tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post1615020406490665104..comments2023-05-27T11:14:02.426-04:00Comments on Some Space to Think: Running a Raid in 4e, Part 1Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14216103531396452644noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-85057209235909197922009-11-11T13:14:09.144-05:002009-11-11T13:14:09.144-05:00The first thought I had while reading this is that...The first thought I had while reading this is that it'd be very interesting if the boss had the ability to cut off certain movement, like destroying part of the environment so characters could not easily move from close to mid range, leaving some people stranded in the melee and some stranded too far away. Easily this could be done as a mini-skill challenge during the whole thing or just cause some different decisions / tactics from the players. I really like the base idea though, can't wait to see how it plays!Bartoneushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04788256492505323850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-18370437024477012682009-11-11T11:14:36.910-05:002009-11-11T11:14:36.910-05:00Don't know how I missed your post, Alan, but w...Don't know how I missed your post, Alan, but we were thinking along the same lines obviously.Justin D. Jacobsonhttp://www.johnraingame.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-5177061223921267692009-11-11T11:06:07.583-05:002009-11-11T11:06:07.583-05:00You could definitely do this "straight up&quo...You could definitely do this "straight up" in a con setting. I think you could have multiple tables with one big ass battlemat in between. Each table gets one DM and a group of players. As PCs get bumped off, you can coalesce to fewer tables. I could see DMs shouting out: "I'm using an action point." And the other DMs check it off. "We just got tagged with radiant vulnerability 10." "Bloodied!" Etc. Some brief record-keeping at the end of each round, e.g., probably deal with boss's total hp loss then.<br /><br />It would require playtesting to get the balance right, i.e., attrition of # of PCs to boss's hps. I think it would be a blast. Hmmm, I call dibs for Gen Con next year.Justin D. Jacobsonhttp://www.johnraingame.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-80376080538444678962009-11-10T19:21:59.630-05:002009-11-10T19:21:59.630-05:00The solution that occurs to me is to keep the play...The solution that occurs to me is to keep the players fragmented into smaller, more manageable groups, each with its own DM. The Delve that WotC has occasionally run at Gen Con is a good model.<br /><br />You'll need to come up with a plotline that justifies keeping the groups a bit apart from each other, but for a special event that seems feasible. One idea: a sort of massive Lovecraftian creature is breaking through, slowly spreading in multiple directions through the dungeon. The PCs need to head it off in multiple directions at once, so they have to split up. Ideally there would be a reason for one party's actions to impact another party to emphasize the group aspect. It could be as a simple as the dungeon being interconnected enough that a party doing well might send one or two people off to help a group doing poorly. You could also build in effects that require teams to work in conjunction.<br /><br />Ultimately, as Rob says up front, this is really a stunt. But stunts can be fun.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-64200101483699993832009-11-10T16:44:03.516-05:002009-11-10T16:44:03.516-05:00i honestly cannot wait. Rock on.i honestly cannot wait. Rock on.gamefiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330931451328258680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-83983168374253996742009-11-10T14:19:05.107-05:002009-11-10T14:19:05.107-05:00@brent This is, I concede, a little crazy. 40 peop...@brent This is, I concede, a little crazy. 40 people really means google wave, or a fast larp in the same vein as a game of Werewolf. <br /><br />That said, this shaves off a lot of the specifics, quite intentionally, by making it damage only. The additional special effects simply don't work directly, so you don't need to worry about tracking that one square push and so on. But that doesn't mean it gets rid of them entirely - I have something specific in mind to keep the powers differentiated.<br /><br />@gamefiend yes, definitely, but let me get through tomorrow first - we're already on the same page for where I'm going with this.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14216103531396452644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-81561453417828332009-11-10T13:18:35.555-05:002009-11-10T13:18:35.555-05:00nice! To add some of my own thoughts, as I've...nice! To add some of my own thoughts, as I've been chewing as well:<br /><br />a) I definitely agree with you on the zones. That should be a definite part of the setup.<br /><br />b) Menace Levels --love this! You'd have to tinker with the maths to tune it, but the basic concept is sound. This makes the whole thing work. You can also do the same thing with "Adds", minions or lieutenants the minion can generate. For the accumulation of points though, I think I'd have the monster on a steady gain. Each turn he gains 1d6 menace. This generates the "clock" that you and fred bring up, placing pressure on players to get rid of that SOB as soon as humanly possible. I would even do that out in the open (with a huge six-sided die!) to put even more pressure on the players. This is in addition to physical factors.<br /><br />c) fred, I was thinking 10 man was the limit. Any higher than that and it's something else entirely.<br /><br />d) Environment. I think that one thing a boss should be able to do is trigger environment shakeups that conjure mini-skill challenges in and of themselves. The Boss smashes the floor, tearing it apart in such a way that there is a skill challenge to navigate and get to the safe parts of the zone. Stuff like this.<br /><br />e)semioticity, I can definitely see where you hesitation lies. For me, it's more of a bounds-push. What can we do with this ruleset? How can we have different play experiences? that's what I'm interested in. I don't think I'd be playing that on any regular basis, but I would love to try it out a few times and make the rules serve it if possible. It would never be a mainstream way to play 4e I don't think.gamefiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00330931451328258680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-73482848847963420642009-11-10T13:09:24.513-05:002009-11-10T13:09:24.513-05:00I think D&D 4E simply isn't suited to onli...I think D&D 4E simply isn't suited to online play like this. It's like trying to make a real-life board game out of Tetris. I guess you can, but why?<br /><br />D&D 4E assumes certain facets of play -- a bunch of people at a table gathered around a single battle mat, lots of interactions among players, in-depth knowledge of ally powers -- that just won't translate well to this sort of scenario.<br /><br />How can 40 people all see and interact with the same battle mat? How many of my allies will know that I can push an enemy 1 square with one of my at-wills?Brenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09014351433814844942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-77737361704015773432009-11-10T12:46:05.796-05:002009-11-10T12:46:05.796-05:00My disagreement is more abstract. If MMOs evolved ...My disagreement is more abstract. If MMOs evolved from D&D, and 4E evolved from MMOs, then returning to MMOs again for the concept of the single-boss raid seems to me like an evolutionary cul-de-sac. Raid is one of the furthest things from regular D&D play, and it sacrifices a lot of believability for gameplay. I worry about the same here.<br /><br />To be fair, you've nailed the essential elements worth converting, though.<br /><br />Also, I think Agon handles most of these issues pretty well, IIRC.Matthew D. Gandyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10385705569087231697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-53579996213738539342009-11-10T12:12:56.257-05:002009-11-10T12:12:56.257-05:00I totally agree the HBA approach is much better if...I totally agree the HBA approach is much better if we want to talk about running a raid with more characters than players - I think you could do that very elegantly with. But part of this exercise is based on the assumption of 1 character: 1 player (which is part of why I really consider it a stunt).<br /><br />That said, you're right about the timeliness issue - there needs to be a sense of pressure, and every player needs to quickly make a decision (and at the same time, there needs to be more to that decision than 'just keep doing the thing I'm doing'). I was thinking about that in terms of giving a very short window to tell the DM what you're doing when it comes to you (like, 5-10 seconds) but the clock might be even better for the group as a whole. Hmm.<br /><br />-Rob D.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14216103531396452644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-23024643760851771802009-11-10T11:52:28.734-05:002009-11-10T11:52:28.734-05:00I get the need to do abstraction here, but y'k...I get the need to do abstraction here, but y'know, part of me wonders if the abstraction shouldn't be done along different vectors.<br /><br />Consider what happens if you pull a Hard Boiled Armies gig on this and instead treat each group of characters that fill a particular role as one character for purposes of taking action and moving around the map, etc.<br /><br />Or define the problem a bit more tightly. Sure, it'd be insanity to do a 40-man or even 20-man raid straight up using the rules as written, but I'm betting 4e could easily sustain a table of 10. I'd want to add in a chess clock, giving players a tight amount of time to complete their moves; part of what makes a WoW raid really sing is the high pressure timing of everything.Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08362641974657304051noreply@blogger.com