I'm obviously Acrux, so here's what I think.
J1M wrote: ↑
September 3rd, 2023, 17:03
What I would like to know is if the interest in this project comes from a desire for a "4e Neverwinter Nights" or if it is more about seeing the 4e combat system in a digital format. Let me know what you think about this more radical approach.
I definitely lean toward the latter simply because that's where 4E shines. The combat system works the best with carefully crafted encounters and set pieces more or less tailored to the party. I don't think it's very compatible with a more freeform approach. To be honest, a lot of this is essentially what I thought you were doing already.
- 4e starting point for the math
- XCOM game structure, select mission, upgrade base of operations
- Missions encompass a series of encounters that represent an adventuring day
- Long rests are not a game mechanic
This all sounds good.
- Short rests are automatic, as is consumption of persistent resources like healing surges
I remember not whether there's some reason to save healing surges for in-combat use. If there is, their consumption should be a choice (though a button to quickly use as many as is optimal betwen fights would be welcome).
- Consumables spoil after a mission, use em or lose em
This could work. I also like the idea of Fell Seal's refilling slots system which WhiteShark recommended above. Both work to encourage the player to actually use consumables.
- Focus on hunting monsters, not killing level 9 pickpockets
Yes please. Everyday enemies that are level bloated purely for the sake of challenge feel completely absurd.
- Missions involve being given a specific team of pre-built characters or a limited set of pre-built characters to choose from (can design more interesting encounters this way)
- Characters have defined advancement
Not a fan of these. Builds are one of 4E's big draws and the system mastery required to make a good one is a core skill. I wouldn't mind recruiting prebuilt characters as defaults or extra henchmen or something, but as the player I would want the freedom to customize my party.
- These restrictions allow players to explore more of the combat system than they would normally see and experience things like parties that significantly diverge from Fighter/Thief/Cleric/Wizard
Instead, if you want to force the player to branch out, you could make side missions that place certain restrictions on the party you can bring. Wizardry did that with the alignment doors. I think that would be accomplish your goal without taking all character building out of the hands of the player.
- Characters have no backstory or childhood trauma quests
If characters are customizable, I'm totally fine with this. If managing a roster of fixed prebuilt characters as you suggest above, I think it may be better for them to have a little personality—though childhood trauma is not necessary. Customization automatically makes me invested, so without that, I would need something else to make me care.
- Equipment in the form of unlocked options, no stash to manage
This could be... alright, I guess, though I don't really see the advantage. It sounds like two different ways to represent the same thing, except the former is more abstracted for reasons I don't understand. If this means that each piece of equipment is stuck with one character, I'm against it. In theory, though rare, I can imagine scenarios where one might wish to swap equipment around.
- No skills or skill checks (traps in the form of a drain on persistent resources or 4e-style encounter traps)
I think retaining skills were better. A lot of the structure you describe reminds me of the Shadowrun trilogy: mission-based, central hub, combat-focused, fixed roster, etc. I enjoyed the way skills let me tackle missions differently in those. Plus, some skills have potential in-combat uses (Athletics, Stealth), so I don't see a clean way to remove them entirely.