Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="catastrophic" data-source="post: 5635377" data-attributes="member: 81381">What i'm talking about is a little bit, but a little bit that goes a long way to make fights a lot better. And i'm not talking about a whole system for morale- i'm talking about a system for all sorts of extranious issues in combat and action, which leverages 4e's exception based approach.  So you would have the standard rules for combat goals, a standard combat layout that included, along with it's level apropriate monsters and such, the stipulation that you define 3 Qualities for the battle. Just, put it right there in the system, and in doing so, make combats better.  Then, you'd have a bunch of Qualities laid out, each like a power is laid out in the PHB. For instance(these are mock-sups, but they show the idea): Low MoraleMajor QualityCombatantsEffect: Each time you kill an enemy, you can make an intimidate check. When the successes from these checks reach 10, the enemy flees from the battle, with each creature retreating to the edge of the map, if they are able to do so without suffering injury from OAs and/or zones. Forced to FightMajor QualityCombatantsEffect: Each time you reduce an enemy to 0 hit points, if you choose to subdue them without killing them, you can make a Bluff or Dimplomacy roll. When the successes from these checks reach 10, the enemy ceases combat and disengages, if the pcs allow them to do so. Unstable GroundMajor QualityTerrainEffect: Each time a burst or blast spell is used, or a creature of larger than medium size of knocked prone, add one damage point to your notes. When you reach 10 damage points, the room begins to collapse, and combatants must clear the room by the exits, or suffer the falling rocks hazard (see page xx) for each round they remain in the room. Hidden ClueMinor QuallityStoryEffect: There is a small, fragile clue located in one square of the battlefield, like a set of tracks, a letter written on parchment, or the traces of a magical spell. Designate the square in the middle or main area of the map, and do not reveal it, although marking it with a feature like a table works well. If a pc passes through the square or a square adjacent to it, they can roll a perception check, or a knowlege check of an apropriate kind (nature of tracks, for instance). On a successful check, the clue is located and will give the party +1 victory point. And so on, with heaps of options. Now, this might seem like codification for no reason, but it's not, any more than it was pointless to codify forced movement, or character balance. The system is meant to be there to help the GM, and focusing the GM on ensuring that fights are more than a slugfest is imo a really positive goal.  I certainly think that just straight advice is a great thing to have in games, and the 4e DMGs are pretty solid in that respect. But there's also a point at which the system should offer more support. 3e works on the assumption that DMs will make fun combats. 4e gives DMs the tools to make that happen. 5e, should do even better.  I don't really think we're going to really make progress on, for instance, the grind, unless we re-think what combat is, and what goal it serves, in terms of the system. 4e combat is great, but it's a starting point.  We need system support for concepts like stakes, scene goals, and variable outcomes for combat. Otherwise it's just again, a think the DM is expected to do, without giving them any really solid support for doing it. That's pretty much what i'm after. Players should be able to do crazy(er) things, even if the GM doesn't plan for it.  There should be more leeway there, not to re-write the story, but for instance, for players to decide wether they're really going to let that recurring villain get away. In a situation like that, I want a system front and centre which allows the players to say "we want to take more risks in this bit, but that should mean something".  The thing is, if it's all just down to DM handwaving, the risks aren't really that substantial. Unless they're taking damage, even if they do, the adventure is going on either way. And ending the advanture, or adding unfun complications isn't really and effective balance, either. With proper system support, players and the DM have meaningful currencies they can exchange in such situations. I'll give you an example. The recurring villain is escaping via an airship, and the pcs are racing up to the airship dock to chase him. Now, it's basically GM fiat as to wether he gets away or not. Even if say, the DM allows an athletics check to leap onto the airship, with a failure leading to a nasty fall, it's still a very DM centric situation.  What I want is for the players to say "No we really want to catch this guy, and we're offering to spend Hero Points (or whatever) to ensure that it happens." Sure, the GM still makes the call, and there are guidelines, ect, but the point is that the exchange is clear, open, and works within the broader context of the campaign.  And the thing is, this is again just a way to make lucid what we already do as GMs. After all, healing surges and action points already play that role- but only in a very restruicted sense. I want the pcs to be able to risk resources, and prestige, and have other options, and I want all those risks and rewards and gabits and stakes to be up front, and clearly defined and functional.  That's what 4e is about. We don't houserule to get class balance, that's the designers job. We don't have to do monster analisis to see if it's CR is actually what it should be, because we have functional monster balance. I'm after the same sort of system for other approaches. Sure, it won't be perfect, but it can be a lot better than the de facto methods we use now. I can see what you mean, but if somebody does something crazy, the risk you're likley to attach to it is that they take damage, ie burn through surges. If somebody REALLLY wants to his a dude, they'll burn an ap to make a second attack.  Powers, items, consumables, you can argue that there's some kind of versilimitude to these qualties, but the give and take underlying them is ultimately about the narritive, and about changing it- hence, they are meta-narritive tools. After all, you choose when to use an AP, or spend a surge, or use a daily item. The player chooses when, based on the outcome they want to create.  I;m not really after abstract systems, i'm after us being honest about the abstract underpinnings of the game. You know as well as I do that that 50,000 GP estate is a hand-wave. Can they get that money back? Can they use it? Would it be better for them to spend all that money on archers or flaming oil? It's all down to the handwave.  I'd rather lay it out in a system, because the players and the GM can decide what type of assets the pcs really have, and how tehy can be used.  I agree that items should be split from gold, but that's the kind of reform i'm talking about. In no way, shape or form, is your ability to get a magic sword based on your willingness to say, sell your manor.  Much better then, to figure out what kind of game we're playing, enough that for instance, a GM can figure out what role owning a manor- or owning a magic sword- really plays in their game.</blockquote>

Verification