Newsgroup: it.hobby.giochi.gdr.dnd
Titolo: QUARTA edizione 4th - Mike Mearls esempi di combattimento e scontri  sociali

in questa serie di post Mike Mearls parla un po' del combattimento e
alcune manovre, inoltre nell'ultimo post parla degli scontri sociali
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4029794&postcount=23
We haven't had any players die in the playtests, thank goodness.
Otherwise, we'd have all sorts of lawsuits on our hands.
More seriously, characters have died in playtests. I've killed a few
myself. However, the playtests that are posted are from peoples' home
games. If characters aren't dying, it might simply because the DM
doesn't want to mess up his story. I do know that Bill left James'
paladin with 8 hit points and no healing surges at the end of their
last session, so perhaps we'll see reports of a death soon.
I can lay claim to the first PC killed in 4e, and the best part is
that a second PC delivered the killing blow. A bugbear strangler
popped out from behind a tapestry to garotte the ranger. The fighter/
rogue ran to attack the strangler, the bugbear swung the ranger up as
a living shield, and one crit later we had a dead ranger.
I've come close to TPKs twice, once in a temple to Vecna and another
time in the entry way to a paragon-tier castle in the elemental chaos.
Both times some lucky rolls averted disaster. I am notorious for my
horrid DM dice rolling luck.
__________________
Mike Mearls - Lead Developer, RPG R&D
Wizards of the Coast - 
http://www.wizards.com
Retro Stupid and proud of it.
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4029910&postcount=32
Originally Posted by helium3
You probably can't answer this, but on the off chance . . .
Are you guys aiming to change the rate of character death in 4E/make
it harder to die a pointless death or should I seriously consider
laying off the bong?
I suppose the answer could be yes to both.
A pointless death is a little harder, if by pointless you mean random.
It's much harder for a monster to simple one shot a PC, unless it is a
lot higher level than the PC.
IME, PCs get in trouble or die in 4e when I throw a tough fight at
them or when they make really, really bad moves.
In the temple of Vecna fight, the PCs were in way over their heads
against a BBEG, the dwarf fighter was stuck asleep for a number of
rounds due to some bad luck, and the weird, magical pillars in the
place had a random effect that kept hosing the party. The party won
because they had good tactics and, in the seventh and eighth rounds,
they had some good luck to balance out their poor luck early on.
Other times, like in the paragon tier playtest, the party made some
big mistakes. The fight wasn't meant to be a meat grinder, but the PCs
(somewhat foolishly) split up in a big, big room with a number of
demons with really, really long reach. When the party scattered, the
demons were able to pounce on one PC with ease, drop him, then gang up
on the next character.
Unless you are a fighter or paladin, it's usually a bad idea to let
two or three monsters get clear shots at you. Rogues and rangers need
to keep moving or work with the fighter, wizards and warlocks need to
keep at the edge of the fight and have an eye toward leaving one
escape route open at all times.
__________________
Mike Mearls - Lead Developer, RPG R&D
Wizards of the Coast - 
http://www.wizards.com
Retro Stupid and proud of it.
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4033505&postcount=24
It's a unique ability for that bugbear. It isn't part of the core
grapple rules for a couple reasons. The big one is that it would be
really annoying if the PCs (or a big monster) could do that in every
fight.
It's tempting to make it a core rule, or put that rule into grapple,
but here's why we didn't.
One of the aims of 4e was to make the rules that everyone needs to
know as small as possible. The game becomes complicated very quickly,
as you add in powers and rules to cover all the corner cases, so it's
important to reign that stuff in. Otherwise, you end up with a bloated
mess.
So, things like the human shield maneuver are there for specific
monsters. I imagine that when we do unarmed combat maneuvers, you'll
find something similar. I also believe that the rogue has some
abilities to trick enemies into missing the rogue and hitting one of
the monster's allies.
Now, rules bloat is a bad thing, but it also lets you do more stuff
simply by mapping out more ground. The aim with the DMG is to give
enough of a framework that a DM can easily adjudicate stuff on the fly
in response to crazy ideas that the players come up with.
__________________
Mike Mearls - Lead Developer, RPG R&D
Wizards of the Coast - 
http://www.wizards.com
Retro Stupid and proud of it.
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4033619&postcount=31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizard
Saying "DMs should handwave it" leads to what GURPS termed the 'flour
in the face' problem -- if, in one combat, you let a PC get a big
advantage by tossing a bag of flour in an enemy's face, they start
carrying bags of flour instead of swords. Thus, the manuever needs to
have risks/downsides or have a "works once, then everyone's heard of
the trick and is wise to it" sort of thing built in.
The DM is NOT handwaving it. He's using the guidelines for DCs,
defenses, modifiers, damage, and other factors by level that are in
the DMG.
The thing is, we CAN make this a rule as a maneuver or feat. We just
didn't have room in the first book. It's a cool maneuver for a monster
with a garrote, but we have to draw the line somewhere.
We could make rules for every maneuver that sounds cool, but then we'd
have a 1,000 page PH and maybe 5 or 6 people patient enough to play
the game.
The nice thing about supplements (aside from my paycheck ) is that
they allow you to eventually reach that 1,000 page mass, but not all
at once.
__________________
Mike Mearls - Lead Developer, RPG R&D
Wizards of the Coast - 
http://www.wizards.com
Retro Stupid and proud of it.
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4033619&postcount=32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rechan
Hey Mike!
How about garroting/strangling? Is that also something specific to the
Bugbear Strangler, or can any assassin get the drop on someone and do
the ol' Sam Fisher Squeeze?
I don't think the PH has rules for that, but I imagine it'll show up
if/when we do assassin-style rogue maneuvers.
+++++++++++++++++++
questo invece è sulle regole sociali
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost....07&postcount=15
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormKnight
But I have a feeling they are aiming for something quite else.
Something where mechanics treat social interaction as, well, combat,
and enable you to "defeat" a foe and get them to do what you want.
The non-combat encounter rules allow the DM to dicate that effects of
the party's success or failure. There's nothing inherent to the rules
that say an NPC must do what the party does. The DM decides what
happens, based on the NPC and the situation.
For example:
* The PCs have to negotiate with a crime lord who is holding an
informant prisoner. The PCs need to talk to the informant. I might
design it this way:
Success: The crime lord drags out the informant and the PCs can talk
to him for a few minutes. If the PCs stay too long, the crime lord
kicks them out.
Failure: The crime lord wearies of the PCs and orders his guards to
attack.
In neither case does the crime lord become the PCs' friend or thrall.
I might also throw in things like bribes (even if the PCs succeed, the
crime lord expects a "gift") or other complications.
_________________
ciao, Fabio

crime lord expects a "gift") or other complications.
Mmmmm, da rivedere in dettaglio. Così non mi sconquinfera molto.
Bye
Beppe63 

 Mmmmm, da rivedere in dettaglio. Così non mi sconquinfera molto.
credo intendesse hanno liberalizzato gli scontri sociali :)
Fabio


ma perché, funziona diversamente Diplomazia? 0__O
-- 
salute a voi,
Harlan,
Figlio di Draka,
Uccisore di Maestri della Notte
IHGGerD #155

 ma perché, funziona diversamente Diplomazia? 0__O
nei risultati no, ma a quanto pare (ma qui non è chiaro) le regole
saranno un po' più elaborate e consentiranno di fare un po' di scherma
verbale
Fabio


ma si ha proprio bisogno di _meccaniche_ per questo tipo di cose?
la scherma verbale e una cosa fatta dia giocatori durante 
l'interpretazione, almeno è quello che succede nelle partite alle quale 
partecipo.


 partecipo.
è una vecchia questione, l'idea che hanno fatto trapelare è di fornire
una cornice molto leggera che si può adattare a più stili di gioco,
tanto quello dove viene tutto regolato a livello d'interpretazione,
tanto quelli che vogliono un mix d'interpretazione e dadi, tanto
quelli che vogliono solo dadi
perchè è un problema?
perchè se sei non troppo abile a parlare non potresti mai interpretare
un personaggio con un carismo alto e specializzazione in diplomazia,
mentre anche se sei un sacco di patate puoi tranquillamente giocarti
il guerriero superatletico e strafigo
quindi ogni gruppo decide come gestire la cosa da
"blablablablablablablabla" vs "blablahblahblah"
(che però rende tutti gli altri giocatori spettatori"
a
"il mio bardo con +356 a diplomazia cerca di convincere il conte"
roll....
passando per
"Glorian appellandosi a tutta la sua forza carismatica e alle sue
abilità oratorie, si appella al conte ricordandogli di come il prode
cavaliere MòTetrancio abbia salvato il reame contro il drago Zampirone
e di quando con l'aiuto di Glorian e Santissimo riusci...." roll+ mod
per esempi giusti alla situazione....
Fabio

partecipo.
Ma allora che senso ha dare al personaggio caratteristiche come
intelligenza, saggezza e carisma?
Se affidi tutto all'interpretazione del giocatore, il giocatore timido
avra' personaggi che tendono a restare in disparte e quello estroverso
avra' sempre gran parlatori.
Personalmente cerco di incentivare l'immedesimazione e
l'interpretazione in *tutte* le scene, sia quelle d'azione che quelle
di interazione sociale, mediando poi in entrambi i casi con quello che
e' il personaggio in termini di regole e si', anche con il tiro di
dado.
Parvati V
-- 
UnaMoleDiDadi (TreEmme Torino):
http://umdd.altervista.org/
IHGGera #1069, IAFa #182 ^^^
http://parvatiquinta.altervista.org


guarda che su tale punto sono perfettamente d'accordo. ^^
una volta ho anche provato ad inserire una hr, basandomi su quello che 
avevo letto nel manuale di Exalted [+1 a chi  coreograficamente 
descriveva una azione di attacco], ma l'ho abbandonata dopo poco, visto 
che sbilanciava i combattimenti, specie a bassi livelli, e dilungava gli 
stessi, visto che tutti cercavano di prendere il +1 per la 
descrizione... sempre! A volte era uno sperpetuo! ^^


rispettando le caratteriste assegnate al PG.
Se tieni conto delle meccaniche di gioco per le scene di dialogo, non
capisco perche' ti lamenti dell'introduzione di altre meccaniche di
gioco che trattano questo tipo di scene.



guarda, fino a quando le meccaniche sono qualcosa di leggero, pratico e 
veloce, ben venga, ma se anche per confronti sociali, mi appesantisco il 
tutto con meccaniche tipo quelle per i combattimenti psionici della 2nd 
edizione, preferisco che non ci siano proprio; appesantirebbero solo un 
parco regole già ingombrante, il più delle volte, di per sé, con il 
rischio che ci saranno regole ignorate o hr più di prima.
Ad ogni modo, la mia non era una lamentela, era più una disquisizione, 
ma visto che non possediamo ancora la palla di cristallo, era un 
filosofeggiare sul sesso degli angeli, per dirla con parole di un noto 
personaggio. ^^
Ritengo quindi che possiamo aspettare benissimo l'uscita della 4th 
edition e, poi, continuare il discorso. ^_^
