Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.

Games and Gaming: [4e] Harry Potter

Bottom of Page

1 to 64 of 64

  1.  
    • CommentAuthormigo
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 1
    It just occured to me that at will, encounter and daily powers seem to model Harry Potter's magic system fairly well. Is there any indication with the available classes so far in the PHBs, Arcane Power and the like that Harry Potter could be reasonably modeled?
  2.  # 2
    Sure, but forget about that stuff for a moment.

    Do you really see a Harry Potter RPG session going down like a D&D 4e session?

    "Harry is flanked by Draco and Goyle, that's a +2 to hit him and Draco has combat advantage."
    "Ok, going to attack with my Daily Excrucias! spell. That's 3d6 + my charisma in Psychic damage."
    "Okay, Draco you have a move action and a minor left."

    I mean, ya you could do it, sure. But would you?
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 3
    Posted By: Jared A. SorensenSure, but forget about that stuff for a moment.

    Do you really see a Harry Potter RPG session going down like a D&D 4e session?

    "Harry is flanked by Draco and Goyle, that's a +2 to hit him and Draco has combat advantage."
    "Ok, going to attack with my DailyExcrucias!spell. That's 3d6 + my charisma in Psychic damage."
    "Okay, Draco you have a move action and a minor left."

    I mean, ya you could do it, sure. But would you?

    Seems like this fits Quidditch pretty well?
    • CommentAuthorLogos7
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 4
    I'm not sure theirs a whole lot stopping someone from chaincasting their dailies in harry potter

    I mean if Voldermort really wanted to go DEATH CURSE DEATH CURSE DEATH CURSE DEATH CURSE couldn't he? While I will agree that the use of these things are generally cinematic, there's no actual limitation on the potter magic is there? I'm not sure? You can say that about the other fluff dnd is based upon (GEEZ GUYS WHY CANT I BLINDING STRIKE ALL DAY LONG I R ROGUE) so it may be a bit of a moot point (or you may have to take care when making powers to model them more carefully, with alot of use of the reliable keyword).

    Also potions/Transmogrification would be somewhat hard to model.

    But on the plus side, you only really need one class, and a handful of unique skills and rituals to pull it off. I think it may be quite doable and even fun to do (because having a fun easy to understand system that works with a popular franchise and uses the system of a popular game is likely to be well received and often played than say, most of the harry potter games out there now (I think what 4 main ones)
  5.  # 5
    Well - why not? As a definite non-expert in both Potterism and 4th edition it seems to me that you'd get pretty far by simply limiting player characters to the arcane power source. The common wisdom seems to be that as long as you have something to cover all four team roles, it should work fine even with drastically cut character options. Wouldn't even need that much reskinning, most of that fluff seems entirely feasible as something I'd expect in a Potter-style wizard world. I might also allow some martial classes for non-spellcasting badasses, unless I misremember the Potter tone. Perhaps accept one such deviation as a mascot, requiring the rest of the characters to be wizards.

    The much more difficult question, of course, would be the issue of forcing the Potter world into conforming with the violent team-based skirmish action that's so fundamental to 4th edition D&D. Perhaps one could reimagine the central conflict between the good and evil wizards on a grander scale? Postulate something... I don't know, an evil dimension that the bad wizards are using as a staging area and HQ for their deprevations, some place where the PCs can travel to adventure and slaughter magical monsters, slowly mapping the place and penetrating deeper, finally finding and conquering the evil HQ and putting an end to the conflict. In fact, import Shadowfell and call it a day, I say. If you want, decide that the portal to Shadowfell is situated below the wizard school and only students and some trusted adults know about it to explain why teenagers are saving the world here.

    The way I'd do it would be to break the ridiculous magician masquerade and have some evil wizards nuke Moscow to start the campaign. That sort of apocalyptical vision would nicely segue into a desperate fight for survival over real stakes ;) Would have to decide how to deal with mundane weaponry and such, of course.
    • CommentAuthorLogos7
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 6
    I love the way you characterize Dnd 4th edition as only combat and harry potter having none.

    I seem to recall quite a few dashing adventurous fights, combats, nastines and tactical combat assualts in the harry potter and quite a few touching moments, learning of things, important patrons to the main characters and character development in 4th edition.

    I mean really AURORS MAN AURORS
    •  
      CommentAuthorsage
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 7
    I think the magic model is pretty spot on, but I don't think Harry Potter (or anyone in that fictional setting) has hit points. Just not that kind of story.

    And no, Logos, I'm not saying that there isn't action and tactics and whatever. I'm saying none of that action is about doing 3d8 + 2 psychic damage. The basic At-Will/Encounter/Daily breakdown would work great, but the spells would probably need to do something else.
  8.  # 8
    I've no idea about the amount of combat in Harry Potter, definitely don't - I read the first two or three books around when they were published, and don't remember that much of anything that'd be recognizably D&D-style combat. It was more like children's adventure novels, with protagonists hiding and avoiding scary enemies until a deus ex machina or some such could save the day. The later books could involve more D&D-style action, of course.

    As Jared notes, though, 4th edition D&D is pretty combat-focused. Seems like a lot of unnecessary details work if you're not going to apply the skirmish combat system in a central role in actual play. Old basic D&D I could see easier, it being less focused on combat options. With 4th edition you're going to have this massive character sheet entirely devoted to combat options in front of you, so it sort of seems misleading if the actual gameplay is going to be mostly non-combatty, you know.

    Anyway, I'm no expert on either side of the equation, just musing on the options. Maybe it makes sense in some way I'm not seeing.
    • CommentAuthorLogos7
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 9
    Like em or not

    Hps are a FUCKING A+ GREAT pacing mechanic. What do you want, wound levels, ablative stats, dice allocation? Its great to say system matters (or that 3d6+2 Psychic damage matters and all taht) but how many variants of fucking sorcerer and Dogs and various other games are other there? Get over it, sometimes when porting a setting to a game, you have to import some of the game into the setting. Where big people here I'm sure we'll be able to figure things out.

    Why mess with a good thing?

    Also If thats you Euro, you kinda miss the point of SAGE by posting as an account named sage. The appeal of Sage is to post to a thread without bumping it (and actually making it disappear faster from the board). That doesn't work here (slow posting times, etc). If your someone else ignore that bit.
    • CommentAuthorDestriarch
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 10
    Sorry, I'm not seeing it. I don't remember a single case from the books where a spell could be cast only once per day or per encounter. They went off left, right and centre with the only limiting factor being how quickly you could scream bad latin and wiggle a stick.

    Personally, if I were going to run Harry Potter, I'd probably use Witch Girls Adventures to do it. Much more appropriate, and there are even a few house conversion rules.

    Incidentally, HPs aren't bad per se, but they do have their down-side. For one thing, they involve a lot of bookkeeping, especially if you possess them in the quantities seen in higher level D&D characters. I also don't like the way they make a game feel... well, computer-gamey. Purely a subjective response I know, but still a factor. And OK there aren't many systems that don't have some level of bookkeeping to their health mechanics, but there are a few. I wrote a couple myself.

    -Ash
  11.  # 11
    I don't find that daily/encounter/at-will thing to be much of an issue, especially in comparison to other clashes of assumption, really. 4th edition requires justifying similar things even with no modification at all, and that doesn't seem to stop playing it; better to just think of it as a game rule without particular justification. A potentially fruitful way of thinking could be to consider that limitation a retroactive metagame feature: in fact this spell here can only be effectively used in combat in very specific circumstances, it just so happens that we allow the player of the character to decide when the combateers and environment are in a position to use the spell - and the fact that this condition, whatever it may be, is never fulfilled another time through the day is just a coincidence. Heck, the simplest fictional explanation is that Voldemort surely casts Death Curse all the time, it's just that every other time the opposing countermagic/dodging/whatever succeeds automatically ;)

    Hit points can be thought around in similar ways (just think of them as drama points that tell you when you can describe a cool move that actually lands), although I do agree that it's not immediately obvious that Harry Potter combats are self-enclosed arcs of attrition like D&D shows us; a more natural way of looking at that sort of drama seems to be to think of the entire combat as one, unified conflict resolution procedure where tactical choices are not that important. But if you want a tactical game flavoured with HP sauce and don't mind minor inconsistencies, the difficulties don't seem that insurmountable to me. Just one character class seems like a recipe for trouble, though, considering how the 4th edition rules are constructed; probably better to use the entire arcane set of mages, swordmages, bards and whatever else they've published - nothing says that you can't call them all "wizards" even if the characters are mechanically of different classes, after all. Maybe call the arcane defender (can't remember if there is one) a "defence against dark arts wizard", eh?
    •  
      CommentAuthorsage
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010 edited
     # 12
    Ashok - I think you're right, if we were trying to model the way the characters see the world, spells would have to be castable at any time. But I think from a point of view of emulating the story (not the fictional world) that divide would work well.

    Logos - I'm not quite sure how I pissed you off, but a few things:

    I don't know how to say this without sounding odd, but I am a real person. And I'm definitely a D&D player, I don't know how my statement turned into a value judgement on D&D. Edit: Though now that I think about it, maybe I should just start claiming to be Eero. He does some pretty awesome stuff.

    I chose HP as an example of something that D&D relies on that would seem out of place in Harry Potter. I have no problem with them for D&D, they work quite well, and fit well with certain types of fiction. In my opinion, Harry Potter isn't one of those.
  13.  # 13
    Jared would probably use Broomstix to run it. Looks like a pretty good game. There's a character sheet too.
  14.  # 14
    Posted By: Eero TuovinenThe later books could involve more D&D-style action, of course.

    The 5th, 6th, and 7th books all have climaxes that feature team-on-team wizard duels between the good guys (either Harry and his school-aged friends or the the adults in the Order of the Phoenix) and the bad guys (the Death Eaters, Voldemort's followers). These are somewhat D&D-like, but I'm not sure how important positioning is, and things like area control don't come up too much. Usually, when the narration focuses on the combat it tends to talk about individuals "dueling" with each other, and I don't recall many examples of effective teamwork, though, so 4E might not be the perfect model.

    Posted By: DestriarchSorry, I'm not seeing it. I don't remember a single case from the books where a spell could be cast only once per day or per encounter. They went off left, right and centre with the only limiting factor being how quickly you could scream bad latin and wiggle a stick.

    Whether they can go off more often according to the magical physics of the world is probably less important than whether they do in the story. I think some spells do get tossed around a lot, but a lot of others are only ever seen once (here's the wikipedia entry on the spells used in the series). I think the big question would be whether the one-off flashier spells are more effective than the bread-and-butter Stupefy or Expelliarmus that the characters sling with impunity.
    • CommentAuthormigo
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 15
    Posted By: Jared A. SorensenSure, but forget about that stuff for a moment.

    Do you really see a Harry Potter RPG session going down like a D&D 4e session?

    "Harry is flanked by Draco and Goyle, that's a +2 to hit him and Draco has combat advantage."
    "Ok, going to attack with my DailyExcrucias!spell. That's 3d6 + my charisma in Psychic damage."
    "Okay, Draco you have a move action and a minor left."

    I mean, ya you could do it, sure. But would you?


    First session of D&D4e I played was going through a 2nd Ed Dark Sun adventure - it didn't feel anything like that. LFR on the other hand is pretty much what you described, but that doesn't mean HP couldn't work.
    • CommentAuthorJ. Walton
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 16
    Thing is, spells in Harry Potter are purely descriptive narrative contrivances, not at all the same as spells / powers in D&D. If I was trying to play a Potter game, I would want magic to be like the magic systems in PTA or Dogs.

    "There no magic system in PTA!" you say. Exactly.

    "You mean like the ritual system in Dogs, that gives you dice bonuses for specific classes of ritual behavior?" you ask. Yeah, like that.

    You definitely need to abstract upwards of the level of individual spells to get Potter magic to feel right. The choice of which spell to use is rarely, if ever, important. What matter is what you're trying to do with it (intentions) and what it all means (significance).
    • CommentAuthormigo
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 17
    Posted By: DestriarchSorry, I'm not seeing it. I don't remember a single case from the books where a spell could be cast only once per day or per encounter. They went off left, right and centre with the only limiting factor being how quickly you could scream bad latin and wiggle a stick.


    I don't recall more than one Patronus ever being cast. It was pretty much encounter ending. I also don't recall Bellatrix going and firing off a few more Avadakedavras after icing Sirius.
    • CommentAuthormigo
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 18
    Posted By: jaywaltThing is, spells in Harry Potter are purely descriptive narrative contrivances, not at all the same as spells / powers in D&D. If I was trying to play a Potter game, I would want magic to be like the magic systems in PTA or Dogs.

    "There no magic system in PTA!" you say. Exactly.

    "You mean like the ritual system in Dogs, that gives you dice bonuses for specific classes of ritual behavior?" you ask. Yeah, like that.

    You definitely need to abstract upwards of the level of individual spells to get Potter magic to feel right. The choice of which spell to use is rarely, if ever, important. What matter is what you're trying to do with it (intentions) and what it all means (significance).


    I disagree, there are very specific spells in HP. They even have names, you need some sort of magic system with a spell list to do Harry Potter. You've got a better argument for Lord of The Rings and The Hobbit not having a fixed spell system.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsage
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 19
    PTA or Dogs style magic (or Lady Blackbird) would probably be my first choice too, but I could see 4E working. The upside to a 4E hack is that it's already known by a large part of the gaming audience, might make it easier to sell players on it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsage
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 20
    Robin - I think you can still have those names, which I agree are important. I could see a Dogs-like character with Expelleramus 2d10 or whatever.
  21.  # 21
    Posted By: migo
    Posted By: jaywaltThing is, spells in Harry Potter are purely descriptive narrative contrivances, not at all the same as spells / powers in D&D. ...

    I disagree, there are very specific spells in HP. They even have names, you need some sort of magic system with a spell list to do Harry Potter.


    I think you're both partially correct. There does seem to be a "magic system" in Harry Potter, but much like the rules of Quidditch I think the system is based on narrative contrivance and probably doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
  22.  # 22
    Although Jonathan is sliding from the topic by bringing up other systems that could "do HP better", I have to of course agree that there are plenty of systems that would make a more obvious fit for Harry Potter (or nearly any other novel) than D&D. That magic thing, for instance - it might be the case that Jonathan is wrong and HP spells actually matter a great deal from the viewpoint of the author, but that's not what I got out of the novels; rather, it seems pretty obvious that you first choose what the character wants to accomplish, then decide whether he should succeed, then choose a nice visual, and only then name the spell actually used to accomplish whatever it was. I'd be pretty surprised if the author worked from a pre-detailed magical system, frankly.

    Of course it's entirely feasible to complain that even if the author doesn't use a magical system, a given roleplayer might want one because he wants to immerse in the HP setting and the experience of being a HP wizard. That's a pretty typical approach in mainstream licence games, after all. Jonathan is, however, also entirely correct in pointing out that if you want to create HP-like fiction, then the most straightforward way is definitely to follow the procedures an author uses, not those used by the characters in the fiction.

    That's all a bit secondary in that Logos was looking for advice specifically with D&D, I understand. It's easy to recommend Primetime Adventures or FATE or Solar System for something like this (all systems that would be trivial to fit for HP), but where's the challenge in that?
    •  
      CommentAuthorBrendan
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 23
    I have dirty shameful boners for HP and 4E, so I clicked on this thread even knowing full well that it would immediately slew into "no man what you really want is a Pool hack."

    Here's how I'd do Harry Potter with D&D:

    Combine Str and Con into Guts.
    Combine Dex and Cha into Talent.
    Combine Wis and Int into Cleverness.

    The corresponding defenses are Withstand, Dodge and Outfox.

    Keep HP. Decide who's going to be the star of your game before you start. They get 200 HP; best friends of the star get 100 HP; everyone else has 25. (Villains get HP in a similar hierarchy.) Keep surges, action points and second winds as-is.

    Levels 1-7 represent school year.

    Make up your own at-wills, encounters and dailies based on either the spells in the books or whatever you want to use. Remember, they have to be powered by Guts, Talent or Cleverness.
    • CommentAuthormigo
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 24
    Posted By: Eero TuovinenThat magic thing, for instance - it might be the case that Jonathan is wrong and HP spells actually matter a great deal from the viewpoint of the author, but that's not what I got out of the novels; rather, it seems pretty obvious that you first choose what the character wants to accomplish, then decide whether he should succeed, then choose a nice visual, andonly thenname the spell actually used to accomplish whatever it was. I'd be pretty surprised if the author worked from a pre-detailed magical system, frankly.


    You're right about the origin of course, Rowling has actually talked about it, but once a spell is intruduced it usually stays fairly consistent after that. A lot of them make repeat appearances, while a few naturally show just once, but the repeat appearances suggest to me that in the actual world there are specific spells. There's also the fact that Snape and Ginny are specifically highlighted as having the capacity to invent spells on the spot - given it's a rather unique ability I'd suggest you're not having free-form casting as a base system for everyone.

    Posted By: BrendanI have dirty shameful boners for HP and 4E, so I clicked on this thread even knowing full well that it would immediately slew into "no man what you really want is a Pool hack."

    Here's how I'd do Harry Potter with D&D:

    Combine Str and Con into Guts.
    Combine Dex and Cha into Talent.
    Combine Wis and Int into Cleverness.

    The corresponding defenses are Withstand, Dodge and Outfox.

    Keep HP. Decide who's going to be the star of your game before you start. They get 200 HP; best friends of the star get 100 HP; everyone else has 25. (Villains get HP in a similar hierarchy.) Keep surges, action points and second winds as-is.

    Levels 1-7 represent school year.

    Make up your own at-wills, encounters and dailies based on either the spells in the books or whatever you want to use. Remember, they have to be powered by Guts, Talent or Cleverness.


    I like that. It makes a lot of sense, and the level system even comes through in a really strong fashion. Not sure I agree with the hit points, but it certainly would serve as a lampshade.
  25.  # 25
    Posted By: Brendan
    Combine Str and Con into Guts.
    Combine Dex and Cha into Talent.
    Combine Wis and Int into Cleverness.

    The corresponding defenses are Withstand, Dodge and Outfox.


    Okay, that's pretty rad.
  26.  # 26
    The fundamental weakness of that approach, though, is that creating new content for 4th edition D&D is rather hard. It's no mean feat to just make up powers if you want them to be fairly balanced. (Of course balance might not be the point here, I guess, if you just want to use the 4th edition mechanical stylings.)

    Instead of making up new powers I recommend reskinning existing power sets. That and Brennan's simplifications seem like the way to go. The prospective content of such a game still seems like a weird mix-up of children's fantasy and D&D, but weirdness certainly shouldn't impede progress!
    • CommentAuthormigo
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 27
    Yeah, it would even work just to have Str & Con have the same score, while keeping the system intact, and using Fortitude, Reflex and Will rather liberally
    • CommentAuthorLogos7
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 28
    Brendan's Hack makes a lot of sense.

    Althought if you wanted to, you could also have Hps and Vps or something like that,

    Have hps be something arbitarily small and they are only used in PVP (when wizards fight wizards)

    Have VPS (VALOUR POINTS) be what you use to fight monsters with and otherwise act as normal hps.

    As for all the cries of WUT ABOUT THE ROLES, I honestly think roles while certainly nifty are not that important to either Team Effectiviness or Team Coherance or anything. Already just in my play one role is all but ignored (hello controller) and another role is heavily favoured (hello striker). Roles are a quick and dirty short hand for making sure there are varied abilities in the party and thats about it, and pc creation purposes. You can get that variety in a party of all wizards, presuming you have enough spell selection (and spell variety) to choose from. even if you wanted to get rid of the Enounter/Daily bits (ie making them all at-will), it wouldn't be that horrible, especially if you kept in the heoric tier. In return you get a Attack/Defence system that is easy to understand, even if its colour includes a large descrpency of power between spells.

    Just some thoughts,
    • CommentAuthorLogos7
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 29
    I would also dump feats, they are fiddly and generally dont make a big difference either way, easier to dump them by the wayside.
    • CommentAuthormigo
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2010
     # 30
    Well, that would be if you're making a d20 Harry Potter game, which would be a worthwhile endeavour. If you're just playing HP but everyone's a wizard in a school, then might as well keep them in.
    • CommentAuthorDestriarch
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2010 edited
     # 31
    Posted By: migo
    Posted By: DestriarchSorry, I'm not seeing it. I don't remember a single case from the books where a spell could be cast only once per day or per encounter. They went off left, right and centre with the only limiting factor being how quickly you could scream bad latin and wiggle a stick.


    I don't recall more than one Patronus ever being cast. It was pretty much encounter ending. I also don't recall Bellatrix going and firing off a few more Avadakedavras after icing Sirius.

    Ah yes, Patronus is the one example of a one-cast spell, and there's no reason why it couldn't be cast again but there's no point if your patronus is already about and as you rightly say, it's a scene-ender. Furthermore its usefulness is limited because it only really seems to be useful against Dementors. Incidentally, I believe Bellatrix didn't fire off another Avada Kedavra because she was having a good gloat ;) I think it more likely that certain spells aren't used regularly because they require more focus and intent. For example we know from the canon that for Avada Kadavra to work you really need to want to kill someone. Even in the most twisted individuals that kind of willpower must be hard to muster. Simpler to use Stupefy, then have a gloat, then kill them when you can concentrate.

    I get what people are saying about the spells-per-X limit being a meta-rule; they attempt to cast it as often as they like, but it only works so many times and the rest is just set-dressing. The simple fact of the matter is though, *they still try and cast the spell*. If they know it's not going to work again for a set amount of time, why would they bother to attempt to cast it again? And then you're into the problem of persuading the players to do something they know won't work just because it's in-theme.

    More simply, it just doesn't evoke the feeling of Potter to me. Sadly there is never likely to ever be a Harry Potter RPG, because it really deserves its own custom-made system. I mean I know there's Broomstix and Witch Girls, but still..

    -Ash
    • CommentAuthormigo
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2010
     # 32
    There's a decent argument that for the inner peace you find with a Patronus, once it dissipates, that inner peace is gone. Similarly, with the intent to kill someone, if you really have to focus, once you've killed you've got your release, and if you'll pardon the analogy, it would be like trying to ejaculate twice in a row. Given that nature of it, you'd figure most people wouldn't be able to do it multiple times. Perhaps special NPCs (like Voldemort) could throw off multiple ones, but he was the baddest of the bad, it rather makes sense he'd be able to do that. A thing to remember is a lot of the spells are pretty much scene enders. Expelliarmus ends a battle - no wand, pretty hard time casting spells. That's sort of a thing where a wizard battle really comes down to who has the higher initiative, and if you're outnumbered you're screwed. (Not too different from the classical Western shoot out really).

    A scene ender like that as a 1st level at will though rather goes against 4e's balance philosophy though, with Mage Hand only working on objects and not creatures.
    • CommentAuthorLogos7
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2010
     # 33
    but you would also have other at wills that would negate and what not. You could even add the scene ender tag or make it. This spell ends the fight (period)
    . I'm just thinking of this bit where harry was hastling snape and snape was all like, i'm countering your curses without saying anything, cause thats what a defence agaisnt the dark arts professor does.

    I was kinda down on the classes before, but I could definitely see some of these spells/rituals adhereing along class lines and class lines could adhere along roles pretty well.

    You may also need a bit about natural magic (like what the goblins use ) but thats only if you plan on allowing halfs and demi humans (like the half velia girl or whatnot)
    that said, Writting up enough powers/marks/rituals is your problem. Even sticking to only level 7 you have 2 sets of dailies 3 sets of encounters 2 sets of utility a wide variety of at-wills (lets say probably 10 or more ) and rituals to worry about. Even presuming only 4-5 options for each set, that 35 spells + dailies to consider.

    Doable but time consuming.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBrendan
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2010 edited
     # 34
    One thing I forgot to add: assuming you're playing the kids, none of your powers can directly inflict damage. The only time any of them manages to cast a curse is when Harry accidentally-on-purpose sectumsempras Draco. All their hexes are basically ways of inflicting conditions: expelliarmus, stupefy, confundo, bat-bogey hex, etc. The Patronus is sort of a channel-divinity style utility multipower, and things like accio, reparo, wingardium leviosa and so on are just cantrips.

    Rituals = potions.

    Note that this makes morale checks and the Intimidate skill's force-surrender ability much more important. If at any point there are grownups fighting grownups, the DM should just handwave it because the numbers aren't important.
  35.  # 35
    Posted By: BrendanOne thing I forgot to add: assuming you're playing the kids,none of your powers can directly inflict damage.


    From the 4E Player's Handbook: "Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character's skill, luck, and resolve -- all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation."

    Some people think it's goofy that hp are defined in this abstract way, but losing hit points does not always represent physical injury in D&D 4E. Therefore, there's no reason that Avada Kedavra couldn't be a big-damage spell instead of an insta-kill even though it's called the killing curse in the fiction. If you've run out of luck (i.e. hit points) and someone hits you with it, you die. If someone throws it at you but you're still high in hp, you narrowly dodge it. For similar reasons, there's no requirement that the "non-violent" spells that the good guys use to take people out should be "non-damaging".

    Posted By: BrendanAll their hexes are basically ways of inflicting conditions: ... stupefy

    I think Stupefy is clearly an HP-dealing spell. It takes out wimpy bad guys, important bad guys get knocked down but not taken out by it, Hagrid is able to shrug off multiple hits...


    Posted By: migoExpelliarmus ends a battle - no wand, pretty hard time casting spells. That's sort of a thing where a wizard battle really comes down to who has the higher initiative, and if you're outnumbered you're screwed. (Not too different from the classical Western shoot out really).

    I tend to agree with you that this is a potential problem, but it does raise the question of whether it really works that way for anybody but Harry. As I recall, most of the adult wizards in the Order of the Phoenix think that Harry is foolish for overusing Expelliarmus.

    If you really want to model Harry Potter in 4E, it would probably be worthwhile to break down the combat scenes in the 5th, 6th, and 7th books and see who uses which spells to what effect. It would probably be more instructive than trying to emulate the "magical physics" of the wizarding world.
    • CommentAuthorTristan
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2010
     # 36
    Posted By: Dan MaruschakSome people think it's goofy that hp are defined in this abstract way, but losing hit points doesnotalways represent physical injury in D&D 4E. Therefore, there's no reason that Avada Kedavra couldn't be a big-damage spell instead of an insta-kill even though it's called the killing curse in the fiction. If you've run out of luck (i.e. hit points) and someone hits you with it, you die. If someone throws it at you but you're still high in hp, you narrowly dodge it. For similar reasons, there's no requirement that the "non-violent" spells that the good guys use to take people out should be "non-damaging".

    That actually could work. I mean, change the name from "hp" to "luck". That way we keep the pacing mechanism, while solving the "damage abstraction" problem.

    Perhaps I'd only separate the damage-dealing stuff into "out-of-luck means you die" and "out-of-luck means you are incapacitated". Makes sense?
    •  
      CommentAuthorBrendan
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2010
     # 37
    Actually I don't think that definition of HP is abstract enough. As the man said, hit points are a pacing mechanism, which is why I pulled the 200/100/25 hp hierarchy out of my ass. Fights should usually come down to the Hero and the Big Bad as the only people standing.

    I might interpret Hagrid's Stupefy-resistance as a really high Withstand defense... but you're right, it's simpler and probably more harmonious design to have Stupefy deal a flat 25 hp of nonlethal damage on a hit. (Does 4E still have the "subdual damage/real damage" distinction? I don't have my PHB on me.)
  38.  # 38
    Unless I misremember, 4th edition doesn't have subdual damage; when an opponent goes down the player who caused it decides whether it's lethally or not, with no penalty either way. Considerably simplified in that regard.

    Besides that, I have to say that I don't see the hp thing as a particular problem here - if a given system-hacker is bothered by something as mundanely central to D&D as hit points, then it seems to me like D&D is just about the last system they should be using as a basis for the project. Common sense, that. Calling hit points "luck points" is of course a fine idea.
  39.  # 39
    Posted By: TristanThat actually could work. I mean, change the name from "hp" to "luck".

    Why bother changing the name? I'm not up on my D&D history, but I don't think hp have represented actual wounds for several editions. In 4E, 0 hit points means "out of the fight".

    Posted By: BrendanDoes 4E still have the "subdual damage/real damage" distinction? I don't have my PHB on me.

    No: "Knocking Creatures Unconscious When you reduce a creature to 0 hit points or fewer, you can choose to knock it unconscious rather than kill it."

    Posted By: BrendanFights should usually come down to the Hero and the Big Bad as the only people standing.

    I don't think that's true. Here are the 4E-style fights that I remember (maybe I'm getting some details wrong):

    Book 5: Harry and a handful of friends go to the Ministry of Magic, they fight the Death Eaters who are waiting for them there. The Order of the Phoenix shows up and fights the Death Eaters. Voldemort shows up, he and Dumbledore duel.
    Book 6: Death Eaters get into Hogwarts via the Room of Requirement, fight with Harry's friends while Harry watches Malfoy and Dumbledore.
    Book 7: The Death Eaters attack Hogwarts.

    There are individual duels, too, but "hero vs. big bad" isn't that common. Am I misremembering?
    • CommentAuthorTristan
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2010 edited
     # 40
    Posted By: Eero TuovinenUnless I misremember, 4th edition doesn't have subdual damage; when an opponent goes down the player who caused it decides whether it's lethally or not, with no penalty either way. Considerably simplified in that regard.

    I would tie that to the source of the attack. I think I'd be more happy if a Stupefy would automatically deal "non-letal" and a Death Curse "letal". So I'd have to consider the effect I want before choosing my attacks.

    Posted By: Dan MaruschakWhy bother changing the name? I'm not up on my D&D history, but I don't think hp have represented actual wounds for several editions. In 4E, 0 hit points means "out of the fight".

    "Hit Points". The name is basically one of those tribute/legacy stuff in there. I'd be more concerned about function than about "name".
    • CommentAuthormigo
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2010
     # 41
    I guess we've moved to a D20 HP hack. That's OK. In that case, changing the name makes sense. Hit points has with it this baggage. Changing it to luck points, and that your luck runs out would get rid of the baggage.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKrippler
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2010
     # 42
    HP obviously stands for Harry Potter. That's why Voldemort couldn't kill him with the death spell.
    • CommentAuthorMcdaldno
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2010
     # 43
    I'M WRITING A HARRY POTTER GAME! I'M WRITING ONE!

    Um,
    sorry. Sometimes I get gleeful about projects.

    Back on topic: I think that in Harry Potter, the emotional and personal significance of a spell is super important.
    Gaining a spell is about conquering your fears. Using it for the first time is about proving your place in the world.

    Now, how the fuck do you port that over to D&D?

    One idea:
    Through regular leveling, you can only gain At-Will powers.
    By embarking on a Quest ("Learn how to defend myself from the Dementors!"), you can earn a new Daily power.
    After using a Daily power, roll something or other. Not sure what it should be. On a success, turn that power into an Encounter power.

    That way, learning becomes an active and intentional part of the game (which is vital for Potter-dom), One intentionally seeks out the personal power to overcome what lies ahead (also vital), and gaining THE BIG SPELL is an actual event.
    • CommentAuthormigo
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2010
     # 44
    So we're treating spells more as magical items?
  45.  # 45
    Posted By: joepubThat way, learning becomes an active and intentional part of the game (which is vital for Potter-dom), One intentionally seeks out the personal power to overcome what lies ahead (also vital), and gaining THE BIG SPELL is an actual event.

    How often does this actually happen in the books? This sounds like a reasonably accurate description of the way Harry learned Expecto Patronum in book 3, but I can't really recall any other spells that work this way. I recall that Harry had trouble learning Accio in book 4, but I don't remember any emotional journey, just some intensive study time with Hermione. Maybe the unforgivable curses? Most of the spells he uses are learned in unremarkable ways.
    • CommentAuthorDestriarch
    • CommentTimeMar 20th 2010
     # 46
    Posted By: BrendanOne thing I forgot to add: assuming you're playing the kids,none of your powers can directly inflict damage.The only time any of them manages to cast a curse is when Harry accidentally-on-purpose sectumsempras Draco.

    Might I suggest an adaptation of FATE then? That way, spells would have the quick-and-easy rule that they can inflict tagable aspects on your enemies.

    -Ash
    • CommentAuthormigo
    • CommentTimeMar 20th 2010
     # 47
    Huh. FATE's OGL, as is d20. The levels work very well in HP, but some FATE characteristics could too.
    • CommentAuthorLogos7
    • CommentTimeMar 20th 2010
     # 48
    "Gaining a spell is about conquering your fears. Using it for the first time is about proving your place in the world."

    I think thats a bit of a read in there. Most spells are taught in the classroom and mastered threw dicatation and practice, not telling the man whats what.

    (There's maybe one or two exceptions here or there the glowing animal icon spell,etc and considering the spell is 'to conquor fear' it seems to be a bit odd to base the whole thing around it.

    Someone ninja'd me, Oh well, I could point out other things, like magic is not a personal power (more like a vocation which is why wizards take to ministry positions and teaching like no one's business). If it was personal they wouldn't need wands (and the 'personal' power that harry exhibits in the book is not magic its love or something like it) Maybe I just have a really dry and plebian reading of harry potter.

    Just saying that all these things people bring to table trying to model harry potter doesn't seem any worst than hps to me, and hps have the benefit of being prooven and true (and 3d8+2 psychic damage has the benefit of being popular ) to make them stand out of the pack.

    As for actually modelling stuff, Your gonna need someone to go threw the actually cast harry potter spells and see about modeling them. (in whatever system you use) and you also need to decide if your going to play fair and square (ie give everyone equal importance) or not (which is pretty established in the book , but not the book's universe if you know what i mean) and a bunch of other decisions and all that. Either way, I dont see a way to do it, using the already available material in 4th edition (too many signature moves dont translate to what we have atm both ways) so yeah I think your in hack territory.
    •  
      CommentAuthormerb101
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     # 49
    I would argue the final battle between the students of Hogwarts and the Death Eaters was very 4E and tactical. One of my biggest gripes with the last book in the Harry Potter series was Rowling glossing over all the fighting, death and destruction at the school. To me, those conflicts were cooler than the Wild West showdown between Potter and Voldemort.

    On a side note, Skill Challenges could be an interesting way to handle classroom work in the Potter-verse. I would think most of your early XP would be earned by completing skill challeges to pass your classes.

    ME
    • CommentAuthorMcdaldno
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     # 50
    Posted By: Logos7"Gaining a spell is about conquering your fears. Using it for the first time is about proving your place in the world."

    I think thats a bit of a read in there. Most spells are taught in the classroom and mastered threw dicatation and practice, not telling the man whats what.


    I was thinking about Harry learning the Expecto Patronus charm when fear plagued the castle, Hermoine learning to multiply time when her academic ambition and anxiety grew, and Neville learning how to cast something or other while "Harry's private army" practiced in secret.

    I'm sure I could name others. They're about "this personal issue suddenly got bigger than me, and I need to master this spell along with my fears".
    It's a lens to view those situations by... perhaps not the right one.
  51.  # 51
    Posted By: joepubHermoine learning to multiply time when her academic ambition and anxiety grew

    You've got that backwards. In the third book, Hermione is given a time turner in order to take more classes but she deals poorly with the stress of the added workload.

    Posted By: joepubNeville learning how to cast something or other while "Harry's private army" practiced in secret.

    I don't recall this being a problem with a particular spell, but Neville having problems doing anything under pressure.

    Posted By: joepubI'm sure I could name others.

    Could you? I'm still not seeing this pattern. Harry and his friends do indeed grow up and master fears, etc., through the books, but I don't see this process reflected as trouble learning spells. Expecto Patronum is the special case, not the common case, and the characters explain that the emotional aspect of that spell make it unusual.
    •  
      CommentAuthormerb101
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     # 52
    Not to get my Potter nerd-on, but I do recall Neville having issues casting Expelliamus or whatever the hell spell it is that knocks the wand out of someone's hand and then suddenly mastering it as part of Dumbledore's Army. Neville's mastery of the spell, I would argue, was actually a victory for Harry in that he was able to teach the poorest student in the class while the actual professors were not.
    • CommentAuthorMcdaldno
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     # 53
    Sure, Dan. That's cool if you aren't jazzed on my perspective.

    I don't see spell use as being tied to academic rigor, except in the case of Hermoine*.
    I see spell use as reflective of personal trials, tribulations, strengths and goals.
    Spell use as proof of character.

    And that's perhaps a strained reading of the Harry Potter franchise.
    I'm cool with that, as I like the ideas I'm playing with.

    If you don't feel the music, don't dance.

    *because for Hermoine, academic rigor IS what her character is about.
    • CommentAuthormigo
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     # 54
    I think the extra 10 points given to Neville for standing up to his friends for the house competition rather supports the idea of HP being about personal development. Ron also got the points for sacrificing himself in the chess game. There probably is going to be a big difference between the early and later books though, as towards the end JKR had no clue what she was going to do.
    • CommentAuthorDestriarch
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     # 55
    There certainly is personal development in the characters throughout the course of the Harry Potter series, but I think it bears mentioning that ongoing, noticeable and believable character development (as opposed to letting your characters stagnate as stereotypes) is one of the hallmarks of good fiction in general and not a theme that's particularly specific to Harry Potter.

    -Ash
    • CommentAuthormigo
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     # 56
    All the more reason to somehow work it into an RPG, as it'll be beneficial for other stories as well.
    • CommentAuthorLogos7
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     # 57
    forest meet trees/
    • CommentAuthorJBMannon
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     # 58
    I have been working on trying to hack this sence Book 5 to little success but I like the ideas that are put out here. The Broomstix game has some good starting points and is worth reading just for them. Skills being linked to the classes is a prime example. I think a Burning Wheel style lifepath system where players choose their strengths through birth, house and role might be a good starting point. Hps is a solid example to follow but they probably need to be renamed and re-examined to better represent loosing oomph in a fight rather than loosing blood or life force or whatever. 4e really might work though spell casting would need to be tweeked. Using skill challenges to complete school work sounds like it would fit perfectly in the HP universe. Perhaps players would learn spells at a once per day level though class work and the expend XP to raise them to once per encounter level and at-will level or do so through out of class skill challenges or perhaps both.
    • CommentAuthormigo
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     # 59
    I'm thinking with a school setting that it would likely be in, a relationship and clique system. Sweet Dreams, a very Indie RPG was set as a supernatural high school game. I found quite a few things that ended up working well there, including social combat (by spreading rumours or directly) that could affect reputation, popularity and a few other things. Suddenly 4e doesn't seem like it would fit the bill. It's completely missing on that very cool aspect.
    • CommentAuthorLogos7
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     # 60
    Traitor,

    oh well, you have a link for sweet dreams kicking out there,

    dont make me turn the google crank myself.
    • CommentAuthormigo
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     # 61
    http://maycontainmonkeys.ameba.ca/ there, although I think only the player's guide works as a download.

    Monsters & Other Childish Things has some similar stuff going on, so that's worth looking at too.
    • CommentAuthorTristan
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     # 62
    Now that we are leaving the 4e territory...

    For "leveling spells" I have been thinking about The Shadow of Yesterday. You hit your keys, you get XP, you spend your XP improving your spells (as in "being able to cast that one more often") or gaining new ones ("Look! I just learned that expelliarmus spell!").

    What are your Keys? It depends on your character. (Thus Harry has something like "Key of the Brave", while Hermione has the "Key of the Scholar" and stuff like that.)
  63.  # 63
    One example of the "it's a big deal at low levels, but it's kind of an afterthought at high levels" is Polyjuice Potion. In the second book getting it is a significant subplot. In the seventh book they're chugging the stuff left and right.

    Posted By: joepubI don't see spell use as being tied to academic rigor, except in the case of Hermoine*.
    I see spell use as reflective of personal trials, tribulations, strengths and goals.
    Spell use as proof of character.

    And that's perhaps a strained reading of the Harry Potter franchise.
    I'm cool with that, as I like the ideas I'm playing with.

    I agree that JK Rowling frequently uses magic as a way of showcasing the themes she's trying to hit and demonstrate character growth. It's a significant chracter moment in book one when Hermione hits Neville with the Petrificus Totalus, but if your formula applied we would have needed to see her struggling with learning that spell through the whole book. Similarly, it's an interesting character moment when Harry uses Expelliarmus on Voldemort in book four, but he's been proficient with that spell since the dueling club scene in book two. I would probably agree with your perspective if you weren't tying it so directly to "learning spells" but broadened it out a bit to "using magic" (which could come from spells they're learning, spells they know, or the various enchanted objects, etc., that feature prominently).

    Posted By: TristanFor "leveling spells" I have been thinking about The Shadow of Yesterday. You hit your keys, you get XP, you spend your XP improving your spells (as in "being able to cast that one more often") or gaining new ones ("Look! I just learned thatexpelliarmusspell!").

    What are your Keys? It depends on your character. (Thus Harry has something like "Key of the Brave", while Hermione has the "Key of the Scholar" and stuff like that.)

    Picking up on my comments to Joe, you could require characters to use magic in some dramatic way in order to buy off their keys. The "Petrificus Totalus" scene I mentioned could be the scene where Hermione buys off her Key of the Tattletale or something.
    • CommentAuthorMcdaldno
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2010
     # 64
    Posted By: Dan MaruschakPicking up on my comments to Joe, you could require characters to use magic in some dramatic way in order to buy off their keys. The "Petrificus Totalus" scene I mentioned could be the scene where Hermione buys off her Key of the Tattletale or something.


    This is much better than what I suggested.

1 to 64 of 64

  1.