Bring Back Verisimilitude, add in More Excitement!

[Sylrae]

I am unfamiliar with the magic system you alluded to but curious, perhaps you could explain its appeal?

Essentially it works like this (explained in D&D3.x-ish terms):
1. No Spells/Day or PP or anything like that.
2. You have to make a Spellcasting roll to cast a spell. DCs are set by the level of the spell, though there are modifiers which apply as well.
2a. If you beat the DC, the spells works as intended. Gravy!
2b. If you fail the DC by alot, nothing happens and you just wasted a turn.
2c. If you fail the DC only by a little bit, you pulled up magical energy, but failed to control it. Bad stuff happens.
You make a roll on a table (d10+spell level), and bad stuff happens, ranging from the spell working normally (4 or less), to the spell going off late, to the caster taking damage, to hitting the wrong target, to the GM making up a dangerous backfire (16+): such as a big magical explosion, or opening a gate to another dimension for a few rounds and demons coming through, or what have you.
You have a "Magic Quality Level"; In PF it would roughly be equivalent to your highest spell level.
Spells that are less than half your highest spell level can be cast indefinitely.
Every time you cast a spell of a level higher than that, you get a cumulative -2 to future casting rolls, due to magical fatigue. The modifier applies to all casting rolls, regardless of spell level.
After 3-4 hours of resting or by spending an action point, the modifier goes away. In a low magic PF I'd probably convert this to reducing the penalty by 2 every hour. In a higher magic PF Game: maybe reduce it by 2 every 30 minutes or something.
Defensive spells don't increase the fatigue penalties, but they are affected by penalties you already have.
All casters are spontaneous.

Additionally, In unisystem (which is classless), all characters can cast spells, but only people with the "Magic Quality" can quick cast them (1 action), or do so from memory. For jim the fighter, magic is something he has to do in a library with a bunch of books; and itll take him 30 minutes to cast the thing.

The variant of this in Ghosts of Albion is my favorite, but the version in the Buffy RPG is only slightly different.

 

[Sylrae]

The trouble with hitpoints...

Interesting.

Not a bad approach.

One time I used a WoD style approach with fixed hitpoints and wound penalties.

It was a real pain figuring out what sort of damage stuff should do though.

I would appreciate if *damage* meant *damage*, and hitpoints meant *how much damage you can take*; even if that means hitpoints dont scale up much.

Because yeah there's always a blurb that says hitpoints represent fatigue and such. But as mentioned, they go down when you get hit, and *take damage*, so its hard to picture it as other than anything than becoming supernaturally resilient. Which is fine, if the goal is to have the characters become supernaturally resilient.

If the goal is to have it represent ducking and weaving and tiring out, in addition to taking damage, it doesn't model it in a way where you get that impression at all.

 

[nnms]

The variant of this in Ghosts of Albion is my favorite, but the version in the Buffy RPG is only slightly different.

I'm actually rereading my copy of this game now.

One thing that excites me about a possible rules light core to D&D Next is how easy it is to house rule or borrow subsystems from other games. In a game with more rules or a lot of interconnected stats, you end up with problems when you start pulling things out. Like compensating clerics for Healer's Lore if you move away from its normal HP and healing surge system.

I would appreciate if *damage* meant *damage*, and hitpoints meant *how much damage you can take*; even if that means hitpoints dont scale up much.

I'm inclined to agree. It just feels like a let down when someone "hits" and then does good "damage" and you narrate it away like it was a miss or inconsequential.

The more glaring instances are when you get the *best* possible hit with a weapon. Critical, max damage possible under the system, etc., and it can't even be an actual wound because it's not enough damage compared to the target's HP and you have to narrate it away as a minor scratch or a miss.

I guess the alternative is that the target has indeed become supernaturally tough and you narrate that.

 

[Sylrae]

I guess the alternative is that the target has indeed become supernaturally tough and you narrate that.

That's what most groups I know have been doing for years.

I'd prefer, if you're not supernaturally tough, represent the mechanics differently.

Vitality and Wound points is one approach... (Starwars)
Dodge and Soak Rolls are another approach... (WoD)
Damage that doesn't scale much, with Fixed HP is a third approach. (Higher Level characters are less likely to get hit, and are more likely to hit the opponent. Against equal leveled characters they cancel out, but how often you hit or miss explains skill differences between characters.)

 

[vagabundo]

Verisimilitude - oh god how I hate that word - comes from the DM not the rule system.

I suppose a badly designed rule system, one with inconsistencies could work against verisimilitude. I think 4e is a well designed rule system (better designed than 3e to nail my colours to the mast), but did introduce some concepts that grated for some people. Martial dailies; healing surges, martial healing; certain powers like Come at me; being some of the oft cited examples.

It took myself a while to get around how to interpret these abilities, when I realised that these were not character powers, but player powers. Some of my DM narrative control has been given to them to use when they will, still subject to Rule 0. Martial dailies/encounter powers are just abstractions of the chance that the a certain set of circumstances occur. A different game might allow a roll on each martial attack to determine if the opportunity exists for a special exploit (let's say two d10s; on a roll of 10 on either die you can use an encounter power, a roll of two 10's allows for a daily or encounter) but the design team took the averages, abstracted them and gave the player the narrative control to say when they would occur. Done. A far more streamlined system. Now it makes sense in-game. Same for Come at Me, slightly more control though or maybe just a bad power, I haven't decided myself. Really it for the DM to supply the oil to the DND imagination machine.

People will find an edition's abstractions that works best for them, but I'm hoping very few of your suggestions make it through, because to give you the level of verisimilitude you'd like would possibly make the game unplayable for me without serious house ruling.

 

[Hassassin]

It took myself a while to get around how to interpret these abilities, when I realised that these were not character powers, but player powers.

This is precisely what rubs many people the wrong way. Player powers and "dissocciated mechanics" go against their notion of "realism" or whatever you call it and breaks their immersion.

 

[vagabundo]

This is precisely what rubs many people the wrong way. Player powers and "dissocciated mechanics" go against their notion of "realism" or whatever you call it and breaks their immersion.

I can see how some players/DM do not like that kind of narrative control, but DND is chock full of dissociated mechanics. People have gotten used to certain mechanics and have raitionalised them a certain way, even if that was not the original intent of the mechanic. If something challenges that by adding to the mechanic, even if it is true to the original intent, this will produce a negative reaction.

There is possibly a balance to be found between interesting and streamlined mechanics, and catering to some of the vast amount of interpretations of those mechanics from previous editions. Nobody is wrong here, DND is abstract game and needs to work at the table for as many groups as possible.

 

[Hassassin]

There is possibly a balance to be found between interesting and streamlined mechanics, and catering to some of the vast amount of interpretations of those mechanics from previous editions. Nobody is wrong here, DND is abstract game and needs to work at the table for as many groups as possible.

Definitely, and as has been said earlier in this thread, I think naming is one way to either botch things or make them more palatable. Even if it doesn't mechanically matter that you call it "healing" it sure affects your interpretation in practice.

 

[vagabundo]

Definitely, and as has been said earlier in this thread, I think naming is one way to either botch things or make them more palatable. Even if it doesn't mechanically matter that you call it "healing" it sure affects your interpretation in practice.

Yeah I think that can help with people initial perceptions. Though I think their are people that want their edition of the game recreated. I don't want 4e I have that edition and am happy with what it does or how I run it.

This "best of" edition is a great idea, although I'm not sure how they can work a core of the game that appeals to enough people - or at least doesn't offend - while still being interesting, not bland, is going to be difficult. Then picking out the plugin options that appeal to the different player bases; grid play, etc... I'm skeptical, but hopeful .

 

[UngainlyTitan]

My issue with this thead is, in my opinion, 4e has more verisimilitude than prior editions. So, if it is brought back, to satisfy those that do not agree with me, then where does that leave me?
Stuck with 4e I guess, which is not so bad bot is not going to encourage me in the the new fold.

My other issue, is that in all previous disucssion of this topic people have a number of breaking point so I am not convinced that there is a majority consensus on the topic.

However, simply bring back the old mechanics leaves me cold. So fine, now we have AD&D or D&D 3e mechanics, but I left them, why would i go back.
You might say well i can have 4e mechanics as a option. All well and good but where does that leave the idea that we can all play the game we want at the same table. Also I already have 4e mechanics, why do i need to buy them again.

I am just really sceptical on this.