Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1653214" data-attributes="member: 10201">OK, two things to clarify my point. First, i was not so much suggesting how to "fix" D&D3E as pointing out that you do not inherently have to link complexity and flexibility. In fact, i may not have said it outright, but i'd actually say that that is one of the fundamental flaws of crunchy gamist games, like every instantiation of D20 System i've seen (save one of my own, which is still little better than a thought experiment): they hard-code that trade off. So i wasn't, by any stretch suggesting a fix for the problem within the context of playing D&D3E, but rather pointing out that if you want both simplicity and flexibility you may have to think way outside the box--in this case, switch systems. Or tear D&D3E down to it's very foundations and rebuild it from the ground up into something completely different. I think the elements that put simplicity and flexibility at odds in D&D3E are too fundamental to be easily fixed. But i wanted to make sure those who're looking to "fix" this particular problem realised that it's not inherent to RPGs, even if it is inherent to D20 System. I'm not saying that the particular solution i've proposed would work as a way to change D&D3E combat, but rather that trying to stick close to existing D&D3E combat is the problem, for those who want both flexibility and simplicity.Second thing, i was very simplistic when describing Over the Edge and Four Colors al Fresco. In OtE, you have 3 traits [and a flaw, not germaine to this particular discussion]. Either a trait applies, or it doesn't. Each trait is rated from 1 to 6 dice (normally 2-4, however). All dice are d6s. You roll your dice, add them up, and that's your result. A bonus die means you roll an extra die, and discard the lowest. A penalty die means you roll an extra die, and discard the highest. Bonus and penalty dice cancel out. So, if one wanted to get close to the exchange you describe in an OtE game, it would go something like this:PlayerA: I want to swing harder to do more damageDM: Okay, that's worth a bonus die.PlayerA: What if I use both hands?DM: You'll have to, to get the harder swing.PlayerB: Hey, don't forget that I am singing to help out.DM: Right, PlayerA, you get an extra bonus die because of that.PlayerA: Can I do this and still make it harder for him to hit me? I am really low on hit points.DM: Sure. That'll be a penalty die. But the bad guy will have a penalty die, too.PlayerA: Never mind, I don't think I can hit with that penalty die. I will go back to just the two bonus dice. Is the Bull's Strength still working?DM: Oh yeah, that'll be worth a bonus on the damage if you hit....And, right about here, i can't continue the example, because OtE is just too different, mechanically. Frex, one of the standard combat rules is that you take a penalty when you're repetetive, so no one would point out how they were doing the same thing as before, because that'd be worth a penalty if the GM agreed that it was "the same". Damage stems directly from attack success, so lowering your attack roll to raise your damage roll doesn't really make sense. It doesn't have the mechanical specificity to have specific attributes, much less to assign a particular one to attack or damage--frex, in combat, you get to use whatever trait is relevant, which might not even be a trait you'd normally consider physical, much less combat-related. Finally, since it only has one size of die, and a given advantage/hindrance is only worth one die (though you can certainly stack advantages to get multiple bonus dice), unless it's deemed too insignificant to be worth a mechanical bonus, arguing over magnitude of advantage is much less of an issue, and it's much easier for the GM to keep things straight and be consistent. Plus, the game assumes things won't be consistent--the setting is intended to be variable to the point of surreal, so if the GM is inconsistent from one encounter to the next, the players should assume that's really how it goes, and there's a reason they're just not privy to yet.Now, let's talk about Four Colors al Fresco, which is much crunchier than OtE (which is sort of like saying that "yoghurt is much more solid than milk"--it may be true, but it doesn't say much, and they're both pretty much still liquids). In al Fresco, you normally don't roll the dice. The idea is to only use the dice as a last resort, when you can't figure out what happens based on the characters traits. Usually, you look at the character's traits and they spell out quite clearly that the character either succeeds or fails at an action. Dice only come into play when trying to do something that the character's traits would make "a maybe". So, if you want to bash down a normal door, you succeed, but it takes a while and you have a sore shoulder (i accidentally bashed in the back door to our house when i was only around 10 or 12). If your character has a flaw like "fragile build", you'll fail to bash down the door, and probably hurt yourself if you try anyway. But, back to our non-fragile character: if she needs to get the door down in a hurry, it's no longer clear either that she'll succeed or that she'll fail. She might get it open with the first blow, or it might hold up for a few. Generally, these ambiguous cases stem directly from unknown elements of the surroundings--unlike the D20 System paradigm, it's not a door with a fixed DC to open, and the character's abilities/luck fluctuate due to a die roll, but the character's abilities are roughly constant and we don't know until we roll the dice how tough that particular door is. [Yes, in this particular example, it's six-of-one, half-dozen-of-the-other. But the paradigm shift does show up significantly in other cases.] The other significant case that calls for die rolls is when two supers go against each other, both playing to their strengths. Sometimes, it's clear-cut: if Golem and Captain Italia arm-wrestle, Golem's Fists of Fury: Unstoppable in hand-to-hand combat and Hulking Brute: As strong as a small crowd, and nearly as large clearly trump Italia's Physique of Three Men: Retains the strength and endurance of his three component members. But, if Golem and The Cardinal were to wrestle, it's not nearly so clear--now he's going up against the Cardinal's Power; Strength of God: When wearing a cross, he is incredibly strong. Well, how strong is "incredibly strong"? We don't know, precisely--that's the whole point. But given that it's called "The Strength of God", it's probably pretty strong. So the SG might rule that he's stronger. But, in this particular case, she'd more likely rule that it was unclear, and time to roll the dice. I've digressed quite a bit, but for a purpose: i'm trying to, in capsule form, point up that the mechanical paradigm is so different from D&D3E that directly porting mechanical tricks isn't likely to work.Anyway, in this game, hindrance and bonus dice, just like the character's dice, range from d3 to d50 (though, normally, d4 to d20). However, you only have one of each, maximum, at any time (well, with some exceptions, but they're not relevant here). So if you're already suffering a penalty die for being severely wounded, and the regiment of guards you're about to fight is worth another penalty die, you "add" them (it's not really addition, due to how the dice work), resulting in just one penalty die to keep track of. And the whole think works in terms of relative scale, not absolute scale, so comparing the size of the die from one character to the next, or one situation to the next, is kinda pointless. If the Cardinal needed to roll to attack (not likely, 'cause he's pretty good at combat, but for sake of argument), and wanted to do so with greater power, it'd either merit a bonus, or, at worst, a small penalty. But if Renaissance Man, who's a fencer and so on, not a brute, was actually rolling to attack (even more unlikely, but we'll go with it for now), he'd probably take a pretty significant penalty for trying to bring particular force to bear. Of course, as the game is actually played, it's unlikely anyone who's any good at combat would ever roll during combat, anyway, unless they were facing another super who was roughly equally as good. More often, players play to their character's strengths, and in this system, you don't roll when you're playing to your strengths--you succeed. It's also one of those systems where you get a bonus for trying a flashy stunt attack, not a penalty.So, getting all the way back to your "sure, it's more flexible, but is it simpler?" question: yes--once you see the whole system, not just my initial excerpt. But it's not a viable solution to graft onto existing D&D3E combat, without a lot of work, IMHO, as your hypothetical example points out. You have to switch mechanical paradigm, not just change how some bonuses work, to make this sort of thing work. Let's see...You know what? that's gonna wait for a separate post. It's bedtime now, and i'm not immediately thinking of anything, anyway.</blockquote>

Verification