesn't invalidate the actually interesting decisions that revolve around adventures, locales, NPCs, monsters, treasure, and good content. 4e made the mistake of removing fun content but that has little to do with the math side of things and more to do with just bad design.

Quote from: Windjammer;514073What's misleading about the 'crunch whoring' diagnosis - and the Pun-Pun type of examples which invite it in the first place - is to believe that the 'widening gap' problems only come about if the DM allows players to cherry pick stuff from every book. The problem Baker and Slavicsek describe is a common one at that level of play. I've experienced it myself, in a campaign which I ran under the idea of 'every PC build can make use of the PHB and one splat book', with stuff like Tome of Battle excluded from the get go.

Thinking that 'I've never played D&D above level 10' entitles one to say 'Anyone pointing out a problem with play above level 10? Spherical Cows!' is a misuse of the term.

This is closely related to the fact that, so far, no one has shown us how Frank's diagnosis of Iron Heroes was guilty of 'spherical cows' as defined by Justin.

Speaking of that definition, observe the final sentence in the quote given above. It illustrates a way in which encounter design can mitigate a rules fault. But that's a far cry from saying 'the circumstances under which a design fault can arise are so rare that we can discount the fault' (one of Justin's definition of a spherical cow).

No, the claim in that final sentence is this: the circumstances in which the fault shows up become so frequent that scenario design (or monster choice, more simply put) has to mitigate it from now on. (And 'mitigate' is not the same as 'making it go away'.)

This nails right on the head my two biggest concerns.

1)Math breaks down without any special effort, by way of a widening gap. Or by way of optional defense (perception against stealth for example).

2)Broken rules determine what adventures you can and can't run. Instead of the logic of the game world, or what would be interesting to you or your players, or what have you. This is proposed as a solution to the problem, when it is often the problem people have with the rules.

Quote from: beejazz;514232So new players should not be allowed to DM until they have developed system mastery.

No. We should give them a few pages of comprehensive advice and methodologies to run the game on their own and adjudicate when needed, instead of servicing them with hundreds upon hundreds of pages of rules within rules because we'd think they're mentally crippled and can't do that by themselves, as we are doing now.

PS: "Game mastery" is not "system mastery", by the way. I am talking about "Game mastery" as in Gary Gygax's books, Role-playing Mastery and Master of the game. The rules system is only a small part of what the game played encompasses. I thought we were past this sort of confusion, but apparently not.

Quote from: Benoist;514234No. We should give them a few pages of comprehensive advice and methodologies to run the game on their own and adjudicate when needed, instead of servicing them with hundreds upon hundreds of pages of rules within rules because we'd think they're mentally crippled and can't do that by themselves, as we are doing now.

I'm advocating fewer, better, easier to understand rules. Not more, more complicated, harder to learn rules.

Also I've advocated for advice as an at least partial fix. For example, Vancian magic relies on specific contexts to work (wandering monsters, multifight days, deadlines, etc). Therefore it is a good thing that older editions actually tell DMs that sort of thing so they don't have to just know. So you're not contradicting me here.

But widening gaps, "optional saves" (like perception against stealth), non-existent saves against permanent effects (diplomacy), etc. do not improve the game, could be excised in ways that make the system actually smaller and easier to learn, and tend to take prior knowledge to notice and a lot of time and work to fix (if you don't just ditch high levels altogether, which many players do).

No one is asking for "hundreds and hundreds of pages of rules within rules."

QuotePS: "Game mastery" is not "system mastery", by the way. I am talking about "Game mastery" as in Gary Gygax's books, Role-playing Mastery and Master of the game. The rules system is only a small part of what the game played encompasses. I thought we were past this sort of confusion, but apparently not.

One fixes the broken system with system mastery. I would like a system that works, precisely so that system mastery is less necessary. The *rest* of game mastery as a component of play is actually the main draw of the game for me, and (I would imagine) for most players.

Quote from: beejazz;514232Skill in GMing should not be about fixing a broken thing. It should be about preparing interesting adventures, NPCs, locales, monsters. The fun stuff. If it's a chore that only vets and "spergy" types feel up to or interested in, that's a problem.

Here is a hint, every system out there is broken. Fails on some level to simulate the genre or reality.

Part of what the human referee does is handle what the rules can't do.

The criteria whether this an issue does it hinder the referee in preparing or refereeing the campaign.  

It been my experience that most RPG mechanics are of the good enough category. Yes if you push it you get a Pun-Pun or a diplomancer but for 90% of what the game is expected to cover it works and works well.

Doesn't mean there aren't examples of bad and useless mechanics but I find them to be the exception than the rule.

Quote from: beejazz;514235I'm advocating fewer, better, easier to understand rules. Not more, more complicated, harder to learn rules.

First, caveat: I just read your answer to me in your long post above. I didn't read the rest of your stuff.

Now, we do agree on some things, apparently. I think fledging GMs are much better serviced by clear rules principles assisted by strong, well-thought out methodologies (which is where structures like dungeons are extremely useful, because they provide a concrete support for these types of advice) which empower the users of the game instead of trapping them into a box of game mechanics.

We just have different approaches as to the role the rules system itself must play in this picture, apparently. I am advocating the plain fact that the game being played is constituted of different moving parts, including the game system but not only. I am also advocating for games to empower their users, not limit them. I am advocating for developing people's understanding of the games they play (not just their rules), so they can develop true game mastery (i.e. understand these moving parts and actually run the game as competently as they can). Good refereeing, decision making, adjudication, extrapolation, imagination are fundamental aspects of this game (tabletop role playing games) which let their users take charge of their own make-believe. This should be helped, coached, encouraged.

The problem I see is that each time GMs say something like "You know, I could handle that issue, but I shouldn't have to," what they are doing in effect is giving up on a chance to develop true game mastery. I don't see that as a good thing.

The same way, game systems which treat their users as completely unimaginative, subdued, lazy, gutless incompetents drinking the kool aid from the game designers above should be shot in the head and ditched on the side of the road to game mastery.

The elistist here isn't the one you think. I don't believe that fledging players and GMs today are any less competent than we were when we started playing role playing games decades ago. We could help them with our experience running games, with sound advice and methodologies, but instead we choose to obsess over completely pointless issues of rules systems taken in theoretical vacuums.

This is a waste of time that's more appealing to asperger types than real gamers out there. You know, the ones that play and run games, run into something not making sense with the rules, having the GM make a call to then move on with the session.

As for a "broken system", this is a red herring, as far as I'm concerned. If a system is thoroughly non-functional, i.e. "broken", then it's impossible to play it, by definition, without having the game crash and burn. If it is played, and moreover, widely popular, with millions of people having fun with it, the system is by definition not "broken". There may be concerns, issues that would need fixing, maybe, and I may certainly not like it for reason X or Y, but "broken" really is not the appropriate term for 99.99% of the issues discussed by armchair theorists on message boards.

This is not an excluded-middle proposition on my part: rules issues that are really detrimental to game play deserve to be talked about and maybe fixed at the source at some point. But all I see coming from too many forum posters is just over-the-top, doomsday rhetoric based on either corner cases that just do not matter to 99% of gamers playing the game out there, or completely unrealistic scenarios resting on a (willful or not) misunderstanding, or worse, rejection, of the context of the rules system and the game that surrounds it. That is not good.

Quote from: estar;514240Here is a hint, every system out there is broken. Fails on some level to simulate the genre or reality.

Part of what the human referee does is handle what the rules can't do.

The criteria whether this an issue does it hinder the referee in preparing or refereeing the campaign.  

It been my experience that most RPG mechanics are of the good enough category. Yes if you push it you get a Pun-Pun or a diplomancer but for 90% of what the game is expected to cover it works and works well.

Doesn't mean there aren't examples of bad and useless mechanics but I find them to be the exception than the rule.

Ditto. QFT.

Quote from: estar;514240Here is a hint, every system out there is broken. Fails on some level to simulate the genre or reality.

I'm fine with the inevitability of human error. I'm fine with the fact that there's no accounting for taste. But it doesn't follow that because some rules are criticized unfairly or because most rules are good that there aren't genuinely bad rules. It doesn't follow that it isn't worth talking about what rules actually do when the rubber hits the road.

There are specific rules I have problems with, and you may or may not agree on those, but the main thrust of what I'm getting at is that the criticism is valid. Enough rules don't work that the existence of the discussion has the potential to help.

QuotePart of what the human referee does is handle what the rules can't do.

I'm fine with that, and never really argued against it. Again, if anything I'm more okay with fewer better rules and leaving *more* in play to the DM. Just giving overall "a task this hard should have this DC" rules (as in easy:10 as opposed to specific cases) and then having diplomacy do something that isn't "best friends forever" would have been better, for example.

Actually I think interpersonal skills like stealth and diplo should take into account the other person's ability, and that defense should auto-scale like saves across the board. So in my version there'd be diplo vs will and stealth vs a perception save. But that's neither here nor there.

QuoteThe criteria whether this an issue does it hinder the referee in preparing or refereeing the campaign.

My criteria is based on how often the rule actually gets used as written. Really, if the game is to evolve I think the rules should reflect the most common rulings.

QuoteIt been my experience that most RPG mechanics are of the good enough category. Yes if you push it you get a Pun-Pun or a diplomancer but for 90% of what the game is expected to cover it works and works well.

I can't speak to most RPG mechanics, as there is more out there than I've read. But my experience with 3x is that the game breaks down at sufficiently high levels. It's a common experience and complaint, from what I've heard.

Quote from: beejazz;514244I can't speak to most RPG mechanics, as there is more out there than I've read. But my experience with 3x is that the game breaks down at sufficiently high levels. It's a common experience and complaint, from what I've heard.

IMO, this comes from the fact the advice and methodologies provided in the DMG to run high level campaigns are completely inadequate. When WotC had a shot at this, to come up with an actual supplement that provided this breakdown, discussion, strategizing, methodologies etc to run high level campaigns, what they came up with instead was the likes of the Epic Level Handbook.

That's a MASSIVE Failure of game design on WotC's part, IMO.

Quote from: Benoist;514242First, caveat: I just read your answer to me in your long post above. I didn't read the rest of your stuff.

Now, we do agree on some things, apparently. I think fledging GMs are much better serviced by clear rules principles assisted by strong, well-thought out methodologies (which is where structures like dungeons are extremely useful, because they provide a concrete support for these types of advice) which empower the users of the game instead of trapping them into a box of game mechanics.

Extreme agreement on most of what you are saying there. What I actually liked in 3x was the simple stuff like "D20 roll high" and its potential as a springboard for winging it. And what I like from eventually getting to read earlier editions has a lot to do with the DM advice and the adventures fostering a style of gameplay in which the rules worked extremely well.

But I started with 3x and for a noob it is not great. Some of it is the math breaking down and weird bits like toughness. And some of it is the (relative) dearth of advice on running the game, and game structures.

QuoteWe just have different approaches as to the role the rules system itself must play in this picture, apparently. I am advocating the plain fact that the game being played is constituted of different moving parts, including the game system but not only. I am also advocating for games to empower their users, not limit them. I am advocating for developing people's understanding of the games they play (not just their rules), so they can develop true game mastery (i.e. understand these moving parts and actually run the game as competently as they can). Good refereeing, decision making, adjudication, extrapolation, imagination are fundamental aspects of this game (tabletop role playing games) which let their users take charge of their own make-believe. This should be helped, coached, encouraged.

I am aware that the game is also the adventure, the setting, and the social environment (different moving parts). But there are criticisms of both of the former and the last one is much much harder to quantify let alone "fix" using online discussion. In short, I think the reason the system gets disproportionate attention is because it's the thing with the most consistent problems and solutions.

Also when someone tells me I shouldn't run a certain type of adventure (meeting the villain, in the case of diplomacy) because a rules snag exists it isn't particularly useful.

As to encouraging and providing more useful content/insight/analysis for everything else, I would strongly agree. No reason we can't have both.

QuoteThe problem I see is that each time GMs say something like "You know, I could handle that issue, but I shouldn't have to," what they are doing in effect is giving up on a chance to develop true game mastery. I don't see that as a good thing.

I think it's more a case of wanting the rules to work generally, and to do what they say they do. Players who want to fight well want to pick the fighter and fight well, and not have their asses kicked by the druid who picked his class to be a nature lover. Players who want to be tough want to pick the toughness feat and actually be tough, and so on.

So when they say they "shouldn't have to" it's often the case that they're simply expecting the rules to do what the rules say they do. Because some of that kind of troubleshooting really is just a PITA, especially when you fail to predict it in advance.

QuoteThe same way, game systems which treat their users as completely unimaginative, subdued, lazy, gutless incompetents drinking the kool aid from the game designers above should be shot in the head and ditched on the side of the road to game mastery.

This is my reaction to the anti-fly crowd. I'm all for having all the content that fits the genre. I'm all for calling for lateral thinking and that sort of thing. And I'm definitely against all content being single utility (all combat for example). But again that's different from just getting the math right.

QuoteThe elistist here isn't the one you think. I don't believe that fledging players and GMs today are any less competent than we were when we started playing role playing games decades ago. We could help them with our experience running games, with sound advice and methodologies, but instead we choose to obsess over completely pointless issues of rules systems taken in theoretical vacuums.

Started with 3x myself, as did most of those I game with. So I know exactly what the difficulty of the learning curve is set at, having climbed it myself. I don't think I'm over or under estimating myself or my friends. A bit of relevant context, I guess.

But the rules can become problematic at which point they become an unnecessary distraction. And the game running advice, while appreciated, doesn't invalidate the use of "here's the problem with x rules, here's a quick fix, go play secure in the knowledge that you've avoided that pitfall."

QuoteThis is a waste of time that's more appealing to asperger types than real gamers out there. You know, the ones that play and run games, run into something not making sense with the rules, having the GM make a call to then move on with the session.

And there are rules snags of the minor speed bump variety. But there are also rules of the "shit I need to redesign or not allow this class, but only now that they guy reached 10th level has it become apparent" variety.

QuoteAs for a "broken system", this is a red herring, as far as I'm concerned. If a system is thoroughly non-functional, i.e. "broken", then it's impossible to play it, by definition, without having the game crash and burn. If it is played, and moreover, widely popular, with millions of people having fun with it, the system is by definition not "broken". There may be concerns, issues that would need fixing, maybe, and I may certainly not like it for reason X or Y, but "broken" really is not the appropriate term for 99.99% of the issues discussed by armchair theorists on message boards.

I misspoke. I intended to refer to broken rules I think, though there are genuinely systemic issues at high levels of 3x.

I don't disagree about 99% of what armchair theorists say, if only because I haven't read all of it and can't say for sure. But the existence of bad analysis doesn't invalidate the potential value of good analysis.

QuoteThis is not an excluded-middle proposition on my part: rules issues that are really detrimental to game play deserve to be talked about and maybe fixed at the source at some point. But all I see coming from too many forum posters is just over-the-top, doomsday rhetoric based on either corner cases that just do not matter to 99% of gamers playing the game out there, or completely unrealistic scenarios resting on a (willful or not) misunderstanding, or worse, rejection, of the context of the rules system and the game that surrounds it. That is not good.

Again, not defending bad analysis so much as the potential for analysis to do good.

Quote from: Benoist;514247IMO, this comes from the fact the advice and methodologies provided in the DMG to run high level campaigns are completely inadequate. When WotC had a shot at this, to come up with an actual supplement that provided this breakdown, discussion, strategizing, methodologies etc to run high level campaigns, what they came up with instead was the likes of the Epic Level Handbook.

That's a MASSIVE Failure of game design on WotC's part, IMO.

A good illustration of what I'm getting at. Good advice isn't a substitute for good rules, nor are good rules a substitute for good advice. I'd like a game to get at least one of the two right, though.

Quote from: beejazz;514244I'm fine with the inevitability of human error.

Human error is not what I am talking about. It is impossible to write a RPG rule system that doesn't break down at some point. The subject matter of RPGs, characters interacting with a setting, is complex enough that no playable RPG design can account for everything.

It is possible to come up with game design that are so well designed that there is no or few design issues. Chess, Checkers, Settlers of Catan, Monopoly, etc. But they are tightly focused compared to a typical RPG.

The problem is similar to being able to make a computer that can simulate the entire universe. If you could build and a program such a machine there are several inherent limitations you can't get around.

Quote from: beejazz;514244I'm fine with the fact that there's no accounting for taste. But it doesn't follow that because some rules are criticized unfairly or because most rules are good that there aren't genuinely bad rules. It doesn't follow that it isn't worth talking about what rules actually do when the rubber hits the road.

Sure, but so far in this thread most of the specific criticisms. (Diplomancer, Pun-pun, etc) are of the "So what?" variety. They are the result of hacks that observant and/or smart people figured out. But in practical terms are irrelevant to the majority using those games.

Quote from: beejazz;514244There are specific rules I have problems with, and you may or may not agree on those, but the main thrust of what I'm getting at is that the criticism is valid. Enough rules don't work that the existence of the discussion has the potential to help.

I don't see you mentioning anything about how these rules hindered you in running a campaign. I.e. specific examples from your experience as a referee.

Quote from: beejazz;514244I'm fine with that, and never really argued against it. Again, if anything I'm more okay with fewer better rules and leaving *more* in play to the DM.

Well there are those who advocate that fewer rules is part of being better. I am not one of them. Good design no matter the complexity is what I care about. Complexity (or detail) is a matter of taste not a design issue. While I play a lot of Swords & Wizadry these days, I also use GURPS, Hero System, Harnmaster, and other complex and detailed RPGs. I use them because I found them to be well-designed games.

Quote from: beejazz;514244Just giving overall "a task this hard should have this DC" rules (as in easy:10 as opposed to specific cases) and then having diplomacy do something that isn't "best friends forever" would have been better, for example.

I am sighing because this will cause a shitstorm over rule interpretation. If you read the actual description of diplomacy it is very terse. It doesn't automatically require the referee to allow automatically a character to make a hostile foe into a ally by his epic oratory. It written in expectation that the referee would use an ounce of common sense. Even when it used in a high epic fantasy situation.

Sure there are example of Saints making a conversion out of a hostile foe but they are noted because they are notable. I.e. it is damn uncommon for it to happen.  If the circumstances are right a player could use his +86 to convert a target in an unlikely situation. But the player should realize that the majority of circumstances are not right. A smart player would plan ahead and create the right circumstances which usually involves avoiding armies that would attack them.

Quote from: beejazz;514244Actually I think interpersonal skills like stealth and diplo should take into account the other person's ability, and that defense should auto-scale like saves across the board. So in my version there'd be diplo vs will and stealth vs a perception save. But that's neither here nor there.

That is a pure mechanical way of looking. What matters are the circumstances in which the player finds themselves. That why the human referee not the rules are important. The responsibility of the player is to be observant and respond to the situation in which his character is in. In cases where the player's personal skill doesn't match his character skill then it is the referee responsibility to account for that.

My personal rule is that they have to try to come up with a coherent plan or idea and I will let them roll. While I would like to see a roleplay performance worthy of Shakespeare very few can do that and very few are even interested in trying to perform. So at my table what I am looking for is whether the players understands what is going on, and have they thought their character's actions through. If yes to both point and a roll is required then they get to throw the dice.

Quote from: beejazz;514244My criteria is based on how often the rule actually gets used as written. Really, if the game is to evolve I think the rules should reflect the most common rulings.

In the age of the internet that may be possible, bits are cheap. But realistically a lot of the complaints are really personal preferences and not the fault of the rule system.

Quote from: beejazz;514244I can't speak to most RPG mechanics, as there is more out there than I've read. But my experience with 3x is that the game breaks down at sufficiently high levels. It's a common experience and complaint, from what I've heard.

Yes I agree 3.X categorically breaks down at high levels as the referee and players are overwhelmed by the complexity of using the rules. By overwhelmed I mean they prepare to do one thing but when applied the rules result in something completely unexpected. That a problem because now neither the players and referee can feel confident about the stuff they design.

Quote from: jibbajibba;514228We played for 4 hours they had a great time everyone was involved all loved it and were clamouring for more.
Now .... whilst this worked entirely well after all all the elements of play were there, I wouldn't recommend it as a professional rules system....

Why not? It sounds like a good game design to me: simple to learn, rules easy to absorb so one isn't often looking up mechanics during the game, the players have a great time and want to play more. Sounds like the basis for a very professional design to me.

I don't get this strange fixation on having 'perfect' rules. It's not like our work, home, relationships or societies are perfect. We fix little things all the time and it's no different in RPGs. No designer can create the perfect set of rules and beyond a certain point the attempt can be counter productive as witnessed by the relentless powder balance sought by 4E.

What a good game designer can do, however is to clearly articulate the intent and underlying assumptions of the game. Sell the players on that and beyond a certain minimum standard most rules will do.

3E/3.5 certainly has some fundamental problems, best articulated by Spike's spot everything character and yet it was/is one of the most popular RPGs ever and plenty of people play and enjoy the game at high levels despite it being 'broken'.

Quote from: jeff37923;514048Thank you. I still think it is a pretty good quote for a signature.

And I have to wonder what in the Hell made you want to research a signature? I never gave it any more thought than, "That sounds cool."

I researched it because it sounded so cool I wanted to quote it somewhere else! :)

Quote from: estar;514265Human error is not what I am talking about. It is impossible to write a RPG rule system that doesn't break down at some point. The subject matter of RPGs, characters interacting with a setting, is complex enough that no playable RPG design can account for everything.

.........

.

All very reasonable but there has been reference to specific rules that 'seem' to be broken in D&D
Of the type -
i) how do hit points stop me dying from a fall?
ii) how come I only get 2 arrow shots in 1 minutes (your own :) )?
iii) why would a 6th level fighter ever be scared of a man aiming a loaded crossbow at his naked chest from 3 feet away?

Now I think D&D woudl have benefited from a far clearer rule on when Hitpoints work and when they don't. So we have vague references to killing helpless opponents, even suggestion in AD&D that you use the Assasination tables (the Assasination tables by the way are something we really should discuss beause if you don't like feats then a class ability to eliminate a creature through careful planning and a %d is worthy of discussion :) ) or whatever.
A simple paragraph that dealt with situations like being caught flatfooted by a man with a loaded crossbow, falling, burning and all that stuff woudl have been good and saved a load of later issues.

Its like HP themselves if they actually are the ability to turn a death blow into a scratch or a sword through the innards to a gash should really be based off Dex not Con......

I would say Hitpoints are a good concept that have been really badly implemented with little thought to their repurcusions outside combat and how they relate to immersion. In fact almost like a 4e rule....... :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;514382All very reasonable but there has been reference to specific rules that 'seem' to be broken in D&D
Of the type -
i) how do hit points stop me dying from a fall?
ii) how come I only get 2 arrow shots in 1 minutes (your own :) )?
iii) why would a 6th level fighter ever be scared of a man aiming a loaded crossbow at his naked chest from 3 feet away?

Err, there was no mention of hit points in any form in your description of your game. So I'm still wondering why you believe the game you briefly described isn't something that one could base a professional design on.

Quote from: estar;514265It is impossible to write a RPG rule system that doesn't break down at some point.

This seems like a pretty big assertion. I don't know if it's true, but it doesn't change that some rules can be improved with no particular loss by way of careful analysis.

I'm certain a rules system can't *cover* everything (and that's fine; we have GMs for a reason), but it doesn't absolutely have to "break down." Also, where a system "breaks down" (if it does) matters. D&D breaking down a little outside the dungeon is fine because the dungeon is what it was built for. If 3x broke down after level 20 I'd be fine with it because it was really only built as a 20-level game. And so on.

QuoteSure, but so far in this thread most of the specific criticisms. (Diplomancer, Pun-pun, etc) are of the "So what?" variety. They are the result of hacks that observant and/or smart people figured out. But in practical terms are irrelevant to the majority using those games.

Except that the level 6 thing is the least relevant flaw in the diplomancer. The main flaw is what the skill actually does. It's trivial to fix but not easy to notice until you really look at it for a while.

QuoteI don't see you mentioning anything about how these rules hindered you in running a campaign. I.e. specific examples from your experience as a referee.

I do now and again. For example when I talk about the long mystery campaign I ran and trying to challenge the whole party in a one fight day. Or when that one guy cast sanctuary (I think) and hit this weird stalemate where no one could fight and he couldn't flee (after everyone else had already ran away). Hell, just the weirdness of divine casters getting their whole lists and making it so I've got to know it all. I had time for that crap in highschool, but not for a while now.

Issues with high level play I've seen too, but mostly second hand. I really don't have the time to rewrite the whole damn system, as I've seen others do. Again, the interesting part (for me) are people, places, treasure, monsters, adventures, mysteries, etc.

QuoteWell there are those who advocate that fewer rules is part of being better. I am not one of them. Good design no matter the complexity is what I care about. Complexity (or detail) is a matter of taste not a design issue. While I play a lot of Swords & Wizadry these days, I also use GURPS, Hero System, Harnmaster, and other complex and detailed RPGs. I use them because I found them to be well-designed games.

I'm an advocate for the written rules being an improvement over no rule. Diplomacy's description is not an improvement over the absence of a rule. I'm not saying (for example) that a game shouldn't have hit locations or feats because it's too many rules. I'm saying it should use the rules it has well.

QuoteI am sighing because this will cause a shitstorm over rule interpretation. If you read the actual description of diplomacy it is very terse. It doesn't automatically require the referee to allow automatically a character to make a hostile foe into a ally by his epic oratory. It written in expectation that the referee would use an ounce of common sense. Even when it used in a high epic fantasy situation.

RAW calls for a hostile to helpful transition. The fact that an experienced DM will either not allow it in play or houserule it altogether doesn't change that that's what's written down, and doesn't change the fact that the rule is a waste of space as a result.

[quote[Sure there are example of Saints making a conversion out of a hostile foe but they are noted because they are notable. I.e. it is damn uncommon for it to happen.  If the circumstances are right a player could use his +86 to convert a target in an unlikely situation. But the player should realize that the majority of circumstances are not right. A smart player would plan ahead and create the right circumstances which usually involves avoiding armies that would attack them.

That is a pure mechanical way of looking. What matters are the circumstances in which the player finds themselves. That why the human referee not the rules are important. The responsibility of the player is to be observant and respond to the situation in which his character is in. In cases where the player's personal skill doesn't match his character skill then it is the referee responsibility to account for that. [/quote]
Circumstance penalties don't scale with level. Eventually you'll either inflate the penalties or find in game excuses to do so, just to avoid what is written in the rules as possible using diplomacy. This is not an improvement over having no rule there, as at this point you're just setting arbitrarily high DCs.

QuoteMy personal rule is that they have to try to come up with a coherent plan or idea and I will let them roll. While I would like to see a roleplay performance worthy of Shakespeare very few can do that and very few are even interested in trying to perform. So at my table what I am looking for is whether the players understands what is going on, and have they thought their character's actions through. If yes to both point and a roll is required then they get to throw the dice.

So why not have a rule in the game that roughly matches how sane people actually use diplomacy, instead of a rule with an insane upper end?

QuoteIn the age of the internet that may be possible, bits are cheap. But realistically a lot of the complaints are really personal preferences and not the fault of the rule system.

Some opinions are held by a majority (can't think of anyone with a special fondness for RAW diplo) and some rules are just bad.

QuoteYes I agree 3.X categorically breaks down at high levels as the referee and players are overwhelmed by the complexity of using the rules. By overwhelmed I mean they prepare to do one thing but when applied the rules result in something completely unexpected. That a problem because now neither the players and referee can feel confident about the stuff they design.

It's not so much complexity as the failure to scale and the built in widening gaps. If the whole party is fighting the same monster, then one part of the party will only be checking for fumbles or crits, depending on who's good against what. Then there's the "optional save" in perception and no save diplomacy and so on. This is before taking combos or the pile of spells into consideration.

Quote from: jibbajibba;514382Its like HP themselves if they actually are the ability to turn a death blow into a scratch or a sword through the innards to a gash should really be based off Dex not Con....

I don't know about this part. The way you lose them makes me think they're really more about the fatigue you suffer trying to dodge/roll with it, especially given that you've got that passive DEX-based AC.

QuoteThis seems like a pretty big assertion. I don't know if it's true, but it doesn't change that some rules can be improved with no particular loss by way of careful analysis.

It is a correct assertion. The Perfect RPG System had been the desire underlining pretty much every RPG/Edition War ever. Even Storygames will have no perfect mechanic, because of the fact that genres and stories are very, very different.

The rest of your points, so to speak, are basically "Exactly, Rincewind, you are right". In their desire to create a mechanic emulating everything, 3e of course put in a lot of bugs.

Quote from: Rincewind1;514406The rest of your points, so to speak, are basically "Exactly, Rincewind, you are right". In their desire to create a mechanic emulating everything, 3e of course put in a lot of bugs.

Sorry, but this discussion has gone sort of long. I scanned back through page 26 and all I saw was Traveller stuff. What am I agreeing with now?

Quote from: beejazz;514407Sorry, but this discussion has gone sort of long. I scanned back through page 26 and all I saw was Traveller stuff. What am I agreeing with now?

To the idea that there's no perfect system, and the more you try to make a system that'll allow to emulate every real - life occasion, the possibility of bugs/flaws in the system increases.

Quote from: Rincewind1;514408To the idea that there's no perfect system, and the more you try to make a system that'll allow to emulate every real - life occasion, the possibility of bugs/flaws in the system increases.

Tell you what: I see RPG rules like living organisms or machines. There isn't perfection. Just adaptation to or design for a particular niche, with the occasional highly successful generalists.

Perfection is kind of a dumb goal. But it is useful to set some goal and improve rules for the purpose of the goal (even if the goal is general applicability). Sometimes there are trade offs and taste applies. Sometimes there's no trade offs and one rule is genuinely superior to another in the vast majority of cases.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;514153Re: Diplomacy

The 3.0 and 3.5 Diplomacy skill description is conceptually flawed. I was going to suggest a different option, but a quick check of Pathfinder showed they had already implemented it. (And a slower check of my 3e house rules from 2002 showed I had done substantially the same thing.)

Permanent change of NPC attitude is a bad idea. Pathfinder allows Diplomacy to do two things: 1. Temporarily change the target's attitude, and 2. ask for a favor. Different uses, requiring different checks.

They also add restrictions, such as needing time, the target having a minimal Intelligence, being willing to listen, being able to understand, and combat not occurring.

Other than adjusting their DC's, that's how Diplomacy should work.

My Personal Diplomacy DC's

The Base DC of a Diplomacy check is the Level or HD of the target. This DC is modified by their Wisdom modifier. It is also modified by their current attitude towards the character attempting a Diplomacy check.

Hostile +15
Unfriendly +5
Indifferent +0
Friendly: -5
Helpful: -10

(I would have broken the skill up into two separate uses, each explicitly dealing with only one of those functions, but that's just a personal preference.)

Also, truly implacable characters should have the extraordinary ability (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=513672&postcount=168) I suggested earlier.

Which raises the question in my mind: if there was a good fix already available, why hasn't anyone mentioned it? It would have been terribly easy:

"3E Diplomacy sucks balls. Pathfinder did it much better."

Has this all just been edition wars, by proxy? An OSR/3e battle where no one cares about solutions, only arguing first principles? A waste of time, if so. IMNSHO.

(Also, Fred proves nothing about anything being broken, other than Internet debates. You know, the kind where people use the most ridiculous, extreme examples and claim they're a typical case, and extrapolate even worse consequences from them, then claim they prove the game is broken. That's the very definition of a "Spherical Cow". 3e Diplomacy is done incorrectly, but Fred is irrelevant to real play under real GM's.)

You're right about the 3.x Diplomacy rules being terribly flawed. The Pathfinder rules for Diplomacy work better. I think I'll use them for my 3.5 game.

What normally occurs in my D&D 3.5 game sessions, is the players and I actually roleplay the encounter with an NPC, and then I have the players make a Diplomacy skill check to help determine how the NPC reacts to what they say (or do).

But yeah, the Pathfinder version of Diplomacy is more elegant than the 3.5 version, and leads to fewer stupid situations. I'll take it.

If you ask me the problem is less to do with the broken rules (as others have noted, there are always going to be some), and more with the way they are fixed. It’s really common for designers to say ‘these rules are broken, so look, here’s a whole new system I’ve invented for you to use instead’, rather than actually, you know, fixing the broken rules (preferably in as simple and straight-forward a way as possible).

I don’t play 3e, but it looks to me like it should be quite easy to fix the Diplomacy rule. Fixing the problems with high level play would appear harder, but it’s clearly possible to do something to improve the situation. The trick, it seems to me, is to show restraint, and to respect that a popular system is popular because it basically works.

Quote from: jibbajibba;514382So we have vague references to killing helpless opponents, even suggestion in AD&D that you use the Assasination tables (the Assasination tables by the way are something we really should discuss beause if you don't like feats then a class ability to eliminate a creature through careful planning and a %d is worthy of discussion :) ) or whatever.

What's your issue with the Assassination tables?

Quote from: jibbajibba;514382All very reasonable but there has been reference to specific rules that 'seem' to be broken in D&D
Of the type -
i) how do hit points stop me dying from a fall?
ii) how come I only get 2 arrow shots in 1 minutes (your own :) )?
iii) why would a 6th level fighter ever be scared of a man aiming a loaded crossbow at his naked chest from 3 feet away?)

HPs are an abstraction. Any abstraction will start to get wonky in very specific circumstances.

i) For instance when you drop into a 10' pit, it makes sense to lose some hit points because you might be lightly wounded, in shock, fatigued after the fall. It makes sense to survive with moderate drops because your experience as an adventurer allows you to react quickly to the situation, slow yourself and land properly once you hit the ground, and so on. It also makes sense to get killed by the fall.

What makes less sense is if you drop from a great distance and don't kill yourself. You can rationalize it in many ways (you use the wall of the shaft to slower your fall, you try to bounce from side to side of the pit as you are falling, which slows you down once you hit the ground, etc), but at some point you wonder why it is that there isn't a lasting injury, or at least the possibility of a lasting injury, between surviving and getting killed. You could maybe have a System Shock roll and a table of injury for these types of situation, or a Saving Throw of a specific type.

I'm not too worried about those, personally. I adjudicate as we play, on a case by case basis.

ii) is more problematic. There are two ways one could go about it. 1) just as the melee roll represents all your feinting and fencing and maneuvering to then see with the roll if you fatigued your opponent, wounded him in some way, and so on, you could say that firing an arrow requires aim, and that aim is taken in consideration for the roll. That really doesn't work that well in fact, realistically speaking, because you can fire a LOT of arrows with aim in one minute. 2) The other solution would be to come up with some alternate mean to account for ammunition. You just do not count arrows, place some virtual limit in a combat based on the arrows carried around, and roll a die to determine whether the archer runs out of arrows during combat (like 1 in 20 or whatnot). You could alternately assume that the hit and damage roll represents the best hit or the semi-hits you got during the minute and roll some die to account for the number of arrows actually used during the round (like 1-6, 1-12, whatever makes you feel better about the abstraction itself).

In the end I just handwave it. I don't want to bother adding more complexity than there really needs to be to AD&D's combat system.

iii) This one is easier to me. A hero is just not scared by a grunt pointing at him with a crossbow from 3 feet away. He can partially dodge, has great reaction time, can move his body "just so" that the arrow passes between his rib cage and his arm. Point is, that's not the type of scenario that's going to kill a badass of 6th level with a lot of experience trending dangerous situations, avoiding arrow traps and such in the Underworld, to me.

Quote from: Rincewind1;513799Mathematical Breakdown of Diplomacy Check:

9 ranks unnamed
9 Charisma unnamed
9 Synergy synergy
3 Skill Focus unnamed
9 Motivate Charisma unnamed
2 Racial racial
2 Sacred Vow perfection
2 Evangelist cleric unnamed
2 Mwk tool circumstance
6 Beguiling Influence enhancement?
5 Friendly Face circumstance
4 Wednesday's Left Eye unnamed
9 Item Familiar unnamed
4 Herald Domain unnamed
2 Mind Domain unnamed
2 Negotiator unnamed
8 Custom item competance
1 Polite trait unnamed
1 Honest trait unnamed
5 to 7 Cohorts aid another check

1d20+94 to 1d20+96 Total

Summary:

At a mere 6th level, Fred has a minimum of +94 on his diplomacy check. He has soothing voice, so he can stop fights as soon as they start, and he has tons of class goodies. Even with a -20 circumstance penalty on his check, he still automatically converts a creature from hostile to friendly. 7 times per day, Fred can stop fights that have already started just by talking with his Soothing Voice ability (Will DC 104 average negates). And best of all, Fred isn't specific to any campaign setting.

Stacking modifiers is grade school game design in my book.  I can live with it, what the idiots at wotc and paizo did though was moronic.  You can't have unnamed modifiers in a stacking modifier system.

Take those out and see what happens.

Quote from: Glazer;514427If you ask me the problem is less to do with the broken rules (as others have noted, there are always going to be some), and more with the way they are fixed. It's really common for designers to say 'these rules are broken, so look, here's a whole new system I've invented for you to use instead', rather than actually, you know, fixing the broken rules (preferably in as simple and straight-forward a way as possible).

+10.

A similar flaw is ignoring what players seem to want in favor of what you think they really should want when you fix problems.  A recent D&D example, before 4e came out I saw a lot of complaints about the length of time 3.x combat took, especially at higher levels. A lot of 3.x players were asking for either shorter combats or official optional rules that would shorten combat for those who thought it was too long. The 4e designers, however, seemed to decide that players did not really want shorter combats. Instead what they really wanted was combats made more interesting by giving them shorter times between their actions and more interesting things to do when they acted and even during other players actions and that if they gave them this, they would not mind if combats continued to take as long in 4e (even at low levels) as they did at high levels in 3.x.

Quote from: Benoist;514433What makes less sense is if you drop from a great distance and don't kill yourself.

[...]

You could maybe have a System Shock roll and a table of injury for these types of situation, or a Saving Throw of a specific type.

Something like that is already there in 3.0 and 3.5. Death from Massive Damage. 3.5 PHB, pg. 145.

Set the Threshold low, or rule that any fall of 40 ft. or more triggers a Massive Damage save.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;514463Something like that is already there in 3.0 and 3.5. Death from Massive Damage. 3.5 PHB, pg. 145.

Set the Threshold low, or rule that any fall of 40 ft. or more triggers a Massive Damage save.

Sure. I'm familiar with the 3rd ed rules myself.

Quote from: Benoist;514464Sure. I'm familiar with the 3rd ed rules myself.

Alright. But not everyone can be you. :)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;514467Alright. But not everyone can be you. :)

OK. I just wasn't sure if you thought I didn't know or not (oooh double negative). :)

Quote from: Benoist;514468OK. I just wasn't sure if you thought I didn't know or not (oooh double negative). :)

It never crossed my mind either way. Saw "a rule doing X might patch problem Z", the little imp in the back of my brain said "that's almost like this extant rule" and the post came out.

I like pointing out how extant rules can be adapted to cover new situations. Or, at least the little imp in the back of my mind does. That's what happens every time someone says "I'd like the system to do this..."

Didn't mean to imply you were an ignoramus. Because I don't believe that.

Pace? ;)

Quote from: Sommerjon;514434You can't have unnamed modifiers in a stacking modifier system.

That's what happens when RPG designers try to design for a system based on CCG logic without any CCG experience.

Quote from: Benoist;514428What's your issue with the Assassination tables?

I just think that as written the assasination 'feat' is very overpowered.

Imagine your 13th level Figther walks out of his house and the DM says roll suprise you get a 1. DM makes a roll 23% yup you are dead. The assasin stalks off.....

Hold on, you say, I have magic armour on doesn't he have to hit me ... No Replies the DM. Well I have 98 hit points doesn't that matter .... no irrelevant... etc....

Wouldn't you be a tad pissed ?

In relation to the later point re the point blank range crossbow bolt. The fact that it doesn't matter and an adventurer with a year's experience (if we assume a slow D&D game with full training rules) isn't afraid of a man holding the equivalent of a .44 magnum an arm's width away from him because he knows it will only do 1d4+1 damage is why I houseruled hitpoints. He should be absolutely terrified, when the player decides their PC will leap of the jetty into the ink black water and evade the guard they should be shaking and watching the DM roll that d20 knowing that if the guy gets a hit then their PC is going to get a 10 inch long 1/2 and inch wide quarrel that can penetrate an oak door to a depth of 3 inches sticking out of their chest and they will be deader than coffin nails...

Quote from: RandallS;514403Err, there was no mention of hit points in any form in your description of your game. So I'm still wondering why you believe the game you briefly described isn't something that one could base a professional design on.

No in my game you had 12 hit points the goblins had 6 and everything did 1d6 damage + Body bonus.

My game system is far too simple to satisfy professional gamers :)

It's like when I did an Amber to Star Wars conversion on one side of A4 :)

And that brief description wasn't a brief description that was the entire game.

You have to remember I am quite happy asking my players as they sit down what genre, style of game, system requirements and core mechanic they want and then ad-libbing the entire game system as we go along.

Quote from: jibbajibba;514472Imagine your 13th level Figther walks out of his house and the DM says roll suprise you get a 1. DM makes a roll 23% yup you are dead. The assasin stalks off.....

Hold on, you say, I have magic armour on doesn't he have to hit me ... No Replies the DM. Well I have 98 hit points doesn't that matter .... no irrelevant... etc....

Wouldn't you be a tad pissed ?

Depends. Just dropping an Assassin of 9th level and beyond is actually something that isn't every day fare. These NPCs are exceedingly rare.

You can check out the section of Assassin hirelings p. 17-18 of the DMG. You will see there that the Grandfather of the Assassins will always have 28 followers of 2nd through 8th level as follows: 1 8th level, 2 7th level, 3 6th level, 4 5th level, 5 4th level, 6 3rd level, and 7 2nd level, to which you add a bunch of 1st level Assassins. The Guildmaster, likewise, may not get any Assassin under his employ of greater than 8th level.

To tackle a 13th level fighter, an Assassin (careful, planning people by nature, not insane, incompetent idiots) would need to feel confident he or she can take him in a fight. Any 8th level Assassin would only have a 20% chance of success of Assassination in a confrontation, assuming NEAR OPTIMUM conditions, i.e. the potential victim isn't wary, isn't taking any precautions, isn't guarded at all by his henchmen and hirelings (note: 13th level fighters have a minimum of 61 men at their disposal at any time, see Fighters followers p. 16 of the DMG). See the bottom of the Assassination table p.75 for said caveats.

Any Assassin under 8th level would never accept a contract involving such a powerful character. Which means our Assassin is one elite Assassin (Prime Assassin if he is 13th level, a freaking legend of Assassins himself), who would be payed extremely handsomely for the deed by extremely wealthy individuals who have one hell of a grudge against our Fighter.

What did the Fighter do to trigger such an Assassination attempt performed by a ultimate expert like this? If it's "just because", then I think the DM is being a dick and/or ignoring the context I just talked about. If the Fighter did something very specific, like slap a duke in front of the King or something that he knew would have extremely dire consequences, then he must be ready for them. Or at least be weary enough that he knows something is coming (thereby lowering the chances of Assassination on the table accordingly, from a base depending on the level of the Assassin, Assassins beyond 8th level being, again, exceedingly rare to come by).

If I was the DM, I would use this as an opportunity for development in the campaign. First, such an event would be triggered by the player, not me. That means his Fighter would have done something incredibly foolish or foolhardy to have a contract of that magnitude on his head. Second, I would actually make it into a scenario or some elements of the campaign by which the Fighter might learn that such a contract exists without knowing who hired the Assassin, who the Assassin is, leaving the Player and his companions deal with the investigation and set of precautions, maybe ambushing the Assassin or trying to figure out who he is, what his usual MO is, how he would go about his plan to reach the Fighter in his Stronghold, etc etc. That's awesome! :D

But to answer your question: if the DM just drops an Assassin like this "because" and I just die outright like this, yeah, I'll think the DM is a dick and/or an incompetent, not knowing the context I just talked about. If the DM is not an incompetent/dick, and that my character might be wary, planning stuff and so on, or entirely suprised because of my own carelessness, in which case... that's another matter entirely! I would have had to have made some huge mistakes to get myself in this situation, probably, to then fail at preparing myself and so on, to result in an instant death like this. And if it does occur... there's always the Cleric to bring me back so we can find out what the hell just happened. Another adventure! It never ends. :)

I hate the assassination tables, and simply refuse to use them. It feels too much like having a combat that takes place "off-screen", with the victim having a limited say in what happens to him. It's a near-"auto-kill", and unbalanced as hell for a non-magical attack. The mechanics for it just don't feel right for me.

If my players want to assassinate someone in 1e, they have to track down their quarry, hide in shadows, move silently, and then get themselves into a position where they backstab the fucker with a poisoned blade. Roll that d20.

No assassination tables in my game. Period. :pundit:

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514495I hate the assassination tables, and simply refuse to use them. It feels too much like having a combat that takes place "off-screen", with the victim having a limited say in what happens to him. The mechanics for it just don't feel right for me.

It's totally fine by me. You're the DM at your own table. The "off-screen" comment isn't about the Assassination table on p.75 of the DMG though, is it? It seems to me you are referring to the Assassinations as described on p.20, which use the Spying rules on p.18, including the complexity of the task and the time it requires to accomplish, which is definitely a mean to simulate the planning, spying, etc. leading to an Assassination attempt "off camera", whether we are talking about Assassin NPCs hired by the party (cf. spies) or not.

Quote from: Benoist;514483Depends. Just dropping an Assassin of 9th level and beyond is actually something that isn't every day fare. These NPCs are exceedingly rare.

You can check out the section of Assassin hirelings p. 17-18 of the DMG. You will see there that the Grandfather of the Assassins will always have 28 followers of 2nd through 8th level as follows: 1 8th level, 2 7th level, 3 6th level, 4 5th level, 5 4th level, 6 3rd level, and 7 2nd level, to which you add a bunch of 1st level Assassins. The Guildmaster, likewise, may not get any Assassin under his employ of greater than 8th level.

To tackle a 13th level fighter, an Assassin (careful, planning people by nature, not insane, incompetent idiots) would need to feel confident he or she can take him in a fight. Any 8th level Assassin would only have a 20% chance of success of Assassination in a confrontation, assuming NEAR OPTIMUM conditions, i.e. the potential victim isn't wary, isn't taking any precautions, isn't guarded at all by his henchmen and hirelings (note: 13th level fighters have a minimum of 61 men at their disposal at any time, see Fighters followers p. 16 of the DMG). See the bottom of the Assassination table p.75 for said caveats.

Any Assassin under 8th level would never accept a contract involving such a powerful character. Which means our Assassin is one elite Assassin (Prime Assassin if he is 13th level, a freaking legend of Assassins himself), who would be payed extremely handsomely for the deed by extremely wealthy individuals who have one hell of a grudge against our Fighter.

What did the Fighter do to trigger such an Assassination attempt performed by a ultimate expert like this? If it's "just because", then I think the DM is being a dick and/or ignoring the context I just talked about. If the Fighter did something very specific, like slap a duke in front of the King or something that he knew would have extremely dire consequences, then he must be ready for them. Or at least be weary enough that he knows something is coming (thereby lowering the chances of Assassination on the table accordingly, from a base depending on the level of the Assassin, Assassins beyond 8th level being, again, exceedingly rare to come by).

If I was the DM, I would use this as an opportunity for development in the campaign. First, such an event would be triggered by the player, not me. That means his Fighter would have done something incredibly foolish or foolhardy to have a contract of that magnitude on his head. Second, I would actually make it into a scenario or some elements of the campaign by which the Fighter might learn that such a contract exists without knowing who hired the Assassin, who the Assassin is, leaving the Player and his companions deal with the investigation and set of precautions, maybe ambushing the Assassin or trying to figure out who he is, what his usual MO is, how he would go about his plan to reach the Fighter in his Stronghold, etc etc. That's awesome! :D

But to answer your question: if the DM just drops an Assassin like this "because" and I just die outright like this, yeah, I'll think the DM is a dick and/or an incompetent, not knowing the context I just talked about. If the DM is not an incompetent/dick, and that my character might be wary, planning stuff and so on, or entirely suprised because of my own carelessness, in which case... that's another matter entirely! I would have had to have made some huge mistakes to get myself in this situation, probably, to then fail at preparing myself and so on, to result in an instant death like this. And if it does occur... there's always the Cleric to bring me back so we can find out what the hell just happened. Another adventure! It never ends. :)

Well I chose 9th and 13th because I felt that you would have to be 13th level to merit the ammount of money it woudl cost to hire a 9th level assasin...

The rest of your post is entirely situational and I can certainly get a 13th level fighter to hire any NPC and of course being a complete bastard that I am I would never do any of this but if I did you can bet that as soon as the guy was dead he would know that the guy that killed him was that guy he hired last month that he was never quite sure of.

I was really juxtaposing the assasination tables as a PC feat with the assassination table being used against PCs to highlight it's broken-ness.

Also you have to remember a lot of people use the assasination table as a assasin;s supprise attack and it is fails you still deal damage so a poisoned knife still initiates a save or die roll....

But it was an aside :)

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514495I hate the assassination tables, and simply refuse to use them. It feels too much like having a combat that takes place "off-screen", with the victim having a limited say in what happens to him. It's a near-"auto-kill", and unbalanced as hell for a non-magical attack. The mechanics for it just don't feel right for me.

If my players want to assassinate someone in 1e, they have to track down their quarry, hide in shadows, move silently, and then get themselves into a position where they backstab the fucker with a poisoned blade. Roll that d20.

No assassination tables in my game. Period. :pundit:

agreed

Quote from: jibbajibba;514501Well I chose 9th and 13th because I felt that you would have to be 13th level to merit the ammount of money it woudl cost to hire a 9th level assasin...

The rest of your post is entirely situational and I can certainly get a 13th level fighter to hire any NPC and of course being a complete bastard that I am I would never do any of this but if I did you can bet that as soon as the guy was dead he would know that the guy that killed him was that guy he hired last month that he was never quite sure of.

I was really juxtaposing the assasination tables as a PC feat with the assassination table being used against PCs to highlight it's broken-ness.

Also you have to remember a lot of people use the assasination table as a assasin;s supprise attack and it is fails you still deal damage so a poisoned knife still initiates a save or die roll....

But it was an aside :)

Well it seems to me you are talking about different things at once now. Your initial example was pretty clear to me: you were talking about a 13th level Fighter getting killed outright by some Assassin NPC in the course of the campaign. That's what I understood anyway.

Now you seem to be saying that another PC hired the Assassin to kill the 13th level Fighter PC. This is predicated on the notion said hiring PC knows about such an Assassin NPC, and that the Assassin NPC accepts the contract, none of which are automatic or obvious in my campaign.

And then you seem to be talking about Assassination as the ability for an Assassin Player Character to kill a target, which is altogether different, and yes will depend on a host of factors including being able to surprise said opponent, and THEN when that succeeds having the chances of Assassination modified by all the caveats explained at the bottom of the Assassination table on p. 75 of the DMG. It's a type of scenario that will enormously depend on the precise circumstances of it occurring in game, for instance when we are talking of PCs exploring a dungeon where the inhabitants may know of the existence of intruders, have systems of alarm, chiefs with henchmen and bodyguards, and so on so forth.

So I'm a bit confused as to the type of situation you are talking about. It seems to me you're talking about all and none of them at the same time, while to me, looking at the rules of the Assassin class in the PH, on p. 75 of the DMG, and on pages 18-20 of the same book regarding "off camera" Assassination and Spying attempts, this is very dependant on the exact nature of the scenario considered, and the DM's adjudication thereof.

In any case. Sure, you do whatever you want with your campaign. I don't find Assassinations especially off balance in my games.

Quote from: Benoist;514505Well it seems to me you are talking about different things at once now. Your initial example was pretty clear to me: you were talking about a 13th level Fighter getting killed outright by some Assassin NPC in the course of the campaign. That's what I understood anyway.

Now you seem to be saying that another PC hired the Assassin to kill the 13th level Fighter PC. This is predicated on the notion said hiring PC knows about such an Assassin NPC, and that the Assassin NPC accepts the contract, none of which are automatic or obvious in my campaign.

And then you seem to be talking about Assassination as the ability for an Assassin Player Character to kill a target, which is altogether different, and yes will depend on a host of factors including being able to surprise said opponent, and THEN when that succeeds having the chances of Assassination modified by all the caveats explained at the bottom of the Assassination table on p. 75 of the DMG. It's a type of scenario that will enormously depend on the precise circumstances of it occurring in game, especially when we are talking of PCs exploring a dungeon where the inhabitants may know of the existence of intruders, have systems of alarm, chiefs with henchmen and bodyguards, and so on so forth.

So I'm a bit confused as to the type of situation you are talking about. It seems to me you're talking about all and none of them at the same time, while to me, looking at the rules of the Assassin class in the PH, on p. 75 of thet DMG, and on pages 18-20 of the same book regarding "off camera" Assassination and Spying attempts, this is very dependant on the exact nature of the scenario considered, and the DM's adjudication thereof.

Sorry Ben I am using shorthand and not explaining myself. Apologies when I get out of work sometimes I am just used to condensing all my explanations because we all knwo what we are talking about.

You are exactly right I was talking about a13th level PC being killed by a 9th level assassin using the assasination table on page 75.

I was talking about a 9th level assassin and a 13th level PC because I felt that a 13th level PC woudl likely have made enough enemies to merit the attention of a 9th level assassination contract.

I am holding the assasination table up as an example of a broken rule that is worse than anything you see in 4e. Instant kill an entire subsystem separate to combat is a pretty odd design choice

Quote from: jibbajibba;514508Sorry Ben I am using shorthand and not explaining myself. Apologies when I get out of work sometimes I am just used to condensing all my explanations because we all knwo what we are talking about.

You are exactly right I was talking about a13th level PC being killed by a 9th level assassin using the assasination table on page 75.

I was talking about a 9th level assassin and a 13th level PC because I felt that a 13th level PC woudl likely have made enough enemies to merit the attention of a 9th level assassination contract.

OK I see what you mean now. Yeah, I think my post earlier was spot on, actually: to me it'll really depend on the particulars of the campaign and what triggered the assassination attempt itself, whether I had a chance to be aware of it before hand or not, if that leads to a whole series of investigations and complications which would allow us uncover the identity of the assassin and his masters, why it happened and so on, what happens when I am raised from the dead etc.

Quote from: jibbajibba;514508I am holding the assasination table up as an example of a broken rule that is worse than anything you see in 4e. Instant kill an entire subsystem separate to combat is a pretty odd design choice

OK.

Not me. It's not "broken" to me because (1) there are many mitigating factors to its actual efficiency in each particular scenario, and (2) I can use it in a way that doesn't destroy the game, and quite the opposite, adds layers of complications to it which lead to new adventures, new stuff going on, as I explained in my post earlier, which is cool in my book. But then, I'm no 4e guy, and the whole "rules balance" thing is total bullshit to me.

To clarify - 1e Assassination is not "broken" and 3e Diplomacy is "broken"?

Quote from: Rum Cove;514524To clarify - 1e Assassination is not "broken" and 3e Diplomacy is "broken"?

1e Assassination isn't "broken" to me. Others have talked about Diplomacy in 3e. Not me. I just pointed out that I never liked the 3e skills defined by edges rather than center.

You know, in AD&D, there isn't that much daylight between 9th and 13th level statswise. Except for casters. I'd say a 9th level assassin ought to have a 1 in 5 chance of dropping the (unassisted by similar-level PCs) 13th level fighter without using the tables, and roleplaying it all out.

Quote from: jibbajibba;514473No in my game you had 12 hit points the goblins had 6 and everything did 1d6 damage + Body bonus.

My game system is far too simple to satisfy professional gamers :)

But perhaps not to simple to satisfy the causal gamers that most of the big games like D&D ignore these days preferring to design for the hobbyist who wants hundreds of pages of rules. My point is that I see nothing unprofessional about the game design -- unless your target audience is Gamist players looking for another 500 pages of complex rules.  

QuoteYou have to remember I am quite happy asking my players as they sit down what genre, style of game, system requirements and core mechanic they want and then ad-libbing the entire game system as we go along.

Personally, I don't think anyone who can't do that deserves the title of "game designer."

At least according to those who played in or watched the campaign, one of the best games I ever ran was basically made up as I went along. The very first version of Marvel Universe "comics" detailing marvel heroes in 12 issues was being punished in the early 1980s. By the time the first four or five issues were out, people wanted to play these characters. However, they did not want to convert them to Champions or the like, they just wanted to play them. I told everyone interest to bring percentile dice and be ready to play their favorite (already covered in the issues out) Marvel character.

We played a weekly game at the comic shop I co-owned for three or four months and people had a blast. The game system we used could be summed up as "You want to roll high on the percentile dice."  TSR's Marvel Superheroes was out by the time we wanted to do superheroes again, but this worked and worked well -- and I was making up everything but the character descriptions as I went along.

Quote from: RandallS;514534But perhaps not to simple to satisfy the causal gamers that most of the big games like D&D ignore these days preferring to design for the hobbyist who wants hundreds of pages of rules. My point is that I see nothing unprofessional about the game design -- unless your target audience is Gamist players looking for another 500 pages of complex rules.  



Personally, I don't think anyone who can't do that deserves the title of "game designer."

At least according to those who played in or watched the campaign, one of the best games I ever ran was basically made up as I went along. The very first version of Marvel Universe "comics" detailing marvel heroes in 12 issues was being punished in the early 1980s. By the time the first four or five issues were out, people wanted to play these characters. However, they did not want to convert them to Champions or the like, they just wanted to play them. I told everyone interest to bring percentile dice and be ready to play their favorite (already covered in the issues out) Marvel character.

We played a weekly game at the comic shop I co-owned for three or four months and people had a blast. The game system we used could be summed up as "You want to roll high on the percentile dice."  TSR's Marvel Superheroes was out by the time we wanted to do superheroes again, but this worked and worked well -- and I was making up everything but the character descriptions as I went along.

Totally agree :)

I am working on a fantasy heartbreaker but that is more complex as I am building everything from toolboxes to be included in the game.

Quote from: beejazz;514405I'm certain a rules system can't *cover* everything (and that's fine; we have GMs for a reason), but it doesn't absolutely have to "break down." Also, where a system "breaks down" (if it does) matters. D&D breaking down a little outside the dungeon is fine because the dungeon is what it was built for. If 3x broke down after level 20 I'd be fine with it because it was really only built as a 20-level game. And so on.

It should have rules for everything characters could reasonably expect to find themselves doing; beyond that, it should have the skeleton to construct additional parts if needed.

Frex, Shadowrun doesn't have an explicit cookery mechanic. But, what it does have is rules for trivial actions ("I read the cooking time and put it in the microwave for that long.") and adding new skills if required (Personally, I'd break cooking into prep and presentation skills, and require a minimum of 1 hit in prep for cooking from a packet, 2 for following a recipe, and 3 for cooking from scratch, with higher only being good for foodies. Scoring less presentation hits than prep hits means it looks crap, more means it looks great).

If anything, I'd say that the lack of methods of extrapolation would be what defines a "storygame" as opposed to an "RPG", for me. If there are only mechanics for what the game wants you to do, and no way to break outside of that, it's a "storygame".

Quote from: beejazz;514232So would you agree that 3x was not built for low levels only (given the wide breadth of high level material) but still included content that would be useless at high levels (toughness)

Well, yes. Who the fuck thinks the stat block for Orcus is widely useful in a 1st level campaign?

QuoteIs there a case to be made that a game shouldn't be filled with content useless to a context it appears to be built for?

You mean is there a case for AD&D not to have stat blocks for vanilla orcs because they aren't a significant threat to 15th level characters? No. I don't think there is a case for that.

Quoteor ridiculously powerful at high levels (diplomacy)?

Diplomacy, in specific, is -- as I have said multiple times in this thread -- a fundamentally broken rule at a conceptual level. Because of the fundamental brokenness it becomes ridiculously powerful at very low levels. (IOW, it can break the back of an E6 campaign without anyone even trying to do it.)

Needless to say, it also remains broken at high levels.

It's also pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of spherical cows, because it clearly isn't a spherical cow: Everyone agrees the rule is broken. The only people who don't are people who refuse to use the rule as written. Anyone actually using the Diplomacy rules will find them broken; there's nothing situational about it. The only thing that varies by situation is how OFTEN you find them broken.

Quote from: beejazz;514244I can't speak to most RPG mechanics, as there is more out there than I've read. But my experience with 3x is that the game breaks down at sufficiently high levels. It's a common experience and complaint, from what I've heard.

I would argue that, broadly speaking, this is true. My experience is that around 12th level the PCs start getting the resources to aggressively take control of encounter pacing, which allows the spellcasters to begin dominating play.

By 15th level, the spellcasters have achieved significant superiority as long as they can keep their goals sufficiently focused. And around this time, the second big problem rears its head: The range between the haves and have-nots on the key stats -- attack rolls, AC, saving throws -- exceeds 10 points, which means that you can either:

(a) Challenge one set of PCs while making it a cake-walk for the other; or
(b) Challenge one set of PCs while making it impossible for the other

The spellcaster-vs-mundane problem arises because 2E abandoned the high-level campaign structures that had been present in the game since OD&D. Reintroduce these structures and most of the problems disappear (partly because the spellcasters can't focus their resources; mostly because the non-spellcasters get to keep their high-level toys).

The Epic Level Handbook tried to solve the bonus-differentiation problem by locking in the differentiation at 20th level and maintaining it. But this failed partly because (a) it was applying the cap too late; and (b) it did nothing to control the specialized accumulation of magic items (which meant that differentiation in bonuses would continue to expand).

One method is to use one of the E(X) system caps (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/9470/roleplaying-games/ex-the-many-games-inside-the-worlds-most-popular-roleplaying-game). (A properly structured E12 or E15 would give you most of the high level play from the core rulebooks while avoiding some of the most problematic elements.) Another would be to come in around 10th level and lock in the bonus differentiation (i.e., people keep improving but they all improve at the same rate from that point forward) on the key stats.

Quote from: Windjammer;514206I had stated that the real estate values and real estate arrangements on a Monopoly board are part of the rules in a sense that scenario design is not.

And I'm not really clear how you're concluding that. Are you really under the impression that the Caves of Chaos don't play differently if you swap out all the orcs for ogres and then redraw the map so that it has a different layout?

Let me put it another way: Go play an RPG without a scenario. You'll have just as much luck with that as you would playing Monopoly without a board.

Let me put it a third way: The rules and board of Monopoly constitute a complete package that you can play. The rules of an RPG are functionally incomplete: You need a scenario in order to use them.

Let me put it a fourth way: I can take Basic D&D + B2 Keep on the Borderlands and I can swap out module B2 and replace it with B3 Palace of the Silver Princess. In similar fashion, I can take the rules of Monopoly + the board of Monopoly and I can swap out the board.  In both cases, the result will be a different game (or possibly the same game will play out in a very different way; depending on how you want to define your terms).

Let's say I replace it with a board in the shape of a figure 8; and when you reach the intersection in the middle of the board you can choose which direction you go. Or maybe I make a board in the shape of a plus sign and you can go out into each spoke and then you have to come back. Those are radical changes. But maybe I just change all the properties and their values. Maybe instead of similarly-colored properties being grouped together, I scatter them across the board. Maybe I just make the board bigger; or make it smaller (so that you pass Go more often). Those are smaller changes, but they're still going to have a significant impact on how the game plays out.

As a random note, it occurs to me that awesome fluff can make up for bad mechanics.  I'm far more willing to work with junk mechanics with writing that inspires me to want to make them work than with mediocre mechanics and dull writing.

Quote from: B.T.;514564As a random note, it occurs to me that awesome fluff can make up for bad mechanics.  I'm far more willing to work with junk mechanics with writing that inspires me to want to make them work than with mediocre mechanics and dull writing.

Same here, as my life-long love/hate affair with Rifts attests.

Quote from: Benoist;514497It's totally fine by me. You're the DM at your own table. The "off-screen" comment isn't about the Assassination table on p.75 of the DMG though, is it? It seems to me you are referring to the Assassinations as described on p.20, which use the Spying rules on p.18, including the complexity of the task and the time it requires to accomplish, which is definitely a mean to simulate the planning, spying, etc. leading to an Assassination attempt "off camera", whether we are talking about Assassin NPCs hired by the party (cf. spies) or not.

You, sir, are correct about the "off-screen" comment. It's the spying rules that feel dreadfully "off-screen", and I hate them. But I still absolutely loathe the assassination tables too, and refuse to use 'em.

Why? Unbalanced as fuck, and completely out of place with the rest of the system.

Quote from: jibbajibbaI am holding the assasination table up as an example of a broken rule that is worse than anything you see in 4e. Instant kill an entire subsystem separate to combat is a pretty odd design choice

Quote from: BenoistOK.

Not me. It's not "broken" to me because (1) there are many mitigating factors to its actual efficiency in each particular scenario, and (2) I can use it in a way that doesn't destroy the game, and quite the opposite, adds layers of complications to it which lead to new adventures, new stuff going on, as I explained in my post earlier, which is cool in my book. But then, I'm no 4e guy, and the whole "rules balance" thing is total bullshit to me.

The only mitigating factor for most victims is surprise. That's it. Forget 4e; the assassination tables are an unbalanced mess, and even worse, they're redundant. The assassin has the Thief's backstab ability, plus assassination. It's ridiculous.

Quote from: Rum CoveTo clarify - 1e Assassination is not "broken" and 3e Diplomacy is "broken"?

They're both broken as fuck. Each are non-magical in nature, and yet they're both encounter-ending "auto-win" abilities that don't quite fit in with the rest of the system. You don't have to be very high in level to defeat most normal opponents.

Let's take the assassination talent. It wouldn't be too impossible to quickly get an Assassin up to 5th-level. The xp requirements aren't so bad (12,001 xp), so unless you're constantly adventuring through a meat grinder, you will get there eventually.

Our 5th-level Assassin is going to have a very good chance of slaughtering most opponents under 10th-level, provided he's smart enough to attack from surprise. Does the victim receive a saving throw? No. The Assassin makes a percentile roll, and likely kills anyone under 10th-level, with his non-magical poisoned blade. This is retarded as fuck, and just doesn't belong in the system.

It wouldn't be so bad if the rest of the system supported non-magical "auto-kill" abilities, but it doesn't, hence the stupidity.

If I threw an Assassin into my game using these rules, I would quickly be lynched by my players, and rightfully so. AD&D does not really allow for "auto-kill" abilities, unless they involve overwhelming situations such as:

* 10 ton boulders dropping on your head
* falling from 100 feet
* decapitation
* falling into a pool of lava/magma
* slitting the throat of someone who is physically helpless

You get the picture.

The exception to this is magic. Magic can circumvent this shit. Cold steel can't. Unless you are of Evil Alignment, of course, possessing the vocation known as "Assassin". :rolleyes: It's pure stupidity.

The Diplomacy rules are equally fucked. There is no saving throw, and there is no time limit to how long we affect the mood of our victim.

I could take a 5th-level Half-Elven Rogue with an 18 Charisma (or 5th-level Expert, if we want to be more mundane), and max out his ranks in Diplomacy. Then I'll give him the feats: Negotiator and Skill Focus (Diplomacy). As a Half-Elf, he has a +2 racial bonus to Diplomacy checks. Oh! And let's not forget synergy bonuses! If the Half-Elf has 5 ranks in Bluff, he gets a +2 bonus to Diplomacy checks, and if he has 5 ranks in Sense Motive, he gains an additional +2 bonus to Diplomacy checks.

Diplomacy (8 ranks): +8
18 Charisma: +4
Half-Elven Racial Bonus: +2
Negotiator Feat: +2
Skill Focus (Diplomacy) Feat: +3
Synergy Bonus (Bluff): +2
Synergy Bonus (Sense Motive): +2

Total: +23

So there we go. A 5th-level Half-Elven Rogue with +23 to Diplomacy checks, and he's not even using any magic. This is just from the Player's Handbook. It is child's play to turn most seemingly inevitable fights into....."kissy face time", thus transforming your opponents into your personal bitch. No saving throw, no nothing, and no real limit to how much or how long you can influence your target's mood.

So there we go. Two rules from two different systems, and both are entirely broken as fuck. :pundit:

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514579You, sir, are correct about the "off-screen" comment. It's the spying rules that feel dreadfully "off-screen", and I hate them. But I still absolutely loathe the assassination tables too, and refuse to use 'em.

OK first we need to make some things clear:

(1) You are the DM at your table. You do whatever you want when you are refereeing the game yourself.

(2) There are two distinct scenarios under the corpus of Assassination rules that have nothing to do with each other:

   (A) The Assassin scores a surprise round and gets a chance at Assassination, provided no other elements are in the way (see below) - this is the scenario underlined by the Assassin class description in the PH, which leads to the Assassination table p. 75 of the DMG.

(B) The party hires an Assassin, or the Assassin in the group goes on a similar mission to commit an assassination off camera - these are the rules outlined on p. 20 of the DMG, which follow the Spying guidelines on p. 18 of the DMG.

These are two distinct, different scenarios. OK.

The actual off camera Assassinations under scenario B are following the Spying rules. Which means that the mission is first rated with a difficulty of either Simple, Difficult or Extraordinary (DMG p.18). The Assassin's player (or the DM if the NPC was hired by the party) formulates a plan that then is attempted. Now, the time required to attempt success is defined by the difficulty of the mission:

Easy: 1 to 8 days.
Difficult: 5 to 40 days.
Extraordinary: as required.

Now. The simplest missions will take 1 to 8 days to complete. Simplest missions being just about the general states of the defenses of the enemy, how many people guard the gates and fortress and how many more might be in the underground levels, these types of things. Just looking around stuff. Or you know, assassinating a grunt in the chain of command, some leader visible on the fortifications, as opposed to the right hands and the helps of the real master underneath. ONE TO EIGHT DAYS.

And that my friend, is the mitigating factor right there. Unless the Assassin PC wants to be completely out of the picture for X days, he's not going to go on (B) errands. Period. And X days do matter generally in the ongoing exploration of a dungeon complex (or Giant steadings or whatnot). A difficult mission would take nearly a MONTH of campaign time. This is NOT the usual scenario. This is usually undertaken by an Assassin PC under specific conditions: fulfilling unrelated assassination contracts in downtime or going about a specific target in the PC's field of operation (megadungeon, enemy conspiracy whatnot) during said downtime, which is NOT an unbalanced scenario unless your megadungeon/conspiracy features only one important bad guy in which case.. it fails at the design level. Period.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514579The only mitigating factor for most victims is surprise.

Wrong. See p. 75 of the DMG. Quoting the text after the Assassination table now:

Quote from: DMG p. 75The percentage shown is that for success (instant death) under near optimum conditions. You may adjust slightly upwards for perfect conditions (absolute trust, asleep and unguarded, very drunk and unguarded, etc.). Similarly, you must deduct points if the intended victim is wary, takes precautions, and/or is guarded. If the assassination is being attempted by or in behalf of a player character a complete plan of how the deed is to be done should be prepared by the player involved, and the precautions, if any, of the target character should be compared against the plan. Weapon damage always occurs and may kill the victim even though "assassination" failed.

No. To attempt an assassination as per scenario (A) above you must: (a) achieve Surprise, which is described on p.61 of the DMG as NOT being automatic, only being achieved IF and ONLY IF the enemy party is caught completely unawares AND unprepared, which if FAR from being the default attitude in a dungeon environment, especially if creatures hear what's going on in other rooms, if sentries sound the alarm in any possible way etc., to then roll IF DEEMED POSSIBLE AFTER ALL THAT 1d6 with an average 2 in 6 chance to achieve it, and (b) when Surprise is achieved (see (a)), your Assassination based percentage is ipso facto affected by external elements up to the DM: the target is wary, is guarded (i.e. has other creatures watching over his or her back, which is extremely common in exploration situations with creatures living with each other underground), or takes precautions in any particular way (which is usually the case when a dungeon is being raided by invaders). I personally would rule in penalties of 5% or so cumulative, since this is the increment that makes the difference between one level of ability and the next, i.e. if the target is wary, guarded and takes special precautions to avoid assassination attempts this is a -15% on the base percentile chance of success, and the list is open to additional caveats, mind you. It's not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514579the assassination tables are an unbalanced mess, and even worse, they're redundant. The assassin has the Thief's backstab ability, plus assassination. It's ridiculous.

This is where you get overboard. The discussion was fine so far. It's okay if you don't like them for reason X or Y that make you discard them at your table. It's another thing COMPLETELY to say that they are objectively, generally, unbalanced, period, the end. You stepped over the line, which is why I'm answering here: you lack perspective. You are not considering all the scenarios possible. Time to chill, my friend. If you had not gone there, I wouldn't have answered. There is a DEFINITE difference between saying "this doesn't fit my campaign/the way I run the game for reason X or Y" and "This is BROKEN".

No. Fuck no. You know better. You sure as hell should know better, mate. YOU are declaring hostilities on this. Not me.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514579Let's take the assassination talent. It wouldn't be too impossible to quickly get an Assassin up to 5th-level.

Er. No. When you actually don't fudge the dice, getting to 5th level is, in itself, an achievement in First Ed AD&D. I dare you to play at my game table without playing meat grinders and shit, but normal dungeon crawling. What you are saying is simply not true. 5th level in AD&D First Ed is NOT easy to reach.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514579Our 5th-level Assassin is going to have a very good chance of slaughtering most opponents under 10th-level

Actually, if we are talking about scenario (A) above, this is what the table on page 75 of the DMG is about. A 5th level Assassin trying to go after a 9th level character has a 30% chance of assassination under OPTIMUM CONDITIONS (as per DMG p.75, see above), which means the target isn't in the company of any other creatures, doesn't have any idea some intruders might come for it, doesn't take any particular precaution as to its security, etc etc, which at 5th level, when you are still exploring the depth of the underworld, is IMO, EXTREMELY unlikely unless your campaign doesn't accomodate for this baseline, which is then your responsibility directly, not the game's.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514579provided he's smart enough to attack from surprise. Does the victim receive a saving throw? No. The Assassin makes a percentile roll, and likely kills anyone under 10th-level, with his non-magical poisoned blade. This is retarded as fuck, and just doesn't belong in the system.

No. Not likely. Depends on the precise circumstances. See above.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514579If I threw an Assassin into my game using these rules, I would quickly be lynched by my players

Because your players would be morons who do not understand the context of the AD&D game.

You know, man. It's enough to say "my campaign doesn't play that way, and therefore, I don't like this or that rule". But you went further than that. You went for "Assassination is broken period the end." And that, my friend, is very stupid on your part. You know better. I know you do. You shouldn't have.

Quote from: Benoist;514615OK first we need to make some things clear:

(1) You are the DM at your table. You do whatever you want when you are refereeing the game yourself.

(2) There are two distinct scenarios under the corpus of Assassination rules that have nothing to do with each other:

   (A) The Assassin scores a surprise round and gets a chance at Assassination, provided no other elements are in the way (see below) - this is the scenario underlined by the Assassin class description in the PH.

(B) The party hires an Assassin, or the Assassin in the group goes on a similar mission to commit an assassination off camera - this follows the Spying guidelines on p.18-20 of the DMG.

These are two distinct, different scenarios. OK.

The actual off camera Assassinations under scenario B are following the Spying rules. Which means that the mission is first rated with a difficulty of either Simple, Difficult or Extraordinary (DMG p.18). The Assassin's player (or the DM if the NPC was hired by the party) formulates a plan that then is attempted. Now, the time required to attempt success is defined by the difficulty of the mission:

Easy: 1 to 8 days.
Difficult: 5 to 40 days.
Extraordinary: as required.

Now. The simplest missions will take 1 to 8 days to complete. Simplest missions being just about the general states of the defenses of the enemy, how many people guard the gates and fortress and how many more might be in the underground levels, these types of things. Just looking around stuff. Or you know, assassinating a grunt in the chain of command, some leader visible on the fortifications, as opposed to the right hands and the helps of the real master underneath. ONE TO EIGHT DAYS.

And that my friend, is the mitigating factor right there. Unless the Assassin PC wants to be completely out of the picture for X days, he's not going to go on (B) errands. Period. And X days do matter generally in the ongoing exploration of a dungeon complex (or Giant steadings or whatnot). A difficult mission would take nearly a MONTH of campaign time. This is NOT the usual scenario. This is usually undertaken by an Assassin PC under specific conditions: fulfilling unrelated assassination contracts in downtime or going about a specific target in the PC's field of operation (megadungeon, enemy conspiracy whatnot) during said downtime, which is NOT an unbalanced scenario unless your megadungeon/conspiracy features only one important bad guy in which case.. it fails at the design level. Period.

Benny, I totally don't care about the spying rules in AD&D, and consider them irrelevant. I hate using them because they involve the PC engaging in a large number of meaningful activities "off-camera". All of that crap should involve actual roleplaying, potential combat, and not just a simple percentile roll. And frankly, Benny, I find it incredibly strange for you, of all people, to be defending a game mechanic like this, since it discourages roleplay, ignores actual interactions between characters, and reduces the whole exchange to a single die roll. It's retarded.

Yes, the player might have to explain his elaborate plan to the DM, but guess what? This entire spying adventure that the Assassin went on? It all took place "off-camera". And if the Assassin fails at spying, he's likely to be imprisoned or killed, with no other recourse, no matter how adept the PC might actually be in combat. There's an actual "Spy Failure Table" in there that basically just says that you're captured, tortured, dead, and completely ignores the character's ability to defend himself against murder or capture. That makes it utterly useless to me, and I want no part of it.

This rule is unbalanced, poorly thought out, and it is a piece of shit. Even 1e has its flaws. Accept it.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambThe only mitigating factor for most victims is surprise.

Quote from: BenoistWrong. See p. 75 of the DMG. Quoting the text after the Assassination table now:

Quote from: DMG p. 75The percentage shown is that for success (instant death) under near optimum conditions. You may adjust slightly upwards for perfect conditions (absolute trust, asleep and unguarded, very drunk and unguarded, etc.). Similarly, you must deduct points if the intended victim is wary, takes precautions, and/or is guarded. If the assassination is being attempted by or in behalf of a player character a complete plan of how the deed is to be done should be prepared by the player involved, and the precautions, if any, of the target character should be compared against the plan. Weapon damage always occurs and may kill the victim even though "assassination" failed.

Quote from: BenoistNo. To attempt an assassination as per scenario (A) above you must: (a) achieve Surprise, which is described on p.61 of the DMG as NOT being automatic, only being achieved IF and ONLY IF the enemy party is caught completely unawares AND unprepared, which if FAR from being the default attitude in a dungeon environment, especially if creatures hear what's going on in other rooms, if sentries sound the alarm in any possible way etc., to then roll IF DEEMED POSSIBLE AFTER ALL THAT 1d6 with an average 2 in 6 chance to achieve it, and (b) when Surprise is achieved (see (a)), your Assassination based percentage is ipso facto affected by external elements up to the DM: the target is wary, is guarded (i.e. has other creatures watching over his or her back, which is extremely common in exploration situations with creatures living with each other underground), or takes precautions in any particular way (which is usually the case when a dungeon is being raided by invaders). I personally would rule in penalties of 5% or so cumulative, since this is the increment that makes the difference between one level of ability and the next, i.e. if the target is wary, guarded and takes special precautions to avoid assassination attempts this is a -15% on the base percentile chance of success, and the list is open to additional caveats, mind you. It's not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination.

Your wall of text is hurting my delicate brain. :( Look....maybe I should not have said "auto-kill", and should have instead said "instant-kill". It doesn't matter. My point still stands....because I said, "most victims". And I do stand by that point.

Second of all, it doesn't matter anyway....because it is a non-magical "instant-kill". It's an unbalanced game mechanic that is out of place with the rest of the system. You want "instant-kills", then give 'em to everyone...otherwise, this is unbalanced as hell.

Quote from: BenoistThis is where you get overboard. The discussion was fine so far. It's okay if you don't like them for reason X or Y that make you discard them at your table. It's another thing COMPLETELY to say that they are objectively, generally, unbalanced, period, the end. You stepped over the line, which is why I'm answering here: you lack perspective. You are not considering all the scenarios possible. Time to chill, my friend. If you had not gone there, I wouldn't have answered. There is a DEFINITE difference between saying "this doesn't fit my campaign/the way I run the game for reason X or Y" and "This is BROKEN".

No. Fuck no. You know better. You sure as hell should know better, mate. YOU are declaring hostilities on this. Not me.

The assassination ability is broken. It's not the end of the world. Every edition has its flaws, and there is no "holy grail" of gaming. I can still enjoy and appreciate 1e, while recognizing some of its faults. Hey, do I still enjoy DMing D&D 3.5, despite its many tremendous faults? You bet! Do I also enjoy AD&D, even with its faults? Yep!

I can work around flaws in a game....up to a point. 4e is where it got off the rails for me, but that's not really the point of this discussion. I totally respect Gygax's body of work, but I don't fetishise his writings. He wrote absolutely brilliant stuff, but he also wrote some unbalanced, retarded shit. It's not always an easy task to recognize which is which. :pundit:

Quote from: Sacrificial LambLet's take the assassination talent. It wouldn't be too impossible to quickly get an Assassin up to 5th-level.

Quote from: BenoistEr. No. When you actually don't fudge the dice, getting to 5th level is, in itself, an achievement in First Ed AD&D. I dare you to play at my game table without playing meat grinders and shit, but normal dungeon crawling. What you are saying is simply not true. 5th level in AD&D First Ed is NOT easy to reach.

It is easy to reach if the DM isn't being a dick. We're only talking 12,001 xp here. If it was 100,000 xps, then you would absolutely have a point, but in this case, you're totally wrong. Most other PCs will only be 4th-level if they have 12,001 xp. Hell, check the City/Town Encounters Matrix in the DMG. There are a shitload of NPCs around that level. Tons.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambOur 5th-level Assassin is going to have a very good chance of slaughtering most opponents under 10th-level

Quote from: BenoistActually, if we are talking about scenario (A) above, this is what the table on page 75 of the DMG is about. A 5th level Assassin trying to go after a 9th level character has a 30% chance of assassination under OPTIMUM CONDITIONS (as per DMG p.75, see above), which means the target isn't in the company of any other creatures, doesn't have any idea some intruders might come for it, doesn't take any particular precaution as to its security, etc etc, which at 5th level, when you are still exploring the depth of the underworld, is IMO, EXTREMELY unlikely unless your campaign doesn't accomodate for this baseline, which is then your responsibility directly, not the game's.

I said that the Assassin had a poisoned blade, remember? That would be a common weapon for Assassins. The victim receives a saving throw for the poison, but not for the assassination ability. And furthermore, what "underworld" are we talking about here? The Assassin's quarry might be in a dungeon, or a city street , or in a tavern. Who knows?

Quote from: Sacrificial LambIf I threw an Assassin into my game using these rules, I would quickly be lynched by my players

Quote from: BenoistBecause your players would be morons who haven't read the rule books nor understand the context of the AD&D game. Enough said.

Most of my players are casual players. With the exception of one of my players, they just don't go through the rules with a fine tooth comb. They just want to sit down and play. Lots of people are like that. AD&D is a pretty dense rules set, and the poorly organized text does not lend itself to a casual read. You really have to delve into it. My players would never notice stuff like this. Most people won't.

Quote from: BenoistYou know, man. It's enough to say "my campaign doesn't play that way, and therefore, I don't like this or that rule". But you went further than that. You went for "Assassination is broken period the end." And that, my friend, is very stupid on your part. You know better. I know you do. You shouldn't have.

Assassination is totally broken, and I am unrepentant in saying it. It is what it is. :pundit:

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;514627Benny,

Assassination is totally broken, and I am unrepentant in saying it. It is what it is. :pundit:

You are of course totally correct. The scenario I described when I brought up assassins. When the Assasin is waiting outide the room/house of the PC and then comes up from behind and kills him was specifically explained to counter Ben's arguements before he made them, because it was obvious what defense he was going to mount.

However... Ben will never admit that any element of 1e is broken. It is not a speherical cow it is a Sacred Cow.

Of course no assassin will ever get to 5th level, no one can ever hire a 9th level assassin they simply don't exist, all 13th level fighters walk everywhere with 60 armed guards and never let their guard down for a moment.

As you eloquently explained the fact is that the assasination table creates an auto-kill no save scenario that is totally incongruous to the rest of the D&D game. Again as you say if there were rules for instant kill from a point blank range hit with a crossbow, or a certain rare set of combat criticals, or a grappling choke hold or whatever, then assasination could be seen to be a part of that subsystem but it doesn't (even if it did not sure I woudl use it).

And yes I abused the fuck of assassins, but I was 12... (the 1/2 orc Fighter/assasin, with dust of disappearance, a poisoned blade and some sort of silence provision gets pretty close to being a broken character in 1e)

Omg. You guys have no fucking idea what you are talking about!

I'm kind of shocked actually. But you know what? Nevermind. It's not worth fighting over. I'll just move on.

ATTN: this thread is now performance art imitating the thing it decries in the OP.

Quote from: Benoist;514657Omg. You guys have no fucking idea what you are talking about!

I'm kind of shocked actually. But you know what? Nevermind. It's not worth fighting over. I'll just move on.

That is actually pretty rude Ben.

I think its fairly obvious that Mr Lamb and I both have 'a fairly good idea of what we are talking about'.

I have been playing D&D for over 30 years fairly sure SL has a similar background.

Your dismissal of the point being made on the basis that we are both somehow intellectually unable to grasp what you have somehow been elevated to by your divine insight is a bit disappointing.

I can toally get a 'I like Assasination it was never a problem in my game' possibly tied to some becauses involving no issue with disparate subsystems and no desire to balance the game....blah, blah, blah...

But telling us we don't know what we are talking is well just very annoying on a day when I have already been annoyed .....

The perfect rules state (now this is from memory and I last read the assasination ruels 20 years ago but .... ) that even if I fail my assasination check the target still takes damage so if I try to assasinate you with a 5th level assasin with a poisoned sword from behind talk us through the process for what happens.....

Quote from: Justin Alexander;514561Well, yes. Who the fuck thinks the stat block for Orcus is widely useful in a 1st level campaign?

I think you knew what I actually meant. We were talking about toughness. Which is only useful at low levels in a game with 20 levels, but which will also show up in every single session after the player chooses the toughness feat, unlike Orcus.

QuoteYou mean is there a case for AD&D not to have stat blocks for vanilla orcs because they aren't a significant threat to 15th level characters? No. I don't think there is a case for that.

Again, what I was saying was (at least intended to be) about rules players will use consistently forever. Not about NPCs or monsters having variable power.

QuoteDiplomacy, in specific, is -- as I have said multiple times in this thread -- a fundamentally broken rule at a conceptual level. Because of the fundamental brokenness it becomes ridiculously powerful at very low levels. (IOW, it can break the back of an E6 campaign without anyone even trying to do it.)

Needless to say, it also remains broken at high levels.

It's also pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of spherical cows, because it clearly isn't a spherical cow: Everyone agrees the rule is broken. The only people who don't are people who refuse to use the rule as written. Anyone actually using the Diplomacy rules will find them broken; there's nothing situational about it. The only thing that varies by situation is how OFTEN you find them broken.

It's semi-relevant if people justify the existence of a rule by saying something like "Frodo should never meet Sauron" or "just use mindless enemies" and so on. Pretty much assuming that the DM decides what the PCs do or don't face, instead of populating the world and letting the party run around in it. Or otherwise assuming a specific context in which the rule works, but which doesn't make up the vast majority of what one does with a game.

Anyway, I wasn't really talking about spherical cows at that point so much as holding up an example of what qualifies as a broken rule and why.

QuoteI would argue that, broadly speaking, this is true. My experience is that around 12th level the PCs start getting the resources to aggressively take control of encounter pacing, which allows the spellcasters to begin dominating play.

By 15th level, the spellcasters have achieved significant superiority as long as they can keep their goals sufficiently focused. And around this time, the second big problem rears its head: The range between the haves and have-nots on the key stats -- attack rolls, AC, saving throws -- exceeds 10 points, which means that you can either:

(a) Challenge one set of PCs while making it a cake-walk for the other; or
(b) Challenge one set of PCs while making it impossible for the other

This is why in the homebrew I'm tinkering with, all scaling bonuses are stat bonus plus level with an optional +5 for training. You say that the range of numbers shouldn't be more than 10, but I think setting that max around 15 works fine if you handle it right (the range in mine may be closer to 13, but the bell curve means most players won't be running around with too many 3s in their stats either).

QuoteThe Epic Level Handbook tried to solve the bonus-differentiation problem by locking in the differentiation at 20th level and maintaining it. But this failed partly because (a) it was applying the cap too late; and (b) it did nothing to control the specialized accumulation of magic items (which meant that differentiation in bonuses would continue to expand).

Always hated items as bonus for this reason. As I've mentioned, there were those who started past 1st level, and gear was always the most tedious part of building a higher level character. If I wanted fiddly point-buy I would play some other game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;514660That is actually pretty rude Ben.

And you yourselves are being extremely rude when I actually break down the actual systems and explain all the caveats included and how this will depend on specific circumstances of the campaign and specific adjudication on the part of the DM based on these circumstances, to then dismiss everything I say with "my brain hurts" and "assassination is broken, the system is a piece of shit, just accept it."

There was no shred of an actual exchange. That's rude.

At this point all I'm just seeing that you guys are completely set on your opinions on the matter and we will not budge from there.

I'm fine with it.

I'm done.

This thread needs more walls of text.

Quote from: Aos;514663This thread needs more walls of text.

Gimme something I can multiquote.

Quote from: jibbajibba;514632As you eloquently explained the fact is that the assasination table creates an auto-kill no save scenario that is totally incongruous to the rest of the D&D game. Again as you say if there were rules for instant kill from a point blank range hit with a crossbow, or a certain rare set of combat criticals, or a grappling choke hold or whatever, then assasination could be seen to be a part of that subsystem but it doesn't (even if it did not sure I woudl use it).

I misstated myself. It's not "auto-kill". It's more like "instant kill", with a high degree of success. But it's still not an appropriate unique non-magical ability for a PC. It throws things outta whack. :idunno:

On 3.x Diplomacy, I forgot something. If we take that Half-Elf, and replace one of his levels of Rogue with a level of Bard, he could take 5 ranks of the Knowledge (nobility and royalty) skill. That would provide him with an additional +2 synergy bonus. And since synergy bonuses are considered to be "unnamed" bonuses, then Mister Half-Elf will possess a +25 bonus to his Diplomacy skill check at 5th-level. This total is reached using only the Core Rules, with no magic to aid him. But I guess it doesn't really matter, as the Diplomacy rules are broken at a basic level anyway.... :cool:

What's really funny is, way back when I was writing for Dragon (and stuff there was considered official canon), I wrote some rules for starvation.

I can't recall the exact details of my piece, but WoTC wouldn't allow the article because a person could go 3 weeks without food, without penalty, if they made a DC 50 check (Con, with other stuff I can't remember)...they said it was too unrealistic. No amount of discussion on my part about the kind of luck/design necessary for a character to make that roll (for such a minimal benefit) could convince them to just let it go.

Quote from: Benoist;514662And you yourselves are being extremely rude when I actually break down the actual systems and explain all the caveats included and how this will depend on specific circumstances of the campaign and specific adjudication on the part of the DM based on these circumstances, to then dismiss everything I say with "my brain hurts" and "assassination is broken, the system is a piece of shit, just accept it."

There was no shred of an actual response. That's rude.

At this point all I'm just seeing that you guys are completely set on your opinions on the matter and we will not budge from there.

I'm fine with it.

I'm done.

You caveats are all situational bollocks. You haven't explained why having a totally separate subsystem that can auto-kill with no save is a good rule.
It's not under any circumstances.
You can claim that the skill isn't usable in x many situations but that means it's an even worse rule because you have a whole susb-system that you aren't even going to use which is just complexity for its own sake.

And I never said my brain hurts.. you accused me of not using it and you did it again.
I totally understand your postion I simply disagree with it cos it's a crock of shit and doesn't tackle the actual issue. You seem to think any attack on the holy word of gygax is a personal affront...

I gave you the option to walk us through the process using your higher level understanding of the system to show why it's not broken but you chose not to so I will attempt in my failed and  feeble way to try the same.

Situation:

An assassin has been trailing the PCs discretely as they wander round the city of Freeport looking to re-equip and get ready for a ship leaving the harbour in 2 days time.
The PCs have bene up to a few high jinx, usual city stuff.

The Figther a 13th level sword and shield user is staying at the Star tavern.

The Assassin is skulking in the main room of the tavern. Now the PC is a 'typical' adventurer he had a bit to drink yesterday but he is not stupid as he has made many powerful enemies. He always locks his door and like all warrior adventure types, in D&D, walks about in +3 plate mail armour all the time (... I know..). The tavern room has a few drinkers but its mid morning so no rush. The other PCs have gone out.

Okay so does that sound reasonable? Or should I add a personal guard of 60 heavy cavalry?

The rules.

The Assassin picked his spot so that when the PC emerges from his room he is behind him.
He would have hidden in shadows. Now top of my head I can't recall what a 7th level thief gets for HiS my guess will be 45% with a fair wind and a dex bonus but it's actually irrelevant because the PC makes no effort to look for him anyway.

So now the meaty bit the assasin moves forward. Using Move silently, we will give him 50% MS. He suceeds. Now the warrior doesn't get a chance to hear him no check no save.
The assasin attacks.
So the fighter rolls for suprise. We will go for basic here suprised on a 1-2 on a d6. In a situation where an unseen opponent had moved silently a lot of DMs would give a +1  but its not RAW so ...
Our hapless fighter rolls a 1

The Assassin now pulls the monster out the Assassination roll. Now normally to hit our figther with his AC of -3 (Plate +3 and a +2 sheild) he would need to roll a straight 20 (9th level thief table). Obviously we ignore the shild as its a suprise attack from behind but even at AC 0 and attacking from behind for +4 as a backstab he would need to roll 15. However he has that auto-kill.... so (now no table so doing from memory ) 9th level assassin versus 13th level enemy a 40% chance (???) to kill him outright.
He rolls ... now either he succeeds and the figther is dead no save game over , all he got to roll here was 1 d 6 for suprise.... or we miss and he has a chance.
Option 1 rolls a 23% - figther is dead. Assassin runs off nice plot hook for rest of party.
Option 2 he rolls 65% - misses . However his attack still succeeds automatically. So he hits with a short sword with tripple damage for backstab and a poison effect. We will use a strong poison instant kill obviously. The fighter gets to make a save now again from memory a fighter poison save at 13th level v poison was what 10?/8? cut the difference call it 9 and we won't give a super powerful poison or anything though we could under the rules of course. So the fighter takes 12 damage or so and had another 40% chance of being dead. - etc...

So as far as I can tell based on a suprise roll which is a 33% straight up roll our fighter has a 64% chance of being dead (40% assasination + 40% chance poison) = over all chance of dying therefore = 21%

Now is that a good rule?

I ran as NPC versus PC to highlight the seeming unfairness of the 1 in 5 chance of your 13th level PC you have been playing for 10 years being slain with you pretty powerless to do anything. Working the other way round would of course be just as easy although NPCs tend to take more precautions that PCs most of the time if only becuase DMs want to avoid you killing their Big Bad like this.

Of course we could use an uber assassin with dust of disappearance, magic sword, etc but I thought I would keep it simple.
I added hide in showed and move silently at the top end I didn't have to of course the assassin could just have been standing right behind the door. Personally I always insisted on a supprise to get Backstab damage and gave a +1 to the chance of suprising with a sucessful Move silently so I felt I should do the same here.

Quote from: beejazz;514661I think you knew what I actually meant. We were talking about toughness. Which is only useful at low levels in a game with 20 levels, but which will also show up in every single session after the player chooses the toughness feat, unlike Orcus.

I gave you the list of things Toughness was explicitly designed for. None of them were "20th level PCs". So, basically, you're still pursuing a strawman.

QuoteThis is why in the homebrew I'm tinkering with, all scaling bonuses are stat bonus plus level with an optional +5 for training. You say that the range of numbers shouldn't be more than 10, but I think setting that max around 15 works fine if you handle it right (the range in mine may be closer to 13, but the bell curve means most players won't be running around with too many 3s in their stats either).

I think we're basically saying the same thing.

In general, game designers agree that your useful range for difficulty is between 25% and 75%: 25% feels possible, but very difficult. 75% feels challenging, but satisfying. Get below that range and you get into "I can't possibly hit" frustration; go above it and everything feels like an automatic gimme.

At an 10 point differentiation there is a single DC you can set that lands you within that range for both ends of the differentiation. Anything beyond that and your DCs is going to land outside of the range for one or the other. (For example, at +0 and +9, you can set a DC 16 task and it will be 25% for the +0 and a 75% for the +9.)

At a 15 point differentiation, any target number you set which is within the "sweet spot" for the higher number will be unachievable by the low end. (For example, at +0 and +14 you can set a DC 21 task to give the +14 guy a 75% chance of success to hit the top end of his range. But that's unachievable for the guy at +0.)

So it's at +10 that the system starts to get very limited. At +15 it breaks for all practical purposes. At +20 it's completely broken.

Quote from: jibbajibba;514691You caveats are all situational bollocks

And your head is so far up your ass I just wish you'd shut the fuck up.

Neither of us is going to get what we want.

Benoist, I don't want to piss you off, but I just have a major problem with this rule. I've run a 1e/2e hybrid game, and if I had a situation where the 7th-level Cleric got stabbed in the back with a non-poisoned, non-magical dagger for 1 point of damage, and instantly died without the player getting even a saving throw, I'd have a fucking mutiny on my hands, and be subsequently known as "Dick DM". Guess who doesn't need the headache? Me.

There are other aspects of AD&D worth defending, but this isn't one of them. :idunno:

This isn't one of them TO YOU.

I hate it when we're talking past each other like this. There's no point in continuing. And yes, I am super frustrated by these kinds of "discussions". Like I said, it's fine, I'm going to get over it in a matter of hours. Let's just call it quits and move on, please.

Quote from: Benoist;514726This isn't one of them TO YOU.

.

I think this is the heart of the dispute. I have an assasination skill in one of my own games that allows you to go around regular combat in order to instant kill a bit like with the ad&d assasin. I find it all boils down to the players at the table whether the rule is considered fun or unfun. Some people really enjoy this sort of mechanic. Others get irritated, so I include or not depending on the group. Really this seems a debate about preference rather than brokeness.

The assassination rules are not spelled out very clearly I think.  Every cry of abuse over the assassination rules overlooks the term "near optimum conditions", which if you're talking about an assassination is like killing a nun alone in church while she's praying.  If you're the kind of person someone would send an assassin after, in a world in which people kill other people for money, you watch out for that, constantly, or pay people who do.  Any type of environment that could become combat at any time is obviously going to be using heavy penalties.

In any game system that isn't Magical Tea Party for Broken Vibe-beggers, a professional assassin sent after a PC is going to kill that PC if the PC hasn't taken steps to prevent such a thing from occurring.  Assassins are not so much a mechanic as a plot device.

However, in this case, the rule is being used in vacuum (and yes I'm the one who said this is over-argued).  Yeah I assassinated him, and, so what?  He can be raised, resurrected, wished back, he could have a clone ready, or even if none of that stuff is on the table, and he stays dead, he has a group of adventurer buddies who are going to be pissed as well as anyone that guy has helped or aided in the past.  PCs tend to have friends.

Rule 0 of Assassination - Make sure the assassination doesn't cause more problems then it solves.

The reason I think this is a "vacuum" situation is that AD&D really was written to take all this shit into account.  There is practically no balance at the individual rules level - anywhere.  It's all meant to be looked at as a whole and have a GM on overwatch to make sure it all runs the way he wants it to run.  

If your DM was incompetent or an asshole, well, then you were brain-damaged and spend your life looking at a purple website wondering what your gender classification is, or you write a RPG where nasty DM's can't touch your character.  :D

Seriously though, I never really saw the rules as being for assassins used against the characters, but for NPCs hired by the characters or very rarely for characters themselves.  The Magic-User is taking god knows how long to make his Staff of Power, the Fighter is overseeing the construction of the latest wing of his castle, wtf is the assassin going to do?  Take some contracts, so just like we're not spending 10 game sessions going over the other scenarios above, we abstract the assassination as well.  The rules work even better for a PC sending an NPC assassin to off a rival NPC lord, etc.


tl;dr - There's a depth to the interlaced rules in AD&D that puts a lot of rules discussions in the "Spherical Cow" category, assassination rules being one of them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;514737The assassination rules are not spelled out very clearly I think.  Every cry of abuse over the assassination rules overlooks the term "near optimum conditions", which if you're talking about an assassination is like killing a nun alone in church while she's praying.  If you're the kind of person someone would send an assassin after, in a world in which people kill other people for money, you watch out for that, constantly, or pay people who do.  Any type of environment that could become combat at any time is obviously going to be using heavy penalties.

In any game system that isn't Magical Tea Party for Broken Vibe-beggers, a professional assassin sent after a PC is going to kill that PC if the PC hasn't taken steps to prevent such a thing from occurring.  Assassins are not so much a mechanic as a plot device.

However, in this case, the rule is being used in vacuum (and yes I'm the one who said this is over-argued).  Yeah I assassinated him, and, so what?  He can be raised, resurrected, wished back, he could have a clone ready, or even if none of that stuff is on the table, and he stays dead, he has a group of adventurer buddies who are going to be pissed as well as anyone that guy has helped or aided in the past.  PCs tend to have friends.

Rule 0 of Assassination - Make sure the assassination doesn't cause more problems then it solves.

The reason I think this is a "vacuum" situation is that AD&D really was written to take all this shit into account.  There is practically no balance at the individual rules level - anywhere.  It's all meant to be looked at as a whole and have a GM on overwatch to make sure it all runs the way he wants it to run.  

If your DM was incompetent or an asshole, well, then you were brain-damaged and spend your life looking at a purple website wondering what your gender classification is, or you write a RPG where nasty DM's can't touch your character.  :D

Seriously though, I never really saw the rules as being for assassins used against the characters, but for NPCs hired by the characters or very rarely for characters themselves.  The Magic-User is taking god knows how long to make his Staff of Power, the Fighter is overseeing the construction of the latest wing of his castle, wtf is the assassin going to do?  Take some contracts, so just like we're not spending 10 game sessions going over the other scenarios above, we abstract the assassination as well.  The rules work even better for a PC sending an NPC assassin to off a rival NPC lord, etc.


tl;dr - There's a depth to the interlaced rules in AD&D that puts a lot of rules discussions in the "Spherical Cow" category, assassination rules being one of them.

A far more reasoned approach because you highlight the fact that their is raise dead. In effect you are saying at a certain level instant kill is irrelevant beause you have raise dead so much like in an MMO dead is an inconvenience rather than a permanent state.
That is key. Once you can treat dead just like stun, prone or any other temporary state then inflicting that state as a class power is fine. But assassins can do this from 1st level. And when a PC Assassinates an NPC they stay dead.

Much like SL I have an issue with the whole idea just because it has no parallels. If there was an attack type called 'unapposed' or something the crossbow across the table, the knife to the throat, whatevert then I would happily allow assassins to access that attack type with a suprise attack. In fact in my DnD where you have wounds under hp an assassin's suprise attack comes straight off wounds, but so does poison, fire, falling onto spikes etc etc

Quote from: jibbajibba;514741A far more reasoned approach because you highlight the fact that their is raise dead.

Which I did. In like. My very first post about the question. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=514483#post514483)

Quote from: jibbajibba;514741Much like SL I have an issue with the whole idea just because it has no parallels.

That's pretty much the hallmark of AD&D, though. A lot of discrete subsystems, with no attempts to systematize them. (% chance disease, etc.) No notion that doing so is a good idea. (Compare thief % with non-weapon proficiencies.)

I prefer a game with systematic rules: subsystems that are integrated into the game as a whole, which are flexible enough to apply to several similar situations. (Hence my "Massive Damage" falling suggestion.)

But once you move away from "grab bag of unintegrated subsystems", you move towards 3e (or d20 Old School clones) and the whole discussion becomes moot.

Quote from: Benoist;514742Which I did. In like. My very first post about the question. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=514483#post514483)

You saw the rest of my reply right ....... just asking ?

Quote from: jibbajibba;514746You saw the rest of my reply right ....... just asking ?

I'm asking myself the same question in regards to my posts on the topic, actually.

Quote from: Benoist;514748I'm asking myself the same question in regards to my posts on the topic, actually.

Okay if you are happy with reducing death to a temporary game state akin to stun or prone....
And if you accept that whole premise only works when we are looking specificallyt at NPCs killing PCs which is very rare. And you shoudl then admit that as a PC power it has no such meta level check.....

You see

But look as you have noted its not a topic you want to discus sand you will just get pissy so lets leave it eh...

Have I mentioned how much I hate henchmen :) .... (sorry trollign , trolling ...)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;514744That's pretty much the hallmark of AD&D, though. A lot of discrete subsystems, with no attempts to systematize them. (% chance disease, etc.) No notion that doing so is a good idea. (Compare thief % with non-weapon proficiencies.)

I prefer a game with systematic rules: subsystems that are integrated into the game as a whole, which are flexible enough to apply to several similar situations. (Hence my "Massive Damage" falling suggestion.)

But once you move away from "grab bag of unintegrated subsystems", you move towards 3e (or d20 Old School clones) and the whole discussion becomes moot.

I agree with that to a degree and certainly thief skills versus non-weapon is a glaring disonence.
But I don't really mind if there is one system for one sort of thing, say climbing, and something totally different for something unrelated say swimming. But if 2 things work in the same arena say combat related stuff and 1 is d20 target v AC and deal damage and one is % to kill ignore AC and Hitpoints etc then I find that difficult.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;514744"grab bag of unintegrated subsystems"

This right here is kind of the key to AD&D.  Each subsystem mechanically connects to other systems very rarely, if at all.  All of them, however, are meant to be integrated into the campaign as a whole, under the guidance and authority of the DM.  It's a different design goal even from parts of AD&D 2e, and worlds away from most games designed today.

When it comes to assassinating players, I usually put on the "Yeah, I burned your fucking barge" attitude. Obviously they did something to grab interest of an assassin powerful enough. And Raise Deads are ultrarare in my games.

(http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/I+_f6f70c76ba0026dce56f610ab02d3277.jpg)

Quote from: Benoist;514726This isn't one of them TO YOU.

I hate it when we're talking past each other like this. There's no point in continuing. And yes, I am super frustrated by these kinds of "discussions". Like I said, it's fine, I'm going to get over it in a matter of hours. Let's just call it quits and move on, please.

Fair enough. We shall move on... :)

Justin, thanks for clarifying the boardgame analogy, still can't agree but can understand your position better now. The following is something I feel I can more fruitfully respond to:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;514696I gave you the list of things Toughness was explicitly designed for. None of them were "20th level PCs". So, basically, you're still pursuing a strawman.

There's an excluded middle here. He's not complaining that Toughness should be a 20th level feat when it's explicitly designed for lower level PCs. He's saying it should be a feat that remains useful for your character as you advance. I think that's a pretty reasonable demand, and we've seen a reasonable way of answering it in Trollman's "Tomes of War" where feats scale with level, or even (hear hear) in 4E's version of Toughness where you get extra 5 hp per tier. There are many other scaling feats in 4th edition - the expertise and weapon focus feats e.g.

Scaling feats are much more elegant than to introduce a system where people will 'retrain' low level feat for high level feats (3.5 PH II), because that way you create feats bloat. So instead of

QuoteToughness (scaling): get 5 hp for every 5 PC levels

you get:

QuoteToughness (heroic): get 5hp.
Toughness (paragon): get 10 hp. Prerequisite: Toughness (heroic1) feat, which you retrain for Toughness (Paragon).

Or even worse? 3.5 PHB feat chains!

QuoteToughness (heroic): get 5hp.
Toughness (paragon): get 5 hp. Prerequisite: Toughness (heroic).
Toughness (wuxia): get 5 hp. Preqrequisite: Toughness (heroic) and Toughness (paragon).

I think a lot of dislike on this boards for feats is exactly that they came in bloat and chains. Get rid of that, and the game becomes manageable. Most of all, scaling feats manage a lot of character progression choices for you, which is a plus in a game that already abounds in such choices (feats, items, spells, prestige classes / feats, items, powers, paragon paths).

Quote from: CRKrueger;514764This right here is kind of the key to AD&D.  Each subsystem mechanically connects to other systems very rarely, if at all.  All of them, however, are meant to be integrated into the campaign as a whole, under the guidance and authority of the DM.  It's a different design goal even from parts of AD&D 2e, and worlds away from most games designed today.

Just wondering if you'd elaborate on this....like, how does 2E differ from 1E in this regard?
I don't quite get the "integrated into campaign as a whole" bit, either. All the rules are there to be used in the campaign, or they wouldn't be in the book at all?

Quote from: CRKrueger;514737Assassins are not so much a mechanic as a plot device.

I think this is the key to the conundrum right here.

Another reason to stick to BECMI/RC instead of bad, naughty, evil AD&D: Assassins are monsters, not a PC class. ;)

Quote from: Windjammer;514772Justin, thanks for clarifying the boardgame analogy, still can't agree but can understand your position better now. The following is something I feel I can more fruitfully respond to:

There's an excluded middle here. He's not complaining that Toughness should be a 20th level feat when it's explicitly designed for lower level PCs. He's saying it should be a feat that remains useful for your character as you advance. I think that's a pretty reasonable demand, and we've seen a reasonable way of answering it in Trollman's "Tomes of War" where feats scale with level, or even (hear hear) in 4E's version of Toughness where you get extra 5 hp per tier. There are many other scaling feats in 4th edition - the expertise and weapon focus feats e.g.

Scaling feats are much more elegant than to introduce a system where people will 'retrain' low level feat for high level feats (3.5 PH II), because that way you create feats bloat. So instead of
you get:

Or even worse? 3.5 PHB feat chains!

I think a lot of dislike on this boards for feats is exactly that they came in bloat and chains. Get rid of that, and the game becomes manageable. Most of all, scaling feats manage a lot of character progression choices for you, which is a plus in a game that already abounds in such choices (feats, items, spells, prestige classes / feats, items, powers, paragon paths).

I see your point totally (apart from items as progression choices ...yuk :) )
Where does this put weapons specialisation/mastery etc .

I am asking specifically because I am working on something that uses mastery of Weapon styles as way of giving PCs additional combat options.
So there are 5 ranks to each Weapon Style from Specialist up to Grand Master and all combat options, moves additional damage etc are driven by style master rather than weapon mastery or feats or anything.

Now in effect these are feat chains by another name, yes there is a degree of association as the feat chain seems to make sense you progress through mastery of the style so your damage bonus increases or you learn to disarm or pin opponents or whatever. But its still in effect a Feat chain.

Is it too 'featy' ?

Quote from: Windjammer;514772There's an excluded middle here. He's not complaining that Toughness should be a 20th level feat when it's explicitly designed for lower level PCs.

Which, like I said several posts ago, isn't something I would necessarily disagree with.

But he wants to insist that you should never have a feat that's most useful in one-shots; or most useful for monsters; or most useful for a particular build but weak in another; or most useful for (insert whatever conditions you'd like here).

And that's nonsense.

QuoteJustin, thanks for clarifying the boardgame analogy, still can't agree

I'd be very much interested in knowing why you can't agree that RPGs require scenarios in order to be played.

Quote from: CRKrueger;514764This right here is kind of the key to AD&D.  Each subsystem mechanically connects to other systems very rarely, if at all.

This is one of those things that people say all the time, but it's not actually true.

For example, let's look at the spying rules that were discussed earlier. They're pretty independent, but they nonetheless hook into both class level and the system for henchmen loyalty (which ultimately connects them back to ability scores, too).

I think one would be hard-pressed to find a system in AD&D which doesn't actually connect to other systems.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;514696I gave you the list of things Toughness was explicitly designed for. None of them were "20th level PCs". So, basically, you're still pursuing a strawman.

Woah... just having a conversation here. I am aware of what toughness is and is not useful for. But it's useful in maybe 3/10ths of a game where it will appear in every session (unlike orcs or orcus). And on top of that, no DM advice explicitly calling this out.

Vancian magic is narrow in its utility but it gets a pass because:
a)It works well in the context the game was made for (dungeons with wandering monsters).
b)The game's advice explicitly helps new players grok the above.
c)It adds something to the game (attrition, resource management) that many alternatives would not.

Toughness does not because:
a)The game does not end at level 6.
b)The game's advice does not warn you that toughness will not make your tough guy tough (it's for wizards more than tough guys).
c)Scaling versions of toughness work just as well at low levels as non-scaling versions.

QuoteI think we're basically saying the same thing.

In general, game designers agree that your useful range for difficulty is between 25% and 75%: 25% feels possible, but very difficult. 75% feels challenging, but satisfying. Get below that range and you get into "I can't possibly hit" frustration; go above it and everything feels like an automatic gimme.

At an 10 point differentiation there is a single DC you can set that lands you within that range for both ends of the differentiation. Anything beyond that and your DCs is going to land outside of the range for one or the other. (For example, at +0 and +9, you can set a DC 16 task and it will be 25% for the +0 and a 75% for the +9.)

At a 15 point differentiation, any target number you set which is within the "sweet spot" for the higher number will be unachievable by the low end. (For example, at +0 and +14 you can set a DC 21 task to give the +14 guy a 75% chance of success to hit the top end of his range. But that's unachievable for the guy at +0.)

So it's at +10 that the system starts to get very limited. At +15 it breaks for all practical purposes. At +20 it's completely broken.

I think this part of the discussion is most relevant to opposed checks and variants on opposed checks (attacks vs AC, spells vs saves). Outside of that the disparity can be chalked up to niche protection (it's the wizard and not the fighter brewing potions).

In my game I half bypass it a couple of ways. Firstly by an active defense mechanic (so you can hit things you "can't hit" by overwhelming them or surprising them). Secondly because every class has a trained attack (narrowing things a bit, so at least the category of your primary attack has only a 10 point range). Thirdly by having alternate solutions to things you save against (stances that negate status effects, plus disrupting caster concentration in a system where all duration spells are concentration spells).

I may eventually revisit the numbers though, maybe set a -3 to +3 range on ability modifiers, a +3 bonus for training, or both. Still pretty early in that project.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;514804Which, like I said several posts ago, isn't something I would necessarily disagree with.

But he wants to insist that you should never have a feat that's most useful in one-shots; or most useful for monsters; or most useful for a particular build but weak in another; or most useful for (insert whatever conditions you'd like here).

And that's nonsense.

Except that is not what I'm saying. As I said above, certain rules are only useful in specific situations. That's fine. As long as they're situations the game is made for, as long as the advice helps the players understand this, and as long as other rules wouldn't serve the same purpose better or serve the broader purpose with no loss (again, toughness doesn't lose it's usefulness in a one shot by having it scale).

Options that are better for one character or another are also fine. It has little to do with toughness, except in that an inexperienced player might take it to make their fighter tough. Really, I'd be happy with a game in which no character building choices (that are available to him or her) are totally useless, on the scale that toughness becomes totally useless. I'd like to wait until play starts for my players to start shooting themselves in the foot.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;514804This is one of those things that people say all the time, but it's not actually true.

For example, let's look at the spying rules that were discussed earlier. They're pretty independent, but they nonetheless hook into both class level and the system for henchmen loyalty (which ultimately connects them back to ability scores, too).

I think one would be hard-pressed to find a system in AD&D which doesn't actually connect to other systems.

I think you are taking that statement too literally. Sure the sub systems make use of the fundamental mechanics of the game but it's a one way relationship from the base mechanics to the subsystem that adds optional complexity.

E.g if the DM decides not to bother the Spying rules it has no impact on ability scores, class levels or henchman loyalty.

There are many such subsystems presented in the DMG and elsewhere which are very easy to opt in or out of with little or no impact on the 'core' game. Examples

• NPC personality tables
• Psionics!
• Building construction/dominion management
• City encounter tables
• Training rules