Dungeons and Discourse

[KauTZ]

KauTZ, how is this stuff difficult to read/understand?

Read, not understand. Most of it goes over my head, but I understand that it does, and I'm not going to complain about it. I just want one day TO be able to understand it. Go go 100 level Philosophy classes.

I mean the panel placement confuses the hell out of me the first read through.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I mean the panel placement confuses the hell out of me the first read through.

You mean where it seems to switch from left->right to right->left about half way through? That confused me as well.

[JonSetanta]

Read, not understand. Most of it goes over my head, but I understand that it does, and I'm not going to complain about it. I just want one day TO be able to understand it. Go go 100 level Philosophy classes.

I mean the panel placement confuses the hell out of me the first read through.

I see. For panel placement I personally have no problem, perhaps due to years of reading Eastern and Western comics with necessity to flip page and panel order with every switch between format.
I just sorta.. follow what seems like a sequential match to the previous panel,


I trust that the other board pursuing their own flavor of psychoanalytical warfare will eventually resolve.
I mean, seriously, one could glance in at an F&K all-out brawl and determine "welp, nothing's getting done, looks like the project is a failure", but judging by record of the Tome series (well, at least a better portion of it) the past proves otherwise.

Problem is, we can't identify exactly who the designers are on Koala due to the inherent anonymity (and chance deception) of the internet, so there is essentially no 'history of previous game design'.
Regardless they do have a head start so I'll be watching them a bit. Who knows, maybe some totalitarian alpha-geek will bullhead his or her way to the top and make repeated "This is what we will do" statements while the masses follow like p-zombies for, well, lack of RPG-designer-confidence-self.

So really the goal shouldn't be to create some kind of RNG-defying Tri-stat whooplah, nor should it be to make some kind of crazy card game or final fantasy clone. Basically it just wants to be a game where you run around in slightly surrealistic wilderness and dungeon environments, tactically fighting monsters with sword and bow, where you occasionally pull super abilities out that do wild shit.

pff. Depends on the objective.
You don't even include 'in my opinion', Mister Needs More Stats.


And no, superpower games should be as follows:
50% social interaction; this includes intrigue, love triangles, espionage, trash talk, anything else.
50% superpower spam; the powers define the genre. Even those without anything supernatural need to at least do something special, as with Batman, or else you're stuck in the social half (see: DBZ, anyone other than Goku and Vegeta by the end of the series)

Take for instance The Flash, Green Lantern, The Hulk, etc.
They effect various techniques but essentially they only have one power each (respectively);
• Speed
• Greenshit Conjuration
• Tank
Is everyone to be a Superman?
That could work but you will definitely get objections.

Essentially, this is the answer to how to fix D&D, because it's a setting that doesn't distinguish between Fighters and Wizards but still distinguishes between classes. The goal should only be to make a game which is interesting and entertaining as a sword and bow combat simulator that can be appended to a universally accessible magic system without breaking.

Project Goals:

• Attribute System Differentiate characters without pigeonholing them or forcing characters to "specialize or suck."

How far? 20% difference at any given level? 50%? 100% (all or nothing when it comes to stat amounts vs. application in combat)?

Skill System Characters should be able to swing a sword, exchange money for services, and climb a tree without relying upon magical teaparty.

That horse is pulverized to dust by now.

Tactical Combat Characters should be able to move around the battlefield and fight enemies in an interesting and not "auto-attack" way.

.... uh OK? I've read the same from 4e designers pre-publishing, and that didn't deliver. At all.
What would you have different?

Intermittent Magic Characters should use their magic powers without spamming everything at the beginning or saving everything for an alpha strike at the end. Magic powers should be used by every character in a staggered fashion so that each character can at times be in the sole spotlight t least for a round.[/list]

Discussions here in earlier threads reveal far more diverse opinion, and inconclusive resolution on the matter.
Also; if going nova and charge doesn't work, how is that recommendation any different from 4e D&D? You come back to the very same conclusion that Wizards did, even though that has proven NOT to work.

[Crissa]

The word bubbles go from top to bottom, and in so doing, follow a serpentine path down the page.

-Crissa

[Username17]

.... uh OK? I've read the same from 4e designers pre-publishing, and that didn't deliver. At all.
What would you have different?

Here's the real problem with 4e "tactics": There aren't any. Player choice is essentially meaningless because every battle lasts longer than it takes to use all of your abilities, and all of your abilities work exactly once. Furthermore, since virtually all secondary effects end before your next turn begins, there isn't even any way to chain your abilities. A 4e character can literally roll dice for which of his abilities is used each turn and perform approximately as well as if he is being played by Napoleon.

That particular pit fall is easy to circumvent. By giving people more abilities than they will use in a single battle, players have to choose which abilities to use and which abilities to not use. And that gives player choice some meaning. What falls next is to give people abilities that are meaningfully different and whose tactical effects are complex enough to feel like your decisions are important. I mean let's face it: when a 4e grind paladin gets to the auto-attack stage of 4e combat, he uses the attack that refreshes his temporary hit points if they need refreshing and he uses the attack that gives a 1 turn attack penalty if they don't. That "choice" allows you to slightly beat the guy who just flips a coin over many many encounters, but not so much that you'd notice. Hopefully you'd give somebody more like 5 or 8 basic attacks and have a more complex heuristic determine their optimal usage order.

When you roll a Progressive, you shouldn't just get 4 powers, you need like 15. And you probably want more like 30 so that you can be different from other Progressives in the same party. This is why I became disheartened when I saw the class list they were trying to wrangle in. It's too long to give each class the kind of power list required to make them tactically interesting.

That horse is pulverized to dust by now.

Yes it is. But it's an important guiding light for all RPGs. Things that people can be expected to do in the game should be doable within the game. When you swing on chandeliers you shouldn't go to the Debate Master for some kind of one-off ruling - you should be able to know how that works and plan your own array of stunts based on character ability.

The basic character actions should be covered by basic mechanics and character abilities. Not by appeals to the DM and hand waving.

It's not a ray of enlightenment or a new revelation, but it is something that has to be said for every game you make.

-Username17

[Username17]

Also; if going nova and charge doesn't work, how is that recommendation any different from 4e D&D? You come back to the very same conclusion that Wizards did, even though that has proven NOT to work.

When you walk into a battle with a limited number of super bullets, you are going to fire all of them until you don't have any more. It's just logical to do that, because any you don't shoot before you or your enemy are dead are just like ones you never got.

When you build up power by attacking or otherwise doing combat actions, then ambushing parties who strangle a bunch of chickens before combat are at a stupid advantage. Whether the advantage can be overcome or not, it is stupid and I don't want to do it.

And that is why the D&D system of charge casting and the Dragon Ball Z system of attack buildup are shitty. They don't work very well. So what does work fairly well?

• Winds of Fate if you roll a die every turn and you can use a power that has a threshold less than or equal to the die result, your characters will be using all kinds of crazy powers. The level 6 mega blast will only be available one turn in six, so characters will actually use powers other than their mega blast most turns.
• Martyr Points sure advancing the rage bar by hurting enemies is broken by the bag of rats, but getting spell points by being damaged doesn't suffer from that kind of problem as long as healing takes the spell points away with it.

You can make things more complex in a number of ways. For example, damage could give you mana that is "colored" based on the kind of damage it was (say, a rhetorical attack giving you points to spend on a logical answer). Getting a 1 on the winds of fate could give you a +1 bonus on your next winds of fate so that players wouldn't be stuck using at-wills more than one turn in a row. That sort of thing.

There are lots of kinds of resource management, and many of them are fun. The fact that D&D mostly embraces resource management that encourages really stupid behavior is a contingent rather than necessary fact.

-Username17

[Bigode]

[*] Winds of Fate if you roll a die every turn and you can use a power that has a threshold less than or equal to the die result, your characters will be using all kinds of crazy powers. The level 6 mega blast will only be available one turn in six, so characters will actually use powers other than their mega blast most turns.

Alternatively, having various distinct powers and no mega blast ...

[CatharzGodfoot]

A system where attacking acted as a power up could work if the mower gained is proportional to some kind of threat metric.

[JonSetanta]

That big post previously was a multiquote and I feel ill looking at it (for being a multiquote), so these will be brief(er).

When you walk into a battle with a limited number of super bullets, you are going to fire all of them until you don't have any more. It's just logical to do that, because any you don't shoot before you or your enemy are dead are just like ones you never got.

When you build up power by attacking or otherwise doing combat actions, then ambushing parties who strangle a bunch of chickens before combat are at a stupid advantage. Whether the advantage can be overcome or not, it is stupid and I don't want to do it.

First example, Vancian. Also includes slot magic. 3e's bread and meat.
To avoid that is to either do away with powers entirely or to embrace powerspam with at-wills.
Shitsucks. I'm sick of it and it doesn't help anyone regulate power compared to at-wills or those without.
Essentially, an all-or-nothing setup. You have a slot charged or not.

Second example is familiar, we've discussed the subject concerning TNE I believe, and I do have a response this time: by making the "You get a Charge +1!!!" condition for PCs only effective when they manage to hit or succeed against an opponent of equal or greater threat you can reduce or eliminate the problem of those pesky Dynasty Warrior generals slapping peasants to build Musou.

Maybe you have a grudge against charged attacks, but I'd really prefer something more reliable than a 1-in-6 chance to get that special one-shot because, well, some combats will give it to the player in the first round while others keep them stalling, spamming other moves.
If you're dealing with a random chance to give a player the attack they need, do they have any other decisions beyond holding out until Captain Planet or the Megazord can arrive?
... or will the Superdeeduper Special Attack not do that much better than a character's normal repetoire, so while it's nice to have and there's big grins all around when it does work (except for the BBEG), you won't bet your PC life on its supposed arrival?

Contrarywise, I wouldn't be against trying a randomly available unique power.
It's a reduced granality of combat to explain when the hero can use Hyperbeam rather than why not rather than keeping track of X points in Y rounds of combat and Z number of hits from A and B but not C types of sources. Ugh.
I can see why 4e D&D monsters have such a mechanic, but not why PCs don't have a similar option. It's as if the cavern between PC and NPC were driven yet deeper rather than closed.

Also, the Fate Winds resembles the randomness of drawing from a card deck, which is fine since it seems to work OK in a wad of 60-something Magic cards.
I mean, players don't tend to lose a match if they don't draw That One Special Card... unless they've made the deck wrong.


I'm against Martyr Points though. That's pretty much Charging all over again since you'll need to regulate who can and can't fill that Rage bar, just as with Charge default.

"Hit me! Grrr!"
"What? No I won't hit you, you'll go berserk and rip us all to shreds right along with the enemy."
*Player summons minions and commands their animal friends instead*
"Hit me!"

[Username17]

Alternatively, having various distinct powers and no mega blast ...

If you just let people spam whatever power they want, they'll usually end up like a Warlock - spamming the most appropriate power every round. Even if it's the same power. Every round. Press the A button! Press it with your finger!

You put in resource management in order to get people to change things up. Pressing the attack button over and over again while you maneuver around the play space is fine in Galaga, but if you made that turn based you'd want to rip your eyes out.

A system where attacking acted as a power up could work if the mower gained is proportional to some kind of threat metric.

Dismissive comment #1: From now on, I think the act of having inter-party slap fights to power up for a battle shall be called "Stooging."

Dismissive Comment #2:

When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target—or reducing a target to 0 hit points—the power functions only when the target in question is a meaningful threat. Characters can gain no benefit from carrying a sack of rats in hopes of healing their allies by hitting the rats.

I can see why 4e D&D monsters have such a mechanic, but not why PCs don't have a similar option. It's as if the cavern between PC and NPC were driven yet deeper rather than closed.

I definitely think that PCs and NPCs should be using the same rules. Any rule that is too complex to use for a group of four gnolls is too complex for a Player Character to have to keep track of. Any rule that isn't interesting enough to be used by the PC isn't interesting enough to be used by a Gnoll Ravager.

-Username17

[JonSetanta]

I definitely think that PCs and NPCs should be using the same rules. Any rule that is too complex to use for a group of four gnolls is too complex for a Player Character to have to keep track of. Any rule that isn't interesting enough to be used by the PC isn't interesting enough to be used by a Gnoll Ravager.

On that mention, I do have an idea for size-scaled abilities.
Namely, an attack that has a minimum cumulative amount of, say, ability scores, weapons, etc, to use.
I believe Complete Warrior was dabbling in the subject but severely disappointed me when such group tactics were still restricted to the Feat mechanics.

Such abilities wouldn't occupy any 'slots' on a character since they're effectively bound to a group of similar characters, but there would be a limit of about 1 Group Attack per 5 levels.

The example of 4 gnolls might have a Lurking Ambush stealth area attack that uses a single attack roll, miss for half damage, and a mostly static amount of damage that increases with each gnoll in the group.
You roll a small amount of dice on top of that total but the outcome is easily predictable and doesn't vary too much.
You roll gnoll group init and PC party init, sling your group tactic(s), and then get down to the individual PC actions. PCs might even opt to use their own tactics repeatedly, removing the tendency for 5-minute-turns.
Much simpler than micromanaging individuals.

The group abilities could be used by PC party, orcs, goblins, elves, ANYTHING, as long as criteria is met; the scale of this kind of encounter is on the 'small group' granality, which means that on an individual basis many individual NPC actions don't matter worth shit.
It's the group as a whole that makes a difference, so that's where the attention goes.

The only restricting condition is that a group must have trained said tactic in advance and can only have one stored per 5 levels (of highest level member) as mentioned previously.

An interesting aspect of group strategies and completely ignoring the accomplishments of an individual is that one could scale up to battles between towns, armies, cities, nations, worlds... all with the same treatment of a group as a single being.
Although, such mechanics work better if a system allows partial successes and more "Half on save" rather than absolute hit/miss chance, I have confidence that such an idea would work.
I'm putting shit like this in my d26.

---

A system where attacking acted as a power up could work if the mower gained is proportional to some kind of threat metric.

Dismissive comment #1: From now on, I think the act of having inter-party slap fights to power up for a battle shall be called "Stooging."

I totally agree with #1, although the classic You Have Failed Me For The Last Time villain behavior also fits (specifically, for BBEG alone, really)

One problem with Stooging: it already means something else.

stooge
   /studʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [stooj] Show IPA Pronunciation ,
noun, verb, stooged, stoog⋅ing.
–noun
1. an entertainer who feeds lines to the main comedian and usually serves as the butt of his or her jokes.
2. any underling, assistant, or accomplice.
–verb (used without object)
3. to act as a stooge.

[Draco_Argentum]

I'd be willing to bet that Frank was using it as a reference to that. Replace lines with power in definition 1.

[Crissa]

If Gnolls can use it... Can we hire Gnolls to use it?

-Crissa

[CatharzGodfoot]

A system where attacking acted as a power up could work if the mower gained is proportional to some kind of threat metric.

Dismissive comment #1: From now on, I think the act of having inter-party slap fights to power up for a battle shall be called "Stooging."

Which reduces to your system of 'get damaged to charge up'.

[JonSetanta]

If Gnolls can use it... Can we hire Gnolls to use it?

-Crissa

Ideally anyone could. Or rather, anyones. In 4e you could control or hire monsters to gain access to their powers, but I suspect many 4e DMs to handwave this option with Rule 0 as "They would never follow your orders."


Since I'm insomic tonight and feel like I'm tearing apart from weather barometric pressure changes, I'll restate the variable criteria I have in mind for Group Tactics. More of a brainstorm (lol) than any plan solid:

• Minimum number of units met for the specific tactic; many would simply scale output to the number of beings involved, but stages of increased output such as a Town or City of course need more people.
(Out of my ass I'll say at least 4 people for a Pack, 10 for a Village or Company, 100 for an Army, 1000 for a Town, 10,000 for a City, and so forth)
Each scale increase for a Group Tactic would be tied to an ECL to help find equivalency with magic and monster challenges, but there's so much to consider I don't know at this point how 1000 people = X level PC party.
• Each unit involved has a similar form of attack or defense (ranged, melee, thrown, spell of a certain school, race, skill, etc) but specifics don't matter. They'll all either deal damage, help move, or stall enemies since the micro scale of individual 1v1 spells doesn't mean shit against an army.
• Members involved all within about Close distance from each other. The spacing would be fluid and indeterminate but essentially "Line of Sight", unless units were bound by, say, sound calls or ESP of some sort. I don't care and so on.
• Group is led by a single character or share the exact same objective in mind. Anyone not cooperating is not counted towards the group minimum.

A GT would operate pretty much like a power for an individual but on a larger scale. Per encounter might work best for frequency.

The most import part in combat between varied sizes of groups is that 10 people could still try to defeat 100; the larger group could have some kind of defense that reduces damage coming from sources of a smaller group size and/or level. 300-movie, etc.
Dents would be made but as a whole the aspect of chance and firepower wouldn't make as much a difference as the ability to overwhelm the enemy with superior numbers.

As for HP and defenses, I'm loathe to say that mixed-member groups need to be homogenous in composition, but if you have an army of Fey roaming around with over 50 different species/races and weapons there's no way in hell you could take in to account that kind of diversity; it needs to be abstracted.
Mix in non-Fey (say, small Devils of the Outsider HD type) and you can't even use d6s for HP.
I'd say use base 10 per individual but even then it might work better if it's 10 HP for the group per +1 CR or Level of the individual; tiny units would need to add more individuals to contribute while a single giant might use a Town or Army size attack (and yes, Crissa, range scale with character size too since the giant is using a specific Tactic with inherent base range).


How it works:
I'll use the Gnolls as example (yay furries) and pop out a decent pack of 6. They'll use arrows since it's efficient and stealthy.
• As mentioned, the GT might be "Lurking Ambush" which allows them to Take 10 on Hide/MS/Stealth and use the highest modifier for the whole group; this Gnoll with the best ranks & mod in the skill is the Leader for now.
• They might get some kind of synergy bonus such as a +1 to, say, perception (one roll each turn for the whole group) and attack rolls for each member beyond 4, but the true power lies in what a Group Tactic does.
• If the Pack wins Init against PCs, they activate Lurking Ambush on the surprise round. It's a Standard action that allows stealthy movement at the same time, no roll needed.
• An attack roll would be too much for large numbers of NPCs so (for now) I think the PCs should make a save for half. DC is set by the Leader's
Damage dealt to PCs in an indeterminate area all within range of the Gnoll weapon (longbow).
Damage dealt depends on the number of characters but also from the size of the group minimum; it'll be 1d8 + 40 base damage for the Pack size (10 per bow) + another 5 per Gnoll (or other archer) beyond the minimum.
The tactic can be re-used until Gnolls die enough to bring the pack below the tactic's minimum of 4; at that point it's a battle of individuals.

---

Or if this is too much (I don't know, still dabbling for now) the mass of Gnolls could be treated as a single being with far more HP than any individual one, a single attack or save-special, declining combat output as they take damage in increments of -10 HP, and 'disperses' when HP drops below a certain threshold. There is no split in to individual combat once the group's number drops too low since they can't fight effectively on that scale anyway; they have no choice but to flee or take the hits without use of the better tactics.
You're probably playing WarHammer at that point but I'd like it simpler than that, and with no WarHammer; this is RPGs.

This group tactic concept would all probably work best if the PC party is also considered a single 'entity' that behaves in a similar manner; breadth of combat options, best defenses, saves, senses, movement speed, all increase relative to party diversity but redundant members (multiple warriors and no mages, or the opposite) would stack small bonuses on top of the base amounts.

I wish I could sum this in less words. Maybe I can...



TL;DR: Group Tactics as special powers for big, sloppy, gestalt conglomerates of characters that 'Take 10' a lot.

[Bigode]

If you just let people spam whatever power they want, they'll usually end up like a Warlock - spamming the most appropriate power every round. Even if it's the same power. Every round. Press the A button! Press it with your finger!

You put in resource management in order to get people to change things up. Pressing the attack button over and over again while you maneuver around the play space is fine in Galaga, but if you made that turn based you'd want to rip your eyes out.

Hence me saying "various". As in, at least 10 distinct things that you could care about. That's why I don't play D&D below level 5, and think blade magic's still somewhat unsatisfying even in my fairly generous revisions. When you did that, you wouldn't need any divisions other than at-will and story effect - in fact, I'm thinking about just using the division you made for SAME Disgaea at some point.

I believe Complete Warrior was dabbling in the subject but severely disappointed me when such group tactics were still restricted to the Feat mechanics.

AFAIR, you're talking about Heroes of Battle and DMG 2, and it has requirements, but not of feats.

[Psychic Robot]

So...is this a game about Internet debate?

[CatharzGodfoot]

So...is this a game about Internet debate?

That depends on what you consider 'the game' to be...

[JonSetanta]

So...is this a game about Internet debate?

Well, you n Roy make a game out of it, so it can't be too far off....

Just with, well, numbers.

[Roy]

So...is this a game about Internet debate?

Well, you n Roy make a game out of it, so it can't be too far off....

Just with, well, numbers.

[Lago PARANOIA]

NM, I'm going to make this a separate post.

[Bigode]

http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/02/22/du ... continues/

[hyzmarca]

Looking at this, I'm sort of disappointed by the lack of Dark Kantians.

[Grek]

They're not explicitly a class, but you can play as an Ethicist with Deontology and then take some Dark Virtues like "Eating Babies" and "Senseless Murder".