I swing my sword

[MinistryOfGame]

Yeah, I've experienced this. In an extended combat, you can start to see the DM reaching the limits of his descriptive repertoire, and certain distinct patterns start to emerge, until you can almost predict what's coming next. <snip poignant illustration>

I've seen other DMs do this, and I think there is something they don't quite grasp (or ignore, or haven't thought of, or whatever) that the combat system is an abstract system. It's actually not the easiest concept to come to terms with, unless you've thought about it - that HP doesn't simply represent how much blood you have in your squishy body. When one frees themself from that understanding, and you see that HP can represent a mix of endurance, physical wounding, morale, pain tolerance and more, then there's no need to describe various cuts, bruises and wounds for every successful hit.

One caveat to that, though - you might have to explain your descriptions to your players if they like to be able to link your descriptions more literally to game mechanics. Otherwise the idea that they aren't really making contact with the enemy, and then all of a sudden a sword thrust runs him through and he dies (even though he had 90HP) can be confusing to them.

I personally don't explain this to them (they figure it out eventually), but I don't have the kind of players who care about mechanics so much, so it's okay. I possibly would explain it if I did have such players (and didn't feel that it was my responsibility to break them of this attitude, which is rare).

 

[Janx]

I've seen other DMs do this, and I think there is something they don't quite grasp (or ignore, or haven't thought of, or whatever) that the combat system is an abstract system. It's actually not the easiest concept to come to terms with, unless you've thought about it - that HP doesn't simply represent how much blood you have in your squishy body. When one frees themself from that understanding, and you see that HP can represent a mix of endurance, physical wounding, morale, pain tolerance and more, then there's no need to describe various cuts, bruises and wounds for every successful hit.

One problem with this:

Arrows. I have 9. I shoot them at the scary enemy as he approaches and he drops at my feet, leaving me with 1 arrow left.

Clearly each arrow was a distinct attack that either hit or missed.

And I don't believe in having seperate definitions for what is mechanically the same thing (melee vs. ranged).

 

[MarkB]

One problem with this:

Arrows. I have 9. I shoot them at the scary enemy as he approaches and he drops at my feet, leaving me with 1 arrow left.

Clearly each arrow was a distinct attack that either hit or missed.

And I don't believe in having seperate definitions for what is mechanically the same thing (melee vs. ranged).

That one doesn't bother me so much - even if your opponent is just being exhausted dodging your arrows or staggered by them bouncing off his armour, that could still represent hit point damage.

Where it gets trickier is poisoned weapons. If your first attack against an enemy that just barely scrapes off a handful of hit points is also sending a dose of poison through his veins, it's a little difficult to suggest that it was a near-miss that's merely disrupted his concentration a bit.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I think there's a difference between having a bad experience as an unexperienced gamer and bring that argument to bear on 1e/2e AD&D when you've got years of experience under your belt.

Sure - but the issue arises not only in newbie versions of the game, but in long-running campaigns lead by experienced DMs who aren't "awesome DMs[..] who kn[o]w [...] to stage their fights in interesting-enough areas that there [is] always something other than swinging your sword to do, [and] fairly and consistently adjudicate the various oddball action attempts that their players managed to dream up."

Experience is no guarantor of competence, let alone awesomeness.

So, while I, as an experienced roleplayer, might say "Hey - I know, I want to pick up the table and throw it over onto the enemies," there's no guarantee that the DM will 1) let it work at all, or 2) let it accomplish something beyond swinging my sword if it does work.

Saying that all you could do is swing your sword is a poor argument when you can be expected to know better by now.

I do know better; I play using game systems with in-built mechanical support for options beyond swinging your sword, and avoid "Mother May I" systems when and as possible.

 

[WHW4]

Yeah, I've experienced this. In an extended combat, you can start to see the DM reaching the limits of his descriptive repertoire, and certain distinct patterns start to emerge, until you can almost predict what's coming next.

"You swing your sword at the [HOBGOBLIN] with a [STYLISH FLOURISH]. It hits him in the

[ARM] leaving a [SHALLOW] cut. The [HOBGOBLIN] appears to be [MODERATELY WOUNDED, BUT STILL EAGER TO FIGHT]."​

Combat Madlibs. I'm diggin it.

This deserves it's own thread.

"You swing your [IMPLEMENT] at the [BARMAID] with a [CLUMSY TIMING]. It hits her in the [APRON] leaving a [SMALL DEPRESSION]. The [BARMAID] appears to be [MORTIFIED]."​

 

[Stormonu]

I do know better; I play using game systems with in-built mechanical support for options beyond swinging your sword, and avoid "Mother May I" systems when and as possible.

Out of curiosity, what system(s) do you consider to have "in-built mechanical support", and to what degree? (I expect 4E is one, but somehow I doubt its the only one)

 

[P1NBACK]

And anyone who says stuff like this is deliberately trying to be insulting, and dismissive of other people's problems.

Nah, that's . What he said is very legitimate.

If you wanted to share this comment with a moderator, then you should have used email or PM. Publicly calling out moderators isn't tolerated, and leads to a 3 day ban, as P1NBACK is just finding out. Plane Sailing, ENworld admin

 

[jmucchiello]

So, while I, as an experienced roleplayer, might say "Hey - I know, I want to pick up the table and throw it over onto the enemies," there's no guarantee that the DM will 1) let it work at all, or 2) let it accomplish something beyond swinging my sword if it does work.

I don't want to derail this into a rule discussion but really, how would you do that in 3e/4e beyond DM fiat? And won't "experienced" DMs handle those ad hoc rules better than the novice DM who might not even allow it. After all, there are no "pick up random large objects and fling them" rules in either game. It sounds like a ranged trip attempt (as you hope to knock them down, right?) Maybe give them unwanted cover (there's a table on your chest and you are prone).

 

[Stormonu]

Hmm, I am suddenly reminded of 4Es mantra, "you don't need rules to roleplay", and from the comment above, I'm starting to feel the same way towards combat stunts - just page 42 'em and drop the stuff like Tide of Iron.

 

[kaomera]

It's possible to play a bad game of any RPG (and any edition of any RPG). Two things that I want in a game, before I'll consider it to not be a bad game, are 1) an understanding that the players get to have their characters do stuff, and 2) an understanding that the fiction of the game is significant. In both cases I think that communication is the core issue.

Some games add a lot of "crunch" to the area of doing stuff, which to me means two things: 1) it's definitely more work, and 2) if the crunch is good then that work pays off big dividends. I know that when I play a game like 4e, a lot more specific stuff happens in a fight than when I was playing 1e. We did, usually, "just swing our swords" in 1e, and IIRC I never actually swung from a chandelier. (At the same time, 75%+ of my 4e games tend to be fights, compared to maybe 30%+ in 1e, so there'd better be more happening...) I have played in 4e games, however, where all that extra stuff, and the work that goes along with it, didn't actually seem to mean anything. Just doing stuff isn't enough to keep me satisfied with a game, but "crunch" creates a communication to all present of exactly (or not-so-exactly, depending...) how certain things work.

Some games take the approach of avoiding mechanical "crunch" in some areas. The idea is that you let more free-form roleplay and a consensus of what's going on in the fiction define things. If my character walks into a bar and orders an ale, I don't usually expect to be making a bunch of die rolls to figure out what happens, and this can apply to much more important stuff. This relies a lot on communication, obviously. If I announce that I walk into a bar and order an ale, and the DM knows that there isn't a bar in the town for a particular reason, but hasn't made that clear to me, there might be an issue. (But IME usually not - the DM tells me that I can't find a bar in the town and I file away a potentially useful tidbit of information and try to do something else.) I need this kind of fictional backdrop to be present in a real an meaningful way to really enjoy a game.

I'm willing to put distance between the "crunch" and the "fluff" to accomplish this - to me that's always seemed to be the way things have been supposed to work. The "crunch" answers very specific questions for and about the fiction, like "do I 'hit'?" or "how much 'damage' do I do?", but not more philosophical considerations like "what does a 'hit' or 'damage' mean?" That's up to the players, IMO.

I've seen two real potential problems with "crunch": One is that it can (and IME does, far more often than it should, although I couldn't tell you exactly why that is) lead to players ignoring (to a greater or lesser degree) actual communication. One particular issue I seem to keep stumbling over is "what is this world like?" For a lot of players that's something that they feel can be handled completely mechanically; if it's in the rules it should be fair game, right? And to be fair that's a completely reasonable PoV (which is part of my problem, because it makes me feel kind of jerkish to disallow even stuff that really rubs me the wrong way in my games). But I don't always feel that any and every option is really appropriate to a game.

The other issue is somewhat related: D&D is (IMO) supposed to be awesome. That's basically why I play D&D (or any other RPG). But I don't personally put too much weight on the "crunch" when figuring how awesome is. It's significant, but it's certainly not enough on it's own. And I've run into a lot of players who seem to rate "crunch" as the major or even exclusive factor in how awesome something is. Sometimes that's OK, but other times I find that the players actually want their "crunch" to matter to the fiction, they just either don't recognize that or they don't know how to accomplish it. And that can leave me trying to make a rules element I maybe don't care for that much awesome for the player... And that's not really a chore that I relish.