Forked: GTS - A need for "A robust system that handles things outside of combat"?

[alleynbard]

What I think would be best, is basically to design non-combat roles that function similar to classes. A non-combat role is like a template that fits on over your regular class. The same way you have Encounter/utility/daily powers, your non-combat Role would grant you Out-of-Combat powers that fit in with that role. The various Out-of-Combat powers would interact with the Non-Combat system.

I find this to be an intriguing idea. If done well I could see using something like this. But, such a system could be modular enough that I could ignore it as well.

 

[Rechan]

I find this to be an intriguing idea. If done well I could see using something like this. But, such a system could be modular enough that I could ignore it as well.

For the idea, what I would love would be the ability to put any Non-Combat role on any class, and it work. So, a Wizard could be a Tough Guy (Intimidate and Endurance), and a Fighter could be a Scholar (History, Nature/Religion/Arcana).

(Really my ideal setup for this situation would be removing skills from the classes, and placing the skills into the non-combat roles. But that would require a fair re-write of the rules. Especially because some classes seem balanced to have more skills than the others.)

 

[Ariosto]

But that would require a fair re-write of the rules. Especially because some classes seem balanced to have more skills than the others.)

Modularity, baby! When every little jot and tittle is "balancing" something somewhere else, the term robust really does not apply.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

snip

I guess I'm not seeing the difference between roleplaying a great swordsman and having it supported mechanically (so I can actually do the things in game that a swordsman can do and not look the part of the fool when I roll) or wanting to be a great gambler and have it mechanically supported in a game (so I don't look like a goofball instead of a cool gambler when I roll against others or NPC's).

These are two interesting examples and I find that I must comment despite the late hour here. Its nearly 2 in the morning)
I favour the rules light approach to rp and in you examples I do see a difference between the rules and the rp. The great swordsman is likley to get into a lot of fights. How those fights come about is the rp side and how they are resolved uses the combat rules.
Now if your sowrdsman is really great then he should be maxed out in sword combat powers and the relevant skills and stats. Now a fight is not resolved in a single die roll.

In 4e I would not resolve your game of cards in a single die roll either. I think it should be a skill challage rather than something as trite as a maxed gambling skill.
In 4e I would say that it is a skill challange and you use bluff, insight, intimidate. If you are playing the local yokels then its an easy challange if you are playing the high nobility it is hard unless you know the guy is a bad gambler before hand and I would have no objection to doing some research before hand.As another skill challange using, history and streetwise modified by what actions you take to find out about your marks gambling habits.

If WoTC add a non combat task resolution system that allows special powers or some more elaborate version of the skill challange system. Then I would be interested in looking at it but I think it should be optional and I have come to dislike systems that use skill points and skill lists because the skill list tend to leave odd gaps, corner cases and wierd synergies.


Now, I'm off

 

[Cadfan]

A rule is by definition a restriction of options. The only way a specific rule can "open up" options is as an exception to a general rule that limits them.

Technically, you can also have enabling restrictions.

Rules exist in a context. If that context has some feature that stops you from doing something, then a rule can repair the problem. To give an easy example, in Chess the goal is to capture your opponent's king. If you could just move your pieces however you want, say, by teleportation, you could do that on the first round. That would make a pretty lame game. Its only due to the extensive list of restrictions on how and when you can move your pieces that something like a Smyslov / Karpov Variation Caro-Kann defense becomes possible.

 

[Ariosto]

Cadfan, hence

That's not inherently good or bad, just a fact of life. A game is necessarily defined by rules -- at issue is where and by how many.

Those of us accustomed to old-style D&D (and similar RPGs) start with a more permissive general rule. We have no need for a "barbarian" class (and indeed that is a cultural rather than occupational term) or the like. We have no need for a detailed resource-allocation sub-game to determine whether Character X is a basket weaver or a bawd.

One certainly can add subsystems to an old-style game, but it is more elegant to have them be at once self contained and open ended.

 

[ExploderWizard]

For the idea, what I would love would be the ability to put any Non-Combat role on any class, and it work. So, a Wizard could be a Tough Guy (Intimidate and Endurance), and a Fighter could be a Scholar (History, Nature/Religion/Arcana).

(Really my ideal setup for this situation would be removing skills from the classes, and placing the skills into the non-combat roles. But that would require a fair re-write of the rules. Especially because some classes seem balanced to have more skills than the others.)

This is exactly what I have done in my homebrew system. Any class can choose any skill set to specialize in. Each character gets 3 different skill sets throughout his/her career and chooses which one is really good (primary), decent (secondary) or only dabbled in (tertiary). No character gets any more or less available skill slots or points than another. Fighters can be thieves, scholars, or diplomats, and wizards can be athletes, rangers, and explorers if thats what is desired. Once skill sets are chosen there are no points to fiddle with, which makes it easy to use the same system for NPC's.

This way, the NPC's don't need classes either. If a guy is a good woodsman but otherwise a normal man, I can just note: NM, ranger P12.
The NPC is then defined as having ranger as a primary skill set equal to a 12th level character. Done.

There is some overlap between skill sets and certain individual skills. Both the ranger, and thief skill sets feature stealth as part of the package for example.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The key is that none of those were incumbent on everyone. There was a very basic set of core rules, easily added to, subtracted from, or modified to taste. That was good because different people had different tastes.

Chivalry & Sorcery, on the other hand, was a very complex system that to a notable extent forced on players the designers' view of what a fantasy game ought to be: a rather "realistic" medieval European world with a Tolkien influence, and magic reflecting the designers' interpretation of real-world magical beliefs. It was not nearly as successful in the market as Dungeons & Dragons, Tunnels & Trolls, RuneQuest or The Fantasy Trip.

Very perceptive comment - I remember Chivalry and Sorcery, and we even tried to play it a few times (made up loads of characters!) - but as you say, it was pretty locked into the designers complicated view of how things 'should' work. I see the same kind of thing in 4e, which is the least easy to modify version of 4e ever IMO. It remains to be seen whether 4e manages to avoid C&S's trajectory - has it got enough momentum from the D&D brand to carry it through?

Cheers

 

[Odysseus]

For the idea, what I would love would be the ability to put any Non-Combat role on any class, and it work. So, a Wizard could be a Tough Guy (Intimidate and Endurance), and a Fighter could be a Scholar (History, Nature/Religion/Arcana).

(Really my ideal setup for this situation would be removing skills from the classes, and placing the skills into the non-combat roles. But that would require a fair re-write of the rules. Especially because some classes seem balanced to have more skills than the others.)

This sounds like a great idea.
I believe the problem with the outside combat resolution. Is that people seem to want to use powers. Where powers really are primarily combat stuff.
If I wanted to play a tough guy wizard, you can lean that way with the use of feats. But you really need , as Rechan pointed out , some seperation between classes, and skills.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Exactly how it was? I beg to differ. Rangers tracked and could use scrying objects, paladins cured disease, thieves had detailed abilities - most for use out of combat, monks had a bunch, druids identified pure water and animals, and characters who attracted followers all did so differently. Class abilties couldn't be picked up by characters outside of the class at all.

But those abilities were locked into classes. You can track in 4E and you can spend feats to make yourself the best tracker in the party, without having to be the Ranger. You can do the job of the old Thief, or the parts you want to be skilled at, without being forced into being a Rogue. Why could only Thieves/Rogues find traps in previous editions? Ritual casters in 4E can scry, cure diseases, etc. With the proper skill checks you should still be allowed to identify pure water and you can make lore checks on any creature. The only example someone gave recently that doesn't exist is the monk's timeless body. And for all I know, there may be an epic destiny that grants just that or maybe we have to wait for the monk to reappear and the ability will appear in the Timeless Master epic destiny.

Alot of the non-combat stuff is still there, its just not locked into the classes. And some of it has been balanced into rituals. Whether you like rituals or not is another matter, but it is there.

What I was referring more to is the difference between a Samurai and Viking in 1E (before Oriental Adventures). You just described your Fighter as either one and wrote your background accordingly. In 2E (after kits were introduced) the trend started that you "couldn't" be a samurai or a viking unless you took the kit. In 3E it was a base class or a prestige class that defined you. I don't have a problem with new and intersting classes, but I like the advice in the 4E PHB to reflavor your PC as you wish. Its this imagination that makes characters fun.