TheRPGSite

What are the big no-nos, if any?

I guess the lack of responses means that there are no no-nos?
Especially not nowadays, and not on this site .... except criticizing others playstyles, that is.
:cool:

For me the no-nos would be all of the stuff that the SJW crowd wants to insert into the game while removing all the things that make it fun.

Oh and I can also do without the shark jumping so-called "art" you see so much nowadays. No one needs a sword that is wider than their own body.

Any game that makes equipping a starting character take far more time than all other aspects of character creation is a big no-no for me. Shadowrun has long been an example of this, and it keeps getting worse.

Huh, I was not going to reply, but yeah... itemized-tax-form char-gen is an obscenity I would rather not see. :cool:

There aren't any offensive subjects in RPGs per se.

But some RPGs and supplements reveal their authors and readers to be deconstructionists intent on bringing down Western civilisation, consciously or otherwise.

One pet peeve of mine though is graphic artists unable to grasp the basics of human anatomy (Wayne Reynolds, for example). There is a whole slew of mediocre or failing illustrators who can't draw according to my admittedly exacting standards. They think they can, but they really don't - I attribute it to the demerits of a botched or non-existent classical education, i.e they haven't sufficiently studied pre-20th century art.

Regarding mechanics, any system sufficiently complex for taking me long hours to create NPCs as a GM will get a pass from me (I'm looking sideways at you, Pathfinder 1 and 2).

One corollary of excessively complex rules: if I need a computer application to play an RPG, that is an RPG that I won't play with.

RPGs are meant to be analog.

Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1112672One corollary of excessively complex rules: if I need a computer application to play an RPG, that is an RPG that I won't play with.

RPGs are meant to be analog.

Sadly theres a growing push for app dependant board games now. Apparently because board gamers are too stupid or lazy to read the rules. And of course if you discontinue the app. The games useless now and you'll have to rebuy the game in a few years as 2.0. horray. Not.

Example I passed on the new Mansions of Madness as it requires an app to play. And the game is unplayable without it. Theres a resistance to this. But as more of these things come out its looking less and less likely to end unless theres a major failure or big refusal to buy. And cult of the new will buy it just because.

Not directly offensive, but any game that requires you to get into a controversial or divisive headspace in order to work I would consider to be difficult, even if I agreed with the headspace in question. It's the right of a game designer to proselytize if he wants but the audience's enjoyment should come first.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1112679Not directly offensive, but any game that requires you to get into a controversial or divisive headspace in order to work I would consider to be difficult, even if I agreed with the headspace in question. It's the right of a game designer to proselytize if he wants but the audience's enjoyment should come first.

Would this include Eclipse Phase where anyone that is not an anarcho-communist is a varying shade of wrong?

Races ae controversial because they're clearly a thinly veiled justification for racism and stereotyping.
Character sheets with a space for sex or gender are controversial because there are six billion genders and you are submitting to cultural bias.
Alignments are controversial because democrats believe everyone is good and republicans believe everyone is evil
Attributes are controversial because they imply all men are not created equal.
Random character creation is controversial for the same reason.
Points buy character creation is controversial because that kind of entitlement automatically creates bias.
Combat is controversial because playing violent games causes murder.
Character death is controversial because it causes suicide.
Magic is controversial because it's disrespectful to Wiccans.
Equipment is controversial because all property belongs to the estate, even imaginary property.
Random encounters are controversial because a good story is preplanned and unchangeable.
History is controversial because we have always been at war with Eastasia.
Psionics are controversial because the government doesn't want people to know their secret agents can read minds.
Superheroes are controversial because they are clearly fascist ubermensch.
Heroes are controversial because they are the mark of childish stories and can never be literature.

Quote from: David Johansen;1112683Races ae controversial because they're clearly a thinly veiled justification for racism and stereotyping.
Character sheets with a space for sex or gender are controversial because there are six billion genders and you are submitting to cultural bias.
Alignments are controversial because democrats believe everyone is good and republicans believe everyone is evil
Attributes are controversial because they imply all men are not created equal.
Random character creation is controversial for the same reason.
Points buy character creation is controversial because that kind of entitlement automatically creates bias.
Combat is controversial because playing violent games causes murder.
Character death is controversial because it causes suicide.
Magic is controversial because it's disrespectful to Wiccans.
Equipment is controversial because all property belongs to the estate, even imaginary property.
Random encounters are controversial because a good story is preplanned and unchangeable.
History is controversial because we have always been at war with Eastasia.
Psionics are controversial because the government doesn't want people to know their secret agents can read minds.
Superheroes are controversial because they are clearly fascist ubermensch.
Heroes are controversial because they are the mark of childish stories and can never be literature.

Too true! I've even read firsthand testimony from GameDaddy that Maid RPG precipitates child rape cults! :eek:

Let's get those burn piles going for all these dangerous books! :p

Quote from: Opaopajr;1112667Huh, I was not going to reply, but yeah... itemized-tax-form char-gen is an obscenity I would rather not see. :cool:

Excuse me, sir, this is an audit from the Internal Treasurevenue Service. You seem to have forgotten to declare that magical sword that you acquired in the dungeons of the sunken temple last year.

And obviously you didn't craft it because 5e's crafting system sucks. :D

Probably any sort of mechanic that gives the players the ability to veto GM fiat. That's not an RPG. It's like saying if all the players on a baseball team think it's a ball, and the umpire calls a strike, it's a ball; completely undermines the position of a referee.

Quote from: Omega;1112678Sadly theres a growing push for app dependant board games now. Apparently because board gamers are too stupid or lazy to read the rules. And of course if you discontinue the app. The games useless now and you'll have to rebuy the game in a few years as 2.0. horray. Not.

Example I passed on the new Mansions of Madness as it requires an app to play. And the game is unplayable without it. Theres a resistance to this. But as more of these things come out its looking less and less likely to end unless theres a major failure or big refusal to buy. And cult of the new will buy it just because.

I bought the new Mansions of Madness boardgame for the miniatures ...
It isn't totally unplayable without it, but you DO have to do all the GM-work for it, as that is exactly what the app seem to do, from the description in the rules.
Sure, there is the thing that the app also tell the target number for combat rolls etc, but the monsters stats are noted on the cards in the actual game, soooo.....

But, i agree with your criticizm, even though i think the so-called "legacy games" are far worse atrocities when it comes to wasteful handling of material.
("Legacy games" boasts with that "No Game is ever the same, Literally!" because it has packs of cards that you do not unpack until later ... and because you are supposed to physically tear up cards as you play, as well!, and that might even be true for sections of rules and/or the gameboard and/or varying tokens ....
...
When all that could be done with GM-styled preparation instead of destroying actual set pieces !

EDIT:
Essentially, they seem to introduce GM-like things, without actually using a GM !

Quote from: David Johansen;1112683Races ae controversial .....

* Laughs *
<3

Quote from: Brad;1112690Probably any sort of mechanic that gives the players the ability to veto GM fiat. That's not an RPG. It's like saying if all the players on a baseball team think it's a ball, and the umpire calls a strike, it's a ball; completely undermines the position of a referee.

I dislike any RPG that advocates the idea of "sharing" the "GM responsibilities/load" in general. To me they always seem to be written with undertones suggesting that being the GM is a shit job, too much for one person to responsibly handle, an un-fun chore, only power hungry people want to keep all the GM toys to themselves, players are just sheep being thrown breadcrumbs at the GM's mercy, etc. along with the implication that sharing those responsibilities among multiple people somehow automatically equates to a better game and happier players (when IME it has the exact opposite effect; cooks, kitchen, etc.).

Not a trope or mechanic, but I get very upset when someone tries to take my turn for me. Last time someone did this, at an Encounters session, I handed him my character sheet. If you're going to tell me what to do on my turn, every turn, just play my character. I'll join another table. (He got the point and stopped.)

It tends to happen if I ask a rules question. People don't know the difference between a legal move and a good move. The answer to "can I take a 5 foot step after shooting my bow in this edition" becomes "you should shoot at the leader and then take a 5 foot step back so my guy can swing at the dude in front of you." Its very frustrating because it's usually not hard to see a move like that, I was probably already thinking about doing that, and now I don't feel like my creativity is contributing to the game. I'm just a die roller.

Some people believe that sparing you from making a mistake is a favor.

Quote from: Ashakyre;1112697Not a trope or mechanic, but I get very upset when someone tries to take my turn for me.

Funnily enough I've had the opposite problem with one particular player. Whenever combat would start, she would become *so* indecisive when her turn came around that she would poll every other player at the table for what to do, waffle on an idea before moving on to the next one to waffle over, around and around... she would basically do her best to play her character by popular vote.


However, as soon as she *did* come up with an idea for what she wanted to do, she would list out multiple turns worth of actions all in a row. "I swing up onto the catwalk, knock out the three gangers with my robotic fist, run down to the end of the corridor and shut the hatch before the thugs on motorcycles can get inside, then I break the pipe next to me to fill the corridor with flammable gas!"

"Err, right, okay, but let's back up to the swinging up onto the catwalk and punching a guy bit..."

The rubber-banding made my head spin! Soaked up a lot of energy trying to regulate the turn pacing with that one.

Edit: it also didn't help that she was easily frustrated and would sort of throw her hands up and mentally shut down if she was faced with a difficult or complex choice/decision.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1112680Would this include Eclipse Phase where anyone that is not an anarcho-communist is a varying shade of wrong?

Depends on how difficult it is to change that up.  For some games stuff like that is setting fluff only and comparatively easy to rewrite, but other games will bake the required PC worldview into character creation and game operation rules in a way that means you either buy into the setting's assumptions or you rewrite your own rules.

As a matter of principle I think RPGs should err on the side of user options and flexibility as much as possible. Even in Werewolf: The Apocalypse, the players could all play Glass Walker PCs who disagreed with much of the Gaiaism and still make a perfectly viable game out of it.

Thank you for sharing this perspective. Our problem players were each others' solutions!

I had a hesitant player in high school. He was a little slow, not that confident, and a really good guy. I was too impatient in those years and could have handled it better.

Perhaps the personality type I complained about confused me for an indecisive person. Next time I will say "I am not indecisive." It might work better than "I want to what I can do, not what I should do."

Quote from: Antiquation!;1112699Funnily enough I've had the opposite problem with one particular player. Whenever combat would start, she would become *so* indecisive when her turn came around that she would poll every other player at the table for what to do, waffle on an idea before moving on to the next one to waffle over, around and around... she would basically do her best to play her character by popular vote.


However, as soon as she *did* come up with an idea for what she wanted to do, she would list out multiple turns worth of actions all in a row. "I swing up onto the catwalk, knock out the three gangers with my robotic fist, run down to the end of the corridor and shut the hatch before the thugs on motorcycles can get inside, then I break the pipe next to me to fill the corridor with flammable gas!"

"Err, right, okay, but let's back up to the swinging up onto the catwalk and punching a guy bit..."

The rubber-banding made my head spin! Soaked up a lot of energy trying to regulate the turn pacing with that one.

Edit: it also didn't help that she was easily frustrated and would sort of throw her hands up and mentally shut down if she was faced with a difficult or complex choice/decision.

Quote from: Ashakyre;1112708Thank you for sharing this perspective. Our problem players were each others' solutions!

Indeed! It's funny the way interpersonal dynamics work out (or don't) at the table sometimes; even the most troublesome types can work out swimmingly with the right group of complementary personalities, and even the best players can become obstacles with a severely mismatched group.

Quote from: Ashakyre;1112708I had a hesitant player in high school. He was a little slow, not that confident, and a really good guy. I was too impatient in those years and could have handled it better.

Perhaps the personality type I complained about confused me for an indecisive person. Next time I will say "I am not indecisive." It might work better than "I want to what I can do, not what I should do."

Perspective does matter to be sure, I've found often times people who come off as grating at the table aren't acting maliciously but rather addressing some perceived issue either internal or external in a manner perpendicular to my own view of the situation.

I know I could have handled my own "problem" player better; sometimes I let myself become frustrated with the pacing of the game which I believe I telegraphed, and that of course could only exacerbate the way she felt about making a decisive choice (she was more than enthusiastic about the game in general, but would become very self-conscious and timid if I became visibly irritated, which is understandable and a total failure on my part towards handling both her and the game itself).

Quote from: Antiquation!;1112695I dislike any RPG that advocates the idea of "sharing" the "GM responsibilities/load" in general. To me they always seem to be written with undertones suggesting that being the GM is a shit job, too much for one person to responsibly handle, an un-fun chore, only power hungry people want to keep all the GM toys to themselves, players are just sheep being thrown breadcrumbs at the GM's mercy, etc. along with the implication that sharing those responsibilities among multiple people somehow automatically equates to a better game and happier players (when IME it has the exact opposite effect; cooks, kitchen, etc.).

Yeah, again, those aren't RPGs, they're something else. Calling them RPGs is just lazy.

Offense is in the eye of the beholder. Everything is fine as long as the group is on the same wavelenght.

Quote from: Itachi;1112723Offense is in the eye of the beholder. Everything is fine as long as the group is on the same wavelenght.

Considering Erotic Role-Playing is considered its own genre of RPG play, with the broad variety of catered gradients you'd expect... yes, I'd say you're on the money.

Every setting has to be Current Year Seattle. There's nothing more offensive than that.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1112730Every setting has to be Current Year Seattle. There's nothing more offensive than that.

That would be funny if it weren't true.

Rape is generally a non-no, especially when done to a PC. That has always puzzled me. It's fine to chop people's limbs off, torture them, use spells to transform them, terrify them, send them mad and so on, but not ok to have rape in a game.

By the way, I am not advocating rape in games, just stating that it puzzles me.

Quote from: soltakss;1112735Rape is generally a non-no, especially when done to a PC. That has always puzzled me. It's fine to chop people's limbs off, torture them, use spells to transform them, terrify them, send them mad and so on, but not ok to have rape in a game.

By the way, I am not advocating rape in games, just stating that it puzzles me.

I think explicit sex in general is usually off-limits to most groups; non-consensual sex would seem to fall along those lines, plus the added brutality of it. I don't mind if rape exists or happens in a setting, but it seems to be the type of thing that would be clinically worded and faded to black more than anything. "The barbarians slaughter the men, and take their pleasure from the women. The next morning the town is in ruin, and many of the people have been taken as slaves. What do you do?"

If done to a PC, I would imagine similar wording would be used to bedding the barmaid (and would probably be something you'd want to let them know is a possibility ahead of time). "You've been knocked unconscious. The orc drags your elf over to a log and uses you to his satisfaction before picking his weapons back up and making his way off into the woods. You wake up in torn clothes, with all of your coin missing. What do you do?"

Also, I think for a lot of people rape has an "ick" factor that they haven't been desensitized to in the same way as, for example, free and guiltless slaughter/murder.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1112680Would this include Eclipse Phase where anyone that is not an anarcho-communist is a varying shade of wrong?

No. This game is above reproach, is on the Approved List(tm) and is immune to your criticism. Please report to your local Enforcement Authority for readjustment. Thank you.

(Disclaimer: I like EP but I can easily ditch the setting parts I don't like. Also, the art is amazing...)

-----

[sarcasm]
to the OP: You are absolutely positively NOT allowed to create a setting around any culture that isn't your own. Also, any culture of a minority the reader belongs to. Also, any culture that is not white.

You are absolutely positively NOT allowed to create a setting based around Euro-centric or white American-centric cultures. These are reminders of fascism, racism, oppression and patriarchy.

In FACT, the best games have no culture. Also, no setting. Yeah. Just keep out any details of anything flavorful. I'll insert the CORRECT cultural influences as I deem them necessary.
[/sarcasm]

-------

Seriously? To all the hand-wringers, outrage specialists, overly sensitive, bored uninspired busy-bodies, fake SJWs, and regressive-left gatekeepers (fake term) I posit the following;

Take a deep breath. Concentrate on the center of your mass. I want you to breath slowly in on a four count. 1... 2.. 3.. 4... Now, exhale slowly on a four count. 1.. 2.. 3.. 4... Good. Now imagine every muscle in your body relaxing. Let all your rage ooze out of your body. Keep breathing in slowly... 1.. 2.. 3.. 4.... Wonderful. I want you to imagine a time long ago when you were a young child in primary school. Remember playing with your favorite toys? I want you to see yourself sitting in your room on the floor surrounded by your friends, laughing and imagining and dreaming about the possibilities of the future. Okay, let's open our eyes.

When you sit down to roleplay do you feel anything like you do now? Do you feel anything like you did when you were a child? Even a little?

If your answer was no - you are in the wrong hobby. Instead of trying to ruin fun time for all the people sitting around you perhaps you would consider doing something more productive with your time? Certainly there is something you would enjoy more than being constantly offended by our microaggressions, desire to think for ourselves and make cool shit we just like? All this anger (outrage) can't be good for your health.

You should sit down and contemplate deeply on how you felt after our exercise and find something that brings you that kind of peace. For the love of God and all that is holy. Something.

Love,

Quote from: Catelf;1112691But, i agree with your criticizm, even though i think the so-called "legacy games" are far worse atrocities when it comes to wasteful handling of material.
("Legacy games" boasts with that "No Game is ever the same, Literally!" because it has packs of cards that you do not unpack until later ... and because you are supposed to physically tear up cards as you play, as well!, and that might even be true for sections of rules and/or the gameboard and/or varying tokens ....
...
When all that could be done with GM-styled preparation instead of destroying actual set pieces !

EDIT:
Essentially, they seem to introduce GM-like things, without actually using a GM !

Yeah. Risk Legacy started this damn fad which seems to show no indicator of dropping dead any time soon and the usual morons declare it the "great new thing!" when it is not a new idea at all. Just a new implementation. Customizable games and books have been around since at least the late 70s. Possibly earlier if you count the original Salvo. (Not counting any actual games that you just draw on paper.)

I think the current 'legacy' games are a potential problem as they are usually A: Damn expensive for a possibly one-shot game. B: make them really hard, to impossible to sell afterwards. C: Too prone to screwups that have no way of undoing short of buying the game again. And D: Are potentially just very expensive wastes of money considering how mayfly/ADD some gamers are. But there are some who proudly declare they will just buy the game again just to play it new a second time. God help us all.

Quote from: Brad;1112719Yeah, again, those aren't RPGs, they're something else. Calling them RPGs is just lazy.

Its called co-opting.

Quote from: Omega;1112743Its called co-opting.

To paraphrase Kenny Powers, I play real RPGs, not trying to be the best at creating a shared narrative.

Quote from: Brad;1112745To paraphrase Kenny Powers, I play real RPGs, not trying to be the best at creating a shared narrative.

You saying you don't want to build a shared pseudo-novel together with me? Fucking fascist.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1112701Depends on how difficult it is to change that up.  For some games stuff like that is setting fluff only and comparatively easy to rewrite, but other games will bake the required PC worldview into character creation and game operation rules in a way that means you either buy into the setting's assumptions or you rewrite your own rules.

As a matter of principle I think RPGs should err on the side of user options and flexibility as much as possible. Even in Werewolf: The Apocalypse, the players could all play Glass Walker PCs who disagreed with much of the Gaiaism and still make a perfectly viable game out of it.

Speaking of World of Darkness and the ST systems...

It is a mess of problems. Mechanically it is a mess because there are a bazillion iterations of the rules with zero attempt to organize them. The fluff is a mess because there are a bazillion settings with zero attempt to organize or integrate them. It tries to be a universal system without providing any of the basic functionality of universal systems like BRP or GURPS. Worse, the writers and the fandom lack any self-awareness of these issues.

But criticism is pointless if the writers and fandom refuse to accept it. If anybody is interested in discussing retroclones of the ST mechanics, then I would be more than happy to do so in the appropriate venue.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1112778Speaking of World of Darkness and the ST systems...

It is a mess of problems...

Have you looked at HERO 6e? It does supernaturals really well...

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1112689Excuse me, sir, this is an audit from the Internal Treasurevenue Service. You seem to have forgotten to declare that magical sword that you acquired in the dungeons of the sunken temple last year.

And obviously you didn't craft it because 5e's crafting system sucks. :D

:o aww, no escape from death and taxes. Well, except for Resurrection Spells and Tax Shelters... :D

Quote from: trechriron;1112779Have you looked at HERO 6e? It does supernaturals really well...

And it can stop a bullet.

Quote from: trechriron;1112779Have you looked at HERO 6e? It does supernaturals really well...

You could suggest any other rules system. The problem with White Wolf isn't the ST system itself, but their execution of it. Rather than doing something sensible like writing a Storyteller System Rulebook or something, they include a copy of the rules in every setting book they make and all these books have slightly different implementations of the idea.

If you want to know how to do things with a basic degree of competence, then look at Nightlife, WitchCraft, Everlasting, Liminal, Monsterhearts, Urban Shadows, Nephilim, Invisible War, or anything else. They have their own problems (what doesn't?), but what they do right that White Wolf never did is that they use the same basic rules, use universal guidelines for constructing superpowers, and their settings are integrated.

Again, let me know if there is a better venue to discuss this sort of thing because I don't want to make a needless tangent in this thread.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1112730Every setting has to be Current Year Seattle. There's nothing more offensive than that.

That's merely the flavor of the month of the wider problem:  Inability to role play pre-modern attitudes and thoughts.  Or even "none modern" attitudes and thoughts.  Designers doing current year Seattle as their default is a particularly lazy, self-indulgent form of that.

Though in fairness, some of that is not so much offensive as pathetic.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1112680Would this include Eclipse Phase where anyone that is not an anarcho-communist is a varying shade of wrong?

Not the person you asked, but for myself - yes, somewhat.

I actually do like Eclipse Phase an awful lot, but there are times when I have to just ignore or re-write elements of the setting to avoid throwing the books across the room. Particularly anyplace that deals with any religion that isn't Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam.

Fortunately (For Eclipse Phase) there's enough other stuff there that I like that it's worth the hassle.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1112949That's merely the flavor of the month of the wider problem:  Inability to role play pre-modern attitudes and thoughts.

In fairness, there are some pre-modern attitudes and thoughts I have no interest in playing, or in having to deal with while I'm playing. I'd find a game that forced such assumptions on me or my PC as objectionable as one that forced "CY Seattle"'s assumptions. Hence my own preference for games that give players options in this regard.

It should be conceded that there are some games for which trying to do this will just obviate the point of the game -- e.g., if you don't like the frisson and terror of contemplating Lovecraftian nihilism, Call of Cthulhu is really just not the game for you at all (and this is one reason I've never played it myself). But if some games require getting into a certain headspace, they should at least be honest about that fact and noncondescending to those who aren't interested.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1112960In fairness, there are some pre-modern attitudes and thoughts I have no interest in playing, or in having to deal with while I'm playing. I'd find a game that forced such assumptions on me or my PC as objectionable as one that forced "CY Seattle"'s assumptions. Hence my own preference for games that give players options in this regard.

It should be conceded that there are some games for which trying to do this will just obviate the point of the game -- e.g., if you don't like the frisson and terror of contemplating Lovecraftian nihilism, Call of Cthulhu is really just not the game for you at all (and this is one reason I've never played it myself). But if some games require getting into a certain headspace, they should at least be honest about that fact and noncondescending to those who aren't interested.

Sure.  Don't want to play pre-modern thing X or Y.  Totally get it.  I'm the same way.  Can't play anything but modern things, no matter what the game is ostensibly about?  Then I don't want to play any game with that person.  Even if I wanted to play a modern game (which I don't), I wouldn't want to play with that person.  It betrays a lack of imagination, empathy, understanding of human nature, and general ability to even engage in the game.

Quote from: Bruwulf;1112955Not the person you asked, but for myself - yes, somewhat.

I actually do like Eclipse Phase an awful lot, but there are times when I have to just ignore or re-write elements of the setting to avoid throwing the books across the room. Particularly anyplace that deals with any religion that isn't Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam.

Fortunately (For Eclipse Phase) there's enough other stuff there that I like that it's worth the hassle.

There are things to like in EP, but when I consider running it, I tend to think that I'd have more success running Dark Heresy (2e) for an Inquisition campaign than an EP Firewall campaign. The tech that makes EP awesome is also what makes it a bitch to run (and even play), and the set-up of being per diem secret agents is IME hard for players to grasp compared to being full-time members of an Inquisitor's band of troubleshooters.

Quote from: Razor 007;1112643What are the big no-nos, if any?

Rectal tearing.

Quote from: DocJones;1113174Rectal tearing.

Dude, just roll really high for anal circumference. Duh.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1112680Would this include Eclipse Phase where anyone that is not an anarcho-communist is a varying shade of wrong?

You mean the game where only Islam was flexible enough to survive the apocalypse?

LMAO!

Quote from: DocJones;1113174Rectal tearing.

In 5e, it all heals after a long rest.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1113177You mean the game where only Islam was flexible enough to survive the apocalypse?

LMAO!

You didn't read it did you? The game is fairly kind to Islam, but also to buddhism,  Hinduism, and Mormonism. It does present most Christians in a negative light.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1113178In 5e, it all heals after a long rest.

Rolemaster has a table for that.  You add d% to 3 x Constitution and cross reference the severity.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1113179You didn't read it did you? The game is fairly kind to Islam, but also to buddhism,  Hinduism, and Mormonism. It does present most Christians in a negative light.

I have a copy on my shelf next to 30 other games I've never played. Eventually I'll put out a video on my channel and see how many it takes to stop a bullet.

As far as EP, I can see Hinduism to a degree and Buddhism surviving.  Christianity, probably, since most Christians are holiday Christians IMO anyway. Islam? Heh, no. To be fair, I don't see Judaism making it either in EP.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1113181I have a copy on my shelf next to 30 other games I've never played. Eventually I'll put out a video on my channel and see how many it takes to stop a bullet.

As far as EP, I can see Hinduism to a degree and Buddhism surviving.  Christianity, probably, since most Christians are holiday Christians IMO anyway. Islam? Heh, no. To be fair, I don't see Judaism making it either in EP.

Ah. I was just going by the 2e pdf. If you haven't picked up a copy, you should since it's free.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1113184Ah. I was just going by the 2e pdf. If you haven't picked up a copy, you should since it's free.

I've only got the 1st edition. I understand they toned things down for 2nd.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1113185I've only got the 1st edition. I understand they toned things down for 2nd.

Shoot me a PM with an email address and I can get you Eclipse Phase 2e through Dropbox. It's Creative Commons and legal to share, so anyone else that wants it can do the same.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1113181I have a copy on my shelf next to 30 other games I've never played. Eventually I'll put out a video on my channel and see how many it takes to stop a bullet.

As far as EP, I can see Hinduism to a degree and Buddhism surviving.  Christianity, probably, since most Christians are holiday Christians IMO anyway. Islam? Heh, no. To be fair, I don't see Judaism making it either in EP.

That is why I dislike such blatant politics in my rpgs. Chances are seeing it in rpgs will never stop yet somehow the more tolerant religions such as Christianity somehow don't survive into the future. Yet one of the more repressive, intolerant, and refusing to change ones not only does but thrives. In a world where death and the afterlife have become pretty much meaningless, any religion which promises an afterlife after death would fail imo. That and the fact that neither God, Allah or whatever prevalent god figure in a religion did nothing to stop the Titants or make an appearance that was for all intent and purposes judgement day. I guess a future with no religion on EP would have been too depressing.

Quote from: sureshot;1113206That is why I dislike such blatant politics in my rpgs. Chances are seeing it in rpgs will never stop yet somehow the more tolerant religions such as Christianity somehow don't survive into the future. Yet one of the more repressive, intolerant, and refusing to change ones not only does but thrives. In a world where death and the afterlife have become pretty much meaningless, any religion which promises an afterlife after death would fail imo. That and the fact that neither God, Allah or whatever prevalent god figure in a religion did nothing to stop the Titants or make an appearance that was for all intent and purposes judgement day. I guess a future with no religion on EP would have been too depressing.

Realistically, the religious would either die out or adapt their beliefs. Double-thinking their way around the inerrant writ of their ancient sacred texts is required to follow any dogmatic religion.

A while ago I suggested that Christianity in CthulhuTech wouldn't die out, but just start worshiping Cthulhu by claiming Jesus is the son of Cthulhu (http://bactra.org/jesus-cthulhu.html) and Wilbur Whateley was another messiah/prophet (http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/fic_acute.htm). If we adopt the viewpoint from "Litany of Earth" (https://www.tor.com/2014/05/14/the-litany-of-earth-ruthanna-emrys/) that Lovecraft's writing was racist propaganda and the deep ones are really an innocent persecuted minority, which I would adopt anyway because CthulhuTech's "Raping Storm" nation-state (yes, it literally has a nation-state called the Raping Storm whose whole shtick is that they run rape farms) is misogynistic to the point of self-satire, then it makes perfect sense that the deep ones would join this new Church of Cthulhu in order to survive the horrors of the strange aeon wars.

Christians teaming up with deep ones, star-spawn, and shoggoths to fight the filthy alien crab pagans and forcibly convert everyone to the worship of Cthulhu sounds like 40k lite. Therefore it is awesome by default.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1113181As far as EP, I can see Hinduism to a degree and Buddhism surviving.  Christianity, probably, since most Christians are holiday Christians IMO anyway. Islam? Heh, no. To be fair, I don't see Judaism making it either in EP.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1113184Ah. I was just going by the 2e pdf. If you haven't picked up a copy, you should since it's free.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1113185I've only got the 1st edition. I understand they toned things down for 2nd.

I haven't checked out 2E, I figured if anything given the current cultural climate they would have doubled down on the stupid, rather than rethunk it at all. In 1E, it was very much "All religions except Christianity are fine and prospering, even the other Abrahamic religions, but Christianity only survives in the official 'Evil People What You Can Kill For Fun Without Moral Qualms' faction, as a tool of evil, and it makes people stupid and techno-savages to follow it."



Ok, I read the Religion section in the 2E book.

Man I was really hopeful that things were actually better. Not so much.

Every religion covered gets a tasteful, in-character write-up by a fictional adherent of the religion. Except Christanity, which is purely an OOC stream of bullshit that doesn't explore much except the Catholic Church. Lutherans, Baptists, Anglicans, etc? Almost nothing. One backhanded reference to "strip-mall Protestantism" existing on Pre-fall Earth, and a line that "other religions have found fertile ground in some habitats", but absolutely no exploration of the topic on par with the other religions entries.

<Editing my Edit to Correct Something: Mormonism gets an entry separate from Christianity. Which I guess is the author taking a clear stand on the old "Are Mormons Christian?" debate...>

Between that and their utterly nonsensical, self-aggrandizing, backwards-ass spew of bullshit on trans people? 2E is manifestly worse than 1E as far as I'm concerned, setting-wise.

So, yeah. There's some good examples of things I find offensive in RPGs.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1113212Christians teaming up with deep ones, star-spawn, and shoggoths to fight the filthy alien crab pagans and forcibly convert everyone to the worship of Cthulhu sounds like 40k lite. Therefore it is awesome by default.

Still not my cup of tea, but at least that makes the game's particular POV obvious right up front, which I respect.

I'll concede that I find proselytization I happen to personally agree with more tolerable than proselytization with which I don't, but I think proselytization in RPGs in general is something that has to be treated as "make sure this doesn't interfere with the fun" rather than "assume this is the primary source of the fun".

While not the greatest sin in the world, I (my group) are sick of games that have XP awards that assume we're playing every day for years on end.  

We just played our first game of Vampire 5e on Tuesday night.  It's going to be a mostly weekly game that will probably run for 4-6 months.  The book suggests 1xp/session and a 2nd point if you finished a story arc.  XP costs for increasing most things are measured in multiples (Skills = Next Level x3 so a level 3 skill costs 9xp).

Now, we don't need to go from zero to super hero ASAP, but damn, come on.  Everyone likes "leveling up" and getting another die, dot, +1, ability, whatever.  Is it too much to have it be at a reasonable rate if the game goes the spend xp route?

Quote from: rgalex;1113220While not the greatest sin in the world, I (my group) are sick of games that have XP awards that assume we're playing every day for years on end.  

We just played our first game of Vampire 5e on Tuesday night.  It's going to be a mostly weekly game that will probably run for 4-6 months.  The book suggests 1xp/session and a 2nd point if you finished a story arc.  XP costs for increasing most things are measured in multiples (Skills = Next Level x3 so a level 3 skill costs 9xp).

Now, we don't need to go from zero to super hero ASAP, but damn, come on.  Everyone likes "leveling up" and getting another die, dot, +1, ability, whatever.  Is it too much to have it be at a reasonable rate if the game goes the spend xp route?

I like the GURPS method. Even with highly trained skills, cost tops out at 4 CP (character points) per additional rank and you can expect to receive 2-5 as experience per session unless the GM is accelerating or decelerating rewards. Often, GM's will grant a big bonus at the end of an adventure arc or similar as well.

Attributes are heftier, either 10 or 20 per level, but still within reach. Sub-attributes are mostly fairly cheap like Perception or extra hit points or fatigue. Advantages of various sorts are generally the most costly, and usually require the most involved in-world actions for justifying gaining them as well.

Granted it is more incremental than most games, so it might not feel as satisfying to "level up" for some people, but I like the way it feels as a progression system and it seems to create more well-rounded characters over the long term; particularly as buying new skills up from default tends to be cheap. It's nice to be able to improve something every couple of sessions though.

As a GM, I'm fairly permissive with people justifying single-level skill or sub-attribute increases assuming they've mentioned training them or used them during an adventure; other stuff I keep a tighter leash on, and I might require downtime or in-game action to justify purchase of. If I feel someone is being abusive of repeated skill increases during a single adventure, I may ask them to limit themselves to a single point contribution towards a skill or ability increase per session (so 4 sessions of 1-point contributions to raise their sword skill for the third time in a row) or tell them they need dedicated training time at home to raise beyond say skill 16 or find a master teacher to bump that Sword skill above 20 or whatever, but that sort of application/restriction is more of an art than a science.

Quote from: rgalex;1113220While not the greatest sin in the world, I (my group) are sick of games that have XP awards that assume we're playing every day for years on end.  

We just played our first game of Vampire 5e on Tuesday night.  It's going to be a mostly weekly game that will probably run for 4-6 months.  The book suggests 1xp/session and a 2nd point if you finished a story arc.  XP costs for increasing most things are measured in multiples (Skills = Next Level x3 so a level 3 skill costs 9xp).

Now, we don't need to go from zero to super hero ASAP, but damn, come on.  Everyone likes "leveling up" and getting another die, dot, +1, ability, whatever.  Is it too much to have it be at a reasonable rate if the game goes the spend xp route?

I don't like leveling up. :( Often in medium to heavy crunch games it just means more overhead to bother with, usually with players bee-lining to stupid risks like "Leeroy Jenkins" for LOLz & Profit!, detracting from the fictive world I was focusing on.

But I do agree White Wolf's compounding XP costs are just stupid. It obfuscates a basic measuring stick to calibrate one's campaign. Part of it is trying to counter the power creep from the Pavlovian RPG response of "gotta end a session with an XP cookie treat!" So I understand their desire. However, just give it to GM's to calibrate in a simple expression, like '1 XP to 1 dot', and dole out less treats. :rolleyes:

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1113212Realistically, the religious would either die out or adapt their beliefs. Double-thinking their way around the inerrant writ of their ancient sacred texts is required to follow any dogmatic religion.

A while ago I suggested that Christianity in CthulhuTech wouldn't die out, but just start worshiping Cthulhu by claiming Jesus is the son of Cthulhu (http://bactra.org/jesus-cthulhu.html) and Wilbur Whateley was another messiah/prophet (http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/fic_acute.htm). If we adopt the viewpoint from "Litany of Earth" (https://www.tor.com/2014/05/14/the-litany-of-earth-ruthanna-emrys/) that Lovecraft's writing was racist propaganda and the deep ones are really an innocent persecuted minority, which I would adopt anyway because CthulhuTech's "Raping Storm" nation-state (yes, it literally has a nation-state called the Raping Storm whose whole shtick is that they run rape farms) is misogynistic to the point of self-satire, then it makes perfect sense that the deep ones would join this new Church of Cthulhu in order to survive the horrors of the strange aeon wars.

Christians teaming up with deep ones, star-spawn, and shoggoths to fight the filthy alien crab pagans and forcibly convert everyone to the worship of Cthulhu sounds like 40k lite. Therefore it is awesome by default.

  This is the kind of thing that makes me want to do my Anti-Lovecraftian setting that reinterprets Cthulhu & Company through a scholastic Catholic, Tolkienesque lens. :)

Quote from: rgalex;1113220While not the greatest sin in the world, I (my group) are sick of games that have XP awards that assume we're playing every day for years on end.  

We just played our first game of Vampire 5e on Tuesday night.  It's going to be a mostly weekly game that will probably run for 4-6 months.  The book suggests 1xp/session and a 2nd point if you finished a story arc.  XP costs for increasing most things are measured in multiples (Skills = Next Level x3 so a level 3 skill costs 9xp).

Now, we don't need to go from zero to super hero ASAP, but damn, come on.  Everyone likes "leveling up" and getting another die, dot, +1, ability, whatever.  Is it too much to have it be at a reasonable rate if the game goes the spend xp route?

Totally.

Chronicles of Darkness 2e introduces the idea of characters gaining XP whenever they overcome a debuff (to use MMO jargon), and changes XP costs to linear rather than scaling. The rules are clunky as hell but beneath the layers of clunk is the kernel of a good idea.

Your suggestion of handing out a whole +1 is even better, probably. In fact, the White Wolf games are so poorly designed that you're probably better off using your common sense whenever possible.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1113227This is the kind of thing that makes me want to do my Anti-Lovecraftian setting that reinterprets Cthulhu & Company through a scholastic Catholic, Tolkienesque lens. :)

I'm curious to see what that entails.

Quote from: rgalex;1113220While not the greatest sin in the world, I (my group) are sick of games that have XP awards that assume we're playing every day for years on end.  

We just played our first game of Vampire 5e on Tuesday night.  It's going to be a mostly weekly game that will probably run for 4-6 months.  The book suggests 1xp/session and a 2nd point if you finished a story arc.  XP costs for increasing most things are measured in multiples (Skills = Next Level x3 so a level 3 skill costs 9xp).

Now, we don't need to go from zero to super hero ASAP, but damn, come on.  Everyone likes "leveling up" and getting another die, dot, +1, ability, whatever.  Is it too much to have it be at a reasonable rate if the game goes the spend xp route?

Modiphius' 2d20 Conan game suffers from this. They do start you off well above the masses, but then the XP awards of roughly 25 XP/hour of play kick in and you realize that most advancements take 200+ XP.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1113226Part of it is trying to counter the power creep from the Pavlovian RPG response of "gotta end a session with an XP cookie treat!" So I understand their desire.

Speaking as one of those Pavlovian canines myself, I have to admit that if two or more sessions go by without my character being able to do anything new or better, I certainly tend to get a bit antsy. And I've always subscribed to the belief that once a character has "leveled up" or the equivalent, you should always give him at least one encounter in which he can use that new oomph to win easily something that would previously have been a challenge. The whole fun of first learning that fireball spell at fifth level is to effortlessly toast the goblins that would have been a serious threat two levels ago.

That said, god-mode gets boring too and real fast, so I agree that it is to be avoided. If a game is going to give ways for PCs to rapidly increase in power, it has to give ways for opponents to keep pace easily.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1113227This is the kind of thing that makes me want to do my Anti-Lovecraftian setting that reinterprets Cthulhu & Company through a scholastic Catholic, Tolkienesque lens. :)

Quote from: BoxCrayonTalesI'm curious to see what that entails.

Me too please!

Quote from: HappyDaze;1113234Modiphius' 2d20 Conan game suffers from this. They do start you off well above the masses, but then the XP awards of roughly 25 XP/hour of play kick in and you realize that most advancements take 200+ XP.

Lol.  Yeah.  I just finished running a 2d20 Conan campaign.  This Vampire one is replacing it.  For Conan I handed out 100xp/hour we played and a bonus 100 if they finished an adventure.  They were getting roughly 300xp/session with the bonus 100xp every 2-3 sessions as we were playing very episodic adventures.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1113236Me too please!

If I ever develop it as more than a sketchy concept conceived in reaction against the tendency of gamers to Lovecraftianize everything, I'll be sure to post it here. :)

Quote from: BoxCrayonTalesChristians teaming up with deep ones, star-spawn, and shoggoths to fight the filthy alien crab pagans and forcibly convert everyone to the worship of Cthulhu sounds like 40k lite. Therefore it is awesome by default.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1113227This is the kind of thing that makes me want to do my Anti-Lovecraftian setting that reinterprets Cthulhu & Company through a scholastic Catholic, Tolkienesque lens. :)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1113238If I ever develop it as more than a sketchy concept conceived in reaction against the tendency of gamers to Lovecraftianize everything, I'll be sure to post it here. :)

I had a character in a very long-running Call of Cthulhu campaign who was a Catholic, whose religious sentiment was re-awakened by his experiences. It was an interesting twist to look at things. He saw the evils coming as the Biblical end of the world, which seems a much more straightforward than adopting Cthulhu as Christian.

Why would Christians start to worship Cthulhu?

I mean I could see Mormons, Scientologists or Hindus doing it but it seems to me that Cthulhu fits pretty squarely into the Satan side of the equation.

Not to mention that the Van Helsing character is iconic for a good reason, the church has been hunting down and killing cultists for millennia.

Quote from: Shasarak;1113248Why would Christians start to worship Cthulhu?

I mean I could see Mormons, Scientologists or Hindus doing it but it seems to me that Cthulhu fits pretty squarely into the Satan side of the equation.

Not to mention that the Van Helsing character is iconic for a good reason, the church has been hunting down and killing cultists for millennia.

Agree with you on this one...seems like a perfect "witch hunter" opportunity. I, too, like about 95% of Eclipse Phase, but some of the assumptions are just dumb. I haven't seen the 2nd edition yet, though.

Quote from: Shasarak;1113248Why would Christians start to worship Cthulhu?

I mean I could see Mormons, Scientologists or Hindus doing it but it seems to me that Cthulhu fits pretty squarely into the Satan side of the equation.

Not to mention that the Van Helsing character is iconic for a good reason, the church has been hunting down and killing cultists for millennia.

   Oh of course--if not constructs or aliens, the Mythos is full of demons who have spent themselves so fully in wickedness that they can't even leave the bodies they've assumed any more.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1113263Oh of course--if not constructs or aliens, the Mythos is full of demons who have spent themselves so fully in wickedness that they can't even leave the bodies they've assumed any more.

Especially the ones that go around preaching how you should love thy neighbour, those ones are the really cunning demons.

So wicked.

o_O

Quote from: Shasarak;1113248Why would Christians start to worship Cthulhu?

I mean I could see Mormons, Scientologists or Hindus doing it but it seems to me that Cthulhu fits pretty squarely into the Satan side of the equation.

Not to mention that the Van Helsing character is iconic for a good reason, the church has been hunting down and killing cultists for millennia.

Have you read the biblical descriptions of angels? Noticed that God cannot show his face without incinerating you?

Sound like mythos monsters to me.

Also, treating all mythos monsters as actively, constantly and deliberately malevolent towards humans misunderstands the definition of cosmic horror.

Nyarlathotep is the only monster who seems to actually enjoy toying with humans. However, it's impossible to determine whether this is because he understands and enjoys causing suffering or is just how some (but not all) humans perceive him. For all we know Nyarly is the cosmic equivalent of a little kid playing with bugs in his family's backyard or the graphical user interface of the outer gods' universal operating system.

"Beyond the Walk of Sleep" depicts a mythos monster that is able to hold a polite conversation and bears no ill will toward humanity. It even thinks poor white folks are subhuman, just like the protagonist! (I'm not kidding, the protagonist of that story literally puts a poor white dude in a cage like a lab animal.)

etc?

I fucking hate metal dice.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1113363etc?

I fucking hate metal dice.

Nah, they're good for getting a players attention when they hit the table with that loud thud. :D

Quote from: Jason Coplen;1113369Nah, they're good for getting a players attention when they hit [strike]the table[/strike] their face with that loud thud. :D

FTFY ;)

One of my players got some brass dice I believe.(could be copper, but pretty sure its brass) Hasn't used them yet. Nice weight to them.

We discussed it and they'd have to be rolled in a dice tower we made earlier with a based catcher. To avoid dinging the table.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1113361Have you read the biblical descriptions of angels? Noticed that God cannot show his face without incinerating you?

Sound like mythos monsters to me.

You have a Biblical character whose name is literally wrestling with God and plenty that actually argue with God and get him to change his mind about stuff he wanted to do.  That sounds like no mythos monster ever in the history of mythos monsters.

QuoteAlso, treating all mythos monsters as actively, constantly and deliberately malevolent towards humans misunderstands the definition of cosmic horror.

Nyarlathotep is the only monster who seems to actually enjoy toying with humans. However, it's impossible to determine whether this is because he understands and enjoys causing suffering or is just how some (but not all) humans perceive him. For all we know Nyarly is the cosmic equivalent of a little kid playing with bugs in his family's backyard or the graphical user interface of the outer gods' universal operating system.

"Beyond the Walk of Sleep" depicts a mythos monster that is able to hold a polite conversation and bears no ill will toward humanity. It even thinks poor white folks are subhuman, just like the protagonist! (I'm not kidding, the protagonist of that story literally puts a poor white dude in a cage like a lab animal.)

Which are all good arguments for why Jesus is not a child of Cthulhu.  Why is every Mythos monster indifferent to humanity except for one that somehow managed to set up a system of worship that is not a bunch of cults hiding out in a basement.  The chances of that are slim at best.

At least the Hindus have things like Kali who at least looks like a Mythos monster rather then one whose whole doctrine is based on someone who healed the sick, cared for the poor and in the end spectacularly failed to kill any Romans.

Worst

Mythos

Monster

Ever.

Quote from: Razor 007;1112643What are the big no-nos, if any?

elves

Quote from: HappyDaze;1113179You didn't read it did you? The game is fairly kind to Islam, but also to buddhism,  Hinduism, and Mormonism. It does present most Christians in a negative light.

Note: Mormons are Christians.

Quote from: soltakss;1113480Note: Mormons are Christians.

Not according to Eclipse Phase they aren't!

(The authors understand "Christianity" about to the same level I understand... a thing I don't really understand at all, but once saw an article about in the paper. Which is to say, they don't. At all. But they know they hate it!)

Quote from: soltakss;1113480Note: Mormons are Christians.

No shit; you'll note I said "most Christians" in my post.

Unbreakable long rest in 5e D&D.

Quote from: soltakss;1113480Note: Mormons are Christians.

Mormons are closer to Muslims than they are Christians, at least from a purely theological view. But it's irrelevant as has already been stated, Eclipse Phase handwaves religion to be almost irrelevant. Contrast this with Babylon 5 which is a MUCH more realistic view of how religion would develop in the future. Or fuck, even Dune.

Edition Wars.

Shut up and play what you like. Talk about how much fun it is.

"Some men, you just can't reach."

Quote from: Brad;1113544But it's irrelevant as has already been stated, Eclipse Phase handwaves religion to be almost irrelevant. Contrast this with Babylon 5 which is a MUCH more realistic view of how religion would develop in the future. Or fuck, even Dune.

Agreed. The role of religion in EP is usually to be a barrier to acceptance of transhumanism and the destruction of social heirarchies, and since the game's authors are heavily slanted towards transhumanism and anarchism being positive things, religions of all types are generally viewed as negative to neutral/inconsequential. It should be noted though that the few "new" religions based on promoting transhumanism are also typically shown as being too close to exhumanism/posthumanism and thus a threat to the survival of humanity. In short, the authors show over and over again that they have little positive to say about pretty much anyone's religious beliefs especially if the religion is organized with a central heirarchical structure.

Quote from: soltakss;1112735Rape is generally a non-no, especially when done to a PC. That has always puzzled me. It's fine to chop people's limbs off, torture them, use spells to transform them, terrify them, send them mad and so on, but not ok to have rape in a game.

By the way, I am not advocating rape in games, just stating that it puzzles me.

It's a very touchy subject, particularly if you encounter someone who has been a victim.

Personally, when I ran a pirate game I explicitly declared it out of bounds at the beginning of the game. As in, don't even bring it up, and certainly not in character. At least partially because historical accounts of pirates tended to dwell on the subject, and I just did not want to go there.

I also kept the topic of slavery out of the game, because of the racial makeup of my group. If we had gone there, then yes we would have had to free all the slaves, and we wouldn't have gotten to sail the high seas looking for treasure and adventure.

Torture would have been another problem spot, and I devoted some thought to how to handle that within the scope of how I wanted the game to play, but fortunately it never came up.

In general I just told my players at the outset that I wanted to keep it PG-13, and the characters to be heroic, and they were perfectly OK with that.

I got a copy of EP2e, they did tone it down a bit. But the crunch was streamlined enough that the game offers no mechanical tools that Nova Praxis for Savage Worlds doesn't. And Nova Praxis doesn't have nearly the same level of dumb politically justified game elements.

EP2e does have child-sleeves that they mark as popular in certain adult industries, which I consider pretty offensive and is mark against the product as a whole, more than any of what they have to say about religion.

I personally found the Stars Without Number transhuman chapter perfectly adequate is you want lower crunch game.

"Assuming nobody wants to do calculus to roll up a character", does that count? ;) Probably a legacy of the era of RPGs I joined in, or something, but I love crunchy systems, with lots of stuff to tweak and play with and interact with. I mean, I like other types of games too, don't get me wrong, but I don't like the recent trend of all games moving in the direction of simplification. Darnit, I like Shadowrun in part because if I want my gun to have it's own freaking character sheet, I can do that. Not in spite of that level of complexity, because of it.

Quote from: Bruwulf;1113658"Assuming nobody wants to do calculus to roll up a character", does that count? ;) Probably a legacy of the era of RPGs I joined in, or something, but I love crunchy systems, with lots of stuff to tweak and play with and interact with. I mean, I like other types of games too, don't get me wrong, but I don't like the recent trend of all games moving in the direction of simplification. Darnit, I like Shadowrun in part because if I want my gun to have it's own freaking character sheet, I can do that. Not in spite of that level of complexity, because of it.

I think this is coming mainly from video games and boardgames edging out complicated or super well defined RPGs.

The main draw of RPGs is that they can handle what the rules don't cover, so the need for the rules to cover things has dropped.

I still appreciate games that still make an effort to have rules for things even as they try to lower the overall crunch like Savage Worlds.

Quote from: Bruwulf;1113658"Assuming nobody wants to do calculus to roll up a character", does that count? ;) Probably a legacy of the era of RPGs I joined in, or something, but I love crunchy systems, with lots of stuff to tweak and play with and interact with. I mean, I like other types of games too, don't get me wrong, but I don't like the recent trend of all games moving in the direction of simplification. Darnit, I like Shadowrun in part because if I want my gun to have it's own freaking character sheet, I can do that. Not in spite of that level of complexity, because of it.

As an avid GURPS fan I feel very much the same about the overall modern RPG trend, not that I take any particular issue with milder-crunch RPGs. At least without mentioning the recent dearth of all those hastily slapped together, one-page micro "RPGs" vomited out by the minute, that is.

Quote from: Bruwulf;1113658"Assuming nobody wants to do calculus to roll up a character", does that count? ;) Probably a legacy of the era of RPGs I joined in, or something, but I love crunchy systems, with lots of stuff to tweak and play with and interact with. I mean, I like other types of games too, don't get me wrong, but I don't like the recent trend of all games moving in the direction of simplification. Darnit, I like Shadowrun in part because if I want my gun to have it's own freaking character sheet, I can do that. Not in spite of that level of complexity, because of it.

I would agree with that.  Nothing worse then having a weapon do a set 1d6 damage no matter what it is.

Quote from: Bruwulf;1113658"Assuming nobody wants to do calculus to roll up a character", does that count? ;)

Did they really say that? Cause that would be kind of cool. The most difficult math I've seen were...

• Using the Pythagorean method to find the exact distance between points in a 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional space. (Traveller, SpaceQuest, and one iteration of D&D aerial combat)
• Using logarithms. But, the rules explained the operation and provided a lookup table so you didn't really need to understand log arithmetic. (AP System in DC Heroes)
• I haven't played it, but I imagine Phoenix command uses some math for trajectory and range.

Quote from: Bruwulf;1113658"Assuming nobody wants to do calculus to roll up a character", does that count? ;)

Did they really say that? Cause that would be kind of cool. The most difficult math I've seen were...

• Using the Pythagorean method to find the exact distance between points in a 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional space is as difficult as the mathematical operations have gotten in any RPG I've seen. (Traveller, SpaceQuest, and one iteration of D&D aerial combat)
• Using logarithms, but the rules explained the operation and provided a lookup table so you didn't really need to uses them. (AP System in DC Heroes)
• I haven't played it, but I imagine Phoenix command uses some math for trajectory and range.

Quote from: Bruwulf;1113658"Assuming nobody wants to do calculus to roll up a character"

I seem to recall that the starship design rules in the classic Traveller supplement High Guard required solving second order differential equations, but I could be misremembering...

Quote from: Dimitrios;1113678I seem to recall that the starship design rules in the classic Traveller supplement High Guard required solving second order differential equations, but I could be misremembering...

Could be. :D

You might have needed to calculate the volume of a solid.

Quote from: Bren;1113675Did they really say that? Cause that would be kind of cool. The most difficult math I've seen were...

• Using the Pythagorean method to find the exact distance between points in a 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional space. (Traveller, SpaceQuest, and one iteration of D&D aerial combat)
• Using logarithms. But, the rules explained the operation and provided a lookup table so you didn't really need to understand log arithmetic. (AP System in DC Heroes)
• I haven't played it, but I imagine Phoenix command uses some math for trajectory and range.

How about a table computed from the functions below (yep for real calculus!) for the Cold Iron game I played in college (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nyOzdxP8VZV2oSyKnxnS160WBRpC1Cd9fNfn2Va9VAI/edit?usp=sharing):

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/187f33664b79492eedf4406c66d67f9fe5f524ea)
and

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/df8ef831fe542320ad73386cd662a67c14999bff)

where micron ((https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/9fd47b2a39f7a7856952afec1f1db72c67af6161)) is 0 and sigma ((https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/59f59b7c3e6fdb1d0365a494b81fb9a696138c36)) is 20/3. The variable x will be a modifier (chance adjustment) that is added to your attack rating and compared to your opponent's defense rating.

That formula is the cumulative distribution function of the normal distribution (the "true" bell curve). It allows something like exploding dice for combat resolution but following the smooth shape of the normal distribution rather than the step functions you get when you do something like if you roll max, roll again and add.

Fortunately my friend who came up with the system did the math and shared a printed table.

These days, the power of Excel reduces that nasty formula to =NORMDIST(x,0,20/3,TRUE)

In play, magic users would need to break out their calculator to calculate logarithms and exponential functions to compute their current mana points or determine how long it would take to recover them. Even poor fighters needed logarithms to computer grappling ratings if multiple opponents were on a side (fortunately that function was also pre-computed and presented in a table on the reference sheet).

But despite that nasty math, there are certainly more complex systems that use less fancy math.

Quote from: Bruwulf;1113658"Assuming nobody wants to do calculus to roll up a character", does that count? ;) Probably a legacy of the era of RPGs I joined in, or something, but I love crunchy systems, with lots of stuff to tweak and play with and interact with. I mean, I like other types of games too, don't get me wrong, but I don't like the recent trend of all games moving in the direction of simplification. Darnit, I like Shadowrun in part because if I want my gun to have it's own freaking character sheet, I can do that. Not in spite of that level of complexity, because of it.

This has pervaded board gaming as well slowly to the point now several designers and players are very against math in games at all. Apparetly 1+2+3 is just too complex for "modern" gamers. You have to dumb it down to the point a preschooler is mocking you.

Quote from: ffilz;1113684How about a table computed from the functions below (yep for real calculus!) for the Cold Iron game I played in college (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nyOzdxP8VZV2oSyKnxnS160WBRpC1Cd9fNfn2Va9VAI/edit?usp=sharing):

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/187f33664b79492eedf4406c66d67f9fe5f524ea)
and

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/df8ef831fe542320ad73386cd662a67c14999bff)

where micron ((https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/9fd47b2a39f7a7856952afec1f1db72c67af6161)) is 0 and sigma ((https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/59f59b7c3e6fdb1d0365a494b81fb9a696138c36)) is 20/3. The variable x will be a modifier (chance adjustment) that is added to your attack rating and compared to your opponent's defense rating.

That formula is the cumulative distribution function of the normal distribution (the "true" bell curve). It allows something like exploding dice for combat resolution but following the smooth shape of the normal distribution rather than the step functions you get when you do something like if you roll max, roll again and add.

Fortunately my friend who came up with the system did the math and shared a printed table.

These days, the power of Excel reduces that nasty formula to =NORMDIST(x,0,20/3,TRUE)

In play, magic users would need to break out their calculator to calculate logarithms and exponential functions to compute their current mana points or determine how long it would take to recover them. Even poor fighters needed logarithms to computer grappling ratings if multiple opponents were on a side (fortunately that function was also pre-computed and presented in a table on the reference sheet).

But despite that nasty math, there are certainly more complex systems that use less fancy math.

Haha wow. That's the point where complexity just morphs into stupidity.

Quote from: Shasarak;1113672I would agree with that.  Nothing worse then having a weapon do a set 1d6 damage no matter what it is.

That was because intitially a d6 was all they had to work with, jackass.

Other Suns had some calculus during chargen. But that is just about the only RPG or game at all I have seen that required anything more than addition, subtraction, or a little multiplication or division on a regular basis. Pretty sure Universe and Star Frontiers have some extra math to calculate distances in a 3 dimensional space. But past that not sure?

Quote from: Omega;1113687That was because intitially a d6 was all they had to work with, jackass.

You have an excuse if you are playing Yahtzee.

Quote from: Brad;1113686Haha wow. That's the point where complexity just morphs into stupidity.

Actually the game really isn't that complex. And who cares if the designer did some fancy math...

Ok, so yea, you need to use a scientific calculator to determine mana recovery stuff. So what, everyone has access to one these days and the formula is simple. This math COULD also be reduced to a simple table if you really wanted. There's also simple rules of thumb (like how long it takes to double your mana during recovery).

The game isn't for everyone, but all the fancy stuff works and we had many hours of enjoyable gaming with it, and with players willing to dig in for a bit of system mastery, I think the game could work just fine today.

Personally I think the system is elegant for having figured out how to use the normal distribution with simple table look ups (and honestly, enough of the table can be memorized that you don't even have to look up that often). Some open ended dice mechanisms while they do work for a game, do sort of look weird. For example, roll 1d20, if you roll a 20 roll again and add, you can never generate a 20, the sequence goes ...17, 18, 19, 21, ... and the probability "curve" is stepped. 1 to 19 each have a 5% chance of occurring while 21 to 39 each have a 1 in 400 chance of occurring, and 41 to 59 have a 1 in 8000 chance (assuming true open ended). Dice pool mechanics like Burning Wheel (re-roll 6s and count additional successes) are a bit smoother, but still the probability plot would look a bit odd. Cold Iron's probability plot looks like a bell curve (if you look at the probability of each result rather than cumulative probability), similar to 3d6 except the normal distribution is open ended while the 3d6 curve has end points.

Yea, the system came out of an engineering college... And I wouldn't use it all the time because I like other systems. And sometimes I like a simple system, and sometimes I like something actually more complex (D&D 3.x is probably more complex if you use everything).

On the other hand, in some ways it's fun to poke fun at the game as absurd for using all that fancy math... Just like it's fun to poke fun at Aftermath's combat flow chart (I've never played Aftermath, but I know there are folks who love the game, so that crazy looking flowchart does something good for some folks).

Quote from: ffilz;1113684Fortunately my friend who came up with the system did the math and shared a printed table.

"Fortunately" is not the first word that comes to mind for someone coming up with that system. You certainly did provide the requested example, though.

Quote from: ffilz;1113702Some open ended dice mechanisms while they do work for a game, do sort of look weird. For example, roll 1d20, if you roll a 20 roll again and add, you can never generate a 20.

If the problem is the missing number 19, you could roll 2D10 instead of 1D20 and reroll on doubles. Upen ended at the top with no holes in the middle.

QuoteYea, the system came out of an engineering college...

Created by engineers. I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. :D

Quote from: Omega;1113687That was because intitially a d6 was all they had to work with, jackass.

That's wrong. Chits have always been available and were in use for some games.

Even without chits it's still wrong. Multiple six sided dice were available And various modifications of a simple 1d6 were already in use before D&D was published, e.g. 1d6+1, 1d6-1, or an averaging die. (Chainmail actually used an averaging die for morale for mercenaries, results: 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5).

Quote from: Omega;1113685This has pervaded board gaming as well slowly to the point now several designers and players are very against math in games at all. Apparetly 1+2+3 is just too complex for "modern" gamers. You have to dumb it down to the point a preschooler is mocking you.

You realize that a good chunk of the fanbase is drunk while playing?

Quote from: Bren;1113725"Fortunately" is not the first word that comes to mind for someone coming up with that system. You certainly did provide the requested example, though.

The key is that while calculus was behind the game, as a player or GM there was no need to understand the calculus. You could see the bell curve in the table, and I had been long familiar with bell curves from various things including seeing the 3d6 curve in the Dragon or something.

QuoteIf the problem is the missing number 19, you could roll 2D10 instead of 1D20 and reroll on doubles. Upen ended at the top with no holes in the middle.

It's not 19 that's missing, it's 20, but yes, you can fix it. On a 20, you can roll again and add to 19. But it's still a mostly long flat probability curve with some long flat lower steps at the extreme(s).

With 3d6 there's a nice open ended curve by taking an 18 and re-rolling the 3 dice, and each 6 adds one and you can pick that die up and roll again looking for more 6s (or the reverse on a 3 reroll 1s). It still will be bumpy but much more elegant than a d20 (or d100) rolll again and add mechanic. L5R's mechanic of re-rolling 10s and adding is also more reasonable, though with Xkx you will (almost) never produce exactly 10 * X (you can score a 30 on 3k3 by rolling a 10, a 6, a 5, and on the re-roll a 9, it's only Nk1 that you can never produce a 10), on the other hand that actually doesn't matter much since you only need the open ended roll to meet high TN, degree of success doesn't matter.

QuoteCreated by engineers. I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. :D

:-) There are other things in the system that make it feel very much like something only an engineer or mathematician (or computer scientist - I got my family friend who became a professor at my college hooked) could appreciate.

Quote from: ffilz;1113764You could see the bell curve in the table, and I had been long familiar with bell curves from various things including seeing the 3d6 curve in the Dragon or something.

Yes, bell curves do have different properties compared to the linear distribution of a d20 or d100 which make them nice for modeling natural processes. I know that's one reason some people prefer GURPS since you get results closer to a normal distribution.

QuoteIt's not 19 that's missing, it's 20

Doh! :o 20 is what I meant, but not what I said.

QuoteOn a 20, you can roll again and add to 19. But it's still a mostly long flat probability curve with some long flat lower steps at the extreme(s).

Rolling dice gives integer results so any choice will give you a step function. What changes are how far apart the steps are and whether the steps are of uniform size or not. D20 gives you 20 steps, d100 gives you 100 steps and each step is the same size (i.e. equally likely). 3D6 only gives you 16 steps and each step is not the same size (i.e. not equally likely). The graph of the results is symmetric about the mean and probabilities increase from 3 to 10 and decrease from 11 to 18 with P(10) = P(11) and more generally P(N) = P(21-N) where N is a natural number between 3 and 10 inclusive.

It seems that your friend wanted to keep the same sort of symmetric step structure with probabilities increasing towards and decreasing away from the mean as 3D6, but with open tails on either end. And he was willing to put up with up with both a table lookup table and the possibility of sequential dice rolls to get that result. I have two issues with the method.

I'm not especially fond of table look up tables. There's three reasons for that. The first is clutter. As the GM a lookup table is one more bit of paper for me to keep track of or place on a GM screen. Ditto if the players are going to have to access the table. The second is related to clutter. Needing to use a lookup table increases the handling time for resolving an action. The third is aesthetic. I prefer simple formulas and symmetry. (I note that your friend's system does yield symmetry and it is formulaic, but the formula isn't what I would describe as simple.)

• Simple attack tables are OK. Attack tables used to be common in board game versions of wargames. They needed to be small tables printed on a single card and the game usually didn't require the players to have many (or any) other bits of paper to keep track of or shuffle through. Everything else was out on the map board.
• Tables in OD&D are OK. There were only two look up tables (To-Hit and Saving Throw). The former was a simple linear formula once you knew what it took for a character to hit AC 2 (or AC 9) so you needed a single lookup at the start of a combat and the latter only applied to spells, poison, and special monster attacks so it wasn't needed for most of the rolls required in a combat round and sometimes it wasn't needed at all.
• Lookup tables are no problem in Runequest 1-3. Since the Resistance table was based on a simple linear formula that compared Attack Value vs Defense Value I never needed a look up table. Probability of success was 50% if AV = DV, with a 5% increase/decrease for every point of difference. So 17 vs 15 was a 60% chance of success for the 17 and a 40% chance for the 15. Similarly P(critical hit) and P(special hit) were based on simple linear formulas so again no need to look things up if you can do the arithmetic in your head.

Sequential dice rolling increases handling time. For me this is a pretty big issue.

• For known die roll sequences, this can be mitigated if one can get players to roll multiple differently marked dice at the same time e.g. in D&D one could roll the attack and damage rolls at the same time similarly in Runequest one could roll the attack roll, the hit location roll, the damage roll, and even the parry roll all at the same time. In practice I've had minimal success getting players to do this.

• Part of that is psychological, in part based on our common understanding of cause and effect. Unless I hit, I won't do any damage, so why would I roll damage before knowing whether or not I hit.
• Part of it is players don't always have enough differently colored dice to do this.
• Part of it is for that to work the player has to leave the dice on the table while the various outcomes are figured. Players often seem to want to pick up the dice shortly after rolling them.

• And in open ended systems, you don't know if you need to roll another die (or how many other dice you will need to roll) until you know what the outcome is on a previous die or dice roll, e.g. rerolling a D6 on sixes only occurs if there is a six. And this could occur over and over. It's not very amenable to rolling multiple contingent dice at once.

Quote:-) There are other things in the system that make it feel very much like something only an engineer or mathematician (or computer scientist - I got my family friend who became a professor at my college hooked) could appreciate.

Care to share?

Quote from: Bren;1113778Yes, bell curves do have different properties compared to the linear distribution of a d20 or d100 which make them nice for modeling natural processes. I know that's one reason some people prefer GURPS since you get results closer to a normal distribution.

Doh! :o 20 is what I meant, but not what I said.

Rolling dice gives integer results so any choice will give you a step function. What changes are how far apart the steps are and whether the steps are of uniform size or not. D20 gives you 20 steps, d100 gives you 100 steps and each step is the same size (i.e. equally likely). 3D6 only gives you 16 steps and each step is not the same size (i.e. not equally likely). The graph of the results is symmetric about the mean and probabilities increase from 3 to 10 and decrease from 11 to 18 with P(10) = P(11) and more generally P(N) = P(21-N) where N is a natural number between 3 and 10 inclusive.

It seems that your friend wanted to keep the same sort of symmetric step structure with probabilities increasing towards and decreasing away from the mean as 3D6, but with open tails on either end. And he was willing to put up with up with both a table lookup table and the possibility of sequential dice rolls to get that result. I have two issues with the method.

I'm not especially fond of table look up tables. There's three reasons for that. The first is clutter. As the GM a lookup table is one more bit of paper for me to keep track of or place on a GM screen. Ditto if the players are going to have to access the table. The second is related to clutter. Needing to use a lookup table increases the handling time for resolving an action. The third is aesthetic. I prefer simple formulas and symmetry. (I note that your friend's system does yield symmetry and it is formulaic, but the formula isn't what I would describe as simple.)

• Simple attack tables are OK. Attack tables used to be common in board game versions of wargames. They needed to be small tables printed on a single card and the game usually didn't require the players to have many (or any) other bits of paper to keep track of or shuffle through. Everything else was out on the map board.
• Tables in OD&D are OK. There were only two look up tables (To-Hit and Saving Throw). The former was a simple linear formula once you knew what it took for a character to hit AC 2 (or AC 9) so you needed a single lookup at the start of a combat and the latter only applied to spells, poison, and special monster attacks so it wasn't needed for most of the rolls required in a combat round and sometimes it wasn't needed at all.
• Lookup tables are no problem in Runequest 1-3. Since the Resistance table was based on a simple linear formula that compared Attack Value vs Defense Value I never needed a look up table. Probability of success was 50% if AV = DV, with a 5% increase/decrease for every point of difference. So 17 vs 15 was a 60% chance of success for the 17 and a 40% chance for the 15. Similarly P(critical hit) and P(special hit) were based on simple linear formulas so again no need to look things up if you can do the arithmetic in your head.

Sequential dice rolling increases handling time. For me this is a pretty big issue.

• For known die roll sequences, this can be mitigated if one can get players to roll multiple differently marked dice at the same time e.g. in D&D one could roll the attack and damage rolls at the same time similarly in Runequest one could roll the attack roll, the hit location roll, the damage roll, and even the parry roll all at the same time. In practice I've had minimal success getting players to do this.

• Part of that is psychological, in part based on our common understanding of cause and effect. Unless I hit, I won't do any damage, so why would I roll damage before knowing whether or not I hit.
• Part of it is players don't always have enough differently colored dice to do this.
• Part of it is for that to work the player has to leave the dice on the table while the various outcomes are figured. Players often seem to want to pick up the dice shortly after rolling them.

• And in open ended systems, you don't know if you need to roll another die (or how many other dice you will need to roll) until you know what the outcome is on a previous die or dice roll, e.g. rerolling a D6 on sixes only occurs if there is a six. And this could occur over and over. It's not very amenable to rolling multiple contingent dice at once.

Care to share?

Well thought out and worded response.

You're right, any gaming probability curve is stepped, that's why I pointed out the d20 roll of 20 roll again and add has wide steps whereas even a 3d6 probability shown with a bar chart looks like a curve.

On the tables - I have a single page cheat sheet for Cold Iron, so the clutter issue isn't too bad. Yes, it does mean players need two sheets, but that single sheet has a lot of stuff on it. I even have a wallet card cheat sheet with the absolute minimum required tables on it (in 6 point type - doesn't work for my AARP qualifying self as well as it did in college). The table lookup handling time isn't too bad for a couple reasons:

1. Most of the time, you need more than a +0 (0.50 or better die roll) to succeed.
2. Given that, a large enough percentage of the results fall in a range of 7 or so steps on the table, which is possible to memorize (I have in the past spit them out from memory having not looked at a table in months to years, and not really played for many years so over a long period of play they can be lodged in memory pretty good).
3. The extra dice isn't too bad, it only comes up on 20% of rolls (if you roll a leading 0 or leading 9), and the extra time there isn't too detrimental because it's likely to lead to excitement (so no worse than any other open ended die roll system).

Also on the handling time, since an attack is OCV + Chance Adjustment vs DCV, there is no separate parry roll. Damage does have to be rolled after determining margin of success, though rolling base damage with the attack roll would not be an issue, you would just add additional damage rolls for multiple damage if the margin of success was high enough. A big crit can have some handling time from rolling and counting a big handful of dice, but I have never seen anyone frustrated by that (and I can roll and add pretty quick so NPCs scoring crits don't slow things down too bad).

Back to the clutter: There's another page of charts needed for character creation and advancement and a page of weapon references. As a GM, I found the clutter not really a problem. My favorite gaming setup was the living room in one house I lived in during grad school. There was an arm chair with very wide (9" or so) nice flat arms. My GM scratch sheet and reference charts would easily rest on the arms. Other materials I had at hand was a three ring binder with the rules and my monster writeups. Then there would be some other reference stuff for adventures and the Blackmoor map (originally from Judges Guild, later one of the color ones from the TSR DA series modules). On the table (a board I had laid on milk crates) was a battle mat, counters, and other stuff to run battles. At the time, I had a nice little wood tray that had originally held cigars that kept my dice handy and made a nice surface for rolling. The players would have their character sheet and the reference charts with booklets for rules, spells, and price charts (with several pages of magic item prices - most Cold Iron GMs had magic shops, most magic items are single use or a few charges).

As to more "engineeringness" of the system: There were a lot of spells that came at different levels (Fireball III does d4s, Fireball IV does d6s, Fireball V does d8s for example). The way magic items are handled doesn't feel very mystical compared to say D&D (but I have in the past thrown D&D items into the game for more wondrous items). There's a chart for using the square cube law to derive a creature's strength from it's size (reflected simply as mass).

A lot if it probably stems from a bunch of engineers running and playing the game. The same mechanics in the hands of someone else might feel different.

Quote from: Omega;1113685This has pervaded board gaming as well slowly to the point now several designers and players are very against math in games at all. Apparetly 1+2+3 is just too complex for "modern" gamers. You have to dumb it down to the point a preschooler is mocking you.

You're clearly an ableist and a bigot!  :p

Quote from: ffilz;1113785A lot if it probably stems from a bunch of engineers running and playing the game. The same mechanics in the hands of someone else might feel different.

I'm an engineer and played D&D in grad school with a bunch of dudes, three of which were engineers. There is no way we would have used such a system...pretty sure you mean "math nerds".

Quote from: Omega;1113687That was because intitially a d6 was all they had to work with, jackass.

I guess D6 + 1 was too complex, D6 + 2 inelegant? 2D6 just too much damage?
I think the statement that all weapons doing D6 was the worst thing ever was over the top but an  unmodified D6 was not their only option.

On a 20, rolling again and adding does leave out the possibility of an exact 20 but "roll again and add the amount of the new roll that is over ten" leaves the possibility of exactly 20.

Quote from: David Johansen;1113790You're clearly an ableist and a bigot!  :p

Math, the most insidious gatekeeping tool of all time. :o

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1113794I guess D6 + 1 was too complex, D6 + 2 inelegant? 2D6 just too much damage?
I think the statement that all weapons doing D6 was the worst thing ever was over the top but an  unmodified D6 was not their only option.

It's over the top because it's retarded; there's nothing wrong with basically saying any weapon can kill a normal person in battle. Agree with other options, though. You can EASILY make a results table that only uses d6, a la Star Fleet Battles.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1113795On a 20, rolling again and adding does leave out the possibility of an exact 20 but "roll again and add the amount of the new roll that is over ten" leaves the possibility of exactly 20.

But that requires subtraction which is a more difficult operation than addition. This would bar many kindergartners and some first graders from calculating their own to-hit rolls. No game designer wants to lose that market segment.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1113796Math, the most insidious gatekeeping tool of all time. :o

A couple of kids who didn't finish high school learn how to figure (D4 + N) squared really quickly when it is how you calculate Lightning Bolt damage and their characters are casting the spell. Not only that, but "N" is a power of three mana and they figure that out quickly too. One of the other players, he finished high-school but is not a math student, figured out that N to the 0 power is one so he cast (D4) squared lightning bolts for one point each when short of power.

Quote from: ffilz;1113785Well thought out and worded response.

Thanks. It's occasionally fun to discuss die rolling at a somewhat deeper level than, "Use the blue D20, it usually rolls high."

Quote1. Most of the time, you need more than a +0 (0.50 or better die roll) to succeed.

I'd say that's both good and bad. It makes lookup easier, which is good.

However, the Cold Iron (CI) mechanics are designed to have a two-sided opened ended, symmetric range centered on the mean, which is something that roll again systems don't do. (They are only open ended on the high side and hence they aren't completely symmetric either.) You aren't using half of the CI range which means open ended at the bottom is unnecessary. And unnecessary mechanics are inelegant, and if the mechanics also add complexity they are bad.

Quote2. Given that, a large enough percentage of the results fall in a range of 7 or so steps on the table, which is possible to memorize

I wanted to ask a clarifying question or two about the table and the die rolling method.

What is the number in the table (which ranges from -25 to +25) used for?

As I understand it, in CI a player starts out rolling to 2D10 (which is read as a decimal) and this 2-digit decimal place number is then compared to the table to figure out the bonus or minus.

As I read the table a roll of 45-55 = +0, 56-61 = +1, 62-66 = +2, 68-72 = +3, 73-76 = +4, 77-81 = +5, 82-84 = +6, 85-87 = +7, 88-89 = +8.

For rolls of 90+ additional dice must be rolled to determine one or more additional decimal places.
So if a 9 is rolled for the 1st D10, an additional D10 has to be rolled to figure out what the digit is in the third decimal. If a 9 is also rolled for the 2nd D10, a 4th D10 must be rolled to find the 4th decimal place, and so on.

Did I get that correct?

If so, there's another issue. The probabilities that I calculate appear to be symmetric, but they don't follow the strictly increasing towards the mean from the left and strictly decreasing from the mean towards the right that we see in a normal distribution. Here's the probabilities I calculated for the two digit outcomes that don't require a third (or more) digit.

-7   3%
-6   3%
-5   5%
-4   4%
-3   6%
-2   5%
-1   6%
0   12%
1   6%
2   5%
3   6%
4   4%
5   5%
6   3%
7   3%

Is this correct or am I missing something?

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1113799A couple of kids who didn't finish high school learn how to figure (D4 + N) squared really quickly when it is how you calculate Lightning Bolt damage and their characters are casting the spell. Not only that, but "N" is a power of three mana and they figure that out quickly too. One of the other players, he finished high-school but is not a math student, figured out that N to the 0 power is one so he cast (D4) squared lightning bolts for one point each when short of power.

So if I cast 1 mana, N=0. If I cast 3 mana N=1. If I cast 9 mana, N =2. Is that correct?

Then you roll 1D4 add N and square the result. So if the die roll was 2, damage would be 4 pts, 9 pts, 16 pts when casting 1, 3, and 9 mana points, respectively, right? While less nerdy than the table in construction, that's more nerdy in practice.

What happens if you cast mana that is NOT exactly equal to a power of 3?

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1113799A couple of kids who didn't finish high school learn how to figure (D4 + N) squared really quickly when it is how you calculate Lightning Bolt damage and their characters are casting the spell. Not only that, but "N" is a power of three mana and they figure that out quickly too. One of the other players, he finished high-school but is not a math student, figured out that N to the 0 power is one so he cast (D4) squared lightning bolts for one point each when short of power.

My friends and I had similar experiences, starting out with GURPS 3rd at 11 or 12 and eventually transitioning into learning + conceptualizing the Vehicles material...

Quote from: Bren;1113803So if I cast 1 mana, N=0. If I cast 3 mana N=1. If I cast 9 mana, N =2. Is that correct?

Then you roll 1D4 add N and square the result. So if the die roll was 2, damage would be 4 pts, 9 pts, 16 pts when casting 1, 3, and 9 mana points, respectively, right? While less nerdy than the table in construction, that's more nerdy in practice.

What happens if you cast mana that is NOT exactly equal to a power of 3?

It may be more nerdy but it does not require a table and "no tables on the table" is a Glory Road Roleplay feature.
The caster chooses how much mana to use and knows that using 8 points does no more damage than using 3 points. The only time you would add mana that doesn't give more damage is if you thought someone might hit you with a Counterspell. Say, you had fifty MP left and were going to do one last  Lightning Bolt before grabbing your spear (or running away) You might use all fifty because
a: then a 27 point Counterspell won't hurt your spell
b: 23 MP won't help you if you are dead.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1113805My friends and I had similar experiences, starting out with GURPS 3rd at 11 or 12 and eventually transitioning into learning + conceptualizing the Vehicles material...

I remember thinking I could handle any game math until T:TNE's Fire, Fusion, and Steel hit me in my junior year. It burned me.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1113808It may be more nerdy but it does not require a table.

True.

QuoteThe caster chooses how much mana to use and knows that using 8 points does no more damage than using 3 points. The only time you would add mana that doesn't give more damage is if you thought someone might hit you with a Counterspell. Say, you had fifty MP left and were going to do one last  Lightning Bolt before grabbing your spear (or running away) You might use all fifty because
a: then a 27 point Counterspell won't hurt your spell
b: 23 MP won't help you if you are dead.

Nice. I'd enjoy rolling a handful of dice more than doing the calculation. (In part because of the kinesthetics and the noise.) But that seems like a good system: flexible, with a range of results, and not too burdensome a calculation which could be a table for the arithmetically challenged and would be a calculation in my head as the GM. Runequest has something similar. Casters could add Magic Points (effectively mana) to a spell. Usually that was done so the spell could knock down or blow past any existing countermagic on the target.

Quote from: Brad;1113793I'm an engineer and played D&D in grad school with a bunch of dudes, three of which were engineers. There is no way we would have used such a system...pretty sure you mean "math nerds".

Maybe we were all math nerds... But the designer, myself, and at least one of the other regular GMs were definitely all engineers...

The thing is though, as a player of the game you actually rarely have to engage any more math than addition and subtraction, everything else is worked out by the designer or the GM. When magic users needed to know how much mana they had, I was usually the one to punch things into the calculator if the simple "double your mana after X time" wasn't enough. And you had to be well into the game before you had to deal with the capacitor charging formula, and I don't know if anyone actually had to deal with the leaky bucket formula. Those two formulas relate to a mana storage focus that 5th level magic users got (they highest level magic user I recall from my games was 6th level). The focus is a leaky bucket, so to fill it up, you use the same formula as used for charging a capacitor (or you just know you've had enough time and there's a simple formula that tells you how much mana is stored in it). If for some reason you use up your own mana before emptying the focus, then you need to use a different formula to determine how fast it loses mana.

But, hey, before I got involved in Cold Iron, I was deriving multiple integration for myself while trying to figure out a "correct" formula for determining how an AD&D fireball spread... Yea, seriously, I needed multiple integration before we got to it in calculus class. By the time we got to it, I thought to myself, "oh, that's what it's called" and dozed off during the classes because it already made perfect sense to me (I had started knowing integration gave you the area under a curve, ok, yep, that works right for a circle, ok, now doing another integration step should give you the volume of a sphere, yep, checks out, cool, now what happens when you set the fireball off in a large enough (but not tall enough) room? What if the center is on the floor or ceiling not halfway between?

Maybe I'm a math nerd as well as an engineer...

But hey, I just showed how you need calculus to properly play AD&D! And more complex calculus than used to produce the normal distribution chart for Cold Iron at that...

Quote from: Bren;1113801Thanks. It's occasionally fun to discuss die rolling at a somewhat deeper level than, "Use the blue D20, it usually rolls high."

I'd say that's both good and bad. It makes lookup easier, which is good.

However, the Cold Iron (CI) mechanics are designed to have a two-sided opened ended, symmetric range centered on the mean, which is something that roll again systems don't do. (They are only open ended on the high side and hence they aren't completely symmetric either.) You aren't using half of the CI range which means open ended at the bottom is unnecessary. And unnecessary mechanics are inelegant, and if the mechanics also add complexity they are bad.

I wanted to ask a clarifying question or two about the table and the die rolling method.

What is the number in the table (which ranges from -25 to +25) used for?

As I understand it, in CI a player starts out rolling to 2D10 (which is read as a decimal) and this 2-digit decimal place number is then compared to the table to figure out the bonus or minus.

As I read the table a roll of 45-55 = +0, 56-61 = +1, 62-66 = +2, 68-72 = +3, 73-76 = +4, 77-81 = +5, 82-84 = +6, 85-87 = +7, 88-89 = +8.

For rolls of 90+ additional dice must be rolled to determine one or more additional decimal places.
So if a 9 is rolled for the 1st D10, an additional D10 has to be rolled to figure out what the digit is in the third decimal. If a 9 is also rolled for the 2nd D10, a 4th D10 must be rolled to find the 4th decimal place, and so on.

Did I get that correct?

If so, there's another issue. The probabilities that I calculate appear to be symmetric, but they don't follow the strictly increasing towards the mean from the left and strictly decreasing from the mean towards the right that we see in a normal distribution. Here's the probabilities I calculated for the two digit outcomes that don't require a third (or more) digit.

-7   3%
-6   3%
-5   5%
-4   4%
-3   6%
-2   5%
-1   6%
0   12%
1   6%
2   5%
3   6%
4   4%
5   5%
6   3%
7   3%

Is this correct or am I missing something?

So a couple things.

First, the table doesn't center +0 on the peak, If you roll a 0.50 or higher you get at least a +0, so +0 is 0.50 to 0.55. A roll of 0.44 to 0.49 is a -1. So yea, you're right it isn't precisely symmetrical. Someone really thinking about that would make +0 be 0.47 to 0.53, and work out from there (it should be easy to make Excel give you such a chart). But then if OCV == DCV you would actually have a 53% chance of success, so maybe the apparent asymmetry of the Cold Iron chart is actually not so. +0 being 0.50 to 0.55 is actually the same sort of symmetry as if you took OCV + 3d6 - 11 >= DCV.

Second, you take the +0 or +1 or whatever (the chance adjustment or CA), add it to your attack rating and if (just borrowing Hero terminology for simplicity)  OCV + CA >= DCV you hit.

If OCV + CA >= DCV + 7 you crit for double damage. Assuming a sword and no armor, OCV + CA >= DCV + 9 is a crit for triple damage, Margin of success of 11-12 is x4 damage, etc.

Armor has a critical protection factor, that originally came in before double damage, but later was changed to come into play after double damage. Plate has 3 crit pro, so triple damage against plate required OCV + CA >= DCV + 10.

Now the negative side of the chart comes into play in two ways:

First, if you roll horribly, an automatic miss or fumble occurs (OCV + CA < -5 is an automatic miss, a net -10 is drop weapon, with various other results sprinkled in all the way down to -16. One nice thing about the system, once you have some levels under your belt, fumbles become really rare.

Second, if your opponent has a really low defense, and you have a really good offense it's not hard to get into the range where a OCV - 10 still hits. And yep, you with your OCV of 20, if you roll off the chart (I have a handy chart that goes from -40 to +40), you could drop your weapon or worse. I have seen perhaps a few (one for sure) roll that was above +25. I don't remember any spectacularly low rolls, but the nature of the game means that some of them may not have mattered. If you have an OCV of 10 and roll off the bottom of the -25 chart, it doesn't matter what you actually rolled, you got the worst possible fumble already.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1113812I remember thinking I could handle any game math until T:TNE's Fire, Fusion, and Steel hit me in my junior year. It burned me.

I haven't read it, though I've heard its reputation. Maybe I should give it a look and see if my math skills have aged as poorly as I suspect they have. :cool:

Quote from: Bren;1113726That's wrong. Chits have always been available and were in use for some games.

According to at least two of the original players the damage was d6 because that is what they had on hand. Gary apparently experimented with variations before the polyhedrals caught on and they settled on whats now the more familiar die uses that I believe first showed up as a variant in Greyhawk? You see that even into BX D&D where the basic part uses d6 and the expert introduces very similar polyhedral die for damage.

According to at least two of those players the chit system was not popular and they ditched it ASAP. Pretty sure Gronan commented on that in a thread here on polyhedrals a year or three ago but I cant find it. Should be the same thread we discussed the origins of the polyhedrals. (They were not dice. They were a set for schools to teach... polyhedrals.)

Back on topic. Whatever that was.

One small irk is games that use polyhedrals just to be using polyhedrals when going with just one, or at least fewer, type would have better suited the system.

Quote from: ffilz;1113816First, the table doesn't center +0 on the peak, If you roll a 0.50 or higher you get at least a +0, so +0 is 0.50 to 0.55. A roll of 0.44 to 0.49 is a -1. So yea, you're right it isn't precisely symmetrical.

Thanks for the clarification. I've recalculated the probabilities and I see now that the CA probability distribution is centered where CA = -0.5; here are the probabilities with the two digit outcomes that don't require a third (or more) digit in bold.

Spoiler

CA   P(CA)
-25   0.01%
-24   0.01%
-23   0.02%
-22   0.03%
-21   0.05%
-20   0.09%
-19   0.13%
-18   0.19%
-17   0.28%
-16   0.38%
-15   0.60%
-14   0.70%
-13   1.10%
-12   1.30%
-11   1.80%
-10   2.10%
-9   3.20%
-8   3.00%
-7   3.00%
-6   5.00%
-5   4.00%
-4   6.00%
-3   5.00%
-2   6.00%
-1   6.00%
0   6.00%
1   6.00%
2   5.00%
3   6.00%
4   4.00%
5   5.00%
6   3.00%
7   3.00%
8   3.20%
9   2.10%
10   1.80%
11   1.30%
12   1.10%
13   0.70%
14   0.60%
15   0.38%
16   0.28%
17   0.19%
18   0.13%
19   0.09%
20   0.05%
21   0.03%
22   0.02%
23   0.01%
24   0.01%

The graph is symmetrical about a CA of -0.5. But it doesn't look like a normal distribution. There are flat spot in the middle with several peaks, dips, and rises on either side. It may be easier to see in this graph of the probabilities for CA between -25 and 24 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VQjRP5-SVGFEVMPbJrrogGsnh1L7L_e-sKcWA5hlsXg/edit?usp=sharing).

QuoteSecond, you take the +0 or +1 or whatever (the chance adjustment or CA), add it to your attack rating and if (just borrowing Hero terminology for simplicity)  OCV + CA >= DCV you hit.

If OCV + CA >= DCV + 7 you crit for double damage. Assuming a sword and no armor, OCV + CA >= DCV + 9 is a crit for triple damage, Margin of success of 11-12 is x4 damage, etc.

Thanks. I'm familiar enough with HERO that this gives me a better  understanding of how the Combat Adjustment is used. It's certainly an interesting approach.

Quote from: Omega;1113821According to at least two of the original players the damage was d6 because that is what they had on hand.

Yes, everybody has d6's from board games like Monopoly, Yahtzee, Risk, and many others.

And of course chits weren't popular. Their fiddly, awkward, sometimes hard to pick up, and the chits are easy to misplace. But they were in use in that period. I had mid 1970s board games that used chits.

D&D probably would not have been nearly as popular in the 1970s if TSR had not included dice with the first boxed set. They weren't great dice, but they worked...at least for a while. The plastic is pretty soft. I still have them, but after 45 years there's not much corner or edge left on the D20. And the pink d6 was always kind of ugly. But the D4 still works both as die and caltrop.

QuoteOne small irk is games that use polyhedrals just to be using polyhedrals when going with just one, or at least fewer, type would have better suited the system.

I don't appreciate companies that invent mechanics just so they can sell me funny dice.

Quote from: Bren;1113839I don't appreciate companies that invent mechanics just so they can sell me funny dice.

That is worse then every weapon rolling the same die.  Having a bunch of dice that end up rolling triangle.

Quote from: Bren;1113838Thanks for the clarification. I've recalculated the probabilities and I see now that the CA probability distribution is centered where CA = -0.5; here are the probabilities with the two digit outcomes that don't require a third (or more) digit in bold.

Spoiler

CA   P(CA)
-25   0.01%
-24   0.01%
-23   0.02%
-22   0.03%
-21   0.05%
-20   0.09%
-19   0.13%
-18   0.19%
-17   0.28%
-16   0.38%
-15   0.60%
-14   0.70%
-13   1.10%
-12   1.30%
-11   1.80%
-10   2.10%
-9   3.20%
-8   3.00%
-7   3.00%
-6   5.00%
-5   4.00%
-4   6.00%
-3   5.00%
-2   6.00%
-1   6.00%
0   6.00%
1   6.00%
2   5.00%
3   6.00%
4   4.00%
5   5.00%
6   3.00%
7   3.00%
8   3.20%
9   2.10%
10   1.80%
11   1.30%
12   1.10%
13   0.70%
14   0.60%
15   0.38%
16   0.28%
17   0.19%
18   0.13%
19   0.09%
20   0.05%
21   0.03%
22   0.02%
23   0.01%
24   0.01%

The graph is symmetrical about a CA of -0.5. But it doesn't look like a normal distribution. There are flat spot in the middle with several peaks, dips, and rises on either side. It may be easier to see in this graph of the probabilities for CA between -25 and 24 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VQjRP5-SVGFEVMPbJrrogGsnh1L7L_e-sKcWA5hlsXg/edit?usp=sharing).

Thanks. I'm familiar enough with HERO that this gives me a better  understanding of how the Combat Adjustment is used. It's certainly an interesting approach.

The funny bumps are due to rounding. The numbers from the Excel formula are:

0.499999999781721
0.559617711501766
0.617911357472630
0.673644758774862
0.725746935061448
0.773372720270208
0.815939908268087
0.853140919152560
0.884930268282292

When rounded to two digits, those match the original Cold Iron chart. The Excel chart (on the plus side) which I did out to +50 shows the following mismatches from the original chart:
+9 Excel has .911 while Cold Iron has .912
+13 Excel has .974 while Cold Iron has .975
+31 Excel has 9999983   while Cold Iron has .9999984

My Excel sheet also shows the delta between each step:
5.961771172004490
5.829364597086430
5.573340130223170
5.210217628658590
4.762578520876060
4.256718799787910
3.720101088447280
3.178934912973240

Which you can see has the expected properties. A more elegantly shaped curve might be had by taking the deltas and rounding them (and then correcting if the cumulative probability get's ahead for more than one or two steps).

Another solution would be to bite the bullet and roll at least 3 dice, though I'm not sure that accuracy is necessary for a game.

Quote from: ffilz;1113845The funny bumps are due to rounding. The numbers from the Excel formula are:

0.499999999781721
0.559617711501766
0.617911357472630
0.673644758774862
0.725746935061448
0.773372720270208
0.815939908268087
0.853140919152560
0.884930268282292

When rounded to two digits, those match the original Cold Iron chart. The Excel chart (on the plus side) which I did out to +50 shows the following mismatches from the original chart:
+9 Excel has .911 while Cold Iron has .912
+13 Excel has .974 while Cold Iron has .975
+31 Excel has 9999983   while Cold Iron has .9999984

My Excel sheet also shows the delta between each step:
5.961771172004490
5.829364597086430
5.573340130223170
5.210217628658590
4.762578520876060
4.256718799787910
3.720101088447280
3.178934912973240

Which you can see has the expected properties. A more elegantly shaped curve might be had by taking the deltas and rounding them (and then correcting if the cumulative probability get's ahead for more than one or two steps).

Another solution would be to bite the bullet and roll at least 3 dice, though I'm not sure that accuracy is necessary for a game.

Oh, and on the Hero front, I actually have a chart that replaces the 3d6 of Hero with a chance adjustment... (and we call it chance adjustment not combat adjustment since it's also used for other resolution).

But the system is more than just the dice mechanism (as any system is), the magic system, the details of the combat system, and how they interact combined with how magic items work makes for an interesting system with tactical and strategic choices. It can then be layered with non-combat procedures to make for interesting over all play. I'm contemplating using the system (with some non-combat procedures cribbed from other games) to run a West Marches inspired "leveled" wilderness with exploration.

And we've strayed far from the topic... :-) (though I'm sure plenty would find the whole idea of Cold Iron objectionable so there you go...).

Quote from: ffilz;1113845The funny bumps are due to rounding. The numbers from the Excel formula are:

Yeah, that checks. The error due to rounding is fairly significant though.

QuoteWhen rounded to two digits, those match the original Cold Iron chart. The Excel chart (on the plus side) which I did out to +50 shows the following mismatches from the original chart:
+9 Excel has .911 while Cold Iron has .912

CA = +9 and CA = -10 are the locations at which the rounding errors no longer have a significant effect on P(CA) from the chart.

QuoteMy Excel sheet also shows the delta between each step:

Which you can see has the expected properties.

Yes. Your Excel numbers have one more digit of precision that the numbers in the chart, but essentially those are the same as deltas I get from the chart.

QuoteAnother solution would be to bite the bullet and roll at least 3 dice, though I'm not sure that accuracy is necessary for a game.

I think if one is going to go to the effort of calculating a CA, one should avoid spikes in the graph of the probabilities. Having a higher probability to roll a more extreme CA than a less extreme CA would bother me.

   If for some CA=N where N>0, the P(N+1) > P(N) is true or for some CA=K where K<0, the P(K) < P(K-1)

In the chart that statement is true when N = 2, 4, and 7 and when K = -4, -6, and -9.

On the other hand, at the point where I always need to roll three D10 dice to get probabilities in the tenths of a percentage, I start to wonder if it would be better to use a different method of handling the whole thing that doesn't need a chart or routinely need an extra die.

Of course it could be that I'm overly fond of opposed rolls in combat and the simplicity of rolling and computing fumbles, misses, hits, better hits, and still better hits in Runequest.

Quote from: Bren;1113915Yeah, that checks. The error due to rounding is fairly significant though.

CA = +9 and CA = -10 are the locations at which the rounding errors no longer have a significant effect on P(CA) from the chart.


Yes. Your Excel numbers have one more digit of precision that the numbers in the chart, but essentially those are the same as deltas I get from the chart.

I think if one is going to go to the effort of calculating a CA, one should avoid spikes in the graph of the probabilities. Having a higher probability to roll a more extreme CA than a less extreme CA would bother me.

   If for some CA=N where N>0, the P(N+1) > P(N) is true or for some CA=K where K<0, the P(K) < P(K-1)

In the chart that statement is true when N = 2, 4, and 7 and when K = -4, -6, and -9.

On the other hand, at the point where I always need to roll three D10 dice to get probabilities in the tenths of a percentage, I start to wonder if it would be better to use a different method of handling the whole thing that doesn't need a chart or routinely need an extra die.

Of course it could be that I'm overly fond of opposed rolls in combat and the simplicity of rolling and computing fumbles, misses, hits, better hits, and still better hits in Runequest.

I certainly get your concern with the inelegant numbers on the CA chart, and certainly the table lookup does have handling time, and the math of the system does certainly have an impact. On the other hand, I've started to worry a bit less about little quirks of systems, and focus more on does the system as a whole provide for enjoyable play. Cold Iron certainly did. I'm not sure I could find a group of players today that would result in the same enjoyable game, but one can always hope. The reality is I never noticed those spikes in the probability curve, so yea, they could be fixed with a bit of careful hand tuning, but does it really matter in play. And it's not unique in RPGs, I've seen other games with odd bumps due to rounding - and this isn't a rounding error, it's a just a quirk that comes out due to the particular curve involved and how rounding interacts with it - look at store receipts sometime and see how various stores handle 3 for $1 type pricing, when do they charge $.34 for an item? Is it the 3rd or the 1st or the 2nd? Rounding the cumulative price up would have the .34 be the 2nd item (0.66666... rounding to 0.67), but some might prefer it be the 3rd and others the 1st.

Funny you should mention RQ because that's another game I love despite it's quirks. I haven't run it at levels where the "I hit" "he parries" goes on ad infinitum, so that issue that some have raised with opposed rolls hasn't bothered me. It's also interesting to note that RQ definitely was an inspiration to Cold Iron (so was The Fantasy Trip - having started playing in a TFT game, I see spells that came over to Cold Iron almost without change...).

Quote from: ffilz;1113918Funny you should mention RQ because that's another game I love despite it's quirks.

Not surprising, since the system is mathematically quite elegant.  The chance to fumble is 5% of the chance to miss. The chance of a critical hit is 5% of the chance to hit. A special (extra damage) is 20% of the chance to hit. Since these are based on a formula (unlike some D20 systems where the chance to hit is always 5%, i.e. 20 on a D20, regardless of the chance to hit), those chances scale up and down with a character's skill.

QuoteI haven't run it at levels where the "I hit" "he parries" goes on ad infinitum, so that issue that some have raised with opposed rolls hasn't bothered me. It's also interesting to note that RQ definitely was an inspiration to Cold Iron (so was The Fantasy Trip - having started playing in a TFT game, I see spells that came over to Cold Iron almost without change...).

You can often avoid that problem by using levels of success e.g. a special hit against a normal parry = a normal hit. Where it becomes a real problem is with for characters with heavy armor augmented by protection spells. The passive armor defense may exceed the average damage an attacker can inflict. RQ3 introduced some additional damaging augmenting spells which would have helped had they not also dropped the limit on stacking for defensive spells. I suspect that tactically savvy and flexible parties would either use Countermagic to knock down the protection or just 15 minutes until the rune spells wear off.

What would have sped up the process would be a simple way to have a handful of rolls approximate the odds of someone scoring a hit that actually does some damage during that 15 minute period. I suppose I could build some calculations in Excel that would do that. But I haven't played/run Runequest much since the 1990s, so I'm probably too lazy to go to the effort. That's actually an example where I wouldn't mind needing to consult a fairly lengthy table. It wouldn't have to be used very often and when it did, it would save rolling out the 75 rounds that equal a 15 minute spell length.

The Fantasy Trip was pretty cool (those rules are in a box with the OD&D brown booklets), but TFT really required using a hex grid to get the tactical depth that the system needed and that allowed for proper differentiation between the various permutations of STR, DEX, INT and weapon and armor choices.. While moving in hexes and tracking facing was fun for arena combat using the Melee and Wizard rules that TFT grew out of, I find tracking movement and facing on a grid (square or hexagonal) is too detailed and just feels too board gamey for me. I don't want complete theater of the mind, but noting position and eyeballing movement on a map with or without a grid or even a rough sketch is enough detail for me.

Quote from: Bren;1113921Not surprising, since the system is mathematically quite elegant.  The chance to fumble is 5% of the chance to miss. The chance of a critical hit is 5% of the chance to hit. A special (extra damage) is 20% of the chance to hit. Since these are based on a formula (unlike some D20 systems where the chance to hit is always 5%, i.e. 20 on a D20, regardless of the chance to hit), those chances scale up and down with a character's skill.

Actually D&D 3.x critical is pretty elegant, if you roll a 20 on attack, roll again and if you succeed (hit) then a critical is scored, otherwise you hit anyway (20 always hits, which is the same as RQ 01-05 always hits). Another way of doing it that can be single roll, is roll two d20, designate one as the crit/fumble die. If you hit and the crit die is a 20, you crit. If you miss and the crit die is a 1 you fumble.

QuoteYou can often avoid that problem by using levels of success e.g. a special hit against a normal parry = a normal hit. Where it becomes a real problem is with for characters with heavy armor augmented by protection spells. The passive armor defense may exceed the average damage an attacker can inflict. RQ3 introduced some additional damaging augmenting spells which would have helped had they not also dropped the limit on stacking for defensive spells. I suspect that tactically savvy and flexible parties would either use Countermagic to knock down the protection or just 15 minutes until the rune spells wear off.

What would have sped up the process would be a simple way to have a handful of rolls approximate the odds of someone scoring a hit that actually does some damage during that 15 minute period. I suppose I could build some calculations in Excel that would do that. But I haven't played/run Runequest much since the 1990s, so I'm probably too lazy to go to the effort. That's actually an example where I wouldn't mind needing to consult a fairly lengthy table. It wouldn't have to be used very often and when it did, it would save rolling out the 75 rounds that equal a 15 minute spell length.

The Fantasy Trip was pretty cool (those rules are in a box with the OD&D brown booklets), but TFT really required using a hex grid to get the tactical depth that the system needed and that allowed for proper differentiation between the various permutations of STR, DEX, INT and weapon and armor choices.. While moving in hexes and tracking facing was fun for arena combat using the Melee and Wizard rules that TFT grew out of, I find tracking movement and facing on a grid (square or hexagonal) is too detailed and just feels too board gamey for me. I don't want complete theater of the mind, but noting position and eyeballing movement on a map with or without a grid or even a rough sketch is enough detail for me.

Since I mostly run RQ1, I never bought into the generalized special hits, and actually, I house ruled separate impale away (instead, impaling weapons crit with 10% instead of 5%). With my house rules, a crit is either half armor or double damage after armor.

Hmm, I COULD bring back the special though, not as do extra damage, but as bypasses a normal parry. And on the flip side, a special parry could turn a crit into a regular hit.

But man are we getting off topic :-) Good discussion though...

Quote from: RandyB;1113546Edition Wars.

Shut up and play what you like. Talk about how much fun it is.

"Some men, you just can't reach."

Edition purists are even worse:

Whiny Purist Bitch: But Keep On The Borderlands isn't an AD&D module!

Me: It is now.

Quote from: Bren;1113839I don't appreciate companies that invent mechanics just so they can sell me funny dice.

FFG's Star Wars RPG.

Is that still even in print? Seems like all talk of it just seemed to abruptly stop?

Quote from: Elfdart;1113945Edition purists are even worse:

Whiny Purist Bitch: But Keep On The Borderlands isn't an AD&D module!

Me: It is now.

Return to Keep on the Borderlands is a 2e module.

Quote from: Omega;1113960FFG's Star Wars RPG.

Is that still even in print? Seems like all talk of it just seemed to abruptly stop?

It was the last time I looked. I nabbed a few free adventures a while back in case I could adapt something to WEG D6 Star Wars. Since then I haven't been following.

Quote from: Omega;1113960FFG's Star Wars RPG.

Is that still even in print? Seems like all talk of it just seemed to abruptly stop?

It is still in print and has new materials announced. However, products for the last year have been from a combined line rather than their three lines. They are also pushing forward with Genesys.

Quote from: Elfdart;1113945Edition purists are even worse:

Whiny Purist Bitch: But Keep On The Borderlands isn't an AD&D module!

Me: It is now.

Concur, both in general and with your specific example. :) Every adventure is an example that you can use with or adapt to any rules you want.

Quote from: Elfdart;1113945Edition purists are even worse:

Whiny Purist Bitch: But Keep On The Borderlands isn't an AD&D module!

Me: It is now.

I never and still don't quite understand that kind of mindset. It's not as if edition ninjas are going to attack the game session and remove all later edition materials. Lately I'm tempted to look at some older modules for inspiration for an upcoming PF 1E or 2E D*&d (not sure which yet). It just boils to morons in the hobby wanting to draw lines in the sand when the majority of us are just going to walk up and kick the sand into their faces. While asking them to leave our games and never be asked back.

Quote from: Omega;1113960FFG's Star Wars RPG.

Is that still even in print? Seems like all talk of it just seemed to abruptly stop?

It is still going strong and popular. As unlike WEG who refused to really address and flaws of their version of Star Wars and decided to put the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of GMs , FFG did with their version. I'm not a fan of the dice and splitting the core across three books and a lack of PDFs for the rpg line. FFG seems to be doing a better job of managing Star WArs as an rpg. As to less releases going to their site they seem to have WAY too much on their plate right now as an rpg company. So no surprise as to less releases.

Going back to the OP. Rpg developers who refuse to fix common flaws of their rpgs and expect the fanbase to do it. No how about you fix your own rpg as it's not my job and I'm not getting paid to fix the flaws of an rpg. Fans who seem to think hosueruling should be the rule and not the exception. I pay to use RAW as much as possible if one selling point is houseruling say like too many fans do with Rifts and other Palladium rpgs my respose is "you can waste your time hosueruling" and walk away and play something else much better written and designed.

Companies who should know better than to promise less options in new material then do the opposite. Paizo stupidly did that at the start of PF 1E, essentially telling fans they would try not to release too many new options. It is a promise they could not keep and broke right away. Fans who dislike power creep or too many new options and think that rpg companies will not release new material. Why would anyone with 1/8th of brain cell actually believe that. Just flat out admit to releasing new material and those unhappy with it can go shop elsewhere.

New editions not a fan of them yet also not impressed with a fanbase who unless they are new to the hobby should now by now that almost any rpg even a favored one can and possibly will get a new edition. To think it won't happen given the current new edition train which seems to be popular in the hobby is being naive on purpose.

New weapons that are simply older designs with new art and the serial numbers filed off so to speaks. Rifts suffers particularly from this as many weapons have the same damage, ranges and sometimes even payload as older ones. As PB freelancers and Kevin don't really make an effort to make them really stand out. "Here is new railgun xyz." Me "works exactly like the old one in the core no thanks". Kevin and the freelancers had this weird idea not sure if they still do that BIG, HEAVY, UGLY, STURDY weapons were what the military types should be using in their rpg. If they actually talked to people who were in the army they want PORTABLE, LIGHT, STURDY. Why would the average person who is in any kind of army in rifts want to run with extra weight in body armor.

New editions are great if they just clean up erratta and maybe replace some of the worse art.  There's art that is important to the tone of the game, like William Keith's Traveller illustrations which are so evocative of a gritty, noir universe but there's usually pieces you can replace.  Minor rules tweaks that don't break backward compatability are fine as long as they actually fix a problem and aren't worse than the replaced rule.  But outside of that new editions are a terrible thing and a blight on the hobby.

Quote from: David Johansen;1113994New editions are great if they just clean up erratta and maybe replace some of the worse art.  There's art that is important to the tone of the game, like William Keith's Traveller illustrations which are so evocative of a gritty, noir universe but there's usually pieces you can replace.  Minor rules tweaks that don't break backward compatability are fine as long as they actually fix a problem and aren't worse than the replaced rule.  But outside of that new editions are a terrible thing and a blight on the hobby.

A clean up of errata and even replacing art isn't a new edition, it's just a revised printing. If I'm buying a new edition, I want something new and I'm not necessarily worried about backwards compatibility because I believe the new edition needs to stand on its own.

Quote from: sureshot;1113990Why would the average person who is in any kind of army in rifts want to run with extra weight in body armor.

Because SDC beings, like humans, are not able to stand up to MDC damage sources without armor, and on the flipside MDC armor renders most SDC damage sources laughable. From there it becomes an arms race.

I mean, in the real world, a crappy knock-off, under-powered, ill-repaired pistol can kill you, but it also might not. Depends where you get hit, luck, etc. In Rifts, the crappiest crap MDC pistol that ever existed is still going to obliterate you. A lot of people house-ruled the MDC to SDC conversion ratio down by a factor or two, and others used the "instant kill by MDC makes you roll on a Grievous Injury table" method to try to mitigate the problem, but as written, the MDC/SDC disparity is horrific, and you can understand the armor and arms race.

Quote from: Bruwulf;1113999Because SDC beings, like humans, are not able to stand up to MDC damage sources without armor, and on the flipside MDC armor renders most SDC damage sources laughable. From there it becomes an arms race.

I mean, in the real world, a crappy knock-off, under-powered, ill-repaired pistol can kill you, but it also might not. Depends where you get hit, luck, etc. In Rifts, the crappiest crap MDC pistol that ever existed is still going to obliterate you. A lot of people house-ruled the MDC to SDC conversion ratio down by a factor or two, and others used the "instant kill by MDC makes you roll on a Grievous Injury table" method to try to mitigate the problem, but as written, the MDC/SDC disparity is horrific, and you can understand the armor and arms race.

I remember my first time playing Rifts and our characters were in an old barn hiding from some mercenaries. A firefight started and one of the headhunters took down the entire barn with a shot from his MDC handgun. Yeah... that's when we realized that we weren't in Kansas anymore (OK, we were in Kansas according to the map, but... fuck it, you know what I mean).

Quote from: HappyDaze;1113995A clean up of errata and even replacing art isn't a new edition, it's just a revised printing. If I'm buying a new edition, I want something new and I'm not necessarily worried about backwards compatibility because I believe the new edition needs to stand on its own.

Agreed and very much seconded. If a company is oromoting the new rog as a new edition I expect an actually nrw edition with a minimum of at least 80%+ new material. Anything else is essentially what PF 1E was to D&D 3.5 and Ultimate Rifts to the Rifts Main Book. The same old house with a fresh coat of paint.

I don't mind the old house with a fresh coat of paint if that is what I'm in the mood of buying. If I want to purchase a new house the  I expect to buy that.

Only so many times an rpg company can sell a reprint of old material with bettrr production values and a frw house rules before gamwrs stop buying.  

I have no interest in PF 2E at this time. It would not even be on my radar if it was just another rehash of 3.5. with a few houserules and new art. 5E essentially thought Oaizo thst they had to sell a new house and not rely on the hopes that the fans would want the same house again.

Quote from: sureshot;1114007Agreed and very much seconded. If a company is oromoting the new rog as a new edition I expect an actually nrw edition with a minimum of at least 80%+ new material. Anything else is essentially what PF 1E was to D&D 3.5 and Ultimate Rifts to the Rifts Main Book. The same old house with a fresh coat of paint.

I don't mind the old house with a fresh coat of paint if that is what I'm in the mood of buying. If I want to purchase a new house the  I expect to buy that.

Only so many times an rpg company can sell a reprint of old material with bettrr production values and a frw house rules before gamwrs stop buying.  

I have no interest in PF 2E at this time. It would not even be on my radar if it was just another rehash of 3.5. with a few houserules and new art. 5E essentially thought Oaizo thst they had to sell a new house and not rely on the hopes that the fans would want the same house again.

I believe that Redbrick put out at least two "editions" of Earthdawn that were almost entirely reprints of old materials (and mostly old art). I bought into one and skipped the other entirely after that.

Quote from: sureshot;1113989As unlike WEG who refused to really address and flaws of their version of Star Wars...

:confused:

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114012I believe that Redbrick put out at least two "editions" of Earthdawn that were almost entirely reprints of old materials (and mostly old art). I bought into one and skipped the other entirely after that.

Devil's advocate: You've got to reprint books from time to time to replenish stock, and the standards of production in the RPG industry area generally trending up. If you're going to reprint anyways, why not update the production values a bit?

Quote from: Bruwulf;1114040Devil's advocate: You've got to reprint books from time to time to replenish stock, and the standards of production in the RPG industry area generally trending up. If you're going to reprint anyways, why not update the production values a bit?

The two editions I'm talking about were hardly an improvement in quality. Same shit-ass Laubenstein art (I swear that man seems incapable of drawing a straight line) and the same basic paper stock from the 90s. But they sure updated the price to modern standards.

Quote from: Bren;1114029:confused:

Instead of trying to even remotely addtess tje issue of Jedi being too powerful in D6 Star Wars their advice in a nutshell " were not doing anything to fix the issue we Jedi, hete is a bunch of shitty piss poor advice that amounts to screwing over players who use Jedi and force users". The bucket of dice is annoying. At least FFG did something totone down Force users. Don't get me wrong I enjoy Star Wars D6. Like many rpgs it has it's flaws and far from perfect.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114059The two editions I'm talking about were hardly an improvement in quality. Same shit-ass Laubenstein art (I swear that man seems incapable of drawing a straight line) and the same basic paper stock from the 90s. But they sure updated the price to modern standards.

Pretty much. Beyond new cover art and charging far too much for reprinted matetial.

Quote from: sureshot;1113989I never and still don't quite understand that kind of mindset. It's not as if edition ninjas are going to attack the game session and remove all later edition materials. Lately I'm tempted to look at some older modules for inspiration for an upcoming PF 1E or 2E D*&d (not sure which yet). It just boils to morons in the hobby wanting to draw lines in the sand when the majority of us are just going to walk up and kick the sand into their faces. While asking them to leave our games and never be asked back.

I first encountered this stupidity about 20 years ago when I ran KotB for some kids at a gaming shop, and some schmuck in the adjacent room felt the need to tell me it wasn't an AD&D module. I thought he was joking but he was rather vehement about it. Were it not for the fact that there was several 10-12 year olds at the table, and younger kids and their parents browsing nearby, I would have told him to fuck off. Instead I said "REALLY?" and thumbed through the module pretending to be surprised.

Converting any of the pre-Wizards D&D adventures takes about two minutes, tops. An orc is an orc, whether it's OD&D, Holmes, BECMI, 1E or 2E. Some monsters have different hit dice or damage or whatever, but that's so minor it's usually not even noticeable.  Ditto for classes, races and magic.

Quote from: Elfdart;1114076I first encountered this stupidity about 20 years ago when I ran KotB for some kids at a gaming shop, and some schmuck in the adjacent room felt the need to tell me it wasn't an AD&D module. I thought he was joking but he was rather vehement about it. Were it not for the fact that there was several 10-12 year olds at the table, and younger kids and their parents browsing nearby, I would have told him to fuck off. Instead I said "REALLY?" and thumbed through the module pretending to be surprised.

Converting any of the pre-Wizards D&D adventures takes about two minutes, tops. An orc is an orc, whether it's OD&D, Holmes, BECMI, 1E or 2E. Some monsters have different hit dice or damage or whatever, but that's so minor it's usually not even noticeable.  Ditto for classes, races and magic.

Once again agreed and seconded. Someone came up to me to engage in anti-4E rant and I not so politely him to also fuck off as I was not surrounded by kids and was minding my own business. Usling older modules and other editions of D&D don't hurt anybody and really are no one business.

Given how cheap PDFs many of them being out of print are no longer an issue and no longer require buying from greedy sellers either: https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?keywords=keep+on+the+borderlands&filters=45471_0_0_0_0_0_0_0&x=0&y=0&author=&artist=&pfrom=&pto=

Don't get me started on Goodman Games trying to sell the same material at 20 times the listed PDF value simply because it is converted to later editions. That is why I am so hard on those in our hobby. If it's not their lamenting about the use of technology with younger players. To the same players wanting create and play different characters and playstyles ( the ABSOLUTE horror how dare those whippersnapper think different than ME ). To Ole Pundit complaining about running games for a younger crowd. It's to be blunt embarrassing and even with the hobby becoming mainstream gamers still get looked down upon as Grognard. Which is not a badge of honor, never was and never will be. We sometimes fucking deserve it.

Quote from: Bruwulf;1113999Because SDC beings, like humans, are not able to stand up to MDC damage sources without armor, and on the flipside MDC armor renders most SDC damage sources laughable. From there it becomes an arms race.

I mean, in the real world, a crappy knock-off, under-powered, ill-repaired pistol can kill you, but it also might not. Depends where you get hit, luck, etc. In Rifts, the crappiest crap MDC pistol that ever existed is still going to obliterate you. A lot of people house-ruled the MDC to SDC conversion ratio down by a factor or two, and others used the "instant kill by MDC makes you roll on a Grievous Injury table" method to try to mitigate the problem, but as written, the MDC/SDC disparity is horrific, and you can understand the armor and arms race.

I get that and good point except PB tried to use the excuse of Northern Gun products looking like shit, being way too heavy, as an excuse for the companies designs being such. Which changed completely when the two Northern Gun books were released because in the Rifts background NG was taking a huge financial pounding from other similar designers such as Triax and Wilks. Who managed to make both solid, sturdy, lightweight designs that actually looked cool and sleek as opposed to ugly earlier crap that was and were Northern Gun products. In my earlier gaming years I played with some who were in the Canadian military and they found Kevin and the freelancers clueless to weapons design. As you guessed it the average soldier wants stopping power, sturdy, solid yet also wants lightweight. They have enough to carry around without needing to carry an unnecessarily heavy weapon. They will if nothing else can be found that is better you can bet it's not by choice.

It's the same way PB and way too many fans try to pass off Cheapo excuse me Chipwell stuff as viable. Compared to Northern Gun what a joke and only the truly insane, cheap or absolutely desperate would use that crap. PB tries to pass off the company as an actual contender with the big boys when they would go under as in Rifts Earth one does not want to wearing a suit of power armor that has much MDC material replaced with SDC.

Penalizing players for playing non-human characters such as in AD&D 1E and 2E. How about instead of worrying that no one will choose humans as a race, make them a much more interesting option than vanilla ice cream. I like that kind of ice cream yet in small amounts as eventually the taste becomes boring as fuck. Not to mention I live as human 24/7 why would I want to play won in an rpg 24/7. Which leads to my next point as too many rpg designers make humans boring they also make them the top race in way too many rpgs without a good reason simply for reasons and feels. At least give them some kind of special racial ability similar to what Earthdawn does. Not the boring, stale trope of reproducing like rabbits and a drive to succeed. The rest of the core races somehow don't desire to improve themselves and succeed.

Quote from: sureshot;1114061Instead of trying to even remotely addtess tje issue of Jedi being too powerful in D6 Star Wars their advice in a nutshell " were not doing anything to fix the issue we Jedi, hete is a bunch of shitty piss poor advice that amounts to screwing over players who use Jedi and force users".

I don't see Jedi as too powerful. Some people do. But other people complain that Jedi aren't powerful enough (based on what we see in the prequels). Clearly one set of rules can't please everyone.

I will admit that the one place where the WEG rules don't work for me is lightsaber duels. They tend to be over too quickly, there is no ramping up of power or skill, and in general they don't play out or feel like a good movie duel. That problem is driven by the rules for Force Point use.

QuoteThe bucket of dice is annoying.

I hear that it is for some people. That isn't what I've heard from my players though. And personally, I enjoy rolling a bunch of dice when I use a Force Point. (In fact, it reminds me of rolling dice for fireballs and lightning bolts in OD&D. As your magic user got to higher and higher levels you got to roll more and more dice. It was fun seeing how much damage you could inflict.) That is something that was changed in the later D6 rules where WEG provided an option to decrease the number of dice that were rolled.

Quote from: sureshot;1114090Penalizing players for playing non-human characters such as in AD&D 1E and 2E. How about instead of worrying that no one will choose humans as a race, make them a much more interesting option than vanilla ice cream.

Making their character interesting is the player's job, not mine. And whether a character is interesting or not isn't a function of the number of mechanical widgets available for the player to choose from.

Quote from: Bren;1114094I don't see Jedi as too powerful. Some people do. But other people complain that Jedi aren't powerful enough (based on what we see in the prequels). Clearly one set of rules can't please everyone.

They are not  that powerful just the way the force rules are in D6 make them imo way too versatile. Not gaming breaking just annoying.

Quote from: Bren;1114094I hear that it is for some people. That isn't what I've heard from my players though. And personally, I enjoy rolling a bunch of dice when I use a Force Point. (In fact, it reminds me of rolling dice for fireballs and lightning bolts in OD&D. As your magic user got to higher and higher levels you got to roll more and more dice. It was fun seeing how much damage you could inflict.) That is something that was changed in the later D6 rules where WEG provided an option to decrease the number of dice that were rolled.

Again not something that would stop me from playing Star Wars D6 it is a quirk of D6 systems.  If I would  run or play at higher levels definitely use the option to roll less dice that you mentioned above.

Quote from: Bren;1114094Making their character interesting is the player's job, not mine. And whether a character is interesting or not isn't a function of the number of mechanical widgets available for the player to choose from.

Sorry no that is the rpg designers job to make them interesting. It is not my IP nor am I the owner of the rules. More importantly it is not my job nor am I paid to fix the failure of the rpg designer rules. Fuck that. I can and have made interesting human characters. Given the choice in AD&D unless level limits are in use I play anything but human. Beyond no level limits they have nothing interesting in terms of racial ability. At least Earthdawn gave them an interest racial ability such as Versatility.

Quote from: sureshot;1114099Sorry no that is the rpg designers job to make them interesting.

I don't agree. These are player characters, not pieces on a board game. People make (or fail to make) their player characters interesting. Game designers can't graft imagination onto bored and boring people via lists of mechanical widgets.

Quote from: sureshot;1114099They are not  that powerful just the way the force rules are in D6 make them imo way too versatile. Not gaming breaking just annoying.

Because of how Force Powers are learned or taught, the GM has complete control on how versatile they allow a PC Jedi to become. We always considered how a Force Power might effect play before allowing a PC Jedi to learn that power. Some powers just did not become available.

And as they grew in power, we had the PC Jedi learn some Dark Side powers. It's not that the player or the PC wanted to learn that power, but as their understanding of the Force grew, they would realize that it was possible to do something with the Force. Typically this would be a power that they saw in use by an adversary (maybe one that was used against the PC) or it was a power that related to a 'good' Force Power that they were being taught or otherwise learned.

Quote from: sureshot;1114099They are not  that powerful just the way the force rules are in D6 make them imo way too versatile. Not gaming breaking just annoying.



Again not something that would stop me from playing Star Wars D6 it is a quirk of D6 systems.  If I would  run or play at higher levels definitely use the option to roll less dice that you mentioned above.



Sorry no that is the rpg designers job to make them interesting. It is not my IP nor am I the owner of the rules. More importantly it is not my job nor am I paid to fix the failure of the rpg designer rules. Fuck that. I can and have made interesting human characters. Given the choice in AD&D unless level limits are in use I play anything but human. Beyond no level limits they have nothing interesting in terms of racial ability. At least Earthdawn gave them an interest racial ability such as Versatility.

In any case, few campaigns get to the point where level limits are significant.  Meanwhile elves can see in the dark, fight and cast spells, get +1 to hit with the best weapons in the game and have improved attributes.

But I'm with you, humans need something to make them better.  One from Rolemaster is a healing multiplier.  If humans get 2 hp / day instead of 1, they'll be in the thick of the action and gaining experience points more often.

Quote from: David Johansen;1114109In any case, few campaigns get to the point where level limits are significant.

That depends on what the level limits are. From memory, the limit in OD&D for elves was Level-4 for fighters, and level 8 or 9 for magic users. The limit for elven fighters would create a ceiling in most campaigns. From personal experience, my first PC was an elf and I hit both those limits, making me kind of happy when the DM adopted Greyhawk as it gave me something else to do with experience points.

Quote from: Lurkndog;1113581the characters to be heroic

Anti-heroic player characters are an offensive element.

Quote from: Omega;1113685This has pervaded board gaming as well slowly to the point now several designers and players are very against math in games at all. Apparetly 1+2+3 is just too complex for "modern" gamers. You have to dumb it down to the point a preschooler is mocking you.

RPGs too; Fudge was made for the innumerate.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1113796Math, the most insidious gatekeeping tool of all time. :o

If only it were. :cool:

Quote from: Bren;1114103I don't agree. These are player characters, not pieces on a board game. People make (or fail to make) their player characters interesting. Game designers can't graft imagination onto bored and boring people via lists of mechanical widgets.

Then we agree to disagree. If the game designer is too stubborn and or lazy to fix the flaws of his rpg it sure as hell is not my job to do it. Like it or not the fans are not going to fix the flaws of the rpg and will walk away. They did it with Pathfinder 1E in favor of 5E. Rpgs like Harn and Rifts are barely played at least in my neck of the woods. Again gamers will go elsewhere if they can't get the desired gaming they want and certainly don't want to be told to houserule it. Depending on the tyoe of gamer they will politely hand you the book or angrily throw the back at you and go "NO you houerule the rpg" and walk away.

Quote from: Bren;1114104And as they grew in power, we had the PC Jedi learn some Dark Side powers. It's not that the player or the PC wanted to learn that power, but as their understanding of the Force grew, they would realize that it was possible to do something with the Force. Typically this would be a power that they saw in use by an adversary (maybe one that was used against the PC) or it was a power that related to a 'good' Force Power that they were being taught or otherwise learned.

After playing some of the Lucas art video games on my computer. I came to find the whole light and dark aspects of the Force somewhat contradictory in nature. Why can't Force Lightening not be used for good. I mean Kyle Katarn in the video games was to me at least a Neutral version of a Jedi calling on both sides of the Force.

Quote from: sureshot;1114127Then we agree to disagree.

Sure. If the player is too stubborn, uncreative, or lazy to differentiate their character in a roleplaying game in any way that isn't solely mechanical, that's not the game designer's fault nor is it a flaw in the game system.

QuoteDepending on the tyoe of gamer they will politely hand you the book or angrily throw the back at you and go "NO you houerule the rpg" and walk away.

I'm not interested in playing a roleplaying game with people who can't actually be bothered to roleplay.

QuoteAfter playing some of the Lucas art video games on my computer. I came to find the whole light and dark aspects of the Force somewhat contradictory in nature. Why can't Force Lightening not be used for good.

Because using the power requires giving in to uncontrolled rage and hate. Uncontrolled rage and hate are corrosive. They corrupt the user. The ethics involved in the Light Side (in the WEG game) are neither situational nor utilitarian, they are deontological in nature.

If I were to instead make a utilitarian argument, it would be this. Killing 3 hateful, rage filled, evil bastards by becoming an even more powerful hateful, rage filled, evil bastard does not result in a net positive outcome.

Quote from: Bren;1114245Sure. If the player is too stubborn, uncreative, or lazy to differentiate their character in a roleplaying game in any way that isn't solely mechanical, that's not the game designer's fault nor is it a flaw in the game system.

Sometimes it's the rules and not the player. Sure their are some that are lazy and refuse to roleplay absolutely. This is also a hobby to me and not a job. I will try and work with the rules as thdy are. Sometimes depending on how badly flawed an rpg is it's not worth the effort. You need to stop continually blaming players for poor design choices made  rpg designers. Just as I need to accept that not every rpg is catered to my desires

Quote from: Bren;1114245I'm not interested in playing a roleplaying game with people who can't actually be bothered to roleplay.

I am also not interested in gaming with gamers who bend over backwards to make constant excues for poor rpg design while continually blaming gamers for those design decisions.

I see the philosophical and ideological between Dark and Light sides of the force. To me I find it like Nuclear Power. It can both power or destroy a city. I fully understand I am in the minority when it comes to that.

There was this one D&D setting I was reading a while ago which gave half-orc racial stats to a real-world Indian ethnic group; think they were described as wearing dreadlocks or something. The name escapes me at the time, but when I came across the offending passage I shook my head and put the book back up on the shelf.

Quote from: sureshot;1114249Sometimes it's the rules and not the player.

It's no longer 1974. There are scads of games out there. If you don't like the rules of the game you are running, then pick one you like better. However, just because you don't like a rule that doesn't make the rule poor design. I don't like levels, character classes, or increasing hit points. That doesn't make those things bad design, it just makes them something I don't enjoy. Fortunately there are lots of games for me to run that don't have any of those rules.

QuoteI see the philosophical and ideological between Dark and Light sides of the force. To me I find it like Nuclear Power. It can both power or destroy a city. I fully understand I am in the minority when it comes to that.

I don't know what an actual survey would show. You are no where near alone. There's more than a few people who want to play totally-not-evil characters who zap their enemies with Force Lightning and other destructive uses of the Force. The number has increased greatly since the video games let people play characters who zap their enemies with destructive uses of the Force.

Quote from: Bren;1114296However, just because you don't like a rule that doesn't make the rule poor design.

Lets not play the "There is no such thing as objectivity" game.

It's a dead-end discussion wise.

QuoteI don't know what an actual survey would show. You are no where near alone. There's more than a few people who want to play totally-not-evil characters who zap their enemies with Force Lightning and other destructive uses of the Force. The number has increased greatly since the video games let people play characters who zap their enemies with destructive uses of the Force.

Why is the Zapp Bad in the force?

While I myself am not a super fan of Star Wars Stagnation, Im also not a person of the fan of "Its how I use it" principle.
The force is a subtle power and mainly manifests in visions and sort of like a "Positive Fate".
The idea that the Zapp is such an aggressive manifestation of force that the whole thing screams. Its like bludgeoning somebody with a book. Such an expression of rage you shoot lightning.

Being in a state of rage and hate isn't generally like Nuclear power. Its a bad thing and a person that pumps themselves up with hate and rage for powerboosts generally aren't trustworthy.

Quote from: Bren;1114296I don't know what an actual survey would show. You are no where near alone. There's more than a few people who want to play totally-not-evil characters who zap their enemies with Force Lightning and other destructive uses of the Force. The number has increased greatly since the video games let people play characters who zap their enemies with destructive uses of the Force.

In my current campaign my players just realised that their group includes a Fighter with a glowing sword wearing Hell Knight Armour and a robed Druid who usually attacks with Electric Arc.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114322Lets not play the "There is no such thing as objectivity" game.

It's a dead-end discussion wise.

I didn't realize you were playing. If you want to make a non-subjective claim about game design, you have to actually provide some objective proof. Which means you (or one in general) must make an argument that goes beyond "I don't like that rule" or even "A bunch of people don't like that rule."

QuoteWhy is the Zapp Bad in the force?

I gave one answer. (You seem to be saying much the same thing.) Another answer would be, "Because the rules say it is." To which someone might reply, "But I don't want to follow that rule." To which I say, "OK, then don't."

Quote from: Shasarak;1114359In my current campaign my players just realised that their group includes a Fighter with a glowing sword wearing Hell Knight Armour and a robed Druid who usually attacks with Electric Arc.

That sounds more like D&D than Star Wars to me, but OK.

Quote from: Bren;1114296It's no longer 1974. There are scads of games out there. If you don't like the rules of the game you are running, then pick one you like better. However, just because you don't like a rule that doesn't make the rule poor design. I don't like levels, character classes, or increasing hit points. That doesn't make those things bad design, it just makes them something I don't enjoy. Fortunately there are lots of games for me to run that don't have any of those rules.

I agree yet sometimes it is not due to myself or someone else not liking the rules. Sometimes it is the rules. Just because you or someone likes the rules as is does not make an rpg perfect either. Demi-Humans level limits was and is not a good rule imo. Why should I or others be penalized because the designer worried that no one would take humans as race due to the designer making them boring as fuck. It's not a matter of overcoming it with roleplay as that can only solve it so much. If the highest level I can get as a Cleric is Level 5 and I have zero interest in multi-classing into something else. It's not on me to try and figure a solution. I choose the path of least resistance and play boring, vanilla human. If their are no level limits then I will play something other than human. If they are enforced I don't care if the DM really wants to play an all Dwarf or elf campaign in !E or @E I'm playing a human or going elsewhere.

Quote from: Bren;1114296I don't know what an actual survey would show. You are no where near alone. There's more than a few people who want to play totally-not-evil characters who zap their enemies with Force Lightning and other destructive uses of the Force. The number has increased greatly since the video games let people play characters who zap their enemies with destructive uses of the Force.

While I enjoy doing so I also think it's not a good thing in that ruins the mythology of the universe so to speak. For the longest time their was just Light and Dark when it came to Jedi. Suddenly we have what I termed "Grey" Jedi. So all this time all that stuff about Light and Dark was just bullshit and essentially imo either side not willing to see beyond their own beliefs.

Quote from: Bren;1114368I didn't realize you were playing. If you want to make a non-subjective claim about game design, you have to actually provide some objective proof. Which means you (or one in general) must make an argument that goes beyond "I don't like that rule" or even "A bunch of people don't like that rule."

Well neither have you provided any objective proof beyond blaming players for lack of imagination and inability to roleplay. Which is also very subjective. My example with Demi-humans if the rules say I can't be a Dwarven Cleric beyond level 5. No amount of roleplay or imagination is going to make me overcome that handicap. Either I multi-class or play another non-human race that has I higher level cap or Human.

Quote from: sureshot;1114434My example with Demi-humans if the rules say I can't be a Dwarven Cleric beyond level 5. No amount of roleplay or imagination is going to make me overcome that handicap. Either I multi-class or play another non-human race that has I higher level cap or Human.

My point isn't that games are perfectly designed. No game is. My point is that the fact that a rule prevents you from doing what you want, doesn't make it a bad rule. It just means that system and/or rule is a bad fit for what you want to do. But as I said, there are lots of games that let you do lots of things.

QuoteFor the longest time their was just Light and Dark when it came to Jedi. Suddenly we have what I termed "Grey" Jedi. So all this time all that stuff about Light and Dark was just bullshit and essentially imo either side not willing to see beyond their own beliefs.

I agree. When I play (or run) Star Wars it's because I want a want one or more of two things.

• A relatively straightforward black and white conflict between good and evil. And I want that conflict to most strongly be embodied in the conflict between users of the the Light and Dark sides of the Force. The rebellion against the evil Empire is the mundane echo of that black and white conflict.

or
     

• I want fringe characters: smugglers, gamblers, bounty hunters who exist in the setting, but who aren't caught up in the conflict between the Light Side and the Dark Side. But they will be confronted with some type of moral conflict between their selfish interests and some version of doing the right thing, e.g. joining the Rebellion, turning against Black Sun, freeing slaves, or forming a band of, let's say, seven heroes who protect a bunch of poor alien farmers on some backwater planet.

Quote from: sureshot;1114249I see the philosophical and ideological between Dark and Light sides of the force. To me I find it like Nuclear Power. It can both power or destroy a city. I fully understand I am in the minority when it comes to that.

*twitch*