Fourward Path

[thanson02]

Getting me curious

So the Social mechanics that I am playing with was partially inspired by a Robert Schwalb's article in Dragon Magazine titled "Fight!" (It is also in Dragon Magazine Annual on p.75). The main focus of this article was Arena Combat and one of the things in the article is where he talks about swaying the crowd into your favor to get bonuses on how the arena combat turns out. He has a skill challenge in the article on this very topic. One of the key factors in this is shifting their disposition to being friendly towards you and away from your competitor. It was also partially inspired by a book I read for work called The Eight Essential Steps to Conflict Resolution by Dudley Weeks, PhD. Dr. Weeks has worked with various countries and international organizations on negotiation methods and resolving conflict in hostile situations. What he explained in his book was that there are certain things that you do in negotiations (actions) that you do get people on the same page and moving forward in a positive and productive direction. So what i did was I used the framework from Robert Schwalb's article and the guts of the book on conflict resolution and then I took a page out of 3rd Edition D&D combat actions and made a list of Social Actions that players can do while interacting with NPCs to shift the NPCs disposition to a point where they are helpful or at least agreeable.

A major point in this was that there was a discrepancy between what action the players are trying to do and how they are trying to do it. So in our case, as the player is roleplaying out the scenario, the DM pays attention to what they are doing. When the DM recognizes a Social Action, they call for an appropriate roll based on what the player is doing and then they respond as the NPC would based on the dice roll. You can do this while trying to get a lord to fund an operation into the elemental Chaos or interrogating a enemy hostage to give over information about the enemy. I haven't gotten as far as to make Skill Powers that are available to all players yet that work with these Social Actions, but one of my players (the bard in our group) is excited about the possibilities it has and we have been brain storming what that part would look like.

Love the race idea it would completely be in 4e design style without a doubt

Agreed. And it is a plug and play mechanic. It won't drastically effect the rest of the system if you choose to use it. One thing I like about it is that it blows the door open on what type of race mix a player can have. The one thing I was not sure about was whether in cases like Tiefling, to have a Hybrid race option with a Fiend of the 9 Hells or to have a racial theme (I thought options like being a vampire, werewolf, or a shade would work well with the idea of themes).

Things on my list of stuff to play with.

 

[pemerton]

There are two basic changes I would like:

* Make attack bonuses and defences progress on the same track as skill bonuses and the DC-by-level table, so that the mechanical divide between combat and non-combat can be reduced;

* Get rid of the stat bonus to attack (it can stay for damage), and just have attack be level +3 (or whatever number is appropriate).​

The second doesn't require reworking maths, but has implications for various elements of PC build. The first is a bigger deal.

Small things to be fixed include ritual costs, reducing feat bloat, etc - all the usual stuff.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, as some of you know, I am in the position where I've actually built a 4e hack. However, I changed a good many things. One of my initial goals was to streamline the game. So I wiped out most of the bonus rules and replaced most of it with 5e-style (dis)advantage. I also got rid of the minor action and put some restrictions on usage of off-turn actions (there are cases where you can get more than one per round, but not many). Multi-attacks have been rebalanced so that higher level high dice attacks are actually better (mostly because there's almost no bonus stacking anymore).

Once I got past that point I found that I really wanted more real improvements. I hacked away much of the power lists by redesigning classes, items, feats, etc. Powers are now generally granted by 'boons', and sometimes power sources. Boons replace themes, PPs, EDs, feats, and items. In fact you have a lot of flexibility in terms of how you 'embody' a boon (IE as an item or as training, etc). I also cut the game from 30 to 20 levels (removes a lot of 'I need more powers cuz I got more levels' stuff). Epic is now just a 3 level capstone.

Advancement is inverted. If, in the course of the narrative, a character acquires a major boon, he gains a level. This creates a much more narratively-focused dynamic and removes a LOT of the tendency to 'char op'. It is certainly still possible for a GM to run a game in the mold of 4e where players decide pretty much all the 'stuff' they get, but you can also focus on play and let things happen naturally. Advancement is no longer fixed to a certain amount of play, pace can be whatever you want, and can vary from one story to the next.

I restructured play in general such that players are always engaging in one of two modes of play, interlude (freeform non-conflict with few rules) and challenge, which can be either a general (skill) challenge, or it can be an action sequence (combat or possibly similar fast paced sequences with regulated turn structure). The upshot of this is there really are not ever any 'stand-alone' checks. If you are in conflict, its a challenge and there's a tally. I've pretty much stuck with the RC version of 4e SCs, although they are certainly a very loose structure that can be bent as-needed in different directions.

I've added elements to characters that allow more focused 'stake setting'. Characters have attributes like a background (pretty much like in 4e) but also a goal, a strength, and a weakness. These can be leveraged via an Inspiration die (IE explain why the attribute is relevant and you can create some sort of plot element, usually in your favor). You can't accumulate Inspiration, but you can EARN it by negatively leveraging an attribute of your character. Each session the players also start with inspiration, so you probably have it available most of the time. Thus characters can usually be counted on to have luck, preparation, etc when they most need it.

I've successively re-engineered 'rituals' and 'practices', which I have currently manifested as 'techniques'. These things allow you to create a narrative explanation for how you were able to apply a specific skill to a check in a challenge. Instead of the sort of 'spell-like' mechanic of 4e HoML techniques don't have highly specific mechanics. Instead they provide a narrative explanation of what the character can accomplish by utilizing it. Then the player can use that explanation to change the narrative such that he can bring a different skill to bear (which is obviously advantageous in most cases). It could also provide the same sort of advantage to ANOTHER PC, not just the one using it. Obviously there is also a narrative impact, which might alter the flow of the challenge. Characters can also burn a vitality point to earn a success when using a technique. This allows you to be 'really bad-assed' at some specific thing. Because the player is mostly in charge of how and when to try to invoke these, they don't suffer from the "DM Permission" issue that a lot of 'skills' have in other games (IE a language isn't much use unless the GM decides to have some NPC speak it in a situation where it has some real import). In HoML a player would say "I speak Orcish, I'm listening to the orcs make a plan to use the back entrance to their lair to outflank us, and learning where that entrance is." (consequences being narrative as well as something like being able to make a Perception check to find the back entrance and get a success in the 'break into the orc stronghold' SC).

The end result is a rather different game, although the combat mechanics and much of the other basic mechanical aspects of play are closer to 4e than say 5e is.

 

[Raith5]

Good question! At this point I would start by reworking 5e with some of the elements of 4e that I think are crucial for my dream RPG. A few things are important to me:

1) I think 5e takes way too long for players to build their character, so I think every class should get a bonus feat at 1st level.

2) I would like to build a strikes and stances system so that martial PCs can have more options than "I roll to hit" or "I roll to hit twice". For me, 4e irreversibly changed what martial characters should look like/can do. So a martial maneuver system of stances and strikes would be need to add character design and tactical flexibility. I dont think it needs to be as long as the spell section in the 5e PHB but it needs to be longer than the Battle master's 1 page and have character level prerequisites and weapon type prerequisites.

3) Beef up monsters. I miss the unpredictability of 4e monsters - so add some extra out of turn attacks and tricks to the bigger D&D monsters.

4) Cut down short rests from a hour to 15 minutes or so - lets keep it moving!

5) Make 5e ritual spells only be able to cast as rituals.

Aside from these things I think 5e is a good chassis for a fun game. I think skill challenges are a possibility but group rolls in 5e perform a similar function. I like utility powers in 4e but I think using skills and creative stunts may be the better option.

 

[Garthanos]

* Make attack bonuses and defences progress on the same track as skill bonuses and the DC-by-level table, so that the mechanical divide between combat and non-combat can be reduced;​

That right there is definitely a move towards modern game design which would be a real advancement in my opinion.​

 

[Nikosandros]

Get rid of the stat bonus to attack (it can stay for damage), and just have attack be level +3 (or whatever number is appropriate).

I've toyed with this idea in the past. After all, if you have your attack stat at 18 at 1st level and you add "standard" magic items (or inherent bonus) and expertise, you attack at level +3 for the majority of the 30-level spread. Getting rid of the necessity of maxing out one stat and also not having to obsess about having the correct attack item is certainly enticing.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That right there is definitely a move towards modern game design which would be a real advancement in my opinion.

I've toyed with this idea in the past. After all, if you have your attack stat at 18 at 1st level and you add "standard" magic items (or inherent bonus) and expertise, you attack at level +3 for the majority of the 30-level spread. Getting rid of the necessity of maxing out one stat and also not having to obsess about having the correct attack item is certainly enticing.

There are two basic changes I would like:

* Make attack bonuses and defences progress on the same track as skill bonuses and the DC-by-level table, so that the mechanical divide between combat and non-combat can be reduced;

* Get rid of the stat bonus to attack (it can stay for damage), and just have attack be level +3 (or whatever number is appropriate).​

The second doesn't require reworking maths, but has implications for various elements of PC build. The first is a bigger deal.

Small things to be fixed include ritual costs, reducing feat bloat, etc - all the usual stuff.

In HoML my approach was to make the controlling stat be based on the weapon/implement you choose to use with the power. That being said some weapons/implements are required for certain powers, or at least advantageous, which does lead to a sort of similar "you need to have a good bonus in this stat to use this power" issue that 4e has. Still, MOSTLY, the issue disappears, and you can always get around it with proper power design in HoML (though the thematics are a different issue of course). The upshot being that I LIKE the fact that your stats contribute directly to the most important aspect of play, hitting things. I understand the notion that this is sort of 'pro forma', but I also reduced the likely range of stat bonuses, and got rid of stat increases (mostly) so you won't run into the "I only have a +1 and I really need a +7 to even bother" that happens in 4e.

Attack, defense, skill, etc bonuses in HoML DO advance on a single track. The same bonuses apply to all of them (most importantly the proficiency bonus). You can now directly juxtapose a skill check result against an attack as a defense, if you so wish, for example.

HoML is thus much more regular in its bonus structure than 4e is. There's definitely a HUGE advantage to doing things you are best at, but at least different categories of things are directly comparable, whereas that tended to break down in 4e.

I also have a philosophy that says 'Emphasize the memorable, forget the rest', so I have devised the game and subsystems in such a way that an accumulation of many small bonuses is not how things work. If you have advantage, its big. If you have a +5 STR its big, you don't get a lot of situations where you care so much about a +1, they exist but don't factor too much into the game.

Play is more about redirecting the narrative such that you engage your favorable mechanics. The dwarf with the big axe, he solves problems with that darned axe!! Now, maybe he's got to really work at it to do that in some situations, but the player has Inspiration and techniques (or even just plain skill use and 'page 42') to make that happen. Now and then you'll have to rely on some area where you're weak, but the idea is to fail forward, so it shouldn't actually cause an issue, it should be FUN.

 

[pemerton]

I LIKE the fact that your stats contribute directly to the most important aspect of play, hitting things.

<snip>

Play is more about redirecting the narrative such that you engage your favorable mechanics.

This is how I see skills and skill challenges working in 4e.

But combat I see more as about deploying your powers, and using them - plus p 42 - to manipulate the field of battle to optimse your situation. This makes differeneces in attack bonus a needless complication, I think. (Using stats for damage is fine - this is like using them for other aspects of combat effect, like the number of squares pushed or whatever.)

 

[Garthanos]

This is how I see skills and skill challenges working in 4e.

But combat I see more as about deploying your powers, and using them - plus p 42 - to manipulate the field of battle to optimse your situation. This makes differeneces in attack bonus a needless complication, I think. (Using stats for damage is fine - this is like using them for other aspects of combat effect, like the number of squares pushed or whatever.)

There is this idea of never letting "nothing happen" a round of combat where both just plain miss and nothing is accomplish is a story loss... to reduce that a failed attack can improve the enemies chances in retailation... would be something it would also be a deffender trick to launch a multiple enemy attack even if it had reduced to hit because the enemy would be incentivized to attack them rather than their allies.

 

[pemerton]

There is this idea of never letting "nothing happen" a round of combat where both just plain miss and nothing is accomplish is a story loss... to reduce that a failed attack can improve the enemies chances in retailation... would be something it would also be a deffender trick to launch a multiple enemy attack even if it had reduced to hit because the enemy would be incentivized to attack them rather than their allies.

I think in the 4e framework, at least as it currently exists, this is handled in two different ways: out of combat, by way of "fail forward" narration in skill challenges; in combat, by power design (including out of turn actions with various sorts of triggers).

Changing combat to be more like skill challenges would be a big change. At that point, what is 4e offering that can't be found in a system like Cortex+ Heroic, or HeroQuest revised?