| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is almost by definition what a game is. What game out there doesn't "reward" people who have a better understanding of its rules, goals, and strategies?
When you reward comprehension, inherently you are withholding reward from those who don't reach comprehension.Whether intentional or not, you are designing the game to favor those who comprehend it more fully and more quickly than others...
You cut out an important piece of information contained in the post. Cutting my post up to exclude certain pieces of information makes it easy to misconstrue the post or miss how certain points relate to each other. Here's the relevant piece you need to consider (grammar mistake and all):
purposely did not share those paths to rewards to the reader.Cook talks about that in the blog post. They could have added advice to the Toughness feat illuminating when and why this feat would be a good idea to take, thereby reducing the odds that a player would choose it in a situation where it doesn't benefit them very much.
You can in essence reward all players by overtly sharing the information necessary to take advantage of the rule, instead of waiting for players to learn on their own which rules provide advantages. The advantages are there either way, it's just a matter of how easy you make it to find them.
A non-RPG example: Teach someone a board game.
When you teach someone a board game that has a lot of hidden strategy (and you know it quite well), do you explain those hidden strategies? If you don't, and they don't realize them quickly, odds are you will be able to take advantage of those strategies and win very handily. If you do share those strategies, the game will be more challenging for you.
My point isn't whether or not those strategies do or don't exist in D&D 3.0, but rather whether they were explicitly shared in the Player's Handbook. It's the lack of illumination within the game text that...
Frankly, I the nuances of chess and other boardgames in "understanding of its rules, goals, and strategies". I consider character creation on the same lines, as something that will and should come through experience. I can't imagine it going any other way, unless the player were to sit and pour over lists of anecdotes and practical applications of feats, spells, and abilities of the game before actually making a character, which, to use your metaphor, would be not unlike someone reading several books on chess strategy before ever playing the game.
Although in my neck of the woods, a poor decision on feat choice is really only a GM conversation away from being changed if it's really THAT much of a problem, and campaigns rarely last longer than half a year (we prefer succinct stories with characters made for it as a matter of taste). I realize not everyone has that luxury and might be completely locked into things, maybe in organized play.
(another reason I don't like the idea of PFS)
God no. Imagine that.
"No bro, knight's totally nerfed. Bishop does the same stuff now, but better cuz they changed castling rules for Chess 205.6"
Pawns which reach the other side are totally BAMF! :P
You wish, Queen/King multiclass with a level dip in Knight for the movement buff is broken!
Frankly, I the nuances of chess and other boardgames in "understanding of its rules, goals, and strategies". I consider character creation on the same lines, as something that will and should come through experience. I can't imagine it going any other way, unless the player were to sit and pour over lists of anecdotes and practical applications of feats, spells, and abilities of the game before actually making a character, which, to use your metaphor, would be not unlike someone reading several books on chess strategy before ever playing the game.
Although in my neck of the woods, a poor decision on feat choice is really only a GM conversation away from being changed if it's really THAT much of a problem, and campaigns rarely last longer than half a year (we prefer succinct stories with characters made for it as a matter of taste). I realize not everyone has that luxury and might be completely locked into things, maybe in organized play.
(another reason I don't like the idea of PFS)
I'm not arguing about whether the game should or should not do anything. I'm merely pointing out the current state it exists in.
Using the chess analogy, the CRB is more similar to a chess handbook on the game rules and tournament rules, than a book about how to actually play and win at chess. That kind of information is found on forums, blogs and essays.
I presented examples of how it is possible to include a higher baseline understanding of system mastery within an RPG book. You can choose to disbelieve me if you wish, but what I have said is true. Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't it mean it isn't true.
In very many ways RPGs aren't much like other games.
They don't focus on competition, there aren't winners and losers. That seems a more fundamental difference than lack of reward for system mastery.
There are rpgs with very minimalist rules that have very little opportunity for system mastery. 3.x (and PF) chose to emphasize system mastery, but that's far from true of rpgs in general.
This is true, but it's also true that almost any game with significant choices available to the player will have some options that work better than others at various times and players with better grasp of the rules and their implications will have an advantage over the players who don't. That may not be a competitive advantage since these games de-emphasize competition. But that advantage will probably be visible in play. Their characters will achieve success more often, more efficiently, or more effectively.
This is true, but it's also true that almost any game with significant choices available to the player will have some options that work better than others at various times and players with better grasp of the rules and their implications will have an advantage over the players who don't. That may not be a competitive advantage since these games de-emphasize competition. But that advantage will probably be visible in play. Their characters will achieve success more often, more efficiently, or more effectively.In very many ways RPGs aren't much like other games.
They don't focus on competition, there aren't winners and losers. That seems a more fundamental difference than lack of reward for system mastery.
There are rpgs with very minimalist rules that have very little opportunity for system mastery. 3.x (and PF) chose to emphasize system mastery, but that's far from true of rpgs in general.
That isn't what is being talked about in regards to Cook's essay. No one is debating the existence of the concept of advantages or saying that no advantage should ever exist.
Instead, I am pointing out that the designers made conscious authorial choices that influenced how those advantages were doled out.
Another game I love to run is Mythender. A central theme of that game is to pit the desire for power vs. free will. I'm explicit as the GM during that game, I tell players which options are the most powerful so that they can smite their enemies better. What I don't illuminate is that this can very easily cost the character their free will by the end of the session. The goal of the game isn't really to kill your enemy, the goal is to do so while retaining your humanity. I've never had a session where the players weren't 'victorious' in battle, but I've also never had a session where I didn't convert at least one player into the enemy as well.
I do this on purpose. Most gamers I know have a certain love of power, even the non-optimizers, and if you encourage it as the GM, it flourishes pretty quick. I mean, lets face it, powerful options in games can be pretty fun. The theme of the game is about the cost of power though, which is something I conceal for a little bit, until at least one person is in danger of falling into my "trap".
How you make advantages available affects the flow of the game and this is true of 3.X games as well. In 3.0 they laid out all of the rules, but didn't tell you which ones would benefit you most, leaving the player to figure it out. This means those who are best at doing so, gain advantages sooner and gain more of them than others. That has an impact on how the game is played.
Close to worthless is pretty hyperbolic as well.
Prone Shooter. Death From Above. Chokehold. The vast majority of Teamwork Feats.
Let's narrow this down or we'll be here all day: All of the Feats that rely on a number of very specific events to occur, only work once in a blue moon, or take more than one round to see any significant result.
Close to worthless is pretty hyperbolic as well.Prone Shooter. Death From Above. Chokehold. The vast majority of Teamwork Feats.
Let's narrow this down or we'll be here all day: All of the Feats that rely on a number of very specific events to occur, only work once in a blue moon, or take more than one round to see any significant result.
Which would make Featherfall a useless spell, eh? It relies on a number of very specific events to occur, only works once in a blue moon... etc.
But it's a lifesaver when you want it.
Or how about you want to take a feat for ROLEplaying purposes? Why can't I want to blow a feat on something which isn't very powerful but fits my concept to a T? Why do you want to take that choice away? Why are we going to be limited to the choices Rynjin has decided are worthy? Maybe I think differently. Even if it's the choices that JJ thinks are worthy I don't want that. I want CHOICES. I want to be able to CHOOSE the feats I want out of a huge long list and i am perfectly fine with them being of widely varying power level- because no two people will agree on the power level anyway. "Close to worthless" for which classes, which builds, and in whose opinion?
Teamwork feats? My Inquisitor love them.
Is power attack a great feat? How about for my wizard with str 7 who doesn't even carry a weapon?
How about Craft Wondrous Items? Not so good if I am not a spellcaster, eh?
Ok, just looking at DFA. Normal high ground gives +1 and Charge I believe gives +2 so with the +5 you're netting another +2. Why is this so horrible? Because it doesn't apply to all of your PFS Scenarios? What if the campaign is largely on hilly terrain and the person has a berserker type concept? Or if you have a swoop concept with a Magus or Fighter-Wizard or Aasimar with the winged racial trait thing?
Because it's a +2 situational bonus to-hit, which is not worth a Feat. Weapon Focus is a bad Feat too but at least its attack bonus applies ALL the time.
It provides you no new option, it gives no significant boost to your combat ability (since it's spotty enough that it won't appreciably change DPR), so why take it other than "for flavor". And if you have to sacrifice effectiveness for flavor, it's a bad Feat.
Even in your half a handful of scenarios where it MIGHT be useful, it's not going to provide you anything you couldn't have gotten from something else more easily. A +2 bonus to your weapon is cheaper in the long run, you can always get more money. Not so with Feats.
But yes, it is the best of a bad bunch there. Now, show me where Prone Shooter and Chokehold are so great?
Ok, just looking at DFA. Normal high ground gives +1 and Charge I believe gives +2 so with the +5 you're netting another +2. Why is this so horrible? Because it doesn't apply to all of your PFS Scenarios? What if the campaign is largely on hilly terrain and the person has a berserker type concept? Or if you have a swoop concept with a Magus or Fighter-Wizard or Aasimar with the winged racial trait thing?Because it's a +2 situational bonus to-hit, which is not worth a Feat. Weapon Focus is a bad Feat too but at least its attack bonus applies ALL the time.
It provides you no new option, it gives no significant boost to your combat ability (since it's spotty enough that it won't appreciably change DPR), so why take it other than "for flavor". And if you have to sacrifice effectiveness for flavor, it's a bad Feat.
Even in your half a handful of scenarios where it MIGHT be useful, it's not going to provide you anything you couldn't have gotten from something else more easily. A +2 bonus to your weapon is cheaper in the long run, you can always get more money. Not so with Feats.
But yes, it is the best of a bad bunch there. Now, show me where Prone Shooter and Chokehold are so great?
I like being able to muffle a spellcaster. I don't necessarily think that I need a feat for that, but still, it's damn useful.
I like being able to muffle a spellcaster. I don't necessarily think that I need a feat for that, but still, it's damn useful.
Precisely.
But even then, think about it. Unless I'm mistaken, in a Grapple casters can't use spells with somatic components already, and have to make a pretty hefty Concentration check to cast while Grappled.
So already you're locking them down pretty hard if you can Grapple them (barring Freedom of Movement, Teleportation Subschool, Travel Domain, etc...).
Now, you need to spend ANOTHER round pinning them to cut off their ability to use verbal components (meaning they had a round to use any Verbal only stuff they might be able to use to get them out of it anyway), which is all obsoleted by a Feat many casters have: Silent Spell (along with Still, but I think Silent might be more common).
It's too easily shut down and takes too long to come online.
Again, it would be great if it was boosted a bit, like you got that whenever you Grappled someone (ala a Choker), but as-is? Eh...
And don't even get me started on the fact that that's only half the Feat, the OTHER half of which will almost NEVER work, even against people who have for some reason dumped Con. Taking 7 rounds to kill someone (if they have 5 Con), where at any point they could break free of the Pin and make you have to start over IS pretty much worthless.
Again, the fact that it's not the most efficient feat in the world doesn't make it bad or next to useless.
It doesn't have to be "the most efficient" but being somewhere in the ballpark of the middle range of efficiency is kinda necessary for it to be considered good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I take Skill Focus Appraise am I wasting a feat because it only applies to one thing? If its a game where its very social heavy and a lot of bartering I may like to have it.
Not if it applies to something you'll be using often, and it's good at enhancing that thing.
Skill Focus is good at that.
Death From Above, Chokehold, and Prone Shooter are not.
You can't honestly sit there and tell me that every Feat in the game is good. You're fighting from a losing position there because even the devs don't agree with you. They know quite well that a number of options suck.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's certainly not all about DPR Matt. Options are a big deal as well.
This is so true. My alchemist was alternating between tanglefoot bombs and acid bombs as needed today, and that -2 from being entangled saved the barbarians life more than once against the brutal enemy we were up against.
I never said they were mechanically amazing. If you remember you said they suckn and were practically useless iirc.
Because they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
