It is not the kind of game where we necessarily expect the characters to succeed at everything. Nonetheless, I want to try in some interesting ways.

The simple answer is play upon your sneaky ways.

If you want your character to do things they are not good at, you are incurring a large amount of risk.

So it is usually in your interest to see how your useful abilities apply to the scenario.

All the intent in the world isn't going to make a Rogue into a viable tank.

Fair point.

On a purely narrative level, then: if "solve the problem using your skills" isn't a thing (though I grant that it might be in this case), what do other kinds of moves look like?

"Get help"?

"Wait for the situation to change"?

Getting assistance from someone with the relevant skills would be ideal, yes.

@AlexP lead a peasant revolt

Worst answer: Become 'That Guy'. You're here to free X from the prison? Burn the prison to the ground. X was free. Just not for very long unfortunately.

@waxeagle That's a good one. "Change the environment."

military coup is another option

if you're sneaky, do you have contacts in the thieves guild? you're an adventurer, they might take payment in future favors (DMs love this gambit too)

or really anyone you could enlist to assist with the promise of future assistance works well

That's a good one, too -- "Get help well in excess of the help you have readily available by offering some future thing."

@AlexP helps your immediate need and it gives the DM plot control for the future :)

@waxeagle My spine shivers

@Zachiel as it absolutely should :)

my DM actually had a plot ready for a certain player if he ever decided to over reach and try to buy something he couldn't quite afford from our local merchants

and as PCs are wont to do, that's exactly what he did

Thanks, folks!

@AlexP It depends a lot on the system you're in and the kind of game you're playing. Most of the suggestions made here are designed to work around a D&D-like game by finding loopholes in the rules.

(That is, they're predicated on more narrative actions so that a D&D-like game will be at a loss for what kind of roll to ask you for, which means you're more likely to succeed at it if you can narrate it well.)

Compare Temple of the Flying Pilgrims, in which a character ALWAYS succeeds... but often with complications and side-effects they didn't anticipate.

Also consider whether the game you're playing (not necessarily the system you're in, although Fate encourages this mechanically) would be okay with it if you fail interestingly! It's fairly common for us to try things we know we aren't very good at, after all.

@BESW It's okay to fail a lot, as I said previously. I didn't particularly specify that because I have strong in-character and as-the-author motivations for wanting to succeed.

Aye.

I mostly find it interesting that so many of the suggestions boil down to "do something the system probably can't handle gracefully."

@BESW If the system is D&D!

But it is not.

I think "find a guy," "start a riot," and "set fire to all the things" are all pretty well-supported in my case.

As is "make a terrible deal"

Technically I even have the game currency required to "roll really well," but I really really really don't want to spend it. >.>

Gah, online banking.

After solving my problem earlier.. I am looking more and more into Pathfinder...

It is really well made

Well-presented?

will take some time getting used to the changes... but I really like the way they streamlined it.

Uhm.

Not just, also imo very smart design for the gaming mechanics

instead of introducing negative elements, everything is positive.

@InbarRose Well, they streamlined some things and did weird "WTF??? Why complicate this???" stuff in other places.

instead of confusing calculations, everything is made simpler.

@AlexP oh?

I am thinking about having my next campaign be either Pathfinder or D&D4 ....

because D&D 3.5 is starting to get old and boring... way too many issues

but I have always been weary of 4e. I heard it is just horrible

and I have never really given pathfinder much thought until the other day

I think it'd be valuable to try codifying what you want and don't want in your game experience.

@InbarRose I want you to step into ruleofcool.com and get the game. It's free.

always thought it was just another alternative rule system that doesnt really do anything

@BESW How do you mean?

Well, each RPG system supports and encourages a different kind of gameplay experience.

Yes....

Matching the system to your desired experience can go a long way to making the group happy.

I play many RPG;s

@InbarRose I think Pathfinder has most of the same issues. Like 95% of the same issues. The main attraction of switching to it is really just the fanbase (same network externalities as D&D3.5 ten years ago or D&D4 now). Or if you really want a slightly more "curated" D&D3.5 that doesn't have the earlier screw-ups floating around in splatbooks.

@InbarRose This is half the case. It gives slight buffs to all 3.5 classes, presents some unique concepts as classes, but at the end of the day it's a 3.5 clone.

But every single complaint I had about D&D3.5 I can make about PF.

I see

4e is a great system, if you want a robust tactical combat engine. It sacrificed a lot of the other things D&D 3.5 tried to do in order to be really good at one thing, where 3.5 failed at doing much of anything really well because it wanted to try to be so many different kinds of games at once.

Oh and they were on the right track with CMD, but that's almost all.

So far by just skimming the website PFSRD it seems very balanced

Not everyone has the same complaints, though.

Well... in my D&D games I look for the "classic" dungeons and dragon adventures

Pathfinder did fiddle with several of 3.5's more obvious flaws, but it's working on the same basic assumptions and the same underlying system chassis, so if the things that bug you about 3.5 are endemic, then PF won't help.

wizards and barbarians, fighting at in epicly crazy fantasy realms against all manner of creatures

It is where I play my high fantasy

My group moved from 3.5 to 4e, enjoyed ourselves immensely, and then realized that it's not 3.5 or 4e that's the problem; it's the whole D&D philosophy.

lots of magic, lots of creatures, quests everywhere

well what other system would you suggest for a classical fantasy game?

@InbarRose You'll need to specify more.

well...

@InbarRose So, "wizards and barbarians, fighting at in epicly crazy fantasy realms against all manner of creatures"?

Okay, so here's an example of what my group found we didn't want out of D&D:

that was as short a summary as I could give

erm

second one is totally out of context i believe

Okay, so several minor things:

1. Your version of "classic" emphasizes fighting, right? (There are other "old-school" D&D players that emphasize, like, the puzzle-ish aspect, with traps and avoiding combat.)

(Goblin dice; if I haven't linked that lately I should.)

well

Hold up @AlexP .... not exactly

2. Wizard/barbarian parity is a problem in some D&Ds. 3.x/PF tend to have wizards that leave barbarians in the dust eventually.

I play lots of RPG's .. each system for me represents a type of gaming style, and also a theme for the story and game itself....

Also, what kind of fighting? Like, they're fighting in the fiction, sure. But at the table-level, is it about tactics? Is it about some kind of 'simulation'? Is it just an opportunity to roll dice and get surprise results without stressing too much?

to summarize.... Vampire is about lurking and scheming..... werewolf is about hunting and honor.... Adventure is about pulp... :) and D&D is about fantasy... where you can have dragons and dungeons and wizards and rogues and riddles and faeiries and gods and demons.. all in one place.... where the character is at a crossroads he can go anywhere... taverns full of questgivers.... brimming with possibility

I seek roleplay of course

that is important

but that is also present in all my games

Each one takes on its own life in other ways though

Do you want a system that supports roleplay, or do you want to separate mechanics from roleplay?

seperate the mechanics

(D&D doesn't do mechanics-supported RP especially well.)

D&D4 is pretty good at this one playstyle exactly: going into a dungeon, fighting weird creatures on weird terrain using your weird powers in a tactically satisfying way.

Then it is not for me

The tactics should be my players - not something in a book

@InbarRose I... don't know what you mean.

@InbarRose That doesn't mean anything.

well you said D&D4e has combat tactics and maneuvers built in to it?

No, I said it's an excellent tactical combat simulator.

Meaning a player would point at a page and say "I do this flanking maneuver thing"

Whereas in werewolf he would say "I get around the enemy so that he has me and X on either side of him"

Since in werewolf there is no mechanical rule written on a page somewhere saying that "if you are in the threat range of another character you are considered flanking which gives +X blah blah"

(PF discussion before we get lost in the shuffle: I don't think PF is bad as a text itself. I think it's very much like D&D3.5, because the primary reason for creating it was just to have continued "support" for products designed for D&D3.5. Like I said, the reason to play it is "I want a game that is D&D3.5.")

@InbarRose How is that different from 3.5 and PF flanking?

@InbarRose Okay, so it sounds like you don't really want a D&D3-type game, either.

now.. I know D&D3.5 has this... but if D&D4e is doing this heavily.. I believe it will leave little for the players to do but read off mechanics...

I dont want a game which will be a series of decisions of what mechanics to use when and where

@InbarRose Again, how is that different from 3.5 and PF?

In what sense is 3.5 combat not the application of mechanics to a situation?

D&D 3.5 has horrible mechanics and they are poorly demonstrated.

Well, it creates space for the players to make tactical choices using the rules rather than ad-hoc decision-making. Which may or may not be desired.

I basically think there's no such thing as tactical play that's all about ad-hoc description. It's just not tactical play anymore (which is fine; I don't want tactical play most of the time).

When my players are in combat, I want them to feel it.. I don't want them to analyze it.

They should be their character and respond as the character..

I love combat in the werewolf games

as it is an extremely well designed system

Okay, when the player of a 3.5 cleric is choosing what spell to cast in a given round, is that responding as the character?

there are no rules for interacting between things set in stone.. only rules for how each individual ability works.. letting players just do what they want to do and see what happens

@BESW hard to explain that in a cut-and-dry way

In my games playing a cleric is a big deal

@InbarRose So.... you don't want the players to be able to accurately predict what immediate effect their use of a given ability might have?

since I modify the game world in a way that a cleric is actually getting his spells through prayer and devotion.. meaning his daily preparation is very serious

@BESW ^ That's not a "gotcha" statement, btw. It's teasing something out.

@BESW Correct.

Then you don't want a D&D system. You just want the D&D setting.

Just like I don't know what will happen if I do something (though I can predict with some certainty) - but if I lived in a fantasy world then things would get hazy

Much like the look of surprise when someone shoots a vampire with a gun and doesnt understand why it doesnt die

And that includes Pathfinder and other d20 System games: they're all predicated (though some do it better than others) on the idea that if a player chooses a particular action he can have some expectation of the kinds of effect it might immediately have.

@BESW I said earlier .. a fantasy game

@InbarRose "Fantasy game" is generic enough to be meaningless when talking about experience expectations.

I like the D&D rule system because it is so expansive.. If I want to bring in a dragon or a wizard or a god.. it is all part of the same rule system and all "balanced" which itself.. leaving the hard parts out of it.

But in werewolf... the game is about very specific types of interactions.. there are no rules for what happens when a werewolf meets a dragon

Or how a werewolf character can navigate a dungeon with traps

Okay, so you've got two conflicting desires here.

Naturally

else it would be easy to choose

Is there a good alternative to D&D ?

How much does D&D3's make-a-character thing matter to you? Like, does your group like prestige classes and crazy multiclassing and searching 10 books for different features? Or do they just take a class and avoid being too involved in mechanical character-building?

On the one hand, you'd like a system which pre-determines how to deal with any given event that might come up... and on the other hand you don't want the players to be able to predict how their choices might resolve.

These seem hard to reconcile.

I would say it is mostly on the "avoid complicated mechanics and focus on the gameplay" but some players seek out the complicated stuff.. mostly for the roleplaying ideas... like my earlier problem.. player wanted a swashbuckler because that is the class which is described as being the one who dances around and duels and runs over things using his wits for fighting

turns out the class really doesnt give any advantage to that

and playing a fighter with a high dex and tumble would be pretty much the same thing

(or whatever)

D&D (with the questionable exception of 4e) is actually not very balanced --as you're learning.

no, indeed not

which is why I am asking about PF

I have way too many house rules

Pathfinder too. The features (classes, feats, spells, etc) in both systems are entirely unable to be balanced in any meaningful way because of the nature of the system.

And we play in my custom campaign setting

It's a fundamental element of the 3.5 system chassis, and whether that's a feature or a flaw is based on how much it matches the group's desired gameplay.

:S grumble

My keyboard hates me today

The system has choice-based power. The more choices you have, the more powerful you are... and the classes aren't designed to have equality of choice options.

4e does a great job at minimizing this problem.

I read that PF fixes this

@InbarRose Fixes what?

It's the same multiclassing system.

that classes have much more

No, because PF has the same fundamental sub-system issue.

they are more developed with much more abilities

PF mitigates it a tiny bit.

and more choices for variation

But a wizard still has a whole subsystem of choices that a barbarian doesn't.

naturally

But any game would have this "flaw"

Spellcasting isn't a top-level system, it's an overlay that's added to the base system.

@InbarRose Nope. 4e doesn't.

what, in 4e barbarians cast spells?

No, it throws out spells as a subsystem.

huh?

Spellcasting isn't its own giant mess of mechanics.

It's like other class abilities.

[you sir, have my attention]

A barbarian and a wizard have (roughly) the same number of "powers" they can use.

"Power" is a generic mechanical term for "awesome thing you can do."

I assume this means either there is a much more limited spell list - or instead of a spell list there are spell spheres? (similar to mage)

Powers are designed to feel like spellcasting or hitting things with a hammer depending on the class, and each class has unique features which change how they play even further, but powers can be balanced against each other because they're all the same meta-level mechanically.

Both a wizard and a barbarian will start level one with two powers they can use at-will, one power they can use once per encounter, and one power they can use once per day. They choose which powers fill these slots from a very wide array of options.

So... how does 4e address the concepts of magical items, or scrolls?

Most magical items are... similar to previous editions, although better codified.

but.. how do they come into existance

Out-of-combat magic is now a separate system called "rituals" that anyone can learn by taking a feat (wizards, clerics and some other classes get this feat for free at character creation).

In 3.5 the idea is that "spells are cast on the objects to enchant them"

aha.....

interesting

So a wizard power might be "roll against the opponent's Will, stun them if they fail"; whereas a barbarian power is "roll an attack, do your weapon damage to everyone around you" (I made up these examples).

Magic items are created using a particular ritual, and scrolls are one-time-use rituals that anyone can use.

So I could be a Barbarian/Shaman who frenzies in combat and forges the skulls of his enemies into a large massive flail whos skulls teeth gnash at the enemies that I strike?

And that would all be part of the same class?

"Multiclassing" is much simpler. You pick one class and it is your class, but there is a mechanic for taking individual abilities for another class.

@InbarRose I think the basic answer to that question is yes.

Aye.

@AlexP :)

D&D4 also separated "party roles" from "power sources."

explain?

So, "roles" can seem kinda metagamey at first but it's what the other editions do as well.

So, "leader" is a role that basically describes clerics from previous editions.

Power sources include: arcane, divine, martial, primal, shadow, psion; they're the kind of power you wield.

Indeed

You buff up people, heal them, &c.

But you can play a cleric, who is a "divine" (power source) leader.

Well.... I also have a house rule for seperating roles and classes

Or you can play whatever the "martial" leader is called.

So a martial leader (warlord) is just as effective at healing and buffing as a divine leader (cleric).

Warlord

But differently flavored. Which is reflected in the mechanics a bit.

So the role and the class are two separate entities in 4e?

Like, I think wizards still have some spellbook mechanic. Like they can switch out abilities with it.

@InbarRose Not exactly.

So, a role is something that many classes can occupy.

The idea is that the role is separate from the power source. You don't have to be a divine caster to be a good healer.

but essentially?

oh

You know how a D&D fighter/wizard/thief/cleric party could have a paladin or a ranger or a whatever as the fighter? Like that but way more.

As a warlord you can YELL at your party until they get back up and keep fighting.

lol

so hitpoints here... are??? your ability to keep fighting (stamina) ?

Pretty much, yeah, but healing takes on a slightly different mechanical note.

Your ability to heal hp is based on something called "healing surges." You get a set number of them per day.

How is the concept of damage done then, when I hit an anemy with a sword - did I just "cut him" or does "hit" mean that I simply "reduce his ability to fight some more"

@InbarRose That is as ambiguous as it is in other editions of D&D, and is allowed to be determined by the situation at hand.

I see

Spending a healing surge heals you for 1/4 of your max health, but you need a power that lets you do so. Everyone has a once-per-encounter power that lets them do it.

My house rules are that "HP" is more like stamina...

So this works well with the new system

Leader-type classes have powers which let people spend more healing surges, and often give bonuses when they do so.

So... in 4e.. you have usually 1 char per role?

but can have more than one char per class?

Not necessarily. The game is balanced around a party of 5, the roles are 4

@InbarRose The game assumes that you have a defender, a leader, and some combination of strikers and controllers.

since the class itself is just the flavor of how the game is played

@BESW like an MMO?

different classes with the same role do the same thing differently

:)

It's not set in stone, but the further you get from that setup the more the GM will have to compensate.

But the idea is that a rounded party doesnt need specific classes anymore

Different classes in the same role can be very different, and even the same class with different features and powers chosen can feel totally different.

How is the concept of Rogue handled?

sneaking/thieving ?

There are several versions of rogue-like class, and each has interesting specializations.

For example, the barbarian is a striker that loves to charge. The ranger might be a beastmaster, commanding his beast to deal damage, an archer or the two-swords-wielder (or some other options I can't remember now). Not a barbarian. But a damage dealer nonetheless

@InbarRose do you mean in-combat or outside?

There's builds that are very good at sneaking; others are more of a bully who doesn't fight fair, or a supernatural assassin who uses the shadows as a weapon.

@Zachiel outside

4e's out-of-combat structure is much looser and less defined, but it has a handful of very useful tools.

One thing I like about 4e (or legend, if that matters) is how the number of skills you train is not dependent from your Int score

One is the "utility power," which is a power that isn't an attack and is designed to be useful in and out of combat.

One of the rogue utility powers, for example, allows him to move fast while hiding

Yes, skills trained are mostly a function of your class, and everyone gets a decent handful of them. You can train more by taking feats (you get a lot more feats in 4e; at level 1, 11, and 21, and at every even level).

one word on feats every even level, if I may.

PF does that too, it looks an improvement for warrior types over 3.5 but the feats are also weaker

There's also the "skill challenge," which is a formalized way to set up a non-combat encounter as a series of narrated skill checks the entire group can participate in. I personally used a homebrew version, but the idea is sound even if the official implementation has some math problems.

So...

4e has even weaker feats, but the feats don't quite do the kind of things they did before. Attacking with two weapons is not a feat, it's part of an attack power. Feats are for finetuning. 1 more damage, +1 to your attack roll, roll twice a skill and keep the better result, things like that.

Let me see if I understand this...

4e barely focuses on OOC elements, but has generic rules that are mostly left up to the DM to interpret how to implement them? (great) and all the classes/roles have been redone so that you can pretty much customize however you want as long as you have a good distribution between roles and players (awesome)

seems so far that 4e may be a great choice for me

It's heavily based on combat. Sometimes quite long combat.

combat is combat

its always long

To the point where leaders heal as a minor action, because theyr'e busy doing damage and doing other things meanwhile.

combat should be scary too

Pretty much, yeah. It's very mechanically heavy for the players because of its vast number of options, but the options are really quite awesome. It is hard to make a character that sucks.

I don't want my players running around killing everyhting

You've played WoD I desume. Combat is not D&D-3.5-long there

the decision to fight should not be made easily. but when it is made.. it should be a really fun thing

But for GMs, the mechanics are much more fluid; you're encouraged to design your own monsters, terrain, and setpieces, or to mix and match the existing ones.

When I have combat in my D&D (fantasy) games. there is always a build up

@InbarRose You'll have to work at that; like other D&D editions, combat is intended to be won by the good guys. 4e doesn't pretend otherwise.

If they like some strategy (and forced movement is a great part of it) the combat system will be fun to them

enemies will taunt the players from across the rooms

There are plenty of ways to up the ante (I can give you links to some of them).

and flee to higher ground

Yeah I like this 4e ide

But by default, 4e PCs are amazingly awesome heroes who generally succeed at whatever they set out to do, though not without expending resources.

I will have to research into this some more

For now it is 2 in the morning. And I have work tomorrow.

Thanks guys

You may find some of my points in this answer useful:

bookmarked for later

G'night.

if you have anything else interesting please @ tag me I will see it tomorrow.

Oh, the usual criticism, 4e is a miniature game, there's no social part... while the manuals have lots of crunch and not so much fluff, it's worth remembering that 3.x's social skills were so bad noone used them (I auto-win diplomacy against the dragon)

@Zachiel I prefer 4e's social rules to 3.5's, if only because they're more freeform and less... silly.

@InbarRose also, I've seen you write about different fantasy systems. They do exist and some are better than D&D at keeping out the murder-hobo mentality, which seems to be a thing you want to avoid. I can name Legends of Anglerre (Fate-based), the Burning Wheel, Dungeon World and Storming the Wizard's Tower, but there are many, many more, each with a different approach to fantasy and gaming. Let's discuss some of those next time, maybe.

@BESW you sure like that phrase

Hm?

"4e PCs are amazingly awesome heroes who generally succeed at whatever they set out to do"

It's true. The system is designed around enabling that assumption.

The problem is they never tell that to thee players. So people with different expectations buy it nonetheless.

Since it's easier in earlier editions to make PCs struggle and even fail, I think it's an important thing to make clear when introducing a potential GM to the system.

Oh, D&D failing to make its underlying assumptions clear is nothing new. [he said bitterly]

I'm just saying I've read those exact words before

it's an awesome marketing strategy on the short term. It can only became effective in the long term thanks to fanboyism and stark "it's true, you can do anything with this game" statements

(D&D has other good things, but clarity of intent has never been one of those and I dare anybody to say the opposite)

(@Metool, I know you want to dare)

I'll be on legend's IRC a lot on the next days, I need to prepare two games of the thing. See you there, later

@Zachiel Unfortunately, I think a lot of the problem is that the developers themselves aren't always clear on the disconnect between intent and implementation in their games.

I wonder if that's because they need to please Hasbro or just because they believe it's the right way to do things

In Monte Cook's case, I'm pretty sure it's the latter

I think a lot of it has to do with not having the resources for proper playtesting.

If you haven't, don't forget to vote for the ENNie awards!

ennie-awards.com/blog/…

There's a great deal in 3.5 which looks good but hits the table with an audible [squelch].

And I've talked before about how I think that 3.5's design owes a lot to being caught between New Ideas and Staying True To The Source.

@BESW I've heard they do internal playtesting with 12-Int wizards - and they boast about that in the forums.

No wonder they don't spot the problems

They have essentially made an heavy optimizable system and never tested it against optimization.

Mmm. I'm sure the game works the way they want to play it.

Which, again, brings us back to "poor communication of goals."

@Zachiel With the Internet, the rule is "Doubt, and verify."

D&D 3.x works perfectly fine under a gentlemen's agreement not to ruin the fun of anyone at the table.

@BESW It was written in an official WotC column, pre-release

But I'm talking about a gentlemen's agreement, not a regular one. Like "I won't power attack that guy, I want you to feel useful too".

aaaaaand off.