Post/Author/DateTime	Post
honeynuggets 05-24-04, 09:54 PM	Here is something I have encountered in 4 out of 11 LG adventures so it warrants mentioning. We've all heard the saying "The DM has final say." I have DM'd plenty and I made mistakes regarding the rules. In the afore mentioned 4 sessions the DMs seemed to think they knew it all and judged against characters in the case of rules which can be interpreted in several ways (yes, there are plenty). 1. One DM created a house rule out of thin air which I will call the "Silhouette" rule. This house rule enables all foes to Spot into shadowy illumination while disregarding the 20% concealment and Hide skill because "the light source is making a silouhette of your body". WOW what a great ability for npcs o have! 2. Another simply gave creatures 2-3x their normal hitpoints. 3. A third let a Large creature move right up to a party without making Hide/Move Silent checks because nobody said they were looking around so the DM assumed that a party in hostile territory was just looking straight forward. 4. Another interpreted the Grappling rules wrong. When a foe successfully grapples a character they are both considered "Grappling" and they both can choose to perform the various allowed actions. The DM ruled that the character was grappled and couldn't even attempt to draw a light weapon with an opposed grapple check until he had grappled the foe with a separate grapple check. What I am getting at is that the rules are complex and if a disagreement arises at a table rule in favor of the players unless you are a rules lawyer or have read some debates about that particular rule. Killing a player with a bad ruling is far worse than giving a player a slight advantage with a wrong ruling in their favor. This is more relevant in campaigns like LG with permanent death or costly resurrection and low gold accumulation.
Aramil 05-25-04, 12:10 AM	Man, you have had some crappy GM's. Was this just a home game hosted by them or was this in a group where the GM varies? If the latter, I'd suggest, if this hasn't already been done, that you discuss this with the rest of the group and confront this person because that's just ridiculous. When I GM I fully invite the players to double check a ruling I make. In fact, I often rely on the players to know things like grapple and stuff like that if their characters use it often. Even so, it's worth the three minutes to look it up to get the proper ruling.
Cardinal Teplin 05-25-04, 10:53 AM	It happens. My character died becuase the Gm was 'trying to save time' by making of our character moves for us, despite our protests. One character ended up going first into every room, and getting ambushed a lot as a result, because the GM thought their player was annoying. I appealed, got nowhere. The GM would have left if overuled, and the senior GM, also the event organiser, couldn't afford to lose any GMs. Also the slot had ended before the appeal could be organised, and it would have meant stopping roughly half the event. He did later offer me a free soda. Of course, the reverse is also true. I've seen players misapply obscure rules, and convince GMs that their interpretation is the correct one. Grapple is an old favourite, since it's quite hard to understand. I don't find it happens a lot, mind. However, I've rarelyt been on a table where the GM knows more rules than the players. It puts them in a difficult position. I've frequently been in a position where the GM knows nothing about LG, and has been drafted in from another table where the living force game has ended, or Arcanaris has reached a stopping point. They know AD&D, but these AR-thingies are a mystery to them. They usually run a good game, but any metagaming stuff has to be referred back to the senior GM, or a GM on another table. Technically this is against the rules if the rest of the table breaks up, but what else could they do?
Samwise 05-25-04, 01:02 PM	Well, I am a rules lawyer. A power gaming rules lawyer. So I can make all the rulings I want that are not in favor of the players. I even make a few that are not in favor of the monsters when appropriate. As for those four examples, three of them are very much wrong on the part of the DM. However, number 3, regarding a large creature moving up, is something that is all too often directly written in to a module. Most times the text will indicate that only those party members not otherwise engaged, or specifically paying attention, or other qualifier, will get to make Spot or Listen checks. If the players are engaged in constant table chatter and side discussions, I will not give anyone a Spot or Listen check in such a circumstance. That is well within the rules, and is not a mistake in any manner. Now I have made mistakes, and if they are pointed out I will do whatever is needed to correct them. But I've seen players make worse mistakes, or even worse assumptions, about what they can or are entitled to do. And those have caused more disruptions than any errors I have ever made. Perhaps instead of considering the DM an enemy from the module that must be overcome for xp, a better attitude would be to consider him a member of the party, working to play through the module.
Cardinal Teplin 05-25-04, 02:24 PM	>If the players are engaged in constant table chatter and side discussions, I will not give anyone a Spot or Listen check in such a circumstance. That is well within the rules, and is not a mistake in any manner I would regard it as a mistake. Not a mistake by the GM necessarily, but a mistake all the same. >Now I have made mistakes, and if they are pointed out I will do whatever is needed to correct them. But I've seen players make worse mistakes, or even worse assumptions, about what they can or are entitled to do. And those have caused more disruptions than any errors I have ever made. Possibly you aren't a typical GM? Players do make rules errors too, but then this matters less because they are only directing the actions of their characters, not defining the reality of the game world. GMs have more leverage, and thus do more damage when they get it wrong. >Perhaps instead of considering the DM an enemy from the module that must be overcome for xp, a better attitude would be to consider him a member of the party, working to play through the module. Not an enemy I'd grant you, although many GMs boast about their ability to kills of parties of players, and set themselves up as enemies because they regard it as more fun. Its a style thing. I wouldn't regard the GM as a member of the party. That strikes me as too close, and not really fair on someone who has to keep his impartiality.
Samwise 05-25-04, 02:51 PM	I would regard it as a mistake. Not a mistake by the GM necessarily, but a mistake all the same. Technically, it is a mistake by the DM. As the module text indicates the players must make an affirimative statement, assuming such is wrong. Odd how DMs can err on the side of players sometimes, but there you have it. Possibly you aren't a typical GM? Neither are those who casually double the HP of monsters in an encounter. Not an enemy I'd grant you, although many GMs boast about their ability to kills of parties of players, and set themselves up as enemies because they regard it as more fun. Its a style thing. Which is why I tell everyone doing that to stop. Note, this is not the same as trash talking. I expect a player to insist he can get through a mod without taking a point of damage. I don't take it seriously. I wouldn't regard the GM as a member of the party. That strikes me as too close, and not really fair on someone who has to keep his impartiality. Why would a DM want to be impartial? His job is to make sure everyone has fun. That sounds like it requires someone who is very much partial. At least I have never had the monsters in a module thank me for preventing the players from killing them, or having them die in an enjoyable fashion.
lyros2199 05-25-04, 02:59 PM	In my opinion, the statement that "The DM has final say" is correct. It is also true, however, that the 'final say' should not be said until any possible mistakes have been addressed. There are times when I run modules where something was written for 3.0 and has not been changed for 3.5 and the old mechanics and get jumbled up. At times, I will make a ruling if there is nothing in the rules to give a plain answer. The thing is, I ask the players if they are comfortable with me making such a ruling. This is a GAME, after all, and I want the players to have fun as well. However, number 3, regarding a large creature moving up, is something that is all too often directly written in to a module. Hehehe...we've seen that a lot. Things happening in the module with no chance to avoid it even if played correctly. We often refer to things like this by wryly commenting that the PCs failed their save vs. Box Text. Back to the point...DMs are NOT infallible. I know a few that ARE rules lawyers, but they never act like know-it-alls. They are sincerely trying to make sure we all understand the game better, and we often ask them rules, as we are human and cant know or remember everything. As for DMs bragging about kill rate...geez...insecure much? I have run a handful of tables for RPGA now (5 or 6?) and have killed 2 PCs, dropped at least a half dozen others to negatives..and I feel BAD about it. I know how it feels to have a character die and I hate doing it to others, especially because of lucky (or unlucky, depending on your point of view).
Marcia_S 05-25-04, 03:22 PM	I've played with my share of hostile GMs who decide ahead of time that someone is going to die and will target one or more characters throughout the mod so that they WILL die. Or decide to add or change an encounter so that he can TPK the party because a couple of the players made him mad. It's awfully hard in LG to get your character beyond 5th level with the TU and level restrictions in the campaign. In one case, I had finally gotten my character to 3rd level where I could play with my 4th level friends when the GM got perturbed at the players and decided to change the final encounter and had otherwise non-hostile NPCs murder the party. Another mod, it seemed that the GM had decided that he was going to kill someone, if not TPK the party. He dropped my character to -1, then had the nearly unkillable BG stand guard over the body so they couldn't go back to get it (which made NO sense for that creature). They were too weak to fight it, so had to flee without my character or even the body. Starting over is nearly impossible in LG, as you'll never catch up to your friends, since you can't play anything you've already played and you have to wait for APL 2 stuff to trickle in for you to play, at all. I really wish there was some way to appeal this stuff after the fact, but as someone already noted, it becomes a "he said - she said" thing and you have no way to determine what actually happened. Marcia
Cardinal Teplin 05-25-04, 04:05 PM	>Technically, it is a mistake by the DM. As the module text indicates the players must make an affirimative statement, assuming such is wrong. Technically speaking, the GM has the authority to override box text, and indeed anything else written in the adventure. DMs are supposed to use their discretion. Technically speaking again, the DM of a living grayhawk adventure is the Triad or the Circle, NOT the referee at the table, which is why, technically, whether the ref at the table can overide what the module says is a matter for the Triad to decide. >Neither are those who casually double the HP of monsters in an encounter Ohhhh.... I've seen that pretty often. Of course it helps that I see most of the modules after I play them, because i'm usually next up to run them. Doubling is a bit extreme, but I'd say playing with the stats, either through accident or design, happens in roughly 10% of the adventures I've played in. Usually its too subtle to be noticed, but few DMs are that careful with such things unless the stakes become very high. >Why would a DM want to be impartial? His job is to make sure everyone has fun. That sounds like it requires someone who is very much partial. Um... Not necessarily. I'd rather have a referee who played things straight than one who bent over backwards to help me. An element of impartiality is needed, rather than being entirely impartial in all things. >We often refer to things like this by wryly commenting that the PCs failed their save vs. Box Text. We've had quite a few jokes about boxed text down our way, including one girl writing 'boxed text' on her chest in an attempt to distract someone. "Ah, but see, you're not allowed to ignore boxed text!" >Back to the point...DMs are NOT infallible. I know a few that ARE rules lawyers, but they never act like know-it-alls. Rules lawyers makes mistakes too. We had one point about grapple rules that took five people, a week and a half, and four seperate rules references before he'd finally agree that maybe "It was worth a question to the Sage." Sooner or later, everyone gets something wrong. And sooner or later, you're going to run into someone getting it wrong on purpose.
StevieS 05-25-04, 04:24 PM	So as not to frighten off any newbs out there checking LG out for the first time, in my four year LG career the standard of judging has been generally very good and almost every DM is fair. There are two UK DMs I'll not game with, one is straight up a bad DM who wanders off topic and can't pronounce any GH names and the other is a straight up killer DM. Two bad ones out of every DM I've met isn't too bad IMO.
Samwise 05-25-04, 10:52 PM	Technically speaking, the GM has the authority to override box text, and indeed anything else written in the adventure. DMs are supposed to use their discretion. No they do not. They very much do not! That is the realm of DMs who do go off and change encounters to slaughter players. It is better to avoid it altogether. Technically speaking again, the DM of a living grayhawk adventure is the Triad or the Circle, NOT the referee at the table, which is why, technically, whether the ref at the table can overide what the module says is a matter for the Triad to decide. It has already been determined by the Circle and the RPGA staff. You are not supposed to alter a module. The critical thing to remember is, that works both ways. Too many DMs assume auto-surprise or the like because no chance is given in the mod. I do not do that. Um... Not necessarily. I'd rather have a referee who played things straight than one who bent over backwards to help me. An element of impartiality is needed, rather than being entirely impartial in all things. I didn't say help, I said have fun. Sometimes have fun means to make things harder. Sometimes it means to make things easier. It always means to make things more fun. And last I checked, a TPK is so rarely fun as to not be worth considering. The same applies to player death.
Nidome 05-26-04, 02:55 AM	Originally posted by Samwise You are not supposed to alter a module. What a DM at the table is allowed to do is detailed on Page 56 of the LGCS V3. Nick.
Greyson 05-26-04, 11:14 AM	Originally posted by StevieS So as not to frighten off any newbs out there checking LG out for the first time, in my four year LG career the standard of judging has been generally very good and almost every DM is fair. Definitely. In our Nyrond group, we have great GMs. Almost every time, if there is a question about rules, the players and GM work together looking up information in the books to get it right. I've had one bad GM who blundered (and I mean really screwed up) rules in five months of LG activity. So, regarding the GM issues that started this thread, perhaps you can suggest looking up uncertainties about the rules when they come up. That way, everyone learns and all are edified. Good luck.
Timlagor 06-26-04, 10:44 AM	Originally posted by Samwise I didn't say help, I said have fun. Sometimes have fun means to make things harder. Sometimes it means to make things easier. It always means to make things more fun. And last I checked, a TPK is so rarely fun as to not be worth considering. The same applies to player death. [/B] Player death may not be much fun but the danger of Player Death (and/or TPK) definitely makes it more fun for me. Edit: I meant player Character death of course.
heirodule 06-29-04, 12:58 PM	Originally posted by honeynuggets 1. One DM created a house rule out of thin air which I will call the "Silhouette" rule. This house rule enables all foes to Spot into shadowy illumination while disregarding the 20% concealment and Hide skill because "the light source is making a silouhette of your body". WOW what a great ability for npcs o have! I could see this one. The GM is responsible for "reality checking' situations the rules don't cover in adequate detail. If someone hides in an empty bare 10' wide corridor with a lantern sufficiently far away to give him shadowy illumination, by the R.A.W. he can hide. Assume he's inbetween the lantern and the spotter. But relaistically, he is silhouetted by the light, and there are no objects in the corridor that he can hide behind. I think 3.0 spotting rules handled that a bit better by giving "high contrast" hiders a penalty to be spotted and the GM's "best friend" is supposed to be the misc. circumstance bonus.
Coreyartus 06-30-04, 01:44 AM	But what is reality, Heirodule? What may seem realistic to one may not to another, and that leaves a huge amount of leeway from GM to GM... Leeway that LG tries to take out by making each table as consistent as they possibly can, in all the multi-various regions across the world. I don't much care for GMs that inject a "reality check" whenever they feel like it--as a player, it smacks of too much GM power-abuse. I understand that GMs's need to be an arbitrator, but altering the parameters of a combat/roleplaying situation is stretching that arbitration from post-decision-making to pre-decision making. Ultimately, that makes me feel like I should be selective in my GM choice, and at cons and gamedays, that's usually not an option. The campaign as a whole has a huge emphasis on cons and gamedays. Encouraging GM's to feel justified in selectively altering game parameters whenever they feel like it will get a judge nowhere fast. I volunteer at too many cons to think that's a good GMing style--it's a bad habit that is actively discouraged by most of the other judges I know. Effective decision making as a judge involves weighing actions and consequences carefully, quickly, and without bias. That can't happen by adding in random factors whenever one feels like it... It's gotta be a solid, well-considered decision, and not done in a vacuum--consulting other GMs is a good idea (especially at a con...). My two cents... Coreyartus
Timlagor 06-30-04, 06:55 AM	Originally posted by Coreyartus Effective decision making as a judge involves weighing actions and consequences carefully, quickly, and without bias. That can't happen by adding in random factors whenever one feels like it... It's gotta be a solid, well-considered decision, and not done in a vacuum--consulting other GMs is a good idea (especially at a con...). Coreyartus [/B] That sounds like the difference between arbitrarily doubling the NPCs hitpoints and allowing them to see characters that are stupid enough to stand in front of the only lightsource.
oroborous 07-02-04, 10:55 PM	My take on the situation is that the DM is like the director of a movie. You can't get to the end of the movie if all the main characters die before the climax. That being said, sometimes players bump the APL, or a 6' tall fighter in full plate tries to hide in a lit empty room. The only way that I would allow that to succeed is on a 20. I also feel that the DM should offer some challenge to the party. I just recently ran an underpowered mod and felt like I had cheated them out of something. The players should feel like they survived an adventure. When I play, I get the most enjoyment when my character is taxed. Finally if a DM wants to create house rules and TPK people, let him do it at home. Since RPGA is sanctioned, there is less wiggle room and standards to adhere to. Luckily I have found all the DMs I have played for to be fair, even if the outcome wasn't to my liking.
Drezden 07-03-04, 10:06 AM	First, let me say Sam is a very good Dm who is very fair. I actually trust him, despite the time he killed 3 of my party members at APL2!! That was the mod's fault - 6d6 falling damage will do that to 1st and 2nd level characters. Anyway, I played with a DM last week and I noticed he gave a monster too many HPs. I was curious and managed to get my hands on the module later. To my dismay, I discover multiple "mistakes" he made against the players, including the following: 1. Splitting up an enemy force - including putting the leader behind the PCs ("He was coming back.") 2. Giving this leader a potion of invisibility he didn't have. And of course letting him use it to ambush the PCs. 3. First, not converting the encounter from 3.0 That would have turned an EL12 encounter into an El17 encounter. When I successfully knowledge checked the creatures and alerted him that one of them was an EL16 creature not really appropiate for an APL10 table, he removed it - and instead had us face an EL13 encounter - still 1 above the mod's intention. 4. He gave the EL13 creatures - 1) too many HPs; 2) a significantly higher AC; and 3) a faster movement rate. 5. The mod involved traveling to a demiplane. He ruled all existing pre-buffs were cancelled. That was no where in the mod. 6. He set the last encounter to occur as soon as we arrived through a portal. The PCs were supposed to trigger it themselves - which would have given us a chance to pre-buff. 7. He used a spell in the last encouner that the enemy had at APL12, not APL10. 8. He set up environmental conditions, i.e., we were blocked in, that didn't exist. 9. Then when we starting winning the last encounter, he said he had to leave and nixed our XP and Gold for the encounter. Luckily, we had a Senior GM who overuled him. I guess he was trying to "challenge" our party, but this is just plain wrong. I would never have suspected this guy of doing things like this. I am going to be sure to just avoid his tables from now on. Daren
Samwise 07-03-04, 04:20 PM	And I still feel guilty about that mod! I had run it before at the highest APL, and didn't recgnize the threat. it posed at lower APLs. As for certain monster tactics and converting to 3.5, once again I can only say that for myself, I go and consult with other DMs present if I am not sure of something. Most of the time I am right. When I am wrong, I change things. I'm not sure why people feel the need to not consult with others. Even in my home games I've redone encounters after using unbalanced material in an encounter.
rexfelis 07-27-04, 11:50 PM	Originally posted by Samwise Well, I am a rules lawyer. A power gaming rules lawyer. Most times the text will indicate that only those party members not otherwise engaged, or specifically paying attention, or other qualifier, will get to make Spot or Listen checks. If the players are engaged in constant table chatter and side discussions, I will not give anyone a Spot or Listen check in such a circumstance. That is well within the rules, and is not a mistake in any manner. Keep polishing those rules lawyer skills. That is a mistake and not within "the rules", although it is allowed and even expected for certain RPGA "boxed text" encounters. As a referee you have your own judgement though. Try to use it carefully, even if that sometimes means allowing for checks when a module doesn't specifically mention them. Module authors can not put every little detail into their designs and sometimes they write in things against the rules, such as what you describe above: the disallowing of Spot Checks. The Art of DMing should not be lost on RPGA referees in my opinion. It it up to a good Ref to give monsters and PCs use of abilities where it makes sense. Going exactly by the text without any room for alteration is poor refereeing. Automatic surprise (or first action in a round) is not something that is written into the rules without checks being made or very special circumstances. PCs "not paying attention" is not a special circumstance. A distracted PC or monster gets a -5 penalty on its Listen or Spot check to notice his opponent. That is listed under the skill's description. A sleeping PC still gets to make a listen check (at -10, as per the skill description) to hear things. That's a perfect example of the rules allowing a PC that's obviously not paying attention to still notice something.
Samwise 07-28-04, 10:43 PM	Obviously you have trouble with the concept that the RPGA has additional rules, above and beyond those of the Core Rule Books. So my skills are quite intact. It is yours that are lacking.
Tragor 07-29-04, 11:28 PM	.Obviously you have trouble with the concept that the RPGA has additional rules, above and beyond those of the Core Rule Books. Samwise, Being new to LG and the RPGA I also must have missed these extra rules. In the newly released LG Campaign Source Book it has some rules limitations and interpertations specifically for the Campaign. The RPGA rules don't mention changing any core rules. All Updated documentation refers you back to the 3.5 core rule books if there is a descripency. So how about throwing up some "OFFICIAL" links with these ADDITIONAL rules. Especially as to how they relate to the initial post. I think what everyone is missing is that no matter how well written an encounter is or how good the players or DM's are eventually there are going to be questions. The one thing that all good DM's bring to the table besides a working knowledge of the game is good old fashoned common sence.
hustonjj 07-30-04, 12:35 AM	Originally posted by Tragor I think what everyone is missing is that no matter how well written an encounter is or how good the players or DM's are eventually there are going to be questions. The one thing that all good DM's bring to the table besides a working knowledge of the game is good old fashoned common sence. Well, one of those additional rules is at the heart of the portion of your post I quoted above. In LG, there are 6 DMs. They sit on the Council of 6. Everybody else who is involved in runing the campaign and in running modules for other people are simply judges. Judges are not supposed to rewrite encounters. Judges are not supposed to alter events because they believe they are incorrect. Judges are not as empowered as DMs. Many people new to RPGA play expect their Judges to behave like DMs. If they do, they are violating the rules which allowed them to run the module in the first place. Different campaigns alter this standard. Living Force tells the judge to make a lot of alterations as required to meet the campaign goals and entertain the players. LG is the most restrictive about the changes a judge is allowed to make. Jeff Huston HR Judge & Player LA Judge, Player, & Playtester LC Judge & Player LDS Player LF Judge & Player LG Judge, Player, Author & former Triad member LGR Judge & Player LKoK Player Spobody Necial
Samwise 07-30-04, 01:24 AM	I can't really add to that reply beyond saying that I actually do go to great lengths to avoid hosing people with things that blatantly break the rules in modules. Auto-surprise, actions readied out of combat, and anything else that violates the rules. I don't consider such things to be reasonable, and I don't consider "beating" a party with them to be any accomplishment. As a DM (not in an LG game) I can always win if I want to. Even in an LG game I can all too often win by using knowledge players simply don't have. That isn't fun to me. It is not why I show up to run games, and it is something I'll avoid at all costs. But as a corollary to that, I expect players to respect my position as DM, and the rulings I make.
Tragor 07-30-04, 12:14 PM	My orrigional question was looking for a sourse for the additional RPGA rules SamWise said existed. The part about common sence I still believe holds true, weather a home game or sanctioned game. Here is a link to LG archive article which I believe demonstrates what I am talking about better than I might be able to explain it. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/articles/gt20040706a Well, one of those additional rules is at the heart of the portion of your post I quoted above. In LG, there are 6 DMs. They sit on the Council of 6. Everybody else who is involved in runing the campaign and in running modules for other people are simply judges. Judges are not supposed to rewrite encounters. Judges are not supposed to alter events because they believe they are incorrect. Judges are not as empowered as DMs. Can you please point me to where it says this. I am trying to learn the rules as they apply to LG and running tables. Any help would be appreciated. I have read the new LG campaign book and don't remember seeing that in there. Specifically the last line where it says judges are not as empowered as DM's. See I must be missing a big chunk of rules somewhere because everything I have read either refers to DMs or GMs. I don't remember crossing the word Judges in the sence you are using it at all. Thanks for helping to educate a novice member.
Timlagor 07-30-04, 09:16 PM	The last point follows from the earlier ones. In a home game the DM makes the entire universe and can do anything. In LG the DM must follow the module and the Official Rules including all Circle Rulings. The various literature still refers to Judges, DMs and GMs interchangeably because the term used for the people that run the Universe is The Circle. The DM (Judge) does not have the right to add loot or toughness or xp to any encounter. The DM does have the right to interpret the module wrt the players actions. In particular the introductions to the two modules I have run so far *specifically* encourage me to alter "box text" to suit the actual circumstances (I believe the intro bit is standard to all modules...). Quite often (relatively) there are internal inconsistencies within modules -it's up to the Dm to sort these out. Most players won't argue excessively with a GM unless it is a) very important to their character and b) an explicitly clear rule: in which case they should be able to show the DM. The DM is all-powerful *at the table* but their rulings can be overturned later and they can have their right to DM LG games revoked.
trollbill 08-06-04, 03:46 PM	Originally posted by Timlagor That sounds like the difference between arbitrarily doubling the NPCs hitpoints and allowing them to see characters that are stupid enough to stand in front of the only lightsource. I find there is a definite problem with this form of thinking. Firstly, there is nothing in the rules that says that standing in front of the only light source will automatically negate Hide (Hiding is more about not being noticed than not being seen). Now I admitt it makes realistic sense, but that's not the point. If I have a Rogue with 10 ranks in Hide, I will normally assume he can do what the rules say he can do. And if he can't do it, because of realism factors, than, equally realistically, the character would know this. Now, in an ongoing campaign where you play under the same DM all the time, little realism rules like this are fine, as the players learn them the first time and don't commit them again. But in convention environment, where you may not have the same DM more than once, this sort of inconsistancy with the rules can cause problem. I could very well play with 5 DMs that did not have a problem with my character hiding in front of the only light source because the rules said it was okay. Then suddenly, the next DM desides to insert a "reality check" and my character dies for doing something he had been able to do fine the last 5 games he played. That is not death by player stupidity, that is death by DM arbitrariness. And that is why playing as closely to the rules as possible is important in this type of environment.
Bardach 08-09-04, 09:33 AM	The DM is there to perform several functions. I too as a DM would penalise someone who is trying to hide while directly in front of the light source - however as DM I am also acting as the eyes of the party. I would not arbitarily penalise them I would first of all point out to the player that if he takes that course of action he realises (as someone skilled in hiding would) that trying to hide there is going to be harder because the lighting means that he is not properly in shadow or indeed if he is directly in front of the light not in shadow at all. I would point out to the player where there are shadows and then allow him to decide what to do. Remember the player cannot see those shadows the DM has to provide the characters "eyes" on the situation. Remember that there is no skill that allows you to "hide in own shadow" or "hide in poor illumination" you are trying to hide in SHADOWS - if there is a light source you need something between it and you to create the shadow or for you to be out of its range (and remember a lught source will produce a silhoette at a far graeter range than it will usefully illuminate). If a player wants to go ahead and try to hide their anyway despite penalties that is up to them - but the DM must ensure he allows the player proper information before making an action final.
trollbill 08-09-04, 10:38 AM	Originally posted by Bardach The DM is there to perform several functions. I too as a DM would penalise someone who is trying to hide while directly in front of the light source - however as DM I am also acting as the eyes of the party. I would not arbitarily penalise them I would first of all point out to the player that if he takes that course of action he realises (as someone skilled in hiding would) that trying to hide there is going to be harder because the lighting means that he is not properly in shadow or indeed if he is directly in front of the light not in shadow at all. I would point out to the player where there are shadows and then allow him to decide what to do. Remember the player cannot see those shadows the DM has to provide the characters "eyes" on the situation. And this I find perfectly acceptable. The player is now given the choice of making a decision based on all the knowledge his character would have. The DM is no longer "sucker punching" him with a reality rule. There is little more frustrating than having a DM sucker punch you with a reality/house rule and then being told how stupid you were for not realizing a rule you were never told about, exists. I remember the DM who almost took away my paladinhood because when I went to Lay on Hands on a badly wounded servant girl I didn't tell the DM I was setting her broken leg first, thus when I healed her, the leg was healed in the broken position, maiming her for life. Nothing had ever been said to me that this is how this campaign worked and in the 12 years of gaming I had had previous to this incident, I had never played with anyone who had used this house rule. Yet both the DM and the players took great joy out of mocking me for my "player stupidity." Fortunately, I wasn't stupid enough to play in that campaign more than once. Remember that there is no skill that allows you to "hide in own shadow" or "hide in poor illumination" you are trying to hide in SHADOWS - if there is a light source you need something between it and you to create the shadow or for you to be out of its range (and remember a lught source will produce a silhoette at a far graeter range than it will usefully illuminate). If a player wants to go ahead and try to hide their anyway despite penalties that is up to them - but the DM must ensure he allows the player proper information before making an action final. Since we are discussing reality here (and not all these points are directed at you, Bardach), I wish to make a few points. 1) The 3.5 skill is Hide. It is not anymore Hide in Shadows, than Sneak Attack is Backstab. I realize these abilities are similar to older versions of the game, but thinking in terms of the older versions causes quite a few problems with how a DM interprets the ability to work. The rules say you have to have cover or concealment to hide, not that you have to have shadows. 2) I am in an irregular cave and am trying to Hide. There is a light source directly behind me that silhouettes me. Enemies down the hall see me as a black silhouette i.e. no actual details. If I flatten myself against the cave wall, in silhouette I look just like another irregular portion of the cave wall. Thus I am hidden, even though my silhouette is perfectly visible to the enemy. 3) #2 illustrates a possible way of hiding that some DMs may not have considered and this brings up a very important point. DMs do not always have a greater knowledge regarding how to use a skill than an actual character might. How many DMs can honestly claim they have 10 Ranks in Hide? The point of this is that, just because the DM can’t think of a way for a character to succeed at a particular skill under certain circumstances, does not mean that the character couldn’t. For this reason, it can often be more realistic to follow the rules, as written, then by following the ‘reality’ of DM logic.
Bardach 08-09-04, 04:30 PM	I agree with you on point one - I was refering to shadows as that was the situation described. You are absolutely correct that it is cover or concealment that is required - which of course could be shadows. I would also agree totally with hiding as described in point 2 and as long as the hiding character was doing only that would not penalise them. If however they wanted to move while hiding this would be a different matter - penalties would definately apply. As for point three I dont quite follow it. Are you suggesting that the player can always hide without penalties from the DM because thats the rule? This ignores the fact that the rule as written clearly requires cover or concealement and that is something for the DM to adjudicate. Where a DM would be going wrong as we both agree is if they made no attempt to properly describe the situation to allow the player to make an informed descision and simply arbitarily told the player it doesnt work. As you show in your earlier example the real problem is often not with how a DM interprets rules - it is when the DM does not give the player the proper information either through not describing properly or by imposing penalties from rules the player could not have known about. (Of course there are a few DM's who do have a problem with the actual rules but these are a rarity abd usually do not last long.)
trollbill 08-09-04, 05:27 PM	Originally posted by Bardach As for point three I dont quite follow it. Are you suggesting that the player can always hide without penalties from the DM because thats the rule? This ignores the fact that the rule as written clearly requires cover or concealement and that is something for the DM to adjudicate. Well, first of all, according to the rules, the player did have concealment because he was in the shadow zone of the light source. Which according to the rules, means he has concealment. It was the DM that decided that he didn't, even though the rules said he did. The original post implied that this "Silohette rule" wasn't a modifier, but a flat out "you can't do it." In other words, the DM, who probably has little-to-no actual training or skill in Hiding, couldn't think of a way of hiding in those circumstances, so disallowed it, even though it is likely someone with that training probably could and the rules said he could. In this case, the rules actually similated reality better than DM logic. I am not saying that DMs should ignore all realism and logic when applying the rules, but I am saying that when making their decisions, they should consider the fact that just because they don't know how to do something doesn't mean it can't be done. DMs are omnipotent, not omniscient. And there is nothing wrong with the DM making circumstance modifiers, both for or against, based on his personal knowledge. Though, as we both agree, it is important that he give the player some clue in this regard so that the player can make as informed a decision as the character would, and perhaps even come up with a way to cut down on those modifiers.
Timlagor 08-09-04, 05:50 PM	If it was a straight man-made corridor then there may well not have been anywhere to hide. At any rate a modifier is appropriate and the PC should know that they aren't going to be hiding well. Ignoring the 20% concealment doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me and I'm not convinced it should need to be mentioned -the PCs don't know that there is a baddy lurking in the dark).
LostDM 08-11-04, 05:11 AM	Well never been in a LG game. I was checking it out. But I have played flashlight tag. In shadowy illumination hideing requires nothing more than moveing slowly and staying low. While haveing a light source behind you is certianly bad, it wouldn't be devistateing. People have a psychological predisposition to see what they think is there ignoreing evidence to the contrary- this is what hideing is all about. Even if your belly makes a little bump on a strait wall, it can be evened out by the minds eye. After all the surface of the eye has many imperfections that are averaged out. The important thing is to not be in color, and to not be caught makeing quick movements. (And most importanly don't make any sound. In fact I remember many times stading in an open feild being absolutely still and quite. The hardest part was not laughing at the guy with the flashlight who can't find you. But thats all coverd by move silent.) I would assume ranks in hide have a lot to do with remaining calm. Humans (and assumbly most monsters) have predatory instints that help them find flailing and neverous prey. *likes to think he has 10 ranks in hide, if a terrible dex mod*
Bardach 08-11-04, 06:46 AM	Remember also that what is dark and shadowy for a party of humans is not for creatures with other types of vision - and this is something for the players to remember without prompting!
Cardinal Teplin 08-13-04, 02:18 PM	Getting back to the earlier point... >If the players are engaged in constant table chatter and side discussions, I will not give anyone a Spot or Listen check in such a circumstance. That is well within the rules, and is not a mistake in any manner Nah, I'd call it a mistake, and certainly a call I wouldn't be happy with. If you want a few reasons... 1) Pretty basic - penalising a character for something their player is doing is entirely beyond both the letter and spirit of the rules, not to mention an abuse of position. 2) There isn't any rules reason why a person shouldn't get a spot or listen when distracted. Modifier fine, ban no. 3) This is a situation where the players mind's are not on the situation that their characters are in. This happens in games, sometimes for reasons that are not the player's fault. In such circumstances it is the GM's duty to portray the scene, and if he can't do that, for whatever reason, taking the consequences out on the characters is the wrong thing to do. 4) Styles of play where most of what players say or do does not reflect the speech or actions of their characters are specifically condoned in the DMG. 5) Its likely to make your players enjoy the game less. That is enough to make it a mistake, even if the rules would otherwise allow it. 6) It leads to problems if applied consistently. An illusion of someone talking to the guards would nullify even the most vigilient sentry, guards talking to eachother could be snuck up on by someone wearing full armour, and what do you do about familiars, animal companions, and other entities that can't talk at table? Obviously I don't know the full circumstances, but from the brief mention its been given I'd rate that every bit as bad as doubling a foe's hp, if only because it's subsuming someone else's control of their character into the authority of the GM, which should always be a last resort. Ironically, I also feel that that kind of call is one that the GM should be free to make. I just don't think that particular call was, with the benefit of hindsight, and quite possibly a whole host of different assumptions, a very good one. LG is in a very weird situation, since the Circle technically reserve for themselves many of the powers used by a GM to run a good game. This leaves those running the game in the ambigious position of referees - responsible for fitting the rules to the reality of the in-game situation, without the technical authority to alter either rules or in-game situation. Add in a time limit, a bunch of people you don't know, who may be used to paying the game a very different way from you, a potentially noisy and disruptive venue, and a scenario that may well have rules errors or sitautional discrepencies in it, and it's a wonder anyone manages it at all. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to play on a table GMed by Samwise, even though I don't like his particular call on this particular issue. I'm sure he runs a good game. The important point is not to get a judgement call so perfect that noone could ever dispute it, but rather to have fun and have a good game. And I've not yet run into a GM that hasn't managed that. Which has got to be a good thing, yes?
Cardinal Teplin 08-13-04, 02:23 PM	double post deleted
Samwise 08-14-04, 08:51 PM	1) Actually, it isn't. What you are supposed to be doing at the table is playing the module. What you say is what you character is supposed to be saying. And while I won't insist your character is really trying to order a pizza, it is reasonable that I declare you are off trying to get food if you decide to wander off while everyone else is resolving a particular encounter. And if you decide to try and sotto vocce insult the patron in his presence it is reasonable that I give him a listen check to hear you. So engage in table chatter while I am reading boxed text, and you quite obviously do no qualify for the "players indicate their characters are listening" skill checks. 2) But there is text in the module. And that supersedes any rules. Which I personally think is wrong. Of course we also have rules that state you can't trip someone with a quarterstaff. Having taught how to do just that for over 10 years, I know just how ludicrous that is, but I can not alter that either. 3) And when players do their best to ignore you? Straight up, if you interrupt or ignore me multiple times when I'm trying to read boxed text, however much you may despise such, you are being rude. If you really expect me to give you whatever consideration I might be able to squeeze out of the rules to you at that point, you are deluded verging on blatantly obnoxious. 4) Indeed. I ran a module a few weeks ago for some people where 90% of the table time was taken up with chatter utterly unrelated to the module. (Or at best distantly related. As in something in the module was taken as the excuse for a cheap joke.) I would have finished the thing in about 30-45 minutes otherwise. Instead we spent around 3 hours at it. At some times I might mind such an imposition on my time. In this case, it turned what could have been 30 minutes of me rambling on about another encounter the group walked through in 3 hours of reasonably pleasant trash-talking socializing. Not what was inteded, but fun. The critical point is, when I said "Time for boxed text.", people shut up and listened. This ties in to previous points, particularly 3), and comes down to the basic element of "Show my game some respect and I'll do whatever I can to work around any rules glitches, quirks, or overt errors in the module text. Don't, and you can just suck it up and try filing a complaint." That may seem arrogant, until you remember that DMs have feelings just like players. Some people seem unable to recognize this. (That being a generic "some", not a reference to anyone on this thread.) 5) See above. At the point you don't care about my enjoyment of the game, my concern for your enjoyment takes a vacation. Conversely of course, the point at which you concern for my enjoyment, particularly in the worst dog of a module out there, approaches your concern for your own, I start to jump through hoops looking for ways to avoid hosing. 6) Your best. You are correct, those are all absurdly subjective. Unfortunately, barring the elimination of such things from the campaign, there is no way you can establish a standard for resolving then. I've heard of DMs that treat illusions as irrelevant. And I've heard of DMs (including myself) that grant them as much leeway as a player can put in them. As for the rest, first thank you for saying you believe you'd enjoy a game with me. I think most people who enjoy good play over absolutely literal play would. When it comes to always being right, I divide that in to two areas. For rules, I've been wrong several times. A few quite horribly. (That is, causing character deaths.) I have never pulled back from admitting an error in such cases, and often go above and beyond to correct them if at all possible. (About a month ago, I made a mistake that if corrected would have killed a character. Since I had made the error and time had passed, I gave them the option of deciding if I should correct it. No surprise that they chose to let it stand, but it was still my error, not theirs. Indeed, they even requested information that could have avoided it, but I declined to give it until it was actually evident. Again, my choice, my error, my responsibility to correct without making the suffer.) For other decisions, as of yet, and all false modesty aside, I do not believe I have yet been wrong. I have allowed myself to be overruled against my best judgement, and each time I've later seen evidence that convinced me I was correct in the first place. But I have never seen anything that made me believe one of my subjective decisions was wrong. Twenty-plus years of experience will give you that degree of insight and confidence, but I never let it interfere with actual rules decisions. To do so would definitely be wrong. And that is something everyone who hopes to be a DM should learn to avoid.
Cardinal Teplin 08-15-04, 07:19 AM	Well we agree on the most important point, that having is important, and that rules disagreements and judgement calls shouldn't get in the way of that. May you be forever welcome at my table and all that. (in Oxford, UK, if you're ever around). That said, I still can't agree with you on this point. :-) >1) Actually, it isn't. What you are supposed to be doing at the table is playing the module. What you say is what you character is supposed to be saying. Sez you. Many people don't play that way, and the DMG explicitly supports them. 2) Text in the module superceeds rules? Bizarrely I can't find a reference for that, although I did assume there would be one. There is a LGCS reference for 'applying common sense' though. Still, Applying the rules in the module only when players annoy you is still something I would avoid. >3) And when players do their best to ignore you? Straight up, ...<snip> ...such, you are being rude. If you really expect me to give you whatever consideration I might be able to squeeze out of the rules to you at that point, you are deluded verging on blatantly obnoxious. Rude I'd agree with. but tempting though it is, slanting rulings against characters because the player of that character is rude/obnoxious is an abuse of the power of the GM. It's condemned in the Core rules, it's condemned in the LGCS (page 56, 5th bullet). Rude players are a real problem, and may well deserve to have their characters suffer as a result, but its still breaking the spirit of the rules, and its still a bad call. >4) "Show my game some respect and I'll do whatever I can to work around any rules glitches, quirks, or overt errors in the module text. Don't, and you can just suck it up and try filing a complaint." That may seem arrogant, until you remember that DMs have feelings just like players. Some people seem unable to recognize this. (That being a generic "some", not a reference to anyone on this thread.) Arrogant in hard to judge on-line. Certainly abusing position of GM to smite rude people. No matter how deserved or satisfiying it may be to smite people who are being rude, it's not what GM authority is for. >5) See above. At the point you don't care about my enjoyment of the game, my concern for your enjoyment takes a vacation. Fair enough. >6) Your best. You are correct, those are all absurdly subjective. Unfortunately, barring the elimination of such things from the campaign, there is no way you can establish a standard for resolving then. I don't know... In a way the GM is the position of _having_ to establish a standard to resolve them, in order to run a consistent game. I certainly have no problem overruling a module if the module is in error. Not do our triad. A last resort, admittedly, but there are many mistakes in modules these days. (not a criticism - having the mistakes is better than late modules). The importan thing is not to do anything that prevents it from working as written. >For other decisions, as of yet, and all false modesty aside, I do not believe I have yet been wrong. Well on purely subjective calls, that's hardly surprising. How would anyone ever demonstrate otherwise? >But I have never seen anything that made me believe one of my subjective decisions was wrong. Twenty-plus years of experience will give you that degree of insight and confidence, but I never let it interfere with actual rules decisions. In all seriousness, you are starting to sound a littlearrogant here. I have 20+ years experience too, but mistakes happen. It may be that you attain divine reasonableness and judgement when you get behind the screen, but I doubt it. Perfection is not attainable, nor should we sweat trying to attain it. What matters is having a good time, and getting rid of things which worsen our experience of the game.
Samwise 08-15-04, 09:57 PM	In all seriousness, you are starting to sound a littlearrogant here. I have 20+ years experience too, but mistakes happen. It may be that you attain divine reasonableness and judgement when you get behind the screen, but I doubt it. Yep. Actually, I should probably sound a lot arrogant. But there comes a time when a person needs to put humility aside and accept the fact of their ability. I am a very good DM. I know this not because I say so, but because of the number of people who I have run for who have told me. So someone could reasonably dismiss my opinion about my ability, but they would still be left with the opinion of all those others. And when it came to the rules for AD&D (first and second edition), I was never wrong about any rule in a book I had purchased and read. So in this case I fully embrace my ability, and do not hesitate to state it. And in all seriousness, yes, yes I am. Thank you. :) And I say it is because of that attitude that I can so easily acknowledge any errors I might make. I have so much confidence in myself that I lose nothing admitting a simple error. I'll still be THAT good until I rack up another thousand or so errors, at which point I will return to mere mortal status, and have to be more restrained. Until then though, I am Da Man! :angel:
honeynuggets 09-01-04, 12:08 AM	Since my original post I have been avoiding conventions (where most of the percieved indiscretions occurred) and playing at a local group. As for the "Silhouette Rule", trollbill explained one reason why it was an erroneous ruling, but here is my view... The light source is typically small like a torch or lantern. If you hold up a torch in a smooth or natural tunnel the only way to actually see a clear silouette differentiable enough to be an active enemy in the Shadowy Illumination light radius is to have the "Hider" close to directly between the small light source and your eyes. It's a surprisingly narrow dimension when you are far enough from the light source to be considered in the Shadowy Illumination. Once out of that narrow altered line of sight you effectively blend into the darkness/un-illuminated portions of the walls. Now, imagine that someone actively Hiding isn't even going to be remotely near that line of sight. They will be up against the walls and whether they are smooth or not they are easily out of the silhouette region. Otherwise, they are crouching which also easily puts you out of the silhuoette unless your foes are ants, in which case you might end up between their eyes and the small light source. Naturally, I am not including Darkvision foes...within their Darkvision range concealment from darkness is ignored. But my latest gripe is far more common AND apparently it is so common among others that it has been given names: "auto-surprise" "failed save vs box text" etc. I am not amused at all by this trend. I find the necessity to resort to breaking official Spot/Hide, Encounter starting distances, and Terrain rules appalling. I don't know if the official writers just assume Judges will insert the correct Spotting rules and Encounter starting distances or if they are intentionally trying to override them because they can't think of any other way to make the adventure challenging. Whatever the case, many judges aren't applying the official rules to these box text encounters like "As the party gets to 30 feet from the hidden Golems give them a Spot check DC 20. Any PCs that make the Spot can act in the surprise round along with the Large sized creatures with little Hide skill." (Paraphrased) I am terribly NOT sorry, but that is NOT how you run a surprise encounter. Here is how the official rules go for outdoor ambushes: 1. TERRAIN TYPE determined DMG 2. Maximum encounter distance randomly determined DMG 3. Begin Spot checks at maximum distance usually in the hundreds of feet(think ambushers can take 10 on Hide) 4. Bushes provide 20% Concleament allowing a Hide in the first place. They do not give a Hide bonus unless they are near total concealment in which case they will be very thick and foes will have to run around them and probably can't shoot through them. Technically, PCs should be told in narrative that such obvious hiding locations abound. Tell them way before the ambush to give them a chance to make a tactic if they can without ruining the surprise since that is what they would do in real life. Nobody is going to just frollick near hiding spots in dangerous situations. 5. People with maxed out Spot are (and should be) difficult to ambush by foes who aren't specialized for Hiding. Using the correct rules creates this reality. Just suck it up. They spent lots of points to gain that advantage and they should gain the reward. Finally, I know people who can make adventures challenging just by knowing the rules and not resorting to this BS "auto-surprise" box text. If you need help I can give you some emails. Finally #2, my general motto is this: Never kill a player with a ruling that is being disputed by the player(s) especially if you AREN'T a rules lawyer. There have been plenty of moments when I could have been killed legitimately and I would have taken it fine. Finally (for real this time), some props to counter my negativity. Chris Reed, adventures have had some sweet tactical ploys written into the adventures which follow the RULES (though he might have also written some auot-surprise box text...I forget). Some people gripe that his tactics are too tough. Cry babies! I am Gripe-Master and even I appreciate his cleverness most of the time.
Emirikol 09-06-04, 07:48 PM	What I am getting at is that the rules are complex and if a disagreement arises at a table rule in favor of the players unless you are a rules lawyer or have read some debates about that particular rule. Killing a player with a bad ruling is far worse than giving a player a slight advantage with a wrong ruling in their favor. I've wanted to kill a few 'players' over the last year, so I quit DMing after 15 years with the RPGA. Namely: there was always one whiny jerk at every table..evidently they haven't heard what you advocate and 90% of DM's abide by. One more thing, PLAYERS need to police their other players instead of the DM having to be the bad guy every time (that's another topic). jh ..
Samwise 09-06-04, 08:29 PM	What if you aren't a rules lawyer but just happen to know a particular rule better than a particular player? What if a player is a rules weasel looking to see what he can get over on a DM who hasn't yet memorized everything in every book, along with the entire FAQ? You keep making all these charges and claiming it is a problem of all DMs, but you never seem to want to talk about players. And really, if you are as good as you say you are, an auto-surprise encounter or two shouldn't really be all that difficult for you. Most of the people I run for acknowledge that they are so obvious in some situations, they are effectively immune to many ambushes as "This is where they always happen in LG mods." Boxed text leading to an ambush is an invitation to them to begin buffing.
honeynuggets 09-11-04, 10:58 PM	What if you aren't a rules lawyer but just happen to know a particular rule better than a particular player? A DM is charged with the responsibility to look within and without and determine if a rule is sufficiently vague (plenty are) to cause reasonable debate. If it does, then please don't let a player die because of it. If the situation is non-lethal just tell the player that and they will most likely not be interested in arguing it further. What if a player is a rules weasel looking to see what he can get over on a DM who hasn't yet memorized everything in every book, along with the entire FAQ? Ah yes, there are rules weasels out there, but most of them are also rules lawyers. They find vagueries in written rules and try to exploit them. This is where a DM has to determine whether the debate is Reasonable or not. Since this is subjective I would be very careful about letting a player die as a result of overriding her weasel tactics. I might reject their plan if it seems really absurd, but if it's very clever then I rule for the player. The main goal is for them to have fun. The DM is supposed to know the latest FAQ, errata though. And really, if you are as good as you say you are, an auto-surprise encounter or two shouldn't really be all that difficult for you. Most of the people I run for acknowledge that they are so obvious in some situations, they are effectively immune to many ambushes as "This is where they always happen in LG mods." Boxed text leading to an ambush is an invitation to them to begin buffing. I never said I am a good player. I think I'm about average tactics wise as a player. That said, I can turn most average encounters that are auto-surprise into TPKs. It's not hard. In most of the adventures I have played in the DMs have to dumb down monsters or re-do rolls just to keep people alive during an auto-surprise. If the adventures you have played allow players time to buff before they are ambushed then they must either be written differently or your DMs must be properly overriding the auto-surprise in an effort to play closer to the official rules. In my adventures, buffing at any time prior to the ambush would have been a waste because sufficient time always elapses to wear off the buffs. Like this: DM "Ok so you start heading back to the boat through the jungle?" PCs "yeah, but we are spotting and listening and moving cautiously!" DM "Ok" PCs "We buff like crazy before starting" DM "Ok. You buff and start towards the beach. Your buffs wear off after X rounds. What do you do?" PCs "Damn! We are out of buffs. We keep going cautiously and alert." DM "Ok" -starts drawing on the grid- "Roll Spot checks" PCs "Sheet!" DM "Ahh the Ranger/Rogue can act during the surprise round. It turns out 6 warrior type orcs are hiding (lol as if barbarian orcs can hide worth a damn) in the bushes merely 20 feet from you." "Never mind the fact that according to the rules encounter distances in dense forest are supposed to start at 2d6x10 feet!" "Die die die! Sorry that's what the adventure says. Have a nice day." The best is when this happens with Huge sized grappling creatures with little Hide skill. Wow. I am amazed by how pathetic auto-surprise encounters are.
Samwise 09-12-04, 08:41 PM	Well then, since we are going by the rules let me point out that 2d6x10 feet means a minumum distance of 20 feet. Therefore an encounter starting at 20 feet in such circumstances is not a violation of the rules. And that means that your complaint that such an encounter is a violation of the rules is in fact wrong. And that your accusations that authors, editors, and DMs that use such encounters are cheating are not just baseless, but offensive. And that combined with the RPGA rule that asking for penalties to be assigned when they aren't warranted means you are the one violating the RPGA rules, along with arguing a rules call on which you are simply wrong. And it also demonstrates rather well what I meant about a DM knowing a rule better than a player, but that player still choosing to argue about it. I don't think there is all that much left to say after that.
obungen 09-13-04, 11:42 PM	I haven't seen it mentioned much here, but the judge has a responsibility to help the players have a good time. A judge/GM needs to tone down his ego and realize that he can be a big part of why players come back...or one of the reasons they quit. If a module is written with brutal, auto-surprise combat, you don't do players any favors by soft-balling the encounter and letting them win. Players should have war stories to tell about winning hard-fought combat. But you're also not helping them have fun if you slaugher their cleric on the surprise round, forcing the wizard to Teleport to avoid TPK. Maybe it's the right time to jump out and make a Sunder attempt on the +1 Flaming Longbow...let the dice fall out in the open and tell the story. Or use full power attack against one of the PCs geared to the gills in heavy armor...maybe you need an 18 to hit him with full PA, but he's going to be holding his breath waiting for that d20 to stop spinning. I think those are the moments that make LG mods memorable. And they are (most often) choices that a GM can make within the boundaries of judging (unless, of course, the mod says, "Hugor attacks the character with the least armor."). I've played at tables with the Slaughterama GMs. One of them actually said, "Players don't have fun unless it's dangerous, so I kill one or two PCs at every table. It's pretty easy to do, really." And he was serious. This is the same guy that gives the double-pump "YES" whenever he takes someone below zero HP. I've played at tables where the GM would ask, "How many HP do you have left?" before attacking. They are so afraid to kill a player that PCs just walk around invulnerable and do whatever they like. That's no good either. Personally, the games I remember most fondly are the ones where the judge gives the NPC characters a little personality, and gets the players involved in the storyline for the mod. And if rules arguments escalate with neither side backing down, I'll guarantee that NO ONE is having any fun. There's a lot that can be done to move the game forward...take a vote and let the players decide. Call over another judge and ask an opinion. Or just roll a die and let high represent GM power and low represent the player. Cheers. JW
dark_poet 09-16-04, 08:17 AM	Well. I have been playing home games for some time now and recently started playing LG. Even then my judge has always been my friend's brother (until recently when another friend of mine became a herald level judge). Why am I mentioning all this? Well...after reading this thread I am actually kinda...afraid. The DMs I have had (both in home games and LG) never actually came with the intention of for ANY reason screwing the players. Perhaps its cause we all know each other personally and its stupid to spoil realationships over a game, but they have always seemed somewhat reasonable. Not lenient but rather flexible. What I mean by this is like say they dosn't screw us for engaging in some chatter (its all part of having fun) but at the same time we generally pay attention. One we propose a stupid decision such as trying to set a heystack on fire even though its raining OFTEN they point of that chances of success are unlikely. Stuff like that. Basically I think our DMs try and see things from a player's perspective. For this reason, there has never been any heated decision. Not one where one party leaves feeling sore. This to me has made all my games quite fun. I dunno...but I actually find the fact that people out there actually let such rules issues dominate their games disturbing. Maybe its just a different style of play. Poet
Cardinal Teplin 09-17-04, 08:41 AM	The main difference is that you are so often playing with people you don't know. That means it's far harder to resolve these differences. Most players and GMs have difficultly distinguishing between the cores rules, and the houseruled interpretation that their own group has played with for the last X years. The other problem is that, if you are playing at a con, time is tight, and people are often very tired. A high number of deaths tends to occur at the last tables of the day, where people aren't concentrating, tables are starting late and time is tight. In general the standard of GMing is good, players behave well, and the games are fun. Otherwise we wouldn't be here. I play both home games and co games. I prefer home games, but meeting new people, and new styles of play, is not something I'd want to miss. My 'home game' is now huge, and consists partly of people I met at cons. But its not going to be the same as a home game. In a way that's a good thing. Your character will dies if he loses a fight, the adventurers and game worldwill be in no way tailored to you or your group, and if you get somewhere, find something, and generally be heroic, you can do so in the knowledge that nothing was fudged along the way. Danger is real, because the GM loses nothing if several characters die, and event that might destroy a home game. That said, I'm getting somewhat fed up of being charged by the monsters during the surprise round. In closed cramped conditions from ambush it makes sense. Being surprised and charged on a blasted open plain, with no cover for several miles in any direction, is more annoying.
honeynuggets 09-23-04, 04:16 PM	Well then, since we are going by the rules let me point out that 2d6x10 feet means a minumum distance of 20 feet. Therefore an encounter starting at 20 feet in such circumstances is not a violation of the rules. And that means that your complaint that such an encounter is a violation of the rules is in fact wrong. And that your accusations that authors, editors, and DMs that use such encounters are cheating are not just baseless, but offensive. And that combined with the RPGA rule that asking for penalties to be assigned when they aren't warranted means you are the one violating the RPGA rules, along with arguing a rules call on which you are simply wrong. And it also demonstrates rather well what I meant about a DM knowing a rule better than a player, but that player still choosing to argue about it. I don't think there is all that much left to say after that. Oh my god. Since I picked the terrain with the shortest possible encounter start distances and my example used the minimun possible distance in the range then my complaint has no basis? LOL nice spin there. So, your logic is that the scene I described is just fine the way it is because 20 feet is in fact the minimimum possible distance an encounter can start at in Dense Forest. Nevermind that rolling two ones to get 20 feet only happens a small percentage of the time. If a writer is going to override an official rule and pick a set distance then shouldn't it be the average distance and not the minimum? But anyway, the example I described was merely "similar" to many auto surprise scenes I have been in. The actual ones I have experienced do not use the "minimum possible distance" and include roads, or sparsely concealed terrain. I don't know why I chose Dense Forest, but Samwise sure jumped on a measely shred of evidence to give me an unjust bashing. lol My accusations of the authors breaking the official Encounter Start Distance rules are totally legit. The rules demand rolling the distance, though I would overlook it if the average distance was used to save time. The writer choosing the minimum possible distance is the same as if the writer chose to make all the NPCs get max damage rolls. "But it's 1d6!" "Nope, says here they rolled a 6!" In most cases I have actually played not even the minimum possible distance is used, but I can't post the actual scenes since they are spoilers.
Simpi 09-23-04, 04:29 PM	My accusations of the authors breaking the official Encounter Start Distance rules are totally legit. The rules demand rolling the distance, though I would overlook it if the average distance was used to save time. The writer choosing the minimum possible distance is the same as if the writer chose to make all the NPCs get max damage rolls. "But it's 1d6!" "Nope, says here they rolled a 6!" In most cases I have actually played not even the minimum possible distance is used, but I can't post the actual scenes since they are spoilers. I have a regional coming along that has PCs walking a road in early morning fog (not very thick but fog nonetheless with farmlands and few trees next to a road ) and stumbling on some bandits who just killed a man. How would you recommend setting up this encounter, preferably so that I can offer both sides a change to gain surprise round? Using average distances (in this case i'd probably count situation as medium forest so 2d8x10 = 80ft) S.H, Naerie webslave
Cardinal Teplin 09-24-04, 08:27 PM	Hmm. This is actually quite hard. I'd work out what people need to spot eachother, modified for distance. Then get everyone to roll spot, including each of your bandits. Work out what the highest spot is on either side, and set up at that distance. Then let everyone within 5 of that highest spot check act in the surprise round. If noone on one side got a high enough spot to act in the surprise round, then don't have them act differently from what they were doing before until someone from the other side makes detectable noise or moves within the range determined by their spot rolls. I suspect that is full of flaws , so please amend. In fact, if we could write a set of instructions for a referee, as they would appear in the module, we would then have a paragraph that could be used in a great many adventures. It's not going to be easy, but having a paragraph that others could copy would substantially solve the problem that has been complained about. Anyone up for trying to crack this problem? We need a set of instructions, suitable for a novice ref, that assume no special circumstances, that could then be copied by module writers. I'm trying to write a module too, and describing the set up of the first encounter is driving me nuts.
solbergb 09-25-04, 11:25 PM	Few things about this discussion. 1. Box text autosurprise really isn't written into the mods. At least not in the two-dozen I've prepped. What is in the mods is a lack of information about encounter distances, typically the box text goes more like this: "The riders surround you, and if you belong to faction A, they parlay, if you are a visible member of faction B they attack". This is on an open plain, with the only terrain features being undulations in the ground. They COULD get close perhaps, but horses aren't exactly silent, and they kick up dust, etc. This particular encounter also was with humans and in terrain that was too hot to move in day, which means light sources too, visible for long distances. When I played it, the horses and riders materialized much like they spawned in a computer game. When I ran it, one party had a night-battle with confusion and lights going on/off throughout, the other used their skills to make first contact with the patrol for a peaceful encounter. The Judge who ran the mod for me exhibited a lack of preparation, pure and simple. He didn't think the enounter through. Because he wasn't especially out to get us, he at least didn't start the encounter in charge range of the players, but in the end, the encounter was cheapened by the lack of respect for the environment. The environment was lovingly described in the mod. The encounter setup was brief. This is the norm in module writing. The Judge is supposed to take account of the abilities of the party when setting encounter distances (LGCS3.0 says we must run the game by the core rules, and respect the letter and spirit of the mod and we are not to be automotons as Judges). You can't run the game by the letter of the rules if you materialize monsters out of thin air (when they lack that ablity heh). You can't run the encounter properly if you don't set it up the way the module intends. There ARE riders, they ARE patrolling, it IS their home ground, they have decent spot/listen skills and the terrain/environment is thus and such. Boxtext is the intention of the NPC's..what actually happens depends also on the abilities of the players. I repeat...I have not seen ANY modules with boxtext surprise attacks. I have also seen almost none with any mention of encounter distances etc, but all of the statblocks have spot, listen, move silent and hide skills (or they're based on monster attributes). Use them. Spend some time as a Judge preparing the actual encounter. If you do the prep ahead of time, it runs really fast and easy in play. Here's another example, very typical. Party is on the move at night. Enemies with darkvision sneak up on the "night blinded" party. They have a cleric who wants to buff before the fight. In this situation they do know the party is around, because they're using lightsources and the bad guys aren't, so a plan like this is reasonable. The mod just says "they sneak up and attack". And provides their statblocks. Well that's fine and good if nobody hears them sneaking up, nobody hears the cleric buffing and nobody in the party has darkvision or spots them from outside darkvision range. I actually worked out a plan where the cleric buffed from a "run" distance away, and then planned to use his first action running up...the chance to hear him buffing from the increased distance was similar to the take 10 move silent rolls of his allies, sneaking into charge range. Most parties heard him before he got done buffing (I ran for a lot of rangers, rogues and druids heh) so the encounter started a bit further away than the bad guys intended. It didn't make it any less challenging though, the lack of light where the bad guys were sneaking up made the early awareness of the party less useful than they would have liked. A bad or poorly prepared Judge will have them materialize 60' away, with cleric fully buffed and no chance for anyone to spot them except the party dwarf (conveniently forgetting that even for a human, at 60' away they're in shadowy illumination of a torch..). This is NOT the fault of LG, or of the author. The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the Judge, who took the lazy way out. Luckily in my region, most Judges are a bit more thoughtful than that. Those who are not recognize that they're being a bit unfair when they shortcut the rules like that and at least move the monsters to the edge of the battlemap. Most "boxtexted" stuff in mods is NPC's doing stuff to NPC's while the players, quite unrealistically, stand around and watch. That I have seen in the text of the mods. I prefer stuff like that to happen offcamera. Here's an example, and how I handled it: Players capture bad guy. Bad guy is supposed to give limited information but be killed by an assassin midstream. Here's the problem with that. You gotta be in 30' of a victim for a death attack. Ok, city, put the assassin on a rooftop. Conveniently enough, there was an APL appropriate assassin in another mod that I had also prepped which I could use to guess the hide skill and such. A player though (oddly enough hunted by assassins in that city according to a cert) made a huge spot check and saw the assassin, and got initiative and shot her. (I made up the gender, sue me, it is a box text assassin) For her to have avoided that spot check, she would have had to be level 18 or so, not bloody likely when she's killing a level 1 rogue. Because we had time for it, I had a nice little scene while players chased her, as she jumped from rooftop to rooftop. She did eventually escape, aided by an NPC that actually WAS statted in the mod. But if they had been really creative, clever and lucky, they could have caught the boxtext at my table. And not learned any more than they learned from the later ambush that WAS statted in the mod, hired by the same guy who hired her. (one thing I can't do is have her try to do anything but escape, since adding CR's is out of the bounds of what a Judge can do...the stories of Judges doubling hitpoints and whatnot is out and out violation of the LGCS rules) Had we been pressed for time, I probably would have shortcutted the encounter and just said "look, the assassin isn't statted. Cut me a break, she's on her home ground here, lets move it along, she isn't important". A good judge understands the rules, the mod and because he understands both, can react to unusual player actions or abilities. I think you do the players a real disservice when all encounters take place at small battlemap distances, with minimal terrain and the monsters get surprise because "the box text says they attack immediately". Players only get one shot at a mod, don't run it if you haven't given it enough thought to do it right. Part of prepping a mod is fixing illegal statblocks too, especially on the old 3.0 mods. Use the CR's in the encoutners as a guideline. No NPC should have something illegal for a PC to have (like improved crit at level 8 when his last feat came at level 6). Make minimal changes to make it legal, then think the encounters through to make the mod boxtext and the setting and the rules all come together harmoniously. THEN you will have an encounter your players will talk about for years. 100% fair, vivid and different from all the other battles they've had.
honeynuggets 09-28-04, 11:08 PM	I have a regional coming along that has PCs walking a road in early morning fog (not very thick but fog nonetheless with farmlands and few trees next to a road ) and stumbling on some bandits who just killed a man. How would you recommend setting up this encounter, preferably so that I can offer both sides a change to gain surprise round? Using average distances (in this case i'd probably count situation as medium forest so 2d8x10 = 80ft) Ok. Let's see. 1. Draw out the scene on a battlemat 2. The road is considered clear terrain which means unlimited line of sight 3. The description of "farmland and a few trees" for the surrounding terrain sounds like the "Plains(Farmland) terrain" to me which has an encounter start distance of 6d6x40 feet. So, if your bandits just killed a man on the road and dragged him off it into the surrounding terrain then start counting the 6d6x40 at the edge of the road heading towards them. A whopping 40% of the squares have Light Undergrowth (crops, small trees, bushes, farm equipment, etc.) each of these squares can provide 20% concealment (allowing Hide checks) and practically eliminating the ability to charge. 4. The DMG p.94 describes one type of Fog. It grants 20% concealment to adjacent persons. Targets 10 feet away have total concealment. So the fog ends up dominating the whole scene. Maybe just describe it as early morning mist that doesn't affect visibility. The Encounter Distance Spot check has a base DC 20 at whatever distance you rolled. Here are the modifiers to that Base DC from the v.3.0 DMG from memory (the modifiers are in one of the 3.5 DM screens I hear): +/- size modifier of the biggest creature in the group -2 for every creature in group - armor check penalty + magic item bonus if all using (cloak of elvenkind for example) +5 if target is not moving -20 if target running +5 if moonlight +10 if starlight -5 if moonlight/starlight and Spotter has Low light vision So both parties would get to make an Encounter Distance Spot check and if only one side becomes aware of the other then they can attack or try and sneak closer.
Samwise 10-03-04, 10:54 PM	Well, let's consider 6d6x40 feet as an encounter distance. The minimum is 240 feet, the maximum is 1,440 feet, the average is 840 feet. At 240 feet, assuming the road is perfectly straight (probably a poor assumtion, but we'll go with it), and assuming the road is perfectly level (probably an even worse assumtion, but we'll go with that too), and assuming the bad guys don't move at all (probably the worst assumption of all), if anyone in the party is unmounted and in heavy armor, it will take that person four rounds to get into melee range of the bad guys. Now of course, others can rush ahead of them, but that requires the dreaded splitting of the party. And while ranged attacks and spells are great, if there is so much cover available, the bad guys should be able to hide. If not, you just have a turkey shoot, and the whole thing should hardly qualify as an encounter. The same if everyone is mounted, and can just run down the bandits. And of course, if you increase that starting distance, all of these factors becomes even worse. So with all that, it is quite clear that by being a slave to a rule, the entire encounter is not really going to be possible. Except for one thing. That isn't what the letter of the rule indicates. What is actually says is: In plains terrain, the maximum distance at which a Spot check for detecting the nearby presence of others can succeed is 6d6x40 feet, although the specifics of your map may restrict line of sight. So all it takes is one bend or dip in the road, or a small accumulation of squares filled with grain or trees, or anything similar, to completely block any line of sight, and not allow either the party or the bandits to be able to make a spot check until they are at whatever distance the author feels is appropriate. Add in the fog, which would mean the encounter would begin with a Listen check instead of a Spot check, and the author is completely within the rules to declare the encounter to begin at whatever range he feels is appropriate, with Spot or Listen checks to determine surprise. And once again, we have rather direct evidence of how a player can think they know the rules better than a DM when in fact they do not. Here we have a selective reading of a rule, ignoring the full text, added to a desire to ignore a weather condition. Combined, they would seem to allow a player a very good basis to claim "unfairness" in the encounter design. Close examination reveals instead that they do no such thing. Indeed, they clearly support a DMs decision to start the encounter at nearly any distance, though the closer the start point, the more obviously it would be dependant on a Listen check rather than a Spot check. So you didn't "accidentally" choose an example whose minimum distance is the same as the distance you selected this time honeynuggets. Instead you chose to read only part of a rule. (I would note that the same language applies to all other examples, the range of distances for each terrain being the maximum at which a Spot check may be attempted rather than any setting a minimum.) You continue to do exactly what I said you were doing wrong - not knowing a rule as well as someone else, and refusing to accept that. Players that disrupt a game with such complaints are indeed something for LG DMs to think about.
Cardinal Teplin 10-04-04, 03:35 PM	Few things about this discussion. 1. Box text autosurprise really isn't written into the mods. At least not in the two-dozen I've prepped. What is in the mods is a lack of information about encounter distances, typically the box text goes more like this: "The riders surround you, and if you belong to faction A, they parlay, if you are a visible member of faction B they attack". What I've more often seen is something like this: "Each hero that makes a sucessful Spot check (DC 15) to notice the <attacking monsters> gets to act during the surprise round." Now the implication here is that the <attacking monsters> all get to act during the surprise round. Certainly that seems to be the most natural reading of it. Otherwise what are the heroes reacting to? What isn't mentioned is at what distance the encounter starts. Do I get all the characters to roll two spots, one for encounter distance, and one for the spot mentioned in the text? Or do I just place the monsters at maximum visual range, and take it from there?. My quotation is from a year3 core, quite a well-written one. But its not very clear from this what the GM is supposed to do. The interpretation I took from the text was maximum visual range, monsters autosurprise, heroes have to roll for it. I'd like to make it clear what a GM is supposed to do, work out some decent text, and put in future modules. Players capture bad guy. Bad guy is supposed to give limited information but be killed by an assassin midstream. Here's the problem with that. You gotta be in 30' of a victim for a death attack. Ok, city, put the assassin on a rooftop. Conveniently enough, there was an APL appropriate assassin in another mod that I had also prepped which I could use to guess the hide skill and such. A player though (oddly enough hunted by assassins in that city according to a cert) made a huge spot check and saw the assassin, and got initiative and shot her. (I made up the gender, sue me, it is a box text assassin) For her to have avoided that spot check, she would have had to be level 18 or so, not bloody likely when she's killing a level 1 rogue. I appreciate the effort you are going to, but you are adding large amounts of ad libbed material here in order to make the encounter work. This is altering the module more than I am entirely happy with. What I'd really appreciate is a simple method of working this kind of thing out that we can all agree on. Then if the author wants to vary from that, they can say so, but when it isn't specified, we have a rough consensus of what we're supposed to do.
honeynuggets 10-05-04, 03:18 PM	Well, let's consider 6d6x40 feet as an encounter distance. The minimum is 240 feet, the maximum is 1,440 feet, the average is 840 feet. At 240 feet, assuming the road is perfectly straight (probably a poor assumtion, but we'll go with it), and assuming the road is perfectly level (probably an even worse assumtion, but we'll go with that too) No assumptions necessary. Road terrain by default is considered clear by the rules. A writer may place things on a road, but it should be in the scene description so players can react to it as IRL. , and assuming the bad guys don't move at all (probably the worst assumption of all) I suggested that the bad guys dragged the victim off the road into the Farmland terrain. if anyone in the party is unmounted and in heavy armor, it will take that person four rounds to get into melee range of the bad guys. Now of course, others can rush ahead of them, but that requires the dreaded splitting of the party. And while ranged attacks and spells are great, if there is so much cover available, the bad guys should be able to hide. If not, you just have a turkey shoot, and the whole thing should hardly qualify as an encounter. The same if everyone is mounted, and can just run down the bandits. And of course, if you increase that starting distance, all of these factors becomes even worse. So with all that, it is quite clear that by being a slave to a rule, the entire encounter is not really going to be possible. Huh? I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. 1. There is no default Cover on this terrain. A writer may place things granting Cover, but it should be in the scene description since it is out of the ordinary for the terrain type and the players should be allowed to react to it. Done cleverly, you can avoid tipping off players, I do it all the time. 2. There is Concealment, but remember. The bandits don't know ahead of time that someone is approaching nor from which direction they are approaching so regardless of whether they say "We Bandits are Hiding" or not, they can't be hiding because Concealment relies on line of sight and they can't predict the line of sight of any approaching party. Unless they physically dive into the middle of a bush with a corpse, but that would have to be one HUGE bush and would require mention to the players. 3. The first Spot checks would occur for both parties at 6d6x40 feet so it might take a couple rounds to close to melee if either side has a "dedicated Spotter" type character. That's the advantage of ranged attacks which Auto-surprise encounters totally obliviate. In plains terrain, the maximum distance at which a Spot check for detecting the nearby presence of others can succeed is 6d6x40 feet, although the specifics of your map may restrict line of sight. So all it takes is one bend or dip in the road, or a small accumulation of squares filled with grain or trees, or anything similar, to completely block any line of sight, and not allow either the party or the bandits to be able to make a spot check until they are at whatever distance the author feels is appropriate. Totally wrong. The random features of a terrain type (bends in road, accumulated undergrowth, etc.) are already calculated into the random starting distance of 6d6x40 feet. Whichever random distance is generated is said to be the first moment at which all the random features allow a line of sight. A writer may place extra "Specifics" on their map granting Cover or Concealment, but they should be in the scene description since it is out of the ordinary for the terrain type and the players should be allowed to react to it. Done cleverly, you can avoid tipping off players, I do it all the time. And think about it, if you are walking along in Farmland and you see a big clump of Concealment you ARE going to take the long way around just in case there is an ambush. Add in the fog, which would mean the encounter would begin with a Listen check instead of a Spot check, and the author is completely within the rules to declare the encounter to begin at whatever range he feels is appropriate, with Spot or Listen checks to determine surprise. I specifically said that the Fog is a deal breaker. Fog that blocks sight past 5 ft is clearly a dominating feature that overrides most everything. I suggested removing it unless a "Fog" fight is desired. Yes, Listen checks would become the primary determinant of Encounter start distance in that kind of fog. The Listen DCs and modifiers are very simple. And once again, we have rather direct evidence of how a player can think they know the rules better than a DM when in fact they do not. Here we have a selective reading of a rule, ignoring the full text, added to a desire to ignore a weather condition. Combined, they would seem to allow a player a very good basis to claim "unfairness" in the encounter design. Close examination reveals instead that they do no such thing. Indeed, they clearly support a DMs decision to start the encounter at nearly any distance, though the closer the start point, the more obviously it would be dependant on a Listen check rather than a Spot check. And once again, we have direct evidence of how you think you know everything, but do not. Clearly, you are a fan of allowing DMs to break official rules though I will pass on guessing why. The DM/writer may not start an encounter at nearly any distance they choose according to the rules. Players that disrupt a game with such complaints are indeed something for LG DMs to think about. DMs and writers that disrupt the fairness and fun of gameplay by ignoring official rules are indeed something for everyone to think about.
honeynuggets 10-05-04, 04:54 PM	Anyone up for trying to crack this problem? We need a set of instructions, suitable for a novice ref, that assume no special circumstances, that could then be copied by module writers. Step by step... 1. As soon as the adventure begins, ask your PCs to put themselves down in their default marching order. Tell them this is what will be assumed unless they specify a change in position. Hand out index cards and have them roll and write down their Spot/Listen modifier, a Spot and Listen d20 roll, an Initiative, and anything else you want handy. 2. Secretly roll 6d6x40 long before you get to the ambush. Secretly roll the Bandits Spot d20s and write them down. This will be the distance at which both groups use their first Spot checks. 3. As soon as the PCs put one foot on the Road through the Farmlands describe it something like "You leave early in the morning and estimate that it will take you about an hour to travel to the abandoned Shack. The dirt road before you is well trodden with wagon tracks surrounded by lush farmlands growing thick with various crops from towering wheat to tomato vines strung to poles. A light early morning mist hangs like a low cloud layer and beads of water collect on the shiny red tomatoes." 4. Ask the PCs what they do. Metagamers might take this opportunity to buff with spells expecting an immediate ambush. Let them buff. They have merely begun their trek along this road and depending on where they are heading they will likely be travelling for much longer than their buffs will last. A caster putting on Mage Armor which lasts for hours before heading down a road like this is completely appropriate and wise. 5. Add in any modifiers to the Spot DC from the list based on the "tactic" the players use when you ask them "What do you do?" It is appropriate for the PCs to be allowed to react to the surrounding terrain and form a tactic long before anything happens, if anything happens at all. Let's say there are 6 Medium sized Bandits. Circumstances DC ------------- -- Base 20 Base if Hiding 25 Size +/-4 per size category past medium Contrast +/-5 or more ( - if shiny armor, + if camouflage clothing) Stillness (not moving) +5 Six or more creatures -2 Moonlight +5 ignore if spotter has lowlight vision Starlight +10 (+5 if spotter has low light vision) The Spot DC to see Bandits at 6d6x40 might be: 25 (Crouched and "Hiding" from nobody in particular) + 5 (Generally still while searching corpse) -2 (six of them) = DC 28 The Spot DC to see PCs at 6d6x40 might be: 20 (Unless party tactic specifies they are taking their time and sneaking) -5 (cleric in plate) -2 (six of them) = DC 13 6. Compare the pre-rolled Spot checks of the PCs and Bandits to their modified DC 20 Spot requirement. Having a good Spotter in a group means a good chance at making this cruicial initial Spot. 7. If both parties become aware of each other then the encounter starts at the 6d6x40 distance you rolled earlier. 8. If only one party becomes aware then they may begin using the Hide skill and Move Silent skill which benefit greatly from the -1/10ft distance modifier. Note that this modifier is not used in the Encounter Distance Start Spot check. They may choose to move at half speed and sneak closer and at this point they have a good chance of getting within 100 feet, though it is dependent on their Hide and Move Silent skill. You certainly won't be able to get very close with a pack of Barbarian Orcs like in those retarded Auto-surprise scenes since they generally have poor Hide/Move Silent skill. You probably will want to roll the PCs Spot checks for them at this point since asking for repeated rolls will be suspicious. Move the Bandits at half speed towards the party starting at the 6d6x40 distance using their Hide, Move Silent, -1/10ft modifier opposed by the PC Spot/Listen. Make a check after every double move the Bandits make. A Metagamer may see you rolling like crazy and alter his/her tactic. I'm pretty sure you are within your DM rights to refuse sudden changes in tactics at this suspiciously opportune time. At 30ft away (sneak attack distance) the Bandits will only be at: d20 + Hide ranks + 3 distance so it is very very difficult to get that close. 9. If niether party becomes aware then the encounter automatically starts at half the 6d6x40 distance you rolled with both sides aware. 10. When done with the encounter make sure to ask for new Spot/Listen/Initiative rolls for the next encounter. In Dense Forest or heavy Fog, Listen checks can actually make encounters start before Spot checks. Listen checks always use the -1/10ft distance modifier.
Samwise 10-05-04, 11:58 PM	1. There is no default Cover on this terrain. A writer may place things granting Cover, but it should be in the scene description since it is out of the ordinary for the terrain type and the players should be allowed to react to it. Done cleverly, you can avoid tipping off players, I do it all the time. It is not out of the ordinary. And of course it should be noted. That can be as simple as the text for the encounter beginning with "As you round a bend in the road . . ." 2. There is Concealment, but remember. The bandits don't know ahead of time that someone is approaching nor from which direction they are approaching so regardless of whether they say "We Bandits are Hiding" or not, they can't be hiding because Concealment relies on line of sight and they can't predict the line of sight of any approaching party. Unless they physically dive into the middle of a bush with a corpse, but that would have to be one HUGE bush and would require mention to the players. They don't have to hide if the party must turn past a hedgerow to have a clear line of sight to them. Further, the author can easily set up a map so that such a block to the LOS exists until the encounter distance is what he desires. 3. The first Spot checks would occur for both parties at 6d6x40 feet so it might take a couple rounds to close to melee if either side has a "dedicated Spotter" type character. That's the advantage of ranged attacks which Auto-surprise encounters totally obliviate. There is no mandated minumum distance for Spot checks. You are noting the maximum possible distance, which I clearly pointed out is subject to the specifics of the map. Totally wrong. The random features of a terrain type (bends in road, accumulated undergrowth, etc.) are already calculated into the random starting distance of 6d6x40 feet. Totally correct. Read the DMG entry again. The specific words and phrasing make it clear that such things are not calculated into the random starting distance. And once again, we have direct evidence of how you think you know everything, but do not. Clearly, you are a fan of allowing DMs to break official rules though I will pass on guessing why. The DM/writer may not start an encounter at nearly any distance they choose according to the rules. I don't think I know everything. I do however know how to read rules, a very particular and exacting skill that most people do not have. Further, I know to read an entire rule, and not just part of it, as well as other rules that may effect it. Again something that too many are unwilling to do. DMs and writers that disrupt the fairness and fun of gameplay by ignoring official rules are indeed something for everyone to think about. For which you give a prime example with this: 2. Secretly roll 6d6x40 long before you get to the ambush. Secretly roll the Bandits Spot d20s and write them down. This will be the distance at which both groups use their first Spot checks. By making the distance a random variable between tables, you disrupt the balance between the tables. At one they have 2 rounds to prepare, at another 4 or 8 or 10. Doing that would be ignoring the official rules of the RPGA. Read the rule. Read the entire rule. Consider how it must be the same encounter for all tables at a particular APL. Then apply the rule.
Cardinal Teplin 10-06-04, 09:04 AM	>Secretly roll 6d6x40 long before you get to the ambush Presumably this number is an abstraction to represent variation within a general area of terrain. Since an encounter starts in a particular area of terrain, could the writer not simply specify the encounter distance? Particularly, as Samwise points out, various features could easily obstruct LOS for both parties. The only point that needs to be made here is that if such features are unusual, PCs may wish to react to their presence. If such features are common, then the encounter distance has been changed, and this isn't typical farmland. Some kind of justification should be given for this variation, eg large scale blackberry cultivation, locals engage in stonewall building competitions, The road runs at the bottom of a deep gorge for many days travel, etc. >Base 20 >Base if Hiding 25 >Size +/-4 per size category past medium >Contrast +/-5 or more ( - if shiny armor, + if camouflage clothing) >Stillness (not moving) +5 >Six or more creatures -2 >Moonlight +5 ignore if spotter has lowlight vision >Starlight +10 (+5 if spotter has low light vision) So for each combination of creatures/circumstances, the spot DC is set. Presumably then this could be written into the adventure at each APL (since the number/size of creatures may vary with APL). >The Spot DC to see PCs at 6d6x40 might be: 20 (Unless party tactic specifies they are taking their time and sneaking) -5 (cleric in plate) -2 (six of them) = DC 13 Presumably the spot DC for the party would also be constant, varied only by what they said they were doing. This could be determined at the start of the adventure. So in summary: set spot DC to see PCs, calculated at start of adventure. Set spot DC to see each encounter, written into module set encounter distance for each encounter, written into module* roll spots If niether side suceed, encounter starts at half encounter distance If both suceed, encounter starts at full encounter distance if one side suceeds, encounter starts at full encounter distance, and unware side rolls spot and listen vs hide and mv silently each round until they become aware. Presumably, if an aware group attack an unaware group, rather than trying to sneak, they get a surprise round? The only point of controversy seems to be *, the encounter distance, which should be written into the module either as the distance specified in the DMG (Honeynuggets), or the distance chosen by the author as suitable, to a max of the distance specified in the DMG (Samwise). Is that a fair description of the disagreement? Are there other points on which we are not agreed?
honeynuggets 10-06-04, 02:34 PM	It is not out of the ordinary. And of course it should be noted. That can be as simple as the text for the encounter beginning with "As you round a bend in the road . . ." Further, the author can easily set up a map so that such a block to the LOS exists until the encounter distance is what he desires. Random Terrain that by default includes objects granting cover has those objects listed in it's Table. "Custom Author contents" like a "bend in the road" or anything else that blocks line of sight sufficiently to alter the official Encounter Spot Distance (ex Farmland 6d6x40) is NOT ordinary, Completely worthy of suspicion, and Must be described to PCs in the scene description. Imagine you are in the D&D world, veteran of plenty battles with hordes of evil. You're walking down this friggin road. In every other direction you can see for 6d6x40 (minimum 240 feet), and then you see this "bend in the road" with a hedge or whatever causing a dramatic loss of line of sight allowing an ambush from 30-40ft like in most Auto-surprises. Don't you think you might say to yourself - "HMM. What a GREAT place for an ambush! I better take the long way around it!" Don't even bother responding because any sane person would do precisely that. Geez. There is no mandated minumum distance for Spot checks. You are noting the maximum possible distance, which I clearly pointed out is subject to the specifics of the map. Spot checks of all types are always performed at the maximum distance at which Line of Sight becomes available. The specifics of the map may indeed be altered to override official random Terrain Encounter Spot Distances, but these specifics are by their very nature different from the surrounding terrain and must be described to the PCs so that they can react to it as they would IRL. I say - The random features of a terrain type (bends in road, accumulated undergrowth, etc.) are already calculated into the random starting distance of 6d6x40 feet. You say- such things are not calculated into the random starting distance. If random features aren't included then what exactly do you think goes into the determination of Dense Forest = 2d8x10 and Farmland = 6d6x40? It's obvious. Dense Forest has more cover/concealment so the first time you get a clear line of sight between the random features (trees, bushes) is going to be a lot shorter than with farmland. EVERYTHING default in a terrain type is already built into the Encounter Spot distance. ANYTHING else added by an Author/DM sticks out like a sore thumb and demands inclusion in the scene description so the PCs can react to it. By making the distance a random variable between tables, you disrupt the balance between the tables. At one they have 2 rounds to prepare, at another 4 or 8 or 10. Doing that would be ignoring the official rules of the RPGA. The balance is not disrupted because all the tables have the same chance for the various distances. It's like arguing that an APL 2 adventure should not be allowed damage rolls over 2 on a 1d8 etc. Samwise, if you think you know how to play out an encounter as desribed by the rules then by all means...write out a step by step like I did for Cardinal Teplin. I won't be surprised if the PCs just "happen" to stumble across the Bandits flatfooted and in sneak attack range (30ft) and Charge range and maybe even 5ft step range so the bandits can make a full attack. I've seen similar in LG auto-surprises. Since an encounter starts in a particular area of terrain, could the writer not simply specify the encounter distance? You mean specify a distance within the min-max range for that terrain I assume? So, in Farmland it's 6d6x40 or 240 ft - 1440 ft. You're saying the author should be able to say "At 240 ft there is no appreciable difference in the terrain that would warn PCs of an excellent ambush site. I haven't added any custom features to the terrain so I can avoid describing irregular features conducive to an ambush too." I'll actually agree to this point. With some reservations. If the author is going to do this to select the minimum possible range then there should be not even a shadow of a doubt to the PCs regarding precisely which Terrain type they are in. And see below for more requirements I would suggest before allowing the minimum possible range to be picked (after all the odds of rolling all 1's is very slim) Particularly, as Samwise points out, various features could easily obstruct LOS for both parties. The only point that needs to be made here is that if such features are unusual, PCs may wish to react to their presence. If such features are common, then the encounter distance has been changed, and this isn't typical farmland. Some kind of justification should be given for this variation, eg large scale blackberry cultivation, locals engage in stonewall building competitions, The road runs at the bottom of a deep gorge for many days travel, etc. See above regarding adding various features that alter line of sight to a point where it is different from the surrounding terrain. Even on Farmland for example, a Farmhouse is indeed common, but it alters the line of sight for that terrain type by providing a massive amount of cover. This would have to be described to PCs as soon as they see it...very far away so that they can react to it. So for each combination of creatures/circumstances, the spot DC is set. Presumably then this could be written into the adventure at each APL (since the number/size of creatures may vary with APL). Number and size of creatures does vary somewhat with APL. But, even if the low level group fails the initial Encounter Distance Spot, there is still a chance the foes will also fail and the encounter will start at half the determined distance. The main goal of using the official Encounter distances to me is to eliminate the Auto-surprise encounters which start at 20-60ft average. Getting this close to PCs by the rules is Very Very hard and almost always requires dedicated Hide/Move Silent type characters. So even if a low level group fails the initial spot in Farmland AND you use the minimum possible Spot distance 240 ft the encounter might start at 120ft with some bushes impeding movement between the parties. That's fair enough. So in summary: set spot DC to see PCs, calculated at start of adventure. Set spot DC to see each encounter, written into module set encounter distance for each encounter, written into module* roll spots If niether side suceed, encounter starts at half encounter distance If both suceed, encounter starts at full encounter distance if one side suceeds, encounter starts at full encounter distance, and unware side rolls spot and listen vs hide and mv silently each round until they become aware. Close, but not quite how I would do it: 1. Collect Spot Listen modifiers from each PC. 2. Set spot DC to see PCs, calculated at start of a scene after describing terrain to PCs and letting them form any tactics. 3. Set spot DC to see foes at full spot distance (if minimum for terrain type then make sure to leave no doubts to PCs which terrain they are in) calculated based on size and number, etc. and written into module. 4. If both sides make the Spot DC, encounter starts at full distance with both sides aware. 5. If niether side suceed, encounter starts at half encounter distance with both sides aware. 6. If only foes become aware then encounter starts at full encounter distance, and DM rolls PC's spot and listen vs Foe's hide and mv silently each round until they become aware. Use +1/10ft distance modifier here. Or, the foes can make a Surprise round attack at any time prior to being noticed. 7. If only PCs become aware then they can have an exciting "sneak" scene where PCs get to roll their own Hide/Move Silent checks each round as they creep closer. Use +1/10ft distance modifier here. Or, the PCs can make a Surprise round attack at any time prior to being noticed. The only point of controversy seems to be *, the encounter distance, which should be written into the module either as the distance specified in the DMG (Honeynuggets), or the distance chosen by the author as suitable, to a max of the distance specified in the DMG (Samwise). Is that a fair description of the disagreement? Are there other points on which we are not agreed? Honeynuggets thinks fair is: 1. Roll random distance based on terrain type range in DMG 2. Select average distance based on terrain type range in DMG 3. Select minimum distance based on terrain type range in DMG, but tell the PCs precisely which terrain they are in and approximately how far they can see in it (the average of the Spot distance range in DMG). Further, mandate that terrain types with a minimum Encounter Spot distance of under 60ft (typical charge range) can't use the minimum and must use the average. Why? There are many terrains where the minimum is 10-20ft and PCs will scream if the DM says "Suddenly, an IRON GOLEM is 10 ft from you! Make Spot checks to act in the surprise round with him! MUAHAHA!" Following any of the above, encounters starting at 20-60ft will be rare (not too many Dense Forests around) and the problem of unfair Auto-surprises will be dealt a blow. On a separate note, one terrain which I can't find in the DMG but is very common is the "cave, natural tunnels, caverns, underdark, etc." So I did some research... If the limiting factor is just total Darkness...such as in a vast underground cavern then the Spotting light sources rules in WoTC Underdark are good. If the limiting factor is not light, but rather random curving, natural tunnels and the author wishes to create an ambush, then I will see him in HELL. Just kidding. Here are the Spot distances from WoTC Underdark: Water formed cave terrain 2d4x10 ft (Avg 30ft) yikes Fungal Forest (giant shrooms) 3d6x10ft (Avg 90ft) Gorge/shaft (bottomless pit with fiend flying up) 6d6x10ft (Avg 180ft) Vault Floor (huh?) 6d6x10ft (Avg 180ft) Rift,Tunnel,Abyss (Limit of sight) (usually light source limited) The only one that seems odd is the "Tunnel"...I assume they mean a straight unnatural tunnel made by someone or something.
Samwise 10-06-04, 04:39 PM	"Random Terrain" Right there, the core problem. We aren't talking about random terrain. We are talking about non-random terrain, deliberately chosen and designed by an author. When 3E first came out I noted that the shift to "Reams o' Tables" adventure design was a bad decision as it works to limit creativity. I also noted the problem it would cause in an organized play environment, when everything would have to be designed according to a bunch of tables. Many of the complaints about LG were based on just such things, particularly how much gold characters got, and how much access they had to equipment. This is yet another example of the same problem. I suppose the next complaint will be if a community does not have the precise demographic distribution according to the various DMG tables. At that rate, we might as well mandate that nobody be allowed to play anything but the NPCs written up in the DMG. That is not gaming. Now a valid complaint on this would be something like: "The encounter didn't specify any range, so my DM set it up so far away we were slaughtered trying to get close by arrow fire." versus, "The encounter didn't specify any range, so my DM set it up so they were right on top of us and we were slaughtered before we could buff." Now that is a valid complaint about improperly written modules. Likewise a problem of: "The encounter was unfair because the DM gave/took away bows from the monsters when the MM says they never/always use them." That is a problem of both the DM ignoring the module and a player thinking the MM entries are the only possible version of a creature they must ever have to deal with. Both are wrong. But a complaint that designed terrain isn't "random"?
hustonjj 10-06-04, 11:20 PM	"Custom Author contents" like a "bend in the road" or anything else that blocks line of sight sufficiently to alter the official Encounter Spot Distance (ex Farmland 6d6x40) is NOT ordinary, Completely worthy of suspicion, and Must be described to PCs in the scene description. Hunh? A bend in the road with material positioned so as to provide cover around the corner is "NOT ordinary, Completely worthy of suspicion, and Must be described to PCs in the scene description"? Why should THIS particular ben din the road atract any more attention from the PCs than any other bend in the road that they have encountere din the past 15 years of their lives? What is it about this particular bend in the road that makes it not ordinary? Oh, that's right. The fact that YOU (not the PC) knows there's an encounter around the bend. That's the worst possible kind of metagaming. Imagine you are in the D&D world, veteran of plenty battles with hordes of evil. You're walking down this friggin road. In every other direction you can see for 6d6x40 (minimum 240 feet), and then you see this "bend in the road" with a hedge or whatever causing a dramatic loss of line of sight allowing an ambush from 30-40ft like in most Auto-surprises. Don't you think you might say to yourself - "HMM. What a GREAT place for an ambush! I better take the long way around it!" Don't even bother responding because any sane person would do precisely that. Geez. No, a SANE person walking through farmland who came upon what you just described would expect to see a farmhouse around the bend. A combat veteran knows that very little of his time is spent in a threatened state. Those who are healthy can interact with the world as if they were NOT combat veterans. Those who treat everything like a combat situation end up with no friends, because they lose the ability to trust others, to make and sustain relationships. Spend some time researching combat stress syndrome. The guys who are NOT healthy are the ones who behave as you indicate. The hero is NOT always ready for a fight. The hero has learned how to react when a danger presents itself. Yes, sometimes this means he is not prepared, and the bad guys get the first shot. That happens a lot in heroic fiction. Check the campaign standards, you're explicitly expected to play a heroic figure. That means your character is supposed to be prepared to overcome adversity, not that your character is supposed to be a rampaging machine of war, ready to kill anyone who gets to close before he has a chance to find out what's going on. Jeff Huston Spobody Necial
honeynuggets 10-07-04, 09:21 AM	We aren't talking about random terrain. We are talking about non-random terrain, deliberately chosen and designed by an author. Authors never deliberately chose and design the terrain of a scene on a scale large enough to provide a frame of reference for changes in line of sight. Authors usually only describe what is directly in front of the players, for example, a "bend in the road" which happens to have a hedge blocking line of sight and a gang of orcs behind it. WoTC recognized this problem and created statistics for random terrain so that authors wouldn't have to custom build it each time. They can just say. "Ok. The default terrain is Sparse Forest. I am going to add a dirt road through it." If he then decides that some bandits have been using the road to set up ambushes he can either use the default sources of concealment/cover as well as the default Encounter Spot Distances or add custom things like a hedge that blocks line of sight dramatically compared to the surrounding terrain. Adding custom content like that requires informing the PCs through scene description since it is different and noticeable. Why should THIS particular ben din the road atract any more attention from the PCs than any other bend in the road that they have encountere din the past 15 years of their lives? It's not different from other "bends in the road"!! It's different from the surrounding terrain which makes it suspicious! What is it about this particular bend in the road that makes it not ordinary? Oh, that's right. The fact that YOU (not the PC) knows there's an encounter around the bend. That's the worst possible kind of metagaming. What makes it not ordinary is that in every other direction you can see far distances, but suddenly you can only see a very short distance at the bend. Duh. No, a SANE person walking through farmland who came upon what you just described would expect to see a farmhouse around the bend. Sigh. I knew someone would try and argue this ridiculous point. Ok hustonjj. If you lived in a world of monsters and ignored obvious potential locations for an ambush...see how long you'd live. Heck, even in real life when I'm in a dangerous part of town on foot I'm always on alert, staying away from dark alleys, etc. And the real world is way safer than the D&D world, at least here in the U.S. It's simple. In a world of monsters and evil, whenever there are no guards around you have to anticipate the worst just to survive. That's not metagaming that's common sense.
Nidome 10-07-04, 01:15 PM	What makes it not ordinary is that in every other direction you can see far distances, but suddenly you can only see a very short distance at the bend. Duh. Actually, that is exactly why it's ordinary. Ever been to Europe and wondered why so many of the roads have so many twists and bends in them? These days with modern machinery it is easier to build roads straight, hedges, trees and other natural obstructions, so when laying a new road you take the shortest route where possible, but travel back in time to when such machines did not exist then the terrain dictates the path. You want to get to the far side of a hill? It's usually easier to go around than over or through it, the same is true for trees and hedges. The growth of a road - initially it starts off as a discernable track though the forna where the tread of feet has worn away the plants. Wheel ruts may become apparrent and the earth more hard packed. Local people may start to dig ditches at the side to keep it drained, local lords may have it paved to encourage trade in their lands. Roads evolve over a period of time. In a pseudo-medieval setting such as D&D, the route of a road is dictated by the environment and hedges are known to grow from the earth in places, or are you perhaps suggesting that the orcs planted the hedge and moved the road so that it turns a corner at the hedge just so that they can ambush people? Naturally occurring flora and fauna are not normally out of place in a natural setting. If you are on an established road then there is a reason why the road takes the route it does, if there is no road then feel free to give all hedges as wide a bearth as you deem appropiate. Nick.
theliel 10-07-04, 02:39 PM	I'd say that "Sparse farmland" doesn't qualify for the hedgerows in essex or normandy...that'd be highly cultivated farmland or 'dense forest' to represent what being 'in the hedge rows' is like... otoh, random turns in the road with a huge tree and some decent cover are common enough here in michigan (which is 'sparse farmland' about 20min west of where i live) that it'd be 'you come to a bend in the road' not 'there's a tree and some shrubs at a bend', but it's definatly something worth noting in the adventrue, such as 'you're marveling at the occasional trees or bushes' should be sufficent. sometimes the city slickers need to be reminded that light farmland != entirely nothing but fields. that's prarie, like in iowa, and it's boring. it's also hard to see 'cause corn gets pretty high. but i digress. i'd just like a 'suggested' encounter range in adventures. such as: encounter starts at distance of x feet + 10 per pt over spot/listen check y. one line throw away, at least have it in there, so that if a judge doesn't pay attention it's no longer 'judge's discression'. also make it easier on the judge, since they're trying to do fifty billion things at once with unfamiliar characters and may not have time to look up 'encounter tables'
CruelDM 10-07-04, 04:06 PM	My personal belief is that surprise should never be automatic, unless the PC group states they are not paying the least bit of attention and simply dont care if they are surprised (like that ever happens). If the author truly wants the baddies to get the jump on the PCs he should set it up that way, with a viable and realistic reason for the encounter to start that way, and even then there should always be some chance for the PCs, or at least some PCs, to act in the surprise round (especially the PCs who have dumped a majority of their skill points into maxing Spot and Listen skills). At the very least a roll of 20 on a spot or listen should allow a PC to react in a surprise round (at my table a 20 is always good for something). Many DMs take true pleasure in killing the PCs, I am not one. This is not to say that I havent killed my share of PCs, only that I dont take pleasure in it. I find the lasting excitement of the players after a well earned victory to be my satisfaction. Sometimes this is an experience that will last the lifetime of a player, unfortunately this isnt always the case, especially when they have no chance to beat a boxed text. I usually dont get that bogged down with starting distances, some of the rules lawyers may disagree with me here, but I believe its all in the flavor of the adventure. If the PCs stand a good chance of getting clobbered on a surprise round I may start the encounter out of melee range allowing only the ranged attackers to do some damage, granting the other baddies some buff time. The same holds true for the PCs that gain surprise. Sometimes, though, its in the best interest of the game to allow the PCs (or the baddies) to start within melee range on the surprise round (providing, of course, theres a realistic way to do this). A succesful sunder attempt or trip attack can spice things up a little and add a lot of flavor to any encounter, at the same time avoiding PC death due to box text. There are plenty of times when the encounter distances should be used, my intention wasnt to say that I never use these rules, only that sometimes, in the interest of excitement and memorable game play, DMs discretion isnt always bad.
honeynuggets 10-07-04, 06:59 PM	If the author truly wants the baddies to get the jump on the PCs he should set it up that way, with a viable and realistic reason for the encounter to start that way AMEN! Auto-surprises just how little the author knows about tactics and encounter start distances. There are tons of ways to set up a good ambush without breaking rules to do it. For example, in a city alleys provide total cover and you only get line of sight down them when you are at their opening. Draw a bunch of squares on the map. Say "You need to get to the docks to the east. It's midnight" and make your ambushers wait at an alley along the PCs route. As soon as both have line of sight make spot checks to see which PCs can act in the surprise round and the ambushers are probably in sneak attack range.
honeynuggets 10-08-04, 10:47 AM	Some of you may have discovered by now, that using these rules can make encounters much more colorful and exciting. So here are some more terrain types. More Terrain Types: The terrain types we have discussed so far have at least one thing in common. They all limit line of sight at some distance due to their random features (bushes, trees, ridges, trenches, etc.) Some terrain has the feature: "Spot Distance = Limit of Sight" Some examples include: Abyss Tunnel (straight, unnatural) Rift Flat, grass lawn Clear sky Gazing across a Calm sea When two groups interact in these types of terrain they Automatically Spot each other as soon as there is Line of Sight at a distance of Limit of Sight. There is no Encounter Spot check because there aren't enough features to "blend in with." What exact distance is "Limit of Sight"? I'm not sure. That might indeed be something left up to the DM, but it should be in the neighborhood of at least 1 mile. Next. Warning! SOME of the following terrain types/modifiers are Not official. They are just ones I thought of that I haven't found in the WoTC books. The Official ones have (Official) next to them. Terrain Maximum Spot Distance Partly Cloudy Sky 6d6x40 ft Mostly Cloudy Sky 6d6x20 ft Thunderstorm w/ Dark Clouds 6d6x10 ft Thick Cloud layer (As Fog- Adjacent has 20% Concealment, No line of sight at 10 ft and beyond) Rough Seas 6d6x160ft Stormy Seas 6d6x80ft Hurricane Seas 6d6x40ft Raining(Official) (Halve the Maximum Spotting Distance of the terrain type you are within. Take -4 penalty to Encounter Spot checks and Spot (vs Hide) checks) Snowing(Official) (Halve the Maximum Spotting Distance of the terrain type you are within. Take -4 penalty to Encounter Spot checks and Spot (vs Hide) checks) Heavy Snow (Official) (As Fog- Adjacent has 20% Concealment, No line of sight at 10 ft and beyond) Cloudy Sky - When the sky is cloudy there is an amount of clear sky underneath the cloud layer. Thus, someone on the ground ignores the clear sky for purposes of Encounter Spot checks and starts counting the 6d6x40 at the base of the cloud layer. A good number to use for the average cloud layer height is 3,000 ft. If both parties are within the cloud layer, for example two foes mounted on flying dragons, then they would use the straight 6d6x40 Encounter Spot distance. It doesn't even take long to add terrain/weather to encounters once you understand how to do it.
Cardinal Teplin 10-08-04, 06:15 PM	Several of the arguments here do seem to assume that if line of sight is blocked then there is no chance of being aware of the enemy. What happens with airbourne scouts? Or listen checks? Or even observation of the surrounding terrain? Just because there isn't line of sight, doesn't mean we don't know they are there. In addition, just because there is a road, doesn't mean the PCs are on the road. My character regularly travels roughly parallel to the road, which should cut down on the angles provided by terrain features, but never seems to. The problem is not that a building couldn't block line of sight it it were between you and the enemy, but rather that, no matter what angle you approach from, no matter whether the enemy know you are coming or not, the building is correctly placed so that people can ambush you. The point is that the random distances are supposed to reflect the distance between terrain features large enough to obscure an upcoming encounter. If terrain has obstacles closer togeather than this, then this is either unusual, or the terrain is more enclosed that we might otherwise expect. Which is not in itself a problem, every once in a while, but does seem to be really quite common. I've twiced been autosurprised by groups of more than 30 people, No chance to spot, no chance to avoid being surprised. I've been ambushed at melee distance by large or huge monsters on barren, flat terrain. I've also, curiously enough, encountered a bow weilding enemy at maximum encounter distance for the terrain, despite being amongst lots of LOS-obstructing farmhouses. I'm all for giving writers the freedom to write interesting scenes, but it would also be nice to give PCs some credit. My own character has a spot in the high 20s, but it hardly ever makes any difference to the encounters.
CruelDM 10-08-04, 07:36 PM	Well, in wide open terrain, at night, we could assume the limit of sight to be the radius of the most powerful light source (for the group with the light, assuming no darkvision etc.), but this distance would be MUCH farther for the group that didnt have a light source (in some cases miles). In a game run by me, if the spot distance was LIMIT of sight on a clear day in open terrain, the combat would start at the edges of the 4 foot battlemat I use, the time between spotting and start of combat would be the minimum time taken by the fastest opponant to close the gap (presumably 1 or 2 miles) assuming that the intent of the fastest group is to close for combat. Ranged attacks could possibly be made before both parties were actually on the battlemap provided someone had a weapon capable of those ranges. Air to ground combat adds new dimensions to the scenario, in that an arial opponant has many advantages. For one, there is usually no obstruction to line of sight (at least in open terrain) but there could be obstructions in line of sight from grount to air (ex. sun directly behind flying opponant or clouds low on horizon). This would only shorten the distance for the ground party as the arial attacker should spot the ground target much sooner. In any instance of combat however, I stand by my earlier statement that surprise should rarely, if ever, be automatic. I always allow some roll to determine if a PC is surprised even if an author implies otherwise.
honeynuggets 10-12-04, 10:01 PM	Here is a handy document I whipped up. The red text are things that WoTC forgot to include, so I made them up. http://members.cox.net/shinyhalo/ENCOUNTER%20DISTANCE.pdf http://members.cox.net/shinyhalo/ENCOUNTER%20DISTANCE.pdf If you think the rules I have described are wrong then set up a plausible long range random encounter using the different rules you believe in. I predict either one of two things will happen. 1. You will incorrectly apply the -1/10ft rule resulting in every encounter starting at under 65 yards. 2. It will become impossible for a random surprise encounter to ever occur with your rules. Think: "See ya when I see ya." "Not if I see you first." My next example will illustrate six Orcs hiking back to camp after a pre-dawn raid. It is daytime by the time they finish pillaging and they happen to run across six 1st level PCs in Mountain-Alpine Meadow 4d10x10 which has Light Undergrowth and Steep Slopes for Concealment and Cover. Here is a nice one page PDF with the rules which assume WoTC has forgotten to include the base DCs and modifiers from v3.0 Before you get excited, the terrains in Red text I totally made up since WoTC seems to have forgotten to describe certain types of terrain. http://members.cox.net/shinyhalo/ENCOUNTER%20DISTANCE.pdf 1. DM rolls 4d10x10 ~ 200ft 2. Encounter Spot DC to notice Orcs at 200 ft away = 18 (Base 20, -2 Six or more creatures, +0 Contrast Normal MMp.203) 3. Encounter Spot DC to notice PCs at 200 ft away = 18 (Base 20, -2 Six or more creatures, +0 Contrast Cleric smart enough to wear some tunic over plate and use unpolished shield) 4. Six spot checks for Orcs (d20 + 1(Spot modifier)) vs DC 18. At least one of them need to roll 17+ 5. Six spot checks for PCs (d20 + varies(Spot modifier)) vs DC 18. A 1st Ranger with +5 Spot might need to roll only 13+ 6. Let's say only the PCs become aware. They can now actively use Hide and Move Silent to try and close the distance or make a Surprise round attack at 200ft. In the next example I will illustrate a Succubus having a random encounter with an Avoral high up the the clouds during a Mostly Cloudy sky(*One of the terrains I made up since I can't find any official Spot distances) The Succubus has an advantage, she knows that an avoral has a nest around here so she is trying to remain Hidden while still moving to search the area and is unaware. It is daytime and Clouds provide Concealment, but they are not continuous and are not treated like Fog until and unless a party stays still inside a cloud at which point Fog rules apply. 1. DM rolls 6d10x20 ~ 600ft 2. Encounter Spot DC to notice Succubus at 600 ft away = 35 (Base 25, +10 Hide modifier, +0 Contrast Normal) 3. Encounter Spot DC to notice Avoral at 600 ft away = 20 (Base 20, +0 Contrast Normal) 4. One spot check for Succubus (d20 + 19(Spot modifier)) vs DC 20. 5. One spot check for Avoral (d20 + 17(Spot modifier)) vs DC 35. 6. In fact, High CR creatures like these don't get accidentally surprised often. Someone has to make an effort AND be good at sneaking to get the jump on them. 7. Encounter starts at 600 ft with probably only Succubus aware, she can then try to fly closer or surprise attack. If you disagree include examples like the above. Are my suggestions official? Heck no. Are there official v3.5 encounter rules that produce logical results? Heck no. Are my suggestions strongly based on v3.5 and v3.0 material? Heck yes. Do my suggestions create varied distance encounters and a chance for random surprise encounters? Heck yes. Has WoTC made a clarification of mine official? Heck yes. What happens with airbourne scouts? Or listen checks? Or even observation of the surrounding terrain? Just because there isn't line of sight, doesn't mean we don't know they are there. For airborne parties ignore clear sky distance since it is "Limit of Sight" in calculating encounter start distance and start counting once/if you hit any limiting "terrain". Listen checks, unlike Spot checks always use the -1/10ft rule as well as the penalties for walls, doors, etc. So if your foe is 200 ft away...he has to be making quite a racket to hear.
Cardinal Teplin 10-20-04, 07:25 AM	>For airborne parties ignore clear sky distance since it is "Limit of Sight" in calculating encounter start distance and start counting once/if you hit any limiting "terrain". Ermm... Could do, but consider a flying creature looking down at a forest. Since the encounter distance is rarely as big as the hight of a forest canopy, this would mean flying creatures could see everyone in the forest - not terribly realistic. >Listen checks, unlike Spot checks always use the -1/10ft rule as well as the penalties for walls, doors, etc. So if your foe is 200 ft away...he has to be making quite a racket to hear. Sure, but it might stop the point blank ambushes. I just got back from an adventure at GenCon UK, where I was ambushed by a huge golem at a distance of 20ft - autosurprise, of course. Yes he had full cover when he started - he was buried in rubble. But he still managed to detect me, dig his way out, stand up, cross the room and attack me, all before I got an action. Otherwise a good adventure, but really that seemed a bit silly to me. As for your suggestions, I'll try including them in my adventure (unless you object) and see how things go. While yours arn't official rules, there doesn't seem to have been any hinderence to module writers making up their own spot rules for particular situations... so I'll do that. Be a long while before we get any feedback though.
honeynuggets 10-25-04, 06:19 AM	Ermm... Could do, but consider a flying creature looking down at a forest. Since the encounter distance is rarely as big as the hight of a forest canopy, this would mean flying creatures could see everyone in the forest - not terribly realistic. This is a more complicated example you are proposing. Let's make it a clear sky to simplify. The flying creature starts counting it's Encounter Spot Distance to notice creatures walking through a forest at the average top of the forest canopy. This means you actually need to know what kind of trees they are. Since there are no rules for tree height the DM decides the average height of the trees. Let's say it's an old forest with 100ft acorn trees. So, if it's a dense forest (2d6x10) then a roll of 60ft means that a flying creature won't be able to see all the way down to the ground through the canopy and concealment. If it's a sparse forest (3d6x10) you only need to roll a "3,3,4" or better for the flying creature to gain line of sight all the way to the forest floor. Again, this is assuming a tree height of 100ft. As for your suggestions, I'll try including them in my adventure (unless you object) and see how things go. While yours arn't official rules, there doesn't seem to have been any hinderence to module writers making up their own spot rules for particular situations... so I'll do that. It is true that my explanation of the Encounter Spot Distance is not v3.5 It is also true that there are No v3.5 Encounter Spot Distance rules, presumably because the base DCs and modifiers were accidentally forgotten in the transition to v3.5 Therefore, it's better to use the v3.0 base DCs and modifiers in conjunction with the v3.5 terrain features rather than use house rules or worse until/unless a clarification comes out. imho Updated quick reference sheet to include Underwater Spot distances http://members.cox.net/shinyhalo/ENCOUNTER%20DISTANCE.pdf
Samwise 10-25-04, 12:25 PM	This is a more complicated example you are proposing. Let's make it a clear sky to simplify. The flying creature starts counting it's Encounter Spot Distance to notice creatures walking through a forest at the average top of the forest canopy. This means you actually need to know what kind of trees they are. Since there are no rules for tree height the DM decides the average height of the trees. Let's say it's an old forest with 100ft acorn trees. So, if it's a dense forest (2d6x10) then a roll of 60ft means that a flying creature won't be able to see all the way down to the ground through the canopy and concealment. If it's a sparse forest (3d6x10) you only need to roll a "3,3,4" or better for the flying creature to gain line of sight all the way to the forest floor. Again, this is assuming a tree height of 100ft. Unfortunately, that isn't how the canopy of a forest affects line of sight. Either the trees have leaves that block line of sight or they don't. Either the undergrowth is in bloom before the canopy has filled out in the summer or it isn't. Either there is a clearing or there isn't. It would be ridiculous to roll randomly for how far someone can see through a mass of leaves and branches. This is yet another example of an obsession with the rules leading to an absurd situation. If the cover, the canopy, is there, then it doesn't matter how tall the trees are, you aren't going to randomly see the ground through them, no matter what some die rolls indicate. The RPGA is continually criticized for a lack of creativity in design, role-playing in modules, and inconsistency between tables. Adventure design by random table exacerbates and exagerrates all of these problems. Rather than obsess over making everything fit a generic table intended for use as a starting point people should focus on the intent of the game and the RPGAs play guidelines. Don't include auto-surprise encounters. Don't give creatures automatic surprise. Don't use illegal tactics. (Like having a creature ready an action outside of combat.) None of those require a lock-step adherence to random tables.
honeynuggets 10-26-04, 04:36 PM	Unfortunately, that isn't how the canopy of a forest affects line of sight. Either the trees have leaves that block line of sight or they don't. Either the undergrowth is in bloom before the canopy has filled out in the summer or it isn't. Either there is a clearing or there isn't.. The rules clearly define concealment (20%) as including foliage, which includes foliage that happens to be high up. I see no reason to treat it differently from foliage on the ground. It would be ridiculous to roll randomly for how far someone can see through a mass of leaves and branches. This is yet another example of an obsession with the rules leading to an absurd situation. If the cover, the canopy, is there, then it doesn't matter how tall the trees are, you aren't going to randomly see the ground through them, no matter what some die rolls indicate.. Would you rather set a fixed distance of how far two parties can see each other through leaves and branches? It only takes a few seconds to generate a random number. The randomness takes into account the randomness of nature. The RPGA is continually criticized for a lack of creativity in design, role-playing in modules, and inconsistency between tables. Adventure design by random table exacerbates and exagerrates all of these problems. . The random Encounter Distance generation just determines where everyone is at the start of a scene and encourages the use of different tactics which makes adventures better. Don't include auto-surprise encounters. Don't give creatures automatic surprise. Don't use illegal tactics. (Like having a creature ready an action outside of combat.) None of those require a lock-step adherence to random tables. It's easy to say "Don't do this or that", but without the Encounter Distance rules everybody will house rule. One DM's idea of a fair encounter might be to let a dozen barbarian orcs in hill terrain and during daytime get 60 feet from a party before they notice them. (It's happened to me) This example is just as bad as giving foes an automatic surprise round. The orcs can easily charge the distance and lay waste while having ignored their weakness (inability to sneak).
Samwise 10-26-04, 10:55 PM	The rules clearly define concealment (20%) as including foliage, which includes foliage that happens to be high up. I see no reason to treat it differently from foliage on the ground. Which is part of the problem. You refuse to acknowledge any situation that exists outside of the defined rules. Go into a mature forest and look up, and tell me how often you can see the sky. That is what is the critical factor, not whether the trees are close enough to the ground. Would you rather set a fixed distance of how far two parties can see each other through leaves and branches? It only takes a few seconds to generate a random number. The randomness takes into account the randomness of nature. No it does not. A chance to find a clearing takes into account the randomness of nature. A random distance from ground to canopy top does not. And what I would rather see is a good DM being able to come up with a reasonable chance to spot someone while flying overhead without having to be a slave to some chart, and a good author taking into account that a high APL party may be flying and not walking or riding along the ground. The random Encounter Distance generation just determines where everyone is at the start of a scene and encourages the use of different tactics which makes adventures better. No it does not. The DM determines where everyone is at the start of a scene, based on the description of the players as to how the party was traveling, and either his own judgement or the instructions of the module as to the disposition of the monsters. The distance should already be factored into the module description of that disposition. It's easy to say "Don't do this or that", but without the Encounter Distance rules everybody will house rule. One DM's idea of a fair encounter might be to let a dozen barbarian orcs in hill terrain and during daytime get 60 feet from a party before they notice them. (It's happened to me) This example is just as bad as giving foes an automatic surprise round. The orcs can easily charge the distance and lay waste while having ignored their weakness (inability to sneak). Absolutely the opposite. If the module clearly indicates the distance at which the encounter takes place then there is nothing for the DM to alter. Randomly rolling distance for each and every table will in fact increase the effect of DM whim on tables, and radically alter the encounter for differing tables. As I said before, that is precisely what is not wanted.
honeynuggets 10-29-04, 01:36 PM	Which is part of the problem. You refuse to acknowledge any situation that exists outside of the defined rules. Go into a mature forest and look up, and tell me how often you can see the sky. That is what is the critical factor, not whether the trees are close enough to the ground. No, I stated that there are no rules for whether tree foliage while looking up functions exactly like foliage on the ground so it was up to the DM to determine the type of tree and therefore the type of branches and therefore the effective tree canopy height for purposes of spotting. In a forest, it is very possible at any given moment of glancing around to not have line of sight to something flying above. This is represented by the random roll. If the distance you roll is 100ft and the tree canopy is 100ft high then you can see something flying above it in clear sky. If you roll 40ft then at 40ft up you've got yourself a big leafy mass blocking line of sight past the tree canopy at the moment. If the flying subject is circling then the DM can make multiple rolls as desired otherwise the flying critter might just fly right by without noticing things on the ground in the forest. No it does not. A chance to find a clearing takes into account the randomness of nature. A random distance from ground to canopy top does not. And what I would rather see is a good DM being able to come up with a reasonable chance to spot someone while flying overhead without having to be a slave to some chart, and a good author taking into account that a high APL party may be flying and not walking or riding along the ground. I would also like to see a DM that can come up with fair houserules consistently, but it ain't gonna happen. Writers and DMs need rules to create balanced adventures. Asking one person to do what it takes a whole company (WoTC) to do is too much. No it does not. The DM determines where everyone is at the start of a scene, based on the description of the players as to how the party was traveling, and either his own judgement or the instructions of the module as to the disposition of the monsters. The distance should already be factored into the module description of that disposition. The "judgement" of one person is imminently subject to corruption. The writer of the module needs rules to follow as well otherwise he/she will also be subject to their biased and often flawed judgement. Writers can certainly use the Encounter Start Distance rules to pre-determine an encounter distance but they should use the average depending on the type of terrain they are in. Picking a shorter distance as if you rolled three or four 1's just isn't fair to players. Absolutely the opposite. If the module clearly indicates the distance at which the encounter takes place then there is nothing for the DM to alter. Randomly rolling distance for each and every table will in fact increase the effect of DM whim on tables, and radically alter the encounter for differing tables. As I said before, that is precisely what is not wanted. Either the Writer or the DM determines the terrain and randomly generates the Encounter Start Distance. Either way, one of them used the rules and rolled so it's fine. There is only one table and you only have to generate a distance once per encounter. It only takes seconds. "DM whim" is eliminated by giving them rules to follow not vice versa. Even if one table rolls really low and another rolls really high the difference in Encounter Starting Distance will be fair due to the fact that they are both using the same terrain and same rules. In sparse forest a really low roll is 60ft and a really high roll is 150ft. Not that big a difference still. Now, compare that with letting DMs houserule! Some will just be lazy and start all encounters at one side of the battlemat to the other with 5ft spaces!
Cardinal Teplin 10-29-04, 03:45 PM	If the module clearly indicates the distance at which the encounter takes place then there is nothing for the DM to alter. But at what point does common sense come in? I've just finished playing two-round adventure where every single combat encounter was an autosurprise at 20 feet or less by huge creatures. I'm up to run it next, so what do I do? Break with the scripted encounter, or break the rules both of common sense and the game? Do I treat the author's instructions as a starting point, that might be altered by measures taken by the party to avoid surprise? Or do I treat the author's instructions as sacrosanct, and actually run an encounter where a group of 30+ creatures of sizes up to huge attack with surprise from a range of 10 feet? I suspect I'll have to go with the former, and alter the encounter distances set in the module to the distance at which the two parties become aware of eachother's presence. What else can I do?
Samwise 10-29-04, 06:48 PM	But at what point does common sense come in? I've just finished playing two-round adventure where every single combat encounter was an autosurprise at 20 feet or less by huge creatures. I'm up to run it next, so what do I do? Break with the scripted encounter, or break the rules both of common sense and the game? Do I treat the author's instructions as a starting point, that might be altered by measures taken by the party to avoid surprise? Or do I treat the author's instructions as sacrosanct, and actually run an encounter where a group of 30+ creatures of sizes up to huge attack with surprise from a range of 10 feet? I suspect I'll have to go with the former, and alter the encounter distances set in the module to the distance at which the two parties become aware of eachother's presence. What else can I do? According to RPGA rules, you run the encounter as written. If you feel there is an error in how the encounter is presented, you must contact your Triad or Circle member, report the problem, and request a clarification. If they reply that there is no error and the module is to be run as written, you do so. If you feel this constitutes poor quality, you send a formal complaint to the appropriate people. (Triad, Circle, RPGA) I will also say that I have not had this kind of problem with automatic surprise in encounters. It sounds like something you need to take up with your Triad if it is such a problem. I will also note that just because an encounter says a creature will attack, it does not mean they automatically gain surprise. I've seen that error made once or twice. And I will add that many encounters are "upset" by size increases because of advancement at higher APLs. But if it is not those two, then it is an author and editor problem, and needs to be resolved at the Triad or Circle level.
Cardinal Teplin 10-29-04, 09:24 PM	According to RPGA rules, you run the encounter as written. Yeah, but according RPGA rules I also am not allowed to vary the core rules. The problem is that the authors did not take into account all possible variations of player behaviour. And how could they? So when I come across player characters doing something that would logically change what happens next, but find that what happens next is carefully scripted in a way that makes no sense in the light of player actions, which do I ignore? The author's instructions, or the players around my table? I will also say that I have not had this kind of problem with automatic surprise in encounters. It sounds like something you need to take up with your Triad if it is such a problem. Core adventure, so not really a Triad problem. I will also note that just because an encounter says a creature will attack, it does not mean they automatically gain surprise. I've seen that error made once or twice. I haven't, but maybe I'm just lucky. I'm talking about the module specifying surprise, as in my example above. And I will add that many encounters are "upset" by size increases because of advancement at higher APLs. Yes, but autosurprise shouldn't happening at all, should it? But if it is not those two, then it is an author and editor problem, and needs to be resolved at the Triad or Circle level. Not sure it is entirely an author problem though. It's a question of to what extent the ref at table can alter the module to include player actions. Going lockstep with a literal reading of the rules is bad, as you said. Presumably going lockstep with a literal reading of the module is just as bad?
Samwise 10-29-04, 09:41 PM	Yeah, but according RPGA rules I also am not allowed to vary the core rules. You aren't varying the Core rules. The author and the editors did. At the point it gets to you, all you have left is to run the module. The problem is that the authors did not take into account all possible variations of player behaviour. And how could they? That isn't the point. For RPGA modules you are supposed to run them as written, no matter how badly written they are. Without that as the standard rule, everyone will take it as license to change whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like. You don't like the autosurprise? OK, change it. Whatever. Wait. The next DM doesn't like a particular feat. You can't use it. This other one doesn't like 5' steps. Gone. Hey, I hate the lack of facing. Now it is in there. The RPGA rules are set up so each table is run the same, no matter how much trouble it may cause. Even were I to believe in changing things whenever I feel like it, I certainly wouldn't say it is OK on an RPGA list. Not sure it is entirely an author problem though. It's a question of to what extent the ref at table can alter the module to include player actions. It is an author problem. If automatic surprise doesn't exist in the rules, then authors should not be putting it in the modules. More, editors should not be letting it stay there. That is part of what an editor is supposed to do, remove errors like that. If they aren't, then they aren't doing their job. I don't care who it is, author, Triad, Circle, or RPGA administrator. If they aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing they need to be told so and they need to change. And if they intend to let modules be released with such things in them, they should admit to it and explain why they are breaking the rules. And I know Stephen Radney-MacFarland is lurking about. So how about it? Care to explain why RPGA modules contain encounters that violate the rules? Or do you have instructions for RPGA DMs to alter modules at the table, on their own discretion, when the module violates the rules? It would show you care about the players and DMs of the campaign if you would answer that question. Going lockstep with a literal reading of the rules is bad, as you said. Presumably going lockstep with a literal reading of the module is just as bad? The two are not the same. Design is different from execution. Particularly when the design is in regards to something as subjective as encounter distance, and the execution is something that is supposed to be as non-subjective as running and RPGA module.
solbergb 11-01-04, 07:30 PM	You aren't varying the Core rules. The author and the editors did. At the point it gets to you, all you have left is to run the module. That isn't the point. For RPGA modules you are supposed to run them as written, no matter how badly written they are. Without that as the standard rule, everyone will take it as license to change whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like. Well, that's a pretty basic ignoring of many of the LG guidelines for running an event and also the specific instructions given at the front of the mod. How is this rigid point of view compatable with "Make notes about potential problem areas such as unfamiliar rules, tricky roleplaying encounters, unclear portions of the adventure, etc." "Some adventures, particularly investigative ones, may have weak links between encounters; you need to know how the PCs can navigate the adventure challenges" "Quickly get a feel for the players and the characters. Try to tailor the adventure to your player's style." "Remember, the PCs are the heroes (or anti-heroes) of the story. Allow them to act. Give them leeway choose their actions in the game. This flexibility does not mean you let them do anything they want. " "Do not go out of your way to punish or kill characters" "Do not go out of your way to make it easy on the players" "You have the right to apply circumstance modifiers to situations not covered in the rules" "Judges are expected to follow both the letter and the spirit of the rules. Judges are not automatons/computers; the Circle expects LG judges to use commonsense when making rulings during a session. " "Yes, you will have different play experiences with different judges as they interpret the gray areas of the rules differently. And no, judges should not be making arbitrary changes to the rules because they don't 'like' them. Changes/tweaks should occur because the situation in a given session is not well modeled by the rules in the Core books. " "While GMs have these rights, remember you are there to make sure everyone is having fun. Let players play their characters as they see fit and be the heroes. Work with them toward a fun and memorable game." And the biggest one, found at the bottom left of page 2 of every single module: "Text for the players will be in grey boxes. It is strongly reccomended that you paraprhase the player text instead of reading it aloud. Some of this text is general and must be ADAPTED to the SPECIFIC SITUATION or the ACTIONS OF THE PLAYER CHARACTERS" (emphasis mine) =========================== I don't think the RPGA wants us to be rigid automotons. They want you to breathe life into the module. You don't like the autosurprise? OK, change it. Whatever. . Sure thing. That means I'm complying with "Judges are expected to follow both the letter and the spirit of the rules.", "Some of this text is general and must be ADAPTED to the SPECIFIC SITUATION or the ACTIONS OF THE PLAYER CHARACTERS", " Make notes about potential problem areas such as unfamiliar rules, tricky roleplaying encounters, unclear portions of the adventure, etc.", "Do not go out of your way to punish or kill characters", Do not go out of your way to make it easy on the players. Etc etc etc. I don't allow boxtext to straightjacket me. I consider the injuction to play by the rules of the game a higher injunction than to slavishly adhere to "autosurprise" even if the mod actually says that (in 24 mods prepped, have yet to see anything that insisted the monsters always get surprise regardless of any player abilities) Wait. The next DM doesn't like a particular feat. You can't use it. This other one doesn't like 5' steps. Gone. Hey, I hate the lack of facing. Now it is in there. The RPGA rules are set up so each table is run the same, no matter how much trouble it may cause. Even were I to believe in changing things whenever I feel like it, I certainly wouldn't say it is OK on an RPGA list. . No, I can't do any of those. That would be violating "Judges are expected to follow both the letter and the spirit of the rules." and "And no, judges should not be making arbitrary changes to the rules because they don't "like" them. " You are confusing a uniformity of GAME RULES with a uniformity of TABLE EXPERIENCES. The former is strived for, the latter is impossible. It is an author problem. If automatic surprise doesn't exist in the rules, then authors should not be putting it in the modules. More, editors should not be letting it stay there. That is part of what an editor is supposed to do, remove errors like that. If they aren't, then they aren't doing their job. I don't care who it is, author, Triad, Circle, or RPGA administrator. If they aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing they need to be told so and they need to change. And if they intend to let modules be released with such things in them, they should admit to it and explain why they are breaking the rules. Before you bash the mod authors, consider how much content is produced for LG compared to, say, the number of mods WOTC produces for all of their campaigns put together. Consider that each and every person is doing this as part of their spare time, not as part of a job. With the best of intentions, stuff slips through. There is no way to produce scores of adventures a year with amateur labor and expect perfect results, especially since you have to scale across every imaginable party composition and huge APL ranges. Like the people who wrote the core rules, the mods are written assuming that the judge applies the common sense which is supposed to be part of being a good judge (according to LGCS3.0 and the instructions on running the mod). Having been briefly involved with playtesting interactives and a couple core mods and an (aborted) attempt to author an interactive adventure this year, I can say that the deadlines are insane and there is no way every APL is perfectly playtested, much less every word of tactics instructions carefully edited for wording a lazy judge could use to slaughter a party by simply ignoring player abilities and setting up the monsters 10' away. The The two are not the same. Design is different from execution. Particularly when the design is in regards to something as subjective as encounter distance, and the execution is something that is supposed to be as non-subjective as running and RPGA module. Personally I don't think it is the "job" of mod authors to take away all responsibility from the Judge to run a good game. They provide the adventure framework, the Judge breathes life into it and the interaction of the mod, Judge and PLAYER ACTIONS tells the story. Anything that makes player actions and abilities irrelevant violates all the stuff that says "let the players be the heroes dammit!" All the stuff that violates core rules and turns players from participants to observers is bad. This is not a CRPG. Monsters don't "spawn" and we aren't suddenly swept into choppy video that locks our keyboard and prevents us from acting.
Samwise 11-01-04, 08:22 PM	I don't think the RPGA wants us to be rigid automotons. They want you to breathe life into the module. Breathing life into a module is not the same as altering encounters. What you wrote can easily be taken to alter some encounters in dramatic and devastating ways. I recently ran a Core module that was a total walkover for the players using the tactics in the module. However, if I had ignored those tactics and done such reasonable things as having the creatures prepare rather than wait, the encounters could easily have killed characters. Would that have been fair? You seem to be suggesting I should have done so. Etc etc etc. I don't allow boxtext to straightjacket me. I consider the injuction to play by the rules of the game a higher injunction than to slavishly adhere to "autosurprise" even if the mod actually says that (in 24 mods prepped, have yet to see anything that insisted the monsters always get surprise regardless of any player abilities) Neither do I. As it goes, I changed the interactive content of the introduction to that module as it was wholly incompatible with the players. And I altered the interactive content of other encounters for the same reason. But I didn't change the monsters, or the tactical situations, which is precisely what honeynuggets is demanding. You are confusing a uniformity of GAME RULES with a uniformity of TABLE EXPERIENCES. The former is strived for, the latter is impossible. And yet an equality of table experiences is precisely the intent of how RPGA events are set up. Not one group getting lucky and starting an enounter at 300' and another getting jumped at 20'. Before you bash the mod authors, consider how much content is produced for LG compared to, say, the number of mods WOTC produces for all of their campaigns put together. I have. And I've considered the other issues you mention. I was a Triad member for two and a half years, so I'm perfectly aware of what is involved. And while I am more than willing to excuse an error once, or even twice, I am not willing to excuse the same error a dozen times. Further, as a consumer of this product, I expect a certain standard of quality to be met. If those doing the work can not meet that minimum standard then I see no reason to be silent and let such poor quality pass. Volunteer or no, they are putting their names on these things. I expect them all to want to put out quality products that receive no complaints. And I expect them not to need anyone to make excuses for their failures. Anything that makes player actions and abilities irrelevant violates all the stuff that says "let the players be the heroes dammit!" All the stuff that violates core rules and turns players from participants to observers is bad. I agree. Both authors and editors should be aware of this. I rejected several proposals that didn't fit this standard. Some of the authors understood, and worked with me to revise their proposals. Others understood and withdrew the proposals. I respect them for being willing to change their concepts, or let them go altogether, in order to present only quality material. It is only by having a high standard that you will ever achieve a high standard. And only material of a high standard will attract more players.
Cardinal Teplin 11-02-04, 10:00 AM	Neither do I. As it goes, I changed the interactive content of the introduction to that module as it was wholly incompatible with the players. And I altered the interactive content of other encounters for the same reason. But I didn't change the monsters, or the tactical situations, which is precisely what honeynuggets is demanding. Hokay, so you change the 'interactive' content, but not the monsters or tactical situations. I'm not sure I understand your distinction here. Or rather, I suspect I do, but would rather make sure we're talking the same distinctions. Where is this barrier between matters you are willing to alter, and those you are not? Is it a matter of APL-balanced scenes versus those with no APL balance? Is it a matter of combat versus talking? Is it a matter of structured combat versus free-flowing interaction. I would term combat to be 'interaction'. After all, you react to the monsters, and the monsters react to you... How would you react to an entirely invisible party? Would that be ground for altering the encounter details, or would you assume the monsters leap out at the right time anyway? And yet an equality of table experiences is precisely the intent of how RPGA events are set up. Not one group getting lucky and starting an enounter at 300' and another getting jumped at 20'. Yes, but what if it isn't a matter of 'getting lucky?' What if it is a matter of taking precautions against ambush? Would that be allowed to alter encounter distance? Anything that makes player actions and abilities irrelevant violates all the stuff that says "let the players be the heroes dammit!" All the stuff that violates core rules and turns players from participants to observers is bad. Hm... You've played Endgame? The year 3 Core? I'd say that letting the PCs be heroes, or even participate meaningfully in the story, would involve changing it beyond all recognition. Which of course comes to the heart of the problem. Keeping to the adventures exactly as written, which Samwise appears to be advocating at least for the combat sections, leads to obviously absurd results. Interpreting the adventures too liberally could involve changing them to the extent that the GM is effectively on his own.
solbergb 11-02-04, 12:21 PM	If the party which was 300' away got that way by having superior skills, abilities, spells and perhaps luck, then by god they SHOULD get the benefit of that as opposed to the party where everyone was optimized for combat only and has -1 spot/listen checks and -10 move silent/hide checks and who is lit up like a christmas tree with glowing items and who thus is going to stumble blindly right up to the enemy (but because they didn't sacrifice any resources/choices on stealth or alertness, they probably are more capable of enduring a suprise round at close range...or even hitting back via combat reflexes, contingencies, etc)
solbergb 11-02-04, 12:36 PM	Hm... You've played Endgame? The year 3 Core? I'd say that letting the PCs be heroes, or even participate meaningfully in the story, would involve changing it beyond all recognition. Which of course comes to the heart of the problem. Keeping to the adventures exactly as written, which Samwise appears to be advocating at least for the combat sections, leads to obviously absurd results. Interpreting the adventures too liberally could involve changing them to the extent that the GM is effectively on his own. Which is why judges are supposed to walk the line. You have to remain true to the letter and spirit of the module, as well as the letter and spirit of the rules. You can't change the plot. You can't change the EL's of the encounters. If you change anything in the encounter, it can only be to make a core-rules illegal thing "legal" and even then must be as close as possible to the spirit of what the author intended for the encoutner. (eg, if a monster illegally has whirlwind strike without sufficient intelligence for combat expertese and lacks some class/racial ability to do so, replace it with some other feat that gives it more attacks under specific circumstances which it DOES qualify for) You can't change the INTENT and PLANS of the monsters. If the Giant Crocodile intends to wait until the party is within charge range and burst out of the mud (it looks a lot like a log, only its eyes are visible and it has racial bonuses to hide) then that's what it does...even if a party member spots it first. Of course when they start shooting at the Croc it will change its plan.... You MUST change the RESULT of the interaction with the monsters intentions and the characters abilities. That is what an RPG is, as opposed to watching a movie. You don't (or shouldn't anyway) teleport the party to within 20' of the crocodile so the first guy in line can get eaten, not unless nobody has any chance of noticing the crock, even on a "20" with any ability that they have until they are within 20'. Because if you do so, you are stripping characters of their abilities. There is no difference between denying a spot roll to the rogue or saying that the combat reflexes on the spiked chain guy doesn't work in surprise round. Both are violations of the core rules, but the former happens a lot more often than the latter, because of slavish adherence to boxtext...behaving like an automoton. Which means you are taking away their abilities to be the heroes of the adventure. The mod may make it difficult to affect outcomes, especially modules which have plot-tokens that are outside the realms of ordinary rules. Artifacts have a place in D&D, almost by definition they violate rules. I am far more willing to put up with "artifact boxtext" than with "random bandits ignore all my abilities and do whatever the author said they would do" as a player. But the mod should not take away the ability of players to affect outcomes in anything less than "godly" or "artifact" intervention. (it gets really absurd in the higher APL's to do this, when PC's talk with their deity regularly if a cleric, and can call on wishes and miracles of their own, can plane travel on their own and might even be capable of destroying an artifact on a good day) And while it is nice to expect "Excellence" from authors, we all know the reality is that as judges we will be handed a module from time to time we consider "less than excellent". At that moment, you decide either not to run the mod at all (and I recommend this if you really hate the mod) or to work out how to make the mod an enjoyable experience for you and your players. Fixing things that make the mod behave like a computer game is a pretty good start, and well within the flexibility that the RPGA gives us.
Samwise 11-02-04, 12:54 PM	I'm not sure I understand your distinction here. Or rather, I suspect I do, but would rather make sure we're talking the same distinctions. Where is this barrier between matters you are willing to alter, and those you are not? Is it a matter of APL-balanced scenes versus those with no APL balance? Is it a matter of combat versus talking? Is it a matter of structured combat versus free-flowing interaction While trying to avoid spoilers, the module essentially presents the mission as glorified caravan duty. That simply does not work for 16th level characters. So I altered the "boxed text" of offering the mission to the point that it only vaguely resembled the mission offered in the module. If you'd like more details, feel free to contact me privately. Yes, but what if it isn't a matter of 'getting lucky?' What if it is a matter of taking precautions against ambush? Would that be allowed to alter encounter distance? If you read back at what honeynuggets wrote, it isn't. The suggestion (more of a demand actually) was that the beginning encounter distance be rolled randomly, according to the listings in the DMG. That places luck well above any amount of skill. However, I have altered the introduction to certain encounters based on player actions like this. In one module the ambush point was blatantly obvious, and the players wished to prepare. I let them, then altered the description from the equivalent of "Suddenly, the creatures appear! Leaping to eat you alive as you scramble to prepare." to "And as expected, the creatures reveal themselves, charging onto your readied weapons." I didn't alter the distance. I didn't alter any initiative rolls. I simply described it differently.
Samwise 11-02-04, 01:00 PM	Because if you do so, you are stripping characters of their abilities. There is no difference between denying a spot roll to the rogue or saying that the combat reflexes on the spiked chain guy doesn't work in surprise round. Both are violations of the core rules, but the former happens a lot more often than the latter, because of slavish adherence to boxtext...behaving like an automoton. And which are errors on the part of the author and editor in including and allowing to exist. In such case the fault lies with them, not with the DM. And while it is nice to expect "Excellence" from authors, we all know the reality is that as judges we will be handed a module from time to time we consider "less than excellent". At that moment, you decide either not to run the mod at all (and I recommend this if you really hate the mod) or to work out how to make the mod an enjoyable experience for you and your players. Fixing things that make the mod behave like a computer game is a pretty good start, and well within the flexibility that the RPGA gives us. Which doesn't change that excellence should be demanded. If the modules were of high quality to begin with, such decisions and difficulties would not be an issue. That is how it sould be.
solbergb 11-02-04, 07:08 PM	Which doesn't change that excellence should be demanded. If the modules were of high quality to begin with, such decisions and difficulties would not be an issue. That is how it sould be. I have a tendency to work with the world the way it is, not the way I want it to be. Encouraging authors and editors to do a good job is a fine topic for another thread. This one is about Judges and how they run games in LG..and how unfun it is when a judge reinforces bad mod writing/editing and ignores the rules. In your example with the "blatantly obvious ambush point", what if the players hadn't just wanted to buff, but wanted to drop a fireball in from 400' away? Or fly over it and rain down destruction? Or send in summoned monsters? Or went invisible and silent and snuck up on the would-be ambushers. You're telling me you will still start the encounter at the same distance? (actually I know the answer...no you would not if the players could initiate contact from further away...at least if your other posts are any indication..you seem to allow yourself a fair amount of discretion while adhering very rigidly on other points)
Samwise 11-02-04, 07:57 PM	I have a tendency to work with the world the way it is, not the way I want it to be. Which means what exactly? That you settle for poor quality and don't want to make the effort to demand better? That will ensure that you never get the kind of quality the campaign deserves. Fortunately for several LG regions, people like me set a high standard then worked to achieve it, insisting that others meet it to. Given the level of activity and satisfaction with the region I was involved with, and the others that set similarly high standards, I think we had the right idea. Encouraging authors and editors to do a good job is a fine topic for another thread. This one is about Judges and how they run games in LG..and how unfun it is when a judge reinforces bad mod writing/editing and ignores the rules. Unfortunately most of the complaints are things that are under the control of the authors and editors. In your example with the "blatantly obvious ambush point", what if the players hadn't just wanted to buff, but wanted to drop a fireball in from 400' away? Or fly over it and rain down destruction? Or send in summoned monsters? Or went invisible and silent and snuck up on the would-be ambushers. Given that they recognized it by the boxed text, I would have then informed them that they had wasted identical resources on every other likely ambush point they had encountered previously. And indeed, I've had to rule that way several times when the introduction to an encounter was excessively obvious. And I've had the players agree with that ruling, acknowledging that while they could indeed meta-game and decide that since I had looked at the module before speaking they were now in the "real" encounter, but that to be fair, they would not have otherwise acted beyond a certain point based on the flavor text.
Cardinal Teplin 11-03-04, 07:45 AM	Given that they recognized it by the boxed text, I would have then informed them that they had wasted identical resources on every other likely ambush point they had encountered previously. I'm not talking about metagaming, recognising an ambush point from boxtext. I'm talking about parties who would be able to spot the potential ambush from further away than the module allows. And of course, about monsters that autosurprise people who already know that they are there. Would you allow them to see what their characters would be able to see, and change the encounter distance accordingly, or would you allow the text of the module to 'bindfold' the characters until they get within the monster's ambush range?
solbergb 11-03-04, 11:14 AM	Which means what exactly? That you settle for poor quality and don't want to make the effort to demand better? No it means not waiting until some mythical perfect world where all modules are ideally designed to be run identically and perfectly appropriate to all rules every time. It means instead running and playing at tables that are fun because the module provides the story, the players provide the heroes and the judge adjudicates the interaction between the heroes and the story. It means assuming that the Judges will use the powers they are entrusted with to modify the situations in the mod based on player actions and abilities...I don't say "change the mod" I say "the mod is the world as if the players didn't exist, but instead the heroes were being played by fairly dim NPC's with average iconic capabilities" When the players start interacting with it, some things will be different, unless the players happen to follow the script and don't have any unusual ideas or capabilities. I find the average quality of LG mods acceptable. Some are better than others. I have yet to see any that can't be made into an entertaining game by simply letting the characters play. I've also yet to see any that were 100% perfect and "ran themselves". A bad or lazy judge can take the best mod and make it kind of boring and certainly annoying. To me "bad" includes "taking control of all player characters and forcing them to take actions or to stand around doing nothing to fit what the mod says". That will ensure that you never get the kind of quality the campaign deserves. Fortunately for several LG regions, people like me set a high standard then worked to achieve it, insisting that others meet it to. Given the level of activity and satisfaction with the region I was involved with, and the others that set similarly high standards, I think we had the right idea. I appreciate your desire to improve the writing/editing process and the work you have clearly put in to make things better. Personally, though, I don't think I would want to play at your table, because I think the odds are high that I would have to endure things happening to my character that didn't make sense, that the character could have avoided had he been able to use his abilities. The high standards *I* set is to raise the standards of judges. I refuse to accept that judges are all idiots who can't be trusted to run a mod unless it holds their hand every step of the way. Judges in my region seem to be able to run a fun game even when the mod is less than perfect. I strive to that standard. Judges have different strengths and weaknesses, but regardless of their style, they should be able to run a game without it resembling a CRPG or a movie, where the players are forced to be passive observers. Unfortunately most of the complaints are things that are under the control of the authors and editors. The authors and editors can help. The judges can help. Only one of these two have to succeed to improve the gameplay. If both do..it's easier. In general though a bad judge can ruin any mod, a bad mod can be salvaged by almost any good judge. So I tend to focus on the Judge. He's actually more important. Given that they recognized it by the boxed text, I would have then informed them that they had wasted identical resources on every other likely ambush point they had encountered previously. And indeed, I've had to rule that way several times when the introduction to an encounter was excessively obvious. And I've had the players agree with that ruling, acknowledging that while they could indeed meta-game and decide that since I had looked at the module before speaking they were now in the "real" encounter, but that to be fair, they would not have otherwise acted beyond a certain point based on the flavor text. Ok, I have to laugh at this a little. You posted that you allowed them to "buff", because they spotted the "obvious ambush". I would not have allowed them to buff just because they were placed on the map. (actually I insist on marching order etc all the time just to avoid this sort of metagaming, it works fairly well. My maps tend to be much bigger than the terrain described too, which means they can be in a city or wilderness or whatever and "on the map" without there being an encounter...when the minis are out there all the time people tend not to make assumptions "When the gridlines go down") What I do is work out how the encounter can be approached. I ask as they enter the wilderness (or whatever) for a marching order and to let me know what longeterm buffs or precautions they are taking (is the familiar flying overhead, and if so what are his instructions and his ability to communicate...empathic link has limits....is the rogue scouting ahead? How far? etc. Then I look at the terrain, consider whether anything mentioned affects the default setup and when it is physically possible to notice the enemy. (unless the party is being very stealthy, they're usually in the open and visible at some point, usually when the mod says the encounter starts) Then I have them roll some spot rolls, or maybe listen rolls, or maybe just their forward/flying scouts roll etc. If they're capable of seeing the ambush, the encounter starts where THEY notice the bad guys. If they buff, bad guys get listen checks to hear the spellcasting. If they spotted the ambush location remotely (eg, wildshaped druid in bird form spotted the ambush from the air, since the ambush relies on total cover from a hill and high stone wall to conceal it, with no cover from the air....and ambushers (quite reasonably) didn't think anything of an ordinary, local-style bird flying overhead) then yeah, they might open with a 600' distant fireball, or approach from another angle or any of a zillion other things. Bottom line, they are only allowed to change their basic plan of travel when they notice something out of the ordinary. Should they notice the bad guys before the bad guys notice them though, the encounter starts where it starts, and the PC's may drive the exact distance and direction. All of this takes a fair amount of thought and preparation before the mod begins, but very little time ingame to adjudicate it. It means you have to think about what is off the battlemap. It means you have to consider wind direction (scent...I tend to assume that encounters starting in less than 60' get the wind direction right unless they "surround" the PC's to avoid this problem) spot/listen scores printed on all the statblocks, move silent/hide scores if the NPC's, for example, hear the PC's buffing and decide to try to sneak up on them, etc... You won't get that with a judge running "cold". But all the work of an author or editor who tries to put all that in the mod will also be wasted if the judge is running "cold" and just skimming the mod. The author/editor can make prep easier but they are no substitute for a judge internalizing the mod enough to react to player actions. If you tried to put tactics in for every possible player action you would be writing 200 page documents, not 20 page modules. What is VERY important is when the author wants a given encounter to be different from the "average"...the flavor and intent and abilities of the monsters should be made as clear as possible. But once the stage is set, the actors (PC's) get to act. And no plan survives its encounter with the enemy.
Samwise 11-03-04, 01:46 PM	I'm not talking about metagaming, recognising an ambush point from boxtext. I'm talking about parties who would be able to spot the potential ambush from further away than the module allows. And of course, about monsters that autosurprise people who already know that they are there. Would you allow them to see what their characters would be able to see, and change the encounter distance accordingly, or would you allow the text of the module to 'bindfold' the characters until they get within the monster's ambush range? I can't answer that without additional, specific, information regarding the circumstances. I have allowed a few things. During one module, the player's recognized a threat during part of the boxed text, and came up with a response that was well within the limits of their being able to react. (That is, casting a spell while two NPCs yakked at each for an extended period of time.) I allowed it, and it effectively neutralized the entire encounter. (He cast a grease spell on the weapon of the NPC preparing to attack the other NPC. Kind of hard to run someone through if your weapon goes flying when you try to draw it.) But there were some very specific circumstances at work there, including the extended duration of the "prologue", and a reasonable chance for the player to act during that time with an effect that was also reasonable within the circumstances. (That is, the guards would not go berserk at the casting of a spell with no real visible effect, as opposed to say a fireball incinerating everyone in sight.) I have also run modules where players have sent arcane eyes zipping around with abandon, as well as scouted by other means. Again, it depends. Seeing an invisible ambushed is a lot more difficult than seeing a well hidden one. In most cases that I have seen, the encounter distance could not be reasonable changed due to the specific terrain involved. So if you have a very specific example, I'll answer. But as a general question, there are too many variables.
Samwise 11-03-04, 02:12 PM	No it means not waiting until some mythical perfect world where all modules are ideally designed to be run identically and perfectly appropriate to all rules every time. Well since I am an active DM, it is quite obvious I am not waiting for anything. And since I remain active in supporting the Triad in my region, I also help to continually improve the level of quality. Perhaps you should take a bit of time to learn this about people before making such absurd statements. Personally, though, I don't think I would want to play at your table, because I think the odds are high that I would have to endure things happening to my character that didn't make sense, that the character could have avoided had he been able to use his abilities. Personally, I wouldn't want you at my table. I don't need to devote excessive amounts of time to having someone argue every single situation and ruling I make, just because he feels he wasn't given automatic benefits based on what he has written on his character sheet. The approval rating I have from people who have actually played at tables I've run is more than sufficient for me to be secure in my DMing style, and to be able to pass on people like yourself. The authors and editors can help. The judges can help. Only one of these two have to succeed to improve the gameplay. If both do..it's easier. In general though a bad judge can ruin any mod, a bad mod can be salvaged by almost any good judge. So I tend to focus on the Judge. He's actually more important. Quality begins with design. While the quality of the DM is always more important in a home game, in a Living Campaign the authors and editors have a much greater effect on the game as a whole. Bottom line, they are only allowed to change their basic plan of travel when they notice something out of the ordinary. Should they notice the bad guys before the bad guys notice them though, the encounter starts where it starts, and the PC's may drive the exact distance and direction. Which is what they did in that game. Perhaps you should have read what I wrote a bit more carefully before condemning my actions. So I think I will continue to run things as I have been doing, and continue to push for a higher level of quality. If you prefer to rewrite every module to suit yourself that is fine, but that is not what the players I know would be interested in at all.
honeynuggets 11-03-04, 06:45 PM	If you read back at what honeynuggets wrote, it isn't. The suggestion (more of a demand actually) was that the beginning encounter distance be rolled randomly, according to the listings in the DMG. That places luck well above any amount of skill. Wrong. Rolling the encounter distance according to the v3.5 DMG distances and the v3.0 base spotting DCs and modifiers is a fair way to go and I suggest using it. Hopefully, an official clarification will come out soon and then LG, and RPGA writers and DMs will have to use these rules. Something they sorely need to do based on the horrible encounter distances (or phrasing of encounters) I have seen in adventures. However, personally I feel using the average distance from v3.5 DMG and the v3.0 base spotting DCs and modifiers is also pretty fair and allows for LG to preserve their precious uniformity between tables. Even though Rolling the encounter distance does introduce an element of "luck" you exaggerate when you say it "places luck well above..skill." I have gone through the trouble of writing up detailed examples of encounters in this thread which illustrate that having a good spotter in your group is the most important determinant of starting encounter distance. Further, your "example" of encounters starting at 300ft for one group and 20ft for another (presumably equal powered group) is so statistically improbable as to make your "example" laughable. Enjoy your houserules until the clarification or start using fair encounter start distance rules now.
Cardinal Teplin 11-03-04, 08:32 PM	I can't answer that without additional, specific, information regarding the circumstances. Right, well I'll restate my example here: What I've more often seen is something like this: "Each hero that makes a sucessful Spot check (DC 15) to notice the <attacking monsters> gets to act during the surprise round." Now the implication here is that the <attacking monsters> all get to act during the surprise round. Certainly that seems to be the most natural reading of it. Otherwise what are the heroes reacting to? That's an example of text for interpretation, taken from a year 3 Core. Presumably here you would allow the monsters to surprise the PCs? As for a situation, try a recent one that happened to me: Text of the module states that the attacking (magically invisible and silent) creatures attack with surprise, becoming visible as they do so. The distance is specified as 10-15 feet. The problem? The PCs are on watch with see invisibile active, and can clearly see the monsters arrive. There is no cover of any kind within 100feet of the PC's location. So, change the specified encounter distance? Or not?
CruelDM 11-03-04, 09:10 PM	There is absolutely no way any author can prep the judge for all the different circumstances that the PCs create. In the text as mentioned above it would be interpreted that the author intended the monsters to have surprise, but obviously the PCs actions have negated their chances. If the creatures had any other abilities to use to gain surprise the judge should do everything he can to get them close enough to get it, otherwise their automatic surprise is botched by player actions and the judge needs to compensate accordingly. Just my 2 cents.......
Samwise 11-04-04, 01:22 PM	Why does that example seem familiar? I probably had something similar in a game I ran. Anyway, In this case, I would have to go Spot checks, modified by lighting conditions. The creatures are still silent, even if they are effectively completely visible. I would however add that the entire problem should have been noticed during editing, and could easily have been corrected. And while I am sure there are some who will deny the flaw was so obvious, anyone who has been involved with LG for more than a year, which should apply to any Triad member, and definitely applies to all Circle members and HQ editors, should be well aware of the ways players can wreck surprise situations. With a simple change to account for starting the encounter at 100', whether with surprise and initiative (if the creatures can somehow be seen) or just with relevant skills checks, until the creatures get close enough to attack during a surprise round, the entire problem is negated, and DMs are not put into a situation of needing to either radically alter the encounter, or absurdly hose the players. It is an example of a problem in writing and editing, not a problem in DMing, or with the rules. It would be an excellent example for a thread entitled "Something for Living Greyhawk Authors and Editors to think about".
Cardinal Teplin 11-04-04, 05:42 PM	Why does that example seem familiar? I probably had something similar in a game I ran. Anyway, In this case, I would have to go Spot checks, modified by lighting conditions. The creatures are still silent, even if they are effectively completely visible. I can well believe the example seems familiar, since it's taken from a year 3 Core. Obviously I don't want to risk spoilers by going into more detail... So in this case, you would go for spot checks, and assuming they were sucessful (the attacking forces number more than 30 creatures, including huge creatures at some APLs), at what distance would you start the encounter? There isn't any mention of cover or lack of it, or description of the local terrain in anything more than vague terms, although circumstantial clues tell the DM there is nothing within 100 feet. Do we role encounter distance at this point? Or just choose something arbitrarily?
Samwise 11-05-04, 12:54 AM	I'd go with 100' if other clues point to that distance as being where there is cover. I would not roll randomly.
CruelDM 11-05-04, 10:33 AM	100 feet would appear to be the correct distance unless its night time, in which case you have to take note of the PCs ability of sight. If the sentry had darkvision the encounter should start at 100 feet or the limit of darkvision, whichever is less. Lowlight vision encounters should begin at 80 feet out (40 feet of "illumination" as a torch with 40 feet shadowy illumination). But the enemies, IMO, should be allowed hide checks opposed by spot checks if in the shadowy illumination, spotting should not be automatic in this area and remember the -1 for every 10 feet distance to the spot check. Regular vision spot checks would start at 40 feet (20 feet as torchlight, 20 feet shadowy illumination), again with -1 to the check for every 10 feet. Without referring to the books I would probably assign a -2/+2 condition to all spot/hide checks if the enemy was in the shadowy illumination area of their vision due to the 20% concealment granted by shadowy illumination. If the PCs fail to spot the enemy in the shadowy illumination the encounter should start at the maximum distance the PC can see up to the shadowy illumination based off his vision limits. This is all under the presumption of a night attack, outside, with the PCs using moonlight or only torches and the enemy not carrying light sources themselves; modify distances accordingly if this is not the case. The enemies, if already aware of the PCs, should get a surprise round, and the spotter(s), also if aware, should also get to act in this round. If the PCs fail to spot the enemy in the shadowy illumination and the enemies are aware of the PCs, then the enemy alone should get a surprise round. Without giving more thought or rules debating thats probably how I would run it (I havent played this mod, thnx for not spoiling it). If I made any game breaking mistakes please point them out....(nicely :D )
Cardinal Teplin 11-08-04, 07:19 AM	I'd go with 100' if other clues point to that distance as being where there is cover. I would not roll randomly. No such indication is given. The description only gives out to 100', and beyond that there is no indication of cover, or lack of cover. Have we reached role randomly yet? Or do you just make an arbitrary judgement about where cover is likely to be? The enemies, if already aware of the PCs, should get a surprise round, and the spotter(s), also if aware, should also get to act in this round. If the PCs fail to spot the enemy in the shadowy illumination and the enemies are aware of the PCs, then the enemy alone should get a surprise round. Um.. Why would anyone get a surprise round? The PCs are specifically on watch for intruders, the sentry can see the intruders, the enemy can see the PCs. I know the module says the monsters are surprising the PCs, but there are no conditions occuring in play to create the necessary surprise. About the only situation I can think of that would create surprise in this situation is if the PCs didn't give away the fact that they could see the enemy, and suddenly attacked them. Not sure about that one.
Samwise 11-08-04, 01:05 PM	Given that the encounter has obviously been broken, then some assumptions are going to have to be made. If the module only describes no cover out to 100', it is pretty safe to assume that some cover exists beyond that. If that is arbitrary then so be it. Equally arbitrary is to ignore the players preparations and run the encounter as written. As for a surprise round, that applies when people are unprepared. If only some portion of one group or other is not aware of the other, then combat begins with a surprise round. Remember, anyone who loses initiative is effectively surprised until their initiative count anyway.
solbergb 11-09-04, 01:32 PM	In that example, like Samwise I'd assume that some cover exists (enough to allow hide rolls by the enemy vs spot checks by the PC's) at greater than 100' but that the spotting is AUTOMATIC once they exit the cover (you get no hide check if there is no cover or concealment) unless lighting conditions prevent viewing at that distance. (if there is "bright light" or the equivalent with no cover/concealment there is no spot roll...you see the enemy coming) Note that low light doubles the distance bright light extends. Note that default nighttime darkness at all ranges is "shadowy" for normal vision and "bright" for lowlight and that default daytime visibility is "bright". Weather/fog/etc can of course change this a lot. Also if the monsters are specified to attack while silent and invisible only when they get within 15' of the PC's, scent could also give them away (it has 30' range, doubled if the monsters are coming upwind). If the bad guys "ain't natural" the horses may shy and the dogs may bark. Even if they are fairly ordinary in smell, a dog given the command to guard will probably bark and snarl if it smelled something new. In that latter case, depending on how fast the bad guys move, it is possible all scent would mean is that the animals would get to act in the surprise round (according to self-defense or last instructions given), but it isn't impossible for a PC to have the scent feat or a empathic or telepathic link with an animal that has scent....or that a familiar with scent can't warn his master verbally. Also note that invisibility only gives +20 to your hide check when moving, so the bad guys might get noticed anyway by sharp-eyed guards that notice the "cover" moving 100' out or notice footprints or dust kicked up, etc as they approach in the "no cover" zone. There is still a spot vs hide check that must be made, even if the bad guys are invisible and silent.