101 roleplaying descriptions justifying martial dailies

[Mallus]

Because it's NOT required! It does not fit how the game has been played in my experience.

Then how do you describe what happens during a minute-long AD&D combat round? More importantly, how does it relate, or not relate, to the players stated actions? How much of the DM's descriptions amount to after-the-fact narration?

This seems like a perfectly reasonable line of inquiry to me.

I can see how one might think of playing it that way, if one were weaned on the teat of Wizards or White Wolf designs -- but that was obviously not the case of anyone in the 1970s!

I wouldn't know about gaming in the 1970s. I started playing AD&D/LLB Traveller/Champions in the 1980s. For the record, I've never played a White Wolf game.

I'm honestly curious about all this. Let's not descend into assumptions of partisanship, yes?

 

[Mallus]

That depends upon the game design and how it is meant to be used.

One would imagine that character abilities are used to define some of what your character can do in the game-space. For example, fight with a sword or cast a spell.

Entitlement (and its other face: prohibition for want of game-mechanical prerequisites) crept in with house rules concerning the thief class, and later with treatment of non-weapon proficiencies.

So at some point defining your characters abilities becomes entitlements? Care to offer some rhyme or reason here?

 

[Andor]

Then how do you describe what happens during a minute-long AD&D combat round? More importantly, how does it relate, or not relate, to the players stated actions? How much of the DM's descriptions amount to after-the-fact narration?

The one-minute combat round was often debated. Usually we either ignored it or house ruled it to be shorter. Since D&D has never pretended to a blow-by-blow combat system it did not effect the abstraction one way or the other. D&D combat has always been described as "You circle and trade blows for a round seeking an opening. Roll to hit." First openings came up every minute. Then they came up every 10 seconds. Then every 6. At no point does it reflect the fractions of a second that resolve real combat, or the fact that in a real fight you might spend 20 seconds doing nothing much.

The key point is that "I attack" is abstract, but clear. You're not dictating the actions of others, you're not accomplishing the impossible, and you're not performing some merely physical action that mysteriously can only be done once per day.

Frankly I don't even see how you draw a parallel between the abstraction of earlier editions and the bizarreness of 4e.

 

[Andor]

So at some point defining your characters abilities becomes entitlements? Care to offer some rhyme or reason here?

If I have the level 7 encounter power "Come and Get It" I am entitled to once per fight force every foe within 18 feet to close with me, regardless of whether or not it makes the slightest bit of sense for them to do so. Regardless, in fact, of if they are physically capable of doing so.

Without using magic. Apparently.

 

[Mallus]

If I have the level 7 encounter power "Come and Get It" I am entitled to once per fight force every foe within 18 feet to close with me...

Entitled is a loaded term. Like I said, you can just as easily say a 1e mage is 'entitled' to cast Sleep once per day (if he knows and memorizes it).

Regardless, in fact, of if they are physically capable of doing so.

A 4e DM's can use common sense. In fact, 4e assumes they will.

Without using magic. Apparently.

It's not magic, it's metafiction. I've explained this before.

 

[Ariosto]

A Traveller getting shot at does not consider whether to use Lead Monsoon, Crescendo of Doom, or Drunken Butterfly's Devastating Peony Blossom Stance. There is no formula for calculating how many rolls with what target numbers are needed to get through the hail of bullets using Administration and Stewardship skills (but kudos to players who come up with a workable plan for that!).

Nor is such a heap of hooey built into AD&D (or even Champions, in which it might at least fit the genre).

Complicating elaborations in old-style games are as a rule directed toward starting with an appraisal of the imagined situation and then translating it into game terms. Damage by weapon, multiple attacks, weapon length, speed factors, weapon type versus armor type, combatant height, movement per segment, encumbrance, surprise, spell casting time, rate of fire, hit locations, parrying, morale factors, effects of inebriation ... the list of optional elaborations in old D&D books goes on and on in that vein.

Those are tools in the DM's kit, and it is quite proper for the referee to reach for any others deemed appropriate. It is likewise proper to set them aside when they are not necessary.

 

[Mallus]

Usually we either ignored it or house ruled it to be shorter.

The groups I played in usually ignored it.

D&D combat has always been described as "You circle and trade blows for a round seeking an opening. Roll to hit."

Right. D&D combat has always featured a rather loose relationship between the combat mechanics and the combat narration. Earlier editions are characterized by a paucity of detail (1e doesn't tell you much of what happened during a combat round, only if damage is done), 4e is characterized by greater detail, but no explanatory mechanism (it's tell you what happened specifically, but not why).

The key point is that "I attack" is abstract, but clear.

So is "I lure them over here at hit them with my sword (ie CaGI).

...you're not accomplishing the impossible...

Luring people into hitting range is not impossible.

Frankly I don't even see how you draw a parallel between the abstraction of earlier editions and the bizarreness of 4e.

In both systems there is a disconnect between the combat mechanics and what occurs in-scene. This disconnect needs to be bridged by narration from the DM and/or players. They need to fill in the gaps, so to speak, in order for the events to make sense from the character's perspective.

It's simply, really.

 

[Mallus]

A Traveller getting shot at does not consider whether to use Lead Monsoon, Crescendo of Doom, or Drunken Butterfly's Devastating Peony Blossom Stance.

And a 4e character's ability scores aren't in hexadecimal. What's your point? Other than Traveller and D&D 4e take different approaches to representing characters and there abilities?

There is no formula for calculating how many rolls with what target numbers are needed to get through the hail of bullets using Administration and Stewardship skills (but kudos to players who come up with a workable plan for that!).

There should be That sounds pretty amusing, in a Terry Pratchett sort of way.

Nor is such a heap of hooey built into AD&D (or even Champions, in which it might at least fit the genre).

No, AD&D has it's own specific brand of hooey.

... and it is quite proper for the referee to reach for any others deemed appropriate. It is likewise proper to set them aside when they are not necessary.

In that regard nothing has changed.

 

[Dausuul]

For what it's worth, here's how I fluff my minotaur fighter's Come & Get It:
1) He uses an ancient minotaur call to battle. His enemies' eyes alight with bloodlust and they charge into his whirling frenzy.
2) He's finally figured out how to master the art of throwing his magic weapon past his enemies such that it arcs out in a circle like a boomerang. They take a step towards him, thinking him defenseless, when the hammer comes back and pushes them towards him.

So far my group seems to enjoy it a lot.
-blarg

What would you do if the targets were spell-hurling wizards who have no reason ever to get into melee? (And that's not a hypothetical corner case; I had exactly this situation come up in my game a couple sessions ago.)

 

[Mallus]

What would you do if the targets were spell-hurling wizards who have no reason ever to get into melee?

I'd make something up on the spot (it wouldn't be the first time I had to do that while DM'ing). Frankly, I'm good at it .