D&D 5E Legend Lore says 'story not rules' (3/4)

[Bedrockgames]

So chopping someone's arm off with an axe; concussing them with a mace blow to the head; dropping them with a stab through the heart; blocking an incoming arrow; slitting throats for immediate reduction to zero hit points; swimming across the Danube in chain armour; walking for four days through the desert without water; travelling 50km a day to fight a battle the next; etc.

Any of those you don't find realist or believable?

We've already had this debate a bunch of times and I think I have given my perspective on issues of realism in D&D. But I am not going to debate this with you again. Like I said, if you want to have a conversation, happy to do so. But I am tired of arguing about this stuff with people.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, my personal outline of a sort of "4e-inspired" system is similar. I don't kid myself that I'm going to, or really capable of, writing a whole RPG that would add a whole lot to what is out there now, but its fun to create an outline anyway. My idea is to replace everything with 'boons'. You just play though the narrative and you acquire whatever you get based on the action. Level increases are then based on how many boons you have (IE if you have 10 boons maybe that makes you level 5 or whatever). You could adjust that based on the sort of fiction you want. HP and such can be based on level and basically all that core stuff could be pretty much right out of 4e, though I have some tweaks in mind.

Classes would still exist, they could define your HP progression and starting boons (which would be mostly your proficiencies and such plus some basic class mechanics). You'd just create a new class/subclass for every distinct enough archetype that would matter (So rangers can just be fighters that trade 'heavy armor proficiency' for 'tracking' etc). 4e/DDN/13a style background/theme/whatever would of course be perfectly feasible as well. ALL of these would however just act as packages of stuff, ways to make the DM and player's job of visualizing and constructing the character easier.

Clearly there would be some distinct differences in details of implementation between this and DDN or 4e, but I think you could get close to the same sorts of results. Different sets of boons would be an easy enough thing to develop for different styles of play, and adjusting some of the core rules (healing etc) wouldn't be drastically hard either, so you could support more than one type of play, genre, etc. I could even see different class and leveling rules for really distinct things (like a cosmic horror game could do away entirely with hit point progression by just saying "well, you never actually level up, no matter what boons you get").

Oh, make the boon gain be the level driver is interesting. I like that. It sort of obligates that the boons be roughly similar in power, though, which might be a downside to the type of boons I wanted to give.

For starting abilities, I was going to let each players choose from 2 to 4 starting boons, and things like armor proficiency or certain class features (like defender aura) would be among them. Skills would be 13a backgrounds, although I think everyone will just start with a single 4 point background. (I want this game to be very stripped down, and it's intended to be very campaign specific.) Maybe traits that grant advantage, relating to 4e skills as well. (I think you mentioned something like that in another thread, AA, unless I'm misremembering.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh, make the boon gain be the level driver is interesting. I like that. It sort of obligates that the boons be roughly similar in power, though, which might be a downside to the type of boons I wanted to give.

For starting abilities, I was going to let each players choose from 2 to 4 starting boons, and things like armor proficiency or certain class features (like defender aura) would be among them. Skills would be 13a backgrounds, although I think everyone will just start with a single 4 point background. (I want this game to be very stripped down, and it's intended to be very campaign specific.) Maybe traits that grant advantage, relating to 4e skills as well. (I think you mentioned something like that in another thread, AA, unless I'm misremembering.)

I might have, I toss crazy (crappy?, well, sometimes) ideas out there a lot. Of course most of them are sort of a mish-mash of what other people have posted as well, so no doubt many people would deserve credit/blame

I do kinda like 13a backgrounds. I always sort of imagined 4e backgrounds almost like that too, where I would just let the players riff on whatever the background was when it seemed appropriate (in addition to the +2 to a skill/train this skill bennie). I'm going to have to re-read my 13a stuff though at some point and mull on that whole aspect. I like the concept of 4e-type skills as "talents" basically. They're broad and tell you what the PC specifically (beyond ability scores, and even in spite of ability scores at times) is interested in/good at. The more specific skills ala DDN or 13a are OK, if they're narrow enough to represent some tricks/very specific areas the character happens to have some added skill/knowledge in. If they get too broad, like "boating" or something then they imply incompetence as a default, which I kinda don't like that much. 13a's genius IMHO was tying the niche skills to the character's interest and agenda, and then pointing the DM at having that stuff come up. That part is important as otherwise you often just have "obscure skill X, Y, and Z that never matter" and eventually players just only pick the ones the DM bothers with.

Anyway, sounds like we have similar thoughts. I agree, boons would generally want to be roughly similar in power (you could have some that have level or other boon prereqs to gain more range there, spells would be a good one to work that way). OTOH if the DM is in control of the narrative, or you have a good collaboration where the players own enough of it to not want to just game the system then balancing the boons doesn't HAVE to be a necessity (IE a boon could be an artifact or a cantrip, but the players and DM will have to tell a story to get the artifact into play, at which point it is a perfectly reasonable boon for that game presumably). Worst case I think you end up with a game that is balanced if you want it to be, and no worse than 1e AD&D if you just go crazy.

 

[Cybit]

I feel like many are missing the alternate solution available to WotC in this situation:

Giving better guidance in the DMG for being, well, a DM, as well as forcing the gaming group to have these types of discussions UP FRONT rather than midway through a game.

Part of the reason WotC is pursuing this heavy "modular" design of the game is that by doing so, they can force gaming groups to have that discussion about the tone / rules / how the game will 'feel" / etc prior to the game being started rather than midway through. If you take a step back and step away from the theoretical corner cases, and instead look at the middle (where I believe most groups lie), the solutions do make sense. If the players have an issue with the DM's interpretation of the game world / reality / etc, then their problem is the DM/player interaction, not the rules. The DM's job is to interpret the way the world works. The players have given him that power and responsbility. If they disagree with how he is using it, the problem is not that of system.

 

[TwoSix]

I do kinda like 13a backgrounds. I always sort of imagined 4e backgrounds almost like that too, where I would just let the players riff on whatever the background was when it seemed appropriate (in addition to the +2 to a skill/train this skill bennie). I'm going to have to re-read my 13a stuff though at some point and mull on that whole aspect. I like the concept of 4e-type skills as "talents" basically. They're broad and tell you what the PC specifically (beyond ability scores, and even in spite of ability scores at times) is interested in/good at. The more specific skills ala DDN or 13a are OK, if they're narrow enough to represent some tricks/very specific areas the character happens to have some added skill/knowledge in. If they get too broad, like "boating" or something then they imply incompetence as a default, which I kinda don't like that much. 13a's genius IMHO was tying the niche skills to the character's interest and agenda, and then pointing the DM at having that stuff come up. That part is important as otherwise you often just have "obscure skill X, Y, and Z that never matter" and eventually players just only pick the ones the DM bothers with.

Most skills would simply be attribute checks, modified by the background if applicable. The "traits" would be roughly as broad as 4e skills, and the character would have 2 or 3. So the character might be an "Arcane Prodigy" and "Deceitful", and would get advantage on things that would correspond to Arcana or Bluff checks.

Anyway, sounds like we have similar thoughts. I agree, boons would generally want to be roughly similar in power (you could have some that have level or other boon prereqs to gain more range there, spells would be a good one to work that way). OTOH if the DM is in control of the narrative, or you have a good collaboration where the players own enough of it to not want to just game the system then balancing the boons doesn't HAVE to be a necessity (IE a boon could be an artifact or a cantrip, but the players and DM will have to tell a story to get the artifact into play, at which point it is a perfectly reasonable boon for that game presumably). Worst case I think you end up with a game that is balanced if you want it to be, and no worse than 1e AD&D if you just go crazy.

I'm hoping for a good deal of player buy-in, otherwise it isn't going to work. I'll throw out a lot of hooks about possible ways to gain new powers by exploring weirdness (the fire spirit changed at the bottom of the volcano might be able to grant fiery boons, for example).

 

[LostSoul]

I'm actually slowly working on a fairly radical 4e hack that does something similar. There are no encounter powers or daily powers, actually, there aren't really powers at all (or classes). Different weapons give you different powers (or at least stances), and magic isn't an innate ability, it's the product of ritual and artifice. If you have a magic missile, it's because you've crafted a wand that can create a magic missile 3 times a day, and recharges at moonrise.

Power progression is also decoupled from level or any kind of character building, and purely becomes a story option. Train with the town guards or a wandering swordsman to learn new weapon techniques. A boon from the elves might take the form of a cloak of invisibility.

Sounds interesting!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Most skills would simply be attribute checks, modified by the background if applicable. The "traits" would be roughly as broad as 4e skills, and the character would have 2 or 3. So the character might be an "Arcane Prodigy" and "Deceitful", and would get advantage on things that would correspond to Arcana or Bluff checks.


I'm hoping for a good deal of player buy-in, otherwise it isn't going to work. I'll throw out a lot of hooks about possible ways to gain new powers by exploring weirdness (the fire spirit changed at the bottom of the volcano might be able to grant fiery boons, for example).

Right, I haven't tried to completely think through ALL the details of 'skills', just the general idea. Buy-in is good, and I can pretty well be sure of it with the groups I normally play with, but OTOH worst case we're talking sort of an AD&D style situation where the DM hands out EVERYTHING of any import, which is pretty much how it was back then for fighters, and even magic users. Clerics/druids kinda got whatever they wanted spell-wise, and thieves had a lot of built-in stuff that just improved, but they all needed items, totally the DM's preserve. So, I think the only issue would be 'fluff munchkinism', BUT again the DM can tighten down the descriptions of things as much as he wants. I think you could make it work with the majority of groups OK. I guess we'll see.

 

[TwoSix]

Right, I haven't tried to completely think through ALL the details of 'skills', just the general idea. Buy-in is good, and I can pretty well be sure of it with the groups I normally play with, but OTOH worst case we're talking sort of an AD&D style situation where the DM hands out EVERYTHING of any import, which is pretty much how it was back then for fighters, and even magic users. Clerics/druids kinda got whatever they wanted spell-wise, and thieves had a lot of built-in stuff that just improved, but they all needed items, totally the DM's preserve. So, I think the only issue would be 'fluff munchkinism', BUT again the DM can tighten down the descriptions of things as much as he wants. I think you could make it work with the majority of groups OK. I guess we'll see.

It's amusing to me because it's the total inverse of what I want to purchase from any system, but it's fun to make up stuff for because it's the opposite of rigorous.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Oh, make the boon gain be the level driver is interesting. I like that. It sort of obligates that the boons be roughly similar in power, though, which might be a downside to the type of boons I wanted to give.

For starting abilities, I was going to let each players choose from 2 to 4 starting boons, and things like armor proficiency or certain class features (like defender aura) would be among them. Skills would be 13a backgrounds, although I think everyone will just start with a single 4 point background. (I want this game to be very stripped down, and it's intended to be very campaign specific.) Maybe traits that grant advantage, relating to 4e skills as well. (I think you mentioned something like that in another thread, AA, unless I'm misremembering.)

My group tried an idea similar to this with a wacky Fantasy Hero variant a long time ago, and it worked surprisingly well for a system that a few of threw together in a dorm room one weekend.

I hadn't considered using the 4E boons to do the same thing before this conversation, but had thought that handing out "powers" that way as the method of character advancement could be interesting--not least because the powers can then be concrete and limited in the 4E sense while at the same time being allowed to carry the stunts with them implied by the flavor.

So if you get a "fireball" bit, you can throw a ball of fire occasionally that does some concrete damage, reliably. But having this also implies that you are a character that goes around tossing fire around from time to time, doing stunts implied by that. Because these "powers" are the character bits, and are circumscribed when the game starts, then it's ok if the "fireball" guy can produce a small ball of flame in his hand to use as a torch, for example.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's amusing to me because it's the total inverse of what I want to purchase from any system, but it's fun to make up stuff for because it's the opposite of rigorous.

Right, in a sense it is like standing 4e on its head, in that one dimension. Yet I can retain all the characteristics that make it cinematic and have as much player agency added in via boons that work in various ways as I want (easiest way would be probably to make some subsets of boons that tap some resource or invoke some sort of step up rule). Since EVERYTHING is a boon though, you have a lot of expressiveness. You can always impose different boon allocation mechanics too, if you want XP you can flip things around, you'll just have to watch balance more. I like the "you just get the boons and they determine level" though. I THINK that really will do a surprising amount to keep things in check. Players may want to go after only the good stuff, but as long as the good stuff is HARD to get (which I would define in narrative scene framing terms as upping the ante) its all good.

Heck, you can even have a sort of logical retirement. "Yeah, my character was 20th level when he had the Clan Sword and the Crown of East Farlon, but now he's retired and he's just 8th level, the gods have gone on to other newer heroes..." lol.