Forked Thread: How would you have done 4e's Powers?

[justanobody]

Very good point. There are a lot of armchair game designers who just know they could design a better game than the professionals.

Thus why the OGL was so damaging to WotC, because they end up being right!

Could you be more condescending? You realize those "professionals" only means they are paid to do it, not that they do it better. Maybe those "armchair game designers" can't get the money to compete with the brand name to create a system that would work with the powers.

Either way, those "armchair game designers" are the ones that drive sales of D&D by actually DMing games and playing them.

How much do the professionals at WotC and other places buy?

So like mmadsen said, just because it looked good on paper, doesn't mean it works well in the public's hands.

This thread thankfully is designed for those people who would have done powers differently to express how they, as "armchair game designers" would have done it.

I personally have enjoyed all the ideas presented so far. (Leaning towards mixing El Mahdi ideas with some of my own and sprinkle with some Plane Sailing)

Viva la "armchair game designers"!

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The fifteen minute work day was as much of a problem for me as "arcane caster domination" was; that is to say, I never once saw it or heard a first hand report of it. It was this strange, theoretical creature, that lurked constantly on the internet - especially the CharOps forums - but never seemed to stray into real life.

 

[Najo]

Thus why the OGL was so damaging to WotC, because they end up being right!

Could you be more condescending? You realize those "professionals" only means they are paid to do it, not that they do it better. Maybe those "armchair game designers" can't get the money to compete with the brand name to create a system that would work with the powers.

Either way, those "armchair game designers" are the ones that drive sales of D&D by actually DMing games and playing them.

How much do the professionals at WotC and other places buy?

So like mmadsen said, just because it looked good on paper, doesn't mean it works well in the public's hands.

This thread thankfully is designed for those people who would have done powers differently to express how they, as "armchair game designers" would have done it.

I personally have enjoyed all the ideas presented so far. (Leaning towards mixing El Mahdi ideas with some of my own and sprinkle with some Plane Sailing)

Viva la "armchair game designers"!

Viva la "armchair game designers!" Woot

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not sure what you mean but posting on CM definitely made you err... cheekier.

It might have a bad influence, or it's just that I am posten way too much in general. (The latter is definitely a bad influence). "Picky" meant that I picked only one specific thing.

How so?

Basically, you want a kind of system that allows you to do interesting stunts, but they happen not all the time. So you must create limitations. 4E limitation is "once per encounter", "once per day".

3E limitations were typically a strong innate drawback to each option:
- Provokes AoO
- You take a penalty to the roll
- A specific condition or sequence of actions is required (tactical feats)
- You no longer can use a non-light weapon (grapple)
- You lose your Dex Bonus (grapple, run)
- The attack can be countered and used against you (Disarm, Trip)
The Book of Iron Might introduces a lot more options in this regard, basically all based on mixing penalties and drawbacks to allow you varied options.*

This is more convoluted. Basically every time you consider your options, you have to check if any specific conditions allowing you an option apply, what penalties do apply, and if you do actually provoke (based on the option you consider and the scenario). The more options you actually have, the longer the decision making process will take.

4E approach works the other way around - you check if you have used this power recently, and then apply its rules. That's still a type of convoluted approach, but the "hard" decision making is done faster and the implementation is what takes time - you don't have to do all in one step, and if you consider multiple options, this can make a difference.

In both cases, you still have to add tactical considerations (3E: Should I really risk an AoO from the enemy Fighter to disarm him? 4E: Should I use a Close Burst 1 power if there are only two enemies adjacent to me?), which of course make things take longer. (But this is usually also an interesting part of the decision making process - figuring out if a course of action is a good idea, not if it's even possible)

Iron Heroes tried to abstract these by just having tokens - no specific requirements, just that you have gathered enough token. Managing tokens is easier then managing conditions and drawbacks. It still doesn't exactly work against "repetitiveness" - if 4 options cost the same, you might always do one specific options because it's just the best thing to do, while the others don't matter. Heck, even if they cost differently, you might find out that one is still the best to use in most cases. So the next step after the Iron Heroes system might be to increase costs if you repeat powers - requiring you to track more information.

I am not saying that the 4E approach is the best approach possible. I am saying that every design will have to make tradeoffs. You gain in "usability", you lose in believability. You make things faster, you have less options. The trick is two-fold:
a) Identify your goals.
b) Identify the tradeoffs you are willing to make.

(And maybe there is a third part:
c) Try to optimize your solution - don't create a system that fails at its goals and still has all the trade-offs.)


*) A very specific thing: Using penalties to rolls is not as good as an option as one might think. 3Es DCs and ACs can make some penalties meaningless - if you miss only on a 1, a -5 penalty to trip + damage would be worth it.
Furthermore, they are a discouragement to ever try these options. They make combat more swingy - sometimes you risk the -10 penalty attack option and miss, sometimes you miss and devastate your enemy.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am saying that every design will have to make tradeoffs. You gain in "usability", you lose in believability. You make things faster, you have less options. The trick is two-fold:
a) Identify your goals.
b) Identify the tradeoffs you are willing to make.

(And maybe there is a third part:
c) Try to optimize your solution - don't create a system that fails at its goals and still has all the trade-offs.)

This is important for all designers - armchair or not.

There are no perfect solutions. You have, at some point, make "sacrifices" or set your priorities. A good design is not a design that's perfect, but that's achieves its goals. For RPG design, it might later be important to make the goals of your game clear. It's a warning sign for everyone that doesn't like your goals, but especially is it an invitation for everyone sharing your goals.

For example if you really can't stand the "narrative/gamist" type of powers in 4E and prefer a condition-based system that feels "believable", you are absolutely correct in looking for something different or even designing something different. But you have to be willing to make other sacrifices. You don't get a balanced system that's easy to learn and use, provides a lot of options and feels believable. You have make sacrifices ("Come on, is it bad if a system is hard to learn or use? As long as you get the results you always wanted?" or "Come on, is it really so terrible if it's hard to treat the rules as game world physics? The system works fast and still gives players interesting tactical choices!" or "Is balance really that important? Why shouldn't a Wizard be more powerful then a Fighter in the end - All those breaking the laws of nature should count for something!")

 

[Allister]

I strongly disagre with lessening the effect of tactical play.

The less emphasis you place on "in-game" positioning, the stronger the effect the "pre-game build" will have on success.

I don't like a game where what determines outcome of battle is much more dependant on your pre-game build.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Hmm... For me, most of the Power System is fine, some things I would change:

-At-Will would stay At-Will. Encounter would become Scene, so a Encounter Power would recharge between dramatic-scenes. Daily would become Chapter, a Chapter would be a game-session a completion of a quest, etc. Essentially sorta bring in a bit of the Storytelling view of a story to the Power system.

This would essentially eliminate the 15-minute problem unless really forced by the players. Since well the players can't really say, "okay quest is complete", or "okay scene is complete", etc.

-Have Powers have a secondary "Skill Improvement", essentially it means you could instead of using a Power normally you could instead invest this into using it to improve a Skill. This be extremely handy in Skill Challenges for instance, where one could say use a Power to slide yourself to improve their Athletics for a turn.

-Have Powers be able to divide its components to gain a bonus. For myself and our group we view Powers not as a single action but multiple actions woven into a couple dice-rolls. As such in my Power system there be some kind of mechanical bonus for only using a certain aspect of a Power.

 

[FireLance]

Have Powers have a secondary "Skill Improvement", essentially it means you could instead of using a Power normally you could instead invest this into using it to improve a Skill. This be extremely handy in Skill Challenges for instance, where one could say use a Power to slide yourself to improve their Athletics for a turn.

I think that's a good idea, but instead of defining how a specific power will affect a specific skill (which would add quite a few pages to the rules), I would rather have guidelines for how much bonus an encounter/daily power of level X could provide to a skill check if the player can come up with a creative way to use it.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I dunno if it would add that much to the rules. It would simply fit in with the Power Text, be like:

Normal Power Text
Skill Improvement: This Power can be used to give the character, +5 to Acrobatics for a turn/single usage.

All you would really need is a brief explanation of what a Skill Improvement is and your good to go.

 

[FireLance]

I dunno if it would add that much to the rules. It would simply fit in with the Power Text, be like:

Normal Power Text
Skill Improvement: This Power can be used to give the character, +5 to Acrobatics for a turn/single usage.

All you would really need is a brief explanation of what a Skill Improvement is and your good to go.

Yes, but those Skill Improvement lines are going to add up, if you try to define all the ways that powers could affect skill checks. That's why I'd rather have a simple guideline linking the type and level of the power to the skill check bonus, and leave it to the creativity of the players to describe how they are using the power to get that bonus.