Design Space - What are the biggest gaps in 4th Edition?

[AbdulAlhazred]

So with mustrum ridcully´s system, i would believe honor would be something along this line:

Player: "I chose not to withdraw in battle and use mark although I am already bloodied, because my protegé may not be hurt."

DM: "You gain an action point you may use next round."

That is actually something I would play with immediately. (And something I will remember if such a situation occurs in the game I DM. (Why do you need to actively take such a flaw* when you can just reward roleplaying.)

*Maybe it will help as a guideline... maybe someone would propose an unearthed arcan article on such flaws?

Yeah, there are a few ways you can slice it and dice it. I'd call them 'character traits' or just 'traits' for short. You could have them be fairly specific, but they could also be very general. In other words the guy who is 'honorable' might well refuse to ever bluff, which might often gain him some other useful advantage like better diplomacy "Oh, knights of Ungeheuerlich never lie, so we can trust him." but it also might do as you suggest in a combat situation.

Maybe the way to write it up would be to simply provide a bunch of possible boons and disadvantages that might accrue to someone using that trait. The player or DM can suggest when one comes into play and the DM or player would then grant a boon or extract a penalty as appropriate. Personally I'm not fond of tracking extra resources, but I don't think you have to. Even if a player really tries to game that kind of system the DM is pretty much free to flail on the character via plot as much as needed to keep it reasonable. Boons can generally be simple situational things, a bonus to a skill check, a +2 to hit or damage EONT, etc. The size of the reward or degree of disadvantage would really be left up to the situation and what makes sense. So maybe each trait could suggest a few 'minor' boons and penalties, and a couple of 'major' ones for when they're appropriate, with the understanding it isn't a definitive list, just more of a guide to what is appropriately balancing.

It probably would make a pretty good UA article.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Risking to provoke some flames... fortune cards could be used as boons for good RP...

 

[Zaran]

Risking to provoke some flames... fortune cards could be used as boons for good RP...

I rather not pay 50 cents a pop for random boons.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I also won´t... but it could be an idea... (if you take it back at the end of the encounter, you save money... or the player should get them himself...)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Eh, I don't think the cards are all that expensive. Consider them to be a random table of possible benefits characters can get in combat and hand them out as rewards. They could be rewards for exercising a character trait that is appropriate in the situation, or for other things. Personally I think it is a better use for them than the way they were designed. Players can't expect to get them, but they can work towards getting them. Really, buying a pack or two isn't going to be that expensive. You could just make up a chart, but then you still need some token to remind the player he's got the boon. In that sense the cards do make sense.

 

[mudlock]

This is actually a flaw system I like. Which game does use it?

White Wolf's new world of darkness for one. And having run a 30+ player game (larp) under both the old and new rules, the effect was that we went from, under the old system which gave build points for flaws, having about 70% of players with at least one flaw and 20% with the maximum number of flaws we would allow, to literally NO ONE having flaws.

(Which is why I agree with the assessment that flaws are, by and large, only for min-maxers.)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I know what i speak of... i feel compelled to min-max myself... i like the different approach much more... and old WoD was one of the biggest offenders IMHO... along with Arcane Codex (a small german system) and shadow run...

 

[KidSnide]

I think a lot of stuff should be DISCUSSED in some game resource. I'm not sure a lot of 'this is how to do it' need exist.

A lot of stuff is actually best done in a quite informal way. For instance let us suppose that a PC wants to be a cobbler. Obviously this is irrelevant to adventuring for the most part and might touch on a game aspect once or twice in a campaign. It isn't worth any character resources that can be used for anything else. Given that there are no rules for cobbling and shouldn't be any in an RPG about killing monsters, it should simply be something the player writes on his sheet "Morkus is a good cobbler, he was apprenticed to the town cobbler for 4 years." That's IT. DM's Friend can be invoked to make it mean something on that one day of the character's life when his cobbling knowledge might matter. If the player wants to ACQUIRE a new 'skill' like that, well just let him. Tell him he's got to spend a good chunk of campaign time learning the skill well enough to matter (quite possibly a year or more). At that point, voila, he can cobble! It really doesn't matter. If a player wants to acquire 82 umpty squat of these kinds of 'skills' that's his business. How he's going to wedge in the time in the campaign timeline is also his business.

Non-adventuring skills matter (and deserve mechanics) when they apply to a type of action that is a major focus of the campaign. If 30% of the campaign is non-adventuring, than the PCs should each have a non-adventuring niche (appropriate to the campaign) so they can each shine in a distinct way.

If a player wants a character who's a cobbler, than - yes - any decent GM can just say "it is so." But that's not a general answer to non-adventuring skills, that's a particular answer to the question of minor trade skills. It's OK to say "you're PC is a competent" cobbler for no mechanical cost because -- unless the campaign has an unusual focus on shoes -- there is little mechanical benefit. A cobbler PC isn't stepping on the toes of any other PCs (as it were).

Game mechanics are important when the skills in question are an important part of the campaign. If the campaign is truly 98% adventuring, then it's appropriate to treat all non-adventuring skills with a non-mechanical handwave. If the campaign involves a large amount of royal intrigue, then it's its important that the PCs have intrigue-related abilities that allow each of them to shine in different intrigue-related ways. If a campaign is nautical then a different set of niches are appropriate for the PCs. A campaign with lots of mass combat should allow the PCs to participate in mass combat in distinct ways also. If a campaign is actually about a collection of very-low-level characters playing the leaders of a village (a little boring to me, but - hey - I'm sure it's someone's idea of fun), then mechanics for trade skills might be important.

A core aspect of the D&D adventuring rules (i.e. most of them) is that they provide PCs with niche protection. Particularly with 4e, a player picks a role and - by virtue of that role - has a capability to uniquely contribute to the group's success. Good non-adventuring rules should also give each PC a non-adventuring niche. The challenge is that one campaign's solid niche is another campaign's useless ability. That why (1) non-adventuring rules should be optional, and (2) when creating non-adventuring rules the designer needs to focus those rules on the types of campaigns for which they are important.

The objective is not to create a single set of non-adventuring rules appropriate for all campaigns. The objective should be to create a small library of well thought out non-adventuring rules that can be mixed-and-matched to support a wide range of campaigns.

-KS

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is actually a flaw system I like. Which game does use it?

Well, when [MENTION=99]Rel[/MENTION] masters Savage Worlds, he uses flaws like that. (Though the core concept of the flaws is more along what you dislike.)

Torg had such a system as well (it was originally focused on its pulp heroes superpowers)

I am not intimately familiar with most of the systems and don't remember all the system names that I remember being mentioned in this context.

Fate is a system that uses a concept like this, though it also does not differentiate between edges and flaws in that sense, if I understand it correctly. You can give your character aspects, and you can "invoke" an aspect to get an advantage, which costs an in-game resource. Alternatively, the DM can "compel" an aspect to make you do something negative for your character, but if you do so, you gain an in-game resource, and you can buy the compel off with a in-game resource. (So you either lose or gain something when the DM does so). (See also: Fate in a Nutshell - Evil Hat Productions Wiki)

White Wolf's new world of darkness for one. And having run a 30+ player game (larp) under both the old and new rules, the effect was that we went from, under the old system which gave build points for flaws, having about 70% of players with at least one flaw and 20% with the maximum number of flaws we would allow, to literally NO ONE having flaws.

(Which is why I agree with the assessment that flaws are, by and large, only for min-maxers.)

It seems the benefit derived from flaws is not that relevant in World of Darkness? Or maybe the ambience of LARPing doesn't support it well.

If you read some "story-hours" by [MENTION=1656]Hypersmurf[/MENTION] on how he plays his character in such a system (I think thy are using Swashbucklers of the Seven Skies?), you can see a real master as the use of it. The stories and scenes creating by using the system seem particularly interesting (and not just pure "Power-gaming")

Of course, not every system works for everyone

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Non-adventuring skills matter (and deserve mechanics) when they apply to a type of action that is a major focus of the campaign. If 30% of the campaign is non-adventuring, than the PCs should each have a non-adventuring niche (appropriate to the campaign) so they can each shine in a distinct way.

If a player wants a character who's a cobbler, than - yes - any decent GM can just say "it is so." But that's not a general answer to non-adventuring skills, that's a particular answer to the question of minor trade skills. It's OK to say "you're PC is a competent" cobbler for no mechanical cost because -- unless the campaign has an unusual focus on shoes -- there is little mechanical benefit. A cobbler PC isn't stepping on the toes of any other PCs (as it were).

Game mechanics are important when the skills in question are an important part of the campaign. If the campaign is truly 98% adventuring, then it's appropriate to treat all non-adventuring skills with a non-mechanical handwave. If the campaign involves a large amount of royal intrigue, then it's its important that the PCs have intrigue-related abilities that allow each of them to shine in different intrigue-related ways. If a campaign is nautical then a different set of niches are appropriate for the PCs. A campaign with lots of mass combat should allow the PCs to participate in mass combat in distinct ways also. If a campaign is actually about a collection of very-low-level characters playing the leaders of a village (a little boring to me, but - hey - I'm sure it's someone's idea of fun), then mechanics for trade skills might be important.

A core aspect of the D&D adventuring rules (i.e. most of them) is that they provide PCs with niche protection. Particularly with 4e, a player picks a role and - by virtue of that role - has a capability to uniquely contribute to the group's success. Good non-adventuring rules should also give each PC a non-adventuring niche. The challenge is that one campaign's solid niche is another campaign's useless ability. That why (1) non-adventuring rules should be optional, and (2) when creating non-adventuring rules the designer needs to focus those rules on the types of campaigns for which they are important.

The objective is not to create a single set of non-adventuring rules appropriate for all campaigns. The objective should be to create a small library of well thought out non-adventuring rules that can be mixed-and-matched to support a wide range of campaigns.

-KS

Yeah, OTOH there are a few things that can be said about that. Campaigns where the PCs are spending a lot of the focus on things besides adventuring are a pretty small minority IME. Couple that with the fact that any such systems are going to need to be tweaked at least somewhat to the player's and setting's requirements and it doesn't seem to me that kind of material falls under the umbrella of stuff that a publisher like WotC either can or should provide. It certainly shouldn't be cluttering up core books. I highly doubt a 'Book of Mundane Pursuits' is likely to be an economically feasible project either. I'd also say that these kinds of things tend to be a "labor of love" situation. Someone or some group is very familiar with some sort of activity and they want to incorporate it into their RP. They are vastly more knowledgeable about this activity or sphere than the devs at any game design shop are likely to be. Thus they are infinitely more qualified to craft said subsystem for themselves, and rather unlikely to find something generic satisfactory.

As for say 'intrigue' well, isn't that actually really well covered already? It is fundamentally an adventuring activity. It is going to rely on stealth, observation, persuasion, etc. All of these are core 4e skills and there are good solid rules for them and plenty of ways that players can tweak their characters to reflect any particular archetype they want. I think roles in that kind of adventuring DO already exist. I'm not convinced they should be formalized like combat roles are. You have some character who is the 'face', another that is the 'muscle', another that is the 'expert', etc. These are pretty natural classifications that arise out of the way the skill mechanics work. You can play against them as you can with combat roles, but in general the wizard is going to be the factual know-it-all, the paladin, bard, etc is going to be the negotiator and/or shmoozer, the fighter will be the muscle, and the rogue will sneak around spying on things. They can cover each other reasonably well, but maybe a super JoT bard aside they'll each have their place in the action.

In terms of the actual mechanics of how something like 'intrigue' goes... I think that is far too vast a territory for rules to cover comprehensively. DMs probably most need some guidelines, plot ideas, NPCs, and maybe SC examples and other play examples more than anything else. While I wouldn't say the DMGs have provided a lot of that for intrigue specifically, it seems like some kind of resource book for that kind of stuff wouldn't be a bad idea. It could provide a few goodies for the PCs as well, no reason they can't use MORE mechanics there, but I don't think they need new subsystems. I might be able to see that being more required for say the Nautical themed campaign perhaps. So there can be cases where some added rules would be cool. I'd just keep it to a minimum personally.