Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
As a followup question, then, to a point that many of you raised: if unimportant combats are boring, then why do you have unimportant combats? If you have a combat system, like 4e does, that is slower, more tactically-focused, and more in-depth, then wouldn't it be better to only use it for fights that matter? That deserve the weight that the system lends them?
There are reason for encounters beyond just plot importance.
Some are just random. Random encounters helps to keep the adventurers careful about using their powers, wears them down a little and makes adventure locations seem more alive. It also helps to establish the relative danger level of an area and gives the DM cover for encounters that are actually important plot events but shouldn't seem that way.
Some fights are just because the players expect a fight. I will sometimes throw in a random encounter to give the party something to fight during sessions that are otherwise non-combat. It keeps the ones that are there for the fighting happy.
A few are just for fun. The group of orcs that almost slaughtered the party when they where half way up heroic was just a speed bump for them at paragon, but they really enjoyed it.
Other fights are there because they fit the adventure. The guards patrolling many places are not likely to individually be tough fights for the party, but questions of raising alarm and thinning out the ranks may be important to the adventure as a whole.
I'm really hoping that 5e will have two combat systems that are not exclusive modules but rather options that the DM can pick for each fight. The non-mapped system will be less tactical but faster, for quickly taking care of simple fights. The mapped system will be like the full 4e tactical combat system, with even a bit more depth.
Thanks for the answers, everyone. It's appreciated.
As a followup question, then, to a point that many of you raised: if unimportant combats are boring, then why do you have unimportant combats? If you have a combat system, like 4e does, that is slower, more tactically-focused, and more in-depth, then wouldn't it be better to only use it for fights that matter? That deserve the weight that the system lends them?
I'd like to have two combat systems exactly for that reason. Quick trash fights allow you to:
Throw an extra encounter in the adventure if needed. If it takes 5 minutes to have a brawl with town guards, it's easier for me as a DM to have the town guards try and stop the characters. It doesn't waste everyone's time to do so.
Add multiple encounters in dungeons or places where multiple encounters make sense. If I have a dungeon that needs to have all encounters "with a meaning", I can't just add some random cool encounters in the mix and expect everything to turn out fine. If I want an encounter with bat zombies, I need to think it through and ask myself "wouldn't this be just wasted time?" and in the end, I lose the possibility to add fun quirky encounters "just for kicks". This may actually be a positive aspect of the slower combat, depending on how you see it.
Build up the tension to the big fight. Small fights are cool if you're waiting for the big one. Wasting 3 hours for small fights is not cool at all.
Use random encounters. These are generally hated by players because they don't add anything to the game, but I found that in some instances they do: if you want to describe a zone as "incredibly dangerous" it's nice to have the possibility to just drop a quick fight on reckless players. If they take more than 5-10 minutes, though, it's wasted time.
I could actually get behind a secondary system for the quick fights. We always kind of use cinematics for the fights we know the players can easily clear. Sort of the, "oh look its just normal humanoid gaurds....your over level ten. tell me how you mop them up.", type of deal. If someone describes something truly crazy we may invent some checks for it on the fly, or people can roll to see if they crit on that attack so they can add that into the description. It may be interesting to see a system put in place to offer structure to this type of encounter or to at least describe the dynamics of it to fledgling DMs.
I could actually get behind a secondary system for the quick fights. We always kind of use cinematics for the fights we know the players can easily clear. Sort of the, "oh look its just normal humanoid gaurds....your over level ten. tell me how you mop them up.", type of deal. If someone describes something truly crazy we may invent some checks for it on the fly, or people can roll to see if they crit on that attack so they can add that into the description. It may be interesting to see a system put in place to offer structure to this type of encounter or to at least describe the dynamics of it to fledgling DMs.
Yes. I'd like a system that allowed simple fights to be really quick, but potentially still burn resources (if you're unlucky, or not smart enough, for instance). Sort of a mix of freeform and combat system, perhaps?
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
I'd like to have two combat systems exactly for that reason. Quick trash fights allow you to:
In 4e the technique would be using skill challenges for the simple case which may be ok for this, its pretty obvious they were not really designed for it.
I'd like to have two combat systems exactly for that reason. Quick trash fights allow you to:
In 4e the technique would be using skill challenges for the simple case which may be ok for this, its pretty obvious they were not really designed for it.
It works... kind of. But not quite as good as it could work in a brand new edition that gave thought to this aspect of the game.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
I like making standard fights with minions only, but with some thing like "Battle fury: Aura 3; this creature gains a +1 to attack rolls and damage for each ally within their aura". Makes minions hit harder, be more dangerous, but let the fights end quickly, and dip in the PC's favor the more monsters they kill. Paired with something like a triggered attack each time an ally falls in battle, and this can make minions en masse very deadly, while still being very quick battles.
Sound a lot like 1e and 2e. Maybe you are really really old school Kalnaur and don't realize it.
Oh, that's not every fight. But picture it: 4 monsters per standard is about 20 minions; split that into melee and ranged (ten each) and as they die, they start hitting softer. then explain that they are becoming more timid. Perhaps these are goblins (y'know, just as an example ). The concept that the more that die, the less their damage gets is then meant to measure their Morale. Which means that dropping a character should up their damage potential, at least temporarily.
I might indeed be old school, who knows? Still, I have found the players I play with sweat when they get to single digit HP, even when they know I don't kill characters at the drop of a hat, and know that they have death saves, and all that. So be it a deadly engaging encounter, or one where half the minions die from the mage's burning hands spell (as channeled through her dragon familiar), I want to ensure fun, be it fast or slow, deadly or not. Even if that deadly is in fact an illusion.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotesShow
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
As a followup question, then, to a point that many of you raised: if unimportant combats are boring, then why do you have unimportant combats? If you have a combat system, like 4e does, that is slower, more tactically-focused, and more in-depth, then wouldn't it be better to only use it for fights that matter? That deserve the weight that the system lends them?
There are reason for encounters beyond just plot importance.
Some are just random. Random encounters helps to keep the adventurers careful about using their powers, wears them down a little and makes adventure locations seem more alive. It also helps to establish the relative danger level of an area and gives the DM cover for encounters that are actually important plot events but shouldn't seem that way.
Some fights are just because the players expect a fight. I will sometimes throw in a random encounter to give the party something to fight during sessions that are otherwise non-combat. It keeps the ones that are there for the fighting happy.
A few are just for fun. The group of orcs that almost slaughtered the party when they where half way up heroic was just a speed bump for them at paragon, but they really enjoyed it.
Other fights are there because they fit the adventure. The guards patrolling many places are not likely to individually be tough fights for the party, but questions of raising alarm and thinning out the ranks may be important to the adventure as a whole...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
Actually I'm coming to precisely the opposite conclusion. I like 4e's tactical combat system. Having cut my teeth on RPGs with 3rd Ed and now preferring 4e as my game of choice, I find almost other RPG combat system out there anemic and uninteresting. Even the "complicated" ones like Shadowrun have me diving for my DSi, and I consider WoD's "combat" system an excellent cure for insomnia. I don't want to be bored in combat, and "quick" combat systems are boring, either because they're too predictable or too swingy, or simply because they're tedious.
But I approach D&D combat the same way I approach sudoku and formal logic, as interesting puzzles to be solved. Combat shouldn't be something you just "get through" so you can get back to playing the game; combat should be part of the game, and furthermore should be fulfilling in its own right.
So, color me sorely disappointed in DDN so far. Mearls' talk about one-hour adventures leaves me utterly perplexed. How anyone could enjoy such a rushed and shallow experience is beyond me.
@JayM:
I disagree so totally I'm not even sure where to start. I suppose first I'd have to say that I do not believe in "random" in RPGs. There are no random encounters, there are no random events, there are no random outcomes. There are some things that appear random, of course; for the sake of verisimilitude the players must believe that some events are simply arbitrary happenstances, and furthermore that they have some influence on the course of events in the game, but that influence is largely an illusion. Players don't need (and typically don't want; though they usually don't know it) freedom of choice; they only need the illusion of it.
If you want the party to be somewhat depleted when they get to the boss battle, then yes; you throw a few trash fights their way to wear them down. But these are not random encounters: they are planned. If you want the party to stumble onto a warband of Orcs to tip them off that they're not in Kansas Luskan anymore and add flavor to the world, this is not a random encounter either.
And no, by the way, there is not such a thing as an encounter that is not plot important. If it isn't plot important, then it shouldn't exist at all, because the time and effort that went into it could have been used on something that is plot important. I understand that most DMs don't know the first thing about narrative structure, wouldn't have any idea what an imbroglio is or have a clue how to pronounce denouement (and therfore I always feel sorry for their players), but that doesn't change the reality that any events within a game that are unconnected to the plot are irrelevant, a waste of time, and simply bad writing.
Then again, I'm acquainted with the way WotC thinks D&D is "supposed" to be played, and I find their understanding and interpretation of the game to be spectacularly pedestrian. If you'll allow me to synonymize for a moment, I find the "real" way to play 4e uncreative, uninspired, and completely uninteresting. I suppose given the "official" approach, it's no surprise that forty years has taught the DMs of the world precisely nothing about how to tell a good story, but it's not really the fault of those DMs; the people they're using as rolemodels are just as terrible. The tragedy here is there's no good reason for it: Perkins damn well understands how to do it right, and dear ol' Monte, who is a bloody Clarion graduate, certainly ought to know better.
But I digress.
-m4ki; one down, one to go
"Retro is not new. Retro-fit is not new." --Seeker95, on why I won't be playing DDN
DDN Metrics (0-10) | enthusiasm: 1 | confidence in design: -3 | desire to play: 0 | Sticking with 4e?: Yep. | Better Options: IKRPG Mk II
The Five Things D&D Next Absolutely Must Not Do:Show
1. Imbalanced gameplay.Any and all characters must be able to contribute equally both in combat and out of combat at all levels of play. If the Fighters are linear and the Wizards quadratic, I walk. 2. Hardcore simulationist approach. D&D is a game about heroic fantasy. I'm weak and useless enough in real life; I play RPGs for a change of pace. If the only reason a rule exists is because "that's how it's supposed to be", I walk. I don't want a game that "simulates" real life, I want a game that simulates heroic fantasy. 3. Worshipping at false idols (AKA Sacred Cows). If the only reason a rule exists is "it's always been that way", I walk. Now to be clear, I have no problem with some things not changing; my issue is with retaining bad idea simply for the sake of nostalgia. 4. DM vs. players. If the game encourages "gotcha!" moments or treats the DM and players as enemies, adversaries, or problems to be overcome, I walk. 5. Rules for the sake of rules. The only thing I want rules for is the things I can't do sitting around a table with my friends. If the rules try to step on my ability to roleplay the character I want to roleplay, I walk. Furthermore, the rules serve to facilitate gameplay, not to simulate the world.
1. When in doubt, wing it. 2. Keep the story moving. Go with the flow. 3. Sometimes things make the best characters. 4. Always give players lots of things to do. 5. Wherever possible, say ‘yes.’ 6. Cheating is largely unnecessary. 7. Don't be afraid to give the characters a fun new toy. 8. Don't get in the way of a good players exchange. 9. Avoid talking too much. 10. Save some details for later. 11. Be transparent. 12. Don't show all your cards.
"Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging..." -Foxface on Essentials
"Servicing a diverse fan base with an RPG ruleset - far from being the mandate for 'open design space' and a cavalier attitude towards balance - requires creating a system that /works/, with minimal fuss, for a wide variety of play styles, not just from one group to the next, but at the same table." -Tony_Vargas on design
"Mearls' and Cook's stated intent to produce an edition that fans of all previous editions (and Pathfinder) will like more than their current favourite edition is laudable. But it is also, IMO, completely unrealistic. It's like people who pray for world peace: I might share their overall aims, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to succeed. When they talk in vague terms about what they'd like to do in this new edition, I mostly find myself thinking 'hey, that sounds cool, assuming they can pull it off', but almost every time they've said something specific about actual mechanics, I've found myself wincing and shaking my head in disbelief and/or disgust, either straight away or after thinking about the obvious implications for half a minute." -Duskweaver on D&D Next
I can however tell you about my experience with the other tactical games I have played such as chess or Bloodbowl.
I'm afraid I'll have to arrest on your assumption that chess is a tactical game. It does indeed have tactical elements, but it's primarily about making long-term strategical decisions. You give up your bishop pair in order to give your opponent a backwards pawn... You accept a backwards pawn but hope that your bishop pair will provide adequate compensation... And so on.
A tactical game takes time. A game of chess or Bloodbowl is rarely less than one hour long (unless you are playing against a rookie). You need a minimum duration to see the result of your strategy unfold. Chess is dozens of “rounds” long. Bloodbowl is apparently less but you’re playing 11 players at a time, so each touchdown is pretty much “30 player moves” long and can sometimes go as much as 80 moves.
A game of chess is always limited by time. At its extreme (so-called correspondence chess) a game will take several months to complete. A regular tournament game will take upwards of 6 hours. For the most commonly played variation, though, a game will take a maximum of six minutes from start to finish.
If we simplify a little and say that an average game lasts for 40 moves, and that on average 15 of these moves involve critical choices (just a general guess, no science involved), it means that while playing chess I'm making 150 interesting choices per hour, plus 250 "normal decisions" that do not require a lot of thinking. Now, in a regular D&D combat session, I'm making nowhere near the same number of interesting choices, and to add insult to injury the combat sessions at my table had a tendency to last longer than 1 hour.
My experience with D&D, then, is that it's simply not worth the time if it is to be viewed as a tactical game. The allure lies elsewhere, and this is why (as some poster has already asked) combat should be resolved quickly.
