Rule-of-Three: 06/19/2012

MatthewJHanson · Jun 19, 2012

Herremann the Wise said:
I love the idea of facing for an advanced combat module. However, if you do this, I think you really need to split a character's actions up so that characters can have a number of reaction opportunities (call them minor and swift actions that combatants get one or more of). With this, you can change facing as part of a reaction. You then have the space in front of a character where they threaten, their flanks and their rear. So many opportunities here to get good tactical combat without having to artificially complicate it with thousands of powers.

I don't think you need any extra actions. Whenever you move you declare which way you are facing. At most you could have changing your face require 5 feet of movement.

Click to expand...

TerraDave · Jun 19, 2012

pemerton said:
I don't see them saying anything about expressing the story via such things. The contrast with what Worlds and Monsters promised (which 4e delivered on) is pretty marked, at least as I read it.

....This is achieved by integrating the mythic stakes at crucial points of PC and NPC/monster design, as well as by giving the players a high degree of control over how their PCs confront those stakes (both in build and in action resolution, via powers, surges, action points etc).

Did they deliver on that promise? Especially pre monster vault? I am not sure a lot of 4E fans would agree. And I think tactical combat was totally an end in itself, otherwise, what were we doing spending all those hours on it? It would be very strange game design otherwise.

(Aside 1, James Wyatt is supposed to be taking lead on world building, providing pretty direct 4E continuity).

(Aside 2, the main innovation in 4E was not too give monsters powers, there were always monster powers, in many cases it was too simplify and strip back those powers, arguably reducing their world relevance)

But I think the monster design and PCs being able to do stuff will be there, if not exactly the same way. Monster design is almost certainly going to be under the DMs control. The discussion with mearls was only about simple humanoids.

As for the PCs, if you want, say, the PC to be able to non-magically blind a target, that will probably be there in some way. Blinding Barrage as written, probably not.

Dragoslav · Jun 19, 2012

pemerton, you make excellent points. In fact, before reading your posts, I never realized what it was that I liked so much about 4e combat. It's not the complexity for the sake of complexity, but complexity as a means of more fully realizing a character. After all, I really enjoy the simplicity of the 5e playtest rules. The risk that accompanies mechanical sameness and simplicity is in characters of a certain class all feeling the same. Ironically, it makes combat seem like the neglected third pillar of the three-pillar perspective: In the interaction pillar, you can distinguish a character as a brash fighter or a craven dirty fighter, but in combat they play out the same: "I hit it. I hit it again."

As a contrast, consider the mechanics of these two powers, the warlord's Fearless Rescue and the Unabashed Treachery power from the Disgraced Noble theme:
Fearless Rescue: When an ally falls below 0 HP, you move up to the attacking enemy and make an attack with 2x weapon damage. The ally spends a healing surge and regains extra HP based on how many opportunity attacks you provoked while coming to their rescue.
Unabashed Treachery: When an attack hits you, you choose to have it instead hit an ally of yours. The attacking enemy grants combat advantage to the both of you.

They're both immediate reactions/interrupts, so they add complexity to the system, and they're both mechanically appealing for their effects, but what they're really good for is realizing a character in the realm of combat. In interaction, a character bluffs his way through a guard checkpoint by pretending to be a visiting ambassador; in exploration, he pulls a lockpick from his cravat and picks open a dungeon door; and in combat, he pulls an ally into the path of a oncoming arrow --> this guy is clearly an aristocrat with a shady background.

As much as I enjoy tactical combat, if the "tactical combat module" turns out to amount to just "I charge it. Now I bull rush and push it one square. Oh, it's facing away from me, so now I hit it... with combat advantage," then I'm not sure whether I'll prefer that or the fast-paced simplicity of the core combat rules, if it means getting through combat and into interaction and exploration faster.

I'm A Banana · Jun 19, 2012

pemerton said:
I think they are saying that I can have tactical combat for its own sake - with exciting manoeuvres and funky battlefield features.

I don't see them saying anything about expressing the story via such things.

That's because in 5e, if the promise of modularity is fulfilled, it can't have a story. There is no "the" story. There is only YOUR story, the story of you and your fellow players at your table.

This is part of what it means to make a game that does not have One True Way To Play It: whatever you choose to do at your table is the entire game as far as you and your group is concerned. But it might not be very similar at all to what someone else does. Given that one of the tabletop RPG's biggest strengths is flexibility, this is a Good Thing.

So if you want tactical combat to express something about the game world (a statement which befuddles me with its opacity), it is up to YOU to put that in there. After all, not everyone wants that.

You can play the game you want to play. Thee game doesn't assume that they way any particular group wants to play is the way that everyone ought to play. The message of 5e doesn't seem to be "D&D is about fighting monsters!", the message of 5e seems to be "D&D is your story. Tell it how you want to."

That does require a bit more assembly, usually, but it results in a much more fulfilling experience, IMXP.

pemerton said:
4e presents as a tactical combat engine - but this is just the vehicle for something else, namely, high (if you prefer, gonzo) fantasy storytelling. This is achieved by integrating the mythic stakes at crucial points of PC and NPC/monster design, as well as by giving the players a high degree of control over how their PCs confront those stakes (both in build and in action resolution, via powers, surges, action points etc).

This befuddles me. Most of 4e's story elements are tremendously superfluous to me personally, because they are not well integrated with the mechanics. This is a strength in certain respects: it allows very easily customizability and re-fluffing. But the mechanics don't, IMXP, provide gonzo fantasy storytelling. The mechanics don't integrate "mythic stakes" (whatever that means) at "crucial points of...design" (whatever those are), and the mechanics (targeted as they are at minis combat) present one ideal confrontation for resolving any problem (namely, minis combat, in which you get to use powers, surges, action points, etc.).

The 4e chassis provides mostly minis combat. The 4e mechanics for, say, using a blue dragon as an antagonist for an adventure, don't tell me anything about high fantasy storytelling. It tells me how they act in minis combat, but if my primary interest isn't in minis combat, it's all a lot of wasted mechanical onanism. 5e seems to want to recognize this, to say that people have different needs, to acknowledge that minis combat isn't necessarily The Point.

Dragonslav said:
They're both immediate reactions/interrupts, so they add complexity to the system, and they're both mechanically appealing for their effects, but what they're really good for is realizing a character in the realm of combat. In interaction, a character bluffs his way through a guard checkpoint by pretending to be a visiting ambassador; in exploration, he pulls a lockpick from his cravat and picks open a dungeon door; and in combat, he pulls an ally into the path of a oncoming arrow --> this guy is clearly an aristocrat with a shady background.

As much as I enjoy tactical combat, if the "tactical combat module" turns out to amount to just "I charge it. Now I bull rush and push it one square. Oh, it's facing away from me, so now I hit it... with combat advantage," then I'm not sure whether I'll prefer that or the fast-paced simplicity of the core combat rules, if it means getting through combat and into interaction and exploration faster.

Two points.

First, you don't need minis combat to represent that shady noble pulling an ally in front of an arrow. It works just fine abstractly, if you like abstract representation.

Second, I don't think any grid combat system bandying about rules for facing is at any risk for over-simplifying things any time soon.

Dragoslav · Jun 19, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
Two points.

First, you don't need minis combat to represent that shady noble pulling an ally in front of an arrow. It works just fine abstractly, if you like abstract representation.

Second, I don't think any grid combat system bandying about rules for facing is at any risk for over-simplifying things any time soon.

1) You may be right, and that's why I would prefer simple combat rules for TotM over a fiddly, rules-heavy system that lacks flavor. And before anyone makes any snarky comments, I do not consider 4e to be a "fiddly, rules-heavy system."

As far as I'm concerned, 4e is a nice medium between not enough rules and too many rules. I've played actual tactical minis wargames before, and that's what I consider to be the "fiddly, rules-heavy" end.

That being said, I enjoy the finesse of having an ability that specifically says "your ally takes the damage instead of you" instead of trying to convince the DM to let me duck behind an ally when an enemy attacks on its turn.

Lastly, consider the Warlord ability I mentioned, too. How do you convince the DM in TotM gameplay to let you 1) dash over to an enemy that just struck down your ally off your turn, 2) deal extra damage, 3) heal the ally as a result, and 4) heal extra HP based on how many hits you took on the way?

It's one thing to have tactical rules for charging, etc., but you don't get all of the nifty riders on top of such actions like you do with 4e powers.

2) As I mentioned above, it's not "simplicity" I'm worried about in the tactical combat module, it's a system bogged down with rules and an emphasis on fiddly bits over character and flavor that concerns me. If I wanted to worry about facing, I'd play Warmachine. For cinematic, fantasy combat, I go with 4e.

I'm A Banana · Jun 19, 2012

Dragoslav said:
You may be right, and that's why I would prefer simple combat rules for TotM over a fiddly, rules-heavy system that lacks flavor. And before anyone makes any snarky comments, I do not consider 4e to be a "fiddly, rules-heavy system." As far as I'm concerned, 4e is a nice medium between not enough rules and too many rules. I've played actual tactical minis wargames before, and that's what I consider to be the "fiddly, rules-heavy" end.

We certainly sit at different points on the "grid vs. mind" representation.

Dragoslav said:
Lastly, consider the Warlord ability I mentioned, too. How do you convince the DM in TotM gameplay to let you 1) dash over to an enemy that just struck down your ally off your turn, 2) deal extra damage, 3) heal the ally as a result, and 4) heal extra HP based on how many hits you took on the way?

It's one thing to have tactical rules for charging, etc., but you don't get all of the nifty riders on top of such actions like you do with 4e powers.

For ToTM, I'd keep it simpler. Instead of having one big bundle of ability, I'd parse it out into smaller bits.

So the warlord might have the following ability, if I were to translate it literally:

Inspiring Stride: You move adjacent to an ally, and heal them for 1d6 hp. Enemies you disengage from can spend their standard action now to attack you, and if they damage you, add +1 to the healing you grant.

And then they'd still have their standard action to deliver an attack with extra damage.

That still uses the pseudo-OA's talked about in the columns, where you can spend your action as an opportunity, rather than on your turn.

Dragoslav said:
As I mentioned above, it's not "simplicity" I'm worried about in the tactical combat module, it's a system bogged down with rules and an emphasis on fiddly bits over character and flavor that concerns me. If I wanted to worry about facing, I'd play Warmachine. For cinematic, fantasy combat, I go with 4e.

It's interesting where that line is drawn. For me, emphasis on what imaginary 5-foot square my character is standing in is just as fiddly as what direction my character is facing.

I imagine for SOMEONE out there, facing is an important component to how they determine elements like where a Beholder is looking or how a Basilisk's gaze works. I assume.

KidSnide · Jun 19, 2012

pemerton said:
I personally don't want mechanics that fit the story. I want mechanics that create the story. For me, that is what is powerful about RPGs as a vehicle for storytelling.

This strikes me as almost completely backwards.

Kobolds have the shifty power because the story for them is that they are small and adept at skittering around their opponents. Hobgoblins get AC formation bonuses because of the Hobgoblin story: they are militaristic, so the designers game them a mechanic to reflect this cultural tendency.

Yes, sometimes a designer might come up with a cool monster mechanic, and then try to find a story that would explain it. (Maybe the Chain Cambion is an example of this? I don't know.) But most of the time, there is an in-game fiction, and the mechanics should be designed to reflect that fiction in a way that's fun at the table.

-KS

Agamon · Jun 19, 2012

Dragoslav said:
They're both immediate reactions/interrupts, so they add complexity to the system, and they're both mechanically appealing for their effects, but what they're really good for is realizing a character in the realm of combat. In interaction, a character bluffs his way through a guard checkpoint by pretending to be a visiting ambassador; in exploration, he pulls a lockpick from his cravat and picks open a dungeon door; and in combat, he pulls an ally into the path of a oncoming arrow --> this guy is clearly an aristocrat with a shady background.

Clearly, he is. He does it over and over and over again, with little room to ever explain it as an even somewhat different action.

However, if you give the player narrative freedom to explain a less rigid action, not only can it be different each time, but it can still be in the shady, selfish realm with out needing overly complex mechanics to explain it.

pemerton explains 4e mechanics like the one on the Deathlock Wight to make PCs run away with a push mechanic like it's something new. However, in earlier editions, fearsome monsters had a Fear effect that sent PCs running away on a failed save. What the Wight does in 4e is just 4e's way of making a fear effect work within its power system.

The tactical module won't make DDN into 4e, it can't. Each and every PC and monster had powers that moved everyone around the grid, a single options module can't magically recreate that. I like that they can take what was learned from 4e and work it into a tactical module, though. I'm interested to see what they come up with (as opposed to a paragraph or two answer about it).

Dragoslav · Jun 20, 2012

Agamon said:
I'm interested to see what they come up with (as opposed to a paragraph or two answer about it).

Indeed. As skeptical as I am, I'm looking forward to seeing what they can come up with and whether it can satisfy my (very discriminating) group.

pemerton · Jun 20, 2012

Dragoslav said:
As a contrast, consider the mechanics of these two powers, the warlord's Fearless Rescue and the Unabashed Treachery power from the Disgraced Noble theme

Nice examples.

Agamon said:
pemerton explains 4e mechanics like the one on the Deathlock Wight to make PCs run away with a push mechanic like it's something new. However, in earlier editions, fearsome monsters had a Fear effect that sent PCs running away on a failed save. What the Wight does in 4e is just 4e's way of making a fear effect work within its power system.

I've been wondering if someone would say this!

But I don't entirely agree. In pre-4e D&D, for example, suppose the wight is in a room with a pit, and a PC runs in fear. What is the chance that, in their terror, s/he falls into the pit? With a Deathlock Wight that is very easy to adjudicate. In earlier editions, it gets much closer to GM fiat, which (in this sort of context, in my view - fiating the stakes) tends to undermine player agency.

Dragoslav said:
I enjoy the finesse of having an ability that specifically says "your ally takes the damage instead of you" instead of trying to convince the DM to let me duck behind an ally when an enemy attacks on its turn.

Yes, for the same reason about player agency.

Dragoslav said:
it's not "simplicity" I'm worried about in the tactical combat module, it's a system bogged down with rules and an emphasis on fiddly bits over character and flavor that concerns me.

More agreement from me!

KidSnide said:
This strikes me as almost completely backwards.

Kobolds have the shifty power because the story for them is that they are small and adept at skittering around their opponents. Hobgoblins get AC formation bonuses because of the Hobgoblin story: they are militaristic, so the designers game them a mechanic to reflect this cultural tendency.

Yes, sometimes a designer might come up with a cool monster mechanic, and then try to find a story that would explain it. (Maybe the Chain Cambion is an example of this? I don't know.) But most of the time, there is an in-game fiction, and the mechanics should be designed to reflect that fiction in a way that's fun at the table.

I think we may be at cross purposes. In talking about the priority of mechanics to story, I'm not talking about the process of design. I'm talking about the process of play. I want mechanics that yield a story (of militaristic hobgoblins, shifty kobolds or whatever). When the only story difference between the two arises out of GM patter, but isn't evident in the actual mechanical experience of playing the game, then from my point of view there isn't really a significant story difference at all.

Kamikaze Midget said:
if you want tactical combat to express something about the game world (a statement which befuddles me with its opacity), it is up to YOU to put that in there.

If I could design RPGs as good as 4e, or Burning Wheel, I would do so! As it is, though, I have to pay others to do it for me.

As for your befuddlement, read my description of the chained cambion encounter upthread. Or Dragoslav's example of the noble warlord vs the disgraced noble.

Or even think about the paladin's "Valiant Strike" power. This gives a bonus to hit based on the number of adjacent enemies. Which gives the player of the paladin a reason to have his/her paladin valiantly hurl him-/herself into the fray. The mechanic yields a certain story without the need for any sort of fluffy overlay, or any urgings from the designers for players to play their paladins as valiant warriors.

Kamikaze Midget said:
Most of 4e's story elements are tremendously superfluous to me personally, because they are not well integrated with the mechanics.

Our experiences here are completely the opposite. For integration of story elements and mechanics, 4e is one of the stronger games I know. (It's not on the same level as HeroWars/Quest, say, which uses freefrom descriptors as its key mechanical units in character building.) And if you're wondering what I've got in mind, it's the examples in this post and upthread.