Not really.
For me, the magic of roleplaying dies just a little whenever that sort of thing becomes acceptable lingo for tabletop RPGs.
I am glad that the tide is turning ever so slightly against it.
If someone came to the table with that concept, I'd beat them with a rule book.
Of course, I don't know if we game they way most people do. We spend a lot of time on character ideas and backstory, more than we actually game I think.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;737554If someone came to the table with that concept, I'd beat them with a rule book.
Don't worry, those people don't actually go to game tables. They sit at home alone pouring over books looking for combos to brag about with people like them on online forums.
Well, you have to get +10 to croissants by second level or don't even bother trying.
One time I tried to play a Voodoo Priestess who was bitten by a Vampire. Her spells were based on "the spirits" being in her control and doing things for her.
Cool concept I thought, just didn't have enough points to make it work. The Vampire part was a step too far for the points I had.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;737554We spend a lot of time on character ideas and backstory, more than we actually game I think.
That's even worse.
I hate builds. I admit it.
I came to realize just how much when a player in a 3.5 game I foolishly gm'd had a Chaos Monk with feats to let him essentially cheat.
Sad thing is that the game itself went well, but two of the players were so obsessed with their 'builds' it drained my life force.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;737557Don't worry, those people don't actually go to game tables. They sit at home alone pouring over books looking for combos to brag about with people like them on online forums.
No doubt. Which is why RPG designers should utterly ignore their demands, criticisms, and bleatings.
I am OK actually with a modicum of "character optimization" within certain systems. Our Vampire: the Requiem coterie has a hacker/snoop (me), an assassin, a witch and a face. A certain degree of optimization goes into each character the better to certify each can perform the role the player chose; it can be as banal as buying a skill dot in Computer instead of Firearms for my character, or as involved as the assassin's carefully constructed synergy of skills, disciplines and Theban Sorcery rites that nets him 15 dice on a regular melee attack.
What really grinds my gears is when this becomes the sole focus of the game, and/or when players start whining about "balance" and complain about asymmetries that I feel should be present in a lifelike world that's not divided into level-tiered zones like a post-Everquest MMO. I am not a jerk GM who sets PCs up for failure, but also respect them enough not to stop them when they rush towards it.
Quote from: The Butcher;737671I am OK actually with a modicum of "character optimization" within certain systems. Our Vampire: the Requiem coterie has a hacker/snoop (me), an assassin, a witch and a face. A certain degree of optimization goes into each character the better to certify each can perform the role the player chose; it can be as banal as buying a skill dot in Computer instead of Firearms for my character, or as involved as the assassin's carefully constructed synergy of skills, disciplines and Theban Sorcery rites that nets him 15 dice on a regular melee attack.
What really grinds my gears is when this becomes the sole focus of the game, and/or when players start whining about "balance" and complain about asymmetries that I feel should be present in a lifelike world that's not divided into level-tiered zones like a post-Everquest MMO. I am not a jerk GM who sets PCs up for failure, but also respect them enough not to stop them when they rush towards it.
'Balance' and 'Vampire' .....not gonna happen :)
Quote from: The Butcher;737671I am OK actually with a modicum of "character optimization" within certain systems. Our Vampire: the Requiem coterie has a hacker/snoop (me), an assassin, a witch and a face. A certain degree of optimization goes into each character the better to certify each can perform the role the player chose; it can be as banal as buying a skill dot in Computer instead of Firearms for my character, or as involved as the assassin's carefully constructed synergy of skills, disciplines and Theban Sorcery rites that nets him 15 dice on a regular melee attack.
What really grinds my gears is when this becomes the sole focus of the game, and/or when players start whining about "balance" and complain about asymmetries that I feel should be present in a lifelike world that's not divided into level-tiered zones like a post-Everquest MMO. I am not a jerk GM who sets PCs up for failure, but also respect them enough not to stop them when they rush towards it.
Agreed. I think there's a big difference between tailoring your character because you came up with a neat character concept for a campaign and you want to try to make them competent at the things they ought to be competent at on the one hand, and on the other hand trying to crunch out an optimal build and having the character concept as a secondary consideration after you've min-maxed to the hilt.
PLAYER: "Help Me With An Archer Dual-Wielding Trident Wizard Thief Angsty Pastry Cook Build"
ME: Sure thing, Cupcake. Roll 3d6 in order six times.
Quote from: Old Geezer;737681PLAYER: "Help Me With An Archer Dual-Wielding Trident Wizard Thief Angsty Pastry Cook Build"
ME: Sure thing, Cupcake. Roll 3d6 in order six times.
But how will he have 18/00 strength and Psionics if you do that?
Quote from: Bill;737684But how will he have 18/00 strength and Psionics if you do that?
You begin to see wisdom, Ed Gruberman.
Quote from: Old Geezer;737686You begin to see wisdom, Ed Gruberman.
I had a player once that actually claimed he rolled an 18/00 strength on his new character....after the last character he had also rolled an 18/00 strength.
Bold fellow. Must be because he was in the air force.
Quote from: Bill;737688I had a player once that actually claimed he rolled an 18/00 strength on his new character....after the last character he had also rolled an 18/00 strength.
Bold fellow. Must be because he was in the air force.
I never did have two PCs in a row with that. But in the mid 90s, I did have a PC with 18/00 strength and I also rolled for psionics and got it. I swear, no joke. Totally legit.
And I never played him once. Never got around to it.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;737691I never did have two PCs in a row with that. But in the mid 90s, I did have a PC with 18/00 strength and I also rolled for psionics and got it. I swear, no joke. Totally legit.
And I never played him once. Never got around to it.
Should have played him. He was a God, after all :)
Quote from: Bill;737704Should have played him. He was a God, after all :)
I would be lying if I didn't, to this day, think it was a waste. ;)
It's not like I'll ever roll that lucky ever again, unless I make 10,000 more PCs. No thanks.
It just seems to defeat the purpose when you spend more time gaming the system than playing the game.
OHT, you are such a noob. Everyone knows that's a core class in the new Pathfinder Extra Advanced Special Snowflake Player's Handbook 4.
However, I am absolutely going to make a Wizard Thief / Angry Pastry Chef as a 5e character.
Quote from: Spinachcat;737715OHT, you are such a noob. Everyone knows that's a core class in the new Pathfinder Extra Advanced Special Snowflake Player's Handbook 4.
However, I am absolutely going to make a Wizard Thief / Angry Pastry Chef as a 5e character.
Make it an ogre who throws tarts, real ones found on streetcorners that scream when thrown.
i'm wondering if the OP is actually a possible build in 3.x. . . should drag out the stack of those books & splats and see how far it i can make it ;)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;737691I never did have two PCs in a row with that. But in the mid 90s, I did have a PC with 18/00 strength and I also rolled for psionics and got it. I swear, no joke. Totally legit.
And I never played him once. Never got around to it.
At my very first chargen session for ad&d, when i was about 13, we were rolling characters. As a veteran basic d&d DM, i was puzzled by all these little odds & sods that went into making a character.
With the DM hovering over my shoulder, i boldly decided to choose fighter as my class. I boldly rolled 4d6 and dropped the worst and arranged them. Hurrah! I had 18 Strength! Roll a d100 says the DM. Bruh? Said i. He hands me 2 d10 and tells me to roll them. I roll them...
Being a total ad&d noob, i goes, "Shit, i got nothing!"
DM - "What do you mean?"
Me - "I rolled zero."
DM looking at dice - "Fucking jammy git, you've just rolled 100."
Me - "Bruh?"
My very first character had 18 (00) strength. I haven't, to the best of my knowledge ever had a meaningful character have any stat of 18 since then. I've had loads of 17s and 16s, but i can't recall a campaign where i've had an 18 since the first one.
The arsehole died at 2nd level. What a waste. :rolleyes:
Quote from: jeff37923;737713It just seems to defeat the purpose when you spend more time gaming the system than playing the game.
Ding!
Quote from: Black Vulmea;737644That's even worse.
Not really. Our schedules are all very different so we only game Once a week, so we talk on the phone during the week to get things ready.
I dont mind dual classing humans. Fighter/Magic user? go for it.
But the second you allow humans to multiclass willy-nilly you swing wide the floodgates of potential trouble.
Unless the system is built to handle it. Or you are willing to tinker the system to handle it. Dont.
AD&D at least keeps it in check in that you cannot advance each class at the same time equally and cannot wear armour in the way the demi-humans can.
At low levels it can get a liiitle broken. This from my old notes on an index card kept in the PHB to figure out what was needed to have a starting bard.
Fighter/Thief level 5/5 = 21k exp. A single class character will be level 5. (The MU is about to hit level 5. The thief will be level 6.
Fighter/Magic-User level 5/5 = 40k exp. A single class character will be level 6 and sometimes about 1/2 way to level 7.
Fighter/Magic-User/Thief level 5/5/5 = 53k exp. A single class character will be level 6 and usually close to level 7. The thief will be level 7.
Fighter/Magic-User/Thief/Cleric level 5/5/5/5 = 66k exp. A single class character will be level 7. Some at least 1/2 to level 8.
Note that you would need really good stats to pull off the F/M/T/C combo
Quote from: Haffrung;737669No doubt. Which is why RPG designers should utterly ignore their demands, criticisms, and bleatings.
I have learned as a designer that there are two kinds of comments you get from people who've read/played your games.
The first are the ones who actually played/want-to-play it. They are almost always purely practical questions: how do I do this, where is this in the book, this seems to be missing, could you give me an example of how this is supposed to work, etc.
The second are the ones who just want to play 'theorycraft.'
Interestingly, I find certain kinds of designs attract one more than the other.
Quote from: One Horse Town;737722The arsehole died at 2nd level. What a waste. :rolleyes:
That's the thing being addressed in another thread: with RPG design based around there being no real risk in combat, it actually makes sense to plan out 30 levels of your character: you know he's going to make it.
"Way back when", nobody said while they were rolling up their 1st level character, "when I'm 15th level, my wizard will have..." because that just wasn't the game. You couldn't predict your spells (which you choose and get for free now), you couldn't make your magic items, and you didn't have clerics healing for 20 hp a round while fighting monsters that hit for 8 hp a round.
Things have changed. I actually broke out Dungeon! a few months back, to play with a friend's 10 year old. The combat system was "so brutal" that we had to change the rules to make it gentler, because the kid refused to play a second game otherwise. I don't even remember having an issue with the system back then (each combat gives something like a 1.5% chance of your character dying).
Eh, today's games are still fun.
Quote from: J Arcane;737769I have learned as a designer that there are two kinds of comments you get from people who've read/played your games.
The first are the ones who actually played/want-to-play it. They are almost always purely practical questions: how do I do this, where is this in the book, this seems to be missing, could you give me an example of how this is supposed to work, etc.
The second are the ones who just want to play 'theorycraft.'
Interestingly, I find certain kinds of designs attract one more than the other.
There is a third type. The remote harassment type as someone once termed it. They bitch about a class being over powered. When in fact it is not. With the intent to get the class nerfed. So as to inconvenience anyone who was playing that class. Rare, but seen it on forums.
Quote from: jeff37923;737713It just seems to defeat the purpose when you spend more time gaming the system than playing the game.
WotC has made a bajillion dollars selling a game whose players spend more time gaming the system than playing the game. Which is fine for M:tG. Unfortunately, D&D is owned by the same company, and its designers thought they could make their own bajillion dollars designing a game for the same friendless ubergeeks working out optimal builds at home on a Saturday night.
Quote from: J Arcane;737769I have learned as a designer that there are two kinds of comments you get from people who've read/played your games.
The first are the ones who actually played/want-to-play it. They are almost always purely practical questions: how do I do this, where is this in the book, this seems to be missing, could you give me an example of how this is supposed to work, etc.
The second are the ones who just want to play 'theorycraft.'
Interestingly, I find certain kinds of designs attract one more than the other.
Just look at Burning Wheel. Nobody actually plays that game, do they?
Quote from: One Horse Town;737552For me, the magic of roleplaying dies just a little whenever that sort of thing becomes acceptable lingo for tabletop RPGs.
This is why I do not care for 3.x. I mean, it can happen in other games, but it really seems to hit an all-time high in 3.x. And I ran GURPS for over a decade.
Quote from: Bill;737668I hate builds. I admit it.
Preach on, brother.
Okay, I can understand customization. That's cool. But "builds" to me has a connotation of "eking the most out of the system that I can", and I have zero interest in that.
Quote from: Old Geezer;737681PLAYER: "Help Me With An Archer Dual-Wielding Trident Wizard Thief Angsty Pastry Cook Build"
ME: Sure thing, Cupcake. Roll 3d6 in order six times.
Fuck, yeah. So say we all. And whatever other agreement you want.
Quote from: jeff37923;737713It just seems to defeat the purpose when you spend more time gaming the system than playing the game.
I like the gaming to happen at the table. I don't like games where what happens at the table is secondary to what happens at home with a spreadsheet.
Quote from: Omega;737779There is a third type. The remote harassment type as someone once termed it. They bitch about a class being over powered. When in fact it is not. With the intent to get the class nerfed. So as to inconvenience anyone who was playing that class. Rare, but seen it on forums.
Coming from the MMO dev world, there was definitely a category of forum poster that was more interested in "winning the forum" than playing the game. There was this weird other community that was based around the official forums, where 'success' ended up being defined as being influential on the forums, regardless of what happened in the actual game.
Quote from: J Arcane;737769I have learned as a designer that there are two kinds of comments you get from people who've read/played your games.
The first are the ones who actually played/want-to-play it. They are almost always purely practical questions: how do I do this, where is this in the book, this seems to be missing, could you give me an example of how this is supposed to work, etc.
The second are the ones who just want to play 'theorycraft.'
Interestingly, I find certain kinds of designs attract one more than the other.
Long ago, the late Redmond Simonson commented that SPI had found that there were two groups of people who bought their games; one group wanted the historical data and design notes, the other group wanted a game that was fun to play. He further elaborated that it was virtually impossible to please both groups with the same game.
Quote from: Haffrung;737785Just look at Burning Wheel. Nobody actually plays that game, do they?
I've talked to some people that do.
I've tried to, but the rules just never came together. It just never felt like a cohesive system to me, more like a bunch of house rules thrown on top of Shadowrun. It's weird - I don't think you can actually really learn to play it from the rules. I think there's some assumptions in how to play that just don't really show up anywhere in the books.
I've done a PbP of MouseGuard, and think it's a much, much better system than BW.
BW is probably the game where I know the most people that profess to love it that have never actually played it.
Quote from: Old Geezer;737793Long ago, the late Redmond Simonson commented that SPI had found that there were two groups of people who bought their games; one group wanted the historical data and design notes, the other group wanted a game that was fun to play. He further elaborated that it was virtually impossible to please both groups with the same game.
Truth. Wargames have largely gone the way of 'fun to play', but old Richard Berg is still doggedly publishing games that are meant to be read, set up, played solitaire for a few hours, than put back on the shelf. Of course, they're junk as playable head-to-head games. But they sell by the thousands, because half of wargamers are either solo players or strictly collectors.
Quote from: Haffrung;737795Truth. Wargames have largely gone the way of 'fun to play', but old Richard Berg is still doggedly publishing games that are meant to be read, set up, played solitaire for a few hours, than put back on the shelf. Of course, they're junk as playable head-to-head games. But they sell by the thousands, because half of wargamers are either solo players or strictly collectors.
A dear, dear friend of mine is both a collector and avid wargamer-with-others, but he acknowledges that some of his games are for playing with others, and some of his games are purely for his own edification and amusement.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;737734Our schedules are all very different so we only game Once a week, so we talk on the phone during the week to get things ready.
What exactly does "get things ready" mean? What things?
Risus:
Ironic Illusionist (3), Stylish Retiarius (2), Trick-shot Archer (2), Flamboyant Thief (2), Angsty Pastry Baker (1)
Quote from: Haffrung;737795Truth. Wargames have largely gone the way of 'fun to play',
Not a wargamer, but I am honestly confused by this, because it...
Quotebut old Richard Berg is still doggedly publishing games that are meant to be read, set up, played solitaire for a few hours, than put back on the shelf. Of course, they're junk as playable head-to-head games. But they sell by the thousands, because half of wargamers are either solo players or strictly collectors.
...sounds like those people do find that fun, and spend accordingly.
Is it for everyone (Or even for me), no, but that's fine, not everything needs to be for the same audience.
Quote from: Ladybird;738554Not a wargamer, but I am honestly confused by this, because it...
...sounds like those people do find that fun, and spend accordingly.
Is it for everyone (Or even for me), no, but that's fine, not everything needs to be for the same audience.
Some publishers want both. Which can exclude the far ends of the interest spectrum. Or it just doesnt appeal, feel right, etc. Some wargamers despise Risk. Some like it. Very much a YMMV sort of thing.
Simmilar to how some view "do anything" sort of RPGs like RIFTS, GURPS, etc. Some love the aspect. Others want a game focused.
Quote from: robiswrong;737786I like the gaming to happen at the table. I don't like games where what happens at the table is secondary to what happens at home with a spreadsheet.
I know at least two players that bring spreadsheets to the game table :)
Not my cup of tea, but I do try to put all needed info on my charcater sheet when possible.
Just say no to Spreadsheets!!!
Quote from: Ladybird;738554Not a wargamer, but I am honestly confused by this, because it...
...sounds like those people do find that fun, and spend accordingly.
Is it for everyone (Or even for me), no, but that's fine, not everything needs to be for the same audience.
Okay: "fun to play against an opponent."
Wargamers have at least admitted, tentatively, that yes, there are a lot of people who play solo and their hobby is about playing with the system and situations, rather than face-to-face gameplay. The RPG hobby has not openly faced that reality, besides the occasional admission by Paizo that their Adventure Paths have to read well because a lot of buyers use them just as reading material.
Quote from: One Horse Town;737722I haven't, to the best of my knowledge ever had a meaningful character have any stat of 18 since then. I've had loads of 17s and 16s, but i can't recall a campaign where i've had an 18 since the first one.
An 18 on 3 dice is 1/216, or an average of 1 per 36 characters with 6 rolls each. It's more common with best 3 of 4 dice.
So, you might be unusually unlucky in that respect.
Quote from: Phillip;738562An 18 on 3 dice is 1/216, or an average of 1 per 36 characters with 6 rolls each. It's more common with best 3 of 4 dice.
So, you might be unusually unlucky in that respect.
Not really. By meaningful campaign, i mean one that has run for a couple years or so. Probably had about 12 characters by that metric.
Quote from: jeff37923;737713It just seems to defeat the purpose when you spend more time gaming the system than playing the game.
In what game have you seen that? Even a one-session Champions game is in my experience likely to have the opposite ratio by at least 4:1.
Quote from: Phillip;738565In what game have you seen that? Even a one-session Champions game is in my experience likely to have the opposite ratio by at least 4:1.
Watch as a Champions character uses his megascale 1 kilometer radius area of effect Speed transfer make 12 actions a round while anyone nearby gets 1.
He can perform mechanical actions constantly and shut down that annoying roleplay.
But yes, I hate it when mechanics jump in the way of roleplay.
Quote from: Omega;738556Some publishers want both. Which can exclude the far ends of the interest spectrum. Or it just doesnt appeal, feel right, etc. Some wargamers despise Risk. Some like it. Very much a YMMV sort of thing.
Simmilar to how some view "do anything" sort of RPGs like RIFTS, GURPS, etc. Some love the aspect. Others want a game focused.
Well, that's fine; it sounds like a temporary phase that a market will go through, until someone realizes "hey, the middle is well-served, let's go make a profit at the edges"... like the recent video game kickstarters for space games, adventure games, or role-playing games that no big publisher would take a risk on. And it sounds like someone has came to that realization, and started capitalizing on it.
Quote from: Haffrung;738560Wargamers have at least admitted, tentatively, that yes, there are a lot of people who play solo and their hobby is about playing with the system and situations, rather than face-to-face gameplay. The RPG hobby has not openly faced that reality, besides the occasional admission by Paizo that their Adventure Paths have to read well because a lot of buyers use them just as reading material.
Major publishers follow the money, it's how they become major publishers. But really, it's not like there isn't plenty of
other gaming material available at the moment to cater to other tastes; the we're-not-into-Pathfinder market is being served, we're in a golden age of available gaming material and it can only get even better from here. It's only really a problem if you expect your niche to be the important one
just because; there are games available to fill pretty much any taste, and in my opinion, that's better than a hobby where the only material available is for a few select types of game.
I posted a Risus write-up of the target build earlier: quick and simple.
The Fantasy Trip is quite a bit fancier, but someone who plays it a lot might be able to toss off most, even all, of something so "unusual" from memory, taking but a few more words than the Risus example.
Marvel Super Heroes ("FASERIP" system) is in the same league for modeling a character concept, especially with the Gamer's Handbook of the Marvel Universe at hand to provide plenty of examples.
Quote from: Phillip;738562An 18 on 3 dice is 1/216, or an average of 1 per 36 characters with 6 rolls each. It's more common with best 3 of 4 dice.
So, you might be unusually unlucky in that respect.
Technically, you're asking "what the likelihood of getting 6 rolls that aren't 18". Which ends up being 215/216^6, which calcs out to about 97.25%, so about a 2.75% chance of getting at least one 18.
Slightly worse than 1 in 36, but not by much ;)
Quote from: robiswrong;738586Technically, you're asking...
Not really, but if you're really interested then you're clearly smart enough to figure it out for yourself. You've got the basic algorithm for answering a smaller question than what I would be asking if I were indeed asking a question anywhere in that domain; just expand it, now that you have the actually relevant datum of 12 sets of 6 rolls (which is to say, 72 rolls in total).
Quote from: Ladybird;738570Major publishers follow the money, it's how they become major publishers. But really, it's not like there isn't plenty of other gaming material available at the moment to cater to other tastes; the we're-not-into-Pathfinder market is being served, we're in a golden age of available gaming material and it can only get even better from here. It's only really a problem if you expect your niche to be the important one just because; there are games available to fill pretty much any taste, and in my opinion, that's better than a hobby where the only material available is for a few select types of game.
I don't expect my niche to be the important one. However, I do expect publishers to recognize who they're targeting their product at, and to ensure they cater to that type of player, rather than the other.
So for D&D, stop listening to the char op and lonely system wanks, and listen to the people who actually play the game face to face. Thankfully, it seems WotC has finally recognize the folly of designing a system for soloists, and are targeting Next at people who prefer playing the game to playing with the system. Because if the hobby's portal game is a solitary system-wank, the hobby is doomed. Or rather, it's doomed to become about books individuals read, rather than games groups play.
Quote from: Bill;737668I hate builds. I admit it.
I came to realize just how much when a player in a 3.5 game I foolishly gm'd had a Chaos Monk with feats to let him essentially cheat.
Sad thing is that the game itself went well, but two of the players were so obsessed with their 'builds' it drained my life force.
This (and having to build NPCs to keep up with them) is why I'll never play or run 3.5 or PF again, and have reservations about 4e.
Quote from: J Arcane;737769I have learned as a designer that there are two kinds of comments you get from people who've read/played your games.
The first are the ones who actually played/want-to-play it. They are almost always purely practical questions: how do I do this, where is this in the book, this seems to be missing, could you give me an example of how this is supposed to work, etc.
The second are the ones who just want to play 'theorycraft.'
Interestingly, I find certain kinds of designs attract one more than the other.
I'd be interested to hear you elaborate upon your findings.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;738518What exactly does "get things ready" mean? What things?
History, goals, the biggest gun I can strap on without being considered military equipment.
Ya know, stuff.
We aren't the sit down and throw together a sheet kind of folks.
Quote from: Haffrung;738593I don't expect my niche to be the important one. However, I do expect publishers to recognize who they're targeting their product at, and to ensure they cater to that type of player, rather than the other.
Every publisher targets the same niche; "people who will buy our stuff". That's the key, the secret.
QuoteSo for D&D, stop listening to the char op and lonely system wanks, and listen to the people who actually play the game face to face. Thankfully, it seems WotC has finally recognize the folly of designing a system for soloists, and are targeting Next at people who prefer playing the game to playing with the system. Because if the hobby's portal game is a solitary system-wank, the hobby is doomed. Or rather, it's doomed to become about books individuals read, rather than games groups play.
Firstly, the CharOp folks are playing the game. CharOp and Roleplaying aren't mutually contradictory; people do both, and they are very, very unlikely to be buying the books just to find rules exploits in them. But if you have a system, any system, there will be people who will optimize it simply because they can and it exists. That's a given; that's never going to change.
Secondly, WotC are of the belief that system material sells better than fluff (Based on their years of analysis and experience in selling roleplaying books). Want more of the stuff you like? Then buy it when it's released.
Quote from: LibraryLass;738608I'd be interested to hear you elaborate upon your findings.
My sample size is, of course, small, and thus doesn't really qualify as anything but anecdotal really.
I have released 4 complete games into the wild, either free, or commercially. Each of these is a bit different type of game more or less, and each has gotten different reader feedback. (There's reviews of three of them two, but I don't put much stock in them as game design feedback usually.)
Drums of War is a tabletop version of World of Warcraft. Literally. It started out as a college game theory project, and turned into what is basically a pretty short but quite playable and fun adaptation of the WoW mechanics, with some accidental resemblance to a kind of "4e-lite" because of the shared emulation target.
Hulks and Horrors is a pure old-school game, more or less my rebuild of B/X with SF trappings. There's some important differences, but by and large it is unapologetically old-school. It follows the "if it's stupid, but it works, it ain't stupid" philosophy to a tee. Arcana Rising took that system, adapted it to urban fantasy D&D, with a few modernizations and a slightly more ordered approach to the design.
The difference in the feedback I got from actual readers between the two is stark.
The most enthusiastic responses I got about Drums was all about numbers. One guy had actually sat down and crunched all the possible maximum stat lines. Another, or possibly the same guy, was in the process of going through each class line-by-line to check how 'balanced' the class powers were. Yet another had a lot of grief over the inconsistency in which powers scaled by level, and how. There was inevitable discussion over the class balance.
Not a one of them ever actually ran it, that I'm aware. There was a lot of tinker, a lot of rules rabbi-ing, and a lot of grousing about the balance or the numbers, but basically nothing practical. I found this particularly telling because as the designer, I knew full well where the flaws were in terms of actual play, and nobody ever seemed to complain about those.
H&H and AR on the other hand? The vast majority of the feedback I get is 'I ran this and this is what happened.' 'Here's this cool thing I made with it.' 'I can't quite figure out how the process goes for generating this, can you help?' 'I wish there were more examples of how to use this generator.'
IOW, play response. Response that tells me that the person commenting is actually trying to engage with the game as a thing to be played with. The stuff that is about the rules isn't about the rules being some thing unto themselves, but how the rules are used in play. The stuff they comment on where things are weaker, are often stuff I've noticed, because the first thing I do with my games is start prepping to run them. Arcana Rising got some comments on how there weren't enough examples on how to put together the generator results to build adventures and campaigns, and I pretty much agree. I tried to do my best with the GM's chapter to explain it on a high concept level, but more practical examples would've been better, I was just out of time and tired and had a deadline to meet.
What all this means? I dunno. It would seem to point to the idea that build-heavy design attracts like players, and said player culture does lean towards the GamingDen approach.
On a practical level though, I just wasn't interested at all in dealing with that culture. Hell, the irony is that the culture in WoW is part of what drove me to make Drums of War in the first place. I wanted to actually roleplay in Azeroth, and the rules of WoW and the culture of WoW got in the way of that in a way a tabletop game doesn't have to.
But instead I started getting a lot of feedback from people who saw the tabletop version I'd made in the same way they saw WoW: a machine that they needed to punch buttons on in the right order to get carrots. And so their interest largely seemed to be in 'how do I work this in order to get the most carrots with the least effort.' Which, much as in real world economic systems, gets further extended to 'which assholes are getting their carrots for less effort than me' ...
Which might be interesting to someone else, but sure as hell isn't to me. So I stopped development of Drums of War, and took a left turn to OSRville, and I found the culture far more inviting when it came to actual play.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;737557Don't worry, those people don't actually go to game tables. They sit at home alone pouring over books looking for combos to brag about with people like them on online forums.
Three of the eight people in my last PF game group were exactly that, so no, the "these people never actually play" argument isn't actually true. By second-hand anecdotal evidence, the local PFS organized play is full of these people as well.
Quote from: J Arcane;738623M
But instead I started getting a lot of feedback from people who saw the tabletop version I'd made in the same way they saw WoW: a machine that they needed to punch buttons on in the right order to get carrots. And so their interest largely seemed to be in 'how do I work this in order to get the most carrots with the least effort.' Which, much as in real world economic systems, gets further extended to 'which assholes are getting their carrots for less effort than me' ...
...wow.
That explains why whenever I suggest "Blizzard should just sell Level 80 characters for people who like end game and keep the other levels interesting for people who like other stuff" I get my ass toasted.
Quote from: Ladybird;738622WotC are of the belief that system material sells better than fluff (Based on their years of analysis and experience in selling roleplaying books).
Same for SJGames. That's why they made all those crunchy hardcovers of rules, and the big setting books they used to be famous for are now short pdfs, if published at all.
It's not really my thing. The systems where you plan your character's career like a pair of helicopter parents knowing which college their kid will stay at in university when they're still in the womb - seems a bit tedious to me.
Plus, you put all that detail into your character and it rarely comes up in play. So instead you just optimise them, then the DM nerfs their abilities with the foes they meet. You know how in crappy adventures you pick up an innocuous-looking dagger that is the only thing that can kill the big bad monster at the end? Like that, except NPCs have the dagger for your character, and they somehow knew to have that.
It's the 11 Orcs Problem - if your fighter can kill 10 orcs before succumbing, your fighter will always encounter 11 orcs. So there's no sense building your character in excruciating detail to be able to kill 10 orcs, just do whatever you like, the DM's going to nerf it in play anyway.
The Archer Dual-Wielding Trident Wizard Thief would be met by a foe which can only be hit by blunt weapons and lives in an anti-magic shell and can break one of the character's arms.
So even if you're a munchkin you may as well just roll the guy up anyway. No point struggling to get an advantage the DM will just nerf. That's nothing inherent in DMs, it's just if you get into that sort of play, the DM will, too. AN Archer Dual-Wielding Trident Wizard Thief will create an atmosphere of "fuck you."
That's close to a PC I recently encountered. I wish such characters were a joke. But no, they're actually used.
Quote from: Old Geezer;738699...wow.
That explains why whenever I suggest "Blizzard should just sell Level 80 characters for people who like end game and keep the other levels interesting for people who like other stuff" I get my ass toasted.
You're getting the last laugh, though.
This is a thing now, or will be when the new expansion (Warlords of Draenor) hits: you can buy a "character upgrade" that takes you straight to level 90 here (https://us.battle.net/shop/en/product/world-of-warcraft-service-character-boost).
I don't really see the point, since I enjoy leveling and mucking around, but there it is.
Quote from: Old Geezer;738699...wow.
That explains why whenever I suggest "Blizzard should just sell Level 80 characters for people who like end game and keep the other levels interesting for people who like other stuff" I get my ass toasted.
Oh it goes farther than that.
You also see the same attitude whenever Blizzard eases up on dungeon or raid difficulty, and there's an inverse that crops up (other people are suddenly getting the carrots as easy as me! Now I'm not a snowflake badass!) whenever a favored class gets ironed out to be more level with the rest.
The rogue forums in vanilla era were infamous for the latter. It was basically one post after another of either complaining that Class X actually beat me in PVP, therefore it should be nerfed, or complaining Class Y's update which wasn't even out yet threatened their favored class status.
Seriously, if you ever want to be rampantly disillusioned with something, the best recipe is to spend some time on its forums.
Quote from: Old Geezer;738699...wow.
That explains why whenever I suggest "Blizzard should just sell Level 80 characters for people who like end game and keep the other levels interesting for people who like other stuff" I get my ass toasted.
They are doing that already.
The problem with Rogues in vanilla WoW wasn't that they just happened to win every gank event. It was that they stunlocked you completely until you were dead. Oh, maybe my guy would get a second here or there to swing his sword or cast an instant spell, but that was it. I can't tell you how many times I saw a level 60 rogue win the fight while retaining 90% or more of his hit points, often he was uninjured. That was the problem. Warlocks were similar with unlimited chain fears. Or consider how a level 60 Shaman could take on 2 - 3 level 60 alliance and win, no sweat. Again, I can't tell you how many times I saw a Shaman walk away from a fight with 2 Alliance with 75+% of his hit points.
Oh well, that's the past.
I was talking with a friend who is currently playing WoW and she was telling me how Monks are unkillable (one-on-one.) "Worse than Deathknights were in their heyday." And they make the best tanks, the best DPS and damn good healers too. Blizzard has done nothing to iron them out. At least Deathknights got watered down a tiny bit after a year. Not so Monks.
She had high hopes for Draenor though.
Quote from: Doughdee222;738817I was talking with a friend who is currently playing WoW and she was telling me how Monks are unkillable (one-on-one.) "Worse than Deathknights were in their heyday." And they make the best tanks, the best DPS and damn good healers too. Blizzard has done nothing to iron them out. At least Deathknights got watered down a tiny bit after a year. Not so Monks.
She had high hopes for Draenor though.
That's crazy talk, at least for PvE.
Check out the current Noxxic DPS rankings (http://www.noxxic.com/wow/dps-rankings/realistic). Monks don't really compete with Hunters, Mages or even DKs on the DPS department. If you use BiS even us poor Warlocks come out ahead.
And as tanks they're
way behind DKs and Paladins, Warriors and maybe even Druids. OK, maybe not Druids. But you get the point. I've seen Monk tanks kicked out of LFD out of principle and given how hard it is to find a tank, that's saying something (never happened to my bear Druid).