Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GMMichael" data-source="post: 7482993" data-attributes="member: 6685730">Here's what I meant in the OP, in case we're derailing a bit:Succeed/fail: rules that set up a dichotomy of A) get what you want or B) suffer pain or boredom.&nbsp; As in, &quot;welp, I failed my Caster Level check, so my level 13 Invert Monster spell just did jack and squat to my opponent.&nbsp; And I'm not allowed to do anything else besides talk until my next turn.&quot;&nbsp; Or &quot;I just failed my Detect Traps check on Lanefan's lawn, and now I have to take 18d6 damage.&nbsp; Why didn't I spend more time min/maxing?&quot;Min/max: creating a character that is embarrassingly unbalanced (to anyone but the character's player).&nbsp; This is not synonymous with optimizing.Some points I picked up, wandering through the thread:&quot;Degrees of success encourage min-maxing.&quot;&nbsp; I'll buy that.&nbsp; Good point, actually.&nbsp; If watering down succeed/fail in one direction can reduce min/maxing, watering it down in the other direction can increase it.&nbsp; Which makes me think, well, maybe we just need to focus less on numbers.&nbsp; But...&quot;Less focus on natural language and more focus on math&quot; kept min-maxing down in 4e.&nbsp; It sounds like the designers had to implement rule-based leashes to what, make characters more balanced?&nbsp; What if I was diametrically wrong, and more succeed/fail can be a cure for min/maxing?&nbsp; In the sense that whenever a PC makes a Succeed decision for her character, a Failure, somewhere else, becomes required?&nbsp; This resembles Fate points and Numenera intrusions: when you succeed you lose a resource, and when you fail you gain one.&nbsp; It also echoes [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION]'s comments on failure being useful in Mousegard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GMMichael, post: 7482993, member: 6685730"] Here's what I meant in the OP, in case we're derailing a bit: [B]Succeed/fail[/B]: rules that set up a dichotomy of A) get what you want or B) suffer pain or boredom. As in, "welp, I failed my Caster Level check, so my level 13 Invert Monster spell just did jack and squat to my opponent. And I'm not allowed to do anything else besides talk until my next turn." Or "I just failed my Detect Traps check on Lanefan's lawn, and now I have to take 18d6 damage. Why didn't I spend more time min/maxing?" [B]Min/max[/B]: creating a character that is embarrassingly unbalanced (to anyone but the character's player). This is not synonymous with optimizing. Some points I picked up, wandering through the thread: "Degrees of success encourage min-maxing." I'll buy that. Good point, actually. If watering down succeed/fail in one direction can reduce min/maxing, watering it down in the other direction can increase it. Which makes me think, well, maybe we just need to focus less on numbers. But... "Less focus on natural language and more focus on math" kept min-maxing down in 4e. It sounds like the designers had to implement rule-based leashes to what, make characters more balanced? What if I was diametrically wrong, and [I]more[/I] succeed/fail can be a cure for min/maxing? In the sense that whenever a PC makes a Succeed decision for her character, a Failure, somewhere else, becomes required? This resembles Fate points and Numenera intrusions: when you succeed you lose a resource, and when you fail you gain one. It also echoes [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION]'s comments on failure being useful in Mousegard. [/QUOTE]

Verification