Too much innovation?

Hrm. The less than positive reaction to response to some of the changes I tried in my last session got me thinking. I've tried to change up quite a few things to improve the game. But I think I need to stick to changes which have an important benefit. Too many changes, especially changes which make the game more difficult, will likely not be well accepted by players.

I'm probably going to see a lot of flak for removing constitution, charisma and wisdom for instance. The benefits of the alternate ability scores is a somewhat subtle. So I should seriously consider whether I really need alternate ability scores.

On the other hand, removing the experience budgets has a huge impact on time spent prepping for the game and is a frequent complaint by GMs, so revamping the CR system is a change that should stay. I don't think players will really mind rolling extra damage dice anyway.

I guess the TYPE of change matters. For instance, changes which make the playing the game easier for players may be better appreciated than changes with more subtle benefits. For instance, players are less likely to complain about more flexible spell casting systems which so happens to also solve "linear warriors, quadratic mages".

On the same note as revamping the CR system, I think removing the need for counting squares has a very significant side-benefit: reducing the preparation load of the GM (no need to draw map grid). "Maps" are easy enough to prepare on the fly, complete with props and environmental terrain. Just use a couple of playing cards to denote the combat zones, and have some general props prepared beforehand (tokens for trees and the like). Sensory pleasure-seeking players would love it.

I suspect the endurance/HP system needs to be axed though. Creating tension and improving how the players play the game and thus increase their enjoyment of the game may be a bit to subtle. I'll probably keep the danger associated with hitting zero HP though: roll death save as soon as you are reduced to zero HP.

Hrmpppph. It's really a pity though. The endurance system would have fixed some issues in my spell system as well. (I wanted sorcery-style spell casting slots to refresh every minute. But if I did that, it would make healing spells too powerful. Unless healing spells only recover endurance...)

I'm feeling a little disappointed though. I've already got a lot of interconnected systems which work well together.

Guh. Maybe I'm overthinking things again.

Counting squares suck: Can we do better?

Angry DM has this to say of counting squares of movement in D&D and it's ilk:

One of the biggest slowdowns in D&D and Pathfinder is the act of counting squares. And, the thing is, it’s totally f$&%ing unnecessary. I mean, D&D 5E did away with the worst of it. But it still happens. Here’s what I mean. 

When a character moves, the player (and the DM) often think that the actual path is important. That is to say, you have to show every square through which the PC moves... 

...What really f$&%s things up is when GMs force a player to show the exact path in the hopes they can ‘spring’ something on the player. Like “oops, you went into the WRONG SQUARE and now I get to make opportunity attacks. Hahaha!” At which point, the player will take back the move and try to find a better path. That’s how it ALWAYS plays out. 

So, skip that s$&%. If there is a safe path between the starting space and the destination, assume the character takes it. Let the player declare “I want to move there,” and if you – the GM – can perceive a safe path, it just happens. Simple as that.
Simply put, assume that a character is smart enough to take the most direct safe path available....

Point being, counting squares is less of the player making a decision and more of the player making a calculation. That's not the intention of the combat rules: we want players to be making tactical decisions, not mental arithmetic.

Player: "1, 2, 3, 4... no... 1, 2, 3,4,5! Does that work?"
DM: "No, this square is difficult terrain so it takes double movement."
Player: "Ok, then. Let's try 1, 2,3, 4,5...6! Does that work?"

We shouldn't even want players to be counting at all; just eyeballing it, considering tactical options, and making a call. Is there a way of keeping the tactical decisions without the kindergarten simulation?  Yes, actually. We don't really need squares at all.

Sly Flourish describes how to run D&D combat using narrative combat rules aka "Theatre of the Mind".

13th Age uses a combat positioning system which is a close to narrative combat rules, but with some added structure. 13th Age has this nice quote to rationalise why relative positioning is better than 5-foot squares typically used in D&D/pathfinder:

Whereabouts
Each creature has a general, relative position on the battlefield. Combat is dynamic and fluid, so miniatures can’t really represent where a character ‘really is.’

Which is a better representation of combat. While it's true that combatants who are cannot move around as freely, it's kind of silly to think that their movement is limited to 5-foot squares during the round. What would actually be happening is dynamic shifting and striding, giving ground and pushing aggressively with each stroke of the blade.

Heard that, simulationists? 13th Age's semi- narrative combat simulates combat positioning better than Pathfinder does. Come at me bros. 😉

However, these "Theatre of Mind" systems are not without their own issues.

1) Placement of environmental props
One of the issues with both Sly Flourish's system and 13th Age's system is that it's a little tricky to place props on the battlefield such as cover like trees and rocks or "The altar of Bhaal, upon which sits the sacred artifact you're all fighting for" since relative positions are abstracted out.

"If I go after the artifact instead, am I in reach of this monster? What about that monster?"
"Can this monster move into a position which negates my cover?"

Things like that. If the players need to keep asking questions about relative positions, it gets just as bad as counting squares. We'd prefer if players knew the relative distances immediately with a glance  without needing to count squares or pester the GM.

Environmental props make the battlefield more interesting by allowing different tactical options. I'd rather we don't lose this element of the game for the sake of brevity. In the future I hope to make a big list of environmental props that make the battlefield interesting.

2) Party more vulnerable to superior numbers
The other issue is that the vulnerable back-line party members (egs. wizard) can get more easily overwhelmed by superior numbers because each fighter in the front-lines can only hold back one enemy. This is because the area and positioning of the party's fighter at the front-lines has been abstracted out. That fighter does not threaten "squares" around her because there are no squares. Instead that fighter only threatens the monsters which is currently engaged with her. Once the fighter is engaged by one monster, all other monsters can ALWAYS walk right past and pounce on the back-lines.

Credit to my friend, that simulationist DM, for pointing this out to me. (He ALWAYS plays ranged characters. Never melee.)

---------

I'm going to try to improve on these systems to eliminate these weaknesses, as I often do. In summary, I try to find a middle ground and incorporate "combat zones" using 13th age's system. So the fighters engage a whole combat zone, and there can be interesting props within each combat zone.

----------

Combat zones
Flavour and tactical consideration in combat: When two combatants lock blades in melee combat, they will not usually standing stationary. Often they will be shifting and striding, yielding ground then pushing back, trying to outmaneuver their opponent and expose their weaknesses. However, combatants will not hesitate to capitalize on any openings, such as foolishly turning their back to the opponent threatening to strike them. The threat of danger prevents combatants from moving carelessly.
The areas within which the battle takes place is abstracted out into different “Combat Zones” by the GM. Usually there should be at least 3 Combat Zones in each encounter; the PC’s back-lines, the middle ground, and the enemy back-lines. However, it is far more common for there to be many different combat zones, say 3x3 combat zones with different combatants starting in different zones.

Enemy combatants within the same combat zones are considered “Engaged” with each other, and may suffer Opportunity Attacks if they take careless actions while their enemies are within reach. When making a ranged attack against a target currently engaged with an ally, the target is considered to have partial cover (+2AC).

An opportunity attack is Reaction where a combatant makes a melee attack roll in response to an engaged enemy taking a careless action. In order to make an opportunity attack, the combatant must be ready for combat (not incapacitated, not surprised, movement is not hindered, etc.) and must have a melee weapon (including natural weapons) equipped. The most common three types of careless actions which may induce opportunity attacks are
a) Taking a Move action to move away from the combat zone
b) Casting a spell with a range further than “self”
c) Making a ranged attack
d) Moving to engaging an opponent equipped with a Reach weapon

Disengage If you are currently engaged by an enemy, you may take the Disengage action to avoid taking opportunity attacks from enemies currently engaging you. Be warned that if there are enemies you are disengaging who are not themselves engaged or hindered in some manner, some of those enemies may decide to take the “Pursue” Reaction to follow you immediately.

Pursue If an engaged enemy tries to move away from you outside of your turn, you may use your Reaction to "pursue" by making one free move action to follow that enemy.  You must not be engaged by another enemy in order to pursue an enemy and your movement must not be hindered in any way.

Intercede If another creature in the combat zone you occupy is attacked, you may use your Reaction to "Intercede" and receive that attack on behalf of the creature. Note that it is possible to intercede for Opportunity Attacks.
(Note: Should list the status conditions which do not allow "Intercede" action egs. incapacitated, stuck, prone, surprised)

Peeking fire. While behind cover, a combatant may use both his move and standard action to attack with "peeking fire", raising the defense bonus provided by the cover by one category by +2. Note that this bonus defence is considered a cover bonus so it is is negated if the combatant is engaged by an enemy as per usual rules.
Note that spells and cantrips are illegible for the "peeking fire" action.

Fully Hunker. While behind cover, a combatant can use their action to "fully hunker", so that enemies blocked by the cover have no line of sight to shoot her. An enemy who does not have line of sight of the combatant cannot target her with ranged attacks or spells. Likewise, the combatant does not have line of sight to those enemies and cannot target those enemies. Combatants that are engaged in melee cannot "fully hunker".

Fail Forward, Traps, Investigation Ability Checks Part 2

Part 1 was here.

Just wanted to report on the results of testing the foreshadowing of traps system and investigative ability checks.

The players were not listening carefully enough to catch the "hints of danger" from my descriptions that there were "beads of water hanging in the air" to realise that there was a giant spider web in front of them. I only tried putting "hints of danger" in my description once though; perhaps if I used that repeatedly they would catch on very quickly? More testing needed there.

(As an aside, gosh, the giant spider web was easily defeated by a player having an enemy guide walk ahead of them to show the way! Cunning challenge-seeking players being clever as usual. The fact that they didn't walk into it themselves may have contributed to the lack of crying and moaning. Perhaps the players felt it was fair they didn't notice it too.)


Presenting a trapped dungeon as a puzzle to be solved through ingenuity and "spot the pattern" worked quite well though I think. The players had fun finding solutions to navigating through the maze filled with traps safely, and the cunning challenge-seeking player very quickly realized what the pattern was. If they couldn't figure it out we could have defaulted to dice rolls to undo the traps I suppose.

However, the players reacted extremely hostilely to the investigative ability checks. They hated having the rolling of dice taken away from them! Should have realised sooner that all players have a bit of submission-seeking/hobbyist in them so they hate not getting to roll the dice. I didn't realise it because I'm ambivalent about rolling the dice myself; just because I roll the dice myself doesn't give me the feeling that I'm actually playing anything. I'm not in control of the dice outcome at all! But submission/hobbyist players feel differently.