Spending character generation currency on complexity

[Saeviomagy]

Starting from the premise that when you play a roleplaying game, you want to spend time doing things in that game that appeal to you.

Some people want to say "I hit it with my sword" each round and not be penalised. Others want to move to square B, ready a 2-square move-and-attack on monster C when player E steps into a flank and then spend a minor action applying Class Z poison to their weapon.

Some people want to have a furious back-and-forth negotiation with the baron that's every bit as involved and tactical as current 4e, while others want to say "yeah, yeah, 500G for your daughter back safe and sound, lets go kill stuff".

Current methods of building a character don't actually accomodate these on a basic level: you spend resources to be good at your chosen area, but being good at the area doesn't mean you'll get to see more of it - typically hte opposite is true: in the extremes, your optimized-to-the-hilt combat character will clear a battlefield in 2 rounds of combat, or your diplomat simply cannot fail to convince the baron of... anything he pleases. No speech necessary, no back and forth. A simple roll.

This leads to the mandate that combat and non-combat resources must be siloed seperately - if you have inadequate levels of one or the other, you'll simply be a drag to the party, while still being required to spend the same amount of time engaging in it.

So why not make "time spent doing stuff you find fun" be what you pick when you build a character?

How would such a system look? Well, basically the entire game would be a bunch of modules where once you take one, you get a penalty to the default scenario and a bonus once a specific mechanic kicks in.

We'll start with something simple, just to describe vaguely how it might work: a d20 game. Roll a d20, and if you beat the target number, you succeed (at hitting a foe, convincing someone of something etc). We'll have hitpoints and damage rolls too. As a default, everyone does d6 damage, no matter what they describe themselves as wielding. As a default, there's no such thing as modifiers, different defenses, armor, skills etc etc. We have somewhere a list of appropriate target numbers for things.

From this point, every character will get to spend their character creation and advancement currency on a bunch of rule modules. In D&D terms, they're pretty much feats. Things like:
"if you flank, you gain a +2 to hit"

Previously there was no benefit to positioning (possibly apart from how many monsters could reach you), but now, because YOU chose to focus on combat, there is. You want to get that +2.

or
Intimidate
"you gain a +3 to attempts to use fear to convince people"

previously you could just say "I convince him" and roll. Now you have to think up a plausible threat to grab your bonus.

or
Fireball
"you may attack any number of targets within 2 squares of a central point for d3 damage each"

These options are all positives, which isn't really what I was going for. The idea should be that you manage to somehow make each option generally power neutral, and then you can make a group decision on how many options each person gets, based on how much time you want to spend on game mechanics. At the same time, since overall power level hasn't changed, the same adventures that were good for the "everyone gets 1 option" group are still good for the "everyone gets 46 options" group.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I suppose the flipside is that you could spend resources to buy off complexity, instead of buying it in.

If the base game has combat advantage, a feat that says "you never get or grant combat advantage and noone ever gets combat advantage against you". Or "instead of rolling damage dice and adding modifiers, you do 4 points of damage each round".

In a game with the full array of social feats, a feat that says "Pick any one social skill. That skill now functions as though it is the most beneficial skill to use in any given social situation".

any of these options reduce your interaction in the given mode of play: your combat is now "I stand wherever and then hit him with power X" and social interaction is "I convince him with my social skill".

 

[Stalker0]

I don't really see how this idea remedies the issue the mentioned...which was that players who are really good at something tend to do less of the thing they are good at.

I mean, if I take a bunch of combat abilities...I'm still good at combat, and I'll still end combat quicker than someone who doesn't have all of those abilities.

 

[[OMENRPG]Ben]

This is a very interesting concept, although the problem then still becomes economy of actions, relevance to the encounter or obstacle, and the amount of involvement of that obstacle. If everybody is incredibly varied in their scope as well as iterative focus in different areas, the GM will tailor specific encounters to the specific skillsets that the characters possess. This works great if everyone picks a combat heavy, role-play light scenario, but that is still doable given the current situation.

A system that provides elegance as well as speed to any situation will allow for everyone to keep engaged, even if it is something as simple as "I swing my sword." Even though 4e isn't perfect, there are ample examples where this kind of scenario crop up. For instance, I'm currently playing a 4e Knight in one of my friend's games, which is an Essentials class, and basically all he can do is a couple of different stance changes and do a basic melee attack.

Compare this to my Wizard buddy or my TWF Ranger friend, and the amount of complexity that they have to choose from is far greater than what the Knight presents, although my character is consistently valuable to the group and I still have fun playing it.

I think the real problem is that if one player hates complex combat, and "opts out" of all of the combat tactics, but the rest of the group "opts in", then that player still has to sit there for twenty minutes while the table goes around deciding all of the tactics of the battle, while he basically contributes nothing to the interesting discussion at hand and just swings his sword.

This is basically very similar to what happens in 3.x/PF d20 games, the spellcasters after about 6th level get all of the fun stuff while the martial characters are essentially one or two trick ponies (I know this is less true in PF, but still is true, sadly). This might not be intentional, or it might be, but what it still creates is a dichotomy in certain circumstances, and instead of trying to flatten it out, actually accentuates it.

Otherwise, I think the idea is something worth pursuing, and I think is accomplished already in decent form in a few systems.

 

[S'mon]

your diplomat simply cannot fail to convince the baron of... anything he pleases. No speech necessary, no back and forth. A simple roll.

Not in my games! Just like the combat twink still has to describe his combat actions, the diplomat needs to say what he's saying, preferably IC. Bad diplomacy tactics are just as harmful as bad combat tactics, and both remain dependent on the player, not the die mod.

 

[Davachido]

Not in my games! Just like the combat twink still has to describe his combat actions, the diplomat needs to say what he's saying, preferably IC. Bad diplomacy tactics are just as harmful as bad combat tactics, and both remain dependent on the player, not the die mod.

In a similar way in my games diplomacy rolls usually don't end the argument in your favour. What I do is good diplomacy rolls can get you hints to questions you can ask, pick up on things that are of interest to the party you are talking to. Maybe in terms of a merchant what a good haggling number is good to start at for an item you are buying/selling. Good rolls can also go to showing your character is confident/charismatic in the situation to better convince the person your talking to through your body language. That way you still have an IC conversation and people with better tools for diplomacy will be better equipped to deal with the situation but not entirely leave people without good diplomacy scores out of the conversation completely.

 

[Quickleaf]

I don't really see how this idea remedies the issue the mentioned...which was that players who are really good at something tend to do less of the thing they are good at.

I mean, if I take a bunch of combat abilities...I'm still good at combat, and I'll still end combat quicker than someone who doesn't have all of those abilities.

Sure, but the high complexity character's "quicker" would be slower than the low complexity character because of more tactical decisions and things to keep track of.

Also, even if the actual game time devoted to a combat is the same for the whole group (i.e. each player's turn is same length), the 2 players are both going to enjoy themselves more if they engage with that combat at their desired complexity level. Sure, the low complexity guy might get a little eager to see it resolved sooner than later, but at least he doesn't had to worry about all the tactical aspects of play, thus freeing him up to try out improvised ideas narratively.

Overall, I really appreciate what the OP is suggesting - hardwiring into the game rules what areas are "zoomed" in according to the player types at the table. And I agree this could be done on a much wider level than it is currently.

 

[AeroDm]

In a similar way in my games diplomacy rolls usually don't end the argument in your favour. What I do is good diplomacy rolls can get you hints to questions you can ask, pick up on things that are of interest to the party you are talking to. Maybe in terms of a merchant what a good haggling number is good to start at for an item you are buying/selling. Good rolls can also go to showing your character is confident/charismatic in the situation to better convince the person your talking to through your body language. That way you still have an IC conversation and people with better tools for diplomacy will be better equipped to deal with the situation but not entirely leave people without good diplomacy scores out of the conversation completely.

If I were to interpret this into a general principle I might say something like, "Proficiency in an area of the game results in more tools to overcome the challenge instead of making the challenge easier." Even more succinct could be, "Proficiency breeds breadth, not depth, of ability."

In my experience, this is the key because it allows more people to interact in the same challenge and have a reasonable chance to participate but still allows people to be better or worse. Using your post as an example, I read that to mean that a diplomacy challenge is won when the party has made a convincing argument. Anyone *could* make a convincing argument, but the character with the highest diplomacy can pick up on stuff to get there more efficiently with less resources potentially lost. In this way, the super-diplo-bard gets to really enjoy the encounter, picking up clues left and right, but no one else is forced to just sit there idly.

 

[Agamon]

This patchwork quilt idea looks a lot like 2e Skills and Powers. And that didn't go so well.

 

[amerigoV]

For instance, I'm currently playing a 4e Knight in one of my friend's games, which is an Essentials class, and basically all he can do is a couple of different stance changes and do a basic melee attack.

Compare this to my Wizard buddy or my TWF Ranger friend, and the amount of complexity that they have to choose from is far greater than what the Knight presents, although my character is consistently valuable to the group and I still have fun playing it.

I think the real problem is that if one player hates complex combat, and "opts out" of all of the combat tactics, but the rest of the group "opts in", then that player still has to sit there for twenty minutes while the table goes around deciding all of the tactics of the battle, while he basically contributes nothing to the interesting discussion at hand and just swings his sword.

I am out of the 4e loop, but what little I played 4e struck me as very team - oriented. So the Defender locked someone down, the Controller funneled the enemy where the group wanted them, the Leader buffed/debuffed, and the Striker did massive damage to the key target. Lots of little things between the defender, controller, and leader to make things hum.

Has Essentials changed that any, or are those roles intact and the Essentials characters just do their job with more streamlined mechanics?

The reason I ask ties back to the complexity issue. )pting for less tactical options seems like it would hurt the playstyle (its like one of the roles is not doing its "job"). Pre-4e had less reliance on teamwork - those that integrated tactics did better, but groups could survive with less tactical integration so long as you did not have a killer DM. I could see a "Featless" fighter or a fixed skilled rogue (kinda like 1e) in 3e. I am not sure 4e's engine works that way given how well the DM's tools are integrated (the monster rolls, extras vs. regular, vs. elite, vs. solo, more use of terrain, etc) - the opposition is a step up!