What's tactics got to do, got to do with it.

[Korgoth]

See, this is the problem we get into.

You say that the dogs are noisy. I, as the player, say, no, I bought trained dogs that were trained to be quiet.

How do you resolve that?

I would give you the opportunity to know that. Did you buy them sight unseen? Then you get what you get. Can your character be reasonably expected to know about dogs? I give the benefit of the doubt on that... so your background could help you there. And the main thing: did you think to ask about it when you were buying them?

That's where we get back to it being a game. If you thought to ask, or if circumstances were such that you could have known, you'd get the info. If you just went off half-cocked and bought the first bunch of war dogs you ran into, then you get what you get. And if the only dogs available are noisy dogs and you find that out then you have an interesting decision to make.

You could also invest in muzzles. Or (if playing standard D&D) have someone cast Silence 15'r on a dog collar, and send the dog handler out ahead of the group.

Everything that comes up should be an opportunity to make an interesting trade-off or come up with an inventive solution. Since the Referee is in charge of the world, it's his responsibility to keep up that pace. And also, when to the players come up with a really good idea, to let them benefit from it.

 

[billd91]

See, this is the problem we get into.

You say that the dogs are noisy. I, as the player, say, no, I bought trained dogs that were trained to be quiet.

How do you resolve that?

Easy, particularly in 3x. Being quiet takes up one of the skill tricks those dogs can know (I'd also charge a lot more for the dogs being already trained or expect you to do the training yourself with handle animal - a good time-consumer, there).

I'd be sure to throw in some skill tasks for the handling character to keep the dogs quiet and under command. Some of those DCs would be harder than others.

Easy peasy. Still doesn't give the dogs a great move silently check, though.

 

[roguerouge]

1) Fill a barrel with 50 flasks worth of Alchemist's Fire

Where are they purchasing bulk amounts of alchemist's fire? Costco? Alchemist's Mart? One would think that there wouldn't be this kind of demand for alchemist's fire to have 50 of them lying around.

Not to mention that if one of them falls off the shelf at the store, it sets off the chain reaction you describe.

I'd imagine that the military in whatever town or city you're in would not look kindly on the guy stock piling bombs selling them to whatever guy just wanders in off the street. A sword's one thing; a ranged touch attack is quite another.

This falls under bug in world design for me.

 

[roguerouge]

From Raph Koster's site: Raph Koster's Home Page

ambert's Laws:

• As a virtual world's "realism" increases, the pool of possible character actions increase.
• The opportunities for exploitation and subversion are directly proportional to the pool size of possible character actions.
• A bored player is a potential and willing subversive.
• Players will eventually find the shortest path to the cheese.

Darklock's First Law
Cheating is an apparently advantageous violation of player assumptions about the game. When those assumptions are satisfied, all apparently advantageous methods are fair. When they are violated, no apparently advantageous methods are fair. "Using exterior means to influence the play of a game is not necessarily cheating. It is only cheating if it violates the assumptions of other players *and* provides an advantage. When a player expects that gaining levels in a game takes a long period of time, he will call any method of gaining them rapidly "cheating" -- even if it is an intentional feature of the game. When he expects that gaining levels is a rapid process, however, he will not think the people gaining them slowly are cheating... because that is not an apparently advantageous situation. It does not matter whether this actually *is* an advantageous situation, only whether it *appears* advantageous."

 

[Akaiku]

Where are they purchasing bulk amounts of alchemist's fire? Costco? Alchemist's Mart? One would think that there wouldn't be this kind of demand for alchemist's fire to have 50 of them lying around.

Bloodbath and Beyond, actually.

I still don't get how exactly a gm defines 'chalanging' though. Every 'tactic' I've ever seen is a rules exploit or a mother-may-I with the gm on saying something cool. If doing more complicated things are both unpredictable and not necessarily to your advantage, why even bother? Does the campaign always end before the player/gm lensman arms race gets to shooting rocked powered planetoids at eachother?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

See, this is the problem we get into.

You say that the dogs are noisy. I, as the player, say, no, I bought trained dogs that were trained to be quiet.

How do you resolve that?

Personally, I'd solve it the same way I'd solve the alchemist fire/lamp oil trick. Let it work. Then some night whilenthe pcs are in camp, a gargoyle or wyvern or some such would silently fly by and drop a barrel on the pcs. Or the dogs that we've already decided are silent would sneak into their camp and tear them apart. That would probably be the end of said "tactics."

 

[ExploderWizard]

quote=roguerouge;4841851]From Raph Koster's site: Raph Koster's Home Page


ambert's Laws:

• As a virtual world's "realism" increases, the pool of possible character actions increase.
• The opportunities for exploitation and subversion are directly proportional to the pool size of possible character actions.
• A bored player is a potential and willing subversive.
• Players will eventually find the shortest path to the cheese.

[/quote]

These laws are interesting but they do paint "realism" with a very broad brush. In a roleplaying game where characters can theoretically attempt anything they can think of, a pool of possible character actions kind of has little meaning.

D&D isn't very realistic and it's degree of simulationism can vary widely from campaign to campaign, even those using the same base ruleset.

I would state the following:
- The opportunities for exploitation and subversion are directly proportional to the number of specific rules governing possible character actions.

-I agree with the point about bored players.

- The shortest path to the cheese is misleading. Using the rules provided to overcome challenges as effectively as possible isn't always being cheesy.

For every hard and fast specific rule a game has, the greater the opportunity to exploit that rule presents itself. Both a rules light system (Basic D&D) and a rules heavy system (3E) can be played as simulationist style games. There are far more exploits to be found in 3E simply due to the number/complexity of the rules.

For every rule defined X produces Y action in a game, the greater the possible exploitation factor. Rulings rather than rules can cut down on such things a bit but no game that has any rules whatsoever can keep a player from trying to exploit something if he/she really wants to.

 

[gizmo33]

I see it like this. Who sells dogs trained that well? Not many people. Okay, so you managed to get a few attack dogs... then you found the jackpot, a guy willing to sell you 50 of these attack dogs.

If DnD said a dagger did 1d100 damage, then everyone would use daggers. IMO the solution is not to decide that there are only 50 daggers in the world and that they are only owned by the king. IMO, if you want your players to make the same decisions that persons IRL would make, then it helps to get the simulation aspects of the item (dog, dagger, whatever) as close as you can IRL so that the same decision will be made.

 

[gizmo33]

Personally, I'd solve it the same way I'd solve the alchemist fire/lamp oil trick. Let it work. Then some night whilenthe pcs are in camp, a gargoyle or wyvern or some such would silently fly by and drop a barrel on the pcs. Or the dogs that we've already decided are silent would sneak into their camp and tear them apart. That would probably be the end of said "tactics."

Really? Are you a DM? So the solution to a player doing something the DM doesn't like is to kill all of the PCs? What if a PC uses a sword in combat instead of a spoon, couch, or whatever the DMs favorite weapon is going to be? Is that a rules exploit? (because I'm such an expert min-maxer that I know swords do more damage than spoons).

So I say the dragon should drop a couch on them instead of a barrel of oil. Not only does it suit the ridiculous nature of the problem, but it also reinforces the information that the DM is trying to get across - that his favorite weapon is a better way of fighting than barrels of oil.

 

[roguerouge]

Bloodbath and Beyond, actually.

Touche!