D&D 4th edition rules and what we can learn from them...

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Al.

I've only actually played Savage Worlds once so the following observation may not be too robust.

But it seemed that SW mechanics are much more characteristic based than BRP.

So shouldn't Tricks, Taunts, Intimidates be skill-based for the Active party? And maybe Passive highest of (Characteristic x5 or Skill)?

That was the tact the Masterbook/TORG/Shatterzone games took, and it seemed to be fine there.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Al.

I agree with the desire to avoid skill list bloat. Anyone who has compared combat tactics in RQIV:Adventures in litigation and the same in Pendragon can see how having a skill for every eventuality can turn a fun tactical decision into a chore. (Example Pendragon if I want to get past your armour I declare double feint and roll under the lowest of my weapon skill and my Dex score; RQIV I have to develop a separate skill called double feint so after having invested in that why would I use any other tactic?)

There's two answers to this:

1. One or two broad skills for this sort of thing is not an excessive game-load add on.

2. If one does have narrow skills, its not like people _don't_ tend to use techniques they've gotten good at frequently; the limitation is that if other people get used to them, they tend to lose some effectiveness--but they tend to need to get used to the _specific_ technique.

[NickMiddleton]

Originally Posted by Tywyll

Do you mean the 'anti-parry' rules that RL got, or were there other abilities detailed somewhere else? If so, where were those rules detailed?

Err, yes! (Couldn't actually remember for certain earlier!) Hold on, I have a copy here..

RQII page 55 - Combat benefits lists 4 advantages / "powers" of Combt Skills of 100%+:

• You can reduce you opponents Defence score by the amount your skill exceeds 100
• An opponents parry is penalised by the same amount
• your special and critical chances are increased (note - for a skill of 120 this means that your opponents are penalised -20 from Defence AND Parry against you, AND you get specials on 24 or less and crits on 6 or less..
• Splitting Attacks or parries down in to blocks of 50 or more.

Non-Fighting skills help you using the RQII opposed skill mechanic - so Hide 120 penalises Spot Hidden attempts against you by 20 points...

Originally Posted by Harshax

I don't know the best way to implement tricks yet, but I'll probably use Characteristic vs. Characteristic. Otherwise there would be too many skills, thus defeating the point.

Why not use existing skills? The appropriate weapon skill or Dodge for feints, Fast Talk or Perform for verbal bluffs / intimidation (with perhaps bonus for high stats or flashy skills, depending on the specific tactics), Throw for tossing sand (or a bowl of gruel or a handful of food scraps) in someone's face (and that's surely simply a thrown attack not intended to cause direct damage?). Reading the deception would be a matter of Insight, or Spot, whilst avoiding the stuff in the face is a Dodge.

As I suggested earlier, I'm really not sure BRP needs anything adding to do all these things - it just needs spelling out for players and game masters to see how to use the existing rules and skills to achieve the same effect.

Cheers,

Nick

[Harshax]

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

Why not use existing skills? The appropriate weapon skill or Dodge for feints, Fast Talk or Perform for verbal bluffs / intimidation (with perhaps bonus for high stats or flashy skills, depending on the specific tactics), Throw for tossing sand (or a bowl of gruel or a handful of food scraps) in someone's face (and that's surely simply a thrown attack not intended to cause direct damage?). Reading the deception would be a matter of Insight, or Spot, whilst avoiding the stuff in the face is a Dodge.

As I suggested earlier, I'm really not sure BRP needs anything adding to do all these things - it just needs spelling out for players and game masters to see how to use the existing rules and skills to achieve the same effect.

You are absolutely right. I'd like to add that not only does such a thing need spelling out so players and GM's see how to use the existing rules, but it also needs to be spelled out to show how tactics are not a sub-optimal choice in combat.

Do I throw sand in his eyes, or attack him with my sword? Maybe I'll throw together a little tactics spot rules together after I've digested BRP0.

[Lord Twig]

Originally Posted by Harshax

You are absolutely right. I'd like to add that not only does such a thing need spelling out so players and GM's see how to use the existing rules, but it also needs to be spelled out to show how tactics are not a sub-optimal choice in combat.

Do I throw sand in his eyes, or attack him with my sword? Maybe I'll throw together a little tactics spot rules together after I've digested BRP0.

The biggest reason people do not use special tactics is because of limited resources, usually time. Like you said, is it better to throw sand in their eyes and hit them later or just hit them now and be done with it. Obviously the second option is quicker and that's fine!

Really the only time you see the old "Throw Sand in their Face" trick is when you are down and there is an enemy standing over you (or vise versa). In which case the options are to try to use your sword and get stabbed or try to be sneaky and throw sand in their face before they realize what you are doing; thus buying you time to stand and stick your sword in them. In that case a Sleight roll might be more appropriate.

On the other hand you should be able to feint or bluff at any time, but perhaps with diminishing returns. You can only fool them so often, but once is usually enough.

[Harshax]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

The biggest reason people do not use special tactics is because of limited resources, usually time. Like you said, is it better to throw sand in their eyes and hit them later or just hit them now and be done with it. Obviously the second option is quicker and that's fine!

Indeed. But I intend to train my players to think differently. Being a veteran of RQ uberskilled combats, where nothing seems to happen for several rounds and then someone suddenly explodes, I'd like to layout a few tactical options that makes for more exciting combat.

eg.

Having trouble hitting your opponent?
Trick them.
Are you smarter than him? Try a trick of wits.
Is your POW higher? Try a intimidation.
Are you faster than him? Try a feint.
Having trouble hurting your opponent?
Gang up
etc, etc.

Not sure if the original intention of this thread was to make light of 4E, or to actually take stuff from it, but I think I'm going to start some new threads.

Unfortunately, I'll have to wait for the new printing of BRP, as almost all my gaming stuff is in storage.

[deleriad]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

The biggest reason people do not use special tactics is because of limited resources, usually time. Like you said, is it better to throw sand in their eyes and hit them later or just hit them now and be done with it. Obviously the second option is quicker and that's fine!

Well, perhaps oddly, it depends on how quick and dirty the rules you are using are.
Say for example, you are a couple of metres from your opponent for some reason and there's some sand to hand. Now if you believe that it's a good idea not to worry about moving into combat then you would always just attack. If on the other hand, you say that moving into combat allows the opponent to hit you on the way in then suddenly using a missile weapon is potentially a good idea because you might be able to rush your opponent while they're clearing the sand from their face.

Of course the problem tends to be that a good warrior might be 120% at hitting with swords, 100% at dodging and only 40% at throwing sand in which case throwing sand is always going to be suboptimal. This was a frustration I always had when playing in RQ3. I had a couple of characters that I was always trying to do cool combat tricks with and no matter what, it was never efficient. I did it anyway.

As a GM using MRQ I've tended to implement tricks through using the Influence, acrobatics and athletics skills. E.g. to pull off the "behind you" trick a character can make an opposed Influence roll as an action. If successful, the character's next attack is at +20%. This is useful when you're fairly evenly matched or outmatched because odds are that the opponent hasn't boned up on their Influence. Essentially you're sacrificing a standard combat skill in order to have an unexpected edge. This works nicely in MRQ as I use the opposed roll combat system so most things work the same way. Possibly wouldn't work as well in BRP.

On the actual topic of this thread; every game has something to learn from. I think the designers are doing interesting things with D&D4. A lot of what it reminds me of is a complex board game that in some ways takes the "game" side of role-playing games back to their roots. It seems to me that if you write a RPG as a board game then those who want to ignore the board and play in their minds can do so. On the other hand, if you don't provide the "board" it's a lot harder to create it. Now I've played D&D twice in my life and have no real interest in the system but it seems to me that there's an awful lot of systems analysis that's gone into the new edition and I'm looking forwards to reading the SRD (if there is one).

[Al.]

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

Why not use existing skills?

I feel a curious mixture of 'no we do not need anything new' and 'yes we do' in response to that question/statement.

For one. 'Feint' is already subsumed into weapon skill. 'An Attack is actually a sequence of moves designed to land one blow on target' has been part and parcel of BRP combat for a long time.

For two. Fast Talk affects Intellect and Orate emotions. So Fast Talk could be used for 'Duel of Smarts' and Orate for 'Intimidate' and 'Taunt' dead easy like. If you wanted more detail then make Orate a cluster skill with specialisations: Command, Inspire, Intimidate, Taunt in the same way as Ride has the specialisations: Dragon, Flycycle, Horse, Whale

(Actually I should go back and amend my previous post to be Orate 20% and Orate 100% not Intimidate 20% and 100% that was just lazy posting)


What is missing from official rules are:

What is the passive or defending score?
What GAME effect if Intimidate, Taunt, Verbal Trick, Physical Trick work?

For the former I like my (on the hoof) equivalent skill or (characteristic x5)

For the latter something like:
Fumble.............Foe gets double skill next turn
Failure............No effect on foe
Success.........Foe's Attacks next turn are at half normal skill
Special.........Foe is unable to act next turn
Critical.........Foe is unable to act next turn and Attacks turn after are at half normal skill



Al

[Al.]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

There's two answers to this:

1. One or two broad skills for this sort of thing is not an excessive game-load add on.

2. If one does have narrow skills, its not like people _don't_ tend to use techniques they've gotten good at frequently; the limitation is that if other people get used to them, they tend to lose some effectiveness--but they tend to need to get used to the _specific_ technique.

Horse for course of course.

I didn't like the decision and effect of yet more scores to keep track of. Sounds like you feel that they added something.



Al

[PK Games]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

That was the tact the Masterbook/TORG/Shatterzone games took, and it seemed to be fine there.

Yeah, and that system really worked (SARCASM).