Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Tactical Narrative Combat Modules in D&D Next
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 5959323" data-attributes="member: 710"><p>The problem is if you were already exposed to Forgisms, it's confusing. So we talk about it. And I think considering how often "GNS" or the Forge terms come up in discussions like these, it can't hurt to know them. </p><p>(Or maybe it can hurt due the way it shapes thinking of RPGs and there can be some concern whether the models are helpful or hindering, but sometimes they'll come up and you'll have to ignore the posts since you won't make sense of them.)</p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>Anyway, the rules remind me of Iron Heroes attack challenges and the Book of Iron Might, both works of Mike Mearls. And while I really loved the concept of Iron Heroes, I think the actual implementation was not that good in play, and the same will likely be true for the D&D Next take on it.</p><p></p><p>D&D Next's "bounded accuracy" has a certain advantage - it is predictable whether attack penalties are "worth" it. But this predictability is its own problem, because it will likely end up meaning that you either always better off using a maneuver, or you're always better off not using it. I figure a -5 or -10 penalty is more likely to end with the latter. </p><p></p><p>I think a better approach would be to have a few conditions that you can impose on an enemy that you then can exploit to use a maneuver.</p><p></p><p>We currently have only one exact condition that would fit - "Having Advantage". That's a little shallow, I think, but it can be a start. Maybe we even have a second condition with Bloodied. </p><p></p><p>I think there may be about 4 ways to go with maneuvers </p><p></p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> The way proposed here, using attack penalties to emulate the difficulty of maneuers and make them not always desirable to use.<br /> The challenge in play is to decide when a maneuver can be useful.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Condition Based. You need a certain pre-requisite condition to be able to start a maneuver. This will require a few more conditions probably. <br /> The challenge in play is to impose the conditions you "need" for your maneuvers to be executed.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Resource-Gathering: You gather some resource that represent you out-maneuvering or studying your foe and eventually can spend them to execute a special maneuver.<br /> The challenge in play is to gather this resources quickly enough and spend them early enough to matter.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Resource-Spending: You have a certain set of resources (encounter or daily powers for example) that you can spend to execute maneuvers. <br /> The challenge in play is finding the best use of your limited resources.</li> </ol><p>Of course, you can combine these 4 in some manner, but there wil usually be some focus on one of the 4.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I dislike 1 and do not believe it will work - the penalties and the benefit cannot really be balanced in a manner that will lead to varied play. It also tends to be very "math" oriented "Okay, I know I can hit on 9, so if I take a -x penalty for +y damage, it's a good deal. Despite the attempt to "simulate" things with it, you end up being more occupied with the mathematical model than with the narrative it tries to model.</p><p></p><p>2 may be interesting, especially if the conditions are descriptive so you can imagine what's going on in play. It provides more focus on the story.</p><p></p><p>3 and 4 are more abstract. </p><p>3 has the problem that combat can sometimes go too fast so you'll gather a lot of tokens and use them on a foe that is about to be killed this round anyway. 4 is the D&D 4 approach, and while I think it works great in play, the abstraction has turned off many of D&D 4.</p><p>Note that the abstraction also has a certain advantage - you are more free in how you narrate what is going on, the rules don't enforce that much.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 5959323, member: 710"] The problem is if you were already exposed to Forgisms, it's confusing. So we talk about it. And I think considering how often "GNS" or the Forge terms come up in discussions like these, it can't hurt to know them. (Or maybe it can hurt due the way it shapes thinking of RPGs and there can be some concern whether the models are helpful or hindering, but sometimes they'll come up and you'll have to ignore the posts since you won't make sense of them.) --- Anyway, the rules remind me of Iron Heroes attack challenges and the Book of Iron Might, both works of Mike Mearls. And while I really loved the concept of Iron Heroes, I think the actual implementation was not that good in play, and the same will likely be true for the D&D Next take on it. D&D Next's "bounded accuracy" has a certain advantage - it is predictable whether attack penalties are "worth" it. But this predictability is its own problem, because it will likely end up meaning that you either always better off using a maneuver, or you're always better off not using it. I figure a -5 or -10 penalty is more likely to end with the latter. I think a better approach would be to have a few conditions that you can impose on an enemy that you then can exploit to use a maneuver. We currently have only one exact condition that would fit - "Having Advantage". That's a little shallow, I think, but it can be a start. Maybe we even have a second condition with Bloodied. I think there may be about 4 ways to go with maneuvers [LIST=1] [*] The way proposed here, using attack penalties to emulate the difficulty of maneuers and make them not always desirable to use. The challenge in play is to decide when a maneuver can be useful. [*]Condition Based. You need a certain pre-requisite condition to be able to start a maneuver. This will require a few more conditions probably. The challenge in play is to impose the conditions you "need" for your maneuvers to be executed. [*]Resource-Gathering: You gather some resource that represent you out-maneuvering or studying your foe and eventually can spend them to execute a special maneuver. The challenge in play is to gather this resources quickly enough and spend them early enough to matter. [*]Resource-Spending: You have a certain set of resources (encounter or daily powers for example) that you can spend to execute maneuvers. The challenge in play is finding the best use of your limited resources. [/LIST] Of course, you can combine these 4 in some manner, but there wil usually be some focus on one of the 4. I dislike 1 and do not believe it will work - the penalties and the benefit cannot really be balanced in a manner that will lead to varied play. It also tends to be very "math" oriented "Okay, I know I can hit on 9, so if I take a -x penalty for +y damage, it's a good deal. Despite the attempt to "simulate" things with it, you end up being more occupied with the mathematical model than with the narrative it tries to model. 2 may be interesting, especially if the conditions are descriptive so you can imagine what's going on in play. It provides more focus on the story. 3 and 4 are more abstract. 3 has the problem that combat can sometimes go too fast so you'll gather a lot of tokens and use them on a foe that is about to be killed this round anyway. 4 is the D&D 4 approach, and while I think it works great in play, the abstraction has turned off many of D&D 4. Note that the abstraction also has a certain advantage - you are more free in how you narrate what is going on, the rules don't enforce that much. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Tactical Narrative Combat Modules in D&D Next
Top