TNE: What effects do you want?

[K]

Ok, based on my research for TNE I'd like to know the kinds of things that people want from a fantasy RPG character.

This is what I've learned so far:

1. People want to affect the game world. Whether it's Charm spells or castle building or just being able to diplomasize a barmaid, people want world-affecting stuff. They don't want to trade combat abilities to get it.

2. Fighters want to be at least as cool as Madmardigan from Willow and Wizards want to be at least as cool as Harry Potter. Fighters and Wizards would like to play the same game without anyone feeling short in the pants.

3. Everyone wants some "trade-out" stuff. Once I've got my castle, I don't actually need a "castle builder" ability.

4. Magic items should make my character awesome, but I need less of a Batcave (not every giant penny needs to go in). I should be able to be awesome without my items too if it comes down to that.

5. My adventures should be reflected in my character. If I "bathed in a nymph's pool", then I should be able to charm people.

Ok, anything else?

[Cielingcat]

I want to be able to do awesome tricks. Acrobatics, tumbling around, shooting down chandeliers... Cinematic things that make the game more fun. And I don't want to have to choose between being able to do things things and having actual useful abilities.

I want my abilities to do something special. "Attack with a +2 bonus" is bullshit.

[Username17]

Perhaps the most difficult balancing act of all:

1. People want their attacks to contribute to the defeat of enemies that other people are doing.
   So no 3e style SoDs where all the sword slashing you did winds up meaningless.
2. People want their attacks to be distinct and importantly and interestingly different.
   So no 4e style attack interchangeability.

Needless to say, this right here is a very tall order.

-Username17

[virgil]

I want my character to be challenged without the opposition having to cheat.

I want my character to at least be roughly on the same page as the rest of the party. Having a ninja ghoul, a human huckster, and a dwarven medicine man is more of a joke than a game.

I want my character to have flaws of some kind, and for them to matter, but without them being debilitating. "My flaw is that I'm too awesome" should actually bear some weight, rather than a crappy/lazy excuse.

[ckafrica]

I want to have different abilities that can make me look cool but not feel that should always be using one because it's the best.

Special actions that work in different situations and will make me look cool.

Actions for all characters that can effect multiple opponents so I'm not rolling 20 some times while slicing or blasting through a crowd of mooks. cleave attacks 3 opponents in front of me with one role or something like that.

Nothing that is going to take a player or major NPC out of action in a single shot (assuming they are not already helpless for some good reason I don't want to roll to cut I tied up guys head off and then it should be available to anyone)

Never be in a situation where you feel there is nothing useful you can contribute to the encounter.

[JonSetanta]

I expect mage-types to not have extremely pathetic defense just because of their usual archetype.
Spellcaster should lean in the direction of Glass Cannon but not become thoroughly entrenched in it.

Non-combat abilities should advance on a separate track from combat. I don't know how this would work (yet) but it should allow for NPCs and low-level characters to achieve complex tasks by utilizing environment, equipment, and setting bonuses better than, say, a higher-level that has never attempted the same task before.

[Amra]

Utterly random collection of spur-of-the-moment thoughts here...

I want this.

Also, I want my 20th-level Mage of the Powers of Earth to not just be different from the 20th-level Fighter of Ultimate Ass-Kicking but to also be different from every other Mage, even if this means that we're each weak in some areas. It is absolutely fine to end up with a particular area of vulnerability, provided everyone has one. Some very good stories have been told around heroes (or bad guys) with vulnerabilities that they tried to conceal, shore up or protect. It is OK that the Fighter can't get past the floating Symbol of Disbarring without the Wizard stepping in with his mojo, or that the Wizard doesn't have the sheer balls to walk down the Corridor of Pain without fainting and has to have the Fighter carry him. It is needful that the different character classes should be able to handle different things in different ways and to be utterly incapable of dealing with a small number of things that other character classes *can* do. And it absolutely should be kept that way.

It is absolutely fine with me that not everyone can do everything to an equivalent degree, and I don't just mean in flavour terms. I am totally cool with the idea that there are some bad guys I can lay the smack down on all by myself, others that I can't touch without help from my heroic pals and yet others that my assistance would be largely irrelevant with. That is, provided that *most* of the time - and certainly on average - we're all contributing. And we must always all be able to do cool stuff, even if that cool stuff isn't necessarily relevant right now.

"Contributing to the defeat of the enemy" really doesn't have to mean dealing an equivalent amount of damage or inflicting equivalent status effects. Confusing the enemy into wasting attacks on illusions is a totally satisfying way to participate in the combat, even if I never do a point of damage.

I want to be awesome today, I want to be even more awesome tomorrow and I want to have super-fucking-mad-batshit-crazy-awesome to look forward to, and to feel myself getting closer to that with every bit of advancement. Explicitly, I never want to have to work through shit that I don't want in order to get to the shit that I do want.

I want the mechanics for when, where and how I get my super-moves to actually make some sort of inherent dramatic sense, not just some fucking arbitrary bullshit about how "oo, it seems about THIS powerful so you can use it THAT often". That's totally fucking lame, although it actually made some sense in Vancian casting. A Barbarian gaining access to a metric fucktonne more death-dealing ability the more damage he takes isn't a weakness, it's awesome. The baseline level of 'everyday' powers (the "at-wills", if you please) of the party need to be consistent but it's seriously OK for them not to have access to all of their super-moves all at the same time.

Argh. That's probably enough stream-of-consciousness rambling for now

[RiotGearEpsilon]

I would encourage a strong split between Tactical Abilities (abilities used in the heat of combat, such as fireballs and plumes of acid) and Strategic Abilities (abilities used to garner resources for later conflicts and combats or resculpt the game world, such as rains of fire that take days to conjure or teleportation effects that bring me to the doorstep of my foes.)

This is one thing I think you should definitely steal from 4e - the split between Powers and Rituals. All you need is to make Powers less interchangable and the Rituals less limp-wristed.

[Maxus]

I'd like the system to have the flexibility of multiple levels of power. I mean, okay, you play a game where the party is mercenaries and you occasionally pick up magic loot and you get pretty good at what you do.

But, on the other hand, you could have a campaign where the party is having to attune themselves to the energies of various magic sites to gain to right combination of energy that will allow the party to combine their efforts and cancel out the barrier around Ganon's Castle.

And I'd totally expect those people to be hardcore and get abilities related to the alignments of Fire, Water, Light, Dark, Death, and Slood, and use them to overcome obstacles.

[Tydanosaurus]

1. Rules for respec.

2. Roleplaying does not affect gamebalance. The fact that my Guardian of the Temple of Ra has to tithe 99% of his income to the Temple and can't eat cheese doesn't make him any more powerful than an ordinary warrior.

3. Cheese is delicious. Every PC should have something other players will look at and say, "Man, that's broken!" but that is just very powerful in certain situations.

[MartinHarper]

I never want to be told "you can't do that thing because you didn't take the power/feat/ability". Particularly if that thing is something mundane like throwing sand in someone's eye.

[Manxome]

I never want to be told "you can't do that thing because you didn't take the power/feat/ability". Particularly if that thing is something mundane like throwing sand in someone's eye.

So...you want to make sure there there are no powers, feats, or abilities anywhere in the game that allow someone to do something they couldn't do without them? That seems...unusual.

It sounds like maybe you meant something more along the lines of "I want to have access to a robust set of mundane actions as a starting assumption, and the things that make my character cool should go above and beyond that."

A Barbarian gaining access to a metric fucktonne more death-dealing ability the more damage he takes isn't a weakness, it's awesome. The baseline level of 'everyday' powers (the "at-wills", if you please) of the party need to be consistent but it's seriously OK for them not to have access to all of their super-moves all at the same time.

Having your offensive capabilities go up as you get hurt tends to be really abusable, at least as a PC ability, but I assume your point was just that you think it's OK for different archetypes' "special" powers to be limited in different ways.

Of course, using lots of different mechanics for limiting abilities potentially makes them harder to keep track of and makes any sort of multiclassing harder to do well...

Perhaps the most difficult balancing act of all:

1. People want their attacks to contribute to the defeat of enemies that other people are doing.
   So no 3e style SoDs where all the sword slashing you did winds up meaningless.
2. People want their attacks to be distinct and importantly and interestingly different.
   So no 4e style attack interchangeability.

Needless to say, this right here is a very tall order.

-Username17

That is a tall order, but I think it's an important piece of the game and worth the time and effort it would take to do.

I see two natural ways of achieving the first condition:

A) Attacks are expected to inconvenience the target in some way other than bringing them closer to death. Thus, even if all the damage from your sword swings doesn't matter when the target looks at a basilisk, you still affected the fight because the swordplay pinned them down, prevented them from channeling their omega strike, deflected their own sword attacks, or something similar.

B) Attacks are all expected to move the target closer to death along a single continuum. Someone who's been whacked by a sword a few times is easier for the basilisk to petrify, and someone who's been staring too long at a basilisk (without turning to stone) is easier to decapitate. Basically, there are no true SoDs, and all damage accumulates in a single pool.

The CAN system seems to be aimed at B. I see no particular reason you couldn't do both in a single game, if you wanted (either by making all attacks use both methods, or by making some attacks use one and other attacks use the other). And I don't think either approach is so restrictive as to automatically fail your second condition.

Might be worth brainstorming some of the "distinct and importantly and interestingly different" things attacks might do. Some things that other games have tried include:

• Trade off between accuracy and damage.
• Trade off between offense and defense.
• Affecting multiple targets.
• Concentrate damage within a time window (sacrificing some damage now for a stronger attack later, or making a strong attack now at the cost of weakening yourself in some way)
• Deny the target options, or weaken those options; e.g. penalty to hit (blind), retributive damage (thorns), reduced speed (slow), disable weapon/power (disarm), coerce behavior (taunt)
• Deny the target information (illusions, blindness, etc.), thus weakening their tactics
• Work with allies for some sort of combo move.
• Interactions with movement or positioning (attach movement effects for self or target to an attack, or require some sort of set-up)
• Interactions with environment (create pits and walls, swing from ropes, drop chandeliers on people, etc.)

Many of those categories are very broad. I'd say several of them are big enough for at least one entire character archetype to fit inside without even touching the others.

And that's without even considering non-offensively-oriented stuff, like healing and tanking.

[Talisman]

I want abilities that are useful in combat and abilities that are useful out of combat. I don't want to have to suck at one to be decent at the other, but no one should be a god at both.

I want the ability to take disadvantageous aspects onto my character and have it mean something other than "just roleplay it." I want an edge/hindrance, merit/flaw, advantage/disadvantage, good stuff/bad stuff system. No edition of D&D has this, yet nearly every other RPG does.

I want there to always be someone bigger than me. Weird as it may sound, I never want to be slaying gods before breakfast and be able to blow my nose on the robes of the most powerful 17 wizards in the Universe. There should always be a greater challenge.

I want a system that supports multiple archetypes. I want the ability to play Sir Galahad, D'Artagnan, Robin Hood and Conan, as well as Harry Potter and Allanon.

I want my out-of-combat abilities to have a mechanical benefit (or penalty). None of this GM-handwavium-bullcrap. Arguing with the Grand Duke should be just as tense and exciting as dueling with the Dark Killmaster,

Speaking of which, I want some sort of honor/karma system to encourage heroic behavior. It should probably be voluntary, though, or have many benefits and few penalties.

I want a minimum of charts. I especially don't want to have to refer to any charts in the middle of combat.

[MartinHarper]

So...you want to make sure there there are no powers, feats, or abilities anywhere in the game that allow someone to do something they couldn't do without them? That seems...unusual.

It sounds like maybe you meant something more along the lines of "I want to have access to a robust set of mundane actions as a starting assumption, and the things that make my character cool should go above and beyond that."

Example: fireball. The mage can throw fireballs at people all day long. The warrior can throw a single fireball if he buys a scroll of fireball and completes an arcane ritual prior to the fight. A mundane skill like disarm works the other way round. So character customisation changes what you can do competently and effectively, not what you can do.

[Manxome]

So...you want to make sure there there are no powers, feats, or abilities anywhere in the game that allow someone to do something they couldn't do without them? That seems...unusual.

It sounds like maybe you meant something more along the lines of "I want to have access to a robust set of mundane actions as a starting assumption, and the things that make my character cool should go above and beyond that."

Example: fireball. The mage can throw fireballs at people all day long. The warrior can throw a single fireball if he buys a scroll of fireball and completes an arcane ritual prior to the fight. A mundane skill like disarm works the other way round. So character customisation changes what you can do competently and effectively, not what you can do.

There's little functional difference between being able to do something badly and not being able to do it. In fact, in the limit, there's no difference at all.

You're also going to run very quickly into problems with what qualifies as "something you do". Your example uses "throw a fireball," and presumes that choosing "memorize a fireball spell" or "throw fireballs at people all day long" are somehow invalid, since you have denied the fighter the ability to do those things. You can try to say that "throw fireballs all day long" actually describes multiple actions or the quality of performance, but it's hard to see how something like "memorize a fireball spell" or "cast a spell without relying on items" would be prevented by that restriction.

How about: "bench press a mountain," "use magic while shape-shifting," "make a sneak attack," "regenerate my health during battle," "beat a CR 20 monster in a duel", and "fly"?

I also submit that if you're willing to consider "go procure and prepare special supplies" as legitimately passing the "you're able to do that action" test, then in the absence of scrolls, the fighter can go hire a wizard to cast fireballs for him.

How about a level 1 wizard who wants to cast max-level spells? If "you can do it by gaining enough experience" is a legal answer, then can't we say the fighter can cast fireballs by multiclassing to wizard?

Even if you solve all those problems, I think this is a pretty unorthodox request. All sorts of games give certain classes unique powers that are flat-out unavailable to other classes, and this is the first I can recall hearing anyone complain about it. Personally, I'm inclined to think it's a good idea. Not that you're not entitled to your own preferences, of course...

[Talisman]

Oh, and I also have a personal vendetta against crazy bullshit powers that are the exclusive province of NPCs. If a demon does something bizarre, that's fine because hes a magical monster. But if the evil wizard casts a spell that opens a chasm to hell, after we kill him and steal his stuff, my wizard is going to want that spell/ritual. If I can't have it, there'd better be a damn good explanation as to why.

"You have to eat babies to cast it" works if the power is evil. "It's NPC-only" is a cheap cop-out.

[virgil]

I want the ability to take disadvantageous aspects onto my character and have it mean something other than "just roleplay it." I want an edge/hindrance, merit/flaw, advantage/disadvantage, good stuff/bad stuff system. No edition of D&D has this, yet nearly every other RPG does.

Those things are almost the definition of min/max, where you take the least harmful flaws the system allows for the most beneficial advantage. I'd rather everyone be effectively flawless, aside from 'just roleplay'. Or you could just require, as a character, that you take exactly X amount of flaw(s); no more, no less.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I want the ability to take disadvantageous aspects onto my character and have it mean something other than "just roleplay it." I want an edge/hindrance, merit/flaw, advantage/disadvantage, good stuff/bad stuff system. No edition of D&D has this, yet nearly every other RPG does.

I like flaws that are actually benefits. Someone wrote up a reasonably cool 'Blind' trait for Iron Heroes, which (since it was supposed to be a Feat, not a flaw) handed out a lot of beneficial effects, along with the detrimental 'permanently blinded' effect, that went a long way towards creating a kickass 'blind swordsman,' character. The mechanics were bad (it was Iron Heroes), but the idea struck me as good.

[Talisman]

I want the ability to take disadvantageous aspects onto my character and have it mean something other than "just roleplay it." I want an edge/hindrance, merit/flaw, advantage/disadvantage, good stuff/bad stuff system. No edition of D&D has this, yet nearly every other RPG does.

Those things are almost the definition of min/max, where you take the least harmful flaws the system allows for the most beneficial advantage.

Not true. Maybe this has been your experience; it certainly hasn't been mine.

The only issue I evern had with flaws is when the GM homebrewed some into D&D and forgot to put a cap on the number you could take.

Hell, Deadlands assumes you're going to take 10 points worth of flaws.

[Username17]

Champions used to flat mandate 100 points of disadvantages, no more and no less. The assumption was that you would take disadvantages which were primarily plot hooks an personality traits.

Now there are certain obvious limits there. I recall that in the old Ars Magica you had a set number of flaws, an that some of them were crippling (literally: like "missing arm/eye/leg"), some were meaningless (example: you are an orphan so you never knew your parents; this in a game where everyone was in self imposed exile and couldn't go see their parents anyway), and some were actually advantages (example: you are bad at spontaneous magic, so you get extra known spells to start with). But as long as all the "flaws" are written with the same concept it could work fine. My suggestion would be to have all disadvantages be overall advantageous. Blind characters should be like the Dominions Agarthan Blind Ones. People with a Code of Honor should get a roleplaying hook and resistance to compulsions. And so on.

-Username17

[Maxus]

[K]

MAXUS FOR THE WIN.

I don't know what it means or game design, but that was awesome.

[Koumei]

Ah, Cold Fuzz, one of my favourite movies.

Anyway, the Flaw system of WoD is "You never give us enough fucking starting points, so give me some more." You take 7 single-point ones that mean nothing, or you take "I'm going to die in an awesome way." and make it the problem of the GM. Or flaws that are benefits, including "I'm a vampire, and fires go out when near me? Where do I sign up?" and "When Ananasi turn into swarms and attack me, they die. Instantly."

Most other flaw systems are similar, really. Even the Unearthed Arcana one is "I want more feats".

So probably making all flaws strictly beneficial/story hooks is the best idea, similar to the backgrounds in Races of War.

[MartinHarper]

From a mechanics perspective, I guess I'm after more pieces of "Untrained:" text, or equivalents. They'd be tactically useless against equal opposition, but would have benefits from a freedom/strategy perspective.

A powerful wizard being attacked by a common bandit should be able to bat the sword out of his hand with her quarterstaff, without needing to multi-class into fighter for the "exorcism of steel" power. A group of rogues should be able to band together and cast Fly from a ritual/scroll/wand when they go visit the plane of air, without needing to hire a wizard to tag along.

[Maxus]

MAXUS FOR THE WIN.

I don't know what it means or game design, but that was awesome.

Think of it as being support of Frank's statement that having a flaw like Code of Honor should actually give you an advantage (like, when an honorable guy finally goes out to whoop ass, ass should be definitively whooped)