Quote from: Windjammer;4152791. That's the whole point of Frank's ethos in the last point. Mearls is happy to produce unfinished stuff for people to put their own hard earned money to. Mearls got no problem to charge for that stuff. Frank does, both as regards his own work and that of others. Frank still designs stuff, and lets you have it for free. Shadowrun Horror (the boardgame), the Tomes for D&D 3e co-authored with K, the rewritten Matrix rules for Shadowrun 4.01, etc etc. It's all pristine stuff, and Frank doesn't charge you money for it. Does that make him any less of a designer? Not in my book. Especially not when he has been professionally producing stuff in the past for customers to pay for.

THIS I agree you can honestly build a case for. That's what I was posting above: there is something to Mike Mearls being a hypocrite in regards to rules balance, in the sense that he often gives the impression of endorsing the "rules balance über Alles" wholeheartedly, while his designs are not consistent with that "philosophy."

"I made this awesome game all nifty, awesome and balanced, here it is, $39.99 please" when in fact, the game is not balanced like it was supposed to be. There's truth to that.

Quote from: Benoist;415273Your take that rules balance is the be-all, end-all of game design is just pure bullshit. It may be what you personally want out of a game, and appreciate at your game table, but it is not an objective "has to be that way, or you're a deluded moron" fact. That's my point.

So your point is:


Because the vast majority of the points in the original post were at best tangentially about balance, and were actually about the rules doing the things they were supposed to do.

Having a trait system that punishes players for having unique backstories or a character advancement system that punishes players who have high level character concepts that are similar to their low level character concepts is not a "balance" issue - it's a "your design is fucking terrible" issue. You can incentivize whatever you want, the fact that some choice or another is good or bad is not by itself a balance issue. It only becomes a balance issue if you tell players that they should select two different things which are wildly different in power.

The fact that a 3e D&D Cleric is a much better melee combatant than a 3e D&D Fighter is a balance issue because the game tells players that they are supposed to have a Fighter who goes into melee and a Cleric who helps out as a second banana in melee who also has various magic schticks that let him shine at other times. The fact that the Aristocrat class sucks is not a balance issue, because players who take the Aristocrat class know what they are getting into. The fact that Eagle Claw Attack is a worthless feat isn't a balance issue either, because it's not a standard option and no one has to take it.

The fact that Iron Heroes bones you for advancing your character within a consistent character concept is not a balance issue, because you could jolly well have advanced your character in a scattered fashion or carefully designed your "build" from the get-go. It's an issue where disincentivizing people to have fucking consistent character concepts is fucking insane. It's an issue where that design decision is inexcusable. Not because it's inherently unbalanced, but because what it encourages people to avoid is exactly what any sane person would want to encourage people to do.

So, since I am in fact not taking about "pure game balance" (whatever the hell that is), and never was, what the fuck is your point?

-Frank

I would think the way to address the OP's points would be to either point out where he is factually mistaken, or give voice to why the things he claims to be flaws turn out to actually make the play at the table better.
Rather than questioning his motives in writing the thing, or claiming that 'we once had fun playing with those rules', or saying he wrote his broken system 'enthusiastically' (though I'm a sucker for that myself). None of that addresses his actual argument.

I don't much care about 'balance' between PCs... and I agree with Benoist that the rules are the least concern in determining fun at the table... but for their small contribution they should at least be expected to contribute, rather than detract.

As it is it sounds from the descriptions here that the game has a lot of rules for things I wouldn't want rules for and would get in the way of my being able to play the character I'd want to play.

Quote from: Windjammer;415279Frank still designs stuff, and lets you have it for free. Shadowrun Horror (the boardgame), the Tomes for D&D 3e co-authored with K, the rewritten Matrix rules for Shadowrun 4.01, etc etc.

According to Google his most influential work is the publication of CGL's financial woes, but I'm not going to dispute your assessment of his other material.

Trollman's definitely entertaining.  As someone said upthread, if it were 4E he was hooking into, everyone would be applauding - me among them.

He may also be 100% correct about IH.  Perhaps it's because I don't have an opinion on it either way that the OP screams jealousy of Mearls over the steady hum of the critique.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;415288Having a trait system that punishes players for having unique backstories or a character advancement system that punishes players who have high level character concepts that are similar to their low level character concepts is not a "balance" issue - it's a "your design is fucking terrible" issue.

Punishes? How? By having one trait more powerful than another? That's a balance issue. What if I don't care about having the +2 to something my neighbor's getting? What if -GASP!- my character concept matters, and the hell with it?

It is totally a case of balance über alles. If it's not balanced, then it's "terrible." Well no. Depends on the players and what they're searching for in the game.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;415288You can incentivize whatever you want, the fact that some choice or another is good or bad is not by itself a balance issue. It only becomes a balance issue if you tell players that they should select two different things which are wildly different in power.

It also becomes a balance issue when you call it "terrible game design." Why? Because you assume that two different unbalanced choices demonstrate terrible game design. Why? Because you assume there is no choice. A player will obviously go for the mechanically more powerful choice. Well, NO. You are thus making it an issue, yourself.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;415288The fact that Iron Heroes bones you for advancing your character within a consistent character concept is not a balance issue, because you could jolly well have advanced your character in a scattered fashion or carefully designed your "build" from the get-go. It's an issue where disincentivizing people to have fucking consistent character concepts is fucking insane. It's an issue where that design decision is inexcusable. Not because it's inherently unbalanced, but because what it encourages people to avoid is exactly what any sane person would want to encourage people to do.

I just don't understand your point here. At all. It's like you're talking about deprotagonizing sparrows or something.
Please write something I can understand.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;415288So, since I am in fact not taking about "pure game balance" (whatever the hell that is), and never was, what the fuck is your point?

-Frank

From where I'm standing, you are totally talking about rules balance in a vacuum, except you tell me now that you aren't. So I guess my point from here is: make your fucking point clearer, Frank.

Benoist, are you seriously telling me that you "do not understand" that a game should incentivize behavior that is desirable on the part of the payers and not punish behavior that is desirable on the part of the players?

Are you also telling me that you do not think that a player deciding that they want to play a character who is good at fighting in the dark and then sticking to that as they rise in power is a desirable action on the part of a player?

Are you seriously saying that the kind of behavior that should be incentivized by the game is to abandon your character concept every single level and branch off into a wildly different fighting style like you were playing Ranma? Is that your final answer?

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;415308Benoist, are you seriously telling me that you "do not understand" that a game should incentivize behavior that is desirable on the part of the players and not punish behavior that is desirable on the part of the players?

So what you're trying to tell me is that the whole point of Iron Heroes is to make one trick ponies with game mechanics? That's it? Well, not for everyone. That's just not true.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;415308Are you also telling me that you do not think that a player deciding that they want to play a character who is good at fighting in the dark and then sticking to that as they rise in power is a desirable action on the part of a player?

Not necessarily, no. Having a character you like and feel comfortable playing is the desirable outcome, to me. To some people, that means having that guy that fights in the dark and thats-all-the-guy-does. To other people, it will mean having a more fleshed out character by selecting traits and feats that fits their idea of who their character is, on any number of standpoints between the personality of the character, his background, experiences, role in the group, whatever. One-trick-poneys are not the only possible desirable outcome of game design, no.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;415308Are you seriously saying that the kind of behavior that should be incentivized by the game is to abandon your character concept every single level and branch off into a wildly different fighting style like you were playing Ranma? Is that your final answer?

-Frank

No. What I'm saying is that your idea of "sticking to your character concept" is one-dimensional, based on rules only, and assumes that automatically means creating one-trick poneys within the confines of the rules in a vacuum. That may be your take, but I don't have to accept it as mine.

Quote from: Benoist;415307Punishes? How? By having one trait more powerful than another? That's a balance issue. What if I don't care about having the +2 to something my neighbor's getting? What if -GASP!- my character concept matters, and the hell with it?

If you're playing solo, that's fine.  The instant another player sits at the table, you're playing a team-focused game.  You're expected to be a full and equal contributor to the team, and that means maximizing your performance because everyone else relies on you to do your part.  If you fuck up, it's not just you that suffers- everyone on the team suffers the consequences of your fuckup.  If someone else loses a PC because you fucked up, then they've got every right to call you on your bullshit because you Did It Wrong and thus can (and should) demand that you fix your man, get a better one or get the fuck out.  Who and what your dude was doesn't mean shit; all that matters is what your dude does during play, because success needs no justification and failure allows none.

I'm a bit in the middle on the whole game balance vs. individualism thing. Personally I see Franks point because as much as I love Palladium and Wujick, I've played a lot of Ninjas and Superspies and it had the same problem when you select powers.

For example, it might give you a choice between Wrist hardening (+5% escape joint locks) and Mind like the Moon (+2 Parry, +4 Dodge, +6 Initiative). A lot of times, Samurai type characters couldn't take sword drawing because they could instead take Mind like the Moon.

In my current game, my players always focus on concept because they are very artistic, but once it gets in the game, they get really salty when their concept doesn't statistically cut it, so I end up either artificially powering them up to equal or helping them rework their character some. I think being true to your idea is fine, but I think most people get sick of it when they realize they aren't doing enough damage.

Really?
I read that whole thread, and that's all there is to this?

A decent, if somewhat overzealous backstab rant/analysis about IH, some seriously overdone Mearls bashing, and Ben looking at it solely through the lens of balance, and some sniping?
 
You can look at any class (in a class based game) and as soon as you mention another class, it can be about balance.  It's too bad, but every class, race, power, etc, analysis can be seen through the balance lens.
And we do talk about the ogre of overdone balance a lot.

BTW, Frank, I like your commenht about the magic system , and your comment about the aristocrat was also very useful.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;415312If you're playing solo, that's fine.  The instant another player sits at the table, you're playing a team-focused game.  You're expected to be a full and equal contributor to the team, and that means maximizing your performance because everyone else relies on you to do your part.  If you fuck up, it's not just you that suffers- everyone on the team suffers the consequences of your fuckup.  If someone else loses a PC because you fucked up, then they've got every right to call you on your bullshit because you Did It Wrong and thus can (and should) demand that you fix your man, get a better one or get the fuck out.  Who and what your dude was doesn't mean shit; all that matters is what your dude does during play, because success needs no justification and failure allows none.

Sounds like fucking World of Warcraft to me. I'm glad the guys I play RPGs with don't look at our games that way.

Quote from: Windjammer;4152792. I think of the OP in this thread (and others Frank authored over the years) as akin to Borges' gem about Pierre Menard. Borges realized one day that 90% of all the great literary master pieces of the West came about a writer sitting in his closet one afternoon, getting ONE brilliant idea and then writing a 500 page novel about it. Borges says, 'fuck that, I'm just going to give you the one idea - and dress it up inside an imaginary book I never wrote... heck, make that: one idea dressed up as an imaginary review of an imaginary book I pretend someone else wrote'. Reading Frank's reviews, it seems to me just because his work there doesn't opt for the format "160 pages rehashed splat, that'll be 29.95 please" makes it any less insightful or useful. Especially not when compared to that trainwreck of IH, which is all about a guy going "hey, I have this one, maybe two cool ideas... how can I spam that into an unworkable 300 page manuscript that people pay money for?". Heck, there's more actual insight into d20 design buried under that OP here than in the entirety of that IH core book.

It seems like many non-fiction books I come across, are written in this manner.  Some stuff would have been easier to get the point across as a magazine article (or blog post these days), instead of stretching it out over 200+ pages.

Here's where I agree with Frank: Iron Heroes as written is not coherent with itself. Its design is predicated on the notion that you'll have all sorts of neat mechanical gizmos to play with, but these gizmos are not all balanced with each other. Doesn't mean it's broken, unplayable, or that people can't have fun playing it. But if this isn't a problem with many players of the game, it is a problem with its own design intent.

This, is relevant to Mike Mearls' skills as a designer.

And that's where, I think, Frank does have a point.

Quote from: jeff37923;415251I'm not a Mike Mearls fan, but check out Portals & Planes (one of FFG's Legends & Lairs sourcebooks for 3E) that he wrote. I have found it to be a pretty solid reference work for planar adventuring.

Yes, that's true. Portals and Planes was quite good.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Hairfoot;415302Trollman's definitely entertaining.  As someone said upthread, if it were 4E he was hooking into, everyone would be applauding - me among them.

I was assuming it WAS 4e he was hooking into, just by proxy.

RPGPundit