Ahhh, first post here...hi all!
Like a lot of folks, I found the game that C7 delivered almost unplayable as written. And yet, there were enough compelling ideas there that salvaging it has been on my mind since the first session I ran (the weekend that the first PDFs dropped). I often came back to it, gave it some thought, and then abandoned the project again. But in the interim I ran a lot of Conan 2d20 – a game I was dubious about at first, but quickly fell in love with – and it occurred to me that many of the good design choices in that game could be brought over to WFRP4E, to shore up some of its weaknesses.
Top of the list, of course, is the advantage system. I didn't want to excise it completely, because so many mechanics hinge on it, but I also didn't want to just nudge it by capping advantage or making it purely binary. The 2d20 system has a similar, but better designed system (called Momentum in Conan), and it makes the whole game go...simply the best tool I've seen for creating dynamic, action-packed setpieces. It seemed to me that a hybridized version of Advantage and Momentum should be possible; enough like Advantage to keep all of the Talents and Monster Traits valid and playable-as-written still, but more fluid and easier to manage (it's easy in Conan, because Momentum goes into a group pool, and doesn't need to be tracked individually...which also turns out to be better game design, as simpler math).
Second on my list were the way criticals were handled. Again, I wanted to preserve the tables and rewrite as little of the actual mechanics as possible, but the incessant rolling is a drag (yes, I know, it has its roots in earlier editions). Also, the fact that they had to write an exception to the hit location rules just to make their critical hit tables work just makes my head hurt. My version does away with random hit location and random rolls for effects, instead treating hit locations a bit more organically, and the crit hit tables like menus that players can pick from. This latter is going to need balancing through playtesting...my first session with it proved way too lethal, and what I have now is my first attempt at an adjustment.
Third was the opposed skill tests. Lots of folks seem to like these, but they're counter-intuitive to me...a roll over system would have been fine, but making a roll under system where half the time it doesn't actually matter if you roll under, and you're forced to deal with comparison of negative success levels is both annoying math and a mood killer for me. Still, a way to avoid whiffiness was needed, so I cludged a mechanic for that...though it's by far the one I'm least satisfied with, as it feels pretty tacked on. But it has been functional, in combination with Advantage.
I've put these three core changes to the test a little bit, and so far I haven't hit any snags (apart from crits being too lethal the first time out). I'm sure there are things buried in the system that I haven't accounted for when building these houserules, which is half the reason I'm posting here now. But also, houserules are fun, and I feel like I've sat at arm's length from the community too long.
There are a number of other little houserules embedded in these docs, things I haven't tested as much, but that feel "right" to me. In addition, I'm using a few of Zapp's houserules, or modeling my own on their effort, so kudos on the good work there.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pqp ... sp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ughgdS ... sp=sharing
Houseruling the heck out of 4E
-
adambeyoncelowe
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:54 pm
Some thoughts:
Assisting - this is more complicated than before. I'd prefer a straight +10% modifier or a free reverse.
Opposed rolls - how do you manage SLs for damage? Or is it all-or-nothing?
Scaling combat skills works, even if it's inelegant. Have you considered the Brigandyne method instead? Only the PC rolls, so NPCs are abstracted as a relevant difficulty modifier to the PC's combat check. Simply apply (50 - opponent's combat score)% as a modifier to the PC's roll. If the PC wins, they inflict damage. If the PC loses, they take damage instead. This means evenly matched opponents will have a nearly 50% chance of winning. It works for generic opposed rolls too.
Advantage - again, this seems more fiddly, but I guess individual, per turn mods will be limited. The problem isn't really advantage alone, though. It's easy enough to cap it or use fast SLs (which limits rolled SLs to 9, even with advantage, excluding any Talents). If PCs amass too much, introduce more ranged foes (real thorns in the side during combat since they strip advantage from a safe distance).
IME, the bigger problem is that there are a series of modifiers and exceptions for every eventuality: advantage + size + range + terrain + conditions + armour penalties, etc. Removing the advantage maths does nothing about the rest of it.
We have a simple rule: you get 5 seconds to fix all mods. If you don't know by the time that runs out, proceed without any. It's usually easiest to just abstract it and say 'take +20%' than to work out multiple mods.
Or better yet, just give a reverse for all mods (reverse to the worst result if disadvantaged; reverse to the best if advantaged). Then advantage points would only need to be spent on rerolls and special FX, like you suggest. (Reverses aren't perfect, as they give a better bonus to those in the middle of the skill range, but they are simple.)
Dark deals feel appropriate, if a little gamey. I'd prefer an in-game reason for them (prayers to the Ruinous Powers?) rather than something a player does but which inexplicably causes Corruption without an in-game explanation. But it's certainly in-keeping with the themes of the game.
Hit locations - sensible. We do something similar (it always hits the body unless a crit or a called shot). But I really like your way of determining critical wounds.
I hope this helps!
Assisting - this is more complicated than before. I'd prefer a straight +10% modifier or a free reverse.
Opposed rolls - how do you manage SLs for damage? Or is it all-or-nothing?
Scaling combat skills works, even if it's inelegant. Have you considered the Brigandyne method instead? Only the PC rolls, so NPCs are abstracted as a relevant difficulty modifier to the PC's combat check. Simply apply (50 - opponent's combat score)% as a modifier to the PC's roll. If the PC wins, they inflict damage. If the PC loses, they take damage instead. This means evenly matched opponents will have a nearly 50% chance of winning. It works for generic opposed rolls too.
Advantage - again, this seems more fiddly, but I guess individual, per turn mods will be limited. The problem isn't really advantage alone, though. It's easy enough to cap it or use fast SLs (which limits rolled SLs to 9, even with advantage, excluding any Talents). If PCs amass too much, introduce more ranged foes (real thorns in the side during combat since they strip advantage from a safe distance).
IME, the bigger problem is that there are a series of modifiers and exceptions for every eventuality: advantage + size + range + terrain + conditions + armour penalties, etc. Removing the advantage maths does nothing about the rest of it.
We have a simple rule: you get 5 seconds to fix all mods. If you don't know by the time that runs out, proceed without any. It's usually easiest to just abstract it and say 'take +20%' than to work out multiple mods.
Or better yet, just give a reverse for all mods (reverse to the worst result if disadvantaged; reverse to the best if advantaged). Then advantage points would only need to be spent on rerolls and special FX, like you suggest. (Reverses aren't perfect, as they give a better bonus to those in the middle of the skill range, but they are simple.)
Dark deals feel appropriate, if a little gamey. I'd prefer an in-game reason for them (prayers to the Ruinous Powers?) rather than something a player does but which inexplicably causes Corruption without an in-game explanation. But it's certainly in-keeping with the themes of the game.
Hit locations - sensible. We do something similar (it always hits the body unless a crit or a called shot). But I really like your way of determining critical wounds.
I hope this helps!
Assists – I don't really feel strongly about this one, it's just my general inclination that teaming up a problem is a little too easy. But this fix doesn't really do anything to make the game narratively more interesting either.
Opposed rolls – it's basically the same as before, but without negative SLs. The active character either succeeds or doesn't, and if they do, they get their SLs. The defender either succeeds or doesn't...a failure for the defender is just 0 SLs, but if they succeed at all, they reduce the active character's SLs by that amount. However, I might adopt the Brigandyne method, which I had not read about until just yesterday before posting this. It would functionally fix opposed rolls and the scaling problem. In fact, I rather like the elegance of it.
Advantage – It seems fiddly, but in practice, it's actually easier than RAW. I mean, I've been playing Conan for some 20+ sessions now, so maybe I'm just used to that part of it, but tracking Advantage in a single pool for the PCs and another for the GM, and then divvying it up however we want between rounds, is a lot easier in my mind than trying to manage gains individually on a dozen or more characters. But the real clincher isn't that it makes an unplayable subsystem playable, it actually makes it good. The advantage system as written isn't just bad, imo, it's not fun. But the momentum system as seen in 2d20 games *is* fun...it encourages cooperation and gives players meaningful choices that they can make together. And the advantage system in 4E is so close to that in some ways, all it really needs is a rule to make it easier to share between characters. Do that, and suddenly whole new narrative options open up. Really want that Big Bad to be able to trigger a special monster trait, like Vomit? Now his whole side can work to consolidate advantage in his favor, making trolls and the like much scarier. Similarly, the PCs can build advantage and share it around in ways that make the game more surprising and fun for everyone.
And it especially pleases me that I can use it to replace Fortune, Resolve, and Dark Deals...basically rolling up three different types of player currency into one flexible economy. As I've written it, it also caps how much advantage anyone *can* have in a fairly organic way, since it cycles from Group Pool to Player to Gone in the span of one round (rather than building and building turn after turn), which feels right to me, and more dramatically interesting. But you can't just make sweeping changes like this without affecting something...this does preserve most of the Talents and I believe all of the basic combat mechanics and monster traits, because there is still advantage to compare and spend for things like Grappling, disengaging, and monster traits, but it does change a very basic assumption of the game and requires some specific revisions. The Lucky and Strong-Minded talents need to be rewritten entirely to account for Fortune and Resolve being nixed, and several of the spells from the Celestial College also depend on Fortune. There are probably some deeper ramifications that I haven't quite worked out yet, but in general, if I can take an annoying subsystem and actually make it fun, I'm willing to work out those other issues as they become apparent.
(Side note: One of my favorite elements of WFRP 3E was always the Party Sheets, and this shared advantage pool is me one step closer to reimplementing them in 4E in some fashion. We'll see.)
Regarding Dark Deals...yes, agreed totally. The mechanic is one thing, but my implementation of it at the table would include the optional rule presented in the core book, in which the player actually has to at least whisper a little prayer to a daemon under their breath...possibly with some weird special FX coloring the moment to indicate that corruption has been had.
I'm glad the hit locations/crits thing seems sensible! It's an area that's probably going to need tweaking as I get to play with it more, but I'm happy to eliminate additional combat rolls while also putting some agency back in the players' hands.
Opposed rolls – it's basically the same as before, but without negative SLs. The active character either succeeds or doesn't, and if they do, they get their SLs. The defender either succeeds or doesn't...a failure for the defender is just 0 SLs, but if they succeed at all, they reduce the active character's SLs by that amount. However, I might adopt the Brigandyne method, which I had not read about until just yesterday before posting this. It would functionally fix opposed rolls and the scaling problem. In fact, I rather like the elegance of it.
Advantage – It seems fiddly, but in practice, it's actually easier than RAW. I mean, I've been playing Conan for some 20+ sessions now, so maybe I'm just used to that part of it, but tracking Advantage in a single pool for the PCs and another for the GM, and then divvying it up however we want between rounds, is a lot easier in my mind than trying to manage gains individually on a dozen or more characters. But the real clincher isn't that it makes an unplayable subsystem playable, it actually makes it good. The advantage system as written isn't just bad, imo, it's not fun. But the momentum system as seen in 2d20 games *is* fun...it encourages cooperation and gives players meaningful choices that they can make together. And the advantage system in 4E is so close to that in some ways, all it really needs is a rule to make it easier to share between characters. Do that, and suddenly whole new narrative options open up. Really want that Big Bad to be able to trigger a special monster trait, like Vomit? Now his whole side can work to consolidate advantage in his favor, making trolls and the like much scarier. Similarly, the PCs can build advantage and share it around in ways that make the game more surprising and fun for everyone.
And it especially pleases me that I can use it to replace Fortune, Resolve, and Dark Deals...basically rolling up three different types of player currency into one flexible economy. As I've written it, it also caps how much advantage anyone *can* have in a fairly organic way, since it cycles from Group Pool to Player to Gone in the span of one round (rather than building and building turn after turn), which feels right to me, and more dramatically interesting. But you can't just make sweeping changes like this without affecting something...this does preserve most of the Talents and I believe all of the basic combat mechanics and monster traits, because there is still advantage to compare and spend for things like Grappling, disengaging, and monster traits, but it does change a very basic assumption of the game and requires some specific revisions. The Lucky and Strong-Minded talents need to be rewritten entirely to account for Fortune and Resolve being nixed, and several of the spells from the Celestial College also depend on Fortune. There are probably some deeper ramifications that I haven't quite worked out yet, but in general, if I can take an annoying subsystem and actually make it fun, I'm willing to work out those other issues as they become apparent.
(Side note: One of my favorite elements of WFRP 3E was always the Party Sheets, and this shared advantage pool is me one step closer to reimplementing them in 4E in some fashion. We'll see.)
Regarding Dark Deals...yes, agreed totally. The mechanic is one thing, but my implementation of it at the table would include the optional rule presented in the core book, in which the player actually has to at least whisper a little prayer to a daemon under their breath...possibly with some weird special FX coloring the moment to indicate that corruption has been had.
I'm glad the hit locations/crits thing seems sensible! It's an area that's probably going to need tweaking as I get to play with it more, but I'm happy to eliminate additional combat rolls while also putting some agency back in the players' hands.
-
adambeyoncelowe
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:54 pm
Fair enough. I'm not really a fan of big pools and table metacurrencies, as they feel too abstract, but I get that's very personal and many tables love them. 2d20 never did it for me as a system, but I like traditional games rather than newer ones, on the whole.
As a GM it can admittedly be hard to log advantage for multiple enemies, but I just mark little dots next to each person's name on the piece of paper I use to track initiative and wounds. That's easiest enough. Players then track their own advantage (again, simple enough).
And for me, there's still the issue of all the other combat mods, which is an issue. Though I think I've talked myself into just simplifying them all to reverses for the most part. I'm also probably stealing your idea of spending advantage instead of Fortune and Resilience.
Do keep us updated. I love reading others' house rules, even if they differ from my own because, as you say, they're fun.
As a GM it can admittedly be hard to log advantage for multiple enemies, but I just mark little dots next to each person's name on the piece of paper I use to track initiative and wounds. That's easiest enough. Players then track their own advantage (again, simple enough).
And for me, there's still the issue of all the other combat mods, which is an issue. Though I think I've talked myself into just simplifying them all to reverses for the most part. I'm also probably stealing your idea of spending advantage instead of Fortune and Resilience.
Do keep us updated. I love reading others' house rules, even if they differ from my own because, as you say, they're fun.