LeperColony

I am not saying this is a good crew, by any stretch, but this is what I intend to try when I get around to it: Arcanists 50ss Crew Colette Du Bois -- 2ss +Cabaret Choreography - 2ss +Practiced Production - 1ss +Shell Game - 1ss Mechanical Dove - 2ss Cassandra - 8ss +Smoke And Mirrors - 1ss Envy - 8ss Hans - 9ss Oxfordian Mage - 6ss +Nemisis Ward - 0ss Oxfordian Mage - 6ss +Blood Ward - 0ss Oxfordian Mage - 6ss +Doom Ward - 0ss I've thought about swapping either Envy and/or Cassandra for a December Acolyte (I mean, they are just so good), but well have to see. I've also been looking at the possibility of fitting in Anna Lovelace, to try to screen my gunline a bit.

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

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. Not really, because again, I can communicate in methods other than TNs. 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 or , and even, where appropriate (say for really important people) maybe even a Twist Hand.

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.

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.

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.

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. seem easier to get from Talents in social situations than combat ones, and when you have a , 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 , 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).

Part of my concern was that in real play situations, a lot of duels become almost trivial, and then it makes you wonder why bother with the duel at all. The RAW seem to assume that players will make characters that broadly resemble real people, with a wide range of middling values and maybe a spike or two in the 4-5 AV range. But all my experience gaming tells me that players will identify what it is they like, and then start as proficient as they may in those things. If you have an AV of 6, TNs of 10 or so (like the Gremlin example) have a 77% success rate, without counting Twist Decks, Talents or anything else that might improve the Fated's chances. Outside dramatic time, you can just take 10, which makes anything below a 17 automatic. And I understand 17 to be a reasonably high TN in terms of game play, especially for starting characters. Someone with a lower AV, say a 2, is far from useless against low TNs. They'd have around a 46% chance of hitting TN 10. Against low TNs, low AVs seem to compare a little unfairly with higher AVs, given what it takes to get higher values. AV 6 is three times the value of AV 2, but it doesn't have three times the success rate. But at the higher TNs, low AVs have very little value, if not being virtually worthless. Against the same TN 16 that is automatic for the AV 6 when taking 10, and 31% when flipping, an AV 2 has a 1.8% chance (that Red Joker). So 1/3rd the value (AV 2 vs AV 6) has around 1/16th the chance of succeeding. Does that seem to scale well? Then there's the fact that anything beyond 16 is impossible, which renders the AV useless. Is a system that makes values worthless desirable? Personally, I don't think so.

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.

To flip the issue around, what are the difficulties I can look forward to if I substitute a Fate Master Deck flip for static TNs (aside from converting the system where necessary)? Pretty much just the added steps of comparing maths? Or is there more?

You have to be careful about Prompting your Hitters to death. It's very easy to do. But most players know that since Colette is primarily support, and that killing her is a pain, eliminating the one or two threats in the crew is a high priority. if you're running Howard and Cass, then the rest Showgirls, you have to balance committing either one of your threats to fight against what you can gain in VPs, either by their direct actions or in the amount of AP you can get the enemy to expend on them. You could try changing the dynamic by replacing Howard and some change with two Coryphee. One option also is to replace dangerous models like Howard with some longer term options. The Mech Rider is sort of the standard, but I've been Mathifauxing a Rail Golem/Burning crew. You could also go ranged instead. A gun line with Colette behind can put out a lot of shots. These builds have the advantage of trying to delay, which Colette, with her movement powers and strong defense, is good at. It's also possible that your crew is just too fragile. You may want to consider some tanking options. I'm waiting for the Arcane Emissary to come in plastic, because I definitely intend to add him to my Colette tool box. Or, if conditions are destroying you, there's always the ever-popular Johan (if you absolutely HAVE to run all girls, you can always try to get the L.E. Johana). But it would also help to know why it is you want to play Colette. If your reasons are thematic or artistic, there's not really any substitution. But if you like her for other reasons, it could be another master is more suited to your play style. And, any information on your opponents and your meta would improve our ability to give advice. For instance, I don't really like Oiran much, but if I know it's going to be WP duels all day, I very well may consider one. Likewise, if I am building a Showgirl light crew, the Ice Dancer becomes more attractive (though I still don't like her that much) for spitting out more Scheme Markers.

I don't yet have Into the Steam. Does it improve the magic mechanics substantially?

I can sympathize with your friend. I am mostly a Showgirls only player on Colette, and a lot of match ups are rough. I keep hoping for an Annie Oakley type Showgirl. Maybe one day...

Also, it may be helpful it you explained in a little more detail what your difficulties are. Are you getting tabled really early? Are you having problems running schemes? Etc. More information on your crew(s), your opponent(s) and your meta would be useful too. In Malifaux there are not only a lot of different Masters, but most of the Masters can be played in several different ways. Someone like Colette can accommodate many play styles. But if you gave us a little more on the kinds of things that typically appeal to you (elite beat sticks, gun lines, particular themes, etc) it might also turn out that there may be a more fitting Master for you.

Whether or not the relationship between the Fate Master and the Fated is going to be adversarial (as opposed to antagonistic, which is probably just bad) or cooperative is likely a function of group dynamics, and not RPG mechanics. You can have collaborative, free flowing Dungeons and Dragons games, and you can have crunchy, mechanical and adversarial Dogs in the Vineyard. I don't really see this as a function of the system so much as how an RPG group decides to play the game. Additionally, I don't expect to change anyone's minds. Some people prefer the system as written. Others, like me, don't. There's nothing wrong with either position, but they are almost certainly irreconcilable and I'm not sure any good can come of debating the alternatives. That's why I didn't make this about the merits of single-flip. Rather, I was interested in the reasons behind the developer's choices.

Thanks for that, Omen. I'm not surprised that speed was a concern, but for some reason I get the sense, as you indicated, that the developer had a very strong philosophical reason for structuring things the way he did. I agree that the system resolution seems highly subject to manipulation. Players are not stupid, and you can't expect the setting to "protect" the game from more mechanically minded people (protect being a very poor word). I remember back in the days of Vampire: The Masquerade, when the game started getting wider interest. Since it was intentionally mechanically very thin, the game had issues when players beyond it's originally intended audience got involved. Balance and playability became increasingly problematic, and the response that "you just shouldn't be playing that way" was unhelpful, especially when it was all those new players who made the game so profitable (I mean, ultimately the WoD lines had hundreds of books). TtB and Malifaux have great settings. What's more, Malifaux's resolution system is fast and elegant. With that in their pocket, I guess I'm surprised they didn't just port the card duel system over wholesale. But as they didn't, they clearly had a very significant (at least to them) reason why.

That simply states what is. Nobody disputes what is. The entire thread is predicated on the notion that what is, is. I criticize nobody for preferring what is to what might be. I'm just simply wondering why it is that what is is, a point sadly that your quote does nothing to illuminate. Perhaps there is no illumination to be had, in which case it must join numerous other mysteries of life. But as it seemed at least possible that one of the developers may roam these threads and offer an explanation, or someone having known or conjectured offer an opinion, I made the thread. Was their reason mechanical? Were they seduced by the elegance of a single flip mechanic, like a card version of a One Roll Engine? Was it philosophical? Do they believe that the Fated should be the only ones to ever flip fate on their own behalf? Or perhaps something else motivated them. It might be all of these, or none of them, hence why I asked.

I don't really see how whether the Fate Master uses a separate deck for opposing duels totals (rather than a static TN) alters the importance of the Twist hand in any way. Cheating Fate still has the same central part in the system as it ever did. It also wouldn't impact how often the Fate Deck is shuffled, since the FM was never drawing from it anyway. I am, to a certain extent, sympathetic with the speed argument. It's almost certainly true that a static TN system and orienting everything from the Fated's point of view makes things go faster. There's less math, after all, and the numbers are known quantities. But in exchange, I personally feel we lose more than we gain. For one thing, rolling dice is fun, and in TtB, that means flipping. Maybe not everyone feels that way, but I do, and I think lively dynamism the random element adds to enemies over a static, robotic TN is worth the extra second or two of card turning and math. In a way, I feel as though the mechanic reduces the system to a kind of rote mechanism, similar to some of the old-style "solo RPG" modules companies used to make way back when. Second, adding random and unseen values to duels allows the FM to manipulate the results in ways that can be beneficial for story and pacing. Sometimes you want things to take a little longer than they should, or go a little faster. You can moderate someone's bad luck by having the results not match the flips, and you can increase the danger at individual moments where necessary. Sure, you can just declare the way things go by fiat TN increases or what have you, but the immersion lost by such blunt manipulations can be counter-productive. This is especially true in one-offs and convention events, which I run quite a bit of in other systems, and will be trying in TtB for the first time in February. Third, having duels reduced merely to one-sided TN races is one of the most troubling aspects of the current magic system, as we see in the thread about Fire Immuto (http://themostexcellentandawesomeforumever-wyrd.com/topic/111656-magic-am-i-doing-it-wrong-a-minmaxr-or-just-really-dangerous/). Any time your casting TN is less than your targets resist, you should always just pile on whatever you can, for free. All the values are known, the only variable is what you flip. There are solutions, sure, but like the Fated v Fated mechanic, they are awkward. Ultimately, I'm sure our opinions on the merits or flaws of the current system are inevitably, and probably irreconcilably incongruent. I didn't start this thread to argue for a change or to get people to adopt whatever system I may end up using. I was just curious as to what particular motivations inspired the writers to structure the TtB resolution system in the way that they did. If it's efficiency, I concede there's something to it, but I think what it loses is more than what it gains.

Out of curiosity, I was wondering if anyone could speak as to why it was so important to the developers to eliminate contested flipping. This seems somewhat odd, given the system's derivation from Malifaux, where almost all duels are contested by flips from both sides. In TtB they've gone to great, and sometimes awkward lengths (Fated contesting Fated, for instance) to eliminate opposing flips. Clearly this was an important goal to the TtB writers. But why? In all likelihood I'll be disposing of those rules and instead using contested Flips were appropriate, and probably during combat have a Fatemaster deck for flips, in a fashion more similar to Malifaux (without using the TtB translate to Malifaux rules), so the issue isn't terribly important from a gameplay standpoint to me. After all, I can just run the game how I want. But I was curious why it seems so very important to the TtB writers to make duels one-sided flips.

Again, I don't really want to get in depth in this sort of discussion in this thread, since it's not really related to the OP's question. I will say though that perhaps your meta is different, but I don't see Cassandra taken all the time outside of Colette. And to the other poster's claim that Performers are worth 6 ss, they may be, and yet I don't see them being taken either. Now Malifaux is very much a YMMV game. What works for some people may not work for others, and what works in some metas may not work in others. But I think the idea that Cassandra is taken out of master as often as Howard or Joss or Johan is somewhat curious.

I didn't say they would be sub-par, I said they'd be sub-optimal. Par is a baseline. If the model is above the baseline, it will beat par, even if it is not being optimally utilized. That's what makes Howard so popular in Colette crews. Sure, Howard is not optimally deployed in a Colette crew, but his potential as a Prompt vessel is so high that he is a very strong option. Cassandra, by comparison, is definitely sub-optimal, and may be sub-par as there could be better options for Ramos at an equal or lesser cost (such as The Captain), or better options even at a higher cost, if the gains outweigh the expenditure.

To be sure, this is just my opinion. And I'm not saying people can't make it work, because they can. But I personally don't think Performers are all that great outside of a Colette crew. Showgirl synergy is very strong, but that aspect is built into a Performer's cost. Without what Colette gives them, I just don't think they're worth the ss to other masters. As for Cassandra, with Understudy you can definitely always find a place for her, but again I think there are usually going to be better options. Though I admit, I am particularly sensitive to making sure I get the most out of what I call the "design tax" of a model. For instance, Cassandra pays some "design points" for being able to Understudy Colette. That has to be built into her abilities and her ss cost, because otherwise she could be OP with her default master. But when it isn't available at all, that means it's lost points, and those personally bother me quite a bit. I think Ramos + Colette is much better for Colette players than it is for Ramos players. I'd tend to think Ramos would do as well with getting The Captain from Ironsides, for instance. I wouldn't say it's bad advice, because perfectly solid crews can be made from it. But I wouldn't recommend it as a default Arcanist beginning.