Do you let your players...?

[Kahuna Burger]

I think use of the Innuendo skill is the way to go in situations like this. If you assume that the party has come up with some basic hand signals or the like, and they want to communicate to another character in combat, let 'em make an innuendo check.

if inuendo was a fighter skill this would be a good suggestion. As it is, you're suggesting that the character class most likely to be good at fast planning and directions in combat be worst at it.

If the characters have been together working as a team for a long time, and there is no roleplayed reason to assume they don't plan and act as a team, let them kibitz like crazy. I'm gonna go with the "good roleplaying is NOT limiting your character to what your player can think of" side and then a step further. If your group is a team, esp if they have a warmaster or other tactical/leadership character, the enemy doesn't "hear" them either. They either a) see a team working together to deal with a common problem, or b) hear "double trouble, C and F on tank!" when the fighter's player suggests where he and the rogue can flank while leaving a way for the spellcaster to do a line effect without hitting either.

In special situations, where a new party hasn't worked together before, the table talk can be limited, but not eliminated. If one character spends all of her out of combat time challanging the party tactician and going her own way, limit table talking with that player with a firm "Since when are you listening to the others?" (my personal pet peeve is players who think its all cool roleplaying to introduce huge blood feuds between their characters - then trade buff spells and cooperate like crazy for the "real game".) The other exception would be for the super always hiding and invisible and mindblanked character. Unless there is some form of explicit planning or communication, the mage just can't avoid clipping what he can't see...

Kahuna Burger

 

[ichabod]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you let your players...?

never met any one who has every hunting, sniper, or been a carpenter before. oh well YMMV
ken

Yeah, all those hunters and snipers who shoot exactly 30 feet to the left of their target slipped my mind. So did the carpenters who build houses from 600 feet away. And without any practice either. Don't know what I was thinking.

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you let your players...?

Yeah, all those hunters and snipers who shoot exactly 30 feet to the left of their target slipped my mind. So did the carpenters who build houses from 600 feet away. And without any practice either. Don't know what I was thinking.

We aren't; talking about 1 level now are we? so of course practice is already involved. and yes a sniper is great are long range estimates so he could easily guess distance, and every carpenter I've ever know with any experience if the range was under 30 feet could tell you exactly how long or far some thing was.. As I said YMMV
ken

 

[ichabod]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you let your players...?

We aren't; talking about 1 level now are we? so of course practice is already involved. and yes a sniper is great are long range estimates so he could easily guess distance, and every carpenter I've ever know with any experience if the range was under 30 feet could tell you exactly how long or far some thing was.. As I said YMMV
ken

My point is even if what you say is true (and the issue here is far more than 30 feet range), you are talking about people with significant training. And a mage with significant training under my rules can spot the fireball where he wants to. But if he doesn't get the training, he's going to run into problems, and every now and then trained mages may mess up anyway. Therefore, your criticisms of my house rule are unfounded.

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you let your players...?

My point is even if what you say is true (and the issue here is far more than 30 feet range), you are talking about people with significant training. And a mage with significant training under my rules can spot the fireball where he wants to. But if he doesn't get the training, he's going to run into problems, and every now and then trained mages may mess up anyway. Therefore, your criticisms of my house rule are unfounded.

? All I said was I could understand you Dc but I didn't; understand why you made it harder, as you ,your self have pointed out, with training it because easy, and yes experts do mess up, that is what the 1 on the die is for
The only thing I didn't; understand is why you want to keep raising the dc as you party is going up in levels? . If you want to have a rule, that with out providing any benefit seems to make it tougher on the magic users, or do you have a dc for fighter to shoot arrows to?, then to say well you guys are still making your roles so I am going to increase the dc, seems odd to me. a dc of 15 means that you have around a 40% of failure at first level, assuming the person maxes out their skill and has a good attribute? and at 5th level they still have a 15% to 20% of failure ? not bad for a system that was designed for spell going exacly where cast, but now we've introduces spell error.

Ken

 

[Emirikol]

No, he shouldn't be allowed to give advice. I've seen waaaaaaay too much of this during my tenure with the RPGA and have decided that people can only talk about that stuff during their initiative.

Now, my combats are fast enough that people don't really get a chance to talk about tactics (some say I rush them..thank god..it's combat afterall).

Em

 

[ichabod]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you let your players...?

? All I said was I could understand you Dc but I didn't; understand why you made it harder, as you ,your self have pointed out, with training it because easy, and yes experts do mess up, that is what the 1 on the die is for
The only thing I didn't; understand is why you want to keep raising the dc as you party is going up in levels? . If you want to have a rule, that with out providing any benefit seems to make it tougher on the magic users, or do you have a dc for fighter to shoot arrows to?, then to say well you guys are still making your roles so I am going to increase the dc, seems odd to me. a dc of 15 means that you have around a 40% of failure at first level, assuming the person maxes out their skill and has a good attribute? and at 5th level they still have a 15% to 20% of failure ? not bad for a system that was designed for spell going exacly where cast, but now we've introduces spell error.

Ones are not failures on skill rolls. I don't raise the DC as the players go up in levels, I raise the DC for higher level spells. The DC for fighters to shoot arrows is the AC of their opponent. The chance at first level is pretty irrelevant, as I don't see too many first level characters casting fireballs. When they start casting fireballs, they have a failure rate of 15%. By eighth level they never fail. I am thinking of making it harder since there doesn't seem much point to a rule that only affects some characters for three levels. I also don't see how five feet of error for range area effect spells is going to radically unbalance the game.

 

[Luddite]

My two cents.

Not only do I allow OOC tactical advice fly around the table durring combat, I am usualy in there giving them advice as well. Why? Some players don't fully understand the rules as well as others since they don't play as often. They may not be aware of some clever tatic that was discussed on the forums.

Does this help my players? Sure, but they still have the final discision on what to do. I just make sure they are aware of all their options. That way I don't have to hold back my tatical punches as much

-The Luddite

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you let your players...?

Ones are not failures on skill rolls. I don't raise the DC as the players go up in levels, I raise the DC for higher level spells. The DC for fighters to shoot arrows is the AC of their opponent. The chance at first level is pretty irrelevant, as I don't see too many first level characters casting fireballs. When they start casting fireballs, they have a failure rate of 15%. By eighth level they never fail. I am thinking of making it harder since there doesn't seem much point to a rule that only affects some characters for three levels. I also don't see how five feet of error for range area effect spells is going to radically unbalance the game.

Well then one could argue, that if moving it 5' doesn't change much, then what is the point of the rule in the first place. If it works for you and your group fine
Ken

 

[Larry Fitz]

Umbran humbly opined


IMHO...

Unelss you are playing Call of Cthulhu, or Godlike, or some other game with a mechanic for "courage underfire", the player has the right to expect that his or her character's stats will be in full force in such times.

The player has invested a goodly amount in that intelligence. But you null and void it at the very time he needs it most? That's prettt mean. Under stress, do fighters in your game suddenly become weak in the knees, unable to lift their greatswords? Do your bards suddenly become tongue-tied and unable to impress crowds? Do rogues drop their lockpicks when they know there's likely a trap involved?

A 22 intelligence represents smarts of Einsteinian proportions (literally - imagine Albert as born with an 18 Int, in the prime of his scientific career - a middle aged Expert of about 10th level). The character's ability with thought, mental calculation, and retention of information are pretty much without peer. He's probably well above 1st level, so he's been trained in the school of combat. You want to take such a strong defining characteristic, and force the player to throw it away and try to represent it with his (relatively) middle class mind and education?

If you don't want the hints to come from the other players, fine. But then, they should be coming from you, the DM. It is your job to see that the character's abilities are represented accurately and fairly.

Hi Umbran!
No I don't null and void it, if a high intelligence player wants to ask one or two questions about the situation and ask if there's anything their character could surmise about the situation that they themselves are missing, I allow that. What I don't allow is "hivemind" like player discussion over an action that literally takes around 1/4 of a second. I also prevent a player from following the possibly bad advice of another player. As to being fair, having one or two outspoken players call all the "plays" for the game is unfair. It doesn't allow for any development in the the things that make individual gamers better. Also players know in advance that this is how I run games, they have the option of not playing in them if they don't like it. But frankly no one has ever complained about the rule in the 30 years I've been using it.

By the way, many soldiers have intensive combat training, it doesn't stop them from freezing up in certain unfamiilar battle situations, or from making bonehead mistakes. The benefits given to players for various stats are part of the game mechanics and are balanced. When a highly intelligent character makes a knowledge roll with a roll of "2" that is when his stat comes into play. Intelligence does not denote grace, or acuity in a stressful situation. I have never heard anyone claim that Audie Murphy was brilliant, but he did handle himself well under combat conditions.

At some point we have to let the players actually play the game, otherwise it becomes simple stat comparison and that's kind of dull. For me letting them playthe game includes precludingothers from playingthe game for them. In my experience it has turned them into better players.

Also Albert's always been a hero of mine, but frankly I don't think I'd want him in a foxhole with me when the air was getting thick with lead, a bit too much of a dreamer for my tastes, at least in a combat situation.