Another Nail in the Coffin

[The_Mather1]

Another thing to keep in mind is that if you try limiting the players' power through the rules, you're only encouraging optimization. A good game is one that accepts the fact that the players are stronger than they should be, and places the challenges thereafter. Dungeoneering worked with immense freedom because there were no rules for us to try to beat. When we got overpowered, the enemies got overpowered.

 

What a game needs to be truly enjoyable is a combination of a good story, loose rules and lots of freedom. The latter two have to be equal, if they're not the game becomes unbalanced.

Also it's more fun to be a superhero facing a supervillain than a soldier facing a slime, just because we're overpowered doesn't mean the game is broken, rather the opposite.

[Resistance]

Preventing optimisation is impossible. Even if I make it clear that it's not allowed, people just do it subtly. E6 is a solution to a degree, but basically D&D isn't meant for it. It means a lot of things are shut off, and it doesn't really prevent the inherent problems in the systems.

 

I meant freedom in terms of creating a character, since the whole system is classless. As I remember, dungeoneering did have a whole lot of nothing happening. You are right though, people care very little about things that don't affect them - especially the tavern.

 

Loose rules mean total imbalance. Just go and look at the stats of players on the original dungeoneering, they're all different. I bet a few people missed some sessions, but otherwise it was just a force-of-personality test.

 

You are right, but SW and D&D aren't comparable in that way. Compared to E6, I would say that the SW characters would be stronger. Your SW characters will be stronger than the characters you have now for sure, if you just look at the rules you will see that even at a lower level the chance of PCs taking down NPCs is a lot higher because of the added wild card.

 

Scaling everything up is stupid. It's like when DMs say that the lock on the pub is masterwork because all the players have spent all their effort into disable device. Likewise, I could just give all monsters 20 SR to scale up encounters against spell casters. Even so, that sort of thing is not going to work in D&D anyway - in a narrative based game, the DM can just say that the attacks do little and make things up on the spot, although you may have had the illusion that whatever you put your skills had an impact, they actually would not have normally.

[Retech]

The solution is not to give your low level monsters SR. It's to introduce higher level monsters. The plot just becomes more "epic" in terms of scale.

 

Optimization is not really a problem by itself. It does not really cause problems in plot, nor does it inhibit roleplaying. And the problem is not with the system either. Perhaps if the plot became more relevant or driving, then it will have a greater impact.

 

One problem I noticed is that there is a lot of OOC chatter all the time, which can sometimes inhibit roleplaying.

[Alg]

I'd actually argue that part of the problem is that you're spending more time tweaking the rules to keep us from optimizing than running a game everyone would enjoy. :?

 

If we're trivializing combat, tone down the combat and throw in some roleplaying or tactical challenges. That way, when you throw a monster at us, it would actually mean something. As it is we're basically drifting from one fight to the next. There's no room for roleplaying and, as a result, not optimizing is a death sentence.

[Nexaduro]

Look, if you really want, just switch to another damn system. I have more free time than I know what to do with, so it's not like I'm going to drop out just because it's not Pathfinder. But this is getting tiresome, I've spent the last several sessions in their entirety trying to make a new character because you decided to change the rules/setting again.

 

YOU decided to run Pathfinder. If you're this uncomfortable with the system then you shouldn't have tried in the first place. If you still can't manage, then just stop trying.

 

If you're confident that you can run a good, story-centric game then by all means do so. I'd be willing to take part. I just want you to make up your goddamn mind already.

[Resistance]

As far as I can see, SW is essentially optimisation free. Characters can customise and I'm sure that there is some combination of attributes that is optimal but not to a degree that I feel I would need to make adjustments. I have been wrong, I sort of thought this about E6 so I'm asking for solid reasons as to whether to move or not.

I agree I can understand how it can very annoying. The last three sessions were bad as a result. If SW fixes this finally, then I think we can resume. I may be being a bit paranoid, but some of these things are ridiculous.

Apart from the argument that being weak isn't fun (which I don't really agree with, I would say E6 D&D is far weaker in terms of characters - just certain mechanics are very open to abuse) there aren't arguments against.

 

 

Edit: we switch to SW and see how it goes. Story will stay the same. Complaining about the system is not allowed while testing since it fosters a negative attitude

More info tomorrow

 

 

 

 

As Nex said

[Nexaduro]

No arguments other than being weak isn't fun, save for those of us who just want play instead of dealing with DM paranoia and scrapping/rebuilding characters.

 

The point of D&D is kinda feeling like a powerful hero. 3.5 turned that into feeling like a powerful hero, because you found ways to connect the mechanics to make something fun and interesting as well as powerful. Pathfinder doesn't have nearly as much cheese, personally I think you should get over your problem with powerful characters and start intelligently designing encounters.

 

EDIT: Well now this post feels redundant.

[Alg]

The problem isn't the system. It isn't even optimization, that's just a symptom. You're so wrapped up in fighting it that there's no consistency.

 

To put it simply, it's more stressful than fun. There's no reason to get invested because the mechanics and story change at least once per week, and even when the game does get to run, it's just a string of unrelated combat encounters. There's no reason to care.

[Retech]

No arguments other than being weak isn't fun, save for those of us who just want play instead of dealing with DM paranoia and scrapping/rebuilding characters.

 

The point of D&D is kinda feeling like a powerful hero. 3.5 turned that into feeling like a powerful hero, because you found ways to connect the mechanics to make something fun and interesting as well as powerful. Pathfinder doesn't have nearly as much cheese, personally I think you should get over your problem with powerful characters and start intelligently designing encounters.

 

EDIT: Well now this post feels redundant.

[The_Mather1]

Preventing optimisation is impossible. Even if I make it clear that it's not allowed, people just do it subtly. E6 is a solution to a degree, but basically D&D isn't meant for it. It means a lot of things are shut off, and it doesn't really prevent the inherent problems in the systems.

 

I meant freedom in terms of creating a character, since the whole system is classless. As I remember, dungeoneering did have a whole lot of nothing happening. You are right though, people care very little about things that don't affect them - especially the tavern.

 

Loose rules mean total imbalance. Just go and look at the stats of players on the original dungeoneering, they're all different. I bet a few people missed some sessions, but otherwise it was just a force-of-personality test.

 

You are right, but SW and D&D aren't comparable in that way. Compared to E6, I would say that the SW characters would be stronger. Your SW characters will be stronger than the characters you have now for sure, if you just look at the rules you will see that even at a lower level the chance of PCs taking down NPCs is a lot higher because of the added wild card.

 

Scaling everything up is stupid. It's like when DMs say that the lock on the pub is masterwork because all the players have spent all their effort into disable device. Likewise, I could just give all monsters 20 SR to scale up encounters against spell casters. Even so, that sort of thing is not going to work in D&D anyway - in a narrative based game, the DM can just say that the attacks do little and make things up on the spot, although you may have had the illusion that whatever you put your skills had an impact, they actually would not have normally.

As has been said, optimization is not a problem. Some people put all their cards in one place, that's just a playing style.

 

Freedom of character and freedom of play amount to the same thing, one is just more immediately measurable than the other.

 

Strict rules are more imbalanced than loose ones, because with loose rules, people can do what they're comfortable with, while in strict rules some people follow them obediently while others try to get around them.

 

And scaling stuff up is how higher level play works, except you don't improve the inn's lock, but rather introduce high level treasure chests that hold better loot than the common ones.

[Resistance]

Making a load of assumptions about a game you know nothing about is ridiculous. Apart from the "I do not want to change" from Retech.

 

Mather's arguments are like: "I hate COD because I hate all RTS games", since as I have already explained the game is less restrictive, of about equal power level besides aces and wizards not being able to lock out any other class with hold person >50% of the time, it arguably has looser (or at least simpler) rules, and little/no optimisation just means a lack of opportunity for rules abuse.

 

Also, tactical combat with this system is not only possible. It's something that works well in this system. It's not just a +2 flanking bonus, well it is but the +2 means a lot more on a d6

[Alg]

But will it solve the problems that aren't related to optimization?

[Resistance]

Not really. Although it will give a bit more internal consistency to combat.

 

I'm probably oversimplifying but I think we could really benefit from sticking in one city. Otherwise people don't get anything apart from their GP rewards when they move from city to city hunting for adventures.

 

 

[Nexaduro]

Not really. Although it will give a bit more internal consistency to combat.

 

I'm probably oversimplifying but I think we could really benefit from sticking in one city. Otherwise people don't get anything apart from their GP rewards when they move from city to city hunting for adventures.

Unless you, y'know, think things through and actually make a working plot.

[Resistance]

And that's not circular circular reasoning. Make a better plot by making a better plot. Although plot isn't too much of an issue, since it just creates itself after an arc is established.

[Nexaduro]

And that's not circular circular reasoning. Make a better plot by making a better plot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRjRCQ6ThB8

[Alg]

And that's not circular circular reasoning. Make a better plot by making a better plot. Although plot isn't too much of an issue, since it just creates itself after an arc is established.

It makes sense, though. The plot is on you, we're just here to [bleep] up every single one of your plans once you let us at it. :twisted:

 

In all seriousness, we've spent the last few weeks arguing for a stronger plot (with the exception of Mather, who's arguing more for freedom). You've tried player-driven plots, they haven't gone very far. As much as we might like them, we might have to admit that this group can't handle them.

[Resistance]

Rulebook

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attributes: Agility d4, Smarts d4, Spirit d4, Strength d4, Vigor d4

Skills:

Charisma: –; Pace: –; Parry: –; Toughness: –;Hindrances: One Major, two Minor

Edges:

 

Start with: 5 points which can be used to raise your attributes. So getting to d6 or d8.

You get 15 skill points, these work the same as attributes. Except you need more for each successive skill.

 

We are going to start out with seasoned characters. Everybody gets four extra advances (see page 44)

 

Starting gold: 500 GP

Medieval gear

 

If you're playing a spellcaster, write out how you want to fluff it. The elements are a good base, but anything works. Maybe vermin or light projections.

[Resistance]

http://www.peginc.co...SWcore/TD06.pdf

 

Condensed form.

 

 

Also:

Talk with others about whether or not you want to take leadership edges.

 

Edit:

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12603519/Scion.txt

[The_Mather1]

And that's not circular circular reasoning. Make a better plot by making a better plot. Although plot isn't too much of an issue, since it just creates itself after an arc is established.

It makes sense, though. The plot is on you, we're just here to [bleep] up every single one of your plans once you let us at it. :twisted:

 

In all seriousness, we've spent the last few weeks arguing for a stronger plot (with the exception of Mather, who's arguing more for freedom). You've tried player-driven plots, they haven't gone very far. As much as we might like them, we might have to admit that this group can't handle them.

I'm not arguing for plot because I have a tendency to make my own whenever needed. If I spot something my character can use, I make sure he gets it in the end and thus force him through a series of unintended subplots to get it.

[Resistance]

Easiest way to make plot:

1. Create the most obnoxious NPC possible.
   
2. Have the NPC do something really annoying, like knock a player off a bridge or steal their most valuable magic item.
   
3. trololol
   
4. Party goes on mission to kill that player.
   

 

This will not always work with the tavern, because taverners will have no qualms about executing these players immediately regardless of appropriateness.

 

Mather, the issue is that short of high level artefacts, there is no real reason to go after people and mug them. I thought the nobility idea was a good idea, kill nobles to get more powers but I don't think the powers were good enough.

[Retech]

Plot doesn't really need to be about mugging and killing people, though. :o

[Resistance]

Plot doesn't really need to be about mugging and killing people, though. :o

 

Except it does in D&D, since the game is built around being murderhobos. Attaining wealth through cunning diplomacy and social situations just aren't part of the game.

 

The game basically boils down to killing:

 

 

Goblins

Orcs

Evil Cultists

Evil Wizards

Dragons

Kobolds

Werewolves

Vampires

Ogres

Uzram

Devils

Skeletons

Zombies

Necromancers

Wild Animals

 

 

 

Murder mysteries would be fun, although I don't think the D&D skills lend to it very well.

 

 

EDIT: I have just created a magic-less locked-room mystery

[Retech]

I'm not sure where you're getting that conclusion from.

[Alg]

Starting to see what the problem is...

 

I can help you write up a plot if you need it. It's perfectly possible, and in fact, is the way that people tend to play the game.