Jump to content

D&D 4th edition rules and what we can learn from them...


AikiGhost

Recommended Posts

I've only actually played Savage Worlds once so the following observation may not be too robust.

But it seemed that SW mechanics are much more characteristic based than BRP.

So shouldn't Tricks, Taunts, Intimidates be skill-based for the Active party? And maybe Passive highest of (Characteristic x5 or Skill)?

Savage Worlds is more like BRP, in the sense that you have a very clean rule set that tries to do the most with its basic elements, as opposed to tacking on more rules. eg. Tricks offer a huge variety of tactics without having to spell out rules for trip, feint, disarm, intimidate, sand in eyes, etc. That would be an entire volume if printed for D&D.

I don't know the best way to implement tricks yet, but I'll probably use Characteristic vs. Characteristic. Otherwise there would be too many skills, thus defeating the point. Though, upon rereading your post, I must say I'll have to give it some thought. (Maybe broad trick skills based on Dex, Pow, and Int. With the option to use your raw Characteristic, or your skill [which can be improved only through experience])

And don't forget Realism Rule # 1 "If you can do it in real life you should be able to do it in BRP". - Simon Phipp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading similar list elsewhere and reading of a plan to issue new players Handbooks, Monster Manuals & DMGs every year, I'm of the idea that it's NOT a roleplaying game, it's a do-it-yourself collectible card game.

I've had player threaten to play a Wizard named Charmander :P

I can seriously see players putting their at will/scene/day "powers" on cards and flipping them as used.

I have my homebrew (A)D&D campaign of 20+ years, that I might yet convert.. but it won't be to D&D. In truth, I cut my gaming teeth on RQ2. I still think it's the best system out there. D&D4 sounds and feels more video/collectible-card than RPG to me. If I covert, it will require a LOT of conversion. 'Magic' , Sorcery & Psi might cover part of it, but at the levels of play attained, some use of 'Super' rules would be required.

:focus:

What might we learn fro D&D4? We will have to see once it's out who plays it and who decides to stay with earlier editions or jumps to a different system. My hope is that Chaosium would return to a more vigorous interest in RPG's. Aside from (very) periodic CoC supplements, they produce little RPG products. BRP, IMHO, is far superior to D20 OGL and if permitted to be used, could provide a vast ocean of products & resources. I'm looking forward to several possible settings suggested here and wish all the best of luck. Now, if only someone can get me my copy a bit quicker, so I feel less like a junkie strung out needing a fix...

later,

Grey

At Play in the Fields of the Fnord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll probably use Characteristic vs. Characteristic. Otherwise there would be too many skills, thus defeating the point.

I agree with the desire to avoid skill list bloat. Anyone who has compared combat tactics in RQIV:Adventures in litigation and the same in Pendragon can see how having a skill for every eventuality can turn a fun tactical decision into a chore. (Example Pendragon if I want to get past your armour I declare double feint and roll under the lowest of my weapon skill and my Dex score; RQIV I have to develop a separate skill called double feint so after having invested in that why would I use any other tactic?)

However SW uses skills for the offensive for Taunt and Intimidate and BRP could do too. In fact the BRP skill specialisations rules potentially make this easier.

Al

Rule Zero: Don't be on fire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the desire to avoid skill list bloat. Anyone who has compared combat tactics in RQIV:Adventures in litigation and the same in Pendragon can see how having a skill for every eventuality can turn a fun tactical decision into a chore. (Example Pendragon if I want to get past your armour I declare double feint and roll under the lowest of my weapon skill and my Dex score; RQIV I have to develop a separate skill called double feint so after having invested in that why would I use any other tactic?)

However SW uses skills for the offensive for Taunt and Intimidate and BRP could do too. In fact the BRP skill specialisations rules potentially make this easier.

Al

Note that it is possible to use broader skills with specialisations to avoid the need to develop too many skills.

For instance, you could have :

1 Hand Melee : 37%

*1 Handed Sword : +32% : 69%

*Dagger : +12% : 49%

*Double Feint : -25% (Untrained) : 12%

2 Hand Melee : 14%

*2 Handed Sword : +12% : 36%

And so on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RuneLords in RQII got specific unique abilities for weapon skills over 100, which might be a source of inspiration.

Cheers,

Nick

Hey Nick,

Do you mean the 'anti-parry' rules that RL got, or were there other abilities detailed somewhere else? If so, where were those rules detailed?

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only actually played Savage Worlds once so the following observation may not be too robust.

But it seemed that SW mechanics are much more characteristic based than BRP.

So shouldn't Tricks, Taunts, Intimidates be skill-based for the Active party? And maybe Passive highest of (Characteristic x5 or Skill)?

That was the tact the Masterbook/TORG/Shatterzone games took, and it seemed to be fine there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the desire to avoid skill list bloat. Anyone who has compared combat tactics in RQIV:Adventures in litigation and the same in Pendragon can see how having a skill for every eventuality can turn a fun tactical decision into a chore. (Example Pendragon if I want to get past your armour I declare double feint and roll under the lowest of my weapon skill and my Dex score; RQIV I have to develop a separate skill called double feint so after having invested in that why would I use any other tactic?)

There's two answers to this:

1. One or two broad skills for this sort of thing is not an excessive game-load add on.

2. If one does have narrow skills, its not like people _don't_ tend to use techniques they've gotten good at frequently; the limitation is that if other people get used to them, they tend to lose some effectiveness--but they tend to need to get used to the _specific_ technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean the 'anti-parry' rules that RL got, or were there other abilities detailed somewhere else? If so, where were those rules detailed?

Err, yes! (Couldn't actually remember for certain earlier!) Hold on, I have a copy here..

RQII page 55 - Combat benefits lists 4 advantages / "powers" of Combt Skills of 100%+:

  • You can reduce you opponents Defence score by the amount your skill exceeds 100
  • An opponents parry is penalised by the same amount
  • your special and critical chances are increased (note - for a skill of 120 this means that your opponents are penalised -20 from Defence AND Parry against you, AND you get specials on 24 or less and crits on 6 or less..
  • Splitting Attacks or parries down in to blocks of 50 or more.

Non-Fighting skills help you using the RQII opposed skill mechanic - so Hide 120 penalises Spot Hidden attempts against you by 20 points...

I don't know the best way to implement tricks yet, but I'll probably use Characteristic vs. Characteristic. Otherwise there would be too many skills, thus defeating the point.

Why not use existing skills? The appropriate weapon skill or Dodge for feints, Fast Talk or Perform for verbal bluffs / intimidation (with perhaps bonus for high stats or flashy skills, depending on the specific tactics), Throw for tossing sand (or a bowl of gruel or a handful of food scraps) in someone's face (and that's surely simply a thrown attack not intended to cause direct damage?). Reading the deception would be a matter of Insight, or Spot, whilst avoiding the stuff in the face is a Dodge.

As I suggested earlier, I'm really not sure BRP needs anything adding to do all these things - it just needs spelling out for players and game masters to see how to use the existing rules and skills to achieve the same effect.

Cheers,

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not use existing skills? The appropriate weapon skill or Dodge for feints, Fast Talk or Perform for verbal bluffs / intimidation (with perhaps bonus for high stats or flashy skills, depending on the specific tactics), Throw for tossing sand (or a bowl of gruel or a handful of food scraps) in someone's face (and that's surely simply a thrown attack not intended to cause direct damage?). Reading the deception would be a matter of Insight, or Spot, whilst avoiding the stuff in the face is a Dodge.

As I suggested earlier, I'm really not sure BRP needs anything adding to do all these things - it just needs spelling out for players and game masters to see how to use the existing rules and skills to achieve the same effect.

You are absolutely right. I'd like to add that not only does such a thing need spelling out so players and GM's see how to use the existing rules, but it also needs to be spelled out to show how tactics are not a sub-optimal choice in combat.

Do I throw sand in his eyes, or attack him with my sword? Maybe I'll throw together a little tactics spot rules together after I've digested BRP0.

And don't forget Realism Rule # 1 "If you can do it in real life you should be able to do it in BRP". - Simon Phipp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are absolutely right. I'd like to add that not only does such a thing need spelling out so players and GM's see how to use the existing rules, but it also needs to be spelled out to show how tactics are not a sub-optimal choice in combat.

Do I throw sand in his eyes, or attack him with my sword? Maybe I'll throw together a little tactics spot rules together after I've digested BRP0.

The biggest reason people do not use special tactics is because of limited resources, usually time. Like you said, is it better to throw sand in their eyes and hit them later or just hit them now and be done with it. Obviously the second option is quicker and that's fine!

Really the only time you see the old "Throw Sand in their Face" trick is when you are down and there is an enemy standing over you (or vise versa). In which case the options are to try to use your sword and get stabbed or try to be sneaky and throw sand in their face before they realize what you are doing; thus buying you time to stand and stick your sword in them. In that case a Sleight roll might be more appropriate.

On the other hand you should be able to feint or bluff at any time, but perhaps with diminishing returns. You can only fool them so often, but once is usually enough. :)

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

30/420

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest reason people do not use special tactics is because of limited resources, usually time. Like you said, is it better to throw sand in their eyes and hit them later or just hit them now and be done with it. Obviously the second option is quicker and that's fine!

Indeed. But I intend to train my players to think differently. Being a veteran of RQ uberskilled combats, where nothing seems to happen for several rounds and then someone suddenly explodes, I'd like to layout a few tactical options that makes for more exciting combat.

eg.

Having trouble hitting your opponent?

Trick them.

Are you smarter than him? Try a trick of wits.

Is your POW higher? Try a intimidation.

Are you faster than him? Try a feint.

Having trouble hurting your opponent?

Gang up

etc, etc.

Not sure if the original intention of this thread was to make light of 4E, or to actually take stuff from it, but I think I'm going to start some new threads.

Unfortunately, I'll have to wait for the new printing of BRP, as almost all my gaming stuff is in storage.

And don't forget Realism Rule # 1 "If you can do it in real life you should be able to do it in BRP". - Simon Phipp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest reason people do not use special tactics is because of limited resources, usually time. Like you said, is it better to throw sand in their eyes and hit them later or just hit them now and be done with it. Obviously the second option is quicker and that's fine!

Well, perhaps oddly, it depends on how quick and dirty the rules you are using are.

Say for example, you are a couple of metres from your opponent for some reason and there's some sand to hand. Now if you believe that it's a good idea not to worry about moving into combat then you would always just attack. If on the other hand, you say that moving into combat allows the opponent to hit you on the way in then suddenly using a missile weapon is potentially a good idea because you might be able to rush your opponent while they're clearing the sand from their face.

Of course the problem tends to be that a good warrior might be 120% at hitting with swords, 100% at dodging and only 40% at throwing sand in which case throwing sand is always going to be suboptimal. This was a frustration I always had when playing in RQ3. I had a couple of characters that I was always trying to do cool combat tricks with and no matter what, it was never efficient. I did it anyway.

As a GM using MRQ I've tended to implement tricks through using the Influence, acrobatics and athletics skills. E.g. to pull off the "behind you" trick a character can make an opposed Influence roll as an action. If successful, the character's next attack is at +20%. This is useful when you're fairly evenly matched or outmatched because odds are that the opponent hasn't boned up on their Influence. Essentially you're sacrificing a standard combat skill in order to have an unexpected edge. This works nicely in MRQ as I use the opposed roll combat system so most things work the same way. Possibly wouldn't work as well in BRP.

On the actual topic of this thread; every game has something to learn from. I think the designers are doing interesting things with D&D4. A lot of what it reminds me of is a complex board game that in some ways takes the "game" side of role-playing games back to their roots. It seems to me that if you write a RPG as a board game then those who want to ignore the board and play in their minds can do so. On the other hand, if you don't provide the "board" it's a lot harder to create it. Now I've played D&D twice in my life and have no real interest in the system but it seems to me that there's an awful lot of systems analysis that's gone into the new edition and I'm looking forwards to reading the SRD (if there is one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not use existing skills?

I feel a curious mixture of 'no we do not need anything new' and 'yes we do' in response to that question/statement.

For one. 'Feint' is already subsumed into weapon skill. 'An Attack is actually a sequence of moves designed to land one blow on target' has been part and parcel of BRP combat for a long time.

For two. Fast Talk affects Intellect and Orate emotions. So Fast Talk could be used for 'Duel of Smarts' and Orate for 'Intimidate' and 'Taunt' dead easy like. If you wanted more detail then make Orate a cluster skill with specialisations: Command, Inspire, Intimidate, Taunt in the same way as Ride has the specialisations: Dragon, Flycycle, Horse, Whale

(Actually I should go back and amend my previous post to be Orate 20% and Orate 100% not Intimidate 20% and 100% that was just lazy posting)

What is missing from official rules are:

What is the passive or defending score?

What GAME effect if Intimidate, Taunt, Verbal Trick, Physical Trick work?

For the former I like my (on the hoof) equivalent skill or (characteristic x5)

For the latter something like:

Fumble.............Foe gets double skill next turn

Failure............No effect on foe

Success.........Foe's Attacks next turn are at half normal skill

Special.........Foe is unable to act next turn

Critical.........Foe is unable to act next turn and Attacks turn after are at half normal skill

Al

Rule Zero: Don't be on fire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's two answers to this:

1. One or two broad skills for this sort of thing is not an excessive game-load add on.

2. If one does have narrow skills, its not like people _don't_ tend to use techniques they've gotten good at frequently; the limitation is that if other people get used to them, they tend to lose some effectiveness--but they tend to need to get used to the _specific_ technique.

Horse for course of course.

I didn't like the decision and effect of yet more scores to keep track of. Sounds like you feel that they added something.

Al

Rule Zero: Don't be on fire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's not much to learn from 4E specifically, but a few more things from D&D in general.

Feats/tricks/feints, call them what you will, is one.

The Hide/Sneak mechanism is another. In D&D, I believe you can't "fail" to Hide - if you roll badly you just don't hide as well as you might have. It's then up to the (potential) Spotter to roll better. In BRP/RQ, having a defined skill percentage implies outright failure if you roll over it - but that's unrealistic. (Some people object to low Hide/Sneak skills but, using them this way, that's not a problem). From D&D we can learn to regard the whole range of possible results as a continuum of success.

Britain has been infiltrated by soviet agents to the highest levels. They control the BBC, the main political party leaderships, NHS & local council executives, much of the police, most newspapers and the utility companies. Of course the EU is theirs, through-and-through. And they are among us - a pervasive evil, like Stasi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest reason people do not use special tactics is because of limited resources, usually time. Like you said, is it better to throw sand in their eyes and hit them later or just hit them now and be done with it. Obviously the second option is quicker and that's fine!

Well, in the end, that's the question: whether the benefit of doing these sorts of things justifies the time taken from simply doing damage. In practice this means that the unit of trick+attack has to be about as valuable as attack x 2 for it to be a generally attractive option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horse for course of course.

I didn't like the decision and effect of yet more scores to keep track of. Sounds like you feel that they added something.

Al

I think they _can_ add something, but it depends on implementation. Whether they're worth it or not is a more subjective issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and that system really worked (SARCASM).

Within the context of what it was trying to do (its an avowedly cinematic system after all) I think it _did_ work well enough. What it was trying to do simply didn't suit everyone (some people found the card play element intrunsive, for example).

So if you're trying to suggest it was an intrinsically bad system, I can't join you there. It had flaws and if you weren't looking for the type of experience it was trying to supply, wouldn't suit you, but I think the three versions of the game did what they were trying to do well enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is depressing that DnD is turning into a pen & paper version of a Massively Multiplayer video game. Required skill trees, power-ups per level, and arranging content per tier makes me feel sick. I like my computer games but the concepts of tanking vs range damage roles and grinding xp for items and power do not belong in my concept of rpg storytelling. Maybe the latest gen of rpg'rs or the battle-mat crowd will dig it. However, I am biased towards skill-based, story driven games.

/climbs on soap box

I think goals should be: Save the princess from the derranged necromancer.

Instead of : Achieve level 6 to wield flaming turds before you confront lvl12 necro.

In a story driven game, the lvl 1 adventurer could sell his kidney to the necromancer in exchange for the princess. He would have to cut back on the mead, but would have solved the problem and likely made a business associated out of the necro for future plot twists. Slaughtering your obstacles should never be the only way.

/climbs off soap box

just my 2cent

BTW Deluxe BRP is looking fantastic. I don't have the Magic World stuff, so I'm foaming to see how it is presented.

game on,

darkthorn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

The issue here is, how detailed should your combat system model be?

I figure characters pretty much always use all of the combat tricks they know, so it is reasonable to just factor them in to skill levels

On the other hand, I can see coming up with a limited list of combat tricks and using the results of tricks picked to modify relative skills. Something like Empires in Arms combat, where if you pick echelon and the enemy picks ... by picking the right trick you get a big edge on the combat chart

The big reason I did not go for that in designing Fire and Sword is that I wanted combat resolution to be quick. Players stopping to think about their tactical options would slow the game down a lot. Also, there is an upper limit to the amount of rules complexity you can expect players to remember; neither my players nor I always remembered all of the existing F&S rules so it struck me that adding something like this would push the rules over the complexity limit.

If I were to add anything to Fire and Sword combat, it would probably be something like a -3 or -5 modifier to skill every time a character had to roll to resist incapacitation. This would cover the effects of getting tired, blood loss that did not incapacitate a character, etc. As it stands, Fire and Sword assumes that RQ is correct in having characters mostly go down in one blow, and pushes that to an extreme. I know this simplification is expensive in simulation quality, but it seemed worth it to reduce what we had to keep track of.

Also, there is an overall upper limit to the complexity of the rules, and I did not want combat to take up almost all of the complexity available.

In general, you should only add a rule if not having it significantly reduces player enjoyment of the game.

Ray,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, you should only add a rule if not having it significantly reduces player enjoyment of the game.

Ray,

How could anyone disagree with that?! :cool:

On the gripping hand the extra bits in Savage Worlds (which is sort of where I'm coming from in this debate) really do add FUN. :party:

(They need to as the vanilla Savage Worlds combat gets old very quickly)

Al

Rule Zero: Don't be on fire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is depressing that DnD is turning into a pen & paper version of a Massively Multiplayer video game.

D&D started as a wargame. Then it added dungeons and er dragons. Then it added some guidelines on getting better between battles then it added the nebulous concept of roleplaying.

Each edition of D&D has always shown its powergame er I mean wargame roots. But with each generation of rules there have always been people who have used it to run fun, dramatic, cool games :deadhorse:

I am certain that some people will run fun, etc games with 4th Ed.

In summary of my posts on this topic.

I don't see anything in 4th D&D which I will lift for BRP.

But I will lift bits from Savage Worlds and d100ise them.

Just coz someone chooses a bad system it doesn't make them a bad roleplayer (or bad person) :deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:

Al

Rule Zero: Don't be on fire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D&D started as a wargame. Then it added dungeons and er dragons. Then it added some guidelines on getting better between battles then it added the nebulous concept of roleplaying.

Each edition of D&D has always shown its powergame er I mean wargame roots. But with each generation of rules there have always been people who have used it to run fun, dramatic, cool games :deadhorse:

Yeah. Honestly, the people who bewail a given edition as "moving away from roleplaying", but D&D was never written primarily about roleplaying (honestly, neither is BRP; its pretty gamist in design too. It just isn't quite as blunt about it and its simulationism muffles the gamism); roleplaying just happened because, in the end, you were playing an individual figure you got to design, and people tend to roleplay those even in games where it isn't at least theoretically the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... D&D was never written primarily about roleplaying (honestly, neither is BRP; its pretty gamist in design too. It just isn't quite as blunt about it and its simulationism muffles the gamism)...

So what would a game properly designed for roleplaying be like, then?

Britain has been infiltrated by soviet agents to the highest levels. They control the BBC, the main political party leaderships, NHS & local council executives, much of the police, most newspapers and the utility companies. Of course the EU is theirs, through-and-through. And they are among us - a pervasive evil, like Stasi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...