LeperColony

As a non-resser player, I would say that how I'd play against the belles would depend on how they were changed.  If their Ca were reduced to 6, I don't think that would alter my play much.  Six is still enough of a threat to warrant the same risk avoidance strategies I currently use.

However, if Belles had their survivability reduced, that may induce me to target them.  Currently I don't tend to attack Belles when other options present themselves, since it requires so many actions to kill one.

Could always make a compendium Print on Demand.  Assuming they are already correctly formatted for print, it would seem to involve minimal effort or risk.

16 hours ago, MrDeathTrout said:

It's interesting I've pondered trying something similar at some point.   I'm guessing either Smoke & Shadows is not in this list or your friend is using it improperly.  S&S must he carried by a Last Blossom model, but only benefits Last Blossom minions so no one in this list can use its abilities.  Also I often take 2 snipers or 2 archers.  Some times one of each, but usually the terrain favors one over the other.  I take 2 snipers on a wide open board with good fire lanes, or 2 archers on a tightly packed board.  If you take two archers I would definitely take Blot the Sky on someone.  

Yeah, the only upgrade I'm 100% on was Stalking Bisento.

Sometimes he doubles up, but honestly I think he just likes having one each from a cosmetic standpoint. 

The first time he fielded it I wasn't sure, but it does sort of work.  Ototo generally tries to absorb focus, Misaki tries to lurk around the edges and the shooty guys shoot.  It is a bit weak in scheme running and has some trouble with summoners, but Gaining Grounds should help out a bit.

My friend runs a shooty Misaki crew, mostly based around liking the way the various ranged models looks.  It's often something like (with the caveat that since I'm going by memory, there are bound to be inaccuracies, especially in the upgrades): 

Misaki -- 3ss
 +Smoke & Shadows - 1ss
 +Stalking Bisento - 2ss
 +Misdirection - 2ss

Fuhatsu - 10ss
 +Recalled Training - 1ss

Katanaka Sniper - 7ss

Ototo - 10ss
 +Smoke Grenades - 1ss

Samurai - 8ss
 +Favor Of Jigoku - 0ss

Thunder Archer - 7ss

7 hours ago, solkan said:

Making the model suffer Burning +1 doesn't cause any damage to the model yet (or possibly ever, depending on the model).

So, no.

Also, and I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that the damage would then be caused by the Burning Condition, so you couldn't use the original ability's damage based trigger unless that trigger specifically mentioned Burning.

Anyone with obey/take control/bury abilities.  Not because they are necessarily OP or unfair, but I just don't find these kinds of mechanics fun to play against in any game.  I play games to use my stuff, and control based abilities are all designed around denying that.

14 minutes ago, Rogue1 said:

As far as speeding up play my best advice would be to make sure you are thinking through your next move while your opponent is taking their turn and have at least one branch plan in case their move makes your original plan no longer a good idea.

This is great advice for keeping games moving.  It's incredible how uncommon a behavior it is too. 

Being solid on the rules is also a real time saver.  The better you know the basic rules, your crew's special rules, and your opponent's crew's rules, the smoother play will be.  Now, there are so many models in Malifaux, and each one has several special abilities and actions, so nobody can expect you to have memorized everything.  But if you know a particular master is popular in your meta, knowing his or her abilities along with some of the standard models in their crews can be helpful in keeping a lively pace.  And, incidentally, useful for winning too.

I run a lot of convention events, and I am also on the RPG staff of Kublacon, one of the largest conventions on the West Coast.  Generally I plan for a plot that takes roughly half the scheduled time of the event.  That means if the players knew everything at every point and went straight from A to B to C and so on, that it should take about half the event time to complete.  Why do I only plan for a plot that's half as long as the time I have to fill?

In general, I expect...

1)  A significant amount of time to be used in role-playing encounters.  While it may be the case that Jimmy the Batboy only has one piece of information to pass on, the players may not know that or may not figure it out immediately (despite many hints...).

2)  Players to be using time role-playing with each other in character, and deciding what it is they would like to do next. 

3)  The game, at some point, almost invariably goes "off the rails" to a greater or lesser extent, and allowing players the time to pursue and exhaust red herrings or plot outliers in a more organic way is more fulfilling.

I also know that I can use certain stumbling blocks, most notably combat (though there are certainly others) to control the pacing.  If the group is racing ahead of schedule, a speed bump fight can be just the thing to both eat up time and inspire some caution.  Conversely, if they are too slow, eliminating a planned fight or manipulating the results to make it end quicker can get them where they "should" be faster.

Knowledge of Malifaux, either the system or the setting, is not required to play TtB.  That being said, the major draw is the world.  Malifaux takes steampunk Victorian (which on its own might be kind of overdone and hipseterish) and adds a really twisted, Tim Burton-esque darkness.  You can explore horror themes using the Neverborn as a kind of Cthulhu, Indian Jones type pulp adventure, magic, politics, dungeon crawling in the sewers, just to scratch the surface.

Personally I am not a fan of the system, but that's easily worked around too, since Malifaux provides a ready-made mechanic that you can swap in pretty much wholesale.

I definitely think it is worth a try.    

Just to argue from a different point of view, I think you need to factor in how important winning is to you.

Everyone would agree that there are some crew builds that are better than others.  A lot of the advice you're hearing is "play your way and who cares if it's not as good as is it might be" and, just to be clear, that is perfectly valid advice.  However, it assumes that winning is not central to your enjoying the experience.

Now, I know people don't want to admit if winning is important to them, because they worry it makes them look like jerks.  I know for myself, winning is not as important as playing with a crew whose visuals or themes I like, so I end up playing with something of a handicap in certain situations, and that's okay for me.

But if winning is important to you, and there's nothing wrong if it is, then the advice you're getting about optimizing may very well be more relevant to you.

You may want to consider trying Malifaux on Vassal, if having the models is the issue.

I don't think Battle Foam makes those anymore.  It might be that the Wyrd / Battle Foam deal is expiring, because they don't see to be restocking the smaller Malifaux bags in red either.

But the large one in your link is identical in size to the Battle Foam 1520XL.

Sorry everyone, the cold virus has  against me.

But it seems like this conversation has pretty much ground to the inevitable circle, the final fate of all internet discussions.

Appreciate all the opinions from everyone, even those with which I disagree.

I wonder if the Starter Set might not have been better with models that have a more universal appeal.  Outcast cowboy types instead of crazy medical people, for instance.

As a Malifaux player, I like the models, but I know what I'm getting.  As an outsider, I might have been a little "wtf." 

Though, since that's how I got into Malifaux in the first place, flipping through 1E books at my FLGS, maybe they picked the right starter set.

1 hour ago, Tawg said:

Let's be fair, before reading Omenbringer's post I would have never gleaned this from your post.  You have consistently argued that certainty is evil, but Omenbringer presented it in a way that make the mechanics feel poor (e.g. needing a 12+ when all 12/13s are out of the Fate or Twist deck means certain failure).  Every argument you have presented is simply the antithesis of wanting players to be allowed the knowledge of when they can or can not fail.

Omenbringer informed me of the issue in reference purely to the mechanics.  Your arguments only impart the knowledge that you dislike knowing the odds (Thank you Han).

If you missed the several times where I discussed the pure math, there's nothing I can do.  Omenbringer's post even says "As LeperColony also points out...".  I think this is because, to you and the Fixed TN people, I've simply become an oppositional force, so disagreeing with me is reflexive at this point.

1 hour ago, Tawg said:

And random TNs do not fully eliminate this issue, as any player with an AV 2 will find it it impossible to combat an AV 17.  At some point, certainty will exist.  Even in D&D // Pathfinder you are certain you hit on a 20 or miss on a 1 (Assuming you play by either of those rules) no matter your value or the opponents and between those extremes you have a range of possibilities. 

First of all, mechanical certainty and known certainty are not the same.  I've already covered that several times, especially in regard to High TN/Low Probability actions that are known to be automatic, so I won't elaborate further, but feel free to find one of those discussions if you can find fault with them.

1 hour ago, Tawg said:

All the same, I don't find the statistical variance to be more or less compelling.  Like Hippodruid said, if uncertainty is key, simply keeping information concealed creates uncertainty.  Even with your idea to create more variance, if you do not keep the results hidden players can derive the information of what the AVs are, and their theoretical potential to achieve goals.  But assuming you are not hiding results from players by simply relating to them if they miss or hit, then you allow them the chance to understand the values of the encounter well enough to "game" the system. 

You support Fixed TNs.  Variance is obviously not of interest to you.  But I want a less static system, which is why variance is valuable to me.  Also, it's important not to conflate variance and uncertainty, which you do in your quote. 

And it is equally important to understand the difference between statistical uncertainty and informational uncertainty.  If you don't know you'll succeed, that's statistical uncertainty.  If you don't know the result you're competing against (either fixed or variable), that's informational uncertainty.  You can have one without the other, and they're not the same (though, to be sure, they may on occasion follow each other or follow from each other).

Hippodruid derives value from the fact that known TNs communicate the importance of people.  He wants to know someone is important because their Lying TN is high.  That's the opposite of uncertainty.

1 hour ago, Tawg said:

Did they succeed at picking the lock?  Or was the lock made of candy in the first place and left open for them to steal from?

This is called role-playing.

Players can derive expectations from descriptions.  To you and the Fixed TN people, saying "the lock is TN 15" is how you want to communicate qualities.  To me, describing the lock and/or the container, answering players' questions (including does it look solid or made out of candy, is it even locked in the first place) are all ways of communicating a range of expected values that conform to a broad sense of how likely the action is

1 hour ago, Tawg said:

Did they actually dodge that last attack when they only flipped a 4?  Or were numbers flubbed so the campaign didn't end?

They'll never be sure.  That's one of the advantages.  Suppose the alternate, in a fixed TN system.  A particular fated has a miserable day and loses every flip.  It's possible, even when you know the TN (Not sure why Fixed TN people keep pretending like the luck fluctuations aren't possible).  And so the Fated dies to what was supposed to be an insignificant skirmish with speedbump Bayou Gremlins. 

I suppose you just let them die to maintain mechanical rigor?

Glad I have the tools that allow me to circumvent that.

1 hour ago, Tawg said:

Why is the non-combatant Graverobber fending off his foe with near the same results as the resident combat master Bully?

Why is the Graverobber's foe necessarily the same as the resident combat master?  Do you imagine that every police officer is the same?  That they are all equally fit, all spend the same amount of time at the shooting range, all possessed of the same devotion to the laws and their duties?  These natural variations are enough to justify fluctuations.  And, because the scale in Ttb/Malifaux is so small, a point in one direction or the other is a big difference mechanically, but need not be readily apparent.

Also, why do you imagine that every fight is a trial of strength to the death?  Before I begin a combat as the Fate Master, I determine what the point of the combat is.

Is it wading through mooks who are only meant to delay?

Is it a challenging battle?

Is it a battle I expect the Fated to potentially lose?

Then, based on those story elements I can craft appropriate challenge difficulties for all players.

Honestly, you guys talk and talk about how much you love story, and about how hard it is to run combats RAW and how difficult it is to include combat and non-combat characters, then you complain about a mechanic that is already an option in the rule book that can solve the issue.

Just admit you simply want Fixed TNs because you want them.  As I've said many, many times, that's perfectly valid and in fact something I can't possibly argue against.  But don't pretend it gives you all the options of opposing flips, because we've already seen many, many times that it doesn't.

1 hour ago, Tawg said:

More over, with a clear advantage over some of the Party's characters, I feel it would come across as more "gamey" that the "Superior combatants" were not targeting the "Average combatants" to eliminate targets and potential threats, if able.

This again is because you live in this restrictive world where someone's Fixed TN is their value in the world, so it's difficult for you to conceive of a resolution system that is based on fulfilling the story goals.

"Gamey" mechanics are where players make their decisions based on the system.  It's where they confront Lucius because they know they have the Red Joker, and they know Lucius's lying TN.  That's gamey.  The Fate Master adjusting enemies' values to present the Fated with the difficulty level they are led to expect already from other story factors is not gamey.  That's just providing opposition at the expected level, something we've already seen TtB has problems with.

1 hour ago, Tawg said:

At least, IMO, this is a very faulty design concept.  Inequity should be a concern for everyone, and very seldom are things going to be on terms that both parties (The opponents and players) would like to agree to.  But scaling games to fixed % chances based on difficulty just results in something that, IMO, is as bad of an offense as you take Fixed TN to be, it simply makes the game fall into rote mechanics that exist less to drive a story, and more to implement consequences which feel devoid of meaning.

You are 100% correct that inequality should be an important concern.  But it should be a concern in terms of the level of challenge you should expect, not in terms of the actual mechanical effectiveness of that challenge (or, more specifically, the failure of the challenge to correlate to the expected level, either by being too hard or too easy).

Put another way, as I've said many times, not all fights serve the same purpose.  To simplify things, let's pretend you can put all fights into three categories.

1- simple

2- challenging

3- severe

The goal in scaling is to ensure that at any stage in character advancement, these levels represent a similar level of effort, risk and reward to the players.  Not to ensure that the same enemies are always the same level or that fights are always the same.  What's challenging earlier shouldn't necessarily be challenging later.  Enemies can be statistically stronger, and they can also be tactically stronger (in that they can make better decisions). 

When you base the difficulty of combats on the level of challenge the players expect it to be, you're responding by providing a world that broadly conforms to their expectations.  That's how people make decisions.  It's a good thing.

By the way, this philosophy of combat is actually system independent.  Where opposed flips has the advantage over Fixed is in all the variability and uncertainty arguments we've already covered, along with the Fate Master's ability to more believably manipulate or control results as desired.

1 hour ago, Tawg said:

More over, group dynamic demands that even among an individual party, AVs will vary, and short of the "An on level Guild Guard for everyone!" scheme, it can be nearly impossible to cater to individual character needs simply by increasing randomness or altering the mode of opposition (Fixed TN or Fluctuating TN).  All that guarantees is that characters that excel in certain aspects will either have to carry the weight of their party in situations they choose to specialize in (Which isn't unreasonable for social scenes, although for Combats this can be deadly), or will actually have an edge which is typically what an overspecialized character will be want to have (Either the player enjoys Min-Max or the character is made to be unequaled in an aspect for whatever reason).

I think everyone agrees that providing fair content for asymmetrical groups has a certain difficulty associated with it.  But the irony is that, instead of simply admitting, "yeah, if you use opposing flips and you rely on the value of uncertainty you can manage it a little better than a constant and inflexible TN", you go on to say that because it's a problem, it doesn't make sense to bother applying any remedies.

1 hour ago, Tawg said:

Obviously two Fate Decks opposing each other works, as evidenced by Malifaux.  What I doubt is the resource management aspect of the game if you tried to implement a similar design.  With each player controlling a single Character, the need for cards from a Control hand (Or Twist deck) is greatly reduced, and understanding when to allow players to draw a new hand or shuffle their personal deck is highly suspect.  Eventually they will have to deal with the consequences of low card values, potentially against a deck with a higher current average (One that has already seen it's low cards flipped).

Especially considering that no ability or talent in the game was designed around the intent to interact with a player having their own Fate Deck (Or Control Hand), this means there will be a severe lack of interacting with said randomization, which is one of the strengths of Malifaux, in letting players manipulate the deck via Soulstones (Draw 2 discard 2 at start of turn), or potentially to simply stop damage if no other option is present (Soulstone Prevention), or any number of abilities that draw cards or otherwise interact with the deck.  There is also no concept of Discard outlets, such as Defensive or Flurry, which normally account for the use of low cards such that the decks values are not the exclusive use they provide (Simply having cards in Hand is sometimes enough of a benefit).

I don't see any problems with one Fate Deck for the Fated, one for the Fate Master, and the same refresh/redraw rules that currently exist (minus the Fate Master touching the deck, for all the silly reasons Mason mentioned already).  

The fact that the Fated have to deal with low values is not a problem, and I'm not sure why you think it is.  Failure is an assumed part of the game -- you can't succeed at everything.  What I'm doing is introducing a slightly (and I think when the math is all said and done, it probably is slight in the long run, though potentially impactful in short term situations like individual combats/flips) higher degree of volatility, and combining that with the removal of absolute mechanical certainty.  

I've yet to hear a single reason why that's not less gamey.

1 hour ago, Tawg said:

IMO, if randomization is the key to your enjoyment, you're way better off mounting a Malifaux skin onto an existing RPG system you enjoy, and depending on the system, I doubt there would me more work to drum up some appropriate "talents" and "paths" to play in it, as oppose to trying to overhaul the mechanical system of TtB.

Randomization is not the key to my enjoyment, and again, this statement follows in a long line of bizarre assertions that Fixed TN does not involve randomizing.  Avoiding deterministic certainty is something I prefer, however, which is why Fixed TNs are not for me.

Again, not a single person has been able to identify why Fixed TNs don't work exactly like I think they do, for the simple reason that they do work exactly like I think they do.

You and the people who like Fixed TNs derive value from knowing the Bayou Gremlin with a 10 is always a 10.

You and the people who like Fixed TNs derive value from knowing that Shifty Guy with Evidence is important because his lying TN is 17.

You and the people who like Fixed TN derive value from playing TtB "the way it is meant to be played," where Fixed TNs are relatively workable.

All that is fine.  But they are reasons why I don't like Fixed TN.

1 hour ago, Omenbringer said:

As I pointed out in my earlier post, this is a very big issue with the Static resolution system and a major, major difference between other systems.

Dice are true random number generators (having no memory of previous results), where as a deck of cards is not (it definitely has a memory of previous results). Sure at first a fresh deck can generate any number between 0 to 14, however once the first card is drawn the deck begins skewing results (this is why so many Malifaux players keep the Black Joker safely in their hand when able to, instead of allowing it to run free in the deck).

As LeperColony also points out, this creates situations where actions can be guarantied to either absolutely succeed or fail with 0 variability (and no way for players to change it unless they can get the deck to cycle). Again using the high end of the non-fated Rankings, if the players (or the combat specialist) need a 12 or higher to succeed in affecting the non-fated, then once the last 12+ has been drawn from the deck, the players absolutely (with 100% certainty) can not succeed from the deck until it has been reshuffled (if able they could potentially cheat, but again, once the 12+'s are gone from their twist deck they have to wait until it shuffles as well). The same can happen at the low end of the scale. As a Fate Master or Player, I dont want to know that no matter what I do I am guarantied to fail (no matter how trivial the task) or succeed (despite being normally impossible).

The thing is, no matter how many times we point this out, none of the Fixed TN supporters bother to address it.

If certainty is desirable to you, then Fixed TN is your game.  But if it's not, then let's hear why it's wrong to use a system that circumvents it.

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

You're really stuck on this "combat isn't challenging" thing.  It's not.  That's cool, we accept that.  Hell, I said it.  Every one of us agrees that the system is breakable.  Setting arbitrary difficulty is no less breakable without adjusting on a player-by-player basis to levels that players cannot attain.

It happened in my game because it kind of turned into an arms race.  And that's fine.  My players draw satisfaction or amusement from big numbers (the 9 guy is seriously doing it because he thinks it's funny in the context of Malifaux) or from tacit competition with the guy next to them by and large.  They also did it in preparation in case something nasty did come along (there's a big threat that's been around since the first session, but they haven't fought it yet, and they may never).  Personally, I don't think you should want an AV higher than 6 or 7, because there's a lot to do in the game that my players haven't explored, but if they don't want to, should I directly bar them from taking combat skills?  That's being pretty crappy to my players, not to mention it does break some of the rules of the game (Pursuits can often pick combat-related skills even if I don't offer them).  You suggest (and reinforce further on) a system where no matter how the players design their characters, they are slaves to the flip of a pair of cards, with only a nominal ability to cheat.

 

You mean I'm stuck on your admission that Fixed TNs don't work?  In a discussion about whether or not they work? 

Yeah... 

Why you continue to argue in the face of this I don't understand.  Like I said, every single post on how great fixed TNs are are the same:

1)  They don't work.

2)  I love that.

How about we just both agree to let this point go now, since it's not moving anywhere.  Fixed TNs are easily gameable.  If you agree to not game them (your "social contract" then you produce a consistent range of expected values that are workable. 

So, again, if you "play the way we mean you to" it's fine.  

As for the Fated being slaves to flips, first of all I'm not sure you, or those with the same preference for Fixed, like to pretend there isn't a random element to it.  You can get just as screwed using Fixed.  The cards can fail to come just as often. 

What's more, it's telling that producing a game that scales with the capabilities of the Fated and presents a constant challenge level while the Fated advance is, to you, somehow troubling.

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

Values are relative, but you can't show me a Fated character that can arrive at an AV14 for anything.  The road stops at 11 (and that for social skills), unless that's also something you plan on changing.  AV 14 falls pretty close to the margin of impossible that you claim variable TNs do so much to negate.  Especially if you only have the one person who has 9 .  God forbid the other Fated try to gang up on the 14.  Sure, if you're hiding the flips, you can make a few attacks get by even if they miss, or fudge a few to not completely destroy the lesser Fated, but the numbers will tell in the end.  You're not fixing anything, you're just making the goalposts mobile.

The values for Fated may stop at 11.  But as the Fate Master, values can be arbitrarily high (or low).  Now, you may exhibit total devotion to the rules as written that you're unable to conceive of abandoning or altering them in even the slightest regard, but I personally place the integrity of the rules beneath the enjoyment of the players.

That's just me.

As for making goalposts mobile, that is fixing something.  It is, in fact, the oldest solution in GMing (aside from hand waving, I suppose).  It's even the solution in the TtB rule book, and it's the solution Mason mentioned earlier when he talked about how subsequent books produced enemies with varying levels of (set) AVs. 

What I do is make the goal post mobile, provide a consistent challenge level to my players that scales as they grow so that things that are meant to be easy are always easy, things that are meant to be tough are always tough and things that are meant to be very difficult are always very difficult.  But while I move the goal posts, I also manage to repaint all the lines and rescale the entire stadium so the players feel like they're still playing at the old one.

The SCALE of the game changes, but the challenges remain CONSTANTLY APPROPRIATE.  In D&D terms:

At level 1, giant rats are easy, kolbolds are tough and orcs are murderous.

At level 6, giant rats are pointless, kolbolds are trivial, orcs are easy, trolls are tough and giants are murderous.

At level 11 orcs are trivial, trolls are easy, giants are tough and vampires are murderous.

The characters advance in the world.  Their capabilities improve.  But the game is able to provide a constant level of meaningful challenges.

Again, I concede it's possible your games are simply a race to reach the end stage of whatever advancement mechanic there is, and then destroy everything with printed stats.  That's a perfectly valid method of play.

But my games are about providing players with meaningful and appropriate challenges.

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

So you didn't miss it, but you just chose to ignore my acknowledgement of it?  Seriously.  I've said twice now that a Master-level threat would probably result in death.  Possibly for all of them, but definitely for at least a few.  This is the third time I will say that.  No Masters to fight.  Masters are plot devices, not combat challenges.  If a player genuinely wants to fight a Master, I won't stop them if they can arrive at that situation.  But that's on them.  Consequences happen.

Didn't miss it, resolved it several times.  We know Master level threats result in death.  What part of high TNs are equally broken as low ones? 

In the interest of reducing post lengths, I'm just going to ignore this particular part of the discussion going forward since, for what ever reason, there doesn't seem to be any movement on it.

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

Sounds challenging, since everyone has a level-appropriate enemy to fight.

So you think that players won't intuit, instinctively that something is going on when a character with an AV 2 is hitting as much or nearly as often as another character with AV 7?  This is playing by fiat.  You are introducing variation within base archetypes, something that nothing outside of level-scaling video games do.  Your opponent magically being on your level (and they just so happened to single you out of everyone else in this fight), making fights fair for everyone diminishes the way some people want to play the game.  Why should a small woman who's held little more than a kitchen knife in her life be on par with my aforementioned wushu master?  Why have stats or AVs at all if all we're gonna do is flip two cards and see who winds up higher?

The woman with the kitchen knife is not on par with your wushu master.  If your wushu master wants to murder domestic housekeepers, he can.  The goal is not to make every fight challenging.  The goal is to make challenging opposition challenging, and that's what you've already admitted you're unable to do.

As for whether the players figure it out or not, they very well may.  Or at least they may think they do.  Remember, as Fate Master I decide not only the difficulty of the encounter, but also its purpose.  If the purpose of the fight is to provide a meaningful challenge to the players from a mechanical standpoint, I will structure the enemies statistics and tactics in a different manner than if the purpose of the fight is to imply danger or gum up the works (say by slowing the pacing).  This is the value of uncertainty. 

If I decide a combat is supposed to be a certain challenge level, there's no reason why I can't craft mechanical solutions to meet that requirement.  Your inability to consider the game outside its set textual limits is really quite curious.

In your world, perhaps, it makes sense that Bayou Gremlins are always TN 10, because the book says so.  If that works for you, great.  But I prefer a more fluid and living dynamic.

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

Fixed TN is knowing that your opponent will throw rock, sure.  No argument there.  However, there is still no guarantee that you can throw Paper, because it's not Rock-Paper-Scissors.  It's an arbitrary system with a range of values that either beat or fail to meet Rock (let's say tree, timber, lumber, pulp all fail against Rock and paper, note, essay, and journal all succeed).  If a Fated draws 1, 2, and 3 from their Twist Deck (which I've seen), they are beholden to the cruel whims of the Fate Deck, which is every bit as variable as any other deck of cards, no matter the TN.

My argument is just as strong if you know you can't throw paper.  Certainty is the enemy.  Not success.  I'm also glad you've finally acknowledged that Fixed TNs include random elements.  I was beginning to really wonder.

The problem with Fixed TN is that because you know a rock is coming, you know 100% whether or not you'll have paper.  Either you have it in your Twist Hand to cheat or you know the likelihood that you'll have it in the deck.

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

Variable TN is however just Rock-Paper-Scissors.  You don't know what your opponent is doing until it's done, and you still might not be able to do anything about it anyway, but you'll never know no matter what.  I mean, eventually I hope you tell your player if they're failing or succeeding, and hopefully before they have to cheat Fate.  But if they cheat a 13 and fail, that's gonna be a mightily sour note (again, I've seen it happen and I'm not proud of it), unless you just tell them "don't bother" in no uncertain terms, which you seem to be against.  Also, number-smart players will be able to figure out AVs by the differences in cards if you do show your flips, so to keep the other arbitrary values of enemies safe, they can't even know that.

Eventually I tell them whether they're failing or succeeding?  Why, in your mind, does it take me so long to tell them it didn't work and to offer them the chance to cheat fate?  I'm really curious about this one.

The irony here is you've conceded everything about the difference between the two dynamics.  Why do we need to discuss it further?  I mean, I know we will, but why?

We both AGREE on that the difference in our great game of R-P-S is that in Fixed you KNOW your opponent has rock and so all you need to do is have paper and win, whereas in opposed you don't know what your opponent has, so you have to make a decision based on your capabilities, what you know about his, what you have in your Twist Hand, how important the circumstance is, what happens if you fail, what you stand to gain if you succeed... you know, role-playing.

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

The game works, wherever it is.  What fails is expectations of players (Fatemasters included).

In other words, play it like we mean you to, and it's fine.  I get it, that's your defense.  That's fine.  But do we really have to keep arguing about it?

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

@Sunspotter answered this pretty elegantly, so I'll just posit this, instead.

Why not?

If someone is as smart as a human can be and can argue so well that most lawyers will just throw up their hands and drop the charges as soon as they step into the courtroom, why shouldn't they be able to obtain that signed confession by Fate or a Twist of Fate?  This is a moment you design a campaign around, not something you wake up in the morning and decide to do.  I want to shake that party's hand.  That's an achievement.  That's a goal.  And even if the Black Joker shows up, or the character has to discard that last 13 due to a discard effect and fails, I still want to shake that party's hand.  It's not easy to force a hostile confrontation with the Secretary to the Governor General of Malifaux, and it's harder still to fail and have to accept that.  Because sometimes there are no winners.  Because sometimes, bad things happen, and sometimes, you go in with an 11 in hand thinking it will be enough, and it turns out that it's not, and all you can do is flip the top card of the Fate Deck and hope.  And that, to me, is better than never knowing at all, or never having a shot and not knowing it.

This is elegance to you?  What Sunspotter did was respond to an entirely different question.  The point of the entire thread was about the problems with high TNs, and how certainty is one of the issues.  See Omenbringer's great post on that, because that's the issue.

However, because I don't mind, I'll also address Sunspotter's point.

If I've designed the whole campaign around a moment, I don't then make that moment dependent on having the Red Joker.  I mean, seriously, does the climax of your entire campaign rise or fall on a 1.8% flip?  Or having it in your hand?

The issue is not that the players can defeat and expose Lucius.  If that's the spine of the game, that's something that will likely happen.  That's something the campaign is built around.  It is TN INDEPENDENT, or at least it can be, depending on your play style.  If the group and the play style is "let the dice fall where they may," then you can shoot it out straight up.  If they are narrative and want to tell a happy ending, you can accommodate that, and if they are narrative and are telling a tragedy, that works too. 

This whole "you go in with an 11 in hand thinking it will be enough" is curious, because you KNOW if it will be enough.  At this point I don't know what we have to gain by further discussion.

There isn't a single element of Fixed TN that doesn't work exactly like I've said it does.  You're just saying you're fine with that.  And that's great.  It really, really is, and I mean that 100% unsarcastically. 

But it's not fine for me.

What I don't get is you keep talking about how much you love storytelling, and how TtB is a storytelling game, then you defend TNs because they're gamey and you like that. 

You've already said you like knowing someone is important because their TN is high.  Not because of how they are described, or the position they hold in the world, or how the Fated meet them.  But because their TN is high.

Then above, you've just said that you want your entire campaign to rise or fall on having an 11.  In a system where the Fated KNOW 100% the odds of having an 11.

Seriously, how many of these examples will it take before you're willing to admit you just want the comfort of mechanical determinism?

You're probably not wrong, but if I were ever to play a gun line I'd want to do something ridiculous like this.  I'm a lot more interested in trying to get an unstoppable Rail Golem of Doom list together anyway.

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

So trying to convince Lucius to take off his mask and sign a confession stating that he's working with the Neverborn might be as high as, say, a 23 or more, which a 10 probably won't hit.  Also that statistic is suspect at best as it involves a fresh deck with no cards out of it, which is likely to happen once or twice a game (not to say that it can't, just that it's not necessarily significant).

I also wanted to point something out about the math here.  As cards are spent, it's possible to calculate the odds with increasing precision.  This is why casinos use multiple deck shoes for Blackjack (explaining the math here is impractical, but any internet guide on poker or blackjack odds will do the trick, if needed). 

Keep in mind, if we know exactly what Lucius' TN is, not only does it allow us the opportunity to tell how likely we are to flip what we need, it gives us an absolute ability to tell if we can do it with our Twist Hand.

10 isn't enough?  We need a 13?  Well, we have the Red Joker in hand.  Let's go expose Lucius, with a 100% success rate.

That's the way you want players to make their decisions? 

Really?

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

The issue here isn't that "you're not playing it the way you're supposed to."  It that you're not even bothering to give it a chance.  You read some stuff, do a bit of math, and decide it doesn't work.  I take the same issue with people who dismiss foods outright because they have an idea that they don't like certain ingredients.  True, it's a subjective judgement, and it's biased, especially if cajoling is used, but saying it needs fixed or isn't good without actually seeing it work is prejudicial.

No, that's exactly the issue.  Every single Fixed TN supportive post has been the same:

1) An admission that the players can easily break the game if they want to. (your combat isn't challenging line, for instance)

2) that's okay because you're not supposed to want to.

The reality is Fixed TN is a Goldilocks game.  It has a spot where actions are trivial (low AV opponents) and a spot where actions are exceedingly difficult (high AV opponents), with only a sweet spot in the middle that correlates to the same values as the Fated.

Note that these are value independent.  A Fated could have an AV of 100 and there is still going to be a range where actions are trivial (TN 106.  Should be 104, but all the really whack things out) and where they are exceedingly difficult (TN say, 112 or so, just because of all the I gave.  They really throw off the math).   

Now, you could say that, in the long run, the odds of flip resolution would be the same, and you'd be correct.  However, in any given circumstance, RPG rolls/flips rarely have the sample size to reach long run certainty.  In every situation, you're looking at higher variability.  And two, since the TN is not set and is not the same every time, you don't know exactly what it is you need to do.

The idea that I need to play it to know if I'll like it is spurious.  We all agree on its characteristics.  Not a single person is claiming Fixed TN works differently than how I think it does.  Just some people are saying that's why it's good.

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

Gaming variable numbers is also possible.  A character with an AV9 and ain't gonna sneeze too hard no matter what you throw at them (I have this character).

He'll sneeze at AV 14 .  Values are relative (see my discussion of AV 100 above).  The problem isn't that AV 6 is so great.  The problem is the game isn't meant for you to have AV 6, when you can (and, for many people, likely will) at the start of the game.  That's what's meant by "it works if you play it like we meant you too," and it's what you meant when you said combat doesn't challenge the combat characters in your group.

What's more, he'll sneeze at Mr. Bad Ass Reputation and huge shiney gun because he doesn't know his exact TN and the exact statistical odds of beating him.

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

So when you're playing a game, do you just want to kind of walk through it?  Breeze past everything, never be challenged?  I don't.  My players don't.  At the start of our sessions, I presented them with a good distribution of fights, a few enforcers and several minions.  It worked then, they felt like they were accomplishing something just by surviving, and everyone was happy.  (-snip long explanation of the details LC)

Where did I say I don't challenge my players?  This entire thread has been predicated on the fact that opposed flips are more meaningful challenges than Fixed TNs, for all the reasons I and Omenbringer already established.

My critique was when you admitted up front that the system was unable to handle what they were most interested in doing, so you worked around it.  Now, that is what good Fate Masters do.  But that's hardly a selling point for the system.

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

You have no idea.  I have three people who prefer immersive roleplay, two of whom also want the big numbers for the fightings, two people who pretty much want to play it as an open-world adventure game, one of whom likes playing their character, too, and another one who does what he does because he finds it hilarious, and all this after I told them that the game I was planning would not be solely combat-based but that it would have investigative and social elements to it.  I've done what I can to morph it to their expectations.  Hindsight being 20/20, six Fated is probably too many, but I dug that hole for myself.  Critical strike and knuckledusters, too.  Stupid, stupid knuckledusters.

I definitely sympathize.  Trying to come up with challenges for characters with vastly different capabilities and interests is tough in any system.  But that's yet another advantage of the opposed flips.

Suppose your Fated run into a guild patrol.  You can adjust the difficulty by making it so-happen that the combat characters are fighting experienced guilders and the non-combat aren't, and nobody needs to know.

The minute you say one guard has a TN of 14 and the other a TN of 10, the jig is up.  Particularly tactically minded players will even take advantage of that, to preferentially target the TN 10 enemies.  But with opposing flips, your ability to manipulate the difficulty level behind the scenes is far more powerful (in that it exists at all), and less ruinous to immersion. 

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

And I suppose you missed the part where I said "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)."  And that's cool.

Not only did I not miss this, I specifically addressed this by pointing out (again) Omenbringer's analysis on high TNs being as much of an issue as low TNs, just on the other side.

Just like something shouldn't be trivial, it also shouldn't be virtually impossible, unless the idea is to communicate that it shouldn't be tried at all (I mean, in the end, if you want to charge the dragon, I guess you can...).  And this is where another problems with high TNs come into play.  If you communicate that the TN is "you need a Red Joker" because the action isn't supposed to succeed, and someone has a Red Joker, they know 100% that they can pull it off.

However, if you describe this virtually impossible thing in virtually impossible terms, the Fated may still decide to do it, and he may not, but his decision at that point is more meaningful.  Note that this is true even if the opposed flip virtually impossible thing is easier than the Fixed TN Red Joker, due to uncertainty.

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

The system you propose isn't any more mechanically sound than the one that is in place.  Like @solkan said, you're just introducing a higher level of variability to results, which is something that can still be gamed (Mr. 9 says hello again), and if you drive it to a point where the variability doesn't matter (Masters still receive a handicap to their flips to put some numbers out of reach, and Peons have no discernable AV to begin with), you just come right back to square one where some things are impossible, which as we've established is fun for no one, and some things only ever so rarely fail. 

Except that it is.  I already dispensed with Mr. 9 earlier, when he met his big brother Mr. 14.  And, they both saw a glimpse of the future when I discussed Mr. 100.  Why would I ever drive it to a point where the variability doesn't matter?  They variability and the uncertainty are the entire point. 

It may very well be that statistically the "ideal challenge level," for lack of a better word, is exactly the same in fixed and opposed flip.  In fact, that is likely.  But that would still make flipping superior because the variability and the uncertainty make it less gamey. 

Think about it like this: 

Fixed TN is rock-paper-scissors, where you KNOW your opponent will pick rock.  The only question is whether or not you have paper.  If you have paper in your hand, or the math says you're very likely to get paper, then you KNOW you will win (or, more precisely, you know exactly how likely it is you'll win). 

Opposed flip is rock-paper-scissors where you suspect that there's a reasonably good chance that your opponent will pick rock, but he may not, and even if he does, the rock he picks may be too big for the paper in your hand, so even that won't automatically save you.

That's the difference.

1 hour ago, hippodruid said:

If your players aren't going to try to game the system, then I applaud your choice of associates and seethe with envy.  But you also don't need a variable resolution system, in that case.

I never said my players weren't going to try to game the system.  I'm the one who says players are likely to figure out the math in the first place!

But I also object to the idea that maxing something is necessarily gaming the system.  Just because you have a 6 in what you want your character to be good at, it doesn't mean you're some crazy power gamer (there's also nothing wrong with power gaming, if that's your thing).  You can do it automatically if you want.  To put it another way, you have to intentionally avoid it if you don't want it.  That's an affectation.

You may very well say that the game works at AV 4.  That may even be true.  But then, if that's how the system is supposed to work, it's the system's fault if it doesn't work at AV 6.

1 hour ago, Rurouni Benshin said:

Hans seems a bit out of place here... Is there a reason why you wanted to try him specifically?

The real reason, reason is that I like his model.

But, Envy can have him Focus for just a card, and Hans has a bunch of nice triggers.  and his no randomizing could be nice for when people get into melee, for spreading slow.  And if Colette prompts him, it allows him to redeploy which is one of his biggest issues.

In the end, he may not be a good idea, but like Anna Loveleace, it's something I'm interested in trying at some point.

51 minutes ago, solkan said:

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?

You seem to forget, it already includes such a rule.  I was just wondering why it only ever applied to combat. 

51 minutes ago, solkan said:

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."

"All that does" (assuming that's true, which it isn't) is what it does.  Creating statistical variances creates options.  So not only does opposing flips retain the long run statistical reliability of Fixed TN, it also frees players from the prison of absolute mechanical determinism. 

But the thing is, creating uncertainty also creates options, even if the results remain the same.  The mere fact that you don't know what it is you'll need in every single instance reduces the ability of players to game the system.  It also means you won't know before hand if you can automatically succeed.  Say you know that the enemy has a lying TN of 17, and you have an AV of 4.  If you have the Red Joker (either flipped or, even better, in your Twist Hand), you know you can sniff him out.  You have an automatic success in an action where you should only succeed ~9% of the time.  Doing something because you know mechanically you'll automatically succeed (or not doing it because you know you'll fail) is gamey.

If you have an AV 6 vs TN 10, you know you have a ~77% chance of victory.  If you flip a 4, you win.  However, if you have an AV 6 and you're opposed flipping against an AV 2, you know you have a ~30% advantage, or to put it another way, you know you have a ~80 chance of winning.  However, you don't know if you've won just because you have flipped a 4.  Now, in combat this may be slightly less of a factor (after all, you know when you've punched someone), but in non-combat flips, like trying to tell if someone is lying, then it becomes about role-playing and in character interactions between the Fated and the Fate Master.  And isn't that a good thing?

You obviously prefer a lock step, mechanical world.  That's fine, it really is.  I note you didn't bother to address how mechanical and gamey your whole "knowing the importance of people by their TN is", but I don't blame you.

51 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.

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

and

3.  The required rules were very simple.

All reasons to include flips for non-combat actions.  In reality, the entire system should have been based on Malifaux in the first place.  That it wasn't was a dubious philosophical choice, the reasons behind which are obscure and were the entire point of this thread to begin with.

51 minutes ago, solkan said:

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.

Unopposed skill checks don't involve interactions.  Even in the system I propose, I'd probably use Fixed TNs for climbing a wall.  Why?  Because it's a wall.  You don't interact with it, you either scale it or go around it (or through it, I suppose). 

Not even sure what your flavors argument is about.  I'm basing my points on systemic reasons.  And I'm having to field a bunch of "but I like the current system."  Which is, as I've said many times, entirely fine.  It's just not a reason to use it.

I personally would never run a spam list like that because I don't like them.  But it might work, though getting LoS on enough targets to justify building your entire list around that many shots and nothing else is questionable. 

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?   

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.

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 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  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 , 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.