WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[Lenaianel]

IMO the game has to be centered on the PCs not their magic gear or their followers.

The folllowers, cohorts, animal companions etc... forest is as bad as the Xmas magic tree

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm done with Simulationist play forever and ever, so that's fine by me, but just because the ability's description doesn't explicitly allow something doesn't mean my group can't ad-lib a ruling that lets us do what we want. I mean, I'm a "say yes" kind of DM, so if the Rogue wants to use his Daily power to have an ally show up and help him open a lock or disarm a trap, I'll just say yes. If his idea makes the game lamer for everyone, I'll say no, but I can count on one hand the number of times one of my players has had an idea so lame that I've flat out denied it.

Sweet for your game, I'd do almost the same thing, but I'd hate to see that in a rulebook.

To more formally address that idea of allowing some flexibility with these ally summoning powers, the rulebook that introduces them ought to have some text that advises the DM on how to allow it. "Players whose characters have powers that call in allies or summon help may come up with new, creative ways to put those allies to work. If the idea is fun and about as useful as the normal ability, let them do it. If the idea would make the power a great deal more useful, allow the idea's basic concept, but curtail its effects such that the ability doesn't outshine other players at the table. If at all possible, avoid situations where, as a result of allies, one player has more time in the spotlight or influence over the game's proceedings. Summoning spells and allies should be a fun thing for everyone at the table, not just the player controlling the effect."

It always grinds my muffins something fierce whenever a rulebook tells me to Make Stuff Up.

Make Stuff Up sucks as a rule. I don't need a book to tell me to have fun. I need rules to help me have fun.

"Do whatever you want," means, for me, "Play another game, because obviously you don't need this one when you have your imagination!"

So, yeah, in summation, to the hypothetical rulebook that gave me advice like that: Not Good Enough, Try Harder, Don't Tell Me What I Already Know, Have A Nice Day.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Make Stuff Up sucks as a rule. I don't need a book to tell me to have fun. I need rules to help me have fun.

I'm of the opposite opinion. My default is "Make Stuff Up," and the game should only have rules for things that need hard rules to be fun and balanced. I say, don't use dice at all unless there's some question of whether the action should occur or not--in a combat situation, under tense circumstances, or an instance where there's some question that the character could reasonably succeed.

If the idea is fun, then don't even reach for the books. Do not so much as cast a sidelong glance at the books. Just let it happen and play the game.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

So, you propose that my summoner should whip up a balor from the pits of hell so it can stand behind the encounter and say "Boo" to give my fighter friend combat advantage?

My balor won't attack, won't engage. He just maneuvers to get behind our enemy?

I have a very abstract view of what a PC is, so not necessarily. In this case, the PC that the player plays is not just the thing you made at character creation - it's the composite entity composed of the thing you made at character creation *and* the balor. Thus, the fight could be narrated as the balor doing most of the damage while the character flanks it. Or maybe the damage could be narrated as balor and character working in concert.

I cannot imagine a justification for hiring a mercenary in the town to come along with our adventuring group, but his only function is to neak around behind our enemies and distract them but never attack them himself. Unless we're hiring a weak kid who wants a chance to rub elbows with big tough adventurers.

Well, the mercenary may be able to give combat advantage. But the mercenary is not limited to that function from a game mechanics perspective. He may give the PC who "bought" him extra hitpoints (to represent him soaking up some blows), extra damage (to represent the mercenary dealing out damage on his own), or any number or other fiddly bits. But the way I see it, the bottom line is that the mercenary is an extension of the PC, that thing you made at character creation.

And I cannot imagine a "Summon Monster" spell that summons a monster that never attacks, just distracts enemies. That isn't the purpose of a Summon Monster spell - that is the purpose of an illusion spell.

But the summoned monster *is* fighting enemies. Depending on the narration, it may even do damage to them. It's just that the combined efforts of the character and summoned monster *also* puts their mutual enemy at a disadvantage. This lets the player roll his dice with a bonus.

In any case, as a power that isn't "always on", I agree that the game effects of a Summon Monster spell should be greater than an "always on" thing like a Feat. But it would be more a difference of degree of damage than a difference of kind of damage.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm of the opposite opinion. My default is "Make Stuff Up," and the game should only have rules for things that need hard rules to be fun and balanced. I say, don't use dice at all unless there's some question of whether the action should occur or not--in a combat situation, under tense circumstances, or an instance where there's some question that the character could reasonably succeed.

You're slightly conflating two different things. I'm with you when you say don't use dice unless there's a question. I like how 3e supported that with Take 10 and Take 20 options.

But when a system tells me to "Make Stuff Up," that's different from, say, 3e giving me solid guidelines on what someone with a Climb bonus of +5 can do when he's not in a rush.

"Make Stuff Up" tells me to do 'whatever makes sense.'

That level of subjectivity is obnoxious to me as a DM. In a game that relies on 5 different people all sharing a vision, what makes sense to one or two of us might not make sense to everyone, and I loose time and steam and creative juju if I have to stop and re-explain every little logical step I've taken to come at what makes sense, for me.

And then if it doesn't make sense to someone else at the table, STILL, I feel like they're removed from the context of the game. They break the 4th wall too hard, and that weakens the experience for everyone.

So rather than have a game experience that is subjective and open to interpretation, which allows for misunderstandings and differences of opinion on what is 'sensible,' I'd prefer a game system which tells me what it assumes, and allows me to depart from it.

Controlling the mood is perhaps one of the most important metagame responsibilities of the DM, and whenever a rulebook tells me to Make Stuff Up, it's introducing something that could easily break the mood.

Which means that instead of that game, I'm going to go play something else with my friends that isn't so fragile and dependant on one person's whims.

Something like a videogame, where a computer rigidly enforces the rules of it's domain. Not quite as satisfying as a monumental adventure with friends, but at least if I'm playing Smash Brothers in a room full of pals, it's tougher for one person's eccentricity to ruin it for everyone.

If the idea is fun, then don't even reach for the books. Do not so much as cast a sidelong glance at the books. Just let it happen and play the game.

If I don't need the books to tell me how to play the game, then why am I playing D&D and not doing improv on the stage?

I play D&D for a specific kind of experience, just like I do anything amusing for a specific kind of experience. If the game leaves it so broadly open that my experience is "Whatever you want!", then I will want to do something that can directly tell me what experience I will have with it, instead.

Any cohort rules that I'm willing to pay for in order to add to my D&D game will actually tell me what they expect, and not just tell me to make stuff up.

 

[DM_Blake]

I'm of the opposite opinion. My default is "Make Stuff Up," and the game should only have rules for things that need hard rules to be fun and balanced. I say, don't use dice at all unless there's some question of whether the action should occur or not--in a combat situation, under tense circumstances, or an instance where there's some question that the character could reasonably succeed.

If the idea is fun, then don't even reach for the books. Do not so much as cast a sidelong glance at the books. Just let it happen and play the game.

That's a great idea.

But from a game mechanics standpoint, it is self defeating.

If you won't use the book, won't even glance sidelong at the book, then why did you buy the book?

If the book itself tells you to not use the book, then why did the writer write the book, why was it published, distributed, and sold?

If the entire intention of the book is to not use the book, then the book shouldn't exist.

Which is fine if that's how you like to play. Amber was a fun diceless game, I enjoyed it a lot. The book was very small, and there weren't many splat books - none that I recall.

But, from the POV of the guys making the game, and selling the game, writing book after book full of "Don't use the book" won't generate a lot of sales.

So we should expect WotC to produce rules that explain what to do. We probably should not expect these rules to say "don't use the book".

Given that, it would be nice if the rules provided a fun and yet simple way, preferably without strange RP issues, to handle summoning critters and hiring henchmen.

 

[Saishu_Heiki]

I'll agree that it would great if that could work. Unfortunately, it often doesn't. If the menagerie character is well prepared and has all his creatures' stats ready with all relevant templates applied, and reasonably familiar with all relevant rules and strategies, then his turn won't take long and can be interesting. But if a creature isn't prepped and has to be stated on the fly, or the player takes a while to decide, etc. his turn drags on. And sure I can help out by offering commentary or advice or general humor, but that can often turn to a side conversation, delaying the game even more. If there were no other option, then that would be acceptable, but clearly there are other ways of doing it.

Ding!

Summoner: "Okay, I'm going to cast.... Gate. That means I bring in a... hold on, let me check the Spells chapter of the PHB. Oh, no... that won't help. Maybe this? Sure!"

Rest of Group: "..."

Summoner: "I Gate in a Pit Fiend! Let me look for the mini, I know I have one here somewhere..."

Rest of Group: "..."

Summoner: "Cool! He can attack now. Let me look him up in the MM. Which one was it? Oh, I didn't bring that one, can I borrow yours?" Please? I just need it for a moment. Wow, he has some sweet powers... I need to read this first."

Rest of Group: "GET ON WITH IT!"

In a perfect world where every player has all the rules memorized, has the books tabbed to the pages that he may need, and has prepared all possible variants of the pages, stats, and sheets that he may need then the turns would fly by. In the real world, people look things up and have to make constant revisions (or wholesale creation at the table). 3.5 has so much of this that the game slows down proportional to the character level for most character classes.

Even basic class abilities can take far too long. Don't believe me? Ask your cleric to detail the rules for turning undead without consulting the book.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

So rather than have a game experience that is subjective and open to interpretation, which allows for misunderstandings and differences of opinion on what is 'sensible,' I'd prefer a game system which tells me what it assumes, and allows me to depart from it.

What can I say, I prefer I rules-light game. Everyone has their preferred level of number-crunching and rulebook use, and that's why RPGs range from FATAL to Risus and everywhere in between. Right now, I'm happy with something on the level of Mage: the Awakening, with robust rules for the way the game expects you to act and very general, empowering guidelines for going beyond it. 3rd Edition had, for my standards, way too many rules for things I don't care about, and really lame guidelines for going beyond the rules.

 

[Mercule]

A summoning spell doesn't have to add an additional figure on the battlemat unless you want it to.

It helps to use existing game terminology, though. D&D summoning spells have always been about adding another figure. I'm not saying that it isn't legitimate to call a polymorph/animistic channeling a "summoning", just that the "add a figure" use of summoning is also legitimate and has 30+ years of D&D inertia behind it.

We've heard that the 4e druid is going to be more oriented around wild shape than the 3e version. I think that ties in very, very well with the channeling-summoning and love the flavor -- especially since druids IMC are animists.

I don't want to see the "add a figure" version of summoning disappear, though. It's got a strong tradition in the genre and I think it is imperative for a game that does genre simulation to actual simulate the genre, rather than just implementing an arbitrary rule set and seeing what can be crammed into it. Genre begets rules. Do not get those reversed.

I think the very idea of all extra bodies either substituting for the "owner's" action or being abstracted to a simple +x to task y is ludicrous. It stretches suspension of disbelief so far beyond the breaking that I wouldn't have believed anyone would seriously consider it in an RPG, if I hadn't seen the blog and this thread.

I don't see an issue with limiting summoned bodies' actions. I wouldn't support the trade of a standard action, but "sustain: move" seems a reasonable trade-off -- both from a believability and gamist standpoint. The move action can be described as giving commands, maintaining the conduit, or a half-dozen other options without locking the caster into just a different "character" for a few rounds. The cost is enough (especially as movement is supposed to be so much more important in 4e) to be impactful, but not so much as to negate much of the benefit of using an ability.

Cohorts, etc. are a different matter, and more difficult. I think a major factor has to be that actions are not the only measure of effectiveness. Some hirelings (1st level men-at-arms) are likely to be balanced by either the scarcity of resources to hire them at lower levels or by the actual lack of effectiveness at higher levels. Many "NPC classed" hirelings would continue to have their effectiveness limited by PC funds, or the PCs are going to have their effectiveness limited by a reasonable amount.

Cohorts and animal companions do actually fall into a different category than "hirelings", though. They are assumed both to be more competent and and to share a closer, more significant/unique bond with the PC. I see no reason why this shouldn't be born out with mechanics. 3e had just the Leadership feat, which, apparently, wasn't enough to offset the value of the cohort. In 4e, we know NPCs don't always obey the same advancement rules as PCs -- which doesn't necessarily stretch belief, if implemented well. A new Leadership feat could be added in 4e that provides a cohort of PC level/2 (some scalability, but decreasing returns), with an additional feat that adds a +1 level to the cohort each time it's taken. (This seems like a very, very good time to point out that I'm not saying I have THE ANSWER. I'm just musing.)

Another mechanic would be to have things like honest-to-goodness cohorts/companions be a class feature that costs the PC effectiveness in other areas -- like the rogue choosing a combat style and certain powers granting additional bonuses for certain builds. Or, making the companion more effective would generally require the expenditure of power slots ("once per encounter as a standard action, you may direct your companion to make an attack that bypasses damage reduction"). I see that as being most applicable to things like animal companion, but I definitely see something like a warlord Paragon Path ("Leader of Men"?, "Cult of Personality"?, "Great General"?) for cohorts, as a legendary sidekick definitely seems above the Heroic level, anyway. In the case of the Paragon Path, the character is trading quite a bit, but is pretty well making leadership a defining trait of the character. And I think a dedicated cohort (or troop of notably skilled followers) certainly seems like something that should be a defining trait.

The band of soldiers guarding the bridge (or whatever) that is quickly organized does not strike me as something that needs to be regulated by strict rules. They are part of the scenario for a specific encounter and aren't really under the control of a specific player. Even if one PC did the recruiting, there is no reason that player should run them all -- split them between the other players and/or the DM.

And.... familiars are a horse of a completely different color. The genre conventions don't mark familiars as battle companions (otherwise, see "animal companions", above). Some vague, esoteric bond between a wizard and his familiar actually does provide some sort of boost to the wizard that could be represented by a skill bonus, or substituted for the use of an implement, or a few dozen other variations on that basic idea. Familiars really should be a discussion of their own.

 

[KidSnide]

I think rules for summoned/companion creatures needs to consider what the creature is used for. In general, we don't want fully autonomous creatures that are always around like most current animal companions. Because they are in every fight (because they are always there), they need to be weak enough that their masters can keep their full actions without breaking game balance. This is the worst of both worlds: not only do they take up an action every turn, but they are also either mostly irrelevant or totally dominating.

I'm not sure I have a problem with a Warlock summoning an independent and worthwhile demon, but I want that to be a daily ability or a ritual with significant cost. Similarly, I'm not sure I have a problem with a druid with a guard wolf, but I want that wolf to be a creature that always sticks by the druid and only gets involved in the fight when someone tries to melee the druid.

Traditional cohorts are more of a challenge, since they tend to have capabilities that are close to a full PC. It seems to me that the right solution there is to eliminate the Leadership ability that gives a PC the "right" to have one of those characters around and simply let the GM decide whether or not such a character is disruptive. Based on that decision, a GM can decide when such an NPC would be willing to join the party (or ask for treasure). (Certainly, many of my D&D games have included a party NPC that rounds out the party's abilities and serves as an extra character when a guest wants to join the game for a night.)

The last type of NPCs are hirelings or other mercenaries that the PCs hire. I ran a game where the PCs went around with about 200 troops (for about a year or two of real-time and at least a dozen fights), and I found that these worked pretty well if you treat them as a "unit" where each figure moves independently, but you don't bother really keeping track of which soldier gets hit and you let the PCs roll the attacks when necessary. It seems like treating these characters as allied minions would be quite effective. From a combat perspective, allied soldiers essentially serve as friendly terrain, because a wall of soldiers provides valuable cover for vulnerable members of the party while the fighters engage the real threats.