Post/Author/DateTime	Post
warazen 03-22-06, 12:52 AM	This post explains my background as a DM, problems I've observered, and some solutions (10 rules) I'm considering to address those problems. Background I've played D&D for many years, primarily as a DM using the original AD&D rules from the 80s and 90s. About 3 years ago some old college buddies decided to learn the 3.0, and later 3.5 rules. We played through 3 campaigns with 3 different DMs. I will be DM'ing for a new campaign starting next month. This will be my first time acting as DM with the 3.0 rules. We play once a month for 6-8 hours a session. As most of our adventures were hack-and-slash dungeon-crawls, players in our group focused on high-end power gaming. Some of the characters, along with their magic items, were worthy of acclaim on the Character Optimization board. And, admittedly, I too was guilty of micro-optimizing my character. The previous DMs did a great job at learning the rules. And I appreciated their efforts at running a campaign - especially when the demands of work and family limited their time. This is not to disparage their efforts. However, in my opinion they allowed us to level-up to rapidly, and gifted the characters with too much magic. I've always been on the conservative side when it came to levels and magic items. Again, this is not to criticize the previous DMs. They are good friends, and I'm thankful for their efforts. I just want to run things differently. In our group we have 1 DM and 6 players. The PCs will start at 1st level, and they all must be human. I was generous with die-rolling for stats, but that's the only major advantage that I'm offering the group. Magic is going to be rare, and potentially unreliable (i.e. subject to breakage or burnout). The PCs are not fantasy versions of Batman, wearing magic utility belts that cause the ground they walk on to glow from the residual radiation. That's enough background. I'm sure some of you can relate. Problems I've Observed 1. Combat Takes Too Long: Under the old rules (1.0-2.0), encounters typically took 30 minutes or less to resolve, from start to finish. Adventures I planned were based on this figure. So, for example, on an adventure that was intended to last 6 hours, I would create about 12 encounters. Under the new rules, it seems that we have difficulty resolving an encounter in less than 1 hour. And if there are significant monsters or complex rooms, combat can into the 2 hour range. Some of this may be a DM control/focus issue. Part of it is definitely related to the more complex combat rules. 2. Rules-Lawyers: Some players take the rules way too seriously, seeking to win as many advantages as possible for their characters. Just like MTG, where everyone collects the best cards, players collect the best feats for their characters. If everyone has Improved Initiative, then is it really improved? I can live with this. But, rules-lawyers slow the game down. They possess the annoying habit of stopping combat when they disagree about the effects of a feat, action (or partial action), or any other tactical rule. 3. Unprepared Players: If you're a spell-caster, know what your spells are and what they do. Be prepared to tell the DM what spell your PC is casting when your initiative is up. If you're a fighter with 10 feats, have the bonuses written down on paper for various attacking possibilities. If your character gained a level, don't level that PC up at the gaming table. Again, many of you can relate to the above. There are other problems I've observed which will be addressed in the 10 rules below. 10 Rules Please give me your honest feedback regarding these ideas. These are rules I'm considering imposing, starting with the first gaming session. 1. The DM is always right. Yes, this is on every DM-imposed rules list, but it bears repeating. 2. The published rules are JUST GUIDELINES. If your blood-pressure just went up, you're probably a rules-lawyer. The DM has an obligation to keep the game moving, especially in cases where the rules are muddy, and thrashing out the details would detract from the excitement of combat, and the flow of the storyline. Nothing kills a planned climax better long debate about some obscure rule that only benefits your character right now. 3. When the DM is wrong, refer to rule #1. :) 4. It's a game; we're here to have fun. Keep that in mind. If an encounter or a rules-interpretation doesn't go your way, don't ruin the game. Bringing the game to a halt, complaining incessantly about a judgment, or arguing with the DM for a half-hour about whether your character can walk across an illusionary bridge that he just cast, is just plain immature. 5. Pay Attention! Don't make the DM describe a new encounter over, and over again; especailly if you didn't pay attention the first time. This rule carries teeth in combat. See rule 10. 6. Time is Precious Let's start the game on time, and end at a reasonable time. We're not in college anymore where we can stay up 'til 4:30 and sleep in on Saturday. Encounters that take more than 30 minutes may be accellerated by the DM. 7. Dungeons & Dragons is a ROLE-playing game. Failure to separate character knowledge from player knowledge may have undesireable consequences. Your PC may not act on events to which he is unaware. You may not consult a Monster Manual or DMG during gameplay. If a PC is in another room, and you overhear something about that character's encounter which your own PC would not be cognizant of, you may not act on that knowledge. The DM shouldn't have to walk out of the room to discuss a one-on-one encounter with another player. This is ROLE-PLAYING. You need to PRETEND that your character is unaware of the exact nature of the encounter. 8. Be Prepared Know your character. Have your spells selected before you arrive to play. Know your spells, and have a few salient features of your favorite spells (damage, range, duration, etc) written down so you can provide this information quickly. Rule #10 gives added meaning to this one. Know your special abilitites. You should be an expert on your character's racial abilities, feats, skills, and class-specific benefits. 9. Characters are not Telepathic Anything you discuss during combat, will be heard by anything present in the encounter, and will be responded to accordingly. If you tell the Wizard to cast a spell, understand that's an open invitation for that group of archers to make him a walking pin-cusion. 10. Combat Time Rules The rules below are a subset of #10. In considering these rules, think about the fact that a round in game-time is literally 6 seconds. How many words can you say in 6 seconds? Can a group of 5 people coordinate a complex attack strategy in a 6-second timeframe? Unless the group has pre-planned strategies, like practiced football plays, successful execution of complex coordinated strategies are highly unlikely. With a round being 6 seconds, one would not have time to discuss the pros and cons of an action with every character in the encounter. a. Once initiative has been rolled, the player with the highest initiative has 30 seconds to declare his action when the DM addresses him. b. Subsequent players have 15 seconds to declare their action when the DM addresses them. c. Failure to declare your action within the time limit of the first offering will drop your initiative to one step below the next player. For example, Bill's initiative is on 16, and John's initiative is on 12. If Bill fails to declare within 15 seconds after the first offering, his initiative will be reset to 11, one step below John's. d. Failure to declare your action within 15 seconds after the second offering will be penalized as follows: 1. Your PC forfeits his action for that round. 2. The PC's initiative for subsequent rounds will be fixed at the newly deducted position. Bottom Line I'm sure other rules could be added. Several of you may strongly disagree with the above. Criticism is fine. What I'm looking for is advice from some seasoned 3.0 and 3.5 DMs who have been able to overcome some of the problems indicated above. Creative solutions, and stories about how you resolved some of these issues is welcome. Thanks.
Zerchai 03-22-06, 01:09 AM	I have to say that the only one of your rules that I have any real problem with is #10, but I can understand your reasons for wanting to implement it. Unfortunately, there are times when enforcing a time limit is really unfair, or is at least very, very harsh. Honestly, though, as long as rule #8 is being enforced, rule #10 should be entirely unnecessary, and I think that it's the real reason that you've put #10 on your list in the first place. Despite rules 1 and 3, I do hope that you encourage honest and open communication with and from your players; keep in mind that the RAW are the laws by which your players understand your world - if you change something, it might not make sense, and if you are totally dismissive of their concerns, it could easily come across as condescending. I would only suggest that you take the time to explain your actions if you have to invoke Rule 0, and never be afraid to use the words, "Well, this is what happens right now, but I'll be happy to discuss your concerns with you after the session." It makes things much more reasonable from a player's point of view. :) Lastly, rule #6 is an important one, but from reading Robin's Laws to Good Game Mastering, I have to admit that if you allow a *little* out of game conversation *before* the game begins, it cuts down on out of game discussions *during* the game IMMENSELY. Aside from those little nitpicks, I can totally understand your reasons for implementing such a list, but hopefully you could just discuss these issues with your players and come to a reasonable understanding without having to resort to something that could be considered drastic. Good luck!
Archangel62 03-22-06, 01:13 AM	I can understand you wanting to speed things up but to be honest this list is going to be more likely to intimidiate new players and frustrate more experienced ones. A few notes that I want to make to you as a veteran DM 1) The DM is always right rule works fine in theory as long as you're careful in how you apply it. If you make changes to the rules players deserve to know about it, especially if it will impact their characters. If you make modifications to how grappling works or how speed effects things then the concept I just made might now be worthless in your game. Corrolary: If a player disagrees please take the time to at least listen to them explain what they mean. If you just stamp them with the 'I'm the DM' boot then you're not being fair to them or to the group. You may have misread what a feat said or you might have misinterpreted the interaction of two abilities. The player isn't necessarily trying to undercut you, they just don't want to get hurt because you made a bum call. I've made a few and when I realize that I have I apologize to the players who were affected by it and thank them for checking what I did, end of story. 2) New players who are trying out casters for the first time can be intimidated, especially if this is their second or third game. The people I've run games for have had mixed results when it came to casting, one of them played as a cleric the first time (period) and it took him a lot of work and labor to make his character workable because he did make mistakes with spells and things like that but I also realized that he was new to the game and new to the casting mechanics. 3) The leveling up at the table thing doesn't bug me, but then again I'm the guy with most of the books so it's easier for them to level at the table and if they can't get to the books and don't have limitless funds I have no problem with them doing it as long as they aren't going out of their way to delay. 4) The initiative thing seems possible but I'd argue more on the mean side. Also, if you don't use minis you need to be willing to replay things for the player, if others talk and they can't hear you over them then that isn't their fault. Also, your description might have been misleading and your players do deserve a chance to know the exact layout of what they're fighting. That comes into play heavily with casters and general room dimensions when it comes to calculating planned spells. 5) The prep thing sounds fine in theory but it's use in practice is iffy depending on how many books/which books are used. If you have the spell compendium and the PHB they might be fine, but some spells have 2-3 paragraphs of information and considering the clarification required they might need to check the spell. Also, when you do stuff like that you tend to stress people out and make it more difficult for them to focus and do their actions. Constantly forcing them down on the order is also rather arbitrary and unfair, I realize that the goal is to make the players move through combat faster but it's more likely to lead to frustration. Trying to write out all the rules for the major spells can get time consuming, and if you expect that of players I also say you should expect it of yourself. In other words, when it's 'your' turn to declare actions time yourself, if you end up taking too much time start dropping initiative on each NPC. Have a written list of all the spells and abilities used by NPCs in front of you so you aren't referencing through books. If this seems too difficult for you then don't expect it of your players either, when you add in rules for 'speed' rather than mechanical reasons you need to ask yourself why you're doing it and if you're going to be fair in application.
Myrddin Wyllt 03-22-06, 01:47 AM	The biggest problem you're not taking into account with implementing such strict rules for combat is this: Characters are quite often smarter, and also better at combat, than the players who play them. As a sword-wielding fighter in real life (card-carrying member of the SCA), I am well aware of what tactics work against larger or smaller opponents, and what doesn't work. I don't have to stop in the middle of combat IRL to contemplate my options, and if I did, I'd get creamed while doing it. Likewise, your player who doesn't have these real-life experiences to draw on is using television, movies, and his imagination, and often cannot do what he envisions within the confines of the game, without the DM's help. Imagine a genius-level wizard not being sure whether to cast the magic missile, or the fireball. Now a player might have to contemplate that for a moment, but the character should know at an almost instinctive level what is the most appropriate action to take. I feel that you are suffering from multiple issues here: You are probably trying to cram too much gaming into each session. I would recommend playing more often, but shorter sessions. Everyone in my group is a working adult. We don't want to blow our weekends gaming, and often have responsibilities (family, etc.) that require our attention. We play from 6-10pm on Tuesday nights. Four hours is generally enough time for 1 or 2 encounters, as long as they are not "entire army vs. players," and still allows time for non-combat encounters and other role-playing events. Playing once a week drastically improves continuity, and reduces the need to "cram" every meeting, or try to burn through an entire adventure in one sitting. Unless something critical is at stake, all character levelling takes place before or after games. Often, email and such are used to prep game sessions, leaving the time together for the dice-heavy parts of the game. Much of our actual role-playing is done electronically (which, by the way, is a great way to help otherwise shy role-players break out of those clamshells). Your players' maturity is in question if meta-gaming (players acting on their knowledge rather than character knowledge) or rules-lawyering is occuring. Try to arrange time to talk to each player about this. If they are mature, they will agree with you and try to improve their efforts, if not, they are not mature, and may not be good players. They can still be your friends, and not be good players, by the way. You probably could benefit from some simple tricks to better organize combat. Using initiative cards with character's names, important stats, etc. on them to sort prior to combat beginning can be a real boon. You will quickly discover that these cards can carry a wealth of information, speeding up the process of skill checks, as well as combat events. That's just one example. Another common aid is to simply tell the next player that they are next, as a prompt to encourage them to be prepared when they come up. Above all else, you have to communicate with your players. If they aren't people you are social with outside of the game, make an effort to change that. It may be simply that they feel no obligation to cooperate with you because they have no emotional investment in you as friends. If they are your friends, they may have made drastically bad assumptions about your intent in-game. COMMUNICATE with your players, and they and you will have much better games.
MrBrown 03-22-06, 02:15 AM	Well, frankly, I disagree with your rules #1 through #4 1. The DM is always right. What is this rule supposed to mean in the 1st place? I'm assuming you mostly apply this in situations where people disagree on the application of a rule. When this happens, what you're really looking for is an agreed method of settling disputes quickly so that the game can go on. The "GM decides" is one method of doing this, but you could always just have a vote and go with the majority. The problem with "GM decides" is that it only works when most of the players agree with the specific decision in the 1st place. If this isn't the case, then all you get is a bunch of dissatisfied players. 2. The published rules are JUST GUIDELINES. This rule is kinda weird too. Okay, so they are just guidelines... Then what? Your further description basically dumps this rule with #1: "The GM has the right to veto any rule." And again, it has the same problem as #1. A far more functional method is to: 1. Agree that rules as written are followed (or with a specified set of house rules), until anyone in the group has a problem with a specific outcome. 2. When a problem occurs, create two possible solutions and vote on them. 3. When the DM is wrong, refer to rule #1. Same as #1 and #2. 4. It's a game; we're here to have fun. While this is true, your further description reveals it to be just rule #1 in disguise. In other words: - The above rules only work in two cases: When the GM's prefences in playing style match that of the players, or when the GM accurately interprets the preferences of the players and chooses them over his. This is the "benevolent dictator" scenario. If the OP has found his rules working for a long time, then either of these is most likely what is happening. The other cases simply mean choosing the GM's playing preference over that of the players, which will just make the game not so fun for the players. For instance, the OP clearly prefers smoothness of the game over accurate and constant rulings... But if he GMs a game (with his rules) for players that have opposite preferences, dysfunctional gaming will ensue. An agreed democratic method of solving disputes, while nearly never pleasing to the whole, will always please the majority. Which is something that a dictator GM making decisions based on his own preferences is not guarenteed to achieve. - The above rules also stink to me of attitudes like "the players are deviants who will attempt to break the system any chance they get, and the GM must put them in their place" or "the players are ADHD brats who must be reined in for the _real_ game by the GM". These kind of attitudes are very common across RPGing, and you can find them in published books as well. These all amount to the same thing: the GM forcing his own preferences to the players. To this, I will say: If you don't treat your players like reasonable adults, then don't expect them to be ones. While there certainly are unreasonable people out there, this attitude will only serve to create more. The real conclusion: IMNSHO, while the OP's rules might work for his specific case, they are very bad as general rules.
BW0222 03-22-06, 03:06 AM	warazen, Welcome to 3rd-Edition. >1. Combat Takes Too Long: D&D is a simulation of fantasy world. 3.x went for a more realistic approach. A lot more real things are factored in -- cover, movement, etc. The result is that it does take longer. The effect is that folks typically have fewer combats per day. The 1E/2E massive dungeons are pretty much gone. Three to four is about as many combats as one can have in a session (4 hours) and in a game-time day. Whether this takes too long is a matter of opinion. It takes longer than 1E/2E, but with less combats you spend about the same percentage of the campaign in combat. Most campaigns are between 25/75 to 75/25 on the combat. Some players like more combat, some like more roleplaying. Certainly some combats can drag on. However, I don't think I could go back to 1E/2E. Having driven the sports car, you aren't going back to the Vega. Casting spells without areas of affect, moving through people, etc., etc. >2. Rules-Lawyers: Some players take the rules way too seriously, seeking to >win as many advantages as possible for their characters. Just like MTG, ... >But, rules-lawyers slow the game down. ... Yes and no. I'm sure that some players do try to "cheese-weasel" (i.e. you know the rule says you can't do that, but you try floating it by in case other folks don't catch it). However, IMO, the game speeds up if everyone knows the rules. There is no debate if everyone knows what you can and can't do. The problem comes when someone (including the DM) doesn't know the rule and others do. With good players rules issues are much rarer -- and they tend to be an FYI type of discussion. Any good DM should know the rules and shouldn't mind looking a rule up (after the session), accepting that an immediate ruling was incorrect, and fixing it for future occurances. Same as any player. Our group goes through a lot of combat and it's pretty quick now. Most know the basics really well. Things which come up are usually, "Gee... I didn't know that"-types of rulings. Most folks are honestly happy to learn something new. With an experienced group... folks honestly don't try floating silly stuff since they know they'll look silly. >3. Unprepared Players: ... All valid. However, cut the spellcasters some slack on casting during combat. With initiative, although it may take some time for their turn to come up, often they can't plan the exact spell until they see the exact situation on their initiative. Someone before them might move to where they were going to cast a spell, or the bad guy went invisible, etc. >1. The DM is always right. Sorry. The DM isn't always right and the DM should be the first to admit it. The first rule should be "Always accept your DMs rulings." Even the best DMs make mistakes. Sometimes you need to make a ruling on the spur of the moment, or just to finish combat off. A good DM will recheck rulings, check FAQs, errata, etc. and correct herself at the next opportunity. >2. The published rules are JUST GUIDELINES. >If your blood-pressure just went up, you're probably a rules-lawyer. Sorry. Chess has rules. It works fine provided everyone knows the rules. It you alter the rules because you don't know them or it is too time consuming to look them up, or someone keeps trying to point out a rule, etc. then you aren't playing chess anymore. Worse, change it too much and the game breaks down. D&D is a simulation of a fantasy setting. If you are going to nerf/overhawl/alter some key aspect of the game, folks are likely to get a different product that what they signed up to play. House rules are fine. Things which affect which books to use, which setting to be in, character creation guidelines, etc. However, if you change the core rules... you are experimenting. The core rules have been fairly well tested. Millions of folks have played under them and know what to expect. Your altered rules have not been so well play-tested. They far more likely to run into balance, abuse, or total break-down issues than the core rules. 3.x rules are pretty interrelated. >The DM has an obligation to keep the game moving, especially in cases >where the rules are muddy, and thrashing out the details would detract >from the excitement of combat, and the flow of the storyline. Nothing kills a >planned climax better long debate about some obscure rule that only >benefits your character right now. You can keep the game moving without nerfing the rules. You simply say "we'll look that up later", write it down, make an immediate ruling, and move on. Everyone accepts that the immediate ruling might be wrong, but only under the promise that you will look it up later, discuss if necessary, and make a final ruling once you have all the information. >3. When the DM is wrong, refer to rule #1. No. If the DM isn't making an honest effort to follow the rules, then the players aren't going to either. >4. It's a game; we're here to have fun. Sure. However, playing by the rules doesn't mean that something isn't as fun. You can get some friends and toss the football around. Fun. That doesn't mean that if someone shows up, adds sidelines, goal posts, and starts quoting football rules that the game isn't fun. If you signed up to play football, do your best to follow the rules. >5. Pay Attention! Fine. Take that one with some salt. At two hours for a combat, folks can't focus continuously. Jokes, gags, etc. are part of the game. As a DM, it's a good idea to schedule breaks -- food, down-time, bathroom/smoke breaks, etc. Let players "goof-off" during these periods. >6. Time is Precious >Encounters that take more than 30 minutes may be accellerated by the DM. Don't. It isn't a race. You pick on the next game where you left this one off. If folks want to spend two hours shopping for gloves at the market (and everyone is having fun) let them. If a combat is taking 30 minutes (which is to be expected), let it. Ending a combat like that is highly anti-climatic. After an hour of dice rolling, they want to see that final dice roll as the halfling's dagger blow drops the ogre. >7. Dungeons & Dragons is a ROLE-playing game. Yes. Meta-gaming is bad. >8. Be Prepared >Know your character. One tip. As a DM, require that each player provide you with a copy of their character each time they level. Officially, if the player doesn't show up you can play them. Unofficially, it also forces folks to keep them updated, spell lists prepared, etc. >9. Characters are not Telepathic Sure. Again, grain of salt. A combat round may be six seconds, but folks can take longer than that because DMs need to describe things and players might need to consult the rules of the simulation (taking real time) to see if something their PC would instinctively know is possible. >10. Combat Time Rules >... Please don't. Rules like this never work. There are always exceptions. The phone rings. Some one needs to go to the bathroom. Someone needs to look something up in a book. It unfairly penalizes folks who honestly need to check with things or make a complex decision. Are you honestly going to penalize spell casters because the player has to look up something which the character would know instinctively. DM: Your turn Zolock. Zolock: Ok, how far away is the our fighter from the troll. DM: 15 seconds. Zolock: Fire, ten, fifteen. Wait, on spell affects is the second square 10' or 15'? DM: 5 seconds. Zolock: Flip-flip. Players: Hurry! Zolock: Time's up. DM: Troll charges the fighter and does 19 hit point of damage. Zarn's next. So who are you penalizing here? The player? Not really. How does watching the party get slaughtered and other players make up new characters solve anything. And in the end will it actually make the combat shorter? No. Someone misses their turn. Great. You think that makes the combat shorter? Gee... the party will take more damage, gets further in the soup, get in a worse position, and it will take longer to fight their way out of it. If an well placed fireball would make the combat alot shorter, it is worth spending an extra minute now making a choice, rather than rushing the player, and seeing how long non-optimal decisions work. Most combats run 5-10 rounds. Start missing initiatives, the combats don't take any less time, they just start running extra rounds. Honestly, the decisions aren't the real time wasters. It is the fireball which makes five creatures roll dice and then to math and note damage. It is the darkness spell which makes everyone waste round after round aiming at the wrong square. It is the summoned tiger which does three attacks, plus grapple checks, plus rakes. The sleet storm, which causes a half-dozen PCs to make balance checks to move and extra rounds to target the bad guys. It is the moat which causes folks optimized for melee to spend round after round doing 1d8 damage with a bow instead of 2d6+12 damage with their swords. etc., etc. Anything which complicates or adds rounds to combat has a much better affect on the overall time of the combat than the decision making process. My Advice: 1. Rules don't slow the game down. Not knowing the rules slows the game down. 2. DMs can make immediate rulings during the game. Everyone agrees to it. If a player wants to 'challenge it', they can say so. DM notes it down, the game ends a little earier and folks can discuss any outstanding 'challenges'. DM should keep an open mind. 3. Ask for copies of characters. Use pre-made sheets. 4. Post your home rules. Prior to starting the game. Books allowed, character creation rules, setting specific rules, etc. 5. Send around a sheet for 10 pre-rolled spot, listen, sense motives, etc. from each of your players. Use these rather than asking for rolls. 6. Folks who show up late put money into the pot for next weeks snacks. 7. You can't shorten the overall time of combat by rushing decisions. The DMG has suggestions for speeding it up combat -- rolling two dice (one for the crit), allowing players with lots of attacks to pre-roll outside of their initiative.
Lokathor 03-22-06, 03:34 AM	7. You can't shorten the overall time of combat by rushing decisions. The DMG has suggestions for speeding it up combat -- rolling two dice (one for the crit), allowing players with lots of attacks to pre-roll outside of their initiative. I'd like to reiterate this, because it's so very important. Counting off 15 seconds doesn't help, it just puts strain on players and disrupts their ability to think about what they should do.
Dungeon Master 03-22-06, 03:47 AM	I advise you to change #1 "The DM is always right" to "The DM has the final say". Because ya know, ya might just be wrong. Also, as 2ed DM you will find that DMing 3ed is very, very different. One of the biggest differences is that in some ways the DM has become less of a "god" and more of a "referee". Personally, I believe that players have shifted their trust in the DM to trust in the rules. This has had the natural effect of transferring some of the DM's power to the player. Instead of being a king, you are now a justice. As a 2ed DM turned 3ed DM/Player, I have felt the change in myself. Before, I would simply trust the DM to decide how the rules work, but now I will rules-laywer the heck of a 3ed game.
green_yawgmoth 03-22-06, 04:20 AM	I would have walked as soon as I heard #1. DMs who think they are "always right" are invariably the worst, most ill-prepared, ill-read power hungry lunatics I have ever had the displeasure of being in the same time zone with. Assuming I have to take time to lace up my shoes, #2 would make me cringe. When I play a GAME, I expect to know all of the rules when we start. And with that goes the expectation that houserules will be discussed with the other players, since y'know, we're the ones playing that game. #3 would make me use my second shoe as a flail before attaching it to my foot; having no recourse as a player leads to jaded players, and jaded players don't show up. #6 just makes me go :confused:. Combats should take as long as they need to. If your session time runs out, then you jot down some notes and pick up where you left off. As a DM, never forget those immortal words: "no plan or plot survives an encounter with PCs." Just because you think that you should be able to do A, B, C, and X does not mean you'll be able to. #4, 5, 8, 9 are so DUUUUUUUUUUUH that if you really need to write them out, stop recruiting players from the local kindergarten. #7 is also a DUH rule, but I want to slap you for using "ROLEplaying". #10 is the only rule that doesn't make me want to take out the hammergun and mod it to full-auto, but only if you aren't staring intently at your watch during each player's turn, waiting, tensed, to yell out "TIME'SUPYOULOSEYOURINITHAAAAAAAAAAA! *point*" 30/15 secs should be more than enough, especially for the later players who get quite a while to contemplate during party member/enemy actions; but if I need 17 seconds to work out a new course of action because of something someone ahead of me did, then you have just ruined any scrap of fun there may have been. All in all, you sound like a dictator DM, much like the one who nearly ruined magic, D&D, and RTS for me. But if your players agree to that kinda thing, more power to ya I guess. Just don't come crying to us when your players walk out on you. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Some_call_me_Tim 03-22-06, 12:27 PM	I advise you to change #1 "The DM is always right" to "The DM has the final say". Because ya know, ya might just be wrong. :clap: Bravo. I really like that subtle change. 10 Rules Please give me your honest feedback regarding these ideas. These are rules I'm considering imposing, starting with the first gaming session. 1. The DM is always right.Follow the above advice. 2. The published rules are JUST GUIDELINES.If you are making changes you should have a list handy. If you are making clarifications you had better be consistent and prepared to defend your reasoning. Never make changes without lots of due consideration. 3. When the DM is wrong, refer to rule #1.Cliche and not funny. Besides it should say: save rules discussions for outside of play time. Perhaps you are wrong and the player can prove it, you should be willing to listen, but make it clear that this doesn't normally happen at the table. Say politely "Objection noted, but overruled" or "Okay, but lets do this for now." Then follow up and actually review the ruling. 4. It's a game; we're here to have fun.This should be rule #1. If this rule conflicts with "The DM is always right" you must be willing to change too. This rule even trumps the RAW or any house-rule. 5. Pay Attention!I'm fine with this rule but it also means the onus is also on the DM to describe things clearly. 6. Time is Precious Let's start the game on time, and end at a reasonable time.That's a reasonable request. Encounters that take more than 30 minutes may be accellerated by the DM.I have no problem with the DM saying the enemy has been defeated and just ending a fight (avoid this with the BBEG as it will spoil the 'fun'), but you're not real clear on what "accelerated[sic]" means. 7. Dungeons & Dragons is a ROLE-playing game. You may not consult a Monster Manual or DMG during gameplay.I would never make such a hard-and-fast rule. Can't a player look up the monsters he can summon? or read about a magic item he has? I know what you are trying to avoid, but don't over do it. Be liberal with knowledge checks for the characters. Perhaps this should be a rule that reads: avoid meta-gaming and act in-character. 8. Be Prepared Know your character.Perfectly reasonable. 9. Characters are not TelepathicAgain I'm a little more liberal with this. It is reasonable to assume the characters would practice what to do in most situations and wouldn't need discussion. Any complex plans I would say your right. Simple things like "Take a five-foot step to flank" would be reasonable to assume would be obvious to the character. This goes doubly if you have new or unfamiliar players who may need the extra help. If I had to write a rule it would say something along the lines of "Kibitzing is fine, long tactical discussions are not." 10. Combat Time RulesI've always hated these kinds of rules. Not because they are unreasonable, but they tend to adversely affect the players without really speeding up the game and most DM's ignore these rules for NPCs. If your players really follow the 'be prepared' and 'pay attention' rules these are unnecessary. Specifically to your proposed rules is they don't allow for differences in classes. Spell casters tend to take a little longer because they have so many more options than fighters let's say. Giving subsequent players less time doesn't account for major changes in the flow of battle. Let say the cleric was all set to cast bless but the rogue just got crit'ed by the raging barbarian. I think the cleric deserves a little more time to re-think his action. Lastly the 'move-it-or-lose-it' rule is useless. Any player with an Int of 6 or more should realize they just need to say "I delay" when the clock strikes 0:14. At my table I don't make a hard and fast rule. If they take unreasonably long, I just warn them, "if you don't know what to do then you delay." 80% of the time they move, the other 20% say "fine, I delay" and usually something then happens that makes their next move obvious. I really think this is also player training that delaying is a viable tactic. What I'm looking for is advice from some seasoned 3.0 and 3.5 DMs who have been able to overcome some of the problems indicated above. Creative solutions, and stories about how you resolved some of these issues is welcome.One last piece of advice is to take a deep breath and re-read the list when you are in a good frame of mind. Some of the wording comes off a little preachy and condescending, kinda "you guys are idiots so here's how things gonna work." Also ask for input from your own players.
wrecan 03-22-06, 01:04 PM	Here's my commentary on your rules. Your rule is in normal text. My amendment is in bold. Comments in italics 1. The DM is always right, but a DM must respect his players. DM fiat goes only so far. If you **** your players off, you have no players. Plus it violates rule 4. So repect your players. Don't dismiss them out of hand. Here's how I implement the rule. I let players make their case briefly. i make my ruling quickly. i invite them to email me after the session to present a detailed case and I will make my decision for future application fo the rule. There ar eno retroactive rulings, however. This keeps the game flowing with a mechanism for players to argue their case. 2. The published rules are JUST GUIDELINES, but any changes in the rules should be made clear to the players before play. If a DM is going to change a rule, it's up to him to figure it out and inform the player before play starts. Nothing is more frustrating than making a character, relying on rules written in the books and then have the DM tell you he rules differently and suddenly your player concept is toast. Respect your players. Tell them your house rules before play. 3. When the DM is wrong, refer to rule #1. :) as amended. 4. It's a game; we're here to have fun. emphasis on the "we". This should be the first rule. 5. Pay Attention! No problem with this. 6. Time is Precious Agreed. 7. Dungeons & Dragons is a ROLE-playing game, but some metagaming is expected and allowed. I don't forbid players whose characters are elsewhere from aking suggestions to the players of characters who are present. See rule 4. It's no fun to be forced to sit in the living room. It's also why I discourage note-passing and side quests. Everyone who shows up gets to play. Also, strategic thinking is a part of game play as much as role-playing. If your character makes the appropriate Knowledge check, or is summoning a creature, you can consult the Monster Manual. You can always consult the DMG. 8. Be Prepared by the time your initiative comes up Nobody needs to memorize their character sheet or the entire spell description. But combat is slow enough that you should know what your action is by the time your initiative comes up. Some tolerance for newcomers to the game should also be appropriate. 9. Characters are not Telepathic, and NPCs can make Listen checks I presume that table chatter is general chatter. But during combat, an NPC must succeed on a Listen check to react to player planning. 10. Combat Time Rules are ridiculous and have no place in a game among friends Putting a stopwatch on your pals? I don't think so. Peer pressure is enough to keep most games moving. If time is a problem, talk to them out of game. Don't start using DM fiat.
Tristan 03-22-06, 01:15 PM	I've always found it best for the DM to at least justify rulings, at least with a "I cant give you a reason for it, it would spoil the story". Comments like "Im the DM, I make the rules" make my middle finger twitch and gives me the urge to slap such persons
Lokathor 03-22-06, 03:30 PM	A somewhat rude awakening to 3.0 and 3.5 play indeed. Very Realistic however: The 2E DM style has mostly died (thankfully), and with it most of the concepts your Rules are trying to hold on to.
tiercel 03-22-06, 04:08 PM	I'm only going to speak to one issue, that of combat timing: Fixed timing doesn't generally work very well, in my experience. Some characters are intrinsically simpler to play, or at least less dependent on what others have done since the last turn. Then, sometimes there are rules questions ("wait, what happens if I do this, does this work?). Do you "stop the clock" if you have to address a rules question/anomaly? I just use a softer system, which says that if someone is obviously stalling/stuck, I warn them "hey, this is six seconds," and if they still are having difficulty deciding what to do, I just tell them "delay" (since that's what they are doing). Being delayed follows the normal rules for taking the Delay action -- they can hop right back into the middle of things as soon as they figure out what they want to do, after the current action resolves (as usual).
Kage_Ryu 03-22-06, 04:14 PM	Problems I've Observed 1. Combat Takes Too Long: Under the old rules (1.0-2.0), encounters typically took 30 minutes or less to resolve, from start to finish. Adventures I planned were based on this figure. So, for example, on an adventure that was intended to last 6 hours, I would create about 12 encounters. Under the new rules, it seems that we have difficulty resolving an encounter in less than 1 hour. And if there are significant monsters or complex rooms, combat can into the 2 hour range. Some of this may be a DM control/focus issue. Part of it is definitely related to the more complex combat rules. 2. Rules-Lawyers: Some players take the rules way too seriously, seeking to win as many advantages as possible for their characters. Just like MTG, where everyone collects the best cards, players collect the best feats for their characters. If everyone has Improved Initiative, then is it really improved? I can live with this. But, rules-lawyers slow the game down. They possess the annoying habit of stopping combat when they disagree about the effects of a feat, action (or partial action), or any other tactical rule. 3. Unprepared Players: If you're a spell-caster, know what your spells are and what they do. Be prepared to tell the DM what spell your PC is casting when your initiative is up. If you're a fighter with 10 feats, have the bonuses written down on paper for various attacking possibilities. If your character gained a level, don't level that PC up at the gaming table. Again, many of you can relate to the above. There are other problems I've observed which will be addressed in the 10 rules below. I, myself, have had similar problems. But as others have said, I feel you're making this far too complex... Experienced players are frustrated, and new players are intimidated... Also, some of it rests on the shoulders of the DM. Indeed, I like a couple of your rules... Hmm... The 15 second rule I like, 15-30 seconds for the player to take an action, I myself force the player to lose their turn entirely if they do not begin playing immediately afterward. Players that lose attention usually do so for these reasons: Each turn takes far too long, jokes and other comments intrude in the flow of things, and tired players... If turns are taking too long then consider the 15 second rule - I have another suggestion that I'll state later for this. If jokes and comments intrude, let them go, D&D is about having fun and being social so these will happen - Simply nudge the players to continue if it takes too long to come back to the game. If player's are tired the game has run too long, or perhaps other situational factors (Such as lack of sleep), why not just take a break from D&D for a little while (Get dinner, watch a movie, or otherwise.). DM problems - When the DM takes too long for himself. Only BBEG's and major NPC's should take much of the player's time. So, there are quite a few things the DM should do: a) Make sure you memorize monsters abilities, style of combat, and rules of how it's abilities works... Last thing you need is a DM that looks up every monsters combat right before the encounter, and not knowing how his own minions fight. b) Bunch monsters initiative together... Rolling seperate initiatives for everyone is just going to take away from player's time. Only major NPC's deserve their own intiative. c) Make things simple. This isn't always possible, but if you can think in advance to what the monster'll do try and make it simple. Instead of using every ability and every thing the monster can do, figure out a simple pattern... Few goblins learn the intricacies of combat so well that they'll use trip attacks, bull rush attempts, sundering, and other such things on a regular basis. Finally, as for the spell caster situation. I have a similar problem/had a problem with one of my spell casters... Everyone gets annoyed with him, because as much as he pays good attention and roleplays well, he often doesn't prepare spells before hand... Why not just try and teach the spell caster how to do things faster? Such as preparing before hand, knowing which spells are prepared so they can decide quicker, knowing all the rules before hand for that chosen spell... Another helpful device are known as "Spell cards" and you simply put the stats on a spell card for quick access. Anyways, I hope that helped.
warazen 03-22-06, 11:14 PM	Thank you everyone for your comments. I frankly didn't expect to see this many responses in less than 24 hours, especially at this level of quality. You've all provided a lot of food for thought, with quite a gamut of opinions. I agree with many of your sentiments, and really like some of the solutions you've proposed. Clarifications I'll be first to admit that I'm not as well versed in the 3.0-3.5 rules as I need to be. That will come with study and play. The 10 rules list is a bit high-handed. Let me assure you that I do not intend to run an "It's my way or the highway" type of campaign. That's not the way I DM'ed in the past. It's not fun for anyone. No, I didn't intend to DM with a stopwatch and count-down the time for the players. Yes, some of the lack of focus is due to people winding down and catching up. That's welcomed downtime. Yes, players who summon a monster may be allowed access to a Monster Manual. What I'm talking about here is players who pack a Monster Manual and pull it out every time they encounter an unusual monster. It's not like the PC has access to Google. Maybe he's heard about that monster, or maybe he's seen a bad sketch in some dusty old tome. But it's unlikely that he would know the AC, Hit Dice, and other meta-data associated with that creature. Now a druid or ranger may have special knowledge regarding woodland creatures, or preferred enemies. But even then, they wouldn't have absolute stats on a monster. Their knowledge would likely be in the realm of, "Those are hard to hit, and are immune to fire," or "The touch of that thing can paralyze you." Feedback I'll take some time to review your suggestions, and will post some additional ideas later for your feedback. In the meantime, please continue to provide suggestions on how to address the following problems: 1. Munchkins, Rules-Lawyers, and Meta-Gamers 2. Slow combat: My first impression is that I need to adjust my expectations regarding this. Fewer combats, and more puzzles, role-playing, and to a lesser extent traps, appear to be the order of the day for 3.0-3.5 adventures. 3. Players who take excessive time to decide what they are doing in combat. 4. Players who micro-coordinate the actions of other characters during combat. This just annoys the fire out of me. The original rule #10 was envisioned to address 2 and 3. What have you done to address these issues with your players? Rule #9 (and to a lesser extent #10) was intended to address problem 4. Again, I'm just looking for practical solutions to recurring problems I've observed over the last 3 years. I'm happy to chuck the 10 Rules list as long as I have a solid approach to addressing the above problems. Thanks again for your feedback.
Kage_Ryu 03-22-06, 11:47 PM	1. Munchkins, Rules-Lawyers, and Meta-Gamers Hm. I will address them in the order provided... 1. Munchkins - I hope we're talking about the real-deal munchkins that spend their entire time trying to optimize. What you need to get them to see is that optimizing character development is just as important (If not more) than optimizing stats. These people are used to having static worlds that don't change, like in video games... What I typically do is ask the player first, "What do you want your character to be like?"... Instead of focusing on stats and classes, focus on what the character personality is like. Then basing off of the character personality place stats and classes in that sound right to the personality... There's no real quick solution to optimization people, you have to deal with them over time. Best way is just to chat outside the game and get them to realise it's not as fun if you max out a character instead of roleplaying a character. 2. Rules Lawyer - Luckily I rarely have a problem... I know rules best out of my player's so they don't usually speak up. Even if they do I take them in consideration, but my final ruling is the final ruling... My suggestion with these guys is initially before the game chat with the players about some edgy rules in the past and get a permanent stance. Stick with the rules you've laid out and don't stray - If you make few mistakes they shouldn't have a problem... It's not like you should be pulling stuff out of your butt on the fly (Unless you're good at it, and stick to it.). If they persist after working with them and laying out what the rules/house rules mean, then talk to them out of game. Make sure they know that you're the DM, it's your story. If they do have a good point don't just shove them aside though or you'll be short one good player... Work with them. 3. Meta-gamers - This is a tough topic... What I mean is, that a lot of people aren't quite sure what meta-gaming is in some situations. I often say "Meta-game" Just to get players to shut up (When they're out of line) but there was no actual meta-gaming... Anyways, basically it's definately best to get this done outofgame. Make sure that player's know what metagaming is and to avoid it. If it really persists in game you might want to deal with it then (Other players don't like metagaming either.)... Sometimes metagaming is unavoidable... You accidently lop the MM1 on the table open with the next encounter, someone takes a peek and there goes the whole fight... You need to make sure they understand that there's a difference between what their character knows, and what they know. One way to help this is by asking for knowledge checks now and then to support character knowledge... Once they've used it a few times they'll remember to ask for knowledge of monsters so that they know whether their character knows whats going on. Hm, metagaming is a lot about characters forgetting for a second that their character doesn't know something. Perhaps if before game you talk a little about character knowledge versus player knowledge then they'll begin to try and apply it. These are all sticky things and for the most part must be worked outside the game. I hope my comments helped.
BW0222 03-23-06, 12:14 AM	>In the meantime, please continue to provide suggestions on how to address >the following problems: >1. Munchkins, Rules-Lawyers, and Meta-Gamers First, realize that these are personal insults. Defining each is difficult. Munchkin means different things. Typically, it comes from optimizing your character for one purpose -- getting the best AC or the best attack rolls, etc. However, as long as you follow the rules, it is almost always at the expense of something else. As long as the DM keeps the encounters varied, munchkin's don't work well. You can kill giants with one blow, but if you can't convince the cleric to give you directions to the ancient temple, the elves to let you pass through their woods, etc. then it doesn't matter. Rule-Lawyers are good. Again, provided everyone knows the rules, it keeps most combats moving along swifty. Meta-gaming is also a >2. Slow combat: My first impression is that I need to adjust my >expectations regarding this. Fewer combats, and more puzzles, role-playing, >and to a lesser extent traps, appear to be the order of the day for 3.0-3.5 >adventures. Yes. Fewer combats in 3.x. >3. Players who take excessive time to decide what they are doing in combat. Honestly, there isn't much you can do about that. Encourage delaying, help them with the rules outside of the game, allow more experienced players to make suggestions, etc. >4. Players who micro-coordinate the actions of other characters during >combat. This just annoys the fire out of me. Such things have a habit of sorting themselves out. Other players don't typically like being told what to do. Spending minutes preparing some plan which doesn't work waists the player's time also. Let them. Just play opponents reasonably intelligently. When they see folks moving into flank or long complex shouts back-and-forth, they'll take simple actions to avoid what is obviously coming.
Zerchai 03-23-06, 12:32 AM	If you have an issue with monster stat metagaming, the knowledge skills are your new best friends - they essentially give you very real and tangible seperation of what characters know compared to the people playing them. From the SRD (order rearranged for convenience) Knowledge (Int; Trained Only) Check In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Fields of study as pertaining to creature types: * Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases, constructs, dragons, magical beasts) * Dungeoneering (aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking) * Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids) * Nature (animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin) * Religion (gods and goddesses, mythic history, ecclesiastic tradition, holy symbols, undead) * The planes (the Inner Planes, the Outer Planes, the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, outsiders, elementals, magic related to the planes) If your characters haven't taken the time to research the qualities of the trolls of the Deep Fen and they don't make their Knowledge (Nature) check, then they have *no reason* to specifically utilize fire against them (although it's certainly okay if your fire-happy wizard throws a fireball at them; let's face it, that's what he would have done, anyway :) ) As for the rules-lawyers, if an argument/issue comes up, just say, "Well, this is what happens for now, but I'd be happy to look over things with you later if there's a problem." And then actually listen to him/her and let them know that you'll change things for later if they have a point (*not* retroactively; stick with your original ruling - retroactive changes are hardly ever worth it.) As for the munchkins... I fortunately haven't had a problem with any in my games, and so I have little advice with how to deal with them. Luckily, there are many DMs here who probably do :)
Lokathor 03-23-06, 12:36 AM	4. Players who micro-coordinate the actions of other characters during combat. This just annoys the fire out of me. Such things have a habit of sorting themselves out. Other players don't typically like being told what to do. Spending minutes preparing some plan which doesn't work waists the player's time also. Let them. Just play opponents reasonably intelligently. When they see folks moving into flank or long complex shouts back-and-forth, they'll take simple actions to avoid what is obviously coming. Be aware that smart players will have all their characters begin using code words ("Pink Frosting Attack!") and obscure languages (Halfling, gnome, auran, etc.) to yell to each other in combat. If the characters as a group decide that they want the team to work together well enough to go to that effort you should encourage it I think. Smart adventurers are the kind that should thrive. If the players all start by randomly meeting each other out of the blue in a town and they all happen to know the same obscure language, no dice. Munchkins... well.. follow your players. If they don't care that they never get a chance to shine in combats, and they want to do the roleplay anyways, I've never seen much issue with it. It would even speed up combats to have one person stronger than average. By the same token, smart opponents will make sure the strong ones end up getting hit/shot/magic'd more often than any of the other players (the trouble with playing a wizard). If the players complain that they want an equal chance at the game then either ask the offending player to tone it town, and if the offender refuses you can always cut them from the game. Never be afraid to remove one person disrupting the entire rest of the game.
green_yawgmoth 03-23-06, 01:45 AM	In the meantime, please continue to provide suggestions on how to address the following problems: 1. Munchkins, Rules-Lawyers, and Meta-Gamers 2. Slow combat: My first impression is that I need to adjust my expectations regarding this. Fewer combats, and more puzzles, role-playing, and to a lesser extent traps, appear to be the order of the day for 3.0-3.5 adventures. 3. Players who take excessive time to decide what they are doing in combat. 4. Players who micro-coordinate the actions of other characters during combat. This just annoys the fire out of me.1. Munchkin is a term meaning "person who has a different play style than I." They'll leave after getting frustrated. Rules-lawyers are there to help you, since by your own admission, you don't know the rules like the back of your hand. Be gracious. Metagamers should be simply told "your character wouldn't have any way to know that." 2. Yes you do. 3 meaningful combats is better than a dozen tiny combats that do nothing to enrich the gameplay. 3. For new players, help them along. for more experienced players, tell them to hurry up if it gets annoying. 4. Tell them before the session that any and all coordination and tactics plannin should be done before they come into a combat, and if they do start discussing tactics in combat, the enemies will get listen checks. if they're making huge speaches in combat that direct everyone to do X, then they'll lose their move action or something. The loss of a move should be reserved for orders that take near a minute to say. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
CriminalTruth 03-23-06, 02:55 AM	2. The published rules are JUST GUIDELINES. This came STRAIGHT from AD&D DMG. And I love every second of it lol Thats one of the major problems with this edition and 2ED.. While 3.5 IS the better system. 2ED was very clear on ALOT of problems with the game. when i run i accually implemented alot of your same idea's, whatever you do though DON'T BEND. good luck and i hope you are successful in your campaign
Lokathor 03-23-06, 03:02 AM	if they're making huge speaches in combat that direct everyone to do X, then they'll lose their move action or something. The loss of a move should be reserved for orders that take near a minute to say. This rule I've never understood. If you can say one thing while swinging a sword why can't you say more (assuming that you're not casting a verbal spell, using bard song, etc.)? The limit on speach per round should be based on the 6 seconds to a round, not on what else you're doing in that 6 seonds. Think of real life: Can you suddenly do less because you're yelling at people? At most it should be a simple Concentration check or something to do both at once.
Zerchai 03-23-06, 09:18 AM	This rule I've never understood. If you can say one thing while swinging a sword why can't you say more (assuming that you're not casting a verbal spell, using bard song, etc.)? The limit on speach per round should be based on the 6 seconds to a round, not on what else you're doing in that 6 seonds. Think of real life: Can you suddenly do less because you're yelling at people? At most it should be a simple Concentration check or something to do both at once. From the d20 SRD ACTIONS IN COMBAT Speak In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action. I'd say you're pretty much right - no concentration check even needed. I think the concern that the OP has, though, is that characters are taking advantage of this to help other characters tactically, such as "Wizard! Aim your fireball spell so that it bursts directly over the goblin shaman's head!" and that the player's don't get it when the baddies act on that information. Hope that helps. :)
danielinthewolvesden 03-23-06, 11:53 AM	Combats taking too long? Rule #10 is draconian, and unnessesary. It will actually slow combat more. Try this- have one of the Players be the "Initiative Counter". He gets a whiteboard and cards and puts them in Init order on the board- or just has 3X5 cards for each PC and the Monsters. (Note, the Monsters should have at most 2 Init's). His job is to tell the players who's up, and who's next (the whiteboard will show everyone who is next, and next after that, but the cards are cheaper and easier to start with) Oh, and after a couple of hits, let the Player know what AC the mooks are. Speeds things up a LOT. With rule #9, note that the enemy archers will have to make a darn good Listen check. :uh-huh: Rules lawyers are best when they remind both sides about a rule.
CalemJones 03-23-06, 12:20 PM	First off warazen I would like to thank you for this thread. I have been DMing for about 5 years and i have always ran it the same way. thanks to this thread im going to run things differently. so thanks for listening to my rant there. Rule #1 goes without saying if you play you know that rule by heart. Rule #2,4,5 are all great i have no problem with these Rule #3 is just repitition you don't really need it. Rule #6 I don't think this should be a rule Rule #7,8,9 These to are good rules Rule #10 is very confusing and needs to be rewritten Thanks Again
The Phantom Flan Flinger 03-23-06, 12:43 PM	Munchkins, Rules Lawyers and Metagamers - from what you've said about your particular group, these aren't personalities so much as habits that made sense (i.e. were rewarded) in previous campaigns. Have a frank discussion up front, before you start talking characters, about how your campaign is going to have a different focus to previous ones. Let them know that they won't have to be optimised for combat in order to survive, and that if they do they'll have trouble with the many and varied non-combat encounters that you have got planned for them. Ask them what sort of adventuring party they'd like to have; ask them what sort of person they'd enjoy roleplaying. See what comes up. Slow combat - your first impression was spot on. Only include battles that advance the plot. Make it possible to avoid combat with use of Stealth, Magic, Bluff/Intimidate etc. Award XP for non-combat solutions. Try making the real challenge of the encounter lie in e.g. getting close enough to attack, or getting the bad guy's Incredible Amulet out of his hands, not in grimly hacking down every last one of the baddies. If you must short-cut the battle, cut out the middle and not the end - have the minions scatter and flee once a certain percentage have been killed, while the BBEG remains (or perhaps escapes to fight another day). Taking too much time to decide - move the initial planning process to a separate roleplayed discussion before the party approaches the encounter (information obtained by way of scouting ahead, helpful tavern NPC, captured minion etc). That way, the combat won't be bogged down by the fact that everyone has to evaluate the situation and bicker over what to do - if they have the basics agreed in advance, it's easier to roll with the changes. I agree that if people are taking too long you should give them the option of a decision NOW, please, or they will have to delay. However I don't think you should set a rule in stone. Some classes/players/situations do take longer than others. One player telling the others exactly what their characters must do when it's their turn - this is thoughtless/selfish behaviour and you need to sort it out as DM. You don't need to make a big deal of it. "Let John decide what his character would do" should be enough of a reminder that this isn't a single-player game. As for length of "genuine" in-character instructions, allow what's reasonable. Don't be afraid to point out that a PC is facing the other way/busy fighting four orcs or that a PC has neither a grandstand view over the whole battlefield nor a pause function. If he's used his own turn to charge an ogre, he cannot at the same time have been looking over his shoulder to evaluate the rogue's situation and shout out a detailed battle plan. Again, deal with it on a case-by-case basis, not some blanket rule that won't be fair in all situations.
neobolts 03-23-06, 12:44 PM	I'm going the opposite way as all these other posts. From your rules, it sounds like you are a reasonable person who is having the fun sucked out of your games by unruly players who are unprepared, late, off-topic, and stalling during combat. I say go for it.
BW0222 03-23-06, 02:24 PM	danielinthewolvesden, >(Note, the Monsters should have at most 2 Init's). Actually, no. Roll everyone separately. It honestly doesn't save time to have everyone working on the same initiative. Why... Because it creates either easier or more difficult combats. Literally, half the bad guys can start an action and the PCs have no chance of stopping them. For example: "The orc screams 'Everyone after the cleric!'" Ten orcs then beat down the cleric and the PCs have no chance to stop it. The fighter can't move to block, the wizard can't do anything, etc. Suddenly a fairly even combat takes a half-dozen extra rounds as the PCs immediately need to rescue the cleric, drag him to safety, pour postions down throats, etc. It gets worse in certain cases. If three rogues, or three enemy spellcasters all go first -- the combat is over before it starts. The same is true for the PCs, but the monsters are expendable. As for ways to speed up combat... Announce Initiative Announce who's initiative and who is on deck. This lets others know to get prepared. Automatic Delay Someone isn't at the table on their initiative, they immediately delay. Costs little (delaying is a valid tactic) and it isn't arbitrary. Breaks If it has been some time before a break, put one immediately before the combat. This discourages folks to leave the table (and hence not pay attention to the situations) to get food, drinks, bathroom stops, etc. Declared Rolls For folks with bad math skills or who otherwise have problems with keeping track of pluses. Ask for the roll, the pluses, and the total. I.e. "Fourteen, plus six equals twenty". Don't correct the player on the pluses -- allow others to if necessary (after their intiative). Clear Up Conditional Modifiers Quickly It might be meta-gaming, but honestly let folks know the first time they run across conditional modifiers. You don't want the ranger saying "+2 if it is an animal" over-and-over or the rogue asking about sneak attack. Unless it really is a major plot-twist device, just say, "Yes or No" the first time so that they don't have to keep asking. Go over Adjustments Rules Any adjustment which affects AC, is the DMs job to keep track of. Players shouldn't be adjusting for cover, an opponent being slowed, entangled, etc. Just give your attack roll and the DM figures any adjustments which the creature has, comes up with their AC, and lets you know if you hit. No Going Back Rule If you make a mistake -- good or bad -- have a simple rule, no going back. If you forget a +1 attack or damage due to a bard song, or that your sword does an extra 1d6 fire damage, sorry... rolling back time is too time consuming. Same with the DM. If you forget a crit roll and someone didn't notice until their next initiative. Just remember next time. However, make it clear that diliberately forgetting things won't fly. If three rounds in a row someone forgets that they are -2 because they are shaken ... Don't worry about Minor Stuff If you forget a plus or a minus, or something -- it likely doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Even forgetting a roll was a threat, burn effects of 80hp creatures, etc. likely isn't that critical. Try getting folks to understand this. Cross Talk To help avoid cross talk... no talking while the declarer or DM is talking and no talking about rules from previous initiatives. You honestly can't avoid all talking -- it is a social game, jokes and stuff happen, and it's hard to be totally quiet for 15 minutes at a turn. However, if the DM can't hear what the player is saying, or the other players can't hear that the troll just cast a spell... things go bad. Try limiting the rules discussions by asking folks to note down rules questions and hold the discussion until after initative ends. During the current PCs turn fine, but once you move on to someone elses initiative, don't pull out the books and discuss what has already happened. Save it until after the combat. Clear the Table No food, drinks, etc. while combat is underway. It is awefully easy to spill stuff. Books remain on your laps. Knocking over figs leads to delays. Move Your Own Fig If you can't reach... move. No trying to direct others to move your fig. "Not that square... the one up." (My up? Your up? Errg...) Save time and move it yourself. Declare Actions by Type As a move action, I.... then as a standard action, I... Pre-roll Dice If you have a lot of attacks -- flurry, two-weapon, you have an animal companion, you are mounted, summoned creatures, etc. -- then consider allowing pre-roll your attacks and damage -- on a sheet of paper. Keep each separately. Especially at higher levels, it is better to say "AC 23, 14hp. AC 32, 21hp, AC 30 (critting AC 21) for either 18 or 34 hp." Avoid Unnecessary Delaying Tactics If there are only three goblins left, don't cast wall of fog or darkness. Don't start using non-optimal tactics (i.e. playing with them). It's one thing if the combat is in doubt or it is necessary, but otherwise adding additional rounds of initiative just adds time. If folks honestly try stuff like this... just end combat and rule that the creatures get away or the PCs slaughter them. Anti-climatic, but saves time. Don't Try to Ban/Limit Things Which Appear to Take Time A druid who summons three wolves might appear to slow the combat down -- as her turns seem to take forever with 3 extra attacks and trip attempts, etc. However, such tactics often reduce the overall length of combat. Enemies find themselves quickly overwhelmed and the combat runs much shorter. Keep the Numbers Low Try to keep the numbers of creatures in the reasonable range. About two to three times as many PCs is the rule of thumb. If you have 5 PCs, you honestly don't want to be fighting more that 10-12 other creatures. Even little snots. Baring nice area of affect spells, such combats often drag on. If necessary, use waves or running groups (a series of smaller combats without rest) to simulate larger rounds. Avoid Situations of Massive Penalties to Both Sides Darkness, fog, snow, icy conditions, both sides climbing, or swimming during the fight. Combats usually run 5-10 rounds, but this assumes that folks get some chance to use most of their abilities. When neither side can target the other, the fighters can't get into melee, everyone has miss changes, etc. combat often runs many times this. Delaying, listen checks, moving and waiting, miss chances when you do get into combat, etc., etc. That isn't to say that you can't do this some of time and that one side might not have a tactical advantage, but when both sides fight like this... combat drags on with little effect to either side. Try to Limit Anything which Makes Additional Roles Necessary Area spells with continuous effects (evards, fog, darkness, ice storms, swim checks, confusion, etc.) It's not that you never use them and the PCs might have tactics which use them to save time, but use them with NPCs sparingly. Combat Aids - Extra dice. Make sure players have two d6 if you have a great sword. Don't roll one and then the other. - Every player should have a pad of paper in front of them -- to keep track of hit points, spells, - Consider downloading spell sheets. Things like summaries of area, damage, components, casting times, etc. Consider pre-make "spells memorized per day" sheets. Folks can just tick off spells as they cast them. - Battle maps. Buy two. Predraw the likely room/combat location on one and leave it aside or under the second. Saves time in drawing it as combat starts. - Index cards, extra dice, extra battle map pens, pens, paper, etc. - Use dice instead of figs for bad guys. You can number them that way and you can reference them that way. Educate Players and Yourself Do take the time to go over the rules. In you are new, run through a few 'mock' battles with an experienced DM and/or your players. This way you can talk and discuss without 'lossing' from the game. Simple move attack and damage goes much quicker if everyone knows the basic rules. Come Up with Standard Descriptions Again meta-gaming, but when describing actions, you often want it clear what happened in game terms. Everyone should know that "the wound seemed to partially heal itself" means DR or that a "He raises is axe and appears to be holding back" means that he is readying an action. Determine if you call initiative by their character name or player name. Try being consistant. Computers, Cell Phone, Normal Phones, etc. Are turned off. Let your normal phone ring onto the answering machine. Don't start combat before the pizza arrives! Don't Look at the Clock It honestly doesn't matter if a combat takes 10 minutes or three hours, provided folks are having fun. Don't get too worked up that they didn't get to your plot, or they only got through two combats when you have a third planned. They'll get to it next week. Often longer combats are more rewarding for folks to finally finish off. Unless players are honestly getting bored in combat, you shouldn't. It is part of the game. It folks are really interested in your plot and in roleplaying, they'll naturally want to get through combats more quickly and tend to find their own ways of shortening them... i.e. the start playing smart and using good tactics.
green_yawgmoth 03-23-06, 06:33 PM	This rule I've never understood. If you can say one thing while swinging a sword why can't you say more (assuming that you're not casting a verbal spell, using bard song, etc.)? The limit on speach per round should be based on the 6 seconds to a round, not on what else you're doing in that 6 seonds. Think of real life: Can you suddenly do less because you're yelling at people? At most it should be a simple Concentration check or something to do both at once.As Zerchai posted, you can say all you want; but anything over a few sentences will cost you. E.g.: Free action speech: "It's weak to fire!" OR "Don't look at its eyes!" OR "Some dispel magic him, he's glowing!" Not free action speech: "Okay, jimbo, sneak up behind it while I beat him with my club. Skippy, cast something targeted, since we'll be in melee with it. Next turn, summon something or cast a hold spell, since it'll probably summon reinforcements as well. Blaa blaa blaa bling bling bling blaa...." See the difference? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
BW0222 03-23-06, 09:44 PM	green_yawgmoth, Free action speech: "It's weak to fire!" OR "Don't look at its eyes!" OR "Some dispel magic him, he's glowing!" Not free action speech: "Okay, jimbo, sneak up behind it while I beat him with my club. Skippy, cast something targeted, since we'll be in melee with it. Next turn, summon something or cast a hold spell, since it'll probably summon reinforcements as well. Blaa blaa blaa bling bling bling blaa...." See the difference? It is easy to see the difference when you write it down and stay in-character, but at the table it isn't so easy. First, people do talk out of character. How about: Player 1: I'm not sure what to do? I could hit him? Player 2: If you move here (point), you could set up a flank for Bill next turn, that's a +2 on hit attacks and he gets sneak attack. Player 3: Or you could heal Sam. Player 1: Humm, how much are you down, Sam? Player 4: I'm fine. Player 1: Well, then maybe I could cast protection from evil on Bill? Player 3: No, I already have a +2 deflection bonus. Player 1: Ok, I double move here, so Bill can flank. Now, who is supposed to rule what was said in and out of character? What knowledge was obvious to the character and what had to be called out in character. Could PC#1 see that PC#4 wasn't badly injured or did he have to say something and wait for an answer? Did PC#1 remember that PC#3 had bracers or did he have to call out and wait for an answer? If you try banning out of character talk, then you effectively ban folks from looking up rules, giving advice, correcting folks trying something wrong. You are in effect saying, you can't check or confirm your actions (with others) prior to declaring them. So... either you are going to get a lot of "take backs" (equally time consuming) or you are going to penalize players who don't take their time or have more complex spells/skills/abilities. This only encourages folks to take insane amounts of time deciding and/or creates hard feelings if the player gets it wrong. Second, because you can now talk outside of your initiative... the six second and free action rule is almost impossible to rule on. Someone can talk 60 times -- five times for everyone elses (including the monster's) initative. You can't honestly track this or set limits on it. And again, you'd have to rule ever time someone said something where it is in-character or out-of-character. In 3.0, the rules said that a character could only speak on their intiative. I actually liked the rule since if you asked a question, you had to wait until their initiative for an answer and back until your intiative to act on that information, but it was hard to rule at the table at higher levels or with less experienced players -- without penalizing them for not knowing the rules. However, it is interesting that in 3.5 they removed the limit and allow folks to talk on anyone's initiative. I don't think this is because it works better, but just because it reflect the reality that you honestly can't rule between in and out of character nor can you expect folks to sit totally quiet for 15 minutes at a time during a social game.
green_yawgmoth 03-24-06, 07:26 AM	Honestly, if I had one player telling everyone what to do in the middle of combat, or what they can do and why they should do it, I'd just tell the offending player toknock it off for the sake of realism. In your example, I'd ban or heavily restrict OoC talking during combat. If the player simply said "Well, you can either try to hit ____, or cast a spell of some kind", then that would be fine. Or just start asking for int checks from the player getting the OoC meta-knowledge. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
BW0222 03-24-06, 12:55 PM	green_yawgmoth, >Honestly, if I had one player telling everyone what to do in the middle of >combat, or what they can do and why they should do it, I'd just tell the >offending player toknock it off for the sake of realism. First, no one is telling anyone what to do. The player is asking for help and one is giving a recommendation, while the other two are answering questions. So... a) You can't help another player? Inexperienced players? Remind them that someone is dying, that the red line is a wall of fire, or the fig in the corner has a longspear out, that bless is still in effect, etc.? b) You can't answer questions he might have? (Do you have a weapon out? Are you badly injured?) c) You couldn't tell him that that course of action wasn't possible? (You can't move that far, you can't double move and attack, you don't threaten with a wand in your hand, etc.) d) You can't tell him that a course of action isn't necessary? (You already cast bless, I already have a magical weapon, etc.) e) You couldn't look up spells/rules for him, etc.? Second, all talk during combat is out-of-character. You can't keep it in character, because you are running a simulation and you are describing rules and actions. You have to describe actions in terms of the simulation and you have to ensure that actions obey the rules of the simulation. Third, who decides what is out-of-character? Presumably, all of the above could have been done (or explained to be done) in character. Try: PC 1: "Anyone need help?" PC 2: [Points behind the ogre.] "Help Gallan!" PC 3: "Zord's hurt." PC 1: I look at Zord DM: (After secretly talking to player 4). He doesn't look badly hurt. PC 1: Does Grunt have some magical protection up? DM: Your character would remember that he received a +2 ring last session. Remember you were joking about him getting married when the nymph gave it to the party. PC 1: Right. I move where Sinari pointed. Now... in-character, that is 8 words, a point, and look exchanged. All free actions and all well under six seconds. However, even that exchange consisted of out-of-character talk. You simply can't avoid it, Anything not actually said is out-of-character. Now, it might be nice if everyone said it the second way ... although it is less percise than the first, since the DM doesn't know that the player is double-moving and might have to ask. Again, at some point you need to describe actions in terms of the simulation. However, folks often don't describe things in those terms. You honestly start with the rules and end with the rules. You form an action (allowed under the rules), you declare it, and the DM executes it. Forth, trying to phrase everything in-character slows the game down. You don't eliminate the "out-of-character" stuff, you just force people to spent hours trying to phrase everything in character. Followed by your rulings if it was good enough. It is also painful, because you know the character would instinctively phrase stuff and perform actions 'in-character' while the poor player struggles. >In your example, I'd ban or heavily restrict OoC talking during combat. How? Penalize folks? Make them loose their initative, stand in a corner, no pizza? Sorry, I honestly don't see how such things can work. As I pointed out, Wizards even dropped the 'only talking on your initiative' thing -- most likely not because it wasn't a good thing, but it was an unworkable thing. All talk in combat is out-of-character. It is necessary. What's the radius of a fireball? How many orcs do I see? How far away is the troll? Does Bill's character have a weapon? Does the goblin have cover? You can't ban it. Folks need to describe actions in terms of the rules. >If the player simply said "Well, you can either try to hit ____, or cast a spell >of some kind", then that would be fine. Or just start asking for int checks >from the player getting the OoC meta-knowledge. 99% of stuff could (given enough time and brain power) be converted into in-character talk and actions. It isn't OoC or meta-gaming that one player knows that another received a powerful ring only two days ago, that another player is not badly injured, that spells they spent years studying don't stack with the ring, etc. And the int checks take up even more time. Besides the role itself taking time, you then start debates about what a character would know, and finally, other than taking control of his character you have no ability to force any results of the roll. In my example, if you did make the player make an Int check for whether Bill's PC has a magical ring (with a deflection bonus), what are you going to do if he fails it? The player never declared that he was casts protection from evil. What if Bill blurts it out, you make the player roll, his character doesn't remember, but he decided not to cast the spell on Bill's PC anyway? Now he can argue that he knew before Bill blurted it out and needed time to remember, that he was just talking things out loud anyway, or that he just figured that flanking was a better option anyway. Other than calling the guy a lair and presumably forcing his character to do something he didn't actually say he did (all creating bad feelings), you honestly can't know (or certainly prove) that he would have cast the spell on Bill even if Bill's character didn't have a deflection bonus. And of course it is arbitrary. You force a character to make a roll and take an action for something that the player forgets? Players with bad memories, who don't study each others character sheets, whose characters have low ints, are new, or have complex spells/feats/actions, all get penalized? And again, who gets penalized? So you force the PC to waste a spell and the combat drags on a few more rounds -- or the PCs get more badly hurt. IMO, talking helps folks come up with better decisions. This speeds combat up by ending it faster. Forcing players to justify character knowlege only forces them to thing longer and harder to "roll play" the discussion at the table. In most cases, if you give them enough time, they'll do it, so there is little point in making folks justify the 'decision making' process of their characters vs. their decision making process.
Sadrx 03-24-06, 05:14 PM	I heavily agree with BWO222. OoC chat needs to happen, and the characters will end up doing better in combat because of it, but it is more realistic (especially at high levels) that the veteran PCs should be combat effective. The next problem that crops up when you allow OoC chat in combat, however, is whether you allow your players to coordinate strategies in the middle of a fight or not. A character of mine once decided OoC with another character that they would delay their actions to act simultaneously such that they could both receive the bonus for flanking and charging on other first attack. His character was about 40 feet away from mine, and the two characters made a triangle with their target before they charged in to flank. To justify it, both of our characters were melee combat veterans who had fought in the same war, so our characters probably used expert hand signals between them that allowed such coordination. Could that have been allowed if it were not realistic, though? Does the DM have to draw a line somewhere about what can be said and what cannot? When I DM, I usually play with the military strategist type of players. They don't always play military strategist style characters, but they get the most fun out of the tactical parts of the game when they can strategize. Since that was the case, I allowed any amount of OoC conversation during combat, allowing the characters to almost act as if they had a "hive-mind" with the rest of their party. Now my players did want some limitations on that. With distance or physical obstacles between their characters, the players stopped themselves from coordinating how their characters acted. However, if there were no special circumstances, and the party was fighting together in your standard encounter, they coordinated everything. Melee fighters knew to get the out of there when it was time for a fire ball, and distracted characters still knew when their weak, ranged companions were getting engaged behind them. As long as it was mildly realistic for the characters to have know each other was about to do something or to have been able to see something over their shoulders, they reacted together as if they had. This comes across a lot like meta-gaming, and in a way, it was, but these same military strategist players were also some of my best in character roleplayers. We just all knew what they liked in the game, and played to suit it. After many games with them, I've gotten to like my players using strategies so much, I tend to allow my other groups of players to do the same coordinating during combat. I justify it by saying that I want the PCs to be heroic, and no matter how stupid a character is, heroes tend to succeed. It might be their innate cleverness or their dumb luck, but I use the players taking all the time they want during combat, discussing their plans, as the way to represent another inherit advantage that PCs have over NPCs. Some of you may strongly disagree with this style of play, and of course that's fine, but don't overlook how often it happens in almost every game. The most common example is that characters know just how long they have before dieing when they get knocked to the negatives (not to mention their exact hit point totals when standing). Some players may do their best to make their characters act as if they don't know Krug is only at -1 and not on the brink at -9, but don't clerics just seem to know how long they have before they must heal their fallen companion in battle? Even when a character was killed in a single hit, knocked to -10, no DM I've met has kept that information secret from the players, and by extension, I've never heard of a cleric throwing a stabilizing cure minor wounds onto a dead companion because no one could tell whether that character had bit the dust yet or not.
green_yawgmoth 03-24-06, 05:43 PM	This will be my last post in this thread, since it feels like I'm talking to a damn brick wall. Here's the boiled down, as succinct as I can make it version: IF the players are new, I would allow a little leeway in OoC chatter. BUT when the players all have the same knowledge of the rules, THEN I would tell them that they have to know their own character sheet and pay attention in game. IF they don't pay attention, they will be asking questions like "what should I do?" IF they pay attention in game, they will know that grozoth the magnificent is standing open and ready to be flanked, and joe-bob the barbarian is bleeding profusely. IF they have some kind of basic strategy, they won't NEED to ask for help and won't HAVE to be told that flanking is possible, or a good thing. IF they fail to pay attention, that player will just have to go on what I tell him he sees WHEN he asks what he can do. Capice? Good. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Lokathor 03-24-06, 08:04 PM	Free action speech: "It's weak to fire!" OR "Don't look at its eyes!" OR "Some dispel magic him, he's glowing!" Not free action speech: "Okay, jimbo, sneak up behind it while I beat him with my club. Skippy, cast something targeted, since we'll be in melee with it. Next turn, summon something or cast a hold spell, since it'll probably summon reinforcements as well. Blaa blaa blaa bling bling bling blaa...." See the difference? I do, my whole point is that it doesn't matter how much of an action you spend on it, the time limit is 6 seconds to a round. You can spend a full around action while 3.0 hasted for all I care, you still can't cram the Gettysburg Address into 1 round. The time limit shouldn't be based on actions spent because the 6 second limit is always the one that's going to be more important. You should NEVER be allowed to recite example number two because it wouldn't fit into the time your character would have to talk, regardless of if they're doing other things at the same time or not.
warazen 03-27-06, 08:33 AM	4. Players who micro-coordinate the actions of other characters during combat. This just annoys the fire out of me. Free action speech: "It's weak to fire!" OR "Don't look at its eyes!" OR "Some dispel magic him, he's glowing!" Not free action speech: "Okay, jimbo, sneak up behind it while I beat him with my club. Skippy, cast something targeted, since we'll be in melee with it. Next turn, summon something or cast a hold spell, since it'll probably summon reinforcements as well. Blaa blaa blaa bling bling bling blaa...." See the difference? First, people do talk out of character. How about: Player 1: I'm not sure what to do? I could hit him? Player 2: If you move here (point), you could set up a flank for Bill next turn, that's a +2 on hit attacks and he gets sneak attack. Player 3: Or you could heal Sam. Player 1: Humm, how much are you down, Sam? Player 4: I'm fine. Player 1: Well, then maybe I could cast protection from evil on Bill? Player 3: No, I already have a +2 deflection bonus. Player 1: Ok, I double move here, so Bill can flank. Welcome to my world. The above is exactly what I'm pointing out. Our group often has situations where players are micro-coordinating the actions of other players. My point is that it's not terribly realistic (isn't realism what 3.x combat is all about?) for a PC to give lengthy detailed attack instructions, as if he were a football play coordinator -- especially when that PC is locked in hand-to-hand combat with a monster, or is concentrating on casting a spell. As was pointed out in a previous post, it's not as if the PCs have an arial view of the battlefield where they can see all of the action from a perfect perspective. Probably the best way to handle this is to discuss it with the group beforehand. Now excessive planning I can deal with. Pre-combat planning discussions with our group are much like the Leeroy Jenkins World of Warcraft video. The group spends lots of time planning, then when it comes time to fight, 80% of the plan is not executed. Thanks again everyone.
Thelandrach 03-27-06, 11:14 AM	I'm late to the game here, but I just wanted to add a few points: a. I read the original post as saying that the GM had a bunch of experienced players (not new players) who worked well together and generally understood the game system but hadn't done their homework so that they could play their characters quickly without constant book reference, and a little homework and prep time would speed things up immensely. I agree. I plan to impose the limit on book use during combat in my next campaign, so everybody has copies of the specific stuff their character needs right in front of them. b. I don't know that he'd be able to get a decent fight down to a half hour, but with the rules as stated, the above group of knowledgeable players would tear a dungeon up... big time... c. The 15-second rule crocks a few things: (a) People who play characters they don't understand (yet). Two-weapon fighters, people who've never played spellcasters before, shifters, summoners, or other odd things. Even with prep time it can take them time to figure out what they can do. (b) People who are bad at basic math. Two-weapon fighters, again. (c) People who buff other characters. "Okay, everybody's got a +2 Enhancement to Hit, AC, Saves, and Skill checks." "Okay, everybody gets +1 Enhancement bonus to Hit, Damage, and Ability checks." "Okay, everybody gets a +2 Luck bonus on Damage and AC." What's your AC Bonus? You have fifteen seconds to answer. See (b) above. (d) People who do major, battle-changing things with little or no warning. "Stinking cloud? Where'd that come from? I was gonna... aw, dang." A huge help: Cut out some scale templates for 10', 20', 30', and 40' foot radius area effects. Also cones. Drop them onto the battlemat so you can tell instantly whether or not somebody's in the area. A friend of mine bought some made out of wire frames, but you could also bend coat hangers for the same effect. Another huge help: Have everybody put their name and init modifier on a 3x5 card. When you call for initiatives, have them roll, modify, and write the init down on the card, then they hand them all in. Or, even better, do this ahead ahead of time, having them roll a dozen initiatives, and use a dozen cards per character, so you just grab the next stack of pre-sorted cards when you get to the next fight. If you're willing to pay $30 for another book, you should be willing to pay $5 for a stack of index cards.
BW0222 03-27-06, 06:46 PM	Folks, I think there is a major problem with folks not realizing that D&D combat is a simulation. Consider playing a football video game. It is a simulation of football. You aren't actually playing football. No matter how realistic you make the video game -- faces, crouds cheering, players, end-zone dances, passes, routes, etc., etc. However in the end, it is one's ability to operate the simulation press buttons, move joysticks, and understand how the simulation works which determines who wins and not one's knowledge of football. Anyone who plays football knows that in the end, the game isn't like the simulation. It hurts, you have emotions (joy, fear, rage, anger, etc.), you get muddy, it's cold, etc. You don't see a cursor which magically follows the ball. You aren't 20' above the play with a camera. etc., etc. Think of chess. It is a simulation of moving armies around. Generals don't win chess games, and your average chess player wouldn't have a clue how to run a 12th-century battle. Now it is a poor simulation of moving armies around, but that doesn't matter. It is interesting enough to play the simulation even though it really bears little resemblence to a real battle. The same is true with "Battleship", risk, monopoly, etc. They are terrible simulations. But they are fun to play as is. Why do people think that D&D is any different? It is designed so that the simulation is fun to play - not necessarily that which it is simulating. Anyone who has been in an even fight sport -- boxing, judo, karate, kendo, fencing, etc. knows that any simulation of that sport wouldn't be like the actual sport. It would never feel the same way. The rules would never capture the moves, the reflex nature of the sport, the pain, and the rush of chemicals through your brain. A kendo or fencing match is typically over in a few seconds. Others might last a minute or two. I know full well that putting two monks 10' apart and asking for initiative is not the same as a karate match. However, it's still fun. I don't take it too seriously, nor do I assume that by artifically introducing aspects of what it is trying to simulate would make it any more fun or realistic. i.e. punch the player in the mouth everytime he rolls a 1, making him run around the block until he is tired, rushing all his decisions, or have his team mates screaming in the stands for added realism. That wouldn't make playing the simulation anymore fun, despite being closer to the simulation. So... folks need remember that we are playing the simulation and that is what is fun. Saying that talking, planning, taking minutes to decide what you are going to do, using rules knowledge to gain an advantage, etc. isn't realistic is stating the obviously. Decisions were made in the simulation to ensure that run won out over realism. If you want realism, go to a dojo and take some kendo classes. Personally, being attacked, beat-up, having balls of fire tossed at you, etc. isn't as much fun as rolling dice while eating potato chips with friends.