Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Raven Crowking]

So, now we're not even talking about D&D at all? How's that for shifting the goalposts?

Um....what goalposts?

Have you confused me with another poster? What point do you think I was making? I started out by saying that I would argue, in certain circumstances, that a snake could be knocked prone. This is a real-world observation, independent of system.

My second observation was that 4e doesn't offer the best model for this. That's okay, because, AFAICT, 4e makes no attempt to offer the best model for anything apart from narrative function. I only offered what is (IMHO) a better example to clarify.

While I have every respect for the game you are designing RC

Why? I am pretty sure it wouldn't be your cup of tea!

bringing it up in a conversation that's talking about how the rules work in a completely different system is just clouding the issue.

Depends upon what the issue is. For me, the issue is whether or not (1) you can knock a snake prone (I hold that you can) and (2) whether or not the ruleset in question does a good job of modelling that (I hold it does not).

I'd rather play a game that works than one that presumes that I'm going to make it work.

Me too!

That's why I prefer broad-based balance! I don't want to strain my disbelief to make it work!

But then, I never found it at all difficult to make broad-based balance work. In fact, I cannot think of any given instance where I had to invest any effort in it at all.

YMMV, of course. Depends upon what you want out of a game.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

There's a spectrum in how much role-playing and world-engaging people want, and just where and when.

4e combat has some rules that may get jarring in relation, but generally it's more concrete and precise than old TSR-D&D. It's got 5 foot squares for positioning instead of a 10' radius, for instance. It takes a lot of time to work out fights partially because the rules involve more details that map to the secondary world.

These details of process are a central interest, whereas the old game held them as secondary to the causes and consequences of combat, which therefore got more "room to breathe" in a session by downplaying details of process.

There's only so much time to play, so it is perhaps not astounding that other things may get less detail than before.

It's a matter of different focus, not (I think) of a universally greater or lesser degree of abstraction.

It does at any rate stand out greatly to me. The old focus is what I want.

 

[Ariosto]

I should say, if I want more "game mechanical" detail on process, then I want something more like RuneQuest or The Fantasy Trip.

It's the where and when and what kind of detail that is most telling.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Can we just kill this damn snake already?!

Agreed! Before it infects a third thread. I'm coming to the conclusion that it isn't a snake - it's a hydra.

Ah, except you're not taking into account that I have monkeyed around with ALL the rules. Or that, for some people at least, not taking believability into account when monkeying around with rules -- professionally or otherwise -- opens a much larger can of worms!

Objection! As far as I know there is no RPG designer anywhere who doesn't at least try to take either believability or thematic consistency into account. (OK, so Toon isn't long on believability, but does go for consistency).

A snake (or similar creature) can coil as an Action, allowing it to attack with reach depending upon the size of the snake. Some snakes, such as spitting cobras, must be coiled to spit.

A snake can partially coil as an Action in order to gain half its coiled reach. This allows it to make an attack as a Reaction with a -2 penalty to the attack roll.

After attacking, a snake can resume the coiled or partially coiled position as a Free Reaction.

In RCFG, I would allow a power that knocked something prone to also knock a snake out of the coiled or partially coiled position. If the attack was a punch or open handed, the snake might also gain a free attack due to opportunity. EDIT: Forgot to mention that the snake could always make a bite attack against a target that was close enough to be touching, but would take a -4 penalty in most circumstances. There is a reason snakes coil and partially coil to strike.

Good grief. It's just one snake. How long are turns in RCFG? (That's IC turns). Because if it's more than a second then that's a level of detail I wouldn't care to go into to deal with this one creature.

In 4e if I was really concerned about snakes (I'm not - but now I've thought about it this much I may well use them on my group on Sunday) I'd give them all the following two racial features:

Trait: Snake Bodied - A snake counts as slowed unless it is prone. The snake does not take movement penalties for being prone.

Minor Action: Coil - The snake may stand up as a minor action.
​

Between those two I wouldn't be denying anyone their abilities, and the snakes would behave as snakes. Also that combination's easy to understand and evaluate - it uses prefabricated parts that the DM is used to, means that the times it's worth knocking a snake prone are rare and generally handles things fast, simply, believably, and thematically appropriately. Exception based design at work and fully in line with the rules and spirit of 4e.

Me too!

That's why I prefer broad-based balance! I don't want to strain my disbelief to make it work!

But then, I never found it at all difficult to make broad-based balance work. In fact, I cannot think of any given instance where I had to invest any effort in it at all.

YMMV, of course. Depends upon what you want out of a game.

The trouble with the broad based balance of AD&D is that it makes it, to me, much harder to understand the world. Things seem incredibly disjoint (why does the thief use a different rule basis from anyone else?) and my brain's of the sort that wants to plug the rules together.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Good grief. It's just one snake. How long are turns in RCFG? (That's IC turns). Because if it's more than a second then that's a level of detail I wouldn't care to go into to deal with this one creature.

Fast. And fights are pretty darn fast, too.

The trouble with the broad based balance of AD&D is that it makes it, to me, much harder to understand the world. Things seem incredibly disjoint (why does the thief use a different rule basis from anyone else?) and my brain's of the sort that wants to plug the rules together.

Viva la Difference!

I'm glad that we both get a ruleset that works for our particular needs.

Winning! Duh!


RC

 

[TheUltramark]

Agreed! Before it infects a third thread. I'm coming to the conclusion that it isn't a snake - it's a hydra.

I love irony

In 4e if I was really concerned about snakes (I'm not - but now I've thought about it this much I may well use them on my group on Sunday) I'd give them all the following two racial features:

Trait: Snake Bodied - A snake counts as slowed unless it is prone. The snake does not take movement penalties for being prone.

Minor Action: Coil - The snake may stand up as a minor action.
​

Between those two I wouldn't be denying anyone their abilities, and the snakes would behave as snakes. Also that combination's easy to understand and evaluate - it uses prefabricated parts that the DM is used to, means that the times it's worth knocking a snake prone are rare and generally handles things fast, simply, believably, and thematically appropriately. Exception based design at work and fully in line with the rules and spirit of 4e.

Those make perfect sense - and you summed it up properly...the snakes would behave as snakes.
Is it a perfect fix? I would argue there is never such a thing.

 

[Hussar]

I have an interesting turn around for this.

Some years ago, I was running a game (2e D&D, as I recall) and threw a manticore at the party. One of the players cried foul stating that manticores don't exist in the terrain where the party was adventuring. He was, in fact, correct by the rules.

So, what should I have done as DM? Should I have stopped the encounter and rewritten it with a setting appropriate creature? After all, this is precisely what you are doing with the Prone Snake question - changing the game based on one person's sense of believability.

So, again, I ask, what should I have done? Or is it only DM's who are allowed to veto player options when their sense of disbelief is violated?

 

[billd91]

I have an interesting turn around for this.

Some years ago, I was running a game (2e D&D, as I recall) and threw a manticore at the party. One of the players cried foul stating that manticores don't exist in the terrain where the party was adventuring. He was, in fact, correct by the rules.

So, what should I have done as DM? Should I have stopped the encounter and rewritten it with a setting appropriate creature? After all, this is precisely what you are doing with the Prone Snake question - changing the game based on one person's sense of believability.

So, again, I ask, what should I have done? Or is it only DM's who are allowed to veto player options when their sense of disbelief is violated?

It's not really the same issue though. Creatures have natural habitats and places they're typically encountered, sure. But there's no rule saying that's the only place they are encountered. There may be any number of reasons you encounter a creature in a different terrain... reasons that may lead to interesting adventure hooks. I'd have countered the player with "Hmmm... You're right. This manticore is in an unusual area. Why do you suppose that is? How do you want to investigate that?"

I see that as being a very different issue than tripping an ochre jelly or gelatinous cube.

As far as the difference between DM and player authority over the game, the DM is put in a special position to present a game environment to the players for them to play in. It's part of the role of the DM to push the rules around when they get in the way of the game, both for and against the PCs as necessary in doing so.

 

[Hussar]

Really? It's completely different? How so? In both cases, we're tripping over someone's potential violation of suspension of disbelief. In one case, the DM cannot see how you could trip a snake. In the other, the player cannot see how you can have a tiger in Africa.

I agree that it's the DM's role to push the rules around when they get in the way of the game. But, in this case, it's only getting in the way for one person - the DM. The player just wants to trip the darn snake and get on with things. If both the player and the DM agree that this is unbelievable, then, well, fair enough, no harm no foul.

But, that's not the case. The DM thinks it's unbelievable and uses his authority at the table to enforce his opinion. OTOH, when the player is confronted with something he knows to be wrong, he's told to shut up and keep playing.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think to deny the difference is being somewhat disingenuous. The manticore could be there for any number of reasons (experiments, imported defense, released into the wild, brought in with magic, is someone's pet that isn't native to this area, etc.). The snake discussion, however, is not the same.