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.