Dungeonosophy
Legend
Hmm...looks good! I hope to have a closer look this weekend. Thanks for sharing your ideas.
D&D General SD&D: Simply D&D
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
I am meeting with my group on Saturday, so maybe we'll try some "mock combats" using this idea and see if it works well. Otherwise, I'll have to write a simulation to try it out. Anyway, it might be too complex, but let me know once you have time to mull it over.
Dungeonosophy
Legend
Looking more closely--I like your idea. There are various things that I would want to playtest, in order to calibrate for maximum fun and quickness. Several things could be toggled one way or another. I do wonder if the couching of sets within matches is too much for "EZ D&D."
Yet the biggest immediate snag of that approach in regard to my own conception, is that I want the race/class "powers" to play some role, by granting advantage when tapped narratively. In that case, I'd either do...
A) Something like: If the encounter has the same number of monsters as party members, and the highest-CR monster is in the same Tier as the highest-level party member, then a Battle consists of 3 Successes before 3 Failures (which would result in "failing forward"). But: for every monster and/or CR more (or less) than the party, requires one more (or less) success (yet 3 Failures is still a "failing forward"). And of course, there's a bit of DM narration after each set of rolls.
B) Or, for quickness's sake, just say that the usual (moderate, medium-difficulty) monster encounter is resolved in two rolls. The party says what their goal is for this encounter, and their roll determines whether they succeed or "fail forward". If it's an Easy encounter, it's resolve in one roll. If Hard (such as the Boss fight), it's resolved in 3 rolls.
But I like the gist of what you shared. It inspires me.
I'm kind of tied up with "real life" commitments right now, yet I'm aiming post a playtest doc sometime. So that people can see what I mean. It's hard to piece it together in a piecemeal series of forum posts.
Yet the biggest immediate snag of that approach in regard to my own conception, is that I want the race/class "powers" to play some role, by granting advantage when tapped narratively. In that case, I'd either do...
A) Something like: If the encounter has the same number of monsters as party members, and the highest-CR monster is in the same Tier as the highest-level party member, then a Battle consists of 3 Successes before 3 Failures (which would result in "failing forward"). But: for every monster and/or CR more (or less) than the party, requires one more (or less) success (yet 3 Failures is still a "failing forward"). And of course, there's a bit of DM narration after each set of rolls.
B) Or, for quickness's sake, just say that the usual (moderate, medium-difficulty) monster encounter is resolved in two rolls. The party says what their goal is for this encounter, and their roll determines whether they succeed or "fail forward". If it's an Easy encounter, it's resolve in one roll. If Hard (such as the Boss fight), it's resolved in 3 rolls.
But I like the gist of what you shared. It inspires me.
I'm kind of tied up with "real life" commitments right now, yet I'm aiming post a playtest doc sometime. So that people can see what I mean. It's hard to piece it together in a piecemeal series of forum posts.
Dungeonosophy
Legend
Did you have a chance to try it out?
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
No. One of my players was DMing (we just started a new campaign) so we were busy.
But, I discussed it with one of them today and a couple ideas came out.
1. With each set, the lowest die from the losing side is removed and not rolled in further sets. If the set is a tie, the lowest die from both sides are removed and not rolled in further sets.
2. If a die rolls a natural 1 it is removed and no longer rolled.
3. If a die rolls a natural 20, another die is added for that PC/creature/group.
4. As an option, you can keep rolling until all dice are removed from one side or the other. The side with dice remaining, wins the combat.
I've got a full couple weeks coming up so I'll work on some analysis of it when I can.
There are already systems that do this. I wish those systems got more love so I wasn't stuck looking for games in a system everyone is trying to change. If we want a better system, why bother with WotC at all? The hobby is so much bigger than D&D. The system dosn't matter, the person running it does.
That said, I would love trying something like this with a competent GM. One of the best games I ever played was roughly Theatrix with no flowcharts, only the GM had dice (a small handful of d6), and it was entirely due to the quality GM. It was RP and "plot points" that players could spend. Combat was basically "go around the table and state strat/tactics." GM decides from there based on how we've characterized ourselves during play through RP. Important moments/battles would have more interaction or discussion. Maybe a couple back-and-forths simulating rounds. That's it. Good ol' fashioned backyard Cops and Robbers fun with a quality ref. (for the record, the same GM ran the best crunchy ass GURPS games too. He had a talent.) One of the most influential decisions I've ever seen happened in that game. We were playing teens in the '90s. Blah blah blah we were stuck out on our own and a player spent a plot point to say "I stole my dad's credit card before I left." It was totally in character, the timing was on point, and it changed the course of the game entirely. I remember it more than 20 years later. It's a different experience than today's D&D, and I guess if you get it you get it.
Real life games are practically impossible for me now that we've all grown up, and most GMs I find online are honestly just bad (but hey, at least they are trying, and I have had some exceptions. Two new GMs in particular if you are reading this- I hope you know I mean you. Delebean and Ribbles love you. I like gnomes, fight me.) I don't want the job these days; complaining is kind of asinine, I know. I'm not really as dickish as I sound.
Before I get nailed- I know my own limitations too, so don't think I'm being elitist or something. Active roleplay (as opposed to descriptive) takes me outside my comfort zone. It's something I wish I was better at. I'm self conscious as all hell and I love it when a GM, and at least as importantly other players, draw me out of my shell. Running a game is a tough job, but you might be great. If not now, maybe after a few tries- PLEASE don't let my dumb ass discourage you. I feel like I do a crap job, but my players always disagreed heartily. Which of the two matters more? You might be The Guy if you give it a few shots. Heck, it might even take a few more. Don't give it up.
I know this is half support, half rant. I'm a little bit of mess, but who isn't? After all that if anyone still wants to give me shot for something like this, hit me up. I'm not going to judge harshly, even if it seems otherwise. The creativity in these ideas runs for miles; I hope, and would love, to be inspired by it. (jeez, is that an essay? My teachers would be like WTF?)
That said, I would love trying something like this with a competent GM. One of the best games I ever played was roughly Theatrix with no flowcharts, only the GM had dice (a small handful of d6), and it was entirely due to the quality GM. It was RP and "plot points" that players could spend. Combat was basically "go around the table and state strat/tactics." GM decides from there based on how we've characterized ourselves during play through RP. Important moments/battles would have more interaction or discussion. Maybe a couple back-and-forths simulating rounds. That's it. Good ol' fashioned backyard Cops and Robbers fun with a quality ref. (for the record, the same GM ran the best crunchy ass GURPS games too. He had a talent.) One of the most influential decisions I've ever seen happened in that game. We were playing teens in the '90s. Blah blah blah we were stuck out on our own and a player spent a plot point to say "I stole my dad's credit card before I left." It was totally in character, the timing was on point, and it changed the course of the game entirely. I remember it more than 20 years later. It's a different experience than today's D&D, and I guess if you get it you get it.
Real life games are practically impossible for me now that we've all grown up, and most GMs I find online are honestly just bad (but hey, at least they are trying, and I have had some exceptions. Two new GMs in particular if you are reading this- I hope you know I mean you. Delebean and Ribbles love you. I like gnomes, fight me.) I don't want the job these days; complaining is kind of asinine, I know. I'm not really as dickish as I sound.
Before I get nailed- I know my own limitations too, so don't think I'm being elitist or something. Active roleplay (as opposed to descriptive) takes me outside my comfort zone. It's something I wish I was better at. I'm self conscious as all hell and I love it when a GM, and at least as importantly other players, draw me out of my shell. Running a game is a tough job, but you might be great. If not now, maybe after a few tries- PLEASE don't let my dumb ass discourage you. I feel like I do a crap job, but my players always disagreed heartily. Which of the two matters more? You might be The Guy if you give it a few shots. Heck, it might even take a few more. Don't give it up.
I know this is half support, half rant. I'm a little bit of mess, but who isn't? After all that if anyone still wants to give me shot for something like this, hit me up. I'm not going to judge harshly, even if it seems otherwise. The creativity in these ideas runs for miles; I hope, and would love, to be inspired by it. (jeez, is that an essay? My teachers would be like WTF?)
Last edited:
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
So, I spent some time working on the combat sim and here are some quick/early results for the five 6th-level PCs versus:
1. Hill Giant - 96.7% wins (out of 10000 runs) (easy?)
2. Two Hill Giants (the original example) - 70% wins (hard?)
3. Three Hill Giants - 15% wins (deadly?)
For the fun of it, a CR 12 Adult Green Dragon: about 18% PC wins (deadly).
Also, against four CR 2 Ogres, about 85% wins (moderate).
I made an excel file to build encounters and determine easy, moderate, hard, or deadly rating (shown in the parenthesis above), and it matched pretty well with the results of the sim.
So far I am pretty pleased with the results. I haven't added any of the optional stuff yet, just in the first post. I'll probably have more time to work on it this weekend.
Dungeonosophy
Legend
In my edition, no pc will die unless they decide to for drama’s sake. All failed battles are “failing forward”. Ogres enslave. Dragon temporarily charms them as followers, or to hand over a magic item in exchange for their lives. Even mindless foes will lose interest and move on.
Like in a PG show.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Just wanted to give you a quick update:
At the end of our session we ran several of the combats using the proposed system and it works well. It is quick, fairly balanced, and the parties won and lost battles as expected compared to running RAW combats.
It works well IMO with either the first to three wins or by eliminating the low roll each round.
I hope everything else with your SD&D is moving forward well.
Dungeonosophy
Legend
Thanks for the update! Your playtest inspires me.
I have a public newcomer game probably coming up in a couple weeks. So I'm honing in on what exactly I'm going to offer: 5E (ignoring the fiddly bits), a specific existing ultralight ruleset (ICRPG, H&M, TBH), or a self-crafted distillation of D&D (which you and I've been talking about here.)
I think they're all good options, yet I'll need to settle on something as the day approaches.
Similar Threads
