WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[Cadfan]

Yes, I see your point about mintes being a zero-sum game. But that's only true if each player sees them as "my minutes are cool, your minutes are wasting my time".

My minute is cool. Your minute is cool. Your next minute is cool too. Your next minute after that is a little less cool. Your minute beyond that one is kind of ok. Your minute after that is pretty blah. And it just goes downhill from there.

 

[DM_Blake]

I'm done with Simulationist play forever and ever, so that's fine by me

LOL, I don't even know how to talk to you.

I don't mean that as an insult. You have your way and I have mine. I am not saying either way is better or worse. All I am saying is that your way and my way are so different that we don't share a common point of reference.

For me, if I want to throw simulationist play out the window, I will drop all the rulebooks, get some friends together and sit in a relatively dark relaxing room and do some stream of consciousness roleplaying. No dice. No rules. We will collaboratively build a story together.

But that's not D&D.

Nor is D&D having Captain Caveman pull a T-Rex out of his beard to bite the enemy for a round then jump back in the beard.

Nor is it a warlod having a half dozen cartoon warriors, all standing in a line behind him, wobbling up and down, until he calls on one of them to jump into battle (probably shouting something like "Whirling Fluffbubble Acid Tempest of Doom") for a round while the warlord and all the rest of the minions watch from the sidelines.

Nor is it hiring a skilled guide from the scout's guild, only to have him lurk about the battlefield adding +2 to a few of the PCs attack rolls each round.

It's not Buggs Bunny, it's not The Simpsons, and it's not National Lampoon.

No, for me, D&D is trying to apply some semblance of the real world into a fantasy story. Sure, there are mythical things like unicorns and magic swords and fireballs and dragons, etc., but for the most part those mythical things, and the mundane things too, all behave in ways similar to how comparable (or as close to comparable as we can get) things in the real world behave.

Within my context, hiring a NPC to join the group means that NPC will use his skills and abilities the same way a PC would (you wouldn't bring a new player to a game and tell him "Well, we already have 4 players, so your guy gets no loot, no XP, and all you can do is sneak behind the enemy so that we can get +2 on our attacks against that enemy.").

Within my context, summoning a monster into a battle means the monster moves around, attacks, defends, and uses its abilities to the best of its, well, ability. It isn't just a flavor text saying that now I can do more damage with my crossbow.

Yes, I know that this kind of thing can potentially slow down the turn of the player controlling the additional fighting resources.

I just don't see that it slows it down so much that it causes problems - on the rare occasions that it does, it's not hard to talk to the group, or the one player, and find a solution.

What I have never needed is for the game's designers to come in and take away the ability to summon monsters, or turn it into some unrealistic flavor modifier, or limit its use in any way. Let the DM do that at his table, but don't break the game for it.

A hammer isn't always the right tool for every job, but don't take it out of the toolbox - let the carpenter figure out when to use the hammer and when not to.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now this is the model that D&D has always used.

If you have a party of 4 people and they get 1000 XP, then each one gets 250. If you brought along a mercenary, a hireling, a henchman, whatever, then you really have 5 people to split that 1000 XP so you each get 200.

You "pay for" the extra actions by a reduction in the XP reward. And, most likely, that extra guy wants a share of the loot, too.

There is the balance of the Economy of Actions - more actions means less reward.

That's not how Cohorts earn XP in 3.5, though.

Let's say you have your party of 4 7th level characters, and one of them has a 5th level cohort.

The party earns 1000XP; each PC gets 250. The cohort then gets XP that are not derived from the pool of 1000; he gets the same as his master, at a 5/7 ratio. So the cohort gets 178XP, and the total number of XP actually earned from the encounter is 1178.

The PCs earn the same XP - 250 each - regardless of the cohort's presence.

So "Cohort reduces XP for everyone" isn't the model D&D has always used - certainly not for the past few years!

-Hyp.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

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.

The kind of language I'm using to describe DM flexibility is the same language White Wolf uses in their Storyteller system, and they produce gobs of successful splat books and core rule books. It's not that there are no rules, or that they shouldn't be followed; the idea is that if, in the course of playing the game, you have a better idea than what the designer wrote, or if the designer didn't touch on that point, don't go flipping through 300 pages of rulebook for an answer. Just do it.

To be more precise, there should be rules for doing a finite number of things, the expected, usual behavior that the game is geared toward. D&D needs a set of rules for fighting monsters and using magic, Call of Cthulu needs rules for investigating paranormal events, and Nobilis needs rules for dreaming up miraculous events on the fly. For everything else, the game should have a simple, easy-to-remember, flexible mechanic. In D&D, you have ability checks; in WoD, you combine a couple of Traits and make a dice pool.

Really, I'm just saying you should use the simple, flexible mechanic more often, and rely less on having a specific rule for every corner case you can dream up. But some people want a rules-heavier game, and they should play a game that supports that. 3.5 is really good for that; there's a rule for just about everything. What the 4e designers seem to be promising--what I'm salivating for--is a game that's more focused on a core gameplay, with a simple, flexible system for improvization (e.g.: "Want to kick over the table and knock the guys on top over? Strength vs. Reflex).

 

[I'm A Banana]

What can I say, I prefer I rules-light game.

Fair enough. For me, too few rules and I feel like I'm not even playing a game, I'm just making stuff up.

I do think I'd wager on 4e being rules-heavy, but having simpler rules than 3e, which might be a good middle ground for both of us.

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.

Well, 4e has been surprising a lot of people like that. Myself included, sometimes.

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.)

The BIGGEST problem with cohorts/hirelings is that they take game time away from the PC's. Their actions are also pretty potent, but the power thing is on a scale. The "sit on my hands while the druid resolves his pets" thing is a bit more dangerous.

 

[Harshax]

I just read Rodney's blog, and I don't like where he's going. (Or at least I don't understand it)

I'd hate to see a follower system that consumes the player's actions. There's very little to justify this approach, except in a board game. I think a cleaner solution (pardon me, if someone said this already, I'm layed up today with the flu), is to thematically eliminate them from campaign design. Obviously 1st level characters are bad mofo's, and henchman and hirelings will drop like flies around them as they face challenges. Since most of the world is NOT filled with folks of the Player Character's Caliber, it stands to reason that most folks wouldn't dream of joining up with the party.

To me, followers only seem to come into play, when there isn't enough players and multiple characters need to be run by those at the table. YMMV

 

[Vael]

I'm finding this discussion fascinating, because I would love to play a Conjurer in 4e that plays like a Pokemon trainer, and without bogging down the game. I've played Druids, and I've always found that it's twice the work for me to run my animal companions, and it can bog down my fun too. (Plus I got annoyed both in and out of character that my party members treated my beloved animal companion as a disposable meat shield).

It seems to me that summons, animal companions and familiars are a separate boat from allies/hirelings/followers. A hired NPC or follower should probably be treated as a full character in his own right, but familiars and other companions shouldn't receive a full suite of actions, and have a vastly simplified menu of available abilities.

Actually, that seems to me to be a good distinction. Followers are more party-level resources, whether it's the hired guard or monster. Companions are creatures like familiars, and are bound to a specific character and hence are considered a part of their PC and do not have a full budget of actions.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Nor is D&D having Captain Caveman pull a T-Rex out of his beard to bite the enemy for a round then jump back in the beard.

Nor is it a warlod having a half dozen cartoon warriors, all standing in a line behind him, wobbling up and down, until he calls on one of them to jump into battle (probably shouting something like "Whirling Fluffbubble Acid Tempest of Doom") for a round while the warlord and all the rest of the minions watch from the sidelines.

Nor is it hiring a skilled guide from the scout's guild, only to have him lurk about the battlefield adding +2 to a few of the PCs attack rolls each round.

It's not Buggs Bunny, it's not The Simpsons, and it's not National Lampoon.

You seem to find my suggestions upsetting enough to convert them into ludicrous straw men. Do you find them upsetting enough to offer better suggestions?

 

[Harshax]

~

Actually, that seems to me to be a good distinction. Followers are more party-level resources, whether it's the hired guard or monster. Companions are creatures like familiars, and are bound to a specific character and hence are considered a part of their PC and do not have a full budget of actions.

That's the ticket!

Savage Worlds has an awesome mechanic. If the party has mooks, then those mooks get distributed equally to all players (if they want). The mooks move on the controlling character's turn. That's it, no diluting their effectiveness, no destabilizing the Action Economy.

Sidekicks, and personal companions are an entirely different story, and have only really allowed them when there wasn't enough characters to play a game.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The other 4 people are not penalized. They should be glad that their chances of survival just increased. The fighter looks at the pit fiend standing next to him, bashing away at the army of evil dragons, and should be thinking "Wow, glad he's on my side" not "Wow, I sure am penalized."

The choice between play or die and watch or live should be an easy one. Or at least it is for me: play and die. D&D is not a spectator sport. Winning isn't everything, and its not even my main goal!