Tightening the Connection between Fiction and Powers Mechanics

[LostSoul]

If you want to tie Powers into the fiction, you have to give the fiction relevance in action resolution. That means that if your Power says this:

You spin beneath your enemy’s guard with a slashing strike, and then sweep your leg through your foe an instant later, knocking it to the ground.​

then that's what you do when you use it.

And that means it can't be used in certain situations or against some foes at all.

That's what keeps people paying attention to the fiction - the fiction becomes a part of the game. When you're making your decisions you are forced to imagine the in-game situation because it'll have an effect on the outcome of your PC's actions.

I don't think there's a simple change that will do this because, as you can see from the example above, the balance between different Powers is going to radically change.

 

[Quantaca]

made an account just to reply to this, reading this it seems like some people like the idea of a caster to do a few high dmg spells and then use his staff or crossbow or what-nots and others were more in favor of a caster who could keep on casting and i just thought why not come up with an idea that can make it both happen
now keep in mind that this was just a quick thought not something i thought through so the math would undoudebly suck at higher lvls.

instead of having to choose a fixed amount of at-will encounter daily powers, give the player an amount of slots (pages in a spellbook or memoryspace if you will) and assign values to the different powers.

for example
at-will 1 slot
encounter 2 slots
daily 3 slots

you could even take this further and have the daily's that give an ancounter long effect take 4 slots. or spells at higher lvls require more slots, like i said havent thought it through just a random thought that i absolutely had to share so i could go to sleep peacefully

 

[Crazy Jerome]

One of the reasons that the 4E characters feel a bit the same to some people is that the scope of what each character can do is rather narrow, mechanically. So this in turn means that if start varying the characters by taking away what some can do, you'll make them different from other classes, but more alike within that class. This is the early D&D fighter--picks a weapon, hits hard, takes a beating, color with a name and some background.

Or if the problem at the meal is that the menu is rather limited, you aren't ultimately helping by giving all the peas to Susy, the carrots to Bill, the pot roast to Mark, and the gravy to Jane.

Instead, I'd look to first expand the options that are available to all classes. That is, you need a lot of mechanical ways for them to act, decision points, etc. And if you ultimately want the classes varied mechanically, make more options than you strictly need. Have 10, and give each class 7 or 8 of them.

With some serious thought, you could probably design these options to cover a lot more fictional space, and thus the connection to the mechanics would be more natural.

For example, accept that there is only so much you can do with knocking off hit points in different flavors, with each character having a standard attack (ignore move and minor for a moment). But if you go with the 2 action per turn (but not two attacks) idea that I suggested elsewhere, then you can have some options take both actions.

Maybe arcane dailies take both action, have some extra power, but penalize the caster in that being all they can do that round. If they cast an at-will, lower powered spell, they can still move or drink a potion or whatever. The standard/move/minor economy doesn't really support this kind of change (minor sustain not withstanding). So if you want to meaningfully vary power by the action economy, change the action economy to have enough granularity to vary it. Fighters, OTOH, don't get dailes. They get stances, which can be used over and over, do nothing in themselves, but modify other attacks, and take an action to activate. Again, doesn't work so well in the current action economy, but does if the stance switch has a cost but still allows an attack.

I think it is obvious how those mechanics relate more closely to what people expect in the fiction. But you'll note that this only works in a balanced way and connects to the fiction if you build in enough levers to have those kind of trades. Otherwise, things have to get watered down to where they no longer match the fiction, or be overpowered.

This is really the same design problem as the 3E wizard versus prestige classes. When all the wizard has to trade in for a prestige class is the familiar, the prestige class can hardly be worth taking. (What it does in the fiction is not supported by its mechanics.) But if the wizard loses caster levels, it is too much. He isn't much of a wizard anymore. So we had six dozen attempts to work around this intractable problem instead of giving all the classes more to start with, so that prestige trades would make sense.

 

[Minigiant]

I think one of the things that would help merge the mechanics and fiction of powers is to name the groups of powers (At-will, encounter, and daily) with each power source. Then create fluffy and crunchy bits for each.

For example martial powers would be strikes, tactics, exploits, stances and assaults.

Strikes are at-wills attacks. These are attacks characters independent on the user's stamina, the target's actions, and the situation in battle.

Tactics are encounter attacks and utilities. They only work 1 to 3 times each battle. These are mostly only for warlords but companion based classes would get them to.

Exploits are also encounter attacks and utilities. They only work once because the target wont be fooled twice example when targets is not intelligent like animals and mindless creatures. Exploits would be split up by class.

Stances would be at-will utilities and also would be split up by class.

Assaults would be martial daily attacks. They would have big effects but would give penalties on the user until the next short rest. And even then, only extended rests, magic, or rituals would restore them.

So Joe the Rogue can do his "Move then attack" Strike and "Careful Aim" Strike at will because he can easily do them. Joe can only use the "Bait and Switch" and "Insult to Injury" Exploits about once a fight because no one ever falls for them twice. The "Bladed Tackle" Assault leaves his arms and shoulders sore all day after doing it once.


And do this with each power source.

Instead of a generic "spells" blanket for all arcane; there are cantrips, tricks, metamagics, sorceries, hexes, songs, etc. All dailies except for cantrips (at-will), metamagics (encounter), and tricks (at-will). Divine gets at-will orisons, challenges and words, encounter divinity channels, and daily chants/prayers.

 

[LostSoul]

Instead, I'd look to first expand the options that are available to all classes. That is, you need a lot of mechanical ways for them to act, decision points, etc. And if you ultimately want the classes varied mechanically, make more options than you strictly need. Have 10, and give each class 7 or 8 of them.

With some serious thought, you could probably design these options to cover a lot more fictional space, and thus the connection to the mechanics would be more natural.

One other way to do it is to remove the number of strictly-defined mechanical options a player has to choose from, and instead tell them to make their decisions as a character in the fiction. You will have to combine that with a robust action resolution system as well as a healthy dose of GM adjudication.

If you do that, the number of decisions a player has to make grow to whatever they can imagine, and all actions will be tied to the fiction.

This can be hard to do with the way 4E is currently set up. (Though not as hard as earlier editions of the game, since 4E already has a robust action resolution system; the hard part is combining that with the power system.)

 

[D'karr]

One other way to do it is to remove the number of strictly-defined mechanical options a player has to choose from, and instead tell them to make their decisions as a character in the fiction. You will have to combine that with a robust action resolution system as well as a healthy dose of GM adjudication.

If you do that, the number of decisions a player has to make grow to whatever they can imagine, and all actions will be tied to the fiction.

This can be hard to do with the way 4E is currently set up. (Though not as hard as earlier editions of the game, since 4E already has a robust action resolution system; the hard part is combining that with the power system.)

Some time ago, in my own campaign, I had noticed that my normally creative players had stopped using creative methods for solving problems. What I found was that the "powers" mechanic is "liberating" in once sense, providing more options for players. At the same time it's "restrictive" because if it's not a power the players are usually not thinking about it, or don't have an easy way of relating it to a power.

The fascinating solution was to create two "open ended" powers that are entirely based on player interaction with the fiction, and DM adjudication. Every PC in my games gets these two "powers" and since they have them right in front of them they don't forget them, they start actually using them.

The game actions have become way more dynamic with this simple change.

For a detailed account of how I came up with this, and copies of the powers see this blog entry

 

[Minigiant]

One other way to do it is to remove the number of strictly-defined mechanical options a player has to choose from, and instead tell them to make their decisions as a character in the fiction. You will have to combine that with a robust action resolution system as well as a healthy dose of GM adjudication.

If you do that, the number of decisions a player has to make grow to whatever they can imagine, and all actions will be tied to the fiction.

It actually isnt that hard to do within the 4E system...

Some time ago, in my own campaign, I had noticed that my normally creative players had stopped using creative methods for solving problems. What I found was that the "powers" mechanic is "liberating" in once sense, providing more options for players. At the same time it's "restrictive" because if it's not a power the players are usually not thinking about it, or don't have an easy way of relating it to a power.

The fascinating solution was to create two "open ended" powers that are entirely based on player interaction with the fiction, and DM adjudication. Every PC in my games gets these two "powers" and since they have them right in front of them they don't forget them, they start actually using them.

... you just have to do something like that. The only exception, it wouldn't be completely freeform. There could be a process for quickly and easy custom powers.

For example, this is what I did for a player go started to get creative:

If a character wanted to make "two broad swings of his weapon then quickly push the enemy over with whatever his offhand brings to knock them flat".

First you'd examine the fiction and arrive that it is "damage" plus "knock the target prone" at melee range with no lasting effects. Only defenders and controllers can get "knock prone" as an at-will and only Fighter's can do it at melee. The character happens to be a fighter so he can do this an at-will, encounter or daily.

For the "damage", heroic characters deal 1W with at wills, 2W for encounters and 3W for dailies. Only strikers get to add modifiers to damage. The player wants to emphasize the two swings and make it encounter attack.

For the "knock the target prone", Martial classes can only target AC except for rogues who can target any defense. Divine and Psionic classes can target Will.

Swing and deal 2W damage and knock the target prone. And there you have a quick custom power under some some sort of rules.

 

[KidSnide]

If you want to tie Powers into the fiction, you have to give the fiction relevance in action resolution.

This is a good point, but I think there is some design space between asking every GM to interpret the fiction from scratch and providing advanced rules hooks to the fiction.

One of the things that 4e moved away from is situational bonuses and penalties. I think that's a good thing on balance, if just to avoid the rangers who's favored enemy bonuses were useless or overpowered, depending on the match between character and adventure. (And worse, the poor rogues facing an adventure full of constructs and the undead...)

That having been said, I think there is room on a power-by-power basis (instead of a class-by-class basis), to create powers that are more or less effective depending on the situation, opponent and terrain. I understand that rogues are the primary consumers of combat advantage, but shouldn't most melee classes have some powers that are more effective when used against a target granting CA? I wouldn't want a Call Lightning power that requires an open sky and a convenient rainstorm, but I think there is room for a primal lightning power that provides a significant bonus if used - say - outside in a rainstorm. Practically any specialist in a particular form of elemental magic could/should get some powers that work especially well if the caster is surrounded by the appropriate energy or terrain.

You could also imagine giving many martial powers (and, presumably, a minority of powers from other sources) the "precision" or "brutal" keyword. This would allow monsters designers to build in resistances and vulnerabilities to these types of powers. For example, skeletons or zombies might have a resistance to precision damage and a vulnerability to brutal damage. Small flying targets might have a defense bonus against brutal and a defense penalty against precision.

You could also have monsters with explicit vulnerabilities in the stat block for the PCs to figure out, like a giant golem with a vulnerable crystal in its chest. Such a monster could have a +2 (or +5) bonus to all defenses until the PCs figure out the vulnerability and say that they are aiming for it. (Presumably, a monster manual entry would provide a list of possible vulnerabilities, so the players would have to figure out what it was on this particular creature...)

Another way to get the PCs to think about the in-game fiction would be to add a guideline that characters who make "good use of terrain" and succeed at a easy or moderate athletics/acrobatics check could gain combat advantage or some other bonus.

Obviously, adding everything mentioned in this thread would create a hopeless mash of complexity. The point posited here is that there are ways to increase the relevance of the in-game fiction within the existing powers structure.

-KS