Choice Traps

The meme that some feats were traps is an old one, but it's weird that they single out a running feat here, and start talking about pillars. Especially so because the single most famous trap was toughness (a feat only useful to combat).

If anything, if all feats function in the same arena, they might become easier to optimize. Likewise, certain abilities (movement, perception, and stealth for example) function in two arenas (usually exploration and combat) simultaneously.

This one worries me a little.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

I like the idea of feats offering something to each "pillar". It means feats mean something and less feats. I would love to have LESS feats.

He's just now discovering something that all ex-GURPS/HERO/M&M players already know: point costs are bullshit because how valuable something is is entirely contextual.

Quote from: Marleycat;535844I like the idea of feats offering something to each "pillar". It means feats mean something and less feats. I would love to have LESS feats.

I liked the way feats de-bundled things myself. Like you could build your guy out of bricks as opposed to the whole house of a class (or the raw clay of point buy). I don't necessarily want all my power attackers to be intimidating for example, as I am a fan of quiet monks.

I think things should be useful when and where it makes sense for them to be useful. My freerunning rogue can bring that to both combat and exploration, but I don't want to stretch that and have some weird bundle of climbing-based social abilities.

Quote from: daniel_ream;535845He's just now discovering something that all ex-GURPS/HERO/M&M players already know: point costs are bullshit because how valuable something is is entirely contextual.

Ditto. It's like Rob's discovering role playing games. Better late than never, I guess.

I want feats to have meaning in the game world, to represent something about the character that matches up in the make-believe. I don't want purely gamey, mechanoid feats that don't add anything to the character.

Also, I want feats to enable role playing, and not raise barriers around it (i.e. "if you don't have that feat, you can't do it" or "you could try anyway but you'd be so poor at it you'd have to have the feat to be even remotely competent at this task" are shit ideas - don't do that).

I want feats to remain simple mechanically across the board. Please avoid the "exception bloat" that comes naturally from the piling of feats in a game system.

And most importantly, perhaps: I want to be able to disable feats completely from the game, and not even have to say the word "feat" while playing D&D.

Quote from: daniel_ream;535845He's just now discovering something that all ex-GURPS/HERO/M&M players already know: point costs are bullshit because how valuable something is is entirely contextual.

I sort of like the idea of pillars in principle. The idea is that you consider the "balance" of a bit of rules in the context it will actually find use in (so social options can be on par with other social options, without even worrying about combat). The idea that you need something in every context on a feat-by-feat basis bugs me though. Both because you can easily hit all those notes in the long form of a class and because antisocial characters and noncombatants are both interesting conceptually.

Quote from: beejazz;535846I liked the way feats de-bundled things myself. Like you could build your guy out of bricks as opposed to the whole house of a class (or the raw clay of point buy). I don't necessarily want all my power attackers to be intimidating for example, as I am a fan of quiet monks.

I think things should be useful when and where it makes sense for them to be useful. My freerunning rogue can bring that to both combat and exploration, but I don't want to stretch that and have some weird bundle of climbing-based social abilities.

I can understand that but if we must have feats make them worth it and don't require me to have 15 of them that give me +2 to this or that. I also would just love it if the game required less feats overall. Roll alot of them up into your class or theme or background or race or anything really if they're just going to be similar to 3/4e style.

Also I agree with Ben I would like a way for it to be possible to run a game without feats (I wouldn't but it needs to an option).

Quote from: beejazz;535838What are your thoughts on the subject?

:banghead:

Quote from: Benoist;535847It's like Rob's discovering role playing games.

Who the fuck are these people?!

"Power Attack, for example, could give you a combat boost, an edge when you’re trying to intimidate a prisoner, and a bonus to hack down doors. This works for Power Attack just fine. Alertness might give you a boost to sense when someone’s lying, a boost to perception, and a boost to initiative checks. OK. This could work."

Or, y'know, you could simply make chargen rules designed to produce people instead of fantasy special forces teams built around wire-thin niches.

"The problem is that feats swell in size, which means we’d likely do fewer of them. Doing fewer of them means fewer choices and also incentivizes us to deliver them less frequently."

Yes, numbnuts, it says that churning out pages and pages and pages of bolt-ons for superheroes is A Losing Proposition.

Quote from: beejazz;535838The meme that some feats were traps is an old one, but it's weird that they single out a running feat here, and start talking about pillars. Especially so because the single most famous trap was toughness (a feat only useful to combat).

I have to agree.

The core concept he's driving at here (separating combat, exploration, and roleplaying into different mechanical pools) is not a bad idea. It's certainly superior than where similar thinking took 4E (combat is the only context that matters).

But it appears to be getting conceptually muddled with the very different issues of Choice vs. Calculation and the faulty meme of "trap feats" and "system mastery is bad".

(The reality is that system mastery is inevitable if your system allows for meaningful choice and doesn't just play itself. And "trap feats" are either just badly designed feats or are only faulty if you're building a character for a context that your DM's railroad isn't going to support.)

Furthermore, there are mechanical pitfalls in trying to enforce a firm separation. (For example, the logical conclusion from this article would be that skill use should never be allowed in combat. And that's stupid.)

I think I've missed something in these articles; "roleplaying" as a pillar, distinct from combat and exploration?

I don't think you can make a character "roleplayable" by giving them some incidental bonuses; if the player wants to roleplay them, then they will, and they don't they won't... a few points here and there won't change anything.

I could accept "world immersion", though... items that cement your character's place in the game world, and help show what they do when they aren't adventuring. I don't think "cut to the combat-relevant stuff and p42 the rest", like 4E, is inherently a bad design scheme, but it does limit the potential for adventures for your group and removes ways to show how your character was able to survive long enough to become a PC.

Quote from: Ladybird;535873I think I've missed something in these articles; "roleplaying" as a pillar, distinct from combat and exploration?

I don't think you can make a character "roleplayable" by giving them some incidental bonuses; if the player wants to roleplay them, then they will, and they don't they won't... a few points here and there won't change anything.

I could accept "world immersion", though... items that cement your character's place in the game world, and help show what they do when they aren't adventuring. I don't think "cut to the combat-relevant stuff and p42 the rest", like 4E, is inherently a bad design scheme, but it does limit the potential for adventures for your group and removes ways to show how your character was able to survive long enough to become a PC.

"Roleplaying" as a word often gets used as a stand in for social interaction.

Quote from: beejazz;535838The meme that some feats were traps is an old one, but it's weird that they single out a running feat here, and start talking about pillars. Especially so because the single most famous trap was toughness (a feat only useful to combat).

Re. Toughness: while Toughness has a measureable effect on combat, you could argue that some people try to use it as a roleplaying feat "I take Toughness because I'm tough" ?

I liked the article, overall: they're at least thinking beyond "well, all feats should have combat uses only". Whether they'll find a workable answer to the question I don't know. The "it does three things at once" idea I find interesting but I'm not sure what he means here, exactly; I would like it if most feats have fluff/flavour text but I don't necessarily want every feat to have an attached social skills bonus like in his Power Attack/Crushing Doors/Intimidate bonus example.

i.e. I think designing feats so that they all help you 'win' interpersonal relations the same way they help you win battles is weird; I don't think roleplaying works that way.

Toughness is a worthwhile feat if you are playing a one-shot at a convention and you are a 1st level Wizard.

What I would like to see is an option for "retraining" feats. So if you did pick a subpar choice you wouldn't be stuck with it forever.

Quote from: marleycat;535898what i would like to see is an option for "retraining" feats. So if you did pick a subpar choice you wouldn't be stuck with it forever.

noooooooooooooooo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!