Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="catastrophic" data-source="post: 5636421" data-attributes="member: 81381">In general, i'd argue, how much of that flexibility is realyl useful? In human beings, flexibility is actually derived from strength, and a solid system backing up the gm is what allows them to really explore entertaining ideas. For instance, before 4e, a DM could claim that a combat could be a straight up battle, where the dice fall where they may, if that's what they and their players are after- but they'd basically be lying, because the combat system relied on too muhc fiat to ever, really do that. Endless choised and tweaks and hand-waves went into every moment of combat, and all the conditions that led to combat. Now in 4e, you really can do a battle like that, to a much greater degree. You can also play around with other formats as well- the system is there backing you up, sharing the load. That's the idea i'd like extended to other areas. It's not about restriction, it's about giving the GM the support to genuinly push the envelope, while still keeping the game as a GAME, with the depth and variety that offers, rather than just the gm whimming everything into form, which to be frank, is not nearly as versatile a process as we DMs would like to believe.  I agree that the system i'm proposing would not directly hit on many of the issues with 4e combat, but it would hit on other issues with 4e combat.  I do thing that combat needs to be made a lot sleeker in any event, particularly by eliminating and cutting down a lot of key issues, like nonstandard interactions (conditional feats, ect), too much round by round book-keeping, the 4e christmas tree effect, and so on. I'm totally supportive of that kind of fix. As an example of what i'd be after, i've had an idea for a while for a stat called 'penalty' or 'woe', which would be a standardised general abstract measure of how <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />ed up your guy was. Somebody else mentioned an idea like this on this thread as well iirc. It would be used instead of, or in conjunction with, a smaller set of negative effects, and most powers would not inflict such effects, but rather just inflict woe in addition to normal damage. It could be as simple as a value that ranged from 1-5, which acts as a persistant penalty to defences. This value would then act a bit like hit points, or just degrade by one point per turn. Now there's all sorts of things a system like this could add, but the core idea is simple. Remove a lot of niggling minor effects and book-keeping, by folding them into a single semi-universal value. I'm not opposed to that, and i'm not saying the system would replace that. It would just make things clear, and give another option as to how to resolve scenes and the give-and-take between players and GM.  You could easily for instance, signal that you're not going to catch this guy this time BUT- that alone is an opportunity. In other games, you can actually OFFER the players a bonus in exchange for that sort of thing- the villain getting away, or the heroes being captured, is the kind of thing a GM might offer a hero point for. Players can also VOLUNTARILY offer these complications in return for such points, giving them a way to hang their hyjinks on the story without being concerned that they're derailing the game.  And sure again, the GM is the final arbiter, but systems like this work really well. And it actually makes it easier for the GM to set up situations like, say, the villain escaping. Rather than having to manipulate the combat in order to make sure the guy gets away, AND probably deny players the full use of their powers in the process ("You immobilised him? Heh, well, good thing he has ANOTHING free saving thrown encounter power!") The GM can just be up front and say "the villain hurls a smoke bomb and dashes away, leaping onto a waiting griffon and soaring into the sky. You each recieve one hero point as you vow to hunt him down!" And yeah, if the PCs save those hero points and make very clear they're going to spend them in the next fight with the villain, to get them the extra attacks and moves they need to bring him down? Well you as the GM should recognise the clear message your players are sending.  And again, on the flipside, if that's where they want to spend their resources, then it's good they have a clear, functional system to make those decisions. To decide what kind of impact they want to have on the world. This leads back to the idea of a points system, and how points can be used. I hear you, but there is a lot to be gained from innovative design.</blockquote>

Verification