3e mapping... too much info for players?

[mikebr99]

True, players have more time to decide actions then their characters. However, their characters are actually there and have a very clear idea of where everyone is.

The only thing I do is if a spellcaster casts an area effect spell that has an area that is right next to a square that a friendly occupies the spellcaster must make a spellcraft roll. DC 1 for every 5 ft from the center of effect. If the spellcaster fails the check his friendly is caught in the area of the spell.

Hey Smetzger...

This works well for fireballs etc., but what about cone spells?

 

[kengar]

mark wrote:

The NPCs (me) get the same treatment so it does maintain balance.

I should have mentioned I do that too. A couple times I've had a monster charge or try a ranged attack only to have them fall short b/c I didn't check the range closely enough. Fair is fair.

 

[mikebr99]

mark wrote:


I should have mentioned I do that too. A couple times I've had a monster charge or try a ranged attack only to have them fall short b/c I didn't check the range closely enough. Fair is fair.

But the DM has multiple monsters to control... and the player has one spellcaster...

 

[Mark]

But the DM has multiple monsters to control... and the player has one spellcaster...

A spellcaster who has spent a lifetime learning what a player is supposed to flesh out at the table right after character creation. NPCs and Monsters rarely require that much immersion. Benefit of the doubt goes to the player at my table as long as they are making the effort.

 

[mikebr99]

A spellcaster who has spent a lifetime learning what a player is supposed to flesh out at the table right after character creation.

Hey Mark...

I am talking about a group of guys that have been playing d&d (& others) for about 18 years now... any one of us could walk up and create a character, and then use any and all of the abilities with the experience of a veteran... not a newbee, getting to play a mage for the first time.

 

[Tsyr]

It's still not the same, no matter how long you have been playing, as actualy BEING there, having DONE this stuff in reality for years. And the "not being there" thing is a huge one...

 

[Alcamtar]

The more powerful the party, the more that I'm thinking that this is an unfair advantage. The actual character wouldn't have that much quiet time to plan his next actions.

Has anyone come up with some rulings (house or otherwise) to more represent the "chaos of war"?

I think it is an unfair advantage too. It is also easy for the players to out-think the GM tactically, since they have multiple brains each running one character, while the GM has only one brain running multiple characters.

However, when I mentioned this and discussed (not proposed, mind you) a possible means of simulating the fog of war, my players went ballistic. They said that metagaming and counting squares is the whole reason for playing 3E (as opposed to a different RPG), and was what makes the game fun. They further argued that their characters were smarter and more experienced than they are, and therefore as players they need all the help (and time) they can get in order to make decent tactical decisions, otherwise they cannot "roleplay their character" properly. Plus they're heroes and they're supposed to out-think the DM at every turn.

Personally I strongly disagree, and if they think THEY have a hard time making sound tactical decisions with a character they've been playing for a year, they should try running a new character every 30 minutes! Besides, a competent NPC should have just as good of a strategy as the players. But, my players would raise holy hell if I tried something like this with them. They routinely take 5 *minutes* in the middle of combat to precisely orchestrate a multi-character attack strategy, including estimating an opponents' strength and ability to react based on clues about his level, feats, and other resources. They also try to take back actions all the time, saying "I wouldn't have done that if I'd known the consequences" (well duh!)

(sigh)

FWIW, my suggestions were:

(1) Speeding combat up to get everyone less time to think: when it's you're initiative you either state your action immediately or lose it. Once an action is stated, it cannot be withdrawn. If players still hesistate, count three seconds and move on. If you want more time, delay your initiative or refocus.

(2) Reducing the tactical OOC kibbitzing between players: if you say it, your opponents can hear it and act on it just like the other players can. Also, you can only take actions you thought of yourself or which were communicated to you IC, and other players are not allowed to make suggestions unless their characters are actually present and capable of making the suggestion.

Mike

 

[Umbran]

Re: Re: 3e mapping... too much info for players?

I think it is an unfair advantage too. It is also easy for the players to out-think the GM tactically, since they have multiple brains each running one character, while the GM has only one brain running multiple characters.

Which are easily countered - by the fact that the DM knows his opponent and the situation beforehand. The DM knows the abilities of the PCs, where the players don't know what teh NPCs can do. Also, the DM has plenty of time beforehand to think through batle tactics, when in general the PCs don't have that time. Any DM who gets out-thought tactically hasn't been using his prep-time wisely.

 

[Mark]

Hey Mark...

I am talking about a group of guys that have been playing d&d (& others) for about 18 years now... any one of us could walk up and create a character, and then use any and all of the abilities with the experience of a veteran... not a newbee, getting to play a mage for the first time.

I think Tsyr addresses this well but I'd further mention that 3E is a whole new ballgame for DM and Players alike...

I think it is an unfair advantage too. It is also easy for the players to out-think the GM tactically, since they have multiple brains each running one character, while the GM has only one brain running multiple characters.

Advantage against who? I hope we're not suggesting an adversarial relationship between the Players and the DM, one; because that's being discussed in another thread and B.) -cause no matter how many brains the Players actually use on any given night, the DM controls the game and can introduce as many twists to the mix as they desire. Assuming we're only speaking about the advantage of the characters over the monsters, and the way that manifests when Players get a little breathing room during battle, I'll continue after a bit more quotage...

(snip)

Plus they're heroes and they're supposed to out-think the DM at every turn.

They're supposed to try, I suppose, or at least they're suppose to out-think the monsters as supposedly run by the DM...

(snipperoo) Besides, a competent NPC should have just as good of a strategy as the players. But, my players would raise holy hell if I tried something like this with them.

Well, let's face it. Unless you are a DM who makes everything up on the spot (unwise given that it severely limits your options), you'ev had plenty of time to make plans based on how you've prepared the session. The Players have to come up with things on the spot, unless they've had the foresight to set up particular plans that are their default modes of action. (Pointed out by Umbran, also, while I was in the midst of responding) More on that later...

They routinely take 5 *minutes* in the middle of combat to precisely orchestrate a multi-character attack strategy, including estimating an opponents' strength and ability to react based on clues about his level, feats, and other resources. They also try to take back actions all the time, saying "I wouldn't have done that if I'd known the consequences" (well duh!)

That's not a fault of the Players, it's something the DM has to curtail by staying on top of the game and keeping the Players on their toes by running the session in such a way as to make the Players react in the moment. If they have five minutes, of course they are going to take five minutes...if they have any sense! (...and, of course, there are no "Do-Overs" unless a rule was blatantly mucked up by the DM ... and the DM is feeling generous.. I don't recommend this, though. I keep my mistakes in a mental bank and pay them back out when it becomes time to adjust for the Player's fun/interest.)

(1) Speeding combat up to get everyone less time to think: when it's you're initiative you either state your action immediately or lose it. Once an action is stated, it cannot be withdrawn. If players still hesistate, count three seconds and move on. If you want more time, delay your initiative or refocus.

Agreed! There are mechanics in place to allow the character to take more time than is warranted by an immediate initiative. The Players need to make use of the mechanics of the rules in this case as much as they liked to make use of them in cases where it isn't allowed.

(2) Reducing the tactical OOC kibbitzing between players: if you say it, your opponents can hear it and act on it just like the other players can. Also, you can only take actions you thought of yourself or which were communicated to you IC, and other players are not allowed to make suggestions unless their characters are actually present and capable of making the suggestion.

Agreed! If an order is shouted, it is heard and understood by all within earshot who understand the language. It's a big mistake of DMs in regard to characters having multiple language to not require them to use them (by saying "In Dwarven", or some such) if the Players wish to be secretive while being loud.

(This next bit gets tricky, so "careful with those weapons...")

When a Player suggests something to another Player, if they are nearby, I immediately add, "Shouts your buddy from the thicket" or words to that effect. If the suggestive Player is out of range for such a circumstance, I warn them "once" that they are not to do that. If they persist, I deny the possible use of the suggestion and move the suggestive Player's character in the direction of a location where they could actually make the suggestion (sometimes that is away from where the suggestive Player wishes to go, sometimes not, but it bears in mind the insistence that the suggestive Player is strongly compelled to communicate with another player).

If the Player who is receiving the suggestions continually seeks more of that sort of impossible-to-get advice, I take the character sheet from the player who is getting the suggestions and hand it to the suggesting Player and suggest that he simply run both characters...awkward silence ensues...they get the point...we get back to the game.

Harsh?

Maybe...

I'm supposed to be having fun as much as anyone else and if it's going to come down to the guy who's spent hours preparing the game having fun or the people who generally just show up and partake of all that work, guess who's going to have the most fun? Having fun is the point and the only place where it might get adversarial at my table. Whoever has the most fun wins!

 

[mikebr99]

*BUMP*

Just getting this back in the rotation to see if you late night guys have any more (different) comments.

thanks...