tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post3885704058057181257..comments2023-10-08T08:54:40.079-04:00Comments on LARP Ohio: "It's a Statting Issue"Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17437406306299325645noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-88179069293950712352011-03-22T17:56:13.382-04:002011-03-22T17:56:13.382-04:00The turnaround by the writing team was solid, and ...The turnaround by the writing team was solid, and a lot of what I consider to be wrong is likely explainable by limitations placed on the designers by NERO. I agree that we are at that stage, and also want to thank you for the open and honest discussion.Mike Ennishttp://warweb.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-44631956453946828162011-03-21T23:43:29.083-04:002011-03-21T23:43:29.083-04:00It doesn't offend me, I'm not part of the ...It doesn't offend me, I'm not part of the rules team anymore. <br /><br />Though 9th took about a year to write (6 months plus 6 months tweaking) plus a year of random delays when the book left the rules team's hands. Though from the point of view of players, yeah, it's been 12 years or whatever, but I do like to defend at least the timeline of my team while we worked on it.<br /><br />Anywhoo, we're basically at the "we disagree" stage. :)Mickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08410370955403380206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-89401072284135059952011-03-21T23:38:36.661-04:002011-03-21T23:38:36.661-04:00I don't diagree with you last comment, but why...I don't diagree with you last comment, but why put it out there then? The rules need to set boundaries for acceptable behavior while still facilitating a wide variety of play. The problem here is that, while it's easy to post on this blog that we know how silly that is, the truth of the matter that if it's not intuitive and simple for players, it's not a good design. What it will cause me to do is say "disregard everything written on page 89, and follow this modified chart." I don't want to spend my time cleaning up rules. I would prefer to get it right at the design table and avoid putting it out with a caveat of, "yeah you could do that, but why would you?"<br /><br />And as for the next edition of the rules solving these issues - no offense, but we've been waiting for this one for 12+ years. Maybe the next one will come more quickly, maybe not.Mike Ennishttp://warweb.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-36351264943155007352011-03-21T22:15:34.157-04:002011-03-21T22:15:34.157-04:00Not cross at all.
At the end of the day we simply...Not cross at all.<br /><br />At the end of the day we simply disagree about the complexity involved. I think it has been made easier to understand and implement with a very precise and clear method of construction and you don't. Next edition I suspect a lot of this will be rendered moot anyway.<br /><br />One other place we seem to disagree is on the role staff needs to play in this. The same staff who loads up a damage call with 10 magic lightning sleep poison is a staff doing an *number* of ridiculous and confusing things to torment and confuse their players and the damage call is just the tip of that particular iceberg.Mickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08410370955403380206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-33469353253448223662011-03-21T22:11:34.874-04:002011-03-21T22:11:34.874-04:00Sorry if that post came off as cross - I am not an...Sorry if that post came off as cross - I am not angry, just disappointed.Mike Ennishttp://warweb.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-92080891949066564882011-03-21T22:09:50.827-04:002011-03-21T22:09:50.827-04:00The 8th Edition Errata spells it out clearly as I ...The 8th Edition Errata spells it out clearly as I have stated above under the heading Carrier Attacks. I wrote this section and maybe I understand it differently because of that, and I apologize if that is the case, but this clarification first went into play in 2003. I think this has been a non-issue since that time, and at WAR we have played it that way.<br /><br />I do find it more confusing to add extra words that are not needed to the calls. I think it's confusing to players when they hear "10 Magic Sleep Poison", but like you, removal of Carrier Attacks was not something I could get passed in 2003. Now to say that there's the possibility of "10 Magic Lightning Sleep Poison" seems silly to me. I do not think it is something we as rules designers should leave to plot teams and NPCs to sort out - they have enough to do.<br /><br />I appreciate your defense of it as written Mickey, but there really is no reason for it. It is a step backward, and it's discouraging to me that it has reared its ugly head in the newest edition. I think it's particularly discouraging because I fought so hard for it back in 2003 and won a small victory without having that extra call in there that so many people seemed to want. I didn't understand it then, and I don't understand it now.Mike Ennishttp://warweb.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-88144352711947290512011-03-21T21:33:11.304-04:002011-03-21T21:33:11.304-04:00First off, thanks for the apology. Happily accepte...First off, thanks for the apology. Happily accepted.<br /><br />Anyway, I'm gonna start off my reply with a quoet from some of the advice I wrote to staff for the changeover "There is a temptation to load up damage calls with as many parts as possible and my advice is to fight that temptation most of the time. Most damage calls should just be the number and weapon type. Let the more complex calls be both more rare and in more controlled circumstances..."<br /><br />Because, yes, being hit with a four part damage call could confuse a newer player. However, under 8th edition the same thing could happen and it was up to staff to know when, and when not, to use their options sensibly. Furthermore, the only words that matter to a PC are the number and the effect (and yes, carriers are a problem but we couldn't take them out this time around) and "massive" if used. All the rest of the effects are, to a newer player, irrelevant. normal, silver, magic, essence, stone, etc are just noise to a regular PC because they suffer zero altered effect from it. There is, as well, no particular *need* for a life elemental to swing normal essence instead of just normal if player confusion is a concern. <br /><br />But there is now one unified set of rules for construction the damage call and the parts that go into it that is, at least in my opinion, clearer than what 8th edition had. It shifted a little bit more burden onto staff in implementation because you now *must* use a weapon type, even if it's just an order elemental, but I really don't see that as being a difficult thing for a staff to handle (in terms of knowing when it is and isn't worth appending a damage type).<br /><br />And I really don't think it's *more* confusing to newer players under 9th than it was under 8th.Mickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08410370955403380206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-30537505260983541552011-03-21T21:24:31.450-04:002011-03-21T21:24:31.450-04:00Ahahahahah...it took out a line because it confuse...Ahahahahah...it took out a line because it confused it for markup...let's try again.<br /><br />(Damage Amount)(Damage Type)(Effect)<br />Examples: 10 Silver, 10 Normal Sleep, 10 Magic, 10 Flame, 10 Ice Disease, etc.<br />(Note: I would get rid of Carriers entirely and replace them with Physical Strikes, but think that would likely not fly...)Mike Ennishttp://warweb.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-16500395533214190612011-03-21T21:22:42.795-04:002011-03-21T21:22:42.795-04:00Mickey - I want to apologize...I had spent the las...Mickey - I want to apologize...I had spent the last several hours poring over stuff in preparation of our first event using the 9th Edition (yay!) when I came across it. The comment was definitely un-called for and I actually came out here hoping I could squeeze in an apology before you responded. Thanks for the succinct explanation despite my buffoonery (is that a word? ...LOL).<br /><br />I do however disagree. The part that I have trouble with isn't when a player reaches the level to use these auras but the heightened learning curve for the player when being struck by them, which can happen at any level. It's hard enough getting people used to the various special exception weapon damage calls we have in the game like Massive and Earth. In general, the more words we cram into calls, the slower processing time will be for players. Experienced players will eventually catch on, but why increase the learning curve?<br /><br />Tim - I agree wholeheartedly that the table is awesome! In fact, this type of thing is one of the best features of the new rules. I think the charts and tables are incredible visual aids, and the designers need to be commended for that! Here is how I would make the top portion of the table:<br /><br /> <br />Examples: 10 Silver, 10 Normal Sleep, 10 Magic, 10 Flame, 10 Ice Disease, etc.<br />(Note: I would get rid of Carriers entirely and replace them with Physical Strikes, but think that would likely not fly...)<br /><br />I don't understand why we are "fixing" things that are not broken. It is an unnecessary over-complication to me, even after hearing Mickey's explanation. I would say it's duplicitous, but we would have to go to definition 3 or 4 for that to make sense...LOL.Mike Ennishttp://warweb.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-46030542296847662752011-03-20T22:06:44.494-04:002011-03-20T22:06:44.494-04:00I see no inherent problem with the change in langu...I see no inherent problem with the change in language. The tables definitely make having a cheat sheet easier.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17437406306299325645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-72745550015228905362011-03-20T19:22:13.653-04:002011-03-20T19:22:13.653-04:00Um, first of all, is it really necessary to add in...Um, first of all, is it really necessary to add in extraneous insulting language when asking a question? You *can* just ask without having to take a potshot at the same time.<br /><br />Anyway, we changed the lexicon a little bit to clean up how it all worked and allow a uniform method of constructing a damage call, with two proximate limitations on our process. First, a desire to not require players (as distinct from staff) to have to dramatically change the way they called damage. Second, mandate limitations on how much we could change in the first place.<br /><br />So, for an actual player, it's pretty simple. Number + type = damage call. It starts getting a little complex when auras enter the picture, but by that point the player is likely more familiar with the game and it is not terribly complex for them to add an optional third word if they had, say, an ice sword.<br /><br />Now, we did remove the explicit hierarchy of normal -> silver -> magic, but we knew staff would probably still have it ingrained in them to stat that way and there are potentially some legitimate story or genre reasons for it at times, so weapon types are distinct so that staff can have their hierarchy if they want. But again, to the regular player, all they really worry about is number + weapon type. If they get an elemental aura, well, they know how to add a third word if they want to. PCs don't have access to effects unless transformed, and at that point you're already restatting them as NPCs and presumably are taking the time to explain how things work.Mickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08410370955403380206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-57154044590906976012011-03-20T18:31:54.943-04:002011-03-20T18:31:54.943-04:00Mickey,
Can you explain to me why the designers o...Mickey,<br /><br />Can you explain to me why the designers of 9th found it necessary to remove normal, silver, and magic as damage types and make them "weapon types"? The table on page 89 is ridiculously confusing and absolutely crushes the learning curve for new players...what a mess.<br /><br />Thanks in advance!Mike Ennishttp://warweb.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-42870769713162529022011-03-17T19:08:55.181-04:002011-03-17T19:08:55.181-04:00Heck, most of us who worked on it would agree with...Heck, most of us who worked on it would agree with that, Mike, we just weren't able to do it for 9th. Too drastic a change for our mandate.Mickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08410370955403380206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-51328122602494395282011-03-17T19:07:03.785-04:002011-03-17T19:07:03.785-04:00Oh, and by the way, when I paid for my two license...Oh, and by the way, when I paid for my two license agreements I'm pretty sure it said in there something to the effect that I am always right about stuff...I don't have them in front of me, but I'll dig them out when I get home to double check. <br /><br />:)Mike Ennishttp://warweb.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-42836752016444870082011-03-17T19:04:03.198-04:002011-03-17T19:04:03.198-04:00hate to say it (only because we've been doing ...hate to say it (only because we've been doing it a lot lately...:), but I agree with Mike on the 4th Edition D&D...it's bad. It lost a lot of ambiance and reads more like a miniatures rule set than an RPG. Maybe I'll give it another read now, but my first read-through (admittedly a while ago) was pretty disappointing. I'm sure many people can and do have fun with it - it is more fast-paced and less RPG, but that's not what I personally like. Conversely, I love the new Cosmology - much improved.<br /><br />As for "it's a stating issue," I feel that it IS over-used but not in the way that many other people do. Too often I see the statement used as a crutch for bad rules design when the authors of the book run out of real rationale for their logic. "Why is the disparity of damage effectiveness so problematic in the NERO system? It's a monster stating issue..." is something I have heard repeatedly and makes me want to puke every time I do.<br /><br />I agree with most of the comments here that stating is probably the most significant issue in effective encounter resolution, but think that we should approach the design of the rules on their own merit without mixing in monster stating at the core level. The rule set should grow like a tree with a simple, unified foundation of logic and meta-rules, free of exceptions, contradictions, patches, and clutter (i.e. lengthy listings of cures and preventatives accompanying each effect, different core rules [roleplay, duration, hinderances, benefits] for effects based on delivery type, etc.). From this strong trunk foundation we can build branches that flower and grow almost exponentially, thereby providing great variety for experienced players while keeping the learning curve simple for newbies. I see some of that in 9th Edition, but also feel that we can do better - again, no offense to the folks on this list that worked on it.<br /><br />Just my late-day, groggy opinion... :-)Mike Ennishttp://warweb.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-17222918462493638022011-03-17T08:01:26.782-04:002011-03-17T08:01:26.782-04:00I ran a two year campaign for a variable group of ...I ran a two year campaign for a variable group of about 8 people, we had a blast.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17437406306299325645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-53820075013582997402011-03-17T07:05:12.271-04:002011-03-17T07:05:12.271-04:00Well if you owned a NERO chapter you'd know be...Well if you owned a NERO chapter you'd know betterMike Conleyhttp://northcoastnero.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-22482799169503284242011-03-17T00:00:35.289-04:002011-03-17T00:00:35.289-04:00I run 2 different 4th edition D&D games and pl...I run 2 different 4th edition D&D games and play in 2 others. We have fun at every session. I guess we're just having fun wrong! ;)omegacowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10332142701713064178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-57781769547977898012011-03-16T23:25:41.679-04:002011-03-16T23:25:41.679-04:00OMG. The end is nearOMG. The end is nearMichael Conleyhttp://www.northcoastnero.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-10970090816835448192011-03-16T23:18:00.496-04:002011-03-16T23:18:00.496-04:00I agree noahI agree noahTimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17437406306299325645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-58323895201136123272011-03-16T22:47:36.447-04:002011-03-16T22:47:36.447-04:004th edition D&D is awesome. You just don't...4th edition D&D is awesome. You just don't get it. :Domegacowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10332142701713064178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-82095194952819772102011-03-16T22:25:59.522-04:002011-03-16T22:25:59.522-04:00No you did it. You went to that which shall not be...No you did it. You went to that which shall not be named. I see where things went wrong now. You were looking at a faulty model. There is no 4th edition of D&D there is some abomination that shares little with Dungeons and Dragons and dumbed down the game to that of a video game on paper.<br />I would not see NERO follow that path.Michael Conleyhttp://www.northcoastnero.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-5306290474249226462011-03-16T16:29:28.706-04:002011-03-16T16:29:28.706-04:00Sorry, my first paragraph got cut off. It was too ...Sorry, my first paragraph got cut off. It was too big of a change for our original project scope to get rid of weapon immunity altogether. Ultimately, I think we should both get rid of the immunities and also the concept of weapon types, like 4th edition D&D did.omegacowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10332142701713064178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-70649519225267240322011-03-16T16:24:43.716-04:002011-03-16T16:24:43.716-04:00Actually, this rules edition DID implement a fix t...Actually, this rules edition DID implement a fix to low-level players being able to affect magic-to-hit monsters. We incorporated the newer version of Enchanted Blade from the playtest, so that it works like a Critical Attack instead of applying for only one hit. It's not a perfect fix- that would be to get rid of weapon immunity altogether, which is something we discussed but decided was too big of a <br /><br />Shifting the workload from the PCs to the staff was a conscious effort on the part of the writers. A whole day's worth of backstage work for the staff is well worth it if it saves a few minutes of confusion or complication for the players. The less time they need to spend shuffling between swords, the better.omegacowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10332142701713064178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7781060643507162251.post-35790140200311085912011-03-16T14:51:23.550-04:002011-03-16T14:51:23.550-04:00On that we agree Mickey. What gets forgotten in t...On that we agree Mickey. What gets forgotten in these rules debates is from the beginning of this I have been a cheerleader for the rules as a whole, I just have a few areas I like to discuss and or dont like. I the 9th edition. <br />As to the statting it seems much of the change I have an issue with creates more work for staff and doesn't solve the problem.mike conleyhttp://northcoastnero.comnoreply@blogger.com