More DMing analysis from Lewis Pulsipher

[Tuft]

I didn't have time to comment on this when I first read it.

I feel this is a problem with games like 3E that tries to generalize maneuvers. Once you know how to trip, you can always trip-there is no need to wait for an opening, and the opponent has no way to look out for and guard against your recurring trip. Which can quickly get boring and repetitive. I'm going to list some possible ways to combat this situation:

Feng Shui had a "boring and repetitive" rule. If the GM judges and action repetitive, he can assign an arbitrary penalty. Feng Shui is supposed to be cinematic; your move was not cinematic enough and got cut. I'd append that the player should be given the option to try something else instead with his action, but that's me. This rules is simple and works in any game but not with any group.

4E tried to combat this with dailies and encounter powers; you can trip, but enemies will only fall for this once per fight. I could bye this explanation, but many (including most of my players) could not - it lacks verisimilitude.

There was a little-known combat card game called Highlander. A card game can solve this in that you have a random hand of possible maneuvers. If you read these as openings in your opponent's defenses, it is a solution to the problem. You can only trip when you have a trip card in your hand. (Highlander did not have a trip IIR, but you get the drift).

Fighting Fantasy was a book dueling game - each combatant was represented by a book with a position/stance on each page and a maneuver card with color-coded maneuvers. It was like advanced rock-paper-scissors. Certain positions were restricted; "Do only green or yellow next turn". Certain of these restrictions made you vulnerable to certain attacks - like trip. You could try to set the opponent up this way. Also, if one player consistently did trip attacks, the other would get wise to the tactic and use moves that were not vulnerable to trips. While interesting, this example is way too complex for rpgs in which you fight a lot, especially open melee (as opposed to duels).

This is where the die roll comes in - it shows whether there really was an opening or not. As you'r skill, strength or agility does not vary over time, the die roll is there to simulate all the factors you do not have control over - is the arms, legs, etc in the right place, is the target off-balance or not, at that particular moment you look for an opening. A failed roll might as well represent that there was no opening to exploit.

In Computer Science, there is a concept called "Lazy Evaluation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy_evaluation), which basically means "dont calculate it unless you need it" - for example, when you simulate a scene using computer graphics, you can get a pretty good approximation by just calculating the path of the photons that enventually will hit the eyes of the imagined beholder's retina - and approximation called raytracing, as opposed to radiosity - but I digress..

In the same matter you can be lazy with the rolls - you don't need to roll for an opening unless someone is looking for an opportunity to trip/grapple/disarm. But I think this can cause a mental disconnect - you can easilly see it as that there *are* no opportunities unless you roll. When I played Shadowrun, there was a fierce table discussion about the fact that in that system you could roll for dodging when someone shot a firearm at you. Took a long time for people to accept the fact that you dodged all the time and you only rolled for it when it mattered. It really helped when finally Lazy Evaluation was brought up - since most of the players had a CS background, that argument finally got acceptance.

The thing about using the die roll to simulate the presence of openings and opportunities, is that as you improve in an ability, such as "trip", more and more narrow openings become exploitable, and you get more and more opportunities - as seen in a larger and larger part of the possible die roll results becoming sucesses. Not only are you able to use more narrow openings, but you can create openings when needed...

Which brings me to one of the problems I think AEDU has with getting accepted for maneuvers...

Why do we collect XP and level up in this game?

After all, the XP progression is just a death clock for a (hopefully) beloved character. At a certain XP sum, a certain level, that characters life is over, the campaign ends, and new characters are rolled up.

Well, the big draw is supposed to be that the character is supposed to become better as you level up. That is one of the big expectations people have of a level-up system.

As in for example, if you see yourself as the great maneuver expert, you do feel better when you get more and more opportunities to use your ability. With AEDU you dont gett any more chances than the number of maneuver ED cards you have, but with a die roll, if you can keep it improving ahead of the curve, you feel you get more and more opportunities.

I think that is why people simply want more chances than AEDU limits them to to be able to feel like they are becoming an Expert at something, whether it is trip, or disarm, or throwing big honking blocks of stone...

 

[Starfox]

Is the verisimilitude problem for 4e one of outcome - it's unverisimilitudinous that an opponent can be tripped only a limited number of times per fight (not technically true, but putting p 42 to one side for the sake of discussion)? Or one of process - it's unverisimilitudinous that my decision, as a player, determines whether or not my opponent has left an opening?

Rather the opposite of your last outcome - the player felt their integrity of choice was constrained by being able to use a power only once, even if it was a situation that clearly fitted the power. A bit of the unverisimilitude argument too, I guess, but mainly that the rules infringed on player choice. The problem was that an encounter power - even one patently unsuitable to the situation - was basically guaranteed to be better than an at-will power. Thus you ALWAYS used your encounter powers, making each fight feel boring and repetitive.

I actually made a fighter (never actually played) that had "Come and Get it" three times - that power existed in very similar versions both at heroic, paragon, and epic level. No rule prevented you from taking all these variants, and it got around the problem - the character and player choices were suddenly identical.

Now, this was not the only problem with 4E.

 

[Starfox]

The thing about using the die roll to simulate the presence of openings and opportunities, is that as you improve in an ability, such as "trip", more and more narrow openings become exploitable, and you get more and more opportunities - as seen in a larger and larger part of the possible die roll results becoming sucesses. Not only are you able to use more narrow openings, but you can create openings when needed...

This is where things like the bonus tokens and limit breaks of Action (A Feng Shui-based homebrew I and Tuft are playing) play an important role - they either disguise the repetitiveness of the action (all your semi-successful rolls are only the preambles to build bonus tokens; only the last roll was the true stunt) or limit how often you can do the action (only one fireball per sequence, because fireball is a limit break).

These concepts are a bit hard to translate into d20 (3E, Pathfinder). The closest I can see is how dragon breath is limited - for 1d4 rounds, the dragon cannot breathe fire again. The same could be used for combat maneuvers - after you succeed, roll 1d6. This is the penalty if you repeat the stunt next round. Each round you do something else, the penalty is reduced by 2. Or, more simply, give a -4 penalty if you are trying the same combat maneuver 2 rounds in a row. Now, this is not a serious rule suggestion, it is just a proposed d20 mechanic to match the other option-limiting mechanics I posted earlier.

What d20 actually does is the opposite - it encourages specialization, to the point where a single combat maneuver becomes a strictly better option IN ALL SITUATIONS. This overspecialization is not good game design. IMO, the linear probability of the d20 is to blame - it gives escalating returns both at the high and low end of the scale. I am much more fond of the pyramid-curve distribution you get when rolling 2 dice.

Edit: Actually, this is a bit similar to 4E, where the encounter powers are similarly the strictly better option, regardless of situation.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The game was d20 Modern. I was played a WWII vet who ended up in the Groom Lake airbase in 1948 and witnessed an extra-dimensional attack. I knew the story required my PC to head through the portal from which the aliens were attacking, so I tried to get my motorcycle on their ship in a pretty crazy manoeuvre. The DM didn't think that would work. Which left me confused - I knew he wanted me to act like a hero and do stuff like that, but then he made it impossible.

To be fair this is partially a flaw of d20 Modern's rules. It claims to be a cinematic, exciting game where TV/Movie-type action happens, but the rules do not, in any way, support that. So it has/had a lot of DMs who want one thing, but then look at the rules and see they show another thing. If they were sensible, they'd dumb d20 Modern and go with a system that actually works for that kind of action.

 

[pemerton]

TThe closest I can see is how dragon breath is limited - for 1d4 rounds, the dragon cannot breathe fire again. The same could be used for combat maneuvers - after you succeed, roll 1d6. This is the penalty if you repeat the stunt next round. Each round you do something else, the penalty is reduced by 2. Or, more simply, give a -4 penalty if you are trying the same combat maneuver 2 rounds in a row. Now, this is not a serious rule suggestion, it is just a proposed d20 mechanic to match the other option-limiting mechanics I posted earlier.

What d20 actually does is the opposite - it encourages specialization, to the point where a single combat maneuver becomes a strictly better option IN ALL SITUATIONS.

<snip>

this is a bit similar to 4E, where the encounter powers are similarly the strictly better option, regardless of situation.

In our 4e game we've never found that encounter powers are strictly better than at-wills in all situations (eg if you have only one enemy, who is adjacent to you, Footwork Lure is often better than CaGI).

As the game plays for me, I don't think the "you can do it again at a penatly" would play noticably differently from 4e (especially 4e including p 42).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As the game plays for me, I don't think the "you can do it again at a penatly" would play noticably differently from 4e (especially 4e including p 42).

That's actually a shockingly insightful point, at least to me.

In many cases, if a PC could try an Encounter power again at -4 to hit, they really would be just better off with an At-Will (Dailies might merit a -8 or -6). It would get tricky with ones which don't really require a roll and rely mostly on some kind of static effect, but those are very far and few between.

Starfox is definitely wrong to assert that Encounters > At-Wills, too, I can think of dozens of counter-examples from my running of 4E. They often are, but not "strictly" - that's just wrong (I'm also skeptical of his claim re: multiple CaGIs, I think that's either a bug in the character builder, or his definition of CaGI goes well beyond the actual power - beside the point either way, though).

Next time I run 4E, I might just let people re-do single-target, non-minor-action Encounter powers (not all of them) at -4 - even ones that succeeded - and see if they even want to. I feel like it's such a trap option in most cases though that it might be unfair. HMMMMMM.

 

[Kraztur]

My theorycraft-fu is weak, but to have 4E-style powers more palatable to a "traditional" RPG experience, then perhaps either more in-game causality Or a clearer distinction between player narrative vs character-motivated actions.

For example, I understand that sorcery points will be used in 5E. For me, the sorcerer's actual powers are both player and in-character actions; they are associated to me. When I activate a power, I could immerse into the character in first person perspective. However, the micromanagement of sorcery points leans towards metagame. I'd be planning the expenditure of sorcery points in ways the character does not necessarily think, like from a 3rd person perspective.

(Sure, the process may somehow mirror how I imagine the character is behaving. Using a lot of sorcery points could reflect fatigue "My sorcer clenches his fists and furrows his brow, sweat pouring down his brow, trying really hard to unleash a blast of energy". Others may see expenditure of sorcery points as purely narrative, like a superhero unleashing his eye beams approx once per battle just because.)

Regardless of how much one views sorcery points as metagame-first or not, I see a clear enough distinction between the sorcery points as a mini-game vs sorcery effects as in-character actions. That very distinction allows me to switch rapidly between 1st person immersive mode and 3rd person resource management (compared to something like CaGI which muddles up the distinction between 1st and 3rd person).

I don't think D&D can or will have 100% in-game causality (for pragmatic reasons) but by design or by accident, traditional D&D allowed me to switch between 1st person and 3rd person perspective enough to make me happy.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My theorycraft-fu is weak, but to have 4E-style powers more palatable to a "traditional" RPG experience, then perhaps either more in-game causality Or a clearer distinction between player narrative vs character-motivated actions.

For example, I understand that sorcery points will be used in 5E. For me, the sorcerer's actual powers are both player and in-character actions; they are associated to me. When I activate a power, I could immerse into the character in first person perspective. However, the micromanagement of sorcery points leans towards metagame. I'd be planning the expenditure of sorcery points in ways the character does not necessarily think, like from a 3rd person perspective.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6341239#ixzz38DLIFL63

Regardless of how much one views sorcery points as metagame-first or not, I see a clear enough distinction between the sorcery points as a mini-game vs sorcery effects as in-character actions. That very distinction allows me to switch rapidly between 1st person immersive mode and 3rd person resource management (compared to something like CaGI which muddles up the distinction between 1st and 3rd person).

I don't think D&D can or will have 100% in-game causality (for pragmatic reasons) but by design or by accident, traditional D&D allowed me to switch between 1st person and 3rd person perspective enough to make me happy.

It's an open question as to whether CaGI does, though, any more than an Intimidate check or the like. You are saying "IMHO, it does", but does it? Probably not worth discussing, but to act as if it's a forgone conclusion is ridiculous. Personally I dislike CaGI because I do think it cuts really close to the line and does so in a cheesy rather than cool way, but I know that players I've spoken to do NOT see it as some sort of metagame thing, they see it as an action their PC actually takes (perhaps a variable, situational action, but an actual in-the-world action nonetheless.

More to the point, your suggestion relies on 4E being full of CaGI-like effects. It isn't. Period. Easily 99% of 4E powers can be interpreted without any third-person-perspective stuff. People's problems with 4E are NOT solely or mainly from that kind of thing, it's just CaGI is a particular power that people who want to rationalize/intellectualize their dislike for 4E, which is okay, I guess, but pretty boring, because you pretty much never see other examples, and CaGI is only occasionally hard to see as 1st-person (at least, for players I've spoken to).

So it's fair to say that changing the small number of powers which actually do "blur the line" would do pretty much nothing.

I note that people who aggressively criticise CaGI and the like don't even blink at Inspiration points, which couldn't be more blurry (if CaGI is blurry), or the fact that Advantage/Disadvantage simply cancel each other out, rather than one winning out, which makes me question how genuine the concern is.

 

[Umbran]

You two seem to be talking about the design of an RPG.

Pulsipher (and also Edwards, to whom I drew a comparison) is talking about playstyle - with an assumption that is the GM, first and foremost, who drives playstyle.

Even when speaking about playstyle, the idea that this is full represented by a line-continuum seems to be put to serious question by empirical data:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html

I think any discussion of the "arrangement" of playstyle ought to be informed by the 1999 WotrC market research. This is not theorizing, or how we feel about the game - this is data analysis. Desired player styles don't sit in a line, but in (at least) a plane. So, at the very best, Pulsipher is talking only about one axis of playstyle desire, and there are dimensions he's not considering.

I don't think you can aim for both absurd and novel/story, because luck and randomness are at odds with storytelling.

I disagree - you just need to be willing to write an absurdist story. If you haven't - read some Carl Hiaasen, or Dave Barry's Big Trouble or Risky Business. If you want fantasy absurdity, try Christopher Moore. These guys are excellent storytellers, and the stories are absurd, so I think your assertion needs rethinking.

Unless your definition of "absurd" is like the GNS "Simulation", having nothing at all to do with what one thinks of when one uses the term outside of gaming. If it is - we *really* need to stop using jargon that is so different in meaning from the natural-language homonym. It only hinders communication.

 

[Kraztur]

which makes me question how genuine the concern is.

I'll cut to the chase. I feel your post aggressively defends CaGI with an argument that doesn't concern me and I have no stake in the matter. But then concluding that you question how genuine/sincere someone else's concern is pretty much ends the conversation for me.