There tends to be one of two problems.
Either:
1) You assume things will work without ever play testing them, like doubling your WBL with crafting feats. Actually WBL is pretty much theory-crafting for the most part.
2) You assume things won't work without ever having play tested them. For example you feel that a Druid anything is going to be squishy. pffff
It depends on playstyle, group, GM and the class you are playing. Sometimes parties build to be balanced between offence and defence end up needing the defence while offensive parties would have killed the oposition fast enough to not need a good defence.
It's similar to the question if you need incombat healing.
But I, myself favor defensive builds and they work well with our unoptimised approach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Typically, for me, "theorycraft" comes in only AFTER things fail in game play itself -- then, if you're being honest with yourself as a DM, it sort of behoovs you to think about WHY things didn't work as planned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so again what do you guys think? is this just a sickness of the human condition? what do you find works best for you when creating a character. do the one dimensional highly optomized characters actually work for you?
I always try and optimize my character within reason. I won't take half a dozen prestige class dips and a handful of templates to get some kind of ridiculous outcome, but I'm not above streamlining my feat, skill, and spell choices to maximize efficiency.
I enjoy the puzzle of it. Others may not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know sometimes this is the case I am sure. But then other times your augment (meaning the "yeah that's great in theory but in play I think not so much." position.) Is simply used to try to counter a point that the person can't counter with real numbers or facts and the assumption that the person they are trying to discredit has never played it in a real game is often wrong.
What do you think of all this?
*sigh* It's one of -these- threads.
Theorycrafting works. Just not when people don't understand how to theorycraft or what it is.
Also, you don't have to play a class to know if it's good or not. I've never played a commoner, doesn't mean I can't tell they're bad.
Theorycraft works as a message-board construction because it helps us use other message-board constructions (WBL and monster-stat averages by CR) as a means to compare builds relative to each other.
It gives us a common ground to discuss things whereby we're all using the same rules for the discussion.
Thats about it.
They fail in practical application because you don't have to be da uber bestest ever to be effective. You don't have to be Superman to thwart the badguys and, afterall, we're using dice not statistics to determine the outcome.
-S
What the guys that give their builds double WBL because of craft wondrous item?
Pure non-actual-game theorycrafting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...afterall, we're using dice not statistics to determine the outcome.
I really have to point out here that dice obey the laws of statistics. If you only hit on a 17-20 on a d20, 20% of the time you will hit. Roll enough attacks, and it will work out that way, unless you play with weighted dice. You can't predict the precise outcome based on the odds, but you can come away with a pretty good idea of the likely outcome.
As to the greater question of theorycrafting, it's useful to demonstrate how the mechanics of the game work and test it's limits. I get accused of it a lot, in various monk threads, when I use the facts and figures to demonstrate how my experience of playing monks came about and why it was bad, and how it never could have been good. I then get told that I'm only theorycrafting and ignoring actual experiences <sigh>.
The main problem I have with theory crafting is that the original poster optimizes in a vacuum. There is no setting, there is no idea for what the character will have to do or will not have to do. This makes the builds usually turn into attacking powerhouses, or AC powerhouses. But what about optimizing a barbarian for a largely political-based game? Or optimizing a druid for a bounty-hunt Cowboy Beebop style game? What about assuming your wizard lives in a world where people know spell-books exists? These specific focuses of a campaign, and the individual quirks of the game-world render most of the theoretical optimizations pointless, because they are not going to necessarily fit into anyone's real gaming experience.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
People seem to forget that the whole point of Game Mastering is to make sure that one player doesn't break the game
I couldn't disagree more. In my assessment, the rules should be set up in such a way that broken exploits are nixed where needed, up front, and that all classes contribute equally to the story and party goals, assuming equal character levels.
The DM's job is then to set up the adventure and bring it to life. He/she should run the game impartially, using the rules everyone agrees on, and not translate his personal opinions into fiat.
This is contrasted sharply with this idea that's suddenly come into vogue that the GM is always supposed to run things explicitly "by the book," with no room for personal interpretation, fiat...
After more than 30 years of playing the game your way, as monipotent DM whose job was to fight against the rules in order to make the game work, I'm very grateful for this "vogue" -- because it's shown me that, given a reasonably well-balanced rule set, the new method works better than the old way ever did. It shifts the onus of game balance onto the designers, and off of the individual DMs.
Since developing "Kirthfinder," I've found my job as DM is 10x easier and 100x more enjoyable, because I can wear my "designer" hat at home when mitigating imbalance, and when I take that off and put on my "DM" hat, I can focus more on the game and the game world, and less on balancing the mechanics during play. Maybe that makes me a "bad DM" by your definition, but there are any number of people on these boards who have played in my home game, and might give you a far different assessment than that.
|
Highly one-dimensional characters tend to work as well as advertised; though often you have enough points to have plenty of skills as well. Having the ability to do "outside of combat" aspects usually just involves properly-placed skill points, and in combat you have your key tricks that work most of the time.
Usually the characters I design are able to do their role VERY well (whatever that role may be), and because I dump "useless" stats (Str for most mage types, cha for non-cha primary types); I have some points to keep int up (because of the RP aspect and a desire to not get stuck unable to climb, I try to actually keep int up; aside from the ocassional 7-int-but-3-skills-per-level-anyway human).
So I have my trick (or usually 2-3, I don't think "optimized" is one trick, but usually one category; conjuration mage or a CMB-character, not a "glitterdust mage" or Tripper). And it works as well in play as in theory. And other concentrated players do the same, whereas often non-concentrated players are an actual hinderence.
I think "Theorycrafting" is a bad term, because it's got nothing to do with theories. The stuff I see here in that respect lacks the statistical foundation you need to see if your hypothesis applies to the majority of cases (i.e. RPG groups).
Maths are fine and dandy, but they do not work in a vacuum. The theses crafted here need to be tested through actual gameplay by a multitude of gaming groups before you can claim they are true.
You should really use "Thesiscrafting", since it never will progress past that point.
|
People love to theorycraft, its chiefly why you get so many x sucks or y is too powerful comments.
I can tell you this much, Theorycraft wins 3% of the time. The other 97% remains with the reigning champion, Practicality.
Theory involves only but so many variables conceivable to the human mind. Theory gets you pretty numbers. Theory makes you feel good. Reality proves otherwise by revealing all of the possibilities you couldn't think of, and foiling most of your initial plans.
Theory vs Practicality is like Games vs Reality.
Yes, you win in your newly discovered little world. You are the champion of all champions. Hard work pays off in that system, and you've earned it. However, when you come back to reality, you're still sitting in your chair, with no changes in your life. Reality wins. Unless you're a Korean Super Gamer. Which takes up 89% of the original 3%.
That's leaving aside your appeal to the "lots of unnamed people who aren't here right now agree with me, so I win by majority rules" argument.
You seem to have missed the whole point, by assuming it's an "argument" that I'm trying to "win." I've laid out my personal experience, showing that a rules-driven (vs. DM-driven) game system can work very nicely, despite the nay-sayers who claim that the DM must always be God.
P.S. I also find it amusing that, in defending "theory is worthless and only personal experience counts," that you're so quick to argue based on theory and discount personal experience.
P.P.S. As far as "unnamed," you must seriously be new around here.
P.P.S. As far as "being new around here" goes, you must seriously overestimate how popular your little homebrew is.
Popularity has nothing to do with anything. You claimed these players are "nameless," but anyone having read any number of threads in most sections of these boards, dating back however many years, can name most of these "nameless" people. We're generally a community here, not a collection of drive-by snipers. That applies even to people who disagree with one another.
|
There is theorycraft and there is stress testing.
Theorycraft assumes things that are disputable, aren't. It assumes the best case reading of the rules and extrapolates from them. Then it shows that IF you can find someone who agrees with how you read the rule and IF they allow it in a game THEN you can do this broken thing. Or if your GM is dumb and spineless, look what the stupid devs let you do!
Testing takes things that are near universally agreed to be allowed at a given table and sees where the stress points are. Because some things need work, no one is perfect.
DPR Olympics is (generally) stress testing. Build discussions are (generally) stress testing.
Snowcone Wish Machine is Theorycraft.
We don't have enough of the former and we have way, way to much of the later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Testing takes things that are near universally agreed to be allowed at a given table and sees where the stress points are. Because some things need work, no one is perfect.
Thank you! And "near universally agreed" is pretty key here. My guess is that if you ask people "should chain-binding efreet for infinite wishes be allowed in the rules?" -- you're not going to get more than a tiny fraction of a percent (if that) who say "Yes! It's the cornerstone of my games!"
P.S. As far as "unnamed," you must seriously be new around here.
OK, I stand corrected on one thing at least; Alzrius has apparently been around, off and on, for quite some time -- although honestly I don't remember seeing him before. So my guess was off on that. Maybe he just doesn't hang out in the same parts of the boards?
Anyway, strike that comment; I was factually incorrect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that a lot of the time "theorycraft" is used as a last resort dismissal of various "problem" builds. I liken the apparent "theorycraft" criticism, as it's often used, to the backlash against the use of statistical analyses in sports. The "old-school" non-stats crowd tends to throw around dismissive statements like "well if you'd watch the games, you'd know I was right" instead of engaging in actual discussion. This seems to gloss over the fact that people who use statistics to analyze sports probably watch sports as well.
The point is that I haven't seen many builds that I don't think would work on an actual game. Even "joke" builds like AM BARBARIAN would probably translate pretty well into most games I've seen.
Oh, of course. But as the fighter supporters in the endless "caster vs . Martial" threads demonstrate, as long as your one trick is "do lots of damage" then you'll be an effective contributor in a lot of games.
As a relative newcomer to the boards, I still know what kirthfinder is. I also know and recognize dozens of people from their handles here, and have a pretty good idea of what different people's agendas are, opinions are, and outlooks on the game are.
If you think it is silly to mention something that nobody (except you, and apparently everyone else who has not yet asked 'what is this kirthfinder') knows about, why not ignore it, and let people who are unaware of its existence ask about it, should they care enough to.
|
|
Oh, of course. But as the fighter supporters in the endless "caster vs . Martial" threads demonstrate, as long as your one trick is "do lots of damage" then you'll be an effective contributor in a lot of games.
Removing hit points is a nice trick in a game where the number of hit points you have reflects if you are alive or not...
Saying "I made my own game, and its worked great for me and my players" doesn't provide any backing for a claim that some rules are objectively more balanced than others.
That wasn't the claim -- or at least, that wasn't intended to be. The claim was that using rules that are balanced for the game you're trying to run makes the DM's job a lot easier and more enjoyable. My houserules work for me and my group; a different set might work for someone else's; and so on. Among all those groups, you'll probably find a lot of overlap in a Venn diagram kind of setup -- but obviously not a complete one. Which is all for the better, as far as I'm concerned. Everyone can have their own rules; they don't need to accept or use mine -- I just used those as an example.
Contrast this with the stance that "the game rules as currently written are perfect for everyone because the DM has to fix them!" or various permutations thereof. The DM doesn't have to fix them in game. The players can come up with houserule fixes beforehand, and let the DM focus on running the game, instead of devoting so much effort to trying to balance the rules during play.
Theory-craft is simply a way fans of pen and paper games get to enjoy the game while when not playing. 90% of the people are on these boards for three reasons....1. To ask for help 2. To Theory-craft 3. To Argue/Debate. Its a mini game within a game. A way to get your PF itch scratched. There is nothing wrong with that. As for whether Theory-craft is effective? Of course it is. Its easy to explain why option A is better then Option B. Its helpful to figure out the best options for the best builds. Can it go too far? Yes. Can Theory-craft be so accepted its assumed to be law/fact/scripture when in fact its only usually right? Absolutly. I have seen Rogues and Monks wreck games. Does that mean the theorycrafters are wrong about those classes being weaker then other classes? No. It just means that in those situations (Rolled high stats, Over WBL, played by a knowledgeble player) the class did well.
I also think alot of players are using Theory-craft, Min-Max, and Powergaming interchangeably when in fact they are all different. You can Theory-craft a well rounded balanced character.
Theory-craft - the mathematical analysis of game mechanics to discover the best strategies and tactics to maximize player effectiveness.
Min-Max - the practice creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizing desired ones. This is usually accomplished by improving one specific trait or ability by sacrificing ability in all other fields. Think "One Trick Pony"
Powergaming - is a style of maximising progress towards a specific goal, to the exclusion of other considerations such as storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie. Due to its focus on the letter of the rules over the spirit of the rules, it is often seen as unsporting, un-fun, or unsociable.
Theorycrafting isn't a bad thing. Its a way to play the game when not playing the game. Its also a great method of coming up with effective characters. Not necessarily over-powered characters or ones that only work on paper. It happens yes but thats not the usual situation. If it works on paper its going to work in game more then likely.
Okay, but extend the logic outward - if those rules work for you and your group, but don't work for another group, what should that group do if those are the rules they're using anyway?
They can sit down and come up with their own. There are enough examples out there now, showing that it's possible.
That's fine, I'm just saying that there's a situationality to the entire idea of "balance" that - in a game where anything can be attempted - the rules are necessarily going to be deficient.
What we did was to have a review at the beginning or end of each session. "Which things worked well? Which need improvement?" Sure, there will always be some glitches, but they'll get smaller and more marginalized as your group plays.
the rules aren't "perfect" and never will be, since there is no such thing as "perfect" rules for a role-playing game with such wide latitude in what it allows - there'll only be opinions as to how well it works. Even the idea of coming up with house rules beforehand is an imperfect one, since it presumes the GM will necessarily be able to anticipate everything that happens during the course of the campaign.
If the DM had to write all the houserules solo in one shot, that would certainly be true. In my experience it works better if the whole group has input, and if the rules are reviewed and refined as you go. Assuming your group life span is more than a couple of weeks, this provides increasingly better gaming experiences as time goes on. And it means the DM doesn't have to be "all-powerful" -- group rule-building gives the players a stake in the rules they'll be playing under (our method was to vote, with the DM always abstaining except in the case of a tie).
This is an impossible standard, since there are no objective metrics for what constitute "broken exploits" or "contribute equally" - let alone ones that will not only be ageeable to all people, but apply in all in-game situations as well.
In the game design world, game balance is considered an objective problem. It can be measured and it can be held up to scrutiny. However one of the most difficult challenges for any game designer is to find the qualifying metrics to measure from. It can be an insurmountable problem to have a perfect metric, and in many cases is not worth the effort.
Tabletop RPGs present a new challenge to the balance problem. They rely on a fairly static rule-set as a means to limit and control the possible outcomes of the infinitesimal range of human imagination. Obviously this makes finding the objective metrics near impossible.
When faced with an infinitely sized data set, the solution has always been to break the problem down into smaller manageable sets, and usually test these in order of expected relevance. This is simply how it is done, this has always been a part of the scientific method, and this is actually how you determine the plot of strange attractors in chaos theory (as an example).
My point is, theory-crafting is EXACTLY what must be done. A community offering specific problems to address and also test solutions is the primary way to find balance.
Now, when people criticize "real world" application versus the theory-crafted environment, I would argue that these are the same. Simply put, a GM who is working within the confines of the rule-set are operating in the same confines as the test data, however their gaming STYLE actually shifts them to another subset as I mentioned above.
To paraphrase, it's not that the game rules cannot be balanced, it is that GM play styles are unbalanced (operating in isolated subsets).
Again, making up house-rules on the fly during game-play is, essentially, GM ad hoc rulings
It would be, except that's not what should be happening, IMHO. The group makes up their house-rules in advance, and then the group reviews them after the session is over. Neither one occurs during play.
During play, the DM runs encounters according to the rules the group has already made up, and each player plays their character according to those rules. In this paradigm, the DM isn't the only person who matters, or who gets to decide anything. Remember, the whole point is to allow the DM to shift his focus away from rules arbitration and onto running encounters and such.
Oh, of course. But as the fighter supporters in the endless "caster vs . Martial" threads demonstrate, as long as your one trick is "do lots of damage" then you'll be an effective contributor in a lot of games.
See, and that is one reason why theory craft breaks down. Yes, DPR is one of the things a good martial does. But preventing DPR vs the squishies so that they can concentrate spell nastiness on the bad guys is another important role for the tank.
All these “But the martial can do only ONE thing” ignore that critical role.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Theorycraft for the purposes of GM/design improvement is a rather different matter than theorycrafting PC builds.
The big problem with build theorycrafting is that PF has a lot of counters. If you build to be great at something, you're going to be awesome right up until you hit one of those counters. It's trivially easy to optimize an archer--so much so that it's kind of funny when somebody thinks their archer is breaking the game because they have ZOMG Deadly Aim and Rapid Shot!--but when that archer runs into a dude behind a wind wall, well, s--- just got real. Your super grappler is going to shut down everything until he runs up on a dude with freedom of movement. And so on.
Likewise, caster theorycraft typically revolves around Schrodinger's wizardry and the assumption that Badguys Always Fail Saves. Maybe you've pumped your caster stat so high that on-CR foes should only have a 10% chance to save. However, if you shot off that one SoD/SoS spell and the BBEG makes the save, maybe that means that on his turn you get ragepounced and die. The problem with theorycraft casters is that sometimes you don't have the right spell despite your best preparations; sometimes the badguys make their saves; sometimes you still have stuff to do after you nova. In other words, actual play happens.
I'm not sure what you mean by "game design world," since game designers operate in the same world as everyone else.
It is an industry and there are specific intellectual communities focused entirely on game design. It is hard to be less vague than that, but this is what I mean.
That said, the rest of your paragraph seems somewhat contradictory, since it says that game balance must be measured objectively, but then says that this is an exceptionally difficult problem (which I agree with; I just take it further to say that it's a problem that can't be solved, since it has no objective definition to begin with).
I did not say that game balance "must" be measured objectively, I said that it always "can". The point I was trying to make is that something that is difficult or improbable are not impossible. That distinction is very important when using logic based methodology.
I'm not suggesting that theory-crafting for the purposes of game design is a bad idea. It certainly has its place. But saying that a game has "failed" or is "broken" because it's "unbalanced" fails to take into account not only the inherent limitations of such design, but also the role that the end-user must necessarily play in creating balance.
Interesting. I consider this a slightly different topic, but I can appreciate what you're trying to say here.
Likewise, having a "style" of gaming (for GMs) usually means that some degree of interpretation is already going on.
Interpretation is a bit different than what I consider style. A GM who uses a large amount of undead simply because they like undead versus a GM who has a plot-line based upon dragons are using the same rules interpretations. However, their style will make some characters more effective than others. Some GMs have more social interactions than others as well, yet still operate within the exact same interpretations.
Game rules, at least insofar as RPGs go, can't be "balanced" simply because no one can agree on what "balance" actually is, let alone find a method that has universal applicability within the context of an infinite range of scenarios during game-play.
Actually I was following through with my primary point, which you just disagreed with. Balance is not subjective. It is a fully objective idea. It is NOT an opinion and does NOT require agreeance. It is as factual as math. Something is either balanced or it is not, and this is not an opinion.
The metrics to measure balance become subjective. An imperfect metric essentially makes a logical proof impossible. This is how we convince ourselves that balance is an opinion because of the flawed metrics. This is a clear distinction, and this distinction must be made to keep design methodology clean.
If it means anything, I am operating with a Bachelor's of Science degree in Game Design and Development. I do this for a living. Respecting the difference between objective fact and imperfect metrics is how you setup valuable test data. The scientific method must remain objective, so you have to understand where that line is drawn. You can't let a paltry thing like impossibility shake your resolve to try.
Just because you don't know the truth does not mean that truth is a lie (or cake). Convince yourself that there is no truth, and you've made all effort meaningless.
[But preventing DPR vs the squishies so that they can concentrate spell nastiness on the bad guys is another important role for the tank.
For your group (and many others) it might be really cool, if only the rules better supported that role! In 3.5 you had things like the psionic Stand Still feat and the ToB thicket of blades ability, which, coupled with a reach weapon and decent speed, made "tanking" eminently possible. Pathfinder's version of "Stand Still" fails more often and isn't really worth the cost of admission, and they even made tripping harder by splitting it into two feats. It's almost like they actively don't want people doing what you're describing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, but extend the logic outward - if those rules work for you and your group, but don't work for another group, what should that group do if those are the rules they're using anyway?
I have to agree here. Having taken a look at Kirthfinder, it doesn’t appear to have any real benefits over PF. It’s just a set of rather well done houserules (which indeed Pathfinder started as, in a way). I have played many of these over my tenure (which is quite a bit longer than Kirth’s, and my name is on several products, so…) and things like this tend to work VERY well as long as the originator is there to run things, but fall apart when he’s not there to explain little glitches and RAI. I have seen this happen every time over my forty+ years in game design and playing. (Just to show you I am not full of myself, the exact thing happened with the Manual of Aurania, it seemed oh so clear to us, but outsiders had many questions, and same with other products I helped put out.. ah well...)
What I don’t understand is why Kirth is here at all. He doesn’t play Pathfinder, he plays Kirthfinder (and before folks jump all over me, like I said, it is a quite well done set of houserules). His purpose seem to be only to belittle Paizo’s product, which he constantly does, pointing out the weaknesses which he claims his version fixed. I mean, did Sean & JJ haunt the WotC forums telling everyone what crud 3.5/4th ed was and how great PF was?
Differentiating "house rules voted on by the group" from "GM fiat" is a semantic difference in how you're adjusting "balance" for situationality (which is my main point).
Say there's an ambiguity. You seem to be claiming that "The DM has to rule on it! So the game DOES run on DM fiat!" But that's not what happens.
(a) If your group is involved in the design process, there are consequently fewer disagreements on how things are "supposed" to work.(b) In the event of confusion, you can simply ask the person who proposed the rule in the first place. That person doesn't have to be the DM. Again, the group is reviewing things AFTER the game, and if the majority wants it ruled some other way, they'll change it at that time. But during the game that's not the case.
I don't see how "the group collectively writes the rules and plays by them" vs. "the game runs by DM fiat" can be considered only a "semantic difference." In that case, the difference between an autarchy and a Constitutional republic is "merely semantic."