Quote from: Kellri;907947Also...you are aware that 40-400 goblins means spread out over an entire lair, right?

It was a very interesting moment when I realized that rolling for "random encounters" in Dungeon gameplay (10 minute turn) uses the Dungeon's Random Encounter chart(s), and is a totally different thing than "random encounters/wandering monsters" in Overland gameplay (1 day turn, hex based travel) where you place the encounter rolled encounter on a hex as a procedural generated 'adventure location' - and this is what the "# Encountered" entry in the statblock is used for. Dungeon RE charts use smaller random groups based on dungeon level, and you are supposed to use the example dungeons & charts (based on "dungeon level").

I don't think a lot of people realize that these "Random Encounter" checks are in 2 totally different gameplay cycles.

Quote from: Telarus;908086I don't think a lot of people realize that these "Random Encounter" checks are in 2 totally different gameplay cycles.

There's a reason why my gaming style never actually used those rules.  The two girls that were my first DMs (I'm pretty sure everyone is sick of me mentioning this...) believed that it wasn't 'realistic' (well, when you're twelve years old...) and did their own thing, based on the fantasy books they loved, using AD&D as their vehicle of choice.  And seeing that we (the whole group of us) spent a lot of time together, for admittedly a short length of a school year, I was impressed on early.

However, I've seen other tables do it in a much more cutthroat fashion.

A lot of the whining about wizards being squishy for example, that I had heard about was because of antagonistic DMs would target the wizard from the word go, and maybe not ALL the Gobbies would target them, enough did that very few would survive for very long.  And so a lot of other tables I was at, would (again, this was unspoken, no one has ever said 'Thou Shalt Not Target the Magic-User to Death!') focus on the fighters and other heavies, because they didn't want to have to deal with another jerk that loved to mash players into a paste.

And people use terms like 'tactics' and 'strategy', party order and all that to show that they weren't using this 'gentleman's agreement' when in reality they totally are.

Going to back the older games, where a round was a full minute, it was supposed to be assumed that the characters spent that minute, blocking, dodging and avoiding or otherwise getting out of the way of damage, and that one roll was the players seeing if the opening they found got to do damage.  So in reality, the players didn't need to say anything about lifting the shield to block the arrows or molotovs, it was supposed to be assumed that they already had, and if the Goblin's roll to hit was successful, it meant that the gobbies found a hole to shoot, lob, stab or otherwise make a PC miserable.

There's a reason that people wanted the time span of a round shortened.  Because a lot of people couldn't wrap their minds around the fact that you were NOT just standing around for a minute doing nothing, then you attacked.  Very few DM's in my personal, and fully anecdotal, experience went out of their way to actually describe what went on for the minute.  Roll?  Hit?  Yes/No?  Resolve, move on.  Cognitive dissonance between what people did, and what was meant to happen.  And from what can I tell, it may have been much more common than just the small sample size I got to see.

And even then, 6 seconds isn't all that much better, given what you can actually do in a fight, but it IS an improvement for mental visualization.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;908087Because a lot of people couldn't wrap their minds around the fact that you were NOT just standing around for a minute doing nothing, then you attacked.

I wouldn't say that that many people couldn't wrap their minds around that fact, just that they didn't like it or think that it was realistic.

QuoteAnd even then, 6 seconds isn't all that much better, given what you can actually do in a fight, but it IS an improvement for mental visualization.

It depends on the kind of fighting and when in the fight. Sure, 6 seconds is an eternity in (say) boxing when they are right on top of each other and throwing mad jabs. While they are circling, dancing, looking for opening, it can be 12-15 seconds between any meaningful actual attempts at hitting the other. If you average the whole fight, one exchange per 6 seconds might be accurate, or close to it.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;908092I wouldn't say that that many people couldn't wrap their minds around that fact, just that they didn't like it or think that it was realistic.

Not being snarky, but really that's more of a po-tae-to, po-tah-to.  In the end, it doesn't matter what the personal reason is, it didn't 'feel' right to most of these players.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;908092It depends on the kind of fighting and when in the fight. Sure, 6 seconds is an eternity in (say) boxing when they are right on top of each other and throwing mad jabs. While they are circling, dancing, looking for opening, it can be 12-15 seconds between any meaningful actual attempts at hitting the other. If you average the whole fight, one exchange per 6 seconds might be accurate, or close to it.

Again, though, it's running into the same issue that the 1 minute round has, but on a smaller scale.  Some people may not be able to understand that.  It's admittedly BETTER for mental gymnastics than a full on 60 seconds though.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;908087There's a reason why my gaming style never actually used those rules.

Sure there’s a reason. Reading incomprehension.

The gulf between an antagonistic DM who just loves to mash player characters into paste and a wussy DM who won't target MUs for fear his players will throw tear-filled tantrums is vast and unplumbed...by some.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;907948Yeah, that's why the books became bigger.  Because people wanted clarifications, also, very few people realize that because it's not in the book, it's OK to try it.  Most human beings, having a relatively cautious nature in general, will assume that unless it's dictated or clear, it's NOT available.

No. Most human beings that are capable of understanding language know that when playing a fantasy role playing game of the IMAGINATION that its probably a good idea to use theirs while playing such a game.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;908087And people use terms like 'tactics' and 'strategy', party order and all that to show that they weren't using this 'gentleman's agreement' when in reality they totally are.

Or they don't live in Bizarro Brady World and haven't played in "Fake Anecdotes Made Up For Bullshit Online Arguments Land" and actually did and still do use tactics and strategy without the fucking quotes and roleplay someone who, for lack of a better term, can shit unassisted and use tactics people have been using for thousands of years to keep from getting stuck on the bad guy's pointy end.

You know, like practically everyone except you and TGD.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;907970AD&D 1e in their monster manual, does not say that it's for the WHOLE dungeon, just gives a no. encountered.

Um... AD&D Monster Manual page 5. NUMBER APPEARING. It states clearly that the number is just a guideline and should be adjusted up or down. It also clarifies.

QuoteIt is not generally recommended for use in establishing the population of dungeon levels.

In a past thread Im pretty sure I pointed out specifically to you where in the DMG it also says that the number appearing is for a whole level/lairs population. Not per encounter. And the part in the DMG where it shows the number appearing for a wandering encounter?

Lets look up that hoard of goblins then.
Encounter with goblins on level 1 of a dungeon = 6-15.
Youd double that on level 2, and so on.

Quote from: Ravenswing;908022My wife's wizard has her personal bodyguard: a sword-and-board guy tasked to just about nothing else in battle than to keep unfriendly people from pestering her.

Not as much an option at the start where funds can be short. Great if you can afford it though. I usually ended up with some bodyguards at some point whos job was to run interference while I twiddled my fingers menacingly.

Speaking of. I actually exploited the enemy tendency to try and focus ranged fire on me by prepping defensive spells and then making a big show of casting something I wasnt really casting to draw their fire. This bought the guys and gals at the front more time.

Tactics.

Quote from: CRKrueger;908107Or they don't live in Bizarro Brady World and haven't played in "Fake Anecdotes Made Up For Bullshit Online Arguments Land" and actually did and still do use tactics and strategy without the fucking quotes and roleplay someone who, for lack of a better term, can shit unassisted and use tactics people have been using for thousands of years to keep from getting stuck on the bad guy's pointy end.

You know, like practically everyone except you and TGD.

There's a lot of people who live in my bizzaro world then.  Which would explain a lot of the response of this forum...  DO you live there to?  Would explain a few things.

But of course, you have nothing constructive to add, so personal attacks it is!  Yay!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;908087And people use terms like 'tactics' and 'strategy', party order and all that to show that they weren't using this 'gentleman's agreement' when in reality they totally are.

No. We weren't.

When I GM, I have always used this rule: monsters attack the closest opponent in range, or if several are in range, randomly select a target. If they haven't closed for melee and spot someone who looks like he's casting a spell, intelligent monsters may target that person. After melee begins, no one can cast spells, so there's no point in targeting M-Us then, anyways.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;908087Going to back the older games, where a round was a full minute, it was supposed to be assumed that the characters spent that minute, blocking, dodging and avoiding or otherwise getting out of the way of damage, and that one roll was the players seeing if the opening they found got to do damage.  So in reality, the players didn't need to say anything about lifting the shield to block the arrows or molotovs, it was supposed to be assumed that they already had, and if the Goblin's roll to hit was successful, it meant that the gobbies found a hole to shoot, lob, stab or otherwise make a PC miserable.

That's in melee. The scenario you proposed was thrown weapons or missiles.

In melee, your shield works automatically.

In ranged combat, your shield works automatically for you. If you are trying to block an object being thrown over your head, that's a special action. You have to say that's what you are doing, and you treat it as either attacking the thrown object (pick a reasonable AC and roll to hit,) or as a Dex roll, or as a penalty to the attacker's roll based on cover.

Why you are nitpicking whether players can say "I raise my shield", I dunno. You said it was impossible for any character of any class to defend a magic-user being targeted by the enemy. "No tools exist," you said. And now, you are flailing around desperately to "prove" it is impossible.

Yeah. Right.

Quote from: talysman;908122That's in melee. The scenario you proposed was thrown weapons or missiles.

In melee, your shield works automatically.

In ranged combat, your shield works automatically for you. If you are trying to block an object being thrown over your head, that's a special action. You have to say that's what you are doing, and you treat it as either attacking the thrown object (pick a reasonable AC and roll to hit,) or as a Dex roll, or as a penalty to the attacker's roll based on cover.

Why you are nitpicking whether players can say "I raise my shield", I dunno. You said it was impossible for any character of any class to defend a magic-user being targeted by the enemy. "No tools exist," you said. And now, you are flailing around desperately to "prove" it is impossible.

Yeah. Right.

The game system doesn't specify the difference in the older editions.  I said it was 'impossible' because by the base system back in AD&D, it didn't differentiate past the size of your shield, so bucklers didn't count for some ranged attacks.

It might be different in your games, but base AD&D system, that full minute is supposed to cover all the situations to prevent the wizard from being targeted, and that roll to hit means that the ranged fighters (the goblins) found an opening, and if the roll hits, the Wizard is hit.

And in a lot of games I've heard of and seen, most people don't target the wizard, they go after the big beefy fighter first, because reasons.

When NOBODY shares your opinion, it is possible that you are Galileo.

However, it is far more likely that you are Harold Camping.

Quote from: Opaopajr;908003Shifting tactics through interpreting monster psychology/instinct is actually a topic worthy of its own. I would personally prefer a "How To" topic so people can share useful advice. (I prefer "plot/declare first, then initiative rolls" for Fog of War myself.)

"Make it so, number one!" /Picard voice

Agreed.  I simply play unintelligent monsters by random roll.  A giant lizard, if it attacks, will arbitrarily choose one target in front of it.  It will only attack if hungry or if attacked.  Otherwise, if torpid it will just sit their, if neither torpid nor hungry it will withdraw unless cornered.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;908118There's a lot of people who live in my bizzaro world then.  Which would explain a lot of the response of this forum...

Which responses by who...all the people in this thread who are saying you're completely full of shit?   I guess one way to win in life is to simply have no L column, right?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;908118But of course, you have nothing constructive to add, so personal attacks it is!  Yay!

Calling the jackass out for being a jackass is constructively adding to a thread.  Engaging the premise pretending it's something other than a monkey flinging shit is what is detrimental to useful discussion.

This whole "I know the way people really played back in the old AD&D days, despite me demonstrably having no experience or knowledge of it " schtick you have going on is incredibly tiring.  Not only are you the umpteenth in a long string of jackasses who have tried that shit to bolster their own idiotic arguments, but you're terrible at it.