Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[PoL] Some Thoughts on Action Denial
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MoutonRustique" data-source="post: 6204666" data-attributes="member: 22362"><p>Action denial is probably the hardest thing to design well... It's usually, very, very boring for the player (very bad) or overpowering for a monster (less bad, but potentially very bad - mostly story side).</p><p></p><p>The problem is it's just SO expected and possibly <em>ingrained</em> into our vision of combat... and it's almost always the best tactical choice...</p><p></p><p>I see a few <em>paths</em> possible, but nothing as useful as a concrete answer:</p><p><strong>A)</strong> using the "off-turn" approach suggested by [MENTION=6694112]Kinak[/MENTION]. In essence, you're removing "true" action-denial from the game. This is the easiest answer to design for, but probably the hardest sell...</p><p></p><p><strong>B)</strong> taking a cue from the 5e packets and making it "until you use X action to stop it" - you have the benefit of player "participation" so it's less boring and you can customize to hurt more of less depending on X. It has merit mainly in the psychological fast-one it's pulling on the player by engaging him to stop the condition (very much like the <em>prone</em> condition of 4e). Easier to sell, but system analysing players may see through it (CharOp will.)</p><p></p><p><strong>C)</strong> reduce to the cost of the action-denial by reducing the value of the actions. (this is my favorite one) This can be accomplished by longer (in rounds, not real-life time) combats, higher prevalence of "opportunity defeats" where victory is gained by more by <em>action X</em> as opposed to <em>X actions</em>.</p><p></p><p><strong>D)</strong> probably in conjonction with <strong>C)</strong> increase the value of the "not-standard" actions. This is harder to build into the core as it is more efficiently handled in encounter creation. Such as making placement as important as attacks and such. This, however, introduces new problems as these actions will always have greater value (not just when dazed or such) and so will create a new important decision point for the player. This will increase the time a player will take to complete his round, slowing down play - something 4e does not need help with...</p><p></p><p><strong>OTHER</strong> no clue, but I highly doubt these are the only avenues.</p><p></p><p>Hope this helps in some way.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MoutonRustique, post: 6204666, member: 22362"] Action denial is probably the hardest thing to design well... It's usually, very, very boring for the player (very bad) or overpowering for a monster (less bad, but potentially very bad - mostly story side). The problem is it's just SO expected and possibly [I]ingrained[/I] into our vision of combat... and it's almost always the best tactical choice... I see a few [I]paths[/I] possible, but nothing as useful as a concrete answer: [B]A)[/B] using the "off-turn" approach suggested by [MENTION=6694112]Kinak[/MENTION]. In essence, you're removing "true" action-denial from the game. This is the easiest answer to design for, but probably the hardest sell... [B]B)[/B] taking a cue from the 5e packets and making it "until you use X action to stop it" - you have the benefit of player "participation" so it's less boring and you can customize to hurt more of less depending on X. It has merit mainly in the psychological fast-one it's pulling on the player by engaging him to stop the condition (very much like the [I]prone[/I] condition of 4e). Easier to sell, but system analysing players may see through it (CharOp will.) [B]C)[/B] reduce to the cost of the action-denial by reducing the value of the actions. (this is my favorite one) This can be accomplished by longer (in rounds, not real-life time) combats, higher prevalence of "opportunity defeats" where victory is gained by more by [I]action X[/I] as opposed to [I]X actions[/I]. [B]D)[/B] probably in conjonction with [B]C)[/B] increase the value of the "not-standard" actions. This is harder to build into the core as it is more efficiently handled in encounter creation. Such as making placement as important as attacks and such. This, however, introduces new problems as these actions will always have greater value (not just when dazed or such) and so will create a new important decision point for the player. This will increase the time a player will take to complete his round, slowing down play - something 4e does not need help with... [b]OTHER[/b] no clue, but I highly doubt these are the only avenues. Hope this helps in some way. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[PoL] Some Thoughts on Action Denial
Top