A Thought on Turn-Based Movement

[JamesonCourage]

-Don't allow double moves in the game. They are bad for realism AND bad game design. Unless you're a dog not doing something with your hands does not allow you to move twice as fast.

I think it's meant to simulate jogging? It simulating that bit of movement between walking and all-out sprinting.

-Get rid of quadruple movement. Dungeons are not a running track. They're slippery, dusty corridors filled with debris and traps and tend to be rather dark.

Hey, if it's rough terrain, there you go. Good reason for it to move slower. Or if you can't run in a straight line.

But, in my case, my players have been in a "dungeon" type of place a number of times I can literally count on one hand over the course of about 10 years of my running games for them. So, out of the dungeon, we still need rules.

Also the people running around in them are wearing hundreds of pounds of gear.

I mean, in my experience, this is usually false, even for the exceptionally strong people wearing metal armor and wielding weapons. This is especially untrue for those in lighter armor or with lighter weapons, or for people who don't wear armor.

I should note, though, that people with too much gear do move slower, by the rules. So this is also addressed, to some degree.

I would say reduce average human speed to 3 squares and allow running to double that to 6.

Is this basically a "for the game" thing, or for realism? You mention both in the first part I quoted. Because walking at 15 feet every 6 seconds is possible, sure, but it's a slow walk. And "running" at 30 feet every 6 seconds is agonizingly slow. So, if you're interested in both "realism AND game design", then this doesn't quite hit the mark, in my opinion. As always, play what you like

 

[Water Bob]

To be fair, a realistic resolution might give the group a ranged attack before the other guy finishes his move.

What wouldn't be fair would be to allow them to close and attack a person who moves at least as fast as they do, in mph or fps, and who started running first.

What I suggest would not allow the PCs to catch up to the running guard--only allow them to throw spears, hand axes, and other weapons at a decent penalty. See the green highlight earlier in the thread.

As for chase rules: I haven't seen a good set for D&D.

Have you seen THESE? Everything you need to run chases is already in the game. No extra rules needed!

Here's a magic solution:
-Don't allow double moves in the game. They are bad for realism AND bad game design. Unless you're a dog not doing something with your hands does not allow you to move twice as fast.
-Get rid of quadruple movement.

I'm not looking to change the game too much. I think House Rules should compliment the base system, not turn it into a hodge-podge of if-then's.

Dungeons are not a running track. They're slippery, dusty corridors filled with debris and traps and tend to be rather dark.

Yep, and that's why my solution above (in green) is not invasive. By the RAW, running is not allowed in the game if the character needs to move other than in a straight line, if there are obstacles in the path, or if the terrain type is not normal. Slippery, debris filled, crooked dungeon pathways would qualify as Difficult terrain, and thus, no movement other than 2x Speed is allowed.

Therefore, in settings like this, my House Rule above won't even kick in.

Also the people running around in them are wearing hundreds of pounds of gear. I would say reduce average human speed to 3 squares and allow running to double that to 6.

That's what Speed rating and Load are for. Speed goes down the more gear a character carries, or from encumbrances, such as armor.

 

[Water Bob]

All that says is that actions of all types function best within the round-based structure. It does not say they cannot exist outside of it, and they often do. Futhermore, it says such things can only be PERFORMED in the combat structure. A "readided action" is an action waiting for a trigger, not a performed action. It's like knocking an arrow but holding it until you see movement or the proper trigger happens.

I think it's pretty clear that, by RAW, readied actions are supposed to be initiated on a character's combat turn. From the responses in the thread, looks like most who commented on it agree.

But, to your point, I have thought before about allowing a few things, like the readied action, to work as you say, before combat begins, leading into combat....I haven't thought about all the ramifcations of doing that, yet, though.

It's a bad thing to give something to players, have them dig the change, then realize that you screwed up because of the rule of unintended consequences, and then have to take it away from the players. That sucks.

I like to think things out completely before I change RAW.

 

[Ferghis]

I like to think things out completely before I change RAW.

I used to feel that way as well. I thought the game balance in 4e had been worked out by the designers so that it was perfect, and changes here might have dooming ramifications elsewhere. Then I realized it was not. The game designers miss tons of stuff, and the game is not intrinsically perfectly balanced. At that point I relaxed about houserules and let anything in that I felt like.

 

[Water Bob]

I used to feel that way as well. I thought the game balance in 4e had been worked out by the designers so that it was perfect, and changes here might have dooming ramifications elsewhere. Then I realized it was not. The game designers miss tons of stuff, and the game is not intrinsically perfectly balanced.

I've been playing RPGs long enough to know that there are errors, omissions, and flat out dumb rules that see print. I tend to think that core rulebooks are more polished and considered than rule supplements (splat books and such), but even then, things aren't worded properly, or stuff was cut for space...yadda, yadda.

But, still, I tend to give the rules--the core rules especially--the benefit of the doubt. I figure that it's likely someone put a lot of thought into the mechanics before publishing. Note I didn't say it was definite, but only likely.

Therefore, I still think it's a good plan to go with RAW as the default, until I have a damn good reason to change.

I've changed rules before and gotten bitten. The worst is when the players like the change, but I, as GM, know its bad for the game in the long run.

I've found it easiest to go with what's written, then slowly change what needs to be changed as the campaign progresses. Heck, some of my players, when they GM, will look at a new game and change things in the rules without ever even trying what is suggested. I think that's a bad plan.

I also believe in strong DM's and not being a slave to the rules. If a rule, after much thought, doesn't meet my standard or taste, then I change it. But, I always try to keep changes to a minimum. Hodge-podge rules are a nightmare, in my estimation. Those may work from some GM's, but not me.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I've been playing RPGs long enough to know that there are errors, omissions, and flat out dumb rules that see print. I tend to think that core rulebooks are more polished and considered than rule supplements (splat books and such), but even then, things aren't worded properly, or stuff was cut for space...yadda, yadda.

But, still, I tend to give the rules--the core rules especially--the benefit of the doubt. I figure that it's likely someone put a lot of thought into the mechanics before publishing. Note I didn't say it was definite, but only likely.

Therefore, I still think it's a good plan to go with RAW as the default, until I have a damn good reason to change.

I've changed rules before and gotten bitten. The worst is when the players like the change, but I, as GM, know its bad for the game in the long run.

I've found it easiest to go with what's written, then slowly change what needs to be changed as the campaign progresses. Heck, some of my players, when they GM, will look at a new game and change things in the rules without ever even trying what is suggested. I think that's a bad plan.

I also believe in strong DM's and not being a slave to the rules. If a rule, after much thought, doesn't meet my standard or taste, then I change it. But, I always try to keep changes to a minimum. Hodge-podge rules are a nightmare, in my estimation. Those may work from some GM's, but not me.

Most of my house rules, even the involved systems, started off as one-time rulings where the RAW didn't seem to reflect the game fiction well. Additions and refinements were added as needed for in-game situations. Growing house rules organically this way helps to avoid problems since each small change is tested along the way and can easily be reverted if needed.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Not really on-topic, but my favorite D&D chase rules are Hot Pursuit I highly recommend checking them out if you're interested in making chases interesting in-game.

 

[GSHamster]

For things like this I've gone to an abstract "chase" system. The guard rounds the corner, sees the party and bolts. Abstract chase ensues. At the end of the chase the party is within range to attack, or the guard gets away. There are times where strict movement rules need to take a back seat to the action happening in game.

We had a pretty exciting mine cart combat, and chase scene that would have been complete boredom with turn based movement. This convinced me to drop the tactical movement when it does not suit the game at the table.

I agree with D'Karr. Movement in combat rules really only work for positioning within the combat. They don't work for someone trying to avoid combat or running away. Even a straight, "he moves X distance away. I move X towards him", you can't catch up.

In my opinion, dealing with the guard fleeing would have been better off modeled as a skill challenge or ability check. Only drop back down to combat rules if the guard turns and fights, or the PCs get close enough to start combat.

 

[Water Bob]

Most of my house rules, even the involved systems, started off as one-time rulings where the RAW didn't seem to reflect the game fiction well. Additions and refinements were added as needed for in-game situations. Growing house rules organically this way helps to avoid problems since each small change is tested along the way and can easily be reverted if needed.

One of my famous flubs was a House Rule I implemented in my 7-year WEG Star Wars D6 campaign that I ran back in the 90's. If you asked my players to vote, I think they'd all call that one their favorite campaign we've ever played of any rpg.

I saw an optional rule in a sourcebook or SW rpg magazine--I've forgotten the source--where a character can take dice off of his attack and apply it to damage, making the attack harder to make, but damage quite a bit. This is not unlike the Power Attack Feat in 3.5 D&D (which I've seen have it's own controversial discussions of power creep as a character levels).

We had a math major in the group who would bring probabilty tables to the game to share with the other players, since figuring the probability of a task when using multiple D6 only can be complex. Before long, the players had a general rule. They knew when to move dice and take advanage of the rule, and when not too.

Now, all of this is fine with me, except that I noticed that the game's design was based on this sort of thing not happening--this was something I realized only after playing the game for a long while, getting to know all of the mechanics' subtle particulars.

I knew that whacky things were happening in the game. For example, the characters were extremely powerful in hand-to-hand combat because, at close range, he difficulty to hit was lower than when a blaster was fired. This allowed more dice applied to melee damage, with the effect of fists and vibroswords doing a lot more damage, on average, than blaster pistols and rifles. It was especially bad with the extremely strong. We actually had a Wookiee run up to an AT-ST and rip one of its legs off.

Another unintended consequence was that, since it was a heroic game, the game, itself, had built in rules to make the PCs better than the NPCs. That way, when you've got your Luke-type PC fighting a dozen stormtroopers, Luke wins. Well, with the dice swap rule, Luke just didn't win--he annihilated.

Of course, the players LOVED IT! And, I remembered the excellent advice that E. Gary Gygax gives in the 1E AD&D DMG, saying that, basically, players will always be pushing for more power, more ability, better equipment, and it's the DM's job to rein them in, in order to keep the game fun and challenging. A player would love to start the D&D game with his mage having a Staff of the Magi, but it's the DM's job to allow this later in the game, after the character has earned it, avoiding power creep.

I tried to revoke the dice-swap rule, but, to a man, my players (seven, at the time) all mutinied on me. We had one game session without it, and I was forced to live with my mistake because the players liked the rule so much.

All of this happened because, as I read the rules, I saw the dice-swap option and said, "Hey, that sounds cool!" I introduced it well. It caught on. And, I couldn't change it, from then on.

I learned that a DM can't give a player a Staff of the Magi when his character is created only to take it away from him later (maybe a bad example, but I've removed lots of over-powered items in games through story-means, with the character losing it, or it being damaged somehow, or running out of power/charges, etc.). The dice swap thing was a game mechanic, and I had no story-related gimmicks to fall back upon.

To this day, I've learned to play new games by RAW for a long, long while. Get to know the game. And, then, slowly...ever so slowly....change things after much thought.

That's why you'll see me talking about rules on this forum. I usually ponder things for many months before a change is made, and I try to keep all changes to RAW at a minimum.

I work with one of my players, and we actually were talking about old times last week, and the Star Wars game. He said, "Man, that was a great game until you tried to screw it up!"

He meant me trying to take away the PC's uber power with the dice swap. He still can't see how it hurt the game in the long run. All he knows is that, when he played the Wookiee, he ripped the leg off the AT-ST, and he enjoyed the heck out of that.

If I ever play SW D6 again, you can bet that I won't have that rule (well...maybe as a Force power, or something...not a standard rule for everyone). And, my blaster rifles will be feared again, not the dagger in the Wookiee's hand (well, anything a threatening Wookiee does should be intimidating, but you get the idea).

 

[Water Bob]

Not really on-topic, but my favorite D&D chase rules are Hot Pursuit I highly recommend checking them out if you're interested in making chases interesting in-game.

Got 'em. Both the main book and the Foot Chase rules. Nice set of rules, but there is A LOT of rules you're adding to the game.

I prefer the Chase System that is already in the rules. Nothing new is needed. Players don't have to learn new rules or maneuvers. And, the system is quite exciting and fun.