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

[AngryMojo]

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.

The specialization thing is really nothing more than an extension of the basic task resolution, and is as applicable when firing a gun as debating. Check out most of the non-combat abilities WoD characters get. The vast majority of them provide no concrete mechanical or dice related effect, but instead expand storytelling options.

I'm also talking about World of Darkness specifically, not Scion or Exalted. The more roleplaying and storytelling oriented an RPG is, the lighter it is on rules in general.

 

[Imaro]

The specialization thing is really nothing more than an extension of the basic task resolution, and is as applicable when firing a gun as debating. Check out most of the non-combat abilities WoD characters get. The vast majority of them provide no concrete mechanical or dice related effect, but instead expand storytelling options.

I'm also talking about World of Darkness specifically, not Scion or Exalted. The more roleplaying and storytelling oriented an RPG is, the lighter it is on rules in general.

It doesn't matter if you can do the same thing with combat related abilities... it's still a form of mechanics that affect die rolls for non-combat abilities. Also, the more role playing and storytelling oriented an rpg is, the lighter it is on rules in general is a subjective oppinion, plain and simple. There is no way to "prove" this as objective fact.

As far as "majority providing no concrete mechanical or dice related effects".... I disagree, in Requiem for Rome your style of debate influences your dice rolls, in Changeling your granted mechanical bonuses and penalties around the pledges changelings and mortals make to each other... many backgrounds give you an actual roll for non-combat things in the first place, virtues and vices affect your willpower and thus your chance of succeeding on rolls... and many to most merits do actually affect die rolls. ... Are you perhaps confusing merits with the optional "flaw system" at the end of the corebook?

 

[FireLance]

Actually, I think a good system for handling things outside of combat should focus less on rules for the players and more on guidelines for the DM.

One of the key advantages that tabletop games (still) have over computer games and video games is flexibility of PC action. A relatively inexperienced DM can find such flexibility daunting, however, and in extreme cases, this can lead to the DM simply quashing any and every creative idea that the players come up with because he can't think of how to handle them on the fly.

Page 42 of the 4e DMG has a bit of advice, but I don't think it goes far enough, especially when it comes to complex tasks. I think that some guidelines for churning out a skill challenge-like method of adjudicating the success or failure of the PCs' plans on the fly would be a great deal of help to new DMs.

 

[alleynbard]

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.

The last session I ran we got through 6 combats in 4 hours. That was combined with a few roleplaying situations, though that session was admittedly combat heavy. The session before that was RP heavy and we still made it through 4 combats.

So I think "false" is a bit of a strong term. I can't even begin to imagine what is going on in your games that cause the combats to drag like that. Is it how the encounters are being designed? Are you using published adventures? Is everyone "on task" and paying attention?

Edit: To clarify, only one of those combats was actually below level.

 

[alleynbard]

Actually, I think a good system for handling things outside of combat should focus less on rules for the players and more on guidelines for the DM.

I agree.

One of the things a chapter like that needs is a discussion on how to work with your players to help achieve what they are looking for while balancing the DM's desire for his world and campaign.

I suppose I could see the introduction of a few more mechanical traits to help round things out. But I am of the opinion 4e already has the tools in place. What the game really needs is a discussion on how to use those tools and to what degree they should be enforced based on preference of individual game groups.

 

[Thaed]

To roll or not to roll

4E is a very good combat rule set. For non combat it lacks much. Yes those of us that played before skill where invented used ability checks for everything. However, the ability check does not allow the player to really excel at given areas.

The thing with most players I've had is that they like to roll dice. If they are not rolling dice then they get bored. Many role-play situations are run without rolling dice and that causes the players to get bored.

Now when a player rolls his/her dice they want to know what it takes to succeed. If a player rolls dice in a social setting or non combat setting, the DC/TN is a bit grey. They have wonderful stats on their character, but the GM likes to reward the extremely well played role.

The bad part of this is a person with a 20 charisma is much more charming than the average gamer. On the flip side the PC with a 8 Intelligenc may not be able to deduce the same as your player. So the player rolls their dice. A number comes up, the poor GM has to determine if the modified 33 that the player just rolled is good enough to talk his way into the king's audience chamber. The character is covered in gore, limping badly and weilding a blood soaked greatsword.

"But I rolled 33"

No game system can cover all the areas of non-combat RP, but 4E does not even put forth a reasonable attempt at it.

Skill challenge = complex skill check (Alternity)

3rd Ed was much better for RP. Classes for RP. Prestige classes for RP. SKills for RP. Feats for RP.


What 4E skills would you use for a bard performing? Diplomacy, bluff, intimidate.

The "social skills" are just there to enhance combat.

Forge a sword? arcana, thievery, nature, dungeoneering.


4E is trying to appeal to the masses who do mostly combat. But it has massive blind spots in non combat areas. The best hope is to wing it or establish a set of feats, class features, and skills that are for RP.

Give selection of a trained RP skill as a background feature. (4E thought fewer skills = better) for some it might be.

This could also be followed with paragon classes modeled after some 3.0 presitge classes.

(3.5 was a waist of my time. 3.0 worked just fine.)

For influence rules to use, check out the now dead A Game of Thrones D20 system. PDFs can be had at an online PDF vendor.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I don't have any more XP for Cadfan at the moment... Completely agree.

 

[alleynbard]

I don't have any more XP for Cadfan at the moment... Completely agree.

Got you covered.

 

[alleynbard]

No game system can cover all the areas of non-combat RP, but 4E does not even put forth a reasonable attempt at it.

Not completely true. You are forgetting skill challenges in this case.

But I am happy 4e has played hands off in this area.

While I occasionally used ability checks during the 1e era, I resolved almost everything with roleplaying or research.

But then, I was never too hard on my players. When it looked like they were making a reasonable attempt, they benefited from that attempt.


As for crafting items? First, I didn't let someone create an item unless it fit with their background or the player made it clear he was interested in learning how craft a particular item. Then, I just did a little research (infinitely easier now with the internet) and set a time for the object to be finished. No skill checks.

I did use non-weapon proficiencies during 2e, but I still never required a roll for those things. If my player wants to craft something, a sword for instance, I was happy to take the time to do a minimal amount of research and figure out best to accommodate them.

On the other hand, I hated 3e's crafting rules so I never used them. Or rather I did, once. After that I houseruled the system.

 

[Toben the Many]

It's not so much a need for a robust system outside of combat as it is having plenty of character abilities which affect things outside combat.

World of Darkness, D&D 3.5, and many other game systems have a slew of character abilities which affect outcomes outside of combat. In 4E, there's only skills.

For example, there are plenty of D&D abilities from previous editions which can influence character reactions, charm characters, create illusions, or help the party move in unconventional ways. What made things so fun, too, was the ability to combine these abilities to come up with organic and original solutions to problems.

One of my favorite examples of this was when were playing 3.x, in the middle of a city that was about to explode. The Dwarf PC was wearing heavy armor and didn't have enough movement to get out in time. We were going to watch him die. Desperately looking through my Wizard's spells, I noted that I was carrying Monster Summoning. I summoned up a bison of all things and we got the dwarf on it and ran out of town just as it was about to explode.

What I enjoyed about that scenario was that it wasn't just loosey-goosey roleplaying. It was taking a character ability and using it in a manner for which it was not intended at all. And using an ability primarily meant for combat outside of combat. Previous editions of D&D were filled with that. 4E unfortunately lacks much of that.