Benedict wrote:But compromise after compromise after minor complication after compromise (and resorting to violence after every instance) feels a bit too much.
Yeah, that's not how I run things at the table. You make the roll. If you fail, you accept the complication or escalate to violence.
One of the things I'm looking forward to is getting the GM section written up in this draft because I suspect that will do a lot of good in communicating how the game is meant to be run.
Benedict wrote:One thing about rolling attribute+attribute. I always felt it should be rolled primary Atr + secondary Atr, and the secondary Atr can be replaced with the appropriate skill when the skill is higher than the secondary Atr. For example. A weight-lifter obvioiusly uses ST+SM to lift weights. Both these Atrs represent his inborn capacity and result of training. Let's say he has ST3+SM3=6. What about the guy who has the same Atrs and also has Athletic 4? Doesn't he has better technique than the other? can't he lift the weights better? Ofc this approach opens a new world of pain as one must come up with associated skill per Atr+Atr combination. Don't know if its worth the effort honestly, just thinking out loud.
That's already how the rules are written. See Skills In Attribute Checks, page 34.
Benedict wrote:About merging ST and SM to one Atr, namely Brawn. The idea has merit. With a small asterisk. There are people who don't have outstanding muscle power, but they do have excellent health, pain thresholds, or endurance. Most women weighting a lot less than well built men for example have substantially greater pain thresholds, where men have greater muscle power. Brawn creates the situation where one is both very strong and enduring at the same time. Ofc it comes down to what one wants to model and compromises he is willing to make.
Even if Strength and Stamina become Brawn, general physical health, recovery, etc are all functions of Brawn+Will. One could as easily argue that these people have higher willpower than simply higher stamina/brawn.
taelor wrote:This is almost exactly the scale that Burning Wheel uses (though stats are usually capped at 6 at character creation, and in practice, 90% of all characters, PC and NPC alike, end up with stats in the 3-6 range).
That sounds about like what I was shooting for, which is handy because that means that it keeps the pools down overall. Even if we went as high as half-attribute for skills, it wouldn't eclipse the available skill range.
dra wrote:If 2 than, well, it is kinda zero sum game. When players run into climatic fight with badass antagonist, GM of course can predict, SAs will be firing. Therefore he will adjust opponent's stats to get a hard to overcome to but beatable opponent. If players decide to burn some SAs for advancment, GM just decreases stats of opponent and we still have exciting, yet possible to win fight. Same goes for roll obstacles and so on.
I'm not a fan of that approach at all. The numbers have an inherent meaning, even in proficiency scores. 1-4 is someone dabbling in the thing. 5-6 is a competent amateur. 7-8 are professionals and trained military. 9+ is going into Truly exceptional characters.
Players should be able to guess what someone's proficiency level is by what they know about a character. If I have Prof 11 from character creation, I should know for a fact that I'll have a higher raw proficiency than 95% of people I will encounter in the game. It is by design that players can start off as more skilled and exceptional in their chosen path than the majority of the game world they will encounter.
The thing I absolutely
hated about d20 games is that the numbers ultimately became meaningless. As your AB goes up, the AC of your CR-appropriate expected opponents goes up. As your skills go up, so do the DCs of the stuff you're expected to do. You get a +4 sword? Well, you need a +5 to get past their DR.
The GM should be setting the stats of NPCs in accordance with the fictional reality of those NPCs, not to compete with the players. Same goes for Obstacles.
This is not a game about overcoming challenges. It's a game about making hard choices and taking risks. Those choices and risks lose much of their meaning if they can't rely on the fiction as a source of information about how dangerous that risk could be. That's not to say there shouldn't
be challenges, but there are more interesting ways to challenge a player than "how hard is it to take this guy in a fight?"
dra wrote:Having said that, I still think it is not necessary to ask player to pay everything at once. You can make a tiny square next to stats for advancement purposes and whenever he wants he can spend some points in order to build up advancement pool for this particular stat. This way player can save up to increase some stats and still keep his high rolls (which are still just an illusion)
That's a possibility, though it adds even more clutter to the sheet. Worth chewing on.
Korbel wrote:That's exactly the beast you wanted be dead a couple of weeks ago, right? And now you feed it to grow even bigger?
Not that it's a problem for me (as I'll probably stick to my homerule - "SAs give Advantage" - and won't give a single fuck about pool sizes), but what about you? It doesn't bother you anymore?
My problem in the thread you were mentioning is the same problem we're discussing now -- that SAs made your skill meaningless. It's not the overall weight of SAs on a roll, it's that you could have one dot in a thing and beat someone who had maxed out that skill. It makes skill-based characters less valuable overall, which is a shame. Also, the SAs give Advantage rule is not a bad idea but has two flaws that immediately come to mind:
- You lose out on the "should I spend down this SA or keep it for its bonuses" aspect.. which is fine, but at that point, you might as well lump them in a common pool instead of tracking them for SAs individually.
- Since advantage doesn't stack, if an SA is firing there's no reason for players to do all the other stuff that would have given them an advantage in that situation. This is particularly noticeable for melee combat, as a couple proficiencies have an advantaged situation as part of their emphasis.
Benedict wrote:By clustering ST and SM together you either hit hard and endure greatly, or you don't. Unrealistic as Hell imho and boring to character builds. Instead of killing the "naked dwarf" it creates the "naked giant".
Brawn was suggested in the context of moving to the 1-10 scale where attributes are rolled independently. In this setup, I don't think we're going to have a "naked giant" problem by virtue of how the where things plug in. The naked dwarf issue is solved by the fact that Body is probably only going to be a 0-3 scale in humans with almost all able-bodied men being 2s. Even the sedentary office worker (1) taking on Andrey the Giant (3) is only a +2/-2 scenario, which is such a low impact that naked dwarf no longer applies. The "endure greatly" issue probably also isn't one, as almost everything you might have rolled constitution for in other games would fall under trauma here anyway - which is brawn and will.
If we wind up keeping the 1-5 scale, we aren't going to be able to put St and Sm together anyway because we have to roll everything in pairs, so Strength has to have something to pair with for physical tasks. It's a non-issue. For skills, this is one of the greatest strengths. For attributes, it's probably the greatest weakness as literally every function of an attribute is handled through derived attributes. It nearly doubles the amount of attributes needed for play.
Agility, Brawn, Cunning, Perception, Social, Will,
Body, Reflex, Trauma (9)
vs
Strength, Agility, Stamina, Speed, Acumen, Cunning, Willpower, Social
Feat of Strength, Balanace, Health, Knockdown, Knockout, Memory, Perception, Reflexes (16)
DRaziel29 wrote:- Making Body one third of Brawn leaves too many dead levels. With this, it would only be worth putting either 3 or 6 points in Brawn. Why don't you make it 1/2 of Brawn?
By the same logic, it would then only be worth putting even numbers in Brawn. The wider disparity means that it's more expensive to put more points into brawn solely for the purposes of raising Body. On the other hand, it also highlights that there are other reasons to raise Brawn than just damage.
ChaosFarseer wrote:On another note, is there an upper limit to proficiency? At character creation you can go up to 11, and the number 12 comes to mind for some reason. I ask because the old skill + attribute total dice pool and the new skill dice pool should have the same range as proficiencies. Maybe that's just a desire for consistency. The automatic-successes-if-you-have-more-than-ten-dice rule suggests that the intended maximum dice pool is 10, though.
As written, the current limit for proficiencies is really just established by how many points you can physically put into them at max-SA cap. That said, I'm not as worried about proficiency ranges and skill/attribute ranges falling into line for three reasons.
- Proficiencies aren't really rolled against obs. You can technically use them as a skill check for something related to that proficiency, but it's such a niche use that I'm not worried about it.The reason one would want to put a cap on skills or attributes is that the ob scale becomes meaningless if everyone can run around with 15 Agility and 20 Larceny.
- A corollary to the above, proficiencies are only really interesting in reference to the proficiencies of the other characters, and the mechanics of combat are such that you're splitting your dice anyway.
- You can only kill someone so dead. At a certain point, there are diminishing returns. Yes, you could theoretically get to Prof 36 in Longsword, but even if we assumed you maxed it out at character creation (11 with a priority A), you've spent a staggering 611 SA points to do so. At a rate of 3-4 SA points earned per session, that's 174 sessions worth. Even played weekly, you've spent two years doing nothing but making this character a better longswordsman -- and now? Uh. They can .. fight three people at the same time comfortably, I guess.
nemedeus wrote:
I used to have them in my games, but now i try to avoid them. Division and averaging just doesn't work on a 1-5 scale, and i definitely want to keep that scale.
Also, one of the things that made me fall in love with Bastards was definitely the absence of divided and averaged Derived Stats.
This is less of an issue with bigger scale numbers, like Proficiencies, but "using Proficiency as a skill" is kind of a niche case anyway.
I wasn't suggesting dividing anything on a 1-5 scale. The division would have only occurred if we went to a 1-10 scale.
The big that that would have been handy for "proficiency as a skill" on a 1-10 scale is not that I can roll proficiency checks easily.. but that you could use skills
as proficiencies.
If skills are on a 1-10 scale, it becomes very easy for me to make some kind of social combat system where we just use your Oratory skill as the proficiency for it and form an attribute pool just like we do for melee. Then we can easily make social combat a split-dice pool system the way melee is.
If that doesn't catch your fancy, replace "oratory" with "warfare" and "social combat" with "battlefield combat," with the commander's strategic knowhow becoming the "proficiency" the army uses for a split-dice pool system.
Benedict wrote:(the sheets and such)
They aren't bad looking, if we go that direction.
Honestly, it reminds me of the game Alternity, in a way. You had "Broad Skills" and "Specialty skills" that nested under them. I might have
Ranged Weapons, Modern as the broad skill, but then
Pistol,
Rifle, and
SMG were all specialty skills beneath it with the skill in the foremost benefitting all the latter.