[D&D 4e] Combat and Reward Systems
Natespank:
The poison'd thread interested me. I've tried to draw a system diagram for D&D 4e: (forgive the horrid drawing quality, I made it in paint). I'd love a critique of it, partially so I can better learn how to use the idea behind one- for one, I think mine is way too simplistic. I love the idea behind them though!
http://projectcloudbuilder.blogspot.com/2011/03/4e-system-diagram.html
note: fame is a mechanic I added- it determines whether NPCs will give you quests. It's going well so far. In my game the PCs have earned fame by killing solo monsters and finishing quests. One PC's taken to marking every body he kills with his insignia, and another's multiclassed to bard to help spread the news about themselves.
To motivate them, I had the barkeep refuse them various quests because they were "nobodies." Now that they're level 4 fame, he's willing to take them treasure hunting!
******************************************************************
My conclusion is that 4e's system is about as gamist as you can get- like I said in the balance thread, it seems almost like a combat board game where the DM is expected to add a layer of story and setting. The D&D miniatures game basically distills the gameplay as presented in the rules.
I only mean to talk about how the system promotes and supports play, not how people actually play. We've roleplayed a lot and we often make underpowered characters for the fun of it. It's just that the system doesn't support it- it actually punishes you for it. In our group's experience, powergamed character creation is one of the most important parts of 4e play... :( It's fun enough that I've had players make dozens and dozens of characters that they may never even use!
What I sort-of mean is that if a player min-maxed in a "well-designed" game for roleplaying, to "powergame" that game he ought to have to roleplay as part of his min-maxing. In LostSoul's 4e hack he does that by requiring NPC interactions and a relationship with the community to recharge daily powers.
There's no significant mechanics that reward anything but fighting and looting- it heavily reminds me of Torchlight or Diablo. Originally I meant to take advantage of this and run an extremely gamist game, but I think it's "incoherent" in that it promotes simulationist play while not supporting it- the game group doesn't sit down to "win" the game, they sit down to roleplay in a gamist way.
For an actual-play example, it's not hard. In my recent games the group's accomplished various things but the game doesn't really reward them for it- I had to add fame for some of it. They saved a princess, recovered 20 corpses to be revived of her retinue, shut down 2 groups of local pirates- however, this is all only worth about 500xp according to the DMG. The reason they're level 3 is because they've killed so many monsters- they could possibly level up faster by just grinding nearby. It's not a reward mechanic that I particularly like. Ive switched to giving out loot as quest rewards primarily, but they keep robbing non-human merchants, so they're pretty well stocked- again, a reward mechanic exists to rob merchants blind in 4e if you can get away with it, which is annoying.
I'd love a critique of these ideas btw- I'm still learning about this stuff.
**************************************************************************
I'm not crazy about the game as. Some changes occurred to me:
1- remove the reward mechanics from fighting. In order to get XP the players need to find "XP containers" (like Zelda Heart Containers), and to do so they need to investigate, explore, problem solve and hunt them down. I can make these containers "god shards" or something- some god died and his essence rained down upon the world, and consuming these crystals boosts a characters power and prowess. For gold, no decent loot will come from generic fighting- it will come in layers and treasure troves and certain NPCs, different than the XP leads- that way the PCs need to choose how they want to approach improving their characters. Fighting becomes undesirable as it's an obstacle to achieving their goals.
This also adds win/lose conditions. If the party fails to get a shard in one go, it's owner will probably flee and it will be lost to them. Thus, they can "lose" without a TPK.
2- To reinforce the idea that fighting is undesirable, I would reduce the regen of healing surges to 1/full day's uninterrupted rest. That way the fights wear them down without aiding them, unless well-chosen.
3- I'd like to make the NPC/community support network crucial to the PCs so they'll integrate and invest into it. LostSoul seems to have done it, I may copy a similar approach.
4- replace the d20 with 3d6- this is just a bell curve thing to make the results vary less. slightly off-topic, but quite reasonable!
5- I need a workable death mechanic- some way for the PCs to lose fights without TPKs.
I play again tomorrow when I'll introduce 1-3 of these. I can post to say how it goes. Ideas?
Phil K.:
Nate,
What's the goal for the hacks to 4e? Do you want to lower the gamism, add narativism/sim or what?
Just want to get an idea of what you hope to achieve. I'm interested to hear how things go, certainly.
-Phil
Full disclosure: I've actually had a really good time playing and GMing 4e over the last three years.
Natespank:
I think I'd like to add a degree of sim.
I'd also like to change the style of gamism from fight/fight/fight to explore/scheme/thwart/execute! The one in huge doses I find repetitive and dull, the other intellectually stimulates me a bit more.
I'd considered running pure-gamist 4e, but in that case I'd be playing a combat board game. I'd rather play explore/scheme/thwart/execute!
LostSoul:
Hey Nate;
You can call me Dave.
Let me share some of my experiences with 4E. I want to highlight how I feel 4E deals with Step on Up play, and the reason I called my hack "Fiction First".
I started playing back when the game was first released. My regular gaming group fell apart - school, children, that sort of thing. There were two of us left, me & Mark. I'd been feeling the pangs of nostalgia in the lead-up to 4E. I wanted to get a game going, so I posted on a local RPG board that I was looking for players. I got a number of hits. I was glad that Mark wanted to play some D&D as well.
For the first few games I was learning the system. Nothing too surprising since I'd had a lot of experience with 3E. I figured that powers weren't that important; what really mattered was the action. I thought that any action - including yelling or talking to someone - could deal HP damage without breaking the game. We saw a bit of that in the first few games. I recall a good skill challenge with an interesting use of a ritual in the middle, and describing a treasure parcel as a gift from grateful townspeople.
After a few games in, I wasn't sure what sort of enjoyment I, as DM, was supposed to be getting from the game. It was clear to me - having access to all the opposition's stats - that the expected range of challenges were almost always going to result in PC victory, assuming half-way decent tactics. (Perhaps that's just because I'm not the best at tactical play.) Add to that unlimited refreshment of resources - there's no talk in the DMG about limiting Extended Rests - and I could see, before the encounter began, how it was going to turn out.
That struck me as boring. I didn't want to know what was going to happen; I had no story to tell, no care as to how things played out. I wanted players to make choices about the level of risk they were willing to face and be rewarded - or penalized - for those choices. I wanted to play the impartial referee, but it seemed as though 4E was asking more of me. I probably should have read the DMG more closely!
What I found interesting was when players made unexpected choices in combat. When they didn't go to their powers, but instead used the environment to their advantage. I started adding things such as wandering monsters in order to put pressure on Extended Rests, to make the loss of Healing Surges matter. Eventually we house ruled Extended Rests to refresh either a single Daily Power or a single Healing Surge, but this didn't stand well with some of the players. After a couple of poor sessions - the players didn't seem to enjoy themselves and I wasn't sure why - I decided to end the game.
At that point I wanted to hack the game to emphasize what I really liked about 4E - the ability to easily adjudicate any action the PC took in the game world. I also wanted to make the game explicitly about challenging the player. This took about 6 months.
After that I had something worth playtesting. Stealing a lot from Sorcerer, guided by Vincent Baker's blog, I had a system that required players to pay attention to the fiction we were creating. Inspired by the OSR blogosphere (especially Planet Agol), I created a system that was not "balanced" to PC level; instead, player ability would be the defining factor in PC success. (Treasure was no longer tied to character level, but instead encounter level.) They (and Eero Tuovinen) taught me what the DM's responsibilities were in such a game. I stole ideas from Burning Wheel to give players a reason to drive towards their own goals. I stole ideas from The Shadow of Yesterday about how to integrate PCs into the setting.
I formed a new group (around one of the guys from my old group - Erik). I was explicit about what the focus of the game was about - challenging the players. (Acting on metagame information was allowed - no, not just allowed, but encouraged!) Players made poor choices and died. The fiction mattered.
We've been making changes over the months, refining the game. It's working out well; players engage with the fiction, drive the game, get tied to the setting, judge each other on their play, make difficult choices, take risks and are (sometimes) rewarded for them, and I never feel (as DM) that I have to rely on fiat to make my judgement calls. When there's an issue with the rules I talk it over with the players and we work it out.
It's been a lot of fun.
*
There are lots of things to discuss there; the most relevant issue is probably why I don't think that 4E supports Step on Up play very well. Nate, let me know what you want to talk about and we'll go from there.
Callan S.:
Hi Nate,
Quote
5- I need a workable death mechanic- some way for the PCs to lose fights without TPKs.
What's the genre of magic in D&D these days? I mean to me, there seems all sorts of magic stuff in some handy pendent form one could make up. Pure teleportation back to a base and some sort of reviving magic circle there. Or it turns you to gas and it flies you back to a base, magic circle, etc. Or it just flies your body (back the way you came - hopefully no doors got closed (or perhaps the magic bashes your body against wooden doors until they split - lol! That'd be pretty hilarious!)). All of this actually seems pretty day to day as far as D&D magic goes?
And when sent back this way, they are unconcious for a few hours, during which the baddy goes "No WAE! I'm taking my treasure and running now!". The pendant that does this for players recharges for free after, say, two hours, or they can have it recharged earlier than that for $$$. It runs on death magic (spent HP!), so you can't fire it early unless you start maiming each other and yourself.
Also I think this would be a good idea - You set up a sort of turbo stat boost for monsters and when the players encounter them, roll say 1D6, on a 1 to 3 or 4, the turbo stat boost is added to the monsters. This stat boost will most likely mean the players auto loose and end up magically bashed through several doors and sent back to base. Or if they still beat it, congratulate them and admit you hadn't calculated the stats well enough!
That will kick their arse and send them back to base quite often.
Quote
I'd considered running pure-gamist 4e, but in that case I'd be playing a combat board game.
I've kind of studied gamist design for awhile and I'd say actual gamist play needs the support to be able to go full on board game (what the gamism essay calls the hardcore, but I think probably, if it gets a name, is better named the normal core). And fiction is is a method of trying to gain further advantage in that board game (via some mechanic that gives the GM currency to hand out based on his reactions to spoken fiction by players). Ie, the fiction is one means to the end and NOT the only means (though it just may end up being the more efficient path to the end of winning). I suspect trying to put fiction first...well, does just that! And fiction becomes more and more the end sought itself, rather than a means to an end.
Finally, I'd really suggest trying to find the quick start for the game 'The riddle of steel'...though I just googled around and didn't have much luck. Basically in the riddle of steel, roleplaying IS power gaming! Nuff said.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page