The Gaming Den

Crissa wrote:But that's one of two reasons NetHack is a single player game!

What's the other one?

Aktariel wrote:

Crissa wrote:But that's one of two reasons NetHack is a single player game!

What's the other one?

It'd lead to too many bad feelings every time someone TPKs the party by identifying a scroll.

Crissa wrote: If you have a game like NetHack, where you're making a new character frequently, and part of the challenge is overcoming imbalance... Then it's okay. But that's one of two reasons NetHack is a single player game!

-Crissa

Funny because I was working on a Nethack d20 game.

Elennsar wrote:No, but obviously Something makes it odd, and if that's social pressure, than social pressure ought to have an influence that you can't say "I ignore." and it disappears.

"I resist." may not be bad, but it ought to be "interesting".

Not bad. Exactly. "Interesting" is and should be entirely subjective, not rules-enforced.

Elennsar wrote:I might. So far I'm suspecting the former, because I know I have issues with it, and seeing how well that assumption bears up.

Then don't. I'd find it highly suspect that the communication failure would drag through 10 pages and multiple members.

Elennsar wrote:The problem is that race X not having class Y should be for a reason other than "because I don't want them to".

No. Everything that exists in a setting/campaign exists ultimately "because we want it to". First comes what people want to tell. Then comes balance. Then comes making sure stuff makes sense together. Don't pretend something not existing is due to anything other than you not wanting to.

Elennsar wrote:You having a drawback at archer ranger and me with TWF ranger, assuming both are balanced (And useful) would not be an imbalance, but it would mean I'm a better archer. Is this a problem?

Assuming the difference's easy to see and the trade's fair, it might be one concession worth making to character variety.

Elennsar wrote:My point is, Frank's list=/= The One True Ranger List. Not that his list is a bad list or my statement/s were a good list.

Nor does two things that rangers use a lot translate into "the only two things rangers use".

I can think of the following for rangers.

Good at surviving in the wild.
Good at exploiting the advantages of the wild (never fight a forest savvy ranger in the forest if you can help it)
Keen senses.
Sneaky.
Able to endure fatigue and disease and poison and such with less resources than others or with only what they can find in the wild or both. Able to guide/assist others who lack their skills
Able to deal with animals and beasts if that's an issue.

Seperating #1 and #3 because "disease resistant" doesn't necessarily mean "can find food and shelter easily", even though both are "surviving".

Of course his isn't the Truth and the Way. You could have limited yourself to just giving me a list that wasn't crap as I said. Now that one might say you did: resisting fatigue/disease/poison? Why do I think "dwarf" here? Why? Maybe because dwarves actually don't have to be crap rangers? Maybe you could assume that being a ranger also involves resisting kicks to the head? While "dwarf ranger and elf fighter" were of course just an example, maybe you could now try to attempt the same process to other combinations to make sure they don't suck too?

Crissa wrote:Now Elennsar has fallen into the trap of class == job in world, as well.

How many fallacies can we have in one thread by one user?

What're you talking about, exactly?

If I sit down and play a dwarven ranger and my friend plays an elven warrior in the same game, we need to be equally good at adventuring. Not at whatever is officially The Ranger Schtick, but my dwarven ranger and his elven ranger need to average out across the board. I don't care how it happens, at least in this debate, but it does need to happen. I don't give a crap that there's a guy out in California who has a dwarven fighter who's better than his friends elven fighter. That in no way repairs the fact that I am sitting down at a table and playing a strictly inferior character to other characters at the table.

Bolding the part I'd like to have happen in any "I'm not as good at this class" that isn't "avoid this!"

If Dwarves are bad at the "Ranger Schtick", then unless "Dwarven ranger" is "Sure, you could take it. You could ask to use 2d6 to generate stats, too.", the other things Dwarves do need to keep up with it. Class=all your skills and abilities is probably not a good thing.

Not bad. Exactly. "Interesting" is and should be entirely subjective, not rules-enforced.

It should be enforced that it is an actual issue if it is meant to be an actual issue. PCs may resist peer pressure, they may succumb to it despite trying to resist, and they may not be interested in resisting.

But if "All other dwarves give you funny looks" means absolutely nothing, then its not even flavor. Its not even something to interact with. Its like how in Arcanum if you run your character around naked (well, in their underwear) you can get NPCs to say "hey! Where are your clothes!"...but it doesn't alter anything that happens after that line, which you don't even get to make a funny/smart/stupid/whatever comment to.

No. Everything that exists in a setting/campaign exists ultimately "because we want it to". First comes what people want to tell. Then comes balance. Then comes making sure stuff makes sense together. Don't pretend something not existing is due to anything other than you not wanting to.

If both dwarves and wizards exist, something has to get in the way of them combining. Maybe the areas wizards tend to hang out and the areas dwarves tend to hang out are far apart, so very few dwarves are exposed, and none of those who were were the kinds that would be interested. Though if that happens, there won't be many times a wizard will be in the same party as a dwarf...this may or may not be acceptable.

If I want to be restricted from choices that are both playable mechanically and justified in flavor, I'd like to know why the DM is uncomfortable. If nothing else, maybe I overlooked something about dwarves or wizards. After all, "Dwarves are uncomfortable/distrustful with the idea of magic not derived from the (trusted) gods." doesn't necessarily translate into mechanics, but it is a damn good reason for dwarven wizards to not exist.

Now I know a bit more about dwarven culture and can work with that.

Assuming the difference's easy to see and the trade's fair, it might be one concession worth making to character variety.

If it isn't, then one of us is doing too well or the other too poorly or both. But any "-X to Y" has to be done to be equal overall with "+X to Z", with the result being someone with the level of pluses that are desired.

While "dwarf ranger and elf fighter" were of course just an example, maybe you could now try to attempt the same process to other combinations to make sure they don't suck too?

Or pointing out that I don't want every race to be good at every class (or any race to be good at every class) for the umpteenth time.

Dwarves as crap rangers is a hypothetical example. However, some other race might well be crap. And that is fine...assuming that race is meant to be equally playable (and if not, it isn't on the list of playable-as-PCs races), it will do well somewhere else.

As for kicks to the head, that's not "ranger schtick". That's a general adventuring thing.

[/i]

Bigode wrote:

Crissa wrote:Now Elennsar has fallen into the trap of class == job in world, as well.

How many fallacies can we have in one thread by one user?

What're you talking about, exactly?

Do you really want someone to go back and quote each thing written in a teen-page thread by someone who has every third post in the thread and name it?

'Why don't Dwarves become Rangers' Well, saying 'The mechanics don't favor this combination, so it's not one of your choices' would be certainly fine, since making a character is all meta-game anyhow. You don't even need a story reason for a mechanical choice.

-Crissa

The mechanics exist to model the world. If dwarves have a Dex penalty (which really bites when playing a guy who relies on Dex since he doesn't use much armor), that's a mechanic that doesn't need to be explained.

If you can't show how the world is being modeled with a mechanic, the mechanic is just another line of text I'll forget while playing, whether by intent or neglect.

(I know I shouldn't, but...)

Do you forget the 5' step very often?

-Crissa

Not to sound defensive, but what does that have to do with it?

Answer is "Pretty much.", really. For someone who is a tactics nut in some games, RPGs don't bring that out in me.

Elennsar wrote:It should be enforced that it is an actual issue if it is meant to be an actual issue. PCs may resist peer pressure, they may succumb to it despite trying to resist, and they may not be interested in resisting.

But if "All other dwarves give you funny looks" means absolutely nothing, then its not even flavor. Its not even something to interact with. Its like how in Arcanum if you run your character around naked (well, in their underwear) you can get NPCs to say "hey! Where are your clothes!"...but it doesn't alter anything that happens after that line, which you don't even get to make a funny/smart/stupid/whatever comment to.

Peer pressure's a social matter only, and another way to provide level-appropriate challenges at worst (You don't want "this causes TPK" to be a playable option, right?), so no mechanical relevance.

Elennsar wrote:If both dwarves and wizards exist, something has to get in the way of them combining. Maybe the areas wizards tend to hang out and the areas dwarves tend to hang out are far apart, so very few dwarves are exposed, and none of those who were were the kinds that would be interested. Though if that happens, there won't be many times a wizard will be in the same party as a dwarf...this may or may not be acceptable.

If I want to be restricted from choices that are both playable mechanically and justified in flavor, I'd like to know why the DM is uncomfortable. If nothing else, maybe I overlooked something about dwarves or wizards. After all, "Dwarves are uncomfortable/distrustful with the idea of magic not derived from the (trusted) gods." doesn't necessarily translate into mechanics, but it is a damn good reason for dwarven wizards to not exist.

Now I know a bit more about dwarven culture and can work with that.

Anything here that disagrees with anything I said that I'm missing?

Elennsar wrote:Or pointing out that I don't want every race to be good at every class (or any race to be good at every class) for the umpteenth time.

Dwarves as crap rangers is a hypothetical example. However, some other race might well be crap. And that is fine...assuming that race is meant to be equally playable (and if not, it isn't on the list of playable-as-PCs races), it will do well somewhere else.

As for kicks to the head, that's not "ranger schtick". That's a general adventuring thing.

If you think playable characters should be imbalanced on purpose, I'll be glad this conversation's over.

Peer pressure's a social matter only, and another way to provide level-appropriate challenges at worst (You don't want "this causes TPK" to be a playable option, right?), so no mechanical relevance.

Right, but certainly in-game relevance.

A dungeon crawl can't invoke it, more's the pity.

Anything here that disagrees with anything I said that I'm missing?

Maybe? I think we'd wind up on the same page if this ever came up for our PCs.

If you think playable characters should be imbalanced on purpose, I'll be glad this conversation's over.

I think that racial strengths and weaknesses should sometimes add up so that your weaknesses are biting you on the butt, which sometimes is worse in one class than another.

However, the times that they do ought to be labeled butt biting times.

You could play a Barbarian (to use King's Bounty classes) who ran around using magic, but it would be a very ineffective character.

Mind, I'm not sure they're equal classes in the first place, and that is a problem. Any areas of racial weakness should not hold back "adventurer" more than racial strengths assist, but whether racial weaknesses hold back the "archer-ranger" is less of a problem unless those weaknesses are hidden (maliciously or foolishly).

If your class relies on archery, you probably will not want to take it if you suck at archery.

So the question is. Why do you have to say "No. No half elven monks." if the fact half elf is a bad choice (bad design) and monk is a bad choice (ditto) equals total fail?

Now, if half elf is not a bad choice of race (on its own merits) but doesn't do a good monk, it ought to be called out that it doesn't work very well, just like the "I rely on magic rather than troops." KB Barbarian.

But saying that you should avoid having any such known weaknesses is something I'm not convinced of. If you're clear that being a half elven monk would be a bad choice, then all is well. If you're not clear, all is not well.

And most of the time, something should be a fine choice. It may not be an ideal choice, but you'd do just as well with a half elf monk as a half orc, if things are done right. (and both would be able to do something worth a damn, instead of neither)

Designing things so that there are weaknesses is one thing. Designing things to be weak is sadistic.

Elennsar wrote:Not to sound defensive, but what does that have to do with it?

Answer is "Pretty much.", really. For someone who is a tactics nut in some games, RPGs don't bring that out in me.

Because the five-foot step has no story explaination whatsoever.

Also, leress, i forsee many bad feelings when someone decides to ID a scroll by use and it turns out to be a cursed scroll of "rocks fall. everyone dies."

Doesn't need a story explaination, just a "What is this representing in the game world?"

"You can slightly adjust your position without taking the usual perils of turning your back on someone (not that we have facing which would make this mean something, but you did turn your back on him) to move away." is a reason.

As for scrolls of rocks falling: Personally, if anything like that could exist in the world (not the "you die. No save.", just the "and rocks fall for no apparent reason."), I want to know. My character may not have any idea that any given scroll could be it, but knowing what level of paranoia is a survival trait is important setting info.

name_here wrote: Also, leress, i forsee many bad feelings when someone decides to ID a scroll by use and it turns out to be a cursed scroll of "rocks fall. everyone dies."

Only if they are taking the game seriously. The Nethack I was working on take a more tongue and cheek approach to the game. With easier to generate characters having a character die wouldn't be bad. Still the hardest part is balancing the tourist to the wizard.

In (very) short: playable characters can have weaknesses if they are proportioned to strengths in the same manner for all characters. So, every character gets strengths to compensate for whatever weakness they happen to have at whatever class they have. "Feeling a bit less like a member of that class" isn't a problem as long as the character as good as everyone else. That shouldn't be up for discussion.

Agreed. If you're less of a ranger, you're more of something else.

The trick is ensuring that all options there are as close to even as we can make them. Because designing that to be inferior is something we can just spend cash for if we want.

Leress wrote:

name_here wrote: Also, leress, i forsee many bad feelings when someone decides to ID a scroll by use and it turns out to be a cursed scroll of "rocks fall. everyone dies."

Only if they are taking the game seriously. The Nethack I was working on take a more tongue and cheek approach to the game. With easier to generate characters having a character die wouldn't be bad. Still the hardest part is balancing the tourist to the wizard.

Personally, i'd say ditch the tourist. It's signature powers are being awesome with greyswainder and having an uncursed touchstone. Also being a sucky class.

---

Elennsar, the thing is that being less of a ranger and more of somthing else means you are likely a less effective character due to your lack of synergy. having a +2 to a cross-class skill is pure suck.

Elennsar wrote:Agreed. If you're less of a ranger, you're more of something else.

Did you notice I'm talking about characters, right? So the dwarf ranger might be less ranger and more fighter by virtue of race?

The Scroll of Earth summons boulders. Normally it does this by having a hole in the middle, so it hits the guys around you. It doesn't matter where the boulders come from, since you're in a big dungeon and cannot go very far 'up'. Cursed ones do more damage to you than the guys around you, blessed ones do more to around you than you. They're handy to fill up pits and holes and to create defensive barriers against most monsters which cannot pick up or move boulders.

Why is the 5' sept 5'? Why not 3'? Or 1m? Or 2m? Why don't larger creatures have larger steps?

You can make shit up, but this isn't explained in the story line of D&D. It's ignored, because it's a mechanical choice of the simulation.

Just as the mechanical difference between players and non players. Which we recognize players need to have balanced, optimal characters because of a litany of reasons.

If you don't recognize that, then we're not playing the same game.

-Crissa

I can't believe I have to explain the 5' step to you.

PPS, the Tourist's Artifact is the best, tho. Unlimited charges! That should more than make up for the always-on anger-monsters aura, right?

PPPS, that's why I make racial skills cost the same as class skills, and give out ranks by level and not spending points.

I could imagine that, I think.

It'd be better if we had a list we were looking at, but I think I can imagine that in abstract.

Fine by me. Dwarf at ranger shtick = inferior = fine. Dwarf with ranger levels = unable to do anything = inferior.

Minotaur wizards, meanwhile, are marked with "Unplayable." and we don't try (or we do, if we want minotaurs to take wizard levels).

Minotaurs are a bit too different than human/elf/halfling/gnome/half-orc/half-elf/orc/etc., so they may or may not be as "Equal in most options."

Crissa: I can't believe that you can't tell the difference between "don't know what it is" and "don't remember it in play".

As for players and nonplayers: There ought to be no reason why Joe being a PC suddenly makes him okay when he was sucky as an NPC.

Or vice-versa.

Seperate discussion entirely...PCs vs. NPCs is a seperate issue from making sure that the dwarf PC gets something.

You know what the problem is? The reason this has taken 13 pages and shows no signs of ending?

It's because this debate is ultimately like debating which is better for all games, a dicepool or a percentile die.

If you want a game where you can have guys who are tactically smarter can play the same game with less tactically smart guys by sabotaging their builds, then imbalanced race-class combinations are a good idea.


But we don't have that as a major focus, so it's not.

As for scrolls of rocks falling: Personally, if anything like that could exist in the world (not the "you die. No save.", just the "and rocks fall for no apparent reason."), I want to know. My character may not have any idea that any given scroll could be it, but knowing what level of paranoia is a survival trait is important setting info.

Yeah, uncautious people in nethack have life expectancies measured in low. They might die tragic death by drawbridge when they blast it down onto themselves, except that the drawbridge is too deep for them to have avoided death by bouncing rays of death from wands they test-fired into walls.

Elennsar wrote:Separate discussion entirely...PCs vs. NPCs is a seperate issue from making sure that the dwarf PC gets something.

Except you keep conflating the issue. By asking the question 'Why aren't Dwarves Rangers' you are asking about the race and not the player character.

If they suck, or are 'less optimal' than another player choice, they should not be a player choice.

-Crissa

I disagree with "less optimal". Insisting that something must be optimal to survive leads to games that quite frankly suck if you're more interested in the flavor than "is this the best ____ I (the player) could be?"

As for the race and player character:

Your race is a factor in what your character can and will do.

If its just "____" on the sheet with absolutely no influence for good, ill, or just things that come up (how often do you see Samurai in the crusades?), its beyond pointless to record it.

Being an exception to your race's norm is one thing. Being unique is something that ought to be handled damn carefully. Because unique people tend not to be "equally able, just different" to what they're a unique example of.

Flavor choices should not be choices between flavor and optimizing. That's a false dichotomy.

We're building the game, we get to choose what is and isn't optimal. Why, if you like flavor, would you penalize a race/class flavor combo you allowed?

-Crissa

Because not all combinations are equally effective.

Sure, a dwarf in Age of Wonders could use a bow, but elves are better archers.

It may not win a shooting duel with an elf, but it is useful for archery things as opposed to "no archer! NONE!"

As for flavor and optimizing...

You should be able to be good enough whether you optimize or not. The threshold for succeeding should allow for "dwarves aren't especially good archers but do fine".