What's the maximum complexity a D&D PC should have?

[ckafrica]

Contacts as a guaranteed stat of a character are tricky. They seem to be the kind of thing that should be able to be gained through role playing as well as being able to have them at creation. here are some question I'd think about for such as system
Do you limit the total amount of contacts a character or group has?
Should the contact belong to just one character or the whole group if they helped develop the relationship?
Should characters that burn through their contacts (ie get them killed or fuck them off enough that they should no longer be a contact) automatically get another one so they have the assigned number for level?
Can a character develop more contacts than another, either by class or by effort?
Can contact slots be filled on a whim as it comes up or do they need to be filled in advance before we know what would be useful?

[tzor]

Something struck me in your comment about skills.

Acrobatics is pretty pointless at around the time you get persistent flight.

My first thought when I read this was "why." Seriously,

I think this a failure of good skill design rather than anything else. (I also think it is a failure of the flight simplification rules of later editions.) Whenever I think of "flight" in a faltasy setting I generally tend to think in WWI flight terms (because that is generally the speeds of most fantasy flighing creatures) and the notion of aerobatics is fundamental and key. Simply put, aerobatics is acrobatics in the air.

One of the biggest problems is that we lost the original (albeit complex) rules of "flight" in the original editions and as a result every flyer is an acrobat by default (it's magic). We have characters who can't run in the middle of combat to save their damn lives but once they get into the air they easily perform olympic level maneuvers in the sky.

If I were going to put skills into the original flight rules, acrobatics would be significant if you wanted to do anything beyond your basic flight parameter systems. If you wanted to turn tighter than your turn allowane, you would need to use the skill. If you wanted to perform a fancy maneuver (a barrel roll), you would need to use the skill. I would also limit the default aerobatic abilities of magical flight, so even when flying with magic, you still need to roll in order to do a fancy maneuver relative to your opponent.

[Shazbot79]

I'm of the opinion that D&D, at it's base, should be as streamlined and user-friendly as possible. That isn't to say that mechanical complexity shouldn't be there at all, but I'm a fan of the Basic vs. Advanced D&D idea. However, unlike BD&D and AD&D, I don't see separate, incompatible systems as the solution. I think that the Basic version should form the core of the game, with external, plug-in supplements adding additional layers of complexity, so while the Basic game might not have extensive rules for building strongholds, the "Complete Book of Fantasy Better Homes and Gardens" would. This way people can mix and match to make exactly the game they want to play.

As for Lago Paranoia's suggestions, I find myself agreeing with some notions more than others.

I've always disliked the way advantages/disadvantages systems work...mostly because the game then becomes an exercise in squeezing out the most benefit for the least amount of cost by picking crap that will simply never come up in game. Like in Savage Worlds, where you can gain a number of build points for taking a Major Allergy: Mayonnaise flaw...which will either never, ever come up in actual play or the GM will contrive reasons to throw mayonnaise golems at you in every adventure.

Lago's suggestion that the disadvantages be mandatory while offering nothing in return does mitigate this somewhat, but even so disadvantages are really just unnecessary noise on the character sheet, and more bookkeeping for players and GM's.

The best implementation of advantages/disadvantages I've seen thus far is the aspect system that FATE uses, not only because it's unified and easy to adjudicate, but also because it incentivizes players to take disadvantages without adding clutter. By using something like aspects in D&D, one could fold backgrounds, base stats AND disadvantages into one easy system.

As for skills, the proposed system in the OP adds a whole other resolution scheme involving a separate randomizer, which would be dragging the game backward into clunky, disparate AD&D territory. That said, something does need to be done with skills.

I think that were stuck within a number of assumptions concerning the way the game works which make it difficult to conceptualize different ways of handling things. For instance, a lot of people are under the assumption that skills HAVE to be granular and highly compartmentalized for the sake of verisimilitude. Climbing just HAS to be a completely separate skill from Swimming or Jumping, etc. 4E consolidated the list somewhat, but even still there is the assumption that Athletics (climbing, jumping, swimming) just HAS to be a separate skill from Acrobatics (tumbling, balancing, escape artistry) which just HAS to be a separate skill from Endurance (running and resisting disease). This of course comes from the fact that the skills are each tied to a separate ability score. However, if we look at Microlite20, where skills are decoupled from specific stats and consist only of Physical, Social, Knowledge and Subterfuge, then we see that a smaller number of broadly defined skills can cover a potentially broad range of character actions.

For the record, I think that Physical, Social, Knowledge and Subterfuge are a bit too broad, and that the creators of Microlite20 only wanted to condense the 3.x skill list as much as possible, rather than what they SHOULD have been looking at, which is the various mini-games within D&D. If it were me, I would have a skill for each mini-game, so the list would look more like Athletics, Communication, Exploration, Lore, Travel, Subterfuge, Logistics, etc. Probably no more than 10 broadly defined skills.

Taking another idea from FATE, I like the way their skill pyramid works, wherein you choose, say, one skill at like +3, two at +2, three at +1 and the rest at 0. Here, you progress your skills by bumping them from the bottom on up. I could see this being implemented in a D&D-style system where you choose which skills to prioritize and increase them from the bottom or keep them at the same level and add +level or some bullshit.

I also like the idea that someone proposed earlier concerning skill talents, like letting someone with a sufficiently high athletics run along walls and benchpress horses. The only difference is that I would set skill level prerequisites rather than assign these abilities absurdly high DC's. This could work if you gave a decent in-game explanation like: "Martial characters can channel the accumulated strength and skill of countless generations of warriors through supernatural ancestral memory", or "Humans on Abeir-Toril aren't like humans on earth...it's a world of magic and mystery and because of this they can develop Charles Atlas superpowers". Either way, I agree that concessions need to be made to accommodate martial characters at epic levels.

The other assumption people have is that magic in the game just HAS to be an all-powerful swiss army knife of options that eventually overshadows everything else. I know that playing blasty-blast mages that do nothing but detect magic and cast fireball are boring as fuck, and I wouldn't propose that spell-casters be relegated to this, but I think that the reality warping, cosmically powered god characters do need to be toned down a bit in order for the game to work as advertised (fantasy a-team goes on mad-capped adventures).

I think that one of the smarter ideas that 4E had was to split magic off into tactical powers (pewpew combat spells) and strategic powers (story powers via rituals), even if the implementation is lacking in the final product. The key here is to rework the ritual idea so that it uses a different resource than money, so characters will have to consider the actual cost/benefit ratio when deciding whether to use rituals or rely on mundane skills to get the job done. The basic idea here is that both magic and skills allow players to have creative agency within the game world, but one has a greater cost while the other has a greater possibility for failure.

As for the WoF thing, I've heard all of the arguments in favor of the idea, but I'm not convinced personally. Option paralysis seems to be more of a problem with newer players than it does with veteran players. I think that this is a problem that pretty much takes care of itself with practice and familiarity of the game. Besides, WoF would be a pretty tough sell, as I'm not aware of anywhere other than this board where the concept has any real traction.

[Lago PARANOIA]

As for the WoF thing, I've heard all of the arguments in favor of the idea, but I'm not convinced personally. Option paralysis seems to be more of a problem with newer players than it does with veteran players. I think that this is a problem that pretty much takes care of itself with practice and familiarity of the game.

Option paralysis happens to veteran players, too. Watch a chess match sometime. Between veterans, the opening moves of the game go by quickly because they've memorized a variety of optimal positions and have been taught by experienced the 2-3 best moves they can play. But when the unstudied middle game comes that's when people start taking 5+ minutes per turn.

And of course the tricks players use to trim down the decision tree are often a reflection of a poorly designed game. Some of the time can be pared away by system mastery but a lot of the time it just boils down to some combination of A) moves not being diverse enough so mulling it over is meaningless (hmm, should I use the move that does 2W damage and mark+pushes or 2W damage and slides?) B) some moves being blatantly better than others (why would you as a Ranger use anything other than Twin Strike--why would you as a 3E wizard generically open up a fight with unknown combatants with anything but your highest-level spell?). If you got rid of those two things from your power system then option paralysis would come back with a vengeance.

[MfA]

Yet people can train for anything ... look at speed chess. You can always put them on the clock and force them to do basic attacks if it runs out till they learn

[Lago PARANOIA]

Yet people can train for anything ... look at speed chess.

Speed chess players are a minority of chess players. Sure, it's probably the most popular variant, but out of how many games of chess that are played how many of them are speed chess games? I'd be surprised if it's more than 2%. Why do you think that is?

[Finkin]

It looks like Mike Mearls is trying to answer the same question as the OP.

This weeks Legends & Lore

Might just be the beginning of 5E market research?

[Username17]

Mearls is still a fucking moron. So choice of weapon or armor is not a step, nor is rolling for starting gold. But writing down the AC your armor gives you or writing down the saving throw numbers from the level chart is? For 3rd edition, each point of skill expenditure is a "step" but calculating all three saving throws from multiple bonuses added together is one step total? That entire table is offensively meaningless.

This is just Mike trying to hold onto his job by making charts to demonstrate progress and attempt to deflect the "dumbing down" criticism that is so endemic.

-Username17

[Finkin]

It does look like he went out of his way to make it appear as if 4e creation is more complex than 3.5e.

I'm more interested in the poll, and whether or not the results from it will be used in any manner.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'm more interested in the poll, and whether or not the results from it will be used in any manner.

If they have any amount of sense then yes; have you been to the WotC Forums? The amount of dissatisfaction with DDI is intense. Like on the front page of DDI General forums, almost half of the threads are people venting dissatisfaction with the quality of Mike's suckass products.

[Finkin]

I'm more interested in the poll, and whether or not the results from it will be used in any manner.

If they have any amount of sense then yes

If that is the qualifier then we know it's a hopeless case.

[shadzar]

Mearls is still a fucking moron. So choice of weapon or armor is not a step, nor is rolling for starting gold. But writing down the AC your armor gives you or writing down the saving throw numbers from the level chart is? For 3rd edition, each point of skill expenditure is a "step" but calculating all three saving throws from multiple bonuses added together is one step total? That entire table is offensively meaningless.

This is just Mike trying to hold onto his job by making charts to demonstrate progress and attempt to deflect the "dumbing down" criticism that is so endemic.

-Username17

And he totally fucks up second Edition with no explanation why he even used proficiencies, since the entire system was optional, maybe jsut because 1st, 3rd, and 4th, all have requirements of things, but second clearly even leaves off WPs, and NWPs just became the later feats, etc.

Likewise he didnt even mention the alternate method of that optional system of "secondary skills", and totally fucks up the count of WPs, trying to include an extra one....

Weapon specialization requires 2 slots out of the 4 given "choices". If you pick it, then you are making 2 choices at once, and still only have 4 to make, not added a new slot/choice to the list to make it 5.

I guess Mearls house-rules was the way EVERYONE played 2nd that NWPs were a required component, not optional, and that he gave free weapon specialization.

Maybe next week, his lies will be corrected and he will explain why, since it claims he has played since 1981, he knows nothing about the system.

The excuse of forgetting it when moving forward, in no way makes him competent to compare or discuss older systems, nor create or design anything based on them. He has fucked up EVERY article dealing with older edition. Also his inability to perform basic addition in understanding the number of "choices" he sets up for the 2nd WPs, doesn't make him qualified for working with mechanics either.

4-2=5, No Mikey-boy, stop getting your book learning from Jethro Clampett.

THIS is an example of the better editing and proofreading of DDi articles before they are being published that killed the ability to plan out a full month calendar, with basic math errors, and incompetence of the subject matter?

Another self-serving and biased poll from WotC.

Sadly providing the actual correct information of the correct process would actually HELP Mearls point trying to be made and asked about in the article.

BTW, where was D&D in that article at all?

It only covers AD&D, plus 3rd edition, plus 4th edition.

If 4th is supposed to be a return to OD&D, then why wasn't its method even presented and compared to 4th?

Probably because it would show the sheer bloat between OD&D and 4th edition when directly compared, rather than using the AD&D system backbone, which is totally different than OD&D and 4th editions.

[Shazbot79]

Option paralysis happens to veteran players, too. Watch a chess match sometime. Between veterans, the opening moves of the game go by quickly because they've memorized a variety of optimal positions and have been taught by experienced the 2-3 best moves they can play. But when the unstudied middle game comes that's when people start taking 5+ minutes per turn.

And of course the tricks players use to trim down the decision tree are often a reflection of a poorly designed game. Some of the time can be pared away by system mastery but a lot of the time it just boils down to some combination of A) moves not being diverse enough so mulling it over is meaningless (hmm, should I use the move that does 2W damage and mark+pushes or 2W damage and slides?) B) some moves being blatantly better than others (why would you as a Ranger use anything other than Twin Strike--why would you as a 3E wizard generically open up a fight with unknown combatants with anything but your highest-level spell?). If you got rid of those two things from your power system then option paralysis would come back with a vengeance.

So, my understanding of the WoF system is that it determines what power options are available to characters during each given round via some sort of randomizer, be it cards or dice.

The intended purpose of this system is to a) mitigate option paralysis on the part of the players, thereby speeding up gameplay at the table, and b) preventing players from spamming their most convenient ability again and again (like 4E Rangers and twin strike).

My issue here is that, while WoF might very well be effective at both of these goals, I'm not convinced that it's the best solution. From my perspective, all this does is add more complication to the rules workload on the player end for the purpose of mitigating game flaws which many people don't find all that damning in the first place.

So how does the WoF combat sequence go?

Roll initiative
Roll for your powers
Roll to hit
Roll damage
Roll saves

And that's not counting all of the resolution steps inbetween, or supplementary actions. Maybe you or whoever came up with this system has resolved to make things like initiative and damage static...I don't know...but given current assumptions about the game, adding WoF mechanics to it is just too much work for too little payoff. Even with WoF in play, indecisive players will still experience option paralysis when mapping powers to the randomizer, the only benefit here being that this happens outside of combat rounds, and the players who just want to spam their most powerful attack again and again are still going to do so, only they will do it from within the frame of limited option variety.

My other issue is that the overarching idea behind WoF seems to be making the system "player-proof" by automating it to a greater degree. This goal is simply unreachable...no game is immune to bad players...think of all the houserules you've encountered during your gaming career that were intended to do just that and ultimately failed, because the inherent problems are behavioral, rather than being simply a problem with the rules themselves.

I think that the best fix for the problem of over-deliberation on the part of the player and constant spamming of one power is to condense the total number of available powers, while making the powers themselves broader in scope as to what they can accomplish. So instead of having Fighter powers that have their one extra gimmick, plus damage, they have powers that open a broader range of tactical possibilities. The key here is to engage the player's imagination and encourage greater diversity in their in-character decisions. Things like twin strike simply shouldn't be in the game, nor should things like separate powers at heroic, paragon and epic levels that do essentially the same thing but with slightly more damage. Therein lies the heart of the problem.

[Shazbot79]

I'm more interested in the poll, and whether or not the results from it will be used in any manner.

I doubt it.

If WotC's goal is to win back lapsed customers, then polling the 4E player base probably won't produce data conducive to that aim.

If their goal is to keep the current base happy, then they should be supporting the core line to a greater degree rather than focusing on a new edition.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I think that the best fix for the problem of over-deliberation on the part of the player and constant spamming of one power is to condense the total number of available powers, while making the powers themselves broader in scope as to what they can accomplish.

If you make powers broader in scope it doesn't matter if you give out fewer of them; players still have to go through all of the decision trees. Summon Mammal is slower than giving someone access to Summon Bear, Summon Rhino, and Summon Giant Bat because Summon Mammal also implicitly has Summon Cheetah and Summon Wolf in it. This has the exact opposite effect of what you're trying to accomplish.

From my perspective, all this does is add more complication to the rules workload on the player end for the purpose of mitigating game flaws which many people don't find all that damning in the first place.

No, it's extremely damning. Even though the sorcerer and beguiler is inferior in almost every way to the wizard, people still want to play those classes because the wizard is a fuckload more complicated. Probably the second biggest complaint about primary spellcasters is that they're too complicated to run.

Secondly, you actually do want to prevent move-spamming. When people say that 4E combat is boring, they don't just mean the huge HDA, they're also talking about the fact that you can run characters on a graphing calculator because there are so few meaningful options. That also sucks.

If you want to have both goals at the same time you need to have a system that cuts down on choice but also isn't deterministic.

A ton of games try the 'broad application of power' track and they don't work.

So how does the WoF combat sequence go?

Roll initiative
Roll for your powers
Roll to hit
Roll damage
Roll saves

I liked how you threw an extra roll initiative in there, obfuscating the fact that most games roll initiative only once in order to make the sequence seem more daunting. Good job.

Secondly, rolling for your powers is the easiest of the sequence, because you use a small dice and there's no math involved. If you tack it on to the end of someone's turn (except for the first round) then people can actually use the time between their turns to figure out what they want to do. If you were really concerned about reducing the amount of time spent rolling you'd eliminate the damage roll anyway.

[Shazbot79]

If you make powers broader in scope it doesn't matter if you give out fewer of them; players still have to go through all of the decision trees. Summon Mammal is slower than giving someone access to Summon Bear, Summon Rhino, and Summon Giant Bat because Summon Mammal also implicitly has Summon Cheetah and Summon Wolf in it. This has the exact opposite effect of what you're trying to accomplish.

First of all, I don't think that I was entirely clear the first time around...what I meant is that not only should powers do more than their one gimmick, but also they should vary widely from power to power. I think that part of the option paralysis problem is that the options are so similar that deciding on your best one becomes a daunting task. I believe that this would not be as big of an issue if the options were dramatically different and the decision points more clear.

As for your point above, I don't believe that Summon Mammal necessarily needs to be slower than Summon Wolf. That all depends on the system. In 3.x, wherein each summoned monster is meticulously statted to the finest detail, then you would be right. If however, you use something looser, wherein your choices are quick, agile mammal, strong, bruiser mammal, small, sneaky mammal, etc. then the choice becomes based on whatever you want to use it for.

I realize that this philosophy isn't very popular on the den, but if games are designed primarily to encourage creativity, so the decision to summon a swarm of vampiric groundhogs and sick it on an enemy happens not because of the mechanics, but because to do so would be "fucking awesome".

No, it's extremely damning. Even though the sorcerer and beguiler is inferior in almost every way to the wizard, people still want to play those classes because the wizard is a fuckload more complicated. Probably the second biggest complaint about primary spellcasters is that they're too complicated to run.

Secondly, you actually do want to prevent move-spamming. When people say that 4E combat is boring, they don't just mean the huge HDA, they're also talking about the fact that you can run characters on a graphing calculator because there are so few meaningful options. That also sucks.

If you want to have both goals at the same time you need to have a system that cuts down on choice but also isn't deterministic.

A ton of games try the 'broad application of power' track and they don't work.

People have been successfully coping with player indecision since the hobby began. That isn't damning, it's merely an imperfection. If the slightest imperfection would be enough to render a game completely unplayable, then your selection for game night would be severely limited.

Of course, this is a design flaw and as such needs to be addressed, I just don't think that throwing a bunch of rules at the problem is the best way to solve it, personally.

As for move-spamming...that is a conscious choice that is made by the people who play those characters. Granted, the game mechanics do encourage people to use their best powers by default, and the complaint that the game doesn't give them enough meaningful choices to encourage anything else is a valid one, but that is still their decision. Like I said before, I think the best solution would be to make the choices more meaningful.

I liked how you threw an extra roll initiative in there, obfuscating the fact that most games roll initiative only once in order to make the sequence seem more daunting. Good job.

Secondly, rolling for your powers is the easiest of the sequence, because you use a small dice and there's no math involved. If you tack it on to the end of someone's turn (except for the first round) then people can actually use the time between their turns to figure out what they want to do. If you were really concerned about reducing the amount of time spent rolling you'd eliminate the damage roll anyway.

I'm not trying to obfuscate anything...I'm illustrating my reticence surrounding the WoF system...the listed sequence is the first thing that popped into my head. I realize that the notion of a randomized power scheme is a popular one here on the den, and that I'm not going to wind up selling anyone off of it...nor am I trying. I just plain don't like it on a personal level, and I'm explaining why.

To reiterate, my personal preferences are for less crunchy, more abstract games. Therefore, I would prefer that the aforementioned concerns about character powers are addressed by revisit the design philosophies behind powers themselves, rather than the resource management scheme.

[tussock]

Ah, see, I don't use secret anything after the dice come out (IMO, the game is abstract enough to the players without adding a disguise), so I don't suffer that flaw.

So you want to tell the player exactly how tough the armor is on every opponent that the player attacks before they roll their dice in every instance? Really? Every time?

Yes, target numbers for everything. Once you attack, I tell you the AC (in part to cut short the "do I hit" conversations, which I dislike in my games). I don't tell you why it's that AC in every detail, just what's visible. There's still plenty of mystery to be had there, even when it's an obvious mystery.

Nothing is stopping you from doing that in a DC system, it's just that the system works doing it in reverse order or not telling the players at all. It's more flexible to use DCs in that manner. 'Roll High' has additional functionality that 'Roll Low' does not have. And loses literally nothing in order to gain that functionality.

Adding two-digit numbers is slower, painfully so if you have to ask for every damn check because the DM's maybe got a secret. We roll the attack checks and saves hundreds of times in a night at higher levels of play, big handfuls of dice clattering about. Picking out the low numbers on the d20's, where the critical number for each die is known, is faster. That's why dice-pool systems use roll-under, they need that speed of observation to make up for counting successes.

Contests are just highest successful die roll, but I prefer a normal action check and save rather than opposed checks for most tasks.

Oh. So you "just" require the players to present and remember two pieces of information instead of one in order to resolve opposed tests.

Ah, no. I don't see where you get that. There's each contestant's skill, there's situational modifiers, and there's a result, which is compared to the other result if it's good enough to work. It's like d20 with a minimum DC on opposed checks.

Also you lose functionality with the ability to gain "degrees of success" (since by definition a higher degree of success is more likely to lose an opposed test),

Bullshit. Degree of success can be the number on the die, so only highly skilled people in relatively easy situations can get large degrees of success.

and you can't scale the system at all past the hard limits of the random number generator instead of being unable to scale differences of more than the RNG.

Absolutely, both systems have hard limits beyond which they break. Roll-under breaks for unopposed checks and opposed checks at the same time, d20 breaks at very different places.

And for all this loss of functionality you gain... absolutely nothing. That's not hyperbole, there is literally nothing in the advantage column here.

There's always some chance for the defender, even if totally overwhelmed. You may or may not consider that a positive, but it is new. Even if you've broken the RNG, it can still make you lose sometimes.

Roll High is objectively superior to Roll Low. Roll Low is a shit system that is needlessly cumbersome and presents no advantages. I am flabbergasted that someone would suggest it in apparent seriousness in 2011.

Speed of resolution is good, because time is finite. I am willing to give up the things I do not use in order to gain more of it. It's unimportant in opposed checks, because other things drag you down, but in general your (d20+mods >= DC) guys are all doing a "roll-high" guessing-game calculation in their heads to try and find (d20 >= DC-mods) and speed the game up, I'm just saving my players the bother.

[shadzar]

Yes, target numbers for everything. Once you attack, I tell you the AC (in part to cut short the "do I hit" conversations, which I dislike in my games). I don't tell you why it's that AC in every detail, just what's visible. There's still plenty of mystery to be had there, even when it's an obvious mystery.

Why is there a "do i hit" conversation at all?

DM: Roll to attack with the weapon/device you choose.
PlayerA: 16
DM: You missed.
DM: Roll to attack with the weapon/device you choose.
PlayerB: 14
DM: Roll damage.


Are your players that impatient, they cannot wait for you to tell them if they hit or not?

Save yourself more time, just let the player tell you how much damage they did if they hit. Give them all the info to do that work for you.

DM: Ok attack
PlayerA: I missed the owlbear
PlayerB: I hit the goblin for 15

"do i hit" is from immature players. If they ask it, just sit there and stare at the player for a minute or two when they ask it and make them wait for you to tell them. You really aren't solving your problems by giving them more information, when the problem isnt the information, but their impatience and immaturity.

[Shazbot79]

"do i hit" is from immature players. If they ask it, just sit there and stare at the player for a minute or two when they ask it and make them wait for you to tell them. You really aren't solving your problems by giving them more information, when the problem isnt the information, but their impatience and immaturity.

What about 1st edition?

[tussock]

Yes, target numbers for everything. Once you attack, I tell you the AC (in part to cut short the "do I hit" conversations, which I dislike in my games). I don't tell you why it's that AC in every detail, just what's visible. There's still plenty of mystery to be had there, even when it's an obvious mystery.

Why is there a "do i hit" conversation at all?

The bit where they tell you what AC(/DC) they hit, and you either tell them they miss, or ask them for damage, which they then tell you. With two people taking turns to talk. They can pass on AC and damage in one go, but you're going to have to tell them they missed some of the time anyway. Eventually they work out the AC, or close enough to shortcut all that.

Or, you tell them the AC up front, and they either tell you the damage (or whatever else the hit did) or they say they missed and indicate their turn has finished. It's quicker. Clever people even subtract their attack bonus from the AC to find out what they need to roll.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I think that part of the option paralysis problem is that the options are so similar that deciding on your best one becomes a daunting task.

That's completely backwards. Option paralysis results when the options are so varied that the best option isn't obvious. If the moves are similar then it becomes easy to pick the best one, because you only have to evaluate one variable (fireball vs. cone of cold) rather than several (cone of cold vs. permanent image). No one has trouble playing a 4E ranger or rogue despite the fact that their moves operate very similarly in function and form.

This is because problems don't come with a huge neon sign that says 'Use This Power And Only This Power'; you're faced with several unknowns and there's no 'right' power to use. If there is, then something fucked up. It's EASY to figure out whether Cone of Cold or Delayed Blast Fireball will work better against the BBEG, it's HARDER to figure out whether Summon Monster V or Charm Monster is a better choice. If you keep throwing on additional varied options (Dragon Breath, Polymorph, Evard's Black Tentacles, etc..) it becomes harder and harder.

If however, you use something looser, wherein your choices are quick, agile mammal, strong, bruiser mammal, small, sneaky mammal, etc. then the choice becomes based on whatever you want to use it for.

This is way too vague to evaluate. You system could be interpreted as just one base animal with one or two stat bonuses (in which case it's a boring-ass spell that's not more interesting than packaging a Summon Wolf spell with Bear's Strength/Owl's Wisdom/etc.) or it could have a set of monster stats like 4E mounts do. In which case it could be very complicated and induce option paralysis anyway.

Of course, this is a design flaw and as such needs to be addressed, I just don't think that throwing a bunch of rules at the problem is the best way to solve it, personally.

But that's exactly what you proposed.

[Ferret]

In general, I want around 6 - 10 distinct options per turn in any situation at the top end, growing from around 2 - 3 options at the low end, in my area of expertise.

I think we've gotten to the point now where ability scores can be re-zeroed to their bonus value; instead of an 18, you have a Str of +4, etc. I can't think of anything off-hand that uses the actual numeric score instead of the bonus in 3rd edition.

I prefer visibility in in parts of the enemy I directly interact with after the first time I interact with them; to whit, if a creature has spell resistance, I'm going to pretty much figure out it's value in 3 or so turns. Let's just save everybody the headache and tell me what his spell resistance is after he stuffs my first spell so we can get on around the table.

I prefer a variable offense, static defense setup.

Equipment wise, I'd love to see challenges balanced such that no magic items are assumed, but I think the +1 Long Sword is going to be one of the very last sacred cows to go in D&D. So I'd love 3 - 4 constant effect magic items, tops, and no generic +1, +2 etc. Magic should be a keyword indicating something like +1 crit range, unbreakable by normal means, damages enemies that require magic weapons to hurt sort of thing. Anything beyond that should be Frostbrand, Holy Avenger, Sun Blade stuff at the very least.

I like feats, but I'd use them as rules hacks instead of stupid shit like Dodge. They add options or allow you to bypass normal rules limitations. (Leap of the Heavens, not Improved Trip, 'cause the new Trip rules are structured so that you don't have to have Improved Trip to use the option in a level appropriate manner). Feats also scale.

Classes & Levels:
I'm pretty okay with 20 levels, but I'd split it up into 3 realms - call them what you will. First Six are conan and king arthur, second 6 are Street Fighter and God of War, 3rd 6 are late-season Avatar, Bastard!!, cutting mountains and blowing up cities. The final two levels are Ascendant-level, where you're gallivanting about the planes, kicking Ares in the balls as an equal, etc. You're a god, or reasonable facsimile thereof, capable of walking the planes and giving Planar powers wedgies if you so desire. Characters peak at 20 and after that it's basically magical tea party because you can re-write reality if you care to.

The Players Guide and DMG will both explicitly lay out that lvl 6 is the edge of mortal capability and that if you want to go up from there you are explicitly magical in some fashion. Mundane classes seriously stop at 6. There is no level 7 "Fighter". He picks up a different class like sword saint or whatever and continues on his merry way.

One thing I do want is a coherent explanation in-world for the systems that are in observable-to-characters use. There should be some-game recognition of the fact that swording things in the face or nuking a black dragon demonstrably increases your personal capacity to achieve. I vaguely heard that Earthdawn did something like this, so maybe we go mine that and steal the good parts. Winds of Fate is pretty easy to explain in-world as the techniques that fencing with your opponent makes available to you at any given time, but I'm having trouble coming up with a similar explanation for spell-based actions.

[violence in the media]

Winds of Fate is pretty easy to explain in-world as the techniques that fencing with your opponent makes available to you at any given time, but I'm having trouble coming up with a similar explanation for spell-based actions.

Winds of magic? Alignment of the stars? Cooperation of the Cosmos?

edit to add: I really, really, want magic rituals that must be performed on certain days of the year, or at certain places in the world, or not be performed at all.

[tzor]

"do i hit" is from immature players. If they ask it, just sit there and stare at the player for a minute or two when they ask it and make them wait for you to tell them. You really aren't solving your problems by giving them more information, when the problem isnt the information, but their impatience and immaturity.

What about 1st edition?

If you play 1E by all the rules, the following things come into play.

• You have a weapon, your dice roll is affected by the armor type of the opponent.
• The armor class of the opponent depends on the current facing position of the opponent. (Front shield side, front not shielded, side, rear)

IIRC, the combat tables were all on the DM's side of the DM screen. (As were the saving throw tables.)

[Shazbot79]

That's completely backwards. Option paralysis results when the options are so varied that the best option isn't obvious. If the moves are similar then it becomes easy to pick the best one, because you only have to evaluate one variable (fireball vs. cone of cold) rather than several (cone of cold vs. permanent image). No one has trouble playing a 4E ranger or rogue despite the fact that their moves operate very similarly in function and form.

This is because problems don't come with a huge neon sign that says 'Use This Power And Only This Power'; you're faced with several unknowns and there's no 'right' power to use. If there is, then something fucked up. It's EASY to figure out whether Cone of Cold or Delayed Blast Fireball will work better against the BBEG, it's HARDER to figure out whether Summon Monster V or Charm Monster is a better choice. If you keep throwing on additional varied options (Dragon Breath, Polymorph, Evard's Black Tentacles, etc..) it becomes harder and harder.

From my viewpoint, most of these spells have a pretty clear difference in tactical purposes. They all contribute something of value to most encounters, but what each spell contributes is easily distinguishable.

You could very well have a point here. My own personal experience is that having different spells that are clearly distinct makes my decision-making process easier, however this might not be the case for the average player.

This is way too vague to evaluate. You system could be interpreted as just one base animal with one or two stat bonuses (in which case it's a boring-ass spell that's not more interesting than packaging a Summon Wolf spell with Bear's Strength/Owl's Wisdom/etc.) or it could have a set of monster stats like 4E mounts do. In which case it could be very complicated and induce option paralysis anyway.

In retrospect, what I proposed might not have been the best idea. I was thinking of something effects based, so instead of summoning specific animals, the caster instead summons a monster role, which the player flavors as what ever kind of animal they like.

For example, the player's character is a druid from a snowy tundra, and he/she wants to summon a soldier for protection, which the player just calls a "Yeti" because it's thematically appropriate.

Here I should point out that monster roles have gotten better in the 4.5 monster vault, as each role now had mechanics to reinforce what they're supposed to be doing. So soldier monsters now have punishing effects to go with their marks, skirmisher monsters all have free movement powers, lurkers all have abilities that let them slip away and hide so they can shank your cleric a couple rounds later.

Anyway, this is an under developed idea and it breaks down on a few levels when subjected to scrutiny. I'm just a fan of games with malleable flavor.

But that's exactly what you proposed.

Not exactly. I'm proposing creating diversity and eliminating redundancy in character options at the design level, so that the solutions are found and implemented before they ever reach the end-user. This way the solutions are deeply ingrained into the system and require no extra adjudication at the game table.