Training

From young wolf pups are prepared for the hunt by mock fights and play-biting. Tigers and lions likewise were trained by their mums; hence even orcs and goblins would need some sort of boot-camp to be combat ready, and it shows. An unorganized mob just don’t fight as well and coordinate with each other when compared to the Roman Legions.

The fighter of the party should be able, at a glance, to discern the training level of their opponents (after all, they should have some of those training!). Of course, animals are harder to gauge and if Mother Nature has done her job properly, all predators that take to the field are likely to be well prepared for it.

Why is the level of training important? Only those who have practiced together could pull of a complex tactic. It’s pretty much like the same as for football, soccer or a tennis double-play. Ordinary thugs who wander about the docks and having minimal amount of training shouldn’t suddenly pull off a complex shield wall; but if you are up against the Elite Lancers of the Duke Regent of Alterus, you better stay on our toes!

Approach

If a group has been fighting together for some times, there is likely to be some form of standard operating procedures; any horde raiding together are likely to form some effective form of attacking, retreating and defending, if they manage to survive their first battle! When planning encounters, or coming up with a random monster roll, it is a good idea to think about how they would approach the players party. Here are some ideas

1. Charge right in. Unless the monster in question is a dragon, tyrannosaurus rex, a grizzly bear or somehow insane (a horse driven to aggressive behavior because of parasites infesting its brain), most probably wouldn’t go charge into the fray unless it is really confident.
2. Sneak attack. Considering how many predators in our natural world rely on this and how devastatingly effective it  could be, GMs should let NPCs who has a reasonable amount of intelligence to plan an ambush rather than let them march straight into the blades (and blasting radius) of the PCs.
3. Divide and conquer. Another proven stratagem, and especially deadly when the opposition has magic in their hand. Many fantasy RPGs feature the so-called crowd control spells. Modern games benefit from smoke grenades, suppression fire and a distant sniper to instill fear and panic.
4. Flank. The Greek used it. The Romans too. Form a shield wall to engage the bulk of enemies, and let the cavalry flank them. The flank is a “sneak attack in battle” and whether it is effective or not depends on whether the rule carter for it (sneak attacks in D&D 3.5 for example). Even if the combat rules have no provision for flanking, the flank is one of the means to divide the PC party into smaller groups for cleaning up.
5. Combined arms. Hey, if the player party is good at this, maybe the GM should pick up some tips about that now and then too

Deciding on an approach is something that many GMs may do naturally. One additional thing is to let the PCs figure out their approach, with an Intelligence (or Cunning, for Dragon Age’s case). Of course, as the party reacts to the NPCs’ plans, the NPCs would definitely react.

Leadership

All armies have a general; if he is filled with battle-lust and engage the enemies in the field, then usually an aide or an advisor will hang back, observing the flow of battle. Likewise, for the NPCs, consider having archers, mages and other support personnel to play the role of the advisor. In a modern game, it could is even easier – a commander may even watch a battle using spying drones, and relate orders via a comm-link!

Leadership is important because the tide of a battle shifts constantly. The PCs may have found a way to neutralize the Wall of Fire spell that has split them into two halve, or the archers aren’t able to provide covering fire. The commander should order them to regroup and reassign targets and priority. While in RTS it is relatively easy to “focus fire”, in the midst of real combat it would even be harder.

To be fair, the commander may have to take a break from spell-casting or archery to issue an effective command. The GM may also want to make a Cunning/Intelligence/Leadership roll to see if he is able to communicate the order well. Factor in training as well – A well-drilled group reacts to rehearsed commands, have the discipline to break off whatever they are engaged in and knows the gravity of the situation. A group of thugs are likely to be completely absorbed in the heat of battle, unable to catch whatever unintelligible mess he is screaming (if they even have a leader in the first place).

Training and Reacting on the Fly

It is one thing to sit down and plan an ambush, it is another to change a detail of the plan while arrows rain over your head and blades clang against shield. If we break training level from 1 to 10, with 8 being the level of the legendary Roman Legions, we could have something like this:

1. Undisciplined, hard to control berserking behavior. Once battle-lust has taken over, directing them is impossible
3. Able to heed general advance and retreat commands. However any precise moment is impossible. Focus fire on the fly is a challenge (3d6 + Cunning vs. 13). Getting them to retreat, however, is damn easy.
5. Able to react to signals and pull of planned maneuvers. Always on the constant look-out for orders from the commander. Able to “mob” a specific character (“Take down that mage! TAKE DOWN THAT MAGE!”)
7. Able to complement each other in complex maneuvers; Have numerous drills for possible situations (neutralizing the mage, shielding a friend from an archer, covering for an ally and etc.). Can direct specific NPC to attack specific character though the instruction must be clear and verbose (“Kel, take down the mage with the blue hat by the window!”)
9. More than just training, this group has experience. They go for the most brutally effective means to reach their goals, and are drilled to react to most things. The commander is able to direct their allies to attack specific players with concise instruction (“Kel, the mage, 3 o’clock!”). They may even have sub-grouping of combined arms (a fighter and a rogue in a group, for example).
10. The GM is encouraged to be as tactically adept as he could with NPCs with this level of training.

Hopefully this article will provide more ideas to use “AI” to customize your NPCs’ behaviors in combat!

Talents, Focus and Equipment

The rules basically extend the game by adding a new talent – the Poison talent, and the Poison ability focus. The focus is a Cunning based skill, and as in the game, it requires at least the Focus to use poison (without accidentally harming yourself). Poison typically works best on edged weapons, and unlike the CRPG, you can apply it on bolts and arrows.

Components for crafting poisons should be rare to come by – no price is listed (yet), and if the players are foraging, a Cunning roll against a difficulty of 11 should be made (if the character is in an environment where such things could grow) to locate the crafting component needed. A downtime of one day minimal is needed for a single flask of poison, which is good for 3 doses. Poison expires within a minute – exposure to air quickly cause them to lose their effectiveness.

Deathroot Extract

Equipment: Deathroot, Flask
Requires: Cunning 1, Novice Poison talent, Poison focus

Attack deals +1 Spirit damage, and you can use 4 Stunt Points to stun the target for 1 round.

Venom

Equipment: Venom Extract, Flask
Requires: Cunning 1, Poison novice talent, Poison focus

Attack deals +1 Spirit damage, and you can use 4 Stunt Points to reduce target’s Speed by 2 and Initiative by 2.

Concentrated Deathroot Extract

Equipment: Deathroot, Flask, Distillation Agent
Requires: Cunning 2, Novice Poison talent, Poison focus

Attack deals +2 Spirit damage, and you can use 3 Stunt Points to stunt the target for 1 round.

Concentrated Venom

Equipment: Venom Extract, Flask, Distillation Agent
Requires: Cunning 2, Novice Poison talent, Poison focus

Attack deals +2 Spirit damage, and you can use 3 Stunt points to reduce target’s Speed by 2 and Initiative by 2.

Crow Poison

Equipment:  Toxin Extract, Deathroot, Distillation Agent, Flask
Requires: Cunning 3, Journeyman Poison talent, Poison focus

Attack deals +3 Spirit damage, and you can use 2 Stunt points to stun target for 1 round.

What type of Gamer am I?

Before going into the long article(s?) about how I perceive D&D 4E, I have to give a background of my gaming career, right? I started off with Advanced Fighting Fantasy, then delved into a number of Homebrews that are essentially roll-under systems with feats and spells. Finally I settled into WFRPG 2E for a while, then find myself going on to Spirit of the Century, which would be my niche for a long time. Dragon Warriors hold a special place in my heart, and I am quite fond of Qin: The Warring States. As you can see, I lean mostly to the rules lite crowd in PnP RPG.

I too play lots of CRPG – right now my MMO obsession is Lord of the Rings Online; I was an avid Diablo II fan, playing it hours after hours. Neverwinter Nights II, the Witcher, Knights of the Old Republic, Divine Divinity, Oblivion all has sucked time away from me before I got tired of them. Console-wise, there is Shadow Hearts (all three in the series), Final Fantasy (7 to 12, sans 11), Tales of Verspia, among others. So over-the-top summons (remember the “I can grab a sandwich and make a cup of milo while waiting for Eden to be summoned” in FF8?), fantastic spells and flying airships are all too-familiar to me.

With my background established, I guess some may understand my reaction to the D&D 4E classes as ‘Huh, this is fantasy? Which type?”

What type of Fantasy is D&D 4E?

To like or to hate 4E, first one have to established what type of fantasy D&D 4E is trying to emulate. It is defintely not Lord of the Rings. Back in the good old days of the older D&D, Gandalf was just a 5th level Magic User. Now I got a feeling in 4E a first level wizard could totally kick Gandalf’s ass. Here’s a comparison:

Level 1 Wizard gets Light, Mage Hand and the all-purpose Prestidigitation. In the novels, Gandalf used Light on a couple of occasions. Indeed, Gandalf the White is quite reluctant to show off his powers. He didn’t float a cloud of daggers, call down fire from the sky. The most magical thing he would have done is to be the light that drive off the Nazgul. That may be a variant of turn undead or something. Of course, spells are not everything. Gandalf the White may be able to dispel all sort of magic, and heck, call down a pillar of fire if he wants to. But the point is- over-flashly magic is not the tone of Lord of the Rings.

Of course, the point is not to show that 4E is flawed or something, but it is definitely not for a setting where fantastic magic is common place (how do you buy a Palantir, anyway?)

Besides looking at the  measurement of power, the power descriptions are just too over the top. I have read the Drenai saga (which could, I feel, fit into D&D 3.5, what with its dual wielding, switching of souls, walking of planes, throwing of fireballs, ability to heal with music and kill with just a look), and even in 4E, the powers still feel way too fantastic. It is definitely not a good ruleset for A Song of Ice and Fire, where magic is virtually extinct from the main narrative. There may be some epic-magic-is-common fantasy novels out there, but I wouldn’t look too far. I personally have an opinion that the fantasy that D&D 4E is good at emulating is video game fantasy (no doubt this has been told lots of time), anime and…wuxia.

What…Wuxia?

Many fighter, rogue and ranger Powers remind me of the many wuxia novels (original Chinese wuxia novels) which I have read. The ability to weave in and out of the battlefields, pushing enemies away (regardless of their size) and striking at many enemies at once. For exampe, Storm of Blows allows a fighter to strike at multiple enemies within range; that sounds awfully like wire-fu to me. Or Paralzying Strike, which exists in Wuxia as a form of ‘nerve pinching’.  Not to mention the flurry of blows powers; some of reseembles this clip from the Last Blade. Let see – moving and strking at your enemy? Checked.  Multiple attacks at one enemy? Checked.  Counter-defence that opens up your enemy’s weakness when he attacks you? Checked.

Let me try to sum up the points – the magic of 4E is over the top for most fantasy-based settings (even for Harry Potter!). Its martial abilities is more wuxia-like than down to earth. It doesn’t remind me of any fantasy novles which I have read; In fact,when reading the Player’s Handbook, it brings anime, wuxia novels and even some computer games (Diablo 2, for example) to my mind.

Is this a bad or good thing? It depends on what sort of setting and the feel of the game you like. (Even Wuxia is mentioned as one of the probable genre in the DMG). Grim and gritty it is not – D&D 4E is more like the Final Fantasy of pen and paper RPG (not in terms of mechanics, but the style and feel).  For me, I like my fantasy to have the feel of Lord of the Rings, or probably something gritter, so having fighters with wuxia-like pwoers and wizards who can call down pillars of fire over and over again doesn’t quite fit well with me.

Yet as I read through the powers’ descriptions, something just bugs me. I’ll get into it next time, when I have the chance to.

To be honest, I do not look up what a sandbox approach is. I take my cue from GTA and Obvilion, which basically allows the player to explore the world as they like. However, the thing with Nobilis and other RPGs is that it is a group thing. I need to come up with a way that players can do what they want, together.

Nobilis, I feel, address this issue superbly. Characters in the group belongs to a single ‘family’, under their Imperator. The welfare of the chancel, their own mystical realm, and the protection of each other is an important informal rule of the game. So what I have done is to give projects to each of the character that will ultimately improve the lot of their chancel and their Imperator.

Sometimes, reading through the sandbox threads on RPG.NET, one get a feeling that it is chaotic, disogranised, with players killing NPCs just because “they are not essential to the story” or “this is how I would act in game”, or just plain doing what is plain unacceptable (“I try to posion the king”). This is all fine and dandy if all the players go along with the action. But if not, it would be just a series of facepalms.

Nobilis address this issues, by once again, to have a set of laws governing the characters. After all, they are demi-gods who could shoot down the sun, change the laws of gravity – some checks and balance must be in place!

What can you do in Nobilis?

In my game, I have each character picked up a lost ‘estate’ – estate that are lost and not claimed because their Imperator is dead. The characters would have to decide what to do with the estate they had adopted. How are they going to promote it? Will they absorb the concepts of the new estate into their old one, or redefine them to fit their world view?

I think this approach is good because the players would generate their own plot hooks and two, anyone’s success is going to be everybody’s success (their Imperator gets stronger, and gains Dynasty Points, a form of experience points for their Imperator). Likewise, I can rest my brain for a while and see what they want to do. Whatever they come up with, I will then plan accordingly.

In short, the strategy is “sandbox while planning, focus while playing”.

Sandboxing in Traditional Fantasy

Fantasy games, like D&D, are harder to regulate than Nobilis because besides the laws of alignment, there is nothing in the meta-plot to stop short of the PCs slaughtering an entire village, or to seduce the king’s daughter and other session-breaking acts. As emphasis, if all the players agree with the action, there’s no problem. The problem is what happens when two characters want to be the hero, while two others just want to cause trouble wherever they go?

Again, I would like to borrow elements from FATE/Spirit of the Century for some ideas. During character creation, each character has a chance to take part in a ‘novel’ (or adventure) of the other character. It is best, therefore, to come up with the goals and objectives of the sandbox game. But wait, isn’t the lack of planning the giest of a sandbox game? True,  but it doesn’t mean that there should be no planning. The planning here is to have a sort of a meta-plot which would guide the freedom in the sandbox game. It helps to keep the players in agreement with each other and give them a direction to all their actions.

For example, we take a group of characters whose goal is to overthrow the empire that has invaded in their homeland. This is not going to happen in a session or two. The first adventure could be something like a teaser – the PCs meet, are attacked by enemies, find some allies and perhaps find a base to hide. The next move is up to them. What will they do next? Recurit followers? Forge weapons? Assassinate one of the captains leading the armies? In this context, setting up an inn or becoming slave traders would look like odd decisions.

The important thing here is that all players must agree with the direction and objectives.

Playing Chess with the GM

I don’t see a sandbox game where the players come up with all the options and bombard them at the GM. Whenever there is an action, there would be a reaction. The GM opens the first session, setting the stage. Next session, the players come up with a plan and set it into motion. They got something done, fulfill an objective and so on. But what they have done would have consequences, and so in the next session the GM can introduce a more tightly plotted adventure, like the kidnapping of one of their allies or bounty hunters after them. This helps to guide the campaign