@Duran-Very good illustration, I enjoyed it. And good points.

And I agree with gruntl that perhaps we’re jumping the gun a bit with assuming brokenness at higher levels without seeing what’s coming down the pipe. Even with what we have I’m not yet convinced things are necessarily broken.

All of the extreme examples are of very very focused characters who are maxing out one ability and skill. As has been said several times, that character concept should be succeeding VERY often in his specialty. But considering that its going to take a character Rank 3 before they can get a stat score of 8 (and that’s totally focusing on that one score unless I’m overlooking something), and even with a stat of 8 and three expertise dice the odds of success are around 80%, I’m not so sure that’s broken.

It will be interesting to see what higher level specialized action cards will add to the system…

donbaloo said:

Yeah, really, using maxed-out narrow characters performing their speciality isn't the best way to ascertain this sort of thing, imv. Of my party of four 2 have just reached the third rank and two are about midway through the second, and I'm not getting any of this broken easy success vibe. The characters are certainly competent but there's no way they have the notion that they won't fail. There is only one 5 characteristic in the whole party, and he found it a good idea to go back and raise his 2s, to become a more all-round character. Hardly any other characteristics are being raised; the players generally like to go for the other more ic type advances. It might not be mathematically prudent, but I'm not sure that really is an issue. Mathematically it might be cool to spend all your advances on characterisitc upgrades, but that is ignoring all the flavourful advances and is bound to leave you with lots of weaknesses and blind spots. I guess if all the party specialises in a certain direction, and they all watch each other's back then you could get away with that, but really, in the spirit of any game you need to have some sort of broad skill/talent/stat base.

Honestly, ime, in any sort of well-rounded and wide ranging campaign I can't really see what the issue is. Sooner or later, a maxed-out narrow stat monkey is going to end up out of his comfort zone doing what he does not-best.

I've been using average combat and non-combat characters for my tests and I noted a tendency to hit more often than in V2. This said, I've still to playtest it thouroughly, with multiple combatants. Guarded position and shield wall type cards will have a great impact, as will assisting and outnumbering the opponent.

I think I'll used the opposed rolls only for formal one on one duels. Not melee.

gruntl said:

To be honest if the game can't stand on it's own at release without players hoping for expansions I do see it as broken. Perhaps expansions will change things, but then we're going to be looking at some insane 20+ dice pools if they want defence cards having an impact comparable to starting characters.

Besides I'd find it a bit weak if the core system can't stand on it's own. One thing is buying expansions to expand your game with new options. But having to buy expansions to keep the bame balanced as you play is horrible.

yep gallows, my players are yet using 2 hands to roll these dice pools with their starting characters... But they love that, remembering the good'ol'WEG d6 system, without math

Sinister said:

That's why I made my system so it scales both in terms of ranking up and from non combat characters to combat characters. With my system the non combat characters actually have a relative better hit chance than with the original system. Still the combat characters have more dice so are more likely to inflict criticals and more wounds. But in terms of basic hit rate they are actually better off when compared to combat characters and combat npc, than if you use the official rules.

willmanx said:

The look of pride and achievement on his face when one of my players made his first 20 dice pool the other day was quite touching.

monkeylite said:

hehe... I just don't know how I feel about 20+ dice pools... even with characteristics max of 6 you can get there But without we can be looking at perhaps 30+ if we want the same balance or even closer to 40 if players get all the way to 10 in a stat.

Gallows said:

In this instance he was casting a spell that gave one black for every extra target, and there were 7 targets, so it's certainly not a typical event.

Gallows said:

I don't consider 4 or 5 dice an "insane amount".

As making a characterstic go from 5 (the starting maximum) to 6 cost all six open advances of a career, I don't expect players to take that route very often.

But you are probably talking about the fortune dice tied to characteristics, are you not ?

My pools have been large, up to 12 dice, but never larger...

I have a player with a starting character.

5 characteristic dice from strenght

1 yellow

2 white (specialization and strenght die)

2 black for monster defence

1 purple

That's 11 dice and perfectly fine. But with extra circumstances, defence and increased characteristics we have been higher higher. But certainly no issue. I have two special dice rolling thingys so they don't go all over the table. My players enjoy the handfull too so it's all good.

Ugh.

Math, probability and numerical modifiers are exactly the things that I want to avoid as much as possible in RPGs. Hence the appeal of this new system for me and my players. A few months ago, this sort of comment would have granted me several snide remarks about my intelligence and maturity. Glad to see that this forum has matured a bit.

Anyway, I can understand that some people ENJOY complex combat rules... but....

bleeeeechhhhhhh

-This insightful contribution to the thread brought to you by the forces of monotony and boredom at work.

Gallows said:

You are obviously entitled to see that as broken but the old stsle DnD basiic/expert rule sets did exactly the same thing. The original red book stood on its own BUt only realisitically supported characters up to 3rd level... you could try going beyond that, but the basic rule set didn't really support it and you'd pretty much need to house rule stuff unless you went out and purchased the expert edition for more advanced characters.

Although FFG haven't come out and made that clear in the same way those DnD sets did, It seems to me that is the same kind of model they are following for V3.

The core set does stand on it's own, but it is only for low rank characters, in reality; that doesn't make it broken.

Necrozius said:

We don't like complex rules at all. We had a short fling with rolemaster, perhaps 15 years ago, and that was not at all fun for us. We just like the rules to be simple, quick and just balanced enough for us to not get annoyed by them. We did get slightly annoyed in our first session because we saw how it would develop with current rules. But it's a minor thing really. I think we've fixed it now so it won't bother us and it's far less changing of rules than we have done to other systems.

I haven't played DnD for more than a session or two at conventions. Never liked it. I do however also see the other side of the coin. If this way FFG handles it means they can sell more products and keep giving up quality material (preferrably some nice campaign books), then I'll enjoy it of course. But we're just starting to play the thousand thrones now, because I've had it lying around and we've never played it as I've mostly made my own campaigns. But my fear is that we'll be done with that and the characters have ranked up quite a bit before we see new rules from FFG. But I look forward to seeing what they have in store for us regardless.

Gallows said:

Maybe they will develop new dices (dark blue dice - count as rolling two blue dice) or something like that.

Gallows said:

Pumkin is right, its not the system thats broken, its the marketing.

The current core/expansion stick and carrot marketing model that almost all RPG's (yes even MMORPG's) are using has proven to be the most profittable, and unfortunatley with the rising costs of production and labor, and the worsening of the economy, it seems to be about the only way to successfuly sell a game and make some money off of it. The idea is simple, we'll sell you as little information as we possibly can, but make it look as big as we can, and sell it for as much as we can, and we'll leave holes in just the right places so that you virtually NEED the new material we release to coninue to play. The producer has to make us dependant on their product so we keep buying it for well more than what it is worth. However even knowing all this, its a marketing stratgy that not only works, but is about the only why that a game can be successful these days, so to keep our beloved hobby alive and make it economically viable for companies to produce the games, we have to pay the preimium, and most of us gladly will, or at least would if there was any money left in the account after paying bills.

There is a reason why so many of the old one book wonder games we used to love to play aren't made anymore, and the companies that marketed them are no longer in business. Making a good, whole, completed product and selling it at a reasonable price may make you money for a little while, but once its sold, its sold, and there is no more cash to be made on it. But, if I take that good, whole, complete product, and break it down into 10 installments, and fill it with all kinds of random "extras" you don't need, but make it look like its worth $50 a shot, and sell it to you 10 times over, now I have a sustainable enterprise. It also gives me plenty of time to actually write and develop new material.

Fortunately it's not hard creating your own cards to balance the system after rank1.