1) I never said it broken, just that it gives limited choices.

2) According to game theory, not my opinion but actual academic study, the game limits viable choices.

3) It would be more correct to say that it is your opinion that game theory should be ignored when designing a game (or more specifically when designing a cost/reward system in the game). It is my opinion that this is a dumb opinion for you to have.

I'd like to start off by saying while it wasn't directed at you I'm not surprised in the least you took it that way.

1. Never said you didn't say that, other people have. It does indeed give limited choices in the sense that everyone can take everything but at a price, if you call that limiting.

2. I want to see some actual citation from now on from these game theorists and academic studies before I take them under consideration.

3. It is my opinion that I don't really care what you think of my opinion on really well anything at this point. You've proven time and time again on these boards that you only like to be argumentative and negative really for the sake of it and have been entirely negative to people or at least goaded them for no reason than your own amusement.

A 60% chance, under ideal circumstances, is not good. It's autism.

Only if you let people roll Fellowship for successfully buying milk at the grocery store.

1) I never said it broken, just that it gives limited choices.

2) According to game theory, not my opinion but actual academic study, the game limits viable choices.

3) It would be more correct to say that it is your opinion that game theory should be ignored when designing a game (or more specifically when designing a cost/reward system in the game). It is my opinion that this is a dumb opinion for you to have.

I'd like to start off by saying while it wasn't directed at you I'm not surprised in the least you took it that way.

1. Never said you didn't say that, other people have. It does indeed give limited choices in the sense that everyone can take everything but at a price, if you call that limiting.

2. I want to see some actual citation from now on from these game theorists and academic studies before I take them under consideration.

3. It is my opinion that I don't really care what you think of my opinion on really well anything at this point. You've proven time and time again on these boards that you only like to be argumentative and negative really for the sake of it and have been entirely negative to people or at least goaded them for no reason than your own amusement.

And I won't lie and say that I don't like arguing on here, but I've posted up my thoughts on house rules and given people advice on running certain parts of the game. I just enjoy arguing with people and presenting an alternate opinion.

And here's a lovely basic guide to game theory with helpful videos.

http://www.gametheory101.com/#2915

I assume that when you comment on how people feel about a topic you will now be directly citing them or a summarizing study, correct?

1) I never said it broken, just that it gives limited choices.

2) According to game theory, not my opinion but actual academic study, the game limits viable choices.

3) It would be more correct to say that it is your opinion that game theory should be ignored when designing a game (or more specifically when designing a cost/reward system in the game). It is my opinion that this is a dumb opinion for you to have.

I'd like to start off by saying while it wasn't directed at you I'm not surprised in the least you took it that way.

1. Never said you didn't say that, other people have. It does indeed give limited choices in the sense that everyone can take everything but at a price, if you call that limiting.

2. I want to see some actual citation from now on from these game theorists and academic studies before I take them under consideration.

3. It is my opinion that I don't really care what you think of my opinion on really well anything at this point. You've proven time and time again on these boards that you only like to be argumentative and negative really for the sake of it and have been entirely negative to people or at least goaded them for no reason than your own amusement.

You directed it generally to people arguing one side, so I explained my personal position, rather than speaking for others.

And I won't lie and say that I don't like arguing on here, but I've posted up my thoughts on house rules and given people advice on running certain parts of the game. I just enjoy arguing with people and presenting an alternate opinion.

And here's a lovely basic guide to game theory with helpful videos.

http://www.gametheory101.com/#2915

I assume that when you comment on how people feel about a topic you will now be directly citing them or a summarizing study, correct?

Aside from having both having "game" in the name, I don't much see how game theory - which is a fairly lofty subject - has particularly much to do with role playing games, primarily because RPGs aren't a strict mathematical or strategic exercise. It's one thing to apply game theory to a game of pure strategy like chess, it's another to try and apply it to a genre of games that is wildly inconsistent in design, concept, and even purpose, and which primarily use mechanics to add a degree of variability to narrative outcomes (that is, the otherwise-entirely-abstract circumstances determined by the narrative side of the game). RPGs are in a lot of ways to a storytelling (and story-creation) medium as much as a game, and have as much in common with novels and movies as they do with the strategy games that their mechanical elements evolved from. Consequently, there is a lot about RPGs in general that is inherently irrational, driven more by emotion and creative impulse than by analysis and reason.

Further, trotting out a field of scientific study in order to tell people that they're having fun wrong comes across - to me at least - as being rude and more than a little bit condescending.

I'm sure you'll come along in a minute with a reason for why I'm wrong as well. Fundamentally, I don't care - I see RPGs as more akin to art than science, and while statistical and logical analysis have an important place in game design and development, they are far too frequently overstated, particularly on the internet in the service of people trying to win arguments.

Years of experience have taught me that, in practice, the 'feel' of a game is often a greater concern than basically anything else - a game can be incredibly well-designed, but if it doesn't 'feel' right, it won't work. Epic 40,000 and D&D 4th edition are both good examples of this - Epic 40k was derided and dismissed as being too abstract, losing the 'flavour' of previous editions. D&D4, according to many detractors, didn't "feel like D&D", yet remains the most balanced and mathematically stable version of that game to date (in practice, the differences between "underpowered" and "overpowered" characters in a given D&D4 game are tiny compared to the power discrepancies between classes found in previous editions).

To an issue of personal experience, when devising the autofire rules for Mutant Chronicles 3rd edition, a choice had to be made between two versions of the rule, both of which were statistically identical, but one of which involved the rolling of more dice, adding uncertainty to the situation, while the other was an automatic bonus. The majority of playtesters asked about this responded in favour of the dice-based version of the rule, even though it slowed down play slightly more and contained a non-trivial chance to give no benefit or even impose negative consequences. compared to the flat bonus. The dice felt better. than the bonus. Similar can be seen in the response to D&D5 - the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic (roll twice and pick the highest/lowest, respectively) is hailed as being an excellent development, when equivalent rules (giving a bonus to tests in favourable circumstances, imposing a penalty in negative circumstances) have been part of versions of D&D for nearly fifteen years. The end results of Advantage/Disadvantage are less important here than the feel of the mechanic - it's a straightforward, simple, visceral way of reflecting circumstances rather than giving a +2 bonus or a -2 penalty on a d20 roll (on average, the effect of Advantage/Disadvantage is about +/-3.325, though its actual impact varies based on the actual target number required).

Long story short... human beings don't make sense, and we certainly don't always choose the optimal solutions (indeed, sometimes, we may deliberately avoid the optimal solution). In RPGs, where we have no 'win condition', and no way to 'solve' the game, the optimal solution may be subjective, impacted by fictional factors determined by the narrative.

People on the internet make balance a bigger thing than it really is because balance is one of the more objective aspects of a RPG and therefore easier to talk about and reach a consensus.

Balance however is also one of the easiest things to address by removing the troublesome items. Despite most of my group feeling balanced characters are essential for a fun game we always preferred D&D 3.5 over 4e because it was easier to houserule out the parts of 3.5 that were too strong/weak for a given game than to houserule in the worls credibility 4e was lacking

You directed it generally to people arguing one side, so I explained my personal position, rather than speaking for others.

And I won't lie and say that I don't like arguing on here, but I've posted up my thoughts on house rules and given people advice on running certain parts of the game. I just enjoy arguing with people and presenting an alternate opinion.

More like arguing for the sake for arguing.

And it doesn't matter if a game limits the possible choices that a player can make, as long as the game is fun. The point of the game is create a certain experience for the players participating, rules are just a by-product of that. How about actually playing the game instead of just bitching from a theoretical point of view.

At this point the only argument you can make is that the game itself is not fun, well it's not fun for you, but it is for others like me. Game designers try to reach as many people as possible with their games, sometimes though it just doesn't work out in case of a select group of people. That's perfectly normal.

We don't know anything about how well this game has been selling or how many people like or dislike the game. So this thread is more about subjective matter, how people would have liked the game to be. That's also fine, you may dislike certain aspects and in certain cases it's easy to come up with some houserules.

Ofcourse if people sit on their high horse going "meh, I don't want to make houserules, they game should be completely following my expectations out of the box" and instead refuse to play it and come bitching here to no end. Well, I've wondered what the point here is. Informing the designers that their game sucks and is a total failure with 26 pages pages of people arguing back and forth? Oh yeah, that's definitely going to help them in their next game. Keep up the constructive criticism.

Balance in RPGs is a pipe dream. Gross imbalances can and should be addressed, to a degree, but it's impossible for rules alone to create perfectly balanced characters, because rules can't account for a number of factors that dictate this at the table, most of them related to the human element involved.

^Hell, even TDE has some broken combos, so by and large, I'll agree that it's very, very difficult. It's not impossible to create a balanced product, though. Thing is, I don't even want that. I want a product that reflects the setting and doesn't kill my sense of immersion because I'm tougher than a space marine by the numbers and their effect.

A 60% chance, under ideal circumstances, is not good. It's autism.

Only if you let people roll Fellowship for successfully buying milk at the grocery store.

I don't, because it's bollocks to do that, but I still like my stats and a realistic expectation of what they can do to add up properly. If they don't, to me, it's a clear sign the numbers need some tweaking.

We don't know anything about how well this game has been selling or how many people like or dislike the game.

Opinions are fairly split. The point where they reach consensus is generally "Don't pay for this product".

Opinions are fairly split. The point where they reach consensus is generally "Don't pay for this product".

Unless the 10-20 people here represent the entire customer base, I doubt it.

Edit: And yeah, where is this "consensus"?

I assume that when you comment on how people feel about a topic you will now be directly citing them or a summarizing study, correct?

We all know what assumptions do Nim.

I'll certainly continue doing what I wish.

Bingo.

Opinions are fairly split. The point where they reach consensus is generally "Don't pay for this product".

Unless the 10-20 people here represent the entire customer base, I doubt it.

Edit: And yeah, where is this "consensus"?

The internet.

We don't know anything about how well this game has been selling or how many people like or dislike the game.

Every time I've been to DrivethruRPG since DH2nd was released, it's been #3 or better on their hottest titles list. So I can't imagine it's doing too badly.

Boards like this are rarely representative of the bigger player base. It takes a specific mindset to dissect the game in front of strangers on the Internet, and for every person posting their opinions here, there is a large number of people who just bought the game and never felt the need to share their opinion of it outside of their playing group, be this opinion positive or negative.

The internet.

Because message boards on the internet are valid sources of sales data or overall reception of the entire community of people playing the game.

Eh, sod it, you don't deserve the Nimsim treatment. You're usually a decent bloke. Sorry, man.

Actually, the numbers do work. They just don't work the way you'd like them to work.

They're a source I can quantify. They're a source you can quantify. That makes them relevant and valid, especially when the statement is "the general consensus I see is X". I have seen a lot of people state they wouldn't pay a cent for this product, for a variety of reasons.

You can't quantify subjective opinion, especially from message boards where people may in fact be lying anyways. Let's take this thread for instance, for it to be of any use, we'd have to have everyone who's posted here answer if they even bought the 2nd edition and then if they are satisfied with the product. We don't have that here Just because people say they wouldn't pay a cent doesn't mean they haven't.

Actually, the numbers do work. They just don't work the way you'd like them to work.

This, this is exactly what I keep reiterating as of recent.

Actually, the numbers do work. They just don't work the way you'd like them to work.

Or, maybe, they don't work. They just work the way you would like them to work .

Or, maybe, they don't work. They just work the way you would like them to work .

The numbers in fact do work out. they're mathematically sound. At least from everything I've seen.

Simple premise here really. I want my character to be able to plausibly represent the capabilities of a human being. There's a couple things about that in RPGs that are generally off in most systems (usually carrying capacity and movement speeds). So I don't look at the numbers for the game first, I look at RL comparables for the task at hand. Then I check what I would need in the game system to achieve that average. If these are divergent, the numbers do not work for me.

Or, maybe, they don't work. They just work the way you would like them to work .

The numbers in fact do work out. they're mathematically sound. At least from everything I've seen.

So in your opinion, the numbers are OK.

So I don't look at the numbers for the game first, I look at RL comparables for the task at hand. Then I check what I would need in the game system to achieve that average. If these are divergent, the numbers do not work for me.

That's hardly feasible for most of the 40k universe really. I mean characters are asked to occasionally put themselves up against things that (as of yet) simply do not exist.

At least we have acknowledged that the numbers at least work on a basic level and that it's a personal issue with them finally.

I don't, because it's bollocks to do that, but I still like my stats and a realistic expectation of what they can do to add up properly.

Isn't 60% a realistic expectation for the best possible chance for someone attempting a difficult task with zero experience in it, though?

If we consider that you should only let people roll for difficult tasks where it's actually feasible that the average human has a veritable chance of failing, the issue should basically resolve itself.

In the example that was given, "Charm" isn't for asking people about the time, it's about the manipulation of another living being that is initially disinterested in what you have in mind, and which requires persuasion based on your character's charisma and "silver tongue". If you lack said silver tongue (by not having the skill), then you'll have to rely on your appearance and improvisation alone, which should be factored into the test (by applying bonuses or penalties depending on what the other person thinks about you).

The real problem is when characters function notably worse than the people at my gaming table. This originally came up a few years ago during another gaming system, where an argument about appropriate test difficulties ended up with freestyle climbing a castle wall in the middle of the night to show "it's not as hard as you think it is".

So in your opinion, the numbers are OK.

Yes, and I would like to think in the opinion of anyone that can perform algebra as well would agree that the numbers factually work.

Okay, but we are kinda' past this. There is a good example somewhere in one of the previous pages about how you can take 2-3+ cheap/mid-costed advancements from the XP of a single not-very-impressive expensive advancement.