jonathans last blog post..Open Game Table: Clarification and Discussions

Discussions can be continued here.

Great discussion one and all

(As opposed to background mechanics like the character novels from Spirit of the Century, which are story building tools, but they primarily make building a coherent party of adventurers easier. I’m considering doing something like that in my next Eberron game.)

I’ve generally found story building mechanics to be, outside of games that are designed to railroad a party through a specific story, at best unhelpful and at worst counter productive.

Of course for my story games, I generally want my combat and my action rules to be simple but robust and my everything else rules to be as minimalistic as possible. (This is why I never ever used those stupid reaction tables in earlier editions of the game, much to the distress of the Diplomacy build half elf uberbard in my last campaign. )

I’ll let each one post once more and I’ll close the comments at 10h00 PM.

I’ll open a Forums thread to continue the discussion and link to it from here.

Edit: I need to add, thanks for the vigorous activity, it was interesting to read.

No, it seems like it’s a core book with more tools than 3.X core books had, and little room to add anything more.

No. In my opinion they had no such responsibility; furthermore I feel that “storybuilding” and “mechanics” are nigh unto mutually exclusive terms. How does a feat add to the story? Was my Halfling Theif in AD&D not “sneaky” or “agile” because he lacked those feats? Was my charismatic cavalier not an effective leader because there was no “leadership” feat?

“And I can certainly critique 4E for not having more– they had 3 years to realize where the storybuilding tools were missing. They told me in at least one excerpt/preview that there *would* be new tools. Aside from skill challenges (which I can fully slap my palm to my forehead and say, “well, duh!, of course they’re being integrated into my 3E game) what do they provide? Pawning it to the setting rules does us no good– there’s no setting to draw from. I’m sincere in this request: What do they provide for storybuilding in 4E?”

My point is that other than skill challenges, what else does 4E give us? Nothing. They say “you don’t need it!” when the point is that some tables certainly do need more, and they had more from 3E.

I’m saying this:

A lot of storybuilding tools were developed for d20 in the six years before 4E design got into full swing. *None* of those tools seem to have made it into 4E. A lot of shiny new combat mechanics did get incorporated. Doesn’t that seem just a little unbalanced and driving the focus of the game more towards combat? Didn’t the designers have a responsibility to add more of those storybuilding mechanics to the game so that new players would see the benefits of all that additional development?

@Tommi: I’m saying that those two characters might be optimal for completely different tables. If they’re at the same table, then their GM has responsibility to create a playstyle that accomodates both and keeps both interested and involved. That’s his job, not the system’s.

I don’t think 3E has to be combat-centric, it’s just the path most of us are very familiar with, and so it becomes the path of least resistance. Your suggestion of two pools of resources is interesting, and in a sense we’re halfway there– more skill points and a seperate category of “skill feats” in addition to “combat feats” would probably go a long way to giving a lot of tables the extra tools that might inspire more non-combat driven story.

-Ben.

Bens last blog post..Robin Law’s Gamer Type Quiz

The 4E skill system is made to act as “mechanics [that] help design situations, [that] aid players and ease the abstraction.” At least, thats how I read it when look through my PHB. (Although, I confess, I have not yet purchased the DMG or MM.)

I have to ask.

Did you completely miss the skill challenge system in 4e? This sounds like the exact thing you’re advocating.

I’m confused by your arguments.

I don’t *need* a mathematical formula to determine the outcomes, I find it very useful in setting a challenge, in drawing in a player who might not otherwise attempt that kind of interaction– those tables and skills begin as “gateway tools,” giving newer or less outgoing players a tool they can grow from and develop those skills.

If I have some kind of social encounter that I’ve set up with DCs and circumstance bonuses and situational modifiers and a few easter eggs and my table’s resident Method Actor steps up and improvises the right dialogue and the proper responses and draws in the right people and does a proper bang-up job, I’m not going to roll anything; I’m going to give it to him.

If the Tactician, who’s usually more at home directing combat but wants to grow the officership side of his marshal tries his hand at the same situation but stumbles a bit, is obviously a little uncomfortable, but wants to experiment with it, then I’ll suggest a couple of rolls for related skills pertinent to the discussion, and if he does decently, give him the hints. Then, if he struggles a little more, I can let him roll his diplomacy. If he pushes through it and does decently, I’ll ask him for a roll that’s anything but failure… the mechanics are useful here, but not mandatory.

For the table that’s all hardcore Powergamers that I’m trying to expose to the possibilities of social interaction encounters or non-combat tension encounters, I can ask for some related skill checks, let them work together but keep it abstract, eventually asking for N successes out of N+X players…then I use some prose to string the checks and discussion along briefly, showing how I can incorporate their planning or actions into an explanation that results in the roll and the consequences… doing this every once in a while, I might get one of them to try a few other aspects of the game.

I think the idea of those guidelines is counterproductive to you because it sounds like your group is solidly in the first example, so you just blur right past the need for guidelines. I’m not always so lucky when assembling a table and time spent rolling and playtesting those mechanics myself is time not spent designing campaign.

“This was something I first addressed in Post #2 (above). Roleplaying is, to me, when the participants assume the roles of characters. They adopt and act out the role of the character, like a part in a play, and give life to their characters’ personalities, motivations, and backgrounds.”

Right, but better defining those backgrounds, motivations, and personalities with tools like feats, hooks, and skills helps players who might not be so accustomed to designing characters and allows them to make more robust character personalities.

“That doesn’t require mathematics, it requires prose. I don’t think that the “Leadership” or similar feats from 3.x were good for roleplaying. They were a mathematical kludge that let your character make freinds and influence people…”

I say mechanics, not necessarily mathematics…two different things. What you saw as kludge, I saw as devilish hook and opportunity to springboard a character and the party off on occasional sidetreks for assistance and growth. Leadership is the best gift a player can give his GM.

“I hate to use the term, but that strikes me as “Roll Play.” You are letting the math determine how your character interacts with soceity, rather than letting the story (”roleplay”) make that determination.”

Hopefully I’ve demonstrated that, no, I don’t need mathematics. I’m looking for mechanics to help design situations, to aid players and ease the abstraction. Being told to “wing it” all the time ain’t cool for a table of newbies. Many times, they’re more likely to pull back into their shell than risk, especially if they’re just trying something that they were uneasy with to start.

-Ben.

Bens last blog post..Robin Law’s Gamer Type Quiz