Free-Form vs. Tactical Gaming

[Water Bob]

I started this thread here because I'm going to discuss a problem I've been having with a player due to tastes in gaming styles. Moddies, please more this to the Legacy forum if you think it more appropriate.





I've been having several problems with a player stemming from his dislike of how the game is being run. He finds a lot of things "unrealistic", and it wasn't until today, after several gaming sessions, that I figured out his point of view and the cause of these problems.

We're currently playing the Conan RPG, which is a 3.5 clone, pretty much, with some changes (magic system completely differernt than D&D; Armor absorbs damage and doesn't make you harder to hit; etc).

My player is a long-time AD&D 1E and 2E player.

These are two very different games. AD&D 1E and 2E, depsite their wargaming roots, are very much free-form roleplaying games. D&D 3E/3.5E is a tactical combat system.

I can better explain the different in the two with an example.



- Free-Form Gaming (1E and 2E AD&D)-

You have a spear in your hand, and you're traveling down a corridor.

GM: You round a corner and you see a guard about 60 feet from you.

You: What's he doing?

GM: He sees you, draws his sword, and is running at you as fast as he can, yelling at the top of his lungs to raise the alarm.

You: Great. I'll throw my spear!

GM: Make your attack. You miss? OK, he closes the distance and swings at you. I'll roll his attack....he hits. Remove 7 hit points.





- Tactical Gaming (3E and 3.5E D&D) -


You have a spear in your hand, and you're traveling down a corridor.

GM: You round a corner and you see a guard 60 feet from you.
Roll initiative. OK, it looks like the guard has initiative.

As you rounded the corner, and you see this big, yelling guard charging you, he closes distance and swings. You're flat-footed. He hit. Take off 7 hit points.

You: Wait...You mean I see a guard 60 feet away, and he can run that entire distance and attack me, and an AC 10, no less, and I never get a chance to throw my spear before he gets there?

GM: You could have thrown your spear and/or done anything you wanted to had you won initiative. But, you lost, so your character is a bit sluggish with his reactions, giving the charging guard the time he needed to get to you.

You: Hmmm....





Those two scenarios are pretty much the root of the evils that have been sprouting up in my game with this player because my player can't seem to find the tactical combat method "realistic". He doesn't "get" how every character is allowed to move and act for a full six seconds before, in initiative order, the next character's turn.

He's more used to the give-n-take of freeform gaming where you work out, in narrative format, what you're doing, reacting to what your NPCs are doing.

With freeform gaming, it's almost a gentlemen's agreement as to what is happening in the game, and partial moves are made all the time.

With tactical game, there are regimented rules describing all possible moves, and a character's turn is rarely interrupted by another.

Two different styles of play.

I like both of them. I probably prefer the Free-Form, but that's not the game we're playing.





Do you know of any websites that would give advice on playing a 3E based game in a more Free-Form manner?

 

[billd91]

Interesting dilemma. I tend to prefer the more free-form elements as well, increasingly so I think.

One thing to keep in mind with your example - the situation you describe for 3e/Conan could occur in 1e as well. If the guard had won initiative and charged in 1e, he could have gotten his attack in before the PC could have thrown his spear. That said, at the end of the charge, the unthrown spear would have gotten the first attack because it was longer than the guard's sword.

This is one of those times in which you simply have to say "Screw the rules" and use your DM sense to show you how to handle the situation in a better way that may not follow the rules but "feels" right.

 

[Water Bob]

One thing to keep in mind with your example - the situation you describe for 3e/Conan could occur in 1e as well. If the guard had won initiative and charged in 1e, he could have gotten his attack in before the PC could have thrown his spear....

Actually, not really. The difference is when initiative is thrown.


- 1E AD&D Initiative Example -

You are traveling down a corridor. You've got your longsword out and ready to use.

GM: As you round the corner, to see this guard, 30 feet away from you. He sees you, too, and moves to engage, brandishing his own longsword.

You: I'll walk towards him, swinging my weapon and losening my shoulders, getting my body ready for the attack.

GM: He closes distance, and we go into melee. Roll initiative. You win, so you get first attack as he approaches.





The difference in that, with 3E/3.5E, initiative determines when the character acts....not just when he attacks. The character doesn't move or attack or do anything until it's his turn, on his initiative count.

In 3E, the above scenario can't happen because if the guard won initiative, he would close distance and attack first. There's no way the guard could close distance but have the PC attack first unless the PC was using a Ready Action (which would not be possible because the PC moved more than 5 feet).


In other words, initiative, in the two game, means two different things. Initiative in 1E AD&D is a tie breaker to determine who attacks first. In 3E D&D, initiative is a mechanisim to determine who acts first--who gets to play out his entire round's worth of actions first.

There's a big difference in the two games.

 

[billd91]

In other words, initiative, in the two game, means two different things. Initiative in 1E AD&D is a tie breaker to determine who attacks first. In 3E D&D, initiative is a mechanisim to determine who acts first--who gets to play out his entire round's worth of actions first.

There's a big difference in the two games.

It's not that different. Check page 62 (and the pages that follow) of the 1e DMG. Initiative in 1e isn't merely a tie breaker to determine who attacks first, it's also a mechanism to determine who acts first. Though I will agree that 1e does include a lot more blending and alternating of actions than 3e. That along with the roll-once-go-in-cycle nature are the most telling differences. 3e determining who acts first is NOT a difference.

 

[Spatula]

Hurm, we always played that initiative was the order that people got to go each round in 1e and 2e. But without a 1e DMG I dunno if we were playing by the rules as far as that goes. I've never heard of this idea where who gets to move first is a "gentleman's agreement." 2e certainly didn't work that way.

 

[Water Bob]

2e certainly didn't work that way.

It did...sorta. I've had several conversations with Steve Winter, one of the three design heads of 2E. He told me one of the mandates of 2E was to break the game away from the graph paper plot and into a more free-form situation where the GM describes the action and the players react to that description. (Winter also said that they were trying to please those that wanted to keep the graph paper plot, too.)

Look at the 2E combat round. It is designed to facilitate play with a GM and players sitting around a coffee table, in comfortable chairs, describing the action to each other. This contrasts with 1E's combat round that is meant for the players all to be scrunched over a graph paper plot on the kitchen table.

In 2E, what happens? The combat round starts with the GM going around the room having everyone declare their actions for the round. Then, the GM directs play based on what everyone has said, not unlike this:

GM: Up ahead of you, in the forest, you see these green humanoid plopping out of the trees. Trolls! They come bounding toward you.

At this point, initiative is thrown, and actions are declared. Then, once all actions are declared, the GM moves the combat round forward.

It's not quite like the free-form of 1E, but it is definitely not the regimented tactical system of 3E.

But, really, I'm not looking to get into a discussion of the merits of the different combat systems from previous editions of D&D. I'm more interested in how I can bring free-form play to the tactical wargame that is D&D 3E.

 

[Niccodaemus]

One solution to this is to roll initiative to before describing what players see. Initiative seems to be a lot more like "surprise".

So... you are walking down a corridor. You reach a corner. Roll initiative.

Ok.. you lost. As you round the corner, you see a guard running towards you. He screams as he closes the distance. Before you can throw your spear or ready yourself for the attack you are engaged in hand to hand combat. He catches you flatfooted.

OR


You won initiative. A you round the corner, a guard sees you. You've startled him. He is about 60 feet away. What do you do.

Throw my spear.

You catch him flatfooted. Roll.

 

[Spatula]

In 2E, what happens? The combat round starts with the GM going around the room having everyone declare their actions for the round. Then, the GM directs play based on what everyone has said, not unlike this:

GM: Up ahead of you, in the forest, you see these green humanoid plopping out of the trees. Trolls! They come bounding toward you.

At this point, initiative is thrown, and actions are declared. Then, once all actions are declared, the GM moves the combat round forward.

It's not quite like the free-form of 1E, but it is definitely not the regimented tactical system of 3E.

Sorry, I'm not really seeing the difference on a functional level. Your initiative count determines when you go, and if you lose initiative, it's entirely possibly that some foe can run up and stab you before you get a chance to act.

But, really, I'm not looking to get into a discussion of the merits of the different combat systems from previous editions of D&D. I'm more interested in how I can bring free-form play to the tactical wargame that is D&D 3E.

Toss out the rules. I'd love to be more helpful, but what you described in your original post is unlike anything that I've ever seen in over 30 years (gah!) of playing D&D. Unless it was a killer DM that gave the enemies free attacks instead of the players! But as near as I can figure, you're looking for permission to ignore the initiative structure and replace it with some DM fiat, yes? If that's what you and your players want, just do it. You're the DM! Change the game however you desire to make it more enjoyable for you & your players.

 

[LostSoul]

Do you know of any websites that would give advice on playing a 3E based game in a more Free-Form manner?

I run 4E in a free-form manner; it's not 3E, but in terms of tactical combat they aren't that different.

Basically, in my game I dropped initiative. Everyone acts at the same time. Dice rolls determine if you're successful in your action or not. Movement and distance is the most confusing thing; you get a bonus to AC if you run out of range, the distance out of range determining the size of the bonus.

There aren't many issues in the rules with this system. Some feats and abilities might get screwed up, but you can change them on a case-by-case basis when the need arises.

 

[Water Bob]

One solution to this is to roll initiative to before describing what players see.

I think the issue, after long thought, is movement. Each issue seems to deal with movement somehow, as in, "I should have been able to do this before he moved that far!"

Here's an example the he came up with to stress his point. Consider a PC facing a bad guy 10 feet away. Then, place a little child right behind the PC. In a straight line, you end up with: Bad Guy, empty 5' square, PC, child.

The bad guy is trying to kill the child. The PC is protecting the child.

Roll initiative. Bad Guy wins.

The bad guy can actually move 30' around the PC's threatened area to attack the child from an angle in base to base contact without the PC getting a chance to attack him.

My player says this is idiotic, allowing the bad guy to move in that big circle around the PC to get to the child, when the PC would, in real life, should be able to simply take one step (a 5' step) to be able to protect the kid.

So, yeah, the problem is movement. I need to think how to fix this.