Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5850925" data-attributes="member: 54877">See a couple of good answers in quote below, plus, as implied in Minigiant's reply, heavy focus fire skews the game by causing an arms race--we better get your tough guy, healer, glass cannon (whatever is deemed most effective) down before you do the same to our most effective guy.&nbsp;A more subtle but pernicious effect of the gamism is to often make sensible actions in fiction sub-optimal.&nbsp; In reality and much of the fantasy fiction, there are times for the sensible course of &quot;you, me, and Fred go hold off the orcs while Wizbang and Five O'Knives take out the evil cleric.&quot;&nbsp; This practically never comes up organically in RPGs, but has to be drug kicking and screaming towards that end by mechanics that can only do so much, by definition.&nbsp;Don't get me wrong, I like 4E-style marking as a very effective example of such a mechanic, but the thing it is trying to solve--don't let the enemy gang up on the wizard or other &quot;softie&quot;--would largely go away if focus fire has sufficient disincentives.&nbsp; Sure, the enemy would still try to get someone on the wizard--or else.&nbsp; But the same thing would now apply to the fighter!&nbsp; &nbsp;Take two orcs in a corridor, coming around the corner and seeing a fighter a few steps ahead of a wizard.&nbsp; This puts a risk on everyone.&nbsp; If the orcs gang up on the fighter, the wizard will fry one of them fast.&nbsp; If they gang up on the wizard, now the fighter will smack one of them fast.&nbsp; So they quite naturally split.&nbsp; Now, if the fighter tries to gang up on the orcs confronting the wizard, the orc on him will hit that much harder.&nbsp; And same if the wizard, perish the though, should ignore the orc on him to help the fighter out.&nbsp; &nbsp;There might be special abilities that will help some--almost assuredly will be, since characters will often be out-numbered.&nbsp; It's possible that the fighter, for example, merely by being in front, can force a round of engagement on anyone passing them.&nbsp; An orc can charge the wizard at the cost of diminished actions when he gets there (possibly next round, not now).&nbsp; So maybe 3 orcs versus this party is a better example.&nbsp; Those are the devilish details. &nbsp;&nbsp;For it to work, it has to be truly inverted from the intent of opportunity attacks.&nbsp; OAs (and OoAs) are designed to be relatively rare, but still allow you to determine what happens if you want to risk one.&nbsp; In this system, it would have to skew heavily towards wanting each opponent engaged as much as possible, so that being &quot;free&quot; is a relatively rare state.&nbsp;That's one aspect of the &quot;inversion&quot;.&nbsp; The other aspect is the nature of the exception.&nbsp; An OA is inherently &quot;interrupt&quot;--in that you &quot;Do X; cause change in flow.&quot;&nbsp; Being &quot;free&quot; reverses that thinking.&nbsp; &quot;You are free (change in the flow); Now what do you do with that advantage?&quot;&nbsp; My idle, ivory tower musing thinks this will be an improvement in handling time.&nbsp; (Obvious playtesting required here.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5850925, member: 54877"] See a couple of good answers in quote below, plus, as implied in Minigiant's reply, heavy focus fire skews the game by causing an arms race--we better get your tough guy, healer, glass cannon (whatever is deemed most effective) down before you do the same to our most effective guy. A more subtle but pernicious effect of the gamism is to often make sensible actions in fiction sub-optimal. In reality [B]and[/B] much of the fantasy fiction, there are times for the sensible course of "you, me, and Fred go hold off the orcs while Wizbang and Five O'Knives take out the evil cleric." This practically never comes up organically in RPGs, but has to be drug kicking and screaming towards that end by mechanics that can only do so much, by definition. Don't get me wrong, I like 4E-style marking as a very effective example of such a mechanic, but the thing it is trying to solve--don't let the enemy gang up on the wizard or other "softie"--would largely go away if focus fire has sufficient disincentives. Sure, the enemy would still try to get someone on the wizard--or else. But the same thing would now apply to the fighter! Take two orcs in a corridor, coming around the corner and seeing a fighter a few steps ahead of a wizard. This puts a risk on everyone. If the orcs gang up on the fighter, the wizard will fry one of them fast. If they gang up on the wizard, now the [B]fighter[/B] will smack one of them fast. So they quite naturally split. Now, if the fighter tries to gang up on the orcs confronting the wizard, the orc on him will hit that much harder. And same if the wizard, perish the though, should ignore the orc on him to help the fighter out. There might be special abilities that will help some--almost assuredly will be, since characters will often be out-numbered. It's possible that the fighter, for example, merely by being in front, can force a round of engagement on anyone passing them. An orc can charge the wizard at the cost of diminished actions when he gets there (possibly next round, not now). So maybe 3 orcs versus this party is a better example. Those are the devilish details. For it to work, it has to be truly inverted from the intent of opportunity attacks. OAs (and OoAs) are designed to be relatively rare, but still allow you to determine what happens if you want to risk one. In this system, it would have to skew heavily towards wanting each opponent engaged as much as possible, so that being "free" is a relatively rare state. That's one aspect of the "inversion". The other aspect is the nature of the exception. An OA is inherently "interrupt"--in that you "Do X; cause change in flow." Being "free" reverses that thinking. "You are free (change in the flow); Now what do you do with that advantage?" My idle, ivory tower musing thinks this will be an improvement in handling time. (Obvious playtesting required here.) [/QUOTE]

Verification