SableWyvern said:
The fact that you took the trouble to "fix" a mechanic whose primary purported defect was an overabundance of excellent results implies that you initially agreed with me that excellent and mediocre results should be about the same (in an ideal, no modifiers context). I saw no comments from you that an abundance of mediocre results was desirable until (a) you came up with your mechanic and (b) it was pointed out that your fix skewed significantly to mediocre results. Then, suddenly, you asserted that it was desirable to have a far higher chance of mediocre results on a typical roll than exceptional results. Given that you offered no real support for this position, I cannot help but wonder if it's really just a self-serving rationalization for a mechanic that you've fallen in love with?
Actually, now that you get to this point ... I think I might have been turned around in this argument at some point. Otherwise, I've been unclear, or you've simply misunderstood. But, it's probably the former. My apologies. I've deleted my point-by-point replies to earlier sections of your post in the hopes of clearing this up.
Let's take this back a pace.
<snip of explanations of different levels in current system>
My argument -- for what it's worth -- is that if the consequences of a mediocre result and of an excellent result are equivalent (though in different directions, obviously), then the chance of each should be about the same (assuming an "ideal roll" -- one with no modifiers).
Again, I don't believe they are opposite ends of a spectrum. Marginal results sit near the middle, with failures below. Anyway, either my explanations above helped you see where I'm coming from, or they didn't.
It isn't your explanations that trouble me. Rather, you seem to be redesigning the game (via redefining its definitions) to fit a particular mechanic. I personally find such an approach dubious.
Now, if the mechanic was REALLY REALLY cool, I'd have some sympathy. But I find little that's cool about the timing/effect mechanic. It's a great deal of trouble considering the minimal useful information it yields (especially since there are far simpler ways to generate that data if needed).
A digression on game design philosophy. Feel free to skip a bit...
1. Article 1 of my game design philosophy is that game rules -- wargame or RPG rules -- exist in a zero sum environment. Every additional rule, special case, mechanism, etc., increases the amount of hassle required to play the game. Obviously, a certain amount of hassle is tolerated, or we'd not play anything besides "heads or tails". But there is a limit to the amount of hassle that a player will tolerate before the game becomes "less enjoyable". While that limit varies somewhat from player to player, I don't think it varies
that much. If I am right, then designers need to consider the implications. Myself, I have a couple of rules of thumb:
--Designers get paid the big bucks to decide
what few important factors should be modeled in the game (and in the individual subsystems). If you can't do that, don't be a game designer. "Kitchen sink" designs that try to model everything indicate that the designer is incompetent and/or hopelessly indecisive.
-- "Use the simplest mechanics possible, taking into account what's being modeled and the degree of fidelity required. All else being equal, prefer simpler mechanics.". Remember that every additional mechanic, rule, or step required of the player, will increase hassle.
--Universal mechanics tend to yield universally mediocre results. Would you use a screwdriver to pound nails, drill holes and pry things up? You might, if you had no alternatives. But an intelligent craftsman would use a hammer, drill and crowbar if he could. Of course, neither should someone use different mechanics if a single mechanic will do the job as well or better. (This should explain my general lack of enthusiasm at the Traveller task system fetish).
--The primary emphasis for the designer should be to design a *fun* game. My nearly 30 years of gaming have convinced me that fast
playing mechanics are the single most important factor in determining if a game is fun.
--To that end, design games that can be played
fast. In particular, take full advantage of mechanics that enable "batch processing" (impossible with 2d6 mechanics). Also, a number of fast, simple die rolls are usually better than a single gnarly roll with all kinds of special rules, exceptions, charts, etc. (The current damage system fails this rule, as does the combat sequence of play).
2. "Cool" and "innovative" die mechanics are usually neither. Die rolls (particularly the 2d6 roll) have been around since wargaming started. That territory has been explored by a lot of very capable game designers (and by many, many more incompetent designers). So when a designer comes up with a "cool" and "innovative" mechanic based on such well-Travelled ground, he should be
very skeptical. In all likelihood, there's a good reason that mechanic has not been used before. In the last 13 years, I've come across exactly ONE new d6-based mechanic that actually worked well. (So of course, I appropriated it for my rules set, A Fistful of TOWs). Every other "cool", "innovative" mechanic I've seen has turned out to be badly flawed in some way. Plaintiff's Exhibit A: the timing/effect system.
3. Do not design systems that frustrate the players. That's the job of the opponent (and Referee in the case of RPGs). Empower the players; make them take responsibility for their actions. If your system randomly frustrates players, (a) most of them won't enjoy it, though they won't tell you that (see below); and (b) they'll invariably blame the system on their failures. (The current combat system fails this rule in spades, as does random character generation in general).
4. Players lie. Gaming is a social activity and many folks don't want to offend a friend over a game. So to determine if a game is fun, OPEN YOUR EYES and see if the players are acting like they're really having fun.
5. "Innovation" is not inherently desirable. Most of the time, it's used to justify really poor design decisions.
--The tragedy is that there's plenty of room for innovation in the way otherwise stolid, "boring" mechanics are integrated into the whole design. But ironically, the focus on innovation at the game mechanic level seems to correlate with a lack of focus at the "big picture" level.
As a game designer myself, I can understand and sympathize with the natural desire to do something *new*. However, IMHO that desire should *never* cause the designer to use an obtuse, clumsy, defective mechanic when a better result could be obtained by using a tried and true mechanic. And the reality is that sometimes you cannot be innovative (within established parameters) and turn out a decent game. That, I fear, is the case here. The timing/effect system, the combat system and the damage system all seem to me to be the result of a desperate desire to innovate for innovation's sake. Each of them is fussy, obtuse and non-intuitive. And none of them work as well as several alternative systems that are available.
So at the end of the day, I don't think that you can persuade me that your approach adds anything to the equation. As noted, it looks to me like you're trying to redefine the game to fit a particular mechanic, which is a design approach that I find extremely disagreeable.
Certainly in timing and damage, a "1" is the same distance from the theoretical d6 median roll of 3.5 as a "6" is. Thus, I can see no reason to make a "1" more likely than a "6" on an ideal roll. Unless, of course, the designer intends for the average result to be less than 3.5.
As I mentioned in my first post, damage is possibly where this all falls apart. Apart from what you mention above, it also kills the simplification factor (no messing with the numbers, just read the die), if the damage system stays as it is. Using either an additive or multiplicative damage system, you need to invert the Effect die, which is certainly not an improvement on the current system.
Agreed. This is the problem with so many attempts to fix a defective mechanic -- the fix "breaks the system in other ways" to paraphrase Aramis. In this case, special rules are needed, which increase clumsiness. Or, a whole new combat system is required.
My experience has taught me that most seriously defective game systems cannot be fixed. They can be changed (which usually introduces additional defects), replaced, but not really fixed.
If you agree that the current timing and effect system is broken, then I strongly suggest that you consider whether it's really worth the effort to salvage some semblance of the current mechanic? I personally don't think it is.
For myself, I've already made significant changes to armour and damage for my own gratification. I've added a more compex armour system, and moved to an Xd6 damage system. While I think my (actually, I stole the idea from someone else here) armour rules go in a direction Gar isn't interested, I think dice of damage is much better suited to my succes system, and seems to have support from several posters here (dice of damage, that is). Anyway, I'm applying the following damage modifiers based on success:
Incredible +2d6
Excellent +1d6
Standard No change
Marginal -1d6
I'm aware that still doesn't meet your criteria for equivalents in degree from the norm having equivalent probabilities. I'm still not convinced that's strictly necessary, though -- in part because (again), marginal results aren't the bottom of the chart, failures are
Oh, I agree that the *effect* of marginal results can be defined so that they are less dramatic per occurence than the far less likely exceptional results. But again, that's redesigning the game to fit a certain mechanic, which I do not agree with.
And frankly, if those were my only options, I'd stay with the current mechanic. It's no more broken and slightly more intuitive.
I'm interested to hear if my explanations have gone any way to changing your mind on that, at least.
Not really, though I applaud your persistence. I understand your points (and am gratified that *you* understand that your system requires redefining excellent and mediocre results). I just don't think that the result will be better than the current system or even as good as any number of alternative systems. No shame in this; you're trying to work within someone else's mechanic. A good mechanic might not be able to fix a badly designed car.
As I said, I am not enthusiastic about wasting time trying to patch up a defective mechanic. I'd rather replace it with one that works well from the get go. And note that the statistical issues are not the only ones I have with the timing/effect system. So even if they were magically resolved, other issues would remain.
Assuming you had the patience to hack through my digression on game design philosophy, please consider my comments in light of that philosophy.
