Who is left to rebuild the D&D franchise?

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
erik
King
Posts: 5868
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by erik »

Ferret wrote:what about Monsters Do It Differently?

Monsters take 10 on attack / defense rolls.

Players rolls it out.

Your player is rolling something any time he attacks or IS attacked, but you don't have to worry about monster rolls except when it's a BBEG.
I like and approve of this.

souran wrote: Anyway, no more ideas that make being the game master boring as fuck. The game master is a player too. Being team monster has to rock as hard as being the heros.
Sez you. I sez it's boring as fuck to roll piles of dice sometimes too. I'd rather speed up the resolutions and get back to gaming at some points.

The only game I've run in the past year has been Hollow Earth Expedition, and the way their rolls work is in dice pools of d2's. And if the GM feels like it, he can simply average the rolls and tell people to roll their defense versus "X" average from the attack. It saves me time for playing out mook actions, and nobody is forcing me to do it. Likewise, I'll let players "take 10" with their averages in situations that are less cinematic if they so desire.
TheFlatline
Prince
Posts: 2606
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:43 pm

Post by TheFlatline »

erik wrote:
Ferret wrote:what about Monsters Do It Differently?

Monsters take 10 on attack / defense rolls.

Players rolls it out.

Your player is rolling something any time he attacks or IS attacked, but you don't have to worry about monster rolls except when it's a BBEG.
I like and approve of this.
You must not have a lot of experience running a game then... your statements later prove me correct.

souran wrote: Anyway, no more ideas that make being the game master boring as fuck. The game master is a player too. Being team monster has to rock as hard as being the heros.
Sez you. I sez it's boring as fuck to roll piles of dice sometimes too. I'd rather speed up the resolutions and get back to gaming at some points.
So someone with an AC of 21 is never hit by a monster with a +10 to hit, and automatically wins the encounter. Someone with an AC of 20 is *always* hit, and automatically loses the encounter unless they have a higher damage output than the badguy. Why the fuck are we even bothering with combat at that point?

"What's your AC?"
"21"
"Okay you win. He'll never hit you"

"What's your AC?"
"19"
"You die. Roll a new character."

Yeah, really fucking brilliant.

You know, why don't we just take out *all* random resolution and get back to the story... Oh wait, we already do that... It's called writing fan fiction.
The only game I've run in the past year has been Hollow Earth Expedition,
So you know fuck-all about running a game. You advocate a system that has you roll a fuck-ton of dice, and one paragraph above you complain about rolling a fuck-ton of dice. Gotcha.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

So. You've gotten all of your books together and you're ready to pump out a new edition of D&D. Now you're just wondering how you are going to advertise it. Well, hang on to your shorts, because Daddy Lago has FINALLY scoured through all of the thread and has compressed everything into an advertising primer. So no wading through 30 pages of board-post to see what I have on my mind.

You start your marketing 6 months in advance of the release date. If you start too soon, you won't build up enough hype and word of mouth. Also, depending on how badly 4th Edition did going out the door, releasing things too soon will produce skepticism. I personally recommend waiting at least a year between the 'fall' of 4th Edition and when you start releasing word of 5th Edition. Enough time for the memory of failure to die down and for fanboy egos to get assauged. This means that there will be an 18 month gap between editions. Now I know this is a really long time and honestly it is. The problem is that 4E has cried wolf so many times with their revisions that even if a 5E came out it would still be suffering from the hype backlash of its precedessor. So sit on the IP for awhile, even if you've done the work way in advance. Of course, since corporations are greedy motherfuckers who kill golden geese left and right, you might not have enough time between the 'death' of 4E and the release of 5E to let time wash out the awful taste. You will still seriously need about a year of work, though. 5 intense months creating a product and a few books to go along with it and another two months doing rigorous playtesting.


Initial Release Schedule and Translation
But anyway. Short-sighted greediness or no, you're WotC and have created the final drafts of your books, complete with playtesting. Good lord, don't forget the playtesting. They don't dare go to the presses without the following available to be mass-produced:
  • All three core rulebooks.
  • $20 boxed set.
  • Campaign setting books for Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Record of Lodoss War/Slayers or whatever hot heroic fantasy anime is out there (get the rights to the IP), Planescape, Ravenloft, and Dark Sun pre-written. Honestly, hold off on making a Final Fantasy campaign setting, otherwise you will get jeers from people complaining about you being too pandering and too video-gamey. You do want to make a Final Fantasy Campaign Setting, but you're going to release that after your edition establishes itself. Basically, your 'New Challenger' setting is something to reel in the weeaboos without giving the grognards ammunition to go 'they want to kill classic D&D with this video game shit!'
  • Monster Manual II.
  • Arms and Equipment Guide.
  • D&D Iconic Villain Manual
  • 9 months of promotional comics, Exalted-style, for the new D&D edition. You will need to release a new comic at a rate of no more than two weeks between issues. So at least 18. Recommended length? You see those Ultimate Spiderman or Ultimates softcover books? The total volume of content you should have needs to fill up two of those books.
  • A couple of campaign expansion books. Bane Mires and Maltheopia.
Also, get your foreign-language translations started as soon as you're done with playtesting. Now. You should release the D&D English core book at the same time you release it into other languages. I recommend making Spanish, Brazilian Portugeuse, German, Russian, Japanese, and Chinese translations. You don't need to do the other books just yet; start translations on THOSE books depending on how much demand you have for your product.

Fanning the Advertising Flames
The D&D promotional comic gets released six months ahead of the release date (you DO have a promotional comic, right?). Release the new issues on your website or through Drive-Thru-RPG.com. The comic will continue three months after the release of the core rulebooks, when the initial edition hype is at its highest. If the comic is still a thing by then, release more issues. If it's not a thing, then don't worry about it. You can just stop it.

Getting the fanboys on board. WotC should hit all of the hot 'nerd' websites that have an easily-identifiable personality to go along with it and invite them to play in sessions. You can cater to their egos more by allowing them to stick their own dicks into your product (so Tycho's witchalok or whatever actually becomes an iconic villain in your manual; thank god for .pdfs). I think that it's at least possible to get Penny Arcade, Giant in the Playground, Robot Chicken, and Girl Genius as long as you don't push too hard. I would put Brian Clevinger on that short list, as he's a 3.5E D&D fan, but his traffic has dropped off immensely since finishing that 8-Bit Theatre comic. Oh, well. The point is that they get exclusive previews of material that filters down to the rest of the internets to build hype and interest.

WotC then releases their videogames to circulate around the Internet. You hit the big bad gaming sites with these. At this point you're not trying to recreate D&D in a videogame like with Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights. Your goal is advertisement, namely getting people hyped up for Dungeons and Dragons. You showcase the new classes and races and make as many references to D&D-specific cliches as possible.
  • Facebook app (or whatever is the popular social networking app) like they had for 4E, only not ass and also doing more to highlight specific edition features.
  • Lightweight flash RPG for the 'hardcore' set in the vein of Monster's Lair: Book of Dread. That is, an infinitely grindy cRPG that has D&D tropes slathered all over it.
  • Lightweight 'puzzle' application-game to appeal to people who aren't into ultra-grindy cRPGs. This is pretty much a pure marketing gimmick. I suggest getting something like Jewel Quest or Bejeweled and slathering creamy D&D dicksauce all over it. So it'll look something like Puzzle Quest. The advantage of this is that puzzle games are very profitable for what they cost.
    For the latter two, again, you will need to do translations for these. However, since these kinds of video games have much less text to them than books, it shouldn't take as long or be as expensive. Release them to non-English gaming sites and let them stew for awhile.

Ongoing management of your property.
Now the D&D Insider thing. This is one of the few areas in which I have to give 4th Edition props for handling correctly. Frankly, I wouldn't change much of what 4E did with that thing, with a couple of caveats.
  • Having a subscription to D&D Insider allows you to edit the D&D wiki. Without it, all you can do is read it. It might seem counter-intuitive at first glance to do this, but remember that you want your biggest fans and hardcore fanboys to mostly be working on that. And those people are going to have a DDI subscription anyway.
  • Dungeon Magazine needs a hardcopy as WELL as an online subcription.
  • You need to have the character visualizer out. I honestly don't agree with Frank and Koumei and them about the 2D paper dolls; people are willing to suspend their disbelief about how crappy the 3D models are as long as you get to rotate your character around and look at your barbarian's armored ass, because that's precisely what they did with City of Heroes. And that game looked like ass even for its time. The models don't need to be Oblivion-level quality. They just need to be Soul Calibur 2 quality. If that's too expensive, then you should be able to do Final Fantasy 8 quality.
  • Most vitally, you will need to have some kind of tabletop toolkit created that allows people to directly import their models from the character visualizer and their character sheets onto the game. The application WILL need to be connected to the Internet and WILL need to be able to be played on a smartphone or an iPad or whatever the fuck. This is ground zero for the long-term marketability of your franchise, if you can't get this done then even if 5E is a success it will not be able to grow the pie higher.
D&D Insider will keep 3rd Edition and 4th Edition materials available so that the fanboys don't get upset. But they'll be swept under the rug to some far corner of the website.

Secondly, set up an official Dungeons and Dragons wiki. Honestly, I don't know why the hell 4E didn't do so. Wikia makes wikis easily and the existence of like three separate D&D wikis shows that people do actually want them in. The wiki will mostly be able to be freely edited by the public at large. You don't even need to do that much quality control, because the nature of wikis have people fighting over accuracy to ensure nerd cred. Which takes some of the pressure off of you. The only thing that the sysops should be doing pretty much is ensuring that people don't post major spoilers of your class. Posting a description and some generic crunch (i.e. Ranger, Striker Role, favors STR/WIS/DEX, has the Prime Shot/Hunter's Quarry/Fighting Style talent trees, etc.) is fine, but if it gets to the point where it's providing major spoilers you've gone too far. But again, Wiki Magic will pretty much take care of this for you. Once you got a D&D wiki up and running, you will use that as the homepage of your Sage FAQ. Seriously, that should be the major feature of the wiki. Furthermore, the person who has the title 'Sage' will be the lead developer of your product for added gravitas. Don't slather his name all over the product, but people should seriously be able to point to a name when some skeptic over a rules interpretation asks 'who said this thing?'

Thirdly, worry about customer service. 4E overlooked this to their detriment, but having a customer service that is respected adds credibility to the product and thus the writers. It's really not that hard. So here are your basic rules of customer service.
0) People cannot ask questions without detailing the book and the relevant pages (if necessary) in order to evaluate the question.
1) Go to the index and see if the question has already been answered. If it has been answered then repeat the same canned answer unless it blatantly doesn't make sense or is wrong.
2) If you get asked anything other than a softball question (how do I calculate the hit points of a 10th level wizard), index that shit immediately along with your answer. If it's a repeat question, mark up the number of times that question was asked. If it's a good, but out-of-left-field question like, I dunno, calculating the swim speed of a giant, you should mark this with a special symbol or something.
3) The Sage will go through the customer service index every alloted amount of time and pick out the most-asked questions or questions marked 'strangely good question' and answer those questions. He will immediately post those answers onto the FAQ and also onto the D&D wiki.
4) The Sage has the final word. He's the only one allowed to contradict customer service, a privilege that he should only exercise rarely. If the Sage does contradict customer service then the Sage should make note of this in order to maintain credibility.


The Piece De Resistance: Your Boxed Set
Now. The boxed set itself. I mentioned in another thread that the game should take a lot of its cues from Dragonstrike. I maintain that assertion. The boxed set should have:
  • Miniature versions of the monster manual, dungeon master's guide, and the player's handbook that goes to level 5 or so.
  • In the player's handbook, at the minimum you will give people the choice of choosing their weapon, some generic equipment (like rope), their race, their class, their skills, and also their background. Don't make it too involved; the backgrounds should be things like 'war profiteer' or 'caring healer'. That way people will have a sense of ownership of their character beyond 'I'm playing a board game piece'.
  • One booklet that has six fully-contained adventures that the DM doesn't have to prep. One of them should be long enough to be a campaign, like Keep on the Shadowfell. The other five, one for each board, should be able to be finished in an evening--stuff like 'Assault on the Necromancer's Castle' or 'Orcs and Mercenaries have invaded the town!'. The evening-length adventures can seriously be nothing but straight-up combat with a few opportunities for roleplay. The campaign stuff should definitely be more involved. It should have a skill challenge, opportunities for picking up treasure, and enough encounters so that people level up at least once in the middle of it. It should also use several of the boards.
  • Dice. A d4, four d6s, a d8, a d10, a d12 (sigh), and two d20s. All of them color-coded.
  • A set of premade player's cards for each of the iconics for people who don't want to build a character. They can still build a character, but if someone is just popping on you can hand them the card.
  • 1 cloth map of the 'world' which on the back has some cool D&D picture. You ever get the Neverwinter Nights special edition box? Well, that.
  • Three cardboard boards, front and back. Having played in some 3E and 4E games with newbie DMs both online and offline, I can tell you that one of the biggest stumbling blocks and 'oh god why do I have to do this' are coming up with maps. So DragonStrike style, you should have: A town board, a forest board, a dungeon board, a temple board, a cavern board, and a wrecked city board.
  • Color-coded plastic figurines. You provide 8 plastic figurines, each for the heroic iconics. All of the heroic iconics are white. Then you have approx. 30 'bad guy' figurines, about 2/3rds the size of what DragonStrike used. Here's my suggested spread:
    2 wizards, one black and one red.
    2 giants, both green.
    1 dragon, dark red.
    1 of each elemental (so four), which are red, brown, yellow, and blue respectively.
    5 lightly-armored generic humanoid figures that have their features obscured, all of them light-blue.
    3 heavily-armored generic humanoid figures that have their features obscured, all of them light-green.
    3 skeletons, all of them grey.
    3 zombies, both dark green.
    3 wolves, all black.
    1 mini-beholder, which will be yellow.
    3 goblins, green.
    3 orcs, grey-green.
  • Multi-media CD on it. It will have all of the issues of the D&D comic up to that point on it. It will also have some video playthroughs of some of the campaigns you did while showing your product to the above nerds I mentioned. Finally, it comes with a subscription to D&D Insider and a couple of power cards unique to people who picked up this adventure.
I have to admit straight up though that I don't know how much plastic figurines cost. If they're too expensive for a 20-dollar boxed set and shrinking them down won't help, then you should be able to switch to cardboard tokens. The cardboard tokens will be in color, of course. I don't know about mixing and matching cardboard tokens of monsters and plastic figurines. I personally think that you should stick to one or the other.

The boxed set should seriously both be able to have a set of 'pick up and play' adventures with no real ramifications to it. These pick-up-and-play adventures should be stacked in favor of the player, that way people don't get all crybaby that they had to face a 'real' challenge. They shouldn't be too stacked, though, because you don't want to give the impression that they're some kind of uber-badasses. In order to wean your players after getting them in the mood, the main event of your boxed set should advertise itself as being difficult and badass and questioning your president-rescuing abilities.


Your Bearing and Conduct While Advertising
So when 5th Edition comes out, there are going to be lots of hurt feelings and tears over how the previous editions went. You will have a lot of 3tards and 4rries just waiting to pounce on every bit of bad/questionable news in order to spread their bile. So, here's a general primer:

1) Advertise the glittering generalities first, advertise the hard numbers when the edition is about to be released. The Skill Challenge stuff was able to briefly fool us into thinking that it would be good because they didn't release their numbers until the very end. If they did the numbers first then even that would have failed.

When you advertise your new set of classes and races, don't release numbers other than the bare minimum. Create descriptions of what they do. Throw in a bunch of pithy quotes. Show off your promotional artwork. You do not want people to go 'oh, this new barbarian only does 1d6+4 damage, my old one did 2d6+9 at first level! 5E sucks!'. Even though that's not accurate, you still don't want this meme to catch on.

2) Avoid badmouthing fans of previous editions. Your advertisers should go out of their way to ingratiate themselves onto their audience, many of them being jilted fanboys. Whenever possible, you should throw a bone to ideas of the other editions: 'We really liked the idea behind Skill Challenges but we also wanted to make them more action-oriented like you see in the movies. This is why we made this system' or 'We really thought that the idea behind kits in 2E were cool; it makes your fighter different from all of the other fighters immediately. So in addition of combining them with prestige classes and epic destinies, they're now in the game'.

3) If you have to slay a sacred cow, you need to give a good reason for why you're doing so. If you need to announce a major departure from how things were done previously, you need to sugarcoat and go into depth as to why you did that. For example, when you state why you need to get rid of magical item plusses, state that plain ol' math bonuses made players cynical towards the coolness of magical items. People love swords that transform into giant eagles and staves which shoot bolts of lightning. In return for getting rid of plussed items, we were able to introduce a lot more items and keep them more relevant because they're not competing against a math bonus.

4) Use your playtesting sessions to ease over the teething pains of new mechanics and slain cows. Filmed playtesting sessions are good for this because they immediately allow you to A) change the subject and B) show people that the world doesn't end if they don't get exactly what they want and C) show them what new awesome thing you had in the wings for them. Playtesting sessions are probably the best place to ease people into the pain of going to Winds of Fate and getting rid of plussed magical items.

5) If people are going to ask whether something is going to be in the game, be honest but still sugarcoat. If someone asks you point-blank if rolled hit points are going to be in, just say no. There's no use being evasive, because people will find out. But if people ask 'is Eberron going to come back in vogue' then you can tell them that even though in the immediate product line you don't have plans if the edition does well enough then there will be some Eberron material maybe.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

After polling around a bit on both the Internet and IRL, I am sorry to have to say that we're probably going to be stuck with double-digit hit points and damage rolls for at least 5th Edition.

That sacred cow is just too sacred, I'm afraid. While I think that it is a cow worth slaying, I think that rallying the fanbase while integrating sensible multiclassing, a workable skill challenge system, and Winds of Fate are much more important goals for 5th Edition.

Oh, well. Maybe for 6E we can finally go to boxes and end critical existence failure once and for all.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Post by Crissa »

Have you ever thought of applying hitpoints to boxes? Such as, you have boxes that represent efficacy, spread across your hitpoints. Lose a hit point, you're stung, then bloodied at a quarter down, wounded at half, dying a three quarters down, unconscious at 0 and dead at a quarter past?

-Crissa
MfA
Knight-Baron
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:53 am

Post by MfA »

AFAICS Frank&other's problem with hitpoints is the math, not the inability to use it with a condition track.

Personally I think D&D shouldn't do condition track penalties based on damage, not plain percentage based and certainly not like Saga, it adds little ... being able to be at full fighting strength until you drop from HP loss is a D&D trope which really doesn't hurt gameplay. It offends the sense of realism of some people, but screw them.

I do think that percentage hitpoint divisions would be ideal for CAN ... so say +1 CAN to opponents for every 5th of your hitpoints you are down.
Last edited by MfA on Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

being able to be at full fighting strength until you drop from HP loss is a D&D trope which really doesn't hurt gameplay. It offends the sense of realism of some people, but screw them.
It's not about the realism. Critical existence failure has several problems associated with it.

1) It ironically makes combat more lethal. Look at what happened with Hold person in 3rd Edition. After they made it a round-by-round save, it made people who got tagged by the spell more likely to die because it would get them CdG'd without giving their friends a chance to help them.

2) Critical existence failure encourages focus fire, which is boring and doesn't model ANY story tropes.

3) Critical existence failure artificially extends the length of combat. Because someone is still able to fight at or near full capacity, it encourages a 'fight to the finish mentality' rather than making them retreat or surrender. Which makes combat last longer.


Getting rid of it would greatly improve gameplay, but because people are such whiny bitches for their puerile 'nostalgia' it just might not be in the cards. It will probably have to be an incremental project for 6th Edition or the like.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
MfA
Knight-Baron
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:53 am

Post by MfA »

Regardless what the optimal HP is for an opponent at a given stage of the fight, focus fire will always be the most efficient use of actions to get him there for ranged attackers ... it doesn't work like that in stories because it doesn't take half a dozen attacks to bring someone down (or make them mostly irrelevant) or more often simply because story demands it (which is hard to capture in rules).

You make someone surrender or retreat by beating on them until they see they are outmatched, you can't make them not surrender or retreat ... you can just try to kill them regardless. A -10 to hit and 50% spell/manoeuvre failure won't do anything to convince me to let them get away, they can just heal up around the corner and let my decision to let them get away come back to haunt me. Their condition is quite irrelevant to the decision.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

MfA wrote:Regardless what the optimal HP is for an opponent at a given stage of the fight, focus fire will always be the most efficient use of actions to get him there for ranged attackers ... it doesn't work like that in stories because it doesn't take half a dozen attacks to bring someone down (or make them mostly irrelevant) or more often simply because story demands it (which is hard to capture in rules).
Uh... no.

Focus Fire is optimal to the extent that there is a number of attacks targeted against a single enemy greater than one which has an effect greater than the attacks used individually; and there is no suppression benefit for directing attacks in a distributed fashion; and there is no possibility of being left holding the bag on wasted attacks in the advent of multiple attacks declared against a single target.

Focus Fire is optimal in the case that your combat system uses critical existence failure toughness, sequential action declaration coupled with resolution, and characters use unfettered attacker-choice targeting. But that's actually a pretty amazingly specific set of approximations of battle. If you had simultaneous resolution, proportional damage penalties, and strong zones of control, players would spread their attacks out universally and look at people like they were retarded if they suggested Focus Fire as a tactic.

-Username17
User avatar
Psychic Robot
Prince
Posts: 4607
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

Post by Psychic Robot »

Focus Fire is optimal in the case that your combat system uses critical existence failure toughness, sequential action declaration coupled with resolution, and characters use unfettered attacker-choice targeting. But that's actually a pretty amazingly specific set of approximations of battle. If you had simultaneous resolution, proportional damage penalties, and strong zones of control, players would spread their attacks out universally and look at people like they were retarded if they suggested Focus Fire as a tactic.
In short: moving away from the fighter to stab someone else in the face should not be a viable tactic.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
You do not seem to do anything.
Fuchs
Duke
Posts: 2446
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Zürich

Post by Fuchs »

The "Death Spiral" effect is not good for the game either though, if it's too strong. We've had that problem in Shadowrun 2 and 3, when (due to the variable Target Number system) even taking a light wound often was enough to push the TNs just high enough to make recovery against an enemy that was not hurt yet very implausible.
Dr_Noface
Knight-Baron
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:01 am

Post by Dr_Noface »

What do we want typical combat against a group of equal level foes to look like? Do we want the party to split up initially and attempt to fight four one-on-one battles?

If you want to encourage this, perhaps you can rule that if you're not attacked on your round, you get some kind of pretty good bonus to murdering? This might make ambushes and large groups of mooks too deadly depending on the bonus though. Are there other solutions?
MfA
Knight-Baron
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:53 am

Post by MfA »

FrankTrollman wrote:Focus Fire is optimal to the extent that there is a number of attacks targeted against a single enemy greater than one which has an effect greater than the attacks used individually; and there is no suppression benefit for directing attacks in a distributed fashion;
Why would you let yourself be suppressed by attacks which can only slightly harm you? It's not a gun fight.
Focus Fire is optimal in the case that your combat system uses critical existence failure toughness, sequential action declaration coupled with resolution, and characters use unfettered attacker-choice targeting. But that's actually a pretty amazingly specific set of approximations of battle. If you had simultaneous resolution, proportional damage penalties, and strong zones of control, players would spread their attacks out universally and look at people like they were retarded if they suggested Focus Fire as a tactic.
Granted ... I should have said that in isolation putting HP conditional penalties in 3e won't do a thing about focus fire.

What exactly do you mean with proportional damage penalties? Scaling total damage per round by some non-linear function (how would you fluff that) or simply scaling the damage output of a creature dependent on how hurt he is?
Last edited by MfA on Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

MfA wrote:What exactly do you mean with proportional damage penalties? Scaling total damage per round by some non-linear function (how would you fluff that) or simply scaling the damage output of a creature dependent on how hurt he is?
Like Civilization IV or Alpha Centauri: your unit is 20% damaged, so it is 20% less effective. Pretty much instantly condemns Focus Fire to the scrap heap.

-Username17
MfA
Knight-Baron
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:53 am

Post by MfA »

FrankTrollman wrote:Like Civilization IV or Alpha Centauri: your unit is 20% damaged, so it is 20% less effective. Pretty much instantly condemns Focus Fire to the scrap heap.
Okay, you convinced me ... I was wrong. So how would you do this in practice?

A 5 stage condition track depending on percentage hitpoints, with -2 attack bonus and 20% failure chance for spells&manoeuvres per stage? Or simply an additional miss chance roll for plain martial attacks as well (miss chance has a nice dependable linear effect which is not reliant on defence-attack being precisely in the middle of the RNG).
Last edited by MfA on Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Doom
Duke
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:52 pm
Location: Baton Rouge

Post by Doom »

I don't recall it working like that in Civ4.

I'm pretty ambivalent about getting rid of critical existence failure, even as I'd like to reduce focus fire. Some random thoughts to kill my time:

1) CEF is a sacred cow of D&D. There have been minor rule variants here and there for lopping off limbs and such, but for the most part, being at 1 hp has you fighting same as at 'full' hp. Granted, this is a holdover from early D&D, where characters really couldn't take all that much punishment, so there was no need for incremental damage effects. Low level characters could barely take 3 sword blows, much less blows from a strong creature. Getting to maximum hit points was quick, too. A ninth level fighter in AD&D could easily have a mere 50 hit points--gaining 3 more for each level after that--and still not much when dragon breath could trivially hit for 50. Fighter could save for half, sure, but the dragon can breathe 3 times a day.

Compare that to 4e, where a dragon could literally huff and puff for 20 consecutive rounds, and still not kill a fighter.

Reduce HP to much lower numbers, and focus fire would become less efficient (cf, hitting a minion for 50 points of damage). We need to kill the 'high hit points' thing before it becomes a sacred cow itself, because the consequences--bookkeeping and calculation--too easily overshadow the benefits--tougher low level characters and longer fights (assuming the latter is a benefit).

2) Back to Critical Existence Failure. What this sacred cow gives you is "you're always in the game unless you're dead". Yes, spells and such might be a factor, but when it comes to damage, I don't want to be relatively useless at 50% health, and I imagine most all players feel the same way.

So, to best 'fix' the game, either reduce hp, or make damage a small, but noticeable factor. -2 to hit at 50% health wouldn't be so bad, I guess, but the penalty should never go below -4. You've got a sacred cow to consider, and the reasons for that sacred cow.

Actually, 4e tried to do this with Bloodied, but, par for the course, screwed it up, making it a benefit usually, and an irrelevant fiddly bit to keep track of during combat most other times.
Kaelik, to Tzor wrote: And you aren't shot in the face?
Frank Trollman wrote:A government is also immortal ...On the plus side, once the United Kingdom is no longer united, the United States of America will be the oldest country in the world. USA!
MfA
Knight-Baron
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:53 am

Post by MfA »

Doom wrote:Reduce HP to much lower numbers, and focus fire would become less efficient (cf, hitting a minion for 50 points of damage).
So basically make plain damage attacks rocket launchers too? Sure, it doesn't make much sense to FF with rocket launchers ... but it's not very tactical either.
Last edited by MfA on Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Doom
Duke
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:52 pm
Location: Baton Rouge

Post by Doom »

Well, you'd have to take out rocket launchers, of course....which should be fairly rare (I can't help but notice that games with common rocket launchers tend not to be fun).
Kaelik, to Tzor wrote: And you aren't shot in the face?
Frank Trollman wrote:A government is also immortal ...On the plus side, once the United Kingdom is no longer united, the United States of America will be the oldest country in the world. USA!
User avatar
Ferret
Knight
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:08 pm

Post by Ferret »

TheFlatline wrote:
So someone with an AC of 21 is never hit by a monster with a +10 to hit, and automatically wins the encounter. Someone with an AC of 20 is *always* hit, and automatically loses the encounter unless they have a higher damage output than the badguy. Why the fuck are we even bothering with combat at that point?

"What's your AC?"
"21"
"Okay you win. He'll never hit you"

"What's your AC?"
"19"
"You die. Roll a new character."

Yeah, really fucking brilliant.

You know, why don't we just take out *all* random resolution and get back to the story... Oh wait, we already do that... It's called writing fan fiction.
It's not quite that cut and dried, but the variance is in the defense roll the player makes. I see where you might not enjoy removing rolls from the DM's side of things, though.
MfA
Knight-Baron
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:53 am

Post by MfA »

FrankTrollman wrote:there is no suppression benefit for directing attacks in a distributed fashion
By the way ... why not add suppression benefits instead of or in addition to a death spiral?

Reducing effectiveness with a death spiral is hard to do for abilities with non gradual effects other than introducing plain old percentage based failure of abilities ... and high percentages of failure are extremely annoying (even for abilities which do have some gradation like the AoE range of grease you can't really rely on that, a 5 feet grease can be as good as a 30 feet one ... for some abilities CAN penalties could work, but for something like conjuring walls even that breaks down). Yet, if those abilities are not sufficiently diminished, focus fire goes right back to being optimal.

Suppression will also appeal to the grognards used to casters being rendered useless by damage in AD&D.

For instance, any time when you get damaged beyond a threshold or are in melee range of a threatening melee opponent you get a big 1 round penalty to CAN?
User avatar
Murtak
Duke
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Murtak »

Fuchs wrote:The "Death Spiral" effect is not good for the game either though, if it's too strong. We've had that problem in Shadowrun 2 and 3, when (due to the variable Target Number system) even taking a light wound often was enough to push the TNs just high enough to make recovery against an enemy that was not hurt yet very implausible.
That should be solvable by making it just harder to attack others when hurt, but no harder to defend yourself or to escape.
Murtak
Fuchs
Duke
Posts: 2446
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Zürich

Post by Fuchs »

Murtak wrote:
Fuchs wrote:The "Death Spiral" effect is not good for the game either though, if it's too strong. We've had that problem in Shadowrun 2 and 3, when (due to the variable Target Number system) even taking a light wound often was enough to push the TNs just high enough to make recovery against an enemy that was not hurt yet very implausible.
That should be solvable by making it just harder to attack others when hurt, but no harder to defend yourself or to escape.
That can still cause the "first to get hurt loses, so run after the first wound" effect.
User avatar
Murtak
Duke
Posts: 1577
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Murtak »

Fuchs wrote:That can still cause the "first to get hurt loses, so run after the first wound" effect.
So - cutting out the hyperbole - you see "if you are clearly getting your ass kicked you should run if you can" as a problem? Why? If you are hurt and you haven't hurt the opposition to a similar degree, why would you not run?
Last edited by Murtak on Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Murtak
Fuchs
Duke
Posts: 2446
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Zürich

Post by Fuchs »

Murtak wrote:
Fuchs wrote:That can still cause the "first to get hurt loses, so run after the first wound" effect.
So - cutting out the hyperbole - you see "if you are clearly getting your ass kicked you should run if you can" as a problem? Why? If you are hurt and you haven't hurt the opposition to a similar degree, why would you not run?
Oh, I'd run. But if I either hit the target, nerfing its offense through wound penalties so I win, or I get hit first and have to run or die since I can't hurt my opponent anymore, then what is that other than rocket launcher tag or a very short death spiral?

It's hard to balance thouse wound penalities to make anything other than focus fire worthwhile while at the same time avoid death spirals or even "Draw first blood? You win!" effects.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

Fuchs wrote: Oh, I'd run. But if I either hit the target, nerfing its offense through wound penalties so I win, or I get hit first and have to run or die since I can't hurt my opponent anymore, then what is that other than rocket launcher tag or a very short death spiral?
What? Does your fighter go 'retreat, retreat!' if he has to fight in light fog or he gets hit with level drain or fails a save against Glitterdust or receives an unlucky critical in the first round of combat? Because these things have the exact same effect.
Fuchs wrote: It's hard to balance thouse wound penalities to make anything other than focus fire worthwhile while at the same time avoid death spirals or even "Draw first blood? You win!" effects.
This is only part of the program to reduce focus fire--another big part is to make it so that healing isn't the 'lol no' tactic it is in 4E and also to give out bonuses to enemies that aren't 'engaged'. For example, while your party could dogpile on the goblin king his attendants would turn the rest of the party into chunky salsa because the party is not paying attention to them.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Post Reply