Interactive Terrain

[webrunner]

I've had a few combats where the enemies and/or players were on large moving things (carts/small airships/etc). The players could, if they wanted to, do some crazy things (i had our wizard stick a grease patch before a horse drawn cart. The horses both failed the roll:O)

 

[Quickleaf]

Welcome to every roleplaying game ever.

You sadly, can't have every contingency planned for without a tome so large that finding what you need is impossible. That's what Rolemaster is for.

[MENTION=71571]DracoSuave[/MENTION] It seems like a no brainer to most of us, just let the pyromancer burn stuff cause it's fun. However, and point out a page/errata reference if I'm wrong, but "affects all creatures in burst" does NOT technically allow you to include, say, a gazebo within that burst. It's ridiculous to me, but I've met GMs like the one KamikazeMidget refers to in his blog who insist that powers only work on exactly what the target line says they work on.

So sure you can't have every contingency planned for, but this is one that has come up enough it seems worth clarifying. YMMV.

 

[Shadowslayer]

You sadly, can't have every contingency planned for without a tome so large that finding what you need is impossible. That's what Rolemaster is for.

You're right, but if the players will meet you halfway, you can look over some scenarios that might pop up. If I was the DM of the Pyromancer and he really wanted to light the shrubbery on fire, I'm sure we could reach an accord of some type.

I think the Do Something Cool principle covers stuff like this nicely, so I don't know how many rules you'd really need, if you adopted that principle for your game.

 

[Noctos]

i didn't read everything or truly any of your blog but what i can say is how to use the terrain better or how can players easy.

wizerd turn rock to mud/ mud to rock. enemies running across a feild or in a cave turn rock to mud. enemies sink in the mud a heavy dragon father than most. next wizerd cast mud to rock. all enemies are stuck in the ground walk up and stab in face.

i had a strong warrior and i mean strong with his magic gear. and often smashed through walls rather than wondered the towers lvls mazes. or again the wizerd would turn wall section to mud it falls to floor and the just mad a new door.

 

[pemerton]

Well, it's up to the DM.

<snip>

So, that's why I'm looking for something more hard-and-fast than Page 42. Someplace I can point to a third party (the rules), and say "Okay, DM, even if I can't fiddle while Kindleworld burns, I want to do something with my fire other than cause damage. I want to affect the terrain elements in this combat."

KM, I don't have anything to point to other than page 42 and terrain powers, so maybe I'm not much help.

But within the somewhat hand-wavey confines of page 42, what you might do is offer to make Arcana checks to up the power of your fire to set the terrain alight - and on a fail, take an appropriate amount of damage as arcane and/or elemental backlash.

What the DCs and damage amounts should be would depend on what you're trying to do, plus how much your GM is open to this sort of thing.

 

[LostSoul]

Once you add Feats to do this sort of thing, DMs will be less willing to allow you to do that sort of thing without the Feat. I call this "Do you have the Feat for that?"

*

That said, a system for this could work. I'd base it on the level of the terrain compared to your own level as well as the DC hit. Less than Easy, Easy, Moderate, Hard. The idea of "Tier bands" might help (1-3, 4-6, 7-9, etc.).

eg. If a terrain element is above your Tier band, shift the result one step to the left: Hard becomes Moderate, Moderate becomes Easy, and Easy becomes a Failure (less than Easy). If a terrain element is below your Tier band, shift the result one step to the right. If the difference in tier bands is greater than one, shift that many steps.

Failure - Easy - Moderate - Hard

Failure - Catastrophe!
Easy - No effect on the terrain
Moderate - Success
Hard - Great success

Maybe there'd be a list of possible effects that the DM selects from. (The Apocalypse World method.) Failure: Catastrophe! Your efforts backfire in some way. Select one - low limited damage expression; blinded (sv); weakened (sv); dazed (sv); ongoing damage (sv); restrained (sv); deafened & immobilized (sv); etc.
Success: pick one (from a list of good effects); Great Success: pick two from the success list, including destruction of the terrain.

That way the players would know what they're getting into, more or less, and be able to judge risk/reward, but there'd be enough leeway for the DM to describe an effect related to what just happened in the game world.

I imagine monsters could also take advantage of terrain in this manner, like how mearls described how the fight with the solo in Kobold Hall could be improved by adding some terrain features.

 

[Canor Morum]

At first I want to say, yes, you can set things on fire with your powers, it just makes sense. But this is problematic. If this is possible then you cannot cast a fireball in the woods without starting a forest fire. You can't cast lightning bolt while standing in water without electrocuting everyone around you. So on and so forth. When you start allowing these exceptions it leads to a whole host of unintended effects... and questions.

Can the caster determine whether his power burns this object but not that object? If so, how, and what are the limits? Is "magical" fire fundamentally different from ordinary fire?

 

[LostSoul]

Can the caster determine whether his power burns this object but not that object? If so, how, and what are the limits?

I see three basic options; there are probably more.

1. Simulationidontous

Target: All enemies in burst

This suggests to me that you've got some kind of control over who you hit; you can hit the terrain, or not.

Target: All creatures in burst

In this case, sorry, that tinder is going up!

2. Intent-Based

The player decides what he's targeting based on what he wants to accomplish. The DM will make a ruling if it's possible, or not, based on whatever system is in play; this is resolved before the action is taken.

3. Description-Based

The DM decides what's targeted based on the description of the player's action. The DM will make a ruling as to what the effect is, based on whatever system is in play; this is resolved before the action is taken.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Welcome to every roleplaying game ever.

You sadly, can't have every contingency planned for without a tome so large that finding what you need is impossible. That's what Rolemaster is for.

Affecting things other than creatures with your abilities shouldn't be so strange that it requires "every contingency planned for." It's really something quite basic to do in a game of imagination. "I have a sword, so presumably, I can cut the rope," shouldn't force the DM to weigh the possible balance effects of cutting every rope in every combat that the party comes to. "I blast my enemies with frigid ice, so, presumably, I can keep my beer cold" is in the same boat. "I burn my enemies with fire, so I can start a campfire," should be the same way. But requiring the DM to judge each of those situations individually means that the DM is being asked quite a bit. Some sort of rule or guideline would help immensely in smoothing out play.

Do you have ways that your DMs have judged this that you find especially good? How have you judged this in the past?

I'm asking this as much for when my turn comes up DMing as I am for my current slightly newbie DM (whose fears and concerns are very valid!). I would like to see the party avenger and paladin illuminating dark corridors with the light of their deities, and cutting furniture to ribbons, and otherwise causing chaos on the battlefield with the things that are there. And I want them to feel free to do it without asking me first in each situation if it's OK that they do that. Because for me, it's a hassle to say "Yes, of course," each time. I just want it to happen.

If this is possible then you cannot cast a fireball in the woods without starting a forest fire. You can't cast lightning bolt while standing in water without electrocuting everyone around you. So on and so forth. When you start allowing these exceptions it leads to a whole host of unintended effects... and questions.

I think that's exactly what the DM now is afraid of, and I certainly don't want to inflict that on her. I don't want to have to make her make judgement calls about how much rain fell in the region in the last month, how dry those pine needles are, how far the fire is likely to spread, and the ramifications thereof just because I cast Fireball. It might be a little realistic, and my character would certainly be amused, but I don't think it would make her job fun, and that means it's not something I really want to do. If she has an extended adventure planned in sylvan woods, I don't want my booms to result in "Well, the ancient Eladrin city has been burned to the ground thanks to your level 1 fire at-will, and the adventure is over." I also don't want her to have to hand-wave it, "Well, the fire WOULD have burned down the eladrin city, but, um, magic, a wizard did it, shut up shut up play my adventure."

But there's gotta be a middle ground between "The forest burns like California" and "The only things you can burn are specifically designated creatures that are there for you to burn." The first is too much realism, messing with the DM's fun, the second is too little, making me feel metagame instead of role-playing game, when my character's central motive is to light stuff on fire. I'm trying to see where people have put that middle ground, to see what I might yoink.

But within the somewhat hand-wavey confines of page 42, what you might do is offer to make Arcana checks to up the power of your fire to set the terrain alight - and on a fail, take an appropriate amount of damage as arcane and/or elemental backlash.

Hmm....not a bad idea, offering to take damage if I fail. We still have the issue of asking the DM to make a bunch of judgement calls, but this might help her feel like there's some balance going on.

How would you use Page 42 to cover some typical examples of interactive terrain? Maybe if I had some examples, I could envision how to raise the issue to my DM (or how to formulate specific powers for doing this thing).

Once you add Feats to do this sort of thing, DMs will be less willing to allow you to do that sort of thing without the Feat. I call this "Do you have the Feat for that?"

Yeah, that's a problem...but I get the impression that a DM isn't just going to want to let players do this on a regular basis. It's kind of a ramp-up in power form what I think 4e assumes as the defualt. I guess maybe if you make it something that enemies can do, too, or something that damages/affects creatures regardless of allegiance, maybe that'll balance it out? Hmm...

 

[LostSoul]

Do you have ways that your DMs have judged this that you find especially good? How have you judged this in the past?

I think this sort of thing is best handled by DM advice specific to the type of game you're running. Hmm, "DM advice" is probably the wrong term; it's more like saying, "DM, these are your responsibilities:" and then listing them.

Maybe you want a cool, cinematic, "the PCs are heroes no matter what" game. The responsibilities the DM has in that game are going to be different from an exploration-heavy challenge-based game.

I don't want to have to make her make judgement calls about how much rain fell in the region in the last month, how dry those pine needles are, how far the fire is likely to spread, and the ramifications thereof just because I cast Fireball.

I like rolling randomly for these sorts of things. First you set up a chance that the pine needles are dry - say 1 on 1d6 - and roll the dice. However, that's for my game (low-prep exploration-heavy challenge-based play). Her answer might be "Is it cooler if the pine needles are dry? Then they are!"

Yeah, that's a problem...but I get the impression that a DM isn't just going to want to let players do this on a regular basis. It's kind of a ramp-up in power form what I think 4e assumes as the defualt. I guess maybe if you make it something that enemies can do, too, or something that damages/affects creatures regardless of allegiance, maybe that'll balance it out? Hmm...

Good point. I think what kind of system you want will tie into what kind of game you want, and that might be reflected in encounter building procedures (or not!). Simple example - in the last game we played, the PCs were fighting near a cold, swift-moving river. I didn't care if that messed with the encounter balance or not; that's not one of my responsibilities as DM in my game.