What the-?!
Posted by Joshua on Oct 24, 2008
-
D&D Miniatures Changes Explained
Why the change from 8 miniatures to 5 miniatures per booster? When we set out to re-imagine the Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures line, our goals included increasing the quality of the product, dealing with the rising costs associated with producing the line, and optimizing the product as a D&D Roleplaying Game accessory. To that end, we are providing fewer figures per Monster Manual-themed booster, but these figures are of a higher quality. In effect, each booster contains two rare-quality figures (the visible Large figure and the randomized rare figure).
Ok, I understand that Hasbro just killed off the Skirmish game entirely…it wasn’t making money, so take it out behind the barn and shoot it. But what leaves me absolutely gobsmacked is having just eliminated the entire market for the collectible aspect, why do they still package the damn things as if they’re collectible? Rare-quality, shmare-quality. For a role-player rare = inconvenient. Nobody’s going to be impressed that the Beholder they’re facing is a rare. They’re going to be even less impressed when it’s represented, as usual, by a rubber ball because nobody in their right mind is going to buy 6 packs at $15 each to come up with one. They just about doubled the price and you still won’t be able to just buy the damned minis you need for the particular adventure you plan to run.
I admit that I’m not their target market*, as I have no plans of running 4e ever, but I read Scott Rouse’s explanation and I have to wonder whether they actually have a target market in mind? Or do they really think they can just create one by carving the bits they liked out of the failing market (lust for rares and completism…each set is smaller so it’s easier to get them all!) and graft it onto their new customers? What I’d really like to hear explained is why having considered just making them all visible, as the manufacturers of metal miniatures do, they elected to go with the semi-hidden plus bonus rules making all the old gibes about WotC breaking D&D into a collectible card-game of rules a la Magic finally come true. Except I’m afraid I know the answer.
* though given how many little toys and things I buy to use as minis in our games, I actually could be…I’ve just never considered getting any D&D figures precisely because of the random aspect.
Fluid Combat Rounds Rules
Posted by Joshua on Oct 24, 2008
-
Szilard posted an insanely complicated set of D&D 3.0 rules for a less turn-based approach to combat.
I can’t imagine actually using those rules (even if they weren’t D&D 3.0 oriented), but it did make me ponder whether there was some way to do the bookkeeping for them that would make it less cumbersome. The answer is not that I could see (too many fiddly bits), but it gave me an idea so cunning you could put whiskers on it and call it a weasel…
Countless Moments
Each action is represented by a tile (a piece of cardboard or similar) that is 1 unit wide and a number of units long = how many moments the action takes up. E.g.
- Take a 5′ step forward or to the side: 1 unit.
- Do nothing: 1 unit
- Strike: 3 units
- Cast a Spell: 5 units
- Dive For Cover: 2 units
- Step Back: 2 Units
- Drop Prone: 1 unit
- Stand from Prone: 1 unit
- Run at double-pace: 5 units
- Effects with duration (e.g. spells): N units (e.g. number of units determined by duration and scale, e.g. a spell that lasted 3 turns would be 18 units if the scale was 6 moments to the turn). These get their own tracks (one per effect), since they run in parallel with any other actions the characters take.
- Bookkeeping (anything that the game rules require checking at the end of a “turn”, such as bleeding out, recovering endurance): N units, where N is the number of moments determined by the scale. Again, this gets its own track (hopefully there’s only one…)
and so forth. The GM would have a supply of 1 unit tiles to mark off moments. Each player plays their intended actions by stacking their tiles one after another; they may be placed at any time at the end of the player’s current series of tiles.
Each moment the GM plays another 1 unit tile next to the players lines of tiles, and the actions that end in that moment are resolved. Ties are resolved in initiative order (however that’s decided for the game…by Dex, by Init Bonus, by rolling). Past tiles are removed for recycling and the whole series can be slid backwards to make more room at the end. There is no demarcation of turns, you just keep adding tiles to the end of the sequence and advancing until the combat is resolved.
Aborting
Any time before the action a tile represents is resolved, you may remove that tile (and any following tiles) and replace it with a new one, but the new one begins no earlier than the current moment–not when the original tile began. Fill with Do Nothing actions if needed to keep the sequence in sync. Since the point of continuous action resolution instead of turn-based is to allow the players to react to events as they unfold, the GM should generally let the players fiddle with their upcoming actions freely; still, if it threatens to bog down the game (particularly if the players start getting involved in lengthy discussions of optimal sequencing) the GM should feel free to move things along by playing new moment tiles and resolving actions–if they player doesn’t currently have an action in the sequence treat that as Do Nothing, representing the player dithering. You might also experiment with allowing the players to play as many new tiles as they want at the start of combat and when one of their actions has just completed, but only play a single tile followed by a mandatory Do Nothing tile after an Abort to represent the cost of changing your mind all the time.
Scaling
For converting durations, you have to pick a scale. Generally you should make it so that a series of steps adds up to a normal move, e.g. 12 moments = 1 turn if characters can normally move 60′ a turn. If you can usually move 1/2 move and attack, then an attack would be 6 units instead of 3, etc.
I don’t think I’m actually going to try this with any of our current games; it doesn’t really fit with Savage Worlds’ initiative and multi-action rules that well, and I don’t have any strong objections to the way turns play out in SW, but if anyone wants to give it a try I’d love to hear about it.