Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

[Mutazoia]

And there is literally no noteworthy difference between using a weapon to kill someone or using a SoD spell to kill someone.

There's a BIG difference. Ignoring the fact that there is little chance that a sword will kill a target in a single hit (with out a HUGE level difference), while a SoD spell will. The sword needs to be wielded by someone on the "front line", that is at risk of getting hit himself, whereas the SoD spell can be cast from the safety of the back lines. And then you get into a situation where one side's casters are focusing all their attention on the other sides casters, effectively taking each other out of the equation until one side's casters manage to nuke the others...and then they might not have the resources left to do anything about the battle at hand.

In a 1 on 1, or small group skirmish that D&D uses, a SoD spell can instantly wipe out one side, before the sword swinger has a chance to swing his sword.

That is just some artifact of the D&D rules which for some reason have a hitpoint system modelling injuries until death and seperate death effects on top of it.

Because if there wasn't a hitpoint system, EVERYTHING would be save or die. One hit with a sword? Dead. One hit with a dagger? Fall more than 5 feet? Dead.

No, they are the same topic. One of my main points was all the time that most encounters in quite a lot of systems are not actually combat encounters and you really should not build and balance all your character options with combat in mind.

I agree. The reason that there are a large chunk of rules devoted to combat, is that combat is the hardest thing in an RPG to arbitrate fairly and consistently across the board.

[Pleh]

Beside the fact that's one situation in one very particular setting with a very particular take on magic -- be careful trying to emulate the particulars of authorial fiction in an RPG, they're not the same medium. Many players won't accept their character being Gimli to another player's Saruman. If one were to insist that Saruman is an NPC, that takes the situation outside of RPS character balancing.

Well, actually Saruman was probably a dramatically higher level NPC. In this scenario, it wasn't just that he was a caster, it was also that he was supposed to be a lot more powerful than them to boot. He was a BBEG wizard whom they were planning to fight much later with far more preparation and resources.

Nevermind that by conflating tactics and other elements with character archetypes (blending "ambush" with "caster", "environment" with "assassin", etc) you've pretty much blown up RPS already.

I'm not blowing up RPS, I'm adding Lizard and Spock. I'm building on RPS.

"Conflation" has acquired a negative stigma in this community based on the problem people often have with mistakenly (or maliciously) associating incompatible concepts. But the word only means, "to combine two ideas into one."

It isn't bad or fallacious if that's what I'm intending to do, express this intention openly, and show some work at demonstrating the function of the combined concept.

Which if it weren't for all the strangely off-beat answers, I would say that I have done all these things. Somewhere the strawmen are popping up through some loss in translation.

Regardless, it doesn't change my utter loathing for RPS structure in game design,

Be careful here. It's fine to have preferences, but if you are saying you'll never like my idea no matter what (i.e. even if I succeed at making it a fun and balanced system concept), then exactly what do you think you can meaningfully and constructively contribute to my process?

If you have a reason you don't like RPS design and not just a bias, then it should be theoretically possible for me to create a variant RPS design that doesn't have the problems you dislike (granted it may still have other problems).

On the topic of RPS, I don't like them in roleplaying games. First you have to have a class system where one class is just simply better against another class and you have to find a way to enforce it.

Not quite. I am seeing a system that balances powers based on RPS design. Classes only give you easy access to a select band on the spectrum of possible powers, which will give you certain advantages against challenges that utilize different bands on the spectrum.

Ideally, the method for enforcement will largely be handled by arranging the RPS to simulate some variant of reality such that the RPS relationship feels so natural as to be virtually invisible to players.

Suprise, ambush, attacking someones back, killing someone in their sleep doesn't even enter the picture as these are tactics that can be employed by everyone. RPS implies that spearmen beats cavalry, cavalry beats archers and archers beat spearmen...this is very classic setup but hardly applies to rpgs as you have the options of chosing from myriads of tactics.

Sure, but my theory involves prismatically splitting RPS into a spectrum. Max says I'm "blowing it up," but if someone else has a more apt description for an "RPS Rainbow," I wouldn't mind hearing it.

That is to say that, if Spearman beats Cavalry, then when faced with the threat of Cavalry, any character could attempt to approximate themselves as a Spearman to improve their chances, they just are gradually less good at doing it the further away from their native Powers they are stretching.

So if you have the Assassin who's supposed to beat the Caster then you have to explain why. So if you explain it away that the assassin can sneak behind the caster and stab him in the back then the only thing that is implied is that the Warrior and the Caster can't sneak or stab people in the back. This ruins immersion for me because as an ex soldier I identify myself with the Warrior and I know darn well that I can sneak behind people and stab them in the back in RL....heck part of my training was to camouflage and sneak so I could ambush the enemy.

Your training implies that rather than hard specialization, you have more generalized training. Under my proposed paradigm, there would be Rogues, Fighters, and Fighter-Rogue hybrids. You can take the best of both worlds, you'll just never be quite as specialized as the people who sacrifice one or the other.

So access to Powers through Classes should be quite flexible.

Also, nothing about my proposed design would prohibit a Warrior from trying to sneak behind a caster and stab them in the back just because it tends to be effective against wizards.

The problem is that their training enables them to wear heavier, noisier armor and does drastically less to improve their skill in stealth. They can do it, they'll just be far less likely to be effective at it. The fact that wizards are theoretically more susceptible to this tactic might counterbalance the lack of training, but if they have a Martial Guard Dog watching their back while they're distracted, you really want an Assassin.

---

I have more responses, but not enough time before work this morning. Be back later.

[CharonsHelper]

Sure, but my theory involves prismatically splitting RPS into a spectrum. Max says I'm "blowing it up," but if someone else has a more apt description for an "RPS Rainbow," I wouldn't mind hearing it.

That pretty much describes Pokémon.

There's a whole series of RPS systems. Some have 2 types. But (for example) a fire/flying Pokémon can learn attacks which are neither, they just won't get the 1.5x bonus to damage. But it can be worth using to get the 2x 'super effective' bonus or to avoid the 0.5x ineffective penalty.

There is also the second layer of attack/defense & special attack/defense. If a foe has a great 'defense' then you try to use a 'special' move.

etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That pretty much describes Pokémon.

There's a whole series of RPS systems. Some have 2 types. But (for example) a fire/flying Pokémon can learn attacks which are neither, they just won't get the 1.5x bonus to damage. But it can be worth using to get the 2x 'super effective' bonus or to avoid the 0.5x ineffective penalty.

There is also the second layer of attack/defense & special attack/defense. If a foe has a great 'defense' then you try to use a 'special' move.

etc.

And note that Pokemon is notorious for having a strong meta-game (in the sense of "community-favored builds/tactics"). RPS-style techniques are unstable--

* If the rewards/advantages of playing the RPS route are weak, they'll be ignored and you'll end up just annoying people. E.g. Every MMO that tried to enforce elemental strengths and weaknesses.

* If the rewards/advantages of playing the RPS route are strong, one of two things usually happens:

** The counters to one are unbalanced compared to another. As if rock only beat scissors 90% of the time, but scissors beat paper 100% of the time and rock 10% of the time. Or if one is easier to implement than another. Sure, a zerg-rush-analogue may not be the most effective strategy all the time, but it's just about the most simple to execute. This results in a clearly dominant strategy. MewToo uses Psychic!

** The relative balance is exact at the cost of drastically reduced flexibility and choice. This is classic RPS--there are only three options, and balance is exact. But if you want to play something other than rock, paper, or scissors...you're out of luck.

In a TTRPG setting, you're trying to codify things that are best left to the players and the DM. What works in one instance won't necessarily work in another. Thus, it's not a good balancing tool.

[Florian]

On the topic of RPS, I don't like them in roleplaying games. First you have to have a class system where one class is just simply better against another class and you have to find a way to enforce it.

It can be done in a good way, but that´s far away and above how the suggested MMOs handle it.

[CharonsHelper]

** The counters to one are unbalanced compared to another. As if rock only beat scissors 90% of the time, but scissors beat paper 100% of the time and rock 10% of the time.

If most people started taking scissors then rock would inherently become a good choice. And teams with multiple 'scissors' would want at least 1 'paper' on the team to deal with the 'rocks'. etc.

That's the whole advantage of an RPS system - it inherently self-balances to some degree without having a perfectly balanced system.

Even if one choice is 'best' then the counters to it inherently become solid choices as the counter-meta.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If most people started taking scissors then rock would inherently become a good choice. And teams with multiple 'scissors' would want at least 1 'paper' on the team to deal with the 'rocks'. etc.

That's the whole advantage of an RPS system - it inherently self-balances to some degree without having a perfectly balanced system.

Even if one choice is 'best' then the counters to it inherently become solid choices as the counter-meta.

What if rock only beat scissors 50% of the time? 51%? RPS is only "balanced" if there are an odd number of choices and each choice beats exactly 50% of the other choices. In any other condition, it breaks down and usually causes more problems than it fixes.

In a competitive game (PvP or tournament-style) that works reasonably fine. Choice of "character" is part of the skill. But that's pretty alien to an RPG where you're making decisions for an actual character, not just a bundle of abilities. You also don't know ahead of time what the opponent is going to have, nor do you have the flexibility of switching things up--I can't trade out my fighter for a rogue if that's what the situation needs. If it's binding then the allowed party make-ups are strongly limited. And I find that obnoxious.

I don't see RPS-style balancing as being relevant to a cooperative TTRPG, at least not in anything other than a custom-designed, narrowly focused one. TTRPGs are too open-ended--what works in one instance (shank the caster) might backfire horribly in another, based on the circumstances. If you restrict it down to "press X not to die" (which is a bad implementation, to be sure) or similar "there's a good counter. If you don't have it, you're going to struggle," you limit the players in a way that seems arbitrary and pointless. It means that my group of a monk, a warlock, a rogue, and a druid (no front-liner, no flexible arcane caster, no dedicated healer) would be strongly disadvantaged. Or a party with a paladin, a 2H-weapon fighter and a bard. Or many other possible combinations. And that's anti-fun (for me at least).

[CharonsHelper]

What if rock only beat scissors 50% of the time? 51%?

Then it's not an RPS system. It's a failed attempt. I think that it would need to be at least 2/3 of the time to qualify at all (and then scissors couldn't beat paper 100% at the same time either).

RPS is only "balanced" if there are an odd number of choices and each choice beats exactly 50% of the other choices. In any other condition, it breaks down and usually causes more problems than it fixes.

I disagree.

Ex: If you have five choices they could be round-robin of countering, each extra effective against one and beaten by another and neutral vs the other two. I'm actually play-testing a dueling style card-game based upon that premise, and thus far it works pretty well. (Fire>Ice>Air>Earth>Water>Fire) They all have slight differences besides the RPS vibe. I intentionally made Fire the scariest (best offense but no defences), so if your opponent is grabbing Fire that promotes grabbing Water for defence, which makes Earth good to beat that...

It works pretty well - albeit much more simplistic than a TTRPG. (designed to take 5-15min per round)

In a competitive game (PvP or tournament-style) that works reasonably fine. Choice of "character" is part of the skill. But that's pretty alien to an RPG where you're making decisions for an actual character, not just a bundle of abilities. You also don't know ahead of time what the opponent is going to have, nor do you have the flexibility of switching things up--I can't trade out my fighter for a rogue if that's what the situation needs. If it's binding then the allowed party make-ups are strongly limited. And I find that obnoxious.

I do agree that you'd need more character flexibility than most TTRPGs have. A TTRPG would have to be build with the RPS as a core pillar from the ground up. And - I actually disagree with Pleh on one thing. I think that the RPS would have to be extremely blatant and obvious rather than subtle and would have to be in-world knowledge.

If it's subtle and people don't realize that RPS is why they lost then they get annoyed and start ranting about what beat them being OP. (Many MMOs started with RPS systems and slowly wore them away due to complaints.) But no one complains if their fire Pokémon gets beaten by a slightly lower level water Pokémon because it's so blatant and a pillar of the system. (And yes - Psychic Pokémon were OP in the 1st ed - but after that every type was playable. They specifically introduced the Dark & Steel types later because Psychic had no hard counters. After that they were fine.)

I've considered trying to make a system based around hunting down monsters to make gear (replacing much of the 'wealth' part of most TTRPGs) - and that gear rather than your class being the RPS system - allowing you to change between them on the fly.

It means that my group of a monk, a warlock, a rogue, and a druid (no front-liner, no flexible arcane caster, no dedicated healer) would be strongly disadvantaged. Or a party with a paladin, a 2H-weapon fighter and a bard. Or many other possible combinations. And that's anti-fun (for me at least).

As long as the RPS system is robust enough - many combinations would be fine. The RPS would also need to be per tactic rather than by class, with each class given at least two (maybe better at one than the other). etc.

And frankly - many party combinations are already sub-par in D&D as it stands. I don't see how an RPS system would change that.

But I do agree that it wouldn't work just slapped on top of a current D&D. As I said above - it would need to be built into the system from the ground up.

[Max_Killjoy]

Ex: If you have five choices they could be round-robin of countering, each extra effective against one and beaten by another and neutral vs the other two. I'm actually play-testing a dueling style card-game based upon that premise, and thus far it works pretty well. (Fire>Ice>Air>Earth>Water>Fire) They all have slight differences besides the RPS vibe. I intentionally made Fire the scariest (best offense but no defences), so if your opponent is grabbing Fire that promotes grabbing Water for defence, which makes Earth good to beat that...

It works pretty well - albeit much more simplistic than a TTRPG. (designed to take 5-15min per round)

Why even do that in an RPG?

Why should one concept lose to another concept or win over a different concept simply because of who took which concept?

Why not make all the choices as balanced as possible, and leave the winning and losing up to how the players use their characters' abilities, the environment and circumstances, etc?

(Never mind that an RPG is not a dueling-style card game... importing card design concepts into a TTRPG sounds as fraught with potential trouble as trying to import CRPG design concepts into a TTPRG.)

[CharonsHelper]

Why even do that in an RPG?

Why should one concept lose to another concept or win over a different concept simply because of who took which concept?

Why not make all the choices as balanced as possible, and leave the winning and losing up to how the players use their characters' abilities, the environment and circumstances, etc?

Because TTRPGs are NEVER balanced between choices. One of the main draws of an RPS system is that as long as you're in the ballpark it's largely self-balancing between the various choices. Plus - it adds a lot of tactical depth for minimal complexity.

(Never mind that an RPG is not a dueling-style card game... importing card design concepts into a TTRPG sounds as fraught with potential trouble as trying to import CRPG design concepts into a TTPRG.)

I agree that it wouldn't translate 1 for 1. That doesn't mean that the premise is inherently bad.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I disagree.

Ex: If you have five choices they could be round-robin of countering, each extra effective against one and beaten by another and neutral vs the other two. I'm actually play-testing a dueling style card-game based upon that premise, and thus far it works pretty well. (Fire>Ice>Air>Earth>Water>Fire) They all have slight differences besides the RPS vibe. I intentionally made Fire the scariest (best offense but no defences), so if your opponent is grabbing Fire that promotes grabbing Water for defence, which makes Earth good to beat that...

It works pretty well - albeit much more simplistic than a TTRPG. (designed to take 5-15min per round)

That works, for a card game (note--competitive). I can't see it working for an RPG. I would find it horribly obnoxious, personally.

I do agree that you'd need more character flexibility than most TTRPGs have. A TTRPG would have to be build with the RPS as a core pillar from the ground up. And - I actually disagree with Pleh on one thing. I think that the RPS would have to be extremely blatant and obvious rather than subtle and would have to be in-world knowledge.

If it's subtle and people don't realize that RPS is why they lost then they get annoyed and start ranting about what beat them being OP. (Many MMOs started with RPS systems and slowly wore them away due to complaints.) But no one complains if their fire Pokémon gets beaten by a slightly lower level water Pokémon because it's so blatant and a pillar of the system. (And yes - Psychic Pokémon were OP in the 1st ed - but after that every type was playable. They specifically introduced the Dark & Steel types later because Psychic had no hard counters. After that they were fine.)

I've considered trying to make a system based around hunting down monsters to make gear (replacing much of the 'wealth' part of most TTRPGs) - and that gear rather than your class being the RPS system - allowing you to change between them on the fly.

But Pokemon is an example of how soft RPS-style play fails in balancing--there's always a dominant line-up. This is made worse by throwing out the 90% of pokemon that can't even participate because the RPS has made them useless. Importing this into an RPG is asking for a heart-ache.

As long as the RPS system is robust enough - many combinations would be fine. The RPS would also need to be per tactic rather than by class, with each class given at least two (maybe better at one than the other). etc.

But that stretches believability, and is something handled way better by a DM than by fiat system assumptions. Tactics are situational. RPS is (by definition) not situational. I'd have to see implementation details, but I have a hard time believing that adding it would be a benefit.

And as to current D&D? Many combinations are bad in 3.X. In 5e, no particular combinations are expected, needed, or even strongly superior (barring some odd rules interpretations). Those examples I gave were from a 5e game that works just fine. Differently from a more "classic" party, but no big issues. Even the worst of the pack (4 elements monks, un-revised beastmaster rangers, frenzy barbarians) are fine numerically. They're just a little clunky to play or have rough edges.

[RazorChain]

There's a BIG difference. Ignoring the fact that there is little chance that a sword will kill a target in a single hit (with out a HUGE level difference), while a SoD spell will. The sword needs to be wielded by someone on the "front line", that is at risk of getting hit himself, whereas the SoD spell can be cast from the safety of the back lines. And then you get into a situation where one side's casters are focusing all their attention on the other sides casters, effectively taking each other out of the equation until one side's casters manage to nuke the others...and then they might not have the resources left to do anything about the battle at hand.

In a 1 on 1, or small group skirmish that D&D uses, a SoD spell can instantly wipe out one side, before the sword swinger has a chance to swing his sword.

I kinda agree that SoD spells or SoD powers are a bad design choice in a game where you have HP. First chopping somebody in the head should be enough to kill somebody, I'm pretty sure getting whacked with a Zweihander ruins peoples day. So why not just give the Warrior a decapitation power and just get over with it and every one can go around and spam their SoD powers and make HP irrelevant?

On the other hand SoD is just there to counter the ridicilous HP bloat. If those spells do damage instead of SoD it means that when Wizard gets his finger of death it kinda just tickles the barbarian but totally destroys the rogue and that disintigration spell turns another caster to dust while destroying the barbarians toe.

Because if there wasn't a hitpoint system, EVERYTHING would be save or die. One hit with a sword? Dead. One hit with a dagger? Fall more than 5 feet? Dead.

Which is pretty much why most system use HP or wound tiers.

[CharonsHelper]

But Pokemon is an example of how soft RPS-style play fails in balancing--there's always a dominant line-up. This is made worse by throwing out the 90% of pokemon that can't even participate because the RPS has made them useless. Importing this into an RPG is asking for a heart-ache.

I don't think so.

Now - some specific Pokémon are weak because of their stats - but every Pokémon TYPE is at least reasonably viable (a few combinations are better or worse due to weaknesses stacking or being cancelled out). Though I will agree - there are almost always just a couple Pokémon of each type which are the best. (But that has nothing to do with RPS.)

Note: I never played competitively or some such - but I did read some strategy guides from people who did.

And as you said - TTRPGs aren't competitive, so as long as you're decently balanced it's fine. In the Pokémon campaign any Pokémon is perfectly viable - it's only in competitive PvP that certain ones are too weak for play. RPS makes this BETTER.

Ex: Say your buddy is the BEST fire type and you're a mediocre grass type. Sure - overall he's better (as could happen in any TTRPG) but when up against a water type foe you can still be handy to have along.

[Max_Killjoy]

I kinda agree that SoD spells or SoD powers are a bad design choice in a game where you have HP. First chopping somebody in the head should be enough to kill somebody, I'm pretty sure getting whacked with a Zweihander ruins peoples day. So why not just give the Warrior a decapitation power and just get over with it and every one can go around and spam their SoD powers and make HP irrelevant?

On the other hand SoD is just there to counter the ridicilous HP bloat. If those spells do damage instead of SoD it means that when Wizard gets his finger of death it kinda just tickles the barbarian but totally destroys the rogue and that disintigration spell turns another caster to dust while destroying the barbarians toe.

All-or-nothing SoD or SoS never seemed entirely fair to me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

All-or-nothing SoD or SoS never seemed entirely fair to me.

I agree. From a game standpoint, being taken out with a single hit is horrible (especially when there's really little hope of surviving). On the other hand, abilities that have either massive power or no effect are too binary. You either kill the opponent or waste your turn. Balancing them is even harder--any effect that makes them harder to resist strengthens them tremendously, any effect that allows resistance or immunity becomes a must have.

[Florian]

Because if there wasn't a hitpoint system, EVERYTHING would be save or die. One hit with a sword? Dead. One hit with a dagger? Fall more than 5 feet? Dead.

No?

Take a look at the WH40K RPGs or Splittermond.

Those are systems that handle a mix of endurance and wounds, as in you can dodge some blows for a while (endurance), but if you get hit, it´ll be nasty (wounds) and physical (critical effects). And yes, endurance doesn´t come into direct effects, like a car crash or falling down a flight of stairs, unlike the overly simplified hp system does.

[Tinkerer]

No?

Take a look at the WH40K RPGs or Splittermond.

Those are systems that handle a mix of endurance and wounds, as in you can dodge some blows for a while (endurance), but if you get hit, it´ll be nasty (wounds) and physical (critical effects). And yes, endurance doesn´t come into direct effects, like a car crash or falling down a flight of stairs, unlike the overly simplified hp system does.

The wounds system is still a form of an HP system, just on a much smaller scale. When I'm taking notes and doing some theory work I usually refer to the D&D style of HP as CEF, Critical Existence Failure, where you are doing just fine from full HP to 1 HP and then you are suddenly dead/unconscious. Most systems do use some manner of HP however they often tie them in to scaling penalties or other effects.

I absolutely loved the chutzpah from 4th edition D&D where after being mocked for being one of the few systems to not use scaling negative effects they decided to make characters closer to death actually stronger and more competent.

[Florian]

The wounds system is still a form of an HP system, just on a much smaller scale.

Not really. The wound system is tied to the critical hit tables. Theorycraft aside, nearly any weapon can lead to a critical hit and the wound points serve to reduce the severity of the damage. It´s a marked difference wether a hit with a laser weapon burns away the hair on your arm, or, well, you arm, right?

[PhoenixPhyre]

The wounds system is still a form of an HP system, just on a much smaller scale. When I'm taking notes and doing some theory work I usually refer to the D&D style of HP as CEF, Critical Existence Failure, where you are doing just fine from full HP to 1 HP and then you are suddenly dead/unconscious. Most systems do use some manner of HP however they often tie them in to scaling penalties or other effects.

I absolutely loved the chutzpah from 4th edition D&D where after being mocked for being one of the few systems to not use scaling negative effects they decided to make characters closer to death actually stronger and more competent.

I have an issue with stacking penalties (for heroic, combat-oriented games, at least)--it gives the first (successful) mover a huge advantage, leading to a death spiral. In a game where combat should be avoided whenever possible, that's a good thing. In a D&D-like system, where tactical combat is a major selling point, death spirals are awful.

I reified the whole issue by making the CEF system explicitly part of the setting, but that's a separate topic. You either have healing reserves left (>0 HP, no significant issue) or you don't (0 HP, making death saves). Stronger (more powerful, not STR) characters have more reserves and can self-heal through more damage before needing outside intervention.

[Pex]

The problem is, we have an entire generation of gamers that cut their teeth on 3.X and/or 4e, and they don't know any better. They can't see the unbalance, because they were "born" with it...they think it's SUPPOSED to be that way.

Anything that makes one class lag behind another in levels is bad, even if that one class has much more power than the other class....they can't grasp the concept of a stronger class leveling slower, or refuse to grasp it.

One way to help is switch up the language. For example, let fighters gain Levels as is normally understood. Wizards don't get Levels. Instead they achieve new Circles of Power. While there are 20 Levels for fighters there are only 10 Circles for wizards. When Wizards achieve their 2nd Circle, Fighter are gaining 3rd Level. Adjust the numbers to taste depending on abilities gained per Level/Circle. Perhaps it's 3 Levels of Fighter for every Circle of Wizard and Fighters reach 30th Level. Maybe the math isn't even. The wizard achieves the 2nd Circle of Power when the fighter is in the latter half of 2nd Level and becomes 3rd Level after next adventure.

[Tinkerer]

Not really. The wound system is tied to the critical hit tables. Theorycraft aside, nearly any weapon can lead to a critical hit and the wound points serve to reduce the severity of the damage. It´s a marked difference wether a hit with a laser weapon burns away the hair on your arm, or, well, you arm, right?

Well I suppose one of the big questions is do you count critical hits as a part of the standard HP system or as their own independent system. *Memories of old school instant death crit tables float by*

Ignoring the possibility of a critical hit I would definitely still count it as a fairly traditional HP system with non-traditional effects when 0 HP is reached.

I have an issue with stacking penalties (for heroic, combat-oriented games, at least)--it gives the first (successful) mover a huge advantage, leading to a death spiral. In a game where combat should be avoided whenever possible, that's a good thing. In a D&D-like system, where tactical combat is a major selling point, death spirals are awful.

That's definitely true. And one of the reasons why I was quite intrigued by 4th editions bloodied powers. It really does match up to several fictional settings such as shonen anime and pro wrestling. I do tend to prefer running games avoiding combat (also preferring decisive strike) though so I didn't really dabble too much in it.

Actually speaking of neat D&D mechanics which can provide equalization on the caster vs martial front and since so many people seem to be discussing 3.X how about back importing Legendary Resistances for pure martial characters? Throw in one every 5-10 levels? Not as a solution however possibly a part of one. It would sync up really well with tales where the martial hero gets hit by a spell of that nature and fights through it.

[Talakeal]

One way to help is switch up the language. For example, let fighters gain Levels as is normally understood. Wizards don't get Levels. Instead they achieve new Circles of Power. While there are 20 Levels for fighters there are only 10 Circles for wizards. When Wizards achieve their 2nd Circle, Fighter are gaining 3rd Level. Adjust the numbers to taste depending on abilities gained per Level/Circle. Perhaps it's 3 Levels of Fighter for every Circle of Wizard and Fighters reach 30th Level. Maybe the math isn't even. The wizard achieves the 2nd Circle of Power when the fighter is in the latter half of 2nd Level and becomes 3rd Level after next adventure.

That's more or less how spell levels work as is.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1) That's definitely true. And one of the reasons why I was quite intrigued by 4th editions bloodied powers. It really does match up to several fictional settings such as shonen anime and pro wrestling. I do tend to prefer running games avoiding combat (also preferring decisive strike) though so I didn't really dabble too much in it.

2) Actually speaking of neat D&D mechanics which can provide equalization on the caster vs martial front and since so many people seem to be discussing 3.X how about back importing Legendary Resistances for pure martial characters? Throw in one every 5-10 levels? Not as a solution however possibly a part of one. It would sync up really well with tales where the martial hero gets hit by a spell of that nature and fights through it.

1) Yeah. I liked that out of 4e--it matches the "heroic heroes doing heroic things" vibe 4e had going. Wouldn't work for a grittier/darker game, but...

2) That's a good idea. Give them a certain (scaling) number of no-sells. Even against things that have no save. You get to say "Nope, that doesn't affect me". You can fluff it differently by class--

* Fighters resist via discipline.
* Barbarians are just too ANGRY!
* Rogues weren't there to be affected anyway

Or something like that. If that's too powerful (lol), make it more specific. Barbarians get to no-sell mind affecting things. Fighters shrug off wounds (death effects). Rogues avoid physical effects (like fireballs, ray attacks, etc). Just spitballing here.

[Knaight]

Because if there wasn't a hitpoint system, EVERYTHING would be save or die. One hit with a sword? Dead. One hit with a dagger? Fall more than 5 feet? Dead.

There's several non-HP wound systems that beg to differ. Most notable are the individual wound penalties for individual wounds systems that don't have an aggregate HP-type mechanic at all, e.g. Mutants and Masterminds or one of the health options in d6 Open.

[Arbane]

Because if there wasn't a hitpoint system, EVERYTHING would be save or die. One hit with a sword? Dead. One hit with a dagger? Fall more than 5 feet? Dead.

Games like Mutants and Masterminds, FATE, and Legends of the Wulin would beg to differ.

And you do know that there are people who've fallen out of airplanes with no parachute and survived, right?

Well, actually Saruman was probably a dramatically higher level NPC. In this scenario, it wasn't just that he was a caster, it was also that he was supposed to be a lot more powerful than them to boot.

Saruman wasn't just a spellcaster, he was a freakin' ARCHANGEL gone bad.

If you have a reason you don't like RPS design and not just a bias, then it should be theoretically possible for me to create a variant RPS design that doesn't have the problems you dislike (granted it may still have other problems).

One big problem with RPS design baked into an RPG's combat system is that it pretty much means some PCs flat-out can't beat some enemies, if they're actually using the game's rules.

Sudden realization: Sure, 3.5 is RPS - it's just that all spellcasters are Paper (Super Paper, even!), but martials are always Rock.

Because TTRPGs are NEVER balanced between choices.

I dunno. RISUS or FATE aspects are as perfectly balanced as apples and oranges.

I have an issue with stacking penalties (for heroic, combat-oriented games, at least)--it gives the first (successful) mover a huge advantage, leading to a death spiral. In a game where combat should be avoided whenever possible, that's a good thing. In a D&D-like system, where tactical combat is a major selling point, death spirals are awful.

Agreed.

The upcoming Sentinels of the Multiverse RPG has an interesting way to handle this: PCs have a Health die they roll when doing things (die pool system) which changes according to how cheerful/healthy/tired they are, but the PLAYERS choose at chargen how it's set up: You can have a character who gets weaker when injured, stays pretty much the same, or effectively gets stronger.

[Calthropstu]

And you do know that there are people who've fallen out of airplanes with no parachute.

If I remember the top 3 all occurred during ww2 each one surpassing 20k feet... into snow.

[Pex]

That's more or less how spell levels work as is.

No kidding. The point was to change the flavor text so the new players who won't accept different level progressions would accept different level progressions when it's called by prettier names.

[Cluedrew]

All-or-nothing SoD or SoS never seemed entirely fair to me.

If you get the rates just right, it could be completely fair.

But that don't mean its any fun. Which is the more important issue in my mind.

To Thread: I've kind of lost how this all relates back to the original topic. Beyond martial and casters being points on the RPS net I've forgotten/lost track.

[Quertus]

Now, IIRC you like the current power and versatility of 3.5 T1 casters and think it should be brought to every class. You are in favor of removing "spells per day," and making everything "at will," and are against making spell casters need to roll a dice to get their spells off? Is this correct?

Hmmm... I lost a more detailed rely. In short, I believe characters being able to do things is a good goal - versatility enables this, and prevents Shadowrun levels of niche protection and thumb twiddling. I believe that, if people care about balance, making casters "at will" would be much easier to balance with at-will muggings. Others have put it better, but I believe adding casting rolls to 3e, and stacking casting roll + attack roll + saving throw for many chances to fail is probably a really bad plan, whereas it works fine for unopposed rolls in M:tA.

Yeah, Shadow Run does essentially encourage splitting the party.

However, there is nothing to stop you from paying attention and analyzing the other player's "scenes," and there is nothing to stop the GM from placing crucial information in such scenes to make it a requirement. Also, there are lots of D&D players who just zone out (or worse pull out their phones!) during other player's turns.

I can't evaluate events in character for scenes where my character is not present. And, for the optimal use of my time, nothing stops me from analyzing the much more engaging scene on my phone instead.

Also, imo your proposed everyone is T1 game would function much the same way as Shadow Run a lot of the time as the only way you could mechanically enforce cooperation outside of combat is to have lots of obstacles which require people to be in multiple places at the same time.

... Action economy, finite resources, player cooperation - there's plenty of ways to do this. I suppose splitting the party could also kinda work - but I hardly consider "you didn't step on my toes, because you weren't there" to be indicative of the paragon of cooperation.

It looks like what you have essentially done is turned the exploration / skill test portions of the game into something that resembles an in character conversation. It is mostly free form and used primarily as an opportunity to express your character's personality. This can be a lot of fun, but in my experience it is the part of the game which most suffers from one guy hogging the spotlight and everyone else getting bored and checking out. There are also a lot of players who simply don't enjoy participating in this sort of game and want the dice to handle it, you frequently see posts on this forum that boil down to "Why does my DM keep making me formulate an argument and / or talk in character? Why can't I just roll a CHA test and be done with it?"

Eh, there's some communication issues here. My example was written as a conversation to push on the give and take nature of cooperation. As to the gameplay... In the case where the group wants that style of play, that style of play can work just fine, and doesn't inherently produce Shadowrun. In fact, the phrase, "and while he's doing that, what are you doing?" is about all that should be necessary to make obvious the distinction between the two expected outcomes. However, in the case where the group wants something else, they should do something else.

I do have some experience with limited omnimancy in play. In a friend's homebrew, we could make characters who could literally do (or, at least, attempt) anything. We technically had limits, both in terms of success rolls, and mana pools. I never made such omnimancer characters, however. I made characters like Raymond, whose "magic" was telepathy, not omnimancy. And I made several other not-omnimancers with more focused abilities. The one time I wound up with omnimancy (a gift from a Wizard to Raymond), my character experienced option paralysis. Eventually, he realized that, if the power could be given once, it could be given again, and he gave the power away. Mind you, it was Raymond, not me, who had issues - I came up with plenty of options for things to do with Omnimancy, but dealing with such options was simply outside Raymond's experience.

Now, IIRC you like the current power and versatility of 3.5 T1 casters and think it should be brought to every class. You are in favor of removing "spells per day," and making everything "at will," and are against making spell casters need to roll a dice to get their spells off? Is this correct?

IMO this is going to, for the most part, sacrifice out of combat challenge, resource management, team work, dice rolling, and exploration. Not everyone finds all of these things fun, but most players find most of them fun, and you are really going to be sacrificing a lot of the game and a lot of people's enjoyment.

Largely covered above as to which subset of those I argue for under different circumstances.

Put together, this is more of what I propose to those who complain about a lack of balance. Start with something obviously balanced (like, everyone can do everything), and work from there.

Which subset of these variables people find fun together will vary by individual, group, setting, game, and even whim. Maybe I'm in the mood for critical fumbles today, maybe I'm not.

Exploration, however, I would like to explicitly call out here, as it is both my favorite part of the game, and something I absolutely still perceive as possibly with my ill-defined omnimancers. Suddenly drop them in CoC, or WH40K, or even Minecraft, and they'll have lots of opportunities to explore the strange new realm, and the rules thereof.

Just to clarify where I am coming from personally:
I prefer the trapping of a martial character to a magical one. I also like to play characters who are defined by their limitations. When I play a caster it is usually a specialist (or if I am playing WoD with an overly narrow paradigm) because I do not find "jack of all trades," characters particularly interesting except maybe in a lone wolf game.
On the other hand I do find that the martial characters in 3.5 are way too narrow for my tastes, having basically only 1 or 2 in combat strategies and virtually no out of combat or defensive abilities and do wish they would get a major boost. My preferred class would have the fluff of the War Blade, the defenses of the Monk, the skills of a Bard, and the play-style of the Warlock.
But I recognize people have different opinions and I think the best game is the one where there is the most overlap in viable archetypes, which for 3.5 means a lot of buffs for T4-5 classes (mostly martials) and a lot of nerfs for the T1-2 classes (mostly casters).

Based on my experiences with a homebrew where omnimancy was a thing, it sounds like we prefer not entirely dissimilar things.

I, however, also enjoy the D&D archetype of the potential omnimancer - the Wizard who theoretically could learn any imaginable trick, but is limited to what they have actually learned.

I've considered trying to make a system based around hunting down monsters to make gear (replacing much of the 'wealth' part of most TTRPGs) - and that gear rather than your class being the RPS system - allowing you to change between them on the fly.

The rest of RPS aside, I like this idea. Especially if PCs are dynamic, but monsters have static "elements" that can be planned around.

[Florian]

Well I suppose one of the big questions is do you count critical hits as a part of the standard HP system or as their own independent system. *Memories of old school instant death crit tables float by*

Ignoring the possibility of a critical hit I would definitely still count it as a fairly traditional HP system with non-traditional effects when 0 HP is reached.

Ah, I think you haven´t used such a system yet? Ok, so basics: In this kind of system, you roll damage first, then subtract Wounds and Armor from the result (*). If you negate the roll, you simply soak the incoming attack and lose a point of endurance for it. If damage is still left over, you consult the critical hit table and see what exact effect and location the hit had, meaning that damage is never handled as an abstract.

(*) You can try to dodge or parry the attack first, or hope to negate it with a shield, force field or spell.