|
|
Post by mao on Jul 5, 2018 13:19:41 GMT -5
I have a very concrete example of why "tactics" are not the answer. I was playing in a game where I was doing all kinds of fancy maneuvers and the DM flatly ignored me and asked"What did you roll?"If I had a mechanical system that would give me more options, he couldnt have ignored me.
|
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Jul 5, 2018 13:27:48 GMT -5
I guess the argument boils down to the "simulationist VS Gameist" argument." Do you prefer to simulate "reality" or "fantasy?" My assumption is that Gary & Co. aimed at the fun and excitement (and assumed uncertainty) of "fantasy." Again in my not so humble opinion...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2018 14:45:39 GMT -5
I have a very concrete example of why "tactics" are not the answer. I was playing in a game where I was doing all kinds of fancy maneuvers and the DM flatly ignored me and asked"What did you roll?"If I had a mechanical system that would give me more options, he couldnt have ignored me. People problem, not rules problem.
The rules can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jul 5, 2018 16:33:36 GMT -5
I have a very concrete example of why "tactics" are not the answer. I was playing in a game where I was doing all kinds of fancy maneuvers and the DM flatly ignored me and asked"What did you roll?"If I had a mechanical system that would give me more options, he couldnt have ignored me. In my AD&D game Masque of the Red Death, the primary weapons were pistols which greatly changed the dynamic of the game, namely, everyone was AC 10. This system really re-enforced to me that AC is not a fixed number, it fluctuated depending on what the character was doing. A gunfighter shooting from behind a rock has an adjusted AC of 6, if he is dug in and not shooting his AC is 2. Of course, if the person who is shooting at him manages to flank him, his AC 10. This applies to Medieval fantasy as well, and it always did. The rules stated that an attack on an enemy's back is rolled against an AC of 10, even if he is wearing Chainmail and using a shield. There is also that fun chart that many people hate called Weapon Type vs. Armor Type, this also tells us that AC fluctuates. As DM we don't have to check those charts all of the time, we can listen to what the player is telling us and make the adjustments in our head. If a player manages to get on the head of a dragon and attempts to stick his sword through the dragon's eye and deep into its reptilian brain, we are no longer in the realm of the rules some guy wrote. We HAVE to make a decision. What is the AC of a Dragon's eyeball? Does the Dragon get a saving throw, and which one? Will this blind the dragon or will it instantly kill it? What happens if the Dragon wins initiative? What happens if the Player does? We just have to decide! I get your point about DMs, I think that this was the reason WHY I became a DM. To just ignore what the player is saying to you, unfortunately, is a DM style and the very same one that irritated me. I am unfortunately guilty of doing this myself sometimes, but there is one reason why. I hate called shots. I've won a game by using them and it sucked. My thinking now is, if the players can use them then so can I. There are times when I feel that the conditions have been met to bypass the HP system, but it really depends upon the conditions. Managing and manipulating the system can be deemed as a good use of tactics, but it takes a DM who knows what they are doing, and willing to make mistakes sometimes that makes something like that work. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jul 5, 2018 16:46:16 GMT -5
In the rules-as-written, LBBs, the Fighting Man is the only character that can use all magical weapons. A big advantage here is Magical Swords in that the Fighting Man is the ONLY class of the base three that can use Swords, magical or otherwise. Depending upon your reading of the Magic Sword description you could surmise all magical swords are intelligent to some degree and likely to possess one or more "special powers." These special powers can add significantly valuable and advantageous abilities to the "simple" Fighting Man. Advantages normally only available to the other two magic using classes and even some later taken up by add on classes such as the Thief (think Find Traps.) In this light the Fighting Man is not weak at all. Some of the Extraordinary Abilities are pretty potent in and of themselves: Teleportation Flying Healing 1-4 Times Normal Strength Just to name a few. Add in the options available in Supplement One (Greyhawk) and the Fighting Man's prospects improve even more, IMNSHO :-) BAM!!!!!! Another point taken. That is written right there in the rules, and I've overlooked it for years. Rules I've read thousands of times but for whatever reason, one doesn't put 2 and 2 together. Have an EXALT Simrion. It seems so obvious now, but even after 20+ years I never caught it. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Jul 5, 2018 16:54:20 GMT -5
I have a very concrete example of why "tactics" are not the answer. I was playing in a game where I was doing all kinds of fancy maneuvers and the DM flatly ignored me and asked"What did you roll?"If I had a mechanical system that would give me more options, he couldnt have ignored me. I was in a group just like that, the roll trumped all. Instead of role playing your character & using tactics I was told "Hurry up & roll". I did have one semi-good GM that rewarded both Role Play & tactics than "just roll it' and it was using 3.5 D&D, which you have mechanics for everything. Your example mao is why many players prefer mechanics heavy rules. That said, OD&D is created for those with a rule-light approach, where you don't need mechanics to act as a shield, but also you need a fair and competent ref to make the most of it. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Jul 5, 2018 17:10:10 GMT -5
Dont get me wrong, I am firmly committed to "Light" rules, but all the eds of D&D have something to offer
|
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Jul 5, 2018 17:10:52 GMT -5
I hate them too, which is why I don't use them. If you take combat as it is meant to be by my understanding (and I could be wrong & inferring it from a clone instead)is that it is fluid, that it incorporates feints, parries & dodges, with only a solid strike doing damage and potentially killing you, The only way I'd allow it is if a Thief "back stabs" a target, scores a hit & rolls a 1 on a d6 to strike the desired spot on a target.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Jul 5, 2018 17:13:34 GMT -5
Dont get me wrong, I am firmly committed to "Light" rules, but all the eds of D&D have something to offer That they do & I won't bash them, I just won't run them as a ref and likely won't play them either unless I trust the ref and how he or she runs their game. But that is simply my preference, I used to like crunchy games but got burnt out on them. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jul 5, 2018 17:53:27 GMT -5
I guess the argument boils down to the "simulationist VS Gameist" argument." Do you prefer to simulate "reality" or "fantasy?" My assumption is that Gary & Co. aimed at the fun and excitement (and assumed uncertainty) of "fantasy." Again in my not so humble opinion... It is impossible to simulate reality with D&D, we wouldn't last long at all. The war hammer is NOT a bloodless d6 weapon. Soldiers targeted your knees and there was no defence against it, you just lay their crippled and screaming after one hit. The combat system is nothing but our own suspension of disbelief at work, we aren't simulating combat, we are playing a game. |
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Jul 5, 2018 18:02:59 GMT -5
Dont get me wrong, I am firmly committed to "Light" rules, but all the eds of D&D have something to offer That they do & I won't bash them, I just won't run them as a ref and likely won't play them either unless I trust the ref and how he or she runs their game. But that is simply my preference, I used to like crunchy games but got burnt out on them. In my mind this come down to the recent concept of the "social contract" in the concept of RPGs. This concept doesn't seem to be an issue in the antecedents of the hobby. Maybe the original players were simply used to difficult situations due the challenges of real life based wargaming scenarios that they trusted the DM to be fair and impartial and allow the players, through their characters ( and knowledge/wit) to overcome the restrictions of rules and dice rolls? I was 7 when the game came out, I was 13 when I discovered it so this is simply supposition on my part. Still, the "bones" of the game lead me to believe the original concept of the game implied that the players trusted the DM not to simply screw them and that they embraced the challenge of overcoming the "challenges" the DM put before them as the whole point of playing the game. Not to have the greatest number of ranks in a skill or rolling the highest number possible on a D20. |
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Jul 5, 2018 18:25:50 GMT -5
That they do & I won't bash them, I just won't run them as a ref and likely won't play them either unless I trust the ref and how he or she runs their game. But that is simply my preference, I used to like crunchy games but got burnt out on them. In my mind this come down to the recent concept of the "social contract" in the concept of RPGs. This concept doesn't seem to be an issue in the antecedents of the hobby. Maybe the original players were simply used to difficult situations due the challenges of real life based wargaming scenarios that they trusted the DM to be fair and impartial and allow the players, through their characters ( and knowledge/wit) to overcome the restrictions of rules and dice rolls? I was 7 when the game came out, I was 13 when I discovered it so this is simply supposition on my part. Still, the "bones" of the game lead me to believe the original concept of the game implied that the players trusted the DM not to simply screw them and that they embraced the challenge of overcoming the "challenges" the DM put before them as the whole point of playing the game. Not to have the greatest number of ranks in a skill or rolling the highest number possible on a D20. I agree, though I wasn't always the best GM when I was younger & frankly I wasn't the ref as I should have been. But now that I am older I appreciate things better now & want to instill in others how the old school fair and competent ref role should be the default way of reffing to everyone I game with. Push the focus back to challenging the player not the character unlike the trend in many post OD&D & AD&D RPGs. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jul 5, 2018 19:43:14 GMT -5
One could make a very strong case that the rules heavy crunchy games were to make up for most DM's lack of experience with wargames as well as lack of reading in general. I know guys that will read OSR rules all day every day but never even think of picking up a real book. Researching a battle, setting up the pieces and even running a simulation solo teaches more about war, motives, life, and death than any book of crunch. Playing a wargame isn't about winning or losing, especially when you are just starting out; it is about learning. Going back to captaincrumbcake's remarks about monsters, I think that it was a huge mistake to start giving creatures stats. The harder the rules the more commercially viable a game is, but the less useful it becomes. Once the DM learns not to care what a Lizardman's Dexterity is, and no longer looks up how many Hit Dice they have, they become free. The Lizardman isn't a bunch of numbers roaming around, if I want them to be ambush experts, then they are. If I want them to breathe fire and attack with marshmallow guns then they'll do that too. It was Dave Cook's job to sell books, it is mine to invent and entertain. Rules suck. Rules add nothing but restrictions. It is understanding the principles of the game that makes it playable. I used to spend hours researching specifics that honestly added nothing to the game. Why do that? The theories and designs which make a game a game are rarely pointed out in commercial products. If I design a specific encounter, then there is a reason for that. To me, it is more important that a tribe of orcs has a good survival plan and a culture than "An Orc has 2HD, and a Strength of 17" If the player knows this, then that data is out of date. Our job isn't to crunch numbers, it is to bring that Orc clan alive. Stats may give the uninitiated clues, but I know "these" orcs are lazy as all get out and would rather have slaves than casualties. Those orcs over there are more interested in trying to discover the secret of steel, and this other one just sits around and gets high all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Jul 6, 2018 8:42:08 GMT -5
I hate them too, which is why I don't use them. If you take combat as it is meant to be by my understanding (and I could be wrong & inferring it from a clone instead)is that it is fluid, that it incorporates feints, parries & dodges, with only a solid strike doing damage and potentially killing you, The only way I'd allow it is if a Thief "back stabs" a target, scores a hit & rolls a 1 on a d6 to strike the desired spot on a target. I like called shots. Here are my very simple rules for them. You can call whatever you want at -2 to hit, if you do this, all monsters will ttack your throat and if they do more than 2 points you are dead Ok well maybe I dont like them |
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Jul 6, 2018 9:42:06 GMT -5
In my mind called shots are a needless complication, once you start fussing with called shots, you then need to worry about how to deal with armor by location and criticals, thus they breed a need for sub-systems to facilitate a more simulationist combat. I am a guy who played Rolemaster most of my gaming life, where combats were based on charts, weapons, armor type, combat skills, criticals and fumbles - basically Arduin on crack. Even RM penalized called shots harshly, likely to discourage their use; as such no one I gamed with ever tried them. When you incur a -90 to your attack role without any other potential penalty mods, you are less likely to do the called shot. When I first started getting into OD&D seriously (after I joined this fine forum) I tried to include rules for criticals & was tempted to import things that I believed that I wanted into OD&D. But over the last several months my whole mindset changed. It is not that I want to run BtB/RAW OD&D (or a clone thereof)but it did have me question what I really needed to add to the game. I was never a fan of called shots but I knew people who did like them, but the more I learned about the spirit of the game & old school D&D style of play the less I liked called shots or even criticals. If you read my initial posts after I joined I was all about criticals and -HP = Con. I still had that Rolemaster mentality. When I tried to run Swords & Wizardry Complete I went so far to add a simplistic skill system to it as I couldn't at the time fathom a system without skills, even a basic one. What rules my reffing style is KISS, if it adds another layer of complication I'll likely not include it unless I feel it is needed, but even then I'll likely simplify it to help ease play and speed up the game. I'm not criticizing other play styles, I know people who love crunchy rules for every situation - my old group & my brother are those kind of people. It is no longer my style of play or reffing. I do not want to memorize a ton of rules just to run or play in a game where combats drag for an hour or more. If I want that I'll play a miniature war game not a rpg. It means I'll likely never run my brother in another game if he ever moves back to Oregon & that I'll have to find old school oriented gamers or recruit and train them myself from gaming noobs. mao if you like called shots that is 100% cool. You do you, if it is fun for you that is all that matters. Nobody else's opinion matters, not mine or anyone else. If you like minor complications like called shots? Nobody should judge you over it & tell you are playing or reffing wrong. I don't like them, yet it is not anyone else's issue but my own. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Jul 6, 2018 10:39:22 GMT -5
Dude, RE-read my post,while that really is my rules, I mean it tongue n cheek, I hate called shots, nobody would be foolish enuf to let every monster kill you in a single 3 point hit. I guess the joke wasnt clear enuf, my bad
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jul 6, 2018 13:50:29 GMT -5
I have a very concrete example of why "tactics" are not the answer. I was playing in a game where I was doing all kinds of fancy maneuvers and the DM flatly ignored me and asked"What did you roll?"If I had a mechanical system that would give me more options, he couldnt have ignored me. This falls under do not play with jerks and do not play with a new school style of play. An old school ref listens to what you have to say and then acts on it before you roll the dice by looking at your ideas and ruling if they have merit or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jul 6, 2018 14:33:55 GMT -5
I guess the argument boils down to the "simulationist VS Gameist" argument." Do you prefer to simulate "reality" or "fantasy?" My assumption is that Gary & Co. aimed at the fun and excitement (and assumed uncertainty) of "fantasy." Again in my not so humble opinion... It is impossible to simulate reality with D&D, we wouldn't last long at all. The war hammer is NOT a bloodless d6 weapon. Soldiers targeted your knees and there was no defence against it, you just lay their crippled and screaming after one hit. The combat system is nothing but our own suspension of disbelief at work, we aren't simulating combat, we are playing a game. "Simulationist VS Gamist" is meaningless to me, I do not understand those types of language about a game. But no we are not realistically simulating combat, it is abstract, for realistic it would take forever to play out and you would never get it right no matter how many rules you wrote. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jul 6, 2018 14:36:21 GMT -5
That they do & I won't bash them, I just won't run them as a ref and likely won't play them either unless I trust the ref and how he or she runs their game. But that is simply my preference, I used to like crunchy games but got burnt out on them. In my mind this come down to the recent concept of the "social contract" in the concept of RPGs. This concept doesn't seem to be an issue in the antecedents of the hobby. Maybe the original players were simply used to difficult situations due the challenges of real life based wargaming scenarios that they trusted the DM to be fair and impartial and allow the players, through their characters ( and knowledge/wit) to overcome the restrictions of rules and dice rolls? I was 7 when the game came out, I was 13 when I discovered it so this is simply supposition on my part. Still, the "bones" of the game lead me to believe the original concept of the game implied that the players trusted the DM not to simply screw them and that they embraced the challenge of overcoming the "challenges" the DM put before them as the whole point of playing the game. Not to have the greatest number of ranks in a skill or rolling the highest number possible on a D20. I cannot fathom why anyone would even consider playing with a ref they could not trust. It is and was a given for me. If I found out that was not true of a ref, I would bail on that game on the spot. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jul 6, 2018 16:16:52 GMT -5
In my mind this come down to the recent concept of the "social contract" in the concept of RPGs. This concept doesn't seem to be an issue in the antecedents of the hobby. Maybe the original players were simply used to difficult situations due the challenges of real life based wargaming scenarios that they trusted the DM to be fair and impartial and allow the players, through their characters ( and knowledge/wit) to overcome the restrictions of rules and dice rolls? I was 7 when the game came out, I was 13 when I discovered it so this is simply supposition on my part. Still, the "bones" of the game lead me to believe the original concept of the game implied that the players trusted the DM not to simply screw them and that they embraced the challenge of overcoming the "challenges" the DM put before them as the whole point of playing the game. Not to have the greatest number of ranks in a skill or rolling the highest number possible on a D20. I cannot fathom why anyone would even consider playing with a ref they could not trust. It is and was a given for me. If I found out that was not true of a ref, I would bail on that game on the spot. I was talking to a DM who has become a pretty good friend over the years, we have similar styles and methods. One of my favourite play-style is designing a village or city as well as a villain. I design his plans and give him a goal. I create some problems for him to solve and have a winning condition for him. Then I add the player characters into the mix and I play the game. In my head, I created a chain of events of things that will happen, so he is going in the background until the players do something to foil his plot, then I can start deciding new factors. My goal as the villain is to win the game, and the player's goal is to discover my identity and stop me before I get what I'm after. As the villain, I have limited resources and it becomes a competition between the players and myself as to who gets their hands on them first. I play fair. There are clues laying around, lies to detect, rumours from people who unknowingly saw something, this game is winnable! But I am playing, and if I can take out a PC, I will. They are trying to trap me and I am trying to trap them within the confines of the game. The odds are not in my favour, but if I win then I win. I do take notes, but I keep most of this stuff in my head, my friend does not. He writes down everything because his players insist on him showing them his work. He's a gamer! He's playing fair, but his players make him do way to much work. I'd be offended. I don't need to be supervised. Games like this requires a lot of trust. They do. You have to trust the DM not to cheat, but it is fun as all get out for us. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2018 18:17:47 GMT -5
He writes down everything because his players insist on him showing them his work. "Game over. Don't come back."
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jul 8, 2018 21:37:10 GMT -5
He writes down everything because his players insist on him showing them his work. "Game over. Don't come back."
If you want me to show you everything written down, then I have time for one game per 5 years and that is no fun so no game. I am not going to provide 1000 typed pages for one 6 hour game every 5 years, because that is what it would take if I wrote down everything that I would have in my head during one game. I have to agree with @gronanofsimmerya on this one. This is leaving aside the point that 998 pages of that is for the refs eyes only anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Jul 8, 2018 22:47:22 GMT -5
Then I want those 988 pages, stored at 98.6.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Jul 9, 2018 1:06:42 GMT -5
He writes down everything because his players insist on him showing them his work. "Game over. Don't come back."
I agree fully, I'd find different players if they didn't trust me to be fair with them & want me to show them "my work". |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 9, 2018 6:05:20 GMT -5
I have a very concrete example of why "tactics" are not the answer. I was playing in a game where I was doing all kinds of fancy maneuvers and the DM flatly ignored me and asked"What did you roll?"If I had a mechanical system that would give me more options, he couldnt have ignored me. I an with Gronan, rules can't fix this situation. Find a different referee to play with, one that makes better rulings that covers things in the level of detail you want. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 9, 2018 9:46:59 GMT -5
There are times that circumstances in a campaign means that additional level of detail is warranted. There is a good reason to attempt to make a stab to the throat, try to knock the opponent down to the ground, etc. This is a question I faced as a OD&D referee from time to time.
From reading up on the history of D&D and how it developed. I developed an understanding why armor class, hit points, the d20 to hit roll, and saving throw are what they are.
My assumption for making a ruling for something like a called shot that ordinarily a to hit roll versus armor class is the optimal result. Reflecting mastery of the basics to the point it is second nature when the character is in combat. However it not unreasonable for a character to try a called shot, a knock down, or knock out. Both in life and fiction individual have successfully tried these things and along with being unsuccessful at them.
I found that assigning negative modifiers or rolling 2d20 and taking the lowest doesn't cut it. RPGs with hit location and negative modifiers, like GURPS, Runequest, have it part of a larger design. Negative modifiers by themselves make high hit dice characters and monsters overly powerful.
Then it occurred to me that D&D already had a mechanics to deal with adverse results other than the result of a round of melee, the saving throw. So in general I allow character (and monsters) on a successful hit to opt to inflict an adverse result lieu of damage, but the target gets a saving throw. Understand this a framework that get modified by circumstance. For example if your character tries to stab a target eye, a small target, then I going to have you roll 2d20 and take the lowest roll. While a hit to the leg, is an ordinary two hit roll. Even then it isn't going to be a one shot kill in the middle of combat. It may be if you had surprise to begin with and trying to take out a sentry.
I find using saves solves many of the issues with ruling on these kinds of details.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2018 11:39:26 GMT -5
I have a very concrete example of why "tactics" are not the answer. I was playing in a game where I was doing all kinds of fancy maneuvers and the DM flatly ignored me and asked"What did you roll?"If I had a mechanical system that would give me more options, he couldnt have ignored me. I an with Gronan, rules can't fix this situation. Find a different referee to play with, one that makes better rulings that covers things in the level of detail you want. I look at it in two ways: 1) It's a one minute combat round. I figure your fighter is already doing all the things he/she can -- stabbing at the eyes, biting in the nadgers, using Tybalt to cancel out Capo Fera, etc. If you want to achieve a special RESULT, let me know and I'll make a ruling. 2) To me, "tactics" is not fancy maneuvering; tactics is how well your team functions as a team. Using your heavy armored troops to form a line to protect the magic users is more important than your individual character playing "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon." |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 9, 2018 13:45:36 GMT -5
1) It's a one minute combat round. I figure your fighter is already doing all the things he/she can -- stabbing at the eyes, biting in the nadgers, using Tybalt to cancel out Capo Fera, etc. If you want to achieve a special RESULT, let me know and I'll make a ruling. Sure, even with the six second timing I use a round encompasses a lot. One time a crew came from Pittsburgh to film a segment on what the renactment group was were doing. They wanted to film a complete combat encounter. Given the people available we could setup a small open file battle (five on five). I warned them to be ready as this king of fight can be over quick. The camera scoffed at me. A minute later after the fight ceased, the camera sheepishly asked "Can we do that again? I wasn't ready and didn't get it." 2) To me, "tactics" is not fancy maneuvering; tactics is how well your team functions as a team. Using your heavy armored troops to form a line to protect the magic users is more important than your individual character playing "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon." Sure to a point. My experience in live action and reenactment is that is operates at both levels. You have to function as a part of team while deciding what individual maneuvers work to defeat your opponent. The way I see it one doesn't need mechanics to cover both equally especially individual maneuvers unless that what interesting and fun. If that the case there are RPGs where that part of their design rather than trying to shoehorn that kind of detail into D&D. Like I said in another post I find the general framework of specifying an adverse result, making a to-hit, the target gets a save to avoid the result to be sufficient without overshadowing roll a d20 to-hit, roll damage, apply to hit point. Furthermore because of the long time a combat round covers (even at six seconds) many adverse results require teamwork to exploit. For a one on one fight knocking your opponent down does little because on their turn they will just get back up within their six second round. But with a many on many combat then two fighter side by side can work together by having one knock a target down, and the other rolling to hit with a bonus because the target is prone on the ground when his turn is up. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jul 9, 2018 14:52:22 GMT -5
I an with Gronan, rules can't fix this situation. Find a different referee to play with, one that makes better rulings that covers things in the level of detail you want. I look at it in two ways: 1) It's a one minute combat round. I figure your fighter is already doing all the things he/she can -- stabbing at the eyes, biting in the nadgers, using Tybalt to cancel out Capo Fera, etc. If you want to achieve a special RESULT, let me know and I'll make a ruling. 2) To me, "tactics" is not fancy maneuvering; tactics is how well your team functions as a team. Using your heavy armored troops to form a line to protect the magic users is more important than your individual character playing "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon." I had some skeleton Centerians ruin the day of a mid-level party. The monsters waited until the party walked past them down a deadend hall before reanimating. There was a bunch of monsters, but they attacked as Centerians: The first row held large full-bodied shields, the second row used spears to attack from behind the shield wall, and a backup row stood behind the spearmen to replace anyone who was hit or lost their spear. The skeletons' goal was to push them back to the back wall, press the players against it with their shields and slaughter them like cattle. Even after the cleric tried to turn them (only a few skeletons actually saw this and were destroyed but quickly replaced), the scene was very very dangerous. The fighters were exposed but holding the skeletons back so the guys behind them to shoot arrows, which wasn't doing much good since the skeletons were all protected by a shield wall, and arrows do half-damage to them anyway. They were almost pressed against the wall, and the fighters were already getting low on hp before they figured to start trying to wrestle the shields away. After it was over all of the players went crazy, they didn't think that they were going to make it, and felt a huge sense of victory after fighting a bunch of lowly skeletons. The next time that they encountered this same trap, the cleric waited until more shields were out of the way before turning undead and it was much easier. TACTICS MATTER! |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Jul 9, 2018 15:15:48 GMT -5
I have a very concrete example of why "tactics" are not the answer. I was playing in a game where I was doing all kinds of fancy maneuvers and the DM flatly ignored me and asked"What did you roll?"If I had a mechanical system that would give me more options, he couldnt have ignored me. I an with Gronan, rules can't fix this situation. Find a different referee to play with, one that makes better rulings that covers things in the level of detail you want. Ok, Just want you all to know that I thought about posting the following, . reader beware! The great majority of DMs suck, most of them really really badly. They need rules to clutch to, they need modules because they dont have a creative bone in their body. Because I played in a lot of con games, I have played w/ a huge number of DMs(well over 100 and prob closer to 200) they suck and need all the help they can get |
|
