Kol Korran
2013-03-30, 10:20 AM
So, while looking for alternates to the action point/ hero point and similar "extra edge" kind of rules, I cam upon the following article called "Raisint the stakes" (http://www.adnd3egame.com/documents/E6Raising.pdf). it gives suggestion to 4 optional rules dealing with risk, drama, and an alternate idea of "extra edge".
I'm interested in hearing thoughts, ideas, and mostly word of experience from people who tried these rules, saw what they are worth, and maybe can give advice as to their implementation.
My thoughts about the rules:
1. players rolling all the dice: we've been doing this for a long time, it has helped our games immensely, in terms of DM- players trust, higher risk (due to impossible fudging) and a much greater involvement in battle and tactics (since the players now understood much better the odds of every action). I heartily recommend them
2. Conviction points: quite like many "Extra edge" mechanics. they differ from action points in not giving an extra modifier to the roll, but they allow extra actions, which i'm not entirely certain about. what troubles me partially is the rate of refreshing them (once every about 4 hours) but that can easily be altered to the needs of the game.
3. Death flag: the one rule i'm most conflicted about... in one way, it's a cool way for a player to say "this matters!" but I can easily see players NEVER (or almost never) raising their death flag, fearing character death. also at times it can just become ridiculous- an unconcious body buried under a ton of rocks? or suffering multiple fireballs? also- does "no death" also means "no bad things"? can such a character close to death for example experince serious trauma, mental or physical which lives scars or more?
another thing that makes me a bit worried is that this rules sort of forces the DM to actively create situations in which the players will want to raise their death flag. in one way this is positive- the DM is more focused on making adventures that MATTER to the players. but it can also get quite excessive and out of hand, with life and (possible) death flag situations every corner.
death is the most common threat in D&D, and while there are other threats for failure in a challenge, they are rarer, and often the result of several lesser encounters. If you remove the risk of death a DM must become much more creative in his consequences for failure.
4. Raising the stakes: Now these rule suggestions are REALLY interesting, and hold much potential. they can make the game much more exciting, open the way for an easy to adjuciate "called shots"/ "critical successes" sort of mechanics, and just make many much more mundane situations far more interesting and memorable. they seem quite fun, but there may be certain complications I forsee:
the obvious problem is what is a fair bet? this i think can be disected to several parts:
- the chance of making the roll. if it's very risky, then greater beneficial bet can be weighed against a lesser negative effect, and vice versa.
- how much effect will this have in the game? a disabling bet against a mook should be accepted more times (and at a lesser risk) than against the chief villain. talking your way to charm the barmaid should be easier than convincing the devil guardian to let you through the portal.
- and of course- the scale of the bet which I think is highly affected by the two previous considerations.
another problem is that though some deny it, there ae lucky players, and unlucky players in a whole. In my group for example there is a player that can screw himself (and sometime the party) unintentionally nearly every game session due to bad dice. another also has so so rolls, while one player is known for very good rolls (we roll in the open, and he is honest). this kind of mechanic might be used much more by the luckier players, and much less by the less lucky, thus widening the gap between them.
Another problem that might arise is that some players are better at pitching their bets than others (not necessarily out of manipulation, just being more sociable, have better oratory skills and such) so again, there may come to be a sort of favoritism, which may upset players. true, the DM is supposed to be fair and unprejudiced, but everyone may falter.
I've mostly highlighted the problems I forsee. but I wish to note that I think the "raise the stakes" might prove a great asset (upon a cursory glance) to a group, and the death flag... perhaps. not sure about it yet.
thoughts? opinions? advice? all welcome! :smallsmile:
I'm interested in hearing thoughts, ideas, and mostly word of experience from people who tried these rules, saw what they are worth, and maybe can give advice as to their implementation.
My thoughts about the rules:
1. players rolling all the dice: we've been doing this for a long time, it has helped our games immensely, in terms of DM- players trust, higher risk (due to impossible fudging) and a much greater involvement in battle and tactics (since the players now understood much better the odds of every action). I heartily recommend them
2. Conviction points: quite like many "Extra edge" mechanics. they differ from action points in not giving an extra modifier to the roll, but they allow extra actions, which i'm not entirely certain about. what troubles me partially is the rate of refreshing them (once every about 4 hours) but that can easily be altered to the needs of the game.
3. Death flag: the one rule i'm most conflicted about... in one way, it's a cool way for a player to say "this matters!" but I can easily see players NEVER (or almost never) raising their death flag, fearing character death. also at times it can just become ridiculous- an unconcious body buried under a ton of rocks? or suffering multiple fireballs? also- does "no death" also means "no bad things"? can such a character close to death for example experince serious trauma, mental or physical which lives scars or more?
another thing that makes me a bit worried is that this rules sort of forces the DM to actively create situations in which the players will want to raise their death flag. in one way this is positive- the DM is more focused on making adventures that MATTER to the players. but it can also get quite excessive and out of hand, with life and (possible) death flag situations every corner.
death is the most common threat in D&D, and while there are other threats for failure in a challenge, they are rarer, and often the result of several lesser encounters. If you remove the risk of death a DM must become much more creative in his consequences for failure.
4. Raising the stakes: Now these rule suggestions are REALLY interesting, and hold much potential. they can make the game much more exciting, open the way for an easy to adjuciate "called shots"/ "critical successes" sort of mechanics, and just make many much more mundane situations far more interesting and memorable. they seem quite fun, but there may be certain complications I forsee:
the obvious problem is what is a fair bet? this i think can be disected to several parts:
- the chance of making the roll. if it's very risky, then greater beneficial bet can be weighed against a lesser negative effect, and vice versa.
- how much effect will this have in the game? a disabling bet against a mook should be accepted more times (and at a lesser risk) than against the chief villain. talking your way to charm the barmaid should be easier than convincing the devil guardian to let you through the portal.
- and of course- the scale of the bet which I think is highly affected by the two previous considerations.
another problem is that though some deny it, there ae lucky players, and unlucky players in a whole. In my group for example there is a player that can screw himself (and sometime the party) unintentionally nearly every game session due to bad dice. another also has so so rolls, while one player is known for very good rolls (we roll in the open, and he is honest). this kind of mechanic might be used much more by the luckier players, and much less by the less lucky, thus widening the gap between them.
Another problem that might arise is that some players are better at pitching their bets than others (not necessarily out of manipulation, just being more sociable, have better oratory skills and such) so again, there may come to be a sort of favoritism, which may upset players. true, the DM is supposed to be fair and unprejudiced, but everyone may falter.
I've mostly highlighted the problems I forsee. but I wish to note that I think the "raise the stakes" might prove a great asset (upon a cursory glance) to a group, and the death flag... perhaps. not sure about it yet.
thoughts? opinions? advice? all welcome! :smallsmile: