Random roleplaying musings
Jul. 17th, 2015 03:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackArmour Class
Emblematic of 5e reducing the spread between low and high level is something I noticed in the monster manual, armour class is even flatter than other stats, that first level players are generally fighting monsters with AC 12-15, 20 might be possible for something fragile but really hard to hit. But the highest AC in the whole thing is the Tarrasque with AC only 25. Which doesn't mean level 20s are not mythological compared to level 1s, but that they improve in ways other than "bigger numbers", and low-level monsters are relevant for longer.
"Legendary" monsters
I also like what they did with some really tough monsters, like adult dragons. They have two features which make them effective as a large single monster. They have extra actions they take after other people's turns (often a simple attack). That means that combat is more interactive than "ok, you win initiative you marmelise the dragon before it acts" or "ok, the dragon wins initiative, it kills you, you and you" even if there's only one monster.
And also, instead of spell resistance, they have three "legendary points" which let them pass a saving throw they would otherwise have failed. That means, "I mind control the dragon" is never a game-winner, but nor is it completely useless. I don't know why that feels more appropriate than spell resistance, but it does to me -- maybe that it didn't make sense to me that "big and tough" automatically meant "resistance to magic", but "I'm just that epic" fits naturally into "you can't take me out in one hit".
There is still spell resistance in a simpler form (they have a bonus on saving throw) for a few monsters where it's appropriate.
But I also notice, it's one mechanic that stays leaning into a videogame or story-telling mode than a simulationist mode -- there's no in-world understanding of what this is, it just makes things more dramatic, and is explicitly appropriate for large single monsters (I might use the same mechanic for a party of 0th level halflings fighting a troll, but not for a party of gods fighting a swarm of adult dragons).
Stunts in combat
A problem I often had with players first getting into a mechanics-heavy roleplaying system like DnD is when someone does something dramatic like "I jump over the balcony swinging on the chandelier and attack the orc from above". There are no rules for that, really not, and it's easy for the GM to revert to a habit of saying "you can't" or "ok, you roll an attack" or "ok, here's the rules for jumping, no, it doesn't say you get any benefit". You do want to embrace that! (At least in my sort of 50/50 roleplaying, if you're concentrating on miniature wargaming, then maybe not.)
But I read an article that pointed out, if you default to fancy stunts being "make a str/dex check against DC 15, if you do, you get a small bonus to an attack, or another effect like driving them back", then it usually just works -- the dramatic move has a clear advantage, but not such a big one that usual combat is pointless. So it allows a reasonable amount of adlibbing.
It also suggests allowing the target a saving throw. I might just ignore that in the case of one-off stunts, or stunts against minion-enemies, but it says it's a useful balancing feature in any case where the stunt might make a big different ("I want to push the lich off the cliff", "I want to disarm EVERY COMBAT").
The wandering monster table is like the audience members who yell out suggestions on an improv show
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1248/roleplaying-games/re-running-the-megadungeon-part-2-restocking-the-dungeon
I definitely used to think "wandering monster, huh, why would you do that?" But now, although I haven't tried it, I can see when it could be a useful approach:
You wouldn't necessarily use this when you know in advance somewhere's important, where you hopefully will plan it in advance.
But consider when you're simulating an area more detailed than you can conceivably plan in advance. OK, you're sneaking into an orc camp. You plan the areas, where most orcs are. But they're also going to be wandering about, getting a snack, leaving to scout, etc. You can't plan every single Orc's hunger level. Probably the best way of giving that effect is to say "about every 5 minutes, some orc wanders SOMEWHERE", and if the players are still sneaking about, roll randomly to discover what the orcs are doing.
And the same if the players are exploring a dungeon larger than 5 rooms; it's big enough the monsters probably do wander about, if you're pretending there's some sort of ecology, and if you assume that, it adds a bit of verisimilitude over just "the monsters wait where they are until you find them". And it can also lead to more interesting exploring -- the PCs are not incentivised to always clear through methodically, but to choose trade-offs "safer to hole up for the night or go deeper while we can?"
And it can lead to awesome moments. Some things are more interesting when they happened by chance, which is why there's a random element in combat. If the giant earthworm blunders across the party when they're half-way through crossing a pit-trap, or an NPC party with the very item the party needed are camped in the first room, and everyone knows the GM decided it, it's just "ah, now the GM is screwing with us". But if it's chance, it can lead to hilarious memories.
Emblematic of 5e reducing the spread between low and high level is something I noticed in the monster manual, armour class is even flatter than other stats, that first level players are generally fighting monsters with AC 12-15, 20 might be possible for something fragile but really hard to hit. But the highest AC in the whole thing is the Tarrasque with AC only 25. Which doesn't mean level 20s are not mythological compared to level 1s, but that they improve in ways other than "bigger numbers", and low-level monsters are relevant for longer.
"Legendary" monsters
I also like what they did with some really tough monsters, like adult dragons. They have two features which make them effective as a large single monster. They have extra actions they take after other people's turns (often a simple attack). That means that combat is more interactive than "ok, you win initiative you marmelise the dragon before it acts" or "ok, the dragon wins initiative, it kills you, you and you" even if there's only one monster.
And also, instead of spell resistance, they have three "legendary points" which let them pass a saving throw they would otherwise have failed. That means, "I mind control the dragon" is never a game-winner, but nor is it completely useless. I don't know why that feels more appropriate than spell resistance, but it does to me -- maybe that it didn't make sense to me that "big and tough" automatically meant "resistance to magic", but "I'm just that epic" fits naturally into "you can't take me out in one hit".
There is still spell resistance in a simpler form (they have a bonus on saving throw) for a few monsters where it's appropriate.
But I also notice, it's one mechanic that stays leaning into a videogame or story-telling mode than a simulationist mode -- there's no in-world understanding of what this is, it just makes things more dramatic, and is explicitly appropriate for large single monsters (I might use the same mechanic for a party of 0th level halflings fighting a troll, but not for a party of gods fighting a swarm of adult dragons).
Stunts in combat
A problem I often had with players first getting into a mechanics-heavy roleplaying system like DnD is when someone does something dramatic like "I jump over the balcony swinging on the chandelier and attack the orc from above". There are no rules for that, really not, and it's easy for the GM to revert to a habit of saying "you can't" or "ok, you roll an attack" or "ok, here's the rules for jumping, no, it doesn't say you get any benefit". You do want to embrace that! (At least in my sort of 50/50 roleplaying, if you're concentrating on miniature wargaming, then maybe not.)
But I read an article that pointed out, if you default to fancy stunts being "make a str/dex check against DC 15, if you do, you get a small bonus to an attack, or another effect like driving them back", then it usually just works -- the dramatic move has a clear advantage, but not such a big one that usual combat is pointless. So it allows a reasonable amount of adlibbing.
It also suggests allowing the target a saving throw. I might just ignore that in the case of one-off stunts, or stunts against minion-enemies, but it says it's a useful balancing feature in any case where the stunt might make a big different ("I want to push the lich off the cliff", "I want to disarm EVERY COMBAT").
The wandering monster table is like the audience members who yell out suggestions on an improv show
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1248/roleplaying-games/re-running-the-megadungeon-part-2-restocking-the-dungeon
The wandering monster table is like the audience members who yell out suggestions on an improv show: Simply yelling out “mime” and “airplane” doesn’t make for a comedy show; it requires the improv actors to create a sketch about a mime pilot making an announcement over the plane’s intercom system for that. Similarly, just having random “giant spiders” attack the PCs because the table says so doesn’t make for an adventure; what you need are giant spiders in a particular place for a particular reason and doing a particular thing.
I definitely used to think "wandering monster, huh, why would you do that?" But now, although I haven't tried it, I can see when it could be a useful approach:
You wouldn't necessarily use this when you know in advance somewhere's important, where you hopefully will plan it in advance.
But consider when you're simulating an area more detailed than you can conceivably plan in advance. OK, you're sneaking into an orc camp. You plan the areas, where most orcs are. But they're also going to be wandering about, getting a snack, leaving to scout, etc. You can't plan every single Orc's hunger level. Probably the best way of giving that effect is to say "about every 5 minutes, some orc wanders SOMEWHERE", and if the players are still sneaking about, roll randomly to discover what the orcs are doing.
And the same if the players are exploring a dungeon larger than 5 rooms; it's big enough the monsters probably do wander about, if you're pretending there's some sort of ecology, and if you assume that, it adds a bit of verisimilitude over just "the monsters wait where they are until you find them". And it can also lead to more interesting exploring -- the PCs are not incentivised to always clear through methodically, but to choose trade-offs "safer to hole up for the night or go deeper while we can?"
And it can lead to awesome moments. Some things are more interesting when they happened by chance, which is why there's a random element in combat. If the giant earthworm blunders across the party when they're half-way through crossing a pit-trap, or an NPC party with the very item the party needed are camped in the first room, and everyone knows the GM decided it, it's just "ah, now the GM is screwing with us". But if it's chance, it can lead to hilarious memories.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-20 05:32 pm (UTC)(This is particularly manifest in NetHack, where bonusses to hit are even more readily available and not under any kind of GM control - after a bit in NetHack you never miss, and if monster ACs improved so that you could even when well-equipped, it wouldn't take much less in the way of bonuses to miss all the time.
Conversely _player_ AC maximisation is of limited effect thanks to a clever diminishing-returns mechanism).
no subject
Date: 2015-07-21 04:17 pm (UTC)Depending on what you are trying to achieve, that can be a feature rather than a bug.
"The 1st-level fighter can't lay hands on a troll, the 7th-level fighter is a pretty even match for it, and the 15th-level fighter is guaranteed to steamroll it one-on-one without taking any damage" does not strike me as a problem unless all your game world has is trolls; if it also has goblins who are a pretty even match for the 1st-level fighter and storm giants who are a fairly even match for the 15th-level fighter, that feels like a plus to me with judicious DMing, given players who find being exceptional characters within the world rewarding, and given players who find the progression of becoming more powerful to that extent rewarding (which were both definitely the case with the players with whom I have most of my experience.)
Making sure players have the opportunity to equip themselves to meet the scale of threats they are up to engaging is a dynamic process. Putting the right treasure at the right spots in dungeons, and keeping track of how much opportunity they have to go shopping for stuff between adventures, is overhead but it's worth it. Having top-end-of-what-you-can-face-at-this-level monsters that a sensibly equipped fighter can hit with a sword and a less sensibly equipped fighter (or a perfectly reasonably equipped wizard or cleric) can't is only a problem to my mind if you as DM spring it on your players without the chance for them to get the equipment or the understanding that the wizards and clerics and so on shouldn't be trying to hit it with a sword in the first place, but hitting it with a fireball or enhancing the fighter's ability to hit it.
I don't play NetHack, I have enough obsessions already and it seems way too easy to become another one. But monsters you can never miss feel to me more like a world-building limitation than a mechanics flaw. I kind of want the option to be there, so that if someone is playing a 19th-level character, charging through the army of goblins to get to the Dark Lord without having to worry about rolling dice for any of those goblins keeps the focus at the right scale of legendary/superheroic.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-21 06:36 pm (UTC)3e does slightly better here because of the way you get multiple attacks at -5 to the BAB each time - so yes, the fighter might hit all the time with their first attack, but there's still a point where they can whiff and so they're still desirous of more bonuses to hit; and then the non-fighter has a chance to connect with their best attack.
And "wizards and clerics and so on" should be trying to hit it; spells which give Touch attacks, backstabs, the cleric's mace, etc. It's not the only trick in their bag, as it is for Urist McSmitey, but it's always a possibility.
The thing about NetHack is not that you never miss the goblins (although too many windshield kills is not so desirable in a roguelike). It's that you never miss the Dark Lord; you never miss anyone, and any ordinary malus to hit is completely irrelevant. Monks get a -20 (D&D scale) penalty to hit if wearing body armour; monks don't wear body armour in the late game not because they would miss but because you get a message about it on each attack and the message spam is too tedious.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-21 07:33 pm (UTC)Like I said, I don't see that as necessarily a problem.
Given a well-synergised party, I don't see a cleric going from 1st to 20th level without ever once hitting anything in melee combat (or trying to) as a problem. I'd argue that a player who is primarily motivated by desire to hit things would probably do better to play a character class designed around that goal.
And "wizards and clerics and so on" should be trying to hit it; spells which give Touch attacks, backstabs, the cleric's mace, etc.
I'd argue that, given the classic fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue split, the balance of efficiency there favours the fighter being up front hitting the monster, the rogue sneaking around and backstabbing with whatever boni that provides being enough to hit the monster, and the fragile wizard and cleric staying back well out of the way and concentrating on smacking the monster with ranged spells and/or healing and buffing the fighter-types well over them getting close enough for touch attacks. The cleric's mace is insurance against orcs sneaking up behind you while you're facing the dragon, in that paradigm, and it should be able to hit them.
I have a whole other rant about how much I dislike mechanics that conflate "landing a hit on someone with a weapon" and "getting through their armour" into a single mechanic, particularly when they have the failure mode of "this shiny new armour gives a +x defensive bonus, but it's also slowing you down because of its weight so you take a -y penalty for that on the same roll."
The thing about NetHack is not that you never miss the goblins (although too many windshield kills is not so desirable in a roguelike). It's that you never miss the Dark Lord; you never miss anyone, and any ordinary malus to hit is completely irrelevant.
That does sound tedious and lacking in challenge past a certain point, but also the sort of thing a human DM would have any number of avenues to avoid falling into.
no subject
Date: 2015-07-24 04:09 pm (UTC)Even a magic-user who never hits at all, well, one has to wonder what all those touch spells are for.
AC is not an ideal mechanic, but it's the mechanic we've got; and damage reduction mechanics seem attractive but don't work as well as one might hope. WFRP used damage reduction mechanics, producing a situation where if an enemy is a meaningful threat to the PC with the most armour/Toughness it can probably one-shot the more fragile PCs. In general damage reduction has the awkward characteristic that it does little against big beasties and renders small ones irrelevant. Percentage damage reduction is better but more book-keeping.
A human DM can avoid such situations, but mechanics can help - for example, if the likely variance in bonuses to hit doesn't exceed the total span of the dieroll to hit.