D&D 3E/3.5 In Favor of 3.5, With One Reservation.

[Celebrim]

With 3.0/3.5, we are encouraged to throw initative as soon as a foe is in sight. This is the only way that the flatfooted rule makes sense. The flatfooted rule means that a defender cannot defend himself to his fullest. This makes absolutely no sense if the DM plays a few scenes before going to rounds.

Full agreement, and I'm glad you see that because I've been around and around on these forums with people that believe that initiative should never be rolled until physical attacks are made. The reasoning of course is, if you roll for initiative as soon as the encounter actually begins (that is, whenever both parties are aware of each other) then sneak attacks are harder to pull off than what some group desires. But of course, this rationalization - as you've seen - leads to nonsensical situations.

But, with 3.0/3.5, the correct way to play, according to the combat examples in the PHB/DMG is to roll initiative as soon as hostiles are found.

First, this is an issue that requires player training as much as anything. Players, especially long time players, are trained by experience to consider the statement, "Roll for initiative", to invariably mean that lethal frantic mortal combat is about to begin. Therefore, any time you roll initiative a player may meta that this encounter will eventually go hostile. It's necessary I think to correct that sentiment by playing through some encounters that demonstrate this isn't true. Players have to be taught that parley, barter and patience sometimes pay better dividends than gutting whoever you meet without hesitation, and that not everything that is 'ugly' necessarily wants to fight to the death or is even an enemy. Beware being that DM that punishes players for not being ruthlessly lethal at every oppurtunity.

Secondly, if players understand that the initiative is thrown as soon as an encounter begins, and that it is thereafter 'too late' to regain the advantage of someone being flatfooted (for now we will leave aside the fact that there are legimate ways for converting an alert and wary person into an unalert and unwary one, that is, to cozen a victim), then you soon realize that you can still delay throwing initiative until you need to in most encounters and it doesn't effect the resolution of an encounter at all. As long as you don't have players who are jerks, the sequence:

DM: Roll for initiative.
PC #1 : Ok, 18... is the goblin flatfooted?
DM: Not any longer, you've been conversing for at least 20 seconds now, and he was aware of you for a few seconds before that.

Is perfectly acceptable. You really only have to throw the initiative the second a target is seen all the time if your players are jerks. Of course, you may be dealing with players trained to believe that just because they yell, "Surprise! I pull my sword", that a target that has been watching them for 15 minutes is flat footed, in which case I do pity you.

 

[Water Bob]

The trick is to not use the additional information provided by the dice throw to short cut the roleplay, but to enhance it.

So if the player says, "I want to roll and Appraise check.", first of all, don't tell the player the DC.

I see what you're saying, and I used to preach the same. But, in practice in my game, the dice rolls stifled roleplaying, not enhanced it.

The dice throw is a hiccup in the smooth flow of the game.

I'm now of the opinion that dice throws should be kept to a minimum, used only when an RP moment would hurt the game by bogging it down.

I think the default in a situation should be to RP, not to roll dice. Then, if the GM thinks that haggleing with the merchant wouldn't be fun at that moment (maybe because the GM has had too many of the same type of RP sessions), then he should go to dice checks.

For example, the PCs are traveling overland and see a lone commoner on the trail, leading a cart and ox. One of the PCs wants to approach this Commoner to see if he's got any information about the gnoll bands that have been seen in the area.

Here, I think the default should be pure roleplay. Play off the players. The players should "win" or "lose" (if you can do that in an RPG) the situation based on their actions.

I don't think dice rolling should be used at all. The GM should exploit the situatuation for maximum fun.

OTOH, let's say that the PCs picked up info about the gnolls in the town and, as they are heading there, see the commoner. The GM knows that the commoner probably can't help them, and any way, spending a lot of time with the NPC is just going to bog the game down and make the PCs take a longer time getting to where the action is.

In this case, the GM should defaults to roleplaying, consider against it, then tackle the situation with a quick dice throw and move on.

"Roll your Gather Information. OK, you found out that his name is Bhen. He's a farmer from the outskirts of the county. He trades tobacco in the town. He's heard of the gnolls, but they haven't bothered him yet, and he seemed glad that you were heading there to dispatch them. Let's move on."

If the character has 16 Cha nad 11 ranks in Diplomacy, that player needs to make sure the DM knows this before the RP (either b/c they know the DM is aware of this fact or by actually pointing it out).

Now, I think this is a good idea. It's doesn't hinder the flow of a quick RP moment, and the GM can skew his RP knowing the skill and stat of the character.

This is the old way of doing it before there was a skill for everything. If a player was RPing a moment, and I knew he had a 17 CHA, then I'd consider that in my replies along with what the player said and did.

I can definitely sympathize with your complaints, but I see it as a necessary evil for the sake of making the game more fair for a broader spectrum of players.

I'm not sure if I agree with that. AD&D and AD&D 2E were around a long time before skills (and non-weapon proficiences, as we used to call them) started popping up, measuring areas of a character's talent.

Back in the 80's, there were a ton of people who played and "got it".

While 3rd edition's skill mechanics may impede that in the sense that they tend to dispose players toward strictly mechanical interaction with the game world rather than immersive roleplay, they also promote it by giving players who want to play characters with mental faculties exceeding those the player possesses in real life a way to make that a tangible reality in terms of how the character interacts with the game world. Ultimately, I feel it's better for a system to have such mechanics, because while they may tend to discourage immersive roleplaying, they do not entirely preclude it.

I don't think I quite agree. There were Dragon articles and DM's advice sections of books back in the day that would proffer advice on DMing, and usually, the advice was to not all the dice to run the game. The DM should run the game, and the players as well, through their interaction.

I think what 3.5 needs (or, maybe what should be put into D&D Next) is a return to that kind of advice. Sure, include all the stats and skills and such, but let everyone know that stuff should play second fiddle to player involvement and roleplaying.

Full agreement, and I'm glad you see that because I've been around and around on these forums with people that believe that initiative should never be rolled until physical attacks are made.

That's probably because the old school way of doing it is to stay in "scenes" as long as possible, roleplaying, and never roll initiative to slow combat rounds until absolutely necessary.

That's my preferred way of rolling for initiative. And, even though the flatfooted rule becomes silly if you run the game that way, I think the whole game is better for it.

In 3.0/3.5, the goal is to run a combat simulation on a grid battlefield. 3.0/3.5 is truely less of a roleplaying game and more of a wargame than D&D previous editions.

DM: Roll for initiative.
PC [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] : Ok, 18... is the goblin flatfooted?
DM: Not any longer, you've been conversing for at least 20 seconds now, and he was aware of you for a few seconds before that.

Although I'm still using the flatfooted rule as written and not throwing it out, I've considered it. I've decided, at least for now, to keep the rules intact and still delay rolling initiative until combat is assured.

The reason I haven't done as what you suggest (which, I'll grant you, makes more realistic sense), is that the flatfooted rule is so ingrained in the game. For example, one of the benefits of Cimmerian Barbarians is that they get the Uncanny Dodge Feat at 4th level that allows them to Dodge in flatfooted situations. If I start playing as you suggest above, then I'm basically removing a major benefit of the race from the game--because there will no longer be that many flatfooted situations.

So...I've kept the rules as is, but I don't roll initiative on site of the enemy unless combat is about to ensue. I go old school on the Nish timing. I try to keep from rolling it as long as possible.

 

[Celebrim]

The reason I haven't done as what you suggest (which, I'll grant you, makes more realistic sense), is that the flatfooted rule is so ingrained in the game. For example, one of the benefits of Cimmerian Barbarians is that they get the Uncanny Dodge Feat at 4th level that allows them to Dodge in flatfooted situations. If I start playing as you suggest above, then I'm basically removing a major benefit of the race from the game--because there will no longer be that many flatfooted situations.

Flat footed situations will still occur in the situations where they would logically make sense to occur - in encounters between groups that attack on sight. It represents 'getting the jump on someone'.

I really think that both DM's and players have gotten psychologically addicted to the notion of an ambush, so that they want to have an ambush in every encounter. I think DM's fetishize getting the jump on players by planning rehersing and savoring the image of the ambush in their heads, and coversely players do the same imagining their characters overcoming foes easily. It's going to happen often enough without forcing it. I don't think you are removing the benefit at all. You are just returning it to its proper role.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I see what you're saying, and I used to preach the same. But, in practice in my game, the dice rolls stifled roleplaying, not enhanced it.

The dice throw is a hiccup in the smooth flow of the game.

I'm now of the opinion that dice throws should be kept to a minimum, used only when an RP moment would hurt the game by bogging it down.

That will mostly depend on the group. Different players have different experiences at different tables. In some cases I've seen the roleplay disrupt how the players wanted to do things because they just wanted to get into the town and didn't want to bother with playing out the scene with the guards, so they rolled and got on to matters which they felt were more important such as talking with the king or just smashing some face.

I wouldn't recommend comparing players from the 80's to current ones because of the differences both in times and in the typical games. It's apples and oranges, and the similarity may only extend as far as they are both gamers interested in the fantasy setting, otherwise known as both grow on trees for this metaphor.

I'm hoping you intend to leave some room for those who indeed play differently than you.

 

[green slime]

With regards to puzzles and the like, most high-level wizards should be able to solve them outright, whereas most players of wizards, may struggle.

As DM, I've adjusted results based on who does what: Players running ½-Orc Int 6 barbarians have their Characters get headaches when they look at a puzzle, the problem solved when the wizard looks up from his spellbook momentarily.

When the uncharismatic PCs (Charisma is all too often used as a stat dump) makes suggestions and ideas in gatherings, they are generally ignored, misheard (supposed to be mumbling), assumed to have bad intentions, or misinterpreted. When the Paladin (or sorcerer, or other high Cha PC) says the same thing, everyone present agrees what a brilliant Idea it is (tm).

Finding/Disarming Traps is probably the most frustating of the skill sets to deal with: Firstly, traps are seldomly described in adequate detail to begin with in adventures, secondly, DnD comes with a "magic" catchall that can ignore any physical or reality requirement check. Touch door? Fort save or Die (slay living).

 

[Water Bob]

In some cases I've seen the roleplay disrupt how the players wanted to do things because they just wanted to get into the town and didn't want to bother with playing out the scene with the guards, so they rolled and got on to matters which they felt were more important such as talking with the king or just smashing some face.

I covered this above. I said a good DM defaults to RP, but a good DM also has this finger on the pulse of his game. A good DM needs to be a good story-teller, which means he might default to RP, but RP should be ditched at times in favor or rolling dice and moving on. See my example above with the PCs leaving town, looking for the gnolls, and encountering the Commoner on the trail.

I'm hoping you intend to leave some room for those who indeed play differently than you.

On the one hand, one of the DM's jobs is to know what turns a player on and give him whatever that is in the game. Different players like different things, and this sometimes presents a juggling act when player preference is at odds.

On the other hand, though, a DM needs to be judge, director, and autocratic dictator too, running his game the way he knows he should.

There's a fine line between the two.

Firstly, traps are seldomly described in adequate detail to begin with in adventures....

I actually jumped for joy when I started playing 3.0/3.5 and saw that traps had some information about how they operate. You could tell if they were mechanical or something else, and there was more info in the stat block about the trap that helped the DM in the game.

Back in the AD&D days, if I were playing a published adventure and not making it up as I went, I would sweep through the entire adventure highlighting traps. Then, with each one, I would pre-think and get creative about how the trap worked. I'd read what little info (sometimes a lot) there was in the adventure, then just create from there. That way, I was prepared to make the trap interesting when the players encountered it.

This bit of extra prep work served me well for decades.

 

[Celebrim]

Now, I think this is a good idea. It's doesn't hinder the flow of a quick RP moment, and the GM can skew his RP knowing the skill and stat of the character.

This is the old way of doing it before there was a skill for everything. If a player was RPing a moment, and I knew he had a 17 CHA, then I'd consider that in my replies along with what the player said and did.

Thinking more about this, it sounds to me like you are better served for what you want by actually adhering closer to the RAW. As I previously indicated, although almost everyone does it, the RAW don't actually allow you to use Diplomacy to make 'persuade' checks. Without the need to know whether someone's attempts at persuasion work, you can use just your knowledge of a player's Diplomacy skill bonus to set the tone of a conversation - either by 'taking 10' or rolling a reaction result check behind the screen at the start of a social encounter. This allows you to determine the general tone of the NPC toward the player. You still may want to apply some circumstantial modifiers if you want to be strict in following the dice, but if your goal is minimal interruption of the flow of conversation you might just go with the RAW.

One thing that I find very handy is having a legal pad beside me that briefly summarizes all the rolls I might want to make for the players in secret. For example, I typically list each PC and beside it the PC's flatfooted AC, reflex, will, and fort saves, and their bonuses to spot, listen, search, and sense motive. I can then quickly consult the legal pad whenever I need to make a roll on the behalf of the PC. It sounds to me that the way you want to play would be enhanced by having the appraise, diplomacy and possibly the bluff bonus for each character be written down somewhere at hand so that you don't have to interrupt the player with the rules during RP.

This would be an example of Celebrim's Second Law of RPG's in action: "How you think about playing a system is more important than the rules system itself." In this case, how you prepare to play might actually change the way that you percieve the system mechanics.

 

[Dandu]

Thinking more about this, it sounds to me like you are better served for what you want by actually adhering closer to the RAW.

In my opinion the Diplomacy rules are badly written and should be modified, but the example given was not a good example of the flaws of the Diplomacy skill.

 

[Celebrim]

In my opinion the Diplomacy rules are badly written and should be modified, but the example given was not a good example of the flaws of the Diplomacy skill.

For once (or is it twice?), we agree.

My main point is that by moving the responcibility to make the skill checks from the player to himself, he might end up radically transforming how he percieves the system as playing. His main point seems to be, "3.5's rules interrupt the flow of natural RPing by forcing an exchange of metainformation between the player and the DM" But, there is no reason, in the rules or otherwise, why the burden of producing the metainformation (the results of a dice roll) should lie with the player. In that case, if the DM takes the responcibility to produce the metainformation himself, then the proposition exchanges and flow of information can be largely confined to in game propositions - the sort of detailed 'naturalistic' propositions and exposition he outlines as desirable. And in that case, no interruption takes place, and even abiding by the rules strictly there is no reason why the natural exposition he wants should contridict player expectations.

And equivalent example from 1e, would be moving the responsibility for the Find Traps roll from the player to the DM transforms the way that the game plays even though the rules of the game per se haven't been changed. Two different examples of play using the same rules produce two different games.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

See how the older rules promoted roleplaying? It's natural to get to this place using the AD&D 2E rules. But, with 3.0/3.5, it's a different story. Instead of roleplaying, rolling dice is encouraged. Instead of the player originally asking questions about the sword, back and forth, with the GM, the question is likely to be, "I want to roll an Appraise check. What's my DC?" And, once you give him the DC, he wants to know what his check told him.

Yes, they designed this into the 3E rules, whether they really understood that they were promoting this effect or not. But, you can design it right back out without breaking things. You can eliminate the "roleplay-replacement" parts by just flat-out eliminating skills like appraisal, diplomacy, bluff, and sense motive (which in my not so humble opinion never had any real business being there in the first place]. You can change what skills like search, spot, and listen can actually be used for and how.

Player 1, "I search the room. I rolled... 29!"
DM, [without rolling dice] "You find nothing obvious."
Player 2, "I search the walls looking for secret door triggers, see if I can move the strange rock, look under the heavy carpets. I rolled only 18 though."
DM, [satisfied that player 2 is putting forth roleplaying effort, unlike player 1] "There are no secret door triggers but under the rock is a small depression holding a sack of 5 gems and under the carpet is a trap door."

The 3.5 player will roll on his Find Traps. Yeah, I know the AD&D has a Find Traps throw, too, but other character types don't.

Then don't just LET them roll dice alone. Insist that their roll be accompanied by some description of what they might be doing. Maybe the rogue character simply rolls dice since he's supposed to be good at this while everybody else has to describe their actions in detail.

Even the combat example in the 3.0/3.5 PHB speaks of just rolling dice instead of relying on player questions and DM description.

Just because the rules want to allow themselves to replace or eliminate the need for roleplaying and description doesn't mean you have to LET it.

I think it's a game design issue. It's the way 3.0/3.5 was written. The 3.0/3.5 rules focus the game on a game board--a grid. Miniatures are encouraged for combat (where as, in AD&D 2E, no map and DM description was the focus).

Don't blame the use of grid and miniatures though. AD&D 1E was recommended to be played with both:

They also make the task of refereeing action, particularly combat, easier too! In combination with a gridded surface [...] these miniatures will add a whole new dimension to your playing enjoyment.

Lot's of people didn't like the idea of the expense and "complication" of dealing with miniatures at the time - but then at the time there simply weren't the myriad of miniatures, tokens, vinyl and whiteboard grids, dungeon floorplan illustrations, 3-D dungeon pieces and scale buildings, scale props and so forth to choose from at prices ranging from OhMyGod to free.

And, sometimes, I find that I've drawn the game back to the old style of doing things only to irritate a player who has spent precious skill points on a skill but was denied the benefit he would get because a roll wasn't made.

Old School gaming is not what version of the game you play - it is how you choose to play it.

I really think this is a design flaw in the 3.0/3.5 game.

It is. I've been saying that for years and I'm not the only one. Don't let written rules get in your way. They are not there to LIMIT your enjoyment, even if that seems to be what they're promoting.

The 3E rules were written and supported by a company which built its initial fortunes on VERY tight control of rules for their card games; having players rely upon and even DEMAND precise and extensive dictation from on high of how to play the game. It is not surprising that the version of D&D that they then constructed (after first rescuing the D&D game in general from oblivion) featured extensive and even intrusive rules, nor that their approach to supporting the game was to position themselves as the Final Arbiter of all rules rather than hammer home to the DM that HE/SHE was in fact the Final Arbiter of rules at their own table, but then if you needed help on a point of rules to offer a suggestion of how to handle it.