101 roleplaying descriptions justifying martial dailies

[Ariosto]

Champions (a.k.a. Hero System) has been providing a combination of far-out powers and a detailed tactical combat board game in an RPG since 1981. Here are some key differences from 4E.

(1) On the "design for effect and balance" front, it uses a point system to build powers from basic effects, advantages and limitations. General "special effects", corresponding to 4E "flavor text" (such as whether an Energy Blast effect is fire, sonic vibrations, bullets, or whatever), are decided when the power is built. If Snowflake uses ice powers, then common consequences should be reflected in appropriate advantages and limitations (which modify the power's point value). Knowing that they are ice powers, the GM can adjudicate unforeseen consequences.

(2) There are general rules for just about any situation, and it's not necessary to have a special power to do something other than in a special way. A short menu of combat maneuvers (punch, haymaker, kick, block, dodge, grab, move by, move through, other attacks) can be used to reflect more than just those literal moves, with associated factors applied to offense, defense, and damage.

So, both powers and actions can be described first in non-game terms and then translated into corresponding numbers and dice rolls. A well-designed modern superhero game by nature must deal with an adequate scope of phenomena to cover any other genre. Whether the scale of ratings or treatment of effects is satisfactory in another context is another matter.

 

[Pbartender]

Here are some key differences from 4E.

(1) On the "design for effect and balance" front, it uses a point system to build powers from basic effects, advantages and limitations.

I have to say, a supplement -- or even a short pdf -- that did the same for D&D 4E would be very, very cool. I wouldn't think it would be that difficult, unless the Wizards designers are intent on keeping that process secret.

(2) There are general rules for just about any situation, and it's not necessary to have a special power to do something other than in a special way.

This, however, I firmly believe is a myth... or at least as much of a myth as it was about 3E. It's not that those aren't there, but that people forget about them or overlook them or simply don't bother to use them, because those rules aren't the primary focus in the ruleset the way they are in Champions or some other games.

They aren't as obvious as the scads and oodles of powers and feats listed in 4E, but there are a handful of generalized rules (stunts are a good example, DMG p. 42 is another) for covering anything that hasn't already been specifically covered. In that way, in 4E you can ask the DM "I want to kick the table out from under the guys who are standing on it," and the DM can say, "Sure make a Strength attack vs. their Reflex defense. If you succeed, you can deal unarmed damage to them and they'll fall prone."

I think people just tend to get blinded by the character sheet. I often saw the same thing happen in 3E... players getting into the mindset of "if my character sheet doesn't say I can do it, then I can't."

I'll admit I've had those same problems with my players... I work really hard as a DM to encourage "thinking outside the box" of powers and feats, but my players rarely seem to take the bait. I'm still trying to figure out how to solve that problem.

 

[Ariosto]

4E does not have general rules in the systematic way Champions has them. It has a lot of "exceptions" to general rules that are often self-referential or sometimes even unstated ("just use page 42"). Powers and feats might have general principles behind them, but they are not laid out so clearly and -- really to the point -- lack much context for mapping phenomena in the world to game ratings.

This is where 3E shines by comparison, for those who have such a preference along with one for rules heaviness. It followed in the steps of RuneQuest and Champions in constructing a sort of "world machine" that can answer a lot of questions on grounds other than "what set of numbers makes for something level appropriate".

 

[Ariosto]

In other words, being able to "build a game model" of a panther or a Panzer and then figure out what "level" it should be is significantly different from having to start with an abstraction and then "skin" it superficially to resemble a mammal or machine.

 

[Pbartender]

4E does not have general rules in the systematic way Champions has them.

Don't get me wrong... On this point, I totally agree with you.

4E does have that style of general rule for unexpected actions and situations, but they are presented and implemented in such a way as to make them easily overlooked and almost entirely forgettable.

If they had spent just a little more page space to explaining how to use those general rules appropriately, it'd probably solve a few (maybe not all, but at least some) of the sorts of problems you're talking about.

This is where 3E shines by comparison, for those who have such a preference along with one for rules heaviness. It followed in the steps of RuneQuest and Champions in constructing a sort of "world machine" that can answer a lot of questions on grounds other than "what set of numbers makes for something level appropriate".

I suppose it all depends on how complete you need the ruleset to be. That's different for everybody.

3E definitely had specific rules for (almost) everything. It excelled at that. But it never really seemed to have any well-designed "general" rule for the situations that the extensive specific rules didn't cover... Or at least, that's the mindset my players (and an awful lot of DMs) seemed to fall into.

If there wasn't a specific rule, how did you handle it? Many players and DMs were practically paralyzed by the prospect. I once had a player would proverbially gnash his teeth and tear out his hair, if I made up a rule (using other rules as examples and precedent, of course) on the spot. He was never satisfied, unless the ruling appeared in print.

In that way, at least, 4E helps me out... they at least put the "If you can't find it here, make it up. Here are some guidelines." part of DMing in black and white, even if it is a bit vague.

 

[Dausuul]

I'll admit I've had those same problems with my players... I work really hard as a DM to encourage "thinking outside the box" of powers and feats, but my players rarely seem to take the bait. I'm still trying to figure out how to solve that problem.

I think it's a consequence of the powers system. A 4E player devotes a huge amount of brain space to reading, comprehending, choosing, remembering, and using powers. That doesn't leave a lot of room for thinking about situational options.

This cropped up in previous editions, too. The distinction was clearest pre-3E; in my experience, AD&D fighters tried crazy stunts all the time, thieves fairly often, clerics infrequently and magi almost never.

When a fighter was confronted with a tough situation, the player would look down at the fighter's character sheet and see a THAC0 and a damage die and pretty much nothing else. It was trivially easy to remember how your rules-based fighter abilities worked because you only had one of them: Whack it with a sword. If that was enough to solve the problem, well and good. If not, time to come up with something outside the rules.

When a mage was confronted with a tough situation, the player would look down at the mage's character sheet and see a long list of spells. S/he would then have to think: Will this spell solve the problem? Is it worth expending the spell on? Would another spell do the job better or more cheaply? And does this spell work the way I remember, or have I forgotten some key detail? Keeping track of all that was a time- and brain-consuming occupation. (It didn't help that magi had spells for almost every situation, so as a mage you soon came to assume that the solution to everything was somewhere in your spellbook.)

 

[Mallus]

Champions (a.k.a. Hero System) has been providing a combination of far-out powers and a detailed tactical combat board game in an RPG since 1981.

I liked Champions/HERO. I'd be playing it now, if it weren't for Mutants and Masterminds. Actually, its experience playing effects-based systems like those that helps 4e go down like a nice Scotch. Or perhaps a reposada tequila (4e is rather new).

General "special effects", corresponding to 4E "flavor text" (such as whether an Energy Blast effect is fire, sonic vibrations, bullets, or whatever), are decided when the power is built.

Right. But there's no requirement that the description of a power makes any kind of logical sense in the in-game world (which is the problem some people have with 4e martial abilities, isn't it?). Nor do the powers carry any implications, outside of the effects purchased.

For instance, with Champions, I could create The Bushman, a normal man who can throw a boomerang that's as damaging as a Tomahawk missile. I could make the boomerang explode. I could make it strike a person's psyche. I could do quite a few things, and then justify them using my skills as a inveterate BS artist (ie, an imaginative fellow).

If Snowflake uses ice powers, then common consequences should be reflected in appropriate advantages and limitations (which modify the power's point value).

Only if the player builds the character that way. In the same way PC guns in Champions only run out of ammo/energy if specifically constructed to do so.

Knowing that they are ice powers, the GM can adjudicate unforeseen consequences.

As can a 4e DM rule that a specific power can't be used in a specific situation. I imagine both the DM and GM should do this no more than rarely.

A short menu of combat maneuvers (punch, haymaker, kick, block, dodge, grab, move by, move through, other attacks) can be used to reflect more than just those literal moves, with associated factors applied to offense, defense, and damage.

Easy enough to do in 4e.

 

[Greg K]

I liked Champions/HERO. I'd be playing it now, if it weren't for Mutants and Masterminds. Actually, its experience playing effects-based systems like those that helps 4e go down like a nice Scotch. Or perhaps a reposada tequila (4e is rather new).

Experience with Hero System and M&M makes me look at the 4e power system with disatisfaction. I want the system behind the powers. The same experience also leads to my dislike of 4e's treatment of Animal Companions, Familiars, and Spirit Companions. Hero in its early days worked similar to 4e in that your companion was a series of powers and not an indivual incapable of acting on its own. Hero, thankfully, moved away from that model and Steve Kenson was smart enough to avoid the early edition of Hero problems (see the M&M sidekick feat and summon (minion) power).

For instance, with Champions, I could create The Bushman, a normal man who can throw a boomerang that's as damaging as a Tomahawk missile. I could make the boomerang explode. I could make it strike a person's psyche. I could do quite a few things, and then justify them using my skills as a inveterate BS artist (ie, an imaginative fellow).

Only if your GM lets you get away with it outside a superhero setting. Plus, the Hero System has different sourcebooks that can set parameters that are differentiate Superheroes from other generes.

Only if the player builds the character that way. In the same way PC guns in Champions only run out of ammo/energy if specifically constructed to do so.

Depends on the type of gun considering that the Hero System gives you several real world weapons or categories of weapons and the GM might limit you to them. And, again, the genre is an imporant consideration. Champions is the superhero genre for Hero System. You still have Fantasy Hero, Pulp Hero, etc.

Plus, you don't necessarily need the power system in Hero to build "martial" characters.

 

[LostSoul]

(2) There are general rules for just about any situation, and it's not necessary to have a special power to do something other than in a special way.

So, both powers and actions can be described first in non-game terms and then translated into corresponding numbers and dice rolls.

I think that 4E has this; I think it's the basis of the system.

It is your [Stat] attack vs. [Defense].

This can be described in non-game terms and translated into game terms. This is, in fact, how you create monster abilities. Fluff first (what does this monster do) and then translate that into rules (lvl 4 controller... +x vs AC, +x vs NADs; x damage on a hit).

 

[Mallus]

Experience with Hero System and M&M makes me look at the 4e power system with dissatisfaction. I want the system behind the powers.

Different strokes and all... but I do think 4e is fairly transparent when it comes to the system behind the powers, for a class-based rules set.

Only if your GM lets you get away with it outside a superhero setting.

I did say Champions, didn't I?

Plus, you don't necessarily need the power system in Hero to build "martial" characters.

My point is you can use it to create martial characters who defy nearly all logic, but not all genre convention which require a little creative narration when describing them in action (not unlike a 4e fighter).

I guess this is all about your comfort level with certain genre assumptions. I don't mind a wizard PC pulling a ball of explosive wahoo out of thin air. Neither do I mind a fighter PC with the crazy eye, capable of luring foes to their doom with no more than a Toshiro Mifune glare...