A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

[heretic888]

You said make them up but you didn't give me the plausible reason? Assuming now magic is involved what is the reason for martial "powers".

The fictional basis for martial powers are described on page 106 of 4E's Martial Power 2 and also touched upon in Wizards Presents: Races & Classes in the chapter on fighters. From the text, we can infer that martial heroes aren't "magical" but they also clearly aren't "mundane" either.

 

[heretic888]

You could tie it into the attack roll, since every fighter is probably attacking every round anyway. That would also let it scale with your number of attacks.

The obvious solution is that your Action Surge triggers whenever you roll a natural 20, but that might interact poorly with one of the feats, which already gives an extra attack on a critical hit.

My preferred solution is that your Action Surge triggers whenever you roll a natural 1, since that makes the fighter more consistent and reliable each round, balancing out bad luck with good luck. That might create weird interactions with halflings, though.

You could also make the trigger sub-class specific, so champions trigger Action Surge when they crit, and warlords trigger Action Surge when their dice do something funky, but that could get complicated. In any case, it should definitely be limited to one trigger per round, or else things could get out of control.

This is similar to how Fighter maneuvers work in 13th Age.

Basically, each maneuver has a specific die trigger such as "any even roll", "on a natural 16+", "on an odd miss", and so on. Assuming a 4 round battle on average and assuming you want your fighter to use these abilities around once per battle, you could key it to a natural 16+ on an attack roll. Would work out about the same.

 

[Emerikol]

This is similar to how Fighter maneuvers work in 13th Age.

Basically, each maneuver has a specific die trigger such as "any even roll", "on a natural 16+", "on an odd miss", and so on. Assuming a 4 round battle on average and assuming you want your fighter to use these abilities around once per battle, you could key it to a natural 16+ on an attack roll. Would work out about the same.

I think certain abilities would fire off more often against inferior foes. Critical hits for example. On the flip side, I do think there are other things that are more random. So a mix would be fine. One trick might be for the random case is your roll equals the round number. So round 1 it's 1, 10 it's 10, and so forth. Not sure though an ActionSurge would happen often enough in that case.

For a combat attack, just say every time you exceed your opponents AC by 5 or 7 or 10 you get some followup manuever. In the some cases maybe it's just another attack. I kind of like the idea of telescoping dice so if you roll a 20, you roll another d20 and add 20.

 

[heretic888]

I think certain abilities would fire off more often against inferior foes. Critical hits for example. On the flip side, I do think there are other things that are more random. So a mix would be fine. One trick might be for the random case is your roll equals the round number. So round 1 it's 1, 10 it's 10, and so forth. Not sure though an ActionSurge would happen often enough in that case.

For a combat attack, just say every time you exceed your opponents AC by 5 or 7 or 10 you get some followup manuever. In the some cases maybe it's just another attack. I kind of like the idea of telescoping dice so if you roll a 20, you roll another d20 and add 20.

Yes, that's similar to how it works in 13th Age as well. The fighter has a variety of maneuvers (I believe you start off with 4) and each one can have a different type of trigger. Generally speaking, defensive measures like Second Wind tend to trigger on misses and powerful offensive abilities trigger on high rolls.

This is an area where PF2's critical miss/miss/hit/critical hit setup might be beneficial. I could see some maneuvers only triggering on misses (assuming a miss by 5 or less) and others on solid hits (hit by 5 or more).

However, a potential danger there is special maneuvers only seeing use against lesser threats. That feels very un-heroic and un-cinematic to me.

 

[pemerton]

Does the fact that Aristotle did or did not write about universal gravitation change the presence of universal gravitation?

In the real world which has a mind-independent existence? No.

In stories that Aristotle tells on the basis of his imagination? Yes. When Aristotle tells a story about planets that move about the earth in various "spheres", we can tell that he is imaging a world not governed by universal gravitation.

Likewise, when Aristotle tells a story about giant arthropods which are able to respirate, he's probably not telling a story about things with a realistic biology that (in virtue of being realistic) is radically different from the biology of real-world arthorpods. He's telling a story about things that he imagines to have much the same biology as real world arthropods, whose biology he does not fully understand. The fact that he is imagining something that is physically impossible doesn't stop him imagining it. And it would be a mistake to read his story and try and theorise it as consistent with contemporary biological understandings.

I think it would be a mistake to confuse fiction for a factual account.

And afterall the one common thread that we can follow in all of the stories about Giants is that in none of them the Giant is defeated when it tries to stand up and breaks its ankle.

I don't see why you think this is dsagreement with me. It's my whole point.

 

[Lanefan]

Thank you for at least treating my thread question with reasonableness and respect. If you want special manuevers, and I'm flexible on that but they don't bother me and some people might like them, I agree they need some kind of activation. Your die roll approach is closing in on the target we are seeking I think.

1. Do you think there is a way to avoid rolling an extra die? I'm not against an extra die but maybe we can streamline it in some way.

2. If we do roll an extra die, should the die be a d20? What is the frequency we want these to occur? Should it be truly random?

Make it that you want to roll low, and then use a progressively smaller die size for after each failed roll (or maybe have the first two or three on d20 then move to the decreasing dice) until you succeed, and at that point it resets to rolling a d20 next time.

I've always wondered that your most devastating attack always seems to go off against the most formidable enemies.

Which, if the PC knows the formidable enemy is coming, can in fact make in-game sense: "I've been savin' this one up for you, buddy!"

Perhaps it should be some sort of crit system. Every time you exceed the to hit roll by X you get a special follow up manuever.

This would give the opposite effect: your stunts would go off way more often against the low-AC mooks than against the high-AC boss...which as a side effect would serve to increase the mechanical difference between a mook and a boss, if this matters. Another side-effect would be to make defense a bit more important at cost of offense; the knock-on here is that well-defended PCs and opponents, being harder to hit, cause the battles to go on longer.

Not saying this is a bad idea, just saying be careful with it.

3. Is there a separation here where some of the powers are truly randomly activated and others are done using the crit system above? It seems like some things make more sense being random whereas others seem to require you to have some sort of advantage.

You know, a plan B just wandered into my mind here: how about on a natural 20 to hit the player/PC gets a choice: roll to confirm the crit OR use a martial power and forego the confirm roll. All of this happens before damage is rolled.

Lanefan

 

[Manbearcat]

Brief chime-in on a point of contention in this thread that I typically champion:

1) the coherency in the relationship of gravity and atmosphere (the issue that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is espousing) with respect to any kind of earth-based morphology of arthropods, dragons, and giants.

and

2) if we're willing to just hand-wave any aspects of these away, then why are we so intent on "earth-physics-ing" our martial heroes into something resembling (sometimes the lower) earthy-human bounds. This is especially concerning when their counterparts (spellcasters) are, effectively, god-like.

So a couple of things on this:

a) The giant theropods and sauropods don't have hips that resemble bipedal humans. This allows their load-bearing machinery to function in proportion to their insane loads while also interfacing with their spinal column/necks/tails to distribute those insane load such that they can move just fine...however, they could NOT walk/load-bear in an upright fashion. The premise of "dinosaurs/T-Rex could do it, therefore massive upright bipeds should be able to do it" is not a line of evidence. Its actually the exact opposite. If Giants' endoskeletons possessed similar architecture to distribute their massive load, they would look and behave nothing like D&D giants. They would look like alligators...and have massive tails...and long necks or massive heads.

b) There is no indication that the overwhelming number of medium+ sized creatures with exoskeletons in D&D (the arthropods) have magical respiration or kinesiology or load-distribution. We apply so many earth-based physics and biological (specifically how their form and systems relate to gravity and atmosphere) bounds on martial heroes yet the exact same limitations that should disallow spiders, scorpions, ettercaps, umber-hulks (et al) from being larger than a chicken are hand-waved away...because "reasons?"

c) Evolution is not a thing in D&D land. All creatures are basically magically spawned via primordial forces or brought into existence via divine myth (eg a God bled or cried them into existence, etc). So why are we inconsistently applying selection pressure-based evolution to adventurers/martial heroes or applying earth-based physics/biology, yet ignoring one or both of these things for the many fantastical creatures they face in battle (and must move dynamically to do so!)?

Its just a giant D&D double standard. Either (i) allow martial heroes to do fantastical things (because they're origin is magical, the same as everything else...or because hand-waving all the things we hand-wave for magical creatures), (ii) disallow the fantastical things of D&D world (that is no fun and not going to happen), or (iii) just admit that their is no rational high ground for the double standard...it doesn't have a basis beyond aesthetic preference!

 

[Shasarak]

In the real world which has a mind-independent existence? No.

In stories that Aristotle tells on the basis of his imagination? Yes. When Aristotle tells a story about planets that move about the earth in various "spheres", we can tell that he is imaging a world not governed by universal gravitation.

Likewise, when Aristotle tells a story about giant arthropods which are able to respirate, he's probably not telling a story about things with a realistic biology that (in virtue of being realistic) is radically different from the biology of real-world arthorpods. He's telling a story about things that he imagines to have much the same biology as real world arthropods, whose biology he does not fully understand. The fact that he is imagining something that is physically impossible doesn't stop him imagining it. And it would be a mistake to read his story and try and theorise it as consistent with contemporary biological understandings.

Aristotle's inductive-deductive method runs counter to your narrative. I dont think that he would have imagined his stories were real and I would have trouble believing that his imagined stories were not at least internally consistent. If he had access to both a small and a large Scorpion then basic observation and experimentation would have revealed quickly any similarities and differences.

I don't see why you think this is dsagreement with me. It's my whole point.

You seem to be arguing quite hard for the ankle breaking Giants despite proof to the contrary.

 

[Lanefan]

c) Evolution is not a thing in D&D land. All creatures are basically magically spawned via primordial forces or brought into existence via divine myth (eg a God bled or cried them into existence, etc). So why are we inconsistently applying selection pressure-based evolution to adventurers/martial heroes or applying earth-based physics/biology, yet ignoring one or both of these things for the many fantastical creatures they face in battle (and must move dynamically to do so!)?

Why can't evolution be a thing in D&D land, though?

Sure, some of the fantastic creatures may have been originally spawned from a wizard's lab somewhere or from the tears of a god; but as soon as said creatures become able to reproduce on their own then you'll get some evolution happening...or extinction, if the creature isn't viable.

Interbreeding e.g. part-elves, part-orcs, etc. is another obvious form of evolution.

Its just a giant D&D double standard. Either (i) allow martial heroes to do fantastical things (because they're origin is magical, the same as everything else...or because hand-waving all the things we hand-wave for magical creatures), (ii) disallow the fantastical things of D&D world (that is no fun and not going to happen), or (iii) just admit that their is no rational high ground for the double standard...it doesn't have a basis beyond aesthetic preference!

Or my preference: (iv) find or invent a science where it all can fit together in a consistent manner, then use that as the foundation for, well, everything in the game world. And if this ends up meaning some martial powers get canned because they don't fit in, then so be it.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

You seem to be arguing quite hard for the ankle breaking Giants despite proof to the contrary.

Huh? A version of my that was triple my height (and hence 27 times my mass) but otherwise physically/biologically identical would not be able to stand or walk. This is a basic fact about real world biomechanical processes.

However, such beings in the world of D&D are able to stand and walk. Hence, either (i) they are not physically/biologically like humans, or (ii) the world of D&D is not constrained by real world biomechanical processes.

You appear to assert (i). I assert (ii), on the grounds that it fits with a sensible theory of storytelling.

Aristotle's inductive-deductive method runs counter to your narrative. I dont think that he would have imagined his stories were real and I would have trouble believing that his imagined stories were not at least internally consistent.

Again, huh?

I don't understand your point. People tell stories all the time that are inconsistent with physical possibility - look at Gygax's story of a hero flying to the moon on a flying steed, which piles impossibility on impossibility!

Aristotle did imagined things that were inconsistent with what is physically possible - eg he not only imagined, but in fact believed, that the real world was one in which planets and the sun moved about the earth in "spheres". And that belief, it turns out, is inconsistent with many, many ovservations about the real world, the planets and the sun.

But Aristotle was able to maintain his false beliefs because he didn't know about those observations (most of them not having been made yet).

The stories that me and my players tell when we play Classic Traveller are not internally consistent, because we posit both that human beings have the biology and biochemistry they do in the real workd, and that solar systems exist, and are formed, just as they are in the real world, and yet we also posit FTL travel by means of "jump" drives, which is clearly inconsistent with all that other scientific fact.

We maintain our story by simply not focusing our attention on the points of contradiction.

The idea that tellers of fairy stories are, in fact, imagining that the world is governed by the scientific rules taught in science faculties, and are therefore positing that their pixies and giants and pegasi and giant scorpions and the like all have bizarre unearthly biology that makes their existence physically possible, is one that I've not encountered until you and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] advocated it in this thread.