Munchkinism

[Alan]

Here's some quick approximations of the costs of improving skills by experience checks.  You can see that the return on SR after 6 goes up asymptotically.  ie way out of proportion.

You run into the same situation when you allocate your stat points.  During character generation they are allocated linearly, but once playing it is on a curve.  

I think that the gap between linear purchase at character creation and in-play asymptotic costs are a fine compromise for ease of use - provided the gap is not too wide.  

In the case of skills, it takes 28 MA dice in skill checks to go four points from 7 to 3.  That's almost 9 MA dice per point.  That's three times the 3 dice per point cost from 7 to 6.  

Compare this to attributes.  Spending SAs to buy an attribute up four points from 4 to 8 costs 46 SAs, or 11.5 points per point.  That's about 1.5 times the 7 point cost of going from 4 to 5.

The curve for attributes is much shallower and hence the linear character creation buy is not an unreasonable compromise.

However skills have a much steeper curve and so the linear buy should be limited - just rules on page 20 indicate.

[Bill Cook]

make a good attack to my neck area and get 6 successes, my TO and armour reduce it to 1 success. Now we narrate the scene. You didn't do a killing blow that was reduced- you only did a flesh wound. It doesn't matter how many successes you get till after you reduce based on TO and armour- then you have determined what the ST of the blow was. Not before. If my TO and/or armour reduce you to 0 successes- you missed or did less than a flesh wound- it had nothing to do with my physical toughness turning aside the sword blade, or my skill saving my ass- you just didn't hit, or hit in such a way as to do no damage.

The way I see things, it's the latter.  First you hit, then you penetrate.  

"ST of the blow?"  Do you mean Wound Level?  ST is static and unrelated to Margin of Success for an attack.  It is certainly not "determined" by success.  Which strikes me as odd, but that is what I read.

My earlier point about the Wound Level formula relates to a Purist for System ideal.

Purist-for-System designs tend to model the same things: differences among scales, situational modifiers, kinetics of all kinds, and so forth.

As I see it, Purist for System design is a tall, tall order. It's arguably the hardest design spec in all of role-playing.

In the context of this ideal, I think the Wound Level formula falls short and may be exploited unacceptably through the TO attribute.

I say you want a guy with high TO and wearing armour so you can't be touched in combat- so what. Go be an untouchable tank, and have fun doing it. The only thing that really matters in TROS are SA's.

I'm all for kewl, but I sympathize with Cory's concerns as they relate to group responsibility for our fun.

SA's have the glitter in 'em, but stepping back, there is also a palette.

I'm toothgrindingly sick of the hypocrisy of people who use combat oriented systems with a billion and one intricate optimization options and then bitch when people take advantage of them.

The Seneschal needs throw range to pose challenges.  I wouldn't describe concerns over limiting that resource as bitching.

Don't like 'Munchkins"? Stop using systems which enable them and stop running games I which you have to be one to survive. Simple Eh?

Nick's not a . . . whatever the Hell a munchkin is.  We actually tend more to attain character goals or unravel a mystery.  Anyway, I wouldn't characterize TROS as having a "win by surviving" kind of focus.

[Anthony I]

The way I see things, it's the latter.  First you hit, then you penetrate.

The effect of hitting and penetrating are not determined seperately, and the actual effect of the attack isn't determined till after the wound level is reconciled against the TO and/or armour.

"ST of the blow?"  Do you mean Wound Level?  ST is static and unrelated to Margin of Success for an attack.  It is certainly not "determined" by success.  Which strikes me as odd, but that is what I read.

Yes, I meant Wound Level, which is your margin of sucess + ST + any weapon modifiers.  It is most certainly determined by your amount of success- if your margin of success is larger you have a better chance of damaging your opponent.  Yes a stronger character can have a smaller margin of success than a weaker character to succeed, but so what.  It is still more dependent on MoS than anything else.  Of course I was totally wrong about the Vision 3 thing so it's entirely possible that I am again.

I'm all for kewl, but I sympathize with Cory's concerns as they relate to group responsibility for our fun.

I'm not talking about Kewl, necessarilly, I'm just talking about different approaches to gaming and that what you might consider Munchkinism is an entirely appropriate and fun way for someone else to play- just not for you.  If groups aren't on the same page, you get dysfunction and people not having fun.  The "group responsibility" is, in my opinion the best way to handle this- place the responsibility to have fun with everyone in the group.

Don't like 'Munchkins"? Stop using systems which enable them and stop running games I which you have to be one to survive. Simple Eh?

See, I don't think this is right either- enabling "munchkins" is just saying my way is right and your way is wrong.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with game systems that enable or encourage this type of play.  If you know what YOU like to play and what YOU don't like to play, then it's pretty easy to find games that you can like.  And if I want to play a Kewl powers d20 game and min/max-the-shit-out-of-my-charater-so-that-I-can-kick-uber-ass....well, so what?  You don't have to play.  And if you want to play a game that has deep interaction, lots of color, Story Now! or whatever and I don't should I in turn turn my nose up in distain at you?  
This isn't directed at anyone, just my soapboxing.

[Brian Leybourne]

linear buy should be limited - just rules on page 20 indicate.

The rules do NOT say that. You're making an interpretation, but that's not what it says. There's a reason I coded the Character Generator to allow you to spend multiple MA points on a skill, it wasn't because I was sloppy. The point (as I have already stated) is that you can play the game either way (ANY way you like, in fact). You bought it, it's your game now. But please don't come onto the forum and tell others that they're playing it wrong because they're not playing it your way.

Brian.

[Mantis]

Well, I guess it's time I discussed my veiw on the whole issue since it talks about my char and I.

I'm not trying for an invincible char I'm going for a Riddle-Seeker with bloodlust and bad social skills.  I don't see a man with these hold backs living very long with a low TO.  I picked the place I liked, Saramatov not just for it's Bonuse of TO +1 but becouse it seemed like a great place for my char to be from due to the chaos, weapon styles, and open invitations for challenges based on the color of ones scabbard.  I only plan on wearing my armor when I know a fight will occur most the time I'll just be wearing a leather jack.

I see it as wise to place attribute points in the same spot.  It only cost a point to move an attribute from 5 to 6 now, but in the game it will cost 10 SA points to make the same change.  Having lower attributes are much less costly from 3 to 4 it cost only 4.  So what's the point in having an average charactor for all your skills when it seems more effective to have high/low attributes.

There is more to this game then combat.  I did make my charactor tough in fights but also I will make him enjoyable to play with.

[Bill Cook]

The effect of hitting and penetrating are not determined seperately, and the actual effect of the attack isn't determined till after the wound level is reconciled against the TO and/or armour.

Well, the way I understand it,
[list=1]
[*]you say, "I swing my sword at the guy's chest,"
[*]you roll allocated CP,
[*]if it is determined that you succeed, you call out the damage
[*]and if it is determined that your damage exceeds the guy's defenses, you roll for fine grade location.[/list:o]
So they seem separately determined to me.  I guess we're just into semantics.

Yes, I meant Wound Level, which is your margin of sucess + ST + any weapon modifiers.

Actually, Wound Level = DR + MoS - Armor - TO.

It is most certainly determined by your amount of success- if your margin of success is larger you have a better chance of damaging your opponent.

When I said

ST is static and unrelated to Margin of Success for an attack. It is certainly not "determined" by success.

my "it" was ST.  (ST is a primary attribute that you set when you create your character.  It is employed in the weapons table as a base for DR.)  I think you took my "it" to be MoS, given the proximity in the text of my post.

I'm not talking about Kewl, necessarilly, I'm just talking about different approaches to gaming and that what you might consider Munchkinism is an entirely appropriate and fun way for someone else to play- just not for you.

We agree on this point.  If you retrace the thread, you'll see I was taking this same tone before Cory's clarification.  Then I did an about face (in light of the validity of his concern) and cast a more critical eye at the mechanic.

[Bill Cook]

Oh, shit.  I just realized: my "it" was Wound Level!  (Throws courtroom papers into the air.)

Please receive a free coupon to ignore me:)

Anyway, what I was noticing is how MoS is the only dynamic component of Wound Level.  Everything else is static.  And I was thinking (warning . . . radical thinking ahead . . .), maybe they should have range.  i.e. Have ST be a MoS proportion (somehow), and have Armor and TO be proportions of . . . weapon characteristics.

They're rough ideas.  Inelegant.  But I am on about something.  Bare skin a crossbow bolt stop will not.

[Brian Leybourne]

Well, the way I understand it,
[list=1]
[*]you say, "I swing my sword at the guy's chest,"
[*]you roll allocated CP,
[*]if it is determined that you succeed, you call out the damage
[*]and if it is determined that your damage exceeds the guy's defenses, you roll for fine grade location.[/list:o]
So they seem separately determined to me.  I guess we're just into semantics.

That's not entirely correct, since the fine-grade location affects damage (gauntlets have a higher AV for the hand than the leather sleeve on the forearm and elbow, thus you keed to know where on the arm you hit the person).

Admittedly, in the core rules you have to determine a lot of that yourself, but it will be better clarified in TFOB, with shaded diagrams showing exactly what's covered by what armor and so on.

Brian.

[Alan]

linear buy should be limited - just rules on page 20 indicate.

The rules do NOT say that.

I apologize.  I was absolutely convinced I was reading the rules as they were intended.

[Ingenious]

Allow me to crawfish for a second and admit my assumptions.
I assumed that Nick chose his country for the +1 TO, though I might not have seen the next sentence he might have typed due to being disconnected.
I am glad however, that this is not the case.. where-as he has reasoning behind his character for choosing his country other than the bonuses...which directly affects the roleplaying aspect of the game.
So, sorry for the assumption.

Also, this issue between me and the high TO is over now.. since I have redone my character and I happen to be completely happy with the results. While I may be Sir Dodge-a-lot still, I won't have the benefit of a high TO to counteract the possibility of me getting hit in the case that my skills in defense fail... for if they fail.. that means another person was more skilled than my character was. So I'll leave that at that.

-Ingenious

[Jake Norwood]

Well, I guess it's time I discussed my veiw on the whole issue since it talks about my char and I.

I'm not trying for an invincible char I'm going for a Riddle-Seeker with bloodlust and bad social skills.  I don't see a man with these hold backs living very long with a low TO.  I picked the place I liked, Saramatov not just for it's Bonuse of TO +1 but becouse it seemed like a great place for my char to be from due to the chaos, weapon styles, and open invitations for challenges based on the color of ones scabbard.  I only plan on wearing my armor when I know a fight will occur most the time I'll just be wearing a leather jack.

I see it as wise to place attribute points in the same spot.  It only cost a point to move an attribute from 5 to 6 now, but in the game it will cost 10 SA points to make the same change.  Having lower attributes are much less costly from 3 to 4 it cost only 4.  So what's the point in having an average charactor for all your skills when it seems more effective to have high/low attributes.

There is more to this game then combat.  I did make my charactor tough in fights but also I will make him enjoyable to play with.

Sounds like fun.  Are you having fun playing him? Are there problems in the group dynamic on his account?  If the answers are "yes" and "no" in that order, then all is well with the world.

Jake

[Mantis]

Sadly my group and I wont be able to get together and play this month (usually we play about 6-7 hour long games once a month), due to everything getting suddenly getting busy on the nights we meet.  Hopefully I'll be able to answer questions about my char sometime early in March.

TROS is truely a great game and I'm personally in 2 gaming campaigns, and it frustrates me that I don't have time to play more.