Legends & Lore: The Loyal Opposition

[Mercurius]

I really don't think it should break the game too hard to get a thief to learn cure light wounds at some point, even if they're never as good at it as the cleric is.

The 4E multiclass rules handle this quite nicely. The key word in your sentence is "learn." Sure, a thief should be able to learn to cast cure light wounds - one can imagine all sorts of plot points that would enable such a thing. I don't like the idea of a thief always having a chance to cure light wounds unless trained, however.

I also don't think it's a problem for Mr Heavy Armor to be able to swim like a porpoise on occasion, even if it's a rare one.

The nice thing about D&D is that you always have a 5% chance to be successful at just about anything. That means Bubba the Serf has a 5% chance of hitting Orcus with his broken pitchfork (although damaging him is another thing, but you get my drift). But as with the thief and cleric spells, I don't really dig the idea that Bubba has a 5% chance of casting meteor swarm if he says "abracadabra" and waves his dirty paws around. Certain capacities require training, especially the esoteric arts.

(Unless, of course, the rules of magic within a given campaign allow for such "wild castings" - but that shouldn't be the default world, but rather an optional rule)

 

[I'm A Banana]

The 4E multiclass rules handle this quite nicely.

It's got problems with feat taxing, but I think it's got a good core of an idea.

I don't like the idea of a thief always having a chance to cure light wounds unless trained, however.

Well, that's cart-before-the-horse material. You define a group of things that everyone can do, and put it in one silo, and you define a group of things that only special training can let you do, and you put it in a different silo. The stuff everyone can do, everyone can do (even with varying rates of success). The stuff only special folks can do, only special folks can do (even if they might not always do it well).

Skills do this with things you can do untrained (e.g.: general rules for climbing and the like) and things you can only do trained (e.g.: taking an Atheltics skill power in 4e).

"Healing" is defined as something anyone can do a bit of. Anyone can make a Heal check to perform some first aid. Anyone can use a Potion of Healing.

Using "Cure Light Wounds" is something that is a specific ability. Only those with that ability can do it. It is entirely outside the scope of other healing options. It isn't just "harder to do," it is a brand new element.

The question then becomes, where do you put down the walls of those silos?

What's crucial here to me is that the silos aren't defined by the difficulty of doing the thing. It's not that Cure Light Wounds is some extra-hard application of the Heal skill. It's an entirely different thing that completely bypasses the Heal skill entirely and uses entirely different rules.

So balancing on a tightrope during an earthquake is not material for this kind of silo, to me. It's hard, but it's still ultimately just balancing -- something anyone should have a chance to do.

However, perhaps declaring automatic success while balancing on a tightrope IS a kind of special ability, entirely bypassing the balancing skill, and doing something using entirely different rules.

So "you must be THIS trained to even attempt to balance during difficult conditions" is vastly unappealing to me, since anyone should be able to try and balance, just as anyone can try to perform first aid. But I have no problem with "If you are trained in Acrobatics, you can take THIS special ability that lets you auto-succeed on a balancing check."

That means Bubba the Serf has a 5% chance of hitting Orcus with his broken pitchfork (although damaging him is another thing, but you get my drift).

Well, if Bubbba the Serf was a PC, and, thus, a special unique snowflake in the world, that would make a certain amount of heroic sense!

I don't really dig the idea that Bubba has a 5% chance of casting meteor swarm if he says "abracadabra" and waves his dirty paws around. Certain capacities require training, especially the esoteric arts.

Is magic something anyone has a chance to do, or is each spell a unique, discrete trick you learn? This is an answer that varies from campaign to campaign. If magic is something anyone can do by reading a book (such as perhaps in the Lovecraft-verse), then anyone should be able to do it, and even have a chance of doing it really well. If each spell is a more narrow, specialized, trustworthy ability, then it would make sense to require possession of that ability.

To give another example, let's take tripping.

In 3e, tripping was something anyone could do. You could be better or worse at it, but anyone can do it. This makes logical sense, since any goofus can try to knock down another goofus, and you can imagine that a trained individual would be even better at it.

In 4e, tripping is something that is a specific, discrete trick, used with a special, unique power, that no one who doesn't possess one of those powers can attempt to do, ever. It's arguably better balanced, but it is also arguably logic-breaking, since it doesn't make logical sense that my wizard can't just have some chance to knock some goofus's legs out from under him.

If your skill is something that anyone should be able to at least try to do (such as balancing), there shouldn't be an artificial limit to possible success. If your skill is something that is a more discrete ability (such as spellcasting in most D&D games), it shouldn't be part of the skill system at all.

Difficulty class shouldn't be set by specialization, IMO. If anyone could try to do it, anyone should be able to try to do it.

 

[pemerton]

To give another example, let's take tripping.

In 3e, tripping was something anyone could do. You could be better or worse at it, but anyone can do it. This makes logical sense, since any goofus can try to knock down another goofus, and you can imagine that a trained individual would be even better at it.

In 4e, tripping is something that is a specific, discrete trick, used with a special, unique power, that no one who doesn't possess one of those powers can attempt to do, ever. It's arguably better balanced, but it is also arguably logic-breaking, since it doesn't make logical sense that my wizard can't just have some chance to knock some goofus's legs out from under him.

If your skill is something that anyone should be able to at least try to do (such as balancing), there shouldn't be an artificial limit to possible success. If your skill is something that is a more discrete ability (such as spellcasting in most D&D games), it shouldn't be part of the skill system at all.

KM, all of what you say here presupposes simulationist mechanics (ie the mechanics model the ingame causal processes). Which are fine if that's what one wants, but not the only way to go about things.

As soon as we think of the mechanics in metagame terms, we can think of other ways to deal with some of the issues you raise. For example, Mearls' "you must be this tall to ride" system increases player certainty as to whether or not their PCs can succeed at challenges. As you point out, though, sometimes the unskilled get lucky and succeed at stuff despite their lack of training. This can be incorporated into a system like Mearls's by giving some sort of Fate Point resource, which a player can spend to raise training by 1 rank for a single check. This both (i) achieves the metagame goal of player certainty and (ii) achieves the goal of verisimilitudinous fiction - occasionally even unskilled heroes get lucky.

Now some player clearly like the idea that you can roll for a 20! Ie, they want the chance to gamble rather than the sort of certainty Mearls's system provides. And this might be a good reason not to go with his system. But I prefer to look at the pros and cons of his system in terms of the sorts of expectations it favours and experiences it permits at the table. From this point of view, your criticism becomes not that it doesn't permit lucky successes within the fiction, but that if it does so, it does so via non-simulationist mechanics, and/or that if it does so, it doesn't necessarily preserve the dimension of luck as part of the play experience at the table.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For example, Mearls' "you must be this tall to ride" system increases player certainty as to whether or not their PCs can succeed at challenges.

Yeah, but Take 10 accomplishes the same thing, without an artificial upper limit.

This can be incorporated into a system like Mearls's by giving some sort of Fate Point resource, which a player can spend to raise training by 1 rank for a single check.

Personally, since the system already seems needlessly complex to me, adding an additional layer of resource-management to the mix isn't going to give the system a leg up, especially when the existing skill system is capable of giving the things this system seems so interested in achieving.

Now some player clearly like the idea that you can roll for a 20! Ie, they want the chance to gamble rather than the sort of certainty Mearls's system provides. And this might be a good reason not to go with his system.

Yeh, certainty is the enemy of fun in my games.

From this point of view, your criticism becomes not that it doesn't permit lucky successes within the fiction, but that if it does so, it does so via non-simulationist mechanics, and/or that if it does so, it doesn't necessarily preserve the dimension of luck as part of the play experience at the table

Well, the post you're quoting was a specific response to someone who didn't want a random peasant to be able to have a chance to cast a specific spell by waving their hands around and saying magic words. I was hoping to clarify that there's an existing difference in D&D between a class ability (such as a spell or a power) and a skill that can be used by anyone (such as Acrobatics), and that this distinction isn't borne out of a difficulty level (e.g.: Fly isn't just a particularly hard use of Acrobatics or Arcana, it's a totally separate thing).

So this criticism is more specifically that I don't think difficulty should be represented so categorically as to say "Only training level X is capable of doing this thing." It's sort of like saying "You must be Paragon Level to hit this orc." Which, yeah, removes me from the fiction of the world, and also lacks the dimension of luck that I enjoy.

 

[AeroDm]

Here's my take on "the why" of this system. I think in earlier versions of many games there weren't enough rules to resolve most things and as a result player immersion followed very naturally. The GM described a dark hallway and asked what the player did. The player grasped at the air, trying to think of something, anything, to do, and ended up doing what would be logical for the character: they lit a torch. You had to do something, there wasn't a rule, so all you had to go on was the in game environment.

Fast forward a few editions and when the GM describes a hallway and asks the player what they do, many (but not all) players take their cues from their character sheet and roll a d20. They make a spot check without putting much thought into the why or how. They aren't being lazy, they just want to see what happens next in the adventure and in order to get there they had to do *something.* A check is something. When the rule wasn't there, they had to come up with their own something.

I think this system Mearls' is describing has a primary function of setting the rules up to get back to that place. The goal is to have a bunch of scenarios where you have to do something triggered by whenever there is a mismatch in ranks*. The mismatch says you auto fail unless you get a little creative and interact with the environment to change what is going on. It is bringing the game back to that easily immersive stage with a little more structure. If that is the case, I guess there is a legitimate question of whether or not that extra structure is worth the carrying cost.

*I think this also explains why he used so many ranks. Deciding "that wall is expert difficulty" when there are only untrained, trained, expert difficulties is quite easy. Deciding the same when there are novice, trained, skilled, journeyman, expert, master, grand master, etc is substantially harder. Mearls' proposal goes with the later, making it harder to pick a DC, but more likely for mismatches to arise.

 

[MrMyth]

It seems that we all generally agree on a few things:

The problem is, agreement about what makes for a good game doesn't inherently result in knowing how to create that game - or what tradeoffs are worth giving up to get there. For example:

1) We like streamlined combat, I don't think I've seen anyone say that they absolutely love grindy long combat in any edition.

However, many folks do like tactical complexity in combat, and do like combats that go a moderate number of rounds (say, 4-5) rather than ones resolved in 1-2 (in which some characters might not be able to contribute).

An ideal system would find a way to address that while streamlining combat - but again, easier said than done.

That's really why I like these articles, even if I don't always agree with the direction they are going in - they are great at starting communication and getting people thinking. Thinking about what they do want in a game, and about how they can actually make that happen.

The community discussing this stuff is great, but I don't think I've ever seen quite this degree of regular discussion until these articles came along and started stirring up the pot.

 

[Anselyn]

However, many folks do like tactical complexity in combat, and do like combats that go a moderate number of rounds (say, 4-5) rather than ones resolved in 1-2 (in which some characters might not be able to contribute).

An ideal system would find a way to address that while streamlining combat - but again, easier said than done.

My name is Anselyn and I've been a non-player of /4e for three years. Now the confession is out of the way, can I ask - What bogs down the combat?

Is this mostly analysis paralysis because there is tactical complexity conjoined with human nature? Hence, you may infer that I posit that these things may often go together.

or,

Is it the multiple condittions and unfolding interrupts that add complexity and thus time to combat resolution?

 

[MrMyth]

My name is Anselyn and I've been a non-player of /4e for three years. Now the confession is out of the way, can I ask - What bogs down the combat?

Is this mostly analysis paralysis because there is tactical complexity conjoined with human nature? Hence, you may infer that I posit that these things may often go together.

or,

Is it the multiple condittions and unfolding interrupts that add complexity and thus time to combat resolution?

Both of those definitely contribute - having lots of tactical complexity means lots of choices and options, which often means players having several minutes of debate over what the 'best option' is before a single player engages the enemy. Interrupts, conditions, and ongoing effects means book-keeping and occasionally calculating and recalculating damage and the like.

Other possibilities involve combats taking a long time... in a good way. I've seen 4E adventure design that basically involves an encounter that spans multiple rooms/challenges/etc. Which means you have a very dynamic combat as the encounter changes, PCs fiddle with scenery or pause to interact with terrain elements, decide whether to pursue foes or retreat, etc... all of which can make for a very exciting combat, but also a lengthy one.

This isn't to say that 4E combat is innately bogged down - just that the potential for it is there, and these are some of the factors that can cause it. They can also often be addressed in the games where they do become an issue - encourage people to take actions quickly, avoid complex powers with lots of triggers/interrupts/etc, keep terrain effects simple, use high-damage but fragile enemies, etc.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

This isn't to say that 4E combat is innately bogged down - just that the potential for it is there, and these are some of the factors that can cause it. They can also often be addressed in the games where they do become an issue - encourage people to take actions quickly, avoid complex powers with lots of triggers/interrupts/etc, keep terrain effects simple, use high-damage but fragile enemies, etc.

This is where my main concern was when DM'ing a 4E from 1-30. I saw combat lengths in time (at the table) increase, but the rounds (in game) stayed the same. I had to do these tricks (lower hit points/higher damage enemies and added minions) to try to keep my combat from being bogged down. I think it is inherent in the game as the players reach the next level tier that the combat takes longer. My best example of this is that at heroic tier I could easily fit in 3-4 combats (if I wanted) during a 4 hour session. At Paragon tier, I could fit in 2 to possibly 3 combats (if I pushed the players to hurry). At Epic tier, I could only get 1 and very rarely 2 combats per session. I think it had to do with, as stated, the immense number of power options available, table-talk to strategize, and the number of conditions that we had to keep track of.

I personally don't like to try to "hurry" the players along or they feel rushed, but it did feel very grindy at the end of the campaign and I would only plan out a single big combat for the session which I felt would challenge the PCs, they were so powerful at that time that they killed things in 2-3 rounds and were barely hurt if I wasn't careful with the planning. I like to challenge people in my games, I'm not one that tries to TPK them, but I feel that a certain amount of danger adds to the element of suspense and investment into characters, making the experience superior.

 

[Greg K]

Fast forward a few edition and when the GM describes a hallway and asks the player what they do, many (but not all) players take their cues from their character sheet and roll a d20. They make a spot check without putting much thought into the why or how. They aren't being lazy, they just want to see what happens next in the adventure and in order to get there they had to do *something.* A check is something. When the rule wasn't there, they had to come up with their own something.

Well, in 3e, description helps if the DM read the DMG and, if some of this information about describing, had been in the PHB.

Description can give a +2 bonus for searching in the right area.

Describing the exact method needed could grant you automatic success and such description may be required for success. The example given of specific actions is requiring levers throughout the dungeon needing to be manipulated in proper sequence. However, this could, easily, be extended- for example, allow auto success if the player describes removing the cap of the bed post and the DM has placed something inside (Simply mentioning examining the bedpost might only grant a +2 bonus to noticing the scrape marks or the DM could simply point them out. Either way might lead the player to remove the cap of the bedpost).