Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Water Bob" data-source="post: 6580485" data-attributes="member: 92305">--  INITIATIVE and EARNED SKILL CHECKS --I present a lot of optional rules in this thread, but I actually use very few of them in my own game.  I'm a GM who likes to play the rules as written as much as possible.  I always keep House Rules, in most of the RPGs that I play, to the barest minimum (and none at all, if I can manage it).  The one House Rule I do like and use is the GUSTUD rule (that you will find earlier in this thread).  That rule is priceless to combat, making it even livelier than it already is in the Conan RPG.One other rule change that I wholeheartedly think should be changed (and it can be argued that the Conan RPG does not implement this rule) is the way GMs are instructed to roll Initiative in the 3.5 Core d20 rules.  If you look at the 3.5 DMG, you may be surprised that Initiative is meant to be rolled whenever an enemy is sighted.  This is a far cry from how I've always rolled initiative--when an aggressive action, like an attack or the casting of a spell, is made.If you don't believe that the 3.5 rules are written like this, then go to the 3.5 DMG and read the examples.  There's even an example where an enemy is sighted on the other side of a door, initiative is rolled, and the GM is instructed to count rounds off before the door is opened where both sides can get at each other.I don't think this plays well at all.  It's a factor of the 3.5 being rooted as more of a tactical wargame meant to be played out on a grid than it is a free-form roleplaying game.  For me, it's always worked better in my games when the time for rolling initiative came organically, when an offensive action is made.  Doing it the 3.5 way precludes a lot of roleplaying that can happen.  Think of the party running into a known foe.  In 3.5, you roll initiative right there.  Using what I suggest, you have opportunities to avoid combat and parlay through the situation.I don't think its necessary to default to combat each and every time a potential enemy is sighted.On Skill Checks....One other thing I should address here is skill checks, especially those type that are interpersonal.  Back in the days of AD&D, long before there were non-weapon proficiencies (and even longer before there were skills), players would describe how they were going to handle actions.  What were they going to say.  How they were going to act.  If they didn't act it out, they'd describe it third person.  Even when a roll was involved, say, with Thief class skills, traps were looked for using a 10' pool, asking the DM how the floor looked.  Where there any scratches?  Searching for thin, almost invisible cat-gut stretch across a corridor, and once found, the player described how he would handle the situation.  It was at that point that I, as DM, would call for a thief skill check.  Once I knew how the character was going to go about searching for traps on chest or secret doors in a wall, I would allow the roll--not before.As 3E has come along, with it's in depth skill system and wargame-like affection for tactical grid movement, many players seem to forget the roleplaying and go straight to the dice rolling.  "I check for traps here!"  And, then roll dice, is not near as fun, I think, as playing out the situation through roleplaying with the give-n-take between the player and GM.No, I'm not talking about bogging the game down.  Sure, there are many instances where its best to just roll dice and move on, keeping the game moving.  Sometimes, it's most interesting to roleplay the bartering between character and merchant.  This can be fun and take half the game sessions.  Other times, its best to roll dice quickly and move on.  It's up to the GM to keep his finger on the pulse of his game and decide which approach is appropriate at the moment.  So, all that I'm saying here is that I think it is best to bring back the roleplaying sometimes.  When its appropriate.  Don't default to rolling dice all the time, seeing the outcome, and moving on.  You might as well play a computer game if you do it that way.  So much fun can be had by roleplaying out the different obstacles and situations that pop up in a game.What I do to encourage this type of old school gaming is to ask my players questions when they state their character is doing something.  I don't allow a roll right away.  For example, let's consider the simple situation of a PC trying to enter a town past the gate guard after night has fallen and the gates are closed.  Instead of going straight to Diplomacy checks, ask the player what he says.  Roleplay some it out.  It is here that I would probably roll dice.  I'd allow Arus a Diplomacy check and give him a +2 circumstance bonus for the fun roleplaying to boot!  I find this so much more fun that defaulting to something like....--  There's a gate guard.  He won't let you in.--  OK, I'll roll Diplomacy and try to talk him out of it.--  Sure.  You bribe him.  Give him three silvers and enter.The roleplaying I find fun and interesting.  The default rolling is boring to me.  But, as I said above, there are times when defaulting to rolling is the clear choice.  Maybe the party is tired of roleplaying having spent the first half of the game sessions with a greedy merchant.  Or, maybe the action is happening elsewhere, and a character ran back to town to get a needed item.  In those cases, roll dice and keep the game moving.Always default to the most interesting thing that you can do in the game.  Sometimes, that is straight dice rolling.  But, don't forget how much fun you can have with impromptu roleplaying moments.</blockquote>

Verification