Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[pauljathome]

More or less. It also provides things like damage ranges. The overall point is to make sure that atypical actions are viable in the proper situation, but are not going to replace a character's powers.

In all the 4th edition playing that I did (2 different campaigns with 2 completely different groups, several months of LFR, and a few mini campaigns) I don't think that I EVER saw these rules invoked.

Probably because the "do something cool" option was always LESS effective than just spamming ones At Will powers.

Contrast that with my 3rd edition and Pathfinder (and many other non D&D games) experience where just about EVERY session somebody would do something wild and wacky and let the GM adjudicate things.

Obviously its just one persons experience but it does make me think that limiting the effectiveness combined with putting the rule in a book that Players don't generally read may not have been the best approach.

 

[Dausuul]

Imagine if some of the save or suck spells from 3rd Edition were ported into 4th edition by using 4th's disease track. For a quick arbitrary example, let's say a mindflayer is trying to dominate you. First failed check and you move to dazed. The second goes to stun. The third goes to domination.

I like this idea. A suggestion to make it more streamlined: Instead of having a separate track for each power, why not add a "severity" to conditions? So you'd have something like:

Dazed 1: You cannot act out of turn and grant combat advantage.
Dazed 2: You cannot act out of turn, grant combat advantage, and you only get one standard action per turn.
Dazed 3: You cannot act out of turn, grant combat advantage, and you only get one move action per turn.
Dazed 4: You grant combat advantage and cannot take any actions.
Dazed 5: You are unconscious.

The first condition is a minor nuisance. The second (equivalent to dazed in the current rules) is a significant hindrance. The third means you can't do much except try to get out of the way. The fourth (equivalent to stunned) renders you more or less helpless, and the fifth makes you literally helpless.

Then when you have an effect that causes daze, it would do something like "Target is dazed (2)." The target would then be moved to dazed 2, or one level of severity above its current dazed, whichever is higher; so a target at dazed 2 would move to dazed 3.

A side benefit is that this offers an elegant solution to the problem of elite/solo monsters and the action economy. Right now, solo monsters have all kinds of kludged-in defenses to keep them from being shut down by status effects. This would provide a much cleaner way of implementing that; for instance, a solo might have an ability that automatically reduces the severity of all status effects by 2 at the start of its turn.

 

[LostSoul]

Mechanics wise I see a carefully balanced encounter system (for fair challenges)... I see a reward system for completing challenges that affects one's power and capabilities, (now random with the most current rules as opposed to parcels). I see the majority of 4e players I speak to disregarding or changing the fiction and fluff of classes and powers on a whim (as long as they don't change those carefully balanced gamist keywords, effects, etc)... and it not having an effect upon the game through any mechanics of the actual game.

A carefully balanced encounter system can provide fertile ground for narrativist exploration of "premise" because one can address "premise" without having to worry about losing your method of agency, ie. your PC. This isn't a necessary feature of Story Now (ie. narrativist) design; Burning Wheel doesn't use carefully balanced opposition, but that's a feature of the design - it uses failure to address premise.

What I think 4E is missing that would make it a good Story Now game is... well, let me paraphrase from The Forge's glossary what Story Now is:

Commitment to producing, heightening, and resolving a generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions through play itself.​

I think 4E is missing some key components:

• It doesn't "spike" the game with problematic aspects of human interaction the way, say, Sorcerer (demons = dysfunctional relationships) does.
  
  When you make a Dragonborn Fighter you don't have to deal with questions about, say, was Arkhosia's war against Bael Turoth just; should people show you respect or make you pay based on the actions of your ancestors; do you have a responsibility as a Dragonborn to protect those weaker than your kick-ass dragon self, or can you be selfish, even if everyone expects you to be the hero; etc. The game kind of points in that direction but it doesn't make it a primary feature of play.
  
  Now if you had something like a Key of Akrhosia (from The Shadow of Yesterday; this is the Key Conscience), which gave you:
  • Minor Quest XP of your level every time your character helps someone who cannot help themselves;
  • Minor Quest XP of your level every time your character defends someone with might who is in danger and cannot save themselves;
  • Major Quest XP of your level every time your character takes someone in an unfortunate situation and changes their life to where they can help themselves;
  • Double Major Quest XP of your level when you ignore a request for help, and you lose this Key for good.
  In that case you wouldn't be able to ignore the problematic issues brought up by being a Dragonborn Fighter.
  
• The reward system doesn't heighten those problematic aspects. Again, looking at Sorcerer, the way a PC's Humanity interacts with their Demon's Needs and Wants will tend to heighten the issues brought up by the dysfunctional relationship.
  
• It doesn't guarantee resolution of those problematic aspects of human interaction, but then again most games don't. My Life With Master is an exception, where play is pretty much guaranteed to result in an end game that will put your choices throughout play in the spotlight.

In all the 4th edition playing that I did (2 different campaigns with 2 completely different groups, several months of LFR, and a few mini campaigns) I don't think that I EVER saw these rules invoked.

Probably because the "do something cool" option was always LESS effective than just spamming ones At Will powers.

My thinking is that players in 4E have too many options that come from their powers to spend much time thinking about "doing something cool."

That'd be great, and it is process that I seek. As you have probably seen by the rest of the thread, my wondering comes from the sameness I see in how it was actually handled in other editions and also in its possibility as an overarching model for a full RPG.

I tried to do this, more or less, with my hack.

[sblock]First, you describe your action. Based on that description, modifiers are determined:

You use your strength and raw power - STR
You use your endurance and physical stamina - CON
You use your physical quickness and precision - DEX
You use your mental quickness and reasoning - INT
You use your mental stamina and willpower - WIS
You use your social force and presence - CHA

You attack with intent to hurt, maim, or kill - Proficiency (ie. weapon or implement proficiency, including feat, class, and item bonuses)
You directly affect an opponent - Skill
You move past an obstacle or hazard - Skill
You take a defensive action - No roll

If the action has a loose association with any other skills the character has, add +2
If the character has a situational, tactical, or positional advantage, add +2
If the action is following up on the character's last, successful action, add +2

Once you have the modifiers you determine the DC. Once again, the DC is based on your character's action, and you pick the first one in the list that applies:

You try to aid someone else’s action - DC 10 + tier modifier
You try to grab, push, overpower, or manhandle the target - Fortitude
You try to touch or tag the target - Reflex
You try to attack someone's mind or convince someone of something - Will
You try to hurt someone physically - Armour Class
You are matching skills with someone - 10 + their skill
modifier
You are trying to do something else - DC set by Level

If the target has a situational, tactical, or positional advantage, add +2 to the DC
If you are targetting a specific location without a special power that allows for this, add +2 to the DC
If the target's action is to defend, add +2 to the DC
If you cannot see the target, add +5 to the DC
If the target has superior cover (eg. behind an arrow slit), add +5 to the DC

Anyone can determine modifiers but the DM vets them.[/sblock]

 

[Mark CMG]

I tried to do this, more or less, with my hack.

[sblock]First, you describe your action. Based on that description, modifiers are determined:

You use your strength and raw power - STR
You use your endurance and physical stamina - CON
You use your physical quickness and precision - DEX
You use your mental quickness and reasoning - INT
You use your mental stamina and willpower - WIS
You use your social force and presence - CHA

You attack with intent to hurt, maim, or kill - Proficiency (ie. weapon or implement proficiency, including feat, class, and item bonuses)
You directly affect an opponent - Skill
You move past an obstacle or hazard - Skill
You take a defensive action - No roll

If the action has a loose association with any other skills the character has, add +2
If the character has a situational, tactical, or positional advantage, add +2
If the action is following up on the character's last, successful action, add +2

Once you have the modifiers you determine the DC. Once again, the DC is based on your character's action, and you pick the first one in the list that applies:

You try to aid someone else’s action - DC 10 + tier modifier
You try to grab, push, overpower, or manhandle the target - Fortitude
You try to touch or tag the target - Reflex
You try to attack someone's mind or convince someone of something - Will
You try to hurt someone physically - Armour Class
You are matching skills with someone - 10 + their skill
modifier
You are trying to do something else - DC set by Level

If the target has a situational, tactical, or positional advantage, add +2 to the DC
If you are targetting a specific location without a special power that allows for this, add +2 to the DC
If the target's action is to defend, add +2 to the DC
If you cannot see the target, add +5 to the DC
If the target has superior cover (eg. behind an arrow slit), add +5 to the DC

Anyone can determine modifiers but the DM vets them.[/sblock]

Thanks. That's similar in many ways to my own system development for G&G. Simple and straightforward. Though I try to emphasize the shared elements, I think some folks stumble over the "DM vets" part as being problematic. Sometimes there is a pushback against systems that don't spell it all out and also against anything that might look like the facilitator is actually a factor in how things play out.

 

[rounser]

What I think 4E is missing that would make it a good Story Now game is... well, let me paraphrase from The Forge's glossary what Story Now is:
Commitment to producing, heightening, and resolving a generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions through play itself.

This strikes me as the kind of self-important pretentious goal that an arts faculty might ascribe to certain literature as a way of throwing the human condition into sharp relief. I don't think that I know anyone who goes to the D&D game table with this as their idea of a good primary objective. Incidental pathos of this sort can add depth, sure, but it strikes me as being like having a romantic relationship for the main objective of throwing the ills of the human condition (and possible solutions) into relief. In other words, it strikes me as auxiliary and incidental to goings-on - great if it occurs, but the focus should be elsewhere.

I also suggest that the "arts faculty pretensions of finding a cure for the human condition through chinstroking literature" is not the sum of a narrative. Maybe I'm missing the point, but D&D is far better at narratives of the Conan variety, where the ripping adventure yarn delivers no information about solving societal ills save for what can be done with a bold and violent mind and a quick blade.

In other words, just as the gamist perfection of pseudo-RPGs grown from D&D such as M:tG, Talisman and Heroquest (the Milton Bradley/Games Workshop one) have been attained and are known quantities as a gamist point of arrival for D&D (and therefore not a desirable destination for D&D itself, as these games are all limited in terms of their ability to map to RPG territory), so too the goals of literary style pretension are probably an undesirable primary objective for D&D.

D&D's metagame of worldbuilding cannot be dismissed. Without sufficient simulation of generic fantasy tropes, D&D becomes a poor platform for cliched fantasy worldbuilding and adventure, which is arguably one of the main draws - maybe even the main point - of the game in the first place.

 

[LostSoul]

Thanks. That's similar in many ways to my own system development for G&G. Simple and straightforward. Though I try to emphasize the shared elements, I think some folks stumble over the "DM vets" part as being problematic. Sometimes there is a pushback against systems that don't spell it all out and also against anything that might look like the facilitator is actually a factor in how things play out.

That's why I like 4E, it can be pretty elegant in its base form (which I see as page 42 DCs & damages, defences, and modifiers to checks).

Anyway, I was one of those people who didn't trust the "DM vets" part of the system. It was around when 4E came out and I started getting interested in the sort of exploration-heavy challenge-based play that (I feel) characterizes most of the OSR; I read those blogs, understood the DM's role in a different way, and saw how it wasn't a problematic part of the system.

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) but the focus should be elsewhere.

(. . .) D&D is far better at narratives of the Conan variety, where the ripping adventure yarn delivers no information about solving societal ills save for what can be done with a bold and violent mind and a quick blade.

Many would say the same about efforts to force humor into RPGs from the top down: Better for that to come up at the table organically rather than to try and wedge it into the game by way of rules or published adventures that focus on humor.

D&D's metagame of worldbuilding cannot be dismissed. Without sufficient simulation of generic fantasy tropes, D&D becomes a poor platform for cliched fantasy worldbuilding and adventure, which is arguably one of the main draws - maybe even the main point - of the game in the first place.

Individual worldbuilding was definitely a focus of early D&D that has gotten less and less important to the design of the core game over time, IMO.

 

[Mark CMG]

Anyway, I was one of those people who didn't trust the "DM vets" part of the system. It was around when 4E came out and I started getting interested in the sort of exploration-heavy challenge-based play that (I feel) characterizes most of the OSR; I read those blogs, understood the DM's role in a different way, and saw how it wasn't a problematic part of the system.

Can you elaborate a bit more on this transition of thought?

 

[BryonD]

On fireball, though, I think the fact that the spell targets "creatures" is relevant - it suggests that the caster lacks discretion over who/what the spell affects. (In my game, when the wizard wanted to avoid setting fire to a library, he used an "enemies only" fire attack.)

Cool. Obviously I personally agree with this assessment. I apologize for guessing your view incorrectly.

 

[pemerton]

Ok, pemerton... I'm a little confused here. As with many things in 4e I have seen two interpretations of how to set a DC in 4e. The first is by the level of the characters in the game (this was how I originally thought it was suppose to be, but was told I was doing it wrong by numerous fans of 4e)... the second, is by the "level" of the challenge you are facing. I'm curious as to which of these you follow.

By the level of the challenge, which if a creature/trap is equal to the creature/trap's level, if a skill check within the context of a combat encounter is equal to the encounter's level, and if a skill challenge is generally equal to the PCs' level.

If it's the first then I can see an argument for it being a safety net and limiting the risk of failure and consequences of success... but if you're going with the second interpretation of the rules, then I don't see how it does any such thing. Since you are now baseing the DC on the "level" of the challenge the PC's are facing and nothing inherently stops them from facing challenges beyond their means... except the DM (which would make it like any other version of D&D).

Where in the 1st ed DMG is a set of rules or guidelines for setting the difficulty of tasks - even combat tasks - in a way that will mesh with the mechanical capabilities of PCs of a given level? As Don Turnbull showed in his Monstermark article, Monster Level doesn't do this.

And unless it was in a supplement that I'm unaware of, 3E didn't give CR guidelines for challenges other than monsters and traps.

I'm also curious as to how you reconcile this with such things as the 9 different doors on page 97 of the Dungeon Master's Book with independent DC's based on their specific material... or even the hardcoded difficulties in the description of certain skills that seem based upon real world analogies? Again this seems like one of those areas that even 4e isn't sure what playstyle it wants to support with it's mechanics.

The doors chart also has a "suitable for PCs of this level column".