Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4528365" data-attributes="member: 2067">I'm really glad someone read through that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I've been thinking on this path for a little while. Combat is essentially just a very complex task resolution system. It's great that it has that complexity, because that's part of the fun of D&D combat (I think). But I also think that complexity can be useful for ANYTHING you want to have fun resolving. That detail, that style of "I use this awesome special ability my awesomeness gives me to do something awesome! Now react to it!" is the heart of D&D action. That action is most obviously in swinging a sword, but it can be applied to virtually anything.If you want to have roles in non-combat situations, you start looking at non-combat situations through the lens of combat. This attention to detail is part of where the strategy and fun come from, and it can be applied to non-combat equally. In any "first one to 0 looses" kind of task resolution, there are these four roles (really 2, but variety is generally a good thing <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />). They might have different names, do different buffs and debuffs, attacks and defenses, be present to differing degrees in differing archetypes, but the purpose of the four roles doesn't change, because it's about the points and how you manipulate them in your favor, rather than about archetypes. That's it exactly. Your class is really your archetype, and being a "Fighter" might mean different things in different scenarios. Every Fighter could be given not only Defender powers, but also powers related to their roles in other situations.I agree. It kind of depends on what you want to achieve, here. The biggest criticism I can see against that kind of system is that it "Makes non-combat feel just like combat." It's true, because that's what it sets out to do, but I can see why that might not be what everyone wants, just like not everyone wants vancian fighters and an over-arching three-tiered Powers system. But 4e, I wouldn't think, would have much of a problem with turning non-combat into combat. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yeah, that's the same conclusion I came to. I suppose if your game was very focused on the adventures of sitting at a workstation whilst tinkering with volatile components, it might be worth it, but that's a pretty limited field, unlike "social encounters" or "mysteries" or "dungeon exploration" which is pretty broad and which most D&D games take at least a passing interest in. In D&D, crafting usually is more about resource management, a particular archetype, and cool custom items. That lends itself more to a "select one option from each of the following menus" style rules rather than "first one to 0 looses" style rules. Victory and defeat aren't really on the line, there (though they could be, it's usually not quite as fun).The interesting thing about this for me is that it is pretty genre-independent. So you could even mimic, say, a medical drama situation like an episode of House with this kind of system, or even design an adventure with this kind of thing in mind (one adventure is just a very drawn-out task to resolve, after all). D&D loves it some combat, and quite rightly, but it wouldn't kill it to give some love to other action-packed events, either, I think. Sticking swords into things shouldn't be the best way to resolve most things. A diversity of challenges would make for a much richer game. This would involve D&D breaking down the wall between RP and mechanics more, though. I would embrace such a move, as I embraced it when we had RP skills in 3e and nonweapon proficiencies in 2e. Skill Challenges in 4e are good in theory, and have some good aspects, but are badly in need of fixing, and also badly in need of being less of a "tacked-on" system and more of an integrated system (like sneak attacks and marks are).</blockquote>

Verification