How Many of You Do This?

[Water Bob]

I was doing a little play testing of the new combat procedure that uses the Dynamic Defense rule where defenders roll defense rolls instead of an attack being compared to a static AC number.

I pulled out a map from a boxed set and randomly rolled starting positions, giving each combatant a loin clout and battleaxe. Then, I just let them go to town. Both are 1st level characters, so I knew the combat would be short.

Caelis won nish, and as luck would have it, he was exactly 30 feet (by the convoluted route I walked him through, avoiding tables and walls and such) from being toe-to-toe with his opponent, Thrallan.

Randomly placed, Thrallan got stuck in a long, narrow, 5' wide hallway. I made neither of them flat footed, and both had their weapons out, searching for the other. When Caelis came around the corner for him, it was no surprise to Thrallan.

Caelis is left handed, so I imagined him storming up to Thrallan with his battleaxe held over his right shoulder doing a slicing chop at Thrallan's upper torso as soon as he got in range.

These first level Barbarians are actually better at the parry than they are the dodge, so I imagined right handed Thrallan throwing up his own battleaxe to catch the other below the blade, knocking handles together, then, on his turn, knocking away Caelis' weapon and doing a similar strike in return.

Well, it didn't work out that way. Caelis rolled a 16 on his attack while Thrallan rolled a 15 on his parry. Caelis did 9 points of damage on Thrallan, knocking him from 11 hit points to 2.

Here's where my questions comes up....

I imagined that, when Thrallan thew up his block, that the haft of Caelis' axe caught Thrallan on the fingers and knuckles.

I had Thrallan throw a DEX check vs. a DC 9 (the total damage) to see if he retains the grip on his axe or drops it.

Then, I had Thrallan a CON check vs a DC 9 to see if the damage is serious (broken hand or fingers or crushed knuckles) or if it was something that would heal quickly and normally.

The result was: Caelis came around the corner, hustled up to his brother and swung. Thrallan threw up his block, got caught on the knuckles, and his battleaxe went spiraling at his feet.

The damage to Thrallan's hand isn't serious and permanent, but it is throbbing pretty bad and will remain close to useless until the hit points are restored.



That's a lot of color I threw in there as a GM. I do it in my game all the time, and I wonder how many of you do the same? Add things like the chance to drop the weapon...figuring out what happened with a blow...and the like?

I read a good article not that long ago (wish I could find it again) written by Ian Sturrock (one of the authors of the Conan core rule book--the game I play which is based on D&D 3.5, but not exactly the same game) that said this exact type of thing was intended for the rules but was never implemented--mainly for space reasons, but also because it's not an easy concept for some to grasp or to explain. Sturrock suggested that the GM consider actions in the fight and then apply modifiers to further combat actions as needed. For example, if a right handed fighter parries, using his weapon, a left handed fighter's strike, it could be awkward to then re-maneuver the weapon quickly enough to gain some momentum into a counter strike at the enemy. So, had Thrallan successfully blocked Caelis' blow in the example above, a -2 to Thrallan's attack would have been appropriate given that Caelis is left handed and Thrallan is right handed.

Some may not want to deal with this type of detail in combat. I find it quite fun, breathing life into a combat system that can get stale if you let it. Also, it has the side benefit of making the player think of non-traditional attacks rather than always simply attacking with his main weapon.

Had Thrallan been successful with the block, maybe his player would balk at the -2 penalty on Thrallan's attack and instead decide to kick out with one of his feet. Sturrock would say the kick is the most natural response and allow a +2 mod on the attack.

The fight goes on, back and forth, like this, with the GM intrepreting and throwing in little modifiers and checks here an there based on what he declares is happening during the fight.

Who else plays like this?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I don't.

 

[Dandu]

Do not want

 

[Axel]

Description wise, yes. I describe actions better than "the goblin hits you with his sword". This applies whether I am playing or DMing.

In terms of applying modifiers to combat rolls based on descriptive role-playing... I'd love to. The problem is a big bunch of RAW whingers (see above posters) that start wailing against everything and anything that doesn't help them.

When I am DMing I apply that awesome DM fiat "the circumstance bonus" to skill checks a lot, based on how the player describes their action or RPs the social situation. This meets with less opposition, perhaps because it is less life-or-death than combat.

 

[Water Bob]

The problem is a big bunch of RAW whingers (see above posters) that start wailing against everything and anything that doesn't help them.

Yes, understood. Your players do have to trust you as GM/DM.

Player bitching isn't always a bad thing. If players don't bitch a little, it scares me. Their bitching means that they're "into" the game and care about what happens to their characters--that they're invested.

I try to make it fun and let the players have a hand in what happens to NPCs with the stakes are reversed. Sometimes, they can be quite creative.

I also try not to go too far. I want to cause a problem for the character, not poke out his eye. I'll leave criticals for when criticals are thrown. In the above, the character dropped his weapon. That's not too bad. And, if he uses that hand, I'll simply give him a -2 modifier when he uses it. That's not overbearing.

Plus, I try to give a check for the bad things not to happen. The character above got a DEX check vs. a DC 9, and the "9" I got from the damage rolled against the character. That's not unreasonable.

And...sometime some cool outcomes sprout from these obstacles. For example, let's say the Caelis character is left handed, but Thrallan, the defender is right handed. The GM listens to the players describing their attacks or blocks and decides that he will give the Thrallan character a -2 on his attack because it's awkward to block a left handed attacker with your right hand and then reposition for a strike.

The player playing Thrallan then says, Well, if my arm is shoved with my weapon way out there in a block, the natural thing to do would be to raise my leg and kick Caelis in the chest."

That makes a lot of sense to me, as GM, given the physical position of the two combatants as described, so I would not only remove the normal penalty associated with a kick, but I would also give Thrallan a +2 on his kick attack (as a reward for a good idea in combat).

This spices up combat to no end, making it much more than two dots on a map rolling dice until the other dot disappears.

It makes the combats quite memorable, too.

 

[Pergentile]

Not I.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

In terms of applying modifiers to combat rolls based on descriptive role-playing... I'd love to. The problem is a big bunch of RAW whingers (see above posters) that start wailing against everything and anything that doesn't help them.

The problem isn't RAW vs. RAI, the problem is the added rolls, the cascade of rulings, and the arbitrariness. If every time you describe an axe attack as smacking the defender's knuckles with the haft you add a Dex and Con check into the mix, combat slows to a crawl. If you already use plenty of tactics and positioning, as most groups including mine do, you're adding extra rolls and modifiers on top of flanking/high ground bonuses, status conditions, and other fiddly bits, and the return on that extra complication just isn't worth it.

Regarding the cascade of rulings: So you can smack someone's hand to hinder them until healed. Great. What exactly are the penalties? If it's something numerical, you need to figure out how big the penalty is; that might take a few tries to get right. If it makes the hand completely useless, that's far too good for such little effort, so people will start describing their attacks the same way to try to get that benefit, so again you need to fiddle with it. Once you decide on the penalty, how do you fix it? Natural healing? Cure spells? Regeneration spells? Every little decision requires some thought on balance level and fun factor, plus you have to remember previous rulings so you're consistent, and so on. Again, the extra effort just isn't worth it.

Regarding arbitrariness: A right-handed person blocking a lefty, or the reverse, imposes a -2 penalty on attacks. Assuming you've already done the pondering from above as to whether that's a good penalty, how do you apply it for the faceless mooks the PCs will probably face? If you assume most people are right-handed, then (A) the only time a mook would ever be a lefty is when you want to give your righty PCs a -2 penalty and (B) lefty PCs basically gain a constant +2 AC for their opponents' penalty.

 

[Water Bob]

The problem isn't RAW vs. RAI, the problem is the added rolls, the cascade of rulings, and the arbitrariness.

The arbirariness is what most would object to, I agree. That's why I said that this is good for player who really trust their GM/DM. If they do, his arbirtrary rulings enhance the game.

I always throw dice behind a screen and almost never let my players see what I've thrown. I don't want them thinking about rules, dice, and modifiers. I want them to hear the story I'm weaving, live through the experience via their characters, and come out of the game session feeling like they've been transported to a place rather than having played a game.

The arbitrary description is part of that.

If every time you describe an axe attack as smacking the defender's knuckles with the haft you add a Dex and Con check into the mix, combat slows to a crawl.

But, it's not "every time"! It's arbitrary! It's the DM telling a story.

It's akin to the DM saying, "You notice a strange design on the goblin's shield. You saw it before on the mage's robe." That's the DM arbitrarily deciding that the character noticed and recognized the design, and put two-and-two together rather than making the character roll some sort of INT/WIS/Perception check to see if he noticed the design.

It's very close to the same thing, except we're talking about combat rather than exploration.

I usually look for "clues" in the player's description, and I watch what the dice "say". In the example in the OP, the DM described how the NPC Caelis would attack left handed, and the player described how his right handed character would attempt to parry.

It was the handedness that was my "clue" in this situation.

Then, when Caelis hit and reduced Thrallan by 9 points from 11 to 2, the dice "said" that something fairly powerful happened here. Thus, I ruled that Thrallan got his fingers cracked, gave the player a check to keep from dropping his weapon to be fair, and then moved on with what had been established.

This makes combat exciting because of the arbitrariness. In a regular game, without this aspect I'm speaking of, the character doesn't care as much that his toon was reduced to 2 HP. My arbitrary call makes the combat so much more memorable. "Hey, remember when Thrallan blocked a guy and got his fingers crushed, then swung his leg out and kicked the guy in the balls! Man, what an encounter!"

Regular RAW dicing back and forth does not allow this element of the unexpected--the mystery--the risk of combat.

If a player can embrace this type of thing, he just might find the game so much more fun.

Embracing and trusting the DM is the hard part for many players, I think.

If you already use plenty of tactics and positioning, as most groups including mine do, you're adding extra rolls and modifiers on top of flanking/high ground bonuses, status conditions, and other fiddly bits, and the return on that extra complication just isn't worth it.

To the contrary, I think a combat can get steril and boring when the players are more focussed on the modifiers, flanking bonuses, and such, instead of living in the moment. I don't want my players thinking about rules. Heck, I don't even care if they know a lot about the rules. I'm the DM, and I change the world as I see fit for me and my players to have a good time. I don't want them playing like they're playing a computer game. I want them experiencing a life in a fantasy world.

As far as bogging down the game, I find that doing something like I describe peaks their interest. "Whaaa.... I just got my fingers bruised and maybe broken!"

It sure wakes them up.

And, if it in some way is bogging down the game, then I will leave it out, just like I'll skip a wandering monster I might have rolled if it doesn't "fit" into what's happening in the game at the moment.

Part of the DM's job is to keep the story moving, the game interesting. I try very hard not to do things that make the game un-involving.

Regarding arbitrariness: A right-handed person blocking a lefty, or the reverse, imposes a -2 penalty on attacks. Assuming you've already done the pondering from above as to whether that's a good penalty, how do you apply it for the faceless mooks the PCs will probably face? If you assume most people are right-handed, then (A) the only time a mook would ever be a lefty is when you want to give your righty PCs a -2 penalty and (B) lefty PCs basically gain a constant +2 AC for their opponents' penalty.

It's a bit high, but I give NPCs a 10% chance of being a lefty. Reality is probably more like 6-8%.

 

[Empirate]

In terms of applying modifiers to combat rolls based on descriptive role-playing... I'd love to. The problem is a big bunch of RAW whingers (see above posters) that start wailing against everything and anything that doesn't help them.

Wow, that was an "interesting" way to open a discussion. Flat-out insults and dissing of usually extremely helpful, longtime patrons Dandu and Patryn. Their dismissal of the OP's question (which, BTW, also goes for me) is probably as frugal as it is because there is every reason not to apply arbitrary modifiers in the way described here. Their style does say a lot more than they do with words!


On to this thread's issue: this has nothing to do with trust, and everything to do with plot control. In the best games, players and DM are eye-to-eye, collaborating to bring the story into being. Where storytelling includes mechanics, all must share the same mechanics. Where it doesn't, you needn't roll at all, be it behind your screen or in the open, since the rolls just make the difference you want them to.

Would you allow your players to come up with crazy modifiers or extra rolls, just based on their imagination of a scene? If the answer is "no", then you're not developing a story together, but telling one to the players. That kind of one-sided affair is not what sets RPGs apart from watching a video or reading a book. If, OTOH, the answer is "yes", you're playing magical tea party and might as well do away with the rules.

That's why I can't endorse the thing you describe, Water Bob, and would never do it in my game.


Also, what Eldritch_Lord said.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Wow, that was an "interesting" way to open a discussion. Flat-out insults and dissing of usually extremely helpful, longtime patrons Dandu and Patryn. Their dismissal of the OP's question (which, BTW, also goes for me) is probably as frugal as it is because there is every reason not to apply arbitrary modifiers in the way described here. Their style does say a lot more than they do with words!

You describe certain posters differently that I would, the majority of the time I see them post.

On to this thread's issue: this has nothing to do with trust, and everything to do with plot control. In the best games, players and DM are eye-to-eye, collaborating to bring the story into being. Where storytelling includes mechanics, all must share the same mechanics. Where it doesn't, you needn't roll at all, be it behind your screen or in the open, since the rolls just make the difference you want them to.

It does have to do with trust. I once ran a game where the players wrote down their stats, class, level, and equipment. The bard asked what he should write for abilities, and I told him not to write anything down. When asked what he could do, I told him "bard-like stuff." We played the entire game with only a pool of d6s. Players would say "I want to swing at the undead wyvern's throat." I'd say "roll 1d6" or "roll 3d6" or whatever felt right. They'd roll, I'd call the events. The players felt extremely immersed in the game. They didn't even know the rules. It was all arbitration, and I made all the "mechanical" decisions. If I felt something was within their power, I let them have it. If it wasn't, then I didn't.

It's not about power. I wouldn't stop them from doing what they wanted anymore than not having level 9 spells stops you from having level 9 spells. It definitely takes a lot more trust, however, to play that style of game. Now, it's not my preferred play style, but it's definitely exceptionally enjoyable, if everyone can trust the GM, and if everyone is relaxed enough to let the GM handle the details. All the players have to do is focus on their character, and everything else is taken care of.

As far as a shared storytelling experience... well, I'm very against the narrative style of play. That's not to say I'm against plot or setting or political intricacies or anything else. I'm very into a story being discovered by player and GM alike. However, the GM, in my opinion, deserves much more control over the story than the players. If nothing else, a huge perk of being the GM is letting your creative juices fly, and that includes weaving an interesting and enjoyable setting for the character.

It does not mean that you railroad your players. It does mean, however, that while you aren't working against them, you shouldn't be working for them, either. Not if you're actually fair, anyways. I know a lot of people here will disagree about the enjoyment that can be found, and they're right, because it's subjective. My group enjoys the playstyle I describe, and your group likes the way you play. And that's amazing, really. We can describe such sharply different preferences within such a similar system (3.x with houserules), and still enjoy ourselves. Because really, play what you like

Would you allow your players to come up with crazy modifiers or extra rolls, just based on their imagination of a scene? If the answer is "no", then you're not developing a story together, but telling one to the players. That kind of one-sided affair is not what sets RPGs apart from watching a video or reading a book. If, OTOH, the answer is "yes", you're playing magical tea party and might as well do away with the rules.

Nope, I wouldn't allow my players to name their bonus. But again, I'm pretty against a narrative style of play. However, your "if you let players decide, you may as well not have rules!" is an extremely weak argument. Do you think rules should matter? Then you better not houserule anything ever, and you better not ever let someone do something not described in a book, or you may as well get rid of all the rules!

However, as I do consider myself in charge of the game (it's up to me to keep the pacing reasonable, the story and plot and setting interesting, and it's up to me to tell the players how they fair when they try to kick some butt), it's really up to me how something happens. I try very hard not to make arbitrary decisions, but it's still me making the decision, not the players. If I decide that attacking from a 1.5-ft. high platform doesn't count as high ground, then it's my call. If I said it did, it'd be my call. The difference between a circumstance bonus for high ground or for parrying is conceptually nil.

I try to follow the RAW as closely as I can, but I definitely break them to follow the RAII (rules as I intended... you see, I wrote the book we play from). To that end, if I say there's a certain circumstance bonus or penalty in play, it's not a "right" or "wrong" call objectively. Subjectively, it definitely is. Don't play it if you don't like it, for sure. I totally agree that it sucks if you play with it, if you dislike it. And again, it's amazing we can have totally different play styles, and each get our way. The hobby truly is amazing in that regard

That's why I can't endorse the thing you describe, Water Bob, and would never do it in my game.

That's awesome for your group. I don't do it in my game, either

However, I do have a "Hit Chart" that we roll on every single hit in combat. 1-100, with certain numbers being expanded (for example, if you roll Face Wound, you roll another d10 to see the effect, or if you roll Head Wound, you roll another d6). It makes combat amazingly unique. Every single hit that lands, I have excited players. It's no longer just "HP" damage ("You see the number twelve appear above his head. It's red, two-dimensional, and rises quickly up towards the sky, disappearing after about half a second."). PCs and NPCs alike can roll any number of effects: opponent stunned, wound becomes infected, gain bonuses this encounter as you get into the groove of combat, deal a mortal wound, hamstring the opponent, etc.

One of my players once dueled a man who was leading a force that had imprisoned the party and the prince and his forces. The player hit, rolled on the chart "critical damage this round and next round, due to blood loss." With a successful Assess check (unique skill to my game), he knew the man wasn't going to live through the damage next round, and since the man had been hamstrung previously in the fight, the player turned and walked away. The man tried to follow him, but fell, dying from the blood loss.

And wouldn't you know it, the next time he dueled someone (a demon commander who had taken over the prince's fortress in his absence), he rolls the exact same two rolls, and nails his Assess check. Again, he turns and walks away, and the demon can do nothing but try to follow and die.

That's pretty much impossible in any game unless you either make rulings, like the OP, or if you get really lucky rolls on a chart of some sort, like my player. However, since then, the other players give his character props for his "signature killing move" that he's used against two NPCs. If it had just been HP damage, the players would still remember that time when he beat the commander, but it wouldn't be nearly so fondly remembered.

Maybe that's something most groups wouldn't like. I don't know. I know my players were wary of the Hit Chart at first, but they love the thing now, even if occasionally it does really hurt them, or even kill them. To them, it gives combat a lot more flavor, and we like it. So, the lesson here is, play what you like, and don't get on someone else for playing what they like