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

[Mercurius]

Yet another forked from: GTS 2009 D&D Seminar - the Rouse discusses D&D

@ Scott:

First let me commend you on recognizing that some people have an issue as far as 4e goes and it's very tactical combat centric nature. I think some people are confusing the issue, I don't think people necessarily don't want combat to be tactical... but want a robust system that handles things outside of combat in an interesting way as well. Many are equating it with an either/or thing... when it doesn't have to be.

I see this come up quite a bit and, to be frank, I don't get it. How would creating a more "robust system that handles things outside of combat" make 4E less of a "tactical combat centric" game? I don't mean to pick on Imaro, but his view seems to advocate 4E being more tactical in all aspects of the game, not just combat; the problem being that to apply a tactical approach ("a robust system") to non-combat situations just makes D&D even more based upon rolling dice and less on roling characters.

4E already puts a huge emphasis on rules for role-playing situations; take certain skills like Intimidate or Diplomacy...while these are nothing new they still put the "weight of decision" of the role-playing interaction on a dice roll. I suppose it comes down to the specific DM, and I would hope that bad or good role-playing will influence the roll when it comes down to it.

But again, I disagree that 4E is overly tactically oriented in terms of combat at the expense of non-combat aspects of the game. I think there is an argument to be made that Powers in particular are too combat-focused, that Utility Powers just don't cut it and the casting times of Rituals make it difficult to integrate them into game-play. But I would find it unnecessary to add more game mechanics for role-playing (and other non-combat) situations; if anything, I would like to see variant rules for a "Tactics Lite" approach to combat that doesn't require miniatures.

Back to the main point of discussion: How would more rules for non-combat situations better support role-playing and other non-combat oriented aspects of play? I would say that they wouldn't, that the rules exist for that which cannot be role-played not as a replacement for it.

 

[Nikosandros]

I disagree. What I would like is mechanical support for the fluff of the classes.

As I wrote in the other thread, if I choose to be a pathfinder or a master spy, I expect something that makes me better than other characters at leading the party through an uncharted wilderness or at being a spy. Instead, all I get are combat moves.

 

[AngryMojo]

I completely agree with you. If you examine how other RPGs handle the out-of-combat mechanics, you see a very good example of how they do it.

Short answer is they don't.

As White Wolf has advanced World of Darkness, the total number of skills and out of combat mechanics has decreased. The most they do is give you a couple of out-of-combat advantages, like mentors or contacts, and allow you to take personality flaws, like being untrusting or having a big mouth. If they wanted to implement things like this for D&D, it would be fine, so much as the advantages you gain don't actually influence die rolls. That's where so many RPGs have gotten roleplaying mechanics wrong, they make them influence die rolls, when if you're rolling a lot of dice you're by definition not roleplaying.

 

[Cadfan]

The best argument for more out of combat rules is this: if there are rule based baselines players can more easily make decisions because their decisions will have predictable outcomes.

The second best argument for more out of combat rules is this: players will naturally focus on the areas of the game which are reflected on their character sheet and which are covered by rules, so if you have a game where the rules mostly cover combat and out of combat stuff is handled through pure roleplaying, the players will mostly just fight things and never roleplay.

I disagree with both of these positions.

With regard to the first, most out of combat matters are issues where the baseline of believability that the players need to make decisions is already available to them based on their general understanding of real life. This reduces the need for a rule based baseline.

With regard to the second, I think that a game that is rules-light out of combat tends to be a little better than a game that is rules-heavy out of combat. If players are actually having this trouble, then it might be better to help them get over it than to create a sub-par gaming system to accomodate them.

 

[Imaro]

Yet another forked from: GTS 2009 D&D Seminar - the Rouse discusses D&D



I see this come up quite a bit and, to be frank, I don't get it. How would creating a more "robust system that handles things outside of combat" make 4E less of a "tactical combat centric" game? I don't mean to pick on Imaro, but his view seems to advocate 4E being more tactical in all aspects of the game, not just combat; the problem being that to apply a tactical approach ("a robust system") to non-combat situations just makes D&D even more based upon rolling dice and less on roling characters.

First: No one is advocating making "4E less of a "tactical combat centric" game". That's the argument that often gets presented but misses the point as it will have no effect on D&D combat.

To somewhat answer your question... because it then allows those interested in other aspects of the game to have tactical and meaningful decisions (beyond getting a single bonus as high as possible) in order to facilitate the type of character they wish to play. Perhaps my character wants to use his muscle to intimidate people as opposed to his charisma, as of now there's no way (according to the rules) for him to do this... (and yes I understand a DM can house rule it...but what if he doesn't want to or no one even thinks to do it.)

4E already puts a huge emphasis on rules for role-playing situations; take certain skills like Intimidate or Diplomacy...while these are nothing new they still put the "weight of decision" of the role-playing interaction on a dice roll. I suppose it comes down to the specific DM, and I would hope that bad or good role-playing will influence the roll when it comes down to it.

Yet there is no meaningful decision in using these skills beyond rolling a single die and adding modifiers up. Why was this unsatisfactory for the fighter in combat in earlier editions but perfectly okay for anything outside of combat for every character. Why shouldn't I have powers that allow me to do heroic feats and make actual tactical choices with my skills... instead of this only being the case in combat? (and yes I realize a very few utility powers already allow this... I just think there should be more and based on one's actual skills as opposed to class.). This also allows me to better define, with mechanical support, who my character is.

Example: Aron and Eorn both have Diplomacy trained with the same bonuses... but Eorn has a power that allows him to reroll/get a bonus/etc. when trying to seduce another (or even just dealing with the oposite sex)...now, with this feat/power/whatever Eorn's concept is much more "ladies man" than Aron, and you're more likely to achieve results consistent with this concept when attempting actions in the game due to the mechanical support as opposed to just claiming it but never being any better at it than Aron.

But again, I disagree that 4E is overly tactically oriented in terms of combat at the expense of non-combat aspects of the game. I think there is an argument to be made that Powers in particular are too combat-focused, that Utility Powers just don't cut it and the casting times of Rituals make it difficult to integrate them into game-play. But I would find it unnecessary to add more game mechanics for role-playing (and other non-combat) situations; if anything, I would like to see variant rules for a "Tactics Lite" approach to combat that doesn't require miniatures.

First "overly" is a subjective term so I'm not going to argue that with you. However I don't think you can deny that the combat system is much more tactically interesting, detailed, focused and solid than 4e's out of combat systems. I don't get how making a "Tactics Lite" combat system would in anyway solve the problems you list above... though I would be interested in the system in and of itself. The simple fact is that the problem with trying to balance feats/powers/whatever in the current system is the same that many cited as a "problem" in 3e/3.5, an imbalance in combat effectivenes because player A focuses on purely combat powers/feats/etc. while player B focuses on out of combat powers/feats/etc. IMO, the simpplest solution to this problem is to have a seperate system (though this doesn't mean necessarily different actual mechanics) for the out of combat powers/feats/whatever so that your choices for one have no effect on your choices for the other. I actually thought, skill challenges would be created along these lines when they were first discussed.

Back to the main point of discussion: How would more rules for non-combat situations better support role-playing and other non-combat oriented aspects of play? I would say that they wouldn't, that the rules exist for that which cannot be role-played not as a replacement for it.

And I would say we are perhaps discussing two different aspects of roleplaying. I can say I am a "ladies man"... I can buy diplomacy up so that I am as good as everyone and anyone else who specializes in it... I can even roleplay the part well and perhaps get a bonus from my DM (of course anyone who isn't a "ladies man" could as well), but when it comes down to the actual roll, I get nothing mechanically that makes me any more a "ladies man" than the next guy who has a high diplomacy score. Thus even though I can roleplay it out, often times the results in game don't support this concept and thus I'm getting turned down, slapped in the face or dissed just as often as ebveryone else... regardless of my "roleplaying".

 

[Imaro]

I completely agree with you. If you examine how other RPGs handle the out-of-combat mechanics, you see a very good example of how they do it.

Short answer is they don't.

As White Wolf has advanced World of Darkness, the total number of skills and out of combat mechanics has decreased. The most they do is give you a couple of out-of-combat advantages, like mentors or contacts, and allow you to take personality flaws, like being untrusting or having a big mouth. If they wanted to implement things like this for D&D, it would be fine, so much as the advantages you gain don't actually influence die rolls. That's where so many RPGs have gotten roleplaying mechanics wrong, they make them influence die rolls, when if you're rolling a lot of dice you're by definition not roleplaying.

Uhm... White Wolf games have non-combat merits/backgrounds/skills/specialties...mechanics for debate competitions (Requiem for Rome)...Exalted has social combat & charms that affect non-combat actions... and so on. I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

EDIT: The best thing is that White Wolf makes these things modular enough to be ignored... but they are there for those who want to use them.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I'd like for there to be some sort of clarification on if certain powers and class features can be used in alternate ways. For example:

- What effect does the Warlock's Curse have out of combat? For example, what would happen if a Warlock was sitting in a tavern and used his curse on another bar patron without an intent to attack them? Would the victim have a sudden feeling of intense dread and drop their beer mug?
- Is it possible for someone to use an Illusion spell that normally deals Psychic damage on an NPC without it dealing damage? For example, could a Wizard cast Illusory Ambush to create a distraction without hurting someone?
- The Primal Avatar Epic Destiny's flavor text states that a Primal Avatar can "hear the thoughts of beasts". Does this have any game effect at all? Would it be reasonable for a player to ask his DM what the horse he's looking at is thinking?
- The Glorious Spirit Epic Destiny has an at-will power that lets a PC fly to a square adjacent to a predetermined target within 30 feet. The flavor text states that a "spirit steed" appears and carries the PC when this power is used. Can this spirit steed be summoned out of combat to carry the PC? If not, why is the PC limited to calling the steed only to approach someone? Why couldn't it be used to fly any direction within 30 feet? Do the Primal Spirits prohibit the spirit steed from being used any other way (similar to how Clerics used to be prohibited from using swords because of a curse)?

You could easily rule these types of things in your own game, but I'd at least like some sort of official clarification.

 

[Sadrik]

I am going to go in the disagree catagory, I think the game is very combat centric although I will take a slightly different bent. The shear amount of time it takes to get through combat. In a four hour session I can see doing two level equivelent encounters with a little RP blurbed in the middle. The book says that each level equivelent encounter takes about 1 hour so you should be able to get 3-4 encounters in over a four hour session - this is false.

So how do you fix it? I think the first thing would be to some how shorten combat resolution - it is too lengthy and becomes stagnant. That may be all you need to do on that end.

The other end is that you do not have enough "cool" stuff for characters to do outside of combat. Sure you have a handful of skills, some costly rituals and a couple of utility powers. This is pared down to the bone from 3e. Beef this up a bit with, things like ancestors, background advantages, more utility powers that have an effect outside combat and rewriting the ritual rules to lessen the costs.

 

[DarkMasterBR]

I disagree. What I would like is mechanical support for the fluff of the classes.

As I wrote in the other thread, if I choose to be a pathfinder or a master spy, I expect something that makes me better than other characters at leading the party through an uncharted wilderness or at being a spy. Instead, all I get are combat moves.

Exactly.

I think the design in 4e kind of gets it, for example, there's an epic destiny which I don't remember the name, but one of it's power is that you can travel anywhere, in any plane, and arrives on your destination in 24h maximum. I think that's exactly the sort of thing people want. Like the "no footsteps" ranger power in 3.5, or the "one thousand faces" druid ability, or the monk becoming an outsider and never aging. All those things weren't directly related to combat, and made the class much more flavor.

In 4e you get nothing like that, which makes me really miss that.

 

[DarkMasterBR]

I am going to go in the disagree catagory, I think the game is very combat centric although I will take a slightly different bent. The shear amount of time it takes to get through combat. In a four hour session I can see doing two level equivelent encounters with a little RP blurbed in the middle. The book says that each level equivelent encounter takes about 1 hour so you should be able to get 3-4 encounters in over a four hour session - this is false.

While I agree with the rest of your post, this is different from my experience. Our party is only lvl 7 now, but one reason why we're not thinking of going back to 3.5 at the moment is that our encounters go pretty quick. We one finished a 4.5 hour session with 4 encounters and plenty of role playing in the middle, which was quite impressive!

Not all of the sessions are like that, of course, but 1 hour fights is a very good estimate, at least on lvl 7 below.