Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawk Diesel" data-source="post: 7109315" data-attributes="member: 59848">I would argue that 95% of all homebrew material/game changes suggested and posted on this site is more group dependent than system related because 1) Very few posters on this board are professional game designers and2) Every table is different.Anyways, I just read an article by the Angry GM that is poignant to me working on these changes. Anyone interested can find it here: <a href="http://theangrygm.com/why-are-you-doing-this/" target="_blank">http://theangrygm.com/why-are-you-doing-this/</a>Basically, it breaks down that game changes need to have clear reasons for what you are trying to accomplish, understanding that changes can have wise reaching and unexpected consequences on complexity, cognitive load, balance, and the article provides a guide of questions to reflect upon as you work on the change and determine if it's needed and if so how to successfully implement it.So I thought I might clarify some things. Problem As I See It: #1: The turn based system as I experience it is too static. It offers structure to make combat clear, balanced, and ordered as opposed to the chaos of real combat. The difficulty, as I see it, is that because the structure is fairly rigid, there are very few ways to act outside of your turn. I understand this is likely by design, but the structure can feel too rigid. In my experience as a player I can become bored when not my turn or when I am not being targeted. Between turns players have the opportunity to think or plan their next move, as well as communicate with other players. But outside of reactions, which are triggered only under specific circumstances, the player character may as well be a statue when their turn is over. I envision the giant chess board in Harry Potter, where the Knight moves to the the pawn, and each piece remains still while the knight destroys the pawn, only to become a statue once another piece begins to move.#2: Outside of spells, the help action, or class abilities like Bardic Inspiration, there are few ways that allow a player to support the action of another player while that player is acting. Most action/skill/ability types focus on what your character can do. It is difficult for players to combine attacks to achieve results that may be greater than the sum of their parts. I am reminded of the teamwork feats in later 3.5 that allowed an approach for party members to develop idiosyncratic ways for your team to work together. Examples of this are the Fastball Special from X-Men (Colossus throwing Wolverine) or the way attacks can be combined in anime (Seven Deadly Sins has examples of this). My Goal:#1 I would like to change the flow of combat to make it more fluid while maintaining some structure. #2 I would like to create more support for characters to work together in combat without stealing the spotlight from the player who is acting in the turn.Given this, I understand that the change I proposed in my original post increases complexity and cognitive load during combat. I also understand that I have not considered the farther reaching impact this change may have on the game as a whole, as well as game balance. So my goal in posting this is to help me consider that which I have not already considered, as well as to refine the mechanics.</blockquote>

Verification