D&D 4E Towards a Story Now 4e

Garthanos said:

That might work the spirit combat was its own combat system arguably with an ablative skill and some spells tailored to modify it and the effects of the attacks

Click to expand...

That might be an interesting subsystem to add for a specific color to the game. Given the name and sort of general theme (characters evolving into Mythic figures) a strong set of divine thematics could be a good way to go.

I thought up a concept of 'altars' way back when I conceived of this project, maybe 3-4 years ago. That was actually part of what lead me to the idea of Boons. I imagined priests or something similar questing to achieve different altars, where they would receive some sort of divine empowerment. That naturally suggested the idea of gaining a boon to achieve a new level. I generalized the idea, but the altar concept still works. So spiritual combat and a series of altars. Its suggestive!

Jhaelen said:

It's been a while since I played Runequest, but I cannot remember a single incident where a character hit himself due to a fumble. Losing limbs (or heads) was a quite common occurrence, though.
I really liked how lethal ranged weapons were in Runequest (especially the once that could impale).

Click to expand...

Lethality is cool. I don't think it would mesh well with a narratively focused game that features a fair amount of combat as a major activity! Or at least such a game would have to involve a lot of character death at least, with attendant difficulties.

AbdulAlhazred said:

That might be an interesting subsystem to add for a specific color to the game. Given the name and sort of general theme (characters evolving into Mythic figures) a strong set of divine thematics could be a good way to go.

I thought up a concept of 'altars' way back when I conceived of this project, maybe 3-4 years ago. That was actually part of what lead me to the idea of Boons. I imagined priests or something similar questing to achieve different altars, where they would receive some sort of divine empowerment. That naturally suggested the idea of gaining a boon to achieve a new level. I generalized the idea, but the altar concept still works. So spiritual combat and a series of altars. Its suggestive!

Click to expand...

Diseases were spirits perhaps the most frequently battled ones actually... it was both something of Primal and Divine flavor in D&D terms.

pemerton said:

Is it OK to get hyper-analytical?

(If not, disregard what follows!)

I've been reading, and doing some play of, Vincent Baker games: In a Wicked Age a couple of weeks ago; Murderous Ghosts with my kids (the required PG aspect given the other player really dials the game down, but it's interesting to see the mechanics - a card-driven, choose-your-own adventure variant of PbtA - at work); and reading DitV, Poison'd and Kill Puppies for Satan. My PDF copy of the latter is annotated, and its interesting to see Baker criticising his own earlier work. From p 6:

now let’s see, oh yeah mechanics. here they are: roll a d6 and add your stat. if they add up to at least a 7 you succeed. if you’re doing something easy, gm’s call, they only have to add up to at least a 6 to succeed. if you and somebody else are both trying to do something, and only one of you can do it, whoever rolls higher wins.​

And here's the annotation on p 7:

i’m sure you noticed, those aren’t really resolution rules. they’re just like some sh*t for people to do while the gm resolves everything by fiat. they suck.​

Baker has said a similar thing about task resolution rules on his blog: that task resolution is just a distraction from the reality of GM fiat. What about the conflict part of the rules? It's still based on an in-fiction rather than at-the-table notion of conflict between two characters.

Contrast In a Wicked Age. From p 12:

When do you roll dice?
Roll dice when one character undertakes to do some concrete thing, and another character can and would try to interfere. Every player with a character involved, including you as GM, rolls dice for their own character. If you have more than one NPC involved, roll separate dice for each.

Don’t roll dice when two characters are having a conversation, no matter how heated it becomes; wait until one or the other acts.

Don’t roll dice when a character undertakes to do some concrete thing and no other character can or would try to interfere.​

Now there's a rule: actions succeed unless they're opposed; and there is a rule for when they are opposed ("another character can and would try to interfere"). The GM still has control over framing (eg can determine that no other character can interfere) but it is the "best interests" of a character, decided as part of setting up the session, that will determine whether or not that character would try to interfere.

The HoML guidance on when to roll the dice has some possible tensions in this respect: the GM calls for checks, but what if the playerp thinks something is at stake? What guides these decisions? (In standard 4e it can be tricky because there are overt no Belief/"best interests" rules.) And what if there is something at stake, but the task is ordinary? Check or no check? Burning Wheel calls for a check in these circumstances, but its mechanics allow for an ever-decreasing likelihood of failure (eg 5 dice against Ob 1 - ie roll 5d6 and hope that at least one comes up 4 or better - is a 97% chance of success before spending fate points). In a Wicked Age calls for a check in these circumstances, with the likelihoods determined purely by the contest of stats between characters (although the framing may be relevant to the outcome - if something is easy, then it may cost a player less to initiate conflict, or to allow another to get what they want without contesting).

I'll post this and then try and read some more. (Maybe some of your later posts address some of what I've talked about.)

Click to expand...

OK, this is interesting... In HoML any situation in which nothing is at stake is defined as an interlude, during which no checks are made. All other scenes are challenges, so there must be a goal, something which is to be accomplished or avoided, again by definition.

So in my opinion and practice the players ALWAYS think there's something at stake during a scene in which dice can play a part, and any scene without dice has no stakes, though it can represent interesting plot in other respects. The mechanics of challenges also take care of all issues of difficulty, a level is set on the challenge, and this produces deterministic DVs.

Now, what if the player thinks something is at stake but the GM doesn't? I think the rule then could be that the PLAYER can decide that an interlude has ended (or never began I suppose). There is currently no rule for that, and I haven't really run into that situation. I mean, being the game is fairly D&D-esque, usually something is going on. But I can definitely see where a player might want to initiate a conflict "I want to start a bar fight." As it stands I guess he'd have an option to convince the GM to make it a challenge. The "player can end an interlude" rule would essentially put the ball in the player's court. Maybe in that case the GM gets to pick the consequences of failure? "Oh, you broke a bottle over the wrong head, fool! I'm gonna cut you to pieces now!!!!!"

pemerton said:

Traits are obviously related to the stuff in my post just upthread. As you present them they seem a bit like Aspects in Fate: compels, or benefits. How do they feed into framing and conflicts?

Click to expand...

Well, right now you invoke them to use Inspiration, which lets you add a reasonable plot element/twist, or simply change your luck a bit if you want to use it that way.

There's also another mechanic that is somewhat parallel, which we haven't discussed yet. That's the Practices rules. Practices are basically a class of utility power you can acquire. This encompasses all of 4e's 'ritual-like' functionality, though some practices can actually work during a combat (action sequence) or be made into preparations which can. Anyway, you invoke them to allow you to make a check in a challenge or combat which wouldn't normally be available. For example if you prepare a ritual of Giant Growth as a potion, you could drink it and get to use arcana to run off some toughs (by scaring them with your now much bigger size). If you want to spend a Vitality Point (sometimes the cost is something else, it depends on the practice) you can automatically pass that check. This is a way of, in a sense, 'compelling' something your character can do.

I believe one vital reason these things will work is that there's no such thing as anything arbitrary about any character at any time. Characters advance by acquiring 'boons', each major boon grants a level. Boons come into play only as narrative consequences, so the character's abilities, which boons grant most of, are an outgrowth of the character's story, as is his level of power. Thus even the practices he's got represent who he is. There's no notion in HoML of players just 'picking' something. There are player choices available, and even boons could and often should be a result of conscious player choice, but its not like 4e where you systematically 'build' your character to a plan. Truthfully its pretty flexible, a GM could basically lay all the boon choices at the player's feet, or he could grant all/some of them as he sees fit.

To gate GM authority on boons a bit, I was planning to write up the rules for how and when they're given out. One thought was simply to give out one major boon per encounter, or every milestone (that would pace at 4e pace, 10 encounters per level basically). The other option which seems more interesting perhaps, would be to grant a major boon on completion of a major quest, one to each participant. Players are supposed to pick the quests, so that puts the ball much more back in their court.

All of this ties together, I assume you can see how. Players would select quests, which determine boons, which then drive leveling and define character's abilities, and possibly even their personality traits (these can change based on experience, though I think the general rule should be largely like BW, the GM has a say in it).

Garthanos said:

Diseases were spirits perhaps the most frequently battled ones actually... it was both something of Primal and Divine flavor in D&D terms.

Click to expand...

Right, I consider all 'Afflictions' to be magical in nature. The world is magic, magic is the world!

Anyway, yesterday's discussion segues into Character Advancement. I don't think we have to really dig into the mechanics of it, there's nothing exceptional there, and I haven't tried to write it up in great detail anyway. The main point HOW advancement happens!

[h=1]Character Advancement
[/h] As explained above, each character has a level, which determines the sorts of challenges the character should be capable of facing. As characters have adventures, they will inevitably increase in level. The following rules govern this process.
Whenever a character receives a major boon she also advances to the next character level. At the GM's option a character might also lose a level under some circumstances, such as losing a particularly significant signature item or ability. Perhaps a hero has retired and put aside his heroic attributes. Such a character might be reduced to a more appropriate level if he returns to the action at a later time. Mere separation of a character from objects or other temporary losses of access to boons don't normally involve reducing the character's level. Level is more a measure of what a character has accomplished in a heroic sense, and his standing and connections to fate, than what they own or their current circumstances.
[h=2]Advancement Process[/h] When a character has achieved a new major boon he will be eligible to advance to the next level. It is up to the GM to decide exactly how and when this will happen. Normally, for convenience and to better fit the narrative of the game, the player and GM will advance the character after the end of the current session of play, and/or whatever action the character is currently engaged in. The GM might also wish to require that the character carry out some action in the game in order to explain the acquisition of new class features or other capabilities. However it is perfectly legitimate to raise a character's level in the middle of the action, this might represent some sudden and profound change in the character, access to a whole new power, etc.

AbdulAlhazred said:

Anyway, yesterday's discussion segues into Character Advancement. I don't think we have to really dig into the mechanics of it, there's nothing exceptional there, and I haven't tried to write it up in great detail anyway. The main point HOW advancement happens!

[h=1]Character Advancement
[/h] As explained above, each character has a level, which determines the sorts of challenges the character should be capable of facing. As characters have adventures, they will inevitably increase in level. The following rules govern this process.
Whenever a character receives a major boon she also advances to the next character level. At the GM's option a character might also lose a level under some circumstances, such as losing a particularly significant signature item or ability. Perhaps a hero has retired and put aside his heroic attributes. Such a character might be reduced to a more appropriate level if he returns to the action at a later time. Mere separation of a character from objects or other temporary losses of access to boons don't normally involve reducing the character's level. Level is more a measure of what a character has accomplished in a heroic sense, and his standing and connections to fate, than what they own or their current circumstances.
[h=2]Advancement Process[/h] When a character has achieved a new major boon he will be eligible to advance to the next level. It is up to the GM to decide exactly how and when this will happen. Normally, for convenience and to better fit the narrative of the game, the player and GM will advance the character after the end of the current session of play, and/or whatever action the character is currently engaged in. The GM might also wish to require that the character carry out some action in the game in order to explain the acquisition of new class features or other capabilities. However it is perfectly legitimate to raise a character's level in the middle of the action, this might represent some sudden and profound change in the character, access to a whole new power, etc.

Click to expand...

And this potentially very organic character growth I find intriguing...

Garthanos said:

And this potentially very organic character growth I find intriguing...

Click to expand...

I'm sure you could use this idea with 4e. I originally thought of it, at least partly, as just a formalization of what was happening in my last 4e campaign. That is, you'd adventure for a while, and then something would happen and you'd get some treasure, and/or level up. We didn't bother with XP after the first few months of play, and then DMG2 came out with Grand Master Training and other stuff to basically make a 'magic item' that was something else. So I simply took that, plus the feat and theme subsystems of 4e and just applied the KISS principle...

AbdulAlhazred said:

I'm sure you could use this idea with 4e. I originally thought of it, at least partly, as just a formalization of what was happening in my last 4e campaign. That is, you'd adventure for a while, and then something would happen and you'd get some treasure, and/or level up. We didn't bother with XP after the first few months of play, and then DMG2 came out with Grand Master Training and other stuff to basically make a 'magic item' that was something else. So I simply took that, plus the feat and theme subsystems of 4e and just applied the KISS principle...

Click to expand...

Designing the Martial Techniques is bringng home the interchangeability of things... ie your generic boon idea.