Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Unreal32 06-12-05, 07:24 PM	As it stands I'm an old school 1st/2nd Ed DM who after several years has thrown himself back into D&D, (For those of you who caught my first thread thanks for your input, advice and direction. Much appreciation :) ), trouble is I've now found myself in a situation where my party is divided where combat is concerned, (not in a detrimental sense too the game 'as yet' you understand). In just 3 sessions in I've invertedly split my group into those who like my 'wing it, sod the rules, in your face, whirl wind of steel descriptive combat' to 'in your face, whirlwind of steel, descriptive yet tight, precise, to the letter combat rule(s)'. We have agreed to meet half way and combine both styles of play when in combat but how do I achieve this without upsetting either party? Now I know what you're thinking; as DM I simply combine both and adapt, trouble is I've found myself either a) Being to flamboyant in combat situations, getting carried away with the heat of the moment, (this is combat and combat has, in my opinion, to be fast, furious and exciting!), unfortunately this has sometimes led to my disregard of the 'rules' which b) leads to arguments about who's where, who' s up for attacks of opportunity, who can call a full round, who can/cant use a tatical 5-step-movement etc and so on. They all, by their own words & quite flattering to me as DM, (finding himself back behind the screen after such a long time,) have enjoyed the settings and combat situations they find themselfs in but I need to find some common ground here so the game runs smoothly going foward. Once again guys/gals I ask for your sound advice so as I can defuse this situation before it turns what has become a very good game enjoyed by all into a dull, unimaginative slice of roleplay simply because we can't agree on a common formula in combat situations. Cheers! Unreal32. Est Sularus oth Mithas!
Unreal32 06-12-05, 07:39 PM	Bump!
LordHell 06-12-05, 07:56 PM	I too have found 3rd edition combat much more like a tactical wargame rather than a roleplaying game. AD&D due to its vaguer mechanics allowed the DM a bit more freedom to embellish things, but now in 3rd edition, where placing is so important (attacks of opportunity etc), there is less leeway for this. Im not nessesarily sure this is a good thing, and while I enjoy the 3rd edition mechanics - I don't nessesarily find combat to go faster than AD&D combat, due to bogging down because of a broader range of tactical combat rules to death with.
Lord Schpungus 06-12-05, 07:58 PM	Don't bump after 15 minutes; this is a message board, not an IM window. Sorry I had to do that, but someone would have. Secondly, I'm always in favor of intense, brutal, descriptive, as accurate as possible to the rules combat. The combat rules are abstractions, by all means, fill in the gaps with description, however, they are there to keep everyone from getting away with more than they are able to. Fast and loose with the rules either breaks down into "I kill it, it dies" nonsense, or "The monster eats you, no save, you die" nonsense.
Unreal32 06-12-05, 08:37 PM	Firstly-Sorry about he bump, accident, I though it had dropped of the page;realized after I'd bumped it my thread had just passed me by-god knows why. (Slightly embarressed) Second-So solutions to my dilema? Whats the best plan of action? Lordhell, like me you're a fan of 'bend the rules to fit the situation, who cares as long as combat is awesome'. Lord Schpungus-Likewise but, from your comments, a stickler for the rules. Both viewpoints I agree with but at the same I find both avenues to cause problems. On the one hand you have fast, furious yet unpredictably messy combat situations and the other, flowing, tatically precise yet cumbersome situations bogdown by rules and regulations. D&D combat, for me personally, has allways been about free flow and yet I've allways found in the past this to cause major headaches and yet, now that they have fine tuned it, my headaches have not gone away as it, as lordhell says, has become more like a tatical wargame, much like you would see from Gamesworkshop. I know what I have to do but how do I achieve that 'karma' for lack of a better word, withot detriment to my players game?
LordHell 06-12-05, 08:52 PM	In my game, players are generally forgiving as long as it 'feels' right. Do you use minis? As soon as you throw miniatures into the mix, the game basically bogs down into a tactical wargame where players so "I go here and attack this" - or even don't say anything at all and just move their mini. Minis are good, but they're also bad. It's up to you what you want out of your game. Really I think you've answered your own question though, you need a comprimise. Sticking as closely as possible to RAW while still having some interesting combat. The reasons some of your players want to you stick to RAW is they want a fair game where the world is believable. D&D 3rd edition has way more emphisis on mechanics - for better or for worse - than AD&D. It takes a bit of getting used to.
weasel fierce 06-13-05, 01:34 AM	The best attempt is to hit what most players want. If some people really like the tactical element, give them some options for that. Maybe have them lead commoners in battle, or plan out a raid in detail. Then have some swift, furious RP fights as well, for the players who prefer that. Mix it up a bit.
ATynam 06-13-05, 02:12 AM	A DM has a vast amount of information to process during a game. Usually this gets most intensive during the combat. Think about it, the players chaff at the bit to get their turn to give their single character actions. The DM on the other hand has to give the actions for the full array of the opposition as well as knowing about the special abilities and such. Personally I find the battlemat and minatures is a great way to clarify certain situations and thus take some of the workload off the DM's shoulders. It is also essential to avoid certain disputes with players. The disputes I am on about usually involve whether a character is able to charge, avoid an attack of opportunity and such. However, there are alternatives for a DM who dislikes the battlemat and figures option. On several occaisions when I have been pressed for space I have resorted to using a corkboard with 1/2 cm grid paper on it. Using pins to represent the characters and monsters. The group don't get to see this set up, but it was ideal for keeping track of locations and such. It also served as a good way for jogging my memory. One other thing I have often experimented with when wanting more vivid and frightening combats is to take the HP's away from the players. That is I have a sheet of paper and I as the DM keep track of the player characters damage. Due to the abstract nature of HP's it means I can give more colourful descriptions of the damage without the player being distracted by the task of doing math on their character sheet. Your mileage may vary.
prettyripples 06-13-05, 05:31 AM	I would also suggest using some kind of Mini. Why? Because it makes it a lot easier to get the rules bit sorted. However, actually using minis often doesn't help; as somebody noted, it just gets everyone thinking about tactical wargames. My advice: give each player a cork, an eraser, some random object of appropriate size that will stay still when you place it on the table. Don't even bother with a grid, just get a flat surface and use all these things to work out how close people are to each other. Often, with 'abstract' items like this, the players will still be willing to go along with your flowing style (dunno why having random objects helps - must be psychological), whilst making rulings like charges and proximity far easier. Note also that I said "without a grid". This means that your characters still need to mention, "I close up until I'm just in range" or whatever while they move their character. No measurements should be taken from this board: it simply shows (1) whether there is a clear path / line of sight between two figures, and (2) whether two characters are standing next to each other.
Scifione 06-13-05, 07:05 AM	Fast and loose with the rules either breaks down into "I kill it, it dies" nonsense, or "The monster eats you, no save, you die" nonsense. This is true. This has the potential to turn into the worst hack and slash scenario. The best you can do is know the rules as best you can, and try not to make anyone feel gypped or shafted. The best way to do this is to apply the rules equally. Like real life D&D rewards good strategy. That is the way it is suppose to be. Adventures that fight stupidly have would have a shorter life expectancy. Despite a well drawn up combat system, players will come up with insane ideas. Sometimes colorful deceptions and wild actions deserve what they should get as opposed to a reward. “I dare the dragon to swallow me. While I am in his throat I lodge myself using my daggers.” Response: you become a flaming lugie next time he breaths. No save as if he was in his mouth. That is fair. Just not what he wanted. In one way or another, you have to convey position on the battle field. The easiest way to show position is a battle matt. You could us verbal description to paint a picture for the PCs. This gives more meaning to sneak attack, attacks of opportunity, and combat feats. If a PC is sneak attacked, the PC is going to want to know why.
Aladdar 06-13-05, 09:19 AM	I think it's possible to give a grandiose fun description of what's going on in the combat and also stick to the rules. If you use the minis, make the players roleplay their movements and intentions while also moving the mini. As the dm you make the rolls, write down the results and then roleplay them back. Something like Rolls: Bob, attack roll 6 (misses) Sam, move action to flanking mob (aoo) mob attack roll 10 hits dmg 2 Sam, attack roll + flanking bonus hits dmg 9 mob dies. Then roleplay it back to your players like this. Bob quickly darts towards the goblin, dancing around and over the strewn rubble and pits in the floor. He swings his greatsword towards the goblin but the goblin deftly ducks beneath the blow. Sam, sensing a chance to gang up on the goblin runs behind the viscious goblin but stumbles as he passes him by. As he regains his balance the goblin whacks him across his back with its cudgell, his armor absorbs most of the blow but leaves a growing bruise across Sams back. Furious, Sam dives his rapier deep within the goblins belly through a gap in its weak armor and skewers the goblin. With a gasp it falls to the floor dead. then move on to the next portion of the combat, making rolls and then roleplaying it in whatever fashion you want. Feel free to embellish character movements, especially on high rolls. Such as, "the monk jumps over the head of the goblin in a dashing flip and smashes his feet into the back of the disoriented kobold, breaking bones and driving the last breath from his lungs." instead of "the monk moves to the other side of the kobold and hits him for 7 damage." I'm not the greatest descriptionist, but you get the gist.
High Octane 06-13-05, 10:13 AM	I go a step further and have rules stating where the blow lands depending on how you roll. For those wondering, it goes like this: If you don't hit Touch AC- AIRBALL! If you hit touch AC, but dont hit touch AC+shield- Deflected by shield If you hit Touch+shield but not with armor- Deflected by armor. If you hit touch AC+shield+armor but not with natural armor- Bounces off hide. If you hit, depending on how much percentage of their hitpoints you take away, thats how hard you hurt them. So 2 hitpoints to a first level wizard is a stab to the shoulder, but 2 hitpoints to a 5th level barbarian is a cut on the knuckles.
gamefiend 06-13-05, 10:36 AM	Here are some thoughts (I've played over the years with minis and not minis, and prefer descriptions). Overall, I think that the 3.5 rules can work very well with descriptive flow of combat stuff. As DM all you really need to do is keep basic distances and positions of characters who are away from the players, and track the players positions to each other. Since you're handling combat descriptively, you are surely doing this already. -look over the mini rules (I'd suggest even running some mock combats by yourself on a gridmap) and see how various actions translate into "real" combat. Minis are precise, but their rules are attempting to represent actual combat. Once you know what the various rules mean to you descriptively, it's easier to work with. -It's important for PCs to state their intentions when fighting. If a character is moving to engage an enemy fighting another PC, encourage them to state that they want to flank, or aid, or whatever. If a character want to take a five-foot step to get breathing room for a spell, they should announce that. -attacks of opportunity are pretty easy descriptively. example1: A player is fighting two goblins. He kills one, and the other flees. The PC gets an AoO on the fleeing goblin. example2: a PC is wielding a halberd. A wolf runs in at him, but before it gets an attack, the PC gets an AoO. -tell the players to ask you for clarity. It may sometimes bog things down, but it's worth it in the long run. There's nothing worse (from a PC's POV) than having done something that is ineffective not because you failed a roll, or made a crappy plan, but because you didn't fully understand what's going on. -announce positions. This is the other side of the coin. I like to announce roughly where people are after a PC makes a kill, so they can look to their next target. Updating PCs on the positions of the combatants also helps reduce players having to ask you themselves. -adjudicate generously. Since you're not using precise methods of character placement, it's best IMO to generally side with the players on this. Not sure if that one NPC is close enough to be within reach of a five foot step + attack? I would say give it to the PC. You're the DM, after all, and there are a million different ways you can fry the PCs if that's what you really need to do. those are some random thoughts. FYI, I run a 3.5 campaign (homebrew) on IRC with no battlemaps, and no great way to sketch on paper to illustrate to players. It's a blast. Hope this wasn't too rambling.
Sildatorak 06-13-05, 11:36 AM	You might want to play with a "screw the grid" approach. It will take some work to get used to, but it allows for the precision required by the 3e rules without the need to count squares. Get a roll of butcher paper and draw terrain that is appropriate. Either do it on the fly and get the general intention or draw it up beforehand if precision is important. If you're doing rooms, a pair of rulers will be of immense help. Use whatever you want to indicate locations (poker chips with labels on them work fairly well, or pieces of poster board cut to appropriate sizes for larger things). Also cut out templates for common spells (15' cone, 10', 15', 20' blast, etc.) you can probably stick this responsibility on casters' players. A pocket tapemeasure works great for line spells (and ranged weapon distances). Get some lengths of string for measuring movement...20', 30', and 40' are the most common. Once all of this is set up, you can play a lot faster but still with precision. Have people lay down string on the path they want to travel, which allows for a quick visual check for AoO's or terrain effects, placing spell effects is a matter of pulling out the right template and seeing where to place it, and the whole time you know where people are. Depsite actually coming closer to a tactical wargame in form, this will flow faster because people don't have to worry about counting things precisely (it has been precisely premeasured), and you can focus more on description.
Necron99 06-13-05, 12:39 PM	Last year I was in a similar situation to yours. I was returning to D&D after a seven-year hiatus (work, kids, wife, blah), and while I loved the new 3.5 rules, the miniatures thing left me and the other players (also newly returning) kinda cold. The thing that brought us to the point of actually trying it was the realization that unless you are going to use the Minis, about 1/3 of the feats in the published material are useless, especially for melee types. So, we broke out some poker chips and an easel pad to try them out. It was definitely a bit rocky at first. A simple combat devolved into all of the players having their heads buried in one book or another while the "action" stalled into something more resembling a chess game. HOWEVER, we stuck with it, and now those combats go really quickly, especially if you only run the recommended 4 characters. Now the action goes swiftly, and those combat feats and check modifiers matter - IMO the tactical aspect of 3.5 really puts the players in the middle of the action, and saves time (maybe) arguing about dumb stuff like whether the theif steped back after unlocking the door or where the mage is. We like it. One of the smartest things I did was make up a cheat sheet that lays down the basic procedures for special attacks like trip, grapple and charge. This allows me to just glance over and reel off the modifiers rather than pawing through the books. Another thing I did was to make my own DM screen in Word, with all of the tables I use most often right there in front of me.
Unreal32 06-13-05, 06:55 PM	Thanks for the advice and help guys, we, [my players and I], have decided to start using mini's and grids having all agreed that with a little bit of perserverance we can bring together the bedlam of action packed combat whilst also bringing order and fairness to each given situation, introducing a handful of the new, more complex rules each session and then deciding from there what goes and what stays untill we find a formula that works for everyone. Once again thanks, I'll keep you updated as to how it's going. One cool thing has come of all this; one night a week, (other than gaming night), myself and a couple of other players who have some painting & modeling skills, have agreed to spend an evening painting figures, building dungeon blocks etc. for the game. Superb! :) Once again, cheers.
Aurum 06-13-05, 07:28 PM	Ruleswise: The old houserule of 'when the rules are in doubt, take the action that is the LEAST likely to kill the PC outright, and look up the rule later' is a good way to keep stuff moving. I love having the SRD on a laptop, so I can do quick searches for rules with a shorter pile of books on the table. If that's not possible, print out the SRD sections on combat and throw them into a binder. Highlight any sections that your group ever gets confused on. As for the minis: Minis are great tools for picturing spatial relationships, which is the hardest thing for a DM to portray verbally. If you need minis, check out the DnD Miniatures game. You can often find custom miniatures on Ebay or out of the box for a _lot_ less then you would pay for a metal figurine, no painting required. Plus, the mini ruleset is _great_ for running large encounters and 'godzilla' battles, such as letting each PC lead a small group of NPCs while the DM runs some titanic monster. A way to counter the 'boardgamer' feel of minis is speed. Don't let the players weigh every possible option, this ain't chess. I like the ten-second rule: players have ten seconds after the start of their turn to take or declare their action. I typically encourage people to be descriptive in their actions as they place their mini. If you think your party is smart enough, have a restriction that says no one else talks during your PCs action. This speeds up mini gaming considerably.
JohnSnow 06-13-05, 10:59 PM	S'funny, I've been having a discussion on this very subject on the Enworld boards. Specifically, my DM and I (and several other people) have been debating the merits of rules-light systems (like Castles and Crusades with the rules-heavier D&D. I'm a firm believer in the superiority of the D&D rules. While I can understand the preference for fast, descriptive resolution, I prefer accurate fast and descriptive resolution. I'm also a firm believer that the game is made better by all the options available to PCs. For instance, I think it's cool that one 2nd level fighter can be very different from another 2nd-level fighter in terms of his actual capabilities, not just his "roleplaying." Everyone has to find the balance (rules vs. simplicity) that works for them though. Just my two cents.
weasel fierce 06-13-05, 11:31 PM	If I want options, I'll play GURPS ;) Everyone wants something separate. In todays game market, you can usually find it, if you look around a bit too, which is good :)