Fiction First: Martial Exploits

[LostSoul]

This is going to be one of a series about making the details of the game world matter in 4E. First up: martial exploits.

Martial Exploits

Flavour text for Powers is fixed when a Power is selected; it can't be changed at run-time. You can change the flavour text instead of changing Powers or Feats when you level up.

The basic resolution for a character attempting a Martial action looks like this:

1. Player describes action.
2. Player and DM negotiate an "exploitable detail" based on the details action, one for success and one for failure, and/or the player takes advantage of an exploitable detail to trigger another power.
3. Player chooses power based on description of action.
4. Roll.
5. Determine effect based on the outcome of the roll.

Encounter Powers are no longer per encounter (at least some of them); they are "Conditional" Powers. Each Martial Power has a trigger; those triggers are the details established in the fiction.

The power's trigger is based on the flavour text of the chosen power. While it can be negotiated, the DM is the one who decides what the trigger is. You can change the flavour text of the power instead of swapping out the power; this may alter the trigger.

Sample Triggers:

Bell Ringer: When your target leaves his vitals open to the butt of your weapon
Covering Attack: When your target is compelled to give you all his attention
Passing Attack: When your enemies are unable to counterattack in response to your movement
Spinning Sweep: When you are able to spin beneath your enemy's guard and sweep your leg through his
Steel Serpent Strike: When his defense is high or his legs/feet are exposed

For now I'm leaving Daily Exploits alone until I playtest this system.

Here's how I imagine it working:

[sblock][DM sets scene]
DM: The hobgoblin approaches you with his flail in hand, slightly behind him, relying on his shield for protection.
[Player describes action]
PC: I move in quickly with my sword held in two hands above my head and start chopping down at him, forcing him to bring his shield up.
[Negotiation]
DM: On a hit, he'll have his shield up; on a miss, he'll knock your sword to the side with his shield, leaving your right side vulnerable to a quick counterattack. Sound good? Okay.
[Player chooses power based on description of action]
PC: I'm using Brash Strike. Hack hack hack!
<rolls, hits>
[Determine effect]
DM: He puts his shield up to protect his head and you bash away at it. The force of your blows jars his arms and shoulders and winds him.
[DM goes; monsters have limited tactics]
DM: Now it's his turn. As you bash away at his shield he swings his flail at your shoulder. Normally he'd try to hit you in the leg to slow you down but he's not in the right position. Anyways...
<rolls, hits>
[Player describes action]
PC: I can take it. Now that his guard is up I spin beneath it with a Luke Skywalker patented spin-o-rama, slashing at his gut and sweeping my leg through his.
[Negotiation]
PC: I'm using Spinning Sweep.
DM: Go for it.
etc.[/sblock]

It should be noted that I'm not very concerned with balance and I want to rely on the judgement of the DM as much as possible.

 

[Camelot]

This sounds like a fun idea, but it could take too long to go through each player's turn as they think about how they exploit their target's stance or such.

I may be just saying what you already have planned, but I was a little unclear on what you meant. I think at-wills should be able to be done no matter what the circumstances, while encounters require specific but somewhat common occurances (maybe something like once they do it, the monster takes a stance for the rest of the battle that prevents them from doing it again). Dailies require extremely rare circumstances, once-a-day things (if that), like the rogue's blinding barrage requires his targets to be facing him. Of course, this slows down the game a lot as the DM has to describe each monster's specific countenance, and each player the same. This could make combat loads more fun for the right people, but for the wrong group it would be dreadful, even if they normally like flavor.

But if you try it out with your group, tell us how it goes, and what they did or did not like!

 

[LostSoul]

One of the hopes is that it won't take any longer; instead of poring over a number of powers the player will be "in" the game world and know from that what they want to do. We'll see.

I'm leaving Daily powers alone for now until I see how this works.

It's possible that some at-will powers won't be applicable though I'd need to find some way to say that. You wouldn't be able to use Tide of Iron if you can't bring your shield to bear, for example.

I'm also going to build a new group once I hammer this stuff out, and then find a group of people who share my goals for play who are willing to provide feedback and help come up with a final version - playtesting, I guess.

 

[the Jester]

Sounds like it would slow down combat a whole lot. Putting a "negotiation" phase into every attack seems like a nightmare to me. Obviously, YMMV, but one of the things about "insert flavor text here" attacks is that you can use your attacks in a wide variety of situations without slowing things to a crawl.

 

[LostSoul]

I want the negotiation in there so the player can back out of the action and reconsider it. I think it's important to get everyone on the same page.

I am also planning to come up with an alternate initiative/combat system to deal with less important combats, the ones you want to take 15 minutes or so.

 

[Starfox]

While I like the idea of making combat more narrative, I also see a lot of dangers with it. Here are a few tips and an alternate idea, based on my experience with narrative combat. This assumes it was narrative combat you were looking for, and not just a rock-paper-scissors rule.

Having played Feng Shui a lot, where stunts are legio, it can get a bit repetitive to have to describe each action you do in such detail. Especially in a long-winded combat system like 3E. Effectively allowing more encounter powers would of course speed up combat, but you might find your players doing cool but endless variations on Come and get It. Narrative combat works best in narrative games, like Amber Diceless Roleplaying.

The reason 4E powers are set up like they are is to even the battlefield and create variance even for poor to mediocre players. Setting higher standards can be rewarding if your players are good, but be very hard on those who cannot keep up.

Keep an eye on yourself and avoid being predictable or use too much of your own bias. If your players learn that leg sweeps work 90% of the time and wild charges 50% of the time, they will all be doing leg sweeps. You also need to make allowances for the player's abilities; if one player is such a good narrator that he can use encounter powers 90% of the time, and another only manages 40%, it will feel distinctly unfair, close to mobbing. Thus the standards have to be at least partially based on the player's narrative abilities, with higher goals set for better players, which in turn can feel unfair to them.

Idea for a Rule
I would make it less a matter of DM-player negotiation and more of a "stunt" thing where players describe their action and the DM assigns a bonus or penalty if the stunt makes sense. Or, in this case, the DM would allow the encounter power if the stunt sounds cool and make it a basic attack or at-will power use if not. I think it would be worthwhile to decide on a fall-back attack for each encounter power, so there is no dispute about what it reverts to when insufficiently described.

 

[LostSoul]

While I like the idea of making combat more narrative, I also see a lot of dangers with it. Here are a few tips and an alternate idea, based on my experience with narrative combat. This assumes it was narrative combat you were looking for, and not just a rock-paper-scissors rule.

What are the dangers you see?

(Here's a danger: monsters negating the exploitable details on their turn. It seems like they should be able to. What if the hobgoblin (from the example above) decided to do something like wrapping his flail around the PC's sword and yanking it to the side? What does that mean?

Kind of makes me think about having simultaneous actions, but how would that work?)

What do you mean by narrative combat? What I'm looking for is a system for resolving actions that includes little details that have an impact on resolution. Mmm, I posted this somewhere else:

4E does this: player decides on action -> resolution of action -> description of outcome.

What I want is this: player decides on action -> description of action -> resolution of action -> description of outcome.

Each arrow is shorthand for something like "has an effect on", I guess.

The reason 4E powers are set up like they are is to even the battlefield and create variance even for poor to mediocre players. Setting higher standards can be rewarding if your players are good, but be very hard on those who cannot keep up.

I actually want people who can't keep up to fall behind.

I want to challenge the players. Not that 4E doesn't challenge players now, but it does so in a way that doesn't include the details of the game world.

1. Keep an eye on yourself and avoid being predictable or use too much of your own bias. 2. If your players learn that leg sweeps work 90% of the time and wild charges 50% of the time, they will all be doing leg sweeps. 3. You also need to make allowances for the player's abilities; if one player is such a good narrator that he can use encounter powers 90% of the time, and another only manages 40%, it will feel distinctly unfair, close to mobbing. Thus the standards have to be at least partially based on the player's narrative abilities, with higher goals set for better players, which in turn can feel unfair to them.

I numbered the different points you make here to easier reply to them.

1. I want to introduce bias (I call it judgement) into the system. I want to judge the creative contributions (the PC's course of action as chosen by the player) based on my own criteria. One of the key points is that I'm not interested in the outcome of any conflict, but I am interested in maintaining internal consistency in the setting.

2. I'm not changing the basic d20 resolution, so leg sweeps and wild charges have the same chance to hit. I'm not even changing the mechanics behind the encounter powers, just when you can use them.

3. I want players of different ability to have different levels of success.


On Negotiation
The point behind this phase in resolution is to keep everyone on the same page. I don't want the players to get screwed. I don't want them to have to read my mind. They shouldn't have to guess at what success or failure means.

 

[Camelot]

4e has 3 steps for a turn, which you pointed out. Many have complained that combat is long in 4e, unless the group is very clean, practised, and efficient, and even then it can still be a bit long.

You want to add a 4th step. There's no way around it; this makes combat longer than it already is. That's the danger I see, though I still think more narration would be cool. It just doesn't fit with the current system.

I think you should encourage players to simply elaborate when they use encounter and daily powers. That's where the cinematic flavor lies, as you've found out. But let them decide when the hobgoblin brings up his shield so they can sweep their weapon at his legs. Having to narrate all those nuances about the enemies might be too much flavor.

I would love to play a purely narrative game some day, though. Maybe you should try to make your own system where narration is the key. I just don't think heavy narration fits with D&D.

 

[LostSoul]

I can encourage players to elaborate all day, but if the narration doesn't have an impact on resolution then it's not going to work for me.

 

[Starfox]

What are the dangers you see?

The main dangers I was able to express where the ones you labeled 1,2,3. You gave answers to those and have obviously been thinking about them. Perhaps not the same answers I would give, but that's why we have human DMs, not machines.

Good luck with it!