Legends and Lore: Modular Madness

[Crazy Jerome]

Sounds complicated and you constantly run the danger of simply ruling out my perfectly good character concept because there is some silo in place that you need in order to stop the fighter from being absurdly optimized. It is a brittle design. A strong design will rely on a very few fairly transparent mechanisms that everyone can easily grasp.

I think we have different ideas of what constituties brittle, or we are failing to communicate somehow. This would be "brittle" in the software design concept, concerned with loose coupling between discrete modules with well-defined public interfaces, or something else? Because that kind of interface is the one I mean.

It's true that if you don't go with something like Hero System or GURPS (or 3E to the max) that you will make some character concepts more difficult than others, but I see that as unavoidable if you want to avoid the kind of problems that Danny has listed. Plus, I don't think Mearls means to move in that direction, whatever else he has planned.

As for the labeling and fluff off conceptual concepts, I wasn't so much meaning that to be only about (bad) siloing, but about confusion on the role a particular element is intended to play. The 3E bard (at lauch) was a classic example that had nothing directly to do with siloing issues. They tried to make "bard" mean several different things, and it didn't work very well. The 3.5 version wasn't completely clean either, but by then they had tightened up the boundaries enough that it worked well enough for its intent (when useful). "We'll have a guy dabble in arcane magic, with an armor restriction while wearing armor, and doing some rogue skills with face skills thrown in, and buff mainly allies with magical music and fight with weapons ..." - that's a character concept in the right campaign, not a class!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think we have different ideas of what constituties brittle, or we are failing to communicate somehow. This would be "brittle" in the software design concept, concerned with loose coupling between discrete modules with well-defined public interfaces, or something else? Because that kind of interface is the one I mean.

Any opaque design, especially in an RPG system where transparency is a fairly important concept, will be brittle. It won't easily be understood by the players or the DM and is thus both hard to explain and hard to understand and thus use correctly. It is also hard to maintain because chances are that many developers or home brewers won't understand it very well, and even if they do there are many 'knobs' to twist. You can see this last kind of issue with 4e feats. These feats have a BUNCH of different potential 'limiters', prereqs of various kinds, and bonus types. These clearly were not well understood in the initial design and while all the tools existed to make the design work it was too complex and too opaque and thus couldn't really function. I think a system which requires silos, prereqs, costs, etc in order to try to put different categories of player resources in balance is doomed to fail. You need one simple blindingly obvious mechanism that works across the board.

It's true that if you don't go with something like Hero System or GURPS (or 3E to the max) that you will make some character concepts more difficult than others, but I see that as unavoidable if you want to avoid the kind of problems that Danny has listed. Plus, I don't think Mearls means to move in that direction, whatever else he has planned.

No, I agree, I don't think he does, but he may well be forced to by the realities of what he is attempting. Just like the 4e devs were compelled to have bonus types and several types of prereqs. I'm sure no system that isn't fully generalized will work perfectly for every concept, no, but I think throwing a whole bunch of firewalls in there doesn't help. Look at all the issues with prereqs and bonuses. Often some stupid restriction like Arcane Implement Proficiency (as it was originally written) making it impossible to gain access to some implements for some characters and making the rest jump through an absurd number of hoops (often requiring 2 or even 3 feats to get the desired implement).

As for the labeling and fluff off conceptual concepts, I wasn't so much meaning that to be only about (bad) siloing, but about confusion on the role a particular element is intended to play. The 3E bard (at lauch) was a classic example that had nothing directly to do with siloing issues. They tried to make "bard" mean several different things, and it didn't work very well. The 3.5 version wasn't completely clean either, but by then they had tightened up the boundaries enough that it worked well enough for its intent (when useful). "We'll have a guy dabble in arcane magic, with an armor restriction while wearing armor, and doing some rogue skills with face skills thrown in, and buff mainly allies with magical music and fight with weapons ..." - that's a character concept in the right campaign, not a class!

Ah, well, yes. OTOH I think 4e had a good idea when they simply said "OK, we will center the focus of each class around what is important, combat." That actually WORKED, unlike every previous attempt. Every 4e class is meaningful and useful. There are far less distinctions 'out of combat', but the distinctions that do exist evolve naturally out what the character primarily does. Fighters are generally great athletes and that seems quite organic and logical.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Any opaque design, especially in an RPG system where transparency is a fairly important concept, will be brittle...


Ah, well, yes. OTOH I think 4e had a good idea when they simply said "OK, we will center the focus of each class around what is important, combat." That actually WORKED, unlike every previous attempt. Every 4e class is meaningful and useful. There are far less distinctions 'out of combat', but the distinctions that do exist evolve naturally out what the character primarily does. Fighters are generally great athletes and that seems quite organic and logical.

Who says that the design has to be opaque to have multiple silos?

Anyway, that last bit is another place where we disagree that might illuminate the first part. I agree with most of what you said, but not that the non-combat distinctions evolve naturally. I think some of them do, and then when we want others, we get a bunch of other classes, feats, etc. to try and get some more to evolve.

What would make more sense to me is to keep the combat roles. I agree 4E did a good job there. Then have non-combat roles (possibly two or three types here, i.e. exploration versus social). But whether through classes/feat combinations or some other means, silo the non-combat roles differently than the combat ones--expressly so that you can mix "defender/talker" or "defender/athlete" or "defender/smart guy" or whatever.

And same as with the 4E combat roles, I don't think the siloing necessarily has to be always expressed as a role. In the interest of transparency, I think it would probably be better if they were, but 4E success has at least left me open to the idea that there could be another way.

 

[KidSnide]

What would make more sense to me is to keep the combat roles. I agree 4E did a good job there. Then have non-combat roles (possibly two or three types here, i.e. exploration versus social). But whether through classes/feat combinations or some other means, silo the non-combat roles differently than the combat ones--expressly so that you can mix "defender/talker" or "defender/athlete" or "defender/smart guy" or whatever.

I've thought for a while that the notion of non-combat roles would be a very useful part of 4e design. Exploration is a role that could be performed by someone with the right "skill" abilities or the right set of rituals. Likewise, Face could be performed with Diplomacy, Intimidate or Charm; Lore could be performed with Knowledge or Divination and Movement could be performed with Athletics, Acrobatics or Levitation. These roles are "smaller" conceptually (and mechanically) than the combat roles, but it probably makes sense for characters to have more than one.

This is also works well as a "tie in" point for "new type of gameplay" modules. For example, a mass combat module works better if the PCs can affect armies with inspiration, smarts and battlefield magic. It's really a new silo with corresponding non-combat roles. Similarly, kingdom management just works better if the PCs have their own niche in the government silo.

In a slightly different example, the right nautical campaign might add seamanship and leadership as roles. It's not a new silo, but they are roles that are particular that that type of campaign. Planar travel or real wilderness exploration might also add roles that are particular to that campaign.

Lastly, I tend to think that non-combat magic screams to be written as a collection of abilities designed to perform a role. Utility powers are too few and too specific and the grab-bag approach of ritual magic doesn't lend to thematic coherence.

-KS

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've thought for a while that the notion of non-combat roles would be a very useful part of 4e design. Exploration is a role that could be performed by someone with the right "skill" abilities or the right set of rituals. Likewise, Face could be performed with Diplomacy, Intimidate or Charm; Lore could be performed with Knowledge or Divination and Movement could be performed with Athletics, Acrobatics or Levitation. These roles are "smaller" conceptually (and mechanically) than the combat roles, but it probably makes sense for characters to have more than one.

This is also works well as a "tie in" point for "new type of gameplay" modules. For example, a mass combat module works better if the PCs can affect armies with inspiration, smarts and battlefield magic. It's really a new silo with corresponding non-combat roles. Similarly, kingdom management just works better if the PCs have their own niche in the government silo.

In a slightly different example, the right nautical campaign might add seamanship and leadership as roles. It's not a new silo, but they are roles that are particular that that type of campaign. Planar travel or real wilderness exploration might also add roles that are particular to that campaign.

Lastly, I tend to think that non-combat magic screams to be written as a collection of abilities designed to perform a role. Utility powers are too few and too specific and the grab-bag approach of ritual magic doesn't lend to thematic coherence.

-KS

Yeah, I've been thinking about it in terms of what I call 'Masteries', which I thought of as primarily a mechanism for simplifying character building (IE you could have the "Axe Mastery" to be good with axes), but they would package up a group of resources for a character to accomplish any given sort of goal, so they're basically the same idea you're talking about. I'd keep them somewhat narrow too, and you could certainly have more than one.

It still feels to me though like you want to be able to have a way to pick and choose things. I may simply want to be a guy that is big, durable, and friendly. If you haven't defined a role/mastery/whatever that encompasses that I don't think the answer should be "the game doesn't support that". Especially when 4e does support it pretty well.

Nor does the whole mastery concept really solve the "I put all my resources into combat related stuff" that is desired. It insures that IF you pick something you will be pretty good at it and make more situational things likely to see play. I think it wouldn't be too bad to put masteries into a couple categories and make you pick one from this side and one from that side. Or just make each one always have a mix of stuff for each mode of play.

 

[pemerton]

I think the problem that siloing is trying to solve is the wrong problem. If the game provides reasonable weight to combat and non-combat activities then there's no need to silo anything. It is all 'playing my character' and just like I can trade off accuracy for more damage I can trade off accuracy for a more charming personality.

This relates to an issue that arose upthread - is the game going to specify, or at least presuppose, some particular sphere of activity as a preeminent site for the expression and resolution of conflicts?

As you yourself note, 4e does make such a presupposition:

I think 4e had a good idea when they simply said "OK, we will center the focus of each class around what is important, combat."

The less the game siloes, the harder it becomes to design a game around this sort of presupposition.

II think the better alternative is a system of diminishing returns.

Rolemaster uses diminishing returns for skill development (ie the first skill ranks gives +30, the next 9 give +5 each, the next 10 +2 each, etc). It uses another dimension of diminishing returns also, namely, for most skills it costs more to develop a second rank at a given character level than it did for the first rank (some typical skill costs are 1/5, 2/4, 2/5 and 3/7). Depending on version and house rules, overall points to spend per level are likely to be somewhere between 50 and 150. This produces a degree of defacto siloing, in that it is hard to spend all a character's points on just one field of endeavour at a given level, given that (1) in most cases no more than 2 ranks in any given skill can be developed, and (2) there are a limited number of skills that support any one field of endeavour.

Nevertheless, it is very easy to build a Rolemaster PC with very poor defences (who, if wizards, may be stereotypical glass cannons), with no ability in combat that does not requires spending spell points, with poor perceptions, or poor social skills, etc.

I'm not saying that Rolemaster is the be-all and end-all of diminishing returns as a design approach - but I think that 4e's more explicit siloing, based on a clear conception of the place of combat in the game, does a better job at supporting, out of the box, coherent party design, coherent encounter design, and coherent play.

Something closer to 4e's design, that I think someone mentioned upthread or one of the other related threads, would be to replace Feats and Utility powers with skill powers - so use skills as the starting point for siloing. And then think about what mechanic you use to require every PC to at least have some modicum of ability in each skill area (perhaps using stats to help characterise the areas - STR, DEX, CON, WIS for "exploration", INT for "knowledge", CHA for "social").

 

[AeroDm]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]

There are a lot of ways to do siloing in the game with a lot of different emphases. Siloing does not have to lead to the disparity you suggest nor does siloing necessarily have to be oppositional in nature. There are lots of ways to silo and if you silo well, it doesn't necessarily have to divide the game into incompatible parts.

 

[pemerton]

Siloing does not have to lead to the disparity you suggest

I think you've misunderstood my post. It was in support of siloing as preferable to diminishing returns.

 

[Balesir]

It is an interesting way to look at it. I'm not sure it isn't really just semantics and level of detail. That is In your last example one group rolls a Diplomacy check to negotiate a peace treaty, the other group rolls a Diplomacy check to flatter the ambassador enough that he will let you in the door (etc).

There is a question of course about what list of skills are appropriate at different levels of detail, some other things too. At a very coarse level of detail it is hard to see one particular character attribute or area of knowledge/expertise being key. For example if you did a 'skill' check to cross the dark continent what would you use for a skill? What ability scores would modify that? I'm not sure you NEED a rules module for that kind of high level stuff, it is all going to be DM judgment call.

Yes, Conflict resolution often needs a significant level of judgement call, but it doesn't have to be from the GM; see PrimeTime Adventures for a "prime" (sorry) example.

The key thing, for me, is that tactical/gamist games work far better with task resolution; a task is simply what it is, and it's up to the players to find objectives that can be met using it. Conflict resolution is a way of abstracting all the "strategizing" and go straight for the result. This works well if the mechanisms of the conflict itself are not related to the focus of play.

I think the better alternative is a system of diminishing returns. You can keep pouring your resources into combat buffs if you WANT, but the more heavily you go in that direction the less you get for it. At some point most PCs will at the very least end up with a reasonable amount of the 'low hanging fruit' from each category.

<snip>

This of course shows the problem with ANY type of system you can create though, if a group simply doesn't value one mode of play much then all of this is meaningless and effectively any silo you create for that mode of play will either just be a tax or be left empty, and it really doesn't matter which way that goes since they won't use both anyway (and actually have no problem they need to solve anyway).

Kind of along the lines Crazy Jerome spoke about, how about using "keywords" rather than "silos", per se? This might be combined with a "keyword relevancy" slider that could characterise campaigns. In an (example) expanded form:

- Keywords: "combat", "exploration", "investigation", "social", "reconnaissance", "domain management", "craft and trade", etc.

- "Encounter" guidelines specify "default" proportions of encounters having the various keywords

- Any "bonus" given by the keyworded elements has a "default" value generated according to the game's maths

- Campaigns that deviate from the "default" keyword proportions have the bonus value for de-emphasised keywords increased according to some (playtested) scheme

- Campaigns that use no instances of a particular keyword need simply to state this up-front, and may allow free "colour" elements with that/those keywords.

Maybe something like that could work, to a degree?

 

[Balesir]

It's often cited, but I think the Duel of Wits from Burning Wheel shows how social conflict can be more detailed than a Diplomacy roll.

In the DoW each side's argument has a number of hit points (based on the arguers stats). Each side chooses actions for a round, from Avoid the Topic, Dismiss, Feint, Incite, Obfuscate, Point and Rebuttal.

The social skills that feed into those include Ugly Truth, Seduction, Command, Oratory, Rhetoric, Soothing Platitudes, Intimidation, Falsehood, Persuasion, Interrogation and Debate. There are more, but I'm too lazy to look them all up. And there are loads of traits which can have an impact as well, from Blank Stare to Weak-Willed.

Different actions cross reference with each other in different ways to determine what skills or stats are tested for the rolls, whether the outcome affects the 'hit points' for their opponent's argument, and impact on future actions.

Now I'm not getting the slightest hint that Mike Mearls is thinking about D&D in Burning Wheel terms. But BW is illustrative that getting someone to do what you want, or agree with you, or not hang you for treason can be tackled in a way that is every bit as complex and rich and tense as combat.

Yeah, I have been saying for a while that I would love to see some 4E-style game systems for social, reconnaissance, information gathering/investigation and similar challenges incorporated into 4E. If this were the thrust of the "modules" spiel, I would be keen as mustard for it.