Legends and Lore - The Temperature of the Rules

[pemerton]

Perhaps my miscommunication was to conflate simulationism and exploratory/sandboxy (for me, they go hand-in-hand). In my original post, I considered them compatible. So you can explore the game world through "pretend" simulationist mechanics, or you can explore the game world through the story, a flexibility which 4E doesn't and "Legends" wouldn't offer.

The beauty of that flexibility is that it can support both playstyles simultaneously.

I don't have a very solid handle on the mechanics you are envisaging this flexible edition having, but I tend to be sceptcial of the claim that a given ruleset can support both PF/3E-ish sandboxing, and 4e "legend-ising". Part of what makes 4e work in the way it does it that it has a multitude of big and small features that constrain the scope of the action resolution mechanics, and support strong scene-framing and scene engagement. These range from the resource recovery mechancis (surges, powers, rests etc), to the absence of "teleport out of the encounter" abilities, to the skill challenge mechanics, to the encounter building guidelines.

Many if not most of these featuers, on the other hand, are exactly what those who prefer PF/3E-ish sandboxing appear to dislike about 4e.

Are you able to say a little more about how you envisage your flexible ruleset working? Even it's pared back all the way to defences, hit points and basic monster stats, for example, there will still be the isssue of resource recovery.

 

[pemerton]

I agree that playing a PC in Runequest can give a strong feeling of 'being there' - much stronger than I've ever had playing any edition of D&D. It's the most potentially immersive system I know.

I would generalise this to Basic Roleplaying in General - RQ, Stormbringer, Call of Cthulhu.

Noticeably more so than Rolemaster, although Rolemaster still moreso, in my experience, than D&D.

I have no real desire to play BRP games on an extended basis - I find that style of play a bit too austere for my tastes - but aethetically they can barely be faulted.

I think the goal in the 3e PHB was to be 'mechanically robust' in the sense of "If a PC wants to do X, here is how you adjudicate it with minimal fiat". I *think* it was never intended to be applied to NPCs (qv Profession skill - per RAW lawyers and gardeners earn the same income) acting in isolation, only for PC-NPC interaction. If that was the intent, they did a bad job.

I've got not handle on what the designers' intended independent of their rules. Their rules at least in part seem to suggest that NPC vs NPC is to be handled via the same action resolution mechanics (eg the use of classes and level to set up demographics), but the push is not all in one direction, and as you say the rules don't seem to support that sort of world building especially well.

 

[LurkAway]

I don't have a very solid handle on the mechanics you are envisaging this flexible edition having,

Neither do I. I'm brainstorming, I don't have a blueprint yet It's purely inspired by the rules modularity and complexity dials of the article series. I don't know if Monte and Mearls are suggesting complexity dials to tweak only simple vs complex, or also for different "modes" of "pretend" simulation, but IMO it seems perfect for a sandboxy system.

but I tend to be sceptcial of the claim that a given ruleset can support both PF/3E-ish sandboxing, and 4e "legend-ising".

If you mean "legend-ising" to mean a true 4E experience, then I agree that a flexible ruleset probably won't do it as well (thus I suggested a separate Legends edition, right?). If "legend-ising" means a game experience that simulates super heroic fantasy (ie., 3E with a little more heroic gonzo) without the 4E 'gamist' structure, then yes, I don't see why not. The point of "legend-ising" is not to duplicate 4E (that's what Legends would be for) but to tweak what the sandbox is "pretend" simulating. I don't know if you're skeptical because I'm idealizing an impossible nirvana or because I didn't properly communicate the 'mandate' of the "Lore" idea, but either way, I think this sub-thread has left the building for now

 

[S'mon]

Mechanically, a better help than providing such information directly is a system that lets the characters have a decent shot at running when they get in over their heads, and/or limited resources (killer spells, action points, etc.) to save until needed but burn when desperate. Of course, that requires players willing to save some such resources until such need, and a DM willing to not push them to the max every time. Works for us.

I really do think that maximum overall tension in a roleplaying campaign is best achieved by the DM pulling back on the throttle a bit on challenge, but then not backing away from whatever challenges the players choose to go after. You'll have dull minutes at times, but those aren't an unwelcome break from the stark terror at others.

I agree about the necessity for making retreat possible. Older editions had evasion rules with % chances to escape based on party size - larger party, smaller chance. I normally let fast PCs escape slower monsters (and vice versa); slower PCs have to make skill checks, I'd probably now use a skill challenge with athletics, endurance, stealth etc featuring. Likewise faster PCs pursuing a slower monster (that has a head start) would have a skill challenge to catch it.

I agree about maximum overall tension; that is how I GM. It also makes the game fun for me, because (a) the players earn their victories and (b) I don't know for sure what will happen, whether the PCs will win, flee, TPK etc. I find that uncertainty very important.

 

[LurkAway]

I find it gets worse with NPCs - there's no real "world" sense for a 14th level one looking that much different from an 8th level one.

In a way, that's as it should be. I'm thinking of wushu/kung-fu movies where you see a very average looking robed Jet Li walking thru the street and you couldn't distinguish him from anybody else. But then when you see him fight, it leaves you in awe.

A 14th level NPC may be distinguisable from a 1st level NPC, but the difference between 14th and 8th is probably nuanced, so that you can't size up the difference until you were in actually in combat. I think a few rounds of combat should give you a good sense of his 'level' of combat skill (unless he was intentionally pulling his punches to deceive you or throw you off guard for some reason). If he was using higher level magic, that would be a giveaway too.

 

[S'mon]

Oh god, could you imagine the hue and cry from people about how video gamey THAT would be? "Is the bad guy showing red to me?"

Gack.

Since I tend to play sandbox videogames, I tend to associate 'videogamey' with 'go too far and get stepped on by a mammoth'; which I'm not a huge fan of. I'd prefer either a much much shallower power gradient, or if they must keep ridiculously steep power gradient then keep the easy threat assessment.

 

[LurkAway]

Agreed - some rules on threat assessment might be nice; although knowledge-skill checks can partially substitute. The hardest thing for me is not wanting to use 'level' as an in-game term; so how do I explain in-game how the 8th level PC feels about the threat posed by the 13th level solo monster?

Ideally (and unfortunately it's not like that in D&D), I'd like to see a direct correlation between size and hit point/damage for normal physical creatures. Bigger massive monsters are more dangerous, period.

Then you've got musculature and thick hide/scaling to signal extra toughness. Sharpness and size of teeth, claws and fangs. Body spikes and other biological/'evolutionary' warning signs that signal 'I am dangerous, don't screw with me'. Ferocity (although some animals fake it and act more fierce than they are, cats arching their backs and raising of fur). I think all of these cues will signal a danger level to the PC, which can then be communicated in character to the player (IF the game world is coherent that way).

For easy 'stereotyping', I'd like to see goblins that are goblins. No 1st level goblin and 20th level epic goblins. If a goblin is more powerful, there are visual cues (plate armor, musculature, unusal size, goblin chief surrounded by guards, etc.) If monsters are classifiable that way, monsters by tier can be threat-classified simply by reputation.

Coherent 'ecosystems'. A dungeon with no low-level threats may mean that high-level monsters have eaten them all or scared them away, leaving only the small nuisance critters to hide in the corners. Or you see orcs and goblins in chains and slave collars working the ore mines, and goblinoid skeletons with teethmarks littering the area.

Truly supernature creatures that don't have ordinary flesh and blood bodies, however, break all those laws, with no direct correlation between physicality and threat level. This makes them especially scary. Perhaps clerics or druids can detect these blasphemies as It That Does Not Belong To This World.

Anybody else?

 

[S'mon]

Oh, hey, I've got no real problem with it. Even if they went straight up WOW and put halo's over things heads it probably wouldn't really bother me. It's a meta-game construct anyway and not all that much different than say, "Detect Evil" really.

But, while it might not bother me at all, I'm just imagining the gnashing of teeth that would come from having "Detect Level" as a paladin power.

One reading of the 4e knowledge skills is that they let you know all the monster stats. I would never go that far, but from reading this discussion I'm thinking it would be ok to let PCs use nature, religion etc to classify creatures' threat level as "Low Heroic/Heroic/High Heroic/Low Paragon/Paragon/High Paragon" etc, roughly a 3-4 level spread. I'd make the assessment DC scaling fairly shallow, too - Heroic-tier PCs might well have heard of Epic monsters - and difficulty would go more off how common or obscure the creature is; some weird thing out of MM3 would have a higher DC than well known critter out of MM1/MV.

 

[S'mon]

Oh, hey, I've got no real problem with it. Even if they went straight up WOW and put halo's over things heads it probably wouldn't really bother me. It's a meta-game construct anyway and not all that much different than say, "Detect Evil" really.

But, while it might not bother me at all, I'm just imagining the gnashing of teeth that would come from having "Detect Level" as a paladin power.

Here's what I just posted to my campaign BBs:

____________

Knowledge skills for monster threat assessment.

I'm going to allow checks on Nature/Religion/Arcana/History/Streetwise etc to assess monster threat level within the following bands. Threat level will be for typical representatives, it's possible that a particular unusual creature could fall outside the band on either the high or low end.

Low Heroic: 1-3 - eg goblin
Heroic: 4-7 - eg orc
High Heroic 8-10 - eg ogre
Low Paragon 11-13
Paragon 14-17
High Paragon 18-20
Low Epic 21-23
Epic 24-27
High Epic 28-30+

Whether the check DC is easy, medium or hard will normally depend on how famous or obscure the monster is; assessing dragons is easy, while assessing some obscure creature from MM3 might be hard, or even impossible if no one hasever reported meeting such a thing before.
A failed check close to the DC may get vague information, within a 2-3 band spread, while a badly failed check means you have no idea.

 

[Lanefan]

One reading of the 4e knowledge skills is that they let you know all the monster stats. I would never go that far, but from reading this discussion I'm thinking it would be ok to let PCs use nature, religion etc to classify creatures' threat level as "Low Heroic/Heroic/High Heroic/Low Paragon/Paragon/High Paragon" etc, roughly a 3-4 level spread. I'd make the assessment DC scaling fairly shallow, too - Heroic-tier PCs might well have heard of Epic monsters - and difficulty would go more off how common or obscure the creature is; some weird thing out of MM3 would have a higher DC than well known critter out of MM1/MV.

Er...shouldn't the "well-known-ness" of a given critter be based mostly on its commonality within the particular game world/region being played, rather than what book it's in?

For example, if the party's operating in an area that's infested with Goblins, Bugbears, Ogres and Giants then information about what makes those creatures tick should be trivially easy to come by (i.e. DC automatic, if they ask the locals). But if a lost band of Kobolds and Lizardmen - neither of which have ever been seen in this area before - suddenly turn up, learning about them should be much tougher and might have to be done firsthand by the party: they learn on behalf of everyone else!

Lan-"would you love a monsterman"-efan