Frylock

Firstly thanks again Frylock for suggesting alternatives to the usual system. Out of interest is your conversion of the Ghost Tower online at all?

As to the method you are using, I guess it might be alright in a tournament type game or something where time is pressing. But its far to 'board gamey' to abstract.

As an aside I am about to incorporate your Dungeon crawl rules for my the party, who are going through 5 encounters crawl and a major normal encounter designed with the rules you had in mind. I think using the system above would be acceptable if we were pushed for time, but it would for me feel too much like crunching numbers and even more board gamey, if that makes sense.

Ab

Thanks for responding.

Originally Posted by Arbanax

Out of interest is your conversion of the Ghost Tower online at all?

No, but I can make it available. I need to scour it to make sure I'm not violating copyright, but once I do, I'll announce it via a blog post here.

Originally Posted by Arbanax

As to the method you are using, I guess it might be alright in a tournament type game or something where time is pressing. But its far to 'board gamey' to abstract.

Right, but that's the only context in which I'm suggesting it. It should be used only if, for example, you're in my situation: You have a two-shot that for practical purposes must be a one-shot. The story must be told; the puzzle's pieces must be placed. If you don't scream through the combats quickly, though, everyone will leave the table enormously unhappy. It'd be like reading the first half of a novel and then misplacing it. Unfulfilling, eh?

Originally Posted by Arbanax

As an aside I am about to incorporate your Dungeon crawl rules for my the party, who are going through 5 encounters crawl and a major normal encounter designed with the rules you had in mind. I think using the system above would be acceptable if we were pushed for time, but it would for me feel too much like crunching numbers and even more board gamey, if that makes sense. Ab

That sounds great. The dungeon crawl system isn't about replacing the standard system. It's about giving DMs the ability to write a story to their own taste, rather than write a story to cater to a "3 combats then short rest" straight-jacket. If your story requires 6 encounters, a combination of the two systems should work well.

At least email me directly to let me know how it goes, but if you have something more to offer, post a comment to my relevant blog post or post your own.

Originally Posted by Frylock

No, but I can make it available. I need to scour it to make sure I'm not violating copyright, but once I do, I'll announce it via a blog post here.

Great thanks.

As regards the use of the system, thanks for the clarification. I didn't want to knock it, but just giving a first response. I can see how it might work, given the necessity that brought it about.

Originally Posted by Frylock

That sounds great. The dungeon crawl system isn't about replacing the standard system. It's about giving DMs the ability to write a story to their own taste, rather than write a story to cater to a "3 combats then short rest" straight-jacket. If your story requires 6 encounters, a combination of the two systems should work well.

Well I do hope so, the idea is both to test the system, with a bunch of characters to give a very different feel to our usual games and also because the context of the story also demands speed, so speedy, relatively light multiple encounters and a sense of urgency drive things (I hope) forward. Story wise I think this could work really well, I just hope what I've done mechanically will support that and work well.
Thanks again

Ab

I think this game simplifies combat by making it a faster "run", but overcomplicates, by introducing things that are not used anywhere else but this system. It also makes the game unsatisfying. For example, why a d3. I mean how many people actually own a d3. Just increase the Base Target number to 40 and use a regular d6. But that is not my main beef with this. Its the unsatisfying part that doesn't do it for me.

A "system" like this feels like a "patch" to a non-problem. If the adventure MUST have 17 encounters because that is what gives the best experience at the table, then using something like this does not give a good experience at the table. All it feels like is a rush to get done. If the adventure should not fit in 4 hours, forcing it to fit in 4 hours is not a net benefit.

As an example, when I converted Ravenloft for a 4 hour game, I didn't go into it with the idea of "converting" each and every encounter for the adventure. That by itself could easily have taken 20-30 hours of play. I took the thematic pieces of that adventure and converted those pieces and made sure that they fit in the overall story. The adventure had a beginning and an end that were definite, and several thematic encounters in the middle that always led to the final confrontation. But overall there were no more than a total of 3 combat encounters in the adventure The adventure ended up being lots of roleplay amongst the players, one encounter (short combat) on the way to Barovia, the gipsy camp and fortune telling (roleplay), the coach ride (narration), encounter the majordomo (roleplay). Up to that point the adventure would run the same for everyone. Then there were only 3 paths to choose from and they led to the chapel, the teleport cells, or the tower. Each of those was a short combat but they all led to the final confrontation with Strahd (full blown combat). With the majority of groups that I ran this, we either finished the encounter with Strahd, or were almost done when the time ran out. If I had to do it again I'd make the encounter into town also shorter.

This was with regular 4e combat encounters, not using the dungeon crawl system. If I had used that system I still would have only done one more combat.

The overall theme (feel) of the adventure was the important part of the conversion. Which is why I really like what you've done with Against the Giants. It feels like the original. Trying to cram that sucker into 4 hours would suck. However, a thematic conversion of that adventure would fit in 4 hours and still give a great feel for the original, but you would not be able to fit all the encounters into 4 hours even with the dungeon crawl system.

If I had to rush through 17 encounters in 4 hours even using the shortest form of combat, roll once high die wins, I would hate that adventure. Not because the "mini-combat" system sucks, but because rushing to finish something that big in 4 hours sucks. Imagine if we had run through the conversion of Tomb of Horrors in 4 hours. That would have sucked.

The important part of the game is the play, and rushing is something that doesn't help that.

Look at all the "tournament" adventures of old. They were much shorter for the tournament, than when published for mass consumption. The additional "stuff" was added to "expand" the game, not to run the expanded material in the time constraints of the tournament.

All I read was that I'm doing a great job with Against the Giants. Everything else seems to be in a different language.

Seriously, you're coming from the perspective that this isn't the tool for you. That's fine. As both you and I always say, play what you like, and don't play what you don't like. On Google+, I had someone write a doctoral thesis on why he likes this approach, though he had suggestions for changing it. (I'm not sure if the link I provided will work for non-subscribers.) Clearly, there's a "market" for this, and that's reason enough to create it.

In Ghost Tower, while each of the encounters are, at times, individually brilliant, some were just hack-and-slash, and the collection of encounters as a whole is part of a larger puzzle. Fighting in the "bugbear room" isn't nearly as important as what happens after you've done so, but it would seem odd if there was no protection for what's in there. If we skip the encounters, there won't be the appropriate drain of resources (in any system). Meta-gaming out of that by just stripping the party of a set number of healing surges without their input into the skipped encounter seems like a problem to me, and one worth solving. Using TETs would take more time, not less, but might still result in an overall net gain of time.

If people want to play it, and all we have is 4 hours, then this system allows them to do so. This problem is easily solved at conventions by scheduling it as a two-slot event (as I did at the DC Gameday), but sometimes that isn't available. I believe I could still run this in four hours as 4 encounters in the lower level 5 encounters in the tower, which is how the original competition worked (though I'd be swapping out one encounter for a standard system encounter that's fun as hell), but I'm not willing to throw out the idea altogether. Fear not, though; I won't use it in Against the Giants. (There wouldn't be a need for it anyway.)

BTW, I picked up my copy of the Hidden Shrine of Tomachan rewrite, and knowing that SRM made a lot of the same moves I did really validates my work. As you wrote, Against the Giants feels like the original adventure, so you've had some personal experience in this regard. Many other old-school gamers have enjoyed Ghost Tower and Hidden Shrine.

All I read was that I'm doing a great job with Against the Giants. Everything else seems to be in a different language.

I knew you would. That was just so you didn't feel like I was kicking you while you were down...

I think your system is just too "clunky" the entire idea of having to have a calculator at the table to determine the number of points for the encounter seems "radical"

Let's approach it in a different manner.

The party has Hit Points equal to (2xplayers). A 5 man party has 10. A level "appropriate encounter" has Encounter Hit Points equal to party's. Add the difference for the encounter level to the encounter hit point. A level -1 for a 5 man party would have 9 Hit points. Forget about traps, elites and solos. They have already been accounted for in the level for the encounter.

Roll initiative for the party. Each one of them acts in turn. Roll a D6.

• Roll 1-2 - Lose a Party Hit Point
• Roll 6 - Do 1 Encounter Hit Point damage
• Using an encounter power - Add +1 to your roll
• Using a Daily Power - Add +2 to your roll - Do 2 points damage on hit, 1 point on miss
• Multi-attack powers (blasts, bursts, two weapon attack powers) roll one additional time and can only take one hit point damage, even if both rolls are 1-2.
• When party hit points are at half - Party is "Bloodied" everyone loses a surge, all further rolls are at +1.
• Whichever side has more hit points, when the other side drops to 0 HP, wins
• For every 3 Party Hit Points lost a selected party member loses a surge.
• [optional]If the encounter has a solo - when encounter goes "bloodied" a roll of 1-3 loses a hit point.
• [optional]Healing Powers in combat restore Party Hit Points. Encounter power restores 1 Hit point, Daily power restores all Hit Points. Only one power can be used per roll.
• [optional]DM rolls once in turn too. On a roll of 5-6 - 1 damage to party hit points. On a roll of 1 lose 1 HP from encounter HP. DM doesn't have encounter or daily power bonuses.

Since this is totally abstract, please, please, please don't make this a simple rolling game. Describe the action that is going on in the encounter and at least try to make it interesting.

If anyone has Soldiers of Fortune by Open Design. I designed a meta-combat system that works well and includes the use of Skills for non-combat based characters. Good blog post, Rob.

The one thing I've taken away from this conversation, the Google+ conversation, and the way Thursday night played out is this: There are a lot of people that are interested in having a meta-combat system in place, but we shouldn't plan our gaming session under the assumption that some combats will be run that way, instead having the system available in case its need arises on the spot.

I knew I could do that in just one sentence!