Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

V20 Potence rules

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Meldok View Post
    I don't get why you hate on D&D so much. It works fine for it intended purpose and that is tactical oriented combat which is way more complex than most other systems. Granted I only can speak up till Pathfinder, because 4.0 was a huge disaster and didn't play 5.0 yet. But it still does it job well.
    I do not hate D&D, I just think it's horrible and clunky as a game system. I've been playing D&D on 2nd, 3rd, 3.5 ed plus 3.5 pathfinder and it has always been clunky and nonsensical. I'm not talking about the settings, mind you, only about the game mechanics. You say it does its job well, I can't see how because to me it's all a mess of useless calculus, redundant stats and tables that for all their complexity do not offer game balance, realism OR superheroism. Yes, I could be more specific but I'd rather have a different topic, it's OT like hell here.

    My point is: derivative stats only complicate things. =P

    And neither my nor your suggestion are a way of fixing it but eliminating extra successes gives another discipline the upper hand.
    Not at all, it would only remove the overwhelming advantage of a dex-based combat. Celerity 4 and a rifle (8 dice attack) against Stamina 3+ Fortitude 4 are still meant to cause some damage and if you want the auto-soak against them (assuming you're using the DA rules, otherwise no auto) you can still do it only once each turn. Celerity-man is spending 4 blood, Fortitude-man 1 and he's going to take a few lethals at least.

    Ranged attack maneuvers (like autofire) may be reworked a bit and used to add extra damages to ranged attacks as a mean to compensate for certain high soak pools. Also, having high dex or attack rolls won't be useless because it would mean being able to perform harder attack maneuvers (called shots, solar plexus punches, etc) and inflicting debuffs on your oppnents.

    Make it a melee attack, we can have a damage pool of Str+1 of Beast Claws that you only soak with Fortitude; so it might be 4-5 damage dice against fortitude 4? TBF protean 2 should be compared to Fortitude 2 but even as a 4 is quite balanced in my book. Wanna do more damage, raise STR; and we might finally have some fighters that actually consider the stat rather than just dumping every XP in dexterity.

    It may not solve everything but at this time dexterity is really, really too powerful.
    Last edited by Maris Streck; 12-05-2017, 03:32 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Phoebus View Post
      Sure, I get that. It's just not something I particularly like - hence my proposal.
      Another option is to steal a page from VtR.

      In VtR, every Clan has at least one physical Discipline as in-Clan, and ghouls automatically get a dot in a physical Discipline that their initial Domitor favors.

      This would require some reworking (since not every VtM Clan has a physical in their spread), but it's probably simpler than completely restructuring how in-Clan works. It resolves the basic dissonance while being a relatively straight forward approach.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Heavy Arms
        "Life's not fair," the Rule Zero Fallacy, and "but this game is worse!" strung together in one post? It's like a trifecta of bad game design commentary.
        Actually, assuming that I understand what you mean by "Rule Zero Fallacy", my use of the Golden Rule was just my way of saying "I'm not trying to tell you how to play your game", but if you'd rather have a solid discussion of 'good game design' then here you go. Your categorization of my other arguments completely misses their points. Am I to understand that you feel that any use of the phrase "life's not fair" immediately invalidates the argument when it comes to game design? If so, then I should be free to complain about the 'unfairness' of my Malkavian being beat up by the local Brujah bully because his disciplines aren't as useful in combat, right?

        As for "this game is worse", that's a misrepresentation as well. My point was that it is impossible to 'balance' two 'powers' or whatever when they are not entirely an apples-to-apples comparison, i.e. when they have so many other uses that can't be compared, and thus by trying to balance them in such a way is entirely arbitrary. My use of the example of Aberrant was that because there are so many more powers, and that they are more pronounced in power levels when compared with VtM, that this little fact is far easier to see (or alternatively, would likely bother people who prefer to balance apples and oranges even moreso than VtM does). So I was not trying to say "this problem is o.k. because in Aberrant it's worse", but rather that in neither case is it really a problem, just that it is easier to see in the latter.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Murdoc View Post
          I guess you didn't understand my point. My point was, so what? Yes, Celerity is powerful, that's the point. It doesn't make everything else useless because not many vampires have it.
          And why not? Vampires are not restricted to clan disciplines and the three physical disciplines are noted to be easy to learn. If we assume that vampires are at all interested in combat survivability, they'd be stupid not to learn a few dots of Celerity the first chance they get. Which leads us back to "everyone who's trying to be efficient wants to buy this one ability", which is a sign of bad game design.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Murdoc View Post
            Actually, assuming that I understand what you mean by "Rule Zero Fallacy", my use of the Golden Rule was just my way of saying "I'm not trying to tell you how to play your game",...
            Which is irrelevant to my terse and snarky objection.

            It doesn't matter how much you genuinely believe in, "I'm not trying to tell you how to play your game," because you have made it clear that you believe you are the arbiter of objective rules analysis such that if you say something doesn't matter, and they play in a fashion that assumes it does matter, they're playing wrong because your opinions elevated to fact is clearly more important than fun.

            Your categorization of my other arguments completely misses their points.
            No, it highlights their fallacious point; because they all have the same point. They're all about shutting down disagreement with irrelevancies to the actual matter at hand. Engaging directly with them is largely pointless because their point it to distract rather than to discussion.

            Am I to understand that you feel that any use of the phrase "life's not fair" immediately invalidates the argument when it comes to game design?
            Use? No. You can say invalid things and still make a valid point around it.

            Life not being fair doesn't matter to game design, because part of games on an essential level is that humans enjoy games with at least a successful perception of fairness. Nobody expects perfection (a fundamental issue with your posts is you are creating a false dichotomy around phrasing things in a binary fashion that are not), but the closer two things can be compared (like Fortitude and Potence) the greater the expectation of fairness, because that makes the game more fun. And the game being fun is what matters. Life not being fair doesn't matter to game design, even when designing rules for a game where the reality for the characters is far from fair. Mythical perfection in Discipline balance would not create a fair setting, because the setting would be full of characters with more stuff than other characters.

            This is why the "Dexterity is king" complaint about the WoD rules has been around for over 25 years. The way the system over-values Dexterity compared to other Attributes diminishes the perception of fairness, and thus the fun of the game.

            My point was that it is impossible to 'balance' two 'powers' or whatever when they are not entirely an apples-to-apples comparison, i.e. when they have so many other uses that can't be compared, and thus by trying to balance them in such a way is entirely arbitrary.
            First, see above aside about the false dichotomy here around perfection.

            Second, the appeal to another game doesn't really matter to what your core point is really. You cited Aberrant as something "we should play" (because you apparently think you're the only one here you has?) to see true imbalance.... while saying it doesn't actually represent true imbalance. You admit in your own language that bringing up Aberrant was actually an irrelevant distraction, not an illustration of a point.

            So I was not trying to say "this problem is o.k. because in Aberrant it's worse", but rather that in neither case is it really a problem, just that it is easier to see in the latter.
            Accept it clearly is a problem, because people have complained about how poorly powers are handled in both games since their first printings. You might not care, but other people do care. And they care enough that official revisions of the rules either have or are in the process of being done to address these complaints. The people making the games don't agree with you that these complaints are invalid.

            Comment

            Working...
            X