Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 19 KB, 246x200, pirotess.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
28276840 No.28276840 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

>thinking the system is at fault

There is no system that can't be broken. Pretending there is just makes the kind of people who enjoy playing broken characters get excited.

What needs to be changed is people's understanding of what broken means, and how the spirit of balance is not adhering to the rules, but adjusting your strength to the power of your comrades.

In a game where the ultimate difficulty is determined by a person who is supposed to provide a challenge comparable to the power level of the group, the idea of making a character "strong" only has meaning in comparison to the rest of that group.

The player with the "strongest" character simply has the largest ego, and should be ridiculed.

>> No.28276966

>>28276840
>Expecting the DM to single handidly police an entire game constantly.
>Expecting Players to do so as well
>Being this much of a faggot.

In games like Pathfinder or 3.5 where a single spell can negate the effects of every other class it is entirely unreasonable to ridicule those who have characters leagues above their peers, and possibly by accident. Additionally, being strong is a totally valid character goal and forcing a player to either A) cripple themselves or B) constantly be at odds with the party is retarded.

And these things can be avoided when designers actually spend a good deal of effort balancing their games.

>> No.28276989

If the system is poorly designed, it's at fault to a degree, at least.

>> No.28276999

>>28276840
Stop posting the retarded garbage that passes for your opinion on this board. Fucking seriously.

>> No.28277027

>>28276999
Agreed.

I will say this though; When someone in the group has good system mastery, he should feel bound by his honor and comraderie with the remainder of the group to help them with their own characters, helping their concepts achieve high effectiveness, just as he does his.

>> No.28277029

Is this what 3.5/Paizofags actually believe to excuse their game being imbalanced as shit?

>> No.28277035

>>28276840
get bent. there are systems that can be broken on accident, just by choosing the wrong class. wanting to be 'strong' in an RPG means wanting to have a character that's competent enough and has a broad enough skillset to be able to engage with the shit the GM wil throw at you, ie, to be able to play the game. some games make it easy to make a character who's useless and has to take a back seat whenever the party faces a challenge. these are bad games and nobody should play them.

>> No.28277043

>>28276840
I dont care for Broken Characters being too strong, but when they add character options that are subpar or dont really hold on in the normal kind of game that is aiming (like making combat maneuvers specialist) or when you can accidently just outshine other player or encounters (like druids getting a better fighter than fighter just riding along) is when I can see why people could get angry.

>> No.28277046

When the system is shit, I'll think the system is at fault.

There are systems that recognize that 'balance' is not an absolute virtue in the pursuit of fun that are not shit.

Summarily, fuck off, or try again without the smugness.

You sound like a Psych 101 student who thinks he knows everything about how to win friends and influence people, but instead of psychology, it's game design. Get out there and play more games before you start thinking you know everything.

>> No.28277065

>>28276966
>Expecting the DM to single handidly police an entire game constantly

A DM shouldn't have to "police" anybody. He's not a baby sitter, and shouldn't have to make everyone play nice.

It should fall upon the players to make characters comparable to each other, even at the cost of not optimizing their characters to the highest possible degree.

And there is no game that can't be broken given enough attention.

>> No.28277075

>Expecting the DM to single handidly police an entire game constantly.
>Expecting Players to do so as well
>Being this much of a faggot.

Expecting a DM to do the job of DM.

>> No.28277078

For some reason, 3.5e D&D is one of those things where I have a lot of fun creating the character, but then actually playing the game is not-so-great.

4e D&D was the exact opposite for me; building a character was tedium, but once the actual game got going I really liked it (minus the HP bloat, but hey, minions).

I wonder if 5e D&D will succeed in striking a balance between the two (from a personal standpoint, anyway).

>> No.28277113

>>28277065
>And there is no game that can't be broken given enough attention.

There are, however, games that can be broken through casual use, and games that can't. Guess which one is the problem.

Nice logic, by the way. "You can't ever have a perfectly-balanced game, so one that requires far more effort for less imbalance is obviously exactly as shitty as one that has a feat that reads 'gain +1000 horse points' and one that reads 'gain -5 horse points.'"

>> No.28277120

>>28276840

>The player with the "strongest" character simply has the largest ego, and should be ridiculed.

Mileage varies. Power does not equate to interesting. Swings both ways. You put Superman from All-Star Superman and Ethan from Ctrl-Alt-Del in the same room and Superman isn't automatically the shittiest character.

Your own argument strains at the seams. There will always be a character who's best for a situation, especially in a group that cares more about making a good story, and in your hypothetical self policing group guilt tripping the person with the most mechanically powerful character is neither appropriate or fair. It might be the timid guy makes a fun and important Gandalf.

Unless you mean that a game should be balanced, as a game, by peer pressure. So shouting HEY NO THROWS when one guy is too good with Zangief.

>> No.28277131

>>28277065
>And there is no game that can't be broken given enough attention.
Slippery slope. This is not an argument you want to make.

>> No.28277139

>>28277029
How does it feel to not be able to play a game without players who are a bunch douchebags?

Seriously, I don't understand how you people do it. I'd rather not play, than play with people who don't give a shit how their behavior upsets the game and prevents others from enjoying themselves.

>> No.28277149

>>28277139
>guy wants to play a Druid because he likes bears
>DOUCHEBAG

>> No.28277153
File: 102 KB, 732x1100, tsubasa_v22_017.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
28277153

>>28276966
>Additionally, being strong is a totally valid character goal

Not really.

"Get strong" is a meaningless goal in of itself, and any character without a real goal and instead relies on "Get Strong" as their primary motivator is a worthless character.

It's fine to seek strength in order to accomplish your goals, but that's ultimately unrelated to building a character since most groups have their characters level together anyway and the end goals of their character arcs are timed to coincide with certain milestones.

There really is no reason to think "Get Strong" is any sort of proper goal in a roleplaying game, and you should feel a bit ashamed for even trying to argue that.

>> No.28277217
File: 1.17 MB, 1924x1200, ff.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
28277217

>>28276840
>There is no system that can't be broken.

there are, however, systems that break very easily, such as a system where simply picking a particular option instantly makes you significantly more powerful than a person who picks a different option. in that kind of situation, a player might create a broken character by accident, or a powergamer might create broken characters without needing to break the spirit of the game in obvious ways (such as bending the rules or stringing together ridiculous combinations).

in addition, when a system is poorly balanced it often means that certain options are very bad at performing the role they are supposed to perform, so that a person who wants to make a particular kind of character that should be viable suffers from being unreasonably weak or useless compared to the rest of the party. conversely, it can be annoying for players who have a particular character concept in mind but know the system makes that kind of character absurdly powerful, and hence risks ruining the party dynamic by playing one.

in general, the best systems are always the systems that make playing and having fun easiest on the GM and the players. at best, a badly unbalanced system represents more work, and at worst it represents less fun.

>> No.28277220

>>28277139
Stop this shit right now. You don't have to play with dicks for 3.5/PF to become un-fun. All it takes is a little lack of awareness on the part of a single player, with a little unwillingness to rock the boat on everyone else. You know who that describes? That describes most people. That describes most decent not-fucking-autistic people who just want to play a game a night a week or so.

But it's moot. You shouldn't need to worry if your behavior will ruin the game, and you shouldn't be able to ruin the game on accident. No one should ever be put in the position of saying 'Could you please stop playing the game by the rules? It really bothers me.'

And plenty of systems are stable without this.

>> No.28277223

>>28277065
As someone else pointed out, there are games that are basically designed to have boobytraps that lead to an unbalanced party. Say, for example, Rifts. It Includes, in the same book mind you, both the Glitter Boy and the Vagabond.

And what if my friend want's to make a bard whose only feats are ever Skill Focus? Should I be forced to not take shit like Shocktrooper just because he wants to be an incompetent asshat? What if, god forbid, two players have totally different goals? Should they simply agree to throw the whole thing out in favor of stroking each other cocks? And what of the DM:
>In a game where the ultimate difficulty is determined by a person who is supposed to provide a challenge comparable to the power level of the group

Why do you insist that a person who paid money for this game be the one to ensure that it functions properly? Do game designers just get to shit in my mouth because they were to fucking lazy to run playtests?

True no game is immune to breaking. But the fact that some are so easy as to make it accidental to do so (or even start you off as broken) is in no way the fault of the players if it becomes broken.

>> No.28277235

>>28277153

I think it's a bit rich that you say they should be ashamed. You're the one being deliberately anal. They obviously meant 'I want to get strong to [goal]'

>> No.28277265

>>28277035
If a system is broken "by accident," the players should fix it through conscious effort. It's really that simple.

Yes, there are a good and bad systems, because they make it easier for the players, but ultimately it is up to the players (and the GM) to balance the game.

Blaming a system is not looking at the real problem, that people are willing to excuse their egos by saying the system allowed them to build a broken character.

>> No.28277275

>>28277153
...You do realize that a solid chunk of stories have this as a character motivator correct? Especially amongst animu and mango.

>My village was burned down by bandits and now I want to GET STRONG to so I can take revenge.
>MUST BE A SHITTY CHARACTER, NO ONE WOULD EVER ACTUALLY HAVE THAT GOAL

>> No.28277286

>>28277149
No, he's a douchebag because he plays his character in an imbalanced way that doesn't fit with the rest of the group.

But the fact that you can't even realize that "holding back" is an option, makes me think I've found at least one of the douchebags in your gaming group.

>> No.28277309

>>28277065
>And there is no game that can't be broken given enough attention.

That doesn't mean that the devs shouldn't TRY and balance it.

Or at the very least, run some basic math over what the numbers they are writing down MEAN (IKRPG recently pissed me off there, with several skills simply having numbers that make zero sense once actual math gets involved. Like how an expert interrogator statistically gives away more than he gets with interrogation)

>> No.28277325

>>28277139

"Douchebag" is a bit strong for a descriptor, in my opinion. More opinions following...

...many players in the 'target demographic' (that is, young adult males) have a difficult time reigning in their desire for escapism, and also lack the social experience necessary to recognize that most PnP games are cooperative storytelling experiences, on top of an inherent fear of being regarded as an intellectual inferior.

A surprisingly high level of maturity (infrequently found even amongst 'adults') is required to engage in effective roleplaying without a fairly strict DM and a solid set of mechanics to use as guidelines. Said level of maturity tends to result in people who...don't really need to escape from anything, meaning they're less likely to engage in the hobby.

It's the reason Monopoly is a shitty game; it's actually a lot of fun when everyone's at the indicated level of maturity, but that's not what happens. There's usually at least one player who's got problems. I'm one of them, for example; I'm not trading you colors for a full set, period, and you can go fuck yourself, etc..

>> No.28277334

>>28277286
Fuck, you're retarded.

He doesn't necessarily know he's playing in an imbalanced way. It's not obvious. And the game implicitly makes everything available okay. It doesn't take deliberate effort to break it.

>> No.28277348

>>28277265
>We made a game.
>Well actually the system doesn't run too well.
>In fact, you will probably have to houserule out most stuff.
>Really it's just a setting.
>That'll be $49.95

>> No.28277359

>>28277235
It's not clear, because. once again, getting strong in a roleplaying game is a meaningless goal.

It doesn't matter how good your character is at hitting a creature with a sword if the GM sends creatures that are immune to swords.

Seeking strength and power is simply changing the shape of your character and hoping to one-up the GM's calculations. If anything, a player's goal should be to fall perfectly in line with the GM's calculations, to experience the adventure with the level of difficulty that the GM had set out to create.

This is, of course, assuming that the players have faith and trust in the GM, and that the GM is capable in both assessing their players and providing adequate challenges appropriate for their power level.

>> No.28277372

>>28277325
>I'm one of them, for example; I'm not trading you colors for a full set, period, and you can go fuck yourself, etc..

Well, that's a valid tactic. If dicky. I've seen games where one guy ends up holding one place from every location...and a single full set. And he just sits on being the only guy who can buy shit for the whole game until someone flips the board.

Dicky but valid.

>> No.28277373

>>28277286
you're only looking at this from one direction. what about the other direction?

let's say someone wants to play a character in an unbalanced system where that kind of character is very weak. should they min-max to bring themselves up to the level of the rest of the party? should the rest of the party be expected to deliberately gimp themselves so they're all on the same level? should they live with playing a character is barely capable of doing the things they are supposed to be good at? or should they be expected to abandon their character concept and play something stronger?

where players are expected to make those kind of choices, how can the system NOT be at fault?

>> No.28277374

>>28277153
Lol, one of the example Obsessions in UA is "Toughness". That means you're utterly focused on might, and it colours your every action.

UA is awesome btw.

>> No.28277377

>>28277348

The biggest slap in the face I ever had with this is Farscape D20.

> Really it's just SOMEONE ELSES setting
> I wonder why nobody hands out +1 stat bonuses for races? Let's find out!

>> No.28277381

>>28277334
>It's not obvious.
If it's not obvious then how is imbalance a problem?

>And the game implicitly makes everything available okay.
So you're saying that, if the rules say something is okay, then it doesn't matter if you are ruining everyone else's enjoyment?

That's totally not a douchebaggy attitude to have at all.

>> No.28277385

>>28277275
There's a reason why all eastern works are shit, anon.

>> No.28277407

>>28277309
>That doesn't mean that the devs shouldn't TRY and balance it.

Wholly agreed. I'm not trying to excuse any system for being lazy.

What I'm trying to do is say that no player, NONE, can say that they are allowed to play an over-powered character simply because they followed the rules as they were presented to them.

A poor system is not an excuse for a poor character.

>> No.28277422

>>28277385
>Batman

>> No.28277456

>>28277334
I know what you mean. When I played Pathfinder, I always tried to make my characters more COOL than EFFECTIVE.

"Woah, with the gold the DM gave me, I can have a HUGE Paladin who shoots beams of Dark Energy from his eyes and can smash castles apart with a hammer!"

"Wowee, with this class and these feats, I can make a mind-controlling, invisible shapeshifter with +200 to acrobatics who can backflip into low orbit!"

"Golly gee, with this class I can throw swords the size of towers at people's- Hold on a second, I think this might be a bit overpowered."

Yeah, turns out trying to be cool in Pathfinder results in your character ripping apart everyone else. Giant Paladin's other party members? A bard with an airship, and a monk. Yes, a monk. The monk player demanded to PvP me. I took off 2/3rds of his health in one Negative Energy burst, then vaporized him with a single hammer blow. He was one of those guys who claims to "optimize" their characters, when really he just sucks at it.

>> No.28277465

>>28277381
Because it's not obvious to the person doing it.

Person playing a spellcaster: "Oh! This spell would be perfect for this situation!"
Everyone else who wanted to do something: "...oh, conflict's over."

And no, you have it backward. I'm not saying it's okay to do something within the rules if it would ruin everyone else's enjoyment. I'm saying there shouldn't be rules that can so easily, accidentally, ruin everyone else's enjoyment.

And if you play 3.5/PF by the rules-as-written, that's exactly how it's going to go. The guy that rolls a caster and just wants to play a clever smart caster guy will do that, and the people that aren't playing casters will suffer. No one in the situation wants to be a dick. No one in the situation IS a dick.

It's not a matter of the group. It's a matter of the system. The group is not dicks. The system is bad. The system consequently becomes not fun.

UNLESS... you self-police and you're on top of it and the person playing the clever caster guy thinks, before he casts every spell above level 3, 'Would this invalidate the rest of my party?'

And no one should have to do that.

>> No.28277467
File: 396 KB, 703x1137, old_billy_the_hero_by_destruccion-d4w6igu.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
28277467

>>28277275
It's either a shallow look at a particular story, or simply a shallow story.

Strength as a goal is fine for a child's reasoning, and is great for young characters.

But any adult should have a more appropriate understanding of the meaningless of only seeking strength.

>> No.28277486

Separate question: does using a 'class' system make things more difficult to balance in a given system, to the point where enforcing 'classes' is detrimental to the game's overall design?

The main 'classed' system I'm thinking of is D&D, of course, but there are other exampes (SW Saga, for instance).

>> No.28277489
File: 148 KB, 589x661, Akuma.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
28277489

>>28277467

>> No.28277490

>>28277467
>But any adult should have a more appropriate understanding of the meaningless of only seeking strength.

>Barbarians

>> No.28277501

>>28277490
>implying barbarians are anything other than children

Get civilized, cur.

>> No.28277503

>>28277029
No, they know it's unbalanced and find enjoyment in it anyway. The deficit does not come from some party members being more powerful than others, it comes from having a party who all get their enjoyment from "power".

For example, the last time I played Eberron I was an Artificer interested only in SCIENCE and MONEY, and the money was mostly just 'cos science is expensive. My buddy's in crime were a Warforged Frenzied Bezerker, a Shifter Ranger, a Dragon Disciple and a Dragonmarked Rogue. I was far and away the most classically powerful of characters there, building wands and shit that could solve all manner of problems, including most of the standard encounters we had, but no-one minded/cared. Why? Because everyone was achieving different personal goals.

The Warforged was quickly becoming the most lethal thing in the universe. The Shifter was acquiring a stable of nubile cabin-boys (don't ask) and controlling the caravans into an entire country. The Dragon Disciple collected a pile of gold the size of a house to sit on. Meanwhile the Rogue dealt with the actual PLOT, manipulating the lot of us, along with the Spy houses (she had IDs for both), and ended up with a powerbase to rival them.

We were a group of of otherwise disparate individuals, united by our desire for Gold, a complete lack of allegiance to any authority other than our own, and the Rogue's convoluted plans. Which meant we had a whale of a time! Playing Eberron as if it was Shadowrun is the best way to play.

The only time you get issues of player conflict over power, is if acquisition of power is their only motivation. In which case you need better players, not a different rule-set.

>> No.28277507

>>28277407

It's a damn pity then when someone, I dunno, someone in Dresden Files finds they're better than everyone else in the game by choice of job. In a narrative based game that's own openness backfires, and it now actively resists their own attempts to reign themselves in.

All because they wanted to play a wizard like the man on the cover. What a selfish prick they were.

You might call that poor game design.

>> No.28277519

>>28277486
>The main 'classed' system I'm thinking of is D&D, of course, but there are other exampes (SW Saga, for instance).

DtD does it well IMO, so I would say no.

>> No.28277520

I once invented an RPG system that was 100% impossible to break.

I even ran a trial game with it, everyone had fun, felt useful, and enjoyed the setting.

>> No.28277521
File: 63 KB, 599x337, Augus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
28277521

>>28277501

>> No.28277528

>>28277486
a properly designed class system is more balanced than a non-class system, but a badly designed class system is even less balanced than a non-class system

>> No.28277535

>>28277503
>The only time you get issues of player conflict over power, is if acquisition of power is their only motivation
No, fuck you.

>> No.28277563

>>28277507
>dresden files
>expecting anything other than shit

Dresden Files is the 2nd worst thing to happen to modern fiction, and we will feel the pain of its existence for years to come.

>> No.28277569

>>28277503
Having fun with a system doesn't mean that the system is good.

It can, and most often, means you're very good at having fun. Everyone who argues "I had fun, so the system is good" is actually just really, really good at having fun despite terrible circumstances. Very few people have fun BECAUSE Pathfinder is a well-written system. Most people have fun DESPITE it being shit.

Don't confuse that with the system being good.

You will anyway, because this is /tg/, and why would you play anything that isn't d20?

>> No.28277575

>>28277503
>The only time you get issues of player conflict over power, is if acquisition of power is their only motivation. In which case you need better players

> The Warforged was quickly becoming the most lethal thing in the universe.

Warforged confirmed for shit tier player

>> No.28277578

>>28277467

I find that to be a contentious viewpoint. I think it's more of a nihilistic goal, rather than a childish one. Strength simply becomes a means unto itself, since in that person's eyes there's no underlying 'point' to one's existence. This is more difficult to justify in a setting with actual gods, of course...

>> No.28277593

This reeks of stormwind fallacy.

>> No.28277599

>>28277503
was your group actually spending most of their time together? like, as a group?

or were you effectively playing five different games with one GM, which happened to intersect occasionally?

>> No.28277605

>>28277503
Okay, take my Mechapaladin as an example: I wanted to play a "Knight of Order" just because I thought it would be cool to have a Lawful Neutral paladin-variant. The GM okayed it. I decided to spend his starting money on Titanic Armor and a big-ass hammer, because it looked cool. The GM okayed it.

I was capable of single-handedly slaughtering everything in a purely physical contest designed for a level five character, while my crossbow wielding bard-friend couldn't even defend himself, and the monk was completely useless.

>> No.28277630

>>28277563

I felt people needed a break from 3rd ed hate with a system that's a REAL snake in the grass regarding 'oops, I'm better than you at what you want to be'. How they got to FATE Core from that is beyond me. Felt like a huge step backwards.

Admittedly if you game the fuck out of the system you can abuse those extra refreshes, your 'build', etc. to be an ordinary guy who's just as good if not better at a *single thing*, but I don't think it's the player's DUTY to fix the system, nor do I think it's fair they can't have any hobbies because they want to be a slightly better shot.

If you're actually having FUN with DFRPG I have some bad news for you pal it's because you're a fun person and people like being around you.

>> No.28277660

>>28277486
No, absolutely not. The whole point of a class system is to have a bunch of diverse but equal character archetypes ready to go. You should be much more critical of balance flaws in class-based RPGs, because they put real mechanical constraints on the game and there's no goddamn point if the mechanics aren't any good.

>> No.28277727

>>28277486

Nah, Dungeon World is a nice simple game that uses a class system to reward certain roleplay styles for each character (the Thief for example gaining experience in a different way than the Druid) and provides some niche protection in what is otherwise a really rules light game. They form a little 'playbook' that's your role, and what makes you different.

If it *didn't* have classes, it'd be shit.

>> No.28277746

RPGs are a cooperative game. If you all agree to use a set of rules with the goal of having fun and playing out stories with narratives and characters, then it's fun. If you have players with anti-social tendencies - which is unfortunately much of the gaming 'community', you run into the problem of people abusing the cooperative nature of the game.

There are lots of other games where the goal is to win. RPGs are a bit more vague on a win condition. For some people, winning is building the most powerful character using the rules available. Other games - lots of board games, card games, etc. have more clearly defined 'win' conditions.

I GM Pathfinder. My group understands that the game can easily become un-fun if we don't all make an effort to make it fun. I think it's a cop out to simply blame the game's design for flaws in the players, and vice versa.

>> No.28277992

>>28277489
Eastern, therefore shit.

>> No.28278172
File: 24 KB, 399x682, Thor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
28278172

>>28277992

>> No.28278314

>>28277563
Hey, codex alera was pretty good

>> No.28278878

>>28277563
Worse than Twilight? Fuck you, at least it's amusing. It's not written by a psychotic Mormon woman to brainwash generations of easily manipulable young girls into getting into abusive, self-destructive relationships and committing suicide thanks to a stupid book telling them their vapid, stupid little daycare romance is TWUE WUV.

>> No.28278894

>>28278878
At least Twilight is better than Eastern shit.

>> No.28278915

>>28278878
he said "2nd worst"

>> No.28278960

>>28277275
but even in your example "get strong" isn't the character's goal, getting revenge on the bandits that burned down the character's village is, getting strong is the means not the end.

>> No.28278961
File: 5 KB, 480x360, The Cab Driver.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
28278961

>>28278894
Why are you on a board with Chan in its name?

>> No.28278986
File: 20 KB, 182x217, Rance Laughs With Sharp Teeth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
28278986

>>28278960
CUCHULLAIN, dumbass.

>> No.28278998

>>28278894
>I'm racist, everything that isn't "western" is bad

>> No.28279025

>>28278998
I bet he doesn't think Koschei the Deathless is a character who wasn't motivated by power.

Also, "HE'S FROM POLAND, HE'S NOT WESTURN!"

>> No.28279045

>>28279025
Hold on a second, that was a double negative. I think that should be "who WAS motivated by power."

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action