Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

So, what do people think about D&D 5.5? Not gone through it all yet, but of note if the weapon mastery rules.

That Critical Role game coming out is going to eat 5.5e's lunch. Wizards of the Coast will have to confront the fact that most of the reasons 5e succeeded had nothing to do with the game or the company, and then they'll totally shit bricks and Hasbro will come in and fire more people. Then they'll say "print more MTG secret rares" and the D&D division will be two people and an AI chatbot.

[OgreBattleFight]

Unlike D&D, my original magic system is base don the pentagram of:

[deaddmwalking]

The problem with that is it doesn't clearly distinguish between an autonomous fencing response resulting from the temporary loss of higher-level function and the reversion to simple brain-stem control, and an active response based on awareness of conditions. I'd argue that any arm movement might be mistaken as a Fencing response, but I'd be willing to play test it to be sure.

[Thaluikhain]

Ok, been looking at 7TV, mostly the models, but some of the rules. Though, my question is only someone inspired by that, and more about simple skirmish games in general.

Instead of having a bunch of different status effects that work in different ways, would it perhaps be better to limit the number, but have them be caused by different things? For example, you could have a separate "on fire" condition and a "poisoned" condition that did damage every turn, or alternatively a single "takes damage every turn" condition, which could be caused by a fire attack or a poison attack.

That seems like it could simplify things a little, though only if you didn't have something that could remove an on fire condition but not a poison one (such as a humble bucket of water).

[deaddmwalking]

That seems like it could simplify things a little, though only if you didn't have something that could remove an on fire condition but not a poison one (such as a humble bucket of water).

You're almost certainly going to want some units to be able to ignore one damage type and not the other, and you're almost certainly going to want to allow different units (some that may not exist yet) to remove one condition but not the other.

Emergency Medical Technicians can remove Poison but not Fire; Fire Fighters can remove fire but not Poison, and eventually the game will want to support that one way or another.

[Foxwarrior]

I disagree, in a skirmish wargame one of the design goals is likely to be that two people show up to the table with armies they picked out on their own without knowing what the opponent would bring, and then they have a tactical battle that's balanced enough that it's not boringly trivial. "Oh whoops you brought an EMT instead of a Fire Fighter so you lose against my fire elemental army" is probably not a fun way to resolve things.

Tabletop RPGs are actually pretty different in this respect, because: they often have a design goal of representing things, higher than one of having fair fights, the occasional deeply unfair fight can just add to the story by how much it makes sense in the fiction; and player characters often have much larger toolsets than skirmish wargame minis, instead of an EMT you have a cleric with 20 different spells.

[Thaluikhain]

You're almost certainly going to want some units to be able to ignore one damage type and not the other,

Well, ignoring damage types could be done by just ignoring the thing that caused the damage instead, So, instead of ignoring fire (that causes ongoing damage), you ignore the fire attack that would cause the ongoing damage attack.

and you're almost certainly going to want to allow different units (some that may not exist yet) to remove one condition but not the other.

This (especially the "may not exist yet" part) is more of a problem. In the 7tv game (or the free v2 rules at least), removing any status seems to just costs you a plot point (excepting that with Domianted you also have to have a non-dominated model in base to base), and there doesn't seem to be any other way of removing them. So, in that case, not a problem. But, yeah, not really future proof.

[deaddmwalking]

I disagree, in a skirmish wargame one of the design goals is likely to be that two people show up to the table with armies they picked out on their own without knowing what the opponent would bring, and then they have a tactical battle that's balanced enough that it's not boringly trivial. "Oh whoops you brought an EMT instead of a Fire Fighter so you lose against my fire elemental army" is probably not a fun way to resolve things.

This is one of those things that probably should be true, but probably isn't. In 40k, there are some extraordinarily bad match ups - if you have an army that's good at anti-tank (a few very powerful shots) you're probably not as good at anti-infantry (having lots of shots that even massed can't hurt a tank). Games Workshop seems committed to ensuring a rough parity by army, but it's apparently okay that Black Templars have a 100% win-rate against Adeptus Sororitas, but only a 38% win rate against Aeldari. Or something - I didn't look at how many matches there were, and even then it doesn't really get into differences between faction armies.

You can explore the meta data here

In the hypothetical of having an EMT or a Fire Fighter, both of them represent a character that COULD be good in a specific situation, and including one with your army is going to matter more against some opponents than others. A Fire Fighter is unlikely to be an 'auto-win' against fire elementals. Often characters are limited in how many actions they can take, or how close they have to be to be effective. A hypothetical fire-fighter character might allow models to deploy on the tops of buildings, or ignore a certain amount of vertical movement, for instance, to a single squad that they're attached to - something useful ALL THE TIME - but also include some type of fire damage resistance (opponent re-rolls all 6s for wound damage, for instance). An EMT would presumably have the ability to remove a wound/wounds from a model that had just taken damage, which is something that would be helpful in every game, but not always worth the points. If your models are all chaff, keeping one up for another round isn't worthwhile; but attaching him to a powerful unit or character might be worthwhile, depending on the point cost.

As far as ignoring attacks (immunity) versus ignoring the effect of the attack (resistance) that's a toggle you can play with as a designer. It's going to make sense that your water elementals are immune to fire damage, and it's a given that your Ents are going to be extra-vulnerable to fire (maybe, anyway). The question is what interaction do you want between squads if allied water elementals give up their attacks and instead try to assist an allied squad.

It's totally possible that each squad/model will have abilities that can't be applied to another squad/model - but that's probably something that you want. The interactions can get complex, but something like 'water elementals are immune to fire damage; any allied unit within 12" is also immune to fire damage' is pretty simple and something you're likely to see or want.

So yeah, defining fire damage differently than poison damage is a given. Treating all ongoing damage the same after it is applied is also unlikely to make sense.

[Thaluikhain]

It's totally possible that each squad/model will have abilities that can't be applied to another squad/model - but that's probably something that you want. The interactions can get complex, but something like 'water elementals are immune to fire damage; any allied unit within 12" is also immune to fire damage' is pretty simple and something you're likely to see or want.

Oh, actually, you could fudge it to instead of them putting the fire out (or whatever), they give a bonus to avoid being on fire in the first place, and thus avoiding the taking damage part.

Admittedly, this is a weird way of doing it all and might not be the best way, but I'm in favour of rules being streamlined as much as possible.

[Foxwarrior]

Arguably what matters more than the number of status effects in the game is the number of status effects in the match, if a player is playing a fire elemental army you could well want being on fire to be a cool bespoke effect that gave the fire elemental army a unique playstyle. The complexity overload from having bespoke status effects really hits when the player brings a fire elemental, a poison snake, an acid alien, a plague rat, and a bleed inflicting assassin and each one has different DoT effects to keep track of.

[Thaluikhain]

Arguably what matters more than the number of status effects in the game is the number of status effects in the match, if a player is playing a fire elemental army you could well want being on fire to be a cool bespoke effect that gave the fire elemental army a unique playstyle. The complexity overload from having bespoke status effects really hits when the player brings a fire elemental, a poison snake, an acid alien, a plague rat, and a bleed inflicting assassin and each one has different DoT effects to keep track of.

Ah, good point, hadn't considered that.

[deaddmwalking]

Bespoke effects are bad not because of the sheer number, but because of the number of factions.

If you don't play Fire Elementals, you probably won't know what the burning rules are, unless the Greek Fire wielding Techno-Dwarves also use it. And that's bad if you're completely surprised.

But it's okay if there are different types of effects as long as most players are familiar with most of them.

What's really a problem with Warhammer right now is that you need to know your own rules, and all of your opponents rules to play effectively.

The specific rules should be common enough that most factions have some access, or at least that a faction specific rule is understood. Ideally, they'll be simple and easily shared - something that could fit on a card and you'd have cards for every unit that you and your opponent exchange and analyze.

[Koumei]

It would probably be better to, in this example, have a Universal Special Rule of "Crumbling". Use whatever word you want. And it covers all sorts of Damage Over Time. And then an attack that causes Crumbling probably also has a descriptor tag so when the Flame Empire set people on fire, the effect is [Fire] Crumbling. And everyone knows what that standard rule does. Maybe the Crumbling rule has a fixed DoT effect or maybe it's listed as "Crumbling (X)" where you roll X dice for the number of potential extra damage (or X+ for "roll 1 die for every model, on an X+ you take damage", whatever), and then when afflicted by multiple sources you only use the worst one. The main problem here is having to use different tokens next to everything, if you have only one type you can just put any agreed-upon marker next to a unit but if you have three types of fire, you sort of need to have three sets of token, clearly marked so you know which is which.

And then, the special things about Flame Empire are as follows:
1. A *lot* of their units, spells, special rules etc. inflict [Fire] Crumbling.
2. They can have general rules (such as the overall Army special rule) where they get a bonus to damage any target afflicted by any kind of [Fire] Crumbling. Or such targets take a penalty to hurt them. Whatever. (This is still just "okay your rule gives you a modifier", it doesn't really take up much brain space especially when the Flame Empire player is the one remembering this (because it's part of their strategy) and mentioning it.)
3. They have certain other abilities, like a "Wildfire" spell that lets you destroy terrain next to anyone suffering from [Fire] Crumbling, or a "Fan The Flames" Tactic card that lets you spread a [Fire] Crumbling effect from one unit to others nearby. These are a bit weirder than just standard modifiers, but you probably don't have too many of them and you show your opponent before the battle.
4. Certain units could rarely have a small aura thing where nearby foes afflicted by [Fire] Crumbling effects take more damage, and that's written into the unit entry.

A really cool thing would then be for the always free and downloadable rules to include a section at the end of the Flame Empire army document on "Everything this army can do in relation to [Fire] Crumbling."

[Thaluikhain]

Ok, not so much a gaming question, but didn't want to start a new topic, and this seemed closest.

Why is it that most miniatures companies still have lead in their metal minis, when GW went to lead free metal in the 90s? GW decided to get ahead of the trend and eliminate lead nearly 30 years ago, and most other places seemed not to have caught up yet. Sure, there's safety regulations and a limit to how much lead you can have, but still.

[deaddmwalking]

Who's even still making metal miniatures? I think I saw someone open a new mech on a YouTube video that was metal, but that seems pretty rare. I thought everyone was either use plastic or resin for the most part.

Folks like Reaper still have metal minis in inventory, but I don't think they're making new ones. They use a lead-free pewter.

I know there are always issues with products that are supposed to be lead-free that aren't - and that lead and cadmium especially from Chinese products that don't conform to U.S. Safety standards are an issue, but they aren't SUPPOSED to be there. I thought New York prohibited ANY lead in miniatures; it seems that if it tells you that they can't ship to New York that's telling. I'd have expected a bunch of states to also follow suit, so if there's only a small number of places it's legal to sell them, I'd expect that everyone moved to lead-free products. So who's still using lead?

[Thaluikhain]

I was looking at historical figures (Elite and Empress, for example), and also Crooked Dice who make 7tv. Apparently EU regulations allow for lead.

[Foxwarrior]

I suppose the low melting point makes it just, really convenient. And once the models are painted then they should be safe to handle right, it's just the hazmat treatment while gluing and priming that would be a hassle

[Koumei]

Wait, you paint minis and don't just have boxes full of unassembled parts lying around the house for months/years at a time?

[Foxwarrior]

Um, no comment

[Bigdy McKen]

I’ve got TWO annoying game questions.

1) Are there any systems out there that do abstract movement WELL? That is to say, accounting not only for how far characters can move, but also things like area effects, environmental hazards, etc.


2) Are there any systems out there that do light V heavy attacks well? Meaning both are valid life choices.

[Kaelik]

I think "do[ing] abstract movement well" depends a lot on what the system is trying to present or emulate.

I have never seen "abstract positioning for a low level swords and sorcerer dungeon crawler" because the emulated genre or concept of the game sort of requires granulatiry.

On the other hand I think my game "Kultivation" adequately represents abstract positioning, but is emulating genre conventions in which anyone could at any time "nothing personell" right behind anyone else and then it could also turn out that the person they teleported behind was an afterimage or a clone or whatever retroactively.

So I do not think my system (entirely technique based positioning where everyone is assumed to be functionally conterminus with everyone else at all times until someone uses a technique to create a different battlefield or to move in response to other characters) would at all work for a dungeon crawler.

It could PLAUSIBLY work for sufficiently high level D&D fantasy shenanigans.

[Bigdy McKen]

I think "do[ing] abstract movement well" depends a lot on what the system is trying to present or emulate.

I have never seen "abstract positioning for a low level swords and sorcerer dungeon crawler" because the emulated genre or concept of the game sort of requires granulatiry.

On the other hand I think my game "Kultivation" adequately represents abstract positioning, but is emulating genre conventions in which anyone could at any time "nothing personell" right behind anyone else and then it could also turn out that the person they teleported behind was an afterimage or a clone or whatever retroactively.

So I do not think my system (entirely technique based positioning where everyone is assumed to be functionally conterminus with everyone else at all times until someone uses a technique to create a different battlefield or to move in response to other characters) would at all work for a dungeon crawler.

It could PLAUSIBLY work for sufficiently high level D&D fantasy shenanigans.

Ok so the thing I keep running into when trying to come up with rules for abstract movement and positioning is that, in trying to account for all the various tactical concerns like fireballs and lightning bolts, 5ft. steps, trash mobs, etc., whatever i write down is inevitable more cumbersome and unwieldy than just: “1 square = 5 feet. Move up to 6 on your turn.”

On the other hand, as you pointed out, that sort of granular distance tracking doesn’t make sense in a game where combatants can leap hundreds of feet in the air or DBZ instant transfer across the battlefield.

So what I’m hoping for specifically is something that can easily handle the flash zipping around while zatanna casts cone of cold. If that makes any sense.

There are a couple games I’m aware of, like Outgunned and Exalted, that treat trash mobs like one big stat block, which is fine, but it does close off a lot of design space.

[Kaelik]

Yeah, my system just says "if you have an aoe attack you can use it as an aoe and hit whatever you want (subject to other people's techniques) which for cultivation stuff works fine, but it comes with the territory of "not really caring how many kobolds you can get in the cone of cold."

[deaddmwalking]

I play-tested a game that used zone positioning. A map for a battle would potentially have 3-5 zones. Moving across zones cost a move action, and you had to be in the same zone as someone else to use a melee attack.

Zones were 'variable' in size, but you really couldn't say you were in the same zone as someone else and not be close. Exact positioning was abstract. Having an AoE that hits everyone in the same zone as you could work, or even larger attacks that flood 2 or more zones, but every battle had to have a map with the zones represented. It could have been a relative distance chart, rather than a map, but the GM still has to determine how many zones there are.

I like the tactical elements of positioning, but something along those lines might serve your needs.

The only thing I need to stress is that abstract relative positioning cannot coexist with exact positioning. If you have to know whether someone was 10 or 15 feet away, don't even try for an abstract system.

[Bigdy McKen]

Yeah, my system just says "if you have an aoe attack you can use it as an aoe and hit whatever you want (subject to other people's techniques) which for cultivation stuff works fine, but it comes with the territory of "not really caring how many kobolds you can get in the cone of cold."

Does your system have something like low-power mooks for throwaway encounters, or is it solely focused on 1v1 duels between equal combatants?

I had an inkling for something Exalted-like. But I wanted to do things like lightning damage arcing to different targets; slash attacks hitting multiple dudes, etc. Something easy to do within a d&d-style paradigm.

I’m thinking maybe distinct weapon and armor properties don’t actually matter, and a signature equipment system is better for players who want that kind of thing.

I play-tested a game that used zone positioning. A map for a battle would potentially have 3-5 zones. Moving across zones cost a move action, and you had to be in the same zone as someone else to use a melee attack.

Zones were 'variable' in size, but you really couldn't say you were in the same zone as someone else and not be close. Exact positioning was abstract. Having an AoE that hits everyone in the same zone as you could work, or even larger attacks that flood 2 or more zones, but every battle had to have a map with the zones represented. It could have been a relative distance chart, rather than a map, but the GM still has to determine how many zones there are.

I like the tactical elements of positioning, but something along those lines might serve your needs.

The only thing I need to stress is that abstract relative positioning cannot coexist with exact positioning. If you have to know whether someone was 10 or 15 feet away, don't even try for an abstract system.

Were these zones just the encountered area separated into quadrants, or was it FATE style zones (ie bar brawl. Common room=zone, behind the bar=zone, north balcony=zone, south balcony=zone, kitchen/larder=zone)?