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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Right, you could devise more or less flexible 'boons'. There are a few ways to go about the whole thing. You could have say a "mastery of fire" boon that allowed a bunch of stuff, or you could have a chain of boons to master fire, or a boon that scales with level (actually I think MOST of them should, though there are always those abilities that don't need scaling). Or you could simple have a bunch of fire boons, and if you want to be a pyromancer you'll take them all. Every option has its attractions, though I think I favor generally just "take anything you want to". This could allow you to basically get rid of all the concepts like MCing, just learn a wizard spell if you want! This could of course be done like RM, where your class makes some things cheaper (Monte Cook's first foray into this concept, the 3e skill system being its less good cousin).

 

[pemerton]

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.

Maybe. But a system can do a better or worse job of ameliorating these potential conflicts, in virtue of the way it distributes mechanical authority and resources among the participants.

Which is my own solution as well, though honestly the ranged attacks thing hasn't even come up from what I can remember.

One of the PCs in my game is a ranger-cleric Battlefield Archer. So it's come up!

 

[Balesir]

Right, you could devise more or less flexible 'boons'. There are a few ways to go about the whole thing. You could have say a "mastery of fire" boon that allowed a bunch of stuff, or you could have a chain of boons to master fire, or a boon that scales with level (actually I think MOST of them should, though there are always those abilities that don't need scaling).

A few systems have experimented in this area already - DragonQuest (the SPI RPG, not the boardgame), has elemental and other magic "schools", Powers & Perils had things like "fire powers" that let you gain a bundle of powers together and then gain 'expertise' in the elements separately, and so on. I think 'multi-level' boons could be interesting; a particularly valuable boon gives benefits (and counts as a "boon" for levelling purposes) over several levels, but can't be used on the same level. E.g., if 2 boons = 1 level, a "complex boon" might give boons (of escalating power/utility) at levels 2, 3 and 4, meaning you only need this and one more boon to get L2, one further boon to get L3 and one more boon to get L4 - but the three boons don't combine to give you L2 immediately and half way to L3. Getting to L2 would "unlock" the L3 boon, and getting to L3 would 'unlock' the L4 boon.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A few systems have experimented in this area already - DragonQuest (the SPI RPG, not the boardgame), has elemental and other magic "schools", Powers & Perils had things like "fire powers" that let you gain a bundle of powers together and then gain 'expertise' in the elements separately, and so on. I think 'multi-level' boons could be interesting; a particularly valuable boon gives benefits (and counts as a "boon" for levelling purposes) over several levels, but can't be used on the same level. E.g., if 2 boons = 1 level, a "complex boon" might give boons (of escalating power/utility) at levels 2, 3 and 4, meaning you only need this and one more boon to get L2, one further boon to get L3 and one more boon to get L4 - but the three boons don't combine to give you L2 immediately and half way to L3. Getting to L2 would "unlock" the L3 boon, and getting to L3 would 'unlock' the L4 boon.

Heh, yeah, I played DQ a bunch when it came out, but my recollection of a lot of details of the system are somewhat vague. I do quite clearly remember that low level casters had very few tricks and were FAR more dangerous to themselves than to the enemy. That and each successful use of your power let you get better at using it. Progress was VERY slow, lol.

Anyway, that would be an interesting possibility. It would effectively be like a theme or PrC sort of thing, except there would be no reason to limit PCs to only one. It is hard to decide which ideas suite which things better, hehe.

 

[D'karr]

Heh, yeah, I played DQ a bunch when it came out, but my recollection of a lot of details of the system are somewhat vague. I do quite clearly remember that low level casters had very few tricks and were FAR more dangerous to themselves than to the enemy. That and each successful use of your power let you get better at using it. Progress was VERY slow, lol.

Oh, yes DQ. I had a great time with that game. Everything was skill based and you increased each skill individually. Combat was horribly deadly because until you became proficient in the combat skills you sucked... Good times, good times... LOL

There were some very good ideas in that game, the schools of magic were very interesting.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Maybe. But a system can do a better or worse job of ameliorating these potential conflicts, in virtue of the way it distributes mechanical authority and resources among the participants.

!

I am curious Pemerton, where do you see 4E in the storygame spectrum? I believe you said you like this sort of approach to design and it looks like you see 4E giving players a bit more narrative control. I always thought of 4E as the gamey edition of D&D, but i see so many people here advocating for it as a narrative game, that I am interested in how you view it. I can sort of see how having encounter and daily powers would do that (because the player is basically able to say "okay now I am going to turn the battle by doing X). If this is correct, do you find it afford the same level of narrative control outside of combat (would you want to see more aedu stuff for non combat parts of the game--beyond the utility powers)?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh, yes DQ. I had a great time with that game. Everything was skill based and you increased each skill individually. Combat was horribly deadly because until you became proficient in the combat skills you sucked... Good times, good times... LOL

There were some very good ideas in that game, the schools of magic were very interesting.

It did have an interesting take on magic. Beyond that I wasn't blown away. We had fun playing it but I suspect overall RQ or (a bit later) RM include a lot of similar mechanical ideas without some of the problems or complexities. DQ was still a game of that age when designers still hadn't grasped the idea that there was some other axis to tweak besides more or less detailed/abstract sim. It was very much an RPG written by wargamers. I think it would have gotten a lot further if level 1 PCs had for instance maybe not killed themselves QUITE so much. The lethal failure consequence mechanics turned what should have been a rich game into a character grinder. I think it taught me to hate all types of critical failure mechanics with a passion. Honestly, IMHO that sort of mechanic is the worst bad idea that ever entered RPGs. However, more narrative critical failures that allow you to fail things forward are fine. Maybe boons could be associated with a level, so a low level PC acquiring a high level spell and using it would invoke a large risk of bad plot consequences. I'd make that an optional sort of rule (really the DM can avoid it just by not giving out higher level stuff). DMs that are up for that kind of thing could do it.

 

[TwoSix]

However, more narrative critical failures that allow you to fail things forward are fine. Maybe boons could be associated with a level, so a low level PC acquiring a high level spell and using it would invoke a large risk of bad plot consequences. I'd make that an optional sort of rule (really the DM can avoid it just by not giving out higher level stuff). DMs that are up for that kind of thing could do it.

While it's certainly dependent on the kind of boon, I'd probably scale higher powered boons with more painful consequences or more difficult activations. It's fine if you find the Necronomicon at 3rd level, but the Intelligence check to use it to summon a skeletal horde is still 30. And it's probably a bad idea to mess it up.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

While it's certainly dependent on the kind of boon, I'd probably scale higher powered boons with more painful consequences or more difficult activations. It's fine if you find the Necronomicon at 3rd level, but the Intelligence check to use it to summon a skeletal horde is still 30. And it's probably a bad idea to mess it up.

Yeah, the DCs could of course be simple level-based. The failure consequences would pretty much be all boon-dependent I would think. Boons could get pretty involved, like artifacts and mega-spells/rituals, though your average ones would probably be pretty simple. A basic "cursed weapon" like a berserker sword would be pretty straightforward for instance "If you miss with a critical failure then your character becomes enraged. [etc]"

Seems to me a very nice sort of system overall. Another refinement would be an XP total associated with each boon, so you get that much XP when you are awarded the boon. That would allow for 'minor' boons or say a cursed boon that doesn't give you any XP (actually you could have the opposite of boons, though I am at a loss for a descriptor at the moment).

 

[TwoSix]

Seems to me a very nice sort of system overall. Another refinement would be an XP total associated with each boon, so you get that much XP when you are awarded the boon. That would allow for 'minor' boons or say a cursed boon that doesn't give you any XP (actually you could have the opposite of boons, though I am at a loss for a descriptor at the moment).

Banes? Somewhat appropriate for my own game, since it's going to have a strong spirit realm/fetishes feel to a lot of the boons.