How Many of You Do This?
- Thread starter Water Bob
- Start date
airwalkrr
Adventurer
I do nothing of the sort. Adding extra checks based on arbitrary judgments to a game (presuming we are talking about 3.5) that is already tactically diverse and complex is a fool's errand. Now, when a player rolls a natural 1 against an opponent, I might describe the effect as the character's axe striking the ground or an adjacent wall causing the character to be off-balance for a moment, but it is merely descriptive. It has no mechanical effect on the game. It was merely such a terrible shot that it was destined to miss. I find adding descriptive elements to the game accomplishes much of what the OP seems to think is exciting without adding extra (unnecessary) dice into the equation.
There was going to be a whole diatribe on arbitrary decisions and how they discomfort players of tactical games but it was way too long and I felt it distracted from the point, so I'll let my first paragraph stand. I don't do it.
There was going to be a whole diatribe on arbitrary decisions and how they discomfort players of tactical games but it was way too long and I felt it distracted from the point, so I'll let my first paragraph stand. I don't do it.
Eldritch_Lord
Adventurer
Apologies in advance for the wall o' text.
This, I think, is where you and I differ. When I DM, I'm not "telling a story," which implies I have more of a right to dictate the narrative than the players do. I'm providing a setting for my players, and they're free to do what they want with that in terms of narrative. In the former approach, you're deciding what would be "cool" or "flashy" or whatever and improvising ad-hoc mechanical rulings to make the mechanics fit the narrative; in the latter approach, I let the rules dictate the outcome of player actions and narrate what the outcome is.
Making arbitrary rulings of this sort (A) takes some of the narrative control out of the hands of the players and (B) doesn't always (or even most of the time) achieve what you want to achieve. For instance, to continue with the same example, let's say you rule that a righty attacking a lefty or vice versa should take a penalty on attack rolls due to the difficulty of parrying left to right. On the one hand (no pun intended), this takes away from the character to some extent--what if the character trained with a left-handed master, and so has no problem parrying lefties? What if the character, in fact, has an easier time parrying lefties because he trained exclusively with left-handed masters? Sure, in general PCs won't have a background specifically mentioning this, but it can make a difference (what if they run into their master later in game and the DM or player decides on the spot that he's a lefty to pull an Inigo Montoya "I am not right handed!" trick?), and if they do mention it and make a point of this, you have to make an ad-hoc rules change to your ad-hoc rules change. This particular example is fairly trivial, but the fact remains that ad-hoc rulings can have wide-ranging, often unforeseen, consequences.
On the other hand, the ruling doesn't actually work from a verisimilitude perspective. If anything, lefties should take penalties against other lefties, because they'd have been trained to fight right-handers and wouldn't know what to do against another lefty. Thus, a ruling intended to make the fight more "realistic" has in fact done the opposite. You don't always have the time or ability to reality-check these kinds of things mid-combat, so while they may seem to work at the time to you, (A) the players may think "Wait a second..." after the fact and possibly be upset if the ruling had a large impact on the battle and (B) people who are knowledgeable in the area your ruling covers (such as a fencer for the lefty/righty example) would derive less satisfaction from what they perceive to be a nonsensical ruling.
And why is that an example of a good ruling? Serious question.
There are two schools of thought to D&D, generally speaking: challenge the player or challenge the character. In the AD&D days of yore, the structure of the game challenged the player. The player handled RPing, so a low-Cha orc fighter played by a thespian was more persuasive than a high-Cha thief played by a recluse. The player handled trapfinding and puzzle solving, so if the player didn't think to check the lock for traps, oh well, bye bye PC. In this sort of circumstance, it should really be up to the players to remember this sort of detail; if they don't realize that the goblins are connected to the mage's guild, that could make later battles harder as the goblins are reinforced by the mages and the PCs don't know to take the mages out.
Nowadays, the philosophy is to challenge the character, with 3e providing skills for social situations so an 18-Cha bard is a smooth-talking scoundrel whether played by an actor or an introvert, skills for trapfinding and -disabling so that the player doesn't have to read the DM's mind to have even a chance of survival, and so forth. In this sort of circumstance, it should really be up to the character to remember this sort of detail; that's what Int and Wis checks are for, to see if the savvy character who lives in this world and is concerned about mage/goblin relations remembers the connection even if the player forgot, or conversely to see if the slightly-dim character forgets the connection even if the DM would have otherwise reminded the player. You can't completely remove metagaming from the equation, obviously, but the rules for Knowledge/social skills and Int checks and such are meant to help with that.
Again, if the DM just decides that the characters remember or know something, it (A) is just as arbitrary and fair as deciding that they don't remember or know something, which is detrimental to the player and (B) takes some of the responsibility of the players/characters away (and privileges, as if the DM says "Sorry, I'm not going to remind you of X" a player is perfectly justified in saying "My character is a 20-Int rogue, he'd remember that!").
First, and I mean no offense by this, I'd like to point out the irony of someone who advocates realism and immersion in their games and then calls a PC a "toon."
Second, in my opinion, combats shouldn't be memorable due to DM calls, they should be memorable due to player actions--again, the players should have investment in the narrative as well. "That battle where I hit the guy and he dropped his sword and I killed him when he went to pick it up" is not nearly as satisfying for the player as "That battle where I disarmed the guy and I killed him while he was defenseless." One involves the DM deciding that the enemy loses his weapon and the PC getting an advantage with no particular input on his part, the other involves a PC deliberating making the choice to deprive his opponent of his weapon and capitalizing on the success of his own tactical decision.
The "regular RAW dicing back and forth," as you call it, is not merely soulless calling out of damage numbers and hit point totals. Positioning is important, creative use of resources is important, negation of enemy advantages is important; there are many other things in 3e combat besides attack rolls and AC. In fact, when playing by the rules, a player can be confident in his tactical decisions. "I charge down the hill at him and attack!" he says, knowing that he'll get +1 attack for high ground and +2 attack for the charge and thus that this intuitively-advantageous action is in fact mechanically advantageous in the game and worth his time to do. If the DM can at any time say, "You know what, the hill is kinda slippery, make a DC 9 Balance check or you fall" or "You're kinda out of control running down a hill, take -2 attack," then players can't make decisions that are as well-informed as they could if they could rely on the rules, and would in general be disincentivized from making creative attacks (unless you ad-hoc most attacks anyway, in which case combat is a crapshoot).
I'm a DM, not a player--I DM the vast majority of the time, and haven't played a full campaign in a year at least--yet I disagree that this is about trust; I've been playing with one of my groups for over a decade and the other for three years, and my players in both groups trust me implicitly as a DM. However, they trust me for several reasons: They know that I abide by the rules for the most part, and can thus be trusted to be impartial and not "out to get them." They know that if I'm going to make houserules I declare them before the game starts and any on-the-fly rulings I have to make I'll get their approval on, and thus I can be trusted to be fair and not pull rules changes mid-session. If I were to one day declare "Okay guys, I'm going to start trying something out to make combat interesting" or just do it without telling them, they'd probably go along with it, trusting me to do a good job and make things more fun...but that doesn't mean that it's okay to do this if your players trust you, nor does it ensure that they will continue to trust you if you do this.
If your players enjoy arbitrary combat tweaks, that's great, more power to them and I congratulate you on finding a group that meshes with your playstyle, and I'm not at all implying that making arbitrary rulings will suddenly make your group hate you or anything like that. However, the fact that this works for your group does not imply either that it would work for others or that it is in fact a better system than the default rules.
If you don't mind me asking...if you're going to make things up as you go along, why play a rules-heavy system like D&D in the first place? And if you weren't attempting to simulate D&D with that game, why do you think the same system would work for rules-heavy D&D as did for a rules-light freeform game? Again, the D&D rules are fairly comprehensive (some would say too comprehensive) and consistent; people generally play rules-heavy games because of this fact. Were I to run a lighter system like FATE or Fudge, or one of the many quicker and more abstract indie games, or something freeform like Amber Diceless, you can bet I'd have all sorts of on-the-fly rulings based on player descriptions, and the game would be better for it. That sort of play works for those sorts of games, and in fact is practically the whole point. However, in those games the DM is given many more blank spots in the rules he's expected to fill in himself, and the combat systems are basic enough that such ad-hoc rulings are easy and beneficial.
As I mentioned above, as a DM I see my job as world-builder, not storyteller. The DM has created an entire world, has countless NPCs at his metaphorical fingertips, and has the control of the general plot. The DM's job stops there. the PCs are the only characters the players control; they should have as few narrative constraints as possible. The exact events of the plot are the only impact the players can have on the world; the DM should interfere with the nitty-gritty details as little as possible. So while I completely agree that a DM should be able to create an engaging setting, memorable NPCs, and a compelling plot, when combat or a social encounter or a bit of exploration comes up he should sit back and let the PCs direct the course of the encounter without trying to tweak things to make things turn out how he thinks they "should."
There is a middle ground between pure RAW and arbitrary rulings. That middle ground is the DM and players working together. When you make houserules, lay them out upfront, before the game begins, and make sure the players agree with them or tweak them if they don't. When you make rulings during play, make sure it seems fair to the players. D&D isn't exactly a democracy, since the DM's word goes, so when exercising that power a DM should make sure it results in fun for everyone involved. Sometimes you have to make a call the players disagree with because of hidden factors or other considerations (e.g. the "No, that doesn't count as high ground" ruling above) but your rulings should be consistent and fair so that it's easier to trust you when you do that. And that's perfectly okay, the DM has veto and ruling powers for a reason, but making a habit of arbitrary rulings is, I think, a mistake.
And, for the record, I agree completely with your philosophy that the rules take a backseat to fun; I simply believe different levels of DM intervention in the rules lead to that increased fun than you do.
This, I think, is where you and I differ. When I DM, I'm not "telling a story," which implies I have more of a right to dictate the narrative than the players do. I'm providing a setting for my players, and they're free to do what they want with that in terms of narrative. In the former approach, you're deciding what would be "cool" or "flashy" or whatever and improvising ad-hoc mechanical rulings to make the mechanics fit the narrative; in the latter approach, I let the rules dictate the outcome of player actions and narrate what the outcome is.
Making arbitrary rulings of this sort (A) takes some of the narrative control out of the hands of the players and (B) doesn't always (or even most of the time) achieve what you want to achieve. For instance, to continue with the same example, let's say you rule that a righty attacking a lefty or vice versa should take a penalty on attack rolls due to the difficulty of parrying left to right. On the one hand (no pun intended), this takes away from the character to some extent--what if the character trained with a left-handed master, and so has no problem parrying lefties? What if the character, in fact, has an easier time parrying lefties because he trained exclusively with left-handed masters? Sure, in general PCs won't have a background specifically mentioning this, but it can make a difference (what if they run into their master later in game and the DM or player decides on the spot that he's a lefty to pull an Inigo Montoya "I am not right handed!" trick?), and if they do mention it and make a point of this, you have to make an ad-hoc rules change to your ad-hoc rules change. This particular example is fairly trivial, but the fact remains that ad-hoc rulings can have wide-ranging, often unforeseen, consequences.
On the other hand, the ruling doesn't actually work from a verisimilitude perspective. If anything, lefties should take penalties against other lefties, because they'd have been trained to fight right-handers and wouldn't know what to do against another lefty. Thus, a ruling intended to make the fight more "realistic" has in fact done the opposite. You don't always have the time or ability to reality-check these kinds of things mid-combat, so while they may seem to work at the time to you, (A) the players may think "Wait a second..." after the fact and possibly be upset if the ruling had a large impact on the battle and (B) people who are knowledgeable in the area your ruling covers (such as a fencer for the lefty/righty example) would derive less satisfaction from what they perceive to be a nonsensical ruling.
And why is that an example of a good ruling? Serious question.
There are two schools of thought to D&D, generally speaking: challenge the player or challenge the character. In the AD&D days of yore, the structure of the game challenged the player. The player handled RPing, so a low-Cha orc fighter played by a thespian was more persuasive than a high-Cha thief played by a recluse. The player handled trapfinding and puzzle solving, so if the player didn't think to check the lock for traps, oh well, bye bye PC. In this sort of circumstance, it should really be up to the players to remember this sort of detail; if they don't realize that the goblins are connected to the mage's guild, that could make later battles harder as the goblins are reinforced by the mages and the PCs don't know to take the mages out.
Nowadays, the philosophy is to challenge the character, with 3e providing skills for social situations so an 18-Cha bard is a smooth-talking scoundrel whether played by an actor or an introvert, skills for trapfinding and -disabling so that the player doesn't have to read the DM's mind to have even a chance of survival, and so forth. In this sort of circumstance, it should really be up to the character to remember this sort of detail; that's what Int and Wis checks are for, to see if the savvy character who lives in this world and is concerned about mage/goblin relations remembers the connection even if the player forgot, or conversely to see if the slightly-dim character forgets the connection even if the DM would have otherwise reminded the player. You can't completely remove metagaming from the equation, obviously, but the rules for Knowledge/social skills and Int checks and such are meant to help with that.
Again, if the DM just decides that the characters remember or know something, it (A) is just as arbitrary and fair as deciding that they don't remember or know something, which is detrimental to the player and (B) takes some of the responsibility of the players/characters away (and privileges, as if the DM says "Sorry, I'm not going to remind you of X" a player is perfectly justified in saying "My character is a 20-Int rogue, he'd remember that!").
First, and I mean no offense by this, I'd like to point out the irony of someone who advocates realism and immersion in their games and then calls a PC a "toon."
Second, in my opinion, combats shouldn't be memorable due to DM calls, they should be memorable due to player actions--again, the players should have investment in the narrative as well. "That battle where I hit the guy and he dropped his sword and I killed him when he went to pick it up" is not nearly as satisfying for the player as "That battle where I disarmed the guy and I killed him while he was defenseless." One involves the DM deciding that the enemy loses his weapon and the PC getting an advantage with no particular input on his part, the other involves a PC deliberating making the choice to deprive his opponent of his weapon and capitalizing on the success of his own tactical decision.
The "regular RAW dicing back and forth," as you call it, is not merely soulless calling out of damage numbers and hit point totals. Positioning is important, creative use of resources is important, negation of enemy advantages is important; there are many other things in 3e combat besides attack rolls and AC. In fact, when playing by the rules, a player can be confident in his tactical decisions. "I charge down the hill at him and attack!" he says, knowing that he'll get +1 attack for high ground and +2 attack for the charge and thus that this intuitively-advantageous action is in fact mechanically advantageous in the game and worth his time to do. If the DM can at any time say, "You know what, the hill is kinda slippery, make a DC 9 Balance check or you fall" or "You're kinda out of control running down a hill, take -2 attack," then players can't make decisions that are as well-informed as they could if they could rely on the rules, and would in general be disincentivized from making creative attacks (unless you ad-hoc most attacks anyway, in which case combat is a crapshoot).
I'm a DM, not a player--I DM the vast majority of the time, and haven't played a full campaign in a year at least--yet I disagree that this is about trust; I've been playing with one of my groups for over a decade and the other for three years, and my players in both groups trust me implicitly as a DM. However, they trust me for several reasons: They know that I abide by the rules for the most part, and can thus be trusted to be impartial and not "out to get them." They know that if I'm going to make houserules I declare them before the game starts and any on-the-fly rulings I have to make I'll get their approval on, and thus I can be trusted to be fair and not pull rules changes mid-session. If I were to one day declare "Okay guys, I'm going to start trying something out to make combat interesting" or just do it without telling them, they'd probably go along with it, trusting me to do a good job and make things more fun...but that doesn't mean that it's okay to do this if your players trust you, nor does it ensure that they will continue to trust you if you do this.
If your players enjoy arbitrary combat tweaks, that's great, more power to them and I congratulate you on finding a group that meshes with your playstyle, and I'm not at all implying that making arbitrary rulings will suddenly make your group hate you or anything like that. However, the fact that this works for your group does not imply either that it would work for others or that it is in fact a better system than the default rules.
If you don't mind me asking...if you're going to make things up as you go along, why play a rules-heavy system like D&D in the first place? And if you weren't attempting to simulate D&D with that game, why do you think the same system would work for rules-heavy D&D as did for a rules-light freeform game? Again, the D&D rules are fairly comprehensive (some would say too comprehensive) and consistent; people generally play rules-heavy games because of this fact. Were I to run a lighter system like FATE or Fudge, or one of the many quicker and more abstract indie games, or something freeform like Amber Diceless, you can bet I'd have all sorts of on-the-fly rulings based on player descriptions, and the game would be better for it. That sort of play works for those sorts of games, and in fact is practically the whole point. However, in those games the DM is given many more blank spots in the rules he's expected to fill in himself, and the combat systems are basic enough that such ad-hoc rulings are easy and beneficial.
As I mentioned above, as a DM I see my job as world-builder, not storyteller. The DM has created an entire world, has countless NPCs at his metaphorical fingertips, and has the control of the general plot. The DM's job stops there. the PCs are the only characters the players control; they should have as few narrative constraints as possible. The exact events of the plot are the only impact the players can have on the world; the DM should interfere with the nitty-gritty details as little as possible. So while I completely agree that a DM should be able to create an engaging setting, memorable NPCs, and a compelling plot, when combat or a social encounter or a bit of exploration comes up he should sit back and let the PCs direct the course of the encounter without trying to tweak things to make things turn out how he thinks they "should."
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
There is a middle ground between pure RAW and arbitrary rulings. That middle ground is the DM and players working together. When you make houserules, lay them out upfront, before the game begins, and make sure the players agree with them or tweak them if they don't. When you make rulings during play, make sure it seems fair to the players. D&D isn't exactly a democracy, since the DM's word goes, so when exercising that power a DM should make sure it results in fun for everyone involved. Sometimes you have to make a call the players disagree with because of hidden factors or other considerations (e.g. the "No, that doesn't count as high ground" ruling above) but your rulings should be consistent and fair so that it's easier to trust you when you do that. And that's perfectly okay, the DM has veto and ruling powers for a reason, but making a habit of arbitrary rulings is, I think, a mistake.
And, for the record, I agree completely with your philosophy that the rules take a backseat to fun; I simply believe different levels of DM intervention in the rules lead to that increased fun than you do.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
I don't mind you asking me any question. Glad to answer them
My game is based off of 3.5. It has many of the same rules, though many have changed, or been added. We love the game, we love the structure it provides, we love the reliability it brings to our table.
I agree with you about lighter systems being better to incorporate those types of rulings into most of the time. Like I said, I don't do this approach. Instead, I've made an in-depth "Hit Chart" for combat, and the effects are simulated that way. As far as the high ground giving a bonus at 1.5 feet, or whether it doesn't, that's a decision every GM you runs 3.x has to make, as to my knowledge, no specific height is given to qualify for that bonus.
I totally agree. As I said, I'm pretty against the narrative style of play. It's not about creating a story for me, and more about seeing what story unfolds. I think we're in complete agreement here. Since I don't use arbitrary rulings in combat, and all in-combat effects are mechanical (with the Hit Chart), I don't need to do anything of that sort when we play. I can just sit back, and wait for the right combination of Hit Chart and NPCs mixing with the characters to make an amazingly memorable fight. They don't happen as often as if I'd arbitrarily rule on things, but when they do, since we all roll in the open, it's pretty amazing for all of us to witness.
Other than the GM and players working together, I completely agree (for my group, at least). I try to be as impartial as possible, whether it be to PC or NPC. I'm there to see what the players do, not to help them do it. To that end, I sometimes make unpopular rulings. But we're all old friends (10+ years each), so it's no big deal in the end to us. They know it's not personal when I rule against them, and they know it's not personal when I rule for them.
I completely agree about everyone having fun, though. If my style of running a game isn't best for my group's enjoyment, we should probably have someone else run things. Because, play what you like and all that
Yep, and that's perfectly okay. I think each group is different, and that's fine. I was just saying, there's nothing wrong with the OP's style of play. He didn't say it was better than anyone else's objectively. He said what he did, why he liked it, and asked if anyone else does anything similar. And, too predictably, people that disagreed railed against it to some small degree, rather than simply saying that they didn't play that way, and why.
We're in disagreement on some things (though maybe not as many as you thought!) and that's fine. I'm sure you and your group have a blast, and you should. Because, every group should be having fun. I say don't blast other people for voicing how they have their fun. Just my two cents
I thought he was quite nice to the two of them being quite rude. I mean, I open a thread for discussion, and instead of having a thoughtful difference of opinion, they decided to be jerks. At least, that's the way I read them--then promptly ignored them.
No, not really. I don't go into the combats with the intention of making any judgement call. If I were trying to control the plot with this method, I'd have an agenda to get so-and-so's arm broken, or have so-and-so receive a wound that gets infected, forcing him to meet an NPC healer I want him to meet.
Nothing of the sort happens in my game. As I said above, I simply look for "clues" I gather from the players describing their PC's actions, and then I try to see what the dice "tell" me. In some fights, nothing out of the ordinary happens. In others, something does. It is quite arbitrary and designed to liven up combat and weave a good story.
Story is king in my game, and my players definitely have a large part in the process. Sometimes, THEY are the ones that come up with the arbitrary ruling. And, as I said above, I do let them get creative whe things happens to NPCs that they're fighting.
Actually, I do.
I don't always go with what they come up with, but if it makes sense and is not overpowering, why not let the players enjoy contributing to the game like that?
"Hey, my character was raised around plains rangers--shouldn't I get a +2 bonus on my Local Customs throw to understand their ways?"
Sounds good to me. Let the player have that +2 circumstance bonus.
Absolutely it does. Any problem comes from the player not agreeing with the call.
In the original OP, the defender had his hit points reduced by A LOT. What could have caused that? The character isn't bleeding and dying, so something less than a serious wound must have happened to him in order to lose those points.
And, it is a wound of some sort, becuase it's going to take a lot of time for that wound to fully heal naturally.
Since he was blocking, it was natural to think something happened to his hand. Crushed or bruised fingers makes a lot of sense.
Now, if you've got a player, like some of the ones that have posted in this thread, who don't go for this sort of thing, they're not going to trust the DM to implement the rules like this. They want a chart to look at, before the game even starts. Or, they don't want this type of wound implementation at all, because that type of interpolation is not mentioned in the game rules (well, it is in older AD&D, first edition, but the game seems to have gotten away from that sort of thing over the years and editions).
One of the things I do is to be careful not to always interpret combat calls against the player. I try to keep it 50/50 in favor/not in favor of the PCs. Things go the player's way, too. I do this with morale checks, wounds, all sorts of stuff.
Completely agreed. I'm the judge and jury. The buck stops here. It ain't so unless I say so.
My player contribut a lot to the game, and the game is better for it. But, in the end, I am the Referee. I say what goes.
Contrary to how it might seem, I actually play pretty close to RAW, too. I have few house rules.
Even what I'm doing here, in combat, is mentioned in the 3.5 rules (look at the discussion about the +2 modifier).
What I'm doing isn't out of left field.
I think you take me wrong. My campaign is a sandbox. I throw down clues, and if the players bite, we go that direction. If they don't bite, I may discard or recycle the idea for later.
I don't know where my game is going most of the time until we get there. But, when I say I'm telling a story, I mean that I'm the editor. I take in the raw data, pluck out the good parts, and spin the tale.
My players have a ton of input into what we do. I try never to railroad them. They have free will as to where their characters go and what they do.
Why not?
First off, I stick very closely to the rules as written. I have few house rules.
In our last campaign, we had a Ranger pick up Two-Weapon fighting (this was an AD&D 2E game) who just learned the combat style when he advanced a level. We had played out the Rangers life for a long while, and it was jarring to our suspension of disbelief that he could all of a sudden pick up a second weapon and be pretty good with it given that he'd never used a second weapon like that (or even trained in his "off" time).
So, what we did was lower the penalties slowly. He "worked" his way up to having the combat style. It took a couple of game months--the early part of his new level. He couldn't automatically jump to the better modifier because it just didn't make sense.
There may be people who like that jarring "Hey, I can use Two Weapons Now!" apsect of leveling, but we didn't. So, we implemented the change and had the character grow into his new skills.
What we did there is not so different from what I'm describing about combat at the top of this thread.
Furhter to the point in the OP...
I remember my very first game session. It was the summer of 1982. I was a sophomore in high school. I'd heard about this "D&D thing" for a while, but had no idea what it was all about. "Is it like monopoly?"
A good friend of mine had me over on a Saturaday. I rolled up a party--it was just me and him, so I played all the PCs. We spent half the morning making my main character and some of his friends--a thief, a mage, and a cleric.
My fried was putting me through the infamous Caves of Chaos (The Keep on the Borderlands module).
Early in the game, my party approached a locked door. The DM asked me what I wanted to do. I said that I'd have the thief approach the door, but not touch it, and my main character would cover him with his crossbow.
The DM made me show him exactly how the thief was standing. I showed him how the thief got close to the door, went down on one knee, and peeked through the keyhold, all the time pulling his picks and tools from a pouch at his belt.
My main character stood over the thief, behind him, with the cross both shoulder, pointing at the door, over the thief's head.
The thief picked the lock. He slowly turned the know then pushed the door open.
It was dark in the next room. We could see nothing. With the door open, my theif leaned from the waist, putting his head into the room to look around the sides, down the walls.
That's when the goblin, that was stading just inside the door, up against the wall, with his arm raised, let his club fall on the back of my thief's head, braining him.
The thief slumped immediately to the ground.
In a split second, my main toon fired his crossbow, nailing the goblin.
I'll never forget the DM's description. Here it is almost 30 years later, and I'm still talking about it.
My crossbow bolt slammed into the goblin on the upper part of his shoulder close to his neck. It drove deep and punched out his armpit. The goblin started to scream and fell to the ground. Mechanics-wise, the goblin still had one hit point left, but since my bolt had almost killed him, my DM made the encounter very cool and memorable.
The goblin was flopping around on the ground, his blood seeping from the top of his shoulder and from his armpit. My main character approached him, put a boot on him to steady the target, then fired another bolt into the goblin's head (it was a double shot, over-under crossbow). That bolt nailed the poor beast to the ground.
The thief wasn't dead, but the DM made him loopy for several hours. He still had a few hit points too, but the DM said that he wasn't "all there". We wrapped his head, and the cleric did what he could for him. But, it was some game hours later until the thief was fully functional again.
Man, what a good time that was. So memorable. So vivid.
God, it was fun.
I'm not sure it would have been as memorable had the goblin just taken the first crossbow bolt and kept on truckin' with his 1 hit point, or that I would have been as concerned about the thief if there was no effect to the blow the goblin laid on him.
They say the devil is in the details, and it was those details, embellished by the DM, that made that game so memorable for me and got me so hooked on this hobby.
I think, back in the old days, more people played that way. D&D wasn't a wargame-straightjacket of rules but rather a frame in which to tell your story and entice players with masterful visuals and consequences.
Back then, if you walked through a swamp, the DM might just describe the leeches you find on your legs and then tell you that you've picked up a slight cough. Today, though, some players refuse to be told by the DM that their characters have picked up a disease or a cold from walking in the swamp. They want a CON check, and if they fail, they want to see results on a chart somewhere.
I think D&D is missing something when it is reduced to dice throws and hit point count. We forget what those stats represent.
Now, was there a critical hit chart we rolled on? No. Was there some RAW rule that said goblins can be taken out of the picture if they've only got 1 hp left? No. Is it "in the game" that the thief was brained and loopy for a few hours after taking a blow like that to the back of the head?
No.
It was just a DM with common sense and a player who trusted him.
What I'm advocating is not the only way to play, and it's not the only "good" way to play.
But, it is an alternative to someone looking to find the spark in their game again.
I remember my very first game session. It was the summer of 1982. I was a sophomore in high school. I'd heard about this "D&D thing" for a while, but had no idea what it was all about. "Is it like monopoly?"
A good friend of mine had me over on a Saturaday. I rolled up a party--it was just me and him, so I played all the PCs. We spent half the morning making my main character and some of his friends--a thief, a mage, and a cleric.
My fried was putting me through the infamous Caves of Chaos (The Keep on the Borderlands module).
Early in the game, my party approached a locked door. The DM asked me what I wanted to do. I said that I'd have the thief approach the door, but not touch it, and my main character would cover him with his crossbow.
The DM made me show him exactly how the thief was standing. I showed him how the thief got close to the door, went down on one knee, and peeked through the keyhold, all the time pulling his picks and tools from a pouch at his belt.
My main character stood over the thief, behind him, with the cross both shoulder, pointing at the door, over the thief's head.
The thief picked the lock. He slowly turned the know then pushed the door open.
It was dark in the next room. We could see nothing. With the door open, my theif leaned from the waist, putting his head into the room to look around the sides, down the walls.
That's when the goblin, that was stading just inside the door, up against the wall, with his arm raised, let his club fall on the back of my thief's head, braining him.
The thief slumped immediately to the ground.
In a split second, my main toon fired his crossbow, nailing the goblin.
I'll never forget the DM's description. Here it is almost 30 years later, and I'm still talking about it.
My crossbow bolt slammed into the goblin on the upper part of his shoulder close to his neck. It drove deep and punched out his armpit. The goblin started to scream and fell to the ground. Mechanics-wise, the goblin still had one hit point left, but since my bolt had almost killed him, my DM made the encounter very cool and memorable.
The goblin was flopping around on the ground, his blood seeping from the top of his shoulder and from his armpit. My main character approached him, put a boot on him to steady the target, then fired another bolt into the goblin's head (it was a double shot, over-under crossbow). That bolt nailed the poor beast to the ground.
The thief wasn't dead, but the DM made him loopy for several hours. He still had a few hit points too, but the DM said that he wasn't "all there". We wrapped his head, and the cleric did what he could for him. But, it was some game hours later until the thief was fully functional again.
Man, what a good time that was. So memorable. So vivid.
God, it was fun.
I'm not sure it would have been as memorable had the goblin just taken the first crossbow bolt and kept on truckin' with his 1 hit point, or that I would have been as concerned about the thief if there was no effect to the blow the goblin laid on him.
They say the devil is in the details, and it was those details, embellished by the DM, that made that game so memorable for me and got me so hooked on this hobby.
I think, back in the old days, more people played that way. D&D wasn't a wargame-straightjacket of rules but rather a frame in which to tell your story and entice players with masterful visuals and consequences.
Back then, if you walked through a swamp, the DM might just describe the leeches you find on your legs and then tell you that you've picked up a slight cough. Today, though, some players refuse to be told by the DM that their characters have picked up a disease or a cold from walking in the swamp. They want a CON check, and if they fail, they want to see results on a chart somewhere.
I think D&D is missing something when it is reduced to dice throws and hit point count. We forget what those stats represent.
Now, was there a critical hit chart we rolled on? No. Was there some RAW rule that said goblins can be taken out of the picture if they've only got 1 hp left? No. Is it "in the game" that the thief was brained and loopy for a few hours after taking a blow like that to the back of the head?
No.
It was just a DM with common sense and a player who trusted him.
What I'm advocating is not the only way to play, and it's not the only "good" way to play.
But, it is an alternative to someone looking to find the spark in their game again.
Last edited:
LOL.
I was looking around at some other books I have, and I cracked open Iron Heroes--something I picked up at a used book store for cheap, put in my pile, and forgot about.
Hmm...pg. 208. Stunts.
This section of the game is basically endorsing what I've advocated in the OP. Instead of the "on the fly" method I've suggested, Iron Heroes embraces an "on the fly" + "but usually do it this way" method. There's some broad rule for how to implement the creative things players and DMs can create during combat.
Intersting...
I was looking around at some other books I have, and I cracked open Iron Heroes--something I picked up at a used book store for cheap, put in my pile, and forgot about.
Hmm...pg. 208. Stunts.
This section of the game is basically endorsing what I've advocated in the OP. Instead of the "on the fly" method I've suggested, Iron Heroes embraces an "on the fly" + "but usually do it this way" method. There's some broad rule for how to implement the creative things players and DMs can create during combat.
Intersting...
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Well, I'm sorry you can't take someone disagreeing with you without taking your figurative ball and running home.
I actually typed out a long, drawn-out post about how I use inventive descriptions all the time, but that your cavalcade of extra rolls, knock-on-effects, and minor adjustments to stat blocks would end up unbalanced, poorly applied, and IMO an active deterrent to fun, but then figured that wouldn't be particularly constructive.
So I pared down my response.
If you want, I can tell you more about why I think your mechanical ideas are pretty terrible, but you probably aren't reading this, so ...
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
Interesting subject (notwithstanding the side argument). I most definitely add in more description than the mechanics of the game provide, more so when not using minis than when I am. In both cases, however, I avoid description that has any mechanical effect on the game, for the most part. If I sometimes slip in something with some mechanical effect, I try to be sure it does not adversely affect the players or the PCs or allies.
Similar Threads
Level Up (A5E)
What would you do to simplify A5E and/or speed up combat?
D&D 5E (2024)
Pact Of Chain Warlock is really powerful now.
