Here's my methods for describing combat:

be familiar with the types of weapons involved in combat. Not an expert, just be aware that a short sword is more of a stabbing weapon, a longsword a slashing weapon. This will help in your descriptions (and for most swords, thrusts, jabs, slashes and hacks will be good enough verbs).

get a list of all the kinds of verbs to describe an attack. A thesaurus may help. For martial arts, know all the kinds of real attacks most schools teach is useful. One my other blog posts has such a list (as I posted one of the monk schools I wrote up, based on my own background). You don't need to be an expert, but just having a sense of how these weapons are used will help you describe attacks beyond "you hit him for 8 damage"

When a player makes an attack, describe each attack differently, using your newly upgrade vocabulary.

Don't overly describe the damage. Firstly, it gets cumbersome when the GM tries to get gruesome. Nextly, since damage in D&D is nebulous, you don't want to commit to a specific injury, lest the players try to lobby for special effects based on that injury. Additionally, combat is fast paced. Your descriptions should be as well, to invoke that feeling.

Since combat takes place in 2 5'x5' squares, there's plenty of room for side-stepping and moving and jumping, enough to explain a miss, besides just blocking it with a shield, or parrying with a weapon, be bouncing off his armor (which are also good explanations).

Here's some examples of what I tell players during their attacks:
"you jab at him, but he just barely sidesteps"
"he catches a grazing blow from your hammer"
"he deflects your attack with his sword, and readies to return the favor"
"your blade skips across his armor"

In all cases, keep it short, and choppy, just like combat itself.

Never use a description that adds more actual event or action that what happened mechanically. If your hammer attack can't knock somebody out of their current square, than don't describe it as "your hammer blow sends him flying across the room." Additionally, since you'll be describing how a PC avoids getting hit, you don't want to ascribe an action the PC didn't actually take, nor block him from his next action that he can legitimately make.

Using these tips will add flavor, without slowing down the game.

Janx

My last blog article justified the existence of magic shops. I'm going to look at the topic from the opposite.

First off, let's agree that a small community probably doesn't have a shop, as there is not enough demand or money to support it.

Nextly, let's agree that any magic shop is likely limited in its inventory. It is improbable that a shop could exist realistically, that had every item possible. It's even possible that all the magic shops in a region may still not cover all items (items may very likely have regional availability).

Those first two points bound the problem such that a PC should not expect to get whatever they want, whenever they want, just because they have the money. In short, if you are going to have magic shops, there are rational limits as to what they contain.

Let's cover the social barriers a magic shop would have to overcome.

A king might be leery of having unregulated magic items flowing through his kingdom. If he's not regulating them, he doesn't know what they are. If he doesn't know what they are, he doesn't know who has what items that could be a direct threat to him. That alone would encourage a king to restrict and regulate the flow of magical goods and services.

This means our magic shop has even less inventory, due to outlawing of certain products. It also means it can't buy or trade certain items, at least without permits and registrations.

All it takes to make this happen is a king of this mind-set (perhaps warned by a wizard advisor, who seeks to limit any threats to himself even). Then he sets up a regulatory board, maybe requiring a geas from people seeking a permit to posess, and things are rolling.

The church can also have a hand in things. In the real world, various religions considered charging interest on loans to be a sin, as the loaner was making profit, without doing work. At one point in history, the catholic church forced prices to be static on commodities, not yet being aware of the laws of supply and demand, nor the science of economics. It is entirely possible the church can condemn the use or ownership of certain items that it deems harmful to society.

Odds are good, the only things on the shelves of s magic shop would be low-threat items. Anything else would be black-market.

Lastly, let's consider the rogue element. Namely the 5 finger discount, referred to as shrinkage in the retail industry. A magic shop with rows of items on racks, particularly not behind a counter would be rife with stealing. New shop-lifting spells would have to be invented, because there don't seem to be any that can protect an entire store, not just single items. A building built for customers to walk in, would be a target for after-hours break-ins as well. Once again, requiring siginificant steps to protect against. It would take a high-level wizard to run such an establishment (which would justify the high value amount of gear he owns).

It may be possible that somebody is dealing in small quantities of items, sub-1000 GP perhaps. The risk isn't any greater than a jewelry store.

But larger stuff, is more likely to be black market, heavily regulated, or private transactions. All of it low inventory count.

Because you can easily protect that extra longsword +4 you're trying to sell. Not so easy is protecting a rack of wands, rods and staves, a shelf of armors, and rack of swords, a box of rings and a case of potions.

Janx

It's all about inventory and volume.

If in your campaign, there are ZERO magic items, then there will be ZERO magic shops. There's no items around to create a supply, regardless of demand (I'd still want a magic item in a non-magic campaign).

If in your campaign , there are FIVE magic items, there still won't be any magic shops, and odds are good nobody's buying or selling (prolly killing for).

However, if you play in a world where NPCS clerics and NPC wizards are cranking out minor magic items (potions and scrolls), you have the foundation of justification of a magic shop.

Note, I define magic shop as a place that sells magic items, not services. It's also entirely plausible that you can only buy magic weapons from an arms merchant. The nature of the shop is unimportant, only that there is an NPC that PCs can go to, and buy some magic items.

When you consider how many extra items the typical PC gets by 5th level, 10th level, etc, you start getting into having a SUPPLY of magic items. Every PC I've ever played has had a fair amount of these, either oddbal items, or items outside my chosen weapon set.

From there, obviously the PCs want different magic items or money (so they can get different magic items). This is the DEMAND.

Consider the old rule of thumb that 10% of the population is leveled (i.e. NPC adventurers, etc with level appropriate loot). This means that in a large enough population, there are NPCs with similar piles of unwanted magic loot. Once again, creating supply and demand.

At that point, some enterprising individual (likely an NPC adventurer looking to convert his unwanted magic items) will start a business selling and trading items. And making money off it.

All it takes to justify this is two categories of people:
1) minor item makers who crank out commodity items like potions and scrolls selling to adventurers (PC or NPC)
2) higher level chars with items they don't use, looking to trade them in for stuff they can

Given how easy it is to crank out the small stuff, that justifies a "magic shop" that sells the small stuff.

And if I was a new PC, I'd be looking there for magic stuff in general, because those folks are in the know.

And if the campaign I played in was fairly generous with items, I'd easily have stuff I don't want (yay, I found a +2 sword, maybe I can trade in my +1 for something else).

Businesses exist because of SUPPLY and DEMAND. There is DEMAND for magic items, it is the number one reason PCs go adventuring for (that and XP and gold). The SUPPLY is the total magic items in the world. They are not all sitting in a dungeon, waiting for a PC to find it.

There is a demand for a whole lot of things in our real world. And there are people making businesses out of it. Just because you don't like the idea, doesn't make it unrealistic or unfathomable. Otherwise there wouldn't be the gambling, drug trade or human slavery. If people want it, somebody will find a way to get an inventory and sell it.

I suspect that the real root of not wanting magic shops in a campaign has more to do with GM control. The extreme example of anti-magic shoppism is that a PC can declare what he wants and walk into any magic shop and buy it. These types of GMs seem to loathe the idea of a player getting whats he wants. Whereas, all the examples by GMs who accept the idea of magic shops point out that the DM has full conrol of the inventory and prices. Many of these examples include some rather clever integrations with other real world business ideas. I've not seen one example of a magic-walmart, where a PC can buy whatever they want and run rampant over the campaign.

In short, barring a low magic campaign where there isn't enough excess magic items to sell, it defies logic and real world comparison that there would NOT be some form of magic shop.

Janx

I wrote a program to do this a long time ago, and actually thought about writing a blog entry about the method I came up with.

Anyway, the method I devised is this:

Lookup the age category/life expectancy for the race involved.

Assume that for your population that there is an even distribution, across age.

If you had a pop. of 1000, and the life expectancy was 100, then that would be 10 people at age 1, 10 at age 2, etc. (math= pop divided by life expectancy)

Multiply this by the % of females in the population (50% for humans). This gets us 5 for a distribution.

Now look at the age categories, and figure out the breeding year range. This is basically the begining of adult hood, to the beginning of the last age bracket. Let's say for humans that's 20-80, which is 60 years. If you had to estimate, assume 1/2 or 2/3 of the life expectancy. This is the span.

Now folks don't crank out babies every year, it's simplest to statistically spread them over their breeding span. Divive the breeding span (60) by the age of maturity (20). We get 3. THat's basically 3 kids per person.

Multiply that by the first number, you get 15.

That means for a population of 1,000, whose life expectancy is 100 years, they will crank out 15 people next year. This seems plausible for humans.

Repeat that math for each year you want to pass.

The interesting mechanic is that a shorter lived race has a lower maturity, and they will basically crank out kids like candy.

Let's say you got 1,000 Kobolds that live to age 30, and mature at age 15.
1000/30*.5=16.67 population distribution
30/2=15 = breeding span
16.67*15=250baby kobolds next year


Now this formula is far from realistic or precise, but it's close enough, and the results compare well against real humans, and produces more babies for short lived races, less babies for long lived races. If you actually plug in real human numbers, it is remarkably close to American growth rate (at least it was when I designed it 15 years ago).

The mortality rate is sort of effectively applied by virtue of the life expectancy. Since Kobolds have a short life expectancy, it is already assumed lots of kobolds are dieing.

I designed this formula years ago, when I had an elven nation that had lost a lot of people in a war, and time was passing, so I needed to know how big they would grow back to, after 100 years after the war (barring other cataclysms).

If you're just looking for a generic answer to "time passed, how many people are in this empire or city?" it is close enough for government work.

Hint: Applying multiple years is easier if you write a small program to loop through the math and add it all up...or just stick it in a spreadsheet.

Janx

I've written some on this topic before, and recent posts have made me write more. Here's my view of how to prevent a railroad.

The first step, is to have players who aren't disagreeable, for the sake of being disagreeable. That's kind of like saying get players who will put up with a railroad to avoid having a railroad, but hear me out. There is a type of player, who believes the game world should have no consequences for any PC action. It's almost like everything holds still, while the PC plunders it. The moment the GM has an NPC approach the party with a request to do a mission, he fights it. The moment the GM has a consequence happen for something the PC did, he complains about it. This type of player isn't about railroading. They are the kind of player who will call anything that isn't "their way" a railroad. You can't have a simulationist or narrativist game with those type of player, because either style involves elements they will fight.

Now that you've got the problem players fixed. You owe your players a good game where you don't railroad them. The real trick to not rail-roading is to simply adapt to what the players do. The foundation for that, is realizing that from the start of the game, the GM has visualized what the adventure story will look like. It's human nature, and it's how planning works.

The reality for most GMs is, whether they write it down before the game, or make it up on the fly, once they say, "the party hears a rumor about killings on the docks" it's been planned out. They have an idea of a clue to drop for the party to find. They have an idea of who the bad guy is, even if it's only in their head. At that point, a path has been drawn from party in the bar to party confronting the bad guy. A good GM keeps adjusting that path as the party advances through the story, based on what they do, and how they want to approach the problem. In any even, the goal is to always end at the party confronting the bad guy, though the image of what that scene looks like may keep changing.

In the "Murder on the Docks" mystery, no GM in his right mind creates a murder scene with no idea of the clues left there. And if you don't know who the murderer is, you don't know what kind of clue to leave. So already, a path is figured out. The trick is, that path is not obvious to the players, so you are at risk of running a railroad when the game starts.

When running the game, the GM's job is to adjust that path, per the players actions.

As I've written before, in any given encounter, you can simplify what the players will do to about 6 choices:
-fight their way out
-trick their way out (some spell or item, or sneakiness)
-talk their way out (diplomacy, etc)
-investigate their way out (sneak, find evidence and use it)
-run away (stop trying anything else)
-wait for the other side to act first (react in kind usually)

You can usually set the scene such that some choices are more likely. Confronting the party with a group of armed orcs with weapons drawn will most likely get the fight response. Orcs with weapons sheathed, at medium distance, with one orc calling out to the party opens up the talk option. Orcs seen nearby, but not seeing the party opens up the trick option. And in all cases run away and wait are still viable.

A lot of GMs get sloppy, and don't plan on all possibilities before the game. The most common one is expecting combat from any monster encounter. And for the most part, they're right. Even if you only plan on the most obvious action for an encounter, once in game, being aware of the other types of choice helps you adapt when the players try them.

GM's make a railroading mistake when they have planned solution to the encouter (fight the orc), and the party doesn't do it, and they try desperately to make everything fail but fighting the orc.

The moment the GM hears the party wants to do something unexpected, he needs to pause and consider what's really going on.

When a player doesn't do the expected thing, it comes in 3 flavors:
1) they're trying to quit the mission
2) they're trying to solve the mission, in an unanticipated way
3) they're trying to solve the mission, but going the wrong direction, and don't know it

#1 is easy, let them start quitting, and start showing them consequences as the bad guy moves forward un-impeded. They'll either get back to the mission, or accept the consequences, which continue to roll forward while they "do something else" which you can run for them. This might be occuring because they're the obstinate player I told you to dump in the beginning. Or it might be that the player doesn't think they can win. Or it might be that the mission doesn't make sense for the PC to do, which means your hook wasn't relevant to the PC, which is directly the GM's fault.

#2 is also easy. Pause the game, adjust the "script" to react to the new change, which will probably replace a few encounters and reveal information early, and move them to a different point in the story arc, which is the whole point of finishing any encounter. It's very important to consider what the player's are trying to do and assign a fair and rational difficulty level to it. Don't make it hard, just because you didn't anticipate it. Let it be easy, if it really would be easy to do.

#3 is the trickiest. It can easily happen in a mystery game, but has been known to happen in dungeon crawls, too. The players think some minor element you brought up is important, and pursue it. In a dungeon crawl, this is the KoDT story about the party trying to dig through a dead-end, certain that it is hiding the treasure, when it was really an artifact of the random map generator. In a mystery, it can mean mistaking the red herring as truth, or even worse, following an innocuous element as a lead, which as the GM is trying to make up new material, looks inconsistent, which only confirms the player's suspicions. The sad part is, the players are trying their best, they've simply going the wrong way.

The solution to this scenario takes a lot more work.
Corrective action: establish a house rule that you will tell the party when they've gone too off track, you will tell them. Statements like "Further investigation reveals that this really is a dead end.", "Deeper investigation shows that this person may have some secrets, but they have nothing to do with the case". Etc.
Prevention: Use deception sparingly. While it's obvious that bad guys are going to lie, use misleading information sparingly to increase its effectiveness, and avoid hyper-paranoia.

The Truth should be obvious with any investigation attempt. Let's say there's 3 clues on the ground at the crime scene. If the PCs investigate the red herring first, they learn in a few scenes that it was planted there.

The Truth should lead to the Truth. When a PC investigates a red herring, it should reveal it was a red herring, and further investigation should reveal a clue to who planted it. The reason is the same as to what a clue really is, it's a accidental remnant from the criminal. You can't do a murder with out leaving a trace. For the same reason, you can't plant a red herring without leaving a trace. What you're doing with these techniques is making sure that if a PC investigates it, it leads somewhere. Don't waste their time on things that don't matter, and can lead them too far astray. This is why, red herrings also lead back to where the party needs to go. And it is realistic with crime scenes.


Secrets works best with not expecting them. Don't use the same trick over and over again. Always making the butler the murderer, the NPC who hires the party is always going to betray them, the mission is always evil disguised as good, etc. These are cliche. Cliche's work, but only when used sparingly. Plus if you over-use deceptive practices, the party will hyper-focus on every element, which causes them to go the wrong direction, instead of the obvious and expected "right" direction. If you over-use false clues, hidden elements, betrayals, the party will expect them all the time. This will actually slow down game play (searching every 5' for traps), make for unrealistic role-play (the party distrusts every NPC), and logically a party on alert SHOULD detect these things.


Remember, it's not a rail-road to have consequences for the PCs actions or inaction. "I don't want to find the kidnapped mayor" means the bad guy moves forward. The world is not static. A rail-road is where the party can't choose to be inactive, or a specific action. They're not allowed to. A choice with a bad consequence (that a rational person would never make) is not the same as a lack of choice enforced by the GM who nullifies every action but the acceptable one.

If you can master these tips, by understanding "probable" player action/reaction, and adapt to "actual" player action/reaction, you can run a believable and enjoyable adventure.

Janx

I'm going to recommend a gaming style here. Some might think its controversial. Some might think it can't be done. I'd like to point out that it is done by everyone, it's just a matter of quality.

Everytime you play an RPG, you are creating a story. Anytime you tell somebody about your character's past exploits, you are refining and confirming that you created a story in an RPG.

What I propose, is that there is a way to play the game, such that when you are done with the session, the player feels that they were a participant in the story, and not just a bystander or victim of the GM's story.

Even better, is that a retelling of what happened during the game sounds like a story, and less like a series of random encounters.

To get this story-telling gaming to work, you're going to need to study some story-telling in action. Read some fiction books, and watch some TV and movies. Notice the difference between the typical D&D adventure as told literally, compared to how a story gets arranged in TV or books.

One of the key differences, is books and TV seldom spend time on any scene that doesn't do one (or more) of the following:
advance the story
reveal a twist or complication
setback the protagonist
show a reaction to the last scene

Jim Butcher (an author I read) has a blog series on this stuff, you can read that, too.

Compare that to the standard dungeon crawl or overland journey. When you count how many "fight" scenes occur in a D&D session, compared to a action-hero TV show, movie or novel, it's rather ridiculous how many fights we go through.

As a GM, I suggest that you first streamline your adventures. Cut to the chase, as it were. If it's not fun, just tedium, then hand-wave it. Unless you really want to do a dungeon crawl, this would mean killing the traditional room-by-room dungeon crawl.

This means when the party gets hired to find a missing girl, the do some research which pans out to a witness, who mentions a place, and the party goes there, with no problem, and when they get there, the sneak, fight or talk their way past the guards, get to another set of guards holding the girl, free her, just in time to face the BBEG who just got back from checking on another of his fiendish plans.

That's 3 fights, a couple of talking scenes, with a few sneaking scenes in-between, and maybe a skill check to see which "clue" to follow (which all clues are good, because on the NPCs find the useless clues).

What you've got then, is a game session that's faster, and makes for a better retelling. It's also likely to be fun, because you're not wasting time on the boring stuff, like drawing maps, and random encounters.

Once you get used to the format, you'll also think it's a bit simple, and like writers of fiction, you'll change things up by introducing twists and setbacks, etc. If you actually do it the "follow the standard" first, you'll train your players for "normal" mode, so that the twists and setbacks work.

As a side-note, you can't have every plot hook be a devious double-cross or the players will trust no one. That results in some un-fun game play, and kills your ability to use the double-cross.

In the same vein, you've got to balance how you use setbacks. Most stories should have them, and generally, they are there to make what seemed easy, be scaled to the actual party skill level. It's not about stripping the party down and flogging them every chance you get.

I suspect that this style of gaming can be applied to any campaign. The real crux of it, is to cut out time-wasting activities, and get to the real challenges sooner. By doing so, you'll have better pacing, and keep the players involved.

And as a side-effect, your adventures will make better stories.

Janx

I saw the term "Group Therapy with Dice", recently in a thread. I think it was Mallus who said it. It makes a good point, that gaming with people reveals a lot of their personal quirks and flaws.

---
Most of this entry is going to be controversial in advice. Executed to an extreme, it's horrible advice. However, used in moderation, along with good judgement, honest treatment of others, and in positive ways for positive ends, you should get good results.
---

If you skim any threads dealing with problem players, you see the same common theme. People put up with broken people.

Consider that in life, you can't really choose your family, your co-workers, or your classmates. You can choose your friends, however. Who you do voluntary activities with is your business. Life is short, don't waste it playing with people who irritate you.

Consider in RPGs, the obnoxious or traitor PC. Your party will probably accept any PC into the party, because the player is sitting right there, expecting to join. Whereas, any NPC party or real life employer would dump or reject anybody who behaves as the obnoxious or traitor PC does.

What's going on is some people don't understand how to actually work together, be a team, and be friendly. They rely on this default assumption of acceptance, and their personal quirks abuse that acceptance.

Consider the stereotypical school-yard pick-up game of kickball. The two alpha jocks take turns picking, each intending to leave out the sucks-at-sports nerd (or stick him on the other team). They understand that you don't take in people who don't fit in.

Now let me make it clear, it ain't right or job to ostrasize or ridicule people. It's right to give people a chance, and show them good behavior through your own. But in the end, you don't have to hang out with jerks. You don't have to play with obnoxious people who can't work together.

It turns out, from my other hobbies, that gaming isn't the only hobby riddled with defective people. Go check out forums dedicated to playing in bands. They have almost the exact same problems. It's creepy how similar they are.

Common defects I see are:
talks a good game, but doesn't deliver
flakes out on making schedules
argues about ANYTHING, just to argue
doesn't do their assigned tasks/help out
is rude, and offensive
says they'll change, but reverts to form
wants everything to focus on them

Now there are people who have these traits, and they work on keeping them in check. The problem people are those that don't. They're in denial that the behaviors cause problems. Fact is, you can't fix them. Nor should you tolerate the behavior, because it will eat at you, which will cause you to behave badly.

Ultimately, the worst offenders are using your group. Humans are social creatures. Even the anti-social ones. It's like a feral cave-baby, sees the campfire and the community, and wants to be warm. But he can't help but bite everyone at the fire, while he's there.

I suggest, that with 6 billion people on the planet, and you having a finite lifespan, you don't need to waste time on feral cave-babies. Identify them, and excuse yourself from their company.

The trick then, is how to identify them. One thing I suggest, is to be neither too inviting nor too closed. I've met people who almost instantly invite you to their game table or house. That's nuts. You don't really know them, and they don't really know you. You should talk awhile about a lot of different subjects. You should be listening as much as your talking. If it's lopsided, that's a warning sign (execessive talking means your not sharing the conversation). If the person is voicing really strong opinions, beware, you may have an arguer. These people seem clueless that somebody may disagree, and feel they have a righteous cause to convert you. They're certainly not respecting (with caution and qualifying statements) that you may have differing opinions.

Some of the other traits require more time. Somebody has to prove they're a flake, or that they really don't mean the things they say. That's why you don't invite them to your long-running campaign with your best friends. You invite them to something more informal. You need to see if they can make and keep appointments, and follow through. If they play like they say they do. If they chip in with snacks, or if they mooch off everyone else, and don't say thanks. Don't invite them to your home or big game, until you're sure you like them, lest the trust you place on them be turned against you.

Another good, though controversial point, is to surround yourself with people of a comparable station and attitude in life. Extreme Example: Poor gamers playing with 1 rich guy, the rich guy has more resources and may feel that everyone else is mooching off him. Or he may lord his stuff over everyone else. This is the same awkwardness the poor guy in a rich group may feel. The rest of the group talks of going to GenCon as if it were trivial (because it is to them). The poor guy will feel left out, because he can't afford to go, and doesn't want to feel like a charity case.

There are plenty of good examples where a mixed group has value. You don't want to get stuck in group think, though I suspect that happens more when there's pressure to conform. And I'm not talking about having cookie-cutter friends. Since everybody's different, you're not really going to have that. I'm simply talking about building a group of friends who have enough in common, that the differences add value, not subtract. The best commonality is that they don't exhibit those defects I talk above.

Side Career Advice:If you want to be successfull, have successful friends. It's not about sucking up, it's about having connections, habits, and ideas rub off on you.

I certainly don't condone the pretty girl with ugly friends technique, just so she'll look prettier. Or the join the popular group, just to belong. That's not being true to yourself. It's really about surrounding yourself with happy, successful people, not losers who don't achieve anything, or bring you down to their level.

Janx

THe thread on "opposite of railroading" problems lined up with some thoughts I had from Mystery adventures, and simulationist gaming.

Here's the thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general...l-roading.html

Here's most of what I got on simulationist gaming (snipped and tucked from the thread):

As I see it, GMs who try to run simulationist or sandbox games aren't going to be able to do it to the fullest extent of the definition, nor to a "realistic" level. To truly run a simulation, you need a process/methodology for determining everything. And I mean everything, from the exact x,y,z position of every entity in the world, to what they're carrying, to their current mood and goals. At best, a GM can fake it, and that faking it, is actually the same thing GMs in other styles are doing. The sandbox methodology falls into the same category, it's trying to create an open world, which creates a greater burden on the DM to document everything, to create the possibility of what players might do.

A key problem in the sandbox, is like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion does it. A PC can pick up ALL the quests in the game, but never get around to them. And nothing bad happens. And realistically, the GM has to skip applying those consequences, or the campaign world falls into mega-darkness.

What it gets down to is this: Simulationist or sandbox play is trying to achieve the holy grail of RPGs, which is an environment that is completely impartial, yet "realistic". Where it fails, is that it isn't practical for humans to run, and it doesn't always make for a good story. It's too complex to implement human emotion and drive into NPCs, without a GM to fake it.

The extra wrinkle the OP had, was too many ongoing quests, and the players getting indecisive. This too is part of what I see wrong with implementing simulationist/sandbox style (or what happens if done poorly).

My solutions to how I prefer to run things is next:

Problem: the players have too many threads/quests/missions going on

Solution: only give PCs missions/quests/plot hooks related to the current game situation and their PCs goals. On the first game with no real PC goals in a new world, that means giving them a "save the princess" quest that their PCs would undertake. Subsequent games should have missions/side quests related to consequences, new developments, and PC drive goals that develop.

Consider it like real life. If you work for somebody (say as a cop), you get sent on a call, or you see a crime in progress. You don't see 10 crimes in progress, and if you did, you'd still only handle one, and call the others in. Your boss is only going to give you a certain number of projects. If you have side goals (like moving to a new department), you work those angles on the side, while doing the main project.

If you're a freelancer, you don't often get multiple requests at the same time.

Consider it this way, in your sandbox/simulation, the NPCs aren't likely to bring their problems to somebody who's overburdened with their own (like the PCs).

To wrap it further, consider that ultimately, you ARE telling a story. Every PC session is a story, some are just more boring than others (just like every day in your life is a story). Don't make it too convoluted with a million threads. Therefore, talk to the players before you WRITE the next session's material. Ask them, based on the current game situation, what they want to do/pursue/attempt in the next session. Then write to that.

That's actually another part of the solution. Get the party to agree to which "quest(s)" they're actively working on for the next session. Are they going to the Dungeon of Disasterous Doom, or the Cave of Collosal Catastrophe. Commit them to one, and write that dungeon in the next session.

Problem: Too many threads currently in campaign
Solution: The previous solutions are how I avoid the problem of too many threads. Once you got too many, you need to trim them down, to really get the benefit of the advice. Step 1, tell the players you are going to do a new format, as above, to narrow dowb the prep work to just material the players are going to use for the session. Step 2, have NPCs complete some of the other threads, or have them resolve themselves. Basically pull a Mark Twain and drop the magnificent twins down a well, because they weren't as important. Optional Step 3 You can even roll the hero NPCs in later, as the party has to deal with them (perhaps saving the NPCs on a future mission).
Step 4, explain to the PCs that you've done all this to clean up the game world to things the party is actively working on, and they don't need to worry about it. If the old quests come back later, its a so that you can bring new challenges to the party.



This has been nipped/tucked from the original thread. My real points are this:
Simulationist/sandbox play is an illusion created by the DM
This style is hard to implement well by a human GM or computer
This style makes it hard to effect consequences for failure, because with some many things going on (that the party knows about), the consequences take the game where the GM and players may not want it to go.
Lastly, since the GM is the final arbiter of what happens in the game, why are things happening in the game that don't make a good story?

Janx

A recent thread got me thinking about mystery adventures.

The original thread is here: URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/246484-i-hate-mysteries.html"]http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/246484-i-hate-mysteries.html[/url]

I see an interesting anomaly in game play with mysteries.

Consider a murder scene the PCs are investigating. There's a muddy footprint. It matches the butler's shoe. It's a short mystery. However, the PC's don't know about the muddy foot print until they make a perception check. The DC is low. They fail. What do you do now?

Compare that to a combat encounter. The party faces a goblin gaurding a door. the party rolls badly and misses all attacks. The goblin attacks back. Then the party attacks again. If things go well, eventually the party will kill the goblin. If they don't the party can always run away, heal up, and try again later.

The difference is that in a "combat" adventure, it's pretty obvious what needs to be done. And if the party fails, they have chances to try again, including trying the exact same thing.

Whereas, a poorly designed mystery adventure has all the clues tied up in skill checks in order to unlock and advance the game. On the face, all these skill checks look like a great idea, finally a use for non-combat skills.

The real problem is that these skill checks are wired up as one-chance barriers, where it usually doesn't make sense to allow another try (because failing changes the situation in a way that prevents retries).

The solution is two-fold:

Firstly, try to accept plausible reasons for multiple attempts. The party can return to the scene of the crime (to check for missed clues again). They can run that analysis on that sample again. In both examples, the price is time. If the BBEG is a serial killer, the effect is, more time = more victims. You don't have to crank out a murder victim per retry, but you can throw one in, if they've taken a number of days, just to raise the stakes.

Secondly, make sure there are multiple clues/solutions. Just as "setting it on fire" is an often effective combat strategy, there are many valid ways to identify the killer. Make sure the killer has left multiple clues (perhaps different ones at each scene). You can also make it such that each crime scene has an easier clue. Thus, at a price of more victims, the murder gets easier to solve. This is fairly realistic, as murderers tend to get sloppier/bolder as they go.

I've got more thoughts on the topic of murder mysteries, but they'll have to wait until another day.

Janx

I like hand-outs and props when I'm gaming.

I like maps, papers, all sorts of stuff. They're fun, they make the game feel real.

It's impractical to hand a party the entire treasue in physical props. It's not hard, however, to give them tangible items in smaller doses.

The easiest thing is paper hand-outs. When the party hears of a dungeon, give them a map. Now they've got something real, and they can collect a pile of them (kind of like Tasselhoff's map pouch).

It also solves a game problem, if you give them a map right away, you can spend less time describing the physical dimensions of the dungeon. Just roll open the map, and point where they are, and ask where they want to go.

When I give players a map, to make it more "realisitic" I'll often re-draw it by hand, from my version. Imprecision will creep in, and i'll leave off any GM secrets. I'll also usually rough up the paper. Fold it a bunch of times, bang up the edges. You could stain it in tea, if you want to make it look like parchment. Carry it in your book bag, if you want some real wear-n-tear on it.

Any extra effort you put into the map, beyond, printing out a player's copy of the map you generated from a computer, will make the map stand out as special to the players. That's the real point, is to make it FEEL special.


I've also done a newspaper series, for my players. That was harder. I created a basic template in word, with the mast head, and date in place, with 2 column format. Then I'd write up short articles, and fill it in. I'd write an article about a recent event PCs were involved in, one about something the PCs would know, one about a game culture/topic (basically teaching them about the game world), and one that would be about the current politics. Overall, it was about 2-4 pages.

Doing travel papers, and such is another easy one. Declare (after some security crisis) that new laws have been written requiring papers for entry/exit from any walled city. Now to travel to somewhere else, you need to see the local lord and pay for papers. Now you can hand them some.

You can also do adventuring party papers. This is one the party could do (or you could produce on behalf of the players). It might build a team spirit, as they're PC names will be on it.

If you're skilled at leather working (it's not hard, you need a cutting board, steel straight edge, razor knife, hole punch, leather stitching thread/needle, and leather), you can make a lot of cool things. Personally, I've got (my mother made some for me when I started, I've made more):

a dice bag (used the end of welding glove gauntlet)

a pencil case (like a scroll case)

a "spell book" book cover (holds 2 books, PH & DMG)

a "papers" cover (as seen in Pirates of the Carribean), a wrap that holds/protects important documents


Other easy projects: a map case, to hold all those maps and paper hand-outs you keep giving them

A tougher project is the wizards spell book prop. For one game, I built a wizards spell book, with diary entries and spells mixed in. First, I learned, the bare minimum of book making. Namely, pages are bound in units called "choruses" of about 8 sheets. The choruses are then fastened to the book cover.

So, I wrote up a ton of journal entries (they were clues) in Word, and used the Futhark font to make them secret. I used a tolkien elvin script font for the spells, which were copied straight from the SRD. This helped fill out the book, to make it worth it. I interspersed spells with journal entries, and lots of blank pages (presumably so the wizard could write more spells in). Then I printed it all out in 1/2 page format, double sided (that's 2 pages to 1 side).
Then in units of 8 pages, I folded them in half to make mini-books. These are the choruses. I stitched each chorus (the equivalent of stapling in the fold, using thread). Once each chorus was ready, I cheated, and made a spine, the length of the fold edge, and width of the stack of choruses, plus a little more. I then stitched the choruses to the spine. Once all that was done, I glued the spine into the book cover I had made and painted. Both the spine and the book cover were made of thick card-stock (the brown stuff). Overall, it worked well. I gave the book to the player who found the book in-game, and they took several weeks to decipher it (any spell they deciphered the PC could try to learn).

That's all I have time for now. It's your turn to post you prop ideas/instructions.

Janx

I just read a great thread about passports yesterday. http://www.enworld.org/forum/general...ml#post4571130

It got me thinking. In most games, nobody has any papers, so there is very little use for the forgery skill. Imagine if papers were used more commonly.

First off, the thread above points out that Shakespeare refers to passports, and there's a historical exampel from the 1400's. So it's reasonable to assume that a stereotypical D&D campaign would have the resources for this.

Travel papers could be required at city gates. I would assume a kingdom might require its citizens to apply for travel papers to leave their home region. Namely because in their home region, finding someone to verify their identity is easy. Elsewhere, not so much. So before you head off to the big city, apply for papers from the local lord, and now you've got proof that you are who you say you are.

This in turn creates opportunity for forging, since people will want to pretend citicizenship or feign identity, and the proof is on paper, not in disguise.

Travel papers might not even be "required" to leave, so much as required to arrive. So the local lord probably just sells them (pay me, prove you're local, and I'll sign, seal, and hand over your papers).

Papers might also be required to engage in activities. Letters of Marque, licenses, etc. Carrying lots of weapons and armor might require licensing. This creates a revenue stream for the local government, as well as a means of control.

Janx

I've talked about Choice with a capital C and choice with a lower case c. Today, I'm going to go into more detail.

Bob Lewis has written about this on his blog issurvivor.com (and IT related blog). Somewhere deep in his archive is a similar article (which originally helped me formulate my own thoughts on this).

I differentiate in the kinds of choices we make. I capitalize the important, meaningful ones. The unimportant ones, or the ones for which the conclusion is foregone are lower cased.

Here's why. Technically, life is full of choices. Quantum theory even supposes that every choice you make creates a branch in the timeline. Ignoring the butterfly effect (can't measure it, can't go back and re-test it), there are a number of choices we make every milisecond.

Consider it this way, right now, as you read this, you can choose to do one of the following (though not limited to):
continue reading the article
stop reading right now
stop breathing
get up and kill the first person you see
walk out into traffic
break down in tears

In all likelyhood, you will do the first one, continue reading. Technically, you made a choice. However, from the list I gave, the only other palatable one was to stop reading. The likelyhood of a rational person doing any of the others is nil.

Thus, you did not make a Choice. The conclusion was predictable. A person reading an article will probably finish it. They might stop, if they're pressed for time, interrupted or disinterested. The other choices were not actions a sane person would take under normal circumstances.

If you were held up at gunpoint in the mall parking lot, you have some choices as well:
hand over your wallet
lie about having a wallet
fumble and drop the wallet, hoping to get the drop on them
grapple for the gun

Now this is a Choice. What you may choose is not predicatable. It may depend on your mood, how much money you've got on you, you're upbringing, the nature and positioning of the gunman.

The hold-up in a parking lot example is a situation that offers a decision-point. When the bad guy says, "hey, give me your money", you've got seconds to react. That's a lot of time, to figure out what you're going to do, though it won't seem like it. Technically, nothing's happened yet*. Since the bad guy isn't in motion (rushing you or pulling the trigger), you've got more practical options.

*Side note, bad guys talking are less likely to shoot, it's hard to talk and fire at the same time. This is why cops get bad guys talking and ranting, because they're too busy, they can't shoot. It's also a good time to shoot them.


If the bad guy starts in aggressively, rushing you or starting to pull a trigger, you're choices are narrowed down such that your reflexes and instincts should kick in. You should be reacting in combat to fight back, or ducking/fleeing (the fight or flight response). It is highly unlikely that you're going to try to hand over your wallet right then, or do the bumbling act to get closer, because you are about to die.


Now let's tie this back into gaming. Understanding the nature of choice vs. Choice helps you design encounters that give real Choice, and know when encounters don't offer them.

When the party peers around a corner into a room, and sees orcs playing poker, they have Choices to make. They could fight, they could avoid, they could talk, they could trick.

Once combat starts, choices are limited to combat choices, because that's all you can do (running away is also a combat choice). Casting Magic Missile versus stabbing with a dagger may seem like a Choice, but in the big view, it's just fighting.

This means, that when you spring a combat encounter on the party, via Surprise, or because the bad guys, on first sight, draw and charge, all the non-combat choices have been eliminated. Yes, it's technically possible that the bard might successfully talk down the orcs from attacking, if he wins initiative, and can say enough in 6 words before the orcs close with the party and rolls well on diplomacy or bluff. But the probability of him trying, in the face of someone about to attack is unlikely.

Thus, any unlikely action is not a Choice. From a DMing standpoint, it's alright if the players surprise you with something you hadn't anticipated (turning a choice into a Choice). You don't want to block those, just because you didn't think of them during the planning stage. Nor do you want to just accept random ideas that may be stupid. You need to consider them, and abjudicate appropriately.

In turn, when you spring an attacking orc party against the PCs. Combat is the only likely option. They might flee, but most parties don't. Since you can predict obvious choices, and the list is short, you have to recognize that you have not offered a lot of Choice to the players. However, if the result is a TPK, you can't justifiably say, "they didn't have to fight, it was their choice."


To come from the other side, it is OK to have some encounters for which there is only one choice. Not all encounters should be that way, and it is good to make encounters and Choices before that, to allow a Choice before the pre-destined encounter. For example, insulting a man in a bar, versus being diplomatic could be encounter 1. In Encounter 4, he attacks the party because of encounter 1. The party made the Choice in the first encounter, the result occurs in the 4th encounter where the only option is combat (one could even argue it's an extension of the first encounter).


The core lesson here is, how you present encounters, how you run them, enables or disables choices. If you do a post-mortem analysis on the session, and find yourself saying "the chose to do that, and see what happened," I want you to reconsider that. Did the players really have a choice. Or were the encounters setup in a way that there were few ways a rational party would react.

Like the old saying, "if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Give your players tools, and therefore Choices. Don't give them just a hammer, and then complain that all they do is whack things with it.

Janx

The following thread makes a point about not having "locationless" encounters:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general...e-writing.html

Here's a different viewpoint.

Way back when I started gaming, My DM ran a session where the party had to travel to some other place. He decided we'd be crossing through a demon-infested forest.

We crossed straight through, left to right on the map, and hit five or six encounters.

Later, while talking to him about the art of DMing, he told me the lesson he learned from that game. Apparently, he had drawn up the forest, and rolled up every demon for the entire forest. We're talking hundreds of monsters. He did this, because he didn't know which way the party would go, maybe we'd run from an encounter and go off the trail. And mostly he thought he liked rolling up monsters.

When we plowed straight through, it dawned on him, that all he needed to do was roll up 5 or six encounters and plop them in front of us, no matter which way we went. It would have been much less work, and the players wouldn't know the difference.


Now the lesson from my story, and from the other guy's thread is this. Taken literally, and to extreme, the advice of either is bad.

To avoid using locationless encounters (ones that you force in, regardless of what the party does), one might deduce that you must plan out evey nook and cranny of the game world, in case the party goes there, as well as to cover what's there so the party can find out to avoid it.

To avoid writing up unused encounters, you'd make them locationless, and spring them on players regardless of where they are or what they do.

Both are taking advice to extremes, until they become bad advice.


The truth of the matter is that planning encounters requires planning. Almost all encounters should be avoidable, if the party takes steps to become aware of them and then avoid them.

If a dragon guards the south gate, and a giant guards the north gate, attacking the north gate means the party avoids the dragon encounter.

If a party walks a long a trail through the woods, they're not really avoiding anything, so whichever trail they take is good enough to use the same encounter set.

If they go through the same woods, but know goblins tend to guard the central trail, then going off the trail should avoid goblin encounters.


If the mysterious stranger with a map to the dungeon you planned for this session is staying at the Wounded Unicorn Inn, and the party decides to splurge and stay at the Voluptuous Manticore instead, putting the stranger in the Manticore lets you continue with your adventure hook. It makes sense to make the encounter locationless, because it allows you to get the party to the hook. If the party knew a stranger was looking for them (and waiting at the Unicorn), then moving the stranger would be wrong.

This comes down to Choice vs. choice, and it depends on knowledge. If players don't know about encounters you write up and don't use, you've wasted time, ink. Unless you make those missed encounters matter later, it is as if they didn't exist. Therefore, any choice a player makes that unknowingly skips an encounter, is not really a choice. It's coincidental, and unimportant.

A real Choice is one in which the player makes an informed decision about. To attack the North Gate guarded by a Giant or the South Gate guarded by a Dragon, that is the Choice.

If the player knows the forces arrayed, they are then choosing an important factor. If they are oblivious to what guards each gate, then it doesn't really matter, and you could have a dragon show up the gate they chose (and ironically enough, inform them later in game that a giant guared the other gate).

Here's what I think you should take away from all this when planning an encounter:
Can the PCs learn about this encounter before they get to it? How?
Can the PCs avoid this encounter? How?
Should this encounter be moved, if the situation calls for it? Is it flexible in location?
Is this encounter a chokepoint? What is an alternate Choice?

Consider those questions as you write your adventure's encounters. Plan for them, and your encounters will be better.

Janx

Way of the Tiger

Tora Meijin Lo Huang founded Tora No Do (“Way of the Tiger”) 200 hundred years when he was lost in the mountain hills. He searched for the way for hours when he caught glimpse of a white tiger. He followed the tiger, loosing sight of it, only to see it again as it led him. Finally he found himself on a road leading to his village. The tiger was no where to be seen. He arrived in his village to see invaders from the Dragon Clan attacking. He took cover, hoping to see an opening where he could save his people. From out of nowhere, the white tiger sprang into the center of the invading men and began tearing them to pieces. Lo Huang knew then that his time to strike had come. He leaped in among the men and fought with such ferocity that few of the Dragon Clan survived to run away. Villagers say that day that they saw only one tiger that day, and it was Lo Huang, savior of their village.



The Tora No Do style is an aggressive style preferring quick strikes against the enemy over advanced grappling, dodging and throws. Practitioners of this style are skilled in hunting their prey, having patience to wait for the opportune moment, and then to attack with full force and disregard for pain and injury, just as the tiger would.



As students advance in skill, they are recognized by being allowed to wear belts of the appropriate color. A student advances to a higher ranking by defeating a fellow student of equal ranking in an honor duel, the Shoushin Sainou.

The rankings are as follows:

Ranking, Monk Level, Belt, Title
Jukyu, 1, White, Tabite
Kukyu, 2, Yellow, Wakamono
Hachikyu, 3, Yellow 1 tassel,
Sichikyu, 4, Yellow 2 tassels,
Rokkyu, 5, Green, Wakamusha
Gokyu, 6, Green 1 tassel,
Yonkyu, 7, Green 2 tassels,
Sankyu, 8, Brown, Bushi
Nikyu, 9, Brown 1 tassel,
Ikkyu, 10, Brown 2 tassels,
Shodan, 11, Black, Sensai
Nidan, 13, Black 1 tassel,
Sandan, 15, Black 2 tassels,
Yondan, 17, Black 3 tassels,
Godan, 19, Black 4 tassels,
Rodan, 21, Red & White, Meijin
Sichidan, 23, Red & White 1 tassel,
Hachidan, 25, Red & White 2 tassels, Meijin Sensai
Kudan, 27 Red & White 3 tassels,
Judan, 30, White 1 tassel, Tora Meijin


One common misconception is that belt level rankings match a character’s level in Monk. The table above indicates an approximate Monk class level to a given belt level. Typically, a character must reach that level, before being allowed to participate in Shoushin Sainou. It is even possible for a character to be higher Monk level than belt level.



Basic Etiquette

Always bow before entering the dojo

Always remove shoes before entering a building (home or dojo)

Always bow to superior before speaking

Never interrupt a superior, wait to be acknowledged before beginning

Always bow when before leaving

Always address a superior by their title, not their name


The Shoushin Sainou

Each martial artist strives to attain mental and physical discipline. Their achievements are recognized by the Shoushin Sainou. It is a contest where all eligible students for a belt rank fight each other. The combat is non-lethal but brutal. The victorious student is promoted to the next level and the master puts a new belt or adds a tassle to the student’s belt. Some Shoushin Sainou have many students vying for the honor, and each round pits two students against each other in elimination tournament style.



The Batsu Fumeiyo

Honor is what binds society. Honor is gained through loyalty, duty, respect, and service to others. When that honor is forsaken, the Batsu Fumeiyo must be undertaken. As there are four ways of wind, there are four paths to honor, thus there are four parts to restoring one’s honor: Sacrifice, Pain, Humiliation, and Redemption. The Batsu Fumeiyo is required of one who has committed the greatest crimes. Few survive the ritual, but all have their honor redeemed.



Basic Combat Techniques (below black belt):

Punch
Reverse Punch
Back Fist
Spinning Back Fist
Uppercut
Reverse Uppercut
Throat Strike
Ridge Hand Strike
Reverse Ridge Hand Strike
Knife Hand Strike
Palm Strike
Double Palm Strike
Clenched Fist Strike
Elbow Strike
Round House Kick
Side Kick
Front Kick
Thrust Kick
Stomp Kick
Hook Kick
Axe Kick
Crescent Kick
Spinning Back Kick
Spinning Side Kick
Spinning Round House Kick
Spinning Hook Kick
Spinning Crescent Kick
Jump Front Kick
Jump Side Kick
Jump Round House Kick


Basic Blocks:

Overhead Forearm block
Middle Forearm Block
Downward Forearm Block
Double Forearm Block
Knife Hand Block
Double Knife Hand Block
Leg Check
Knee Block
Wrist Block
Double Wrist Block
High X Block
Low X Block


Dojos of Tora No Do

There are several dojos that teach the Way of the Tiger. They were formed by former students of Lo Huang and they have spread to distant lands.



Dojo of the White Claw

One such dojo is the Dojo of the White Claw. It is led by Meijin Shin Yu. The dojo teachs the philosophy of the Tao-Dan. There are 50 students at this dojo, of various ranks. Many of Master Yu’s pupils join the Navy Corps to serve as marines. The Dojo of the White Claw is located in the Wu Kyen province on the Tarais Island.



Resources:
http://japanese.about.com/blbeginkanji.htm

http://www.karatebc.org/history/

Janx

A recent thread about not seeing a beholder while in combat got me thinking.

I get the sense from a number of threads about combat, that the people talking about what's realistic, and such, don't have any fighting experience. Mainly because they suppose what may or may not be possible, and it doesn't jive with my actual experience.

I'm a martial artist. I earned a black belt in IshenRyu about 5 years ago. I've taken fencing classes, and I've even done the sword fighting with wooden swords thing (dangerous actually). I've got $15,000 worth of metal plates in my head from a sparring injury. I've not seen everything, I'm not the best in my class. But I've been around, and done enough to have a sense of what fighting's like. It's kind of like a forensic scientist watching CSI and seeing just how wrong they are.

Now a side note, it's been my observation that there's a lot of military people who are gamers. There's also a lot of COmputer Science majors who take some karate as well. CompSci folks have a high % chance of being a gamer. So the hobby is filled with people who've got fighting experience of some sort. Note, fighting in a war zone is not the same as fighting in a ring, but there are valuable ideas for gaming that can come both experiences.


I'd also like to point out, that what's realistic may not make for good game play. It may bog things down, or simply not be much fun. Rules that make things take longer to resolve, or less likely to suceed, or screw the players over tend not to be good rules.

So while we get babbling about actual fighting, keep an eye out for what would be good encounter ideas, fight descriptions, and rules for combat actions and feats.

I'm going to start by just throwing down a pile of observations. Rather than calling them facts, it's simply what I've observered, based on my qualified experience. I might throw in a parenthetical note about what game rule might fit in.

Fighting Observations:
karate sparring takes place in a 20' square ring (kind of like your typical dungeon room)

combatants tend to circle each other, to keep the opponent moving and shifting (5' steps occur a lot)

It is common to reverse the circling, to throw off the enemy's movement (imagine everyone deciding their 5' step, then revealing it and resolving by initiative order)

In a typical sparring match, you score a point for hitting the front torso. Some styles may score a point for a head-shot. Some styles reward for doing a near-hit, where the attacker demonstrated the ability to hit the head, but the restraint to stop it an inch away.

Generally in sparring, you wear pads, and your attack is supposed to be controlled, and light, not hard enough to do damage.

when the enemy attacks, he might miss, you might block it with an arm or leg, or he may hit in a scoring zone, or he may hit so hard, it hurts, regardless of legal strike-zone.

Your attacker might use a side-kick or thrust kick to shove you back. The goal isn't to score a point, but the control your positioning

In a sparring match, the harder you hit, the more likely your opponent will hit harder back. It is like a nuclear war escalation.

Getting hit hard may pause you from fighting, or you may take it and fight harder. When I took a spinning heel kick to the orbital tripod (cheek bone). I saw stars, and went down to my knees. I didn't black out, but the fight stopped. I could have resumed the match after a break, but I knew something was wrong. I had 3 fractures, and could have had my eye sink into the cavity below the eye socket (going out of alignment). The white of my eye turned red over the next day. I had $15,000 in metal plates to fix the fractures, a concussion (#4 I think). I also had a headache. I took 2 excedrin a day for a week, until I had the surgery.

While fighting multiple opponents, I often try to maneuver them such that I only face 1 at a time. I've done it such that 1 guy is stuck behind the other guy (in an open ring). Having a partner helps.

In a melee fight, you will probably be moving around a lot, thus seeing a lot of the area around you (justifying the non-facing of D&D). You won't simply be looking in one direction the whole time.

Assuming similar sized opponents and allies on the level field, you won't know exact numbers of a large enemy force, because you can't truly see them all. But you will know there's a lot.

Unless it blind-sides you, you will sense a new attacker coming in at you. Might not block it, but that's what AC is for.

You will likely notice large obvious threats. So much so, that you might not notice smaller ones, because the big one draws your attention. We call that a diversion.

Using a shield makes you MUCH harder to hit. I used an aluminum sledding disc, when we used to stick fight. I barely ever got hit, compared to those I was fighting.

Hitting somebody is a matter of distraction, opportunity, and speed. Black belts get hits scored by white belts, though seldom. White belts can hit a black belt easily enough, but not necessarily a scoring blow (that difference matters in a real fight, where the entire body is legal).

If you do the same move 3 times, you establish a pattern. You can then start that same move and your opponent is likely to block it the same way, which allows you to change it to something else.

Karate is usually divided into two types, hard and soft. Hard usually means kicks and strikes. Soft usually means trips and throws.

Aikido, is a soft style, where the practitioner doesn't attack, they only react to an attack. Basically, they avoid getting hit, and can transform the movement of your attack into a throw. (in game terms, the aikidio guy never makes an attack roll, on any attack by an enemy, they would roll to do an aikido move instead of using just their AC)

A low level aikido student is beatable in a fight. They don't know that much, and it can be a speed issue (who does their move faster). A high level aikido guy is frustratingly hard to deal with. I know this from personal experience.

Arguing about who can beat who in karate is stupid. For any given attack you throw at me, I will/will not block it in time, move out of reach or counter it with my own attack or turn your attack against you, or you will pull back fast enough. If you do hit me, if you don't hit hard enough, I will of course retaliate. This also goes vice versa. It all comes down to speed plus luck (kinda like initiative).

Always assume anybody you meet is a black belt and can beat you. Much like treating a texan like he's always got a gun. It's polite. And you will never under estimate their ability to beat you. Additionally, you never know when they'll get a lucky shot in, even if they do suck at fighting.

Most unarmed fights end up on the ground. Watch a few bar fights and you'll see. After a few punches, they start grappling, they go down, and then it's wrestling. I actually took a ground fighting seminar, as part of my training.

Hitting a guy in the head is dangerous. There are legal issues (might be construed as intent to kill, rather than self defense). There are countless instances of where a serious blow to the head did not incapacitate and made him even more dangerous. Even more so, there appears to be a gender difference. Many boys have been in a fight or two. Most girls have not. By adulthood, a man isn't as shocked to be hit in the face as a girl might (or anyone who hasn't been in some fights). Additionally, a blow to the face will probably enrage the man (if it isn't strong enough to hurt him, like my injury). This is why it IS REALLY DUMB for a woman to slap their boyfriend when she's mad at him. It's like angering a bull in his pen. I have no idea how it is for the other gender (I don't plan on slapping women to find out). This is why the stereotypical ritual of challenging for a duel involves slapping the challenged with a glove.

Go for the joints. I know women all think the first target is the groin. Boys have had many attempts on their jewels. They're not stupid, and their first reflex will be to block with a thigh or hand. Knees however, are easy to kick, and easy to injure, especially if you can attack from the side (the way they don't bend). Point of fact, I don't think I've ever been groined in a sparring match. I did have one student who twice forgot his cup, and both times, got groined. He wasn't very bright.

My experience on ranged combat is limited to video games. It ain't the same, though I apply my training to it (yes it works, I kill well).

Friendly fire (in my experience FPS games) happens because I tend to shoot moving objects that I see entering my area. It especially happens when someone on my team leaves my area, and comes back through a different vector. Meaning, if you were always on my right, I'm not likely to shoot you when I spin to the right to take out a new attacker. I am likely to shoot you, because you wandered off, and when I come across you again, at a distance, you're just a moving target.

I'm less likely to FF in melee, because of the proximity. It's at a distance, with a ranged weapon, especially on first viewing. If for some reason I don't fire, and you don't fire at me, it gives me time to determine you are a friend.

So FF is a matter of how much time I've got to determine if you are a threat (we're talking miliseconds here). It's also a matter of vector. If I come across from the side, 2 parties shooting back and forth, it's obvious one side may be may allies, and I will pause to verify.

If I'm running down a corridor and turn a corner and there's movement down at the end, I'm likely to shoot first, identify body later.

I would hope that military folks get better training on this, but I imagine that left to their own devices, it happens the same way. (any military folks wanna comment on FF, and ranged combat...please do).



That's a whole slew of thoughts. I'd like to open up the floor, in the following fashion. If you have a question about real fighting, post it here. I'd like to limit answers about fighting to people with real training of any kind (martial arts, police, military). Please briefly state your background, and feel free to answer based on your observations (meaning there may be multiple viewpoints, neither wrong). I'd like to avoid answers from arm-chair warriors with no training or experience, because that's exactly what I'm trying to resolve here.

Janx