Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 cerois Sep 11, 2009 1:32:58	I have been playing role playing games for a long time now, I have done some pretty extensive house rule modes for several systems and I am working on a pretty major revamp/house rule set for 4th edition. I think that it’s been long understood that one of the major issues with role playing game balance is that keeping a random modifier relatively relevant when players are trying there damndest to make it irrelevant is difficult and extremely limiting. I have in the past come up with a number of systems which I have applied, systems which were of varying elegance, and varying effectiveness. But one system that has always had a very simplistic core principle has always been largely ignored in PnP design is that of diminishing returns. Almost all MMORPGs have eventually come to the conclusion that diminishing returns may well be the only real solution to a multitude of problems. I believe that Diminishing returns would solve many of the balance problems inherent to a more open design system. As a way of naturally balancing the more well rounded characters with the more specialized ones. Obviously there are downsides to using a diminishing returns curve in a PnP game, the single most significant one being the fact that its awkward. But my question becomes, if you could solve most of the balance issues surrounding D&D by having to apply a diminishing returns curve to each of your primary statistics: Attack value, Defense Value, Skill Value, Hp Value, etc... Would it be worth it game play wise? Perhaps a hybrid system where modifiers from certian sources are added together and have a curve applied and others are added purely, for example: [Curve modified[Stat Modifer + Level Modifier + Proficency modifier +Persistant Feat Modifier]] + Situational Modifier + Power Modifier = Total Bonus Opinions?
#2 salla Sep 11, 2009 1:34:49	Strikes me as being too complicated for what little issue it solves.  You have to do an equation every time your leader gives you a bonus to your attack rolls?
#3 cerois Sep 11, 2009 1:38:56	No, what I am thinking is that you simply refer to a chart when generating the character, apply/write down the new value and go play from there. Somewhat like the way attributes work right now. Attributes are a largely useless legacy items, it would be more efficient to drop them and apply the modifier directly as the stat but for some reason we have the intermediary step of having the stat, looking up a chart then writing down the modifier which is the only really meaningful value.
#4 pluisjen Sep 11, 2009 2:33:21	I like the idea, but aplying an actual curve is pretty hard probably... unless you do it right. How about: for each buff, that buff takes a penalty equal to the number of other active buffs. You'd need to up the numbers a bit for it work right, but it'd go something like this: Base attack mod: +10 +4 magic weapon: total attack mod +10 + +4 = +14 +3 leader buff: total attack mod +10 + +4 + ( +3 - 1 for the magic weapon buff ) = +16 +5 accurate power buff: total attack mod +10 + +4 + ( +3 - 1 for the magic weapon buff ) + ( +5 - 2 for two active buffs ) = +19 Think this is among the easiest to implement in a PnP game, and it can still be pretty difficult. Main issue here will be coming up with a system that works quick and painless while still giving out dimishing returns.
#5 Neutronium_Dragon Sep 11, 2009 15:40:06	MMOs are dealing with far more numbers at far greater values and far greater frequency than even the most complicated P&P game does. Diminishing returns are one design means of keeping MMO numbers under control, but they're generally not necessary in the much more mathematically-simple P&P world. As others have already pointed out, if anything they're liable to unnecessarily burden a P&P game.
#6 cerois Sep 11, 2009 17:23:35	MMOs are dealing with far more numbers at far greater values and far greater frequency than even the most complicated P&P game does. Diminishing returns are one design means of keeping MMO numbers under control, but they're generally not necessary in the much more mathematically-simple P&P world. As others have already pointed out, if anything they're liable to unnecessarily burden a P&P game. This wasn't true in 3rd edition, in fact it was probably the central design flaw of 3rd edition. In 4th the designers have worked very hard to limit the number of ways to enhance a characters accuracy to a large extent because the mathematical relevance of the d20 should remain reasonable. The significantly limits the options for accuracy focused players. The other advantage of diminishing returns is that its an external metric, with a diminishing returns calculation provided after the character creation process the rules could be significantly loosened allowing for a far wider range of viable character designs. Something that will become far more of a problem as nerfs go forward to stop the most overpowered builds with the inevitable side effect of destroying the viability of some reasonably well balanced builds.
#7 cerois Sep 11, 2009 17:26:03	I like the idea, but aplying an actual curve is pretty hard probably... unless you do it right. How about: for each buff, that buff takes a penalty equal to the number of other active buffs. You'd need to up the numbers a bit for it work right, but it'd go something like this: Base attack mod: +10 +4 magic weapon: total attack mod +10 + +4 = +14 +3 leader buff: total attack mod +10 + +4 + ( +3 - 1 for the magic weapon buff ) = +16 +5 accurate power buff: total attack mod +10 + +4 + ( +3 - 1 for the magic weapon buff ) + ( +5 - 2 for two active buffs ) = +19 Think this is among the easiest to implement in a PnP game, and it can still be pretty difficult. Main issue here will be coming up with a system that works quick and painless while still giving out dimishing returns. Well I wouldn't want to try to alter the values on the fly, I think that would be to much work. I think the only viable way would be to separate the modifiers into two groups; base and circumstantial. Base modifiers would be subject to the curve, while circumstantial modifiers would not but would perhaps have a hard cap of 5 or so.
#8 simplecadence Sep 12, 2009 17:40:29	The point buy system already uses a diminishig returns-style cost scheme for purchasing ability scores. Just sayin'.