Legends & Lore: Roleplaying in D&D Next

[Majoru Oakheart]

Namely, you're choosing to ignore the character sheet descriptors for first, but not for the second (presumably D&D)

*shrugs* I'm not THAT familiar with MHRP. I can only tell you that when I looked at the sheets, I saw basically one or two SFX per character. It seemed like the equivalent of playing 4e with 2 at-wills and no other powers at all. Extremely limited in options since the rest of your powers didn't give you any concrete abilities that you could quantify.

I mean, how fast do you fly with your 1d6 flight? I read the book and it seemed to say "fast". How much material can you blast through with your 1d8 energy blast? Somewhere between some and all, I'd say. If a building falls on you, can you survive with your 1d8 force field? I guess that depends on the size of the doom pool at the time.

I prefer the mechanics to inform me a lot more on what I'm capable of and be able to guess in advance my real chance of success.

That's why I tend to like Champions much better for super hero games. It tells me all these things. If only it could do that without taking 2 hours to run a combat in.

These rules almost universally rely to some extent on the common sensibilities of the players to adjudicate. D&D still has multitudinous factors and minor rules to handle all of these things individually and explicitly.

And I think this is precisely my issue with it. The mechanics aren't connected to what you are doing because you use the same mechanics for everything. The mechanics are also up in the air because they require so much interpretation by the DM and the players so as to barely BE rules.

When you use a rule specifically designed to handle a particular situation, it feels more like the mechanics are actually describing what your doing. Otherwise you get into "Oh, you're lifting a car....roll a d6 and on a 4 or more you succeed." "Oh, you are trying to shoot an energy beam at the bad guys, roll a d6 and on a 4 more more you succeed."

The other two points don't make much sense to me. If an enemy disarms your D&D character, does that imply that you need to check with the DM for permission to use your other weapon/ability?

It often does. Can you pick up the weapon as a free action, a move, or a standard? Depends on the edition and the way that you were disarmed. The weapon could be in easy reach or require you run over there to get it.

Maybe your ability doesn't specify if it actually needs your weapon in hand to use and you want to clarify with the DM what he's allowing. Pretty much every action in D&D requires you check with your DM first since there might be circumstances you are unaware of that prevent you from taking the action you want to.

In a system where the entirety of the rules on your power is "Web 1d8", one would figure you'd need to check with your DM even more often to see how your DM views the capabilities of your Webs and which situations he will allow them to be used in.

Is a rule that states the exact details of what it means to be disarmed actually needed or helpful?

Yes, because it clarifies the questions I listed above and might skip past many of them. For instance if the rules say that when you are disarmed your weapon always ends up at your feet and that picking a weapon off the ground is a move action...then if you know the rules you don't HAVE to ask the DM those questions which makes things faster.

The last point just sounds like a player who either doesn't understand the character or is just being contrary. I'm confident that we all are familiar with players who try to weasel things out of their character abilities regardless of system.

To be fair, I know Wolverine pretty decently. Even I couldn't tell you when you should or shouldn't add "I'm the best at what I do". If I played Wolverine I'd likely have to ask each and every time if the GM felt adding it was appropriate. Each GM would likely have a different interpretation of when to add it as well.

If I remember that YouTube video well, I believe the Wolverine in that session adds it to pretty much every roll he makes...since he's the best at what he does....no matter what that is.

I don't feel the story itself has any onus to describe the mechanics. The players may need to adjust the narrative to reflect mechanical results...

which can be good and bad, heaven knows HP have created their share of narrative nonsense. If the narrative is constantly strained by having to adjust to nonsensical results of the mechanics or narrative sensibilities regularly causes the mechanics to be ignored, then the mechanics are the issue.[/QUOTE]
It's not so much that the narrative has to describe the mechanics, they just need to inform the mechanics. If I'm attacking from above, I should use the mechanics for "attacking from above" and that should have a real effect on the game.

If I narrate a huge 5 minute long discussion of my actions and the mechanics that go with it amount to "I roll the exact same dice as if I had said 'I attack'" then the narrative isn't informing the mechanics. Either the mechanics have to change to allow that narrative to have more effect or the narrative needs to change to better fit the rules.

I'm a big fan of rules are tailor made for the theme and flavor you are going for.

If the narrative is constantly strained by having to adjust to nonsensical results of the mechanics or narrative sensibilities regularly causes the mechanics to be ignored, then the mechanics are the issue.

Agreed. The rules should fit the game. But this may just as much be the narrative's fault if you are trying to force a narrative into a game that wasn't made to handle it.

This came up very recently when a friend of mine decided to start running a D&D Next game. He's still new to roleplaying in general but he spent weeks coming up with the background for his D&D world. Then, one of the players makes a comment about how he can't wait to become high enough level as a Druid to be able to live a couple of thousand years before dying.

Suddenly our DM is banning the class feature because Druids who live a thousand years would ruin his entire world. The cities in his world are ruled by councils of high level druids and if they were all able to live for thousands of years then they'd all remember stuff that happened hundreds of years ago. The point of his campaign is that this world has forgotten the past and all of the super powerful magic that existed 2 thousand years ago. There can't be anyone left on his planet who was alive back then or it will ruin everything.

Now, one could say that it's the mechanics fault for forcing things that don't fit the narrative well. Or one could say that when running D&D, you need to take into account the rules in order to create the narrative.

Using the proper system for the proper feel is very important.

Take conditions in 4e. They may describe mechanically to how the minis are allowed to move or how the controllers of those minis must adjust future rolls, but they have no explicit connection to the story side and cannot.

Maybe not explicit, but they do have a connection. If the stun condition says you don't get to act on your next turn, you have to assume that something has happened to your character that prevents him from acting. Maybe that's a spell holding them in place and maybe it's being knocked unconscious briefly. If you got stunned when a mind flayer looked at you, you have some story context of what his ability does: It prevents you from acting until a save ends it. So it lasts between 6 and 12 seconds most of the time(since there is a 55% chance of saving every 6 seconds).

With this knowledge you can build a narrative. Yes, the exact effects are up in the air. But you do know precisely what effect the power has on the game. I think 4e's mechanics don't give you enough information either and are a little too vague.

Which is different than if you had an entry that just said "Mind Flayer. Powers: Mind Blast. Effects: Stun. Duration: Short". What does Stun mean if there's no rules for it? Does it just mean your hindered in some way or completely unable to act? How long is "short"? Two seconds or an hour? Without specific mechanics for what the Mind Blast does and how it works then what it does is different for each person who reads it.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

*shrugs* I'm not THAT familiar with MHRP. I can only tell you that when I looked at the sheets, I saw basically one or two SFX per character.

Each character has between 2 to 6 SFX.

Extremely limited in options since the rest of your powers didn't give you any concrete abilities that you could quantify.

I mean, how fast do you fly with your 1d6 flight? I read the book and it seemed to say "fast".

p. OM78: "Flight D6 is the speed of a hawk or a news chopper."

How much material can you blast through with your 1d8 energy blast? Somewhere between some and all, I'd say.

Depends on the value assigned by the Watcher. If it's important enough to determine this the material should be assigned a rating between D6 and D12. Otherwise, since this is emulating heroic comic book fiction, it doesn't usually matter, IMO. Your game of choice just handles this differently, not better, not "more connected to the fiction."

If a building falls on you, can you survive with your 1d8 force field? I guess that depends on the size of the doom pool at the time.

Or the asset crested by the villain that dropped the building on you.

I prefer the mechanics to inform me a lot more on what I'm capable of and be able to guess in advance my real chance of success.

Which is fine. I prefer being able to spend PP in MHRP to skew chance in my favor. Different takes to the same end.

That's why I tend to like Champions much better for super hero games. It tells me all these things. If only it could do that without taking 2 hours to run a combat in.

I'm not familiar with Champions. I did look into M&M, but didn't find the comic action feel I was looking for there. But I know it's a great game as quite a few people like it (and for that matter Champions).

And I think this is precisely my issue with it. The mechanics aren't connected to what you are doing because you use the same mechanics for everything. The mechanics are also up in the air because they require so much interpretation by the DM and the players so as to barely BE rules.

There is more guidance there than you are seeing. Every part that your are scrutinizing and criticizing on its own merits add up to a much greater whole. The character's Distinctions model the attitude and capabilities of the hero to inform how he plays; the Powers, SFX, Limits, die sizes, and number of power sets inform play; the character's specialties inform play; and the Personality and Abilities & Resources sections on the back of the hero datafile inform play.

When you use a rule specifically designed to handle a particular situation, it feels more like the mechanics are actually describing what your doing. Otherwise you get into "Oh, you're lifting a car....roll a d6 and on a 4 or more you succeed." "Oh, you are trying to shoot an energy beam at the bad guys, roll a d6 and on a 4 more more you succeed."

This is where I feel other systems are too limiting for me. When there is a rule to handle a particular situation everything's great. But let's use your Spidey blinding a villain with his webbing. If your Web-Shooter power says: You may brachiate at twice your normal movement rate and you may make an attack to entangle a target, DC X. When you try to shoot webbing into a target's eyes you could end up with at least three different results:

1) The GM tells you to go ahead and attack as normal and applies the blinded condition at the same DC instead of entangled. This is basically the same as a MHRP player choosing to cause a Blinded Complication or an Entangled Complication.

2) The GM tells you that the eyes are a small target so therefore a Called Shot, make your attack at -X and otherwise do as above. Alteratively, no penalty to the attack, but a lower DC or bonus to the target's save.

3) The GM tells you that your power doesn't allow you to blind people.

You can't be reasonable sure from GM to GM which result you will get.

In a system where the entirety of the rules on your power is "Web 1d8", one would figure you'd need to check with your DM even more often to see how your DM views the capabilities of your Webs and which situations he will allow them to be used in.

No, because there is more to Spider-Man than "Web d8."

Yes, because it clarifies the questions I listed above and might skip past many of them. For instance if the rules say that when you are disarmed your weapon always ends up at your feet and that picking a weapon off the ground is a move action...then if you know the rules you don't HAVE to ask the DM those questions which makes things faster.

In MHRP losing your weapon is activating your "Gear" Limit. There are clear rules for how to recover the associated power(s).

To be fair, I know Wolverine pretty decently. Even I couldn't tell you when you should or shouldn't add "I'm the best at what I do". If I played Wolverine I'd likely have to ask each and every time if the GM felt adding it was appropriate. Each GM would likely have a different interpretation of when to add it as well. If I remember that YouTube video well, I believe the Wolverine in that session adds it to pretty much every roll he makes...since he's the best at what he does....no matter what that is.

It's a heroic system, so yes, he can pretty much add it to every pool if the player wants. Often, smart players will play to the situation and us his "I'm the best at what I do" as a detriment (adding a d4 to their pool and gaining a PP), as in Wolverine underestimating his opposition because he believes he is the best.

It's meant as a "say yes" system. The Watcher should rarely deny what a player is trying to do. Unless the player is trying to actively play against the game. The system definitely is not everyone's cup of tea. I have one player in my group that I'm reluctant to invite when we play MHRP because he likes more concrete presentations as you seem to.

It's not so much that the narrative has to describe the mechanics, they just need to inform the mechanics. If I'm attacking from above, I should use the mechanics for "attacking from above" and that should have a real effect on the game.

I'm not sure I get you on this one. Not every system has determined that attacking from above grants a bonus. Are you saying that this must be present to make a good system? MHRP has a rule for this too, it isn't just on/off. Spider-Man could spend a turn swinging up, dodging his enemy's attacks, trying to get a good vantage to make an attack from above. He forms his pool appropriately and rolls and, if successful, creates an Asset that he can use on his next attack against the enemy.

If I narrate a huge 5 minute long discussion of my actions and the mechanics that go with it amount to "I roll the exact same dice as if I had said 'I attack'" then the narrative isn't informing the mechanics. Either the mechanics have to change to allow that narrative to have more effect or the narrative needs to change to better fit the rules.

MHRP has those mechanics. Decisions you make do have a tangible impact on the game.

I'm a big fan of rules are tailor made for the theme and flavor you are going for.

The theme and flavor I'm going for in a superheroes game is that "comic book heroes do unexpected things to defeat the villains (and vice versa). Even the most comprehensive ruleset cannot cover all possibilities and felt too limiting to appeal to my tastes.

 

[Warbringer]

The thing is, that skill checks themselves can still have variable amounts of successes. You can say as a DM "Ok, you failed your Diplomacy check, so that makes the King a little angrier but you made a decent point at the same time so he'll listen to you attempt to make another one."

See, to me this is a skill challenge, because skill checks are pass/fail, always have been in DnD unless houseruled. But setting up skill checks this way to drive extended skill scenes works; just have the consequences for failure well formulated ... exactly like you would in a combat challenge.

Now, I agree, that way skill challenges was implemented was clunky, and I don't strictly use as written. I don't have a hard "fail" rule (except on social challenges), but rather you need X successes bounded by either a timeframe or a maximum number of attempts; failures then simply reduce successes towards the goal. We then get successes, partial successes and consequences. (Just like combat where partial success would be victory but everyone below half hit points).

One other point of clarity, I use static DCs for skill checks, but having scaling number of successes based on monster level/HD. So a rouge with +12 on his Thievery in opening a lock designed by a 10th level locksmith might need 6 successes. The DC is only 10 (as he is using an applicable skill) and every +5 he beats the target by generate an extra success (you only lose a success on a natural 1). There are other things going on around that generate extra d20s, but you get the picture.

As you pointed out, its dropping the pass/fail mentality, create a little tension and have multiple outcomes for success.

(BTW we use this for combat as well when we don't feel like a full zoom-in; works a charm)

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

See, to me this is a skill challenge, because skill checks are pass/fail, always have been in DnD unless houseruled. But setting up skill checks this way to drive extended skill scenes works; just have the consequences for failure well formulated ... exactly like you would in a combat challenge.

I don't know. I've always used individual skills as a pass/fail, yes. But I let the narrative take care of the consequences for multiple skill failures.

Say the PCs are attempting to break into a castle. They roll some sort of Sneak/Move Silently roll to not be heard. They roll poorly and fail. There is a consequence for this skill. It is pass/fail. However, the consequence might be that one guard goes to check out the noise.

At this point the PCs might be able to kill the guard quickly and not be discovered by the castle at large. Or maybe a successful hide check to stay out of sight will cause the guard to wander away and assume the noise was nothing. Either way, they can continue sneaking into the castle.

Each skill might be pass/fail, but failing a skill doesn't mean failing whatever the PCs goal is.

However, if we're using the skill challenge rules as presented, the PCs have failed one skill check and succeeded on another if they fail their Sneak check followed by a successful hide check. One more failure and they fail to sneak into the castle. Say they use a Perception check to watch for guards and fail that...well, they aren't able to sneak into the castle anymore.

Of course you can just make the consequence for failure that the PCs have to fight a combat. But why arbitrarily decide that 2 failures causes the combat instead of factoring it which side of the building the PCs were trying to get into and whether there were guards over there.

It's the structure that's the problem. Multiple skill checks leading to a larger goal has pretty much been a part of D&D since skill checks existed.

 

[Warbringer]

I agree, I don't like the "fail and done" language in the Skill Challenge, so I removed it from my own house rules, except for certain situations: A filed diplomacy check with King Joffrey is pretty much challenge done.

I applaud you for your approach and its the way to handle it, but let us not forget, the skill checks as presented in earlier editions include language like "a thief that fails his check cannot attempt a check again until next level" ... the ultimate "pass/fail"

To me skill challenges attempt to put the interaction on the same footing as combat, not quite as the zoom-in is far deeper on combat. Traditionally, I just haven't seen skill checks create extended narrative like challenges can, and i've been playing 32 years now (sheesh .... if i'd been playing guitar that long and often I'd be a rock god )

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

p. OM78: "Flight D6 is the speed of a hawk or a news chopper."

Yeah, I'm not sure how fast that is. Plus, I think there's a fairly large speed difference between a hawk and a news chopper. Possibly nearly 100 km/hr difference given my quick search says that depending on the hawk or helicopter one could do 100 km/hr and the other could do 200km/hr.

Given it means that someone could reach somewhere in half the time someone else could, that's a huge difference.

Depends on the value assigned by the Watcher. If it's important enough to determine this the material should be assigned a rating between D6 and D12. Otherwise, since this is emulating heroic comic book fiction, it doesn't usually matter, IMO. Your game of choice just handles this differently, not better, not "more connected to the fiction."

So, the answer is "however much material the Watcher wants you to get through".

That's my point. Each Watcher might assign a different number based on their mood which doesn't really give you a good sense of what you are accomplishing.

Champions says that steel has a defense and body based on how thick it is. I can't remember the exact number, but lets say 10 body and 5 defense. This means that anyone with a 5d6 energy blast has to roll well to damage one inch of steel at all(in Champions each 2-5 rolled on a dice counts as 1 body damage, 1s count as 0 and 6s count as 2 damage).

Anyone with a 15d6 energy blast cuts through an inch of steel with one blast almost every time.

Or the asset crested by the villain that dropped the building on you.

This is actually precisely my point. The building is a 20 story building made of brick. But the size of the building doesn't matter to the mechanics, only the asset matters. The size of the asset doesn't factor in the size or construction of the building either, it's based entirely on the ability of the enemy who pushed it over.

The narrative of the game fails to inform the mechanics.

Which is fine. I prefer being able to spend PP in MHRP to skew chance in my favor. Different takes to the same end.

That's fine, but luck manipulation mechanics don't have to be separate from a system that feels connected.

There is more guidance there than you are seeing. Every part that your are scrutinizing and criticizing on its own merits add up to a much greater whole. The character's Distinctions model the attitude and capabilities of the hero to inform how he plays; the Powers, SFX, Limits, die sizes, and number of power sets inform play; the character's specialties inform play; and the Personality and Abilities & Resources sections on the back of the hero datafile inform play.

They slightly inform play. I mean, I've read a couple datafiles from characters I don't really know too much about and I'm not entirely sure what they are capable of. I can guess based on the short description on the back of their data file but their exact capabilities and limits are still a mystery to me.

Like, if a data file tells me a character can create illusions, how big can the illusions be, how realistic are they? How easy is it for people to see through them? If I've read the comic, I might have a sense for the character's limitations, but the rules don't really tell me much.

Some of the distinctions are so vague as to have absolutely no idea when they come into play or what purpose they have.

I've read through the book twice now, and although it's been a while and I forget the mechanics now, I remember my thought was "Ok, what the heck does this power do? What is it capable of? What are its limits?" The answer the game often came back with was "It doesn't matter. It adds 1d8 to your dice pool, that's all the game cares about."

3) The GM tells you that your power doesn't allow you to blind people.

This is what I like about Champions above all else. It's default position is "you can't do it unless you spend points on it". This will always be the answer if you didn't buy a flash vs sight in Champions.

It's the best way to keep the game balanced. I really hate "hidden power" in characters in any game. I generally refer to hidden power as abilities you have simply because it "makes sense" given other powers you have. Like the Spiderman example. It "makes sense" that you could blind people with your webs so suddenly you have another power that may put you over the power curve simply because your DM is unwilling to say no and restrict you to the abilities you are actually supposed to have.

No, because there is more to Spider-Man than "Web d8."

True, but the rules don't tell you that. You don't know the range of his webs, you don't know how fast he can swing, you don't know how strong his webs are if you attempt to cut them. You don't know anything except a short description that says "He can shoot webs and swing on them" and "Web d8".

It's meant as a "say yes" system. The Watcher should rarely deny what a player is trying to do. Unless the player is trying to actively play against the game. The system definitely is not everyone's cup of tea. I have one player in my group that I'm reluctant to invite when we play MHRP because he likes more concrete presentations as you seem to.

To me this smacks of not HAVING rules. If the answer is always yes then it doesn't matter what the rules say or how much information they give you...because you can do whatever you want.

Without structure, we might as well be playing cops and robbers in our basement yelling out "I killed you with my super-duper-ultimate laser!" "Uh uh...I'm immune to lasers, you can't hurt me!"

I find that characters are as defined by their limitations as they are by their powers. Knowledge of those limitations helps you to play that character.

I'm not sure I get you on this one. Not every system has determined that attacking from above grants a bonus. Are you saying that this must be present to make a good system?

No. Sometimes there needs to be some abstraction for ease of use. There's a reason that although Champions is my favorite system that I don't play it regularly. It's rules are so detailed that nothing gets done half the time. For ease of use, I prefer a system like D&D which takes a middle ground approach of having enough detail to satisfy me and having enough abstraction to make the game playable.

What I AM saying is that a game should never get TOO abstract. Which I believe MHRP has.

MHRP has those mechanics. Decisions you make do have a tangible impact on the game.

They can. But often they don't.

For instance:

"I leap up into the air, attach my web to the ceiling and swing over, kicking the enemy in the face as I joke about him having a nice fall." I add(numbers will likely be wrong, don't have my book handy) 1d6 acrobatics, 1d10 web, 1d8 "mouthy", 1d8 solo, 1d8 super strength. I roll 1d6, 3d8, 1d10. I roll above the enemy's defense roll and I do damage.

"I turn my webs into boxing gloves that I put around my hands, I slide under the enemies legs, doing a roll, I quickly turn around and punch him in the back while telling him not to get punch drunk." 1d6 acrobatics, 1d10 web, 1d8 "mouthy", 1d8 solo, 1d8 super strength. I roll 1d6, 3d8, 1d10. I roll above the enemy's defense roll and I do damage.

My decisions had 0 effect on the turn other than to provide a colour commentary on what I did.

Now, in a game like D&D, your DM would likely say that you can't describe something that isn't within your ability to do it. If you are attacking with your sword, you can't describe yourself as kicking since that's not the attack you are using. Kicking would do different damage and likely has a different bonus to hit. So you describe what your abilities say you can do.

My problem with a system as abstract as MHRP is that its philosophy is "say yes" and "you can do anything you want" but the vast majority of the time that freedom isn't reflected in the mechanics at all.

The theme and flavor I'm going for in a superheroes game is that "comic book heroes do unexpected things to defeat the villains (and vice versa).

I don't know. I haven't found players who would use any unexpected tactics. Even given complete freedom to describe whatever they wanted with no rules at all, most of them would default to "I hit it". They want to play the game, not write stories. Half of them would write stupid stories if given the chance.

Even the most comprehensive ruleset cannot cover all possibilities and felt too limiting to appeal to my tastes.

Champions may just be able to cover all possibilities. I'd say it's likely the most comprehensive ruleset in existence. However, it requires two 700 page books to do so and half the time you're dealing with fiddly rules like "Ok, so you were traveling at 26.7 km/h. After going through that wall, it reduced your momentum so you are only going at 10.24 km/h. That means you only take 3d6 damage when you hit that mailbox. Your defenses are high enough to absorb that damage so it doesn't hurt you. However, that much damage is enough to destroy the mailbox and slows you down so you end up...10 meters away from it."

But your limits were also very strictly defined so attempting things you couldn't do wasn't possible. It covered EVERY possibility. However, you had to buy EVERY possibility if you wanted it.

 

[Ratskinner]

I prefer the mechanics to inform me a lot more on what I'm capable of and be able to guess in advance my real chance of success.

That's why I tend to like Champions much better for super hero games. It tells me all these things. If only it could do that without taking 2 hours to run a combat in.

In my long and varied experience with these things...its just not possible. Every detail or corner-case rule you add will slow things down. Its the nature of the beast. Even if its not the rule or its resolution that takes the time...its the looking up of DCs or hp or the like. Which isn't to say that "I want an explicit rule for everything" is a bad desire, its just in direct opposition with the desire for speed. When looking at a system like that, I've noted that all the "its not slow" arguments boil down to accounting methods implemented by the systems afficianados to

And I think this is precisely my issue with it. The mechanics aren't connected to what you are doing because you use the same mechanics for everything. The mechanics are also up in the air because they require so much interpretation by the DM and the players so as to barely BE rules.

When you use a rule specifically designed to handle a particular situation, it feels more like the mechanics are actually describing what your doing. Otherwise you get into "Oh, you're lifting a car....roll a d6 and on a 4 or more you succeed." "Oh, you are trying to shoot an energy beam at the bad guys, roll a d6 and on a 4 more more you succeed."

First off, I've played that game...and it isn't Marvel Heroic, so stop saying it is . (That game is called Otherkind, though it is slightly more complicated than that). As @VyvyanBasterd has noted, Marvel Heroic has rules for determining and adjudicating much more than what you appear to be aware of. It is certainly true that it handles things more dynamically than D&D ever has. However, I think that's very in keeping with the genre its trying to emulate.

In a system where the entirety of the rules on your power is "Web 1d8", one would figure you'd need to check with your DM even more often to see how your DM views the capabilities of your Webs and which situations he will allow them to be used in.

Or you could design the system to just allow you to try it while not being so absolutely beholden to the DM's permission. The Supers genre is rife with characters doing unusual or unique things with their powers. For Spiderman, just trying to enumerate all the ways he has used his various powers would be a daunting task, I'd hate to try and go through and write a rule for each of them...and he's not even a worst-case scenario.

Yes, because it clarifies the questions I listed above and might skip past many of them. For instance if the rules say that when you are disarmed your weapon always ends up at your feet and that picking a weapon off the ground is a move action...then if you know the rules you don't HAVE to ask the DM those questions which makes things faster.

Again, these things don't have to be written into the rules statically.

If I narrate a huge 5 minute long discussion of my actions and the mechanics that go with it amount to "I roll the exact same dice as if I had said 'I attack'" then the narrative isn't informing the mechanics. Either the mechanics have to change to allow that narrative to have more effect or the narrative needs to change to better fit the rules.

If the an MHRP player simply says "I attack", then its legit to question them on why they are rolling anything other than their affiliation die and whatever combat skill die their character has. However, all Colossus' player need do is describe the attack with a few more words...."Colossus screams in rage at him and tries to pound him into the dirt." and suddenly his Quick to Anger distinction kicks in a d8 and his Godlike d12 strength applies as well. If I'm your Watcher, that second description gets you the dice without me questioning it.

I'm a big fan of rules are tailor made for the theme and flavor you are going for.

Agreed. The rules should fit the game. But this may just as much be the narrative's fault if you are trying to force a narrative into a game that wasn't made to handle it.

No argument there.

This came up very recently when a friend of mine decided to start running a D&D Next game. He's still new to roleplaying in general but he <snippage>
Now, one could say that it's the mechanics fault for forcing things that don't fit the narrative well. Or one could say that when running D&D, you need to take into account the rules in order to create the narrative.

One could blame the mechanics, and I would (although perhaps banning Druids entirely was a bit of an overreaction). But I can see both points, although I think the real answer just depends on your point of view and personal desires. I actually consider it a fairly big problem that D&D locks itself so tightly into its own particular brand of fantasy. I think it makes it very frustrating for people coming into DMing and looking for that narrative/creative authority and discovering that they need to fight against the rules to do it (like your friend).

Maybe not explicit, but they do have a connection. If the stun condition says you don't get to act on your next turn, you have to assume that something has happened to your character that prevents him from acting. Maybe that's a spell holding them in place and maybe it's being knocked unconscious briefly. If you got stunned when a mind flayer looked at you, you have some story context of what his ability does: It prevents you from acting until a save ends it. So it lasts between 6 and 12 seconds most of the time(since there is a 55% chance of saving every 6 seconds).

Yes.... the point is that once you are "stunned" its irrelevant where or how it happened. All "Stun" is the same. Just like all Complications (in a very gross sense) work the same, by penalizing relevant actions. The difference is that because of the MHRP's mechanical environment, it doesn't need to specify some large number of possible conditions and their mechanical effects. I don't really think there's a lot of debate at MHRP tables as to when complications like "Stunned", "Entangled in Vines", or "Covered with Bees" would be applicable.

Which is different than if you had an entry that just said "Mind Flayer. Powers: Mind Blast. Effects: Stun. Duration: Short". What does Stun mean if there's no rules for it? Does it just mean your hindered in some way or completely unable to act? How long is "short"? Two seconds or an hour? Without specific mechanics for what the Mind Blast does and how it works then what it does is different for each person who reads it.

Well, you're mixing mechanical metaphors here, so yes, Marvel notes don't make sense within D&D's framework. But the same is true in reverse. Within the MHRP mechanics all your questions are, in fact, answered. First off, let's put the question in Marvel terms. Let's say there's an Illithid, he might have a Psionics power block with a Psychic Blast d10 power listed. That's it. Now, if the author of the Illithid really wanted to specify that they use the blast to stun, he might instead make it Psychic Blast d8 and add SFX: Mind Blast Step up your effect die by +1 when creating a "Stunned" complication using Psychic Blast.* Now, you may be tempted to ask about Duration, Actions, etc., but these are handled by the system itself. A complication is generally good for one roll or round (so a few seconds), but you could pay a PP (or Doom Pool die, if you're the Watcher) to have it last until the end of scene. Secondly, it can add up, so if several Illithids ganged up and pushed your "Stunned" complication beyond d12, you're rendered helpless, otherwise "Stunned" probably affects quite a lot of rolls and actions and adds it die to your opponent's pools. (Avoids the dreaded "Save or Die" type situation right off the bat, how 'bout that.)

Of course, if 4e's mechanics left you feeling like they were wishy-washy, I'm not sure that's gonna help.

*Honestly though, MHRP has Mental Stress that does basically the same thing so I would probably recommend leaving it at d10 and dealing mental stress. That would make the Duration answer "Until the end of the scene" and the impact answer "Hinders your actions." The pumping it up over d12 stays the same in either case.

 

[Warbringer]

"Of course, if 4e's mechanics left you feeling like they were wishy-washy, I'm not sure that's gonna help."

Not sure they've ever been called that

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Yeah, I'm not sure how fast that is. Plus, I think there's a fairly large speed difference between a hawk and a news chopper. Possibly nearly 100 km/hr difference given my quick search says that depending on the hawk or helicopter one could do 100 km/hr and the other could do 200km/hr. Given it means that someone could reach somewhere in half the time someone else could, that's a huge difference.

It matters in a game that plays on a grid (actual or distance measured). It doesn't matter as much in MHRP, so it covers a greater range.

So, the answer is "however much material the Watcher wants you to get through".

That's my point. Each Watcher might assign a different number based on their mood which doesn't really give you a good sense of what you are accomplishing.

Champions says that steel has a defense and body based on how thick it is. I can't remember the exact number, but lets say 10 body and 5 defense. This means that anyone with a 5d6 energy blast has to roll well to damage one inch of steel at all(in Champions each 2-5 rolled on a dice counts as 1 body damage, 1s count as 0 and 6s count as 2 damage).

Anyone with a 15d6 energy blast cuts through an inch of steel with one blast almost every time.

So, the answer in Champions is "however thick the GM decides the material is." Different approaches is all I see.

This is actually precisely my point. The building is a 20 story building made of brick. But the size of the building doesn't matter to the mechanics, only the asset matters. The size of the asset doesn't factor in the size or construction of the building either, it's based entirely on the ability of the enemy who pushed it over.

The narrative of the game fails to inform the mechanics.

The asset represents how much of the building the villain is able to bring to fore, that's all. It is assumed that action flow is continuous. A hero is not just standing there waiting for a building to fall on him just because its not his turn.

That's fine, but luck manipulation mechanics don't have to be separate from a system that feels connected.

I just want to be clear. I'm not discussing with you intending to convince you to like MHRP. I can understand why you wouldn't like it with the tastes you've stated here. I'm just responding to points about the game I believe you've misrepresented due to your unfamiliarity with the system. I'm not claiming that Champions or any other supers games lacks something just because I believe MHRP has it.

They slightly inform play. I mean, I've read a couple datafiles from characters I don't really know too much about and I'm not entirely sure what they are capable of. I can guess based on the short description on the back of their data file but their exact capabilities and limits are still a mystery to me.

Add to my list the Example Powers chapter that gives a rough explanation of what different rated powers are capable of. Their are mysteries involved in MHRP that can make it a challenge to achieve what you want to do, but I enjoy those mysteries.

Like, if a data file tells me a character can create illusions, how big can the illusions be, how realistic are they? How easy is it for people to see through them? If I've read the comic, I might have a sense for the character's limitations, but the rules don't really tell me much.

Sorcery is the power to create illusions. A d6 gives you a small area about room-sizes, d8 gives you up to neighborhood-sized, d10 gives you city-wide, and d12 regional. The games on a grand scale. It doesn't care about things in a world of 5-foot squares.

Some of the distinctions are so vague as to have absolutely no idea when they come into play or what purpose they have.

They are roleplaying or environamental hooks to play off to your aid (d8) or detriment (d4). It is the player's choice how he uses them. If a player strains the fiction, the table (not just the Watcher) will usually call it out and may suggest a better application.

I've read through the book twice now, and although it's been a while and I forget the mechanics now, I remember my thought was "Ok, what the heck does this power do? What is it capable of? What are its limits?" The answer the game often came back with was "It doesn't matter. It adds 1d8 to your dice pool, that's all the game cares about."

MHRP puts the onus on the player to make things work within the ruleset, while the games you like put the onus on the rules. Both approaches work, you and I just enjoy different styles. But your repeated claims that "it doesn't matter" is misrepresenting the game. If it doesn't matter, then why all the worry in previuos posts about getting 'permission' from the Watcher to do something? The choices matter, the opponents capabilities matter. Just because MHRP quantifies its rules differently than Champions does not mean it has rules that don't matter.

This is what I like about Champions above all else. It's default position is "you can't do it unless you spend points on it". This will always be the answer if you didn't buy a flash vs sight in Champions.

It's the best way to keep the game balanced. I really hate "hidden power" in characters in any game. I generally refer to hidden power as abilities you have simply because it "makes sense" given other powers you have. Like the Spiderman example. It "makes sense" that you could blind people with your webs so suddenly you have another power that may put you over the power curve simply because your DM is unwilling to say no and restrict you to the abilities you are actually supposed to have.

And this is the exact reason I find Champions too limiting for my tastes in the superhero genre. Spider-Man not being able to do something he did in the comics because you ran out of points buying everything else would bother me greatly. But then from what I know, correct me if I'm wrong, Champions is meant to be played creating your own superhero, while MHRP is built to play Marvel heroes (another aspect of the system I understand people don't like).

True, but the rules don't tell you that. You don't know the range of his webs, you don't know how fast he can swing, you don't know how strong his webs are if you attempt to cut them. You don't know anything except a short description that says "He can shoot webs and swing on them" and "Web d8".

The rules do tell you that. There's no set DC for the strength of his webs, instead that is determined by the active roll. Both result in a Target Number.

To me this smacks of not HAVING rules. If the answer is always yes then it doesn't matter what the rules say or how much information they give you...because you can do whatever you want.

That's not what "say yes" means. It means you work towards achieving what the player wants. It does not mean you can do whatever you want.

Without structure, we might as well be playing cops and robbers in our basement yelling out "I killed you with my super-duper-ultimate laser!" "Uh uh...I'm immune to lasers, you can't hurt me!"

I'd appreciate it if you'd withhold the condescending insulting tone here. I have weathered the gross inaccuracies and "my supers game is better than yours" without resorting to slamming your game of choice or insulting you.

They can. But often they don't.

For instance:

"I leap up into the air, attach my web to the ceiling and swing over, kicking the enemy in the face as I joke about him having a nice fall." I add(numbers will likely be wrong, don't have my book handy) 1d6 acrobatics, 1d10 web, 1d8 "mouthy", 1d8 solo, 1d8 super strength. I roll 1d6, 3d8, 1d10. I roll above the enemy's defense roll and I do damage.

"I turn my webs into boxing gloves that I put around my hands, I slide under the enemies legs, doing a roll, I quickly turn around and punch him in the back while telling him not to get punch drunk." 1d6 acrobatics, 1d10 web, 1d8 "mouthy", 1d8 solo, 1d8 super strength. I roll 1d6, 3d8, 1d10. I roll above the enemy's defense roll and I do damage.

My decisions had 0 effect on the turn other than to provide a colour commentary on what I did.

Because YOU didn't do anything different! There are a plethora of tactics Spider-Man can take beyond that. Not just fluf description, but actual RULES that amount to more than "I swing my sword again."

Now, in a game like D&D, your DM would likely say that you can't describe something that isn't within your ability to do it. If you are attacking with your sword, you can't describe yourself as kicking since that's not the attack you are using. Kicking would do different damage and likely has a different bonus to hit. So you describe what your abilities say you can do.

I wouldn't have a problem with a D&D Fighter saying he kicked someone while sword-fighting. Watch fantasy movies and you will see this kind of action regularly. "Hits" aren't necessarily hits in D&D. "Damage" isn't necessarily actual physical damage. There's enough abstraction to allow for this IMO.

My problem with a system as abstract as MHRP is that its philosophy is "say yes" and "you can do anything you want" but the vast majority of the time that freedom isn't reflected in the mechanics at all.

Just because you are unable to recognize them doesn't mean they aren't there. Every time one of us has pointed them out you respond that either "Champions doesn't do it that way", "Sometimes you can" or "Claim #42 that they don't actually exist."

I don't know. I haven't found players who would use any unexpected tactics. Even given complete freedom to describe whatever they wanted with no rules at all, most of them would default to "I hit it". They want to play the game, not write stories. Half of them would write stupid stories if given the chance.

It's not about writing stories. It's about emulating the action in a comic book. If all Spider-Man did in the comics was "I attack" his titles would have ended decades ago. I understand that's not how everyone likes to play, but this fact does not make Champions somehow "better."

 

[Warbringer]

Guys, as much as I love MHRP, this isn't the forum. Can we return to replaying in DND and specifically Next?

Thanks