Pardon me, a strongER character. The fact that dumping XP into characteristics always results in a strongER character than if you did not is a fault of the system.

The system is such that dumping more into characstirics at char gen does not give you a statistically significantly stronger character. Unless I read LethalDose's math wrong I think he showed that the difference is there but that it's so small as to be unimportant. Maybe I should go back and reread his math but if it's so minor as to be unimportant .....then I don't think we are talking a system fault.

Also I question the logic in defining a character strong based purely on the result of dice. More so when the dice make it possible to win even while failing.

I read the rules, and skimmed the talent trees. When I read the section that said "You can only upgrade characteristics with XP at character creations, after that you upgrade them with talents," I did not immediately rush to the conclusion "I must buy characteristics and only characteristics if I do not want a suboptimal character." Instead, I figured that this game was balanced such that you could just as easily upgrade your characteristics with talents as you could pump it up at character creation, and neither route would punish the player.

The system says spend your xp on attributes at char gen. If you don't listen you can't blame the system. It point blank lets you know the deal up front. You yourself admitted that you skimmed the talents. If you hadn't done that you would have seen that you couldn't easily upgrade characteristics. Again the system is not at fault for your lack of attention to detail.

No one likes to be punished for the crime of not having 100% system mastery the first time they make a character. And yes, having a 1/20 chance of failing at something where you otherwise would have succeeded except that you didn't have that system mastery right at the outset IS an imbalance.

The system doesn't require you to have 100% system mastery. Just read the entire char generation chapter. Also a 1/20 chance if failing at something is not a big deal. There is no way you're going to get a full on 20 here. No system ever does that. You're basically trying to create an imbalance where none really exist.

Pardon me, a strongER character. The fact that dumping XP into characteristics always results in a strongER character than if you did not is a fault of the system.

The system is such that dumping more into characstirics at char gen does not give you a statistically significantly stronger character. Unless I read LethalDose's math wrong I think he showed that the difference is there but that it's so small as to be unimportant. Maybe I should go back and reread his math but if it's so minor as to be unimportant .....then I don't think we are talking a system fault.

You keep trying to say that 5% (AFTER both sides have evened out by spending a lot of XP, not even accounting for the initial power differential) is insignificant. I'm not sure why; saying it doesn't make it so. 5% is a large change, an entire stat upgrade in most systems. You're basically saying that some characters should always be at least one stat upgrade ahead of everyone else because....reasons?

Also I question the logic in defining a character strong based purely on the result of dice. More so when the dice make it possible to win even while failing.

Huh? Advantage is part of the result of the dice.

The system says spend your xp on attributes at char gen. If you don't listen you can't blame the system.

No, it says that after character creation, you must use talents to upgrade your characteristics. There is nothing to suggest that this is not as viable a method for boosting your characteristics as XP in char creation is, you need to infer that by drudging through eighteen pages of talent trees. I was told the system was well-balanced, so I trusted it and only skimmed that section because reading talent trees with no context is like eating raw kale.

If the system puts up a root for me or my players to trip over, it's not my fault for not spotting the root in time, it's the systems for having the root in the first place.

The system doesn't require you to have 100% system mastery. Just read the entire char generation chapter.

I skimmed the eighteen pages of talents. I also though that the single talent that upgraded your characteristics could be taken multiple times before I realize that "ranked" talents meant they had to appear multiple times in the same tree. Had I read the rules with a more skeptical eyes, yes, I would have caught this imbalance. As it was, I took it on faith that a narrative-based system would not have trap options at character creation. I was almost correct, I haven't really found any besides the "must buy characteristics" one, but that one IS a biggie.

Also a 1/20 chance if failing at something is not a big deal.

Speaking as a GM whose seen Vampires with 70 Weapon Skill miss their foe( a player) three rounds running because they rolled a 73, a 74, and a 71 (ARGH), I can absolutely tell you that 5% matters.

In any case, I feel like we're going in circles here. I get that the imbalance is not big enough to worry you, and I respect that. However, that doesn't mean you can say it doesn't exist, or that it can't be a problem in some people's games. Some people find some issues easier to ignore than others.

You keep trying to say that 5% (AFTER both sides have evened out by spending a lot of XP, not even accounting for the initial power differential) is insignificant. I'm not sure why; saying it doesn't make it so. 5% is a large change, an entire stat upgrade in most systems. You're basically saying that some characters should always be at least one stat upgrade ahead of everyone else because....reasons?

To sum up what I am saying is that I agree with Lethal Dose when he said the advantage was minor. I don't see minor advantages as a system imbalance. Every character is going to have some form of advantage over another character in some way.

Or in other words I don't make a big deal over minor things in the system and accept that no system in any rpg is going to achieve 100% equality in characters in which all characters will get all the things all the times. I happen to feel that this game mitigates a whole lot better than most though.

Thus a minor advantage is deemed unimportant.

Huh? Advantage is part of the result of the dice.

The point is that failure isn't always a bad thing. Just like succeeding isn't always a good thing in this system. Thus you can't judge the balance of a system purely on a pass/fail ratio since this game has other mitigating factors involved.

Which i didn't do because I was told the system was well-balanced, so I trusted it.

The system is well balanced. You should still read everything in the char generation chapter though so you can figure out how this system works. The problem isn't that it wasn't well balanced, it's that you assumed it worked like other games. Which it doesn't.

If the system puts up a root for me or my players to trip over, it's not my fault for not spotting the root in time, it's the systems for having the root in the first place.

The system didn't put up a root for you to trip over. You just walked into a different forest expecting it be similar to other forests and thus tripped on the root that was clearly there.

As it was, I took it on faith that a narrative-based system would not have trap options at character creation. I was almost correct, I haven't really found any besides the "must buy characteristics" one, but that one IS a biggie.

It's not a trap option. For it to be a trap it would imply that they were attempting to some how hide the matter. They are upfront and honest on the matter and their system features. It's only a trap if you approach this game like other games. This isn't D&D where you get regular stat boost. This isn't L5R or WoD where you can later buy up traits after char gen. You can't walk into this system expecting the same kind of thing.

Speaking as a GM whose seen Vampires with 75 Weapon Skill miss their foe three rounds running because they rolled a 73, a 71, and a 74 (ARGH), i can absolutely tell you that 5% matters.

Still not a system imbalance.

I'm glad these "issues" of imbalance haven't reared their head in my games where people's chargen varied from solid stat investment to minimal investment. I don't see any discrepancies but maybe I am just blind or lucky since some seem so convinced they are there. Then I don't hold much value to statistics in a game that relies in variable rolls. Especially rolls which have more than one axis of results.

Thank god my players are more concerned about what their characters are doing and not if they have a .03% deficiency in their wine tasting skill.

@Desslock, I really think you are missing the whole point of the game if you are not using that .03% deficiency on that wine tasting check!! I mean are you not using Niles and Frasier Crane as NPCs?

Thank god my players are more concerned about what their characters are doing and not if they have a .03% deficiency in their wine tasting skill.

It's kind of telling that you have to play the number down to literally be 0.6% of the actual ingame difference in order to make that snark.

And what are your characters doing, if not heroically shooting stormtroopers, pulling off amazing backroom deals, and recalling ancient history for clues to solve that puzzle, all of which require dice rolls?

Thank god my players are more concerned about what their characters are doing and not if they have a .03% deficiency in their wine tasting skill.

It's kind of telling that you have to play the number down to literally be 0.6% of the actual ingame difference in order to make that snark.

And what are your characters doing, if not heroically shooting stormtroopers, pulling off amazing backroom deals, and recalling ancient history for clues to solve that puzzle, all of which require dice rolls?

Actually he played it down to .03% not .6%. Since were counting percentage points (and making use of the word literally) and all we should strive for accuracy.

Though ...... I have a fairly good idea on why he played it down to that little in the first place.

And what are your characters doing, if not heroically shooting stormtroopers, pulling off amazing backroom deals, and recalling ancient history for clues to solve that puzzle, all of which require dice rolls?

They are doing all those things. You do not need to optimize to do any of the above things. Sometimes they succeed; Sometimes they fail. But they are playing characters they want, rather than the mathematically perfect choice.

This game doesn't punish failure and only celebrate success. The fact you can succeed with Desapir and fail with four advantages should tell you it isn't about optimal math.

It is about interesting results.

I contend the issue is the GM does not want to allow the respec even though that is the most logical solution. instead they want to come up with the un needed band aid to fix the problem. When the solution should be to allow the player to correct their mistake.

Actually, I'd flip that around: allowing a respec is the band-aid. It doesn't fix the existing problem, just lets you reverse the damage it can potentially cause before it gets any worse. An actual solution would be a houserule that equalizes the capabilities of various skill/talent/characteristic spreads at character creation so that there's not such a disparity.

Fixing the mistake is not a band aide. Slapping on additional rules to fix the mistake a person made by not listening to the rules is a band aid. Fix the mistake. Don't slap on new rules to cover up the mistake.

My dad is stronger than all of your dads!

And again, if the system puts up a stumbling point for new players and GMs, it's not the fault of the new players and GMs for not spotting it in time. It's the fault of the system for having a stumbling point.

That's what game systems strive for: balance.

No.

That is what some game systems strive for.

Other game systems don't place balance as the most important feature.

This game, like most isn't 100% balanced. A Soldier will kill a Doctor with little trouble. A Hotshot will shoot down a Soldier. A Politco will out talk an Explorer. They aren't balanced equally.

They are internally consistent and good at their jobs, but there is no platonic balance they meet.

It is a Narrative game, which in the end relies more on character choice than dice rolls. And it is designed in such a way that emphasizes success or failure can be interesting.

0.0003/0.05 = 0.006

He played it down from 5% to .03%. The difference between the two is higher than your .06%

It's not so much about mathematical perfection, it's about a player wanting to roll the character they want without having to play a character that's weaker. That's what game systems strive for: balance.

So long as you read all the rules this is already currently possible with out having to make any changes. No imbalance.

When we talk about the system punishing a player for system mastery, what I'm referring to is the issue of "This player gets a headstart on being effective in the game, which will never go entirely away as you progress."

If you understand the character creation rules it's possible to avoid this "punishing of the player for system mastery" you speak of.

And again, if the system puts up a stumbling point for new players and GMs, it's not the fault of the new players and GMs for not spotting it in time. It's the fault of the system for having a stumbling point.

No such stumbling point exist as the system already tells you all you need to know.

It's also worth pointing out that there is no way to design a system that is perfect. Anytime someone new picks up the system they are bound to make mistakes. 2 years ago I picked up 4th Edition D&D for the first time. I didn't read all the rules to be honest. I just used the online char generator to make my character. 4 months ago the GM lost my sheet so one of the pro's in the group rebuilt my character for me in about 10 mins. His build of the character was soooooooooooo much better than mine.

Now is 4th Editions fault that I didn't build a better character? Nope, it was mine. I didn't read all the rules therefore I didn't know what worked best and what didn't. I still had fun with my character that wasnt as optimal as the one I have now. And the one I have now benefits a lot from 20/20 hindsight on how I played the character. We made new choices based on the playstyle that developed over the 2 years I played him thus the respec was a more accurate representation of what I'm playing. But had I actually read the rules the first time ....... I'd of probably built a better character.

Did I stumble? Sure. But not because of the rules. I simply did not read.

What you seem to be asking for is a system that is soooooooo perfect that by skimming the rules everyone knows how to make the best possible character. Your system doesn't exist, anywhere.

That's what game systems strive for: balance.

No.

That is what some game systems strive for.

Other game systems don't place balance as the most important feature.

This game, like most isn't 100% balanced. A Soldier will kill a Doctor with little trouble. A Hotshot will shoot down a Soldier. A Politco will out talk an Explorer. They aren't balanced equally.

They are internally consistent and good at their jobs, but there is no platonic balance they meet.

It is a Narrative game, which in the end relies more on character choice than dice rolls. And it is designed in such a way that emphasizes success or failure can be interesting.

I think I'm not communicating what balance means in this instance, and I apologize:

Balance means that every character is equal. It does NOT mean that ever character is the same. Balance is not a Doctor being as effective in a fight as a Soldier, but being as effective at healing as the Soldier is at ground combat or the Ace is at flying. No one should be less effective than others in their chosen role purely because they didn't roll their character in one exact manner.

Character choice is equal between two players, the only difference is that one player is less effective than the other for no other reason other than he wasn't aware of some quirks of game mechanics while rolling his character.

Balance means that every character is equal. It does NOT mean that ever character is the same. Balance is not a Doctor being as effective in a fight as a Soldier, but being as effective at healing as the Soldier is at ground combat or the Ace is at flying. No one should be less effective than others in their chosen role purely because they didn't roll their character in one exact manner.

By this definition the game is already balanced.

Character choice is equal between two players, the only difference is that one player is less effective than the other for no other reason other than he wasn't aware of some quirks of game mechanics while rolling his character.

Honestly what more do you want from the rules? They tell you up front about the situation. The only thing the book doesn't do is spend a full page to say "Stay Calm and finish character creation. Oh and if you didn't spend all your xp on attributes you'll be 5% less effective than someone who did"

I don't need Lethal Dose's math to tell me that if my attributes are lower than someone else then I'm likely going than my results are going to be lower too. I may not know how much lower the percentage will be over the long run but I'd know upfront that the guy who raised his Agility to 4 is going to hit more often than me if I leave it at 2. And it's easy to see if you read the spec trees that stat boost come rarely.

Character choice is equal between players. It just requires all players to read and understand how this system works.

I have to ask why this argument is going on for 8 pages? If a player's character is less effective than they like because they did not understand the rules. Let them rebuild it. Done problem solved. We do not need new rules. Can we stop beating this dead horse already?

He played it down from 5% to .03%. The difference between the two is higher than your .06%

0.03% is 0.6% of 5%.

So long as you read all the rules this is already currently possible with out having to make any changes. No imbalance.

As long as you come to the the correct conclusions in time and as long as you roll your character in exactly the prescribed method and do not deviate, sure. But what if someone wants to be able to load up on skills and talents instead WITHOUT being less effective?

If you understand the character creation rules it's possible to avoid this "punishing of the player for system mastery" you speak of.

"As long as you possess system mastery you aren't punished for lack of system mastery" ?

No such stumbling point exist as the system already tells you all you need to know.

The system does not tell you that any character that does not invest all their XP is less effective in their role than a character who does. It leaves you to guess this for yourself. Therefore, it does not tell you all you need to know.

It's also worth pointing out that there is no way to design a system that is perfect.

Of course! And of all the systems I've seen, so far this one is honestly as close to perfect as I've seen them come. That doesn't mean that flaws should not be acknowledged or addressed, however.

Anytime someone new picks up the system they are bound to make mistakes. 2 years ago I picked up 4th Edition D&D for the first time. I didn't read all the rules to be honest. I just used the online char generator to make my character. 4 months ago the GM lost my sheet so one of the pro's in the group rebuilt my character for me in about 10 mins. His build of the character was soooooooooooo much better than mine.

Which is exactly why I quit DnD and picked a system that covered a setting I loved AND was narrative-focused. So far, I'm not regretting my choice one bit. As you said, DnD was far far worse in this department.

Now is 4th Editions fault that I didn't build a better character? Nope, it was mine. I didn't read all the rules therefore I didn't know what worked best and what didn't.

The thing is that there shouldn't be things that "work best." They should all be equally viable so that the only choice a player makes is "What do I want to do?" not "How much of my character concept do I need to sacrifice to be good at my intended role?"

What you seem to be asking for is a system that is soooooooo perfect that by skimming the rules everyone knows how to make the best possible character. Your system doesn't exist, anywhere.

What I'm shooting for is a system where there IS no best possible character, but where everyone makes the character that fits best with their RP WITHOUT feeling like they're sabotaging their effectiveness. I agree that system does not exist, but this is the closest I've ever seen a system come, and it'd be nice to continue improving it. No system is perfect right out of the box, that's why houserules exist!

The problem is not a misunderstanding of the rules. My wife and I did not misunderstand the rule that you cannot spend XP on Characteristics past character creation. What we did not fully grasp right away were the implications of said rule, that this means you HAVE to load up on those right away in order to make the most effective character for any given role. Yes, you can patch the issue by allowing a respec, but wouldn't it be better if this situation didn't exist in the first place?

As long as you come to the the correct conclusions in time and as long as you roll your character in exactly the prescribed method and do not deviate, sure. But what if someone wants to be able to load up on skills and talents instead WITHOUT being less effective?

Less effective in this system seems to be minor. If you don't interpret the char creation process right in any system you're going to build a less effective character. Every system works differently and every gaming system requires you to understand that system to build mathematically better characters. In order to build a mathematically optimal character you are going to have to know the system inside out. Thus not the fault of the system itself. And thus not a balance issue.

Less effective is of course relative since less effective in this game is mitigated by a lot of factors. And you can still play an effective character in this game with out being mathematically optimized character.

The system does not tell you that any character that does not invest all their XP is less effective in their role than a character who does. It leaves you to guess this for yourself. Therefore, it does not tell you all you need to know.

Less effective is of course relative. But it's common sense that in a system that only allows you to change attributes at char gen and then offers the chance post char gen rarely that if your goal is to gain a 5% efficiency bonus from the dice you're going to need to sink all your starting XP into attributes. This should be obvious with out the book having to spell it out by solving for x for you.

I suck at math and even I know that the guy starting with Agility 4 is going to do better than me at Agility 2. And I know that in the long run such a character will continue to do better than me since the book states clearly that I won't be raising that 2 very often once the game starts. I don't need to solve for x and determine how much better he'll do to know upfront that he'll average out better than me in that chosen contest.

Again, not system imbalance.

Of course! And of all the systems I've seen, so far this one is honestly as close to perfect as I've seen them come. That doesn't mean that flaws should not be acknowledged or addressed, however.

We'd of course first have to agree that the current problem is a flaw. Most of us don't see it as a flaw. It's also worth pointing out that there is a difference between a flaw in the game and declaring the process itself as imbalanced. Even if it's flawed (and it's not) you can't take that flaw to mean it's imbalanced since the entire system was written to account for this very incident.

What I'm shooting for is a system where there IS no best possible character, but where everyone makes the character that fits best with their RP WITHOUT feeling like they're sabotaging their effectiveness. I agree that system does not exist, but this is the closest I've ever seen a system come, and it'd be nice to continue improving it. No system is perfect right out of the box, that's why houserules exist!

What you seem to be shooting for is perfecting and for the game to tell you things that should be obvious to anyone who reads the rules. Your stated goal of " everyone makes the character that fits best with their RP WITHOUT feeling like they're sabotaging their effectiveness" is already possible in this system.

I suppose it's not true if you're only defining effectiveness by being 5% more likely to do something, but most of us aren't judging system effectiveness based on algebra.

Edit: It's worth noting that I'm playing my first character in this game. It's not mathematically optimized. I probably should have bought up higher stats. But the character is effective at what I built him to do. I'm not overshadowed by the characters of the other players (who are more experienced with the game than I) and the GM has done a good job of making sure we all shine and come out as good at what we set out for our character to be good at.

I suppose it's not true if you're only defining effectiveness by being 5% more likely to do something, but most of us aren't judging system effectiveness based on algebra.

I honestly don't know how many more ways I can tell you that having a 73% chance of succeeding at something verses having a 67% chance is a significant increase. Maybe it's just my background in percentile systems that lets me see how often that 5% comes into play, but I know it does, and often. If I asked one of my old Warhammer players to just accept being 5% weaker than everyone else in her chosen field just because she missed a system trick, she'd think I was crazy. That's 1-2 sessions worth of advancement that she'd be lacking for no other reason than "I didn't game the system hard enough at character creation."

I suppose it's not true if you're only defining effectiveness by being 5% more likely to do something, but most of us aren't judging system effectiveness based on algebra.

I honestly don't know how many more ways I can tell you that having a 73% chance of succeeding at something verses having a 67% chance is a significant increase. Maybe it's just my background in percentile systems that lets me see how often that 5% comes into play, but I know it does, and often. If I asked one of my old Warhammer players to just accept being 5% weaker than everyone else in her chosen field just because she missed a system trick, she'd think I was crazy. That's 1-2 sessions worth of advancement that she'd be lacking for no other reason than "I didn't game the system hard enough at character creation."

Again, not a system trick. The system in no way tricks you. It just requires you to read and understand. It's more than obvious that if I don't have equal attributes to someone else then I'm going to be less effective overall when that stat is called into question. It is also obvious that raising your stats is not going to happen often as the book says as much. Therefore any lack of effectiveness in this regards is the players fault, not the system. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't need algebra to tell me that the guy with Agility 4 is going to pull ahead of my Agility 2 character. The character creation process doesn't need to tell you that you'll be 5% less effective. It should be more than obvious. I'm not going to blame the system because a person who skims the character creation rules can't figure out that they A. can't buy up their attributes after creation, B. that raising stats comes rarely and C. will be mathematically less effective as a result of not buying up their stats. It's an obvious thing.

Also most of us aren't swayed by the 5% argument because .... and this is really important we aren't judging effectiveness based on mathematical optimization.

We see that the system mitigates a lot of that 5% difference and we recognize that there is more to being an effective character in this game than whether or not the dice roll 5% more in your favor than Jedi Bob over there.

For a houserule I say do whatever works for your table. Didn't read the rules properly or you play with DBs that do not help, respec or hand out extra XP or whatever floats your boat to get your character up to snuff whatever that might be (5% better). But please spare me how this is some "situation" created by the game itself. That is such BS. There is no "situation". I've been here since the beta and I have never heard anyone, till now, complain their character was 5% less capable because they didn't familiarize themselves with the game properly and "oh the unfairness of it all!" There is no problem that needs fixing with the game except maybe at your own table. So create your own houserule to fix your own created problem. But please don't come on here like you've discovered some great gap or mistake in the game and you are here to save us all. Nothing in this thread leads me to believe that the issue lies anywhere but with the people playing the game.

For a houserule I say do whatever works for your table. Didn't read the rules properly or you play with DBs that do not help, respec or hand out extra XP or whatever floats your boat to get your character up to snuff whatever that might be (5% better). But please spare me how this is some "situation" created by the game itself. That is such BS. There is no "situation". I've been here since the beta and I have never heard anyone, till now, complain their character was 5% less capable because they didn't familiarize themselves with the game properly and "oh the unfairness of it all!" There is no problem that needs fixing with the game except maybe at your own table. So create your own houserule to fix your own created problem. But please don't come on here like you've discovered some great gap or mistake in the game and you are here to save us all. Nothing in this thread leads me to believe that the issue lies anywhere but with the people playing the game.

I 100% agree.....

It's more than obvious that if I don't have equal attributes to someone else then I'm going to be less effective overall when that stat is called into question.

But you're not just getting a free attribute boost, you're paying for it with XP. Why would someone automatically assume that XP spent on attributes and the same amount of XP spent on relevant skills and talents is not the same effectiveness? There is no reason to make that assumption right off the bat.

Also most of us aren't swayed by the 5% argument because .... and this is really important we aren't judging effectiveness based on mathematical optimization.

What are you judging it by, if not the results of the dice? Someone who has invested all their XP into their Characteristics will roll more positive results (Successes, advantages, and triumphs) than someone who has not. Are you judging it by player choice? Because those are assumed to be equal. We're talking about a situation where Player A and Player B are making the same choices with characters that were rolled using different methods, and noticing that one character is less effective than the other.

But please spare me how this is some "situation" created by the game itself. That is such BS. There is no "situation". I've been here since the beta and I have never heard anyone, till now, complain their character was 5% less capable because they didn't familiarize themselves with the game properly and "oh the unfairness of it all!"

I can see why. Coming to the EotE board with even the mildest hint of a suggestion that the system may not be perfect seems to warrant nothing but unending hostility and rage.

I can see why. Coming to the EotE board with even the mildest hint of a suggestion that the system may not be perfect seems to warrant nothing but unending hostility and rage.

No. I can acknowledge when someone has point, unlike here. And I by no means think this or any game is perfect. I just can not abide laying the fault with the game when it so obviously is with the player(s). Saying this with my unending hostility and rage!