stuffSo, semantics?
Follow the logic:
There are better options on purpose, or by design. This is to reward system mastery.
This heavily implies that due to a lack of system mastery, you may choose a less-than optimal option. Or, if you take it a step further, if you choose a less optimal choice due to a lack of system mastery, you have fallen into a "trap", by design.In other words:
If you don't know any better, building a fighter and taking toughness? That is in fact a trap that you've fallen into from a lack of system mastery. And that's by design.
Again:
Are there some circumstances where it's not a bad idea? Of course.
But system mastery tells you this.
Understanding the mechanical benefit of a feat (or other option), and why or why not it's a good option in each circumstance = system mastery.Cook said this is all by design. Cook said this was “not entirely a good idea”.
It's not a stretch to then assume Cook thinks that was probably bad design. It certainly isn't if you read that article.
kryzbyn, a question I have wondered for a while.
Do you think cook might not be able to expressly say it's bad design for a certain reason? Professional reasons, I mean. If so, then I understand his beating around the bush.
That's entirely possible, FDM.
What I'm trying to say is:
It keeps getting brought up that not all options are traps in all situations, therefore there are no trap options.
However, if you take the wrong option due to a lack of system mastery, that is a trap, and that's by design.
Ergo, there sure as hell are trap options in DnD3/3.5, and it sure as hell is on purpose.
I think it's also important to note that, often, a publishing company's standard of "good" is not "good" in the sense of "as good as it can be within the framework of the system," but rather, "good enough to go to press so we can get this book out on time."
Yes, the release of 3.5 had a lot to do with economics, but it also had to do with the fact that a lot of the 3.0 rules really did have room for substantial improvement, and after 3 years, a lot of those corrections were ready to go to press. Unfortunately, the next 5 years focused on endless splatbooks and eventual implosion.
Paizo took a bold step in releasing Pathfinder, and I salute them for it. No one expected them to fix everything in 3.5 that still didn't work very well, because they had a hard deadline to meet. But with that deadline past, they have the opportunity now to look at some of the more egregious legacy issues and decide what to do with them. No one is saying they should rush out another edition this year, or anything of the sort. But actually taking a hard look at some of the mechanics with an eye toward a revised version in a few years is a move I'd (obviously) support.
It's very, very, very clear that Dr Deth and a few others view a PF 1.5 as something worse than the end of civilization, but I've never been -- and still am not -- clear on why that is. The insistence that the current edition is the only actual earthly example of deity-inspired perfection seems a bit far-fetched, so I'm assuming that's not it, but I'm at a loss for what. I understand that you don't want people opening the hood of your car and randomly pulling out all the plugs, but eventually the timing belt will need to be adjusted; you can't go forever without looking under there, sooner or later. You don't have to take your car to some 3rd party dealer with disreputable repair skills. But sooner or later you might let your favorite mechanics (JB & co., in this case) tune the thing up.
Is Dazing spell a good choice? Not if you can’t cast spells. Does that make it a "trap feat"?Yep. Just because it's an uncovered pit with a railing doesn't mean you won't be trapped if you fall in.
I have to disagree. This is a feat that's good for some and not for others - it's not a trap, it's a flavor feat for a specific class.
A better question might be - what do you consider to be a non trap feat?
No one is saying they should rush out another edition this year, or anything of the sort. But actually taking a hard look at some of the mechanics with an eye toward a revised version in a few years is a move I'd (obviously) support.
It's very, very, very clear that Dr Deth and a few others view a PF 1.5 as something worse than the end of civilization, but I've never been -- and still am not -- clear on why that is. The insistence that the current edition is the only actual earthly example of deity-inspired perfection seems a bit far-fetched, so I'm assuming that's not it, but I'm at a loss for what.
If you read JJ posts, they are indeed "actually taking a hard look at some of the mechanics with an eye toward a revised version". How long is the critical question, and is my issue. "Not yet" is what I (and most other customers) say. Theorycraft and 'tweak it until it breaks' aside, PF plays quite well.
Obviously, someday there will be a need for a 2nd Ed. But it has to come when most of the customer base wants it and when the devs are ready for it. If you rush it, you tick off the customers and you come out with something not well done.
I have many times pointed out issues that I'd like fixed. A couple can (and hopefully will) be fixed with a FAQ. A couple others can only be fixed with houserules or a 2nd ed. PF is hardly perfect.
WotC lost more than half it's customer base with too many "editions" too fast.
Most of the issues I have seen that people like you Kirth scream about are subjective, like "balance". Balance can never be "fixed' to everyones satisfaction, as it's both subjective and highly dependent on how people play. In out games, and in JJ own games, both the Rogue and Fighter are fine, they have no balance issues. In other games they apparently do. Which group are we going to try and make happy by giving the fighter a huge power boost?
So, other than subjective issues, which issues do YOU think need fixing right now enuf to need a 2nd ed?
|
"Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
Charisma measures your personality. That's not a house rule, that's the rules.
It measures the strength of the personality. The effectiveness at leadership and ability to persuade others.
It doesn't dictate that the player is limited to one explanation for how they came to have the resulting modifier.No-one is arguing it that penalties shouldn't apply, despite memorax continually accusing them of doing so.
No-one is suggesting a PC with a negative Cha modifier be able to ignore the effect of that negative on their total skill bonus.
What they are asking is that the GM not double-penalise them, by adding arbitary modifiers on top of the negative modifiers they already suffer.
And that they be allowed to decide whether their character's low Charisma comes from being meek, shy, unstreetwise, sheltered, mentally deficient, low-caste, a speech defect, or any other reason they can think; rather than the GM automatically declaring that all characters with low Charisma in his world are drooling, leering, swearing jerks, who insult everyone they meet.
Is that so much to ask?
That the player be allowed to contribute content toward his own character's background, rather than have it written for him?
Now, of course, the DM should allow wide leeway in personality.
Unless you are a GM like memorax, who tells you your character is lacking in social graces.
Ignoring that you wrote a background of being an ex-slave, in a noble house, perfectly aware of etiquette, but with the unfortunate habit of never looking anyone in the eye.You wrote this, with the specific intent that it allowed your PC to become more confident as he levelled, and overcome this inferiority complex, paid off via the the spending of skill points, till he became a normal-functioning member of society.
But, no.
You step into the Duke's chamber, expecting to do some roleplaying (because that's what we're discussing in this thread, right? That players don't roleplay enough?).
You begin to speak in character, in a quiet whisper, voice cracking with lack of use, apologising for disturbing such an important man, expecting to be ignored, overlooked, in favour of the more confident members of the group, just like you've been ignored all your life...
And the GM stops you. Tells you you're doing it wrong. That there's no possible way you could ever know the correct method of address, that there is no way someone with your Charisma could ever be polite. Tells you that what you actually do, is kick the door open, stamp dung over the carpet, shout out to be given ale and whores, see the Duchess, declare "Oh, good, the whores are already here!", and grab her by the breasts, sticking your halitosis-riddled tongue down her throat (because if you have low Cha that automatically means you smell, right?).
And if you protest at having your PC hijacked, and run as an abusive tool, you are branded a troublemaker.
But if I have bought down my Dex to 5, should I be able to call my character "graceful, agile and dexterous"?
At first level? With little or no investment in correcting your faults?
No, of course not.When has anyone suggested otherwise?
But what about at 5th level? When those 5 skill ranks in Acrobatics have offset the penalty, and you've taken lessons in comportment, and built a home gymnasium, to correct your posture?
What about at 20th level, with 20 ranks in Acrobatics, plus Skill Focus?
When you have the ability to cast fly, and have built an assault course to practice your 20 ranks in the Fly skill, during your down time?
At what point do you give the player (and the character) the benefit of the doubt? That they may actually have earned the right to use the skills they purchased, without being sneered at for 'cheating', or looking for a 'loophole'?
No DM should tell you what your personality *IS*. But if you deliberately Dump, and take the advantages associated with that Dumping, the DM can say what your personality ISN'T. You are not a "born leader of men, with a naturally charming personality, blinding lovely, and great personal magnetism".
I don't know anyone in this thread or any of the similar threads on the subject, who has ever suggested that a PC with a baseline Cha penalty should ever be described as a 'born' leader.
But not every leader has to be 'born' a leader. History abounds with examples of people who were thrust into the spotlight, and had to sink or swim. People who made the best of a bad job, and learned to overcome their natural deficiencies, even to the point of being hailed great leaders and statesmen. At the very least, their audience could grudgingly admit that they ended their term being not as hopeless as they began.
If you refuse to allow PCs to benefit from the skill ranks they purchase (as memorax explicitly stated was the case in his games), you close off that entire category of characters, who gave '1% inspiration, 99% perspiration'.
If, as memorax claims to do, you only allow a PC to benefit from social skill ranks, if they began life with a positive Cha mod, then you turn your gameworld into a parody of an American TV High School.
"If you aren't in the in crowd in your first year, forget about eeeever being popular, looooooooser!"
Of course, with work, you can offset that dump. Take "the Kings Speech' for example. So, altho CHA does "measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance" it's just the base. Feats, skills, traits can all turn that stutter and poor public speaking into a King...
That was going to be one of my examples, of why low Cha PCs should be allowed to purchase social skills and benefit from them, so thank you for agreeing with me on that one.
If you believe that feats, skills, traits, can all offset a low stat, then why are you arguing?
You are literally arguing against the like of me, Kirth, and Kyrt-rider, for saying the exact same thing as you just wrote.
You seem to be under a mistaken belief, that someone on this thread has suggested that PCs should never suffer from the consequences of a low stat, which is not the case.
The only time that is mentioned, is in posts where memorax misrepresents that side of the debate, to set up a straw man.
'The King's Speech' is an award-winning movie, which a lot of people must find inspiring and moving.
Unfortunately, in any gameworld operating under the memorax protocols, that inspiring real-life scenario would not, could not, ever happen.
The King would learn a skill rank; the Fates (as run by the GM) would declare him to be 'cheating' the laws of the universe, and the DC would rise to keep him from benefitting.
The King would learn Skill Focus; the DC would rise to keep him from benefitting.
The King would take a trait; the DC would rise to keep him from benefitting.
The King would read a self-help tome; the DC would rise to keep him from benefitting.
The King would use a masterwork microphone; the DC would rise to keep him from benefitting.
There would be no happy ending for poor King George, in such a world.
There would be no happy ending for Winston Churchill, either, stepping into the breach of the shock resignation of Prime Minister Chamberlain, and having to overcome his own public speaking demons.
There would be no happy ending for Emperor Claudius.
Smeagol would never have been able to tell Gollum to "Go away, and never come back!", never have been able to learn how to play on the paranoia of 'nice Master'.
And many more.
There have been many people stating that optimisation is bad for roleplay, because it limits the possible character concepts that will ever see use at the table.
What is far more insidious, and has far more effect on killing off potential character concepts, is the habit promoted by many GMs, of arbitarily preventing certain concepts from ever working.
Moving the goalposts, so what is a DC 15 for a Cha 14, 0 rank PC is a DC 20 for the Cha 8, 5 rank PC, a conveyor belt of frustration, for which every one step forward, results in two steps back.
In out games, and in JJ own games, both the Rogue and Fighter are fine, they have no balance issues.
Your balance issues, by your own admissions, are fixed by a combination of houserules and gentleman's agreements. I'd like -- and I think I've been as clear as humanly possible on this point -- narrow the disconnect between the actual rules and the ones people play by.
If the rules say one thing, and you really have to do another to get the game to work, that's a real issue for me -- and, I think, for a lot of prospective players and DMs down the road. If the description claims that a fighter is a tactical master of warfare and battlefield commander, but actually he only gets to be those things if the DM thinks to throw them to him, and the rules say he's basically, mechanically-speaking, a grunt (and don't spell out the DM giving him all this other stuff)... that's the kind of disconnect that can really turn off anyone with a skeptical bone in their body.
It's very, very, very clear that Dr Deth and a few others view a PF 1.5 as something worse than the end of civilization, but I've never been -- and still am not -- clear on why that is
It risks splitting the player base again, at which point we're down to pizza slices. On the other hand, incredmental changes like new archtypes and erratta to fix old problems is unweilidy, but doesn't break the base.
Once you drop below a certain number of people, no one can play because you don't have enough players in the area.
Once you drop below a certain number of people, no one can play because you don't have enough players in the area.
I can sort of see that, but it just makes me wonder why those people aren't telling everyone else to play Pirates of Warcrack or Next or whatever's the most popular thing now.
|
With respect until the devs actually do anything about those issues. Taking a good hard look at them is nothing but a feel good PR exercise. Makings fans think something is being done. Without nothing changing at all or very little. So until some actual change makes it into print it's all smoke and mirrors imo
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's very, very, very clear that Dr Deth and a few others view a PF 1.5 as something worse than the end of civilization, but I've never been -- and still am not -- clear on why that is
It risks splitting the player base again, at which point we're down to pizza slices. On the other hand, incredmental changes like new archtypes and erratta to fix old problems is unweilidy, but doesn't break the base.
Once you drop below a certain number of people, no one can play because you don't have enough players in the area.
That tends to be one of the reasons why I'm in the camp of "1.5 yay, 2.0 nay". Amongst others:
1.5: Something that can plug into the existing Pathfinder 1.0 framework and say, replace some mechanics and/or classes with versions that still have the same "interface" with the rest of the system (i.e. stat block compatibility) works great for me. People can take it or leave it, but essentially still be playing the same game. More importantly, it only means replacing the book that class or mechanic appeared in, and not having to redo the entire game from scratch. There are many, many things that could benefit from incremental changes in this form. Heck, you could rewrite the entire combat system from scratch, as long as it still uses the same numbers in the same places on character sheets and stat blocks. You can rebalance character classes in something like this by either changing the underlying rules or making new versions of the classes themselves.
I have no problems with this at all, and if it fixes a lot of the remaining issues carried over from 3.5 I'm all for it.
4e's "Essentials" line is a good example of this kind of revision, as is pretty much every edition of Call of Cthulhu except the very latest, and the 3.0->3.5 changes.
2.0: In RPG terms, the danger is that it would be more like a D&D "edition" than a Call of Cthulhu "edition".
Lets face it, in D&D "edition" means "new game that shares some terminology with the previous one but really, forget using any of your existing stuff, this is just a brand new game we intend replacing the old one with", and that's not something I'd like to see happen to Pathfinder.
I've got too much investment (in both time and money) in this game and want to continue investing in it and growing the library of material I have available for use, not to mention retaining the safety net of a currently-supported game.
|
With respect until the devs actually do anything about those issues. Taking a good hard look at them is nothing but a feel good PR exercise. Makings fans think something is being done. Without nothing changing at all or very little. So until some actual change makes it into print it's all smoke and mirrors imo
Sounds like the Pathfinder Beta. :D
*jets off*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will concede that maybe my approach to stats is harsh. I may change it the next time I run a another AP. If a player wants to have low stats I will encourage. No extra penalties. As long as the player dumping stats accepts that he has a smaller chance the first few levels of succeeding at social encounters than one who takes a higher chance. A point was made about skills being able to boost the odds at later levels. In my new game it will. I still think stay dumping is not the bedt option for a player.
And Snorter knock it off with "menorax said this or did you see what menorax wrote" posts. Your attempt at trying to get a reaction from me is do obvious even the dead can see it. No one else here had engaged in that type of flamebaiting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1.5: Something that can plug into the existing Pathfinder 1.0 framework and say, replace some mechanics and/or classes with versions that still have the same "interface" with the rest of the system
thats effectively what the APG was. I consider it done so well that most people never noticed.
|
|
With respect until the devs actually do anything about those issues. Taking a good hard look at them is nothing but a feel good PR exercise. Makings fans think something is being done. Without nothing changing at all or very little. So until some actual change makes it into print it's all smoke and mirrors imoSounds like the Pathfinder Beta. :D
*jets off*
The beta is old news lets not get into that again.
|
|
And Snorter knock it off with "menorax said this or did you see what menorax wrote" posts. Your attempt at trying to get a reaction from me is do obvious even the dead can see it. No one else here had engaged in that type of flamebaiting.
I fail to see how using direct quotes, in the exact context they were meant, is flamebaiting.
I'm sorry to hear it upsets you, but when you;
- bait other people with terms like 'dumping', which do not apply to rolled stats, or using a standard array (both of which can saddle a player with one or more poor stats not of their choice),
- make accusations of 'cheating', whenever they purchase skill ranks as per the RAW,
- claim that attempting to become better at something one is not already a master of, is considered to be 'searching for loopholes',
- and asking that one not be penalised twice over is 'pretending stat penalties don't exist',
then it is only to be expected that the targets of your baiting may occasionally put up a stalwart defence.
And while you may not like the content of such a robust defence, there can be no arguing that my posts have been anything but civil and polite.
The most I can be shown to have said, is that your approach is misguided and counterproductive; far from encouraging players to invest in Charisma, it tells them to forget ever attempting to improve their social skills. Which I don't believe is the effect you want.
I accept you came around near the end, closer to seeing our way of thinking, for which I thank you, and I anticipate that I have in fact done you a great favour, in that you will see a drastic benefit in your games, when your players find out they can now play those wallflower characters who grow to meet increased reputation and responsibility.
As long as the player dumping stats accepts that he has a smaller chance the first few levels of succeeding at social encounters than one who takes a higher chance.
We are on the same page, having never asked for anything more than this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That tends to be one of the reasons why I'm in the camp of "1.5 yay, 2.0 nay". Amongst others:
1.5: Something that can plug into the existing Pathfinder 1.0 framework and say, replace some mechanics and/or classes with versions that still have the same "interface" with the rest of the system (i.e. stat block compatibility) works great for me. People can take it or leave it, but essentially still be playing the same game. More importantly, it only means replacing the book that class or mechanic appeared in, and not having to redo the entire game from scratch. There are many, many things that could benefit from incremental changes in this form. Heck, you could rewrite the entire combat system from scratch, as long as it still uses the same numbers in the same places on character sheets and stat blocks. You can rebalance character classes in something like this by either changing the underlying rules or making new versions of the classes themselves.
I have no problems with this at all, and if it fixes a lot of the remaining issues carried over from 3.5 I'm all for it.
I made a similar comment on this topic to TOZ a few days ago.
Remarking on the upsurge in 'Rogue is the Suxxx' threads, I said it was a problem for PF writers that they had been shackled by backwards compatibility, even though I totally understand all the reasons for that.There are some classes that just don't keep up, or stay relevant, in the new era. The Rogue specifically suffered from several of its advantages being minimised or spread out to other classes.
Losing the x4 multiplier at level 1 meant the option of placing one rank in everything was no longer possible, so it made it harder to create the jack of all trades concept early on. Having a skill as a listed class skill was no longer the difference between being allowed to keep it maxed, or settling for half-max. It no longer meant skills for half-price. It was no longer limited to working only on levels you chose Rogue, but was a one-time benefit. Many of the people who were tempted to multiclass Rogue for skills in 3.5 could get the class-skill benefits with a one-level dip.
So, if a new class comes along, which takes the parts of the Rogue which work, discards what doesn't, and adds some new options to the mix; and if that new class seems to perform so well that it makes the Rogue obsolete, I won't be complaining.
The old Rogue can be led out to pasture, with the NPC classes, and we can get on with the game, replacing the occasional Rogue NPC with new stats, if and when we need.
|
|
4e's "Essentials" line is a good example of this kind of revision, as is pretty much every edition of Call of Cthulhu except the very latest, and the 3.0->3.5 changes.
2.0: In RPG terms, the danger is that it would be more like a D&D "edition" than a Call of Cthulhu "edition".
You have me curious with this post; I own copies of Call of Cthulhu, in several editions, from 2nd Edition (Games Workshop box) through to 5th(?).
I haven't actively played for some time, and stopped keeping up with new editions, because I didn't see the need, as till then there had been little difference except the addition of one skill here or there, and the rolling of two others together. I figured if I found a suitable group (it is an acquired playstyle, after all), I'd just use the old books.
What edition number is it on now, and what major changes did they make?
You have me curious with this post; I own copies of Call of Cthulhu, in several editions, from 2nd Edition (Games Workshop box) through to 5th(?).I haven't actively played for some time, and stopped keeping up with new editions, because I didn't see the need, as till then there had been little difference except the addition of one skill here or there, and the rolling of two others together. I figured if I found a suitable group (it is an acquired playstyle, after all), I'd just use the old books.
What edition number is it on now, and what major changes did they make?
6th Edition was more of a "lets take what appears to be a collection of articles by different authors in 5th and make it into a single cohesive rulebook." - as with all the rest, you could probably take any adventure for any edition and run it with any rulebook with the minimum of effort.
The new 7th edition that's out soon (it was on Kickstarter last year) uses a new stat system (as does the new BRP that CoC is based on), I think everything gets multiplied by 5 or something along those lines. TBH it looks to me like an forced change in the core BRP specifically to stop people using the OGL'ed RuneQuest rules to make compatible stuff ;)
On the other hand, it's been fairly static for so long (as you've noticed, and like you I've got various editions dating back to that same GW box :) ) that an full overhaul after all this time isn't as bad as it has been in games that have essentially written entirely new systems for each new "edition". Even then, if it really is just a multiplier to each stat that's not the end of the world. It's when people just say "meh, we got it totally wrong, so this edition is a complete rewrite" and then do exactly the same thing 4 or 5 years later (What, it's *still* totally wrong? How can I trust you've gotten it right this time if you didn't the last 4 times? :) ) that I get mad :) When they do that I find it's inevitably due to a management directive to reboot the entire system to sell new splatbooks, rather out of any real concern for players getting a better system.
I guess I just prefer incremental changes, like Chaosium have done. You can see things getting better that way, while with rewritten systems you can pretty much take it for granted there'll be brand new problems that'll never get fixed, and just get replaced all over again with the next system (with it's own new faults) instead, forever perpetuating the "we'll just make the customer buy 20-30 new books this year" model.
|
|
The new 7th edition that's out soon (it was on Kickstarter last year) uses a new stat system (as does the new BRP that CoC is based on), I think everything gets multiplied by 5 or something along those lines. TBH it looks to me like an forced change in the core BRP specifically to stop people using the OGL'ed RuneQuest rules to make compatible stuff ;)
Yeah, those OGL people, who do they think they are, eh?
(Vision of Sandy Petersen, stood atop cyclopean non-Euclidean Pacific ruins, fist to the sky..."DAAANCEEEEEYYY! From Hell's heart, I stab at thee!")LOL
At least Paizo can say they made some fundamental changes, even if those changes don't go far enough for some.
(Discussion for another day, re hindering classes that were low-par, and boosting classes that didn't need the help...)
I heard a rumour of revisions to the stat system, and wondered if they were going back to the 1st edition method, of grouping the skills via their associated stat, and granting build points for each category, rather than the 2nd edition+ method of making everything run off EDU and INT. I'd welcome a return to that, as it makes certain concepts easier to model, like the dumb high school jock, with little book learning, but great at sports.
Since the thread is about optimisation reducing the variety of typical character builds, I think CoC is a good example of a game where the rules hinder the creation of certain concepts, and artificially channel the players into others.
I found whenever I used a 'roll stats, any order' method, almost every PC had EDU as priority, followed by INT, because that's what the system rewarded. You can't blame the players, for not wanting to play a notoriously lethal game, with half the build points of the other players, can you?
|
|
CoC needed some newer material. Only so many times a company can rehash the same system. As well they face competion from Realms and Trails of f Cthulhu. The same rules with new cover art were just not going to cut it this time around.
For me to get a PF 1.5 it would need major or if not major significant changes. As again I will not be buying a rehashed set of rules with new cover art. People mention backwards compability imo that ship has sailed for the most part. DMs who called long and loud for material from 3.5. to be used in PF are now probably the sames ones going "PF and only PF material at table and nothing else". So while some want to use previous material most imo do not. I'm not saying making the current material incompitable. I want a 1.5 goals to be more than just a cosmetic change. As well Paizo is a business not a charity or a no-profit. They need to make a profit to survive as well. If the current version of the rules no longer makes them a profit they can't keep publishing the same ones at a loss just to make some of the fanbase happy.
@Snorter I'm not saying don't defend yourself on the boards. Reference the posts not the poster. I have been having discussions with
kyrt-ryder and others. They quoted my posts. They did not specfically target me as a poster. Have a disagreement with me as much as you like. Target what I post and not me as a poster.
Thanks for the open mind Memorax. That's all we're asking, that you keep mechanics with mechanics (including social skill checks) and leave roleplay with roleplay.
Sometimes one can disagree with someone else and still be part of the hobby. While engaging online and real life debates. Or that sometimes I might be wrong and need to admit that. I'm 40 years old The days of me engaging in a endless "I'm right your wrong. No your wrong I'm right" are behind me.
|
|
Of course, that's a large part of the problem with RPGs as a business. Once you've bought the system you can go on and play for years without buying anything else.
We've been playing CoC for decades off and on, using mostly 2nd and 3rd edition. I think one of the newer players picked up a more recent (5th?) version. They're all sufficiently similar that there's no need to replace them. And we like them, so the chances of switching to a total rewrite are slim.
That's the beauty of it though. One does not have to switch to the lastest version of one does not want to. Sometimes rules can only be kept unchanged for so long before fans stop buying and move on to other systems. Palladium Books is a good example. They used to be in the top ten alongside Wotc and White wolf. They refuse to implement major changes. With the result that they fans moved on to other rpgs. I get the point about too much change driving away the fanbase. Not enough changes can do the same thing. Mind you then one has to buy as many books as possible. If you wait too long buying books for a older version can get expensive.
stuffSo, semantics?
Follow the logic:
There are better options on purpose, or by design. This is to reward system mastery.
This heavily implies that due to a lack of system mastery, you may choose a less-than optimal option. Or, if you take it a step further, if you choose a less optimal choice due to a lack of system mastery, you have fallen into a "trap", by design.
In other words:
If you don't know any better, building a fighter and taking toughness? That is in fact a trap that you've fallen into from a lack of system mastery. And that's by design.
Again:
Are there some circumstances where it's not a bad idea? Of course.
But system mastery tells you this.
Understanding the mechanical benefit of a feat (or other option), and why or why not it's a good option in each circumstance = system mastery.Cook said this is all by design. Cook said this was “not entirely a good idea”.
It's not a stretch to then assume Cook thinks that was probably bad design. It certainly isn't if you read that article.
I have a two issues with this line of thought.
First, there is a big difference between creating options that are good situationally or good for specific builds and creating trap options designed to make newer players stumble and reward experienced players who avoid them. Just because a feat is good for one type of build but not another does not make that feat a trap.
In the quoted post, Kryzbyn basically says that system mastery would decide if an option is a trap or not based on if it's good for the build. This effectively brings things back to status quo. The options are still there, now it's just up to system mastery to decide if they're good for the build or not. The difference is that now the non-optimal options are labelled as trap options. Instead of being there for the purposes of variety and roleplay, they are tricks by insidious developers so that new players can have the 'fun' of playing with an ineffective build. It distorts the purpose that Monte Cook was speaking to, and gives the game developers in general more a malicious intent.
At a player level, the problem here is that it boils the game down into two things: The best option, and the trap option. What if I wanted to have a two weapon fighter? Well, two handed fighters are more effective, so TWF is a trap option. What if I wanted to use butterfly swords on my butterfly sting build instead of the more optimal wakizashis? Butterfly swords do less damage and have less of a crit threat range so that makes them a trap option regardless of flavor.
Some of us want to be able to use feats or abilities without having to listen to a great deal of 'helpful advice' from local players about how we've taken a trap option.
(And yes, I have indeed run into such people and had to listen long lectures until I finally told them to please stop. You could respond by saying that this is a player problem instead of a system problem, and I would respond by saying that I'd prefer the system mechanics not encourage this type of player behavior.)
Ugh.
If you're making less than optimal choices on purpose, for whatever reason, then this hints at a certain level of system mastery, because you recognize them as less than optimal, and choose them anyway.
I did not mean to imply that Mr. Cook or the others did these things with malicious intent. I just stated that he, by his own words, put those in there on purpose, and why.
Wanting to promote system mastery is not a malicious thing.
Ugh.
If you're making less than optimal choices on purpose, for whatever reason, then this hints at a certain level of system mastery, because you recognize them as less than optimal, and choose them anyway.
I did not mean to imply that Mr. Cook or the others did these things with malicious intent. I just stated that he, by his own words, put those in there on purpose, and why.
Wanting to promote system mastery is not a malicious thing.
is it really so innocuous? I'm not sure, myself.
I think so.
Easier to believe it's a "live and learn" situation, than a business model built on purposefully frustrating new players (as opposed to promoting system mastery) with bad design on purpose :)
I think so.
Easier to believe it's a "live and learn" situation, than a business model built on purposefully frustrating new players (as opposed to promoting system mastery) with bad design on purpose :)
I dunno. I would believe that if there weren't two editions of the game beforehand that didn't do this and were still successful. I think the wrong thing was brought in from magic.
If this was a role playing game based on the card game, it would be different.
Are you taking about pathfinder continueing this from a legacy standpoint, or 3.0/3.5?
No-one is arguing it that penalties shouldn't apply, despite memorax continually accusing them of doing so.
The implication being that we should stick to what's being argued in the thread? That sounds very fair. I like it.
But, no.
You step into the Duke's chamber, expecting to do some roleplaying (because that's what we're discussing in this thread, right? That players don't roleplay enough?).
You begin to speak in character, in a quiet whisper, voice cracking with lack of use, apologising for disturbing such an important man, expecting to be ignored, overlooked, in favour of the more confident members of the group, just like you've been ignored all your life...And the GM stops you. Tells you you're doing it wrong. That there's no possible way you could ever know the correct method of address, that there is no way someone with your Charisma could ever be polite. Tells you that what you actually do, is kick the door open, stamp dung over the carpet, shout out to be given ale and whores, see the Duchess, declare "Oh, good, the whores are already here!", and grab her by the breasts, sticking your halitosis-riddled tongue down her throat (because if you have low Cha that automatically means you smell, right?).
And if you protest at having your PC hijacked, and run as an abusive tool, you are branded a troublemaker.
Unless I've missed something (please quote if I have) noone has advocated anything like this. The most extreme view has been memorax saying that he applies additional penalties based on low stats. Not once has any poster advocated a position where the GM interrupts the rollplay of the player and tells that player what his character does. There might be GMs out there who do that, just like there might be players out there who attempt to roleplay out of having low stats, but nobody in this discussion had advocated either of those positions.
There has been something of a divide in this thread between people who wish to separate rollplay entirely from stats and only have the stats used for straight mechanics... versus people who believe that the stats of their character should be somehow reflected or evident in the character's personality.
I myself fall on the latter half of this divide. I believe that abilities represent the natural tendencies or starting point, while skills and other factors represent training, experience, and attempts to address a recognized weakness. I believe addressing problems one sees in oneself is a very common and human thing to do. I would absolutely support the roleplay efforts of a player who attempted to do this with their character.
Let's take a low charisma score as an example. If a character's personality reflects that low charisma in some form, then we're solid. It doesn't matter if your character is ugly, or shy, or loud, or has trouble expressing himself, or has a fondness for 'exotic' perfumes that less refined noses fail to appreciate, or something else. If your ability score is some-how-some-way demonstrated in your character then I'm a happy camper. If you want to then use skills to represent efforts to better get along/communicate with people... fantastic! That's character growth, and I'd be thrilled to see it.
Every character is unique with a unique personality. The mix of their ability stats can be expressed in a multitude of ways. Ability scores give us chances to create and display memorable quirks in our characters. Mechanically, a high or low ability score is going to have whatever effect a high or low ability score will have. From a roleplay perspective they're opportunities either way.
My position boils down to this: Just like there are people who want all characters in a group to be decently optimized so that the group can have more fun in battle, I want to optimize the roleplay of my character to maximize his or her impact. When a party has a character who can't keep up in a fight, it drags the party down and creates an imbalance. When a party has a characte who can't keep up in roleplay, it drags the party down and creates an imbalance. My ideal character is optimized both in terms of mechanics and roleplay. When I see a character with a low ability score that's not represented by a quirk or personality trait, then that character isn't the best that they could be.
Am I saying that all characters MUST be roleplay optimized to the maximum? No. Just like I don't believe that all characters must be mechanically optimized to the maximum. I just want the character to be optimized enough to keep up with the group. If they're already keeping up, great. If they're not, then this is an area where the character could improve.
Are you taking about pathfinder continueing this from a legacy standpoint, or 3.0/3.5?
game design with respect to what Monte cook said.
Well, bringing in the magic thing was a bad idea, but it was just an idea. I don't think they were aiming for the side effect of a bad legacy or frustrated players. That's why I don't think it was malicious.
I did not mean to imply that Mr. Cook or the others did these things with malicious intent. I just stated that he, by his own words, put those in there on purpose, and why.
But you took his words out of context. Monte pulled that blog for a reason- it really wasn't some of his best work, it was very easy to misread- and everyone kept taking things out of context which changed the meaning of what he really was saying. For example "he,... put those in there on purpose" is not really true- he didn't change D&D to add that- he just left that stuff in. "Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game."
I really don't want to split hairs on this any more. Agree to disagree?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did not mean to imply that Mr. Cook or the others did these things with malicious intent. I just stated that he, by his own words, put those in there on purpose, and why.But you took his words out of context. Monte pulled that blog for a reason- it really wasn't some of his best work, it was very easy to misread- and everyone kept taking things out of context which changed the meaning of what he really was saying. For example "he,... put those in there on purpose" is not really true- he didn't change D&D to add that- he just left that stuff in. "Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game."
What's the difference? Purposefully putting it in vs purposefully leaving them in all ends up at the same destination, purposefully imbalanced items in your game.
Which can really only be one of three things: Malicious, lazy, or incompetent.
There is no upside to that however he might try to justify it as "rewarding system mastery". It's punishing LACK of system mastery, which is a much worse thing to do.
You could have just created your game with a minimal of s+$@ty options. It again, ends up at the same destination (people pick the good options), but with much less player frustration in the long term after they realize a good chunk of the books you released they wasted their money on because the options aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
It's really 6 of one, half dozen of another. And regardless of intent, you end up with the same result.
When speaking of intent, however, it's hard for me to assume they were being malicious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think so.
Easier to believe it's a "live and learn" situation, than a business model built on purposefully frustrating new players (as opposed to promoting system mastery) with bad design on purpose :)I dunno. I would believe that if there weren't two editions of the game beforehand that didn't do this and were still successful. I think the wrong thing was brought in from magic.
If this was a role playing game based on the card game, it would be different.
Decades prior there was still a "mastery" element, but it was less to do with how you built your character and rather the strategy and tactics you used to survive as a player.
You the player were expected to learn from you previous character's death and avoid the same mistake. In the modern era a lot of people would call this "meta-gaming".
Which can really only be one of three things: Malicious, lazy, or incompetent.
I'd posit a fourth as more likely being correct: competent overall, but mistaken in some particulars. "Hey, this seems like a cool idea, let's give it a shot." Later: "You know, in restrospect, maybe that didn't work quite as well as we'd hoped."
Well I didn't mean "overall incompetent" more "Had a momentary lapse of what the f%$% and forget everything even tangentially related to good design".
Seriously, how does it cross your mind that purposefully leaving in options that do nothing but waste paper is a good idea from any perspective?
I can understand "Yeah we didn't realize that option SUUUUUCKED", but either doing it on purpose or not acknowledging that the option is terrible when it clearly is just rubs me the wrong way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, how does it cross your mind that purposefully leaving in options that do nothing but waste paper is a good idea from any perspective?
He explains it straight-out: "Timmy Cards" were a thing. They were all the rage. All the cool kids know which options to always avoid, and which ones usually suck but can be part of a stoopid-awesome deck or whatever it is, and which ones worked OK but were, strictly-speaking, inferior to other ones. It gave you, like, gamer cred, man!
Yeah, I think it's pretty sad for an already dorky hobby to encourage elitism and "I'm-a-bigger-dork-than-you," but some people eat that stuff up.
Obviously toughness in 3.5 was left in from 3ed because of E6. :D
Seriously, how does it cross your mind that purposefully leaving in options that do nothing but waste paper is a good idea from any perspective?He explains it straight-out: "Timmy Cards" were a thing. They were all the rage. All the cool kids know which options to always avoid, and which ones usually suck but can be part of a stoopid-awesome deck or whatever it is, and which ones worked OK but were, strictly-speaking, inferior to other ones. It gave you, like, gamer cred, man!
Yeah, I think it's pretty sad for an already dorky hobby to encourage elitism and "I'm-a-bigger-dork-than-you," but some people eat that stuff up.
see? We CAN agree on things!
You put this a lot better than I could have.
There has been something of a divide in this thread between people who wish to separate rollplay entirely from stats and only have the stats used for straight mechanics... versus people who believe that the stats of their character should be somehow reflected or evident in the character's personality.
Yes and no. The group doesn't want to separate them, but instead suggests that numeric values should be used for numeric checks. So if a group is doing role-playing and using the social skills as per the rules, then the numeric values directly effect the role-playing. On the other hand, if a group is not making numeric checks, then the thought is that numeric values are then meaningless. A Cha 7 means that a diplomacy will have a -2 ability penalty if using the skills which will effect the check and let the group know how effective the character was. But if you are not using the skills then a Cha 7 has no actual meaning in and of itself in a social encounter to folks in this group.
The other point of view appears to be not that the value Cha 7 is in itself meaningful, but instead is more of a type of thing like you'd hear someone say, "On a scale of 3 to 18, how cool is that guy?" Where Cha 7 guys are less cool than Cha 10 guys who are in turn less cool than Cha 15 guys, and the coolest are the Cha 18 guys. So the value, though numeric, is actually more of a qualitative measurement of "coolness".
BIT OF TRIVIA: This is irrelevant to the post above, just cross my mind. The saying is closer to the original meaning when stated, "Eat your cake and have it too." rather than "Have your cake and eat it too."
He explains it straight-out: "Timmy Cards" were a thing. They were all the rage. All the cool kids know which options to always avoid, and which ones usually suck but can be part of a stoopid-awesome deck or whatever it is, and which ones worked OK but were, strictly-speaking, inferior to other ones. It gave you, like, gamer cred, man!
Yeah, I think it's pretty sad for an already dorky hobby to encourage elitism and "I'm-a-bigger-dork-than-you," but some people eat that stuff up.
Which he then went on to say that D&D doesn't use Timmy cards.
"because whenever somebody links to it or quotes from it, I can almost guarantee you that they’re about to completely misrepresent the essay’s entire point." Happened again.
"What Cook basically says in the essay is, “Instead of just giving people a big toolbox full of useful tools, we probably should have included more instructions on when those tools are useful and how they can be used to best effect.”
But the vast majority of people quoting the essay instead snip some variant of “we wanted to reward mastery of the game” out of context and then go ape-s&#& because D&D3 deliberately included “traps” for new players.
The methods of selective quoting vary, but they all basically look something like this..." He's right on, exactly what has occurred.