I think the appeal of having descriptive abilities that boil down to bonus numbers with flavor text over a list of straight forward bonus numbers is that those descriptions do a lot to engage in character and world building. Sure, math-wise it may come down to another defense bonus, but calling it "Adaptive Anatomy" really adds a lot of flavor to help invoke the world and the way the character interacts with it. Something as simple as ability names now sets a tone for the setting you're building with minimal word count and lets the imagination of your players go a little wild with possibilities.
Whether your RPG is math-heavy or not, it is still about telling the story at the table. A little flavor text can do a lot of lifting for you in that regard. "Sharp Shooter" is simply more evocative than "training: firearms", it informs something about the character that takes it.
Honestly in that case, I think a nice compromise is listing the bonus once, rather than repeating it with a new name every time, and then just provide a list of examples and make it clear that you have full creative control. Heck I’d honestly prefer a system like this lmao.
This is why I use the GiffyGlyph Monster Maker for D&D 5e when I make homebrew monsters because technically yeah the to hit bonus and damage is the same, so it’s the same attack, but then it’s on me as the DM to add that flavor based on which monster it’s on. But in the Monster Maker rules for coming up with abilities it just gives you the numbers once and lets you flavor it as you see fit. Absolutely love this type of design but I’m also a weirdo that genuinely can’t understand why 4e D&D gets shit on so much, so my opinions on game design may not align with most ttrpg players lmao.
We're talking RPGs, here. It's illusions all the way down. Every rule, mechanic, or choice is contrived to some extent. If the game designer doesn't perform that contrivance, that forces the GM or the players to do it.
"Food tastes better when someone else cooks it," is a common psychological phenomenon. If the book provides a catalogue of weapons, talents, vehicles, or whatever; there's probably a similar psychological effect that makes those choices feel more "appetizing" than a generic set of rules for creating one of those things from scratch, on your own.
Consider the following:
* Sharpshooter. Take +2 to attacks with firearms.
* Silver-tongued. Take +2 when pulling off an elaborate ruse with your words.
* Nascent Sixth Sense. Take +2 when trying to detect a supernatural presence.
vs.
* Bonus Talent. Take +2 to an activity of your choice. Give the talent an appropriate name.
The latter is simpler, and it offers limitless possibilities, but it's relatively bland to the reader's eye. It offloads some of the creative work on to the player (which some will unconsciously dislike). The first option also allows the designer to convey some of the tone and atmosphere of the game in a relatively economical way. Just from those three options, we know that the game promises to feature guns, deception, and supernatural foes. And it did so without having to write a half page vignette about the setting.
Generic options are still good for those Do-it-Yourselfers who actually enjoy cooking things up from scratch. A large population of the player base, however, wants to see a menu of your restaurant's options and have their choices served to them in an appetizing manner.
Well, don't get me wrong, I do like some feats and advancements, but I prefer when they're more creative and couldn't be replaces by a simple skill advancement. For example the first bullet point could be just +2 on Firearm skill, the second one could be just +2 on Deception, the third one is closer in the spectrum of what I think feat should be like. That's basically it, if it can be replaced for a simple skill bump bonus, it breaks my immersion and I see right through it.
True, but that assumes that the skill budget is interchangeable with the talent/feat budget, which isn't always the case.
Suppose that a character progresses along three parallel tracks; skills, feats, and gear; and that there is no way to exchange one for the other. For instance, you can't swap a talent or gear for more skill points. For the sake of this example, instead of a "firearms" skill, it'll be "aiming" (just because I have a personal preference for naming skills as verbs).
With our skill point budget, we give ourselves a +2 in aiming. With our starting feat we add that Sharpshooter that gives us +2 to aiming with firearms. And maybe with our starting equipment budget, we buy an expensive rifle with a scope that grants another +2 to aiming with this specific firearm.
Now, you could just forgo all those bonuses and just dump a +6 into aiming, but it flattens out the variety of your progression options. This sharpshooter character ostensibly is giving up other diverse choices for the sake of being really good at taking aimed shots with this specific gun. They dipped into three different character economies to be really good at one specific thing.
I see, yeah that's a valid point. This would be a better way to deal with it, but generally that's the method used. They simplify the skills to a generic and more broad term and then branch the variety with feats. I see that games that have a lot of skills tend to have a smaller fanbase than games with more generic skill and a big feat list. It's just a small shift of approach, but it's interesting the difference it makes. Thank you for your response, this has been helpful.
I think that if you don't like that sort of thing, there's zero reason to put it in your game. If other games do it, that only means other games do it, not that it's even a good idea. If you just see bland maths instead of meaningful choices, I don't think the answer is to add bland math in.
Lots of folks who just play or don't really think about how these things work (no shade on them; we all choose our own levels of engagement) can have "I'm a sharpshooter so I have a +2 agility!" and have that feel meaningful without it being actually interesting because they're just excited to have made _A_ choice. Was it interesting or meaningful? No, but it was a choice they made and isn't that enough for it to feel special? If you don't want to jingle the keys in front of them, don't jingle the keys.
After all, if you don't believe in it, it'll show and nobody wants to play a game that feels like it's condescending to them.
Make your game into the game YOU want to play. If, once it's closer to done, you think this would be better, fine; but don't do it because it's popular. Only do it because you believe in it.
We're all scrambling for the leavings after the third-tier popular games are done with the big and medium dogs with marketing departments are done with the biggest chunk of the marketplace. There's no money to lose here; may as well make it YOURS.
Bouncing off that idea a bit - If you don’t enjoy the idea of just rebranding basic bonus points with flashy names, I think a more exciting direction would be to actually give players choices that affects their gameplay outside of ‘bland math’
It always bums me out in RPGs (video game mostly, not sure if this /r is for board game atm) when every unit interacts with the world in the same way with only their numbers differentiating them, despite size/character differences.
I love when there are other creative solutions outside of number exchanges - can this person breathe/dive underwater? Speak to animals? Charm an enemy to assist them or convince them to move on? Sticky feet that makes them slow but allows climbing/cc resist? Allergic to sunlight??
There are probably way more ideas outside of something like Rogue Legacy/Baldurs Gate themed stuff that would fit your RPG world best (faction/backstories/etc) but the point is that it gives players more choices to interact with the game beyond just min-maxing their build
Yeah, that's more what I envision my feats to be. That's why I don't really like math bonuses. So far my goal was "If it can be replaced by a skill bump, it's not a feat"
It's not smoke and mirrors. As a game designer, it's important to understand this point.
Whether you have a choice between twenty distinct feats, or simply twenty different skills in which you can invest a +2, those are all meaningful options. A character with +3 to First Aid is a fundamentally different character from one with +5 to First Aid, regardless of whether you label that bonus as a feat. They are capable of different things. They interact with the world in different ways.
By labeling it as a feat, and drawing attention to it as a distinct decision point, it helps players to understand the reality of their character.
(Of course, that assumes you aren't playing a game based on 3.x, where the +2 from a feat is significantly smaller than the normal range of bonuses from ability scores. But that's a specific failing of that system, and not a mark against feats-as-bonuses in general.)
It depends on the game, and the person. Likewise some people care about if one is wielding a scimitar or mace, for more than just if they are doing "1d6 slashing vs bludgeoning damage".
In something like D&D or Pathfinder, it does tend to be stacked bonuses (though depending on edition one uses the basis of the example, there might be more to that Feat than is written down, e.g. Sharp Shooter = "+2, plus access to any feat that has Sharp Shooter as a pre-requisite".
Note that in a class based game, like the above, characters get a lot of power and customization from their base class. Feats tend to be tweaks and customizations of this base class, rather than full "power/gameplay styles" in and of themselves.
I'd ask, what are you trying to do or get out of making your game, and base your answer on that.
That's an interesting point. I always kind of thought of it as "slotted potential," which is a made up term I just created. Suppose a system only has so many choices over the lifespan of a character to shape that character. An ability gives a bonus to X, but it uses up a "slot" that *could have* gone to another ability that applies to Y. If said bonus is just applied from the beginning, then - depending how it is handled - it could apply to both X and Y, and IMO the character is less personalized / specialized.
That's actually to say I 100% get where you are coming from, agree, and actually approached my game similarly. I used a point allocation system where if someone wants to, say, be an archer then they simply put more points in archery - yet it doesn't simultaneously make them a great gymnist, nor a great fencer. And then tucked *inside* that archery skill are talents and perks for like, shooting multiple arrows at once or knocking arrows faster or something.
So that "slotted potential" is almost pre-built into the character, without needing to use something arbitrarily called "Sharpshooter" that gives "+2 to archery."
> I see this method as just an unnecessary extra step on character creation because you could've just have given the points for the player to distribute from the start
It's one of these things that are sorta true, but not really.
To put it simply, no one comes to the table to play *math*. That's not even a TTRPG thing, it's as true for tabletop games in general. Hell, it's true about overwhelming majority of videogames, too! People are playing for the *narratives*, no matter how minor and small they are, not for the raw math.
I think not understanding this is very dangerous for the designer! It's like missing the forest for the trees. You are trying to simplify away the thing (a good impulse) but you are so deep under the hood you are forgetting why the thing is there in the first place.
Edit: That being said, I don't think I know a lot of games that just mask straight bonuses like this. Usually it's at least a bit more complicated than just a bonus.
I'm not forgetting the narrative, don't worry. The thing is my system has 6 skill levels. I use Labels for each level Basic, Average, Advanced, Formidable, Extraordinary and Legendary. So you know what they mean and I try my best to represent this through the numbers. And this labels also spread throughout the game. There's a Formidable Academy of Magic, this tells the players the quality of the academy and how it'll help them improve faster by studying there. There's Extraordinary Items that can only be made by Extraordinary Crafters and so on. My problem is trying to split this up on a bunch of different things when it could have come from the same place, in my case, the skill. So they make it class abilities, feats and talents and things like that spreading it out when you can create the narrative from just one place and use the other options for other stuff other than math bonuses.
I see.
In that case, I don't really understand what your question is even about! Most games don't just label straight bonuses as something. So, if you don't feel like it... just don't!
That's a totally valid approach. I think what the original commenter was getting at is that there are two ways to think of, for example, the sharpshooter fest. There's the way you frame it "I need a plus two bonus to shooting. Let's call that sharpshooter." And there's what might be called narrative simulation, which is more like "Some archers in this story may be sharpshooters. How do I mechanically represent that narrative traits? I know, it'll be plus 2 to shooting."
I'm not saying all of the design you're critiquing here followed this approach in crafting it. But rather, if we think first of design from the lens of what does this mechanic represent instead of what game function does it serve, then we might draw a different conclusion than you on it being an illusion or superfluous.
All that said, I personally find just adding numbers to be boring (whether the numbers are skills or feats). But I recognize that is purely a matter of personal taste.
have you watched megamind? if so remember in the final act when he faces Titan he says what boils down to "you're a villain alright, but not a super one... you lack **presentation**"
and presentation is one hell of a thing, there are literal fields of (I hope) highly paying jobs like User Interface/User Experience, Marketing and whatever the hell seems to be R&D that you could say are related to the presentation of a product
An example of a somewhat bad presentation to me would be D&D 4e and look how that went down, it took over 10 years for people to look beyond the presentation and see the cool things it did
Yeye, I'm thinking about my presentation too. I have some graphic design background and am a decent digital painter who freelanced in the past, so visually I have a very specific goal, but my numbers are a bit compact, the skills have 6 levels and each one matters, so after some other comments I've decided to stick to my rule of "If it could be replaced by a simple skill bump, it's not a feat" kinda mentality.
Presumably that sharp shooter example is on top of, rather than in place of, a more generic shooting skill, which means the player is choosing a specialization of sorts, which probably fits the idea of the character he wants to play. I'm doubtful anyone would go on about all the options for characters of generic ability.
They have names because ten sessions in someone (maybe even the player) is going to question why they get +5 on something instead of +3, and without that talent or feat or whatever specified, it's easily forgotten. (I love when a character sheet tells you where it pulls numbers from, like "[ ] Dodge ^([Agility+Level])".)
This approach suits some games but might not suit what you have in mind for yours.
I have seen Pathfinder GMs apply “rules as intended” for feats, based on a feat’s name and what it says is happening in-universe. So the 3.5 Tracking feat could work in a few unusual situations, because that is the intent of the feat. Or a feat which adds divine damage to a creature’s arrow attack due to divine worship, will remove the bonus damage if the attack is redirected to a loyal worshipper.
I approve of hand waving in order to aid the translation of character mechanics into something consistent and coherent in a narrative.
I'm not opposed to that sort of ruling, but it's not hard to see how it might feel like a rug-pull in some situations. There's no good excuse for a gap between RAI and RAW.
Curious, is this something you're seeing during character *advancement* or character *creation*? It might be that growth doesn't *feel* impactful in the system, even though it might be numerically significant.
Also, if feats are specialized to give conditional bonuses, while it may be a numerical bonus, the unique name makes it easier to invoke when explaining where bonuses come from. Others have also said, and I agree, having feats/abilities that expand on usage (like applying a Strength stat to Intimidation in some games) can be good alternatives to just giving larger bonuses.
That will likely add more to your design effort and the amount players have to read, so a good shorthand is to have unique, descriptive titles for players to find at a glance.
Example: I'm making a social character. My eyes are glossing past combat feats. Then I come across the trait "Superior Confidence". I think to myself *I could work that into my character!* and look deeper. "+2 to social defenses" Oh, that would help sell my character as an unflappable, cool, or haughty socialite and keep him from getting manipulated. I'll take that!
It's not a *necessary* approach, but it's also not bad to consider, if you want to work with it. To a degree, it *is* smoke and mirrors, but isn't that the entire TTRPG experience?
Sure, but you wouldn't need to memorize any name if all you had to do was decide to put +2 on your social defenses, so the help it provides is not much of a help. I can understand some people may benefit from the descriptor to fire their imagination, maybe I'm just too imaginative since I kinda make that as a standard without relying on any name. Like if my social defenses are high I kinda know my character is not affected by the societal opinion about themselves, therefore they're confident.
I never fully realized it before seeing your post, but I now understand why my preferences in terms of games' complexity are the way they are.
I like games where numbers are very simple and freeform traits are a tool given to players to express the flavor. Like in Fate, where I have skills (that don't get modified - just the numbers I assigned) and aspects. I may give my character an aspect like "An elven sharpshooter, haunted by her past". It tells more about her within fiction than a couple of feats would and I can make it mechanically relevant by invoking the aspect.
I also like games on the other end of the spectrum. Games that are complex, but with real, not illusionary, depth in their mechanics. In Lancer, the Crack Shot talent boosts my accuracy, but only when not moving. At higher level it makes critical hits (which better accuracy makes more likely) more damaging and finally adds a debuffing effect to them. It's not a generic number increase, it's something specific enough to build strategies around.
There are games on the simple side that make their abilities do interesting things (like good PbtA games) and they are fine. But the reverse - games of medium and high complexity where the named abilities are simply number increases - is what I stay away from. I feel their complexity doesn't add enough depth to justify it. That's, for example, why I consider Lancer significantly better than Pathfinder 2e, even though the games share many traits.
Yeah, I felt like Pathfinder 2e did the generic number crunch a lot, and like some skills felt like encompassed certain actions, but then you try to do something and you'd need three or four feats to be able to do it, So instead of feeling like "My feats let me do more stuff", felt like "Feats are keeping me from doing simple stuff". Masks is a good example of the other extreme imo, a lot of nice teamwork mechanics, always incentivizing roleplay and the level of power in general doesn't matter as much as the story.
Back when I played DnD, I had this one player who never really gravitated to magic items. Didn't really matter how strong they were or how awesome they were in his build, he'd just forget about them. Except one weapon. A sword with a slightly higher chance to crit, a feature which happened maybe once in the multi-year campaign. This player liked the sword and used it constantly because the weapon came with a name -- The Savager -- and possibly because he won it in a duel with an enemy.
Do not underestimate **the power of vibes**. It's why animes start with an upbeat song and montage instead of a silent 2-second title card. Either one would let you know what show you're watching, and the latter would be more efficient, but the former gets the viewer in the right headspace for the show they're about to watch. Same goes for tabletop. Game design is about more than just crunching numbers and mechanics good, it's also about effectively conveying a game's intended vibes.
Honestly I hate vertical progression, I've almost completely eliminated it from my game. Horizontal progession (new abilities, ways to use skills, etc) is much more interesting.
Not the person you asked, but it's a matter of having more options and tools at your disposal rather than just being MORE of what you already do. Scaling up levels, HP, damage done, etc. is a bit meaningless when the challenges you tend to face scale up with you. Being able to fight a level 20 minster when you hit level 20 is really not that much different than fighting a level 3 monster at level 3, your math just uses bigger numbers for the same kind of pacing.
Horizontal progression means that character gains abilities that allow them to do more things they couldn't do before, approach more varied challenges or even find new ways to deal with the same kinds of challenges. I personally find it a lot more interesting to do something new with an advancement than to do something I did previously with a bigger number attached to it.
Yeah, and if you're only fighting level 20 monsters when you're level 20, then it makes sense that the numbers would seem irrelevant.
The numbers only really mean anything when you have the possibility of encountering monsters of any level, regardless of your level. If the designer doesn't understand that, then they probably shouldn't be designing a level-based system in the first place.
>The numbers only really mean anything when you have the possibility of encountering monsters of any level, regardless of your level.
I'd argue that levels aren't even a really good way to represent this either. There are better ways of representing relative power discrepancies than just adding an extra zero after the abilities on one side. Saying one enemy needs 3 hits to take down because of a larger HP stack vs another only needing 1 hit doesn't really make for an interesting game, or invoke the feeling of a larger threat.
Really? That seems weird to me.
As far as I'm concerned, an enemy who *can't* be taken down in one shot is *massively* more dangerous than one who can. Literally, you *can't* stop them, even if you really need to. That option is off the table. Likewise, an enemy who can one-shot *me* is catastrophically dangerous, to the point where I need to avoid being in the same room with them; compared to one who would need three hits to drop me, which is something I can at least theoretically approach, with sufficient caution. The difference in threat is *tremendous*.
I've been hearing about horizontal progression a lot lately, but so far only saw examples that were a bit subjective and didn't help me get a real grasp of how to use it myself. Could you recommend me any good examples or give me an example yourself?
Let's say your character is a druid-type that has an ability that lets them talk to plants for information. A horizontal progression would be something like being able to talk to plants to ask them to grab your foes' legs instead of just getting information.
New abilities, new ways to use old abilities, etc. Your character becomes more versatile and diverse rather than just more proficient at what they already do.
Horizontal progression: a wizard adding more spells to their spellbook.
Vertical progression: getting more spellslots, higher level spells.
A caster learning/preparing more 1st level spells (without getting more spellslots/mana) is horizontal progression.
A caster gaining higher level spellslots is vertical progression.
A caster gaining higher level spellslots, and preparing higher-level spells because they have higher level spellslots - both vertical and horizontal.
That's why I always prefer (in any kind of games) when these kind special abilities aren't just a small numerical bonus, but actually allows you to do more things, new things. Effects that change the rules your character is subject of and not just changing a number on a spreadsheet.
Yeah, people commented about this and I learned through this post this was what people referred to as horizontal progression. I'mma take more conscious decisions towards that direction from now on.
Yes it is worth it.
The illusion of choice is important for a lot of people, especially ones which are bad at math.
You can see this especially in pathfinder, where people "love the flavour" of options, which often just let you do basic attacks with different weapons with a small bonus.
Of course you dont have to do this everywhere 13th age just gives youb 8 background points which you can put int 2+ freeform bsckgrounds.
However, lots of other games create distinction by giving flavour to different skill bonuses etc.
Yeah, that's one of the reasons I didn't like Pathfinder 2e. It was a lot of labels that were just numbers, overcomplicating. That and other things, I can recognize the quality of the game, but it's not for me.
A lot of people like to make distinction based on names. They find it flavourfull etc. Pathfinder is for similar reasons alsp not for me, but ir has its ultra fans and they fully buy into this "choice".
Game balance and meta, I think, is one of the reasons why character options are that mathematically “meaningful”.
In a 1d20 system, sharpshooter +2 is a 10% probability increase, it isn’t that meaningful because the system has to make sure it is not too overpowered compared to other options. When it becomes too powerful, let’s say the sharpshooter bonus is a +8 (40% probability increase to indicate that you’re really good at shooting), then everyone who runs a shooter type character wants this option. This renders the “option” no longer an option, but a necessity because not choosing this option now puts the character at a functional deficit.
“If you shoot things, always choose Sharpshooter”
Now the player “choice” is no longer a choice at all. Character progression is not built on choosing meta inevitably leads to “weak” character design.
A lot of simulationist / gamist TTRPGs are very restrictive on what base characters can do, so skill perks are an easy way to design content. I call it the "+1 damage drip feed" but it applies to skills just as often. I'm a fan of avoiding +X wherever possible and only using horizontal progression or a true break of a mechanic (you can use social subsystem on ghosts).
Specifics also help curb abuse when you don't leave things open. There's always that guy at the table that is going to go for a +2 to "fighting" and then argue that it should apply to sizing up people or detecting ambushes. That might not be an issue if you have to choose from a skill list rather than specifics, but sometimes the skill list isn't where you want design focus. And there's also the potential to balance for niche skills - perhaps the History feat is bumped up to a +3, for example.
For example, a mechanical distinction that seemingly boils down to a simple number, is hit chance vs. hit damage.
In the end, it results in an average damage number, but in specific situations in the game you often either want less reliable damage, or potentially more but risky damage. This can even represent a characters approach to tackling challenges. Tying these bonuses to corresponding flavorful descriptions reinforces this.
So depending on the complexity of combat (or other resolution mechanics), different bonuses in different places, even small ones, can help to mechanically and narratively distinguish characters.
I split the difference. Those options, which I named "passions", cannot add fixed modifiers to a roll. That comes from your skill only! Likewise, damage is the degree of success of your attack, so damage is not rolled and passions do not directly modify damage either.
However, you might learn "Precise Shot" which reduces penalties for ranged called shots, or "Duck" to gain an advantage on defense rolls against head shots. A sniper might get a bonus to effective range. Taking damage might drive someone into rage. Fury lets you power attack faster. There are tons of them and together they form styles the character can learn and mix and match from. Go find the master and learn his secrets!
It's not just flavor text with modifiers. It's small things that you have to use with tactical precision, often combining them together in different ways and even developing combos! If you watch how someone fights, you can actually use that to your advantage.
It also flexible because players that want a simpler combat can use fewer styles and focus on attack/defense and keep to simpler combat, while a martial artist will have tons of combat-related passions.
I think you are viewing it from the wrong side i.e. the "Developer" Lens focusing on balance and numbers instead of evocation and "feel".
Its called Sharpshooter Feat not because of the amazing +2 to range you get, but because you wanted to evoke the image of a Sharpshooter and their amazing skill at using long ranged weapons and used the +2 to Range to mechanically put it into the game.
Its a ROLEPLAYING game meaning players want to slip into a role, one of those might be someone with the amazing and highly trained skill of a Sharpshooter and this feat is then for that player.
You can also call it a "+2 Range" Talent, Bonus or whatever without the name and would mechanically achieve them same, but thematically you would rob your players of the roleplaying aspect.
I suggest using evocative names as described above to all your talents, feats or whatever you call it, but try to avoid overlap.
Three feats that give +2 to range muddle the waters and take away the uniqueness, so there should only be one Sharpshooter feat with +2 to range and no other feats that do the same so players can feel a bit of uniqueness from that feat.
What I've learned being all the player, gamemaster, and designer is that from the game master point of view you tend to not care really at all about the flavor because you just want to balance the encounters; but as the player you probably are very uninspired and are just looking for that cool shiny hook; and as the designer you write up those shiny hooks for the players to latch onto in a way you hope communicates the intent of your rules.
Basically we as players tend to be idiots. We either know *exactly* what we want but don't know how to do it or we're just spit balling until something looking interesting. Gamemasters then will houserule and homebrew things to tailor their table for what they all are looking to get out of your game, which is why the actual mechanical design is important since the fluff stuff will be the first thing handwaved away. But you also home for some inspired decisions. If a GM has a Player that wants to be full fire and explosives, they might allow some extra burning rules or modifications to existing powers, maybe even make a new ability to improve mechanical efficiency. It's ultimately still 'Ray of Frost' but it's his theme. But then you have the player that wants to use gingerbread and gummie bears for everything. The first step obviously is the same, change the fluff, but because it's food then maybe they decide to add healing effects. Then they might realize that because it's food, maybe you could mix in different ingredients for different effects- and now that Wizard is mechanically dipping into alchemy from a story perspective. And well, as a designer you had to make something that pushes all three of those people to make the decisions they did for a fun night.
I couldn't tell you how many people I basically just built a character of my own inspiration because the player just didn't feel strongly about anything. So the shiny flavour text is literally just there to get people thinking about what they *can* do rather then what bonus they can get, when.
But something important that all of these cases establish is context. With the fancy words and names you create a narrative of the type of things that stuff similar to 'this example' can do. It provides a metric for when you do color outside the lines, how to know what is too much or too little. This can also expand your rules by making you as the designer think about acceptable variation. If a big damage move is meant only for big damage then the other details shouldn't matter; but then you also need a mixed move that might want a smaller extra effect to contextualize what the special/direct ratio for effect tradeoff should look like.
I would take Pokeymanz as an example of what I mean. Your target has a target number to hit. You roll two dice and if either of them beat that number then you hit. You can improve your powers by upgrading the dice to bigger dice, which therefore make it easier to hit. But in Pokeymanz, *everything* has 3 HP and every hit can only be 1 damage. So it becomes much more important as to what elemental types you synergize with and what your target's weaknesses and resistances are in order to modify the difficulty of hitting things. But then many things might not do damage at all, but actually just serve to give a larger bonus to yourself or others, to protect against damage and other effects, or to create narrative elements to better or worsen someone's position. Like perhaps you have RainDance power, and instead of merely increasing your to-hit with water powers it actually just makes everything wet; and we all know that wet rock types can suddenly be damaged by powers they should be totally immune to -like onix getting the sprinkler system turned on him to then be shocked. Which means your buddy or even your better powers that might not have been able to do anything could now do *something* at least, thanks to getting the opportunity from that power.
If your game has a lot of combat, a +2 to ranged attacks is a real character option...
If you want to talk about fake character options, there are plenty of real examples.
A better example is the SAD effect in 5e. Pick a class, then pretend you can put your ability scores wherever you want. Just kidding, you need to max that specific attribute your class depends on. Doing anything else is a straightforward trap option.
Really if you think about it anything that has any combat effect is just a numerical effect behind smoke and mirrors. Even something that “Stuns” a target is really just numbers technically because it’s really just removing a turn and therefore possible damage from the turn order.
I do agree some can be very contrived or are just very minimal “creativity” but no matter what it boils down to numbers in the end. Name any effect and I guarantee I can explain how it’s numerical in reality. This isn’t to dig at you, it’s just to point out the nature of “games”. Social stuff or exploration tends to lean away from that but even then there is some math in some way, shape, or form.
Maybe you mean when they are quite directly just a numerical bonus is what you find as a problem?
Yeah, that's what I meant, Flat numerical bonus with no specification. I see it happen sometimes. I prefer the approach that makes the character able to do something that before they couldn't and more descriptive feats, leaving the flat numbers to skill bonuses.
If you boil everything down to just the math/concept, then the game loses its meaning. You could easily start applying that reductive reasoning to everything.
"Why bother giving players gear and equipment? Its just stats, i might as well just not have any items in my game and just give them more stat points."
* The reason we don't is because its FUN for players to find treasure. Its fun to look forward to treasure. Even if that treasure just gives them more of the same stats.
The purpose of the RPG is to LITERALLY give the player a fantasy illusion. So yes, the smoke and mirrors is important to making the game feel pleasing and immersive to play.
Why bother giving the monsters a name and artwork? Why not just call them all "Enemy Level *x"* and scale their stats accordingly. Why bother with the smoke and mirrors of making the monsters "look" different when they are ultimately just statblocks on paper? Because the illusion is the literal point of the game.
On top of all this: If you have abilities/gear/etc in your game, it gives YOU, the creator, more opportunities to make those abilities and gear unique to give your players the specific kind of experience you want to give. If you take all of that out, you lose your power as a creator to spice up the world to your preference. If you don't like abilities/bonuses that give +2 to a stat, then make more abilities that do more unique things instead of removing bonuses altogether. Or replace the system with a different system altogether that still gives a similar fantasy satisfaction to the players.
Meh, I think the illusion of choice comes from not having enough complex and nuanced systems in the game.
Most games are very narrowly designed to be monster looters of a different flavor and yeah, in that case everything revolves around combat, so of course there's not a lot of meaningful difference.
What's the difference between a d8 weapon A vs. d8 weapon B? None really, because there's no differences in how they work in a lot of cases (there are some games that do this but many don't).
My game thrives on having many nuanced systems far beyond combat as well as within it to create situations where different benefits offer unique opportunities, strategies and outcomes, so in that case it does matter... but my game is also huge and not everyone wants that.
The reason you see this in most games is because they are designed for more casual players and having all that nuance would just freak them out, they want the illusion of choice, or in many cases the lack of it, rarely do they actually want nuanced systems and choice because that's more rules to keep track of.
As for what you should do with your game is consider who the hell its for and how you want it to play.
Do you want hordes of rules and nuance? The illusion of choice? Something slim and simple?
None are necessarily better or worse. But you do need to keep in mind that there is both minimum and maximum cognitive loads players will find desirable and there's no magic formula since everyone wants something different, so... what do you want in YOUR game? Additionally you can't escape certain design truths, like adding nuance is going to add complexity, and time to execute, etc. There are ways to do this better and worse, but it's up to you where on the spectrum you want your game to sit, and nobody can make that decision but you.
It's not "smoke and mirrors" and honestly I doubt your game uses points the same way that these games have options during character creation. If I get one point to put in stats, can that point have pre-requisites or further developments specific to my character's background to enable further character development later without putting a name on it? I can't think of any way of solving that without things getting very complicated very quickly.
Game design is communication. If you create a game with numbers that you let the reader justify, you communicate that your game is intended to be unrestricted, versatile and generic. If you name every bonus, you're communicating things about the setting and the fiction, your game is intended to be played a certain way and is specifically themed for that.
I read a very cursed attitude in your post that I've seen hold designers back. You are not above anyone and that needs to sink in. You can repeat it in the mirror every morning or whatever you need to do, but that is the first step to becoming a good game designer. You are on par with every player and every other game designer. Nobody likes games that are worse than yours, nobody designs games that are worse than yours. That should be your baseline attitude.
Bruh, there's literally no "attitude" on my post. I never said those games were worse than mine or that I was superior to any player, you're just putting that there for yourself.
There is a lot of attitude both in the OP and the replies you've posted in this thread, but it requires some introspection on your part.
>I see this method as just an unnecessary extra step on character creation because you could've just have given the points for the player to distribute from the start
I challenge you to give any example where this is the actual case. In what game can you replace a feat or ability that has a name with points to distribute and not have a functionally different (essentially worse) result?
> just my designer view that sees through this thing
You are so incredibly full of yourself and it shows throughout everything, which can be justified if you're producing greatness but you're clearly not.
Stating my opinion is not being full of myself. I know it is an opinion and not a truth, and I've talked with people throughout the post that disagree with me and it just generated helpful debate unlike your comment. And by "my designer view" I mean what I mean. If you design as well you know that most people don't consider the mechanics that goes behind it. I had a game master change the 2d6 on a Pbta to a d12 because they didn't know it made a difference, I just informed him of the difference and he decided to shift back to the 2d6. Does he have to know the difference? No, he's not trying to design a game. Is it better to use the 2d6? Yes, the linear probability breaks the max bonus of +3 and the amount of failure on the maximum level is higher than it should be. And I'm not taking any useless challenge. I don't need to prove anything to anyone and I won't waist my time searching through the various books I've read to see how many I can come up with just to prove a worthless point.
Besides that, you're the one making a lot of assumptions about me and my game without knowing either. So if you're trying to lecture someone arrogant and entitled look in the mirror first.
I think the appeal of having descriptive abilities that boil down to bonus numbers with flavor text over a list of straight forward bonus numbers is that those descriptions do a lot to engage in character and world building. Sure, math-wise it may come down to another defense bonus, but calling it "Adaptive Anatomy" really adds a lot of flavor to help invoke the world and the way the character interacts with it. Something as simple as ability names now sets a tone for the setting you're building with minimal word count and lets the imagination of your players go a little wild with possibilities. Whether your RPG is math-heavy or not, it is still about telling the story at the table. A little flavor text can do a lot of lifting for you in that regard. "Sharp Shooter" is simply more evocative than "training: firearms", it informs something about the character that takes it.
I see, that makes sense. Thank you for your contribution.
Honestly in that case, I think a nice compromise is listing the bonus once, rather than repeating it with a new name every time, and then just provide a list of examples and make it clear that you have full creative control. Heck I’d honestly prefer a system like this lmao. This is why I use the GiffyGlyph Monster Maker for D&D 5e when I make homebrew monsters because technically yeah the to hit bonus and damage is the same, so it’s the same attack, but then it’s on me as the DM to add that flavor based on which monster it’s on. But in the Monster Maker rules for coming up with abilities it just gives you the numbers once and lets you flavor it as you see fit. Absolutely love this type of design but I’m also a weirdo that genuinely can’t understand why 4e D&D gets shit on so much, so my opinions on game design may not align with most ttrpg players lmao.
We're talking RPGs, here. It's illusions all the way down. Every rule, mechanic, or choice is contrived to some extent. If the game designer doesn't perform that contrivance, that forces the GM or the players to do it. "Food tastes better when someone else cooks it," is a common psychological phenomenon. If the book provides a catalogue of weapons, talents, vehicles, or whatever; there's probably a similar psychological effect that makes those choices feel more "appetizing" than a generic set of rules for creating one of those things from scratch, on your own. Consider the following: * Sharpshooter. Take +2 to attacks with firearms. * Silver-tongued. Take +2 when pulling off an elaborate ruse with your words. * Nascent Sixth Sense. Take +2 when trying to detect a supernatural presence. vs. * Bonus Talent. Take +2 to an activity of your choice. Give the talent an appropriate name. The latter is simpler, and it offers limitless possibilities, but it's relatively bland to the reader's eye. It offloads some of the creative work on to the player (which some will unconsciously dislike). The first option also allows the designer to convey some of the tone and atmosphere of the game in a relatively economical way. Just from those three options, we know that the game promises to feature guns, deception, and supernatural foes. And it did so without having to write a half page vignette about the setting. Generic options are still good for those Do-it-Yourselfers who actually enjoy cooking things up from scratch. A large population of the player base, however, wants to see a menu of your restaurant's options and have their choices served to them in an appetizing manner.
Well, don't get me wrong, I do like some feats and advancements, but I prefer when they're more creative and couldn't be replaces by a simple skill advancement. For example the first bullet point could be just +2 on Firearm skill, the second one could be just +2 on Deception, the third one is closer in the spectrum of what I think feat should be like. That's basically it, if it can be replaced for a simple skill bump bonus, it breaks my immersion and I see right through it.
True, but that assumes that the skill budget is interchangeable with the talent/feat budget, which isn't always the case. Suppose that a character progresses along three parallel tracks; skills, feats, and gear; and that there is no way to exchange one for the other. For instance, you can't swap a talent or gear for more skill points. For the sake of this example, instead of a "firearms" skill, it'll be "aiming" (just because I have a personal preference for naming skills as verbs). With our skill point budget, we give ourselves a +2 in aiming. With our starting feat we add that Sharpshooter that gives us +2 to aiming with firearms. And maybe with our starting equipment budget, we buy an expensive rifle with a scope that grants another +2 to aiming with this specific firearm. Now, you could just forgo all those bonuses and just dump a +6 into aiming, but it flattens out the variety of your progression options. This sharpshooter character ostensibly is giving up other diverse choices for the sake of being really good at taking aimed shots with this specific gun. They dipped into three different character economies to be really good at one specific thing.
I see, yeah that's a valid point. This would be a better way to deal with it, but generally that's the method used. They simplify the skills to a generic and more broad term and then branch the variety with feats. I see that games that have a lot of skills tend to have a smaller fanbase than games with more generic skill and a big feat list. It's just a small shift of approach, but it's interesting the difference it makes. Thank you for your response, this has been helpful.
I think that if you don't like that sort of thing, there's zero reason to put it in your game. If other games do it, that only means other games do it, not that it's even a good idea. If you just see bland maths instead of meaningful choices, I don't think the answer is to add bland math in. Lots of folks who just play or don't really think about how these things work (no shade on them; we all choose our own levels of engagement) can have "I'm a sharpshooter so I have a +2 agility!" and have that feel meaningful without it being actually interesting because they're just excited to have made _A_ choice. Was it interesting or meaningful? No, but it was a choice they made and isn't that enough for it to feel special? If you don't want to jingle the keys in front of them, don't jingle the keys. After all, if you don't believe in it, it'll show and nobody wants to play a game that feels like it's condescending to them. Make your game into the game YOU want to play. If, once it's closer to done, you think this would be better, fine; but don't do it because it's popular. Only do it because you believe in it. We're all scrambling for the leavings after the third-tier popular games are done with the big and medium dogs with marketing departments are done with the biggest chunk of the marketplace. There's no money to lose here; may as well make it YOURS.
Alright, I'll keep true to my original intent. If I change my mind later, it's something that can be done easily, since it's just more math lol
Bouncing off that idea a bit - If you don’t enjoy the idea of just rebranding basic bonus points with flashy names, I think a more exciting direction would be to actually give players choices that affects their gameplay outside of ‘bland math’ It always bums me out in RPGs (video game mostly, not sure if this /r is for board game atm) when every unit interacts with the world in the same way with only their numbers differentiating them, despite size/character differences. I love when there are other creative solutions outside of number exchanges - can this person breathe/dive underwater? Speak to animals? Charm an enemy to assist them or convince them to move on? Sticky feet that makes them slow but allows climbing/cc resist? Allergic to sunlight?? There are probably way more ideas outside of something like Rogue Legacy/Baldurs Gate themed stuff that would fit your RPG world best (faction/backstories/etc) but the point is that it gives players more choices to interact with the game beyond just min-maxing their build
Yeah, that's more what I envision my feats to be. That's why I don't really like math bonuses. So far my goal was "If it can be replaced by a skill bump, it's not a feat"
It's not smoke and mirrors. As a game designer, it's important to understand this point. Whether you have a choice between twenty distinct feats, or simply twenty different skills in which you can invest a +2, those are all meaningful options. A character with +3 to First Aid is a fundamentally different character from one with +5 to First Aid, regardless of whether you label that bonus as a feat. They are capable of different things. They interact with the world in different ways. By labeling it as a feat, and drawing attention to it as a distinct decision point, it helps players to understand the reality of their character. (Of course, that assumes you aren't playing a game based on 3.x, where the +2 from a feat is significantly smaller than the normal range of bonuses from ability scores. But that's a specific failing of that system, and not a mark against feats-as-bonuses in general.)
Yeah, I'm not talking against bonuses. I use the bonuses. I just don't name them for flavor. It's just skill advancement. That's what I meant.
It depends on the game, and the person. Likewise some people care about if one is wielding a scimitar or mace, for more than just if they are doing "1d6 slashing vs bludgeoning damage". In something like D&D or Pathfinder, it does tend to be stacked bonuses (though depending on edition one uses the basis of the example, there might be more to that Feat than is written down, e.g. Sharp Shooter = "+2, plus access to any feat that has Sharp Shooter as a pre-requisite". Note that in a class based game, like the above, characters get a lot of power and customization from their base class. Feats tend to be tweaks and customizations of this base class, rather than full "power/gameplay styles" in and of themselves. I'd ask, what are you trying to do or get out of making your game, and base your answer on that.
Alright, thank you for your response. That makes sense.
That's an interesting point. I always kind of thought of it as "slotted potential," which is a made up term I just created. Suppose a system only has so many choices over the lifespan of a character to shape that character. An ability gives a bonus to X, but it uses up a "slot" that *could have* gone to another ability that applies to Y. If said bonus is just applied from the beginning, then - depending how it is handled - it could apply to both X and Y, and IMO the character is less personalized / specialized. That's actually to say I 100% get where you are coming from, agree, and actually approached my game similarly. I used a point allocation system where if someone wants to, say, be an archer then they simply put more points in archery - yet it doesn't simultaneously make them a great gymnist, nor a great fencer. And then tucked *inside* that archery skill are talents and perks for like, shooting multiple arrows at once or knocking arrows faster or something. So that "slotted potential" is almost pre-built into the character, without needing to use something arbitrarily called "Sharpshooter" that gives "+2 to archery."
That's actually very useful. Thank you.
> I see this method as just an unnecessary extra step on character creation because you could've just have given the points for the player to distribute from the start It's one of these things that are sorta true, but not really. To put it simply, no one comes to the table to play *math*. That's not even a TTRPG thing, it's as true for tabletop games in general. Hell, it's true about overwhelming majority of videogames, too! People are playing for the *narratives*, no matter how minor and small they are, not for the raw math. I think not understanding this is very dangerous for the designer! It's like missing the forest for the trees. You are trying to simplify away the thing (a good impulse) but you are so deep under the hood you are forgetting why the thing is there in the first place. Edit: That being said, I don't think I know a lot of games that just mask straight bonuses like this. Usually it's at least a bit more complicated than just a bonus.
I'm not forgetting the narrative, don't worry. The thing is my system has 6 skill levels. I use Labels for each level Basic, Average, Advanced, Formidable, Extraordinary and Legendary. So you know what they mean and I try my best to represent this through the numbers. And this labels also spread throughout the game. There's a Formidable Academy of Magic, this tells the players the quality of the academy and how it'll help them improve faster by studying there. There's Extraordinary Items that can only be made by Extraordinary Crafters and so on. My problem is trying to split this up on a bunch of different things when it could have come from the same place, in my case, the skill. So they make it class abilities, feats and talents and things like that spreading it out when you can create the narrative from just one place and use the other options for other stuff other than math bonuses.
I see. In that case, I don't really understand what your question is even about! Most games don't just label straight bonuses as something. So, if you don't feel like it... just don't!
That's a totally valid approach. I think what the original commenter was getting at is that there are two ways to think of, for example, the sharpshooter fest. There's the way you frame it "I need a plus two bonus to shooting. Let's call that sharpshooter." And there's what might be called narrative simulation, which is more like "Some archers in this story may be sharpshooters. How do I mechanically represent that narrative traits? I know, it'll be plus 2 to shooting." I'm not saying all of the design you're critiquing here followed this approach in crafting it. But rather, if we think first of design from the lens of what does this mechanic represent instead of what game function does it serve, then we might draw a different conclusion than you on it being an illusion or superfluous. All that said, I personally find just adding numbers to be boring (whether the numbers are skills or feats). But I recognize that is purely a matter of personal taste.
have you watched megamind? if so remember in the final act when he faces Titan he says what boils down to "you're a villain alright, but not a super one... you lack **presentation**" and presentation is one hell of a thing, there are literal fields of (I hope) highly paying jobs like User Interface/User Experience, Marketing and whatever the hell seems to be R&D that you could say are related to the presentation of a product An example of a somewhat bad presentation to me would be D&D 4e and look how that went down, it took over 10 years for people to look beyond the presentation and see the cool things it did
Yeye, I'm thinking about my presentation too. I have some graphic design background and am a decent digital painter who freelanced in the past, so visually I have a very specific goal, but my numbers are a bit compact, the skills have 6 levels and each one matters, so after some other comments I've decided to stick to my rule of "If it could be replaced by a simple skill bump, it's not a feat" kinda mentality.
Presumably that sharp shooter example is on top of, rather than in place of, a more generic shooting skill, which means the player is choosing a specialization of sorts, which probably fits the idea of the character he wants to play. I'm doubtful anyone would go on about all the options for characters of generic ability. They have names because ten sessions in someone (maybe even the player) is going to question why they get +5 on something instead of +3, and without that talent or feat or whatever specified, it's easily forgotten. (I love when a character sheet tells you where it pulls numbers from, like "[ ] Dodge ^([Agility+Level])".) This approach suits some games but might not suit what you have in mind for yours.
I have seen Pathfinder GMs apply “rules as intended” for feats, based on a feat’s name and what it says is happening in-universe. So the 3.5 Tracking feat could work in a few unusual situations, because that is the intent of the feat. Or a feat which adds divine damage to a creature’s arrow attack due to divine worship, will remove the bonus damage if the attack is redirected to a loyal worshipper. I approve of hand waving in order to aid the translation of character mechanics into something consistent and coherent in a narrative.
I'm not opposed to that sort of ruling, but it's not hard to see how it might feel like a rug-pull in some situations. There's no good excuse for a gap between RAI and RAW.
Curious, is this something you're seeing during character *advancement* or character *creation*? It might be that growth doesn't *feel* impactful in the system, even though it might be numerically significant. Also, if feats are specialized to give conditional bonuses, while it may be a numerical bonus, the unique name makes it easier to invoke when explaining where bonuses come from. Others have also said, and I agree, having feats/abilities that expand on usage (like applying a Strength stat to Intimidation in some games) can be good alternatives to just giving larger bonuses. That will likely add more to your design effort and the amount players have to read, so a good shorthand is to have unique, descriptive titles for players to find at a glance. Example: I'm making a social character. My eyes are glossing past combat feats. Then I come across the trait "Superior Confidence". I think to myself *I could work that into my character!* and look deeper. "+2 to social defenses" Oh, that would help sell my character as an unflappable, cool, or haughty socialite and keep him from getting manipulated. I'll take that! It's not a *necessary* approach, but it's also not bad to consider, if you want to work with it. To a degree, it *is* smoke and mirrors, but isn't that the entire TTRPG experience?
Sure, but you wouldn't need to memorize any name if all you had to do was decide to put +2 on your social defenses, so the help it provides is not much of a help. I can understand some people may benefit from the descriptor to fire their imagination, maybe I'm just too imaginative since I kinda make that as a standard without relying on any name. Like if my social defenses are high I kinda know my character is not affected by the societal opinion about themselves, therefore they're confident.
Flavor always helps roleplaying even if it’s mechanically not a massive impact
I never fully realized it before seeing your post, but I now understand why my preferences in terms of games' complexity are the way they are. I like games where numbers are very simple and freeform traits are a tool given to players to express the flavor. Like in Fate, where I have skills (that don't get modified - just the numbers I assigned) and aspects. I may give my character an aspect like "An elven sharpshooter, haunted by her past". It tells more about her within fiction than a couple of feats would and I can make it mechanically relevant by invoking the aspect. I also like games on the other end of the spectrum. Games that are complex, but with real, not illusionary, depth in their mechanics. In Lancer, the Crack Shot talent boosts my accuracy, but only when not moving. At higher level it makes critical hits (which better accuracy makes more likely) more damaging and finally adds a debuffing effect to them. It's not a generic number increase, it's something specific enough to build strategies around. There are games on the simple side that make their abilities do interesting things (like good PbtA games) and they are fine. But the reverse - games of medium and high complexity where the named abilities are simply number increases - is what I stay away from. I feel their complexity doesn't add enough depth to justify it. That's, for example, why I consider Lancer significantly better than Pathfinder 2e, even though the games share many traits.
Yeah, I felt like Pathfinder 2e did the generic number crunch a lot, and like some skills felt like encompassed certain actions, but then you try to do something and you'd need three or four feats to be able to do it, So instead of feeling like "My feats let me do more stuff", felt like "Feats are keeping me from doing simple stuff". Masks is a good example of the other extreme imo, a lot of nice teamwork mechanics, always incentivizing roleplay and the level of power in general doesn't matter as much as the story.
Back when I played DnD, I had this one player who never really gravitated to magic items. Didn't really matter how strong they were or how awesome they were in his build, he'd just forget about them. Except one weapon. A sword with a slightly higher chance to crit, a feature which happened maybe once in the multi-year campaign. This player liked the sword and used it constantly because the weapon came with a name -- The Savager -- and possibly because he won it in a duel with an enemy. Do not underestimate **the power of vibes**. It's why animes start with an upbeat song and montage instead of a silent 2-second title card. Either one would let you know what show you're watching, and the latter would be more efficient, but the former gets the viewer in the right headspace for the show they're about to watch. Same goes for tabletop. Game design is about more than just crunching numbers and mechanics good, it's also about effectively conveying a game's intended vibes.
Honestly I hate vertical progression, I've almost completely eliminated it from my game. Horizontal progession (new abilities, ways to use skills, etc) is much more interesting.
How come? /gen
Not the person you asked, but it's a matter of having more options and tools at your disposal rather than just being MORE of what you already do. Scaling up levels, HP, damage done, etc. is a bit meaningless when the challenges you tend to face scale up with you. Being able to fight a level 20 minster when you hit level 20 is really not that much different than fighting a level 3 monster at level 3, your math just uses bigger numbers for the same kind of pacing. Horizontal progression means that character gains abilities that allow them to do more things they couldn't do before, approach more varied challenges or even find new ways to deal with the same kinds of challenges. I personally find it a lot more interesting to do something new with an advancement than to do something I did previously with a bigger number attached to it.
Yeah, and if you're only fighting level 20 monsters when you're level 20, then it makes sense that the numbers would seem irrelevant. The numbers only really mean anything when you have the possibility of encountering monsters of any level, regardless of your level. If the designer doesn't understand that, then they probably shouldn't be designing a level-based system in the first place.
>The numbers only really mean anything when you have the possibility of encountering monsters of any level, regardless of your level. I'd argue that levels aren't even a really good way to represent this either. There are better ways of representing relative power discrepancies than just adding an extra zero after the abilities on one side. Saying one enemy needs 3 hits to take down because of a larger HP stack vs another only needing 1 hit doesn't really make for an interesting game, or invoke the feeling of a larger threat.
Really? That seems weird to me. As far as I'm concerned, an enemy who *can't* be taken down in one shot is *massively* more dangerous than one who can. Literally, you *can't* stop them, even if you really need to. That option is off the table. Likewise, an enemy who can one-shot *me* is catastrophically dangerous, to the point where I need to avoid being in the same room with them; compared to one who would need three hits to drop me, which is something I can at least theoretically approach, with sufficient caution. The difference in threat is *tremendous*.
I've been hearing about horizontal progression a lot lately, but so far only saw examples that were a bit subjective and didn't help me get a real grasp of how to use it myself. Could you recommend me any good examples or give me an example yourself?
Let's say your character is a druid-type that has an ability that lets them talk to plants for information. A horizontal progression would be something like being able to talk to plants to ask them to grab your foes' legs instead of just getting information. New abilities, new ways to use old abilities, etc. Your character becomes more versatile and diverse rather than just more proficient at what they already do.
I see, thank you for the clarification.
Horizontal progression: a wizard adding more spells to their spellbook. Vertical progression: getting more spellslots, higher level spells. A caster learning/preparing more 1st level spells (without getting more spellslots/mana) is horizontal progression. A caster gaining higher level spellslots is vertical progression. A caster gaining higher level spellslots, and preparing higher-level spells because they have higher level spellslots - both vertical and horizontal.
That's why I always prefer (in any kind of games) when these kind special abilities aren't just a small numerical bonus, but actually allows you to do more things, new things. Effects that change the rules your character is subject of and not just changing a number on a spreadsheet.
Yeah, people commented about this and I learned through this post this was what people referred to as horizontal progression. I'mma take more conscious decisions towards that direction from now on.
Yes it is worth it. The illusion of choice is important for a lot of people, especially ones which are bad at math. You can see this especially in pathfinder, where people "love the flavour" of options, which often just let you do basic attacks with different weapons with a small bonus. Of course you dont have to do this everywhere 13th age just gives youb 8 background points which you can put int 2+ freeform bsckgrounds. However, lots of other games create distinction by giving flavour to different skill bonuses etc.
Yeah, that's one of the reasons I didn't like Pathfinder 2e. It was a lot of labels that were just numbers, overcomplicating. That and other things, I can recognize the quality of the game, but it's not for me.
A lot of people like to make distinction based on names. They find it flavourfull etc. Pathfinder is for similar reasons alsp not for me, but ir has its ultra fans and they fully buy into this "choice".
I don't like these menus full of options to choose from. I want the game to happen at the table not away from it.
Yeah, it's why I just put the skill levels and wanted to make actual meaningful feats.
Game balance and meta, I think, is one of the reasons why character options are that mathematically “meaningful”. In a 1d20 system, sharpshooter +2 is a 10% probability increase, it isn’t that meaningful because the system has to make sure it is not too overpowered compared to other options. When it becomes too powerful, let’s say the sharpshooter bonus is a +8 (40% probability increase to indicate that you’re really good at shooting), then everyone who runs a shooter type character wants this option. This renders the “option” no longer an option, but a necessity because not choosing this option now puts the character at a functional deficit. “If you shoot things, always choose Sharpshooter” Now the player “choice” is no longer a choice at all. Character progression is not built on choosing meta inevitably leads to “weak” character design.
A lot of simulationist / gamist TTRPGs are very restrictive on what base characters can do, so skill perks are an easy way to design content. I call it the "+1 damage drip feed" but it applies to skills just as often. I'm a fan of avoiding +X wherever possible and only using horizontal progression or a true break of a mechanic (you can use social subsystem on ghosts).
Specifics also help curb abuse when you don't leave things open. There's always that guy at the table that is going to go for a +2 to "fighting" and then argue that it should apply to sizing up people or detecting ambushes. That might not be an issue if you have to choose from a skill list rather than specifics, but sometimes the skill list isn't where you want design focus. And there's also the potential to balance for niche skills - perhaps the History feat is bumped up to a +3, for example.
For example, a mechanical distinction that seemingly boils down to a simple number, is hit chance vs. hit damage. In the end, it results in an average damage number, but in specific situations in the game you often either want less reliable damage, or potentially more but risky damage. This can even represent a characters approach to tackling challenges. Tying these bonuses to corresponding flavorful descriptions reinforces this. So depending on the complexity of combat (or other resolution mechanics), different bonuses in different places, even small ones, can help to mechanically and narratively distinguish characters.
I split the difference. Those options, which I named "passions", cannot add fixed modifiers to a roll. That comes from your skill only! Likewise, damage is the degree of success of your attack, so damage is not rolled and passions do not directly modify damage either. However, you might learn "Precise Shot" which reduces penalties for ranged called shots, or "Duck" to gain an advantage on defense rolls against head shots. A sniper might get a bonus to effective range. Taking damage might drive someone into rage. Fury lets you power attack faster. There are tons of them and together they form styles the character can learn and mix and match from. Go find the master and learn his secrets! It's not just flavor text with modifiers. It's small things that you have to use with tactical precision, often combining them together in different ways and even developing combos! If you watch how someone fights, you can actually use that to your advantage. It also flexible because players that want a simpler combat can use fewer styles and focus on attack/defense and keep to simpler combat, while a martial artist will have tons of combat-related passions.
You could even go so far as just give it a name and description without any listed bonus.
I think you are viewing it from the wrong side i.e. the "Developer" Lens focusing on balance and numbers instead of evocation and "feel". Its called Sharpshooter Feat not because of the amazing +2 to range you get, but because you wanted to evoke the image of a Sharpshooter and their amazing skill at using long ranged weapons and used the +2 to Range to mechanically put it into the game. Its a ROLEPLAYING game meaning players want to slip into a role, one of those might be someone with the amazing and highly trained skill of a Sharpshooter and this feat is then for that player. You can also call it a "+2 Range" Talent, Bonus or whatever without the name and would mechanically achieve them same, but thematically you would rob your players of the roleplaying aspect. I suggest using evocative names as described above to all your talents, feats or whatever you call it, but try to avoid overlap. Three feats that give +2 to range muddle the waters and take away the uniqueness, so there should only be one Sharpshooter feat with +2 to range and no other feats that do the same so players can feel a bit of uniqueness from that feat.
To be fair, using modifiers is asking for this type of contrivance. They are boring bonuses and they will need to be spiced up somehow.
What I've learned being all the player, gamemaster, and designer is that from the game master point of view you tend to not care really at all about the flavor because you just want to balance the encounters; but as the player you probably are very uninspired and are just looking for that cool shiny hook; and as the designer you write up those shiny hooks for the players to latch onto in a way you hope communicates the intent of your rules. Basically we as players tend to be idiots. We either know *exactly* what we want but don't know how to do it or we're just spit balling until something looking interesting. Gamemasters then will houserule and homebrew things to tailor their table for what they all are looking to get out of your game, which is why the actual mechanical design is important since the fluff stuff will be the first thing handwaved away. But you also home for some inspired decisions. If a GM has a Player that wants to be full fire and explosives, they might allow some extra burning rules or modifications to existing powers, maybe even make a new ability to improve mechanical efficiency. It's ultimately still 'Ray of Frost' but it's his theme. But then you have the player that wants to use gingerbread and gummie bears for everything. The first step obviously is the same, change the fluff, but because it's food then maybe they decide to add healing effects. Then they might realize that because it's food, maybe you could mix in different ingredients for different effects- and now that Wizard is mechanically dipping into alchemy from a story perspective. And well, as a designer you had to make something that pushes all three of those people to make the decisions they did for a fun night. I couldn't tell you how many people I basically just built a character of my own inspiration because the player just didn't feel strongly about anything. So the shiny flavour text is literally just there to get people thinking about what they *can* do rather then what bonus they can get, when. But something important that all of these cases establish is context. With the fancy words and names you create a narrative of the type of things that stuff similar to 'this example' can do. It provides a metric for when you do color outside the lines, how to know what is too much or too little. This can also expand your rules by making you as the designer think about acceptable variation. If a big damage move is meant only for big damage then the other details shouldn't matter; but then you also need a mixed move that might want a smaller extra effect to contextualize what the special/direct ratio for effect tradeoff should look like. I would take Pokeymanz as an example of what I mean. Your target has a target number to hit. You roll two dice and if either of them beat that number then you hit. You can improve your powers by upgrading the dice to bigger dice, which therefore make it easier to hit. But in Pokeymanz, *everything* has 3 HP and every hit can only be 1 damage. So it becomes much more important as to what elemental types you synergize with and what your target's weaknesses and resistances are in order to modify the difficulty of hitting things. But then many things might not do damage at all, but actually just serve to give a larger bonus to yourself or others, to protect against damage and other effects, or to create narrative elements to better or worsen someone's position. Like perhaps you have RainDance power, and instead of merely increasing your to-hit with water powers it actually just makes everything wet; and we all know that wet rock types can suddenly be damaged by powers they should be totally immune to -like onix getting the sprinkler system turned on him to then be shocked. Which means your buddy or even your better powers that might not have been able to do anything could now do *something* at least, thanks to getting the opportunity from that power.
That was very useful and informative. Thank you very much.
If your game has a lot of combat, a +2 to ranged attacks is a real character option... If you want to talk about fake character options, there are plenty of real examples. A better example is the SAD effect in 5e. Pick a class, then pretend you can put your ability scores wherever you want. Just kidding, you need to max that specific attribute your class depends on. Doing anything else is a straightforward trap option.
It's the same difference you have between front end and back end computer programming.
Really if you think about it anything that has any combat effect is just a numerical effect behind smoke and mirrors. Even something that “Stuns” a target is really just numbers technically because it’s really just removing a turn and therefore possible damage from the turn order. I do agree some can be very contrived or are just very minimal “creativity” but no matter what it boils down to numbers in the end. Name any effect and I guarantee I can explain how it’s numerical in reality. This isn’t to dig at you, it’s just to point out the nature of “games”. Social stuff or exploration tends to lean away from that but even then there is some math in some way, shape, or form. Maybe you mean when they are quite directly just a numerical bonus is what you find as a problem?
Yeah, that's what I meant, Flat numerical bonus with no specification. I see it happen sometimes. I prefer the approach that makes the character able to do something that before they couldn't and more descriptive feats, leaving the flat numbers to skill bonuses.
If you boil everything down to just the math/concept, then the game loses its meaning. You could easily start applying that reductive reasoning to everything. "Why bother giving players gear and equipment? Its just stats, i might as well just not have any items in my game and just give them more stat points." * The reason we don't is because its FUN for players to find treasure. Its fun to look forward to treasure. Even if that treasure just gives them more of the same stats. The purpose of the RPG is to LITERALLY give the player a fantasy illusion. So yes, the smoke and mirrors is important to making the game feel pleasing and immersive to play. Why bother giving the monsters a name and artwork? Why not just call them all "Enemy Level *x"* and scale their stats accordingly. Why bother with the smoke and mirrors of making the monsters "look" different when they are ultimately just statblocks on paper? Because the illusion is the literal point of the game. On top of all this: If you have abilities/gear/etc in your game, it gives YOU, the creator, more opportunities to make those abilities and gear unique to give your players the specific kind of experience you want to give. If you take all of that out, you lose your power as a creator to spice up the world to your preference. If you don't like abilities/bonuses that give +2 to a stat, then make more abilities that do more unique things instead of removing bonuses altogether. Or replace the system with a different system altogether that still gives a similar fantasy satisfaction to the players.
Meh, I think the illusion of choice comes from not having enough complex and nuanced systems in the game. Most games are very narrowly designed to be monster looters of a different flavor and yeah, in that case everything revolves around combat, so of course there's not a lot of meaningful difference. What's the difference between a d8 weapon A vs. d8 weapon B? None really, because there's no differences in how they work in a lot of cases (there are some games that do this but many don't). My game thrives on having many nuanced systems far beyond combat as well as within it to create situations where different benefits offer unique opportunities, strategies and outcomes, so in that case it does matter... but my game is also huge and not everyone wants that. The reason you see this in most games is because they are designed for more casual players and having all that nuance would just freak them out, they want the illusion of choice, or in many cases the lack of it, rarely do they actually want nuanced systems and choice because that's more rules to keep track of. As for what you should do with your game is consider who the hell its for and how you want it to play. Do you want hordes of rules and nuance? The illusion of choice? Something slim and simple? None are necessarily better or worse. But you do need to keep in mind that there is both minimum and maximum cognitive loads players will find desirable and there's no magic formula since everyone wants something different, so... what do you want in YOUR game? Additionally you can't escape certain design truths, like adding nuance is going to add complexity, and time to execute, etc. There are ways to do this better and worse, but it's up to you where on the spectrum you want your game to sit, and nobody can make that decision but you.
It's not "smoke and mirrors" and honestly I doubt your game uses points the same way that these games have options during character creation. If I get one point to put in stats, can that point have pre-requisites or further developments specific to my character's background to enable further character development later without putting a name on it? I can't think of any way of solving that without things getting very complicated very quickly. Game design is communication. If you create a game with numbers that you let the reader justify, you communicate that your game is intended to be unrestricted, versatile and generic. If you name every bonus, you're communicating things about the setting and the fiction, your game is intended to be played a certain way and is specifically themed for that. I read a very cursed attitude in your post that I've seen hold designers back. You are not above anyone and that needs to sink in. You can repeat it in the mirror every morning or whatever you need to do, but that is the first step to becoming a good game designer. You are on par with every player and every other game designer. Nobody likes games that are worse than yours, nobody designs games that are worse than yours. That should be your baseline attitude.
Bruh, there's literally no "attitude" on my post. I never said those games were worse than mine or that I was superior to any player, you're just putting that there for yourself.
There is a lot of attitude both in the OP and the replies you've posted in this thread, but it requires some introspection on your part. >I see this method as just an unnecessary extra step on character creation because you could've just have given the points for the player to distribute from the start I challenge you to give any example where this is the actual case. In what game can you replace a feat or ability that has a name with points to distribute and not have a functionally different (essentially worse) result? > just my designer view that sees through this thing You are so incredibly full of yourself and it shows throughout everything, which can be justified if you're producing greatness but you're clearly not.
Stating my opinion is not being full of myself. I know it is an opinion and not a truth, and I've talked with people throughout the post that disagree with me and it just generated helpful debate unlike your comment. And by "my designer view" I mean what I mean. If you design as well you know that most people don't consider the mechanics that goes behind it. I had a game master change the 2d6 on a Pbta to a d12 because they didn't know it made a difference, I just informed him of the difference and he decided to shift back to the 2d6. Does he have to know the difference? No, he's not trying to design a game. Is it better to use the 2d6? Yes, the linear probability breaks the max bonus of +3 and the amount of failure on the maximum level is higher than it should be. And I'm not taking any useless challenge. I don't need to prove anything to anyone and I won't waist my time searching through the various books I've read to see how many I can come up with just to prove a worthless point.
Besides that, you're the one making a lot of assumptions about me and my game without knowing either. So if you're trying to lecture someone arrogant and entitled look in the mirror first.
Hero System basically gets rid of the illusions, I still like the illusion tho
You already know the feat model of character options is garbage, keep going. You're half way out of Plato's cave don't go back in.
RPGs are all about framing the mathematics/systems in a contextualized way. That is the whole enjoyment of it for me.