|
|
| (128 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | == simplified healing == | + | ==Toughness is Overpowered== |
| − | What if we simplified the healing rule so that characters can only be healed once per encounter, but healing always restored the character to healthy (stamina +1)? (I realize that there currently is no limit on healing, but a more complex healing limit than what I have proposed here is may soon be incoming.)--[[User:BFGalbraith|BFGalbraith]] 18:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
| + | As the Scratch system has evolved, hit points have gradually increased relative to the damage of attack abilities, so everybody wants to be a tank because hit points guarantee you will last longer. |
| | | | |
| − | ==altered states==
| + | Currently our official average hit points are about right (3 for an unarmored average person, 4 or 5 for a "squishy" PC, 6 or more for a tank) and the power of our attack abilities is about right (some people say they are too powerful, some say they have been nerfed, so that suggests we have hit the sweet spot.) |
| | | | |
| − | Players have suggested using a coin to keep track of whether you are delayed.
| + | So how do we tweak the incentives so that squishy characters will be happy with 4 or 5 hit points, but tanks will still want to have lots of hit points? |
| | | | |
| − | We could put checkboxes on the [http://gameartsguild.com/dwpc/blank.html character sheet] to remind players of states they may need to keep track of: | + | We already have the engage action, which helps tanks absorb damage by drawing aggro. In playtesting, healers are more likely to be targeted by holds than high-damage attacks, so wrestling (to increase strength) might actually be better for healers than lots of toughness. Healers and long-range attackers can also take cover. |
| | | | |
| − | * delayed
| + | ====Bug to Feature==== |
| − | * panicked
| |
| − | * engage-d (-2 defense)
| |
| − | * take cover-ed (+2 defense)
| |
| − | * initiative
| |
| | | | |
| − | [[File:Scratch-character-sheet-front.png|600px]]
| + | Context could play a big part here, because this problem is likely to be fixed by the skill system intended for Squawk 2nd Ed. TDW might be the last game in the foreseeable future that uses Scratch without skills. ''In TDW, there is a really good narrative to why PCs should gain toughness more often than other abilities'', which the following text could be added to TDW to explain: |
| | + | :Essence often warps Sorcerers into more powerful forms, increasing their size, natural armor, or other physical alterations that make them more physically resilient. Therefore, it is appropriate for Sorcerers to use essence to gain Toughness more often than other abilities. |
| | + | If we go with this option, this Toughness balance issue can be tabled until we are using skills in Scratch. |
| | | | |
| − | Initiative cards are another useful tool for keeping track of the order of characters turns (3x5 cards folded in half, with character names and initiative arranged in order of initiative.) State flags can be attached to initiative cards (i.e. stick a small post-it or sticky colored dot on the card to indicated delayed.)
| + | ====Real Solution==== |
| | | | |
| − | [[File:Scratch-initiative-cards.png|800px]]
| + | What if we had a rule for all injured or incapacitated characters (including minions) that between encounters they only heal to barely-healthy, unless they can make a detection, craftsmanship or healing roll to regenerate themselves to full HP? |
| | | | |
| − | ==shared initiative==
| + | :This would decrease the guarantee that hit points make you last longer, which would be good. |
| | | | |
| − | In [[The Dark Woods]] and some other games, all characters controlled by the same player should have the same initiative. But in GM-ed games like Squawk, the GM will sometimes control groups of enemies that should have different initiative.
| + | :Can you use your roll to heal an ally instead of yourself? |
| | | | |
| − | ===initiative groups===
| + | ::"Yes" makes more narrative sense IMHO. --[[User:BFGalbraith|BFGalbraith]] 10:17, 25 June 2011 (PDT) |
| | | | |
| − | We should implement this by saying that each player has an ''initiative group'' and the characters the player controls are in his initiative group. This makes it easy for us to add multiple initiative groups for GMs in optional rules. For example:
| + | :This should be the rule for a "normal" encounter cycle. Depending on the game this could mean a short rest, a month or a year of rehabilitation. Within each game there may be some back-to-back encounters without the opportunity to heal, and there may be longer breaks or full healing services at some points in a long campaign (i.e. "return to town".) |
| | | | |
| − | :Each person controlling characters has an ''initiative group''. The initiative group contains the characters that person controls. | + | :The normal encounter cycle should also be the cycle for changing craftsmanship bonuses. |
| | | | |
| − | :Initiative groups take ''turns'' during ''encounters''. At the beginning of each encounter, roll a twenty-sided die for each initiative group to determine the order of their turns. This is the group's ''initiative'' roll. Groups take turns in order from the highest initiative to the lowest. If two groups have the same initiative, break the tie by rolling another die for both groups until one of them rolls higher. That group goes before the other.
| + | :You should not be able to respec minions in the normal encounter cycle. You need a longer break ("return to town") to replace, modify or retrain your minions. |
| − | | |
| − | :Each character has a turn during each turn of their initiative group. The player controlling the group chooses the order of the turns of the characters in the group.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The above is good group terminology & rules. --[[User:BFGalbraith|BFGalbraith]] 16:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===initiative bonuses===
| |
| − | | |
| − | How should individual stealth and detection levels affect an initiative group's initiative roll?
| |
| − | | |
| − | PROPOSAL #1: lowest stealth bonus + highest detection bonus.
| |
| − | (example: in a group of three characters, one has 2 stealth, one has 3 stealth, and one has 4 detection, so the bonus would be 2 x 2 + 4 x 10 = 44.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :This is a little bit more work to describe because than prop #2, because we have to say that each bonus only applies if it is the lowest, or highest bonus from other characters with the same ability. --[[User:SerpLord|SerpLord]] 20:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | PROPOSAL #2: sum of all initiative bonuses.
| |
| − | (example: in a group of three characters, one has 2 stealth, one has 3 stealth, and one has 4 detection, so the bonus would be 2 x 2 + 3 x 2 + 4 x 10 = 50.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :This is the easiest one to describe. The description of each ability currently says it adds a bonus to the character's initiative roll. We would simply change this to say it adds a bonus to their initiative group's initiative roll. --[[User:SerpLord|SerpLord]] 20:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | IMHO this is a far more simple question that suggested above. Group initiative is based either on your weakest link (because his clumbsiness gives away group location,) or it is based on your most proficient member (because he's your most effective scout.) --[[User:BFGalbraith|BFGalbraith]] 16:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Prop #1 is the closest rule to the weakest link or most effective scout phenomena you are describing. --[[User:SerpLord|SerpLord]] 20:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | PROPOSAL #3: the highest initiative bonus of any character in the group.
| |
| − | (example: in a group of three characters, one has 2 stealth, one has 3 stealth, and one has 4 detection, so the bonus would be 40.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :This is even trickier to describe than prop #1 because you have to create a new value called initiative bonus for each character (Currently each ability adds directly to the initiative roll.) Then you have to compare each character's initiative bonus to choose the best one. --[[User:SerpLord|SerpLord]] 20:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Balance issues with stealth and detection become more sensitive when the formula ignores all but the highest bonus of any character in a group.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::I don't think balance between initiative abilities justifies the complexity of the other group initiative rule proposals, nor do I think that complexity will adequately address those issues anyways. --[[User:BFGalbraith|BFGalbraith]] 16:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :::See my assessment of the complexity above. Excessive complexity and imbalance are both unacceptable. (If we have to sacrifice some balance for simplicity, we do have the option of adjusting the bonus multipliers - but I don't see that helping at the moment.) --[[User:SerpLord|SerpLord]] 20:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | SITUATION #1: A player controlling one PC and 1 or 2 minions. The player designs the minions.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *If we choose proposal #1, the player will need to give both his minions stealth if he wants to use his own stealth bonus to initiative, and he can only use the best detection bonus in his group.
| |
| − | *If we choose proposal #2, the player can distribute his abilities any way he wants without worrying about the way initiative is combined.
| |
| − | *If we choose proposal #3, the player can only use the best initiative bonus in his group.
| |
| − | | |
| − | SITUATION #2: A player or GM controlling two or more identical NPCs. The player/GM does not design the NPCs, and even the game designer is limited because the NPCs must be identical.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *If we choose proposal #1, we would just use the bonuses of one of the NPCs.
| |
| − | *If we choose proposal #2, the initiative bonus of the group would be the group size multiplied by the individual initiative bonus.
| |
| − | *If we choose proposal #3, we would just use the best bonus of one of the NPCs.
| |
| − | | |
| − | SITUATION #3: A player or GM controlling two or more NPCs of different types. The player/GM does not design the NPCs, but the game designer can give each type of NPC any abilities he wants.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *This can happen in TDW when a bigger team fights a boss controlled by a smaller team.
| |
| − | *It will not happen in Squawk if we give each enemy type it's own initiative group.
| |
| − | *If we choose proposal #1, we would use the stealth or detection bonus of either enemy, depending on which is worse or better.
| |
| − | *If we choose proposal #2, we would combine the stealth and detection bonus of the two enemies.
| |
| − | *If we choose proposal #3, we would use the highest initiative bonus from either type of NPC.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Prop #2 is the simplest rule, but in situations #2 and #3 it seems counter-intuitively biased toward larger groups.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Prop #3 seems simple to calculate, until you realize that you have to multiply all of the detection and stealth levels before you know which one is biggest. It's also the most complicated rule. In situation #2, this proposal would aggravate any stealth vs. detection balance issues that might exist. The complexity of prop #3 is an interesting paradox, because it is strategically simple. But simple strategy does not always translate to simple rules or less math.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Prop #1 requires the least calculation (choose worst stealth and best detection before multiplying) it has medium complexity and it does it intuitively favors small group stealth and large group detection. Prop #1 is particularly simple and intuitive in situation #2, which will be common in both TDW and Squawk.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==holding the person who is holding you==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Add "A character who is delayed can try to hold the enemy who held him." to the end of the hold action in the Basic Actions section.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The big risk of getting someone in a hold in real-life is that they can also grab you, immobilizing you as well, even if they have an inferior hold.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Now that wrestling holds do damage, this would allow a delayed character to do damage. --[[User:SerpLord|SerpLord]] 14:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :: But this is a rule outside of the wrestling rules, and is not referring to the "healthy wrestling attack." It sounds like we are going to have to make a distinction between the HWA and other holds. --[[User:BFGalbraith|BFGalbraith]] 17:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :::We already make that distinction when we say the hold does 1 damage ''when you are healthy''. We could add ''and not delayed.'' (The location of rules has little significance to players. Players use the rules as they interpret them, not the way we intended.) --[[User:SerpLord|SerpLord]] 17:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Should you be able to do this whenever you are delayed or only when you are delayed by a hold?
| |
| − | | |
| − | :You should always be able to attempt a hold on someone holding you, even when delayed (but being delayed should not give you some kind of special opportunity to hold, when you are not being held.)--[[User:BFGalbraith|BFGalbraith]] 17:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC) | |
| − | | |
| − | This wouldn't just immobilize the attacker, it would delay them. Holding someone practically guarantees they will try to hold you back, since they can't do anything else. This means there is a chance (the target's wrestling, detection or movement ability vs. your strength) that you will be delayed whenever you successfully hold someone. Is it still worth the risk? --[[User:SerpLord|SerpLord]] 14:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Which abilities can you use to hold someone who is holding you? Normally you can use wrestling, detection or movement abilities to hold someone (if the terrain allows you to use the movement ability for hold, distract and evade.) --[[User:SerpLord|SerpLord]] 17:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Here's a proposal that (I think) addresses all of the concerns above: If you have wrestling ability and you are both healthy and delayed, you can use wrestling to hold one character who successfully held you since your last turn. This hold does no damage.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==taking cover while reloading==
| |
| − | | |
| − | It makes sense for someone to be using the same cover they had before, even if their projectile weapon has a lot of kick or takes a while to reload. So should you be able to take cover when you are delayed by your own shooting or blasting attack, or should you only be able to STAY in cover when you are delayed by your own shooting or blasting attack?
| |
| − | | |
| − | :You should be able to take cover when you do the attack, and you stay in the cover until your next attack. --[[User:BFGalbraith|BFGalbraith]] 00:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::You can also evade, heal or do nothing between attacks. Currently take cover is described as something you do before a long range attack. Can you take cover and evade, take cover and heal, take cover and do nothing? --[[User:SerpLord|SerpLord]] 15:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :::That sounds perfect to me. --[[User:BFGalbraith|BFGalbraith]] 17:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==grid movement when you are delayed by your own moves==
| |
| − | | |
| − | *Being delayed by your own knockout, shooting or blasting shouldn't keep you from moving.
| |
| − | *Getting delayed by a hold action should keep you from moving.
| |
| − | *Should being delayed by a distract action keep you from moving?
| |
| − | *Should we distinguish delayed vs. delayed + immobilized with technical terms?
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==balance between abilities==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Here's how I estimate the approximate value of each ability on a scale where 1 level of an attack ability is worth 1. It's not exactly the same as the CP scale.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===command levels may be the most valuable===
| |
| − | | |
| − | At command level 10 you can have two 5 CP minions with 1 attack ability level and 4 toughness. These are probably the optimum attack-oriented minions, or close to it. They have above-average, normal-for-PCs toughness. They let you attack three times as often, tripling your success rate.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Being able to attack twice as often might be worth up to 10 attack ability levels, so being able to attack three times as often might be worth 20, which would make command ability levels twice as valuable as attack ability levels.
| |
| − | | |
| − | This is probably an over-estimation of the value of command ability. Command ability minions cannot be healed, and they can be injured more easily than a powerful PC (the sort that would have 10 command ability.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===toughness is more valuable at levels 4 through 7===
| |
| − | | |
| − | Toughness is especially valuable at low levels when you have a high risk of getting injured or incapacitated by each attack.
| |
| − | None of the other abilities are useful when you are incapacitated, and attack abilities are less useful when you are injured.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *1 toughness is worth -15 because you can be killed so easily
| |
| − | *2 toughness is worth -5 because you can survive twice as long
| |
| − | *3 toughness is worth 0 because you can survive 50% longer
| |
| − | *4 toughness is worth 3 because you can survive 33% longer
| |
| − | *5 toughness is worth 5 because you can survive 25% longer
| |
| − | *6 toughness is worth 7 because you can survive 20% longer
| |
| − | *7 toughness is worth 9 because you can survive 17% longer
| |
| − | *8 toughness is worth 10 because you can survive 14% longer
| |
| − | *9 toughness is worth 11 because you can survive 13% longer
| |
| − | *10 toughness is worth 12 because you can survive 11% longer
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===swimming levels are less valuable===
| |
| − | | |
| − | the value of each swimming level is strength + frequency of water terrain type × (swimming bonus to agility and attack + distract + hold + evade).
| |
| − | | |
| − | *Strength is worth less than half of an attack ability level. Also the swimming bonus to strength is only valuable if your swimming is greater than your wrestling and your toughness - 3.
| |
| − | *The swimming bonus to agility is worth about ¾ (a bit less than an attack ability bonus)
| |
| − | *The swimming bonus to close range attacks is worth about 1 (assuming you have close range attacks.)
| |
| − | *distract + hold + evade is worth less than half of an attack ability level.
| |
| − | *The frequency of water terrain type is less than 20%.
| |
| − | | |
| − | So the value of each swimming level is less than ½ + 0.2 × (¾ + 1 + ½) = 1. In other words swimming levels are only worth as much as other abilities if you make overly optimistic assumptions about the value of strength, close range attacks, distract, hold and evade.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===other ability levels have similar value===
| |
| − | | |
| − | All of the other ability levels are well-balanced. Increasing stalking ability, movement ability, craftsmanship or healing from level 1 to level 2 is worth about the same increasing an attack ability from level 1 to level 2.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===level 1 abilities have very different values===
| |
| − | | |
| − | Having at least 1 level of certain abilities or types of abilities may add extra value.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *+5 for your first attack ability because it doubles attack power when healthy
| |
| − | *+5 for healing (potentially heals several points of damage.)
| |
| − | *+5 for flying because non-flying characters can't hit you with close range attacks when you evade or use a long range attack
| |
| − | *+1 for craftsmanship versatility?
| |
| − | *+1 for your first stalking ability (surprise action)
| |
| − | *+½ for command ability (intimidate action)
| |
| − | *+½ for swimming because non-swimmers and long-range attacks can't hit you when you use swimming to evade
| |
| − | *+0 for other movement abilities
| |
| | | | |
| | ==more realistic healing options== | | ==more realistic healing options== |
| | | | |
| | + | Note: the three main scratch projects right now (TDW, HoW, Squawk 2nd Ed.) are fantasy/sci-fi with lots of explanations for "unrealistic healing." IMHO this rule may be decided on in the not-near future.--[[User:BFGalbraith|BFGalbraith]] 14:31, 20 June 2011 (PDT) |
| | | | |
| | games without healing ability (dinosaurs and prehistoric animals) | | games without healing ability (dinosaurs and prehistoric animals) |
Toughness is Overpowered[edit]
As the Scratch system has evolved, hit points have gradually increased relative to the damage of attack abilities, so everybody wants to be a tank because hit points guarantee you will last longer.
Currently our official average hit points are about right (3 for an unarmored average person, 4 or 5 for a "squishy" PC, 6 or more for a tank) and the power of our attack abilities is about right (some people say they are too powerful, some say they have been nerfed, so that suggests we have hit the sweet spot.)
So how do we tweak the incentives so that squishy characters will be happy with 4 or 5 hit points, but tanks will still want to have lots of hit points?
We already have the engage action, which helps tanks absorb damage by drawing aggro. In playtesting, healers are more likely to be targeted by holds than high-damage attacks, so wrestling (to increase strength) might actually be better for healers than lots of toughness. Healers and long-range attackers can also take cover.
Bug to Feature[edit]
Context could play a big part here, because this problem is likely to be fixed by the skill system intended for Squawk 2nd Ed. TDW might be the last game in the foreseeable future that uses Scratch without skills. In TDW, there is a really good narrative to why PCs should gain toughness more often than other abilities, which the following text could be added to TDW to explain:
- Essence often warps Sorcerers into more powerful forms, increasing their size, natural armor, or other physical alterations that make them more physically resilient. Therefore, it is appropriate for Sorcerers to use essence to gain Toughness more often than other abilities.
If we go with this option, this Toughness balance issue can be tabled until we are using skills in Scratch.
Real Solution[edit]
What if we had a rule for all injured or incapacitated characters (including minions) that between encounters they only heal to barely-healthy, unless they can make a detection, craftsmanship or healing roll to regenerate themselves to full HP?
- This would decrease the guarantee that hit points make you last longer, which would be good.
- Can you use your roll to heal an ally instead of yourself?
- "Yes" makes more narrative sense IMHO. --BFGalbraith 10:17, 25 June 2011 (PDT)
- This should be the rule for a "normal" encounter cycle. Depending on the game this could mean a short rest, a month or a year of rehabilitation. Within each game there may be some back-to-back encounters without the opportunity to heal, and there may be longer breaks or full healing services at some points in a long campaign (i.e. "return to town".)
- The normal encounter cycle should also be the cycle for changing craftsmanship bonuses.
- You should not be able to respec minions in the normal encounter cycle. You need a longer break ("return to town") to replace, modify or retrain your minions.
more realistic healing options[edit]
Note: the three main scratch projects right now (TDW, HoW, Squawk 2nd Ed.) are fantasy/sci-fi with lots of explanations for "unrealistic healing." IMHO this rule may be decided on in the not-near future.--BFGalbraith 14:31, 20 June 2011 (PDT)
games without healing ability (dinosaurs and prehistoric animals)
hardcore
- HP never goes up during combat
- damage always represents injuries that take a long time to heal.
- It never represents physical or psychic pain, suffocation or stunning effects that people can recover from during combat. (This could make the rule incompatible with some settings or other optional rules like skills.)
- healing still used in combat with death rules?
- does first aid remove the healer from combat?
- NO, either you can use healing as a combat action or you don't use healing until hostilities stop. This is all about how you interpret the duration of combat.
- If you insist on a very quick flow of combat without pauses for maneuvering and orientation (combat takes seconds), then there is not time in a battle to treat multiple injured allies, and it is not necessary or even appropriate to treat injured allies during combat.
- If combat turns are more like camera shots in an action movie and clashes in a real fight, which are interrupted by pauses and maneuvers that vary in duration (combat takes minutes), there is time in a battle to treat multiple injured allies or treat an ally and then return fire at an enemy.
milder
- you can only be healed from being incapacitated once per battle. We could give this state a name, like convalescent or wounded.
- we could also limit each healer to healing one character form injured to healthy once per battle.
healing between battles
- everybody heals to stamina + 1 between battles (balance and stability - game designers know you will have most of your HP when you enter a battle.)
- make toughness roll to heal yourself to full HP
- make healing roll for each ally to heal them to full HP
healing skills
- special healing skills might be able to heal you when normal healing actions cannot.
- special toughness skills might allow you to be healed more often.
- toughness skills that help you be healed?
optional death rules[edit]
realistic or brutal games like Resilience might have death rules that add dramatic tension and character expendability.
