Topic: Combinatorics: Categorized Point-Based Costing Models
Started by: Veritas Games
Started on: 11/7/2004
Board: Indie Game Design
On 11/7/2004 at 3:31pm, Veritas Games wrote:
Combinatorics: Categorized Point-Based Costing Models
I've found that often point-based architectures for character creation sometimes break down because they don't take into account vast synergy between certain powers.
Some of that can be taken into account by making some powers simply cost more to make them a major investment.
However, I wonder what people think of the following:
a) categorizing powers (where a power can be in multiple categories)
b) letting players select 1-3 categories of powers
c) charging double (or more) for powers outside of the selected categories
Now, d20 games do something like this with class and cross-class skills. However, that system not only charges double for some skills but also severely caps cross-class skill bonuses compared to class-skill bonuses.
The notion of categorizing powers and charging extra for things not within a selected category seem viable, but I worry that it is unpopular (given that a number of people have rebelled against cross-class skills as a concept).
Thoughts?
Comments?
On 11/7/2004 at 5:15pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Combinatorics: Categorized Point-Based Costing Models
It will have effects. Whether they are the effects you want, nobody can say without knowing what your goal is.
What are you trying to achieve with the game?
On 11/7/2004 at 5:48pm, Veritas Games wrote:
RE: Combinatorics: Categorized Point-Based Costing Models
I'd say I'm looking for the game to be a bit better play balanced than a straight point-based architecture, and I want it to encourage archetypes without those archetypes being as limiting as classes. By doubling costs for powers outside of categories for which your character is eligible I think it will keep people from cherry-picking the best powers out of every category for cheap.
I'm trying to build a point-based fantasy gaming system and I've found that in initial testing we have determined that it encourages flexible archetypes.
People tend to buy 80% of their powers from the 2 cateories they have selected and then take a smattering of powers from other categories for double cost to finish out their character conceptions.
My initial tests without this categorization costing method was that people would cherry pick powers.
If you are familiar with D&D 3rd edition, consider that a Paladin's smite ability, combined with a fighter's weapon specialization, combined with a rogue's Sneak Attack ability is wildly powerful. Whereas just one of those powers alone would be powerful but not obscene. The synergy was where the power came from.
Similarly, imagine if everyone could take Evasion (ability to avoid all damage from area of effect attacks on a successful saving throw), instead of just certain characters.
Those were the problems we observed without the power categories.
Similarly, a number of people have noted in Mutants & Masterminds how lots of people tend to take certain powers. Power gamers can focus on a few ranks of several different powers to get a lot of benefit.
Champions manages to just put a high entry cost onto certain powers (desolidification), but then it has a pretty much all or nothing effect on those powers, instead of a tiered or per-rank effect.
I've seen 1 or 2 gaming products employing power categorization systems with additional costs for purchasing from categories which were closed to you. It looks very effective, but I think for some reason people balk at anything other than a fixed cost for a power for all characters, regardless of conception.
In a more rules light game I would just do away with fixed power categories and say:
a) x2 cost for powers loosely related to the core character conception
b) x3 cost for powers very loosely related to the core character conception
c) disallow powers that don't make sense given a specific character conception
But since I want to have some rules to push these decisions around, I came up with power categories.
On 11/7/2004 at 6:09pm, Precious Villain wrote:
RE: Combinatorics: Categorized Point-Based Costing Models
I think you might have a good idea there. Alternity had a similar system for character creation, but they went the opposite direction. For skills inside your "class" you got a one point break on the cost per rank. Because skills could cost 4 or 5 points per rank and you needed around half a dozen skills you got a significant boost for staying inside the lines.
If you find that doubling the cost is too much, remember that you can juggle the math by increasing the number of points the players get by an arbitrary amount.
Overall, this is usually a pretty good way to balance out a group. However, beware the extent to which synergies can crop up. If you can get a big bonus out of a relatively low cost power that is out of character then some people might just grab it.
On 11/7/2004 at 6:25pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Combinatorics: Categorized Point-Based Costing Models
Lee, you've just told me what you want to avoid.
I still have no idea what you want to achieve with the game.
Are you looking to tell epic adventures in which the players take on the roles of the greatest heroes in the land? Are you looking to tell small-scale adventures where the heroes are achieving limited goals in a world of larger events? Are you emphasizing combat and glory, or character realization and emotion, or contemplation of the human condition?
On 11/7/2004 at 11:28pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Combinatorics: Categorized Point-Based Costing Models
Hello,
Lee, is this thread topic specific to a particular game that you are designing? Or are you offering it as a general question?
It can't be "both." But it's an important question, because the answer will determine what forum this thread will be put into. Please let me know.
Best,
Ron
On 11/8/2004 at 8:38pm, GregS wrote:
RE: Combinatorics: Categorized Point-Based Costing Models
Making lots of assumptions, since you haven't had a chance to explain the game in detail, I might suggest a pre-requisite system.
One of the best power systems I've seen in a game, though it is a video game, is City of Heroes. You not only have to achieve a given level to buy a high level power but you also need to own all the "lesser" powers in that chain. It makes sense, it gives a staged progression, and people won't bitch too much about class limitations.
On 11/8/2004 at 10:13pm, ZeOtter wrote:
Your solution for power abuse
Hi Lee,
I have been reading this thread and one thing keeps running through my head. You sound like you don't trust your players.
I have always held the philosophy that once a game is published it isn't really the designers anymore, it belongs to the people playing it. Sure you own the rights and get the money but if people don't like where you go with it they vote with their pocketbooks.
That being said I think your idea for categories is a good one, but as TonyLB said you haven't told us where you are going with this yet. What your over all goal of the game dictates the audience you are trying to reach and that should tell you in general terms what the players will try to "Pull" during character creation.
If the players of your game all sit down and decide that they want to cherry pick their powers let 'em. What usually happens is the Gamemaster (or whatever you call them) inadvertently sets up a me vs. the players situation when there are all kinds of rules to govern how to make a character. Most GM's are afraid a powerful character will ruin the game. What they should have are the tools built into the game that allow them to handle powerful characters.
If you want a more realistic game then controls on character creation are helpful. If you want an epic game give the GM the tools to up the stakes and let the players make whatever they want.
If you are a really daring designer figure out a way to accommodate for both styles.
I hope that helps somewhat, good luck...
On 11/9/2004 at 6:01pm, Veritas Games wrote:
RE: Combinatorics: Categorized Point-Based Costing Models
TonyLB wrote: Lee, you've just told me what you want to avoid.
I still have no idea what you want to achieve with the game.
Are you looking to tell epic adventures in which the players take on the roles of the greatest heroes in the land? Are you looking to tell small-scale adventures where the heroes are achieving limited goals in a world of larger events? Are you emphasizing combat and glory, or character realization and emotion, or contemplation of the human condition?
Ummm... I said, "I'd say I'm looking for the game to be a bit better play balanced than a straight point-based architecture, and I want it to encourage archetypes without those archetypes being as limiting as classes".
That's about as straight forward as I could say it. So, I just copied and pasted it.
What you are describing about are more campaign goals than they are game design goals. With almost any point-based system I can accomplish many of the things you list above.
On 11/9/2004 at 6:02pm, Veritas Games wrote:
RE: Combinatorics: Categorized Point-Based Costing Models
Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,
Lee, is this thread topic specific to a particular game that you are designing? Or are you offering it as a general question?
It can't be "both." But it's an important question, because the answer will determine what forum this thread will be put into. Please let me know.
Best,
Ron
A specific game I'm designing.
On 11/9/2004 at 6:13pm, Veritas Games wrote:
Re: Your solution for power abuse
ZeOtter wrote: Hi Lee,
I have been reading this thread and one thing keeps running through my head. You sound like you don't trust your players.
Define "trust". Point-based architectures are designed to let players build characters largely in isolation from the GM within certain parameters set by the GM. They are supposed to be largely, but not entirely, self-policing once the GM sets certain parameters and limitations in place.
So, in my mind, a point-based architecture isn't worth the paper it's written on if it requires a lot of GM intervention to play-balance. At that point, I'd prefer an entirely subjective system (a list of powers with no costs) with a lot of GM input.
I'm making a game which will mimic some of the elements of d20 but which uses a slightly different core task resolution mechanic. I'm primarily aiming at a point-based fantasy character generation system.
If the players of your game all sit down and decide that they want to cherry pick their powers let 'em.
Generally I find that this is bad for a game. It often encourages a sacrifice of power over character conception. If taking powers A, C, H, and J give you an inexpensive unkillable character, then many players will be so strongly drawn to those powers that character conception will often suffer.
What usually happens is the Gamemaster (or whatever you call them) inadvertently sets up a me vs. the players situation when there are all kinds of rules to govern how to make a character.
I believe there should be. The kind of characters that enter a campaign great affect its tone.
Most GM's are afraid a powerful character will ruin the game. What they should have are the tools built into the game that allow them to handle powerful characters.
That doesn't impact the effect that over-powered characters have on campaign tone. It's trivial to smite a PC that's overly powerful. There's always a bigger fish in the sea to gobble the smaller ones. But I'd rather have a more play-balanced fantasy engine to begin with.
I personally can probably easily work with a list of powers with no costs attached. However, since I'm designing a product assuming an audience won't want to go entirely freeform I've struck upon this sort of categorized point-based mechanic. I've written a lot of it. It looks workable, but I'm more concerned about flavor than anything else. People have enough complaints about d20 class & cross-class skills that it made me wary even though I think the idea is viable.
On 11/9/2004 at 6:19pm, Veritas Games wrote:
RE: Combinatorics: Categorized Point-Based Costing Models
Precious Villain wrote: If you find that doubling the cost is too much, remember that you can juggle the math by increasing the number of points the players get by an arbitrary amount.
I have been tinkering with a more complicated costing system. It's mostly addition and subtraction. But in addition to doubling costs outside of categories, characters are rated according to their power level. You can buy most powers at Power Level 1, but some powers cost a fortune to buy there and are much less expensive when purchased by Power Level 20 characters.
That, plus a system of pre-requisites for certain related power encourages players to build archetypes with some flexibility and with powers commensurate with their power level.
However, the system acknowledges that while some powers are possibly outrageously good against other neophyte adventurers, are practically useless against epic heroes. And thus the reason why some powers have a sliding scale on cost, or variable power based on the overall power level of the character.
I did think City of Heroes sounded interesting. Not exactly what I'm aiming for, but certainly it was educational to get a gander at the CoH rules.
On 11/10/2004 at 8:15am, Nathan P. wrote:
RE: Combinatorics: Categorized Point-Based Costing Models
People have enough complaints about d20 class & cross-class skills that it made me wary even though I think the idea is viable.
Geh. Write for yourself. I take the advice of Steven Brust (who took it from someone else, I don't remember who) - Write what you think is cool. If you think its cool, other people who like what you like will think its cool. People who don't like what you like won't be reading it anyway.
I mean, obviously, you want to appeal to enough people to get a player base. I know I do. But at some point, you gotta be like "dammit, this is what I think is cool. I'm doing it." Why design for people who don't like what you like anyway?
That said, seems like a fine enough system. Also seems like you're not getting what Tony is trying to get across. Lots of folks here subscribe to "System does matter" - your mechanics directely inform the play that will come out of your game. What do you want that kind of play to look like? Or are you trying to build a "universal" system?
but I'm more concerned about flavor than anything else
Sweet. Give us the flavor you want. Help us help you.
On 11/10/2004 at 1:37pm, Veritas Games wrote:
RE: Combinatorics: Categorized Point-Based Costing Models
Nathan P. wrote: Lots of folks here subscribe to "System does matter" - your mechanics directely inform the play that will come out of your game. What do you want that kind of play to look like? Or are you trying to build a "universal" system?
Sweet. Give us the flavor you want. Help us help you.
System does matter, but the only thing the costing system I've described should affect is whether or not the characters are more or less archetypical. The only things that will affect flavor, as far as I can see, are the powers I choose to include, how I categorize them, and what the costs of each power are. That's largely distinct from the notion of:
a) categorizing powers and making them cost double if their are outside of the 1-2 categories a player has selected as central to his character
b) making some powers cost a sliding amount depending on whether they are purchased by a powerful character or a weaker character
I think the task resolution system, the types of powers, the "crunch" of the overall system, etc. will impact flavor of the game much more than the type of costing system.
I think the costing system will likely just encourage making loosely archetyped characters, and discouraging cherry picking of all the otherwise desirable powers.
Do you see it creating more effects than that?
I'm aiming at powering down d20 fantasy a bit (at least for beginning characters which are sometimes incredibly front-loaded in the powers they get), but making it a point based system.
To that I'm going to add a different damage mechanic, different magic system, and slightly different task resolution system. Much of the system will feel a bit like a d20 fantasy system, but it will be much more flexible. The magic system will create stark differences between characters of different magical traditions. The task resolution system will be a bell curve system so that the variance tends to swamp the skill values a little less often. However, I haven't put those other items on the table yet, and they have the biggest impact on the flavor of the game.
I'm just discussing the viability of the costing mechanic right now. I've seen something like it in one or two lesser known RPGs. Somebody else just pointed me to Alternity (thanks).
I think mechanically it should do what I intend for it to do, I'm just not certain that that will be particularly popular. The latter is my concern, as it should tend to make the game slightly more play balanced at the expense of a disincentive to make really creative, off-the-wall characters.
Hopefully that's clear. Maybe I'm still missing the questions.