Free-Form vs. Tactical Gaming

[northspot]

I agree absolutely. But it is also a phenomenon of 3.0 - 4.5 that many referees feel much more beholden to RAW than previously - at least in my experience. And I still don't understand why they feel the need to bow before some objective "metric" as though it might somehow validate the execution of their game, when previously, it did not.

Totally agree, even when 4e first came out I found myself just go..."Ok, guess thats how it is then", when I would try to interject common sense into the battle...especially then the fighter is using "Get Over Here" to pull the giant away from the squishy archer that they finally have trapped.

It finally after a Con that I could actually "fix" some of the ridiculousness in 4e by adopting similar changes that I'd make in any previous edition that I ran.

 

[LostSoul]

I agree absolutely. But it is also a phenomenon of 3.0 - 4.5 that many referees feel much more beholden to RAW than previously - at least in my experience. And I still don't understand why they feel the need to bow before some objective "metric" as though it might somehow validate the execution of their game, when previously, it did not.

I'm talking about referees who, previously, had no scruples about liberally interpreting rules to serve their needs, and now obey rules when gaming.

Perhaps the problem is that the rules became too clear. This was never a problem with 1e.

My guess would be that it's caused by the increased number of character options, and how those options interact with the rest of the system.

 

[Loonook]

She may have been shooting those arrow fast, but I blanket in more easier to hit than a charging orc...plus not one arrow pierced the blanket, so I think we can agree that maybe the draw strength of a bow is what gives them more realistic rate of fire. I know I'd rather shoot one arrow that penetrates a creatures armor than 10 that are deflected by the wizards robes.

Yes, because when we're in an indoor arena where people could go behind our target we should totally use actual arrows ...

The arrows used have minimal heads, not utilizing standard bodkin points (best for mail-piercing) or needle-bodkins (best for piercing steel). Also the girl seems to be using a pretty common bow for the current period with some pretty small arms.

Saracens were known for speed (it is even the art she is practicing down to nock placement) and were reported to have speeds similar to this shooting. The fact is is that at near range, rather than the longer distances of most of our ideals of archery, you need less pull to accomplish due to the forces of drag.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

PS: Also, just because I have become a bit interested in research for the novel I'm writing I figured I'd post quite possibly the coolest/weirdest idea I have seen in ancient projectiles: The Gatling Slingshot/crossbow.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxtHtPK2MH8]Awesome[/ame]
Awesome

 

[Water Bob]

I can suggest three different "fixes" for your specific game (a Conan game with barbarian PCs).

What I've decided to try involves two tweaks from RAW.

1. Instead of where I would usually throw initiative in a 3E game, I'm going to start throwing it as late as possible and not at all, if I can get away with it. This will keep the game Free-Form for as long as possible.

For example, let's take a simple scenario where a warrior walks into a room and sees two goblins. In a 3E/3.5E game, I would throw initiative right there, when line of sight happens and combat is likely.

In a 1E AD&D game, I'd keep the scenario Free-Form until an actual attack was made. Only then will initiative be throw.

There's a difference in the two methods.





The second thing I'm going to do is allow up to a maximum of 2x Speed for movement on a character's turn. This means, on his initiative count, the character can perform a Full Action, a Move action and a Standard action or a Standard action with a Move action, or the character can perform two Move actions.

Then I will go around the table, resolve other characters actions.

After everyone has had a chance to act, I will return to the first initiative count and allow up to 2x Speed movement.

Thus, if Ruz wants to run full-out, he would move 2x Move on this initiative count. Everybody else gets act, then we'll come back to Ruz and allow him to finish the last half of his movement.

I'm going to try it and see how it plays.

I know, it seems strange to ignore rules you don't like... But I bet you ignore 10% of the rules at minimum from any setting you use...

Actually, I haven't been playing my Conan game ignoring any rules. I'm playing it RAW, straight out of the book.

I've played around with a couple of tweaks, but nothing stuck. I kept coming back to RAW.

Sunday night's game session was conducted 100% RAW with absolutely no House Rules or tweaks. It was strictly by the book.

I agree absolutely. But it is also a phenomenon of 3.0 - 4.5 that many referees feel much more beholden to RAW than previously - at least in my experience.

The reason is because 3E (don't know about 4E...haven't played it) was written from a different design philosophy than was 1E and 2E AD&D.

3E, by the rules, is a tactical combat game. It's designed to use miniatures and a grid (not that its required). 1E and 2E AD&D were designed using a more Free-Form design philosophy.

I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. In my talks a couple of years ago with Steve Winter (one of the three chief designers of 2E), I asked him where the check to look for secret doors was. Did they just omit it?

His answer was that the three designers (Winter, Zeb Cook, and Jon Pickens) agreed that they wanted 2E to encourage more Free-Form play. They purposefully omitted any roll for secret doors in the 2E game system (I think there still might be a check for elves, though--can't remember) because they wanted players to play out looking for secret doors. They didn't want a boring dice check. They wanted the players to have their characters pull their daggers and start knocking on sections of the wall with the hilt--roleplaying the finding of the secret door.

3E's design philosophy is completely different. There's a dice roll for EVERYTHING. And, look at the combat examples--all laid out on a grid with unrealistic, "wargame-y" rules like the flanking rule where, in order to be flanked, a character must be fighting two foes that are EXACTLY across from each other on the grid.

Zoom out an look at the rules of those three D&D editions, and from a macro level, the 1E and 2E games encourage the DM to come up with House Rules and rules on the spot. The 3E game attempts to standardize every obstacle that can pop up in a game with a standard type dice throw.



So...because 3E is a tactical combat game, it's more akin to Axis & Allies than it is the earlier editions of D&D.

If a Fighter wanted to climb a tree in 1E or 2E AD&D, then the GM would either just allow it or come up with some toss on the spot for the character to do the act. "Um...this tree is kinda hard to climb. It's lowest branches are waaaay above your head. Throw 3d6, and if the total is less than your STR stat, then you are able to climb up there. Take your armor off, and the roll becomes 2d6 for STR or less."

The GM just arbitrarily made that up, on the spot--a workable throw to get the fighter up the tree.

With 3E, there's a Climb skill. So, everybody knows what you need to roll. GM need only provide the difficulty.

It's easier to look at a book, point to the rule, and say, "See...this is how it's supposed to be done."

That's why 3E GMs are more loyal to RAW than 1E or 2E GMs.

 

[Loonook]

[MENTION=92305]Water Bob[/MENTION]: Climb Walls would like to have a word with you. Ditto climb speed, spider climb, etc.

Again, RAW existed, and I have never seen 3d6 thrown on a test roll.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Water Bob]

@Water Bob : Climb Walls would like to have a word with you.

Notice it was a Fighter, not a Thief.


And...we'll call this pre-Wilderness Survival/Dungeoneer's Survival Guides.

Again, RAW existed, and I have never seen 3d6 thrown on a test roll.

Doesn't matter if you've seen it, because the DM made it up on the spot.

I have seen throws like that before in 1E AD&D. I played a lot of modules back then. There was all sorts of stuff that showed up in them. Sure, percentage throws were more common.

Don't miss the point by arguing the details.

 

[xenophone]

Maybe I'm not really thinking this through, but it seems like simply removing the ability to both move and attack on the same turn would resolve a lot of these problems of "wargaminess". This might speed up combats too.

Would it be possible to make a change like this to 3.0 with out breaking a lot of the mechanics?

 

[Loonook]

Notice it was a Fighter, not a Thief.
And...we'll call this pre-Wilderness Survival/Dungeoneer's Survival Guides.

Doesn't matter if you've seen it, because the DM made it up on the spot.

I have seen throws like that before in 1E AD&D. I played a lot of modules back then. There was all sorts of stuff that showed up in them. Sure, percentage throws were more common.

Don't miss the point by arguing the details.

And you're defining on the spot. Wilderness Guide, UA, Dungeoneer's came up to create things that people had been resolving using the rules as presented in them. The same can be said of 1e that can be said of 3e because rules were created to fill in every gap as they were seen... And 3e had many of the gaps pre-filled in Core because they were seen in earlier editions.

Claiming one edition or anothermakes for a specific type is true and false at the same time. 1e's math defined a PC through some of the same methods as 3e but 3e had inflation in places where 1/2e didn't. 1/2e also had bloat as much as 3e by the end and allowedfor most of your complaints.

I remember the '3e exclusive' issue you are raising being raised in my 1e and 2e games. I remember the giant binders, boxes upon boxes of books, etc. Sadly we don't seem to.catch up to the argument until we look back at those (false) salad days.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

ps: mobile entry in a car driving down a bouncy crap road... Pardon my caps or punctuation.

 

[Water Bob]

Maybe I'm not really thinking this through, but it seems like simply removing the ability to both move and attack on the same turn would resolve a lot of these problems of "wargaminess". This might speed up combats too.

I'm going to try out what I posted above. That is: Allow up to a double move during the character's initiative, then after the combat round is run, add a suffix phase where extended movement is allowed.

So, if Caelis wants to run, all-out, he can do so, just as is presented in the vanilla game, but he's got to split movement.



The goblin goes on Initiative 18. Caelis goes on Initiative 14. And, the Orc goes on Initiative 12.

The goblin goes first, and he moves and fires his short bow at Caelis. He hits, and Caelis takes damage.

Then, Caelis goes. He moves at double speed, directly away from his foes, in a straight line (required if you move 4x speed in one round).

Then, it's the Orc's turn, who runs after Caelis. He moves 2x Speed but isn't able to catch Caelis yet.

Now, the second phase of the combat round happens we go back around in Initiative order allowing characters to complete long movements (3x and 4x moves).

So, first, we'll go to Caelis and allow him to move another length equal to 2x Speed.

And then we'll end with the Orc, allowing him to move another 2x Speed, for a total of 4x Speed for the round.



Alternatively, I may just allow a character move his 4x speed on his turn but if anyone wants to attack him (say, with a distance weapon), we'll do that at the mid-way point.



I'm going to have to see how this plays.

 

[freeAgent]

Water Bob's tree-climbing example is great. I played 2E AD&D and recently returned to the game to GM for Pathfinder. I'm lucky that most of my players know the rules less than I do and they're willing to accept my made-up-on-the-spot house rules for various combat scenarios. That said, using a skill and RAW stuff doesn't completely take things out of the DM's hands since s/he still sets the difficulty.

I've found that my Pathfinder group is much less into the roleplaying aspects of the game as my 2E group was. The game moves more quickly outside of combat (except where skill checks are involved) and slower in combat. My preference is for free-form gaming, but I'm doing what I can to give some free-form flavor to Pathfinder.