Fourward Path

[AbdulAlhazred]

For me, that mechanical intricacy is one of the defining features of 4e.

I've got nothing against a game in which I choose at PC gen to be "Big Axe Dwarf!" and then that's what my character is, but these sorts of "free descriptor" games already exist (Cortex+, HeroQuest revised, I guess Fate too though I know it less well, and probably many others I'm not familiar with or an forgetting at the moment - Over the Edge and Maelstrom Storytelling are early-to-mid-90s exemplars which can do this sort of thing too).

For me, it would seem a lot of effort to turn 4e into one of those games - I'd rather just use 4e for what it does, and use those games (Cortex+ Heroic is one I'm running at the moment) for the other thing.

(That's not to say that other's are wasting their time making the effort - it's just to explain my tendency to watch what those others are doing rather than join in myself.)

Obviously fair enough. I don't think there's really THAT much less mechanical intricacy in HoML, but its maybe more at the level of a 2e in that regard (maybe not quite that simple). You have roughly the same range of initial choices as 4e, and then each level you get (definitionaly) a major boon, which is at least equivalent to a 4e feat, and usually provides access to at least one, possibly up to 3, new powers. There's thus a LOT of character growth/advancement that can happen. You can kind of double-down on your character theme, say acquiring more options in line with your Fire Elementalist character build (IE get some more specialized kinds of fire stuff, apply fire stuff in more kinds of plot situations, etc.) or you could definitely add other elements. Maybe you become a Thief, learning the Thievery skill and ways to apply it (probably firey ways). Of course this WILL depend somewhat on your initial allotment of ability scores. A thief with a crappy DEX will probably need to learn a bunch of techniques that allow offloading those checks onto say INT or something.

Anyway, its a half-written game. In some sense there's vast flexibility in terms of what actually works. I also don't hold much to the "You have to have X before you can get Y" sort of design concept. I understand it can be a thematic aid, but HoML pretty much lacks it (there is an attribute of boons called 'association' that tells you basically what sort of character might want the boon, and there's even a 'prerequisites' as well, but those are purely to tell the GM that certain game mechanics build on each other and won't work without some other piece). This kind of design might actually be a charop issue in a different sort of game (like 4e itself) where everyone would just cherry-pick 'Twin Strike' or whatever, but in HoML progression is MUCH more organic (at least how I run it, when I get to). So there's rarely a situation where a player plots out getting all the best goodies in the game.

I think there's a LOT of room between say Cortex+ and 4e, and that's the space that HoML is falling into. It has the elements of both a 'D&D' and the elements of a descriptor-based game, but in a somewhat mild form. True descriptor games, like say PACE (diceless, nothing but descriptors) exist and there EVERYTHING is driven (obviously) by your descriptors. HoML plays more like segments of 4e where things spin off in a particular direction that some player initiated by leveraging a descriptor to use Inspiration, but then there will be a series of very D&D-like sequences where that plays out for a while, and then things will reach another pivotal decision point and the players will push it again. I think this is a bit more like say Dungeon World, almost, though HoML doesn't owe anything to that mechanically.

One thing is for sure, its nice to have your own tool. I can't complain about anything in a game I designed, I just have to make it work! Maybe that's the harder task....

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Dramatically so I know it can work in their context just saying it would never be D&D... ie we agree that D&D is bound up in what many games would call fiddly bits and are a feature.

Here's a bit of perspective for you. I started playing D&D in 1975, so I have a pretty immediate familiarity with the 'essence' of what D&D started out as. Now, it was many things to many people, and evolved quickly, but OD&D was FAR CLOSER to something like Cortex+ than it was to 3e!!!!

You had a class, a race (well, we can argue about if they were separate things, I say they were) and 6 ability scores, plus your 'stuff'. There were NO DEFINED EFFECTS of the ability scores! Go read 'Men & Magic' in original 'wood grain box' OD&D! NOTHING about your Strength mattered mechanically. I think there was a restriction that said Fighting Men needed to have a 9 STR or something, but maybe even that came in GreyHawk, I'm not sure anymore. Ability scores were pure RP attributes. There wasn't a system of 'plot coupons' to 'leverage' them with, so it was a kind of nascent system, but basically you said to the GM "Hey, I have a 15 Strength, I'm going to lift the heavy rock". The GM would say "OK, go for it" and he could roll some dice, or just say you succeed or whatever. Strong guys did 'strong things' because presumably the GM wouldn't let the 9 STR guy lift the rock.

'Class' was really just another descriptor that had a very few mechanics attached to it. The 'Fighting Man' and the 'Cleric' both had the means to engage in combat successfully (Clerics weren't even spell-casters at level 1 in OD&D). There was no difference in combat between any of the 3 classes, except Magic Users couldn't wear armor. All weapons were purely fluff, a dagger was as good as a sword (there was the possibility of using Chainmail's dueling system where that isn't quite true, most people didn't). The Magic User had weaker hit points and armor, so he generally stuck to casting his spell, but the point is there wasn't so much distinction between classes, it was as much a label used for RP as anything else.

D&D was NOT fiddly at all. Even core PHB 1e ala 1979 is a reasonably simple game. There's a lot of verbiage to the rules (Gygax), but actually rolling up a character involves very few choices or options. You get to pick weapon proficiencies, and maybe spells (there's actually no hard-and-fast rule on how to do that), roll for gold, and buy some stuff (if the GM starts you out in town). Ability scores have now become mechanically more important, so the game moved more into a 'adjudicate semi-realistic results' vs the earlier possibilities of largely descriptive play, but its still a simple and non-fiddly game. It really isn't until Late 2e that D&D gets quite fiddly.

 

[Garthanos]

Here's a bit of perspective for you. I started playing D&D in 1975, so I have a pretty immediate familiarity with the 'essence' of what D&D started out as. Now, it was many things to many people, and evolved quickly, but OD&D was FAR CLOSER to something like Cortex+ than it was to 3e!!!!

You had a class, a race (well, we can argue about if they were separate things, I say they were) and 6 ability scores, plus your 'stuff'. There were NO DEFINED EFFECTS of the ability scores! Go read 'Men & Magic' in original 'wood grain box' OD&D! NOTHING about your Strength mattered mechanically. I think there was a restriction that said Fighting Men needed to have a 9 STR or something, but maybe even that came in GreyHawk, I'm not sure anymore. Ability scores were pure RP attributes. There wasn't a system of 'plot coupons' to 'leverage' them with, so it was a kind of nascent system, but basically you said to the GM "Hey, I have a 15 Strength, I'm going to lift the heavy rock". The GM would say "OK, go for it" and he could roll some dice, or just say you succeed or whatever. Strong guys did 'strong things' because presumably the GM wouldn't let the 9 STR guy lift the rock.

'Class' was really just another descriptor that had a very few mechanics attached to it. The 'Fighting Man' and the 'Cleric' both had the means to engage in combat successfully (Clerics weren't even spell-casters at level 1 in OD&D). There was no difference in combat between any of the 3 classes, except Magic Users couldn't wear armor. All weapons were purely fluff, a dagger was as good as a sword (there was the possibility of using Chainmail's dueling system where that isn't quite true, most people didn't). The Magic User had weaker hit points and armor, so he generally stuck to casting his spell, but the point is there wasn't so much distinction between classes, it was as much a label used for RP as anything else.

D&D was NOT fiddly at all. Even core PHB 1e ala 1979 is a reasonably simple game. There's a lot of verbiage to the rules (Gygax), but actually rolling up a character involves very few choices or options. You get to pick weapon proficiencies, and maybe spells (there's actually no hard-and-fast rule on how to do that), roll for gold, and buy some stuff (if the GM starts you out in town). Ability scores have now become mechanically more important, so the game moved more into a 'adjudicate semi-realistic results' vs the earlier possibilities of largely descriptive play, but its still a simple and non-fiddly game. It really isn't until Late 2e that D&D gets quite fiddly.

Spell lists we're pockets of highly specified stuff compute the volume of a fire ball with me as a reminder

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Garthanos]

Spell lists we're pockets of highly specified stuff compute the volume of a fire ball with me as a reminder

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

Of course yes fighting types got very little

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Spell lists we're pockets of highly specified stuff compute the volume of a fire ball with me as a reminder

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

That was a LOT more true in later games.

Fire Ball: A missile which springs from the finger of the Magic-User. It explodes
with a burst radius of 2" (slightly larger than specified in CHAINMAIL). In a con-
fined space the Fire Ball will generally conform to the shape of the space (elong-
ate or whatever). The damage caused by the missile will be in proportion to the
level of its user. A 6th level Magic-User throws a 6-die missile, a 7th a 7-die missile,
and so on. (Note that Fire Balls from Scrolls (see Volume II) and Wand are 6-die
missiles and those from Staves are 8-die missiles. Duration: 1 turn. Range: 24"

This is one of the more complex spells in OD&D. Remember, there are only 6 spell levels, and only 8 level 1 spells in the MU spell list! Clerics level 1 list has 6 spells. Magic, while it was a major part of the game, was on a much less powerful basis than in later games. Granted, if you were high level and could cast level 6 spells, you were pretty bad-assed and probably would laugh at fighting men. It wasn't entirely a balanced game, but at least the fighters got a lot of goodies of their own. Since a LARGE part of the game revolved around things outside the mechanics it wasn't quite the same 'LFQW' scenario as say even 1e has.

 

[MoutonRustique]

Uh, no. The Berserker and the multirole concept were abject failures by a design team that didnt understand the concept. The idea of switching between roles just means that half your abilities and/or powers are inaccessable at any given time.
The whole point of the role system was to define what the class was ALWAYS capable of, it never was a shackle on broadening classes capabilities. Even as early as the PHB, the concept of the subrole was implicitly applied. 2H Fighters were sub-strikers, Warlocks were always sub-controllers, Paladins are sub-leaders, etc, etc...
The same issue arises with the multi-power source classes, they are a result of a gross misunderstanding of the concept...

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

I see the concept of role as what you're meant to bring to the table : that you bring a variety based on choice, or where you're at in the battle, or some other point of pivot is interesting to me. It's not something that needs to apply to every class or character (or even most)- but it's an interesting dynamic.

Most of the actually good high level battles I played involved some form of SC that had to be completed to win. Its just way too easy for a coordinated team to tear thru any sized bag of HP at high level to make that a focal point.
So, yeah. Building 1e style puzzle monsters with integrated SCs and some good examples of terrain challenges/powers would go a long way.

It occurs to me that that is most of 4e's problem, its a fantastic 1000pc double sided jigsaw puzzle with no box art to show what it can do...

That is often the core of it, yes. That and the fact that most of what we have that has the greatest influence weight (those from WotC) is often very poor (or should even be counter-indicated) means that many who are exposed to the game tend to not know how to really make it shine.

Define 'fiddly'? None of the attack boosters are fiddly. Whether some are necessary is a different story. The last thing you want to do is remove all form of customization and tactics by collapsing everything into Dis/Ad.
Now, if you're referring to the glut of +2 damage on Mondays with a Butter Knife type bonuses....then yeah. 4e doesnt reward strategic thinking enough. Surprise is mostly useless, so no one tries to get it. Having a Boar Spear when fighting Boars(frex) is usually such a minor advantage that its not worth the effort to pick one up or the cost of doing so is impossible to pay. (Ex. Swapping to a spear obviates all your hammer feats, powers)

The latter kind.

I've been toying with the idea of using the [boon/bane] system of SotDL, +1 to +2 is one boon, +3 to +4 is 2 boons, +5 and up is 3 boons (same with penalties). I'm mainly thinking of using this for the attack roll - but I could see a case made for damage as well. This way, you can keep a good many situational modifiers and "small" bonuses here and there, but they're much easier to track and apply.

Losing the Move Action for Speed was the only actual improvement that 5e made, then they went and borked it by making withdrawl an action, the bonus action insanity and collapsing all the reactions...trading engagement for some nebulous time bonus isnt good.

My biggest gripe is with the [minor] action : it's the one that, IME, people tend to "look for something to do with it", which is incredibly time-and-tempo consuming.

The [bonus] action was a kinda-good idea, but it's not been well applied and creates all sorts of weird situations (especially between classes). The "do something extra, but do it only once per round" is such an attractive spot for so many abilities, items, etc that it gets all jumbled up pretty fast...

It's not something I've found a solid solution to...

 

[Garthanos]

That was a LOT more true in later games.

When 1e is later games you better admit to being ancient LOL...by 1e spells being large numbers of packets seemed pretty set



Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

I see the concept of role as what you're meant to bring to the table : that you bring a variety based on choice, or where you're at in the battle, or some other point of pivot is interesting to me. It's not something that needs to apply to every class or character (or even most)- but it's an interesting dynamic.

That is often the core of it, yes. That and the fact that most of what we have that has the greatest influence weight (those from WotC) is often very poor (or should even be counter-indicated) means that many who are exposed to the game tend to not know how to really make it shine.

I tend to agree with [MENTION=765]Marshall[/MENTION] on this one. Role is a tool for PEOPLE BUILDING CLASSES so that they don't create abominations like 1e rogues that can't do anything in combat most of the time. The 4e rogue is a striker, and striker has a pretty clear definition in terms of what is expected of a class filling that role. When you start wigging around with 'fudge stripe' roles you ruin 2 perfectly good flavors! Its fine to have some element in the game that can produce a change to a secondary role, but I think classes that tried to do that inherently risked becoming either overly complex and unclear in their thematics, or just bad at everything. The Berserker managed it, the class seems to work, but it IS a bit complex, and Barbarians can accomplish a similar thing without needing to be 'dual role'. It seemed like more of a design trick than a model for how to build good classes.

I've been toying with the idea of using the [boon/bane] system of SotDL, +1 to +2 is one boon, +3 to +4 is 2 boons, +5 and up is 3 boons (same with penalties). I'm mainly thinking of using this for the attack roll - but I could see a case made for damage as well. This way, you can keep a good many situational modifiers and "small" bonuses here and there, but they're much easier to track and apply.

HoML just finally arrives at that point which 4e SHOULD have arrived at and didn't. There IS NO BONUS STACKING. None, period, ever. There are 4 classes of bonus, LEVEL, ATTRIBUTE, PROFICIENCY, and PERMANENT. You get one of each, and all bonuses in the game have one of these types, no exceptions. Truth is, most bonuses are just worth trying to get, because you already have some other bonus that is at least as good that it won't stack with. Bonuses CAN be conditional, so you could still create a somewhat complex mess if you really try, but it is a whole lot harder. It also means things like magic weapons aren't THAT big a deal (they're nice enough, get a permanent bonus to attack and damage, but the max is +3 and there's certainly many other ways to get the +1 or +2 you are likely to get at most played levels. If you do get the super sword of +3 badassery, great, revel in it, that's not trivial.

My biggest gripe is with the [minor] action : it's the one that, IME, people tend to "look for something to do with it", which is incredibly time-and-tempo consuming.

Yeah, minor actions are gone in my game. Many things are just Free Actions now, and others you can spend your turn doing.

The [bonus] action was a kinda-good idea, but it's not been well applied and creates all sorts of weird situations (especially between classes). The "do something extra, but do it only once per round" is such an attractive spot for so many abilities, items, etc that it gets all jumbled up pretty fast...

It's not something I've found a solid solution to...

You named the solution, which is to just allow something extra as a Free Action when it is appropriate. You can of course put 'Special: once per turn' on it if that's needed. Since most of this kind of thing is 'triggered' somehow it isn't really that big of a deal. Its quite easy to have a HoML power which says something like "critical success: make the following attack...." where 'following attack' is an embedded power with action type Free.

 

[pemerton]

we agree that D&D is bound up in what many games would call fiddly bits and are a feature.

Yep.

I think there's a LOT of room between say Cortex+ and 4e

True.

And to link the two posts I quoted from - in HoML, how much is spellcasting subsumed into your more narrative/descriptor-oriented approach?

EDIT to pick up this:

You had a class, a race (well, we can argue about if they were separate things, I say they were) and 6 ability scores, plus your 'stuff'.

<snip>

Ability scores were pure RP attributes. There wasn't a system of 'plot coupons' to 'leverage' them with, so it was a kind of nascent system, but basically you said to the GM "Hey, I have a 15 Strength, I'm going to lift the heavy rock". The GM would say "OK, go for it" and he could roll some dice, or just say you succeed or whatever. Strong guys did 'strong things' because presumably the GM wouldn't let the 9 STR guy lift the rock.

'Class' was really just another descriptor that had a very few mechanics attached to it.

<snip>

D&D was NOT fiddly at all.

When I talk about "fiddly bits", I'm thinking (i) of lists (spells, armour, weapons, other gear, magic items) that (ii) bring mechanical subsystems with them (spells, armour, weapons post-OD&D, some other equipment, definitely magic items!). Later editions add feats to the list of lists of mechanically-relevant stuff.

And as an aside, your description of how ability scores worked reflects how I'm refereeing Traveller at the moment, especially with respect to INT and EDU. They're a shorthand for establishing fictional positioning, rather than a mechanical input in the strictest sense.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And to link the two posts I quoted from - in HoML, how much is spellcasting subsumed into your more narrative/descriptor-oriented approach?

Well, HoML is in that weird place, because it was envisaged as mechanically a sister game to 4e it has powers, which means power-based casting. That also means there are, at least implicitly, non-combat 'utility' powers (in fact I'd consider everything you do to involve 'power use' in a notional sense, actions being the time and opportunity aspect of it). So then techniques and such things having perfectly meshed with that, as they aren't exactly as bounded as rituals, and thus can overlap somewhat with powers in some respects (though they actually complement one another).

There is no reason why a technique (which generally changes a situation such that a different attribute or skill applies) couldn't work in combat to say Bluff an opponent and convert an attack from being vs FORT to vs WILL perhaps. The only question I have there is whether this is really mechanically feasible, as there are currently no hard limits on using techniques. Rituals were pushed OOC pretty thoroughly in 4e, so I guess I'd have to simply be cautious and not implement anything that 'broke combat' too much as a technique that wasn't also mechanically a ritual or something else that required preparation. It isn't an issue that has actually come up in play, and maybe it wouldn't really BE an issue, but one might find it a bit dull that the rogue uses a technique to Bluff every enemy into being easier to hit, every round!

EDIT to pick up this:

When I talk about "fiddly bits", I'm thinking (i) of lists (spells, armour, weapons, other gear, magic items) that (ii) bring mechanical subsystems with them (spells, armour, weapons post-OD&D, some other equipment, definitely magic items!). Later editions add feats to the list of lists of mechanically-relevant stuff.

And as an aside, your description of how ability scores worked reflects how I'm refereeing Traveller at the moment, especially with respect to INT and EDU. They're a shorthand for establishing fictional positioning, rather than a mechanical input in the strictest sense.

There was a lot of DETAIL in D&D (though not so much in the original OD&D, it is a pretty small game). And yes, D&D tended to just 'graft on' new fiddly subsystems.

Honestly, what I think is that Gygax and MOST of the people playing 'mainstream' D&D of that time period didn't envisage the sort of story/descriptor play we are talking about. They were being mostly gamist with a thin veneer of simulating reality where it made things easier/more interesting. Thus they didn't create personality traits, for instance, nor plot coupons. AD&D is just a natural evolution into more mechanically specific rules, thus 'improving' the ability of the GM to roll out some dice to adjudicate something 'fairly and realistically'. HOWEVER there actually were plenty of people who didn't take it that way. Most of them didn't keep playing D&D, as it clearly moved in a different direction. There were various 'narrative' traditions of play though, they were just kept to the side, and often relegated to playing heavily hacked personal variants of OD&D as time went on. Some of these people are (or at least were) very much in the 'Old School' camp, having issues even with Greyhawk (which was where a lot of mechanical definition started to gel). I like to think that Dave Arneson was of that ilk, though its hard to tell exactly.

Anyway, I like to think that in some sense I've circled back to the beginning of the game in a sense, though there's little similarity in either technique or structure to what that game was vs mine. Still, I dare to add narrative and 'meta-game' elements to my 'D&D', which few have apparently had the stomach to do...