Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: Whats with the Damage/Armor issue?

  1. #21
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,735

    Re: Whats with the Damage/Armor issue?

    As I said, I see more than just the fact a bell curve is present as relevant in die roll; the amount of variance seems important to me too. If it doesn't to you, I'm not sure what further to say.

  2. #22
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,904

    Re: Whats with the Damage/Armor issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkdreamer View Post
    As I said, I see more than just the fact a bell curve is present as relevant in die roll; the amount of variance seems important to me too. If it doesn't to you, I'm not sure what further to say.
    But that variance is the problem. If you don't adjust for it, you soft-cap early, have auto hit/fail, and spend most of your advancement on non-core growth. If you do adjust for it, you still have auto hit/fail, and either segregate your play or pigeonhole your players into a particular style.

    You talk about radical changes, but you're ignoring a key aspect: it's a level 1-20 progression. The current model is flawed, and there are very few tables that I know of that have played a full progression with it. So fixes would be:

    1. Keep the current variance and progression model but abbreviate actual level progression to 1-10.
    2. Keep the current variance and actual level progression, but slow the progression model.
    3. Keep the current progression model, but increase the variance.
    Or 4. Keep a decidedly imperfect system.

    Obviously 4 is broken, and 2 is boring. So what's the more radical change? And what's the more fundamental element: the specific variance or the specific level range? For me, it was the growth of the experience. For you, it appears to be the variance. But this is why I've also said that RAW AGE works fine for one shots and short campaigns, but not epic ones.

    And also, I'd like to point out that the increased variance allows a return from the Ability Advancement system to the original method of increasing abilities, which does control for much of the increased randomness.

  3. #23
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,735

    Re: Whats with the Damage/Armor issue?

    That doesn't change the fact that 3D10 provides too much swing for my taste. The fact that other elements of DAGE made it ridiculously lopsided to the offense does not make a fix that does so by putting in more swing any more attractive. If I want that I've got D20 and D100 based systems I like much better.

  4. #24
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,904

    Re: Whats with the Damage/Armor issue?

    If you don't like increasing the variance, then it's probably for the best that you switched. AGE isn't my favorite system, and I am definitely in favor of switching. However, its strengths play to my table: we are a casual group, and AGE is very easy to pick up and play.

  5. #25
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,735

    Re: Whats with the Damage/Armor issue?

    I can see that. Its actually waaay at the bottom end of the complexity we normally go for. Which is probably why we looked around when the problems kicked in and went "Yeah...never mind."

  6. #26
    Baleful Eye of SaurMod Fildrigar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    352

    Re: Whats with the Damage/Armor issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by mdlthree View Post
    I would like to think this community could come together and develop some sort of consensus. We have consensus on what the problems are which is a really good start.

    For me personally, I need to apply focus on some more blog posts and get a better start to my "Adventure Mechanics" rules supplement. When people post here asking about how to fix game imbalance I'd rather not link to loosely related forum posts.
    No. There will never be a consensus. Some people think the system works just fine the way it is. Some people think it works better if you make some changes.

    There is no consensus on "what the problems are," because for some people the system works fine. For you, it doesn't, and you make changes. And the system is designed so that it's pretty easy for you to make changes.
    ALL HAIL THE SPAM-O-MATIC!

  7. #27
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,735

    Re: Whats with the Damage/Armor issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fildrigar View Post
    No. There will never be a consensus. Some people think the system works just fine the way it is. Some people think it works better if you make some changes.

    There is no consensus on "what the problems are," because for some people the system works fine. For you, it doesn't, and you make changes. And the system is designed so that it's pretty easy for you to make changes.
    I have to point out that consensus does not require unanimity. If it did, there would never be consensus about anything.

  8. #28
    Inceptor
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    8

    Re: Whats with the Damage/Armor issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by shonuff View Post
    But that variance is the problem. If you don't adjust for it, you soft-cap early, have auto hit/fail, and spend most of your advancement on non-core growth. If you do adjust for it, you still have auto hit/fail, and either segregate your play or pigeonhole your players into a particular style.

    You talk about radical changes, but you're ignoring a key aspect: it's a level 1-20 progression. The current model is flawed, and there are very few tables that I know of that have played a full progression with it. So fixes would be:

    1. Keep the current variance and progression model but abbreviate actual level progression to 1-10.
    2. Keep the current variance and actual level progression, but slow the progression model.
    3. Keep the current progression model, but increase the variance.
    Or 4. Keep a decidedly imperfect system.

    Obviously 4 is broken, and 2 is boring. So what's the more radical change? And what's the more fundamental element: the specific variance or the specific level range? For me, it was the growth of the experience. For you, it appears to be the variance. But this is why I've also said that RAW AGE works fine for one shots and short campaigns, but not epic ones.

    And also, I'd like to point out that the increased variance allows a return from the Ability Advancement system to the original method of increasing abilities, which does control for much of the increased randomness.
    For Fix 3, Could we be talking about a gradient upgrade on the dice? To me, that sounds like a possible fix... something along the lines of a dice change over levels.

    Levels 1-5 -- D6
    Levels 6-10 -- D8
    Levels 11-15 -- D10
    Levels 16-20 -- D12

    Or perhaps for a more ramped progress towards higher levels:

    Levels 1-6 -- D6
    Levels 7-12 -- D8
    Levels 13-17 -- D10
    Levels 18-20 -- D12

    It would cause an escalation but can add a dynamic for the game... Just curious if this is what you are talking about or I might be off in the woods on this.... lol

  9. #29
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,904

    Re: Whats with the Damage/Armor issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkdreamer View Post
    I have to point out that consensus does not require unanimity. If it did, there would never be consensus about anything.
    And also, the issues of combat pacing and auto hit/fail have been recurring posts for years... like before Set 2 of D-AGE was released. Forum evidence is anecdotal, and not necessarily reminiscent of the player base; however, that is all of the evidence that I am aware of, and it doesn't really seem to be coming from an echo chamber.

  10. #30
    Keeper of Secrets
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,904

    Re: Whats with the Damage/Armor issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by MagusJoe View Post
    For Fix 3, Could we be talking about a gradient upgrade on the dice? To me, that sounds like a possible fix... something along the lines of a dice change over levels.

    Levels 1-5 -- D6
    Levels 6-10 -- D8
    Levels 11-15 -- D10
    Levels 16-20 -- D12

    Or perhaps for a more ramped progress towards higher levels:

    Levels 1-6 -- D6
    Levels 7-12 -- D8
    Levels 13-17 -- D10
    Levels 18-20 -- D12

    It would cause an escalation but can add a dynamic for the game... Just curious if this is what you are talking about or I might be off in the woods on this.... lol
    I personally wouldn't do it like that. There'd be a lot of incremental scaling you'd have to do. D10 & d8 would need a separate method for figuring SP, for example. D6 you could use RAW and d12 could use a stunt die again and just use the d12/2.

    What I mean is just using d10 from level 1, and keeping that constant. Base defense/Spellpower is adjusted to 15, and damage modifiers are increased (e.g., +1=+2, +2=+3; +3=+5, etc.). But the basic stat progression would stay RAW, with the exception that ability advancements would stay at the 1:1 ratio.


    I've seen similarish methods that you are describing in Cortex, but I think it works there (and not here) because iirc everything in Cortex is randomized, but AGE relies heavily on static modifiers, which would diminish greatly unless accounted for. It could work, but imo would require a lot more work than just picking a new pool and going from there.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •