Legends & Lore: A Bit More on Feats

[Manbearcat]

The part that's tricky is "provided the non-combat abilities are clearly meaningful in play." The problem is that D&D is (historically and critically speaking) a combat/wargame system which permits some roleplaying on the side. Which is to say, combat and non-combat utilize totally different architectures (when there is any non-combat architecture at all, anyway). This makes the application and utility of non-combat rules and features much less consistent than combat mechanics. I've run a game where the PCs were desperate to level up so they could take NWPs (2e) to learn new languages, even though there was plenty of fighting. I've also been in plenty of games like my current one where languages and non-combat are just about irrelevant, merely an irritant to be hand-waived by disbursing a Helm of Comprehend Languages. In a game where both are possible and accepted and encouraged playstyles, I don't see how you could possibly evaluate non-combat features against combat features in any meaningful way.

It is difficult, to be sure, but I think if you construct a framework of sturdy and unified constants, you have a better chance of evaluating the variables (especially as system experience gathers).

For instance, in 4e, you have conflict resolution in the arenas of (1) tactical combat resolution and (2) non-combat (skill challenges) resolution. What are our constants?

1) Encounter XP rewards and results within the fiction (framing your PC within that challenge).
2) # of successful contests versus # of failed contests ultimately dictating resolution.

With the two of those schemes in play, we have a reasonable opportunity to evaluate the potency of build choices based on how 2 affects 1.

However, there are a lot of variables when evaluating PC build choices as well. In combat, you have a lot of built-in opportunities/synergies to force-multiply and to wipe out your own tactical disadvantage or enemy advantage/momentum. In Skill Challenges, the stock foundation is not constructed in this way. Therefore, the cost of a single failure is more weighty. Accordingly, the value of an individual force-multiplier (Cat's Grace giving + 2 to all Dex Skills until the next extended rest), the value of turning a weakness into a strength (Secrets of the City allowing you to make a Streetwise check for various checks), and the value of loss mitigation (Fast Talk allowing a reroll of a failed Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate check as another Bluff check) becomes more weighty.

There are other variables in the evaluation of course, including how often the GM frames conflict resolution as Skill Challenges versus combat. If you're looking at a ratio that swings wildly in one direction or another, then the value of investing in a PC build resource to further the success of that specific arena is perturbed (possibly to the point of err...pointlessness). Whether the modality of most 4e groups tend toward combat primarily or more even distribution, I don't know. My testimony is much more akin to @pemerton 's in that I run a pretty even distribution and my players have strong confidence in the relative potency of their investment in non-combat resolution resources and, given those things, they do so regularly.

 

[pemerton]

The part that's tricky is "provided the non-combat abilities are clearly meaningful in play." The problem is that D&D is (historically and critically speaking) a combat/wargame system which permits some roleplaying on the side. Which is to say, combat and non-combat utilize totally different architectures (when there is any non-combat architecture at all, anyway). This makes the application and utility of non-combat rules and features much less consistent than combat mechanics.

<snip>

In a game where both are possible and accepted and encouraged playstyles, I don't see how you could possibly evaluate non-combat features against combat features in any meaningful way.

I don't think you have to rank them. All you have to do is make sure both are meaningful. Then the players can do their own rankings.

Going back to one of the 4e examples I gave, is +6 to all knowledge skills (Sage of Ages) as good as +2 to two stats (Demigod)? Abstracted from any particular campaign and play experience, who can say? The point is that +6 to all knowledge skills is clearly meaningful if knowledge skills are going to come into play; and a player can then form a judgement, based on knowing whether or not knowledge skills will come into play, as to whether or not it is worth going Sage of Ages rather than Demigod.

Which is daft.

I don't see why. Heaps of games have an action economy for non-combat resolution: Maelstrom Storytelling, Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, The Dying Earth, evasion in classic D&D, the exploration system in D&Dnext, skill challenges in 4e, starship travel in Traveller, and from memory the trade system in the Traveller Book 7 Merchant Prince, are some of the examples I can think of.

But in the meantime everyone is pretty much interchangeable.

I don't understand who you are saying is interchangeable.

 

[Ratskinner]

I don't think you have to rank them. All you have to do is make sure both are meaningful. Then the players can do their own rankings.

Going back to one of the 4e examples I gave, is +6 to all knowledge skills (Sage of Ages) as good as +2 to two stats (Demigod)? Abstracted from any particular campaign and play experience, who can say? The point is that +6 to all knowledge skills is clearly meaningful if knowledge skills are going to come into play; and a player can then form a judgement, based on knowing whether or not knowledge skills will come into play, as to whether or not it is worth going Sage of Ages rather than Demigod.

I think its not so much about ranking them, as making them "not broken". So, are there campaigns where +6 to all Knowledge skills will effectively shut down the game? I think there are. What number will make a bonus like that meaningful, but tolerable across the broadest playstyle spectrum?

It is difficult, to be sure, but I think if you construct a framework of sturdy and unified constants, you have a better chance of evaluating the variables (especially as system experience gathers).

For instance, in 4e, you have conflict resolution in the arenas of (1) tactical combat resolution and (2) non-combat (skill challenges) resolution. What are our constants?

1) Encounter XP rewards and results within the fiction (framing your PC within that challenge).
2) # of successful contests versus # of failed contests ultimately dictating resolution.

Which is something that we don't seem to be getting in 5e. Further, I'm not sure we will see such a thing (except as optional rules), because it sounds like a decent-sized faction views any sort of formal scene-framing beyond room description and # of Orc occupants as antithetical to their playstyle.

 

[Manbearcat]

Which is something that we don't seem to be getting in 5e.

Yup.

Further, I'm not sure we will see such a thing (except as optional rules), because it sounds like a decent-sized faction views any sort of formal scene-framing beyond room description and # of Orc occupants as antithetical to their playstyle.

Yup yet again.

 

[DMZ2112]

Which is something that we don't seem to be getting in 5e. Further, I'm not sure we will see such a thing (except as optional rules), because it sounds like a decent-sized faction views any sort of formal scene-framing beyond room description and # of Orc occupants as antithetical to their playstyle.

Argh. Really?

What we object to is when a specific brand of framing -- and whole-table buy-in to that framing -- is necessary to maintain suspension of disbelief. What we find "antithetical to our playstyle" is being told that aspects of the dungeon master's narrative are beholden to game design.

Some of us do like more to a scene than "room description" and "number of orc occupants," but we prefer to dictate the organization and function of that framing as it applies to our setting, not have it spoon-fed to us.


In any case, feats /should not/ grant bonuses of any kind. If you want feats that enhance out of combat play, then they should represent a maneuver system. Feats should modify the /use/ of skills and attributes, not their effectiveness. Feats that grant options to players rather than just making their characters better at what they could do before are more creative and open more opportunities to make a character unique. What's more, they don't encourage breaking the math as a character design strategy.

The big problem here, though, is how few feats it looks like characters are going to get in D&D5. Why even bother?

 

[Ratskinner]

Argh. Really?

Yes, although you may not represent precisely the people I was talking about, given what else you wrote.

What we object to is when a specific brand of framing -- and whole-table buy-in to that framing -- is necessary to maintain suspension of disbelief. What we find "antithetical to our playstyle" is being told that aspects of the dungeon master's narrative are beholden to game design.

I simply don't know what suspension of disbelief has to do with what I was talking about.

The DM's narrative will be beholden to game design (to some extent) regardless of what that game design is. Even old-school versions of D&D had scene framing, they just didn't acknowledge it as such (which is not surprising, given the context as "first in the field"). Many of the older versions had specific rules for specific types of scenes: exploration rules and doing things in "turns", combat rules and doing things in rounds, etc. In the Interaction "pillar" and I would say the unrecognized "trap" scene, those rules tended to be much less formal, and its never explicit that you are framing scenes (at least, I don't recall any such wording until at least 2e, where I think such language was used in a "you can think of it this way" example of designing encounters for DMs...maybe). In any case, there's plenty of old-school adventuring where "You enter a room that is [room description] there are [#] orcs here, roll initiative" is perfectly acceptable scene-framing.

Some of us do like more to a scene than "room description" and "number of orc occupants," but we prefer to dictate the organization and function of that framing as it applies to our setting, not have it spoon-fed to us.

ermm....can't say I'm sure how sceneframing techniques directly affect setting per se. I think you may be reacting to something other than what I meant.

There are certain playstyles, mostly within what some folks call "old-school", where the narrative (especially story) aspects of play are very thin or superficial, and the heart of play lies within the players overcoming the challenge of getting their characters through a difficult dungeon or other challenge without character death. Within that sphere there are folks for whom my characterization represents their desired playstyle quite accurately. On occasion I've played with them. There's nothing particularly wrong with that playstyle vs. any other.

However, it does present you with a game design quandry when it comes to selecting a sceneframing technique for a game like 5e which is attempting to satisfy players of multiple playstyles. Those players do not represent a vanishingly small fraction of the target playerbase for 5e, therefore they shouldn't be ignored. Conventional wisdom is that its easier for more story-oriented players to handle games that don't cater directly to their playstyle (some would debate this), therefore 5e is unlikely (IMO) to feature story-oriented mechanics (like formal scene-framing) that those old-schoolers would object to.

In any case, feats /should not/ grant bonuses of any kind. If you want feats that enhance out of combat play, then they should represent a maneuver system. Feats should modify the /use/ of skills and attributes, not their effectiveness. Feats that grant options to players rather than just making their characters better at what they could do before are more creative and open more opportunities to make a character unique. What's more, they don't encourage breaking the math as a character design strategy.

I don't find that objectionable at all.

 

[DMZ2112]

The DM's narrative will be beholden to game design (to some extent) regardless of what that game design is. Even old-school versions of D&D had scene framing, they just didn't acknowledge it as such (which is not surprising, given the context as "first in the field"). Many of the older versions had specific rules for specific types of scenes: exploration rules and doing things in "turns", combat rules and doing things in rounds, etc.

Stand back, he's got an analogy:

The way I look at this is that the ideal roleplaying game would have the equivalent of a 120-count box of Crayola crayons for conflict resolution -- a shade for every situation. When faced with the reality that this would quickly become unmanageable, I feel the optimal solution is to not provide crayons at all, rather than only provide an 8-count box of crayons, because no matter how hard you squint at burnt sienna it will never be golden ochre.

Now, AD&D1 only gave you a single burnt sienna crayon, and that was almost as good, because everyone /knew/ it wasn't supposed to be golden ochre, and that if you needed golden ochre you were on your own. With the 8-count box, there's this sense among players of the game that everything needs to be one of those eight colors, and that can be a beast to overcome at the table.

I don't consider it a failing of imagination to not want to fight a game's mechanics in the process of setting a scene. I feel like this stuff is better left to third party materials designed to train up inexperienced dungeon masters, rather than hardwired into a system.

ermm....can't say I'm sure how sceneframing techniques directly affect setting per se. I think you may be reacting to something other than what I meant.

You call it scene framing, I call it setting; it's the same thing. I'm not talking about Dark Sun or Planescape, I'm talking about the immediate circumstances of the encounter. "Enter a GRAVEDIGGER and the OTHER gravedigger," not "In fair Verona, where we lay our scene."

Conventional wisdom is that its easier for more story-oriented players to handle games that don't cater directly to their playstyle (some would debate this), therefore 5e is unlikely (IMO) to feature story-oriented mechanics (like formal scene-framing) that those old-schoolers would object to.

Well, I can't argue. I find these sorts of rules very disruptive to play.

I don't find that objectionable at all.

It wasn't really meant as an argument, just an attempt to keep the post on topic.

 

[pemerton]

I think its not so much about ranking them, as making them "not broken". So, are there campaigns where +6 to all Knowledge skills will effectively shut down the game? I think there are. What number will make a bonus like that meaningful, but tolerable across the broadest playstyle spectrum?

In any case, feats /should not/ grant bonuses of any kind. If you want feats that enhance out of combat play, then they should represent a maneuver system. Feats should modify the /use/ of skills and attributes, not their effectiveness.

Here is my take on the +6 to knowledge skills from Sage of Ages in the context of these two comments.

There is no doubt that this makes success on knowledge checks close to automatic for that PC. But in canonical 4e, all this guarantees is knowledge of the abilities of every monster you encounter. Which is good, but I think doesn't shut down the game - 4e is quite resilient in this respect, and arguably plays better when the players know what it is they're up against.

Otherwise, you are very good at rituals - but these aren't unlimited, as they are subject to a money requirement and (more amorphously) a time requirement. And in out-of-combat resolution, you can't take on a skill challenge on your own if the GM is framing it in accordance with the standard guidelines, and hence other PCs are also caught up in it. Your skill challenge contribution may be close to auto-success if you can leverage your knowledge skills, but your fellow players can still stuff things up.

If you drift 4e away from its canonical presentation - in particular, if you allow a single PC to dominate out-of-combat challenges in their niche (which I gather is the standard 3E approach) - then Sage of Ages may well break a game, I agree.

 

[Li Shenron]

In any case, feats /should not/ grant bonuses of any kind. If you want feats that enhance out of combat play, then they should represent a maneuver system. Feats should modify the /use/ of skills and attributes, not their effectiveness. Feats that grant options to players rather than just making their characters better at what they could do before are more creative and open more opportunities to make a character unique. What's more, they don't encourage breaking the math as a character design strategy.

It saddens me that we were on the a good track last year: we had Fighter-only Maneuvers to represent specializing in combat stunts, and we could leave Feats (open to everyone) for all non-combat additional abilities, or at least for stuff that wasn't strictly about offense/defense expertise but still useful in combat.

All that was needed IMO to close the circle, was one feat that said "You gain one Fighter Maneuver of your choice. You can get this feat multiple times, each time choosing a different Maneuver". Then, it would have been a piece of cake for each DM to choose if allowing such multiclassing feat (and there would be similar feats for other classes features), and with what limitations or additional costs (a sidebar guidelines would have helped the DM make a good choice). Multiclassing feats would not be put in the Basic game.

It's been a while already, that I have the feeling that 5e designers get the things right at their first attempt , followed by some minor adjustment/balancing for improvement, but then all the massively conservative playtest feedback comes, the "premium" feedback from their private playtesters with their pet peeves, and designers' own needs to prove their creativity, and they totally change things that were reasonably fine. I am constantly worried about when they will decide to revise the magic items rules, the exploration rules, and the wildshape rules (3 things that IMO once again they got right at first attempt) and totally disintegrate them. Or maybe, I should start hoping they do it to those as well, so I can just forget about buying 5e and start planning a compilation of "best of 5e playtest packets".

/sorry for the rant, didn't sleep well

 

[Ratskinner]

Stand back, he's got an analogy:

The way I look at this is that the ideal roleplaying game would have the equivalent of a 120-count box of Crayola crayons for conflict resolution -- a shade for every situation. When faced with the reality that this would quickly become unmanageable, I feel the optimal solution is to not provide crayons at all, rather than only provide an 8-count box of crayons, because no matter how hard you squint at burnt sienna it will never be golden ochre.

Now, AD&D1 only gave you a single burnt sienna crayon, and that was almost as good, because everyone /knew/ it wasn't supposed to be golden ochre, and that if you needed golden ochre you were on your own. With the 8-count box, there's this sense among players of the game that everything needs to be one of those eight colors, and that can be a beast to overcome at the table.

Wait, you're saying that AD&D a single crayon to resolve conflicts? Your experiences are vastly different from mine. I mean, how many different (AD&D 1e) ways are there to determine whether someone snuck up on somebody else (don't forget surprise rolls)? Even which dice are rolled can depend on things like race, class, environment, etc. I'm not entirely sure what all you have to (or get to) roll if you're an Elf Thief in the Woods wearing leather next to a Halfling in the dark.

I don't consider it a failing of imagination to not want to fight a game's mechanics in the process of setting a scene. I feel like this stuff is better left to third party materials designed to train up inexperienced dungeon masters, rather than hardwired into a system.

Neither do I. The problem here is that different folks have different goals. You will have some kind of rules for it hardwired in, even if they are informal. Heck, 1e has stronger scene-typing than 3e. I certainly don't see why it would be bad for the rules to address how the game is designed to be played.

Having re-read these last few posts, I must say that I still feel like I'm not quite sure what you're reacting to.