gamegrene.com

They...

Well it's Them of course.

Yep, they're the ones.

They don't half cause mischief you know.

Oh my 3e campaign's going swimmingly by the way. They're just in the middle of a seige involving a walled city, ethnic cleansing and a few undead running/shuffling around. THAC0 has all but been forgotten about. The players are still up to their old tricks, causing as much havoc as ever, being done over with regularity in a most unmunchkin type manner and generally having fun.

All with nothing more than really the 3 core books and a couple of things like the greyhawk boxed set from 1e and character sheets being invloved.

Well apart from a note book I write things down in and a bit of imagination...

Got a game tonight as a matter of fact.

Baron

I'm looking to form a group T2. Anyone here from New York City?

Try EnWorld. They have a section where you can post messages and find gamers.

were you from baron...coz londons a hell of a lot cheaper to get to then the big apple if you are were i think you are (erupe).

yes...i may be subverting the topic...but at this pont in time i can say that, 3 (i think) years on from the artcel, lots of flame wars, and all sorts of things later, we have exsted all aguments and run out of ideas

*upon finshing the sentes ww3 erupt around this*

on the other hand...

Everybody knows about D&D 3.5 coming out in July right?
I guess this debate will start all over again, sigh...

Oh and Baron, I am sooooo insulted by your misplaced pond crosser sarcastic witt

; )

As to the differences in 3.5, I don't think many people really know. I've heard some say they're revamping core classes, re-doing combat, and re-writing 40% of the book. And then others say they're just changing typos, erratta, and layout.

some one likes monty python...

and, in my defnse barron, it was a long time ago i read all of this. when i had to print it out it came to 120 pages long.

and as for the resltioln of the agument i thoug that we had finnly come down to play what you want...oh well.

hopeful we can all resovle ower differense on this isusse and get on with things...

i rember when a lod of people were compling it was much like magic...ah...the memroys...

and the idea of it being 3.5 makes me think of paches. so maby it is just typos...

oh well...good pont. still sounds like a pach thoug...

Here's an example of a change that was made. An exclusive tidbit straight from the sage says that a full round attack action will be necessary in order to get the extra attack from a weapon of speed.

FWIW, I've *never* liked AoO.. even back in the really old days of D&D when you got a free swing at someone who ran away. Why should the actions of the opponents magically make you faster?

Well, I suppose one could argue that in a long combat round, where a character is assumed to make a number of feints and strikes and only a certain number actually count, making yourself an easier target might give the opponent extra chances to hit you.. but once we get into this sort of reasoning, you have to admit that you don't really have any idea what's happening in a round. For instance, if I'm squaring off with some guy one-on-one, and then my friend runs in and allows my opponent an AoO, and he takes that opportunity.. then shouldn't *I* get an AoO while my opponent is busy hacking away at my friend and not feinting and parrying my attacks? Stuff like this gets messy and confusing really fast.

I'm willing to forego a little bit of "tactical richness" in combat if, in exchange, I'm able to tell what's going on without making a lot of vague guesses and arbitrary decisions.

Agreed Sam. CR is not carved in stone, and even the designers make allowances for 'situational' adjustments that make an encounter more or less difficult. There is a hobbled troll in the Sunless Citadel, an interesting but challenging victory for low level players, who'd normally never square off against such an opponent.

But all things considered, it's a much better approximation of an appropriate challenge level, and it has served our group very well, keeping the pace and intensity of the game right in the 'sweet spot' that rests somewhere around 'challenging' to 'desperate', just shy of 'futile'.

I love to debate AoO. Xplo and Sam are right (except that the AoO doesn't make you faster). It is merely a game approximation of the tactical consideration that some moves open you to attack and should be punished (rather than forbidden outright), while simultaneously rewarding the opponent.

AoO is no less 'realistic' than having characters take turns to swipe with their swords, in order, while standing still otherwise (and facing in one direction for 7 seconds when they know an opponent is behind them), and ditto on Sam's potion example. Perhaps for some it feels less familiar, but we got over it pretty quickly. I like the spice it adds to combat. The former 'broadsides at 20 paces' approach could get a little boring after a while, in comparison. When we started though, we were invoking AoO every turn, just about, because we were so tactically clumsy with it. Later, we got the hang of it but our DM didn't, sending his goons blundering headlong into our bristling weapons, our characters juiced on agility and feats. We sliced his goons to ribbons every time, and it got so bad that we had to take time out after a combat to show him how to use AoO to his advantage, or at least to lessen his handicap with them.

Where before, DMs could dismiss the tactical portion of the game by interpreting loosey goosey rules to favour their desired outcome, it's a lot more 'out of their hands' now. Some DMs hate that. The new game demands a lot of tactical proficiency from the DM, as well as good story smarts.

I agree that having fun is the prime aim of playing and that trying to completely simulate the real world is impossible, but I give it a go. My players seem to enjoy that I create a world and let them interact with it. CR for design of encounters doesn't provide me with what I want. I don't like assigning x number of x monster, because that's the right number to have for a party of x lvl PC's. I like to assign x number of x monster because that's what is likely to be there due to the situation. The players don't have to run away all the time, but if they are low lvl they need to avoid more things that high lvl PC's. The world the players are in shouldn't increase in level of difficulty as the players do. Not overall anyway. The PC's will just come into contact with more dangerous bits of it, because they say decide to finally raid that Red dragon that's been plaguing the area for the past 5 years. The Kobolds etc don't suddenly dissappear because the PC's are 10th lvl...

In theory the world they are in can carry on quite happily without 3 PC's doing anything at all. Why shouldn't it? It doesn't revolve around just them...

As Sam does I can see a use for CR retrospectively to assign XP and depending on what has happened in the session I do just that.

RE: AoO The problem I had with it was a lot of the combat we do is described. To consistantly rule for AoO I felt that I needed to map things out more. Otherwise it was hard to work out exactly where the threat zones were and when they crossed. It turned combat into more of a board game, that we wanted to try to avoid. I can see they're use and if possible I would include them in my game, but as they are, I'm not happy to at the moment. Suggestions?

As a DM I have no problem with everything being consistant and less loosey goosey, in fact I prefer it, but when it slows the game down so the players are getting bored with the 30 second fight game time because it's taken an hour to do real time, I sometimes find that it's better to be a bit more "dramatic" with things. As long as there is a clear logic behind decisions, die rolls to decide where luck is a factor and people are still having fun then being looser with the rules can aid the situation.

Baron

P.S. RE: Me being your King... "Old Woman!!"

I concur.

Though, are the rounds long? They were in 2e at a minute, but at 6 secs/round it's similar to most RPG now and a bit less abstract.

Baron

Xplo:
My problem with AoO isn't the concept, it's the implementation. D&D has long, abstract rounds during which any number of relatively time-consuming things are assumed to happen.. and completely ignored for the sake of simplicity and playing speed.

Adding a bunch of AoO rules (not to mention all the other tactical stuff they added.. facing and threat zones and what have you) runs against the strengths of an abstract system.

Granted, it's playable, especially if you regard it as some kind of tactical combat board game. Chess isn't particularly realistic either. But it still rubs me the wrong way.

Neph:
Have you read the 3e rules?

“Facing” was deleted from the 3e - not added, because it didn’t make sense that someone would stand facing in one direction for any length of time when fighting two opponents. It was treating the figure on the table too literally. The disadvantage of fighting more than one opponent was accounted for in other ways, such as in AoO.

Rounds are now a few seconds in length, not a full minute. Abstract as it is, time makes much more sense now than it did.

AoO could also be a solution for intercepting, which was never clear in the old rules, where combatants moved one at a time. There was no way to account for the difficulty of running past someone who is actively trying to block your way.

It also served as a solution for accounting for risky or time consuming tasks accomplished within combat. Like drinking a potion or casting a spell, for instance. In the old game, these were prevented outright, or they were subject to the DMs whim, which made the game less interactive because it offered players less choice in what they could do.

It also added an interesting tactical element to big critters in the game, which formerly had just a lot of hit dice, now actually were able to use their size to a tactical advantage.

All these game events had to be accounted for in the 2nd edition. There just was no formal system in place to do so, being ruled and argued willy nilly, constantly. Now, one sleek solution accounts for them all.

Once you understand how to use AoO tactically, you’ll find that they happen less often, and can be resolved very quickly. Inexperienced players (us included) blundered into them all the time. Now they are another choice the players have in the game.

I just don't agree with you on that.

Neph: Sorry - I was exagerrating to make a point. I've begun several campaigns with monsters and calamities which the players were never intended to fight. They were just attempts to introduce the Big Bad early in the story, and set the stakes. I introduced them for story reasons only, and made fairly sure the players were incapacitated or so vastly overmatched that they would not hurt themselves in the encounter with a foolish move, while the plot impetus was delivered (you can't have players interfering with that anway). Then I switched back to regular encounters.

All I'm saying is, I don't make my adventures into a minefield where they can be food for the Tarrasque if they open the wrong door.

I also see why you AoO could be more numerous if you have a lot of feats that exploit it. I just found that when we played at low level (without choosing most of those feats), that the players got very crafty about avoiding being the brunt of AoO. Heh, the DM never figured it out though - too steeped in the slugfest of old.

But in all cases, AoO or not, the combats moved much faster.

Blimey this is getting a bit intense. Excellent! Sorry for the length of this and if it gets a bit confusing who I'm quoting...

I think Neph that the way our campaigns operate slightly different. I may be reading this wrongly (apologies if I am), but I think the campaign I’m running is more open than the one you are running (I’m assuming you’re the DM). Don’t take that to mean I’m saying yours is closed though…

Neph said

“…In my games though, I adjust the scenario so that it is appropriate to the story for the players to meet the right-sized challenge array, as defined by the DMG … How is it MORE appropriate to the story to have your beginning players stumble across an old red dragon, for example? Why not just tell a different story?…”

I am not saying particularly that it is appropriate. Just possible. Having said that I haven’t done that. But I still give the players the choice to take one on if they want to. I don’t try to steer the players at all when it comes to “the story” in fact I do the exact opposite. Apart from the beginning of the current section of the campaign to get the ball rolling I have given no specific directions to the players. Currently the players are defining their own objectives based on what has happened previously and where THEY want to go next.

So rather than being a DM who is one of those people that:

“…use house rule corrections, arbitrary mechanics, and loose rules structure as an excuse to strong-arm the story into an outcome or path that they find more pleasing, personally…”

I would hope I actually let the players drive the story. Now I’ll admit that I am not holier that holy. On occasion a gentle nudge is sometimes given in the hope that the players will go towards a direction I have loads of ideas about and hope I can make a bit more enjoyable, but I try as much as possible not to. If they ignore my steer then fair play, I’ll do my best to cope and carry on. So far, so good.

“…Our play time is finite. All things being equal, I’d rather spend it on challenges they have a hope of interacting with, rather than making them into passive witnesses to my construction. Just as in real life, the challenges we seek are commensurate with our readiness level. Unlike in real life, the challenges that seek us will likely be closely tied to our ability level. That’s why it’s a game at my table, and why it’s fun…”

Is this not the DM controlling the story? You are deciding what the PC’s can face and what they can’t. You are only letting them meet “what they can handle”. My players know that there are going to be certain situations that will be nigh on impossible to win. Retreat is sometimes an option they need to take. That is a valid strategy available to them. Where is the fun in knowing that all things being fair you should succeed in all the encounters? My players know that if they are stupid and unlucky there is a real risk they will die. When they succeed however, the victory is that much sweeter because it was never certain. Stupid equals, running at the red dragon at 1st level waving a short sword. Clever and successful equals, convincing the local high level mage to help them. Or waiting a while until one of them is good enough…

Rather than being impassive observers to my world the PC’s are major players. Just because the world COULD carry on regardless, doesn’t mean it does. Far from it, the PC’s currently involved in quite major politics in the world and steering a large portion of one side in a major war. That is because the PC’s have got involved and are steering the world themselves. I take it as my role to play the reaction of that world to them.

Neph:
“…They may enjoy the world, but if their choices are to run away or die, they are not interacting with it, at least in that one respect, though it may give the illusion that they are. Kind of like having a joystick which points only to the right. You press it that way and make you man move right. But are you playing, or touring?…”

Not all the encounters are out of their league! Most of them aren’t, all of them can be solved in some way, shape or form (as per the example above).

“…Baron:
The Kobolds etc don't suddenly disappear because the PC's are 10th lvl...

Neph:
Who says they should? It is a simple enough matter though, to make it clear that the kobalds are no longer their concern though, especially if the party has already dealt with them at a lower level….”

Why do I have to make it clear they are no longer their concern? It is up to the players to decide that.

Neph:
“…First, you must choose which way you want it - loosey goosey or consistent. I don’t get a clear answer here. For the tactical portion of the game, turning it into a boardgame makes it much more consistent, without excluding role-playing…”

I chose consistent. For a start it makes my life easier. And yes turning it into a board game makes it more consistent, but while it may not exclude it can reduce roleplaying.

We do map out some of the combats. Certainly if I feel that tactical disadvantages will arise. This is mainly for complicated or large battles. Yes, the main drive for consistency is so the players aren’t led around by the nose, they know what the outcomes are going to be so can make their tactical choices as they want, I completely agree with you there Neph. Yes, I control the environment and can arbitrarily decide what happens next, but control the story?!?! No, influence maybe, control no. I could but I don’t.

Even with AoO there is still room for inconsistency. You may argue that it may be reduced but eliminated, no. There will always be loosey-goosey decisions. If not then you would not need a DM to referee. The players can get the plot from a book and decide whether they succeed at the adventure all on their own. Was 2e vague? It seemed to have a rule for everything going, there were certainly enough books! I do try to eliminate any vagueness that arise but still maintain the flow of the game. The stopping to draw a map and then place everyone, all the time just to fit in AoO wasn’t worth it to me. It slowed combat down combat too much IMO when I did. Add the fact that AoO is hard to do if combat is not drawn out precisely, I felt that to maintain consistency I would omit AoO.

Neph:
“…My suggestion is to go to office depot and buy a boardroom size 1 inch graph paper stack. Pre-map the rooms for the players in marker (don’t you hate stopping an encounter to map a room), and include furnishings. Make it lush. Don’t use dry erase boards, because they mean you constantly have to stop and map, and remap. Get tokens or figures, and embrace the tactical game along with your role-playing…”

I would love to be able to map out everywhere! Places I know the player will go to I do, but they frequently go off somewhere I have not planned for. I do tend to use 5mm square paper for sketch maps, with 1mm to a ft. See, I do map some of the time!

Xplo:
“…My problem with AoO isn't the concept, it's the implementation... Granted, it's playable, especially if you regard it as some kind of tactical combat board game. Chess isn't particularly realistic either. But it still rubs me the wrong way…”

I agree with Xplo here w/regards to what I’ve quoted. Having to map in finite detail turns it into a war game for me. I don’t play much warhammer… I don’t enjoy it as much. It’s not what I roleplay for.

Neph:
“…AoO could also be a solution for intercepting, which was never clear in the old rules, where combatants moved one at a time. There was no way to account for the difficulty of running past someone who is actively trying to block your way.

It also served as a solution for accounting for risky or time consuming tasks accomplished within combat. Like drinking a potion or casting a spell, for instance. In the old game, these were prevented outright, or they were subject to the DMs whim, which made the game less interactive because it offered players less choice in what they could do…”

Which is why I would like to include it in my game. I feel however that these problems can be solved in easier ways. It’s a matter of weighing up the advantages and disadvantages. On balance for the reasons above I felt including AoO wasn’t worth it.

Re: Sam’s posting:

On the whole I agree with you, we seem to be singing from the same songsheet at least!

“…With third edition, when monsters stop giving XP's I no longer bother to play the combats and encounters, unless the players specifically mention they would like to. I just say something like: "So after five days ride through the forest you reach your destination. The few wild animals and goblins that tried to attack you were all easily dispatched and so your journey ends without any incident worthy of note."…”

Very similar to the way I handle things.

“…Also, I honestly find it more impressive (as a player) to actually see fourty counters or figs arayed in front of my party than hearing "You now face more than three dozen orcs". Last night's game had us facing a bunch of vampires in the sewers, the sheer amount of them made my heart skip a beat. It was very hard for me to bring myself to believe we could dispatch them all with such ease (well I didn't know they were just thralls and half-vampires at the time). …”

It can be impressive though. It just takes a bit more description. That’s half the fun as a DM. A good description can go a long way to this. Drawing those orcs will give you their positions, but not the fact that the players have just rounded the corner, to be confronted with the grunting, snarling beasts. “The large number of them turns them into a faceless sea of green and brown, before as you look harder you can start pick out individuals, scuffling amongst themselves for position or over a bit of food one has been eating while he’s been waiting. Yes they’ve been waiting for someone, and that someone is you. The banging of shields started as you came into view. Standing at the front in the middle the largest of them stands, dripping with blood and glaring a challenge.” (sorry if I went off a bit there)

Yes I’d probably draw a map then to show the positions, but it might only be of the landscape and the rough lines of the shield walls that have been set up. Not each of the individual orcs. The players can still use trees for cover, channel the orcs through a gully formed by two hills etc etc

Do you map out all your battles in exquisite detail, to the nearest 5ft? How do you do it without slowing everything down? Combat takes far to long as it is IMO. Should 5 mins of game time take an evening to sort out. That’s just working on 5 mins to sort out each round (4+ hours)

“…In general I like 3E combat much more than 2E. It's harder (because the monsters are now much more lethal) but much more enjoyable as the challenges don't get any easier as you go up levels while the "legal" ways in which to meet them have multiplied ten fold….”

I agree here Sam. Just the rationalising of the stats makes it so much better.

Oh *cough*

The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king!

I look forward to loads of retorts, but I might not reply for a bit as I am off on holdiay for a week. Play nicely kids!

Baron

Neph:
“…use house rule corrections, arbitrary mechanics, and loose rules structure as an excuse to strong-arm the story into an outcome or path that they find more pleasing, personally…”

Baron:
I would hope I actually let the players drive the story. Now I’ll admit that I am not holier that holy. On occasion a gentle nudge is sometimes given in the hope that the players will go towards a direction […]. If they ignore my steer then fair play, I’ll do my best to cope and carry on.

Neph:
I should clarify, I’m against using loosey-goosey rules to strong-arm the RESULT of the encounter – AFTER the players have chosen their path. My criticism applies mainly to DMs who fiddle too much during the tactical game, rather than focusing on the role-playing and story aspects. I have no problem at all with leaving plenty of clues in a story to give enterprising players a clue about what’s going on around them so they can make the best choices. But I have a big problem with DMs who start unnecessarily adding or changing the tactical rules to suit their whim in the middle of combat because it would be kewl. The DM’s job is to set the table, not to shovel it into the player’s mouth.

Baron:
Is this not the DM controlling the story? You are deciding what the PC’s can face and what they can’t. You are only letting them meet “what they can handle”. My players know that there are going to be certain situations that will be nigh on impossible to win.

Neph:
If you follow the DMG recommendations, you’ll find that they recommend a certain amount of encounters be slightly higher than the CR of the party. Ones that are significantly higher should not be integral to the adventure. This was the case with the ‘troll’ in The Sunless Citadel, which lurks at the end of an isolated tunnel.

Of course the DM controls the SETTING, he places the buffet. The story arises from the player choices, and from their successes or failures. If the DM has made an appropriate setting, designed appropriate encounters, he shouldn’t need to intercede ‘rules-wise’ to save or hurt characters to make the story ‘more interesting’. I’ve seen DMs try to do it, clumsily introducing new mechanics for kewl story ideas or combat moments, and in each time, they failed.

Baron:
Retreat is sometimes an option they need to take. That is a valid strategy available to them. Where is the fun in knowing that all things being fair you should succeed in all the encounters? My players know that if they are stupid and unlucky there is a real risk they will die. When they succeed however, the victory is that much sweeter because it was never certain. Stupid equals, running at the red dragon at 1st level waving a short sword. Clever and successful equals, convincing the local high level mage to help them. Or waiting a while until one of them is good enough…

Neph:
At no point have I argued that players should win every challenge, so we’re very much in agreement. The DMG guidelines, if followed (and in the Sunless Citadel, for example) will push characters to the edge, and maybe a little over. In fact, several encounters in my games have killed characters when they were being smart or heroic, rather than just when they are dumb. There weren’t any bad feelings though, because nobody was outrageously overmatched.

Baron:
Even with AoO there is still room for inconsistency. You may argue that it may be reduced but eliminated, no. […] The stopping to draw a map and then place everyone, all the time just to fit in AoO wasn’t worth it to me. It slowed combat down combat too much IMO when I did. Add the fact that AoO is hard to do if combat is not drawn out precisely, I felt that to maintain consistency I would omit AoO.

Neph:
I argue that they have been reduced, but not eliminated.

On mapping, as I said, map it out on the big paper the night before. It isn’t hard. Map the whole friggin dungeon on the big paper with a 1 inch scale grid.

What REALLY slows down combat is the constant bickering and confusion of who was standing where, doing what. To maintain consistency – you must draw your combats precisely, not omit AoO. It isn’t hard at all. Your problem isn’t AoO; it’s that you don’t use a proper game mat for the tactical portion of D&D.

Photoshop or photocopy the module map itself to hand to players if they want to see the big picture. Just erase the secret parts.

---------
Sam:
“…Also, I honestly find it more impressive (as a player) to actually see fourty counters or figs arayed in front of my

Baron:
It can be impressive though. It just takes a bit more description. That’s half the fun as a DM. A good description can go a long way to this. Drawing those orcs will give you their positions, but not the fact that the players have just rounded the corner, to be confronted with the grunting, snarling beasts.

Neph:
A lavish description is woefully inadequate for tracking action and for giving players the information they need to perform in combat. A set of counters doesn’t give players the flavor of the particular encounter. A good DM will use both.

Baron:
Do you map out all your battles in exquisite detail, to the nearest 5ft? How do you do it without slowing everything down? Combat takes far to long as it is IMO. Should 5 mins of game time take an evening to sort out. That’s just working on 5 mins to sort out each round (4+ hours)

Neph:
As I said, I map the room, to scale, the night before, including trees, tables, chests, cover. I do it while I’m watching TV. Any likely encounter area. I keep a sheaf of these room maps in a stack. When someone says “I look into the room,” I lay the paper on the table, or uncover the hidden room (I sometimes lay paper or books over it) and begin my verbal description, pointing to the various things I’m describing.

It’s MUCH faster than stopping to map the room, even on small paper.

Baron and Sam, I think we mostly agree on the way we play. The places where we differ stem mainly from the way we structure our campaigns.

I do play from set pre-made adventures rather than going on the fly. I customize the story elements somewhat in each adventure to ensure they feed to the next one, and simultaneously to an overall theme in the story – a big bad of some kind.

I also spend my time developing the characters and scenes within each module, since the mechanics are taken care of. As a DM and as a writer with limited time, that’s where I can get the most bang for my buck, leaving the math to others.

So, I’m looking at the 12th level adventure to figure out what I need to tweak in the first one, to ensure the story fits and builds. It’s a very rough guide, and is subject to change and inspiration as we play, but after discussing it, my players unanimously agreed that they really enjoy a sense of ‘closure’ and accomplishment after each ‘chapter’ much more than ongoing adventures – it takes much more effort to do that in open ended games. They found that open ended games, while fun, never really gave them the sense of accomplishment that specific missions and adventures gave them. This way, they get the best of both worlds.

We do ‘blue booking’ between games, where they have much more free reign. Essentially, this is email/web page story from each character and the DM about what those characters and setting do during the ‘tween adventures time. It really satisfies an aspect of RP and adds a sense of existence to the world and characters, apart from what they do in the dungeon. This is where I propel the story and character encounters along until it comes to a point where the party needs to suit up and achieve some specific objective – to do the adventure. We’ve found that the ‘character work’ is more effective online, and the ‘adventure work’ is more satisfying around the table. And it is quite rewarding to see the material from the online stuff flavor the game. Doing the character stuff live – with non-improv people – always ended up sounding like the Summoner Geeks. Writing it as a brief story allows people the time to come up with witticisms and language that supports the setting.

I also often make real-time game pauses during rest stops to allow players to talk in character. One of the best times we did this was during preparation and battle planning to take out the dragon in The Forge of Fury (which overmatches the party). Knowing that not all of us would survive the encounter, we paused after planning to say our goodbyes (and one character did die).

The kinds of adventures I use for the ‘live sessions’ tend to be dungeons or areas that are slightly isolated, to avoid the problems of characters wandering ‘out of bounds’. For the most part, the players are cooperative with this, and realize that this is preferable to making me scramble, or to being pulled by the nose (ie Speaker in Dreams) along a specific plot track. The one player that constantly attempted to flee the adventure, deliberately trying to challenge every DM to entertain him with improv material, does not play with us anymore. :^) I believe this was discussed in another thread, the point that players also have a responsibility, and that is to play in good faith, understanding that this is a game, and to not try to throw unwarranted monkeywrenches to impede the development of the story (as opposed to attempting to accomplish their missions). For instance, I have a DM friend whose players refused a reasonable mission that he’d spent considerable time preparing. He ended the campaign right then and there, with those players washing dishes, rather than being adventurers. Why come to the game if you aren’t actually going to play?

Man was "Speaker in Dreams" a bad module and Waaaaaay too hard. All in all we went through a total of 5 characters in this crappy piece of sh...

Nuf said

On a somewhat different subject.. I don't understand why some of you people are having gigantic, all-night combats. Maybe you have huge groups of players or something?

Back when I was still GMing, most of my combats were greasy fast.. say, maybe 10 minutes for a minor skirmish, and up to an hour or so for a major battle.. and this was in GURPS, using the full combat rules (hit location, explicit wargame-like maneuvering on a map, a rolled defense for every attack, you name it). The only things that slowed us down were soda breaks or having to look obscure, rarely-used rules. I don't mean to brag here, but honestly, what are you guys doing wrong?

As far as mapping, it's really no big deal. Get a lot of cheap 8 x 11 graph/hex paper and pull some out every time you need a new map. For D&D, 1" graph paper at 5' per square will let you map fairly large rooms or even entire small buildings on one sheet. If you know where the players are fighting, drawing up a servicible map in pencil and populating it with a few doors/tables/whatever takes maybe a minute or two.

There's no need to map everything in advance either (this goes out to Nephandus). Most shops look sorta the same. Most houses look sorta the same. Most inns look sorta the same, and so forth. In most architecture, form follows function. If you must, work out a few generic designs for each common building type and keep them wherever you keep all your campaign stuff (presumably in a folder or something). Then, whenever you need a map, copy one of them off, making minor changes or mirror-imaging things as the whim takes you, or even use the originals if you won't have to mark them up too much. Honestly, your players aren't going to mind if a lot of the buildings look similar.. if you're whipping out a combat map, it's time to kick some ass, not admire the tapestries!

"Mapping advice appreciated Xplo, but not necessary in our case..."

Oh? I seem to remember you saying something about not being able to map all the buildings and such, due to the fact that you ran a player-driven campaign and you had no way of knowing where they were going to go ahead of time. Maybe that was someone else.

"As I said, much of the time was spent arguing about who was standing where, facing which direction, repeating room descriptions, taking back moves and re-doing them because someone didn't recall some verbal instruction etc etc."

Aha, that's what you were doing wrong. ;)

2e wasn't really designed for tactical combat, and shouldn't be played as such, IMO.

"I suspect that if your combats were shorter, then you either had very few combatants, or the DM was shortcuttng every move on the fly, rather than actually letting them play out."

Since I was the GM, I can assure you that all the moves were played out by the rules. It's true that I rarely had more than three or four players, though.. were you GMing a dozen or something? (Bad idea.)

"8x11 graph paper functioned inadequately when I was 11, back in 1981, though we didn't realize it then. We use it for the big picture map, but it doesn't work as a battleboard - where we want precise, to scale, positioning."

The standard quarter-inch grid is useless for battle, yes.. but I meant to use something with an inch grid. Allowing for margins or chopped-off edges, that gives you about a 35' x 55' area.. enough for a pretty large room, or a small building, as I said before. If for some reason you need more than that, you can always tape two sheets together.

Alternately, if you're fighting in a huge open area or something, just use a small ruler or tape measure to move people, wargame-style. I've played in games like this before and it works quite well.

Was it Baron? Doh, my mistake.

The advice was really for him then. :)

A minute per PC? Yikes.

I know your figures are just estimates, but if you can move several allies and/or enemies in a couple of minutes, your experienced players should be able to act with the same speed most of the time. Most combats - *especially* large combats, by virtue of having lots of comparatively weak enemies - tend to boil down to "okay, I attack that one", and by the time your first player's done, your second and third players should already know more or less what they want to do next.

I don't mean to lecture. "You suck! You're doing it wrong!" It just seems to me that if a fight is taking all evening, then something's taking way too long.

Baron - you and I obviously run very different campaigns. In addition to the RPG and story elements, my games are often praised for their fairness and tactical element. The adventures I choose tend to support this style of play.

I leave the "game" in RPG. You are still doing it the way we used to do it with 2nd e, and IMO, it simply doesn't work with the 3rd. There's no reason not to have an accurate battleboard for every single combat - specific positioning counts for a great deal more than AoO in 3rd ed. If your combats are taking too long, it's because you are attempting to introduce some of the extra elements of 3e, without introducing the mechanism that supports it. If it was me, I'd be very frustrated playing that way, but if you believe the alternative is not an improvement, then carry on!

All very interesting reading. Although I don't run AD&D (pointedly), I feel that the discussion here is more about Gamesmaster techniques and can thus comment. For bias, I run my own game, Icar (http://www.icar.co.uk) which is a free Science Fiction RPG. I run a game with University graduates within the 22-30 age bracket. I run a Narrativist - Gamist game [1]. I have split up my opinions into headings, not retorts to anyone in particular. I shall refer to the person who runs the game (Ref, DM) as the GM. I have referenced [] where possible and they are included at the end.

1. Campaign Technique
Traditional campaigning uses a tree-like structure where the GM has a starting point and then the possibilities fan out. At each branch, the players take a choice and move on. However, there are a limited number of branches and the players are likely to see very similar events regardless of what they do. Also, the choices are often quite obvious. This is a semi-linear, closed method. Players are unlikely to play the same 'adventure' more than once so the lack of branches does not appear a problem. Another sort of Campaign style is more freeform where a world is presented with vague goals (often provided by the character's background) and this is used to provide the character's with something to do. I run the Icarian model [2], where the world is provided and several plotlines provide event filled timelines that the characters may or may not witness. Sub goals are often given through jobs and contacts, but the characters must seek an agenda for themselves, rather than following the plot. A structure is given so that recurring characters can reappear without any loss of consistency. If the characters were not in the game world at all, then it would continue unhindered but if they alter things then future events change.

Why do it this way? If my players got they idea that they were on a linear, they would do everything in their power to revolt. They do not roleplay to be forced down a certain route - they want freedom. They want to choose who the bad-guys are. You could try to argue that the players would never know that they are being 'railroaded' down a single route, but this is to underestimate the players as they will soon get wind of the groomed manner in which the presentation and choices are given. Also, encounters become either 'Kill it', 'Talk to it'. Thus, it can be very predictable.
I will never return to the adventure-based linearity as, frankly, it bores me to know what will be happening later in the campaign. I like to know what I might throw at the players, but I don't want to know how tough they are going to be or what they might do when faced with it.

2. Maps
Figures have their place, but not on my Roleplaying Game table. Too much is relied upon maps and figures, a good description will do enough. It is unlikely that you have a figurine for 'Crouched on the floor crying', one for 'Back against the wall, heart pounding'. A few marks on a map to show simple locations of objects. The players should be describing, not rolling dice. I want to hear about 'dives through doorways', 'rolling under tables' and 'barging the bad guy'. This may all be backed up by a swift dice roll and a quick rule mechanic but is essentially quick and much more interesting than just rolling dice. I am sure your players do this to some extent, but it should be encouraged. I find figures detract away from the drama of the scene, a fallback for those too lazy to describe their actions and a haven for power gamers.

3. Balance and Fairness
What is fair? Should a game be fair? So much more tension can be built if the players honestly don't know if the next thing they do will lead to their untimely demise. Balance is important, but breadth is also. The characters need a range of foes to appreciate their strengths and weaknesses.

4. Conclusion
You are there to have fun. There is no right or wrong way of GMing, there are different GMs for different groups of players. I have tried other methods of GMing, using Campaign diagrams [3] and the such and have found every technique interesting. It is unwise not to try other methods, no matter how bizarre they seem.
I gave up running linear plots long ago as my players would tear them to shreds. I've seem them do it to very good GMs who could not handle the free spirited nature of players who don't like anything on offer so will build their own agenda.

5. References
1. see the Forge GNS model http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/
2. Icar GM Manual - The Strings. Go to http://www.icar.co.uk/ Click on the menu Game->Strings and download the 2MB pdf
3. Roleplaying Tips - http://www.roleplayingtips.com/

When I say 'figures', I mean 'diagrams' not 'numbers'.
And thus, we agree.

On March 6, 2003 10:36 AM, Brainwipe said:

Brainwipe:

“Campaign Technique
Why do it this way? If my players got they idea that they were on a linear, they would do everything in their power to revolt. “

Neph:
Even a dungeon has choices. And your ‘tree structure’ seems to use a flowchart of choices and encounters – which is essentially – a dungeon. Unless the players stray too far off the path and leave you scrambling or playing improv games.

Brainwipe:
“Also, encounters become either 'Kill it', 'Talk to it'. Thus, it can be very predictable.”

Neph:
While this has certainly been a part of my games (and I’ll bet it’s a big part of yours), it needn’t be. My players found a shrewd villain in Yusdrayal in the Sunless Citadel, essentially using her 13 kobald guards to threaten to turn a single character into a pincushion, effectively preventing the entire part from attacking. They negotiated with one party to attack another, and then found that they’d been used as an assault force by the first group. Not Shakespeare, but the players did enjoy a smart villain.

Brainwipe:
“ I like to know what I might throw at the players, but I don't want to know how tough they are going to be or what they might do when faced with it.”

Neph:
Of course you know what they MIGHT do. But nobody knows what they WILL do.

Brainwipe
“It is unlikely that you have a figurine for 'Crouched on the floor crying', one for 'Back against the wall, heart pounding'. A few marks on a map to show simple locations of objects. The players should be describing, not rolling dice. I want to hear about 'dives through doorways', 'rolling under tables' and 'barging the bad guy'. This may all be backed up by a swift dice roll and a quick rule mechanic but is essentially quick and much more interesting than just rolling dice. I am sure your players do this to some extent, but it should be encouraged. I find figures detract away from the drama of the scene, a fallback for those too lazy to describe their actions and a haven for power gamers.”

Neph:
I do not understand the unlikely claim that if you use a map and a figure, that you will lose the capacity for speech and imagination, preventing you from also describing a scene adequately. Does something in the ink cause a stroke? Am I just that much of a genius that I alone am able to talk and draw (admittedly, I do much of my drawing the night before), or talk, and move a figure? Sorry for the sarcasm – it just seems to be a silly claim. As for “power gamers” the negative connotations of this term were born from the easily exploitable loopholes in the 2nd edition D&D game system, and a host of other systems that do not have a cohesive mechanical structure. A good system should balance out everything, preventing players from overpowering the game.

Brainwipe:

“3. Balance and Fairness
What is fair? Should a game be fair? So much more tension can be built if the players honestly don't know if the next thing they do will lead to their untimely demise. Balance is important, but breadth is also. The characters need a range of foes to appreciate their strengths and weaknesses.”

Neph:
And that is provided within the parameters of what I discussed. Some on target, some easy, some easy if you know the trick (perhaps some environmental advantage), some harder for the same reason, and some that are significantly more difficult – though still reasonable for the party to deal with – with maybe one or two casualties. But nothing so easy that it is wasted time, or so hard that players question the game itself.

Tension is not built from facing a red dragon at first level. Players give up – because you aren’t playing fair. There’s no shame in losing your character in such a game, and no reason to get attached to it. There is nothing “random” about the challenges they face. You put them there for them to find.

Brainwipe:
“4. Conclusion
You are there to have fun. There is no right or wrong way of GMing, there are different GMs for different groups of players.”

Of course there is a right way to GM, depending on the type of game that you are playing. Some methods are far more effective than others, depending on your system and on your goals. For instance, playing 3e D&D without a 1 inch battlemap and markers, for instance, is an exercise in frustration. Virtually all of the tactical rules (not just AoO) require precise positioning to work.

Brainwipe:
“I have tried other methods of GMing, using Campaign diagrams [3] and the such and have found every technique interesting. It is unwise not to try other methods, no matter how bizarre they seem.”

Neph:
I use different methods for different games. My Mage games, for instance were much more free form, and used more improv, but the preparation in story and character work was back-breaking (and I actually received a round of enthusiastic applause once). It was too much, so we switched to something more bite-sized.

So, use the methods that are appropriate to the game.

Brainwipe:
“I gave up running linear plots long ago as my players would tear them to shreds. I've seem them do it to very good GMs who could not handle the free spirited nature of players who don't like anything on offer so will build their own agenda.”

I’ve played with two GMs who used the technique of following player cues to see where the story would go next – sort of like the Chretien government. They worked for a while and then quickly crashed and burned from player apathy. The problem was that the players didn’t actually feel like they were engaging a scenario. The moment they discovered that they were making everything up as they went along, they realized that they weren’t playing a game – they were doing improv. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it isn’t what they signed up for. Game players – even rpg players – want to test themselves against a somewhat objective challenge.

An obsession with the idea of Improv is utterly wrong. It has some elements of improvisation but the game itself is not freeform. It has goals, sub goals, plots, events and challenges, they're just not listed in a certain order with prescribed outcomes.

It's not the game that sets the manner of GMing style, it's the way the group (both players and GM) wants to play. If linear is their wish, great! If Icarian is their desire, then great!

Finally, tension is diminished when the players know that most encounters (or events) are balanced around them. To deny this is merely to cast a veil over the inadequacies of linearity.

"An obsession with the idea of Improv is utterly wrong. It has some elements of improvisation but the game itself is not freeform. It has goals, sub goals, plots, events and challenges, they're just not listed in a certain order with prescribed outcomes."

This isn't so different from a dungeon - unless your dungeon is a hallway, and that would be a pretty crappy dungeon. Outcomes are not predetermined (though the challenges are), players have choices - though limited (similar to plot based above ground adventures).

The difference with a dungeon is that if you try to go out of bounds, you'll hit a wall. If you do the same above ground, you'll get steered or lured back into the story again by the DM.

Unless- the DM just follows the player's leads - in which case improv is exactly what you have, since the players are not actually engaging anything exterior challenge.

Actually, you don't have to purchase the new books if you don't want to. WoTC will be posting the changes on the web for free download. Works for me.

Cadfan said:
“I'm surprised at the vehement support of battlemaps. Frankly, I've never found them amazingly useful. Then again, my PCs have never entered a single dungeon. [..]objectives in my campaigns are never things like "clean out the nest of orcs," they're things like "stop the assassination attempts on the northern border," or "prevent war from breaking out between two large nations."

Nephandus says:
I choose stories that are entertaining and which support clear tactical objectives. My players do not suffer from a lack of role playing – in fact I use specific encounters and plan for specific stops to devote to role playing, using NPCs to prompt conversations during resting. And we blue-book online between adventures.

Cadfan:
“I wouldn't mind using a battlemat if I could prepare it ahead of time. But I think the flow of the game would be damaged were I to stop in the middle of the evening to sketch out the bandits camp”

Nephandus:
Which is why the game is better suited to a DM who takes the time to choose or prepare an adventure that supports battles in certain designated areas. I’ve almost never had to stop an encounter to sketch a battlemat. Whenever I’ve brought out a pre-fab sheet, I’ve been greeted with delighted faces from my players, who don’t have to stop the game.

Cadfan:
“After all, rather than using a battlemat to determine with absolute certainty whether the rogue is moving into a flanking position, the rogue's player can just say "Can I move into a flanking position?" I say yes or no depending on my simple sketch In fact, most of the time its not even necessary for the character to ask.”

Nephandus:
And herein lies the core of the problem we’ve been discussing. In combat, every arbitrary DM decision made on the fly (no, back of the napkin sketches do not suffice) REMOVES control from the players, and places it firmly in the DMs lap. The DM effectively controls what the players can do, and whether they succeed. That – my friend – is not a game.

Cadfan
“As for improv, what's wrong with it?”

Nephandus:
Nothing. Nobody has ever made a case that improv is an unworthy activity. I happen to enjoy it very much. But it ain’t a game, and it ain’t D&D. It can be an aspect of it, and I definitely use it in my D&D games (to a much greater extent than most games I’ve played in). But I don’t resolve tactical outcomes with it, or at least, I work very hard to reduce my personal hand (as a DM) in how a challenge is resolved.

Cadfan:
I suppose the situation might be very different were my players playing a general "we're adventurers, we want to adventure and defeat evil and attain wealth, fame, and power" campaign, since there's a lot more ways to do that then there are ways to "secure the nation from threat and enforce the law of the land," like in my campaign.

Nephandus:
That is a reductionist stance. It’s perfectly possible to have a full and rich campaign, with rounded characters, Oscar winning in-character conversations, and a consistent, fleshed out setting while attending to the pre-requisites of a game.

Cadfan:
I suppose the question is which type of freedom is more important to the game? Your characters are relatively restricted in where combat takes place.

Nephandus:
Relatively restricted, yes, though it is almost always woven into the story seamlessly. Players don’t have a reason to be elsewhere if they are following the action of the plot.

We have found this to be a beneficial trade though, since it speeds the pace and richness of the game, and they enjoy having their successes and failures become less arbitrary. They cede the overall premise, setting, and scenario to the DM, in return for getting more control over their character within that setting. Further to that end, the choices they make in character creation (ie feats that exploit AoO) have more impact in a game than in an activity that resolves game tactics and choices on the back of a napkin. In the day to day of playing, it’s far more intrusive to depend on the DM’s whim to resolve a character action than it is to rely on the DM to begin the “live session” that will bring characters through encounters and triggers.

Cadfan:
My characters deal with reduced complexity of surroundings in exchange for the power to determine to a great extent what those surroundings are. While you are absolutely correct that there is freedom lost in arbitrary DM decisions, there is also freedom lost if the mission is designed such that the final battle WILL be in the throneroom, come hell or high water.

Nephandus:
The thing is, while I agree it would be nice to be able to go anywhere, do anything – I think a good 3e D&D game will tend to keep the players within certain confines – if they are cooperating within the bounds of the story.

In my case, a battle royale did not take place in the room where I expected it would, but rather in another room – which I had also mapped out. In dungeons, I can afford to be much less conspicuous in placing ‘out of bounds’ markers than I can above ground, since the walls do it for me. Above ground, or in plot based adventures- I rely much more on player cooperation and a skillful story with clues to stay on track. They could all decide to pack up and sail their characters to Byzantium if they want, most of them realize that their game experience is not served by leaving the playing field, and don’t try to deliberately sabotage or challenge the experience provided by the range of choices they have.

Cadfan:
Not that you are quite that heavy handed, I'm sure you'd move the final battle if the pcs absolutely insisted upon avoiding that scenario

Nephandus:
For the most part, the stories I choose in the first place have predictable places where the “boss” is encountered, with some variance. If the characters avoid the encounter, then essentially, they avoid the game, and hurt only themselves. This is not to say that encounters may only happen in certain rooms, at certain times – not at all. But I do tend to have enough geography mapped out beforehand to give them MORE than enough choice as to where they may choose to fight, providing they are able to lure the villain away from his prepared position. I’ve also had roving bosses with goons within dungeons.

Cadfan:
Remember, before you deify battlemaps for their objectivity in combat, many role playing GAMES are expected to take place without any visible representation of events at all.

Nephandus:
That is true – certainly for the Storyteller series, some of which (Wraith) contain excellent game rituals to aid in improv and role-playing action (ie players assuming the “alter-ego” of other players at the table). But we are talking about Dungeons and Dragons here in this thread, and taking advantage of 3e features such as its fantastic mechanics to create an excellent game experience. Many other games simply don’t provide the same opportunities as 3e does here – so I made a conscious choice to exploit those advantages with this game.

Cadfan
I have used premade maps in the past to good affect, I will admit. For example, if I happen to know that the action in a particular evening will take place entirely within a castle, I show up with a written out, gridworked map of a castle. That way, even though I don't have a distinct idea of the final result of the evenings roleplaying, I've accomodated for most possible outcomes.

Neph:
That is exactly how I do it.

Cadfan:
But, in my more frequent freeform "hunt the assassins," or "figure out the true traitor" missions, I don't know enough about the setting to plan more than a general map of the region, which can be filled in ingame without difficulty.

Neph:
I also don’t provide battlemaps for environments where I don’t expect combat to happen. Figuring out stuff, city and country travelling etc, doesn’t require a 5’ grid. But when they DO figure out where those assasins are, they’ll find me prepared with a map and a lair.

Hi everyone,
The URL below is worth following:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/3point5comments.html

It doesn't totally blow off 3.5, but it does confirm for me the main driving force behind WOTC/Hasbor isn't giving the players what they want, or improving the game or any of that. It is and always will be greed.
And it does raise the question : What price d20 now?
- Grey

Nephandus wrote - "Dude, I appreciate your genuine sentiments on this, but I'm sensing that you must be new to BBS's in general, if you are letting the hostility get to you personally. I don't think anyone here needs an apoligy."
I know this has been a while...but...
I've been in and around BBS's for a very long time. I use other names, not just this one.

DJ, you may get "so pissed off when people talk about things they don't understand." all you want. You don't seem to understand that I DO understand. I understand that 3rd ed. offers things that I want no part of. I also understand that 3rd ed. offers things I wish they had done to 2nd ed. I understand, that no matter who has responded nor how they agreed or disagreed with me or anyone else, we are all obviously D&D people, through and through whether we play 1st, 2nd, 3rd or even 3.5 or some conglomeration of any or all of the above. So, you didn't like the extra roll on an 18 str...which was only for humans, at least in my gaming group. This brought about some semblance of balance for us. We ignored the age rule on demi-humans. We kept the multi-class rules for the most part. We just rolled simple initiative and left out the modifiers. We tweaked the spell rules a bit to suit our own tastes. We kept modifiers to armor class. We made D&D, 2nd edition, our own. Sure, we could do the same with 3rd edition just as we did with 1st edition way back when. Play 3rd ed however you want. Go get glad in the same pants you got mad in. The rest of the world will go on playing what we want, how we want and this article will still serve as amusement for some, artillery for others and a place to vent some may feel the need to do.

Oh...btw...I am the original article writer and as this being my brain child, I won't let it go undefended nor unprotected. Clear the passageways and nock arrow to bowstring, Rabbitman's here to stay!

now that I'm past my delusions of grandeur...I bid you all a good eve.