Quote from: deadDMwalking;570119Now, I've just made a rule that would work at my table.  But what about at your table?

Unless players are taking their characters from your table to mine, why should you even care? I honestly have never gotten why standard rules that apply to all tables, all settings, all play-styles seem so important to some players. What does it matter what other tables do or what rules they use to handle similar situations?

This is one of the things I always enjoyed about early D&D, each group had its own version of the rules, customized by their GM for his setting and that particular group's needs. I'm not interested in standardized rules because those who play in tournaments or in other forms of organized play need standard rules for such events to run well. I have little to no interest in tournament play or organized play -- nor do about 99 out of 100 players I've gamed with over the last 35+ years.

QuoteThe point of a clear ruleset is that these kinds of disagreements between different groups are unncessary.  At the very least, it provides a baseline for what a player SHOULD expect if the DM doesn't tell them otherwise.

I believe in that all RPG rules should be customized to the setting, the play-style, and the desires of the specific group. Standard rules are a very low priority for me. If standard rules are a high priority for you, we'll just have to agree that we have different priorities.

QuoteBecause if you're a new player, even if your DM would allow something like that, how would you know you could try it unless you either asked or saw someone else do it?

In my experience, truly new players -- those who are not used to playing in a RPG where the rules are seen as describing all you can do -- have seldom had a problem coming up with things like pinning someone to the wall with a arrow through the target's over sized shirt. Or swinging from a rope. Etc. The players aren't looking to the rules to see what they can do, they are imagining themselves there as their character, saying what they would do, and allowing the GM to figure out how to do that rules-wise. This is my preferred mode of play: I prefer players who describe what they do in game world terms and don't worry about the rules.

QuoteI like rules because it helps people know what they can reasonably expect to try.  I like consistent rules between different groups because it makes it easier to talk about what works and what doesn't work.

I've never had a problem talking about what works and doesn't work in very games even when they are loaded with very different house-rules. Perhaps that's because that's simply what I'm used to dealing with so I've learned to expect it.

QuoteIf you have a ton of houserules and somethings not working, how can we know if it is BECAUSE of the houserules or a failing in the game?

If something isn't working for my game, I'm going to fix it -- and not waste time and effort worrying about whether my house rules are the cause or whether the original rules are the cause. Assigning blame is far less important than making it work ASAP.

QuoteBaseline assumptions are great for finding out how the game works in a 'default mode'.  It gives you a point of comparison to the changes that you make to accomodate your personal play style.

No matter how many house rules I have or how many RAW I ignore, the RAW are still there for me to compare things to.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;570087It isn't the rolling of the dice particularly, that WOTC style fans want. Its the availability of pre-chosen brightly lit buttons on the character sheet that can be pressed for a number of predictable effects.

You mean like spells?

Oh, wait, you don't mean spells, because those were already codified in your precious TSR D&D. Magic flashing buttons are OK apparently.

Honestly, if that is what you think, why have any codified abilities? Why not just give everyone a d20 and say "OK, I'll just make up everything as I go along. Describe your character, anything he sounds like he could reasonably do you can roll, high is good, low is bad."

Every single time I see this complaint, all I see is a problem with GMs and Players. If they can't think outside the box, that isn't the games fault. Hell even 4e (that I only played like 2-3 times, and never ran) which is apparently [sarcasm]IMPOSSIBLE to improvise ANYTHING[/sarcasm] in had Pg 42 in the DM's Guide that covered improvised maneuvers/attacks.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;570169You mean like spells?

Oh, wait, you don't mean spells, because those were already codified in your precious TSR D&D. Magic flashing buttons are OK apparently.

A lot of TSR spells have quite a few variables, allowing some player customization, and others are quite loose thus open to GM interpretation.

I honestly just do not see your point here in comparison.

Quote from: Opaopajr;570230A lot of TSR spells have quite a few variables, allowing some player customization, and others are quite loose thus open to GM interpretation.

I honestly just do not see your point here in comparison.

Quote from: AD&D FireballFireball (Evocation)

Level: 3
Range: 10" + 1"/level
Duration: Instantaneous
Area of Effect: 2" radius sphere
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 3 segments
Saving Throw: ½

Explanation/Description: A fireball is an explosive burst of flame, which detonates with a low roar, and delivers damage proportionate to the level of the magic-user who cast it, i.e. 1 six-sided die (d6) for each level of experience of the spell caster. Exception: Magic fireball wands deliver 6 die fireballs (6d6), magic staves with this capability deliver 8 die fireballs, and scroll spells of this type deliver a fireball of from 5 to 10 dice (d6 + 4) of damage. The burst of the fireball does not expend a considerable amount of pressure, and the burst will generally conform to the shape of the area in which it occurs, thus covering an area equal to its normal spherical volume. [The area which is covered by the fireball is a total volume of roughly 33,000 cubic feet (or yards)]. Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball will melt soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Items exposed to the spell's effects must be rolled for to determine if they are affected. Items with a creature which makes its saving throw are considered as unaffected. The magic-user points his or her finger and speaks the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A streak flashes from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body prior to attaining the prescribed range, flowers into the fireball. If creatures fail their saving throws, they all take full hit point damage from the blast. Those who make saving throws manage to dodge, fall flat or roll aside, taking ½ the full hit point damage - each and every one within the blast area. The material component of this spell is a tiny ball composed of bat guano and sulphur. [1E PHB, p. 73]

Things I can expect from this spell if I use it at level 5 with most DMs:

It will do 5d6 damage at a range of up to 15", it will affect a 33,00 cubic feet of area (man if there are low ceilings that is hellishly large). Enemies will get a save for half damage, and anything that is flammable will catch fire unless it makes a roll.

This is all codified. If I use it today, it does exactly that. If I use it tomorrow, surprise it does the same thing. Can a GM change it? Yes, he can. But for the most part, the Magic User's player will know the approximate effectiveness of his "shiny button" before he casts it. Sounds like a shiny button of precodified maneuver that I can press to make stuff happen to me.

This is actually, in my opinion, the biggest advantage of at least having a base of codified fighting maneuvers in a game. An experienced fighter SHOULD know how effective a maneuver would be before he performs it. But unlike the 1st edition AD&D Magic User's spells, he can't know how easy or hard even the most basic maneuver such as disarming an opponent will be.

Players need to be able to understand the difficulty and effectiveness in their options. Now, not all their options, because you can't possibly cover every option, but enough that they know reliably what they can accomplish. Why? Because their CHARACTER is an experienced combatant. And an experienced combatant should know.

Am I saying that 4e Power style, or even the combat maneuver stuff they are talking about with the Combat Superiority dice thing is better? Eh, Idk. 4e suffered from problems in execution, and I haven't seen the 5e maneuver rules so I couldn't say, but really some guidelines and rules for physical combat maneuvers are not a bad idea.

But even in this singular fireball example, to go with it for now, there's still both player management of variables and GM adjudication of results. Player decides target distance and height -- and by foreknowledge of location the expected shape of flaming area -- and GM determines success of trajectory, NPC & item saves, and further ramifications in later rounds. It's more than ExploderWizard's complaint of "pressing a button"; player finesse and setting luck/consequences leaves its mark upon the results.

Fireball was often excitingly dangerous to use, because it was not a fixedly banal sure thing. It could be used in really creatively risky ways. Wanna aim through a door's keyhole to the middle of the next room? Player's risky targeting choice, GM judgment for setting resolution (which could be anything from OK to rolling % chance). GM uses optional 2e group/individual initiative + individual speed mod? The tide of melee battle might end up with a new target disrupting your line-of-sight. Long, dark, narrow, areas -- like tunnels or chimneys? Might hit something early and risk fiery flashback, or might extend really far and do something useful.

High ceiling with sparkly chandeliers or other large suspended objects? How much damage does the suspending material suffer, and if it does fail does it fail how you want, falling where you want? Igniting nearby combustibles: did your fireball reach the target uninterrupted? did the area effect expand to your expected shape (were you firing it into a less known space)? were the combustibles within such variables igniting as you expected? Were there unexpected combustibles caught up in the area? How does all this complicate the upcoming fires?

Fireball wasn't a good example of a push-button, point-and-shoot mechanic because it was so open to messing with, as ExploderWizard calls, the wire-frame system. You have a defined idea of what it can do, as you describe it well. But the spell is more than that. In the hands of player finesse and solid Gm adjudication of consequences, it became quite exciting because of the lack of tight mechanical control. The system did not tie it down so hard that consequences became predictable. Choosing the 'button' did not always deliver the same result; there was considerably more fluidity. And that fluidity many people want to have returned.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;570119This is a mischaracterization.  

Let's take the 'shooting an arrow to pin the guard's foot' example.  

Did the shot do normal damage in addition to pinning the foot?  

Did the attack require a penalty because it was aimed at a particular spot?  

What options can the guard use to get his foot free?  Can he break the arrow (strength check)?  Could he pull his foot along the length of the arrow (taking extra damage)?  Would the injury to his foot continue to slow him down?

Are there special abilities already in the game that either allow a character to make a pinning shot or make it easier for them to do so?  

Does the terrain matter?  Is it easier to pin a foot to dirt than a stone floor?  

These are all questions that I like to ask when someone wants to do something 'unusual'.  

If the DM allows the shot to do the pinning effect in addition to normal damage, without a penalty, players will always try to do it.  

If the DM allows the attack with a penalty (to pin a foot), why not allow an attack (with penalty) to shoot through the eye (or other vulnerable place)?  What consequences would that have on the game?  Why is shooting a foot okay, but shooting an eye not?  

This could be explained by saying 'when you shoot to do damage, you always aim at the most vulnerable place, so you're always 'trying to hit the eye'.  But then, pinning the foot probably shouldn't do damage (since you're trying to shoot in a place that is LESS vulnerable).  

So what would I do if I were the DM?  

With the lack of better guidelines, I'd go with the following:

You may make a pinning attack with a ranged attack, provided that your opponent is in contact with a surface to which they can be pinned (including the gorund).  The attack is made at a -4 penalty, and if you hit, you do not apply damage to the target.  Instead, roll against the hardness of the object to which you intend to pin them to (for example, hardness 5 for wood).  If your damage exceeds the hardness of the object, your projectile pins them.  They cannot move from that spot unless they succeed on a Strength check (DC 10 + your strength modifier).  If there is a feat for pinning people, it instead removes the -8 penalty and gives you a +4 on the DC (ie DC 14 + Str instead of 10 + Str).  

Now what do we have?  

We have a rule.  That I can apply consistently in my game and is likely to be balanced in most situations.  It won't be terribly effective against really strong creatures (like the Tarrasque) and anyone can do it, but with the attack penalty, it's not always going to be the best option (but it could be great if you're trying to escape from your opponents - slowing them down enough to get away).  

Now, I've just made a rule that would work at my table.  But what about at your table?  

Maybe you make a rule that doesn't require a penalty, does damage as normal, and the person is stuck 'if the DM thinks it should work'.  Now that might work at your table...  

But players between the two tables won't know how that kind of thing should work.  At a third table someone else might say 'you can't do that - it's not in the rules'.  

The point of a clear ruleset is that these kinds of disagreements between different groups are unncessary.  At the very least, it provides a baseline for what a player SHOULD expect if the DM doesn't tell them otherwise.  

Because if you're a new player, even if your DM would allow something like that, how would you know you could try it unless you either asked or saw someone else do it?  

I like rules because it helps people know what they can reasonably expect to try.  I like consistent rules between different groups because it makes it easier to talk about what works and what doesn't work.  If you have a ton of houserules and somethings not working, how can we know if it is BECAUSE of the houserules or a failing in the game?  

Baseline assumptions are great for finding out how the game works in a 'default mode'.  It gives you a point of comparison to the changes that you make to accomodate your personal play style.

So what you're saying is it works in practise, just not in theory?

Quote from: Telarus;570147Can I mention that Mike has basically recreated the Earthdawn Karma system with his Combat Superiority dice (Wait... you can "skin" you fighter to be an Archer or a Swordsmaster/Fencer??? LOL)..... Only, y'know, in Earthdawn _every_ PC-power-level character gets a pool to spend on their specialty (and it's a resource that refreshes on a daily timeframe, not a combat-round-to-combat-round timeframe). The parallels are getting eerie.

ED's karma dice doesn't refresh on a daily basis, you have a finite amount(depending on your race[1&2E I don't play 3E it's shit]) until you do more karma rituals to regain karma.

Quote from: RandallS;570150Unless players are taking their characters from your table to mine, why should you even care? I honestly have never gotten why standard rules that apply to all tables, all settings, all play-styles seem so important to some players. What does it matter what other tables do or what rules they use to handle similar situations?

Expectation of play?
You introduce me to D&D, I play with you for 4 years, I find another group(for whatever reason), and I have to relearn another D&D, I play there for a year, move and have to relearn another D&D, etc.  What worked in "your D&D" didn't work in other's D&D, what was 'hard' in "your D&D" isn't in others, what was easily in "your D&D" is 'hard' in others, and so on...
Personally from listening to you talk about your games, I wouldn't recognize what you do as D&D.  I would call it a homebrew system based on D&D.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;570169You mean like spells?

Oh, wait, you don't mean spells, because those were already codified in your precious TSR D&D. Magic flashing buttons are OK apparently.

Honestly, if that is what you think, why have any codified abilities? Why not just give everyone a d20 and say "OK, I'll just make up everything as I go along. Describe your character, anything he sounds like he could reasonably do you can roll, high is good, low is bad."

Every single time I see this complaint, all I see is a problem with GMs and Players. If they can't think outside the box, that isn't the games fault. Hell even 4e (that I only played like 2-3 times, and never ran) which is apparently [sarcasm]IMPOSSIBLE to improvise ANYTHING[/sarcasm] in had Pg 42 in the DM's Guide that covered improvised maneuvers/attacks.

Never understood the idea that new players should start off with a fighter.  That class that has no button pushing it's all think on your feet.  Unless that player is gregarious they ain't gonna be all that[corners cases not withstanding].  I used to follow that directive until someone mentioned to me why I gave the new guy the fighter who has nothing to fall back on besides "I use my weapon".   I thought about it and yeah it doesn't really make sense.

Quote from: Sommerjon;570303ED's karma dice doesn't refresh on a daily basis, you have a finite amount(depending on your race[1&2E I don't play 3E it's shit]) until you do more karma rituals to regain karma.

I never claimed it was an automatic refresh. Doesn't matter how many Karma Rituals you do in a day, tho. You can only get so many Karma Points back per day ("refreshes on a daily timeframe").


You're the only person I've ever run across who would play ED2e over ED3e....

Any specific reasoning?

Quote from: Orpheo;570280So what you're saying is it works in practise, just not in theory?

I'm saying that I can make my own rules, and they might actually be good, but that's not why I buy an RPG.  I want the designers to cover things like this.  That way it tends to be consistent.  Guidelines are great because how do you KNOW if something is overpowered if you don't have anything to compare it to?  

If I use those rules and players use a lot of pinning shots, is that a good thing or a bad thing?  If it's much better than normal attacking, you'd expect to see it used INSTEAD of normal attacks - so I've tried to make it useful in different ways (like not allowing it to do damage).  But as I explained in my post, there are lots of other ways to implement it in a game.  If it's implemented differently, than a player that comes from your game to mine might not try it (since they didn't think it was good the way you did it).  

Better to have good rules that are pretty comprehensive, and then individual DMs can stray from them if they want, but they don't have to (because the rules are already good).

Quote from: deadDMwalking;570358Better to have good rules that are pretty comprehensive, and then individual DMs can stray from them if they want, but they don't have to (because the rules are already good).

sometimes I want comprehensive, but the longer I have been gaming the more I really just want some light rules and rough guidelines. Totally fine with different Gms amd groups implementing those rough guidelines in different ways. I just find it frees the game up to focus more on other things. I think there is room for both approaches though. I'd rather have a wide selection of rules heavy, rules light and medium games than have a single approach in terms of how these things are handled in all games.

Quote from: Telarus;570338I never claimed it was an automatic refresh. Doesn't matter how many Karma Rituals you do in a day, tho. You can only get so many Karma Points back per day ("refreshes on a daily timeframe").

"Refreshes on a daily timeframe" isn't technically true.  Yes you can refresh karma daily, but with 1&2e the amount you could have compared to how much you could get back daily weren't equal.

Quote from: Telarus;570338You're the only person I've ever run across who would play ED2e over ED3e....

Any specific reasoning?

My reasoning: They advanced the timeline, they didn't change the way the game functions, no drama.

I'll preface with: I totally respect your opinions there. The following are simply opinions also.

Quote from: Sommerjon;570362Yes you can refresh karma daily, but with 1&2e the amount you could have compared to how much you could get back daily weren't equal.

(Still holds true with ED3e) Sure, I said they were parallel concepts, not identical ones. I personally prefer the daily refresh time-frame (and the time-cost of a half-hour to perform the ritual) as Karma is an actual resource you have to manage over the course of an adventure.

I see CS dice as part of the same shift in focus as D&D3.x/4e's "Encounter basis" (moving away from managing strategic resources into purely short-term tactical play), even though "the Adventure" (or "the adventuring day") was supposed to be the focus of D&D Next.

Quote from: Sommerjon;570362My reasoning: They advanced the timeline, they didn't change the way the game functions, no drama.

I GM'd a ED1e campaign up to 8th circle (over a couple of years). We then switched to ED2e (in the middle of Blades + Prelude to War). I then ran the entirety of Living Room Games (ED2e) Barsaive At War.

Let's just say that I don't agree with your second point, ED2e play was definitely different mechanically from ED2e (especially with a group of 8-9th Circle Adepts). Some of the ED3e changes were more radical (like the new Advancement system), but IMO that was a good evolution of the game system (it addressed the "cookie cutter Adept" syndrome).

Also, having spoken briefly with Lou Prosperi about the events of Barsaive At War/Barsaive in Chaos, I don't agree with how LRG handled the FASA notes for that portion of the timeline (and neither did my players, although at the time we didn't have anything else to compare it to, so were unsure why it didn't "feel quite right" when we played through both books).

[Note, this discussion happened on a dev forum and is probably covered under my NDA... although I fairly sure Lou has made similar comments in pulbic, so if I find an open discussion with the same points I'd be willing to discuss it further. ]

Thanks, tho!

It's always nice to hear that someone _likes_ playing Earthdawn (no matter which edition).

I like the idea that they're going with. Fighting is far more thoughtful than just "I swing my sword". It's also about for what purpose (to protect your allies? protect yourself?
Look at deeply 'realistic' games like Riddle of Steel, which uses a pool of dice to represent your fighting skill, and how you spend it is your focus on attack/defense and special maneuvers. In comparison D&D fighters look like they stepped out of a 1980's arcade machine (mash the 'attack' button until your hit points run out. hope you spent your quarters on an extra life! )


But in EXECUTION, is combat superiority dice a good idea?
No, I don't think so. More dice to keep track of get annoying.
They are focusing on the HOW instead of the WHY.

WHY did 3.X fighters focus so much on tripping? Because it was one of the only non-magical ways to keep the orc from walking past you to stab the wizard.

WHY did 4e Fighters have those push/pull/shift abilities? Because it keeps the orc from walking past you to stab the wizard, and you can unleash a steel tornado of carnage once a day so you want it to hit a lot of guys.



It can be done simpler. It should be more about general stances/poise than specific maneuverings. I have put these together to be less specific so you can flavor in the details as you like.

Something like... declare what stance you take on your initiative pass.
Assault:
You engage your foe in relentless pursuit/like a hungry wolf/follow them like a deadly shadow
you gain a bonus to hit/damage. When the target of your attack moves, you can follow them using your next turn's movement (in addition to whatever disengagement/opportunity attack rules are being used).

Defensive Fighting/Fighting Withdraw:
You raise your arms in a defensive posture, your foes will be hard pressed to bypass this web of steel
you gain a bonus to your defenses and can make a fighting withdrawl. You can choose to forgo making attacks but instead use it as a 'parry' in response to an enemy striking you (roll attack, it counts as your AC against that attack)

Cover:
You interpose yourself before the beast and your less hardy allies. It shall not pass
Enemies within your reach are penalized to attack your allies. You can spend your next turn's movement action to intercept an enemy trying to engage an ally within your movement range. If your allies make a withdraw action and you are in reach of the monster, they make their attack against you.

and for the Simple Fighter Crowd, your default stance:
Poised:
You are in a ready stance, ready to spring into action
You have a bonus to damage/AC and don't ever need to adjust it if you never want to.

*can't leave Bow fighters out in the dark!
Disruptive Shot:
"When the robed guy begins flapping his arms I'm sending an arrow through his face, or maybe his foot, or maybe I knock his hat off and it spooks him, HP's are abstract right?"
Declare a target. You delay your turn until that target acts. You can shoot at them to disrupt spellcasting, penalize movement, penalize attacks, etc. to some degree greater than a normal delayed action.


These options I'm giving aren't about "I trip the guy" or "I push him 5ft", it's about general maneuvers that you've seen countless times in your favorite heroic tales.

Seriously, hit points are already so abstract we're not sure if 'arrow through the foot' is going to do more or less damage than 'sword through the gut'

I have found that the Called Shot penalty (usually -4atk, -1 init) often led to players not bothering with maneuvers. I hated that. My solution was keeping the Called Shot penalty to get the effect, but if your attack roll succeeds a regular hit but misses the called shot, you still get your regular hit (basically those 4 points in between were still a success). Kinda risky when you want to do non-lethal strikes, but helped people get over their fear of maneuver penalties as you aren't really wasting a strike.

I say this because I dig OgreBattle's ideas and think we could implement several of those maneuvers by ruling Called Shots this way and using other available maneuvers like Hold Action, Parry, Full Parry, etc in dynamic combinations.

For example, Disruptive Shot would be during Action Declaration (before initiative) to Hold Action to "ranged" Parry said target. If you roll faster initiative you then wait until target attacks and then roll your attack roll to see if you parry it (possible maneuver penalty of -4atk). If you succeed, you parry that attack, if you succeed regular attack but failed the maneuver you just do a regular attack.

Assault in 2e is simply ruled as attacker following up your melee target. When they move, you are assumed to follow the movement with them. They don't get to disengage unless they turn and flee (which leaves them open to a free attack, but they then get full move IIRC), or there's another monster engaging your attacker allowing them to disengage up to around a quarter move -- which essentially is Cover. The bonus to atk/dmg for half move + attack following up your melee opponent is an interesting twist, though.

Defensive Fighting/Withdraw is roughly a blend of Full Parry, which is make no attacks or move and gain 1/3 lvl bonus AC, and Parry, which is declared against a target and if target successfully hits you trade in an attack for a to-hit roll to Parry.

All interesting ideas and I think doable without new mechanics if we cleaned up presentation of already available mechanics and figured new ways to combine them. It would be something I would find preferable to fiddling with new dice pools and Powers and POW meters and the like. I just want a DMG guideline for players to take complicated maneuver without fear of too many penalties wasting their actions. Granted it de facto introduces "degree of success" to AD&D to-hit rolls, but I don't know if that's such a bad thing, especially since it's not as notably conspicuous a mechanic.

I approve of OB's ideas but then again I find myself in agreement with a majority of his ideas concerning 3x. At least until he does what I did and just move on to Fantasy Craft. Because it's already done and proven to work.

The bonus is you can customize it because it already does what they're attempting with 5e. Modular game plugins.