Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6473853" data-attributes="member: 4937">The first question you have to ask is why you wish to do this?&nbsp; Is the game going to be better if your players don't min/max?Off hand, I think you are fighting a problem that can't be solved entirely via rules.&nbsp; Regardless of the rule set, a character's success depends on having reliable choices.&nbsp; A smart player never trusts his success to a coin flip.&nbsp; If a character's powers don't succeed the overwhelming majority of the time, they aren't really worth having.&nbsp; It's far better to be reliably good in one area and reliably fail in every other area, than it is to fail half the time in every area.&nbsp; None of the rules you describe really get around that.&nbsp; In fact, you almost seem to have gone out of your way to make a system that encourages min/maxing and system mastery.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sight unseen, it sounds like a number fiddlers paradise on par with GURPS.&nbsp;&nbsp; In particular, your estimation that being classless supports the viability of well-rounded characters is exactly backwards.&nbsp; Classes support well-rounded characters.&nbsp;&nbsp; Removing the stricture of having to adhere to a class structure allows for maximum min/maxing. The only possible way I can think to mitigate against that via rules is have a system that doesn't have binary pass/fail, but has for all tasks varying degrees of failure.&nbsp; In such a system, it would be worth it to have your character only fail marginally most of the time, rather than consistently fail disastrously.&nbsp; Degree of failure systems in general though involve extra math and have a pragmatic problem in that its rarely possible to define a critical fumble in all situations.&nbsp;&nbsp; Usually, to define critical failures, you have to appeal to some sort of narrative power which involves some sort of 'jinx' or 'curse' where the world rearranges itself to accommodate the failure.&nbsp; Note that if you have degrees of failure and degrees of success, and not degrees of failure only, you're probably back to a system that encourages min/maxing to ensure those critical successes on a reliable basis.However, the real issue here in my opinion is less of a rules problem than a encounter design problem.&nbsp; As long as the group can depend on another member of the group to solve a problem in their area of specialization, there is no need to build a well balanced character.&nbsp; A well balanced party will tend to be far superior because everyone's problem solving will collectively be more reliable.&nbsp;&nbsp; To mitigate against that, you have to force everyone into situations where they are reliant on their own resources.Which brings me back to my first point, are you sure you want to do this?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6473853, member: 4937"] The first question you have to ask is why you wish to do this? Is the game going to be better if your players don't min/max? Off hand, I think you are fighting a problem that can't be solved entirely via rules. Regardless of the rule set, a character's success depends on having reliable choices. A smart player never trusts his success to a coin flip. If a character's powers don't succeed the overwhelming majority of the time, they aren't really worth having. It's far better to be reliably good in one area and reliably fail in every other area, than it is to fail half the time in every area. None of the rules you describe really get around that. In fact, you almost seem to have gone out of your way to make a system that encourages min/maxing and system mastery. Sight unseen, it sounds like a number fiddlers paradise on par with GURPS. In particular, your estimation that being classless supports the viability of well-rounded characters is exactly backwards. Classes support well-rounded characters. Removing the stricture of having to adhere to a class structure allows for maximum min/maxing. The only possible way I can think to mitigate against that via rules is have a system that doesn't have binary pass/fail, but has for all tasks varying degrees of failure. In such a system, it would be worth it to have your character only fail marginally most of the time, rather than consistently fail disastrously. Degree of failure systems in general though involve extra math and have a pragmatic problem in that its rarely possible to define a critical fumble in all situations. Usually, to define critical failures, you have to appeal to some sort of narrative power which involves some sort of 'jinx' or 'curse' where the world rearranges itself to accommodate the failure. Note that if you have degrees of failure and degrees of success, and not degrees of failure only, you're probably back to a system that encourages min/maxing to ensure those critical successes on a reliable basis. However, the real issue here in my opinion is less of a rules problem than a encounter design problem. As long as the group can depend on another member of the group to solve a problem in their area of specialization, there is no need to build a well balanced character. A well balanced party will tend to be far superior because everyone's problem solving will collectively be more reliable. To mitigate against that, you have to force everyone into situations where they are reliant on their own resources. Which brings me back to my first point, are you sure you want to do this? [/QUOTE]

Verification