Free-Form vs. Tactical Gaming

[Water Bob]

I've found that my Pathfinder group is much less into the roleplaying aspects of the game as my 2E group was.

With my experience with 3.5E so far, I'm finding the same thing. The 3.5E system provides a roll for everything, so instead of using a 10' pole and pouring water out of a water jack to see where the water stands and where it disappears between stones, the 3.5E people tend to just want to throw their Search skill and be done with it.

Plus, since initiative in 3.5E is thrown at awarness instead of combat, there's a lot less free-form gaming. Going to the wargame-like tactical combat round in 3.5E so early sucks some of the roleplaying life out of the game, I think.

I still like 3.5E, and I like other aspects outside of the combat round. But, my preference is the old 1E and 2E Free-Form roleplaying style.





Outside of combat, I like the Take 10 and Take 20 rules a lot. I've started using them to facilitate the free-form side of things. I write the PCs Search, Listen, and Spot checks on a sheet of paper where I can get to them quickly. And then I use the Take 10 version of their skills while outside of combat.

For example: During our last session Sunday night, the PCs were examining an old, defaced temple-like room that they stumbled across. In the walls were alcoves where statues had fallen. One of the broken statue bases had something secret to find, so when one of the players said, "I check out the broken statue alcoves", I simply looked at his Search skill without the player knowing it, then compared the Take 10 version with the DC to finding the secret compartment. His Take 10 was too low for the DC, so I just replied, "OK, you move over to the alcover, knock some of the rubble over with your foot, and give it a pretty good inspection. You don't find anything."

The Take 10 rule allowed me to basically give the character a check without rolling dice that would awaken the player's curiosity.

 

[Rogue Agent]

- Free-Form Gaming (1E and 2E AD&D)-
You have a spear in your hand, and you're traveling down a corridor.
GM: You round a corner and you see a guard about 60 feet from you.
You: What's he doing?
GM: He sees you, draws his sword, and is running at you as fast as he can, yelling at the top of his lungs to raise the alarm.
You: Great. I'll throw my spear!
GM: Make your attack. You miss? OK, he closes the distance and swings at you. I'll roll his attack....he hits. Remove 7 hit points.

- Tactical Gaming (3E and 3.5E D&D) -
You have a spear in your hand, and you're traveling down a corridor.
GM: You round a corner and you see a guard 60 feet from you.
Roll initiative. OK, it looks like the guard has initiative.
As you rounded the corner, and you see this big, yelling guard charging you, he closes distance and swings. You're flat-footed. He hit. Take off 7 hit points.
You: Wait...You mean I see a guard 60 feet away, and he can run that entire distance and attack me, and an AC 10, no less, and I never get a chance to throw my spear before he gets there?
GM: You could have thrown your spear and/or done anything you wanted to had you won initiative. But, you lost, so your character is a bit sluggish with his reactions, giving the charging guard the time he needed to get to you.
You: Hmmm....

Okay... What the heck are you talking about?

AD&D has an initiative system. It has a system for determining how far people can move and still make an attack. The example you're proffering here would actually play out exactly the same way in both systems (using AD&D2 specifically here):

1. Determine surprise (nobody is surprised)
2. Roll initiative (guard wins)
3. Guard resolves his action (charging 60 ft. and then attacking)
4. Player resolves his action

The only difference is that initiative is rolled each round in AD&D (with actions being pre-declared) and initiative is only rolled once in 3E (and actions aren't declared until it's your turn).

There's nothing "freeform" about AD&D unless you start ignoring rules. In fact, in many ways, it's far more rigid and specific.

... and I see from reading your later posts that you're ignoring rules in AD&D. Okay. Fine. Start ignoring rules in D&D3. Problem "solved".

 

[Water Bob]

Okay... What the heck are you talking about?

At it's core, it's about when to throw initiative. AD&D was much more free-form than the tactical wargame that is 3E.

 

[chaochou]

- Free-Form Gaming (1E and 2E AD&D)-

etc

- Tactical Gaming (3E and 3.5E D&D) -

etc

I don't think the distinction between 'freeform' and 'tactical' lies in the difference between the initiative rules. The example you cite as 1e 'freeform' ignores whole swathes of the 1e DMG.

AD&D DMG p61.

The steps for encounter and combat are as follows:

1. Determine if either or both parties are SURPRISED.
2. Determine distance, if unknown, between the parties.
3. If both parties are unsurprised, or equally surprised, determine INITIATIVE for that round.
4. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the party with initiative:

A. Avoid engagement (flee, slam door, use magic to escape, etc.) if
possible.
B. Attempt to parley.
C. Await action by other party.
D. discharge missiles or magical device attacks or cast spells or turn
undead.
E. Close to striking range, or charge.
F. Set weapons against possible opponent charge.
G. Strike blows with weapons, to kill or subdue.
H. Grapple or hold
​

5. Determine the results of whatever actions are decided upon by the
party which lost the initiotive (as per A. through H. above).

6. Continue each melee round by determination of distance, initiotive,
and action until melee ends due to fleeing, inability to continue, or
death of one or both parties.


SO in RAW AD&D, the encounter would have the man with the spear walk round the corner, both he and the guard roll for surprise, any surprise segments and then initiative. No drawing swords, or charges or anything else except as determined by surprise and initiative. Any non-combat actions (fleeing, attempting to negotiate) are still explicitly called out as happening within the contect of the 'combat round'.

If by 'freeform' you mean 'ignoring the rules' you can do that with any edition.

However, I think there is a distinct difference between a 6-second 'round' and a one-minute 'round' in that the latter subsumes whole flurries of blows and feints, footwork and conversation into one unit of game time, and leaves a lot of narrative open to be filled in by the imaginations of the players and GM. If this is what you mean by 'freeform', then I agree - it is different, and a looser style that I (generally) prefer.

It may suit your purposes to rethink your timescales for each 'round' rather than isolate initiative as the source of the problem.

 

[Corathon]

As a matter of preference, I'm with your player. I used to call the type of combat you're describing the "frozen in amber" method, in that you're helpless to react to anything when its not your turn.

That said, I think that your friend needs to accept that that's the way your game is run or else leave the game.

 

[freeAgent]

2nd Edition AD&D was definitely not tactical in the same respect that 3.0+ are. There was no real reason from a rules perspective to use a grid during battle. There was no AoO in 2E (it was introduced later as an option, but not as a core rule). Flanking also wasn't strictly codified and didn't rely on using a map. This meant that you would say you are (or want to be) moving into a flanking position instead of counting out squares on a map. The advent of the grid as a necessary component took some of that storytelling, even during battle, out of the equation and broke it up since you have to count off squares and move pieces around rather than simply talk through an action.

 

[Water Bob]

If by 'freeform' you mean 'ignoring the rules' you can do that with any edition.

Not really. By "Free-Form", I mean out of combat playing. Not playing using the combat rounds..[/QUOTE]

 

[Rogue Agent]

At it's core, it's about when to throw initiative. AD&D was much more free-form than the tactical wargame that is 3E.

... you mean that the initiative rules in AD&D which were taken directly from a tactical wargame are less like a tactical wargame than 3E's initiative system?

That's... well... umm... I'm not really sure what can be said about that.

Not really. By "Free-Form", I mean out of combat playing. Not playing using the combat rounds..

So... AD&D's combat system is more free-form because of what happens outside of combat?

I feel like Ashton Kutcher is about to jump out of a closet and shout, "PUNK'D!"

 

[Water Bob]

I feel like Ashton Kutcher is about to jump out of a closet and shout, "PUNK'D!"

Whatever, brother. I've moved on from this topic mentally having made my point and read some thought provoking replies earlier. I was just responding to you to be courteous.

 

[kitsune9]

[MENTION=92305]Water Bob[/MENTION]. It's just way tactical games work. For me as a DM, the player has to accept the rules that are being played. If I can, I may houserule some stuff, but I won't bend over backwards to create a "logical" or "realistic" set of game rules to accommodate those kind of player tastes. It's just too much and if you make one change here in X, then you have to consider what happens to Y. If you make the change in Y because of the change I made in X, then Y affects Z and so on. Sooner or later, I'll create a system to appeals to reality, but would end up being virtually unplayable and needlessly complex.