[D&D 3.5 Homebrew Setting] One shining moment

[Glendower]

10 minutes of fun in a 3 hour game session, huh?  I read about that in one of the articles, and I thought about it during a D&D game currently on rotation (we swap out game systems - 3 weeks one game, 3 weeks another).

I was playing this one, and I have to tell you.  I'm hard pressed to remember anything but one shining ten minutes.  The problem with this was that the shining 10 minutes was based on the DM essentially calling a Fiat to one of my actions.  It annoyed me not that he made the fiat, but more a really frustrating limitation with D20 systems.

Ok, here's how it went down.  We're sitting at the gaming table.  I'm adjacent to the DM, who sits at the head.  The DM, a nice guy named Rob, was putting us up against some flying demons in a dungeon room.  They're firing arrows at us, and we're getting beaten down.  They summon in more demons at the ground floor, to keep us busy while they continue to fire arrows at us.

I try to do something clever/heroic.  I'm tired of the "hit, hit, miss, miss" crap on the ground, and the craptacular ranged combat of D20.  There's also an element of tension, for the first time in a while we're feeling a little challenged. 

I get my rogue to use his magic climbing rope to climb up the side of the wall, to a set of ledges at the top of the dungeon.  I spend a round doing this, and I get a lot of rolled eyes and sighs from the rest of the players.  Sadly, doing something clever usually doesn't work in this group.  Either the mountain of task resolution rolls fail at some point, botching the whole process and making us look like idiots, or the creature usually just ignores our bit of cleverness and again, you look like you wasted time and screwed around.

I try anyhow.  I crave the kind of action and adventure that I see in movies, or read in graphic novels.  I climb to the ledge, pull out a tanglefoot bag (a grenade that covers people in thick, sticky goo) and tossed it at one of the demons.  I use the only tool available to me to influence this really important die roll, a feat that allowed me a small amount of dice to add to the attack roll (similar to Eberron's action dice pool, you add it to die rolls that count). 

Everyone is in agreement that the tanglefoot bag may be a good idea, but they're all in agreement that even if I hit, they'll ignore the effects.  I roll anyhow and critically succeed. 

I'm really trying to do something fun and neat.  Something that people will go, "right on, cool move!" and enjoy and talk about.  I'm even circumventing all the demon resistances to magic that make D20 frustrating for any kind of caster by using a mundane, non-magical object.  But this mundane object is easy to resist with the D20 saving throw.  I wait for my cool move to be ignored.

The Dm considers, and then says "let's say a critical hit means the saving throw is doubled".  he rolls, and the demon fails and falls to the ground.

Everyone looks at the DM, very surprised.  We all agree with the ruling, but it came out of the blue.  It wasn't supported by the D20 rules in any way, but the DM made a a Fiat.  Part of me is happy about it succeeding (it was talked about as a cool move afterwards) but another part is annoyed that the rules didn't support something like that.  It annoys me that we had to house rule an attempt to do something interesting and cool. 

And the rolls!  One to climb.  One to balance on the ledge.  One to get the bag out quickly from my backpack.  One to throw, one to resist the effects.  I'm not adverse to rolling... but what was I rolling for?  It just seemed like too much. 

There's got to be a better way of doing this.  What systems are a little more streamlined?  I've been looking at the Shadow of Yesterday and Burning Wheel, is there anyone who recommends these systems as alternates to the D20 juggernaut?  Pros or cons?  An example, maybe of how that "cool move" would have been a little different mechanically with either of those systems?

[ffilz]

First, it might be helpfull to ask what parts of D20 do you find really cool. Do you like the miniatures style combat, or would you prefer something for free flowing and descriptive? Do you like the levelling up and treasure power gain parts?

If you don't want to stray far from D20, you might want to take a look at Iron Heroes or Monte Cook's Book of Iron Might. Both of those sources have mechanics for allowing other skill checks to be part of cinematic maneuvers. Arcana Evolved and other games have hero point mechanics that can be spent to "break" the rules and accomplish cool things.

You will also want to talk to your GM and the rest of the players about what you would like to see different.

Frank

[Valamir]

Either or both of those games could do you fine, but they are very different animals.

If your group really likes the manipulate--mechanics-to-maximize-effect aspect of d20 you'll find those skills come in very handy in Burning Wheel where there is ample opportunity to prove how well you can use the rules to your advantage.  The big difference is that the BW rules aren't stupid.  There will be a learning curve adjusting to manipulating probabilities in a d6 dice pool system vs. a linear d20 system, but if any game out there can be said to be simultaneously appealing to old school traditionalists with rules that actually make the game more fun rather than less, its BW.

Case in point, the "let it ride" rules probably would have dealt with your above example quite nicely.  Instead of making a series of rolls you make one...and if successful...let it ride...meaning it covers the whole sequence of tasks, up until the point you hit a higher difficulty than what you initially beat.


Shadows of Yesterday is MUCH more streamlined than either.  Potentially jarringly so for groups who prefer a d20 level of crunch.  But it is an outstanding game.  Very quick to get up and running.  Character creation gives all the tweaks and cool powers of D20 feats but takes hardly any time to do.  As an added bonus the game is easily customizable to setting, and you could take your home brew setting and import it into SoY very easily (and distribute it as a cool thing due to the Creative Commons license).

[ffilz]

It's also worth noting that some of the good ideas of some of the other games could be brought back into D20. "Say yes or roll the dice." and "Let it ride." are both rules that would improve D20 play, without totally munging the rules (now TSOY's keys idea is a different story - I tried using Sweet20 which is just such an animal - it didn't work for my play group, because it tries to change the reward cycle, and change the CA from gamism to narativism).

Frank

[Glendower]

Thanks guys,

There are aspects of the miniatures-style tactical I really enjoy.  I'm very visual in how I process information, so I like knowing who's where doing what by looking at a map with some kind of markers on it.  I like working with other players to get into advantageous positions in a combat situation, stuff like assisting others, flanking, providing distractions, that sort of thing, is stuff I enjoy.  Rules like aiding another, flanking bonuses, height advantages, those are all things I do like about D20.  

At the same time I like the ability to get into describing actions, and trying something off the wall and heroic, rather than the usual "hit, hit, miss" that usually happens.  I like GMs that can say "yes, but.." instead of a flat "No."

Treasure has never been a big interest to me.  To me the big gem, small gem money management is boring.  Neither is gaining levels, not really.  I like developing characters not necessarily to ramp up power, but more to flesh out the character.  Stuff like what did that battle mean to my character, why did he engage in it, how did it change him, what did he learn from it.  That jazzes me a lot more than "you recieve X points from the battle".  Why did I get that XP?  Does that make sense?

[ffilz]

If you really want the visual positional stuff (I can really sympathise with that), your choices are going to be tough. As far as I can tell, games like Burning Wheel and Riddle of Steel, both of which have very tactical maneuver systems, really don't work into a tactical map setup. TSOY is less tactical, and I can't see a tactical map setup working into it at all.

However, it may be worth trying them to see how you like them. Burning Wheel and TSOY would certainly have character improvement that fits your desires better. The whole treasure bit definitely is downplayed in these games.

You might look at Sweet20, but realize it will be tough to make that really work with D20, at least not without really shaking up your players.

I would definitely suggest having a look at Iron Heroes and the Book of Iron Might. They might have enough in there to rescue D20 for you. Also consider using "Say yes or roll the dice" and "Let it ride."

If you want to shake up the players before getting down to the type of tactical play you want, you might look into playing Dogs in the Vinyard for a bit. It is very well structured to get you into a very different style of play, and it's possible in a longish afternoon or evening to get through chargen and play a town. It will definitely get you into seeing how fun combat can be when the player can try something crazy and it actually has a good chance of succeeding (because you mostly know what your dice are when you narrate your action).

Frank

[Callan S.]

At the same time I like the ability to get into describing actions, and trying something off the wall and heroic

But your open to failure, right? That the actions might end up not being the best ones to make, yet regardless your stepping up and having the guts to try it anyway.

If so: How did the multiple task rolls fail you, in the way they determined if it was an effective thing to do?

Or...did you envision risk at all? Envisioning it is much like putting your money down on the table so as to make a bet. Weve got your vision for success. What was your vision for failure?

[ironick]

Treasure has never been a big interest to me.  To me the big gem, small gem money management is boring.  Neither is gaining levels, not really.  I like developing characters not necessarily to ramp up power, but more to flesh out the character.  Stuff like what did that battle mean to my character, why did he engage in it, how did it change him, what did he learn from it.  That jazzes me a lot more than "you recieve X points from the battle".  Why did I get that XP?  Does that make sense?

If this is what you enjoy, I would HIGHLY recommend The Riddle of Steel, though IMHO only the original main book and the first supplement are worth getting.  It features an incredibly crunchy combat system with a TON of Narrative flavor.  In fact, since you were questioning where the XP in D&D comes from, the only way you can get "XP" in TRoS is to address the things that your character cares about.  You may find that your homebrew setting doesn't work as well, though, depending on how much and what type of magic you wish to include.

Nick

[Glendower]

I'd say that overbalancing and falling 30 feet to the ground while throwing the tanglefoot bag, or missing and having it land on my allies below, or both. Those are perfectly acceptable failures I would have been fine with.

Having that many task rolls to just get up the rope to the ledge was what annoyed me the most.  Of course I'm getting up there.  What's interesting is up there, and the most interesting possible failure is from up there.  I wasn't being opposed by arrow fire, the demons ignored me, it should have been cake.

I'd like to see something like: 

Me:  I climb up there and try to bring down the demon with a tanglefoot bag.
GM: Ok, but If you fail, you'll miss the throw, overbalance, and fall. 
Me: Ok, let's roll some dice!

I know the risk, I know what's at stake, and I'm excited and invested.

Here's what actually happened:

Round comes to me
Me: I pull out the rope of climbing from my backpack.
Round goes by
Me. I command the rope to tie itself to the ledge above, and begin climbing.
GM: Climb check
Me: *rolls* I make the check.
Round goes by
Mr. I climb some more.
GM: Climb Check.
Me. *rolls* I make the check.
Round goes by
GM: you reach the ledge. 
Me: I climb onto the ledge.
GM: Make a climb check.
Me: *rolls* I make the check. 

.. And so on, and so forth.  I say let's skip to the part that really matters!  The part I actually care about!

But your open to failure, right? That the actions might end up not being the best ones to make, yet regardless your stepping up and having the guts to try it anyway.

If so: How did the multiple task rolls fail you, in the way they determined if it was an effective thing to do?

Or...did you envision risk at all? Envisioning it is much like putting your money down on the table so as to make a bet. Weve got your vision for success. What was your vision for failure?

[Rob Carriere]

I'm not so sure the problem is with D20 and therefore I'm not convinced that switching systems would solve it. Switching systems might be part of the answer, but not the leading part. The leading part needs to address that you want to do clever, swashbuckling things, that the majority of the time the other character players are not interested and that the GM kills your efforts dead.

Your write-up suggests that the other character players aren't interested because they know the GM will kill your efforts. If that is true, then you really only have an issue with the GM. If that's not true, if they wouldn't be into swashbuckling even if it worked, then I think you have an untenable position.

Assuming the former, the first thing to do would be to talk with the GM and find out why he keeps killing your efforts. For example, does he ever play maneuvering characters himself? Because my experience is that GM who don't have the experience as character players often are at a complete loss how to cater to such characters in their game. They simply don't know what you the player are looking for, so they can't help you get it.

SR
--

[Jason13]

I agree with Rob 100%.

I play "Ruizz" a Changeling Rogue/Wizard in a long running Eberron campaign and my character does the kind of things that you want to do all the time.  I do get disillusioned with the D20 rules but our DM free wheels a lot of the refereeing and some of the uses of Action Dice come off like a session of Feng Shui!  Perhaps if I could pry him away from D20 his games would be even better (System does matter) but that is a topic for another thread.

I think that your DM's style and your playing style are at odds with each other and maybe that's irreconcilable.  You sound like the kind of player I really enjoy having in my games, with cinematic ideas and surprising off the wall tactics.  However you could try to have a night of not gaming with your group and show some cool films illustrating the kind of game you would like to play in.  This may inspire your DM, as he looks around at all his players saying how cool that stunt was or how great that fight scene was.

I hope you find this helpful.

Regards

Jason

[Glendower]

Thanks guys. 

I'm starting to think it might be a social contract issue.  I was hoping and praying it was just the system, as that is an easier fix.  I know the rest of the players would be in for it, they were involved in a PTA game (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18673.0) and took to the scene framing and conflict resolution surprisingly quickly (though there were a few problems). 

I'll need to talk to the DM and get his mindset on it.  If he found my actions annoying, then I'll do the smart thing and bow out of the game, avoiding any potential conflict from the outset.  On the other hand, if he found it fun, we might be able to figure something out.

I think that your DM's style and your playing style are at odds with each other and maybe that's irreconcilable.  You sound like the kind of player I really enjoy having in my games, with cinematic ideas and surprising off the wall tactics.  However you could try to have a night of not gaming with your group and show some cool films illustrating the kind of game you would like to play in.  This may inspire your DM, as he looks around at all his players saying how cool that stunt was or how great that fight scene was.

[Callan S.]

I'd say that overbalancing and falling 30 feet to the ground while throwing the tanglefoot bag, or missing and having it land on my allies below, or both. Those are perfectly acceptable failures I would have been fine with.

Having that many task rolls to just get up the rope to the ledge was what annoyed me the most.  Of course I'm getting up there.  What's interesting is up there, and the most interesting possible failure is from up there.  I wasn't being opposed by arrow fire, the demons ignored me, it should have been cake.

I'd like to see something like: 

Me:  I climb up there and try to bring down the demon with a tanglefoot bag.
GM: Ok, but If you fail, you'll miss the throw, overbalance, and fall. 
Me: Ok, let's roll some dice!

I know the risk, I know what's at stake, and I'm excited and invested.

*snip*
.. And so on, and so forth.  I say let's skip to the part that really matters!  The part I actually care about!

Well, no!

Imagine you've joined a poker game where the bets are capped at $2. Your pushing for a $10 bet, because you find all the 50 cent to and fro boring. But that isn't part of the game.

That said, how much have you tried to use the system, as opposed to leaving all that stuff to the GM? If you weren't under fire and the demons were ignoring you, the 'Take 10' rules might have been possible to apply, meaning alot of automatically passed climbing rolls.

If the GM says yes, you can take ten, then he's upping the betting cap. Not $10 perhaps, but closer to it. Now you can get to the important part of the risk you care about with alot more certainty. If he says no, then the bet is capped at $2.

I believe the $2 cap has a mechanical purpose as well - so as to make results meaningful in relation to system currency. Imagine you could get up the rope and throw the bag all in one roll. Imagine you fail and tangle foot your allies. Now, say one of them wants to climb up the rope as well.

What happens? Does he make a series of 'get loose' rolls, which are just as boring as the climbing rolls?

Or does he get to do it all in one roll, essentially negating the penalties dished out with the risk you took*. Which means you didn't really take a risk at all, with your roll?

It's a very tricky area and I'd be careful of bringing in something like conflict resolution.

* Penalties wont change anything - the player will just try again if he fails due to big penalties and then he's in that same 'boredom' loop. And I'd like to say a few things about boredom, but I'll pause for now.

[Kintara]

One simple thing I wanted to mention was: Did you use the accelerated climbing rules? If you were a Rogue with skill points in Climb using a rope, you could probably live pretty easily with the -5 penalty. Remember to game the system.

To elaborate on ffilz's mention of IH, another thing that can make D20 battles more fun for you might be the idea of Zones. If you can get the DM to get on board and start slipping in lots of zones, then you might have something more fun to do in combat than simply flanking an enemy and poking him with your rapier until he's dead. Stunts are another neat way give your skills some exercise in a fun way.

[Glendower]

I'll have to check out Monte Cook's stuff, I haven't picked up any of his books.  But yeah, I did accel climbing, eating the -5 to the roll to move at half speed.  I didn't take 10.  I should have asked to take 10 since I wasn't being targetted, that might have cut down on the rather bland climb rolls (my bonuses are high, I couldn't really fail unless I turned up a 1). 

Something to talk to the DM about, when I meet up with him.