Jump to content

Flips and you (or not you, depending)


LeperColony

Recommended Posts

Static TNs are far from rare in the RPG world.

Up until 3rd Ed, Shadowrun had variable TNs, but every edition afterward had static TNs.  WoD games started with variable TNs, but then moved to static.  But both these systems, and the numerous ones like it tend to bifurcate tests in that there is a required Success Value (meeting the TN), and then a potential response (say, a dodge or a resistance check or what have you). 

What TtB does that is different is it removes step two, which tends to be random (an enemy roll), leading to a system that seems, at least to me looking in, very mechanical and gamey.  The amusing thing is TtB is similar to games like D&D (a title I would assume would see little favor among the intended TtB audience) in that, with D&D, you're just trying to hit a static TN (Armor Class) with no other input.

What's more, even those games that do use a single-step TN resolution (or the situations within the games that use two-step, like SR or WoD, but where there is no second step) don't then orient everything to eliminate enemy tests.  In TtB you test to hit someone.  Then you test to NOT be hit by them.  Both are static TN systems where the values have the same issues I detailed in the post above, where I talked about percentages and the value of AV's not being constant, despite the system being strictly linear.

Now, someone mentioned that TtB was trying to make the Fated action heroes, but even if that is the goal, other games have done that better.  If you look at 7th Sea, Mooks are a particular kind of low ranking enemy not meant as serious opposition.  They are dispatched in a similar manner to Ttb enemies, with an attack against a static TN.  In fact, defeat one just by succeeding in an attack, and any Raises (Margin of Success, in Ttb terminology) allows the player to take out additional enemies.  But then, against more serious opposition, you use the same task resolution system as you would against another player.

Also, I should point out that I don't tend to run combat heavy games.  Combat is a good way to look at a system because it almost invariably puts the most demands on the core mechanics.  But I am pretty concerned that the TN system, which I already don't particularly like, is pretty poor outside of combat, where the Talents seem less balanced.  :+fate seem easier to get from Talents in social situations than combat ones, and when you have a :+fate, even supposedly high static TNs become much less challenging. 

If you need to flip a 10 or higher, your base chance of success is ~39%.  But if you have a :+fate, it becomes ~64%.  That's a 2/3rds success rate at something the system is telling you you should most likely fail.  Now, succeeding at tasks is generally good.  But when the entire system runs on static TNs, and there are no other checks or inputs, then if you can find ways to game the system, you will be able to do things the game expects you can't, and that tends to be the start of mechanical breakdowns (like the Fire Immuto guy with 21 burning a turn).

Edited by LeperColony
Removed Take 10 text since it has been errata'ed out
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Swiglitz said:

I'm not sure about your line about being able to take 10 outside of Dramatic time. I don't have my books with me but I don't remember reading that anywhere. I was under the impression that if an action would be rote for a fated you don't flip, you just assume success unless failing would have consequences in which case you flip as normal. I might be wrong on this though. It's been a while since I needed to read the rules section of the Almanac.

The "Take 10" rule has been errata'd out of existence.

 

Generally when I play, I have two primary house rules: I eliminate the card draw for the Fatemaster touching the Fate Deck, though the Fated can still draw cards when the Fate Deck reshuffles, and I let Fated flip against each other normally when they end up attacking each other. I haven't had a problem with either thus far!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Swiglitz said:

Have you played the game with static TN's yet? Like every other GM in the known world I tinker with rules-sets and hardly ever play a game 'out of the box' and I had my doubts about the system until I played it. It actually works very, very well and ended up being one of the things that makes TTb stand out.

I am actually the opposite.  I put in considerable effort in trying systems without tinkering, because I tend to feel that system and flavor are related.  Namely, that developers try to make systems that reinforces the way they think their game should feel while playing.  If I try it and don't like it, then I do look to make changes, but it's very rare that I try to change things from the onset.

TtB is one of the few times I've been motivated to do it, because the math on the system looks suspect, the variation between AVs is questionable to me, and it all feels very mechanical and gamey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

Static TNs are far from rare in the RPG world.

Up until 3rd Ed, Shadowrun had variable TNs, but every edition afterward had static TNs.  WoD games started with variable TNs, but then moved to static.  But both these systems, and the numerous ones like it tend to bifurcate tests in that there is a required Success Value (meeting the TN), and then a potential response (say, a dodge or a resistance check or what have you). 

What TtB does that is different is it removes step two, which tends to be random (an enemy roll), leading to a system that seems, at least to me looking in, very mechanical and gamey.  The amusing thing is TtB is similar to games like D&D (a title I would assume would see little favor among the intended TtB audience) in that, with D&D, you're just trying to hit a static TN (Armor Class) with no other input.

Don't the *-world games have this static system without dodges from the enemy or anything of the sort? ApocalypseWorld, DungeonWorld, and so on. Also, doesn't Numenera operate on the same principle as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Math Mathonwy said:

Don't the *-world games have this static system without dodges from the enemy or anything of the sort? ApocalypseWorld, DungeonWorld, and so on. Also, doesn't Numenera operate on the same principle as well?

Couldn't really say, I've never done the world series.  Numenera is on my radar, but I haven't played it yet.  But I mean, Dungeons and Dragons has the static system with no dodges, too.  It's not exactly unique.

Where TtB is different from D&D though is that both attack and defense are static.  Monsters don't roll to hit.  There's no random input on the enemy side, so the enemies' capabilities are always a known and set factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LeperColony said:

Couldn't really say, I've never done the world series.  Numenera is on my radar, but I haven't played it yet.  But I mean, Dungeons and Dragons has the static system with no dodges, too.  It's not exactly unique.

Where TtB is different from D&D though is that both attack and defense are static.  Monsters don't roll to hit.  There's no random input on the enemy side, so the enemies' capabilities are always a known and set factor.

Aye, I meant that, I think that in both *-World games and Numenera, only the players roll dice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah.  Yeah, that could be.  I know next to nothing about the World series.  But with Numenera, I think it would be fair to say that anyone would go into that game expecting a mechanically very light experience.

TtB may be spiritually closer to story telling games than say a Champions or a D&D, but it doesn't have the mechanical lightness of a Dogs in the Vineyard or a FUDGE/Fate.  And I don't think people coming from Malifaux to TtB would expect the mechanics to be insignificant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, LeperColony said:

It seems like having an Acting Value of 4 at what you want to be good at is mostly an affectation though.

Unless I'm missing something, you can always have a 6 in what you care about.  Now, Mr. Sterling may not care about guns, to be sure.  But if he did, the only reason he wouldn't have a 6 is that his player specifically wanted to avoid it.

Is that the "If you make a character without a Dodge of 6, it's your own fault when you get killed in the first encounter" character design school? 

If you're planning on using acting value to distinguish between the importance of characters, it's probably worth noting that the standard deviation of the deck of cards is approximately 3.947.  In other words, randomly encountering a character on the street, if you didn't tell the player what card you flipped and only told them what the final value was, they would have no idea whether they were dealing with an important character or just a peon that got lucky.

And, likewise, when they get to the encounter with the big guy at the end of the session, the important guy at the end of the session is going to be indistinguishable from a peon.

Consider this exercise:

The players are acting as investigators and interview a series of suspects.  What basis do you have for making any of the encounters more or less difficult? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, solkan said:

Is that the "If you make a character without a Dodge of 6, it's your own fault when you get killed in the first encounter" character design school? 

No, it's just someone who knows the "it works if you play it the way we meant you to" class is less applicable to the real world than underwater basket weaving.

Quote

If you're planning on using acting value to distinguish between the importance of characters, it's probably worth noting that the standard deviation of the deck of cards is approximately 3.947.  In other words, randomly encountering a character on the street, if you didn't tell the player what card you flipped and only told them what the final value was, they would have no idea whether they were dealing with an important character or just a peon that got lucky.

This would only be true if I solely relied on mechanics to convey information.  The irony is, by saying "I know he's important because his lying TN was really high" you're making the game more mechanical and less immersive and storytelling.

Quote

And, likewise, when they get to the encounter with the big guy at the end of the session, the important guy at the end of the session is going to be indistinguishable from a peon.

Not really, because again, I can communicate in methods other than TNs.

Quote

Consider this exercise:

The players are acting as investigators and interview a series of suspects.  What basis do you have for making any of the encounters more or less difficult?

Not sure what you mean by basis.  If you mean justification, then the reasons why someone may be an easier or harder interrogation subject can vary widely.  Someone can be a more or less skilled liar.  They could be more or less cooperative people, or have easier or harder motivations to either identify and/or manipulate (the greedy bouncer with the "foggy memory" or the apparently needlessly obstructive clerk who's afraid for his life if he tells who ordered him to approve the permit request).  All of these factors, and plenty of others, can and should serve as perfectly valid reasons to make an encounter more or less difficult.

If you mean mechanically, that's simply a function of determining their AV, giving :+fate or :-fate , and even, where appropriate (say for really important people) maybe even a Twist Hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theorizing this out doesn't appear to getting anywhere.

 

I would suggest you play a couple of one-shots with fixed TN's, then play a couple more with opposed flips and see which version you prefer. As we all know, it's our game and we're free to play it however we see it.

 

Table-top experience will always trump theory and only good can come from it.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that isn't in the cards.  I'm not interested in converting anyone else, but the more this is discussed, the stronger the argument for not using fixed TNs becomes.

The only defense for the current system seems to be speed and simplicity.  As I've always done, I concede the speed issue, though I think the time saved is probably not very significant.

Against that, we have the fluctuating vales of AV and the gamey nature of the system.  I'll take something that addresses those over a somewhat faster system any day. 

Of course, you're entitled to use whatever you like.  As I've said, I'm not looking to convince other people.  I started this thread wondering why they made the system why they did, and that transformed into a thread about why I shouldn't do what I was intending to do anyway.

I am a little curious why people oppose the idea of using a Malifaux (curiously, the board thinks Malifaux is a misspelled word.  Maybe someone can add it to the dictionary here?) type resolution system though, given that the option to use it in combat is already an official rule in the rule book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it's always been about the fluff.

 

The Fated have been chosen by Fate, they have been given a destiny. By one reason or another they are aware of this phenomenon and choose to either embrace it or deny it. Fate sets them up to play their part in it's grand scheme and they make their decisions.

 

Fate is the fixed TN and the fate deck. Simply put, Fate says 'these things are going to happen' and the fated respond. All the actions are theirs to make. I don't need random flips as the fate master, I simply do. This action is difficult, it's important to Fate's plan, therefore you get a high TN to make go against it. This action is less important, you get a lower TN to go against it.

 

It was similar in the Gumshoe system. The GM made no dice rolls in that either, you gave the players all the relevant information and they made their way through the story. It works really well as it empowers the player, placing all the actions and decisions entirely in their hands, no 'lucky' dice rolls meaning you miss a vital clue or get battered senseless by a Giant Rat.

 

Fluff and story are the  most important things to me, and I do a lot of mechanics handwaving or tinkering to get things to fit how I want a game to feel, as opposed to how it plays.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Swiglitz said:

Fate is the fixed TN and the fate deck. Simply put, Fate says 'these things are going to happen' and the fated respond. All the actions are theirs to make. I don't need random flips as the fate master, I simply do. This action is difficult, it's important to Fate's plan, therefore you get a high TN to make go against it. This action is less important, you get a lower TN to go against it.

This is just one method of setting a difficulty level.  It's setting independent.  I could just as well say that Fate is the result of flipped cards.  Or rolled dice.  Or heck, the number of black colored birds that fly by during the resolution period.  You're talking like the use of fixed TN doesn't include some external random element, but it does.  It simply only has one, rather than two.

As we've already seen, under fixed TN, AV's don't have a reliable value, but rather they are susceptible to a high degree of fluctuation.  And, as I described above about flipping 10's, high TNs become deceptively easy pretty quickly, which then undermines its importance.

I also question the value of communicating whether something is important or not simply by if it has a high TN.  To me, I prefer a more immersive experience.  But I understand preferences will vary.

33 minutes ago, Swiglitz said:

It was similar in the Gumshoe system. The GM made no dice rolls in that either, you gave the players all the relevant information and they made their way through the story. It works really well as it empowers the player, placing all the actions and decisions entirely in their hands, no 'lucky' dice rolls meaning you miss a vital clue or get battered senseless by a Giant Rat.

Again, I'm not sure where your belief that the Fixed TN system eliminates luck comes from.  It's still possible for a Fated to fail a Fixed TN and miss a vital clue or get battered senseless by a Giant Rat.  What you seem to be advocating isn't Fixed TN, it's Fixed Results.  That's an entirely different issue.

The curious thing about this argument is that I've already shown that using opposing flips makes the value of AV's more reliable, not less, because the value of AVs remains constant.

In an opposing TN system, every point of AV advantage ends up being roughly a 7.5% edge.  This is a straight linear progression.  In fixed TN, as I've shown, the value of AV 2 vs AV 6 can range from:

AV6 / AV2 vs TN 10:  77% v 46%

AV6 / AV2 vs TN 16: 31% v 1.8%

Fixed TN is actually eliminating participation for low AV values, and overvaluing them relative to higher AVs against lower TNs.  When the math is this swingy, you are in fact increasing the randomness you're subjecting your players to, and you're making it more difficult for people to judge how useful their characters are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about mechanics. Or statistics or removing/adding any elements to the game. I've tried pretty hard to deliberately not bring maths and such into my posts as I think laying bare the bones takes away some of the magic of playing pretend.

 

I like the TN system as it stands because it feels right for the setting. Fates sets you up (TN) you try to beat fate (your skills and flips). Things like percentages and other forms of maths sorcery don't come into it. The game feels less random, it feels more like the players are in control and that they're doing all the work, it feels like they're special. Adding a random element to the TN feels like Fate doesn't really know it's doing.

 

Whether any of this holds up to scientific inquiry is irrelevant, to me at least.

 

I'm not trying to say the the Through the Breach system is best out there, I play (and love) plenty of other systems with a more traditional approach, but for the setting and the stories I want to tell I think it's fine the way it is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your reason for using the system is simply that you like it.  Let me be clear, that is a perfectly valid and, in fact, unimpeachable justification for why you use it.  But it's entirely a subjective valuation that you've committed to.  You're indifferent to whether or not the system is better or worse than an alternative, and that's fine.  But that's not a reason to advocate its use.  You like it.  That's great (meant non-sarcastically).  It works for you, and the implications of what it means systemically don't matter.

But I do care about the math.  In my experience, players can feel out how things work and how they don't, regardless as to whether or not they crunch out the numbers.  You don't have to be playing with min-maxers (not that there's anything wrong with min-maxing if that's your style) before people notice that their characters are surprisingly effective at AV 2 in some situations, and worthless in others.

You simply like the elegance of one flip (and there is some elegance to it), and you've decided to deem that "Fate."  But it's just one random determination, no more or less fated than any other.  For you, one person flipping one card is that person determining their destiny.  To me, it's a gamey mechanic lacking in mystery, interaction and systemic rigor.

If it works for you, use it.  But "it works for me" is not an answer to why I shouldn't, and it certainly isn't an answer to the systemic issues that have been raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mechanically speaking, if you have the Fatemaster flip for NPCs to determine their acting values, it leads to much bloodier combats and usually results in important people (such as the Fated or NPC Henchmen or Masters) getting cut down very quickly by groups of enemies.

As an example, just imagine a game of Malifaux where a Master finds themselves engaged with three enemies. With a few notable exceptions, that's generally a very bad place to be, as the master will probably get cut down in only a few turns due to her attackers flipping higher than her.

Cheating Fate can shift the balance of this in one direction or another. If the enemies are the only ones who can Cheat Fate, then the master is going to drop much faster. If the master is the only one who can cheat, then they're going to stay alive longer.

Applied to Through the Breach, this means that ability of the Fated to Cheat Fate gives them a significant advantage against their enemies if both of them are flipping cards. It actually ends up skewing things far more than a fixed TN, as you end up with that one Canine Remains who just tears through the same group that just pushed Seamus into the mud and laughed as he couldn't land a shot on them.

 

So, mechanically speaking, the Rank Values of NPCs ensure that they have all pull their appropriate weight according to their role: Minions go down relatively easily and are better in groups, Enforcers have some pull and make for tough-ish opponents who can still be dropped, and Henchmen are quite difficult to take down without skill and luck. Masters are super dangerous, which is appropriate: they're almost like forces of nature, which suits their important in the story.

Playing with the Rank Values can help adjust the difficulty of a creature, too; Minions range from Rank Value 5 to 6, for instance, despite the Fatemaster's Almanac only using Rank Value 5 for its Minion characters. In subsequent books (Into the Steam and the upcoming Under Quarantine, as well as various Penny Dreadfuls and One-Shots), we've tried to diversify the Rank Values of creatures a bit more, so that Minion (6) creatures present a bit more of a threat than Minion (5) characters.

 

Now, all that being said, you should absolutely play the game any way you want! If you have every character flip from a deck, it adds a much more dangerous and uncertain feel to the game, bringing it closer to another of favorite systems, Call of Cthulhu. In this case, I'd probably use a separate Fate Deck for the Fatemaster and have Enforcers, Henchmen, and Leaders have control hands with cards equal to their Card Points. This can be more difficult for the Fatemaster to track (juggling multiple hands), but it can make for a very different gaming experience if done well, and I'm always in favor of options that allow groups to play the game they love in the way that suits them best.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Mason said:

Mechanically speaking, if you have the Fatemaster flip for NPCs to determine their acting values, it leads to much bloodier combats and usually results in important people (such as the Fated or NPC Henchmen or Masters) getting cut down very quickly by groups of enemies.

Not really, this is just simply a function of values.  There's no reason why the lower level enemies can't be given lower base AVs.  In fact, since the value of an AV is a fixed quantity in opposed flipping (4 cards per AV, or around 7.5%), it is an easy matter to gauge an enemy's likely effectiveness relative to the Fated.

57 minutes ago, Mason said:

As an example, just imagine a game of Malifaux where a Master finds themselves engaged with three enemies. With a few notable exceptions, that's generally a very bad place to be, as the master will probably get cut down in only a few turns due to her attackers flipping higher than her.

Malifaux has a different dynamic than TtB, because as a competitive game everything is balanced in terms of effectiveness as a measure of SS cost.  For instance, it's entirely reasonable in Malifaux to make a 5 or 6 SS minion who is so good at one thing that they can expect to even hit Masters reliably (like Rotten Belles).  The three enemies you mentioned are also likely to represent around 1/3rd the SS value of the crew, even if they are in the 5 or 6 SS range.  You'd expect 1/3rd of your crew to present a viable threat to a single enemy model. 

Likewise, in Malifaux the range of values that separate "good" from "bad" are pretty low, again for balance reasons.  A bad rating (4) against a high average (6) is only ~15% worse, but there's no reason to assume that you'd have to use Malifaux scale in TtB to use opposed flips.  A lowly Gremlin might have a 1-2, or even a 0, for instance.

In TtB, there's no expectation of game balance (in the sense I described above, at least.  Obviously there are balance concerns in an RPG).  As the Fate Master, I don't have to "get something" or "get some value" from enemies.  Enemies exist as obstacles and plot elements. 

Minions are not supposed to be balanced against Fated.  A Fated in combat with three mooks, who are clearly mooks, is in no more danger in an opposing flip situation than they would be in a Fixed TN (assuming the values are correctly correlated for both opposing flip and fixed TN).

57 minutes ago, Mason said:

Applied to Through the Breach, this means that ability of the Fated to Cheat Fate gives them a significant advantage against their enemies if both of them are flipping cards. It actually ends up skewing things far more than a fixed TN, as you end up with that one Canine Remains who just tears through the same group that just pushed Seamus into the mud and laughed as he couldn't land a shot on them.

The Fated should have a significant advantage over standard enemies, which is why Cheating Fate would be limited to important enemies.  Not sure what you mean by the skewing things and the Canine.  Maybe you can elaborate further there.

57 minutes ago, Mason said:

So, mechanically speaking, the Rank Values of NPCs ensure that they have all pull their appropriate weight according to their role: Minions go down relatively easily and are better in groups, Enforcers have some pull and make for tough-ish opponents who can still be dropped, and Henchmen are quite difficult to take down without skill and luck. Masters are super dangerous, which is appropriate: they're almost like forces of nature, which suits their important in the story.

Playing with the Rank Values can help adjust the difficulty of a creature, too; Minions range from Rank Value 5 to 6, for instance, despite the Fatemaster's Almanac only using Rank Value 5 for its Minion characters. In subsequent books (Into the Steam and the upcoming Under Quarantine, as well as various Penny Dreadfuls and One-Shots), we've tried to diversify the Rank Values of creatures a bit more, so that Minion (6) creatures present a bit more of a threat than Minion (5) characters.

This kind of rating manipulation is equally available to opposed flip systems.  It's simply a function of raising or lowering base AV's.

57 minutes ago, Mason said:

Now, all that being said, you should absolutely play the game any way you want! If you have every character flip from a deck, it adds a much more dangerous and uncertain feel to the game, bringing it closer to another of favorite systems, Call of Cthulhu. In this case, I'd probably use a separate Fate Deck for the Fatemaster and have Enforcers, Henchmen, and Leaders have control hands with cards equal to their Card Points. This can be more difficult for the Fatemaster to track (juggling multiple hands), but it can make for a very different gaming experience if done well, and I'm always in favor of options that allow groups to play the game they love in the way that suits them best.

I plan to use a separate Fate Deck for the Fate Master, and to only use Control Hands for important/named NPCs.  High level but plot unimportant foes can be modeled with competitive AVs, and don't need to be able to Cheat Fate. 

Because you can use base AVs as a method to set expected success rates, opposed flipping doesn't have to result in any more statistical variation than fixed TN. What it does do is introduce an element of mystery to the game, and it may also make unusual events more likely, since there are more random elements to the determination system.  And I'm okay with that.

However, even if it turns out that you're correct and I'm wrong and the game becomes more dangerous, I'm okay with that too, since I prefer a grittier approach over the action hero dynamic.  Though I acknowledge that's just personal preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't understand the argument that supporting static resolution is just a subjective view.  Thinking that it doesn't work (especially without experiential evidence) is equally subjective.  Saying that is just being dismissive of the entirety of an argument which at its core is aesthetic (or a Classical/Romantic Quality division).

The players that are going to discover the math and act on it (or abuse it) are typically looking for a beat 'em up or a dungeon crawl, neither of which is ideal for TTB.  I have players like that in a game right now.  Most of them have intentionally gone to 7+ AVs on combat skills, usually with one or more :+fate and Critical Strike (which I do specifically think was done poorly).  So because combat isn't really a challenge for them, I've resorted to not putting them in combat, or making it where fighting isn't the best or right decision, or setting combat on a scale so large that individual attacks don't make a difference (700 Nephilim are attacking the town, 50 mindless zombies are here while this building with a bunch of innocent people is burning down, etc).  Every once in a while I'll throw a little fight at them (they obviously want that), and they take care of it in two rounds, three tops, but the fights are rarely lethal or story-driving, just kind of action speed bumps.  Like I said, they just want to fight, and I can give that to them.

To provide a concrete example of something that didn't work so well for them, relating back to numbers already stated, these same Fated were fighting a dozen Bayou Gremlins and a War Pig.  They judged (accurately) that the pig was the bigger threat, and spent the round eliminating it with severe prejudice.  Most used ranged attacks, and one, who was on the Guard pursuit, rushed forward to finish the beast off.  When the gremlins attacked, the rest of the party was out of range to be shot, so he took all 24 attacks.  Even with an AV 9 vs. Df 4, he was hit often enough and hard enough with Armor+1 to drop 8 wounds and start flipping for critical effects (68.5% of the deck was a success if it had been fresh, which it wasn't).

It's obvious you're not here to debate; you've made your decision.  But the system does work as intended because the intent varies from your perception of it.  My players still get a thrill of excitement when they find out what the TN they're shooting for is (I never say the number but use the categories Challenging, Routine, Difficult, etc).  But there are still consistent results.  Fights against large groups of Enforcers are rough, even for them.  Henchmen tear into them.  They waste Minions and Peons left and right, but are endangered by numbers.  A Master-level threat will kill most if not all of them despite everything I've said, especially the right Master (McMourning would be utterly lethal).  If you want to rebuild the game to suit your ideas, bully for you.  I have other things to do, like play the game and tell a story.  If there's enough call for a second edition, I'm sure there will be one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

I really don't understand the argument that supporting static resolution is just a subjective view.  Thinking that it doesn't work (especially without experiential evidence) is equally subjective.  Saying that is just being dismissive of the entirety of an argument which at its core is aesthetic (or a Classical/Romantic Quality division).

Nowhere did I say that supporting Fixed TN is subjective.  I said Swiglitz's reason for supporting it was subjective, and it was.  He's very open about that.  He doesn't care about the math or the merits, he just likes it because he likes the feel. 

There's nothing pejorative about subjective preferences either.  Many of us make very important life decisions on subjective preferences.  But subjective preferences are not really debatable.  Swiglitz  says he likes it because it feels like Fate to him.  That's an entirely satisfactory answer as to why he likes it.  It's not an argument as to why I should like it.

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

The players that are going to discover the math and act on it (or abuse it) are typically looking for a beat 'em up or a dungeon crawl, neither of which is ideal for TTB.  I have players like that in a game right now.  Most of them have intentionally gone to 7+ AVs on combat skills, usually with one or more :+fate and Critical Strike (which I do specifically think was done poorly). 

I've said this before, but "you're not playing it the way you're supposed to" is no answer to a mechanical deficiency.  Arguments like this concede my point, and then go on to try to say why it shouldn't matter.

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

So because combat isn't really a challenge for them, I've resorted to not putting them in combat, or making it where fighting isn't the best or right decision, or setting combat on a scale so large that individual attacks don't make a difference (700 Nephilim are attacking the town, 50 mindless zombies are here while this building with a bunch of innocent people is burning down, etc).  Every once in a while I'll throw a little fight at them (they obviously want that), and they take care of it in two rounds, three tops, but the fights are rarely lethal or story-driving, just kind of action speed bumps.  Like I said, they just want to fight, and I can give that to them.

As I've mentioned in earlier posts, combat isn't even my greatest concern because, (as I've mentioned) I don't tend to run combat heavy games and because it seems much easier to get :+fate in social situations due to the talents being relatively stronger (no doubt because, as with most games, TtB tries to ensure combat gets the most rigorous mechanical examination).  If you have a :+fate, even actions that require a 10 flip are ~64% likely.  This provides a huge freedom of action to the Fated because there's no mystery to it.  I need a 10 to fool Lucius into telling me his secrets?  No problem.

You say your players care about combat.  You then go on to say that combat isn't a challenge for them, and so you have to manipulate events to either avoid combat or make them pay for what they like to do.  What about that doesn't indicate the system isn't working like it should?

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

It's obvious you're not here to debate; you've made your decision. 

I didn't make this thread to debate.  I stated up front I wasn't likely to use Fixed TN.  I only asked why they made TtB fixed.  Then you all tried to explain why fixed is better, only you haven't been able to make a case as to why that is. 

That said, if someone had an objective reason why I should prefer Fixed, I'd consider it.  Or, in the alternative, if they had a subjective argument that resonated with me, that might do it too.

Just because you're losing the debate doesn't mean my opinion can't be changed.

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

But the system does work as intended because the intent varies from your perception of it.  My players still get a thrill of excitement when they find out what the TN they're shooting for is (I never say the number but use the categories Challenging, Routine, Difficult, etc).

You've already admitted the system doesn't work as intended.  "So because combat isn't really a challenge for them" was your line, not mine.  I'm glad to hear your players are sufficiently entertained by hearing a (presumably) two digit number.  Sounds like a tough crowd to please.

All snark aside (and on re-reading, that one was a bit snarky), it's not like Fixed TN is necessarily going to make for boring fights.  After all, D&D uses Fixed TN systems, and it's been keeping people grinding for almost 40 years.  But you're trying so hard to argue on behalf of a system that doesn't even work for what your players are most interested in doing.  Think about that for a moment.

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

But there are still consistent results.  Fights against large groups of Enforcers are rough, even for them.  Henchmen tear into them.  They waste Minions and Peons left and right, but are endangered by numbers.  A Master-level threat will kill most if not all of them despite everything I've said, especially the right Master (McMourning would be utterly lethal). 

Did you miss it when Omenbringer said that the fixed TN system is as ineffective at higher ends as it is at the lower, because at the higher ends things become almost impossible for the Fated?  Being able to kill your party is not an achievement, and rendering people useless is not, at least to me, the hallmark of good mechanics.

 

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

If you want to rebuild the game to suit your ideas, bully for you.  I have other things to do, like play the game and tell a story.  If there's enough call for a second edition, I'm sure there will be one.

Having learned a long time ago to walk and chew gum, I'll be able to run a game with a mechanically sound system that doesn't reduce things to the feel of a video game.  I prefer to convey someone's importance using setting, description and interaction. 

Maybe you, like another Fixed supporter earlier, find it sufficient to announce he has a lying TN of 17.

But by all means, go with what works for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2016 at 6:17 AM, Swiglitz said:

Have you played the game with static TN's yet? Like every other GM in the known world I tinker with rules-sets and hardly ever play a game 'out of the box' and I had my doubts about the system until I played it. It actually works very, very well and ended up being one of the things that makes TTb stand out.

I have played plenty of games with the system, with more than a few different groups, both in and out of play testing (I will omit a comment about the play testing of the system due to non-disclosure). Have also read plenty of threads on here from other forumites commenting on the same issues. It is playable but far from working "very, very well", especially at the minion and below level or Henchman and above. So in a very tight range of circumstances the fated have a decent challenge.

On 1/5/2016 at 8:32 AM, LeperColony said:

Now, someone mentioned that TtB was trying to make the Fated action heroes, but even if that is the goal, other games have done that better.  If you look at 7th Sea, Mooks are a particular kind of low ranking enemy not meant as serious opposition.  They are dispatched in a similar manner to Ttb enemies, with an attack against a static TN.  In fact, defeat one just by succeeding in an attack, and any Raises (Margin of Success, in Ttb terminology) allows the player to take out additional enemies.  But then, against more serious opposition, you use the same task resolution system as you would against another player.

I would agree that many other games have executed the character's starting as action hero's much better. Unfortunately this "hero" design is sort of at odds with both the character generation system (which doesn't produce hero concepts, most of my groups ended up being better suited to business consortium's than a band of action heroes) and the designed to end philosophy of the game (which ends the game just about the time the fated are really getting interesting, granted this can always be eliminated by the fate Master but...). Personally I would have rather seen Wyrd license the Savage Worlds system, which I consider a much better execution of the "starting character as Hero" concept.

On 1/5/2016 at 8:32 AM, Mason said:

The "Take 10" rule has been errata'd out of existence.

 

Generally when I play, I have two primary house rules: I eliminate the card draw for the Fatemaster touching the Fate Deck, though the Fated can still draw cards when the Fate Deck reshuffles, and I let Fated flip against each other normally when they end up attacking each other. I haven't had a problem with either thus far!

Mason, it sort of illustrates the issues existent with in the system when one of TtB's new designers is house ruling the system he is shepherding.

On 1/5/2016 at 9:15 AM, LeperColony said:

There's no random input on the enemy side, so the enemies' capabilities are always a known and set factor.

That is what makes the system so game-able on the low end but virtually impossible on the high.

8 hours ago, Swiglitz said:

Theorizing this out doesn't appear to getting anywhere.

In this particular thread I might agree, however plenty of other similar/ related threads have produced some great ideas. Some of them have even become official erratas or been incorporated in to supporting publications.

2 hours ago, Mason said:

Mechanically speaking, if you have the Fatemaster flip for NPCs to determine their acting values, it leads to much bloodier combats and usually results in important people (such as the Fated or NPC Henchmen or Masters) getting cut down very quickly by groups of enemies.

Applied to Through the Breach, this means that ability of the Fated to Cheat Fate gives them a significant advantage against their enemies if both of them are flipping cards. It actually ends up skewing things far more than a fixed TN, as you end up with that one Canine Remains who just tears through the same group that just pushed Seamus into the mud and laughed as he couldn't land a shot on them.

So, mechanically speaking, the Rank Values of NPCs ensure that they have all pull their appropriate weight according to their role: Minions go down relatively easily and are better in groups, Enforcers have some pull and make for tough-ish opponents who can still be dropped, and Henchmen are quite difficult to take down without skill and luck. Masters are super dangerous, which is appropriate: they're almost like forces of nature, which suits their important in the story.

Playing with the Rank Values can help adjust the difficulty of a creature, too; Minions range from Rank Value 5 to 6, for instance, despite the Fatemaster's Almanac only using Rank Value 5 for its Minion characters. In subsequent books (Into the Steam and the upcoming Under Quarantine, as well as various Penny Dreadfuls and One-Shots), we've tried to diversify the Rank Values of creatures a bit more, so that Minion (6) creatures present a bit more of a threat than Minion (5) characters.

In regards to the above, I would rather have combats edgy and potentially deadly to both belligerents, than basically simple AP allocations (to kill the mooks) or run (from everything significant). With out this there isn't a lot of incentive to avoid combat at the low end of the scale, and tends to leave players feeling completely helpless at the other end of the it.

Though entirely possible that Seamus might not land a blow against the fated with opposed flips, while the Canine Remains hanging out with him does, the difference in AV values between them makes this much less likely to happen. The static resolution system, though, virtually guaranties the Canine Remians will never do anything significant against the fated (even in a large pack) while also virtually guarantying the fated will never do anything significant against Seamus (when they do manage to succeed in an attack they will likely have a significant negative on the damage flip).

The successive publications have done some good by introducing non-fated value variances, but it ends up expanding the challenge level fairly minutely.

13 minutes ago, hippodruid said:

I really don't understand the argument that supporting static resolution is just a subjective view.  Thinking that it doesn't work (especially without experiential evidence) is equally subjective.  Saying that is just being dismissive of the entirety of an argument which at its core is aesthetic (or a Classical/Romantic Quality division).

The players that are going to discover the math and act on it (or abuse it) are typically looking for a beat 'em up or a dungeon crawl, neither of which is ideal for TTB.  I have players like that in a game right now.  Most of them have intentionally gone to 7+ AVs on combat skills, usually with one or more :+fate and Critical Strike (which I do specifically think was done poorly).  So because combat isn't really a challenge for them, I've resorted to not putting them in combat, or making it where fighting isn't the best or right decision, or setting combat on a scale so large that individual attacks don't make a difference (700 Nephilim are attacking the town, 50 mindless zombies are here while this building with a bunch of innocent people is burning down, etc).  Every once in a while I'll throw a little fight at them (they obviously want that), and they take care of it in two rounds, three tops, but the fights are rarely lethal or story-driving, just kind of action speed bumps.  Like I said, they just want to fight, and I can give that to them.

To provide a concrete example of something that didn't work so well for them, relating back to numbers already stated, these same Fated were fighting a dozen Bayou Gremlins and a War Pig.  They judged (accurately) that the pig was the bigger threat, and spent the round eliminating it with severe prejudice.  Most used ranged attacks, and one, who was on the Guard pursuit, rushed forward to finish the beast off.  When the gremlins attacked, the rest of the party was out of range to be shot, so he took all 24 attacks.  Even with an AV 9 vs. Df 4, he was hit often enough and hard enough with Armor+1 to drop 8 wounds and start flipping for critical effects (68.5% of the deck was a success if it had been fresh, which it wasn't).

Glad you posted this. I agree that all of this is subjective, some like the system others do not, neither is correct or incorrect.

What I find interesting however, is that you are really encapsulating my entire critic of the system. It is much better suited to a "Story Telling" game than a combat oriented one. Using your example (the bold part specifically), you are actively stacking the encounters against your fated or working to avoid them altogether, because they don't really present a challenge otherwise. If the resolution system wasn't static then you wouldn't have to resort to these types of things. The example with the Bayou Gremlin and War Pig encounter is also interesting in that your melee fated would have likely suffered far more than just 8 wounds if the system wasn't static especially across 24 attacks. Had he not rushed in to melee, he likely wouldn't have suffered a single wound from the encounter.

Again I am a fan of the game as a Story telling game but my players and I acknowledge the deficiencies of the system and actively seek to avoid manipulating it. When they want something more combat oriented we head to another system (such as Cyber Punk).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Omenbringer said:

Glad you posted this. I agree that all of this is subjective, some like the system others do not, neither is correct or incorrect.

I think it's a bit of an oversimplification to say all of it is subjective.

A preference is subjective.  I prefer flipping to fixed, that is subjective.

But a preference can be based on subjective and/or objective points.

I simply like flipping/rolling, so I want to do it.  That's a subjective reason.

Fixed TNs are easily gameable.  That's an objective reason.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Omenbringer said:

Mason, it sort of illustrates the issues existent with in the system when one of TtB's new designers is house ruling the system he is shepherding.

I wasn't at Wyrd when the core book was written. There are definitely some things that I would change about the system to make it better, and in fact, most of those things have already been changed via the FAQ and Errata thread (which just got updated yesterday!)

Among the things that I don't like or use, for instance, are all the different types of sub-divisions of weapons and ammunition, such as differences between legacy pistols and revolvers. I don't think it's really necessary, and that's why Into the Steam just has them grouped together under the general category of Pistols. I also don't like the aforementioned rule about the players drawing cards when the Fatemaster touches the deck because sometimes I just like to tidy the table up, and I don't like mechanics that reward the players for tricking the Fatemaster into taking meta actions (like touching certain cards or straightening the table up).

 

With that being said, however, I think that the core mechanics of Through the Breach are pretty darn good. It's a great storytelling game, and the combat is fast enough to get that "action scene" feel without it bogging down into a lengthy fight that just drains everyone's energy away. That suits my playing style, as I enjoy focusing on the story of the group and the individual characters over action set pieces. I still want combat in my game, and I want it to be fun, but I want it to serve the story (and not the other way around). I know that other Fatemasters do it differently, and that's okay! Roleplaying games are sandboxes, so I consider design to be more about giving players the tools they need to play in the sand than about dictating that they only build a certain type of sandcastle. 

 

With regards to combat in Through the Breach, however, I have to disagree with the perception that Minions and Enforcers can't be challenging in a fight. In the recent Nythera event, for instance, we had almost two hundred reported games, and the vast majority of those Fatemasters reported that their players were challenged in combat and having a great time with the adventures. The number of groups who reported breezing through the encounters without a challenge was actually less than the number of groups who were totally wiped out in combat, though neither group numbered more than five or six games.

The Nythera combats, for those that haven't played through them, are comprised entirely of Minions and Enforcers, so those "lesser" characters can certainly be a threat to Fated characters. Now, granted, the Fated characters used in that adventure weren't min-maxed to the absolute extremes of lethality, but the combat characters such as Butako, Alexei, and Catalina were still very good at carving their way through a fight; you really don't need amazing stats to hold your own in Through the Breach.

If your players make characters that are hands-down some of the best fighters the world has seen, embrace that and let them kick some ass in a fight. Steven Seagal regularly goes through movies without taking a single punch, but that doesn't mean that the movie just ends after the first fight; there's always some greater plan unfolding that can only be solved with a few hundred snapped necks and whispered one-liners.

Even if your players breeze through combat as if it were nothing, there's still plenty of other situations in Malifaux that can challenge them without resorting to combat. In Die Hard, one of John McClane's biggest obstacles was that his feet got cut up on broken glass, for instance.

I've said in a couple different places that Fated characters tend to be Action Heroes, and I stick by that... but it's the choice of your group where they fall on the scale from everyman Bruce Willis to indestructible neck-snapping angel of death Steven Seagal. You can make a movie with either action hero, and which one you prefer is probably going to come down to individual preference.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mason said:

With regards to combat in Through the Breach, however, I have to disagree with the perception that Minions and Enforcers can't be challenging in a fight. In the recent Nythera event, for instance, we had almost two hundred reported games, and the vast majority of those Fatemasters reported that their players were challenged in combat and having a great time with the adventures. The number of groups who reported breezing through the encounters without a challenge was actually less than the number of groups who were totally wiped out in combat, though neither group numbered more than five or six games.

The Nythera combats, for those that haven't played through them, are comprised entirely of Minions and Enforcers, so those "lesser" characters can certainly be a threat to Fated characters. Now, granted, the Fated characters used in that adventure weren't min-maxed to the absolute extremes of lethality, but the combat characters such as Butako, Alexei, and Catalina were still very good at carving their way through a fight; you really don't need amazing stats to hold your own in Through the Breach.

While I don't doubt the accuracy of your assessment, this is really just another "it works if you play it the way we mean you to" argument.  Presumably the encounters and the characters were made in conjunction with each other, or at the least with some consideration as to what would and wouldn't be reasonable challenges.

My claim certainly isn't that TtB's mechanics are worthless or that anyone who likes them are stupid.  I just think they are a little gamey (which is odd for a storytelling system) and suboptimal.  And that they may be easily substituted with an effective and quick resolution system that already exists, namely the opposing flips like Malifaux.

One thing I am curious about:  Using Malifaux for combat is already an official optional rule.  Why wasn't a similar rule included for non-combat duels?   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LeperColony said:

One thing I am curious about:  Using Malifaux for combat is already an official optional rule.  Why wasn't a similar rule included for non-combat duels?   

Why would a game with the premise "The Fatemaster doesn't flip cards" include a rule that, statistically speaking, just serves to double the variance of a random determination?

No, really.  Flip two cards in opposition and compare the values, statistically speaking all that accomplishes is doubling the variance, and create arbitrary situations where "Oh, sure, that card cheating mechanic exists, but it won't do you any good."

The game includes rules for using the characters in Malifaux style combat encounters at least in part because:

1.  There's this really popular wargame that the players may be fans of.

2.  "It would be really cool if I could customize my master/enforcer/henchman"

and

3.  The required rules were very simple.

P.S.  You've claimed "Fixed target numbers are easily gameable."  Yet fixed arbitary target numbers are used in essentially every RPG using dice for unopposed skill checks.

You're arguing Chocolate vs. Vanilla, and attempting to make objective arguments about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mason said:

I wasn't at Wyrd when the core book was written. There are definitely some things that I would change about the system to make it better, and in fact, most of those things have already been changed via the FAQ and Errata thread (which just got updated yesterday!)

Among the things that I don't like or use, for instance, are all the different types of sub-divisions of weapons and ammunition, such as differences between legacy pistols and revolvers. I don't think it's really necessary, and that's why Into the Steam just has them grouped together under the general category of Pistols. I also don't like the aforementioned rule about the players drawing cards when the Fatemaster touches the deck because sometimes I just like to tidy the table up, and I don't like mechanics that reward the players for tricking the Fatemaster into taking meta actions (like touching certain cards or straightening the table up).

Mason, granted neither you or Aaron were involved with the initial development (and therefore not responsible for the idiosyncrasies), however you do now have the ability to change things. So that is a huge plus. Additionally, both of you are at least amicable to the idea of input and change.

2 hours ago, Mason said:

With that being said, however, I think that the core mechanics of Through the Breach are pretty darn good. It's a great storytelling game, and the combat is fast enough to get that "action scene" feel without it bogging down into a lengthy fight that just drains everyone's energy away. That suits my playing style, as I enjoy focusing on the story of the group and the individual characters over action set pieces. I still want combat in my game, and I want it to be fun, but I want it to serve the story (and not the other way around). I know that other Fatemasters do it differently, and that's okay! Roleplaying games are sandboxes, so I consider design to be more about giving players the tools they need to play in the sand than about dictating that they only build a certain type of sandcastle.

Again we agree, TtB is a good story telling game (I have said that, many, many times), however it is not (nor was designed to be) a good combat game (despite what the play testers kept expressing a desire for). I do appreciate that virtually all RPG's are intended to be sand boxes for the Fate Master/ DM/ GM/ what ever to build in, but that doesn't excuse the system from providing the media that binds those constructions together. Since you and Aaron have taken over the development of TtB many of the most obvious omissions in the magic system have been addressed. Without Into the Steam, a very large portion of the setting was missing and largely unplayable (requiring the Fate Master to fill in the not insignificant amount of holes himself). As more books are released I am confident that more and more of the holes will be patched, perhaps the Bayou specific supplement can refine the combat system to something many of us have expressed a desire for (without affecting those that like things as they are). World of Darkness did a very similar thing (imagine playing the original Werewolf the Apocalypse RPG without utilizing the refined combat supplement that was published nearly concurrently).

2 hours ago, Mason said:

The Nythera combats, for those that haven't played through them, are comprised entirely of Minions and Enforcers, so those "lesser" characters can certainly be a threat to Fated characters. Now, granted, the Fated characters used in that adventure weren't min-maxed to the absolute extremes of lethality, but the combat characters such as Butako, Alexei, and Catalina were still very good at carving their way through a fight; you really don't need amazing stats to hold your own in Through the Breach.

If your players make characters that are hands-down some of the best fighters the world has seen, embrace that and let them kick some ass in a fight. Steven Seagal regularly goes through movies without taking a single punch, but that doesn't mean that the movie just ends after the first fight; there's always some greater plan unfolding that can only be solved with a few hundred snapped necks and whispered one-liners.

Even if your players breeze through combat as if it were nothing, there's still plenty of other situations in Malifaux that can challenge them without resorting to combat. In Die Hard, one of John McClane's biggest obstacles was that his feet got cut up on broken glass, for instance.

I've said in a couple different places that Fated characters tend to be Action Heroes, and I stick by that... but it's the choice of your group where they fall on the scale from everyman Bruce Willis to indestructible neck-snapping angel of death Steven Seagal. You can make a movie with either action hero, and which one you prefer is probably going to come down to individual preference.

The Nythera example is interesting in that it doesn't really stand up well against what I have been criticizing. The argument essentially boiling down to a variation of what Lepercolony states as the "you're not playing it the way you're supposed to" defense. You state above that the pre-generated fated utilized were not min-maxed, the issue with this is that the character generation system strongly encourages min/maxing (the action hero design). Even without trying to game the system starting Fated AV's can push the limit of challenge for Minions. During play testing (and even since) not a single one of my players began with an AV of less than 6 in their chosen specialty. Anchored to the static resolution system it hinders any combats that may occur. To illustrate this, what would have occurred in the Nythera campaign between those non-min/maxed Fated and a Henchman ranked npc with only a slightly above average Df/ Wp /combat AV? Likely the Henchman would have presented too difficult a challenge for most groups to deal with. Agreeing to keep the fated at or below average (which really has to be a group choice) doesn't change the issues with the Static resolution system it just shifts the challenge scale downward without widening it all (making the top end even more impossible).

46 minutes ago, solkan said:

...fixed arbitary target numbers are used in essentially every RPG using dice for unopposed skill checks.

Granted virtually all RPG's use some variance of target numbers for resolution, however a lot of them execute it significantly better. There is a reason the vast majority use a "true" random value generator, such as a die, instead of a card deck (which is not a true random value generator, until it has been completely drained and re-shuffled). A die roll generates a completely random value with each roll, forgetting the previous result (meaning you could conceivably generate several 20's in a row). In contrast, a card deck will only ever produce a single Red Joker, four 13 Values, four, 12 values, etc. having a memory of all previous results until it has been completely drained and reshuffled. Once the required values are depleted from the deck the party is essentially drawing dead against that value until the deck is reshuffled providing another opportunity at them.

I have a few ideas that I think could fix the single deck system without affecting the speed of combats, though that is likely a discussion for another thread (that could potentially consolidate all the recommendations into one easily referable source for those interested in it).

46 minutes ago, solkan said:

The game includes rules for using the characters in Malifaux style combat encounters at least in part because:

1.  There's this really popular wargame that the players may be fans of.

Unfortunately, that simple fact really set an expectation for the resolution system for TtB. Without that, many of us would accept TtB as the story telling game it should be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information