Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6751469" data-attributes="member: 4937">The granularity is present in combat, and is rewarded.  It might - at least in D&D not come down to the level of individual sword swings - but combat is granular in how you position your character, the spells you employ, the potions you quaff, the foes you choose to prioritize, the cover you take from missile fire, and whether you choose to attack, take an assist action, charge or fight cautiously, evade or close to melee, trip the foe, bulrush the foe, disarm the foe, enter into a grapple and many other ways.  Each of those different propositions influences the outcome of the encounter and creates advantages and disadvantages based on how appropriate and insightful the stratagem is.   Because tactical skill is a real thing, a player who lacks tactical skill cannot reasonably play a character that has it.   As a DM, I'm acutely aware of this.  I can say that an NPC has tactical skill all I want, and given him all the appropriate character indicators of tactical skill, but unless I the DM play the character well that is never going to be represented in play.This is a very common situation for a DM to be in.  I can want to have a funny NPC, but unless I the DM can make my characterization of the NPC funny, the NPC won't be received as funny.   I can want an NPC to be likable and accepted by the PC as a comrade or friend, but unless I the DM can make the players like the NPC through my characterization, all the charisma and diplomacy I put on the NPC's character sheet is basically meaningless.What generally happens is not the same as what should happen (generally speaking).  What should happen is something like, "Ok, make a skill check, and if you succeed then you'll earn some advantage commiserate to the risk you are taking."In particular, the situation of climbing up a giant and stabling him the neck is a combat maneuver that doesn't exist in stock D&D.  I call that maneuver a 'Clinch' maneuver, and its rather the opposite of a grapple maneuver.  Instead of entering an enemies space for the purpose of physically controlling his body, what you are doing is entering an enemies space for the purpose of using the enemies own body as a shield against him and getting so close to him that his defenses are negated.  In boxing or fencing, this is called getting inside the enemies guard.  And in my game, players propose doing it all the time because its a well defined rule that they have access to and not some ad hoc fiat nebulous thing where they have to worry whether their gamble will be rewarded.  Indeed, in the most recent session, the Sidhe Rogue used his Cloak of Gliding to leap off the back of the Champion's hippogriff, acrobatically tumble through the air, and land on the 'head' of the undead warmachine.  This proposition offered in natural language much like I've written, "I want to leap off the hippogriff, and dive....", was resolved as a clinch maneuver.  It drew an attack of opportunity, but the character after successfully winning the combat maneuver check received a +6 circumstance bonus to hit, and a +6 dodge bonus to AC, and more importantly to the character each round in the clinch if he won a combat maneuver check the target was treated as flatfooted.  Even though he can't sneak attack undead, he has an ability that let's him add dex to damage against flatfooted targets.  And because the target was two or more sized classes larger than him, he could use his climb skill in place of BAB in combat maneuver checks.  So for much of the fight, you had the rogue vigorous stabbing the top of this swaying undead warmachine while he clung to it.   That's narrative language that's ultimately no different and no less granular than describing how you search something.In D&D at least.  There are combat systems where you secretly declare your maneuver and then compare it to the secretly declared defense of your opponent, and those combat systems make for very interesting, very gritty combat.  However, the problem with them is that combat becomes so granular that it cannot be played very quickly, so they are more suitable to games where combat is relatively rare, dramatically important, and the number of players (and foes) is relatively small.  I'd use a system like that for an RPG inspired by 18th century romantic fiction like 'The Three Musketeers' or 'The Scarlet Pimpernell'.   But the fact that D&D has combat on a rather slightly less granular level doesn't mean that D&D combat is fully abstract, just that it doesn't care about the moment by moment position of sword swings.  It still cares very much about fictional positioning during combat.   And notably, since the very beginning, D&D has been a game about (at least in part) careful dungeon exploration, so naturally it does care very much about detailed fictional positioning while exploring.  It strives to be the sort of game you play for Indiana Jones explores the trap filled Mayan tomb, and if you are playing that game, you don't want to have the protagonist go, "I search for traps", because that makes for a very lame narrative of the story you are telling.Specific narration can bring automatic success.  This is my favorite example, but it's worth revisiting - the thing hidden behind a painting.   Suppose a player with a +20 search skill searches the 5' square where there is a painting on the wall, and there is something hidden behind the painting.  If player says, "I search the area near the painting.", we would expect that with almost any reasonable roll, the DM will give the player some sort of clue, ideally something like, "Your keen senses of observation note that the painting on the wall has been moved repeatedly, and hangs just a fraction of an inch off the wall on one side.  Investigating more closely, you see the faintest suggestion on the opposite side that the painting is hinged so as to neatly swing away from the wall."   But had instead a player with a -1 search skill said, "I want to look behind the painting.", regardless of what the player rolled on his search check, he still would have found what was hidden there.   You don't have to roll to use your eyes and see whatever is obvious.Note something subtle but important about what I've done in this case.   I have not actually said that the player who searched moved or even touched the painting.   I have not interpreted anything.   I've only presented the hidden clue.   This is hugely important because as a DM you don't want to tell player's what their actions are.   It's still up to the player who has found the hidden clue to decide to look behind the painting.   Why does this matter?   Because I haven't yet said if what is behind the painting is a wall safe or a symbol of death.   I haven't yet said if what is behind the painting is a small alcove containing a golden idol, or whether moving the painting does 5d8 fire damage to everyone in 10 feet.  It's up to the player ultimately to tell me, "I want to move the painting.", and when they do they find whatever is there.I agree.  And you have to be careful about how you adjudicate 'stunts' that you don't simply give rewards without risks, and that you are rewarding real creativity, interactivity, and cunning and not just tacking a fiat bonus on top of every player action.  For one thing, that very quickly leads to tedious play and repetitive narration.Why?  Again, I bring you back to the point that as a DM, manifestations of my skill aren't actually adjudicated the same by the system.  It's not the case as a DM that you can approach the game with the idea that you just make abstract propositions using rules languages and be a successful DM.   It's painfully obvious to me as a DM that simply writing INT 18 on a character sheet won't make that character intelligent.  It's painfully obvious to me as a DM that simply writing CHR 18 on a character sheet won't make that character charming, or witty, or funny, or likable.  You have this weird idea that that isn't fair, but in fact it is not only perfectly fair but necessary.   You seem to think that it's weird that I can write 20 STR on a character sheet and the character does in fact become strong, but writing 20 INT on the character sheet wouldn't work the same way.   And you are flat out and completely wrong.  The two aren't remotely the same things.   In the case of the strength, the character's strength does exist entirely in the imagined world.   But it's not true that character's intelligence exists entirely in the imagined world, because by necessity my mind has to enter into the imagined world as well.   My mind and not my body is necessarily a participant in the imagined world.  You can't really remove that from the game.   If you tried, I wouldn't be a participant in the imagined world at all, and my actions couldn't direct anything in it.Yes.  While she doesn't need to tell me the exact technique Jane uses for picking a pocket, speaking as a player who spent an inordinate amount of time in 1e playing the thief, you still need to know quite a bit about criminal technique to be a good thief.  You still need to be able to run a decent con.  You need to be able to figure out who is a good mark and who you best avoid.  And you need to be able to make a good guess at where the valuables are.   Which pocket are you going for?  Do you go for the purse, and if so what technique are you going to try - cutting the purse off with a finger blade ('cutpurse'), or loosening it and reaching in ('pickpocket')?   Or maybe you just want to cut the bottom of the purse and catch the contents in your hand.   It's going to matter if it's a magic pouch.  Or maybe you reach in the robes and look for a hidden wallet, or start out by taking the bejeweled dagger, so that if you are caught at least the mark is unarmed.  Or maybe it's just better to lure the guy into an ally, sap him in the back of the head, and go through his pockets in a more leisurely fashion.  You see, if you just make propositions like, "I pick his pocket", the problem is you are leaving it entirely up to the DM as to what happens and interpret how you act.  You aren't really in control of the situation.  Size up the situation.  Ask questions.   Get details.  Appraise things.  Then decide what to do.   That's good RPing.  And note, while the fictional positioning here matters, if the PC isn't in fact a very nimble pick pocket, chances are that all my fictional positioning is just leading up to a very clumsy easily noticed attempt.I think it is obvious in both cases that that clever play is rewarded in both scenarios.Can you see it now?  And in any event, it's possible by clever play for the warrior to arrange automatic success on an attack.  If the warrior arranges for the foe to be helpless (sleeping, paralyzed, bound, etc.), the attack is automatic and indeed in 1e automatically lethal (and in 3e frequently so).  Likewise, if the warrior can arrange by clever positioning - charging and flanking, against a flat-footed and entangled prone target, while an ally lends assistance, etc. - to have sufficient bonuses to hit, then his attack when it is declared will nearly automatically hit (failing only on an unlucky 1).Tactical ability is a skill players ought to cultivate.  So is dungeoneering.</blockquote>

Verification