|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 16, 2009 14:11:03 GMT -5
I'm still back on this idea of how its "fair" to force feed players into building characters they don't want.
"Sure, you can upgrade the thing thats important to your character... but because its already better than your General Knowledge, it'll cost you more than it would to upgrade GK."
"But... I don't want to upgrade GK. My character only has a B.A."
"Thats fine, but you've got to pay more."
Or, to put it another way...
One day Stephen Hawking was close to figuring out the origin of everything in the universe... but then his GM told him he'd have to pay more LOE for that than it would be to upgrade his Social Skills, so he decided to upgrade Social Skills instead....
Thats just stupid
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 16, 2009 14:26:18 GMT -5
Well... no that's not what I was talking about....
I meant taking a look at the experience system itself, and asking ourselves... can we do better?
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 16, 2009 16:14:33 GMT -5
Yes, so are TWF and I.
We did that, and then we asked a more important question. "Do we really have to?"
You do not fix what is not broken. The 10 LOE/increase thing is simple and it works just fine. I've got one of the longest running games on this board, and guess what? Its NEVER been a problem. Not once. Further, nobody can illustrate how or why it could ever be a problem. smoke's argument is that it doesn't make sense to pay the same LOE for a higher Action Number... but I don't think he's remotely supported that argument.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 16, 2009 16:31:55 GMT -5
K, I was just sticking up for the underdog here lol.... And, it is a good thing to second guess yourself every once in a while lol.
|
|
|
Post by prophet224 on Feb 18, 2009 16:44:02 GMT -5
So this is my first post on this board, and I have to say it's funny that it would be in something like this. Anyway, let me also say that I don't have the "whole elephant" yet... I haven't read over all the 2.0 stuff. I'm also new to the system. Ha-hah! Lost on 2 counts already, right? Hope not... we'll see. When I first looked at the improvement system, I got creepy shivers down my spine. Then, shuffling through the book, I found the D&R chart. "Hold Up!" I said to myself. Almost everything on this chart runs close to exponential. That means that after about halfway, every step higher isn't just a small change, it's an enormous increase in ability or power. Even the ones that aren't exponential are still greater than a 1:1 increase each level. Hmmm... so it is just as difficult (or easy) to increase from being able to fly mach 7 to an unnamed "sublight speed" (the low level of interplanetary speeds, perhaps?) as it is to go from 30mph to 150mph? Yes, the scale is similar, but the actual ability is HUGELY different. Let's look at some examples from other games. D&D (sorry): As you increase level, the amount of xp to get to the next level goes up. It gets more and more difficult (though admittedly the XP you GET goes up too). Skill points (3e here) are the same for each increase, but they are gained via the level increase mechanic that already deals with the increasing difficulty. Asheron's Call (go to different types of games here): Computer game with a skill-based, not level based system. Skills are increased through use. The more you use a skill, the more points you build up towards that skills new level. Skill points between levels increase as skill level goes up. Anybody else? There are tons of examples! There are reasons for this mechanic being so common, and yes, it is about balance. ***************** Which brings me to this: The whole issue of "Actions aren't balanced so why try to balance action number increases?" I'm going to throw this out there: All actions are inherently balanced, given the right situation. The costs to purchase or create a character with those actions may not be balanced, but the actions themselves can all be useful in some situation. I say this because the proposed system here isn't trying to balance one action vs. another. Look at it as trying to balance the action against itself. Do you really think that it should be as easy to go from flying fighters to the space shuttle (with all it's various very different issues) as it is to go from driving cars to trucks? One last example: Wolverine's CC was discussed. Is there not some point for any individual where they have 'maxed out'? Where they have gotten as good as they can or are going to? There definitely is, and if you are at the very top of your game... all you have to go is down. There's always an apex, particularly when we deal with physical things. In the comic book world, maybe Wolvy isn't satisfied with this. He's hit his limit, but wants even more ability, and that could drive him to any number of things. That in itself could be a plot arc! ***************** On the point of forcing people to flesh out their characters: You aren't forcing anything. You are giving them an incentive to do so, and they have to do a cost/benefit calculation. They can upgrade one thing now or wait and upgrade the other more powerful thing later. FATE: Not a game but a system. Uses a skill pyramid. You have one main skill on top, and as you gain new skills you can sort of reshuffle things (depending on house rules and such) but skills always maintain a pyramid. This DOES force you to have other skills, and to add a completely new skill it needs to finda place in the pyramid. (Side note, being used for the Dresden Files RPG.) Ok, sorry this was so long, lots of points to hit. Time to go home.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 18, 2009 16:51:24 GMT -5
Okay, first of all lets stop using euphemisms like "flesh out" the character. Thats a load of bull. We're not talking about high school kids who need to make their college applications look good.
We're talking about fictional characters within a comic book setting. Most of whom are stereotypes.
Ramrodding a function that makes people pay more to improve the Actions that are important to them is bunk.
|
|
|
Post by prophet224 on Feb 18, 2009 21:05:48 GMT -5
<sarcasm> Hey, thanks for the welcome, WildKnight! It's appreciated! </sarcasm>
That said...
euphemism 1. the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt.
So... your comment is nice and all but what exactly is "flesh out" a euphemism for? I'm sure this comes off a bit... well... off, but I honestly don't understand what you mean.
The only explanation I can see is powergamer complaints: "I don't WANT to make a character who has background or story or non-fighting traits! I wanna make 'im KILL STUFF!" Seriously, yes it's a superhero game, but even the superheros have backgrounds and other skills. For that matter, look at Stark or Peter Parker. Their 'other skills' are what made them be able to be super heros. Of course, this suggestion still doesn't keep that from happening, it just makes them wait a bit longer to ignore other skills.
Even the freakin' Surfer has social skills including "Zenn-La Culture" (though frankly, the write-up sucks as far as that goes... why would an alien scientist not have, well, science stuff too?). Anyway, Galactus paid big during character creation for him, and then Surfer grew along the way.
And as far as "we're not talking about" stuff, if you people are honestly trying to make a more balanced, playable, fun game, these are the sorts of things that should be considered. Graduated scales are so common because they work and they help balance power. The argument should probably be more about how to graduate it (in my opinion, at least).
Here's the other thing: any of this can be house ruled. If you want to start with 1000 stones, go for it. If you want to do 10 lines/upgrade, sure. Whatever you want, rock on, but this is a resource allocation game, and your lines are just another resource. More decision is better, not worse.
I hope ya'll will forgive the tone of this... to be greeted with the above when trying to throw in discussion about a game seemed odd. In the meantime, I'm ging to pick out some resources. I think you can get 'Advanced Game Design' on Google books. It might cover some of this.
|
|
|
Post by prophet224 on Feb 18, 2009 21:11:28 GMT -5
Oh, and one more thing! Anybody here a martial artist? The general rule in martial arts is that once you have your black belt, the time to the next rank (assuming you are training hard) is at least the number of your rank in years. So to go from 1st dan to 2nd dan is usually at least a year. To get from 2nd to 3rd is at least two years. So to go from 1st to 5th, say, takes a cumulative 10 years. Or you could have gone back and gotten black belts in (probably) 2 other different styles.
Oh, and the Hawking example isn't even internally consistent. You are comparing a 'skill' challenge to an action upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 18, 2009 21:55:03 GMT -5
Welcome to the boards Prophet WildKnight is rarely the best person to communicate with first, but I promise he's useful once you get to know him and he's not even that bad a guy As for the topic: In the original system the problem could be fixed in one of two places: How many lines were awarded How far lines could get you So you could either reward more lines, or change how many lines improving actions cost. (While the original cost was Flat at 10 lines even up to AN 10, I also recall that you could learn non-powered actions for 1 line at AN 1 and then get them up to AN 2 for 9 more lines.) Then they suggested how to improve abilities, and I was cool with their suggestion, although I feel the cap should have been [your highest ability score] not 3, if there was a cap at all. As for improving modifiers, I think takewithfood did a great job of summing it up in the second post in this thread. I also feel that it's necessary to account for the fact that improving some things is way better than improving others. Improving abilities is often better than improving actions, while improving modifiers is frequently superior to both. For example, improving your Agility so you go sooner in a panel often trumps improving your already-high combat actions. Improving your targeting is superior to improving your ranged combat. So, in my opinion Actions should be improved at the following rates: If you don't award many lines I recommend a graduated cost. Either you pay your current level to improve or your current level +1: Cost 1 line = Gain an unpowered Action at AN 1 Cost 1 or 2 lines = Improve an Action from 1 to 2 Cost 2 or 3 lines = Improve an Action from 2 to 3 Cost 3 or 4 lines = Improve an Action from 3 to 4 Cost 4 or 5 lines = Improve an Action from 4 to 5 Cost 5 or 6 lines = Improve an Action from 5 to 6 Cost 6 or 7 lines = Improve an Action from 6 to 7 Cost 7 or 8 lines = Improve an Action from 7 to 8 Cost 8 or 9 lines = Improve an Action from 8 to 9 Cost 9 or 10 lines = Improve an Action from 9 to 10 Etc. If you award a lot of lines I recommend a flat cost or a flat minimum addition on a graduated cost. I think Abilities should be slightly harder to improve than actions. I think Modifers should be harder to improve than both actions and abilities.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 18, 2009 22:12:23 GMT -5
*rolls eyes, applauds*
Yaaaay! You're a bigger nerd than me. And rather than address my points, you get all pedantic. You'll do great here on the boards.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 18, 2009 22:13:22 GMT -5
Sorry, that's just WK. He's like that. So are bears shortly after they've woken from hibernation. I can promise you that he meant nothing by it, though.
I think it's awesome that your first post is in here. You show some really advanced insight into game mechanics in general, and I'm impressed that you can debate at that level already.
However, some of your points don't actually add up or apply to MURPG the way they're presented. For starters, D&D has a growing scale of XP required per level, but this takes into account that higher level characters earn more XP per fight (assuming they continue to fight at their challenge rating) and generally run fewer risks in combat. The system is designed primarily so that you can't keep killing orcs to gain levels when you're already level 14. The number of encounters per level stays roughly the same - it does increase slightly, but I offset that by the reduced risk. Progression in general remains fairly static.
I haven't played Asheron's Call, but I'm familiar with systems that grant stat-ups and level-ups based on frequency of use (the Morrowind series, for example). MURPG is actually like this too - lines of experience generally go towards what you've used in that Issue. While not every GM enforces this, it's the rule out of the book.
Furthermore, MURPG just isn't like other systems. It isn't trying to be, either. Progression tends to be very slow since you tend to play characters that are already heroic. If you didn't hand out lines at all, you could still have a very fun and rewarding game simply meeting objectives and deepening your character's story.
To address the idea of balancing Actions against themselves, I don't see how it's necessary. As long as all Actions cost the same amount to increase as any other Action, things will work out - whether it's 10 LOEs per point, or some more complex derivative system. So why go for complexity?
Trust me, try out the game a little and you'll see what I mean. Characters in MURPG tend to increase very little, so a flawless mechanic isn't terribly necessary. I prefer simplicity. Really, give it a try - and I hope you have fun doing so! ^__^ Welcome again to MURPG and our humble boards.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 18, 2009 22:19:30 GMT -5
Oh, and its a euphemism for "forcing people to play characters the way I envision them, rather than the way they want them to be."
Which is exceptionally pointless in a game based on comic books, which are built around stereotypes.
If Wolverine were a character in MURPG, every LOE he's ever gotten would have gone into Close Combat. His social skills have, if anything, deteriorated over the years, not improved. His other Actions (Black Ops, etc), have remained more or less the same... while his ability to fight and kill has improved considerably. Likewise, every additional Challenge he's ever picked up would have gone into improving his Claws or his Toughness. Why? Because he's a butt-kicking monstrosity and thats the way his "player" (i.e. the writers) want him. Artificially forcing people to pay more for the improvements they want just because they're already high is railroading, not "fleshing out" anything.
Furthermore, any mention of D&D or similar systems is out of place here, because MURPG is, in case you haven't noticed, not (thank God), those games.
Its also a Straw Man, because while the amount of XP required to go up a level improves, you don't suddenly have to spend 2 Skill Points to raise a skill by 1, or 2 Feats to get a Feat thats more than one step up a "Feat Chain."
|
|
|
Post by Manticore on Feb 18, 2009 22:35:01 GMT -5
If Wolverine were a character in MURPG, every LOE he's ever gotten would have gone into Close Combat. His social skills have, if anything, deteriorated over the years, not improved. His other Actions (Black Ops, etc), have remained more or less the same... while his ability to fight and kill has improved considerably. Likewise, every additional Challenge he's ever picked up would have gone into improving his Claws or his Toughness. Why? Because he's a butt-kicking monstrosity and thats the way his "player" (i.e. the writers) want him. Artificially forcing people to pay more for the improvements they want just because they're already high is railroading, not "fleshing out" anything. That's odd, because Wolverine isn't a particularly good fighter. Despite having superhuman regenerative abilities, toughness, agility, speed, strength and unbreakable bones, he regularly gets his ass kicked by human martial artists who have none of his advantages. If I were making a CAD for Wolverine his Close Combat skill would be '5' at most. Probably '4'. I think that most of the other X-men are actually better fighters than Wolverine- his healing factor allows him to be incredibly sloppy and get away with it. Whereas Cyclops et al can't afford to take risks. It's just that Wolverine has a lot of fanboys, and those fanboys like to imagine that their hero is "the gr8est eva!" Also, I think it's wrong to say that his Social Skills have deteriorated. Although there may be the occasional writer who has portrayed Wolverine as a barely-restrained savage, Wolverine has nevertheless spent a great deal of time over the last few decades of comic books making connections and friendships with his fellow X-men and others in the superhero community, started up his own bar and super-criminal hangout in Madripoor, and acted as a father figure for three or four different teenage girls. = = = = = = Anyway, I'd like to voice my support for this MURPG 2.0 project. So far I've avoided sticking my nose in; I'm content to let you guys do the hard work, but I just want you to know that I think you're doing a good job. Carry on the good work! ;D
|
|
|
Post by prophet224 on Feb 19, 2009 0:04:40 GMT -5
Malice: Thanks for the clue-ins and welcome! Hmmm... Malice... welcome... something funny here... Anyway: It definitely looks like the actions/abilities/modifiers should be improved separately. Modifiers are obviously pretty top-notch, but is there any sort of across-the-board bonus from abilities that would justify them being harder to upgrade? The ability upgrade cap does seem odd too. After all, these are super-powered people, right? TWF: On D&D: Yeah, on D&D it doesn't really work out the way it looks like it should, which in turn removes it as a valid example for me. Ah, well. That is one of the odd things about it; that you have a graduated scale of xp/level but at the same time increase the amount of xp you GET. Might as well leave it flat. I would argue, however, the reduced risk. There are some points where that's also very odd, in that you can basically either take anybody or get killed in a shot. Blah. ** I do see how the system leans towards building 'complete' characters. For myself, I enjoy the discovery... learning about new powers, etc. but how this sort of thing is built depends on the GM and the game world. Anyway, the system allows for complete characters and the 3 lines per session thing really does seem to make for a slow progression. We shall see. I guess my concern is simply that you don't get anything for free, but at high levels, you practically are. I'll definitely be getting more of an idea as I play more. I have to say, I see a great deal of potential here! Thanks, TWF for the kind words and advice. That said, I'll be interested to pop in on this stuff. ********* And finally, Wildnight: Not trying to be narrow or strict, and there's a difference between pedantic and precise. Also, your ability to be sarcastic about something that you are in turn wrong about is amazing. How did I not address your points? I assume you read the post? Perhaps a re-read is in order. Points were addressed and I didn't see counterpoints or discussion in your message back. And yeah, I'm quite a nerd. Proud of it too. Thanks for clarifying the euphemism. There's still no forcing in the suggested system, just a guide that encourages dipping into other areas rather than making a one-shot character. Look at it the other way around. Perhaps the highest action number should be the baseline and the 'price' goes down for actions below it? Definitely starting to add a touch more complexity. But it's a way of thinking about it. As a side note on the Wolverine thing, is it possible to improve claws? But anyway, your ability to fight (or do anything for that matter) will get better for a time, but after that, it tapers off. Diminishing returns and all that. How much more effort and practice does it take to get that much better? Mention of other games or systems is not out of place. They are used as tools for demonstrations and as case studies. They are no more out of place here than any other source would be out of place in a research paper's reference list. And I addressed in my original post how skill points and all other improvements are rolled into the same mechanic. Already been there. Ok all, bedtime. Later! (Oh, side question... have masteries been addressed in the 2.0 section anywhere?)
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 19, 2009 0:17:25 GMT -5
TWF: On D&D: Yeah, on D&D it doesn't really work out the way it looks like it should, which in turn removes it as a valid example for me. Ah, well. That is one of the odd things about it; that you have a graduated scale of xp/level but at the same time increase the amount of xp you GET. Might as well leave it flat. I would argue, however, the reduced risk. There are some points where that's also very odd, in that you can basically either take anybody or get killed in a shot. Blah. Yeah, that's something maybe I should have addressed: the higher level you get, the more you become your equipment. Equipment makes or breaks a character, especially at high levels. I'm currently running two games (New Mutants: Last Class, and New Mutants: Misspent Youth) that are centered around characters that JUST found out they're mutants. I wanted the game to involve more growing-into-powers goodness, so I started everyone off small, and boosted the LOEs. I involved a descending scale of LOEs, starting with 15 for the first issue, 13 for the second, 11, 9, and so on. I plan to taper out at 5 for a long while, and then eventually 3 if necessary. If the game goes on long enough, I may stop handing out lines entirely, but by that point I think the story would be over. Get your butt in some games! I get the distinct impression that you have can make an awesome character concept. I'll also be starting a 2.0 test game in the near(ish) future, and I'll be specifically trying to recruit a mix of veteran players and new players, in hopes of getting diverse feedback. I'll give you a poke when I'm ready to recruit. ^__^ We'll be getting to that soon, I think. I hope it won't get messy, but I imagine it will. ~TWF
|
|