Quote from: Black Vulmea;740622Bullshit, assmunch.

And not a single one of those 'questions' is exclusive to the Fighter class.

Quote from: Sommerjon;740750And not a single one of those 'questions' is exclusive to the Fighter class.

If you close your eyes, clear your mind, and look again, you may realize that those trees are the forest.

Other classes may be to share in some of those various questions, but no other class can share in all of them.  The cleric may be able to select from the same armor and shields as the fighter, but they only have 5 choices for weapons, none of which are edged or long-ranged.  Thieves and monks may come closer in their choices of weapons, but they are utterly screwed when comes to armor.  In theory, other classes can engage in melee, charges, overbearing, etc.  But in actuality, only fighters have the HP, armor, and to-hit progression to make it worthwhile.  Magic-users can throw darts and daggers, druids can sling stones, thieves and throw darts and daggers AND sling stones, monks can throw daggers and fire crossbows.  But if you want set-up steady fire of 2 missiles per round at enemies 210 yards away, firing on them all the way down till they get into melee range, you need a fighter.  And then someone to toss aside the bow, take up a long spear and prevent the enemy from drawing even closer, you need the fighter.  And then to drop the spear, draw their bastard sword, and throw down, you still need the fighter.

For some odd reason, a lotta folks said, "Forget all that!"  And only had their fighter draw his sword and engage in melee at close range.  And then when either their character died, or they got bored with just going, "I attack.  I attack.  I attack," they had to gall to say, "The Fighter is boring."

Certain folks on TBP will have the gall to say "the AD&D Fighter is boring", and then say, "4e fighters are not because they have a role!  They are Defenders!"  So, yeah.  The guy who used to be the combat powerhouse at long, medium, medium-short, and short range is now just a "defender."  He wades into melee and hits things that move or hit his allies.  His exclusive long-range ability?  Given to the Ranger.  His exclusive ability to use any weapon and any armor?  Given to the Paladin.  His ability to command men in combat?  More or less given to the Warlord.

I like the 4e Fighter well enough for its purposes given the granular "one attack is one-swing" mode of play in 4e.  I don't think it's especially a step up from the AD&D fighter in the "camera-pulled back, more abstract" mode of play in 1e.

Quote from: Iosue;740763If you close your eyes, clear your mind, and look again, you may realize that those trees are the forest.

Other classes may be to share in some of those various questions, but no other class can share in all of them.  The cleric may be able to select from the same armor and shields as the fighter, but they only have 5 choices for weapons, none of which are edged or long-ranged.  Thieves and monks may come closer in their choices of weapons, but they are utterly screwed when comes to armor.  In theory, other classes can engage in melee, charges, overbearing, etc.  But in actuality, only fighters have the HP, armor, and to-hit progression to make it worthwhile.  Magic-users can throw darts and daggers, druids can sling stones, thieves and throw darts and daggers AND sling stones, monks can throw daggers and fire crossbows.  But if you want set-up steady fire of 2 missiles per round at enemies 210 yards away, firing on them all the way down till they get into melee range, you need a fighter.  And then someone to toss aside the bow, take up a long spear and prevent the enemy from drawing even closer, you need the fighter.  And then to drop the spear, draw their bastard sword, and throw down, you still need the fighter.

For some odd reason, a lotta folks said, "Forget all that!"  And only had their fighter draw his sword and engage in melee at close range.  And then when either their character died, or they got bored with just going, "I attack.  I attack.  I attack," they had to gall to say, "The Fighter is boring."

Certain folks on TBP will have the gall to say "the AD&D Fighter is boring", and then say, "4e fighters are not because they have a role!  They are Defenders!"  So, yeah.  The guy who used to be the combat powerhouse at long, medium, medium-short, and short range is now just a "defender."  He wades into melee and hits things that move or hit his allies.  His exclusive long-range ability?  Given to the Ranger.  His exclusive ability to use any weapon and any armor?  Given to the Paladin.  His ability to command men in combat?  More or less given to the Warlord.

I like the 4e Fighter well enough for its purposes given the granular "one attack is one-swing" mode of play in 4e.  I don't think it's especially a step up from the AD&D fighter in the "camera-pulled back, more abstract" mode of play in 1e.

Good post.

One 'problem' I see is when a game has 'too many' rules, or 'unneeded rules' and players feel obligated to use them without question.

In 1E, a fighter would usually be able to swap weapons around without any trouble. One minute round is plenty of time.

In 3X and 4E, actions are more precise and the time to perform them much shorter than a minute round.

So you end up with 'how long does it take to draw a weapon' and stuff like that.

And the "I can only do what the rules specifically allow"

Quote from: Bill;740823One 'problem' I see is when a game has 'too many' rules, or 'unneeded rules' and players feel obligated to use them without question.

In 1E, a fighter would usually be able to swap weapons around without any trouble. One minute round is plenty of time.

In 3X and 4E, actions are more precise and the time to perform them much shorter than a minute round.

So you end up with 'how long does it take to draw a weapon' and stuff like that.

And the "I can only do what the rules specifically allow"

Not really sure what you're trying to say here.

In 4e (and I think 3e), a weapon takes a Move action to draw.  So a combatant can draw a weapon and attack (standard action), draw as an action and move, but not both.  That's the default rule.  If the character has Quick Draw then readying a weapon is a free action, so they can move and attack or perform a full round action.

I honestly don't know what the codified rule is for the same situation in 1e.  I know that I've often seen it played that if the character doesn't have the weapon already out and ready then it takes a full round to draw it.  In practice, I've often seen it played as the mechanical opposite of the 4e rule:  drawing the weapon takes the place of the attack (standard action) but the character can still move.  Is this the real 1e rule?  I'm not sure, and I'm not necessarily faulting the rules for it.  However, I have seen a lot of player bargaining in regards to drawing their weapon because of the ignorance on the matter in 1e.

So, I certainly don't see the idea of a rule for readying a weapon as being an unneeded rule.  I don't think that was a good example.  I think the 4e rule for readying a weapon is simple, intuitive, and works well in play.  It removes doubt, because it's clear.  The situation comes up a lot.  The rule is extremely valuable, not unneeded.    

However, in a broader sense, I agree with the general idea that rules can get too complex to use and adhere to in actual play.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740828Not really sure what you're trying to say here.

In 4e (and I think 3e), a weapon takes a Move action to draw.  So a combatant can draw a weapon and attack (standard action), draw as an action and move, but not both.  That's the default rule.  If the character has Quick Draw then readying a weapon is a free action, so they can move and attack or perform a full round action.

I honestly don't know what the codified rule is for the same situation in 1e.  I know that I've often seen it played that if the character doesn't have the weapon already out and ready then it takes a full round to draw it.  In practice, I've often seen it played as the mechanical opposite of the 4e rule:  drawing the weapon takes the place of the attack (standard action) but the character can still move.  Is this the real 1e rule?  I'm not sure, and I'm not necessarily faulting the rules for it.  However, I have seen a lot of player bargaining in regards to drawing their weapon because of the ignorance on the matter in 1e.

So, I certainly don't see the idea of a rule for readying a weapon as being an unneeded rule.  I don't think that was a good example.  I think the 4e rule for readying a weapon is simple, intuitive, and works well in play.  It removes doubt, because it's clear.  The situation comes up a lot.  The rule is extremely valuable, not unneeded.    

However, in a broader sense, I agree with the general idea that rules can get too complex to use and adhere to in actual play.

In 1E a melee round is 60 seconds. The time to draw a weapon is not something you need to track. Totally unneeded in my opinion.

I have never seen a gm in 1E require a player to spend a melee round to draw a weapon.

You would find in 4E, if you made drawing a weapon a free action, the game would be fine. Who cares if a fighter draws a longsword to stab you or instead grabs an mace from his belt and attacks? Tracking that is a waste of effort.

Quote from: Iosue;740763If you close your eyes, clear your mind, and look again, you may realize that those trees are the forest.

Other classes may be to share in some of those various questions, but no other class can share in all of them.  The cleric may be able to select from the same armor and shields as the fighter, but they only have 5 choices for weapons, none of which are edged or long-ranged.  Thieves and monks may come closer in their choices of weapons, but they are utterly screwed when comes to armor.  In theory, other classes can engage in melee, charges, overbearing, etc.  But in actuality, only fighters have the HP, armor, and to-hit progression to make it worthwhile.  Magic-users can throw darts and daggers, druids can sling stones, thieves and throw darts and daggers AND sling stones, monks can throw daggers and fire crossbows.  But if you want set-up steady fire of 2 missiles per round at enemies 210 yards away, firing on them all the way down till they get into melee range, you need a fighter.  And then someone to toss aside the bow, take up a long spear and prevent the enemy from drawing even closer, you need the fighter.  And then to drop the spear, draw their bastard sword, and throw down, you still need the fighter.

For some odd reason, a lotta folks said, "Forget all that!"  And only had their fighter draw his sword and engage in melee at close range.  And then when either their character died, or they got bored with just going, "I attack.  I attack.  I attack," they had to gall to say, "The Fighter is boring."

Certain folks on TBP will have the gall to say "the AD&D Fighter is boring", and then say, "4e fighters are not because they have a role!  They are Defenders!"  So, yeah.  The guy who used to be the combat powerhouse at long, medium, medium-short, and short range is now just a "defender."  He wades into melee and hits things that move or hit his allies.  His exclusive long-range ability?  Given to the Ranger.  His exclusive ability to use any weapon and any armor?  Given to the Paladin.  His ability to command men in combat?  More or less given to the Warlord.

You . . . complete me.

Quote from: Sommerjon;740621The Fighter doesn't have that.  He has to "come to an understanding" with the DM for everything he does in the game.  Whoa be the player who has a DM with very stringent ideas on the Fighter.

Adding to Iosue excellent reply. You are forgetting that human referee is there to adjudicate ACTIONS THAT ARE DESCRIBED. The rules are just a aide for the referee in making his judgments consistent.

In the tabletop roleplaying the rules don't define the limit of what the character can do. The setting is what ultimately arbitrate what physical actions are possible.

If using the quasi medieval setting implied by the D&D game then things like body slams, disarming, and whacking an opponent hand are possible. Because the setting is a reflection on our own medieval time period. And those actions were possible then. Granted not as easy just trying to whack the enemy.

Quote from: Bill;740830In 1E a melee round is 60 seconds. The time to draw a weapon is not something you need to track. Totally unneeded in my opinion.

I have never seen a gm in 1E require a player to spend a melee round to draw a weapon.

You would find in 4E, if you made drawing a weapon a free action, the game would be fine. Who cares if a fighter draws a longsword to stab you or instead grabs an mace from his belt and attacks? Tracking that is a waste of effort.

Perhaps it is for you, and perhaps it even is for me.

However, at least there is a baseline point from which we can start from.  The rule exists and gives a definitive guideline.  If I play in a D&D4e game, I know the default standpoint is that I can draw my weapon as a move action, barring a feat which makes drawing it free.  Since it takes that move action, I can't draw it as a reaction and have available to me abilities which use my weapon which trigger upon a reaction.  It does have an effect sometimes.  But you are correct, the game would function just fine if we negotiated and decided that readying the weapon was a truly free action, effectively meaning it is always at the ready.

As our different experiences with the 1e situation show, the absence of a default rule results in different interpretations of what is allowable and when, thus requiring communication to even determine what is possible.  If you had played in games that I had played in you would have discovered that the GM required characters to spend time readying their weapons.  In your games you would be wondering why I'm taking so much effort to define when I have my weapon readied and available.

(And I admit that the ruling of the GM's I played with may be due to ignorance of an actual rule.  I'm now curious if this point was ever addressed in the 1e books.)

Plus, there are situations where this can become important.  There have been characters in 1e and 2e (optional classes from Dragon and Kits) which received AC bonuses when their weapons were out and available for parrying.  Since drawing the weapon is completely free, would the character receive the bonus at all times in the games you're familiar with?

These are very little things, true, but a RPG session is always a million little things combined into one big thing.

Quote from: estar;740851Adding to Iosue excellent reply. You are forgetting that human referee is there to adjudicate ACTIONS THAT ARE DESCRIBED. The rules are just a aide for the referee in making his judgments consistent.

This is the widest disconnect bridge to cross for those who believe that the rules ARE the game, and that game begins and ends with them.In this mindset, the DM is no more than a CPU that tracks die rolls and maintains the stats of the enemy AI.

In other words, they just don't fucking "get" rpgs.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740853Perhaps it is for you, and perhaps it even is for me.

However, at least there is a baseline point from which we can start from.  The rule exists and gives a definitive guideline.  If I play in a D&D4e game, I know the default standpoint is that I can draw my weapon as a move action, barring a feat which makes drawing it free.  Since it takes that move action, I can't draw it as a reaction and have available to me abilities which use my weapon which trigger upon a reaction.  It does have an effect sometimes.  But you are correct, the game would function just fine if we negotiated and decided that readying the weapon was a truly free action, effectively meaning it is always at the ready.

As our different experiences with the 1e situation show, the absence of a default rule results in different interpretations of what is allowable and when, thus requiring communication to even determine what is possible.  If you had played in games that I had played in you would have discovered that the GM required characters to spend time readying their weapons.  In your games you would be wondering why I'm taking so much effort to define when I have my weapon readied and available.

(And I admit that the ruling of the GM's I played with may be due to ignorance of an actual rule.  I'm now curious if this point was ever addressed in the 1e books.)

Plus, there are situations where this can become important.  There have been characters in 1e and 2e (optional classes from Dragon and Kits) which received AC bonuses when their weapons were out and available for parrying.  Since drawing the weapon is completely free, would the character receive the bonus at all times in the games you're familiar with?

These are very little things, true, but a RPG session is always a million little things combined into one big thing.

I don't recall ever having a problem with 'what weapon is in a characters hands'

I don't see adjudicating if a particular weapon is available for parrying as particularly difficult.

And, I expect every gm to do things differently.

If a gm for some reason wanted drawing  a weapon to take a full round, that's fine. I would consider it a mistake, but well within the scope of a gm running a game.

Now, unlimbering a pike strapped to ones back, should take more effort than drawing a dagger.
So a flat rule for how long it takes fails logic anyway.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740853Perhaps it is for you, and perhaps it even is for me.

However, at least there is a baseline point from which we can start from.  The rule exists and gives a definitive guideline.

A good tabletop RPG rule acts a effective tool for adjudicating some action that the character attempts. Otherwise the referee need to fall back on the description of the setting (spell take 10 second to cast) or real life experience (drawing a sword take only seconds with a small chance of being longer as result of something getting hooked or constrained during the draw.)

Quote from: Gabriel2;740853If I play in a D&D4e game, I know the default standpoint is that I can draw my weapon as a move action, barring a feat which makes drawing it free.  Since it takes that move action, I can't draw it as a reaction and have available to me abilities which use my weapon which trigger upon a reaction.

Since we are talking about a physical action if it squares with the experience of somebody knowledgeable then it is a good rule otherwise it is a counter intuitive game mechanic.

Having played and refereed D&D4e the entire system is a comic book fantasy game with superheroic characters. Real world knowledge and common sense has little part in the in the design of the core powers. Which means the only knowledge of the physics of the game is from reading the rules.

Note that there is nothing about the core design of D&D4e that forced them to design it this. It not a flaw of the design but a flaw of what the designer choose to present.

OD&D combat in contrast was design to reflect what Arneson, Gygax, and Upper Midwest gamers knew about medieval combat in a rules lite abstract package. Because the campaigns focused not on the emulation of realism but on the exploration of unknown dungeons, and wilderness.

This is important to remember because Gygax, Arneson and associated gamers did opt for a focus on realism when the focus was on accurately recreating past battles using miniatures.

The thrill of D&D for the early campaigns was ability to attempt anything that a character could do and exploring all the weird stuff Gygax and Arneson created in their respective campaigns.

Later when D&D started spread, it ran into groups of players where for them it was important to have the details specified. Especially for obscure topics like medieval combat. Hence the creation of games like Chivalry & Sorcery and Runequest. For Runequest the authors drew on their experience with the Society of Creative Anachronisms.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740853the game would function just fine if we negotiated and decided that readying the weapon was a truly free action, effectively meaning it is always at the ready.

Negotiation only needs to occur when the referee has limited or incomplete knowledge of the things he need to know to make a ruling. Among a mature group of players, the process is everybody sharing their knowledge to figure how it actually works in life or in some cases in the setting for things like supernatural abilities.

For example in GURPS you have the core books and you have GURPS Martial Arts. If the referee knows about how kendo fighting works then he doesn't need GURPS Material ARts. He can use just the core book and adjudicate what the player wants to do with his character.

However it somebody like me who doesn't know much about kendo. Then GURPS Martial Arts is an valuable aide because it tells me how to apply the various core mechanics to represents the techniques of kendo in the GURPS combat system.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740853As our different experiences with the 1e situation show, the absence of a default rule results in different interpretations of what is allowable and when, thus requiring communication to even determine what is possible.

Most of these problems occur with physical actions. They result because we have to reduce the actions into a simulation using dice rolls and modifiers. And for many actions there are lot of closely related methods that achieve the similar result but focus on different things. All of this constrained by the fact there is limit on detail because there is a game to be run.

What I do is apply the same methodology I do for handling bugs in the software I maintain for a small company. Due to limited time and resources combined with the software's complexity, it is nearly impossible to be bug-free for each new release. But what I can do make sure that the ability to identify, fix, and generate a new release to fix issues is as quick, reliable, and fast as possible. And largely we have achieved that.

For tabletop RPGs even with the most detailed of system no two campaigns are going to be a like with human referees running things. The referee job is two fold; communicate as effectively as possible his way of adjudicating things. And to be efficient and fair about issues that come up during play. On the player's side, he needs to remember that it is a leisure activity, that as a newcomer there is going to be learning curve. The result is that when things come up, you take a minute to hash it out, everybody comes to an understanding and that how it is from then on.

If later the referee decides it was the wrong call, then AFTER or BEFORE the game sit down with the players, talk about the issue again and then after an agreement that how it is afterwards.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740853These are very little things, true, but a RPG session is always a million little things combined into one big thing.

For my players I tell them think about it as if you are really there doing this. And that how I going to rule. That takes care 8 of 10 of these type of questions.

For classic D&D there no way you are going to fuck up a draw of a weapon within 10 to 60 seconds. (depending the specific edition). It is a free action because of the length of the combat round.

GURPS in contrast has 1 second rounds. Drawing a weapon takes a second period. Unless you practiced it, as represented by the fast draw skill, then you can attempt to draw it as free actions. But because you are just trying to yank it out as fast possible there is a chance of failure. Not just a failure it means you still consume a round drawing it. But a critical failure where it gets caught or fumbled as well. It reflects in the opinion of the authors the real life or genre tradeoffs.

In Hackmaster 5e, drawing a weapons takes a number of seconds depending on the weapon. Hackmaster doesn't use rounds so a fighter trying to get out a dagger versus a fighter trying to release a halberd is going to get their weapon ready first. Like GURPS there are mechanics to shorten the draw but there is the risk of a critical failure making things worse.

Again this makes sense from the author's personal knowledge. Removing and readying a short object from a sheath is inherently faster then releasing and readying what is in essence a long pole from straps.

It only with games like D&D 4e that rules mastery become critical because "reality" is just window dressing. How things work is solely defined by the rules. And after 30 years of gaming tabletop I find this a poor tool to use during a campaign. Which is why I use GURPS more than Hero System for everything but superheroes.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740828Not really sure what you're trying to say here.

In 4e (and I think 3e), a weapon takes a Move action to draw.  So a combatant can draw a weapon and attack (standard action), draw as an action and move, but not both.  That's the default rule.  If the character has Quick Draw then readying a weapon is a free action, so they can move and attack or perform a full round action.

Drawing (or stowing) is a Minor action.  So you can draw, move, and attack (or move, draw, and attack, or draw, attack, and move).

QuoteI honestly don't know what the codified rule is for the same situation in 1e.  I know that I've often seen it played that if the character doesn't have the weapon already out and ready then it takes a full round to draw it.  In practice, I've often seen it played as the mechanical opposite of the 4e rule:  drawing the weapon takes the place of the attack (standard action) but the character can still move.  Is this the real 1e rule?  I'm not sure, and I'm not necessarily faulting the rules for it.  However, I have seen a lot of player bargaining in regards to drawing their weapon because of the ignorance on the matter in 1e.

In AD&D, it goes like this.  A Turn is 10 minutes.  A Round is 1 minute, thus 10 Rounds = 1 Turn.  A Round is then further divided into ten 6-second Segments.  Initiative (and surprise) is a relative contest using a d6 to vie for those first six segments of a round.  So, if I roll a 4 and you roll a 2, my turn starts on segment 1, and yours starts on segment 3 (4-2=2, so I get a two segment headstart).  If I need to draw a weapon (or any other action, such as drinking a potion, etc.), the DM adjudicates how many segments it takes, based on the time frame of 6 seconds in a segment.  Drawing a weapon is not specifically spelled out in the rules.  However, in one example, it is suggested that pulling a potion out of a pouch and hurling it would be "1, possibly 2 segments", so I'm pretty comfortable saying that any DM charging more than 1 segment to draw and ready a standard sized weapon is doing it wrong.

Now, another thing to consider with AD&D is that the camera is "pulled back", and combat is resolved with more of an overview than simulated in the thick of it.  You can't close to striking range and attack in the same round, unless you charge.  This is to represent coming in carefully to engage the enemy without taking attacks.  Unlike with a charge, where you take an AC penalty in order to make your attack that round.  That said, you could certainly draw on the move, since the move will take up at least one segment.

I suspect that DMs forcing people to wait a round if they have to draw a weapon were applying a mistaken understanding of BD&D rules to AD&D.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;740857This is the widest disconnect bridge to cross for those who believe that the rules ARE the game, and that game begins and ends with them.In this mindset, the DM is no more than a CPU that tracks die rolls and maintains the stats of the enemy AI.

In other words, they just don't fucking "get" rpgs.

NONONONONONO!!!!!

The rules are there to protect the EVIL GM from touching my character in a bad way!!!!!



Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack.  At the point of D&D's explosive growth in popularity from "1000 copies?  You'll never sell all them!" to "Featured in the #1 grossing movie of the time", most players never even read the rules.

The game started with "Tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you what to roll."

Quote from: Old Geezer;740874The game started with "Tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you what to roll."

It basically still is the best way to play, from my POV, and part of the reason for its growth in popularity in the first place.