Dark Sun returns

[mandrake]

Ok it seems like everybody essentially agrees that skill challenges as written suck. I don't really think anyone is disagreeing on that point.

I disagree. I think that powergaming is the issue here.

3.x has balance issues, 4e has rail roading issues. Again no one is really disagreeing.

Again, disagree, because this doesn't even make sense.

The point often made is that they should be whenever possible. Its like in Monopoly, people want to buy hotels and collect money. So thats what makes you win the game. In DnD everyone wants to be able to meaningfully contribute, and for their contributions to increase the groups chance of success. Mechanics that cause player contribution to lower the chance of success actively work against this.

It doesn't lower the chance of success, because everyone goes on their initiative. To lower the chance they would have to not participate, making their chances at success automatic failures.

In DnD there are plenty of challenges during a game, not just this one skill challenge. This is not a choice between the players easily winning the whole scenario with no challenge, or having a thrilling adventure. This is a case of a few times during the session the players could have succeded and instead they failed because someone wanted to try and contribute. This is not good games design. Players (even dedicated roleplayers) will always have half an eye on the mechanics of a game, and as soon as they catch on that they are making the group's chances worse this will lower the fun they are having.

If you are saying that its more fun for everyone to contribute and for a skill challenge to actually be a challenge that cannot be bypassed by 1 player spamming the same skill, and you accept that this is not the way the current rules encourage you to play, then you are accepting that the skill challenge rules need to be changed. I don't see what the disagreement is here.

I'm saying that RAW, that's not a skill challenge, and as a DM, if you can't possibly fail or use any resources, it's not worth XP. If it's not worth XP it's not a skill challenge.

[Titanium Dragon]

I disagree. I think that powergaming is the issue here.

A system should not be designed such that the optimal strategy is an unfun one.

[mandrake]

The most fun strategy is by definition the optimal one, because it is a game.

[Titanium Dragon]

The most fun strategy is by definition the optimal one, because it is a game.

The "optimal" strategy I am referring to is "the strategy which brings you the most in-game success".

[Morzas]

Ok it seems like everybody essentially agrees that skill challenges as written suck. I don't really think anyone is disagreeing on that point.

I disagree. I think that powergaming is the issue here.

Cool story, bro. I guess people who actually take the time to analyze the mathematical flaws of a system are nothing but useless powergaming fucktards who just don't understand how to ROLEPLAY instead of ROLLPLAY.

[MGuy]

Fun is a very subjective term. It should not be used as the basis of any argument. Playing optimally is not always the fun way to play. If that were the case no one would play fighters in 3.x.

[Meikle641]

Ahem.

I think 4e Dark Sun is going to kick ass. Dark Sun intrinsically kicks ass, and its ass kickery is more than enough to make up for any perceived flaws in 4E.

Um, what? I like Dark Sun, too, but 4e is a fucking awful system for it. Seriously. It's like, the opposite of 4e's supposed design goals.

[TavishArtair]

Actually, Titanium Dragon, summons have several paradigms under which they are useful and balanced. Ones that take your own action are generally fine and dandy for more utility or defense-oriented ones. However, summons that have their own actions can be balanced. The goal in that case is to design them in such a way that they are equivalent to a damage-over-time effect of a similar level, just with an obvious escape route: shoot the damn thing down. This might make them better or worse, and consequently they might be justified in having more or less damage capacity than a typical damage-over-time effect, depending on the particulars of the system you are using (since we're talking about multiple editions of D&D, this varies a lot). This is especially true were you to tie the summon to a resource the caster himself likes, like, oh, his HP.

[Titanium Dragon]

Actually, Titanium Dragon, summons have several paradigms under which they are useful and balanced. Ones that take your own action are generally fine and dandy for more utility or defense-oriented ones. However, summons that have their own actions can be balanced. The goal in that case is to design them in such a way that they are equivalent to a damage-over-time effect of a similar level, just with an obvious escape route: shoot the damn thing down. This might make them better or worse, and consequently they might be justified in having more or less damage capacity than a typical damage-over-time effect, depending on the particulars of the system you are using (since we're talking about multiple editions of D&D, this varies a lot). This is especially true were you to tie the summon to a resource the caster himself likes, like, oh, his HP.

It is, in fact, possible to "balance" action granting abilities like summons in terms of in-game effectiveness.

The problem is that you still run into the "one character has multiple turns" issue.

[TavishArtair]

Yeah, you do.

Except you generally run into about as much additional downtime on a turn whenever a rogue inflicts bleeding damage (save ends) or a fighter rolls an additional hit for his Stormcascadehurricanegalescirroco bladesharpthingswordaxeweapon.

Sooooo...

[Username17]

The problem is that you still run into the "one character has multiple turns" issue.

So what?

Seriously, fuck off. You know who gets more turns than other people? Defense oriented characters. They don't drop as often and usually put down opponents slower. So they take more actions in any particular combat and in the game as a whole. Battlefield control of any kind involve reducing enemy actions presumably at a cost of taking enemies down more slowly. Again, it's an action impact for action numbers trade.

If you can't accept that one player having more actions with less individual impact is part of the game, you can't design a game. Seriously, you just can't. Paladins have more actions than Rangers. If you can't see that, get away from the game designer hat.

From a combat balance standpoint, a summon is just a Damage Over Time that trades certainty for damage potential. If your game can handle attacks that set people on fire it can handle Spiritual Weapon. And if it can handle Spiritual Weapon it can handle Charizard. It's not mathematically different. And honestly, if you get a stick up your ass over someone rolling extra dice for their spiritual weapon or making extra attack declarations for their Charizard then fuck you. First off, you're a lousy termite licking hypocrite unless you also complain about people who generate extra resolution time for Save Ends crap or minor action powers or double weapon attacks; and secondly just fuck you in general because throwing down effects in battle that change the way the battle flows is fun and if you want to take that away from people you are an asshole killjoy.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

I don't really get the "summons give you more actions, that's bad" complaint. We may handle it a bit differently though - the DM runs all NPCs, be they enemies or allies. So all the player has to do is run his character. If the character commands a squad of soldiers, or half a dozen summoned monsters, he has his actions, and they have theirs.

Simple commands can be given out as shouts while attacking, but more complex commands would require an action themselves - like the rules indicate.

Of course, the NPCs being NPCs act on their own if there are no orders, and of course smart characters will have standing orders - even complicated ones - but those are set up before a battle, and therefore do not add actions or delays during the battle.

It may not work for everyone, but it works rather well - and if there are too many NPCs around to handle individually then the GM can always fudge them dealing with each other as "basic stalemate" or "average result" and focus on the PCs' actions, which will decide the battle.

[violence in the media]

Just to throw this into the action economy hat TD, I'm going to assume you've never dominated another PC to assume control of them for a few rounds for whatever reason.

Hell, do you get upset when one player asks another player what they should do? What about, "play my character while I run out for beer" situations? I'm just saying that religious adherence to action division is dumb and not as panties-twistingly important as 4e makes it out to be.

[Parthenon]

How about a mechanic where fighters can get a cohort and wizards can summon/raise/control minions? Summoners would summon up monster minions, necromancers would raise zombie minions, enchanters could have lots of minions under their domination.

[*]The cohort automatically kills one minion per turn or negates one standard enemy each turn. Fighting against a BBEG it loses half its max health each turn.
[*]Each minion negates another minion each turn or as a group negates one standard enemy each turn with one minion dying a turn. Fighting against a BBEG, half of the original amount die each turn.

It lets you have larger groups fighting with little more work. It still allows various stories and archetypes to occur and lets the players have more choice as to how to defeat the enemy.

More choice for the players, not much changed in terms of balance if anything, it supports large fights better, it just takes a bit more rules keeping. At first glance I can't see that much wrong with it.

[Red_Rob]

Mandrake, you make the following post:

The most fun strategy is by definition the optimal one, because it is a game.

In my group, we enjoy DnD from the Roleplay side, we create interesting and varied characters and we play them to the hilt. Roleplaying is by no means a secondary consideration. BUT, and here's the rub, we ALSO like to feel that we are suceeding in the adventure through our quick wits and clever strategies.

So for us, the fun that you espouse as the ultimate goal, is soured however we play. If we all contribute, we get the fun of roleplaying, but we feel like we are being stupid at playing the game. If just one of us makes all the skill tests with their high skill level it sucks from the Roleplay side, but we feel that we have cleverly used the best tactic to win.

Roleplayers and ROLLplayers are not so divorced as you like to think, and in my experience someone quick witted and intelligent enough to come up with and play an interesting personality is also likely to be clever enough to work out what works best in the system and be aware of the most effective way to play the game. Shouldn't the system try to make things fun for ALL players rather than just the ones that don't think about the game at all? Like making the most fun way to play also the best way to win?

[Murtak]

Roleplayers and ROLLplayers are not so divorced as you like to think, and in my experience someone quick witted and intelligent enough to come up with and play an interesting personality is also likely to be clever enough to work out what works best in the system and be aware of the most effective way to play the game. Shouldn't the system try to make things fun for ALL players rather than just the ones that don't think about the game at all? Like making the most fun way to play also the best way to win?

Heck in our scenario, the two are tied together. It would be bad roleplaying if your master diplomat didn't do all of the talking, not only because that is what he does, but also because he knows the barbarian will fuck up their chance of an audience with the king if he opens his mouth. The only good bit of roleplaying to be had in a diplomacy skill challenge is coming up with good ways to keep the barbarian occupied or bribing the rogue to hit the wizard with a sap before they can get you thrown out of court. And even then the mechanics stink. "Keep rolling" isn't exactly the most fun or tactical way to do things.

[souran]

Mandrake, TD honestly don't bother to come here and argue.

Go to rpg.net or enworld. The interwebs is not like reality. People cannot be convinced of anything here or really in any other forum.

The one thing I will say is that I disagree about the value of out of combat powers.

If you EVER are forced to give up combat prowess for out of combat powers you are making a bad choice. Out of combat is going to include more handwaving. Look at Franks idea

"You have black Market connnections" What is the mechanical effect of that Frank? Can you use that anywhere? If you can then it is basically magical black market connections. Is it restricted to one city or or one area? If so then we all would say that its a crap power likely to be found in a crappy prestige class. This is the real problem with "out of combat powers" they sound really good but when it comes time to write the crunch they either end up massively overpowered or competely worthless.

Does it let you buy things off the equipment lists for cheaper? Possibly even sub market value? If you can how does having that not allow a character to say that in their downtime they use their market connections to get any arbitrary amount of money they want?

How much of a combat bonus is that worth? If it lets you have all the money you want because you buy and sell on the black market then its combat value is the same as the most expsensive weapon in the game. "Black Market Connections" becomes the fighter equalizer because they can use it to get all the magic items they need to compete.

The black market is actually dangerous. People are more likely to rob, kill or cheat you. Is that somehow factored into the mechanics?

If it is then why isn't selling on the black market something you do as part of face time in game? If players really want to integrate into the black market the DM should probably come up with NPCs that suport this activity. All of a sudden having black market contacts looks less like an ability and more like roleplaying.....

Contacts in Shadowrun and White wolf are run basically one of 2 ways. A source of knowledge that you roll "contact dice" for to get dm clues that should be given out in better ways if your dm was not crappy. Its like the hint button of a puzzle game. Only worse because you have to roll a 8 or better to make them work.

Or they are a list of names that the gamemaster works into the roleplay elments of the game. They have no "mechanical" effect. They work by the power of dm teaparty fiat.

Finally, taking "black market contacts" at the expense of taking "Fatal-dragon-heart-stab style" is almost always going to be worse for you in the long run. If you are lucky your dm will incorporate your out of combat power maybe once or twice. However you can probably use "fatal-dragon-heart-stab style" every combat.

4e does not have many white wolf like out of combat powers. It also doesn't require you to be a rogue to be able to find traps anymore (thank god).

Maybe the clamor for these sorts of powers will increase and in 5th edition there might just be "out of combat" powers that are more like what you want. However, if they take away combat prowess it will be a big step backward.

Honestly, many utility powers can be used out of combat. However, I understand that they don't do the sort of things you want to be able to do.

If something like that ever does get added it needs to be seperate from the combat powers. You cannot balalnce powers that have effects on two different minigames. The skills minigame, the combat minigame, and exploration minigame should be equally accesible to all characters. You shouldn't be able to trade your effectivness in one for unmatchable effectiveness in another and no class should dominate all aspects.

[Parthenon]

Thinking about it, I love the idea of rituals. However, what would be cool is if there are several different levels of each ritual and the more powerful rituals used more interesting costs. Or more the other way round.

You have a huge, complex ritual that only a few people know, and everyone knows parts of it. Even those small parts of it that everyone knows will have a small but useful effect.

So, for example, a ritual to make sure that food is not poisoned or gone off. You could have:
[*]A very short free ritual that takes up a couple of second that refreshes the food and keeps it warm and tasty for the duration of the meal. Maybe circling the food with a finger while saying a phrase.
[*]A 10 second long ritual that makes sure food hasn't gone off and keeps the food tasty. Maybe making a quick circle around the food with salt/earth/water with one hand while making a gesture with another before throwing the rest in your hand over your shoulder.
[*]A 1 minute long ritual that in 4e uses up a daily power. It stops poisons, keeps food tasty and encourages good conversation. Only used for nobles or for very important meals. Maybe having one person walking widdershins around the table sprinkling earth as they go while chanting.
[*]A 5 minute long ritual that uses up a daily power of 5 people that protects from poison or assassination during the meal. Only used for kings or for very important meals for nobles.

The basic idea is that rituals are used by everyone and help out in everyday life.

So, everyone from peasants to nobles would use these food rituals for every meal or snack. Other rituals could include rituals of hospitality that stop guests stealing the family silver or rituals at the beginning of planting seeds. From basic zone of truth type rituals at the start of trials to rituals to ones to improve health and healing.

For example you could have a healing ritual that regenerates limbs that when simplifies repairs breaks, to heals cuts, to removing bruises, to removing pain. So if someone was really ill they could go to a hospital and have an anaesthetist who specialises in pain and sleep rituals, and surgeons who specialises in opening and closing rituals or who specialise in healing of various parts.

[souran]

Parthenon - Do you read Jim Butcher? The Fury's series maybe?

The idea for rituals is a solid concept. The problem is that they use money.


Most of the things you can do with rituals shouldn't cost money because the effect isn't as useful or permanent enough to be worth the value. Paying to learn a ritual is fine. Once learned it needs to take some other sort of game fuel that is not so precious as money but still worth caring about.

Basically it sounds like healing surges to me. This would mean that all dnd becomes a little like dark sun though. Give each ritual a cost in healing surges. Some rituals that cost can be shared amoung the whole party. Others must come from the caster alone. This ties them to a daily resource and means that usuing a rituals are work arounds to situations that characters can't otherwise find solutions for. You know, like magic or something.

This works for the magic mouths, knocks, scrying, and other spells like that.

However, for those players that want to flood cities there needs to be a more permanent cost to doing earth shattering magic. Possibly permant loss of surges or bring back the money cost.

Thats really the issue with rituals. The mechanics of the rituals themselves work fine. Its the cost.

Oh, they also all take to long to cast by a factor of 10. My only guess is that they assume that players will copy rituals they actually want to use to scrolls ahead of time so that they can be cast reasonably.

This basically reverts these spells to the previous edition level of usefulness becuase you would have to own the scroll of a spell instead of the having the ritual to make it useful. Its like writting all your good noncombat spells in 3.x to scrolls. Unless your DM let you go and rememorize spells and then come back to face the challenge again with the right spell list prepared.

[mandrake]

[*]A 1 minute long ritual that in 4e uses up a daily power.

This is a fantastic idea for a house rule, if you're worried about how much rituals cost, anyway. There are rituals which cost nothing by the way, they're bard rituals.

So for us, the fun that you espouse as the ultimate goal, is soured however we play. If we all contribute, we get the fun of roleplaying, but we feel like we are being stupid at playing the game. If just one of us makes all the skill tests with their high skill level it sucks from the Roleplay side, but we feel that we have cleverly used the best tactic to win.

But that's against RAW. If you want to discuss your houserules, that's fine.

Cool story, bro. I guess people who actually take the time to analyze the mathematical flaws of a system are nothing but useless powergaming fucktards who just don't understand how to ROLEPLAY instead of ROLLPLAY.

Could you have linked something where the guy doesn't say "it's too complex to completely map out mathematically? He fully admits that his math there is insufficient to describe skill challenges because each group is going to be different and each skill challenge is going to be different.

[mandrake]

Um, what? I like Dark Sun, too, but 4e is a fucking awful system for it. Seriously. It's like, the opposite of 4e's supposed design goals.

Which "supposed" design goals are those?

[RandomCasualty2]

3.x has balance issues, 4e has rail roading issues. Again no one is really disagreeing.

Ironically I find 3.x has more railroading issues, not because of character abilities but because of the massive amount of DM prep required, and the inability to create NPCs on the fly effectively. It's not so mcuh that you can't teleport to waterdeep randomly and start doing stuff, it's just that your DM has literally nothing prepared there, and can't wing it.

So while it's easy to go off the rails in 3E, doing so is basically being a dick.

What 3E really excels at is giving people strategic means to solve quests. It isn't so much that you can go abandon the quest and do something else easily. You can't. But as far as trying shit like scrying and teleporting to the end of the adventure, there's lots and lots of ways of doing that. Unfortunately due to the prep time involved in making adventures, a lot of these are really undesireable.

[Username17]

"You have black Market connnections" What is the mechanical effect of that Frank?

Well, we were talking about the ability in terms of Necromunda, where in the downtime phase you are allowed to roll for the availability of rare items for purchase. The black market connections allow you to roll an extra die and then drop the lowest to see if a particular item is available. It's simple, it's pretty good, and it's more of an ability than anything in 4e.

There are other examples like Shadowrun where your contacts have a connectedness rating, and that acts as a dicepool modifier to your rolls against Availability Ratings to attempt to get access to restricted items. That too is a defined ability that you can write on your sheet and have real effects from. But let's focus on Necromunda because it is more insulting to 4rries and also because it is frankly a more similar game to 4e D&D than an actual RPG is.

See as Titanium Dragon was quick to point out, characters in 4e have a Streetwise check. That could have been the basis of a set of abilities involving information gathering and black market trading and stuff. But it's not, because there are no DCs written down anywhere o do any of that stuff. You can generate a black market dealings number, but that number doesn't mean anything. Is a 14 a good number for buying and selling poisons? What about a 32? Who knows? No one knows.

It would not have been terribly difficult to make the fact that everyone has a Streetwise bonus written on their character sheet into the foundation of a set of everyman skills related to tavern rumor mongering and fencing rare loot. And then to build on that by allowing certain people to get very high bonuses or DC reductions that would allow them to smoothly develop spy networks, call in hits, and be provided with poisons, bane weaponry, and other contraband. That could have been done. But it was not. Because Bill Slavicsek specifically said that worrying about or tying down any of that information was badwrongfun. You know, in the same essay where he explained how cool it was that he was taking crafts and professions out of the game entirely. Right before the essay where he told us about his epiphany that removing all the abilities from monsters that affected the world outside of combat would somehow be a good thing because they didn't need to interact with the plot, only the combat mini-game.

It's totally fucked. And the end result compares unfavorably to a tactical miniatures wargame with campaign rules like Necromunda.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

It would not have been terribly difficult to make the fact that everyone has a Streetwise bonus written on their character sheet into the foundation of a set of everyman skills related to tavern rumor mongering and fencing rare loot. And then to build on that by allowing certain people to get very high bonuses or DC reductions that would allow them to smoothly develop spy networks, call in hits, and be provided with poisons, bane weaponry, and other contraband. That could have been done. But it was not. Because Bill Slavicsek specifically said that worrying about or tying down any of that information was badwrongfun.

Yeah, pretty much I think the 4E concept was that they actually didn't want skills to ever get any better, but they disguised this by having the skills increase and the skill challenge DCs increase with them, instead of just having a static skill bonus.

The DC is just basically dynamically altered based on your level anyway, so as to just cancel out any bonus you'd get from having your skill better than what a level 1 commoner would have.

Its just illusionism to make a scaling system into a nonscaling one.

[Thymos]

Now come on Frank, we have the DC's for anything you want. It's a table all organized by difficulty and level with absolutely no indication for how it ties into reality.