# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## Grimoire Spotlight - The Encounter System

The homebrew forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

47 posts

- Previous
- 1
- 2

For Valor
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 529
  Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:31 pm

###

- Quote

Post by For Valor » Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:24 am

Zine, your point is valid, but if Ghostwheel isn't interested in the criticisms posted here by Denners (he feels they don't "speak to him" or whatever), then he shouldn't be posting here.
... honestly...

> Mask wrote:And for the love of all that is good and unholy, just get a fucking hippogrif mount and pretend its a flying worg.

Top

Ghostwheel
  Master
  Posts: 176
  Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:03 am

###

- Quote

Post by Ghostwheel » Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:35 am

Who said I wasn't interested? Please don't put words in my mouth. I was explaining that some of the critiques aren't relevant from my viewpoint, and thus probably have a low chance of convincing me. I didn't say I was uninterested, and it would be nice if you didn't try to speak for me. So please don't say something on my behalf that I never said or twist my words to suit your own purpose, whatever it may be.
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:49 am

Hey, to the person talking about off-topic shit, go to MPSIMs where it belongs and stop crapping Ghostwheel's threads. This is not a request.
For Valor->
Go to MPSIMs too if you want to talk bullshit philosophy about what constitutes proper constructive criticism. But as it stands, really, all you're saying is "Ghostwheel isn't allowed to reject people who are only launching personal attacks against him, because they made unrelated good points".
Jilocasin->

> This is the heart of the matter right here. There can be no standard rubric for determining how much a character is optimizing and even if there were not everyone in the group is going to optimize to the same degree.

Yep. Again though, like you also said, it really just boils down to individual preferences. I also think what Ghostwheel wants is the exception rather than the rule, but we can't say that it's 100% wrong. We know for a fact some people may prefer to have their optimization be that way given all of the painful challenges hardcore gamers subject themselves to.
So really, your choices boil down to:
1) Point out that it can't be systemized and thus it isn't a very productive point of mechanical discussion. (My position)
2) Attempt to systemize it based on a very particular set of very specific parameters. Since such parameters have not yet been laid down, we can ask the OP for it.
So if anyone wants to give #2 a shot, just ask the OP. And just to be clear, I'm personally not inclined to give #2 a shot as it's not really in my field of interest. But others might, so let's not crap the thread for them.
Top

For Valor
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 529
  Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:31 pm

###

- Quote

Post by For Valor » Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:15 am

oh, both of you put your genitalia away.
Let me errata myself:
"If Ghostwheel ISN'T GOING TO ACCEPT ANY CRITICISM THAT DOESN'T ADHERE TO THE VIEWPOINT WHICH SPAWNED HIS OWN DAMN SYSTEM, then he shouldn't post here, since the only opinions he's interested in are the ones he agrees with."
Does that give you a stiffie, Zine? Are you happy now? Go fuck yourself.
As for you, Ghostwheel, let me say this straight. The criticism here is that people optimize because they want to do better. You disagree. Therefore this whole goddamn thread is completely fucking pointless, since it's just people saying "fuck off nobody does this" to somebody who says "I do!"
You obviously aren't going to get any 'constructive criticism' here, so stop posting.
Christ, you people are fucking annoying..

> Mask wrote:And for the love of all that is good and unholy, just get a fucking hippogrif mount and pretend its a flying worg.

Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:23 am

> For Valor wrote:"If Ghostwheel ISN'T GOING TO ACCEPT ANY CRITICISM THAT DOESN'T ADHERE TO THE VIEWPOINT WHICH SPAWNED HIS OWN DAMN SYSTEM, then he shouldn't post here, since the only opinions he's interested in are the ones he agrees with."

Hey, threadcrapper:
Let me make it easy for you. Go here and stop crapping on this thread.
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=172146#172146
Top

For Valor
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 529
  Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:31 pm

###

- Quote

Post by For Valor » Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:26 am

I'm sorry, was that a disagreement with my statement or are you trying to piss on me?
I'm making a goddamn point. This is Ghostwheel's third or fourth thread, and the only thing he's gotten from ANYBODY is "wow, your shit is retarded."
I'm posing the question: "Why the hell are you still posting?" and suggesting that he no longer posts, since he's not going to take any of the suggestions from anyone here (as vitriolic as they might be).
And I know you think it's really cool to "save the underdog" and all that shit, but open your fucking eyes, Zine...

> Mask wrote:And for the love of all that is good and unholy, just get a fucking hippogrif mount and pretend its a flying worg.

Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:30 am

Again:
What you are talking about is off-topic. If you want to discuss this to high heaven, I've created a thread in MPSIMs.
I will not feed your trolling any further in this thread, as it has been derailed enough as it is.
Top

Ghostwheel
  Master
  Posts: 176
  Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:03 am

###

- Quote

Post by Ghostwheel » Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:51 am

Moved to MPSIMS thread
Last edited by Ghostwheel on Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top

Leress
  Prince
  Posts: 2767
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Leress » Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:00 am

Please don't use analogies. Just stick to making your self clear. Most of the problem seem to be that you haven't shown your entire system so people will have to fill in blanks for the missing information.
You say the math works, but haven't really shown that since there is only one example you presented and it didn't have all the information to make a clear critique.

> Koumei wrote:I'm just glad that Jill Stein stayed true to her homeopathic principles by trying to win with .2% of the vote. She just hasn't diluted it enough!

> Koumei wrote:I am disappointed in Santorum: he should carry his dead election campaign to term!

> Just a heads up... Your post is pregnant... When you miss that many periods it's just a given.

> I want him to tongue-punch my box.

]

> The divine in me says the divine in you should go fuck itself.

Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:02 am

> Ghostwheel wrote:

> > For Valor wrote:"If Ghostwheel ISN'T GOING TO ACCEPT ANY CRITICISM THAT DOESN'T ADHERE TO THE VIEWPOINT WHICH SPAWNED HIS OWN DAMN SYSTEM, then he shouldn't post here, since the only opinions he's interested in are the ones he agrees with."

> It doesn't sound as though I'm explaining myself well; let me try again.
> Now, this is just an analogy, so take it as that. I'm not calling anyone religious or not, and I don't want this post to cartwheel the thread completely off-topic. So let me explain:
> Let's pretend I was an agnostic; without proof, I'm not going to believe in a religion. In fact, I'm a logical, scientific kind of guy. Without proper scientific studies done under rigorous conditions where variables are controlled, I'm not just going to believe things people tell me off the cuff unless I can see that the they can back their statements up with scientific evidence that's both valid and reliable.
> Now, I'm really interested in understanding religion, and want to get the viewpoint of religious people as to why they believe in religion, and I'm open enough to being converted or believing the same thing if they give me proper evidence that follows the paradigm through which I see the world (scientific evidence and such). So I go to religious people, and begin talking with them, and asking them why they believe in a god or religion or whatever, and they start giving me reasons. They might be very valid reasons from their point of view too, such as that creation couldn't have come from nothing, arguments about Paley's watch, that the Bible couldn't have been written by a human being, and far more. In their world view, their reasons are meaningful and correct.
> But they don't speak to me because the way I justify things to myself consists of scientific studies and the like.
> The point here isn't if religion is correct or not. That's beyond the point. But unless you speak to the scientific guy in a way that relates to the way he sees the world, you're not going to convince him of anything much. And currently, people might be giving me reasons that my ideas are stupid, but if we take the previous analogy, they're making them from their perspective rather than trying to make scientific arguments that show studies that prove miracles and such can happen, or if you use a strong enough microscope you can see actual angels dancing on the head of a pin or whatever. They aren't communicating with me or making arguments in ways that coincide with my base assumptions. That doesn't mean that their reasons are bad, or what they believe is untrue, or anything else. But it's not going to convince me. I'm open to being convinced, really. But if you don't talk to me in the paradigm that I see the world, it's not going to be very constructive or helpful.

Ergh... I suggest to take this to MPSIMs also.
Top

Ghostwheel
  Master
  Posts: 176
  Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:03 am

###

- Quote

Post by Ghostwheel » Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:06 am

> Leress wrote:Please don't use analogies. Just stick to making your self clear. Most of the problem seem to be that you haven't shown your entire system so people will have to fill in blanks for the missing information.
> You say the math works, but haven't really shown that since there is only one example you presented and it didn't have all the information to make a clear critique.

I'd be happy to show an example of a combat, if you think that would help
So; let's say we have a vanilla grimoire soulknife. Note that this will be 1v1 and that it'll mostly consist of each person hitting each other in the face. Mostly because I don't want to spend the next hour build four characters, creating intricate monsters, or find feats that make for interesting characters. This is the bare-bones math of it.
So let's say we have a level 3 soulknife. He'll be dex/wis based, with base 16 in dex and wis, along with spiritual weapon connecting the mindblade to dex. With balanced wealth, both wis and dex are currently 18. Starting con is 14, 15 currently.
HP: 20 (Start) + 10 x3 (Soulknife + Con) = 50
AC: 10 + 5 (+1 chain shirt) + 1 (Defense from BAB) + 3 (Shielded in Life, limited) + 1 (Natural Armor) = 20 AC
Attack: 1 (WF) + 2 (BAB) + 4 (Dex) = +7
Damage: 1d6 + 4 (Base) + 2d8 (Psychic Strike) = 17.5 on average on a hit.
Orc:
HP: 39
AC: 19
Attack: +11 (2d6+6 and stuff)
So on average, the soulknife hits on a 12 without flanking, dealing on average 9/20 x 17.5 = 7.875 and killing the orc within 5 rounds on average without any flanking.
On the other hand, the orc hits on a 9, and deals 13 damage on average, or when weighted, it comes out to 12/20 x 13 = 7.8 damage on average per round, and kills the soulknife within 7 rounds or so. With good tactics though, players are supposed to wipe the floor clean with the opposition and rarely die. There are a number of other pieces to the system which I've yet to discuss, but they mostly serve to remove swinginess and randomness even more. (Example: Crits maximize damage dice when confirmed, rather than doubling the whole thing.)
Note that level 3 is a low point in the soulknife's progression, and it jumps up next level, since it is finally able to enhance its mindblade and change its enhancements on the fly (mmm, bane vs. whatever you're fighting...)
Last edited by Ghostwheel on Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top

Parthenon
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 912
  Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:07 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Parthenon » Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:24 pm

This example is nearly useless. You get complaints that you don't show the whole system so you: don't show the whole system. You don't even include criticals in your calculations. Oh, and looking at your feats, the numbers are wrong - your feat Shielded in Bullshit allows +4 Shield bonus to AC, not +3. Theres probably other errors too, but since you're too lazy to check...

> There are a number of other pieces to the system which I've yet to discuss,

Yeah, what are they?
For example:

> Attack: +11 (2d6+6 and stuff)

Umm... what exactly does "and stuff" mean? Is it tripping, poison, intimidating to reduce AC/attack, stunning...
Then, how powerful would you say the soulknife is? You said earlier that:

> On average, monsters should die in four rounds when characters miss around 1/2 the time, while players should die approximately in eight rounds when the monsters also miss half the time.

By this metric, the soulknife is pretty shitty- it kills slower and dies faster than your expected. Does this mean that the PC is poorly optimised or that the encounter system sucks?
The Gaming Den often uses the Same Game test at level 5, so could you please give us examples of:

- A solo, elite, normal and minion of level 5 for average PCs.
- A badly optimised, average and highly optimised PC of level 5.
- How you would change the HP of these monsters for each PC and your methodology in deciding this.
- How many encounters would be expected before the PCs are forced to rest, and how many encounters would be too few to be a challenge.

You don't need the whole table, you don't need every monster, nor a PC of every class (yet), but unless you give us what is in the list there is no possibility of seeing whether your system works.
And, just for my and probably others curiosity, when you say:

> having playtested it heavily

What exactly do you mean? What methodology did you use to playtest, can it be repeated, did you keep changing stuff while playtesting, how long have you spent (man hours) playtesting?
Last edited by Parthenon on Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:33 pm

If I recall correctly, based on the stuff Ghostwheel posted previously, there are no criticals in this game.
Top

Parthenon
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 912
  Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:07 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Parthenon » Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:21 pm

> Zinegata wrote:If I recall correctly, based on the stuff Ghostwheel posted previously, there are no criticals in this game.

> Ghostwheel wrote:(Example: Crits maximize damage dice when confirmed, rather than doubling the whole thing.

Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:23 pm

Whoops. My bad. Carry on.
Top

violence in the media
  Duke
  Posts: 1723
  Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:18 pm

###

- Quote

Post by violence in the media » Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:38 pm

> Ghostwheel wrote:

> > FrankTrollman and violence in the media wrote:Shtuff

> That's nice. You might have better luck in convincing me of things if you took the time to understand my perspective (serious questions are always good ) and tried to talk to me from my base viewpoint. I'm always happy to try to explain specific points of how I view things, but just telling me "it's wrong" and giving reasons that don't speak to me, regardless of how valid they may be in your opinion, won't do much.

Ok, look. I'm trying to speak to you as if I were a player sitting at your table to play this game. Contrary to whatever impression you may have of me here, I'm a pretty laid-back player. I'll willingly engage in gentleman's agreements not to wreck shit, I'll go where I think the DM is leading, and I'll vocalize group assumptions and plans to help the DM work out kinks, inconsistencies, and plot holes. I'll even talk to the DM if I'm not having fun, or on behalf of someone else if they want me to. I want to explore this world of yours, to see what clever or neat things you've prepared, and to solve the puzzles presented.
I'm trying to tell you that I, as a player, want the ability to enact change, make alterations, or outright abandon the plot--without leaving the game--if I am not having fun with it. As a player, I am optimizing to maximise my ability to chart my own destiny, if that becomes necessary. I want to be able to tell the queen to fuck off and turn to a life of piracy if it comes down to that and NOT have my little rebellion quashed right there or my compliance continually enforced by DM fiat masquerading as rules.
Now, I know you're thinking, "why not just leave the game if you're not having fun?" That's a good question. The answer is that many of the games I've played in in the past involve many, or in some cases all, of the people I hang out with. It's a social event in the same way that a party is. And, like the party, if you elect not to participate you find yourself sitting home alone.
The downside to this is that there have been serious falling-outs that have resulted from someone's behavior in the DM seat, and the way that players have felt treated as people because of that. The philosophy that you're espousing here--punishing optimization, removing player agency, and obfuscating things with rules--is exactly the sort of thing that will lead to acrimony with most of the people I've gamed with on a regular basis in my life.
Hey, maybe I'm totally off-base here and you've found the perfect cadre of Gygaxian-mentality gamers who are totally supportive of everything you're doing. Maybe you're such a charming individual, or talented storyteller, that people put up with this sort of invalidation of their efforts and inputs. If so, more power to you and you can disregard what I'm saying. However, I'm trying to get through to you that what you're proposing is insulting to me, as a person, if I were sitting at your table. And, despite how social dynamics work in my group, it's insulting enough that not participating at all is a seriously appealing option.
Top

fbmf
  The Great Fence Builder
  Posts: 2588
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by fbmf » Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:28 pm

> Zinegata wrote:Hey, to the person talking about off-topic shit, go to MPSIMs where it belongs and stop crapping Ghostwheel's threads. This is not a request.

[TGFBS]
Yes it is. You have no authority to give an order here.
[/TGFBS]
Top

fbmf
  The Great Fence Builder
  Posts: 2588
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by fbmf » Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:39 pm

Now then, I have been monitoring this thread (due to several reports from different folks) for a bit, and GW...there may not be a whole lot we can do for you here.
Here at TGDMB, we are known for:
(A) Being extremely blunt.
(B) Having a strong dislike of DM Railroading, which is what we consider your system to be doing.
As someone else pointed out, this is not the ONLY reason to optimize, but it is the reason the majority of us optimize.
In my games, I expect the DM to optimize NPCs but not outright cheat (arbitrarily change NPC stats specifically because he is "losing" the encounter).
You are welcome to hang around, but go in knowing that the majority opinion of game design philosophy here is enough different from your that most of us would get up mid-game and walk away from your table if you were our GM/DM/Whatever.
Not because you play "wrong", but because you play radically different than we do.
Game On,
fbmf
Top

Roy
  Prince
  Posts: 2772
  Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Roy » Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:36 pm

Ubernoob. Ghostwheel. You are both being fucking retarded. Stop being fucking retarded.
Uber, you are being fucking retarded because you are declaring everyone optimizes for easy mode. Some certainly do, especially around here. But there are also those who optimize out of necessity to turn Iterative Probability in their favor or because they actually want hard mode where sure, they can mow down CR = level creatures like wheat but they want to go after more hardcore stuff that can actually put up a fight against them, and that also gives greater rewards. Which means the reward for optimization is that you become awesome faster, and conversely fail characters don't have interesting adventures.
Ghost, you are being fucking retarded because you aren't doing that. You aren't saying the fail group gets stuck fighting low XP mooks or simply gets slaughtered repeatedly until play improves, the ok group plays D&D and the hardcore group plays on Legendary difficulty. You're saying herp derp random auto scaling of stats, so that the same mother fucking Ogre has more or less HP depending on the skill of those who face it. It's a fucking video game difficulty setting, and despite my earlier joke about Legendary difficulty if you can't see how retarded of an idea this is your stay here is going to consist of you being immolated repeatedly from all sides until you stop regenerating. Uber was absolutely right to blast you for your fail there, and if he stopped there he wouldn't be a target.
Ghost, the only way you could fail worse right now is if you started randomly ignoring outcomes you didn't like.
Last edited by Roy on Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

> Draco_Argentum wrote:

> > Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.

> Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?

> Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.

> Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.

> Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.

Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
Top

RobbyPants
  King
  Posts: 5201
  Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

###

- Quote

Post by RobbyPants » Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:07 pm

> Roy wrote:Uber, you are being fucking retarded because you are declaring everyone optimizes for easy mode. Some certainly do, especially around here. But there are also those who optimize out of necessity to turn Iterative Probability in their favor or because they actually want hard mode where sure, they can mow down CR = level creatures like wheat but they want to go after more hardcore stuff that can actually put up a fight against them, and that also gives greater rewards. Which means the reward for optimization is that you become awesome faster, and conversely fail characters don't have interesting adventures.

I've done that. I've made several casters for one DM in particular that deliberately hold back until shit gets real. Then I pull out the stops and make sure we pull through.
I suppose that could be "easy mode" by extension, but I see it more as making sure I have options, and trying not to step on anyone's toes most of the time.
Top

Roy
  Prince
  Posts: 2772
  Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Roy » Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:38 pm

> RobbyPants wrote:

> > Roy wrote:Uber, you are being fucking retarded because you are declaring everyone optimizes for easy mode. Some certainly do, especially around here. But there are also those who optimize out of necessity to turn Iterative Probability in their favor or because they actually want hard mode where sure, they can mow down CR = level creatures like wheat but they want to go after more hardcore stuff that can actually put up a fight against them, and that also gives greater rewards. Which means the reward for optimization is that you become awesome faster, and conversely fail characters don't have interesting adventures.

> I've done that. I've made several casters for one DM in particular that deliberately hold back until shit gets real. Then I pull out the stops and make sure we pull through.
> I suppose that could be "easy mode" by extension, but I see it more as making sure I have options, and trying not to step on anyone's toes most of the time.

Also this.

> Draco_Argentum wrote:

> > Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.

> Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?

> Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.

> Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.

> Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.

Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
Top

fbmf
  The Great Fence Builder
  Posts: 2588
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by fbmf » Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:25 pm

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Okay, it has now been established that most of us feel that we can't help Ghostwheel because his play style is radically different from ours.
Let me go ahead and also establish that this is not the "Why do people min-max" thread. If anyone wants such a thread, either dig up the old one (if it made the transition over here) or start a new one.
Now then, there are a handful of folks that actually feel they can help Ghost et al with their project. My suggestion is to let those people do their thing and everyone else stay out.
[/TGFBS]
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

47 posts

- Previous
- 1
- 2

Return to “It's My Own Invention...”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS