DMing style was [anyE]
Frank Emanuel
comments.]
Following the can of worms I opened trying to find other 2Eers here I
couldn't help noticing something that would actually make a useful thread.
DM (or GM) style.
I know that there are different kind of gamers out there, so there are bound
to be lots of different opinions on this, but that is the point.
As a DM how important is it to have rules for everything? Do you ever break
rules? Have you ever given in to a rule even if it wrecks your whole game?
I will start the ball rolling. My opinion is that the enjoyment of the game
is everything. I want everyone at my gaming table to have a fun time. We
only play every second week so it has to count. If I find that following the
rules, even my own house rules, will wreck the game for someone I will fudge
my way around. A good example is critical hits and misses. I have charts for
both, but as the DM if the roll makes no sense or would hinder the story I
simply make up something that would be fun for the whole group.
I am not above a PC dying, but if they go it will be out in a way that they
can feel at least satisfied that they fought well or role played well. They
know the risks, that is what makes the game fun. But they also know that I
am not just out to get them. I have often asked them to really think through
an action that they might die from, on the other hand often when they take
too long deliberating I say ok the monsters burst through the door tell me
what you do now!
From this perspective the rules are really only a support framework, and I
am free to really be the DM.
What is your take on this?
Frank
Sea Wasp
>
> [this was posted by me but mislabelled, this might help generate some real
> comments.]
>
> Following the can of worms I opened trying to find other 2Eers here I
> couldn't help noticing something that would actually make a useful thread.
>
> DM (or GM) style.
>
> I know that there are different kind of gamers out there, so there are bound
> to be lots of different opinions on this, but that is the point.
>
> As a DM how important is it to have rules for everything?
It's important for ME to know how things work. The rules are
manifestations of the way the world works. If the way I want the world
to work conflicts with the rules, the rules change.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Bill Silvey
news:3DAB44...@wizvax.net...
> It's important for ME to know how things work. The rules are
> manifestations of the way the world works. If the way I want the world
> to work conflicts with the rules, the rules change.
Question: for you, as a player, is there an amount of "winging it" from the
DM that's acceptable? I'm curious. I tend to be of the same mind you are;
if the DM has become arbitrary in his or her decisions, then it's obvious
they're following some internal set of rules I can't "read" or interpret -
and thus don't know how to proceed...
--
http://home.cfl.rr.com/delversdungeon/index.htm
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
Me: "What you have to understand, dear, is that the internet is a global
community...a village!"
My Wife: "And you're the village idiot, right?"
I hate furries.
Frank Emanuel
"Bill Silvey" <bxsxixl...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nOHq9.89553$S8.14...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Sea Wasp" <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
> news:3DAB44...@wizvax.net...
>
> > It's important for ME to know how things work. The rules are
> > manifestations of the way the world works. If the way I want the world
> > to work conflicts with the rules, the rules change.
>
> Question: for you, as a player, is there an amount of "winging it" from
the
> DM that's acceptable? I'm curious. I tend to be of the same mind you
are;
> if the DM has become arbitrary in his or her decisions, then it's obvious
> they're following some internal set of rules I can't "read" or interpret -
> and thus don't know how to proceed...
That is a good comment. I tend to only 'break' rules when I know that things
aren't balanced or I want to accomplish something that I feel the players
will really enjoy. For example I had a seer visit the party in an odd
location. They asked to speak with the party and then waved their hands,
froze time and spoke to 80% of the party in familiar tongues and voices. I
did this by handing them each a tea baked piece of paper with their messages
on them. The effect was grand - but completely disregards spell casting
rules for AD&D. It was done for dramatic effect and to progress the story.
The other inicident is when I have unwittingly put the party up against
something they should be able to get through, but I overestimated their
strength.
As a DM I am always on your toes trying to stay ahead of the players, gently
leading and guiding them into the story. That is my take anyway, I don't
play AD&D like a strategy game.
Frank
Bill Silvey
"Frank Emanuel" <fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3WHq9.3210$Lb1.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Right right. Definitely. It's also DM caveat to quickly arbitrate a
situation that's quickly bogging down the game; if there's a bad guy
attacking the front rank, and the front rank is three players wide, and
there's one bad guy, a quick D6 roll will suffice without breaking the rest
of the game.
> As a DM I am always on your toes trying to stay ahead of the players,
gently
> leading and guiding them into the story. That is my take anyway, I don't
> play AD&D like a strategy game.
D.J.
"Frank Emanuel" <fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
] As a DM how important is it to have rules for everything? Do you ever break
] rules? Have you ever given in to a rule even if it wrecks your whole game?
Some of the rules helped me run the game, but if a rule seemed to be
out of place in the rest of the game, I either modified it or didn't
use it at all. I looked at many magazine rulesfor AD&D 1E, and
adopted many. Others such articles I felt would be disruptive to the
game rules and didn't use them.
I occasionaly used advice from other local gamers, but I realized
very quickly that some of them deliberately gave bad advice.
JimP.
--
Disclaimer: Standard.
Updated: October 11, 2002 my 1E AD&D game world.
Over 200 maps and pages of info.
http://blue7green.crosswinds.net/crestar/index.html
Wayne Shaw
<bxsxixl...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>"Sea Wasp" <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
>news:3DAB44...@wizvax.net...
>
>> It's important for ME to know how things work. The rules are
>> manifestations of the way the world works. If the way I want the world
>> to work conflicts with the rules, the rules change.
>
>Question: for you, as a player, is there an amount of "winging it" from the
>DM that's acceptable? I'm curious. I tend to be of the same mind you are;
There are always going to be situational issues where the GM has to
adjust things because the rules didn't account for something; but
those improvisations should still show some relationship to the rules
as presented, and ideally should parallel extent rules.
Sea Wasp
> > manifestations of the way the world works. If the way I want the world
> > to work conflicts with the rules, the rules change.
>
> Question: for you, as a player, is there an amount of "winging it" from the
> DM that's acceptable?
As long as it's CONSISTENT, he can wing it all he likes. But if he
has X happen, which implies I can do Y, which means Z, then I damn
well better be able to do Y or he'd better have a damn good reason
that makes sense that tells me why I can't.
Kevin Lowe
"Frank Emanuel" <fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I know that there are different kind of gamers out there, so there are bound
> to be lots of different opinions on this, but that is the point.
>
> As a DM how important is it to have rules for everything?
I un-ask that question. It is not possible to have rules for everything.
> Do you ever break
> rules?
Yes. But you rarely have to break rules if you know the rules well
enough in the first place, and when you do it's for a good reason.
> Have you ever given in to a rule even if it wrecks your whole game?
I've never seen a single atomic rule do so in a vacuum. IMNSHO the
game-wrecking problem is highly likely to lie elsewhere in a
well-designed system, and badly designed systems just suck whatever you
do.
> I will start the ball rolling. My opinion is that the enjoyment of the game
> is everything.
Apart from those who play for the pain of it all, I suspect that
everyone agrees with this position.
However, for some people (like myself) enjoyment comes, in part, from
working within the rules.
> I want everyone at my gaming table to have a fun time.
As above.
> We
> only play every second week so it has to count. If I find that following the
> rules, even my own house rules, will wreck the game for someone I will fudge
> my way around. A good example is critical hits and misses. I have charts for
> both, but as the DM if the roll makes no sense or would hinder the story I
> simply make up something that would be fun for the whole group.
I honestly don't see why you bother rolling dice for combat at all in
this case. If you are going to fudge any results that "hinder the
story" why not just tell the story to the players and leave your dice in
their bag?
> From this perspective the rules are really only a support framework, and I
> am free to really be the DM.
>
> What is your take on this?
You're free to really make stuff up. But it's impro theatre rather than
a mechanically interesting game. Games aren't mechanically interesting
if the rules keep changing on the fly to force a predetermined outcome.
Impro theatre is not a bad thing - I love impro theatre. But I like the
mechanically interesting game part too.
What I don't understand is the appeal of wasting perfectly good time
going through the motions of playing a game, when you aren't going to
stick to the game's rules if push comes to shove. (Unless you are just
messing about to learn the rules or something, in which case it's
perfectly sensible. But I don't understand it as SOP).
Kevin Lowe,
Brisbane, Australia.
Frank Emanuel
> > only play every second week so it has to count. If I find that following
the
> > rules, even my own house rules, will wreck the game for someone I will
fudge
> > my way around. A good example is critical hits and misses. I have charts
for
> > both, but as the DM if the roll makes no sense or would hinder the story
I
> > simply make up something that would be fun for the whole group.
>
> I honestly don't see why you bother rolling dice for combat at all in
> this case. If you are going to fudge any results that "hinder the
> story" why not just tell the story to the players and leave your dice in
> their bag?
Perspective. Fudged rolls are always done in secret anyway - the characters
are always bound by their own rolls which are public. This just gives
another option. I should state that the critical hit/miss charts I settled
on are from 3E and we play 2E so some of the outcomes just make no sense
whatsoever. So it is likely that only about 2% of rolls in the night are
modified.
For me I see dice as providing that random element. A good case is they had
their halfling thief lowered down into a well in a bucket, this was a very
deep well but 50' down there is an opening on the side. The halfling has to
jump from the bucket (swinging object) to the wall. So I call for a
dexterity roll (he has a great dexterity). He misses it! I should have
dropped him, likely killing him, but instead think of another cool option
and make him roll another dex check. This he makes and so I explain that as
he jumped out of the bucket his foot caught on the lip, so instead of out he
is now facing the dark abyss below hanging from his foot caught where the
rope attaches to the bucket. Now we have fun as he tries to swing over to
the wall and yells for the party above not to pull him up. People seemed to
enjoy it more than if he went splat anyway.
> > From this perspective the rules are really only a support framework, and
I
> > am free to really be the DM.
> >
> > What is your take on this?
>
> You're free to really make stuff up. But it's impro theatre rather than
> a mechanically interesting game. Games aren't mechanically interesting
> if the rules keep changing on the fly to force a predetermined outcome.
>
> Impro theatre is not a bad thing - I love impro theatre. But I like the
> mechanically interesting game part too.
I've spent times where mechanics were the main focus. Times when I would
even pit monsters against one another to see how they would fare. But I must
confess I am more into the improv aspect of RPGs right now. I like that
there is flexibility to go either way.
Frank
Wayne Shaw
>Bill Silvey wrote:
>>
>> "Sea Wasp" <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
>> news:3DAB44...@wizvax.net..
>>
>> > It's important for ME to know how things work. The rules are
>> > manifestations of the way the world works. If the way I want the world
>> > to work conflicts with the rules, the rules change.
>>
>> Question: for you, as a player, is there an amount of "winging it" from the
>> DM that's acceptable?
>
> As long as it's CONSISTENT, he can wing it all he likes. But if he
Well, even then it'd be nice to know how something works _before_ the
first time I do it onscreen, at least if it's in an area the character
could reasonably have done before. But I agree that there's no
absolute need to have things in black and white; my observation has
simply been that damn few people maintain any real consistency over
time without it.
Robert
> As a DM how important is it to have rules for everything? Do you ever
> break rules? Have you ever given in to a rule even if it wrecks your
> whole game?
>
My take...
It is always better, IMHO, to use a rule, if one exists, than to
improvise. When there isn't a rule to use, it is better to adapt an
existing rule, if possible. This helps both the DM and the players to
feel that the DM is being fair and objective.
One thing I disagree with some people about: I don't mind the game
stopping a bit to look up or discuss a rule. I'd rather play by the rules
than not. And I rather enjoy discussing rules. I know this can be
horridly boring for some players, but I get bored during aspects of the
game they enjoy as well.
(I also don't mind getting "off-game". Sure, my current group has a
problem that we tend to be off-game much more than we're on-game, and we
have very limited time. But--just like a poker game--part of the fun of
roleplaying for me is enjoying hanging out with some friends.)
In groups I've played in, the DM has always been given complete freedom
to choose the rules, though he certainly would consider input from the
players. Personally, I've always tended to try to stick as close to the
book as possible--at least until I have a good grasp of the system.
There have been a couple of cases in the past where I strongly resisted a
rule. (Case 1: I was a player & it was a house rule. Case 2: I was DM &
it was a book rule.) In both cases, I thought the rule in question was
blatantly unfair. I don't know if, in the same situations, I would resist
so strongly these days, though.
I don't necessarily think PCs and NPCs have to play by exactly the same
rules, though. I've been tempted to house rule that PCs are immune to
criticals.
DMs fudging die rolls is perfectly acceptable. In fact, the DM should
make occasional unnecessary die rolls just to keep the players on their
toes. The mere sound of dice rolling behind the screen shouldn't give
anything away.
DMs should, however, always fudge in secret. As a player, I hate it when
a DM lets me know--even in subtle ways--that he fudged a roll on my
behalf.
Occasionally I might overrule a player's roll. ("I'm sorry, I think I
bumped the table during that roll. Could you roll again?")
Of course, fudging in secret or overruling openly has to be done rarely,
or it can spoil the fun.
Robert
about letting a character who does something stupid die.
Robert Baldwin
So, if your Fireball suddenly needs a To Hit roll, just becasue it
would otherwise fry the Big Villain, that's a problem? But if the BV
simply "makes" his save by DM fiat, is that a problem?
I'd agree that the first is a Bad Thing.
The second depends on attitude. If the Dm is genuinely trying to save
a storyline, it might be OK. Depends. But if it's just ego, not
wanting to have his own "cool character" die, then I'd be likely to
walk.
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"So here we are going into battle, butt freaking naked.
What's wrong with this picture?"
Nene Romanova
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Sea Wasp
>
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 03:11:31 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
> >Bill Silvey wrote:
> >>
> >> "Sea Wasp" <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
> >> news:3DAB44...@wizvax.net.
> >>
> >> > manifestations of the way the world works. If the way I want the world
> >> > to work conflicts with the rules, the rules change.
> >>
> >> Question: for you, as a player, is there an amount of "winging it" from the
> >> DM that's acceptable?
> >
> > As long as it's CONSISTENT, he can wing it all he likes. But if he
> >has X happen, which implies I can do Y, which means Z, then I damn
> >well better be able to do Y or he'd better have a damn good reason
> >that makes sense that tells me why I can't.
>
> So, if your Fireball suddenly needs a To Hit roll, just becasue it
> would otherwise fry the Big Villain, that's a problem? But if the BV
> simply "makes" his save by DM fiat, is that a problem?
I'm not clear what that has to do with what I was talking about.
>
> I'd agree that the first is a Bad Thing.
>
> The second depends on attitude. If the Dm is genuinely trying to save
> a storyline, it might be OK.
That's a metagame question that's in a different category. Whether
that approach is okay or not depends on the written or unwritten
"contract" between the GM and players. If the "contract" is that the
GM and players use the same rules and let the chips fall where they
may, then that's not an okay action. If the "contract" is that the GM
is trying to provide entertainment and may, at his discretion, do
stuff behind the scenes to extend the entertainment factor, then
that's a fine move.
Bill Silvey
> That's a metagame question that's in a different category. Whether
> that approach is okay or not depends on the written or unwritten
> "contract" between the GM and players. If the "contract" is that the
> GM and players use the same rules and let the chips fall where they
> may, then that's not an okay action. If the "contract" is that the GM
> is trying to provide entertainment and may, at his discretion, do
> stuff behind the scenes to extend the entertainment factor, then
> that's a fine move.
I think it depends largely on who you're gaming with. F'rex, the guys I
game with, I've gamed with for fourteen years. There's no rule in any given
game that says "determine which character is to be attacked by rolling 1d6
and assigning the attack based on what number you mentally assigned to the
PCs"[1], but many times and by all of us as we've sat in the DM hotseat
we've used just such a rule.
Now, even though there's no such rule, if for example you were to join our
group we'd make it crystal clear that this can occur...
[1]at least that I'm aware of (you know "Okay, on a 1-2 it's Bill, on a 3-4
it's Rob, and on a 5-6 it's Jason")
Frank Emanuel
"Robert Baldwin" <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3dac5602...@news.rio.com...
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 03:11:31 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
> >Bill Silvey wrote:
> > As long as it's CONSISTENT, he can wing it all he likes. But if he
> >has X happen, which implies I can do Y, which means Z, then I damn
> >well better be able to do Y or he'd better have a damn good reason
> >that makes sense that tells me why I can't.
>
> So, if your Fireball suddenly needs a To Hit roll, just becasue it
> would otherwise fry the Big Villain, that's a problem? But if the BV
> simply "makes" his save by DM fiat, is that a problem?
>
> I'd agree that the first is a Bad Thing.
>
> The second depends on attitude. If the Dm is genuinely trying to save
> a storyline, it might be OK. Depends. But if it's just ego, not
> wanting to have his own "cool character" die, then I'd be likely to
> walk.
When I was thinking of this the intent was more on the DM's side. As a DM,
if I have a cool baddie then I want the party to struggle to rid the place
of him/her. If I want to ensure a baddie survives then I don't do anything
foolish like let them get to him/her too soon. That is what henchmen are
for. But I wasn't thinking of big changes, just things like fudged rolls on
occasion, etc. For me the enjoyment of my party is first, the story second,
the rules last. Sometimes it is more fun to let the chips fall where they
may, sometimes that would just suck.
Frank
Robert Baldwin
>Robert Baldwin wrote:
<snip>
>> > As long as it's CONSISTENT, he can wing it all he likes. But if he
>> >has X happen, which implies I can do Y, which means Z, then I damn
>> >well better be able to do Y or he'd better have a damn good reason
>> >that makes sense that tells me why I can't.
>>
>> So, if your Fireball suddenly needs a To Hit roll, just becasue it
>> would otherwise fry the Big Villain, that's a problem? But if the BV
>> simply "makes" his save by DM fiat, is that a problem?
>
> I'm not clear what that has to do with what I was talking about.
<snip>
Just trying to fill in your alphabit soup with a real example. Choose
another if you like. :-)
Sea Wasp
>
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 02:02:09 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
> >Robert Baldwin wrote:
> <snip>
> >> > As long as it's CONSISTENT, he can wing it all he likes. But if he
> >> >has X happen, which implies I can do Y, which means Z, then I damn
> >> >well better be able to do Y or he'd better have a damn good reason
> >> >that makes sense that tells me why I can't.
> >>
> >> So, if your Fireball suddenly needs a To Hit roll, just becasue it
> >> would otherwise fry the Big Villain, that's a problem? But if the BV
> >> simply "makes" his save by DM fiat, is that a problem?
> >
> > I'm not clear what that has to do with what I was talking about.
> <snip>
>
> Just trying to fill in your alphabit soup with a real example.
A real example would be:
If the GM rules that fireballs DO cause explosive expansion (when,
say, an NPC throws a Fireball at us and it blows doors off their
hinges, etc.) this implies that I can use a fireball to provide other
explosive effects (including acting as the "powder" for a cannon if I
design it right). If he suddenly turns around and says "no, that won't
work", then he's being an inconsistent git.
Kevin Lowe
"Frank Emanuel" <fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > I honestly don't see why you bother rolling dice for combat at all in
> > this case. If you are going to fudge any results that "hinder the
> > story" why not just tell the story to the players and leave your dice in
> > their bag?
>
> Perspective. Fudged rolls are always done in secret anyway - the characters
> are always bound by their own rolls which are public. This just gives
> another option.
That seems to me to be equally pointless but also deceitful and unfair
unless you have an explicit game contract that says that the DM can
fudge.
When I catch referees fudging like that I want to kick them. They are
wasting my time by making me pretend to play a game.
> I should state that the critical hit/miss charts I settled
> on are from 3E and we play 2E so some of the outcomes just make no sense
> whatsoever. So it is likely that only about 2% of rolls in the night are
> modified.
As long as you are consistent about your conversions, I've got
absolutely no problem with this as a matter of fact. (Except that
critical hit charts are usually silly and always bad for the PCs. But
if you guys enjoy them, go for it).
> For me I see dice as providing that random element. A good case is they had
> their halfling thief lowered down into a well in a bucket, this was a very
> deep well but 50' down there is an opening on the side. The halfling has to
> jump from the bucket (swinging object) to the wall. So I call for a
> dexterity roll (he has a great dexterity). He misses it! I should have
> dropped him, likely killing him, but instead think of another cool option
> and make him roll another dex check. This he makes and so I explain that as
> he jumped out of the bucket his foot caught on the lip, so instead of out he
> is now facing the dark abyss below hanging from his foot caught where the
> rope attaches to the bucket. Now we have fun as he tries to swing over to
> the wall and yells for the party above not to pull him up. People seemed to
> enjoy it more than if he went splat anyway.
You have reinvented one of the DMing techniques that I loathe most
perfectly. "You failed? Damn. Um, roll again to see if you *really*
failed!". Decide on the outcomes before the dice is rolled and stick
with them. Otherwise, why waste my time making me roll a dice.
Even worse, though, is the reverse tactic bad rpg referees use when they
want you to fail. "You succeeded? Damn. Um, roll again to see if you
*really* succeeded!".
> > Impro theatre is not a bad thing - I love impro theatre. But I like the
> > mechanically interesting game part too.
>
> I've spent times where mechanics were the main focus. Times when I would
> even pit monsters against one another to see how they would fare. But I must
> confess I am more into the improv aspect of RPGs right now. I like that
> there is flexibility to go either way.
I hold it to be a fact that many, many rpgs do the impro thing much
better than any incarnation of DnD. So when I want to do impro stuff, I
use them instead. But each to their own.
Kevin Lowe,
Brisbane, Australia.
Wayne Shaw
<bxsxixl...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Sea Wasp" <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
>news:3DACC8...@wizvax.net...
>
>> That's a metagame question that's in a different category. Whether
>> that approach is okay or not depends on the written or unwritten
>> "contract" between the GM and players. If the "contract" is that the
>> GM and players use the same rules and let the chips fall where they
>> may, then that's not an okay action. If the "contract" is that the GM
>> is trying to provide entertainment and may, at his discretion, do
>> stuff behind the scenes to extend the entertainment factor, then
>> that's a fine move.
>
>I think it depends largely on who you're gaming with. F'rex, the guys I
Which is a big part of the issue of unwritten "game contracts".
Almost all long-time groups have them, even if they don't see them as
such.
Peter Knutsen
Wayne Shaw wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 22:45:39 GMT, "Bill Silvey"
> <bxsxixl...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >Question: for you, as a player, is there an amount of "winging it" from the
> >DM that's acceptable? I'm curious. I tend to be of the same mind you are;
>
> There are always going to be situational issues where the GM has to
> adjust things because the rules didn't account for something; but
Some rules systems create an amazingly huge amount of those
situations, while others create few. FUDGE is an example of
the former, while D&D3 ain't too bad.
> those improvisations should still show some relationship to the rules
> as presented, and ideally should parallel extent rules.
I also value highly that the GM tries to make use of existing
character traits (ability scores, skills, feats) when he
wings stuff.
For instance if an unexpected situation occurs, for which therea
are no rules, instead of rolling a completely random dice (1d6,
1-3 means favourable for party, 4-6 means not favourable for
party), instead try to make a roll for an ability score or a
skill, or give a bonus if the character in question has a high
ability score (or a penalty if he has a low ability score) or
if he has a relevant skill or feat.
In short: don't treat the characters as if they were alike,
treat them as individuals. D&D3 gives you a bunch of numbers
to play with, so *do* play with them.
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Wayne Shaw wrote:
> absolute need to have things in black and white; my observation has
> simply been that damn few people maintain any real consistency over
> time without it.
With a perfect GM and a perfect group of players, you don't need
any rules at all.
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Robert Baldwin wrote:
> So, if your Fireball suddenly needs a To Hit roll, just becasue it
> would otherwise fry the Big Villain, that's a problem? But if the BV
> simply "makes" his save by DM fiat, is that a problem?
>
> I'd agree that the first is a Bad Thing.
>
> The second depends on attitude. If the Dm is genuinely trying to save
> a storyline, it might be OK. Depends. But if it's just ego, not
BEEP, wrong! If the GM has a storyline in mind, why the fuck
is he sitting behind a GM screen playing a roleplaying game?
He should be all alone, in front of his computer, typing away
on an MS Word document (or whatever word processor he prefers).
> Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
--
Peter Knutsen
R. Scott Rogers
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 03:11:31 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
>> Bill Silvey wrote:
>>> Question: for you, as a player, is there an amount of "winging it" from the
>>> DM that's acceptable?
>>
>> As long as it's CONSISTENT, he can wing it all he likes. But if he
>> has X happen, which implies I can do Y, which means Z, then I damn
>> well better be able to do Y or he'd better have a damn good reason
>> that makes sense that tells me why I can't.
>
> So, if your Fireball suddenly needs a To Hit roll, just becasue it
> would otherwise fry the Big Villain, that's a problem? But if the BV
> simply "makes" his save by DM fiat, is that a problem?
>
> I'd agree that the first is a Bad Thing.
Agreed.
> The second depends on attitude. If the Dm is genuinely trying to save
> a storyline, it might be OK. Depends. But if it's just ego, not
> wanting to have his own "cool character" die, then I'd be likely to
> walk.
But how will you know that this has happened? Haven't you told us recently
that, as a DM, you are willing to sometimes fudge rolls and to do so such
that the players are unaware that you've done so? A save to survive a
fireball that would destroy the storyline seems eminently fudgeable, and it
seems a fudge that the DM need never reveal.
If so, then you'd be "walking" not because you disapproved of the DM's
actions or motivations, but because he made the mistake of letting you know
what he had done. Which might be a sufficient reason to walk away from a
game, I suppose, but not what you've advertised. ;-)
Anyway, one thing I wish my current DM did differently was making more of
his rolls in secret and, ironically, fudging a little less in the interest
of PC survival. Of course, not letting us know whether he was fudging it
might cure the second complaint, since I might never know it had happened.
Cheers,
Scott
--
R. Scott Rogers
srogers at mindspring.com
Visit the General Taylor Inn:
http://srogers.home.mindspring.com/dnd/main.html
R. Scott Rogers
> Robert Baldwin wrote:
>> Just trying to fill in your alphabit soup with a real example.
>
> A real example would be:
>
> If the GM rules that fireballs DO cause explosive expansion (when,
> say, an NPC throws a Fireball at us and it blows doors off their
> hinges, etc.) this implies that I can use a fireball to provide other
> explosive effects (including acting as the "powder" for a cannon if I
> design it right). If he suddenly turns around and says "no, that won't
> work", then he's being an inconsistent git.
Assuming explosive effects, a fireball cannon would be a very fun
innovation. Combined with a levitate or feather fall spell, you could
probably use it for rapid long-distance travel, or travel over obstacles.
Nockermensch
<snip, entering a tangent>
> I think it depends largely on who you're gaming with. F'rex, the guys I
> game with, I've gamed with for fourteen years. There's no rule in any given
> game that says "determine which character is to be attacked by rolling 1d6
> and assigning the attack based on what number you mentally assigned to the
> PCs"[1], but many times and by all of us as we've sat in the DM hotseat
> we've used just such a rule.
>
> Now, even though there's no such rule, if for example you were to join our
> group we'd make it crystal clear that this can occur...
>
> [1]at least that I'm aware of (you know "Okay, on a 1-2 it's Bill, on a 3-4
> it's Rob, and on a 5-6 it's Jason")
I dunno, I only do this for irrational monsters. My intelligent NPCs
choose a PC and keep hitting him until he falls, before proceeding to
another target. If possible, they start by the cleric.
@ @ Nockermensch, because NPCs can metagame too!
Bill Silvey
"Nockermensch" <nocker...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4769522f.02101...@posting.google.com...
Obviously. When we're playing Champions, Dr. Destroyer doesn't randomly
pound on heros until they fall, ignoring the toughest simply because of a
die-roll. But when we're dealing with hordes of bad guys, it's simplest to
resolve a larger battle that way.
The pick-and-choose situation comes when we've defeated the Chieftain's
bodyguard and we're down to *him*.
Frank Emanuel
> > [1]at least that I'm aware of (you know "Okay, on a 1-2 it's Bill, on a
3-4
> > it's Rob, and on a 5-6 it's Jason")
>
> I dunno, I only do this for irrational monsters. My intelligent NPCs
> choose a PC and keep hitting him until he falls, before proceeding to
> another target. If possible, they start by the cleric.
I try to look at it logically - if there are two fighters out front then
they are the obvious first targets. Others will, in the distraction, try to
sneak around. If it is a choice between two logical choices then I roll
(random) however if the other does considerable damage, even on an
unintelligent monster, then I roll for a good chance they caught the
monsters attention.
Frank
Frank Emanuel
"Peter Knutsen" <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote in message
news:3DAD9262...@knutsen.dk...
Peter,
There has to be some continuity and story to it for it all to hold the PCs
suspension of disbelief. IMNSHO anyway. The problem is when a DM is so
married to the story that any deviation needs to be fixed. It is a different
kind of story - one with slightly out of reach elements pulling our
adventurers along and elements in reach they can screw with. So they miss
that whole Dwarven village thing you hinted at two sessions ago, and slayed
the only beast to entice them. The good DM should be able to adapt and if it
is necessary for them to get there find another way. Otherwise save that
work he did prepping it for another adventure.
Frank
Wayne Shaw
<fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> > [1]at least that I'm aware of (you know "Okay, on a 1-2 it's Bill, on a
>3-4
>> > it's Rob, and on a 5-6 it's Jason")
>>
>> I dunno, I only do this for irrational monsters. My intelligent NPCs
>> choose a PC and keep hitting him until he falls, before proceeding to
>> another target. If possible, they start by the cleric.
>
>I try to look at it logically - if there are two fighters out front then
>they are the obvious first targets. Others will, in the distraction, try to
Actually, most smart monsters will try to pick off the mages first, if
practical. 3e fighters are bad to deal with, but they rarely can drop
a fireball on groups or toss a save-or-out-of-the-fight at you.
Frank Emanuel
"Wayne Shaw" <sh...@caprica.com> wrote in message
news:96otqu0mlndeu8sbj...@4ax.com...
But this can only happen when a non-fighter tips their hand that they are
powerful. Otherwise how does the baddy know who is who, they just see who is
in front and pummel. Now a highly intelligent baddy might stalk the party
and assess how best to kill them, but I am talking the "you burst into the
room and there is a pair of huge ugly beasts, each with two heads, they look
at you with that look of 'ah food!' and charge!" kind. Also there is the
issue of breaking through ranks, my players like to adopt formations with
the mage and cleric safe in the back (they are low level now so no
fireballs). They come into the fight secondary so it is not logical that the
baddies would ignore what is in front of them and try to get through the
front ranks. (BTW I have 7 PCs in my campaign, as a DM that is a handful).
Frank
Wayne Shaw
<fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>"Wayne Shaw" <sh...@caprica.com> wrote in message
>news:96otqu0mlndeu8sbj...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 21:52:38 -0400, "Frank Emanuel"
>> <fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > [1]at least that I'm aware of (you know "Okay, on a 1-2 it's Bill, on
>a
>> >3-4
>> >> > it's Rob, and on a 5-6 it's Jason")
>> >>
>> >> I dunno, I only do this for irrational monsters. My intelligent NPCs
>> >> choose a PC and keep hitting him until he falls, before proceeding to
>> >> another target. If possible, they start by the cleric.
>> >
>> >I try to look at it logically - if there are two fighters out front then
>> >they are the obvious first targets. Others will, in the distraction, try
>to
>>
>> Actually, most smart monsters will try to pick off the mages first, if
>> practical. 3e fighters are bad to deal with, but they rarely can drop
>> a fireball on groups or toss a save-or-out-of-the-fight at you.
>
>But this can only happen when a non-fighter tips their hand that they are
>powerful. Otherwise how does the baddy know who is who, they just see who is
>in front and pummel. Now a highly intelligent baddy might stalk the party
Because in an adventuring party, chances are the only guys well
dressed but in no armor are the mages? The assumptions in D&D have
real meaning in the world, and it's not a hard lesson to learn that if
someone's not armored, they're probably a mage (and if monks are
common, their choice of melee weapons will at least be a clue).
>and assess how best to kill them, but I am talking the "you burst into the
>room and there is a pair of huge ugly beasts, each with two heads, they look
>at you with that look of 'ah food!' and charge!" kind. Also there is the
Which is why I said "smart monsters". Though I don't think the above
requires highly intelligent; I'd expect most orcs to be up to that,
and they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.
>issue of breaking through ranks, my players like to adopt formations with
>the mage and cleric safe in the back (they are low level now so no
If the physical layout permits that, that's fine, but it's usually
hard to do outside with the typical small D&D party. Two guys control
at best a 25' chunk of space.
>front ranks. (BTW I have 7 PCs in my campaign, as a DM that is a handful).
Originally I had a 12 character group. There was a good reason for it
(or so I thought at the time) but it was a bad idea.
Frank Emanuel
>
> Because in an adventuring party, chances are the only guys well
> dressed but in no armor are the mages? The assumptions in D&D have
> real meaning in the world, and it's not a hard lesson to learn that if
> someone's not armored, they're probably a mage (and if monks are
> common, their choice of melee weapons will at least be a clue).
Actually I don't agree. In our party we have a variety of characters wearing
at best leather. Ranger, Ft/Th, Th., Bard, Mage, Cleric, Ft/Druid. Actually
the 1/2ling thief is the only one with real armour even though it impedes
any theiving abilities. They are all 1st and 2nd level and heavy clothes
only effect somatic component spells, so they are more concerned with
surviving. Why would you assume they dress conspiciously anyway? Now if Cea
(the Mage) fires off a Magic Missile then it is obvious she needs to be
reckoned with. Other than that the only one who dresses conspiciously is my
wife (Ft/Druid) who dresses like an amazon warrior in choice leather, but
shows incredibly empathy for nature (bizarre mix actually). But she is
usually in the middle ready with scimitar. I think a really smart party will
think about their appearance and try to use that to their advantage. Does
that make sense?
> >issue of breaking through ranks, my players like to adopt formations with
> >the mage and cleric safe in the back (they are low level now so no
>
> If the physical layout permits that, that's fine, but it's usually
> hard to do outside with the typical small D&D party. Two guys control
> at best a 25' chunk of space.
Coming into a room through a 10' wide door, as is most typical, unless you
charge in there is a powerstruggle at the door. we try to work that out with
miniatures on a chessboard.
> >front ranks. (BTW I have 7 PCs in my campaign, as a DM that is a
handful).
>
> Originally I had a 12 character group. There was a good reason for it
> (or so I thought at the time) but it was a bad idea.
I once GMed a Superworld campaign that kept growing and growing and finally
I stopped cause everyone wanted to play and no one wanted to help me. It is
hard enough with 7, I can't imagine 12. When I was younger there were 4 of
us who played regularily (another guy DMed mostly, but I did a bit) and we
would control 2 characters. That was more reasonable, it gave a good sized
party but usually one of the characters didn't get roleplayed as well. Back
then though we were more into hacking our way through things. Fun though.
Frank
Robert Baldwin
<snip>
> A real example would be:
>
> If the GM rules that fireballs DO cause explosive expansion (when,
>say, an NPC throws a Fireball at us and it blows doors off their
>hinges, etc.) this implies that I can use a fireball to provide other
>explosive effects (including acting as the "powder" for a cannon if I
>design it right). If he suddenly turns around and says "no, that won't
>work", then he's being an inconsistent git.
Agreed in full.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>
>
>Robert Baldwin wrote:
>> The second depends on attitude. If the Dm is genuinely trying to save
>> a storyline, it might be OK. Depends. But if it's just ego, not
>
>BEEP, wrong! If the GM has a storyline in mind, why the fuck
>is he sitting behind a GM screen playing a roleplaying game?
>He should be all alone, in front of his computer, typing away
>on an MS Word document (or whatever word processor he prefers).
Feh.
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
Robert Baldwin
<sro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>From the letters of Robert Baldwin (10/15/02 9:19 PM):
<snip>
>> The second depends on attitude. If the Dm is genuinely trying to save
>> a storyline, it might be OK. Depends. But if it's just ego, not
>> wanting to have his own "cool character" die, then I'd be likely to
>> walk.
>
>But how will you know that this has happened?
I wouldn't *know*, I would have to have *faith* in the DM's judgement.
:-)
Haven't you told us recently
>that, as a DM, you are willing to sometimes fudge rolls and to do so such
>that the players are unaware that you've done so?
Yup.
A save to survive a
>fireball that would destroy the storyline seems eminently fudgeable, and it
>seems a fudge that the DM need never reveal.
<snip>
Right.
But, in the abstract, why/when should I (any DM) do this? To make the
game fun, yes; to "beat" the players by keeping my NPC alive, no.
<snip>
Which might be a sufficient reason to walk away from a
>game, I suppose, but not what you've advertised. ;-)
In general, a DM with such ego problems as to need to beat the players
will not keep that a secret. I've actually seen ssuch types *brag*
about it. That type of behavior is Not OK.
>Anyway, one thing I wish my current DM did differently was making more of
>his rolls in secret and, ironically, fudging a little less in the interest
>of PC survival. Of course, not letting us know whether he was fudging it
>might cure the second complaint, since I might never know it had happened.
Indeed. I advocate all DM rolls be secret, and all player rolls be
open. Inconsistent? No, all players are treated equally, as are all
DM's. :-)
Frank Emanuel
> >Anyway, one thing I wish my current DM did differently was making more of
> >his rolls in secret and, ironically, fudging a little less in the
interest
> >of PC survival. Of course, not letting us know whether he was fudging it
> >might cure the second complaint, since I might never know it had
happened.
>
> Indeed. I advocate all DM rolls be secret, and all player rolls be
> open. Inconsistent? No, all players are treated equally, as are all
> DM's. :-)
That is pretty standard fare, at I thought it was. I do not encourage player
screens and have a veritable wall of screens for my own use. In fact we use
a couple of phone books to raise the miniatures to my sight level.
But as a DM I don't typically monitor my players rolls. The table is never a
smooth landscape either so as a player you could keep it fairly secret. But
my premise is that the players (in my case all mature adults) are there to
have fun as well and so if they fudge it is their conscience. Now if I
suspected a character of fudging I'd watch their next few rolls - but I
doubt it by the number of critical misses they roll. They quite often get
frustrated with their dice which gets interesting - some are getting good
collections of dice :). All my rolls are in secret and I, as a rule, try to
be true to the rolls. But I have always felt that fudging was the DM's
prerogative.
Frank
Wayne Shaw
<fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> Because in an adventuring party, chances are the only guys well
>> dressed but in no armor are the mages? The assumptions in D&D have
>> real meaning in the world, and it's not a hard lesson to learn that if
>> someone's not armored, they're probably a mage (and if monks are
>> common, their choice of melee weapons will at least be a clue).
>
>Actually I don't agree. In our party we have a variety of characters wearing
>at best leather. Ranger, Ft/Th, Th., Bard, Mage, Cleric, Ft/Druid. Actually
Which is still more armor than most wizards or sorcerers wear. I
don't see how it changes things.
>surviving. Why would you assume they dress conspiciously anyway? Now if Cea
Not conspicuously. Just not armored. Until people are wealthy enough
to dodge the bullet with Bracers (and only rogues and bards are likely
to go there, since the others _still_ lose armor value doing it) it's
counterselected enough for others to not wear at least minimal armor
(and gesture spells are common enough that it's fairly counterselected
for mages _to_ wear it) that I stand by the opinion it's going to be
common practice for monsters of even moderate intelligence to select
for those unarmored. Obviously, if everyone in the party is wearing
leather, there's no way to do that, but that doesn't describe the vast
majority of D&D parties I've seen or heard described.
>usually in the middle ready with scimitar. I think a really smart party will
>think about their appearance and try to use that to their advantage. Does
>that make sense?
Except the price for doing so in terms of armor issues is usually
unacceptable, your local case notwithstanding.
>> If the physical layout permits that, that's fine, but it's usually
>> hard to do outside with the typical small D&D party. Two guys control
>> at best a 25' chunk of space.
>
>Coming into a room through a 10' wide door, as is most typical, unless you
>charge in there is a powerstruggle at the door. we try to work that out with
>miniatures on a chessboard.
Note the phrase "outside".
>> Originally I had a 12 character group. There was a good reason for it
>> (or so I thought at the time) but it was a bad idea.
>
>I once GMed a Superworld campaign that kept growing and growing and finally
>I stopped cause everyone wanted to play and no one wanted to help me. It is
>hard enough with 7, I can't imagine 12. When I was younger there were 4 of
Note I said 12 chracters. I didn't say 12 players (though oddly
enough, I once ran a huge Superworld campaign myself).
Gordon Emore
Wayne Shaw wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:25:20 -0400, "Frank Emanuel"
> <fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> Because in an adventuring party, chances are the only guys well
> >> dressed but in no armor are the mages? The assumptions in D&D have
> >> real meaning in the world, and it's not a hard lesson to learn that if
> >> someone's not armored, they're probably a mage (and if monks are
> >> common, their choice of melee weapons will at least be a clue).
> >
> >Actually I don't agree. In our party we have a variety of characters wearing
> >at best leather. Ranger, Ft/Th, Th., Bard, Mage, Cleric, Ft/Druid. Actually
>
> Which is still more armor than most wizards or sorcerers wear. I
> don't see how it changes things.
That party mentioned above is odd, from my experience. Most Light-armor
restricted classes go for studded leather or chain shirts. Masterwork and
mithral chain shirts are things that they are willing to pay through the teeth
for. The same for mithral chain mail. The mages tend to try to get the Mage
Armor spell - They love its AC protection, duration, and the fact that it works
against ethereal things.
> >surviving. Why would you assume they dress conspiciously anyway? Now if Cea
>
> Not conspicuously. Just not armored. Until people are wealthy enough
> to dodge the bullet with Bracers (and only rogues and bards are likely
> to go there, since the others _still_ lose armor value doing it) it's
> counterselected enough for others to not wear at least minimal armor
> (and gesture spells are common enough that it's fairly counterselected
> for mages _to_ wear it) that I stand by the opinion it's going to be
> common practice for monsters of even moderate intelligence to select
> for those unarmored. Obviously, if everyone in the party is wearing
> leather, there's no way to do that, but that doesn't describe the vast
> majority of D&D parties I've seen or heard described.
In addition, common wisdom would suggest that the less armored, less
combative-looking people are easier to hit and get out of the way quickly,
thereby allowing freindlies to gang up on the heavily armored "professionals".
Ask a party sometime - How do _they_ handle a mixed group of foes? Answer: "Geek
the Mage!"
> >usually in the middle ready with scimitar. I think a really smart party will
> >think about their appearance and try to use that to their advantage. Does
> >that make sense?
>
> Except the price for doing so in terms of armor issues is usually
> unacceptable, your local case notwithstanding.
Arcane spell failure really hurts when it counts.
Gordon
Frank Emanuel
wearing
> >at best leather. Ranger, Ft/Th, Th., Bard, Mage, Cleric, Ft/Druid.
Actually
>
> Which is still more armor than most wizards or sorcerers wear. I
> don't see how it changes things.
Maybe my assumption that leather would be easier to hide beneath cloaks and
robes. What I decided to do this evening, as a role-playing help, is have
each PC describe their physical appearance to the group. This way I can test
my theory about assumptions and it should add to the fun. My assumption
about leather is that it is not as noisy or restrictive as other forms of
armour. I think the same could be true for a chainmail shirt - but you are
right that would cost a premium to be as effective. This is fantasy after
all.
> >> If the physical layout permits that, that's fine, but it's usually
> >> hard to do outside with the typical small D&D party. Two guys control
> >> at best a 25' chunk of space.
> >
> >Coming into a room through a 10' wide door, as is most typical, unless
you
> >charge in there is a powerstruggle at the door. we try to work that out
with
> >miniatures on a chessboard.
>
> Note the phrase "outside".
I stand corrected, I missed that one. With a ranger and druid outdoor combat
hasn't been an issue yet.
> >> Originally I had a 12 character group. There was a good reason for it
> >> (or so I thought at the time) but it was a bad idea.
> >
> >I once GMed a Superworld campaign that kept growing and growing and
finally
> >I stopped cause everyone wanted to play and no one wanted to help me. It
is
> >hard enough with 7, I can't imagine 12. When I was younger there were 4
of
>
> Note I said 12 chracters. I didn't say 12 players (though oddly
> enough, I once ran a huge Superworld campaign myself).
I miss that game. I recently picked up some Champions stuff on ebay and
GURPS supers but neither cut it. I think at some point I will have to
re-invest in that one. It is too bad I gave away my set complete with a huge
stockpile of NPCs.
Frank
Frank Emanuel
"Gordon Emore" <gem...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:3DB038C7...@purdue.edu...
>
>
> Wayne Shaw wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:25:20 -0400, "Frank Emanuel"
> > <fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Because in an adventuring party, chances are the only guys well
> > >> dressed but in no armor are the mages? The assumptions in D&D have
> > >> real meaning in the world, and it's not a hard lesson to learn that
if
> > >> someone's not armored, they're probably a mage (and if monks are
> > >> common, their choice of melee weapons will at least be a clue).
> > >
> > >Actually I don't agree. In our party we have a variety of characters
wearing
> > >at best leather. Ranger, Ft/Th, Th., Bard, Mage, Cleric, Ft/Druid.
Actually
> >
> > Which is still more armor than most wizards or sorcerers wear. I
> > don't see how it changes things.
>
> That party mentioned above is odd, from my experience. Most Light-armor
> restricted classes go for studded leather or chain shirts. Masterwork and
> mithral chain shirts are things that they are willing to pay through the
teeth
> for. The same for mithral chain mail. The mages tend to try to get the
Mage
> Armor spell - They love its AC protection, duration, and the fact that it
works
> against ethereal things.
This must be 3E talk, 2E doesn't have that detail. This party is a 2E
campaign. These adventurers have only had opportunity to buy leather (not
hit a major city and none wanted to spend that much on armour when created).
> In addition, common wisdom would suggest that the less armored, less
> combative-looking people are easier to hit and get out of the way quickly,
> thereby allowing freindlies to gang up on the heavily armored
"professionals".
Which is great if the fighters are in tin cans and easy to recognize. This
is a more earthy group.
> Ask a party sometime - How do _they_ handle a mixed group of foes? Answer:
"Geek
> the Mage!"
>
> > >usually in the middle ready with scimitar. I think a really smart party
will
> > >think about their appearance and try to use that to their advantage.
Does
> > >that make sense?
> >
> > Except the price for doing so in terms of armor issues is usually
> > unacceptable, your local case notwithstanding.
>
> Arcane spell failure really hurts when it counts.
Armoured spell casting is a non-starter in 2E, when there is a somatic
component that is. The mage in question doesn't have armour as a spell, is
first level and her best attack is really with a magic quarterstaff she
found (+2). Magic missile is fine but using it when there is a large number
of baddies just gives away that she might be one to reckon with.
Frank
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>
>
>Wayne Shaw wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:25:20 -0400, "Frank Emanuel"
>> <fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Because in an adventuring party, chances are the only guys well
>> >> dressed but in no armor are the mages? The assumptions in D&D have
>> >> real meaning in the world, and it's not a hard lesson to learn that if
>> >> someone's not armored, they're probably a mage (and if monks are
>> >> common, their choice of melee weapons will at least be a clue).
>> >
>> >Actually I don't agree. In our party we have a variety of characters wearing
>> >at best leather. Ranger, Ft/Th, Th., Bard, Mage, Cleric, Ft/Druid. Actually
>>
>> Which is still more armor than most wizards or sorcerers wear. I
>> don't see how it changes things.
>
>That party mentioned above is odd, from my experience. Most Light-armor
>restricted classes go for studded leather or chain shirts. Masterwork and
That's what I've usually seen, too.
>mithral chain shirts are things that they are willing to pay through the teeth
>for. The same for mithral chain mail. The mages tend to try to get the Mage
>Armor spell - They love its AC protection, duration, and the fact that it works
>against ethereal things.
Right. And once of suffient resource, the Bracers.
>> Not conspicuously. Just not armored. Until people are wealthy enough
>> to dodge the bullet with Bracers (and only rogues and bards are likely
>> to go there, since the others _still_ lose armor value doing it) it's
>> counterselected enough for others to not wear at least minimal armor
>> (and gesture spells are common enough that it's fairly counterselected
>> for mages _to_ wear it) that I stand by the opinion it's going to be
>> common practice for monsters of even moderate intelligence to select
>> for those unarmored. Obviously, if everyone in the party is wearing
>> leather, there's no way to do that, but that doesn't describe the vast
>> majority of D&D parties I've seen or heard described.
>
>In addition, common wisdom would suggest that the less armored, less
>combative-looking people are easier to hit and get out of the way quickly,
>thereby allowing freindlies to gang up on the heavily armored "professionals".
Well, the counterargument there is the professionals can be doing too
much damage to you in the process. It's only the spellcaster's
ability to one-shot people are hinder or damage multiples that tends
to trump that.
>
>Ask a party sometime - How do _they_ handle a mixed group of foes? Answer: "Geek
>the Mage!"
Ah-yup. And then the cleric if present.
>> Except the price for doing so in terms of armor issues is usually
>> unacceptable, your local case notwithstanding.
>
>Arcane spell failure really hurts when it counts.
I'd be willing with a fighter/mage type to suck it up, but it doesn't
seem an attractive thing to deal with for primary mages.
Wayne Shaw
<fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> That party mentioned above is odd, from my experience. Most Light-armor
>> restricted classes go for studded leather or chain shirts. Masterwork and
>> mithral chain shirts are things that they are willing to pay through the
>teeth
>> for. The same for mithral chain mail. The mages tend to try to get the
>Mage
>> Armor spell - They love its AC protection, duration, and the fact that it
>works
>> against ethereal things.
>
>This must be 3E talk, 2E doesn't have that detail. This party is a 2E
>campaign. These adventurers have only had opportunity to buy leather (not
>hit a major city and none wanted to spend that much on armour when created).
You need to make that clear then, Frank. These days people (me
included) are going to assume 3e unless you indicate otherwise.
Wayne Shaw
<fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >Actually I don't agree. In our party we have a variety of characters
>wearing
>> >at best leather. Ranger, Ft/Th, Th., Bard, Mage, Cleric, Ft/Druid.
>Actually
>>
>> Which is still more armor than most wizards or sorcerers wear. I
>> don't see how it changes things.
>
>Maybe my assumption that leather would be easier to hide beneath cloaks and
>robes. What I decided to do this evening, as a role-playing help, is have
Any leather useful as armor isn't going to be all that concealable.
>each PC describe their physical appearance to the group. This way I can test
>my theory about assumptions and it should add to the fun. My assumption
>about leather is that it is not as noisy or restrictive as other forms of
>armour. I think the same could be true for a chainmail shirt - but you are
It isn't, but that's only a matter of degree.
>right that would cost a premium to be as effective. This is fantasy after
>all.
It's still an uncommon case, however you slice it.
>
>> >> If the physical layout permits that, that's fine, but it's usually
>> >> hard to do outside with the typical small D&D party. Two guys control
>> >> at best a 25' chunk of space.
>> >
>> >Coming into a room through a 10' wide door, as is most typical, unless
>you
>> >charge in there is a powerstruggle at the door. we try to work that out
>with
>> >miniatures on a chessboard.
>>
>> Note the phrase "outside".
>
>I stand corrected, I missed that one. With a ranger and druid outdoor combat
>hasn't been an issue yet.
It's simply very hard to block access to people outdoors; too much
ability to circle around, and many monsters are faster than most PCs,
at least until magic gets involved.
>
>> >> Originally I had a 12 character group. There was a good reason for it
>> >> (or so I thought at the time) but it was a bad idea.
>> >
>> >I once GMed a Superworld campaign that kept growing and growing and
>finally
>> >I stopped cause everyone wanted to play and no one wanted to help me. It
>is
>> >hard enough with 7, I can't imagine 12. When I was younger there were 4
>of
>>
>> Note I said 12 chracters. I didn't say 12 players (though oddly
>> enough, I once ran a huge Superworld campaign myself).
>
>I miss that game. I recently picked up some Champions stuff on ebay and
>GURPS supers but neither cut it. I think at some point I will have to
>re-invest in that one. It is too bad I gave away my set complete with a huge
>stockpile of NPCs.
I used it again not long ago, but it hadn't aged well. YMMV.
Gordon Emore
Frank Emanuel wrote:
Yes, 3E. I can't remember if in 2E it mentioned that Mage Armor was a force
effect or not....
> > In addition, common wisdom would suggest that the less armored, less
> > combative-looking people are easier to hit and get out of the way quickly,
> > thereby allowing freindlies to gang up on the heavily armored
> "professionals".
>
> Which is great if the fighters are in tin cans and easy to recognize. This
> is a more earthy group.
So they are all roughly the same in stature, equipment, fighting prowess and
beefiness? Wow.
A group that was short on cash would go for the leathers, I'll admit. Or one in
which mobility and freedom of action was highly important. These groups *do*
exist - but even then there is significant difference between the styles, gear,
and apparent professionalism of the different party members.
>
> > Ask a party sometime - How do _they_ handle a mixed group of foes? Answer:
> "Geek
> > the Mage!"
> >
> > > >usually in the middle ready with scimitar. I think a really smart party
> will
> > > >think about their appearance and try to use that to their advantage.
> Does
> > > >that make sense?
> > >
> > > Except the price for doing so in terms of armor issues is usually
> > > unacceptable, your local case notwithstanding.
> >
> > Arcane spell failure really hurts when it counts.
>
> Armoured spell casting is a non-starter in 2E, when there is a somatic
> component that is. The mage in question doesn't have armour as a spell, is
> first level and her best attack is really with a magic quarterstaff she
> found (+2). Magic missile is fine but using it when there is a large number
> of baddies just gives away that she might be one to reckon with.
Ah, _First Level_. Oh, ok. Hell, I'd wear some armor then. And I wouldn't use
magic missile - there have got to be more useful spells to prepare when you get
so few per day....(I've always been crazy about unseen servant, even in 2E.)
Hey, waidaminit, 1st level with a +2 magic quarterstaff? and the fighters are
still in leather?
Gordon
Frank Emanuel
>
> > > In addition, common wisdom would suggest that the less armored, less
> > > combative-looking people are easier to hit and get out of the way
quickly,
> > > thereby allowing freindlies to gang up on the heavily armored
> > "professionals".
> >
> > Which is great if the fighters are in tin cans and easy to recognize.
This
> > is a more earthy group.
>
> So they are all roughly the same in stature, equipment, fighting prowess
and
> beefiness? Wow.
Not the same - no but let's describe it this way.
Out front usually is a green robed elf with a bow and long sword - not too
beefy either. Also a stout somewhat strong looking dwarf in leather with a
battle axe. Behind them is a halfling wearing formfitting scalemail (new
addition) and a human dressed in puffy clothes, leather armour and carrying
a bow, sword and easily accessible flute. Next an average built half-elf in
leather under robes holds a hammer and wears a light crossbow on his back.
Then there is a tall half-elf, very well defined (strong) woman dressed in
leather wielding a scimitar. Finally there is a female elf in robes, not too
big with a staff.
Can you tell me who is who? You can probably guess the mage - last one. But
they take pains to keep her somewhat protected. She just learned identify
which will probably be her spell of choice.
> A group that was short on cash would go for the leathers, I'll admit. Or
one in
> which mobility and freedom of action was highly important. These groups
*do*
> exist - but even then there is significant difference between the styles,
gear,
> and apparent professionalism of the different party members.
Interesting, but when adventuring it would not be to a party members
advantage to stick out as your class. Now over time your actions will give
you away, like when a wild boar was released on the party, the Ranger tried
to save the beast as the others fought for their lives.
> > Armoured spell casting is a non-starter in 2E, when there is a somatic
> > component that is. The mage in question doesn't have armour as a spell,
is
> > first level and her best attack is really with a magic quarterstaff she
> > found (+2). Magic missile is fine but using it when there is a large
number
> > of baddies just gives away that she might be one to reckon with.
>
> Ah, _First Level_. Oh, ok. Hell, I'd wear some armor then. And I
wouldn't use
> magic missile - there have got to be more useful spells to prepare when
you get
> so few per day....(I've always been crazy about unseen servant, even in
2E.)
>
> Hey, waidaminit, 1st level with a +2 magic quarterstaff? and the fighters
are
> still in leather?
Level advancement is slow, they came by this honestly. It was about the only
thing really valuable they got out of plundering a small fortress (built in
the side of a cliff). Actually I like to make something special for each
character, something that they find and grow with, like a sword or cloak or
in this case a special staff. She just happened to find hers first. Also I
don't really hint who should get these items so that is part of the fun. It
is also helpful as she gets 1 spell / day! And I make magic-users find
spells (books and scrolls) to add them to their own grimoire.
Frank
Frank Emanuel
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:43:06 -0400, "Frank Emanuel"
> <fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >Maybe my assumption that leather would be easier to hide beneath cloaks
and
> >robes. What I decided to do this evening, as a role-playing help, is have
>
> Any leather useful as armor isn't going to be all that concealable.
How so? I am under the impression that leather would be less bulky than
hide, likely as bulky as chainmail but not noisy. As it is good for theives
who need to have a good range of movement (freedom) I would imagine it as
pieces rather than a whole. This makes sense when a critical miss means an
armour slip (the only thing 3E I use is the critical hit/miss charts, I came
across them on the web and only a few things don't make sense so those I
just make up something) is the strapping for some part coming loose.
Is your comment based on descriptions somewhere or just what you have
envisioned?
Frank
Wayne Shaw
<fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>"Wayne Shaw" <sh...@caprica.com> wrote in message
>news:hvj0ruoin7d0tbv22...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:43:06 -0400, "Frank Emanuel"
>> <fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Maybe my assumption that leather would be easier to hide beneath cloaks
>and
>> >robes. What I decided to do this evening, as a role-playing help, is have
>>
>> Any leather useful as armor isn't going to be all that concealable.
>
>How so? I am under the impression that leather would be less bulky than
>hide, likely as bulky as chainmail but not noisy. As it is good for theives
Chainmail itself isn't particularly concealable unless you're wearing
full coverage, and even then you'll flash sleeves and the like most of
the time.
>who need to have a good range of movement (freedom) I would imagine it as
>pieces rather than a whole. This makes sense when a critical miss means an
That doesn't help; the pieces are still fairly rigid, and as such tend
to stand out.
>Is your comment based on descriptions somewhere or just what you have
>envisioned?
The description of leather armor I've seen in multiple places. There
are some soft leathers it might not fit for, but those are probably
sufficiently indistinguishable from heavy clothing to even count as
armor in most editions of D&D.
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>Ah, _First Level_. Oh, ok. Hell, I'd wear some armor then. And I wouldn't use
>magic missile - there have got to be more useful spells to prepare when you get
>so few per day....(I've always been crazy about unseen servant, even in 2E.)
The old no-save Sleep comes to mind.
Frank Emanuel
Failed to learn that one she did. Unfortunate.
Actually this session she took read magic to figure out some scrolls and
start copying from a spellbook. The bard was hogging it for a while. I let
any magic user read the spells from any other magic user but they have to
write it in their own way in their own book before learning the spell.
I also did the description thing with them and have to stand corrected, the
mage is quite obviously a mage by her own description. She drew fire tonight
and would have died cept the druid prayed for healing (CLW).
Frank
Jim Kerl
> (BTW I have 7 PCs in my campaign, as a DM that is a handful).
>
> Frank
REally? this used to be a normal sized group. Is this another
point showing that 3e combat has its slowness in certian areas,
I just begina to wonder how slow 3e combat would be with 10+ PCs.
Comments?
Jimmy
Frank Emanuel
"Jim Kerl" <ke...@nsuok.edu> wrote in message
news:3DBC64DE...@nsuok.edu...
Not sure about 3E - I play 2E (unashamedly). If I had 10 experienced players
no problem. I have one experienced players and the rest this is their first
game. I'd say about half the group is really got the mechanics down, the
other half I made cheat sheets for. We only play every 2nd week so that
doesn't help either. For combat I use individual initiative (+Weapon
Speed -DEX reaction bonus) and just call the numbers out and do simultaneous
on equal rolls. Works well for me. It gives enough granularity for the
mechanics freaks while not overdoing it for the few pure roleplayers. That
is my other fun bit, of those non-experienced players 3 are there to role
play and could care less about the fights and 3 are there to roll dice and
beat up monsters. A tension that needs constant balancing on my part to make
sure everyone has fun.
Frank
Sea Wasp
>
> Frank Emanuel wrote:
> > (BTW I have 7 PCs in my campaign, as a DM that is a handful).
> >
> > Frank
>
> REally? this used to be a normal sized group.
Maybe for you. I refuse to run anything with more than 6, prefer 4 or
less. 2 players is ideal.
I've felt that way for more than 20 years, so it has nothing to do
with editions. With more players, each player has much less spotlight
time, less chance for character interaction and dialogue, and the only
workable adventures tend more and more to the straight action area.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
SVaugh1
I've done a group of ten before in a extended campaign. But it was a nightmare.
It was made somewhat easier by the fact that we rotated the DMing among three
of us. On the other hand, I don't particularly like playing in a group that big
either. Too much dead time while people are making up their minds, particularly
if you have couple of indecisive folks in the group.
Jim Kerl
>
> Maybe for you. I refuse to run anything with more than 6, prefer 4 or
> less. 2 players is ideal.
>
Actually i usually have 2-4 players myself, guess i was incorect in assuming
other groups were 4-8+ ish
thats what i get for assuming things.
Jimmy
Peter Seebach
>REally? this used to be a normal sized group. Is this another
>point showing that 3e combat has its slowness in certian areas,
>I just begina to wonder how slow 3e combat would be with 10+ PCs.
7 PC's was slow in every edition I ever played.
-s
--
Copyright 2002, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
$ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the terrorists.
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Matthew Campbell
> Maybe for you. I refuse to run anything with more than 6, prefer 4 or
> less. 2 players is ideal.
>
> I've felt that way for more than 20 years, so it has nothing to do
> with editions. With more players, each player has much less spotlight
> time, less chance for character interaction and dialogue, and the only
> workable adventures tend more and more to the straight action area.
>
So is there, like, a waiting list to get into one of your games? When
players move out of town, can they pass on "legacy" spots to thier friends?
--
Matthew Campbell
But, this has reinforced a lesson from history. When enough people
who are wrong are convinced they are right, the person who is right
becomes the one who is wrong by virtue of overwhelming numbers.
- The Eternal Lost Lurker
Sorcier
>
> Frank Emanuel wrote:
> > (BTW I have 7 PCs in my campaign, as a DM that is a handful).
> >
> > Frank
>
> REally? this used to be a normal sized group.
I'd place four-six as normal, seven-nine as large, and ten
or more as excessive.
(One to three is workable in many situations but not the norm.)
Largest group I ever played with was twelve.
It worked due to a very competent DM.
But usually five is pretty standard from my experience.
> Is this another
> point showing that 3e combat has its slowness in certian areas,
> I just begina to wonder how slow 3e combat would be with 10+ PCs.
I don't really see 3e as being much more complex to handle than
earlier versions.
In fact some systems are nicely streamlined.
Exceptions being:
Initiative becomes a bear with large groups.
I've pretty much dropped to a Hero style initiative system to streamline
that.
Increased range of player options can be a problem if the players don't
know
their characters well.
When they do though, their actions are quickly resolved.
(As a DM, I also create cheat sheets that have all their
most common attacks and manuevers pre-calculated.
Speeds things immensely.)
--
"Yeah, I'm crazy. Crazy like a fox.
Uh, I mean a flying fox, er, no, a flying mouse...or, um, a bat...
That's it, I'm a bat, dammit! Just leave me alone!"
- Bruce Wayne
Bradd W. Szonye
>> (BTW I have 7 PCs in my campaign, as a DM that is a handful).
Jim Kerl <ke...@nsuok.edu> wrote:
> REally? this used to be a normal sized group. Is this another point
> showing that 3e combat has its slowness in certian areas, I just
> begina to wonder how slow 3e combat would be with 10+ PCs.
My campaign had 10 players for a while. At first, combat was dreadfully
slow. The players were the problem, not the rules. They would constantly
chat with each other, stop paying attention to the game, and otherwise
disrupt play.
Once I instituted some rules of order, the slowness went away. The two
most important rules were to be quiet when it's not your turn and to be
ready when it is your turn. I also started handling all initiative
myself; instead of calling off numbers, I called off names.
With those changes, D&D combat ended up being much faster than AD&D
combat, even with that large a group.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.concentric.net/~Bradds
Bradd W. Szonye
> I've done a group of ten before in a extended campaign. But it was a
> nightmare. It was made somewhat easier by the fact that we rotated the
> DMing among three of us. On the other hand, I don't particularly like
> playing in a group that big either. Too much dead time while people
> are making up their minds, particularly if you have couple of
> indecisive folks in the group.
I did it too, and it was a nightmare at first. It doesn't matter what
game you play; it's more of a people management problem. We had to
institute some draconian "house rules" that had nothing to do with D&D
and everything to do with rules of order. After that, it wasn't bad at
all.
I wouldn't recommend it for some games. Feng Shui doesn't work well with
more than 3 or 4 players, for mechanical and role-playing reasons, for
example. D&D does work reasonably well with large groups, though, as
long as you can manage the group itself.
Bradd W. Szonye
> I don't really see 3e as being much more complex to handle than
> earlier versions. In fact some systems are nicely streamlined.
> Exceptions being: Initiative becomes a bear with large groups.
In my experience, the D&D initiative systems is one of the best
large-group systems ever published. You just need to do it the right
way. Here's my technique:
Get a stack of colored index cards. Red cards for enemies, blue cards
for PCs, and green cards for NPC allies. Use only one red card for each
group of "faceless" foes. You can re-use the PC and cohort cards, and
you can prepare all of the monster cards before the session.
Hold the cards in "portrait" orientation rather than the usual
"landscape." (Use unlined index cards, or write on the back.) Write the
name of the character or group on the top of the card, along with any
reminders or notes you might need. For example, I need to write things
like Fast Healing and Regeneration on the monster cards, or I'll forget
about them.
At the start of the encounter, write the initiative number for each
character or group on the appropriate card. I recommend writing it in
pencil near the center of a side; it's too hard to erase near a corner.
Sort the cards into initiative order.
Call off the name on the top card if it's a player-controlled character
or take your turn if it's a DM character. (I like to use PC names
instead of player names; it's a subtle way to help keep the players in
character and to teach them to respond to their PCs' names.) After the
turn, move the card to the back of the deck.
If the character delays or readies an action, turn it perpendicular to
the other cards, to remind yourself that the character can "interrupt"
later in the turn. By the way, this is why you write the names on the
short edge of the card: They remain visible even when turned. When the
character chooses to act, bring the card back to the top of the deck.
If you need to record a duration, record it on a white card and add it
to the top of a deck. For example, when a 5th-level character casts
haste, write "Haste: 5" on a white card and put it on the deck. Every
time the card comes up, mark off a round. When the counter falls to 1,
the effect expires. Just be sure to put the duration card above the
character's card; durations expire immediately before your turn. (You
can track more than one duration on the same card, in case it's not
obvious.) If the turn order changes (because of readying or delaying),
do not move the duration cards.
As far as I know, this system works exactly like the PHB initiative
system, with two exceptions: the Refocus action goes away, and it's a
little less obvious where to introduce new combatants if they enter the
fray. It works *very* well for large groups of characters, as long as
each player is ready to go when you call his PC's name.
MasterCougar
news:3DBC64DE...@nsuok.edu:
> REally? this used to be a normal sized group. Is this another
> point showing that 3e combat has its slowness in certian areas,
> I just begina to wonder how slow 3e combat would be with 10+ PCs.
>
>
I may be uniniated here, why do you think that 3rd ed. D&D is slower
at combat?
--
Marc,
This is where I would normally put a funny sig, but now I just don't have
it in me.
Max Maloney
news:slrnarpkb4...@concentric.net...
> In my experience, the D&D initiative systems is one of the best
> large-group systems ever published. You just need to do it the right
> way. Here's my technique:
[big snip] Nice system. I might try that.
> As far as I know, this system works exactly like the PHB initiative
> system, with two exceptions: the Refocus action goes away
Please don't let this topic return! Heh.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> In my experience, the D&D initiative systems is one of the best
>> large-group systems ever published. You just need to do it the right
Max Maloney <dorm...@msnospamsn.com> wrote:
> [big snip] Nice system. I might try that.
Cool. It works really well for me in practice. I don't usually bother in
my Sunday game (which has only two players), but it's a big help in my
Saturday game (which has five players and two cohorts, at 20th level).
Sea Wasp
>
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> > Maybe for you. I refuse to run anything with more than 6, prefer 4 or
> > less. 2 players is ideal.
> >
> > I've felt that way for more than 20 years, so it has nothing to do
> > with editions. With more players, each player has much less spotlight
> > time, less chance for character interaction and dialogue, and the only
> > workable adventures tend more and more to the straight action area.
> >
>
> So is there, like, a waiting list to get into one of your games?
In general, yes.
When
> players move out of town, can they pass on "legacy" spots to thier friends?
Yes and no. They can suggest possible replacements, but it's my call
whether (A) I want a brand new player at that point, and (B) whether
the person seems likely to fit with the group.
Michael Scott Brown
news:slrnarpkb4...@concentric.net...
[snip]
Good man!
I just insist that each player remember who he takes his turn after,
myself, and we typically use dice for spell durations (put up a dX reading
the correct value and decrement each time you take a turn). The elegance of
3E initiative is that it can, in fact, be completely delegated.
If I needed to be more organized, I always figured to use a
spreadsheet's drag-and-drop features to quickly array a list of combatants
and just scroll through with the arrow key. Spell durations become colored
ranges to the right (mark an x each round until it's full), delaying persons
are pulled out of sequence until they want to 'alt-e-i-r' themselves back
in.
-Michael
Frank Emanuel
"Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mUdv9.10078$Fj6.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Am I to understand that in 3E there is no randomizing factor in initiative?
That sucks IMNSHO. I love the 2E way with an ounce of skill and a bit of
luck.
Frank
Justin Bacon
> If I needed to be more organized, I always figured to use a
>spreadsheet's drag-and-drop features to quickly array a list of combatants
>and just scroll through with the arrow key. Spell durations become colored
>ranges to the right (mark an x each round until it's full), delaying persons
>are pulled out of sequence until they want to 'alt-e-i-r' themselves back
>in.
For a low-tech solution: Notecards. Write the name of each character on a
notecard. You can track stats, spell durations, and anything else you need to
on the cards. If someone is holding or readying an action, I turn their card
90-degrees.
JB
Max Maloney
news:sDjv9.1955$qD2.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Am I to understand that in 3E there is no randomizing factor in
initiative?
> That sucks IMNSHO. I love the 2E way with an ounce of skill and a bit of
> luck.
Initiative order is based off each combatant rolling 1d20 and adding their
DEX bonus (plus additional factors such as the Improved Initiative feat).
So, no that is not quite right. However, once initiative order has been
determined, it remains constant throughout a given encounter except when
someone delays their action.
To clarify, you don't reroll initiative each round.
Frank Emanuel
"Max Maloney" <dorm...@msnospamsn.com> wrote in message
news:apknc...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Interesting approach. What about weapon speeds?
Max Maloney
> Interesting approach. What about weapon speeds?
3rd Ed. doesn't use weapon speed.
Frank Emanuel
Are all weapons created equal? How do you balance a person wielding a quick
little dagger versus a cumbersome polearm? Not that they'd get near, but I'm
sure I could whip one at them faster than they could swing that halberd.
Frank
Bradd W. Szonye
>> 3rd Ed. doesn't use weapon speed.
Frank Emanuel <fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Are all weapons created equal? How do you balance a person wielding a
> quick little dagger versus a cumbersome polearm? Not that they'd get
> near, but I'm sure I could whip one at them faster than they could
> swing that halberd.
Contrary to popular belief, daggers aren't quick, and polearms aren't
cumbersome. Leverage and reach are important factors in determining how
quickly you can attack, and they eliminate any speed advantage a dagger
might get from simply being small and light. In fact, most swords are
faster than daggers from leverage alone. They require more strength to
wield, but they're much faster and more effective.
The AD&D weapon speed system was an unrealistic game-balance mechanic.
Normally, there would be no reason at all to wield a dagger instead of a
sword (except lack of training), but dagger-wielders are popular in
fiction. Therefore, the game designers made them "fast" to give players
a reason to choose them.
D&D3 keeps the genre convention, but implements it in a different way.
The result is an initiative system which is much faster and simpler. The
designers preserved the "dagger is a reasonable choice" in other ways.
Note that most fictional knife-fighters are rogues. D&D makes rogue +
dagger a reasonable choice: Sneak attack damage makes the difference
between dagger (1d4) and longsword (1d8) less significant. There are
also advantages to using a dagger in each hand, relative to the
longsword -- advantages that are very good for the rogue.
Thus, D&D3 makes the dagger a reasonable choice for rogues without
saddling everybody with a more complex initiative system. It's a very
elegant design.
Bradd W. Szonye
> For a low-tech solution: Notecards. Write the name of each character
> on a notecard. You can track stats, spell durations, and anything else
> you need to on the cards. If someone is holding or readying an action,
> I turn their card 90-degrees.
Yep, that's how I do it.
I don't write everything on the cards; just time-dependent stuff. If I
have time, I also put offensive abilities on the cards. However, it's a
waste of time to put defenses on the card, because the card will be
buried in the deck when the creature is attacked.
Peter Seebach
Frank Emanuel <fema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Are all weapons created equal? How do you balance a person wielding a quick
>little dagger versus a cumbersome polearm? Not that they'd get near, but I'm
>sure I could whip one at them faster than they could swing that halberd.
As anyone who's watched SCA fighting knows (or real fighting, if you're lucky
enough to live somewhere where swords aren't obsolete), sword always beats
knife; reach is more important to speed than momentum is.
Sir Bob
In 3E, you roll initiative once, at the beginning of combat - add your
character's init modifier and go. Since there are no separate
"rounds" in 3E (any referrence of "one round" simple means "from this
character's current action until his next action"), after everyone's
taken their initial action, the only important thing is the *order* in
which characters act. Trying to re-randomize that all the time is a
genuine pain in the ass - hence, re-rolling initiative is relegated to
the status of an optional rule in the DMG, and nobody uses it. ;)
- Sir Bob.
Michael Scott Brown
news:sDjv9.1955$qD2.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
initiative?
> That sucks IMNSHO. I love the 2E way with an ounce of skill and a bit of
> luck.
Your opinion is deservedly humble, as it is ignorant of 3E and actually
*likes* 2E's logic-abusing initiative rules.
3E's combat philosophy is this: the battle starts, and everyone reacts
and begins acting. *Someone* will react first (this is randomly determined
with d20+Dex+mods), and second, and so on. Whoever reacted first will
finish his rounds' worth of actions first (which we then resolve as the
"first round" for that character), and therefore will begin his 'next'
action before anyone else, and so on. As a result, the order in which you
started reacting always determines the order that next-actions are resolved,
and so the initially randomized sequence becomes 'fixed' into a cyclic
sequence of overlapping actions which we resolve one after another.
People always have the option to wait until more tactically appropriate
moments, or set themselves up to interrupt later actions, and so things
still remain fluid when needed (and with far more control than 2E offered).
Each player essentially has two choices: act as soon as he can (his next
window in the cycle), or sit and wait in one fashion or another until he
wants to act again (where he will re-insert himself into the cycle).
In contrast, the 2E way is moronic, in that events in the last "round"
have no bearing on the present, there are absurd timeline issues with
respect to interrupting spells, "nosepicking" issues, simultaneously
irrelevant and *wrong* speed factor concepts, and -as far as I am concerned
the utter damnnation of the system- a gross unfairness built into it that
allows actors that "lose" and then "win" initiative to take two actions
before their foe takes one.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > 3rd Ed. doesn't use weapon speed.
>
> Are all weapons created equal? How do you balance a person wielding a
quick
> little dagger versus a cumbersome polearm? Not that they'd get near, but
I'm
> sure I could whip one at them faster than they could swing that halberd.
Most people's "instincts" about what is a "fast" weapon or not seem to
be influenced by looking at those speed factors. Speed factors are crap.
Reach is what matters in battle. Allow me to repeat myself: REACH. In real
life, a man taking a dagger to a sword fight never even gets a blow in, much
less *first*, much less on an alternating basis with the swordsman.
Arguments about "light" weapons being "fast" overlook a variety of
biomechanical issues related to reach, muscle power, limb inertia,
technique, and *reach*, all of which combine in such a way as to ensure that
the nasty ends of martial weapons are moving very, very fast - often with
very small motions on the part of the weilder. Larger weapons are
*heavier*, but that just means that you have to do more *work* to fight with
them, not that they are inherently slower.
The example that makes the point: to hit someone from 6 feet away with a
dagger, you have to extend the weapon (moving your entire arm) and then
extend *yourself* (moving your entire body) so as to bring your weapon to
the foe. Notice how heavily the dagger's inertia figured into that
calculation of "speed" - to attack you had to move your entire body. A man
with a greatsword (ignorant players think of these as big and heavy and
unbalanced -bah!) need simply rotate his hands. Who do you think is going
to hit first, and more often in that situation?
In general, to fight with any weapon one uses techniques such that the
weapon moves at "fighting speeds" good enough to strike and defend,
techniques that move the entire body, and thus it is the *body* that sets
the pace, not the weapon. You want 'speed'? Get multiple attacks and a
better attack bonus, you'll land more blows over time.
3E's designers finally learned this lesson after years of bitching from
better-educated fighter sorts, using Dexterity for initial initiative and
introducing rudimentary reach rules to model the advantage that truly
lengthy weapons have in striking first. Speed is modeled in accuracy and
attack rate.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Interesting approach. What about weapon speeds?
Weapon speeds are a sin against sanity and reason.
-Michael
Max Maloney
> news:Rvnv9.3641$et4.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> quick little dagger versus a cumbersome polearm? Not that they'd get
> near, but I'm sure I could whip one at them faster than they could swing
> that halberd.
Many have said why weapon speed is silly, but I would like to point out the
most organic approach to the concept. No soldier ever fought with a dagger.
If it were a viable weapon when pitted against other weapons, it would have
been used since it would have required fewer resources to produce.
Of course, reach is not the only factor or pikes would rule. Let's not
forget that the Romans had great success with a short sword. It required
specific tactics and supporting equipment however, which would not be
available in an impromptu combat.
Sir Bob
It's just not worth the trouble coming up with "accurate" weapon
speeds - how quickly a weapon can be brought to bear depends on a
number of factors, including reach, leverage, the strength of the
wielder, etc.; you wouldn't *think* that a two-handed sword in the
hands of a competent wielder could be brought to bear faster than a
dagger, but guess what? ;)
- Sir Bob.
Tim Kelley
> Am I to understand that in 3E there is no randomizing factor in initiative?
> That sucks IMNSHO. I love the 2E way with an ounce of skill and a bit of
> luck.
A d20 isn't random enough for you? I always thought the initiative
system was TOO random. It's quite possible for someone with an 18 DEX
to lose initiative to an opponent with a 10 DEX, in fact it happens
quite frequently - and it should probably almost never happen.
I had toyed with the idea of doubling dex bonuses for initiative
purposes.
--
Tim Kelley
timk...@nocoxmail.com
Varl
> In contrast, the 2E way is moronic, in that events in the last "round"
> have no bearing on the present, there are absurd timeline issues with
> respect to interrupting spells, "nosepicking" issues, simultaneously
> irrelevant and *wrong* speed factor concepts, and -as far as I am concerned
> the utter damnnation of the system- a gross unfairness built into it that
> allows actors that "lose" and then "win" initiative to take two actions
> before their foe takes one.
I'm confused. Wouldn't choosing to Delay or Refocus do the same thing
potentially? If someone has a fast initiative check initially, someone
could get multiple attacks on someone else particularly if one side
decides to Delay or Refocus, before their adjusted initiative comes back
up again? You'll end up with the same thing: the same actor achieving
two or more actions consecutively before the Delayee gets to act.
Possible consecutive attacks is what I like about rolling every round.
You're not perpetually stuck at the end of the cyclic initiative system
each and every round if you happen to initially roll badly on your one
chance at glory. You have a chance to play too. :)
--
"Trials of Ascension- Permadeath for the level treadmill."
Frank Emanuel
"Varl" <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote in message
news:3DBEA03C...@premier1.net...
Which is why I like the old style where you roll every time. The other (3E)
sounds like segments in Champions which I didn't like. Not that I am heading
to 3E anytime soon.
Frank
Aaron Day
>
> I'm confused. Wouldn't choosing to Delay or Refocus do the same thing
> potentially? If someone has a fast initiative check initially, someone
> could get multiple attacks on someone else particularly if one side
> decides to Delay or Refocus, before their adjusted initiative comes back
> up again? You'll end up with the same thing: the same actor achieving
> two or more actions consecutively before the Delayee gets to act.
Yep. You can get two actions before your opponent does, if you opponent
purposefully decides to not act. Gee, that's just keen.
Aaron
Michael Scott Brown
news:cf2f12ef.02102...@posting.google.com...
> It's just not worth the trouble coming up with "accurate" weapon
> speeds - how quickly a weapon can be brought to bear depends on a
> number of factors, including reach, leverage, the strength of the
> wielder, etc.; you wouldn't *think* that a two-handed sword in the
> hands of a competent wielder could be brought to bear faster than a
> dagger, but guess what? ;)
Um, if you'd ever seen one used, you would.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
>
> > In contrast, the 2E way is moronic, in that events in the last
"round"
> > have no bearing on the present, there are absurd timeline issues with
> > respect to interrupting spells, "nosepicking" issues, simultaneously
> > irrelevant and *wrong* speed factor concepts, and -as far as I am
concerned
> > the utter damnnation of the system- a gross unfairness built into it
that
> > allows actors that "lose" and then "win" initiative to take two actions
> > before their foe takes one.
>
> I'm confused. Wouldn't choosing to Delay or Refocus do the same thing
> potentially?
No, never. If you use one of the waiting options, then your rounds are
reset to the new point in time. Remember - the principle of the 3E round is
"we are resolving your last six seconds' of action"; if you delay, then the
end of the next increment of six seconds' action from that point is
...<drumroll>... right at that initiative point in the following
round/cycle.
> If someone has a fast initiative check initially, someone
> could get multiple attacks on someone else particularly if one side
> decides to Delay or Refocus, before their adjusted initiative comes back
> up again? You'll end up with the same thing: the same actor achieving
> two or more actions consecutively before the Delayee gets to act.
Ahh, you're looking at it that way. Notice, however, that this is
completely unobjectionable. A character *voluntarily*, and for reasons of
his own, chooses not to act when he could have, it's hardly a surprise that
other characters will get more actions completed in that time. Different
issue.
> Possible consecutive attacks is what I like about rolling every round.
Making you a munchkin twit with no sense of fairness.
> You're not perpetually stuck at the end of the cyclic initiative system
> each and every round if you happen to initially roll badly on your one
> chance at glory. You have a chance to play too. :)
This line of thinking indicates that you are not a smart person.
Improve. Now.
In a cycle, being at the "end" of the cycle is *meaningless*. You're
not "stuck" anywhere, you're not unable to play or out on any opportunities
for glory, save that - just like what you accept in 2E - in the very first
round, you were the last to react. That's all. After that, the end of the
(initial) cycle is also *before* the "beginning" of the (next) cycle - which
means that you are acting before the "fastest" character of all. Things
like that make where you are in the cycle irrelevant (save for tactical
concerns like wanting to wait to resolve your melee attacks until after the
fireball takes out the weakest foes).
Someone gets to act first and start the cycle. Thereafter, *everyone*
takes turns. Your foes go before you, your foes go after you. There is no
"end of the round" to worry about, everything is overlapping and
simultaneous. There is no stigma whatsoever to being at the end.
-Michael
Peter Meilinger
>"Varl" <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote in message
>news:3DBEA03C...@premier1.net...
>> You're not perpetually stuck at the end of the cyclic initiative system
>> each and every round if you happen to initially roll badly on your one
>> chance at glory. You have a chance to play too. :)
> This line of thinking indicates that you are not a smart person.
>Improve. Now.
And of course, the only way to improve is to agree completely with
your every opinion, right?
> Someone gets to act first and start the cycle. Thereafter, *everyone*
>takes turns. Your foes go before you, your foes go after you. There is no
>"end of the round" to worry about, everything is overlapping and
>simultaneous. There is no stigma whatsoever to being at the end.
And there's no realism whatsoever to a fight where every single
participant goes in an A-B-C fashion every single round, with
no variation at all based on tactics or new factors that arise
during the fight.
If some people want to roll every round and have initiative be
more random than you prefer, why in the hell do you care?
Pete
Loup-Garou
wrote:
That's almost exactly how I do it. In a recent scenario finale, I had
8 PCs, 2 PC friendly-animals, and seven cards for the baddies (grouped
into a zombie card, bandits card, orcs card and then a card for each
major baddie). In 2E, this would have been a nightmare and I would
have had to over simplify things (all baddies would have had the same
initiative). In 3E, combat actually ran smoothly, if not especially
fast!
Attached is my Fighter Wizard's card. I keep handy time dependent and
offensive info on it, but not the HP or AC info, that goes on a common
HP sheet.
--
grrr-arghhh...
Sorcier
Like I've said I've generally collapsed the randomness out of it.
Highest Initiative goes first, period.
OTOH, my players seem to _like_ rolling for it even though it can screw
them at times.
(The look the face of the player of a 20 Dex character with
Improved Initiative when he actually winds up going last is a sad thing
to see.)
So in small battles I let them roll.
But since I've usually planned larged battles in advance it speeds
play greatly for me to show up with a pre-set initiative chart.
I may try the index card version; it's slower than my fix, but restores
the randomness that the players seem to want.
--
"Yeah, I'm crazy. Crazy like a fox.
Uh, I mean a flying fox, er, no, a flying mouse...or, um, a bat...
That's it, I'm a bat, dammit! Just leave me alone!"
- Bruce Wayne
Peter Meilinger
>Like I've said I've generally collapsed the randomness out of it.
>Highest Initiative goes first, period.
>OTOH, my players seem to _like_ rolling for it even though it can screw
>them at times.
>(The look the face of the player of a 20 Dex character with
>Improved Initiative when he actually winds up going last is a sad thing
>to see.)
And an even sadder thing to wear, believe me. But them's the breaks.
>So in small battles I let them roll.
>But since I've usually planned larged battles in advance it speeds
>play greatly for me to show up with a pre-set initiative chart.
>I may try the index card version; it's slower than my fix, but restores
>the randomness that the players seem to want.
I used to roll out individual initiatives for all the NPCs, or for
every group for cannon fodder types like kobolds, before the game
and right it all down on a sheet of paper. That way I had 20 rounds
of initiative placings ready to go and only had to worry about to
hit and damage rolls.
Pete
Frank Emanuel
"Peter Meilinger" <mell...@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:apmi99$5g1$2...@news3.bu.edu...
Not a bad idea for large battles. There is something about everyone rolling
at once though - in my mind it simulates the struggle of combat. We follow
the same order each time:
Declare PC actions (individually)
Roll for initiative
Perform actions in order of initiative.
Logical, consistant and I think realistic in a fantasy sort of way.
Frank
JamesMcP
> genuine pain in the ass - hence, re-rolling initiative is relegated to
> the status of an optional rule in the DMG, and nobody uses it. ;)
I assume from the smiley that was intended as humor. Otherwise I (and
my 6 players) are unique then. The me-him-me-him-me-him thing just
didn't work for us. Ignore fencing & martial arts; just playing Tekken
proves that's crap.
I did decide to weapon speeds were the devil tho'. I needed 'em back
in 2E just to scatter the round. Even with d20s, 12 players can
easily stack up. Thank $diety I don't do *that* anymore.
Sorcier
>
> Not a bad idea for large battles. There is something about everyone rolling
> at once though - in my mind it simulates the struggle of combat. We follow
> the same order each time:
>
> Declare PC actions (individually)
> Roll for initiative
> Perform actions in order of initiative.
>
> Logical, consistant and I think realistic in a fantasy sort of way.
No offense meant but I've always hated that system.
Too many arguements about how much a player may adjust their declared
actions.
Too much effort to keep track of individual actions until they actually
occur.
Too much chance that if NPC's actions are decided when they go rather
than
before players declare that the GM will be influenced in his choices by
developments since declaration.
(IOW, the GM characters get freer tactical options than the PC's no
matter
how carefully he tries to be fair about it.)
I greatly prefer the "OK, it's your turn what do you do?" systems.
They allow all combatants roughly equal knowledge of their situation
when they declare their actions and better simulate the reality that
combat is very much more an affair of reacting to the developing
situation
than it is a matter of predicting what everyone will be doing in
advance.
Frank Emanuel
Pete you inspired me to create a matrix for rounds - easy grid with a column
for each PC, also a bunch for extras and one for special actions (like that
bucket left dropping into the well - will they have time to catch the end
before it slips through the tackle!). Then I broke the rows into rounds.
This way on round 3 they cast bless - I can pencil in the duration. I can
also use it to record NPC initiatives on the fly. I'll playtest it Friday,
I'm excited. Thanks for the inspiration.
Frank
Frank Emanuel
"Sorcier" <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote in message
news:3DBED8...@cavtel.net...
As DM I've not had any arguements over fairness. Basically if the situation
changes drastically before their action they will suggest an alternative and
I allow it but usually at a penalty (raise their initiative or minus to
hit). That way we simulate a shift in intentions and committed actions.
Maybe if your players are unruley<sp?> you should have them flogged more
often (just kidding).
Frank
Rupert Boleyn
<mister...@earthlink.net> spake thusly into the wilderness:
>"Bradd W. Szonye" <bra...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnarpkb4...@concentric.net...
>[snip]
>
> Good man!
>
> I just insist that each player remember who he takes his turn after,
>myself, and we typically use dice for spell durations (put up a dX reading
>the correct value and decrement each time you take a turn). The elegance of
>3E initiative is that it can, in fact, be completely delegated.
> If I needed to be more organized, I always figured to use a
>spreadsheet's drag-and-drop features to quickly array a list of combatants
>and just scroll through with the arrow key. Spell durations become colored
>ranges to the right (mark an x each round until it's full), delaying persons
>are pulled out of sequence until they want to 'alt-e-i-r' themselves back
>in.
I use a table I did in Word that I printed on light card and coated
with plastic film. It has initiative points from 30 down to -10
running down it and five boxes at each point. I use eraseable pens to
write each character or monster in their rolled initiative point (the
extra boxes are for spell effects and characters that move to just
before or after another due to taking readied and delayed actions). I
just count down the page and then roll back to the top of it, no
refocus, etc.
AFAICT this works just like Brad's method, but without the cards. Thus
there's less prep work, but it's a bit easier to forget Regeneration,
etc. Swings and Roundabouts I guess.
Bradd W. Szonye
> I use a table I did in Word that I printed on light card and coated
> with plastic film. It has initiative points from 30 down to -10
> running down it and five boxes at each point. I use eraseable pens to
> write each character or monster in their rolled initiative point (the
> extra boxes are for spell effects and characters that move to just
> before or after another due to taking readied and delayed actions). I
> just count down the page and then roll back to the top of it, no
> refocus, etc.
I used to use something very much like this. I too printed a graph of
initiative numbers from 30 to -10, with multiple columns to mark
durations. Instead of erasable pens, I used 3M "flags," small sticky
arrows with the character names written on them.
> AFAICT this works just like Brad's method, but without the cards. Thus
> there's less prep work, but it's a bit easier to forget Regeneration,
> etc. Swings and Roundabouts I guess.
The card method doesn't require much prep work unless you want to record
abilities like regeneration. It has one other advantage: You can't
forget whose turn it is, because the card is on top of the deck.
Michael Scott Brown
> > This line of thinking indicates that you are not a smart person.
> >Improve. Now.
>
> And of course, the only way to improve is to agree completely with
> your every opinion, right?
This is not an issue of opinion.
> > Someone gets to act first and start the cycle. Thereafter,
*everyone*
> >takes turns. Your foes go before you, your foes go after you. There is
no
> >"end of the round" to worry about, everything is overlapping and
> >simultaneous. There is no stigma whatsoever to being at the end.
>
> And there's no realism whatsoever to a fight where every single
> participant goes in an A-B-C fashion every single round, with
> no variation at all based on tactics or new factors that arise
> during the fight.
What you describe is not what I described. This thing where you are
not a smart person is beginning to interfere with your comprehension. One,
you should be well aware that any actor has the option to wait to act until
later whenever he wants - consequently, there *are* variations on tactics
and new factors that arise during the fight.
Further, your perception of going in "ABC fashion" - it's clear in the
way you phrased it - indicates that you don't grasp the model.
The combat system presumes "everyone is acting". The system presumes
"we will check on each actor after six seconds of their time has elapsed".
It is therefore certain that someone who reacted in .03 seconds will
complete six seconds of action at 6.03 seconds, and at 12.03 seconds, and
so on. The person who reacted in .12 seconds will complete his six seconds
of action by 6.12 seconds, 12.12 seconds, and so on. Consequently, the
order in which we *resolve* what they've been doing (ie; checking in at
6.03, 6.12, 12.03, 12.12) turns out to conform to the order of their
initial reactions (until such time as one of them pauses). This isn't a
matter of statically "waiting for the other guy to do his thing", it's just
simple physics. Six seconds later is six seconds later. Period. It's
perfectly realistic - you'd see exactly the same order-of-resolution were
we to divide a real fight up into six second chunks for each combatant.
> If some people want to roll every round and have initiative be
> more random than you prefer, why in the hell do you care?
Because people that prefer fundamentally unfair initiative systems are
stupid, and stupidity offends me. <shrug>
-Michael