Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Stopping Ability Implications in their tracks and killing the Brain Worm
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="Emberashh" data-source="post: 9163406" data-attributes="member: 7040941"><p>(Note that while Im talking about my game below to illustrate my take on the issue, this is more about game design in general)</p><p></p><p>So what I mean by Ability Implication is the phenomenon (I call it a brain worm) that, by defining a given ability, you are implying that said ability can't be done without it. </p><p></p><p>Often I think this is just a result of defining things as abilities when they shouldn't be. Ie, Pushing a Rock shouldn't be an ability, it should just be a thing you can do regardless of who you are.</p><p></p><p>From that perspective, avoiding this issue is relatively straightforward. Abilities should either modify the thing whatever it may be, or be so self-contained that its intuitive you can't do it without it. Spells and spell-likes are rather easy to define like that; turning into an Earth Golem isn't something just anyone can just do, for example. </p><p></p><p>HOWEVER</p><p></p><p>I have also observed a rather unfortunate trend (namely in OSR circles, though it happens elsewhere for sure) where people will treat ability design in general as causing the brain worm; just by having abilities you're harming the experience, essentially, "restricting" people. </p><p></p><p>I personally think that perspective is a load of huey, particularly when considered in tandem with the first perspective; if the first is addressed then the second should have no reason to exist. </p><p></p><p>But even more than that, even with the first being an issue, if a game gives a way to take a particular action, even if its defined through explicit abilities elsewhere, it <em>should</em> count and there's no reason not to count it. </p><p></p><p>5e's Improvise Action, despite its non-prominance in the design is a great example of such a thing, particularly for those in OSR circles. There's nothing you can't strictly do with it short of obvious smart ass answers (I wave my sword and Cast Wish!), and if you're used to OSR style play, its really not a hassle to use and maintains the desirable freedom to just act (barring 5es rather silly Action Economy anyway, but thats a different topic). </p><p></p><p>But, this isn't about 5e so much as it is about how this brain worm can be quashed, but without just dropping abilities altogether, a solution I don't consider to count unless you're going for minimalism. </p><p></p><p>I have my own approach Ill detail separately below, but what is yours? Or perhaps the brain worm has seized control and you think this is a cursed problem? Unsolvable and undesirable to solve? The perspective is valuable, even if I dislike it. </p><p></p><p>===</p><p></p><p>The way I've been approaching this in my design is fairly comprehensive, if only for how much I intend to hammer the point home anyway. </p><p></p><p>For one, I have an Action economy that assumes and encourages the use of what I call Skill Actions, the most basic of which (and stated as such at level 0 for all 32 Skills) is in fact Improvise Action. But beyond that, Skills will have unique Actions that can be taken at any level. For example, the Tactics skill can be invoked to <em>Analyze</em> and opponent, revealing weaknesses and even vulnerabilities (ie, call a shot on this spot and nail it, the bug dies)</p><p></p><p>This is going to be further supported by Monster/NPC design that deemphasizes just attacking all the time (which in turn is part of why something like Tactics even exists). </p><p></p><p>For two, the way I designed Classes and Multiclassing is actually just as more elaborate Skill Trees, similar to the actual Skills, but structured like traditional classes, and with multiclassing being extremely permissive; not only is multiclassing relatively easy, but you can even take multiple subclasses. (The only caveats being that just taking a class level or two isn't the whole story; Abilities require Skill levels too for effectiveness, especially early on when investment is cheap. If you're otherwise a Mage and you try to go for some Barbarian levels, you'll be hardpressed to be useful with them)</p><p></p><p>And for three, I intend to keep Ability design cognizant of that first perspective from earlier; Abilities either modify or are Intuitively self-contained. </p><p></p><p>One example of the latter is the Barbarian's Slam!; this is a Reaction Ability that they can take, if they manage to negate an attack as part of a Defense, to immediately grapple and toss their target. Grappling and Tossing are already a part of what any character with decent Strength can do, and the key improvement the Barbarian provides is the ability to both use it Defensively as a Reaction, and the automatic success and use. Other characters with sufficient Strength <em>can</em> ostensibly do this, but it'd require multiple Actions to set up and do; a Barbarian can still take their actual Turn in addition to tossing the goblin off the mountain.</p><p></p><p>While one can squint and say it doesn't squash the brain worm, I think it does, as I think being able to fight like this is intuitively thematic to a Barbarian, and as noted, multiclassing is very permissive. One <em>can</em> in fact learn to do the ability if they invest in those abilities and the relevant Skills (they'd want high Wrestling, and thus, high Strength), and the rigmarole to do so is intuitive as well. (To take multiclass levels, you have to spend downtime to rearrange the Skill points you have earned. Your first multiclass costs 2 per level, and includes one subclass. Taking a third or a second subclass goes up to 3 per level, and it goes on in that fashion forever).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Emberashh, post: 9163406, member: 7040941"] (Note that while Im talking about my game below to illustrate my take on the issue, this is more about game design in general) So what I mean by Ability Implication is the phenomenon (I call it a brain worm) that, by defining a given ability, you are implying that said ability can't be done without it. Often I think this is just a result of defining things as abilities when they shouldn't be. Ie, Pushing a Rock shouldn't be an ability, it should just be a thing you can do regardless of who you are. From that perspective, avoiding this issue is relatively straightforward. Abilities should either modify the thing whatever it may be, or be so self-contained that its intuitive you can't do it without it. Spells and spell-likes are rather easy to define like that; turning into an Earth Golem isn't something just anyone can just do, for example. HOWEVER I have also observed a rather unfortunate trend (namely in OSR circles, though it happens elsewhere for sure) where people will treat ability design in general as causing the brain worm; just by having abilities you're harming the experience, essentially, "restricting" people. I personally think that perspective is a load of huey, particularly when considered in tandem with the first perspective; if the first is addressed then the second should have no reason to exist. But even more than that, even with the first being an issue, if a game gives a way to take a particular action, even if its defined through explicit abilities elsewhere, it [I]should[/I] count and there's no reason not to count it. 5e's Improvise Action, despite its non-prominance in the design is a great example of such a thing, particularly for those in OSR circles. There's nothing you can't strictly do with it short of obvious smart ass answers (I wave my sword and Cast Wish!), and if you're used to OSR style play, its really not a hassle to use and maintains the desirable freedom to just act (barring 5es rather silly Action Economy anyway, but thats a different topic). But, this isn't about 5e so much as it is about how this brain worm can be quashed, but without just dropping abilities altogether, a solution I don't consider to count unless you're going for minimalism. I have my own approach Ill detail separately below, but what is yours? Or perhaps the brain worm has seized control and you think this is a cursed problem? Unsolvable and undesirable to solve? The perspective is valuable, even if I dislike it. === The way I've been approaching this in my design is fairly comprehensive, if only for how much I intend to hammer the point home anyway. For one, I have an Action economy that assumes and encourages the use of what I call Skill Actions, the most basic of which (and stated as such at level 0 for all 32 Skills) is in fact Improvise Action. But beyond that, Skills will have unique Actions that can be taken at any level. For example, the Tactics skill can be invoked to [I]Analyze[/I] and opponent, revealing weaknesses and even vulnerabilities (ie, call a shot on this spot and nail it, the bug dies) This is going to be further supported by Monster/NPC design that deemphasizes just attacking all the time (which in turn is part of why something like Tactics even exists). For two, the way I designed Classes and Multiclassing is actually just as more elaborate Skill Trees, similar to the actual Skills, but structured like traditional classes, and with multiclassing being extremely permissive; not only is multiclassing relatively easy, but you can even take multiple subclasses. (The only caveats being that just taking a class level or two isn't the whole story; Abilities require Skill levels too for effectiveness, especially early on when investment is cheap. If you're otherwise a Mage and you try to go for some Barbarian levels, you'll be hardpressed to be useful with them) And for three, I intend to keep Ability design cognizant of that first perspective from earlier; Abilities either modify or are Intuitively self-contained. One example of the latter is the Barbarian's Slam!; this is a Reaction Ability that they can take, if they manage to negate an attack as part of a Defense, to immediately grapple and toss their target. Grappling and Tossing are already a part of what any character with decent Strength can do, and the key improvement the Barbarian provides is the ability to both use it Defensively as a Reaction, and the automatic success and use. Other characters with sufficient Strength [I]can[/I] ostensibly do this, but it'd require multiple Actions to set up and do; a Barbarian can still take their actual Turn in addition to tossing the goblin off the mountain. While one can squint and say it doesn't squash the brain worm, I think it does, as I think being able to fight like this is intuitively thematic to a Barbarian, and as noted, multiclassing is very permissive. One [I]can[/I] in fact learn to do the ability if they invest in those abilities and the relevant Skills (they'd want high Wrestling, and thus, high Strength), and the rigmarole to do so is intuitive as well. (To take multiclass levels, you have to spend downtime to rearrange the Skill points you have earned. Your first multiclass costs 2 per level, and includes one subclass. Taking a third or a second subclass goes up to 3 per level, and it goes on in that fashion forever). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Stopping Ability Implications in their tracks and killing the Brain Worm
Top