Zornhau Forums

Agamemnon, you wrote this in the Beta Hype thread:

Agamemnon wrote:Rules exceptions generally suck. I can't count how many times we've measured or thrown something out on the basis of "yeah, but is anyone going to remember to do that?"

Now, this may look like a silly question, but personally i feel like it's a subject of design worth discussing.

I'm thinking, it's probably not gifts and flaws - as not all characters in play are subject to them.
But it obviously can't be as broad as a "subsystem" for a certain kind of task, like, often, combat.

So, When exactly does a rule start to be an exception?
Both in this case, and in a general case?

Good design generally should have the rules be as intuitive and consistent as possible. If something works a certain way in one place, it should work that way in all places, if possible. Look at it like it was a legal case. Precedents are made and future rulings work off of those precedents. If you're going to have an exception, you have to have a very good reason for making one.

So for our purposes and design metric, anything that establishes procedure and outcome is a rule. A rules exception occurs when you need something that goes against the established procedure or outcomes.

A good example of a rules exception we've recently purged in our own work was within the weapons codex. The general rule was that weapons don't have separate TNs. We had until recently some exceptions where if you used X weapon in Y fashion, it would be at a disadvantage, or a certain modification would make the weapon disadvantaged when one-handed, or disadvantaged on defense. These are a whole bunch of little fiddly exceptions to the general rule "weapons don't have TNs." Because they are exceptions, they have to be written down, remembered, and in play? Will probably be forgotten.

Higgins and I always fall back to the 3.x D&D barbarian's +2 will saving throw bonus that they only get when raging. We have both played with barbarians in 3.x, and played in groups with other people playing barbarians in 3.x. No one ever remembers that they have a small modifier to a specific save only under a certain circumstance.

Short version: Consistency is king. Exceptions create extra book keeping, and people will tend to forget them anyway. Whenever possible, the game should fall back on core mechanics and existing mechanics.

That is actually a good analysis.

Going by my design style, if i had written the Barbarian, i would probably have made it much more significant, like "While Raging, you automatically succeed Will Saves".
In other words, if i present a rule exception, i try to make it really have an impact.

But even then, this is a "Sheet Rule" (expanding higgins' terminology), as in, this is attached to a specific character.
The Weapon TNs you mentioned i think are more relating to what i was asking about, as from your elaboration, it looks like they potentially apply to ANY character.

nemedeus wrote:But even then, this is a "Sheet Rule" (expanding higgins' terminology), as in, this is attached to a specific character.
The Weapon TNs you mentioned i think are more relating to what i was asking about, as from your elaboration, it looks like they potentially apply to ANY character.

Basically. It would have been an additional (and now ultimately unnecessary) exception to a rule that the player would have had to have written down at some point, or more likely, would have simply forgotten.

This particular bit of design philosophy is actually why I just can't stand 3.x (3e, 3.5, Pathfinder, d20, OGL) D&D. The feat mechanic is basically built around creating rules, and then letting the feats create exceptions to those rules.

If we'd taken a similar tact in Bastards, the rule would have been "There are no TNs for weapons." Then we'd have tacked on the exception "Except for these weapons under these circumstances.." And then we would have made a series of Edges/feats that would have circumvented those things.

"Roll your attack."
"Okay, six successes"
"Wait, you're using that longsword one-handed.. isn't that at a disadvantage?"
"Right. Okay. uh. Five successes. Wait no, I think I've got.. Right. I took the Longsword-one-handed-disadvantage-remover Edge, so I'm fine."
"Okay. Six successes then."

Agamemnon wrote:Longsword-one-handed-disadvantage-remover Edge

This is also one of the big reasons we decided not to incorporate Edges that primarily affect combat. Since combat is so intense and involved to begin with, this is the last place you want to remember some rules exceptions.

I can think of only one edge that grants a conditional bonus, which is the Southpaw Slayer, granting a CP bonus when fighting left handed opponents, as well as making you define a left-handed warrior-type buddy that is your sparring partner. I really do like that edge, but maybe that's another darling we need to murder.

higgins wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:Longsword-one-handed-disadvantage-remover Edge

This is also one of the big reasons we decided not to incorporate Edges that primarily affect combat. Since combat is so intense and involved to begin with, this is the last place you want to remember some rules exceptions.

I can think of only one edge that grants a conditional bonus, which is the Southpaw Slayer, granting a CP bonus when fighting left handed opponents, as well as making you define a left-handed warrior-type buddy that is your sparring partner. I really do like that edge, but maybe that's another darling we need to murder.

Honestly? it seems overly specific. Like, this isn't even something about the character themselves so much as it is about other characters.
From the name, i would have assumed it's a character that uses their own being left-handed to their advantage in combat.

Then again, i've oft try and keep alive and feed all my darlings through desperate times, no matter how hard the winter may be...

nemedeus wrote:Honestly? it seems overly specific. Like, this isn't even something about the character themselves so much as it is about other characters.
From the name, i would have assumed it's a character that uses their own being left-handed to their advantage in combat.

Well, in history, pretty much all left handed soldiers were taught to fight right handed, as not to interfere with others. Phalanx, shield walls, etc, all require that there would be no variation in the weapon and shield hands, since such a thing would create a weak link in the formation. In changing warfare and civilian dueling of renaissance, this becomes less of a problem, so, it's plausible that left-handed fighters start becoming a thing.

So, with lefties being rare, and lefty fighters being rarer, and lefty fighters that actually use their left hand being rarer still... It is just a fact that most people aren't used to fighting left handed characters. So, all lefties (that actually use their left hand) get a CP bonus in our game, even against other lefties, since even lefties don't know how to fight other lefties. Now, the Southpaw Slayer edge represents one of those rare cases when someone DOES know how to fight a lefty and on the game balance side of the house, serves as a counterbalance so that most PCs wouldn't become left handed to take advantage of that CP bonus.

Then again, maybe all this is indeed too much minutiae to model.

higgins wrote:

nemedeus wrote:Honestly? it seems overly specific. Like, this isn't even something about the character themselves so much as it is about other characters.
From the name, i would have assumed it's a character that uses their own being left-handed to their advantage in combat.

Well, in history, pretty much all left handed soldiers were taught to fight right handed, as not to interfere with others. Phalanx, shield walls, etc, all require that there would be no variation in the weapon and shield hands, since such a thing would create a weak link in the formation. In changing warfare and civilian dueling of renaissance, this becomes less of a problem, so, it's plausible that left-handed fighters start becoming a thing.

So, with lefties being rare, and lefty fighters being rarer, and lefty fighters that actually use their left hand being rarer still... It is just a fact that most people aren't used to fighting left handed characters. So, all lefties (that actually use their left hand) get a CP bonus in our game, even against other lefties, since even lefties don't know how to fight other lefties. Now, the Southpaw Slayer edge represents one of those rare cases when someone DOES know how to fight a lefty and on the game balance side of the house, serves as a counterbalance so that most PCs wouldn't become left handed to take advantage of that CP bonus.

Then again, maybe all this is indeed too much minutiae to model.

I've honestly thought about that before.. but you did leave out the thing that makes the Edge interesting - yeah, it gives a slight bonus vs left-handed fighters, but it also introduces an NPC as a friend/sparring partner, or even rival of the player-character that explains why they became so good at fighting lefties. It's the NPC that makes the whole thing worthwhile.

Agamemnon wrote:It's the NPC that makes the whole thing worthwhile.

Oh, absolutely. Without the NPC, that whole edge would be a massive bore. And not only that, it would break our design principles, as it would become "a combat edge", which we simply decided to avoid in the first place.

You know what, suddenly this makes a lot more sense.





Now i wanna add, i'm actually a fan of little pecularities expressed in traits, even if they don't really add anything story wise - they even might simply be for supporting a specific character "build", like this one from my own notes:

Adaptive Neurons (minor or major)
Your character's neuronal system can adapt to new prosthetics* noticeably faster than other people. Switching prosthetics* takes your character only 2d6 days, instead of weeks. As a major Gift, it only takes 2d6 hours.

*as in, mechanical gadget arms/legs etc. Think Full Metal Alchemist - it was a huge inspiration for my own fantasy world stuff.


Other traits in my own game simply make certain (non-combat) skill or stat checks explode (exploding dice representing a knack/talent in general). I'm not sure whether such traits are a good idea, tbh, but i guess they're still better than straight +1d.

If your game is set up with character "builds" being a significant part of it, then it's absolutely fine to add in different special abilities and niche mechanics within the framework of your feats/edges/flaws/whatever. There's a lot of games that do that.

We made the decision early on though that we didn't want "character building" to be part of how you mastered the system, so for the vision we had of 'Bastards, we try to keep that sort of thing to a minimum. A specific design goal for edges and flaws was that neither would really replicate or specifically enhance the effectiveness of some other category of character development. If you want to be better at combat, put more points into proficiencies. If you want to be better at skills, go skills. Edges are the place where we can put more interesting things.

Yeah, see, that's why i said "build" with quotation marks, instead of build without them.

Agamemnon wrote:A specific design goal for edges and flaws was that neither would really replicate or specifically enhance the effectiveness of some other category of character development. If you want to be better at combat, put more points into proficiencies. If you want to be better at skills, go skills. Edges are the place where we can put more interesting things.

That point was duly noted from the teasers.


I might add that in this specific case, the Trait i described was technically not "some other category of character development". There would be different kinds of gadgets to put in mechanic limbs, and that a player might want to specialize in these, but i didn't want to have a skill for "using mechanic limbs" - Which, on second thought, might actually not be such a bad idea.

I was just speaking more generally, but either works. I've always been fond of the way Alternity handled cybernetic implants to some degree. They didn't have a cybernetics skill, but you spent a skill point (or skill points, I cant remember exactly) to "adjust" to the new cyberware. In 'Bastards terms, you'd spend some SAs to adjust to the cyberware like you would if you were buying a rank in a skill.

It's not only a fairly simple solution to implement, but it allows room for tinkering. Each new piece requires some learning to interface with (like it would in real life), and if you really wanted to get gritty and complex, you could claim that certain types were easier to interface with than others. I.e a replacement leg/foot might be easier than a replacement hand because it requires less fine motor control.

If you were looking for a Cyberpunk 2020 style ridiculous catalog of goods, you could even then turn around and make high-end versions of the hardware that were easier to interface with than the standards -- or the reverse and make cyberware that was allowed for some crazy stuff that went beyond what humans are wired to do ("this mechanical arm can split into three separate mechanical arms") but have a huge interface cost, as your brain desperately forges new connections to handle having three arms at once.

I kind of have a love hate relationship with games that have high customization and character building aspects.

On the one hand, I am an optimizer at heart and I love spending a great deal of time tinkering with characters and subsystems to find just the optimal set up. I love discovering the sweet builds.

But on the other hand, if I have played a game a very long time and found all the good builds, or if the game is a very popular one (DnD 3.5 for example) where someone else has already found the best builds and posted them all over the internet, then I come to hate the customization. Once Pandora's box has been opened, I find it difficult to justify making sub-optimal characters, especially in dungeon crawling fighting monsters type games. Then it's just "correct" for every fighter you make to be a half-orc who weild a spiked chain and has the tripping feat.

See, there is a funny thing about customization. By virtue of the fact that there are many more character options it means that there is a a much larger difference in power between a "well built" and "poorly built" character. This has the odd effect that the games with the most amount of customization are the ones where it is most important to optimize! Suddenly the systems with the most customization turn out to be the ones with the least number of practical choices, since you are almost obligated to take the "good" options for your build.

This is why i always just chose character customization options that i personally found interesting (or "stimulating" i guess), helping make my character more like i envisioned them, etc.

Also, i personally feel like D&D (and d20 systems in general) is really by far the worst offender in this, as most systems don't have such stringent board-game-y rules that they require a certain level of effectiveness from the player characters, anyway.*

Also, "balance" is a primary concern only for gamism (which D&D very much embodies, moreso than narrativism and simulationism, and to a greater extent than any other game out there.) I also get the notion that D&D (3.5, mostly) isn't quite the best at balance, either.




PS: I realize that i need to stop expressing my quite unreasonably large dislike of D&D so much.







*more interesting than your stats, in a fight, your tactical moment-to-moment decisions are, i would say.