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

[PaulofCthulhu]

Rules for combat can be important (and often deemed necessay) due to the rather lethal outcomes for characters in such situations. Everyone wants to know where they stand (so to speak).

Roleplay rules outside of combat may or may not be seen as constraining on that aspect of play.

If WotC wishes to effectively counter the perception of D&D 4e as "nothing more than a tactical skirmish wargame" then it needs to put plenty of non-combat elements and tangible rewards for non-combat play into their published scenarios. That will better drive it home than a chapter about storytelling in DMG II.

I would imagine.

 

[Ariosto]

I pretty much agree with Korgoth, except that I have come to appreciate the abstraction of the 4E "combat" board game for what it is. A sufficiently interesting board is a big help, and I am inclined to think the force composition should significantly favor the DM side. (If the players have to work harder, they have more brains to do the work.) "Almost killed" characters (and used-up healing surges) in preliminary rounds seem -- in my limited experience -- to bode well for an exciting final match. A morale break point for the "bad guys" can cut back remaining "grind" potential.

The amount of time and energy devoted in play to fights (especially per fight), and the amount devoted to creating good combat scenarios, is the main thing I see as cramping other aspects of traditional D&D play.

All that additional rules (i.e., skill challenges) have done for me so far is further reduce the scope and increase boring "roll-playing".

On the other hand, the situation in those terms does not seem very much different to me now than in 3E. If big 3E fans are complaining, then something surely has hit them!

RuneQuest (1978-80 editions especially) remains one of my favorite games. It has a pretty detailed combat system, and was the first major "skill-based" RPG after Traveller (another of my favorites). Yet, I've never known anyone acquainted with it (as opposed to "class system" purists, speaking on principle and in ignorance) to claim that it somehow hinders role-playing. Quite the opposite: It seems generally reputed as a game that puts special emphasis on the persona's character and relationships.

When it comes to D&D, I'm one of the traditionalists who see as features things that appear as flaws in light of an approach like Imaro's. However, I do not consider access to fantastic powers of any sort a measure of role-playing potential!

It seems to me a pretty central problem that WotC's design has become so complex, and complexly integrated, by default. Based on my own experience designing games, I'll say that it's easier to add complications to a simple one than to simplify a systematically complicated one. Starting with a principle of modularity makes the latter much easier than starting with a concept of holistic "balance". (Even with that start, I have ended up at least once with a tangled snarl.)

What I see at every turn is the 4E designers deciding what's "fun" and then constructing devices to enforce that subset of possibilities. That is especially problematic at this juncture because in so many cases the paradigms they impose are so nearly the opposite of those on which the D&D brand was built. People who are already vegetarians might not take much interest in Hormel® brand tofu, and Spam® eaters might prefer some other maker's genuine meat product to a soy-based replacement.

 

[dm4hire]

I wouldn't mind seeing a a system added that overlayed what exists and runs seperately as previously mentioned. One could call it talents, merits, whatever, and it's sole aspect would be to add a system that allows the governing of non-combat skills and interactions. While it is true that DMs and players can work out the problems as currently presented the issue comes down to a matter of creating balance for when you cross over from one DM to another. One DM may say that it's acceptable to do something one way while another might counter and rule another way while still being valid in his reasoning. A good non-combat system offers mechanics that everyone has to build on. The current skill challenge system doesn't really do that and it really comes down to just rolling the dice without any concern for role within the party. In past editions you had key situations that relied upon having certain members in the party or at least PCs that could meet that role effectively. You may not need a bard to do social but you should still need a leader type or someone who can fit that spot for the most part. A non-combat system puts that back into proper perspective and adds to the game however much you'd decide to use it, if at all.

Outside of their striker role, why should you play a thief? Don't need them cause anyone can steal, pick a lock, etc. Why should you be a cleric? Any leader class can heal. Anyone can be good at heal or religion. Why play a ranger? Anyone can track now. Nature skill isn't that important any more because others can have it. The point is a non-combat system would give a role-playing purpose back to the game beyond what the player might have in mind for the character and might even amplify their reasons for playing a given class. Some people are natural actors or role-players and others need that bit of guidance or inspiration to which 4e is lacking in my opinion.

So I'd definitely support a non-combat system for role-playing in 4e and might start enjoying it more instead of being bored with it after the first hour.

Also add me to the list of people tired of long combats. And I mean long combats. An hour is too long when they're going up against an appropriate level encounter and that's not even throwing in an elite.

 

[wedgeski]

What I see at every turn is the 4E designers deciding what's "fun" and then constructing devices to enforce that subset of possibilities.

That is the business of any game designer, is it not? In fact, if you're not doing this, I doubt you're doing your best work.

That is especially problematic at this juncture because in so many cases the paradigms they impose are so nearly the opposite of those on which the D&D brand was built.

Debatable, but not really the subject of this thread.

When it comes to non-combat encounters, I personally find Skill checks to be wholly up to the task, if not the actual selection of skills that 4E provides (one of my few gripes with the system). If one of my players suggests an inventive way to apply one of his powers and improve his roll, I'll almost always allow it. Entire sessions can pass by with only the lonely clatter of one or two checks being rolled, and the game doesn't seem any less for it.

I can see where people are coming from when they say, "Nothing in the game supports my concept of.. master spy... ladies man..." and so-on, and there's no denying that what separates one class from another in 4E is the power selection, and powers are (for the most part) combat-focused. Not all of them, though.

Still, there's nothing stopping a power being used out of combat if it makes sense to do so, and nothing stopping 3PP's or Wizards themselves creating a class whose powers vastly reduce its viability in combat but give it an exciting array of options for improving checks outside of the game grid. In a "standard" game of D&D (as imagined by me based on my experience) a player with such a class could expect to feel pretty limited about two-thirds of the time, but should expect to steal the show the rest of the time.

Ultimately though, while classes remain the backbone of the system (and long may they rule!), this problem is never going to go away.

 

[billd91]

I can see where people are coming from when they say, "Nothing in the game supports my concept of.. master spy... ladies man..." and so-on, and there's no denying that what separates one class from another in 4E is the power selection, and powers are (for the most part) combat-focused. Not all of them, though.

Still, there's nothing stopping a power being used out of combat if it makes sense to do so, and nothing stopping 3PP's or Wizards themselves creating a class whose powers vastly reduce its viability in combat but give it an exciting array of options for improving checks outside of the game grid. In a "standard" game of D&D (as imagined by me based on my experience) a player with such a class could expect to feel pretty limited about two-thirds of the time, but should expect to steal the show the rest of the time.

It's true, not all powers are combat focused. The ranger's powers of skill-sharing (Crucial Advice, etc) are a nice idea. But what 4e is really lacking in is non-combat traits for the classes and paragon paths. Some benefit, not particularly combat-applicable, that comes with the class or path without requiring the character to devote a utility slot to it. Interesting bits of ability like Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker, Trackless Step, or things that might make a character better at something (particularly with a paragon path that a character chooses to focus on) that they do.

I suppose one alternative for adding them would be through feat selection. Give each one a limited set of classes that would qualify for it. Then, they could at least be modular, but would also run the risk of being over-powered compared to some of the feats currently out there. But would it be valuable to include things like paragon paths as prerequisites or would that just make the system too unwieldy?

 

[Nikosandros]

It's true, not all powers are combat focused. The ranger's powers of skill-sharing (Crucial Advice, etc) are a nice idea. But what 4e is really lacking in is non-combat traits for the classes and paragon paths. Some benefit, not particularly combat-applicable, that comes with the class or path without requiring the character to devote a utility slot to it. Interesting bits of ability like Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker, Trackless Step, or things that might make a character better at something (particularly with a paragon path that a character chooses to focus on) that they do.

Exactly what I was arguing, only written in a more clear way.

 

[wedgeski]

I suppose one alternative for adding them would be through feat selection. Give each one a limited set of classes that would qualify for it. Then, they could at least be modular, but would also run the risk of being over-powered compared to some of the feats currently out there. But would it be valuable to include things like paragon paths as prerequisites or would that just make the system too unwieldy?

I must admit I'm gradually being persuaded by threads like this that a selection of well-designed non-combat 'Trait' or 'Passive Powers' or something would do no harm to the game.

 

[Toben the Many]

I like predictability. I've had too many games just fall apart due to "unpredictability" both in and out of combat.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree here. For myself, what you propose seems to be a railroad. I'm not saying that you are railroader - I've not sat down at one of your games. But it simply appears that that is what you are proposing.

For me, what makes an RPG fun is that I, even as the DM, don't necessarily know what is going to happen during my own game session. Furthermore, the possible outcomes of any given scenario are so many which I like, because it's what distinguishes a table-top RPG from a video game.

And I guess my point is that there is certainly a happy medium between the two extremes of "very difficult to predict" and "very easy to predict" when it comes to RPGs, character choices, and options.

As far as what many people here are saying, I, too, would love some kind of trait or block of traits that would enhance your 4E character outside of combat. Our group was tossing about the idea of "knacks" - traits that would guarantee that your character would be good at X. For example, a Perform Knack. You don't need to take valuable Skill Training. There's no numerical value for it. It just means you can play an instrument and play it well. If a Knack was ever used to help someone (say - distract them) then at most it provides a +2. That's it.

Other knacks would be things like tailor, armor smith, horse husbandry, etc.

 

[wedgeski]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree here. For myself, what you propose seems to be a railroad. I'm not saying that you are railroader - I've not sat down at one of your games. But it simply appears that that is what you are proposing.

I think you've just stretched to the breaking point a word that is already defined across a paper-thin continuum.

 

[Ariosto]

That is the business of any game designer, is it not? In fact, if you're not doing this, I doubt you're doing your best work.

Historically, no. That has not been the prevailing concept of how to design an RPG for a wide market -- and it is most thoroughly against the D&D tradition.

Flexibility has been very much to the point of RPGs. It's not just "okay" but encouraged to change things to taste. The published framework is not the end but the beginning of creativity.

D&D campaigns have included such an array of elaborations that if some novelty in the field was not first tried there, then it was almost certainly adopted by one group or another. Critical hits and attacks of opportunity, "realistic" combat and "comic book" combat, spell points and free casting, monster characters and special powers, customized classes and lists of skills, rules (particular or abstract) for social and economic activities ... these and many more go back to the 1970s.

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.

Part of what has happened to D&D is a shift in philosophy, selecting for a demographic of players keen on having everything "officially" spelled out. Unfortunately, things are spelled out in such complex and holistic fashion that it's a real bear to modify the game. If one does not like dissociated mechanics, or any other aspect of the new Credo of Fun, it has become much better simply to choose a different game.

There are other designs that could easily be made to play much like 4E; but 4E does not exhibit reciprocal flexibility. Even before considering the many particular reversals of D&D tradition, that general and fundamental one looms large.

Some people want more rules for non-combat activities. Some of those want more abstract, dissociated rules; some want more rules with verisimilitude. Then there are people who want fewer rules, and find it inconvenient to strip away existing ones because they are so integrated with the whole.

The same variety of desires exists relating to combat -- and old-style games made it very easy to cater to different tastes.