Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[AbdulAlhazred]

There's two I've seen.

1. Just reduce the number of different types of bonuses. That way its still possible to hunt for a few, but it doesn't turn into the 3e stack-a-million-bonuses thing. This is the PF2e approach.

2. Diminishing returns. Shadow of the Demon Lord has what are called boons and banes. A boon adds +1D6 to the roll; a bane subtracts -1D6. You can have multiples of any of them but you only get the best. So if you've got three boons on your attack roll, you roll the D20, roll 3D6, and add the best of the D6 rolls to the value. It means its still somewhat useful hunting for multiples, but less and less so.

Edit: And to be clear, I don't really care how smoothly it works; it produces a result I don't like twice over; it makes only bothering with the first benefit what you do, and then it makes it matter too much.

So, HoML actually does all of these things in some measure. Its pretty much a 4e engine, at least that's the starting point, and so you have bonuses, but they ALL fall within 1 of 4 types, level, ability, proficiency, and permanent. Notice, NONE of those can vary based on the situation at the table! That is to say, they can to the degree you could pick up a different weapon and gain/lose a proficiency bonus, and permanent bonuses can be 'keyed' any way you want (IE apply only when certain tags exist on the target of an attack, etc.). Still, the bonuses cannot stack within a type, so AT MOST you can have 4, and level and ability bonus are pretty cut-and-dried at that! (I guess an item could change your ability, etc. I mean anything is possible).

Again, if you want to gain different sorts of results, use different powers, spend power, leverage practices (which change the ability score and skill that are relevant) etc. Players can have a big effect on how well their plans turn out, it really IS a tactical game, but you will never be sitting at the table trying to figure out all the bonuses that are in play, it just won't happen. My philosophy here is a very strong "invest in the things that will make the game play most appealing at the table." This is an ethos that should be recognizably derived from 4e's design philosophy. Even as complex games 4e and HoML are rather easy to play at the table, especially for the GM.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

even just having greater and lesser advantage....

I thought about it, but consider, if instead you do things like design your monsters with a bit more varied defenses, then hitting a weaker one is going against a 2-4 point lower DV, which might as well be considered the same as an equivalent attack bonus, right? I mean, there's a lot of things along these lines that PCs can do. They can use various forms of synergy to increase their offense and defense in a whole variety of ways. I just think that dice modifiers are a cumbersome way to handle a lot of that. And if you now start in with 2 levels of 'advantage' and 'disadvantage', which things get each one? Now some stuff stacks but other stuff doesn't, or there's got to be some other more complicated rule. I'm really not convinced it adds enough to the game design to make up for all that. I really had the way Strike! just stripped away a lot of the cruft of 4e but left the real essence of what it was doing intact. I just translated that philosophy to d20 (purely for reasons of taste really). Also doing it that way makes it pretty simple to convert 4e content in most cases. Pretty much any 4e monster will 'work' in HoML with a few tweaks to terminology and updated numbers.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Fine until the character would have a net +5 and -1 (i.e. say three advantages and one disadvantage) which in the advantage system cancels out to net-zero where it should be +4.

At least in my system you do have advantage/disadvantage cancellation, yes, so any disadvantage cancels your advantage, again this is just a lot simpler to process at the table than adding up lots of things that give each and figuring out which is more. That process would also encourage just larding one or the other onto lots of stuff! It would undo the whole point.

In terms of actual modifiers on the d20, they don't stack, and you take the most advantageous, so if something gives a -1 permanent bonus, and something else gives a +1, indeed you just get the +1. This doesn't come up a huge amount. Penalties are fairly rare for one thing. Ability score modifier 0 just means you are pretty bad at something, lol. Its possible perhaps to get something like a 'cursed weapon' that was -1 permanent bonus, but then chances are you won't have a +1 to cancel it out, since very few things grant permanent bonuses! If you do have something that gives a +1 in most situations, that would be a really nice bennie to have!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thanks G but I think instead of this @overgeeked is trying to get across the idea that +1 (5%) or +2 (10%) isn't enough of a bonus to make a real difference. I happen to disagree, in that I can't count the number of times I've seen a simple +1 or -1 make the difference to a roll's outcome, but I acknowledge the point he's trying to make.

You, of course, are quite correct as well - +5 to -5 in steps is more granular than in effect just + 0 - possibilities.

I've found in actual playtest with HoML that @overgeeked is correct. It just doesn't make that much difference in terms of experience of play, which is what I care about. Nobody remembers how some obscure +1 was the exact margin that changed the course of the game. They will remember how your clever getting of advantage let you gank the bad guy at the last second! My experience with RPG play says "Always use the big clue hammer!"

 

[Garthanos]

I thought about it, but consider, if instead you do things like design your monsters with a bit more varied defenses, then hitting a weaker one is going against a 2-4 point lower DV, which might as well be considered the same as an equivalent attack bonus, right?

How does that work you just choose not to attack monsters with better DV huh... sounds like nonsense. Oh you mean rock paper scissors on FRW ... ummmm unless everyone has flexibility thats not gonna work.

 

[Garthanos]

And if you now start in with 2 levels of 'advantage' and 'disadvantage', which things get each one? Now some stuff stacks but other stuff doesn't, or there's got to be some other more complicated rule.

Not that tricky really much ado about nothing

I'm really not convinced it adds enough to the game design to make up for all that.

I may not like the density that Lan would prefer but as it stands it really lacks nuance in 5e its all or nothing and I find that meh.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Meh, usually there's one nice big fat cinematic element there which you take. The rest? What is really gained?

That people are less likely to just pick the low hanging fruit to get there and stop. If you don't understand why that matters to some people, I don't think I'm going to be able to explain it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

How does that work you just choose not to attack monsters with better DV huh... sounds like nonsense. Oh you mean rock paper scissors on FRW ... ummmm unless everyone has flexibility thats not gonna work.

Well, in HoML different weapons base on different abilities, and may also attack different defenses. Or you may just use a different power, they are not generally too hard to get. Speaking for myself when I describe a creature I think the description should be indicative of what its strong and weak defenses are, etc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That people are less likely to just pick the low hanging fruit to get there and stop. If you don't understand why that matters to some people, I don't think I'm going to be able to explain it.

It shouldn't be a problem, not every game is a solution to genre/agenda preferences for everyone. In terms of Jargon though, we can analyze that and sort it out. HoML is intended to be a mostly pretty narrative game, its about what sort of hero you are, how you engage with your heroism, and what happens when you do heroic stuff. So, there isn't really a strong emphasis on lots of detailed realistic factors in play. It is more intended to answer questions about what was the awesome thing you did that won the fight, etc. Now, it does still have a tactics element to the game, but it is a little less focused on 'tactics as actions' and more on 'tactics as applying conceptual tools of tactical thinking' is how I would put it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It shouldn't be a problem, not every game is a solution to genre/agenda preferences for everyone. In terms of Jargon though, we can analyze that and sort it out. HoML is intended to be a mostly pretty narrative game, its about what sort of hero you are, how you engage with your heroism, and what happens when you do heroic stuff. So, there isn't really a strong emphasis on lots of detailed realistic factors in play. It is more intended to answer questions about what was the awesome thing you did that won the fight, etc. Now, it does still have a tactics element to the game, but it is a little less focused on 'tactics as actions' and more on 'tactics as applying conceptual tools of tactical thinking' is how I would put it.

Which is all fair, but then you shouldn't be surprised if that's not the effect everyone else is trying for.