|
Post by Tyler on Apr 18, 2005 15:27:38 GMT -5
It sounds as if you're (Jeff) advocating the old system by which everyone declared their actions, we resolved those actions, then the DM lets everyone know what happened... Am I right? And the question I ask you is: Would this work in Axis and Allies?
PS, Adam, I wish you were in our current game.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 18, 2005 16:20:14 GMT -5
Tyler wrote: "It's like I'm suddenly playing Kauth again. Everybody's screaming that my plan sucks, but no body has a better idea.
Focus people: How would you alter 3.5 to make it better? To fix the problems?"
It's your issue, not mine. I think 3.5 combat is fine for what it is. I think it's a slightly more complicated abstraction for resolving fights in D&D, but an abstraction none the less. I won't say you're wrong to like it, or I'm right to dislike it. It is what it is. I'm not much interested or impressed by what it is. The idea of fixing it just isn't my bag, man. That doesn't mean I can't say I think it's silly, which I do. If David started following the rules punctiliously or veered toward a more radical tendency to disallow things, I'd be happy either way. The fights are important and I think I've read the 3.5 rules rather thoroughly and can generally note when we're way off base with them, but it just doesn't matter to me. I'm more interested in what Kauth, an interesting and complicated character who ticks in a way I haven't yet sorted out, is saying and doing. Now that interests me enormously. I wish the thread you started for dealing with that were busier than this thread. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Apr 18, 2005 16:50:38 GMT -5
First off, Tyler, you know all the best ways to manipulate me and you haven't used them effectively at all. I wish you would have then this could have been settled sooner. Perhaps you wanted an open and honest exchange of ideas. The problem is that I have been a player in a strict 3.5 game. I do know what a 3.5 game is run like and I hated it. So appealing to a sense of adhering to the rules for the rules sake will never work.
Secondly, you bring up how everyone needs to be satiated for their style of play. Four of the people playing this game (including the DM) didn't even want to use the 3.5 system. Every time we have to open the players handbook, you've gotten your way.
Thirdly, trying to go off of realism is definitely not the way to convince me. Due to all the discussion on this, I am a firm believer that the 3.0s are far less realistic than 0th edition. The more rules mean the more flaws within the system.
The amount of rules a system has are in direct proportion to how much control you'll have in the game. This is the real reason why you like such rules based games. Realism be damned if there are enough rules accessible to you to control and know the system. Yet you are far less interested in boardgames, which are generally the most rules intensive types of games. You need something to fight against. You need a force bigger than you to defeat, i.e. the DM. Everything else involved in RPGs (over-the-table humor, friends to hang out with, etc.) help to make the game more enjoyable for you, but ultimately they are secondary.
One thing I'm trying to avoid is bogging down the game due to over the table rules. According to the rules, once you take your readied action, your initiative moves to that spot in the round. And then if you ready another action, that again will move your initiative (unless of course you don't take the readied action). There has to be some sort of penalty for the PC readying their action, so this is the balance. I am absolutely NOT going to keep rearranging the initiatives because this group readies actions constantly. This will only serve to bog down the combat. This would have to be fixed before I would use the standard rules. If it cannot be fixed in a more efficient but balanced way, I'm using the method I first stated in the thread.
As usual, I think I'm being too fair in my decisions, but oh well. I think it’s better to be too fair as a DM than too harsh.
P.S. Mike, I didn't mean to run over your post. I replied before I knew you had posted again. But I think yours is the more important post here.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Apr 18, 2005 20:35:23 GMT -5
Tyler,
First off, thank you for the wallpaper CD; it came in the mail today. Emily got a real kick out of the wildlife papers, and I decided to use the government tax dollar diagram as my background. Again, thanks. It was cool.
Second, what follows is poorly written, long-winded, and gives a solution you probably won’t like. Feel free to ignore it completely. Unless a question is asked specifically of me in this thread, I promise not to post again.
Third, I am sorry that I hurt your chances to get a favorable ruling on your query about held actions. My only point was that you are going to get odd results no matter which system you adopt. I think the best way to settle these is to just let the DM rule.
Fourth, I am not for going back to having everyone declare and the letting the DM work out what happens, though that did work for us in the old days. The promise of 3e in late 1999 and 2000 when we were playing basically a game that we’d made up (our bootleg copies of the 3e rule set were pretty bad in retrospect) was that it greatly simplified combat. It peeled away hundreds of rules and in so doing allowed more tactically satisfying and faster combats. I am for both. I do like the tactical simulation aspect of the game. But for me, the story and the role-playing should never be sacrificed for it. Like Mike, I am not trying to argue that my way is the only way things can be done. In the end, we are talking about communal fantasy. And different folks like to think about different things.
That said, I did have a thought about your plight. Let me set it up: Fantasy combat will always be somewhat abstract. Dragons and magic missiles don’t really exist, so they have to be constructed in everyone’s heads. And it is hard to describe imaginary objects in a few vivid words that evoke the same image for everyone. At the same time, especially in combat, it is important that everyone have the same image. (We have all had bad experiences and hurt feelings when the DM and the player are imagining things differently.) So, some visualization aids are very helpful. The most helpful aid also has the most troubling consequences both in and out of game. It is most helpful to break everything up into discrete units of time in which the characters can freely and independently act. In some sense science is telling us that this is a basic truth about reality. But this quantum truth spans such short intervals that the discrete nature of the events is invisible to us. It is like a film flashing 24 frames per second. If the turns are fast enough, then they are unnoticed and the illusion of simultaneity is created. But when the frames run too slowly, the illusion is lost and the hack behind the curtain is revealed to be a county fair act.
Two things: First, one turn every six seconds is not quick enough to suspend disbelief. Second, there really is no way to get the intervals much shorter without hopelessly bogging down play. This means that the turn based approach is doomed because it is going to harm the story-telling/communal imagination aspect of the game. It should be abandoned.
Combat simply has to be imagined as taking place simultaneously. Your solution, which is to distinguish between subjective and objective time, will not work because these conceptions are always interrelated. About your Axis and Allies point: You are quite right. That game is necessarily turn-based. Simulated simultaneity would never work for it. But neither did it really account for all the complexities of our 2e battles, as I am sure you know, hence, this discussion. So, the question then becomes: Is there a way to simulate simultaneity in D&D?
My first thought was to go back to speed factors and casting time. But this time keep the 3e fudge of letting actions happen more or less independently. That is a pretty good solution, and you could even keep all the feats associated with initiative. I’d try that if it is a simple fix you want.
My favorite solution is more radical. Initiative is a fudge. It is also one of those skills, like diplomacy, that doesn’t really need to be simulated. Why not abandon it and all feats associated with it? Whoever calls his action first gets to go first. The proviso is that acting quickly introduces a slight increase in your chances to fail at your action. No tables for this, the DM can just assign whatever percentage he deems correct.
This solution would likely get lots of wild actions, which I like. But one might wonder how the DM is supposed to weed out the good ones from the bad ones. What is an approved action? And I simply must say, for all its high-falutin’ talk about maximizing possibility, I’ve never felt more constrained in action than when I was playing 3e. Where are the days when Sam Brandybuck could say, “I jump on his back and stab him five times.” A 3e DM might gravely respond, “Well, he is a little outside of your movement area if you want an attack afterward. And it would be a grapple attack anyway to get on him, so there is no possibility of a stab afterwards.” Why not just allow any hair-brained action a chance? No matter what the players say, let it have a chance of happening. If Brandybuck wants to try this complicated attack, let the DM rule on the spot. “Um okay. But it will be quite a feat of dexterity to get on his back and stay there. I’d give it a DC of 19. Further, if you stab so many times, your attacks are going to do far less damage.” Or something like that. This means that imagination is back in the game. Isn’t that what we want?
* * * * *
I am sure that when you asked for a simple solution to your question you wanted some rule to add to the current system to make it work. You didn’t want some grand revision of the game. If so, that rule is probably: “The DM is always right” or “Whatever speeds the resolution of combat in the game should be adopted.”
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Apr 18, 2005 20:56:06 GMT -5
Jeff, you're always welcome and free to add input into any discussion involving my game. Even if what you have to say contradict my own opinion. These talks only help the evolution of a game.
I actually like your solution quite a lot. It sounds fun and could turn combat into a much more engaging activity than as perfunctory as it can get now. Unfortunately I think it would end up being too radical for this 3.5 game, though I think it could be a perfectly great idea for Justin’s 0th game. I don't know what the 0th rules say about this stuff and Justin might have his own ideas about this, but it would be cool to run your idea at some point in some game.
|
|
|
Post by Joshua on Apr 19, 2005 0:49:57 GMT -5
Well, I think that there have been many valid points made on this issue so far. Jeff's idea is intriguing. It does most closely represent the chaos that combat is. Act fast or act well? Nice. The impracticality of this system lies in the need for the DM to quickly issue moves for numerous NPC is the same amount of time that the players do for PC; not to mention the fact that we would all be yelling over each other to get our moves out as quickly as possible. It sounds fun, but impracticle. Still would be neat to try sometime.
I find the strong dislike for turn-based, initiative-using combat odd. This style is the normal for RPG and has been used since 1st edition D&D, yet everyone seems to use it as one of the disadvantages to 3rd edition. I don't recall 2nd edition combat taking much less time. It also used rounds and initiative, but everyone seems to hate these aspects of 3rd edition. Just seems very odd to me.
Sorry. The point here is to make suggestions. I agree with Tyler that not allowing held action to affect those with higher initiative sucks. I hate the idea that the first roll during combat will determine the amount to which I am able to partcipate in teh fight. On the other hand, David has a valid point in wishing to keep bookkeeping to a minimum and maintain balance. So a method is needed to allow for held action to cross rounds as they are classically precieved (from the highest initiative to the lowest) while still not making held actions too powerful.
Firstly, No more just holding an action. As the rules state, if you want to hold an action, say what the action is and what the trigger will be for the action (i.e. I will punch this dude in the mouth if he tries to scream( or opens his mouth in what looks like may be a scream if David prefers)). If the trigger does not happen before your next action, you lose that action. It is gone. I waited for a scream. None came. Those six seconds are gone and can never be reclaimed *sob*. If you want to hold an action, you run the risk of losing it entirely. If this risk is not enough, either of the following options may help balance the held action.
Option 1: As Adam suggested, use opposing reflex saves or Dex checks to determine whether an action is interuptable. I.E. if I try to stop someone from screaming, can my character react fast enough once he sees the targets mouth open, or is he too slow. In which case, the scream is let out, and I then punch my target. In this option, it may be required that the announced action be carried out regardless of whether it successfully interupts the intended action or not. If I'm ready to punch someone when they open their mouth to scream, I will very likely be in mid-punch as the scream escapes and punch the person even though they were able to scream before I could finish my action. Woah. I think that sentence rabbled just a bit.
Option 2: Utilize a penalty to whatever roll is required to perform the held action. If I'm watching someone, waiting to punch them if they open their mouth, then I will react quickly and maybe a little jerkily (probably not a real word). My fist will shoot out quickly, not in the best smooth punching motion. To represent this, a penalty of -4 or so could be used for any actions after that were held. If a greater penalty is desired for balance, so be it. A ruling could be made by David before we next play and be used for all such action- if this option is used, of course.
I think either of these options would help re-establish game balance while allowing more allowing the players to have more effects on those with higher initiative.
Finally, I must confess that before I read his comments on this board, that David prefered the 3rd edition rules to second. Second edition uses rounds, intiative, and held action, so it won't fix these issues, but if most of the people in the group would rather play 2nd edition, including the DM- who should proabably have the most say in the matter, then perhaps we should switch back to 2nd edition rules.
I realize that Tyler may bitch slap me next time he sees me, but I'd rather most everyone be happy and have fun than play with the rules I want. Most of the characters should switch over fairly easily. Mine won't, but I can make a new character. Other than that, I think the only other big change is that Summer will have to give up her bow (druids can't use bows without a feat). We can change over, and the majority of the players and the DM will be happier for it. Tyler and I can just suck it up. Besides, we all enjoy playing more than the rules used anyway, so no biggie to me.
Well, those are my suggestions. Hopefully one of the is accpetable to everyone, but I believe that the decision is ultimately up to the DM, and I will accept and honor the whatever David decides.
Joshua
P.S. Does it seem odd that I am usually the one arguing with Tyler at the games and supporting him on the boards?
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Apr 19, 2005 2:12:46 GMT -5
P.S. Does it seem odd that I am usually the one arguing with Tyler at the games and supporting him on the boards? Now that you mention it, that does seem a little odd. I really like the compromise you've come up with. Both options are good, but I think the second is the best since it requires less rolling. So, unless something else comes up, lets work it so that all readied actions come with a -2 penalty, there will be no altering of anyone’s initiative in the rotation, and the stated, readied action can cross over to the next round. Also, just for good measure, the penalty won't carry over to the next round with the readied action. Hopefully this compromise will work for everyone. As far as switching over to another edition, I've been very tempted. But if we're able to make these minor compromises, I don't feel it will be necessary. I still believe a D&D game can be fun, regardless of the system. Drawing the buildings in grids while disregarding the squares for miniatures is kind of humorous to me, but it keeps the game from feeling like a board game to me, while giving the players that like that stuff more of a visual perspective. This game has reminded me how steadfast this group is in its opinions and how that's always the bane and the boon of our little community, though this sometimes leads to pride driven conflict... but like I said to someone not too long ago, 'That's just pride fucking with you... fuck pride'. BTW, thank you Josh. Nicely done.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 19, 2005 8:55:27 GMT -5
My goal here is not to be a subversive when some kind of accord has been struck. Let me understand what just happened. We will not be using delayed actions as described on page 160 of the PHB because they cause more bookkeeping during combat than the DM wants. We will be using readied actions as outlined on the same page but with a -2 penalty to succeed with the readied actions. The penalty is justified by Josh's punching the guy who might scream example. Moreover, readied actions must, as per the rules, be clearly stated as to the conditions that must be met before they can take effect. Is that right?
I'm new to these parts, but that's an interesting piece of business. I'm not complaining, but I can imagine Tyler doing one of two things: tearing out his hair, or smiling knowingly at the chaos that engulfs him. Personally, I'm not sure we fixed much. We just disallowed one kind of abstraction and slightly modified another abstraction. Of course these abstract systems we tweaked reside in a meta-system of total abstraction in a genre of activity inescapably born of abstractions.
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Apr 19, 2005 13:18:57 GMT -5
You are of course right Mike. Really we're just trying to make this work so that the entire system isn't abandoned. It's sad when we aren't always able to cooperate as much as we could.
Also, Delayed actions will work under the same model.
|
|
|
Post by CaptAdam on Apr 19, 2005 14:56:04 GMT -5
Axis and Allies would be even more kickass with alittle imagination driving it. Just imagine if you will makeing that last ditch effort to stop the Axis going in with just two planes and 5 groups of men. Only to have your airsupport blown right out of the sky just before your men can land and then one of your supply ships is suck before a group of soldiers can even get off a shot. Now your down to just 4 groups of men no way home so you dig in and prepare to go down fighting.
Or I take my two planes in, I roll my aniti aircraft attack Dam you took out both my planes, hey where that sub come from, Dam I only have 4 men I can even slow him down hope someone else has more men to throw at him or the Allies are going to lose. Hey got any more of that salsa, thanks.
See the difference alittle imagination makes.
I sure wish I lived closer and had more time, I have always loved the game and the company. DnD will always be my favorite past time.
I've been playing the PC game Temple of EE and I have recreated some of the old characters using some cheat codes. Not the same as being with you guys, but it's still fun to remember the OLD DAY.
Sorry I don't have time for more use full input, but I'll keep trying.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 19, 2005 23:19:34 GMT -5
David,
Not that I'm apt to use any of these rules with Severin, but just so we head into our next combat with maximum clarity, you are allowing delayed actions with a -2 penalty and no carry over so that you can react to things that people who lost to your initiative do, but not people who beat your initiative. Is that right?
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Apr 20, 2005 0:02:45 GMT -5
When a character delays an action she basically holds her action until her initiative in the following round. During the round she delayed her action she can chose to act at any point after her initiative. If she acts during the round she delayed, there's a -2 penalty. Once the round ends and the next one begins, her delayed action can carry over until her normal initiative starts again in the new round. I decided to make it so that in the new round, the -2 penalty is removed since it's only there in the first place as a balancer for taking away the initiative alteration. Maybe an example is in order. Severin gets a 12 for his initiative. On round 1 he, for some reason, elects to delay his action. This means he can act at any point from 11 down in round 1, but at a -2 penalty. If he doesn't use his delayed action, it is held over until round 2. In this new round he can act at any point before his normal place in initiative comes up, but without the -2 penalty. Delayed actions are still barred from interrupting another action. Only readied actions can interrupt others actions, but they have to still be specified as to what the trigger is. Delaying still doesn't require a trigger... just typing all that out makes me love 3.5 even more!
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 20, 2005 0:18:23 GMT -5
David,
I'm perversely enjoying making you clarify your 3.5 combat rulings. I think we should labor through a bunch more rules on the board. Any other combat rules we can get David to alter ever so slightly and with no seeming rhyme or reason just to drive Tyler totally bonkers? Is anybody vaguely bugged by the free five foot move? What does that simulate? If it's a free action, why can't I take five of them? Like Ratso Rizzo says in "Midnight Cowboy" concerning cold cuts at the happening "If they're free, how can it be stealing if I take them all?"
Mike
PS Tyler, I kid because I love.
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Apr 20, 2005 0:39:12 GMT -5
While I appreciate the implication of Chaos (and I mean that, I love Chaos), I did have a reason for not wanting to follow the standard rules on this. Having to rewrite everyone’s initiative every time someone in this group delayed/readied an action would have killed my imagination of the combat. It would have felt so mechanical and not realistic that I would have been driven to switching out 3.5 for some other edition.
I really do want to work with the players on this, because most DMs would have put it in whatever edition they wanted to, everyone else's opinions be damned. I personally think that's the sign of a bad DM. DMs should realize how this is a game for both the players and the DMs enjoyment. Right now we have a strong pull between two different philosophies of RPGs between different players (players and DM alike), but really the games go pretty well when we're actually playing. The gaming philosophies fall back into the background and the actual game becomes the focus. Here on the boards the reverse happens. Which again tells me that, when all the BS is forgotten, the actual game can be a lot of fun, regardless of the style of play.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 20, 2005 9:03:24 GMT -5
David,
Maybe we should get an identical set of matched miniatures so you could lay them out behind your cute screen in initiative order. When someone delays, all you'd have to do is pull the miniature from its place in the line and re-insert it in its new place when the player finally took an action. That way twice as many miniatures get sold, you have a visual way to keep track of initiative, and combat reverts to the glorious realism that is 3.5.
Okay, I'm really only kidding with all my comments on this thread. It doesn't matter to me if we play 3.5 combat strictly by the book or with whatever alterations, although I would like a ruling on my unlimited free actions such as five-foot steps based on the "Midnight Cowboy" analogy. If they're free, then they take no time. You should be able to perform an infinite number of no time actions and not have some Cardinal Prince DM telling you "no" and blowing white smoke out his Sistine chimney. That's what I think.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Apr 20, 2005 9:24:36 GMT -5
PH says that you can only perfrom a free action once per round.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Apr 20, 2005 10:53:28 GMT -5
My intent through all of this has been to find the source of the consternation everyone is expressing about 3rd ed. Josh mentioned this to me last night, and I'll repeat it here: We've played much worse game systems than this without anywhere near this many problems arising. Palladium is one of the worst game systems in the world, and yet we played without a hitch even when a Dragon-Juicer and a City-Rat adventured together. Until this discussion started, I was under the impression that Dave was wholly for 3rd edition above all others. I destinctly remember, in the weeks before Ken's game splintered into our current games, that Dave shared my opinions that most of the 2nd edition conventions such as Thac0 and the different saving throws were laughable. I've always thought that those people that clung to previous games were either influenced by alterior motives, or the gaming equivalent of flat-earthers, holding their hands over their ears and screaming "Demons, the old ways are better!". Just to be clear, alterior motives would include opposition to the corporate practices of WOTC, or a dislike of combat systems altogether. Mike, Chad, don't think I'm calling you flat-earthers. Just because you long for simpler times, doesn't mean you should get rid of Social Security. Nor does it mean that you should get rid of difficulty class. Guys, don't be recactionary Republicans... embrace 3.5!
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 20, 2005 11:34:34 GMT -5
Tyler,
You're just being silly which I think must be your intent!
3.5 is lamer than the lamest lameness. The combat is slow. There have been nights with Ken when we flew through a large number of rather interesting combats. You could never do that with 3.5. Denying that is delusional or evidence of limited experience with the system you champion. The simulation is all abstraction and neither more nor less apt to encourage vivid fantasy than any other abstraction. I would argue less, for supplying rule-bound details instead of openness, but I agree with Josh that that might be about temperment rather than rules. As a strategy game it isn't in the top 100 strategy games I know. The rules are burdensome for beginners (and we have at least one in the game) and very burdensome for the DM who must agressively play a large number of NPCs who by all rights should have access to spells, feats, skills, and all the other options available in order to keep things balanced. So far, we've won fights we probably shouldn't have not because we're geniuses, but because David played NPCs with minimal options in a way typical of having too much to deal with. That's not criticism of Dave. It's criticism of the system. The combat is really ideal only for the player who likes wonking it out. Now imagine the pace of play if the DM wants to wonk it out for the NPCs. I've played in those games. The advantage there is that you can catch up on your reading during a typical combat with three henchmen and a low-level caster. In short, it's a game for technocrats. And this isn't even its worst problem. Its most astute critics point to deep flaws in the classes. A seventh-level sorcerer with sufficient ranks in concentration and certain feats could cast in plate mail without uttering a word. That's a potent imbalance among many others that wonks have discussed on other boards in ridiculing 3.5 for its short-sightedness. Acquisition of power is too quick for my taste. I like playing under-powered characters and already find Severin way too powerful for my taste despite serious efforts on my part to mismanage his ability scores, feat choices, and skills. Finally, the skill system creates a situation that you still haven't answered concerning the dice ruling over role playing. Now David is a good DM, so that hasn't been a problem yet, but under the strictly published rules, that loathsome abandonment of role playing and imagination as the final arbiter of what happens in the game is serious. Knowing it lurks behind the scenes makes me feel like we're always on the verge of having someone use a skill and short-circuit all credibility for the fantasy.
Tyler, you're neat. Playing with you is a royal pleasure. You're also a good kidder who enjoys the hurly-burly of rules discussions. Everything's cool by me. I don't think my antipathy toward 3.5 is a pure matter of some heretofore unrevealed Republicanism, although you never know. We often know ourselves at best poorly and that guy Dr. Tom Coburn is starting to figure into my prayers for reasons I can't figure. You just might be right.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Apr 20, 2005 11:41:03 GMT -5
I’ve thought of a better way to express my difficulty with 3e. Take the following situation:
A character faces East at the end of his actions. A fast kobald runs around him, and attacks in a flanking move.
Now imagine how this is described in 2e, then 3e. The sequence of 2e combat was:
1. The DM thinks up the monsters actions, 2. then the players state their actions, 3. then the DM calculates what is going to be impossible in his head, 4. then the initiative dice are rolled and actions are resolved.
In 2e, the process of the combat sequence mirrors simultaneity by putting all the actions in the DM’s head before initiative is rolled. (I don’t like this mechanic much, but that is another story.) The DM is in charge of the veridical image of combat. The players must access his view of events in order to understand what is happening. In this sense the DM is imaginatively engaged, and not just a simple referee. I would argue this makes things more interesting for the players too.
Now take things from the 3e standpoint. The veridical version of the story is what is going on on a battle map. While the 2e DM was certainly inconsistent in his descriptions of combat, his inconsistency was only visible to the players a fraction of the time—usually just in crucial life/death situations. Conversely, in 3e basic inconsistencies are constantly visibly present on the battle map. Take the kobald example. In 2e, the DM would just have said, “That pesky kobald runs behind you in a flanking maneuver.” (A player might say, “Damn, I was afraid of that.” And there would be an end.) In 3e, you see your character’s miniature completely still while the DM moves the kobald all the way around you. And you think, “Well that is not how it really would have looked of course. We would have both been moving at the same time.”
See what has happened? The visualization provided by the battle map actually creates a need for a higher level story that the group can imaginatively share. Further, the map stands in the way of creating that story, since EVERYTHING it represents is a fudge. Take it to its extreme – Your character whirls around to face West on his turn. Then the kobald, being fast, runs around him again and whacks him from the East (behind), scoring more damage. Just because an enemy is fast, you are always screwed—provided you don’t kill him with your attacks of opportunity. Here is the point: How is one to even try to imagine the meta-story implied by the battle map? The problem with 3e is that it delivers unimaginable consequences to a game whose very point is imagination. The beauty of the 2e mechanic, and all previous versions I think, is that no matter what the silly DM said, at least it was something you could imagine. Maybe those imaginings weren’t as interesting as others you might get from a better DM, but there was nothing inherently self-defeating about them.
In philosophy when some odd consequence is derived, one which a given system will still make an attempt to account for, we say that the philosopher “tells a story” about it. This is a non-evaluative term. Some stories are good; some stories are bad. Here is a better statement of my problem with 3e then: DM’s are always telling stories. That is their job. But when their stories are trying to account for what is going on on a battle map instead of between their ears, the storytelling loses its magic. 3e stories are less interesting than in previous editions of the game. I know Tyler and Josh want things to be regular and predictable in game. But they really can’t be...alas. (And seriously, “ALAS!” I am not a philosopher because I believe in mystery. I am a philosopher despite my belief.) A good DM will strive to make the world regular and somewhat predictable, but there is a barrier, a curtain, a plot, a hiddenness. D&D is not Axis and Allies, even less is it Mad Libs. It is more like iimprovisational music.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Apr 20, 2005 11:58:54 GMT -5
I have a strange question. Think for a minute about that game we all played when we were kids. No, not D&D, but the hand-slapping game. It works like this: Two people face one another, both with outstretched hands. One's palms are facing down, and the other's palms are facing up directly below. The opponent on the bottom must attempt to slap the backs of the opponent on top. The latter simply has to remove her hands from the mix before they're slapped. This person's actions are simple, ready, and held for a very clear trigger. Nevertheless, when I'm that player, my hands always get slapped. How would this task be resolved in 3.X?
It seems to me that the 3.X initiative modifier has something to do with this. Perhaps I just have a low modifier. But if so, then I should almost always lose out in such a contest to an opponent with a higher initiative. Even in the case of me holding my action, the fact remains that I react slower than my opponent. Now this isn't necessarily fair, but I think it's closer to the truth. If we're just tweaking the rules for the sake of doing it, then who is to say that the one holding should have a penalty on the to-hit rolls? Perhaps the penalty should be assigned elsewhere, say, on the initiative modifier. Or perhaps rather than assigning a penalty on the holder, we should assign a bonus on the one who is not holding.
Either way, it seems to make little sense. Like Tyler says, if I'm a gunner and I'm waiting for my target to close within firing range before I shoot, then it hardly makes sense for them to run 120 feet right up to me without me getting a shot in, high initiative or not.
Here's where the DM has to weigh the cost of believability/imaginability with rules/bookkeeping. And it's true that if a DM is always changing the record of the play by constant refocus and holding of actions, then it's going to either bog down play or take the wind out of the actions of the NPCs. Say Ja'Gar with all his 16 zillion actions/round is an NPC. It would be more believable to play him that way, and not have to worry about the rules. But if 16 first level players refocus and get the drop on him through rules technicalities or loopholes, and kill him before he even has a chance to take off his sunglasses, then that's a bit ridiculous.
|
|