Zornhau Forums

Phew.

dra wrote:Masteries mentioned before solve it. Skills are better because true master has automatic successess/lowers TN.

I feel automatic successes make things too easy for a master, to the point of making skill checks potentially boring. Lowering TN should still be a thing exclusively reserved for advantages/disadvantages (in contrast to Korbel's SA handling, which I don't feel comfortable with). This makes them easy to apply. If they stack with other effects, calculation becomes more and more complicated.

Korbel wrote:If you use 0-4 for Attributes and 0-8 for Skills, big pools are not really an issue anymore (average pool is the same as currently, maximum possible pool - only 1 dice bigger).

Your attribute scale inherits the problems why Agamemnon bothered to extend the range of attributes and skills in the first place: It is too low to differentiate between novice and master to make training to mastery worthwile.

Marras wrote:1) As attributes seem to be too powerful when compared to skills if you go with X+Y system, why not use different dice for skills and attributes? Say, d6 and d10.

Nice idea actually, but I feel that having two pools of different dice and juggling with them at the table may result in felt clunkyness.

thirtythr33 wrote:Instead of calculating Brawn/3 = AV etc which has all of the benefits stacked at ranks 1, 4 and 7 you instead use a table that spreads the bonuses out: [...]

That lessens the dead level problem in a way. I think the main challenge for the designers is to fill the blanks and keep it balanced.

[color=#00FF00]Agamemnon[/color] wrote:

EinBein wrote:This is where I don't agree. Though attributes and skills are picked during character creation, they get different value from the amount of points you get from a specific priority.

[...] Even if you lower the number of attribute points you can spend overall, you're still going to be better off investing in more attributes than less at character creation.

But you have to agree that at some point, when altering the points you get for a given priority, the skills become the better choice (let's say: 60 skill points versus 10 attribute points, to exaggerate a bit). It's definitely not always in the favor of attributes. In reverse this means, that there must be an optimum, where you have to think twice - based on your character concept - what is the best pick for you.

[color=#00FF00]Agamemnon[/color] wrote:Proposal 2

This positively feels like a concession. I like the idea of being able to combine basically everything. I can't say whether RP-whoring would really be problematic, but dead levels indeed become more of an issue. Even though I feel that it is now more evenly spread and not anymore concentrated on several "strategic" attributes. The following proposal 2a may feel like a cheap workaround, but with your proposed scale table...

Scale for Brawn from [color=#00FF00]Agamemnon[/color] wrote:The scale, again, using Brawn as an illustration:
1. Small animals.
2. Children, the disabled.
3. Sedentary office workers
4. Average, active people. Farmers, laborers
5-6. Professional athletes.
7-8 Professional Strongman types. The height of what normal people can actually achieve.
9-10. Genetic freaks. Tier 5 material. Andrey the Giant. Hafthor Bjornson.

...I feel that the bonus steps should be shifted by one upwards:

Scale for attribute/skill boni from EinBein wrote:useless for 0-3, +1 for 4-6, +2 for 7-9, +3 for 10

With that change, I may even feel ready to accept the dead levels, as they fit to the narrative behind the scale. With the original table you'd get a +1 as "sedentary office worker" (3) and as a "professional athlete" (5). This feels kind of wrong. Same would apply to any /3 derived stat, like Body.

I think we can all see that you are committed to push this change, and I can understand that any alternative feels inferior in this stage of the rewrite. Anyways, many fellow forum posters opposing the change have explained their worries and some may actually have a point. But in order to break the stallmate, I at least have come to the point where I can accept the above proposal 2 with the suggested change to the bonus table and am ready to just give it a try. If said worries prove to destroy the gameplay, I'm sure we'll meet again on these exact forums and complain about it

EinBein wrote:Phew.

dra wrote:Masteries mentioned before solve it. Skills are better because true master has automatic successess/lowers TN.

I feel automatic successes make things too easy for a master,

That was the point, wasn't it? To make skills more important than attributes?
1-7 attr
1-4 skill + 3 masteries

It fixes huge pools as well. In fact in above setup, maximum dice pool is exactly same as in b_01.
Is it too easy? It's just statistical extra dice per level of skill above 4.

to the point of making skill checks potentially boring.

As I wrote before, it's all an illusion.

If players have more skill in opening locks, they don't sneak into rich merchant mansions, they sneak into castle of lord or duke. They don't face ob3 locks, they face ob5 and better guards.

dra wrote:

EinBein wrote:

dra wrote:Masteries mentioned before solve it. Skills are better because true master has automatic successess/lowers TN.

I feel automatic successes make things too easy for a master

That was the point, wasn't it? To make skills more important than attributes?

But not to the point when high skills make all but the most daring tasks a walk in the park?

dra wrote:It fixes huge pools as well. In fact in above setup, maximum dice pool is exactly same as in b_01.

This may not be adressed to me, but I never had a problem with rolling large numbers of dice (even though more than twenty d6 are a nuisance indeed).

I think I gave in to Agamemnons Proposal 2 and dead ratings, when I reconsidered my own plans to insert "dead boxes" for character progression in between the official ratings in order to extend the otherwise shallow progression systems and asked myself: "What is the difference now between this plan and extending the range with some more important steps in between in the first place?". I found no good answer... Even though I have to repeat that I think that the bonus steps have to be in line with the narrative of each rating, even when that means a simple /3 doesn't work. To recall steps 4, 7 and 10 isn't much more difficult anyways.

And my X+Y concern was adressed by the Proposal 2 way to be able to combine basically everything if explained well.

EinBein wrote: But not to the point when high skills make all but the most daring tasks a walk in the park?

Most daring tasks as in Ob 6-10? Hardly walk in the park, really with Atr+ 4 dices and 3 succesess to start
Master thief still can fuck up at some really tough task but he will not mess things easily done by petty thiefs. I like the idea more and more

EinBein wrote:

dra wrote:It fixes huge pools as well. In fact in above setup, maximum dice pool is exactly same as in b_01.

This may not be adressed to me, but I never had a problem with rolling large numbers of dice (even though more than twenty d6 are a nuisance indeed).

It wasn't.
My original comment was response to initial problem : attributes > skills
At the same time it also covers another of Agamemnon's issues: he doesn't like huge pools.
Having thought about that, it also covers another one of the problems: SAs burden on skill checks.

If Brawn only contributes 1/3 of its value to damage, and the max you can have is +3, doesn't that make damaging an opponent really difficult?

For example, if you have 2 guys in full munitions plate harness fighting with maxed out Brawn attributes using lucerne hammers (currently +2 damage, +3 for body for a total of +5) it requires a MoS 5 to inflict a level 1 wound, MoS 3 if you're using the mass weapons proficiency and power swingin for 2 dice.

Personally I would like to see Body being 1/2 Brawn, that way it's calculated pretty much the same way as the compound attributes. In addition, when I experimented with the game, Dragon Tapping and Naked Dwarf didn't occur until at least 5 dots, and that pretty much requires a 5 priority pick in attributes. And finally, it somewhat alleviates the dead level issue by shortening the length of time spent in the deadzone.

Personally i still like +1 dmg for every odd rank and +1 armour for every even rank.
So in other words, rounding down, +Dmg = (Brawn+1)/2 and +Armour = (Brawn+0)/2.
It's an exception, but it feels better to me than straight divisions.

that said i'm okay with +1 Body at 4, 7, 10. Although that is technically (Body-1)/3.

Honest question here, why not have dots anyway? If they are grouped it should stay readable. i could imagine something like this:

OOO ÖOO ÖOO Ö

Ümlauts for signifying the special marking for Tapping Tiers. Having small numbers under the dots will also help

nemedeus wrote:Honest question here, why not have dots anyway? If they are grouped it should stay readable. i could imagine something like this:

OOO ÖOO ÖOO Ö

Ümlauts for signifying the special marking for Tapping Tiers. Having small numbers under the dots will also help

+1 to this. Also could be squares instead of ümlauts.

Easier to read.

Benedict wrote:
+1 to this. Also could be squares instead of ümlauts.

Easier to read.

Well, yeah, but i don't have a square on my keyboard and i was too lazy to look an Alt+[number] up.

nemedeus wrote:

Benedict wrote:
+1 to this. Also could be squares instead of ümlauts.

Easier to read.

Well, yeah, but i don't have a square on my keyboard and i was too lazy to look an Alt+[number] up.

Like this:

OOO □OO □OO □

White square = U+25A1. No Alt combo to my knowledge. Used CharMap for that.

Benedict wrote:

nemedeus wrote:

Benedict wrote:
+1 to this. Also could be squares instead of ümlauts.

Easier to read.

Well, yeah, but i don't have a square on my keyboard and i was too lazy to look an Alt+[number] up.

Like this:

OOO □OO □OO □

White square = U+25A1. No Alt combo to my knowledge. Used CharMap for that.

I feel like that may be a bit much, for the sake of a standard character sheet. Also, it's still going to be less easy to see what you can tap at a glance than the other way. But. Ahem. Nothing wrong with alternate character sheets. Once something is out, im sure someone will make dot-based sheets.

Benedict wrote:OOO □OO □OO □

Or the background could just be shaded darker for each bump.

higgins wrote:Or the background could just be shaded darker for each bump.

This.

Also not sure if i prefer:
OOO □OO □OO □
which makes more sense

or:
O OO□ OO□ OO□
which looks so much nicer

OOO□ OO□ OO□
might also work

If you're going to mix different geometric shapes, I would much prefer hexagons to squares. More angles = less jarring.

IMO, for statistics up to 10 you need to stick to numbers. It is a well known psychological effect that people can't count more than 4 objects at a glance.