Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[sheadunne]

[MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] What you saw manifest in play is probably 3 (maybe even 4) different playstyle agendas going on between the players. I'm pretty malleable as a GM (pacing, genre conceits and creative agenda) but my preferences is are something of collage of Die Hard meets Indiana Jones meets Spaghetti Western. The latter part may seem to make the whole disfunctional but I find that its a gear and mood that I can hit relatively seemlessly even if play is primarily about the big damn hero stuff. I'm a big fan of the 4e Minor and Major quest system because it truly helps to calibrate playstyle expectations and content that you will be mutually engaging with as a group. This certainly helps alleviate some of what you speak to. However, sometimes players just want different things and that is that.

I can see that. As I said, I think it works. I think it would work exceeding well in a group of gamers that are familiar with each other and have similar agendas. As a DM I think formalizing some of the intent through quests (major/minor) would be a valuable asset for determining what to focus on as a DM during play.

Again, this is my multiple gaming personality disorder talking. As a DM I am more interested in a variation of your style than I probably am as a player. As a player I'm all about the big story, the link between the characters. As a DM I like to delve a little deeper into each players uniqueness. It's probably why I DM more than I play. A single character doesn't usually meet my gaming needs and so I want to focus on the bigger stuff.

 

[sheadunne]

Icons are a subsystem that can entirely be removed without trouble. About the only place elsewhere in the mechanics they touch is a couple of optional talents, and people can just avoid taking those.

That's good to know, it makes me less hesitant about the system. Although I'd probably snag a copy anyway because I'm always looking for good ideas that I can integrate into my gaming.

 

[LostSoul]

What you saw manifest in play is probably 3 (maybe even 4) different playstyle agendas going on between the players.

Interesting. What do you think the differences were?

 

[Hussar]

We had a couple of people try MT. It never turned out to be as powerful as single classing a character so it fell out of favor rather quickly.

Our philosophy was that if we had a level 20 cleric and a level 20 wizard that was much better than having a level 20 MT. That same philosophy traveled downwards so that at any particular level, the single class character was just better enough to make MT kind of useless.

After all, you can only cast one spell a round(or 2 in some circumstances). There were often 3-4 rounds of combat in a day. Having more than 8 spells prepared were overkill. It was much better to cast ONE 9th level spell than have 4 8th level spells.

Well yes of course. Two full level casters should be better. As you say, the action economy would see to that.

 

[Manbearcat]

Interesting. What do you think the differences were?

This is an extremely superficial overview, but if I have to put words to it, I'd probably go this route:

Campbell - I believe he has an admiration for WoD. Lucann's backstory was distinct and focused. Primarily interested in pursuing thematic questions of internal struggles over morality; love, sacrifice, and oaths sworn and exploring the system and these techniques to see its boundaries to that end.

LostSoul - Experience with and admiration for Sorcerer quite clear. Quinn was very unfixed. Focused on themes that explored his humanity, specifically the effect of doing dark deeds and interacting with dark powers, and the swingey nature of hope and despair in a harsh and unforgiving world. Interested in trying to push the system to see its boundaries and functionality.

pemerton - Reverence for the Paladin paradigm and Arthurian Romance very clear. Thurgon's backstory was distinct and focused on the virtues and themes embedded in both of the former and cues mean to hook the GM toward the conflict of "beacon of light versus encroaching darkness." The play that comes out of those themes and virtues is very "pulp" D&D knight in shining armor and produces big damn hero play perfectly. The paladin leads the way in D&D games and pemerton was prepared (and is very likely of a disposition to do so) to do so. Knows the system in and out, the techniques and playstyle so was basically just playing to assist play to that end.

sheadunne - A bit of a sword and sorcery vibe. Theron had plenty of fixed backstory but it set up for basically one focused theme to explore; "Men of action can be trusted and counted on. Is Thurgon such a man?" As a man of action and looking for big, damn hero play, anything unrelated to that would be deemed extraneous. Very similar to how I imagine [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s table disposition might be (perhaps less strident however ). Below average experience in the system. Mostly trying to see how the techniques and agenda marries to the system (as he understands it) and pushes forth the genre play he was looking for.

Thurgon and Theron easily mesh together thematically as PCs. To get Lucann and Quinn calibrated would take some overt effort (which was why I mentioned Minor and Major Quests...more specifically, an overt community effort to that end.).

 

[pemerton]

I didn't see anything of the sort with the way the powers and abilities are displayed. I

<snip>

One of my issues in D&D in general (any edition) is that not much thought has been put into developing abilities, powers, spells, etc, that both work within the combat framework and the non-combat framework. It's an issue I've brought up before in other threads.

<snip>

What is it about CaGI that can also carry over into the non-combat arena? And how do you go about presenting that in a way that doesn't require DM interpretation and altering the power itself during play

<snip>

I don't disagree with you that the tools are available, only that if it were the intention, more thought would have gone into the system to make it explicit in the presentation of powers, rather than in either DMG advice or overall structure components (encounter powers and healing surges).

I think 4e is a little better at this than some other versions of D&D, but I agree with you that it is a big issue. (As I have agreed with your earlier posts along these lines!)

Hopefully from the PBP you got a sense of why [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] and I compare 4e skills to the sorts of "free descriptors" you get in games like HeroWars/Quest or Fate (I think) or Marvel Heroic RP: it's much more about the player and GM working their way through the fictional framing and consequences of the scene, than a menu-list of DCs vs tasks.

The closest that 4e comes to integrating encounter attack powers into this framework is in the DMG2, where it suggests that use of an appropriate encounter power can add +2 to a check, or give some other comparable advantage. But - just as you describe in your post - what counts as "appropriate" is left up to GM interpretation, and often the powers don't have the same sort of "free descriptor hooks" that the skills do (eg they're a lot more prescriptive and fiddly in their textual presentation), which I think feeds into your concern that using attack powers in this way "alters the power itself during play."

I don't see how a game that wants to drive such a strong mechanical wedge between combat and non-combat resolution as D&D does can properly handle this issue, but that's probably the limits of my imagination rather than the technical limits of RPG design.

I much more interested in keeping character outside of play, especially when I'm a fellow player.

<snip>

As I said though, it's a preference thing and not a play style or game system thing.

<snip>

I'm just not interested in exploring character conflict during my limited game time.

I agree with you this is a preference as well as a structural system issue, but some systems can better support character development and conflict than others.

My preference is different from yours, and there is a lot of character conflict in my 4e game that is emerging from latent or suppressed to full-fledged, but the game makes it hard to handle because of its default assumptions (on both player and GM sides) around party play.

Once the 4e campaign is finished I am hoping my group will agree to let me run Burning Wheel, which both emphasises character development as the key focus of play, and which doesn't have the same mechanical assumptions about party play, and therefore should make it easier to handle character conflict without having the game's functionality break down.

I'm always looking for good ideas that I can integrate into my gaming.

You're probably heard of the escalation die even without a copy of 13th Age. I am planning to use that soon in my 4e game so that level 25 PC can take on Torog (level 34 solo): my plan, assuming that the players carry through on their current intent of entering and disrupting Torog's Soul Abattoir, is for the collapse of the Abattoir and the consequent cutting off of a flow of psychic energy to Torog to manifest as a d8 escalation die.

And (mixing 4e thinking with 13th Age thinking) I think there's a good chance that the invoker/wizard PC, rather than fighting Torog directly, will probably want to speed up the disruption so as to buff the rest of the party by escalating the escalation die.

 

[sheadunne]

I think 4e is a little better at this than some other versions of D&D, but I agree with you that it is a big issue. (As I have agreed with your earlier posts along these lines!)

Hopefully from the PBP you got a sense of why [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] and I compare 4e skills to the sorts of "free descriptors" you get in games like HeroWars/Quest or Fate (I think) or Marvel Heroic RP: it's much more about the player and GM working their way through the fictional framing and consequences of the scene, than a menu-list of DCs vs tasks.

It's the way I've been leaning toward skills for a little while now. The separation of knowledge and action skills in 3x bugs me. 4e was on the right track, but skills still feel like a separate entity from the rest of the system, probably because it was developed after combat and hasn't ever been fully integrated into the system. I agree with you and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] that the Heal skill (in any edition) is weak and needs something . . . what that is I don't know.

The closest that 4e comes to integrating encounter attack powers into this framework is in the DMG2, where it suggests that use of an appropriate encounter power can add +2 to a check, or give some other comparable advantage. But - just as you describe in your post - what counts as "appropriate" is left up to GM interpretation, and often the powers don't have the same sort of "free descriptor hooks" that the skills do (eg they're a lot more prescriptive and fiddly in their textual presentation), which I think feeds into your concern that using attack powers in this way "alters the power itself during play."

I don't see how a game that wants to drive such a strong mechanical wedge between combat and non-combat resolution as D&D does can properly handle this issue, but that's probably the limits of my imagination rather than the technical limits of RPG design.

I seem to have the same limitation because I haven't found anyway yet either.

I agree with you this is a preference as well as a structural system issue, but some systems can better support character development and conflict than others.

My preference is different from yours, and there is a lot of character conflict in my 4e game that is emerging from latent or suppressed to full-fledged, but the game makes it hard to handle because of its default assumptions (on both player and GM sides) around party play.

Once the 4e campaign is finished I am hoping my group will agree to let me run Burning Wheel, which both emphasises character development as the key focus of play, and which doesn't have the same mechanical assumptions about party play, and therefore should make it easier to handle character conflict without having the game's functionality break down.

I'd like to try Burning Wheel at some point. It does seem to focus more on character development and I would be interested to see how imbalance of characters comes together in a game.

You're probably heard of the escalation die even without a copy of 13th Age. I am planning to use that soon in my 4e game so that level 25 PC can take on Torog (level 34 solo): my plan, assuming that the players carry through on their current intent of entering and disrupting Torog's Soul Abattoir, is for the collapse of the Abattoir and the consequent cutting off of a flow of psychic energy to Torog to manifest as a d8 escalation die.

And (mixing 4e thinking with 13th Age thinking) I think there's a good chance that the invoker/wizard PC, rather than fighting Torog directly, will probably want to speed up the disruption so as to buff the rest of the party by escalating the escalation die.

The escalation die is something, while not having read it directly, seems like a great idea, even if it's only implemented during slow or non-productive scenes. I currently use a complication die that allows the player to raise the stakes in return for a greater chance of success. The active player chooses another player at the table to roll a second d20. The active player can use either die result. If the complication die result is equal to or higher than the active player's die, whether or not a success as occurred, a complication has happened, which is chosen by the player rolling the complication die. The complication is limited to anything that can be recovered from with a move action. For instance, if a player is making an attack roll against an ogre and decides he really wants to hit the ogre, he nominates another player at the table to roll a second die. If that die is higher than his own, regardless of success, a complication has happened. On an success, this could be something like his sword getting stuck in the ogres bones and requires a move action to remove. If a failure has happened, maybe the attacker drops his weapon or slips on the ground during the attack. I've been enjoying it and my players seem to enjoy it (it's entirely in the players hands whether to use it or not). It's completely optional by the player but can make for some interesting scenes. Mechanically speaking it's the equivalent of a +5 on the D20 roll in exchange for a move action. It's still in development but I like both the optional use by the players and the resolution being in the hands of the players.

 

[sheadunne]

This is an extremely superficial overview, but if I have to put words to it, I'd probably go this route:

Campbell - I believe he has an admiration for WoD. Lucann's backstory was distinct and focused. Primarily interested in pursuing thematic questions of internal struggles over morality; love, sacrifice, and oaths sworn and exploring the system and these techniques to see its boundaries to that end.

LostSoul - Experience with and admiration for Sorcerer quite clear. Quinn was very unfixed. Focused on themes that explored his humanity, specifically the effect of doing dark deeds and interacting with dark powers, and the swingey nature of hope and despair in a harsh and unforgiving world. Interested in trying to push the system to see its boundaries and functionality.

pemerton - Reverence for the Paladin paradigm and Arthurian Romance very clear. Thurgon's backstory was distinct and focused on the virtues and themes embedded in both of the former and cues mean to hook the GM toward the conflict of "beacon of light versus encroaching darkness." The play that comes out of those themes and virtues is very "pulp" D&D knight in shining armor and produces big damn hero play perfectly. The paladin leads the way in D&D games and pemerton was prepared (and is very likely of a disposition to do so) to do so. Knows the system in and out, the techniques and playstyle so was basically just playing to assist play to that end.

sheadunne - A bit of a sword and sorcery vibe. Theron had plenty of fixed backstory but it set up for basically one focused theme to explore; "Men of action can be trusted and counted on. Is Thurgon such a man?" As a man of action and looking for big, damn hero play, anything unrelated to that would be deemed extraneous. Very similar to how I imagine [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s table disposition might be (perhaps less strident however ). Below average experience in the system. Mostly trying to see how the techniques and agenda marries to the system (as he understands it) and pushes forth the genre play he was looking for.

Thurgon and Theron easily mesh together thematically as PCs. To get Lucann and Quinn calibrated would take some overt effort (which was why I mentioned Minor and Major Quests...more specifically, an overt community effort to that end.).

I think that's a good assessment.

 

[Bluenose]

Hopefully from the PBP you got a sense of why @Manbearcat, @Neonchameleon and I compare 4e skills to the sorts of "free descriptors" you get in games like HeroWars/Quest or Fate (I think) or Marvel Heroic RP: it's much more about the player and GM working their way through the fictional framing and consequences of the scene, than a menu-list of DCs vs tasks.

Fate (Core, at least) has defined skills. Eighteen of them, of which a starting character has ten. Stunts and Aspects are much closer to free description. It's worth noting that Fight, Shoot, Physique and Will are skills in Fate, where D&D would include them in other ways than skills. 4e skills certainly work quite close to the way Fate skills do. I'd argue that the same is true to some degree of NWPs from AD&D and the equivalent Skill system from BECMI are somewhat the same way, 3e in that respect is an outlier in some places, while remaining vague in others - if I bargain with a merchant for a better price, what does it mean that I shifted their attitude, and do they get to try and shift mine as well?

 

[pemerton]

Fate (Core, at least) has defined skills.

<snip>

4e skills certainly work quite close to the way Fate skills do. I'd argue that the same is true to some degree of NWPs from AD&D and the equivalent Skill system from BECMI

Thanks for the Fate info. I can see the comparison of 4e skills to AD&D proficiencies, although there is such a large numer of proficiencies in AD&D, and PCs get so few of them, that I think in practice it can inclined to "forced incompetence" rather than the flexible competence of a "free descriptor" approach.

Marvel Heroic RP doesn't strictly have free descriptors either - there are lists of powers and of skills (callled "specialties"), though some other parts of the character sheet are literally free descriptors ("distinctions"), and the use of powers and skills is much closer to a flexible free descriptor approach.

I think with both MHRP and 4e the "free descriptor" approach applied to a finite skill list is part of what anchors them to their particular genres.