shadythedevil Posted July 5 Author Share Posted July 5 On 7/4/2024 at 8:07 AM, Scotty said: Okay guys, nine pages later and it's getting heated. Deep breath everyone. Please remind yourself of this (it applies to the whole site not just RQ and Glorantha): so before you warned me, for I am not sure why, there was a half hour between the last post that shows here and your response to me. in that time, i had made at least 3 other posts. can those posts be recovered? if not, i am done done here. that is the second time i was allowed to go through all of the motions of posting and when I refreshed the page I had discovered all of my time was wasted. not sure what exactly is going on with all that. before the warning, the response text box let me respond to multiple posts. after the warning i could not reply. but there are a bunch of posts that I made that are not showing up. that is really frustrating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadythedevil Posted July 5 Author Share Posted July 5 The warning said "please stop it now. take a breath. come back tomorrow." stop what? stop responding to people responding to me? wtf kinda policy is that? if i was on the opposite end of the spectrum here, aka brp fan boi, I would not have gotten that warning. did anybody else get any warnings? i am literally the only person defending my position against an entire forum. to me, it seems like some favoritism. i do not abide. furthermore, i know that telling people to take a breath usually has the exact opposite reaction. how about you gtfo your dumb ass high horse, warning people that are not apart of the nerd-think BRP monolith. ban me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g33k Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 4 hours ago, shadythedevil said: The warning said "please stop it now. take a breath. come back tomorrow." stop what? stop responding to people responding to me? wtf kinda policy is that? if i was on the opposite end of the spectrum here, aka brp fan boi, I would not have gotten that warning. did anybody else get any warnings? i am literally the only person defending my position against an entire forum. to me, it seems like some favoritism. i do not abide. furthermore, i know that telling people to take a breath usually has the exact opposite reaction. how about you gtfo your dumb ass high horse, warning people that are not apart of the nerd-think BRP monolith. ban me. I did not see your removed posts, but... When you move to swearing at people -- as you did here (with "gtfo" & "dumb a__") -- that's often considered "over the line" & abusive. That's not being "BRP monolith" or "brp fan boi" -- that's common rules of civil discourse. And yes, sometimes it's necessary to take a breath, go away for a few hours, sleep on it, etc. Come back with the same opinions, but not the need to swear at someone because your sentiment is running hot. Quote C'es ne pas un .sig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Ollmann Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 On 5/17/2024 at 3:03 AM, Susimetsa said: As for designing monsters, you seem to be looking for something that cannot exist in an organic, levelless-design, chance-based game system: an easy-to-calculate method to balance enemies to player groups. We are talking about a design where a character's power is not easily transferable to single numbers (e.g., lvl vs. lvl thinking) etc. My sons and I are exploring making some monsters for an upcoming product. I don't want to get into preannouncements, but I really felt it essential that we provide some guidance in the product about how easily the monster would roll the entire party into the ground. Simply giving up on this is not an acceptable approach, because (non-CoC) GMs really need some way to avoid abusing player trust. I don't believe this goal is actually impossible. What is impossible is simulating player ingenuity. However, what we can do is conservatively assume the players decide to be stupid and just go toe to toe with the monster bashing each other's heads in with their preferred method of head bashing until death. Then we can do something like run 1 million virtual combats between players and stochastically generated monsters or different groups of monsters to at minimum provide a ranking ladder and preferably some sort of absolute lethality rating. There will also need to be some adjustments to make the numbers of monster more tenable. Such a tool should allow GMs to feel reasonably assured that the party will not suicide by monster unexpectedly, and if the encounter is rated particularly tough maybe drop a hint or two. That way, when there is the TPK, the GM can say, 'Well I did say the giant ape was 200' tall. What did you think would happen?" The code is just begun. I don't have the data or any sense about what is important and what is not, yet. Given BRPs engaged / disengaged mechanic (p124), we may guess some stuff like MOV is unlikely to make a big difference but clearly armor is going to be a big deal. It may be that the solution has to be in the form of an app, because BRP monster characteristics tend to be highly variable with values like "3D8+2" instead of "11", so at minimum you'd want to account for that stochastic variation in the statistics, but one might also want to just have a tool to double check a particular set of monster individuals against a party. There will be a chapter devoted to this in our product, if we succeed in making any sense of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susimetsa Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 (edited) 5 hours ago, Ian Ollmann said: My sons and I are exploring making some monsters for an upcoming product. I don't want to get into preannouncements, but I really felt it essential that we provide some guidance in the product about how easily the monster would roll the entire party into the ground. Simply giving up on this is not an acceptable approach, because (non-CoC) GMs really need some way to avoid abusing player trust. I don't believe this goal is actually impossible. If you do succeed, I'll be very interested in seeing the method used. I said in a later post that it might be doable if you ignore critical chances and simply count the static data (skills, characteristics, HPs, average damage). But, if you go through the route of running computer simulations through a hundred of more iterations, I guess you could determine certain kinds of power levels for enemies. Not sure how an individual GM could determine whether their player group is equal to the "standard" used in the simulation, or below or above it... But, as I said, I'm interested in seeing how this goes! 🙂 Edited July 6 by Susimetsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.