Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6198705" data-attributes="member: 6681948">That, to me, is actually a very high figure for typical 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] Ed.  There, I believe the default is that a “typical” encounter will use up about 20% of the party’s resources, so 4 encounters is the implied norm (5 would be tough, using up all the party’s resources). However, I see nothing wrong with having some encounters that are ore trivial – they don’t use 20% of the party’s resources unless the spellcasters immediately default to “Nova Mode” and the players don’t get to metagame the assumption that “this will be a challenging encounter meant to erode 20% of our resources, so it will be simple if we use 45% with the expectation we will rest after an encounter or two”. This is definitely where playstyle comes in – spellcasters tend to be sprinters.  They can get a lot done very quickly, but they exhaust their resources equally quickly.  Martial characters tend to be marathon runners – they don’t get any one job done as rapidly, but they can keep going at that steady pace for the entire day. 4e, from what little I know, leveled this – everyone gets some powers only usable once a day, others usable once per encounter and others used at will, as many times as they want.  That reduces Nova tactics.  You could use up all your dailies – and why shouldn’t you if you can freely rest after each encounter – but you can use your encounter powers as many times a day as you have encounters and your at-wills never run out.  So resource management is, as I read it, simplified, and variations in the need for resource management across classes sharply reduced or eliminated. Whatever the result of the test, I expect it will be classified as “not realistic” by those not concurring with the results – because it will not match the reality of their actual experiences under someone else’s playstyle.  No, it really isn’t.  It is a problem with the mechanics, in my view, only if the game explicitly promises to support a specific playstyle and fails to deliver.  A Toon game with mechanics encouraging sombre introspection and slow, steady-paced, well planned encounters would be a problem, as would Call of Cthulhu mechanics encouraging over the top feats of derring-do. Otherwise, it is a problem of a playstyle being less than compatible with the specific mechanics of this game.  That is why we have yet to find the One Game to Rule Them All. The broader the game becomes, the less its mechanics will be customized to any one playstyle, right up to generic systems that tend to need lots of optional rules to suit a variety of genre and playstyle expectations.  It’s almost cliché that, when you try to make everyone happy, nobody likes it. But we are asserting that making the Chamberlain let you in to see the King is about changing his attitude.  Maybe you’re better off not seeing the King, as he is in a bad mood and of volatile temper, so a Hostile Chamberlain will send you right in: “Sorry, Your Majesty, I tried to dissuade them but they insisted and, after all, Law and Tradition demands you receive them if they invoke their rights in that regard, just as Law and Tradition permits you, in your sole discretion, to have them torn to shreds by the Palace Hyenas.  Ignorance of the law is no excuse, commoners!” Whereas a Friendly Chamberlain might deny entry to the King precisely because he knows what will happen – but speaking ill of the King’s decisions is treason punishable by death, so he can’t just TELL the PC’s or it’s he who will be feeding the hyenas, so he summarily dismisses them, knowing it’s for their own good – “Lucky Commoners, not having to deal with this.  They will never know how close they came to death this day.  If I must be though of as an ill-mannered officious clod, then so be it – better that than more pointless deaths at the King’s hands.” So is it, or isn’t it, possible using diplomacy to convert the Pope to a different religion (be it atheism, Buddhism or whatever?  And is it always open to the PC’s to try with a chance of success, or is it not?  Is the GM prohibited from applying the specific rule that says not every task can be accomplished in a minute, or is that rule to be ignored?  And, once again, what rule says that the target is required to listen to the PC’s for however long it will take for them to get their Diplomacy check? We are establishing here whether it is an absolute that the players can always attempt, and not with a DC set so high that it cannot succeed, or whether it is a matter of degree, with the DC so high for some tasks that they are simply not possible.  Whether the specific Chamberlain example appropriately fits in that box or not depends on far too many factors to assess, so my objective here is first to establish whether it is an absolute that the PC must have the possibility of success by his chosen approach. Emphasis added.  An appropriate and reasonable number to the GM which is a number the PC’s are not capable of rolling may be perceived as inappropriate and unreasonable for that reason, which is exactly why we are having this lengthy debate. Where does it say that a Friendly or Helpful Chamberlain will admit PC’s to see the King?  It says his attitude has become Friendly or Helpful.  The base DC’s set by the skill are also to be modified by favourable or unfavourable conditions.  Is a commoner seeking an audience with the king with no appointment, no noble blood, no connection to the King’s Court and no legal right to see the King, not dressed in appropriate Court attire and clearly bearing arms, using the right tools, or operating under conditions that hamper performance?  An uncooperative audience is a specific example of “circumstances that make the task harder”, so clearly the possibility the target of a diplomacy check is uncooperative exists. Clearly the mechanics must be flawed J Either that, or your playstyle is badwrongfun!And others would be less happy.  There is a balancing act here.  Frankly, if a game designer picks the exact mechanics that I think best, making me a rabid supporter of his game, and for every gamer like me that he impresses, he loses 100 other sales because way more people hate those mechanics, he’s not making a very sharp business choice. Now, maybe locking up 1% of the market is better than competing for the other 99% against 1,000 competitors,  but RPG’s are already a niche market, so the smaller the customer base for the general product, the less viable a more specialized market becomes.  Indie products are commonly Indie because they appeal to a very small customer base, so they can’t generate the sales to go beyond Indie.Who is suggesting 4 fighters?  I think those defending the fighter are defending a party with several skill sets being more viable than one with fewer skill sets. I’d think the comparison should be “spellcasters only” and “balanced party”. Repeated as an excellent guideline.  There should be multiple means of resolving the challenge.  I stress that this does not mean there may be approaches, even seeming obvious and viable approaches, that will not resolve this specific challenge. All very true.  The players also need to recognize that the fact their first attempt doesn’t work is not a sign the GM is out to get them, but a signal that there is more to the challenge than may have first met the eye. If getting an audience with the King were trivial, would I describe the room and ask what you do, rather than describe your arrival at the room, reception by the Chamberlain and passing through the room as you are ushered in to meet with the King?  Probably not.  Just as I won’t play out three weeks of travel, asking you for a nightly watch order, daily scouting routines, etc. even though nothing is going to happen.  Instead, “after three weeks travel with nothing noteworthy occurring” suffices. So can I as a player announce that my underworld contacts, very familiar with the goings-on in the Barony, have told me that the Baron is REALLY just using his niece to access his dead brother’s estate (she will conveniently disappear when the time is right, he’s seen to that!), or has this element which you have set in advance fixed and unalterable by the PC’s?  Again, I’m looking to establish whether it is an absolute that anything not established clearly through play (such as whether that care for the niece is truly genuine or has all been guided by intricate estate rules), or whether some details are set in stone beforehand, and cannot later be altered. OK – could someone have, instead, said “no he isn’t, but he thinks himself to be one, so even the slightest act of prowess will impress him, being at or above what he can achieve, which he considers the pinnacle of achievement?”, thereby making it much easier to impress the Baron, or was his “man of action” ability already set and unalterable?  Deciding he is a Man of Action during the meal, rather than in pre-game prep, still seems like a GM decision.  I don’t think advance prep vs ad lib is a major difference that has been suggested between the two, although I do agree that, where details are determined by player rolls, advance preparation clearly moves aside.  But I doubt the players could have determined that, actually, the Barony lacks a Baron as the last Baron passed away without an heir three years ago, then roll to be appointed to the job, thereby retroactively removing the Baron and his niece before they could meet him.  Some details, I believe, are pre-established even in Indie play. It seems to me that this is hair-splitting semantics.  In either case, you will ultimately have to set the difficulty of success, will you not?  Or is every NPC a cardboard cutout on which the PC’s have the exact same, always predictable and certain, probability of being able to impose their will upon? Thank you – that, I believe, is the question which has been asked repeatedly.  I will take the liberty of rephrasing the statement that “the GM has to make the final call” as “the GM is the ultimate arbiter”.  I believe the two convey exactly the same end result. Well, that does depend on the Real World System we’re using, doesn’t it?  In a rules-light system, a single “Carefully arbitrate” skill likely is sufficient.  In a more granular system, I think we need “rules knowledge”, “player psychology”, “analyze playstyles”, “present arguments”, “diplomatic arbitration” and a host of other skills.  J To me, trust is the big one.  The players need to be able to trust the GM, and the GM to trust the players.  When that trust is lost, the game falls apart, regardless of playstyle.  Even in a game which places the GM as an adversary to the players, both sides need to trust the other is following the rules.  Of course, if the options presented aren’t going to be used, sales are likely to go down.  Here again, I think there is a group style issue, in that some will use all official materials, others will reserve the right to pull some aspects if they become unbalanced, still others will only allow aspects as specifically reviewed and accepted, and some will adopt a “core only, no exceptions” approach.If the results in my games of adopting outside material were endless bickering and very unbalanced, no fun games, I'd be restricting the material myself (and our group typically runs with a "actual publisher material only, very rare exceptions, something found to be unbalanced will be removed" approach).  I've seen a few cases where concern was raised about something being unbalanced, often coming to nothing either due to self-regulation (it wasn't used in a manner that could become unbalancing) or being modified by group consensus.</blockquote>

Verification