Quote from: daniel_ream;908267Someone playing in an "immersive" style isn't going to necessarily do the things a Trek character would because they're nonsensical.

We found it helpful to lampshade some of those things, e.g. "You know if I were the captain or the leader of the away team that was beaming over to an alien ship I'd have them all wear some kind of environmental suit just in case. But on TV they seldom do that because it makes it hard to see the actors faces and it would nullify the potential for drama when the air, heat, or light disappear on the alien ship. So we'll just beam on over and tell the Science or Tactical officer to monitor the away team and the Transporter room to (a) keep a lock on them and/or (b) be ready to beam them back the minute they seem to be in trouble."

Treating most things like the TV show short-circuited a lot of potentially annoying debates and allowed the GM to set the situation for whatever that night's [strike]episode[/strike] adventure was supposed to be about.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;908152Peaceful herbivore might make very dangerous enemy too.

There are some very dangerous herbivorous species.  I wouldn't call a hippopotamus peaceful though.  They're territorial and very aggressive.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;908249The 'Tactics' that the DM allows is part of this agreement, because the base rules assumes that you ARE using tactics to keep the magic user safe, that roll to hit back in the AD&D's 1 minute round was a lucky shot, an opening, or otherwise a chance to hit, despite the player's best plans.  But if the DM allows you to prevent the monsters from attacking the wizard, they're agreeing to allow you to keep the wizards/casters safe above and beyond what the system allows.

You keep saying that D&D -- presumably, late AD&D 1e, from what you've said -- doesn't allow tactics according to the rule books, because "tactics" are considered included in the abstract "to hit" roll. And yet, the 1e DMG is full of details on tactics that could be used. Of particular note are the cover and concealment rules on page 64, the rules that you seem to be unfamiliar with when it comes to targeting someone on the other side of a shield wall. By those rules, I'd judge that M-U as the equivalent of AC 0. There's also charging, which the goblins could also try, and setting weapons for a charge, and the likely follow-up result of the goblins breaking off and fleeing. Charging and setting weapons for a charge are on page 66, breaking off is on page 70, alongside the rules on flank and rear attacks. There's a section on the physical size of combatants and how this will affect combat, such as how many opponents can engage one fighter. Lots of tactics possible, and nowhere does it say that the "to hit" roll includes tactics. It does say that the roll represents multiple attacks, feints, blocks and parries, but all the book is telling you is that it doesn't break combat down into step-by-step, maneuver by maneuver detail. It is not telling you that you can't set up a line of warriors with shields to block line of sight to another target, especially since, as already mentioned, the cover rules would handle that quite nicely.

There's also a section that talks about targeting individual characters. It begins "As with missile fire, it is generally not possible to select a specific opponent in a mass melee. If this is the case, simply use some random number generation to find out which attacks are upon which opponents, remembering that only a certain number of attacks can usually be made upon one opponent." There are exceptions, but for some reason, the rules suggest that you need to use your judgement and make a ruling based on the situation.

It's almost like Gygax was expecting you to be a referee or something.

Quote from: daniel_ream;908210I think this topic is long overdue for its own thread, as personally I'd love a codex of "how things behave in stressful situations".  Although admittedly I have no interest in "how things behave in dungeon corridors" because I don't play dungeon fantasy any more.

You wouldnt need a codex. Most animals large enough to be a threat to a human will react much the same. If hungry they'll size up the chances and attack if favourable. If cornered they'll size up the chances and attack if favourable, if protecting young they'll size up chances and attack if favourable. If startled or surprised the'll run then size up chances and attack if favourable. If territorial they'll size up the chances and attack if favourable. If in mating season flip a coin and they attack. Increase the chance they'll think its favourable if they outnumber you or are larger than you.

EG: Just like a human will. Theres not alot of reaction difference between a pack of wolves and a band of brigands. The difference is they often come at those reactions or tactics from different thought processes and sensory data than a human might. Some tactics are more primitive to be sure. But can still be very effective.

We did one mini D&D campaign that revolved exclusively around natural threats with no magical backup at all. Just fighters, thieves, and non-magic rangers.

Quote from: Omega;908288You wouldnt need a codex. Most animals large enough to be a threat to a human will react much the same.

...they'll size up the chances and attack if favourable.

What seems less clear is what an animal perceives favorable to mean in the various circumstances. Predators like wolves or lions eagerly attack much larger herbivores despite overwhelmingly larger numbers of herbivores in the herd. They stalk to get closer or panic the herd and try to pick off the slow and weak. But there are also records of lone humans frightening off a predator by acting intimidating. Not being a biologist, hunter, or expert on wild animals a few pages with some rules of thumb done with the sort of research one gets in a good GURPS supplement would be kind of handy for me.

Quote from: Ravenswing;908213One thing that might inform people's opinions is to not blather on concerning things they know nothing about.  The only way someone could say "You can't block a Molotov with a shield" with a straight face is to have no idea how a Molotov works.  It wouldn't surprise me if the misperception is of an airburst fireball with a 10' wide blast radius.

I thought Chris was on about throwing flasks over the shield wall. Not at. Which was what I was later pointing out. Most fantasy dungeons have high enough ceilings that you sure as heck can try to lob flasks over the front ranks. Theres even videos up of protestors doing exactly that to riot police.

I think AD&Ds grenade bounce rule can even cover abstracting attempts to intercept as it causes the flask to go sometimes wildly off mark without needing an extra roll/s just to declare "Im trying to stop/deflect that.".

Back on topic, like that ever lasts...

Oddly I cant think of any RPG that actually forces and enforces niches on the players. Im sure there must be one or two out there. But none come to mind. And I do not mean RPGs where players potentially can try to do that. That covers every RPG. I mean an RPG where its stated flat out in the rules theres only one fighter, one wizard, one cleric, one thief, etc. Board games do it frequently. But they are not RPGs. Some parlour LARPs do. But thats more like having a module with pre-gens only. And there certainly are a few modules for RPGs where the players all play a pre-gen character. Not their own. But again also not an actual RPG that enforces it in the rules and gameplay itself.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;908235Apparently there are just some things that are going to drive someone crazy. A friend and I are designing a Mad Max: Fury Road style game for our group, and we have two gear heads in our groups. Balancing making it acceptably playable and also not break their verisimilitude threshold has been a nightmare of a challenge.

Gurps Autoduel?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;908244Isn't splitting the party generally a bad idea as DM though? You end up with people twiddling their thumbs or wasting half the night.

Shadowrun. You end up with lots of complaints of the runners idle while the decker is in the system.

Quote from: Omega;908294I thought Chris was on about throwing flasks over the shield wall. Not at.

He mentioned both possibilities. His view of what the splash would be (his word) doesn't align with your description of police drills but seems much more like a small diameter fireball.

QuoteWhich was what I was later pointing out. Most fantasy dungeons have high enough ceilings that you sure as heck can try to lob flasks over the front ranks.

And in that case, the MU should be crouching behind and beneath the shield bearer. Kind of like what archer and shield teams did in the real world.

QuoteOddly I cant think of any RPG that actually forces and enforces niches on the players.

It seems a feature of play styles and expectations not of rules. So some GMs and players expect and reinforce niches and covering certain bases (e.g. must have a Fighter, MU, Cleric, Thief, Elf, Dwarf, and maybe a Bard, Paladin, or other high CHA type) basically it's the kind of party that you see in the Order of the Stick. I think where people see a rules element it is in certain published adventures where there seems a clear expectation that the party is a Swiss Army knife that will include the right tool for the designed problem.

Quote from: Bren;908289What seems less clear is what an animal perceives favorable to mean in the various circumstances. Predators like wolves or lions eagerly attack much larger herbivores despite overwhelmingly larger numbers of herbivores in the herd. They stalk to get closer or panic the herd and try to pick off the slow and weak. But there are also records of lone humans frightening off a predator by acting intimidating. Not being a biologist, hunter, or expert on wild animals a few pages with some rules of thumb done with the sort of research one gets in a good GURPS supplement would be kind of handy for me.

I agree. But in the long run an animals reactions are still overall much like a persons. Based on the situation and personal experience. Surprise a bear thats never seen a human and act scary and the bear will likely run. Try that with a bear thats had some experience with people and it may just exterminate you. Some preds will run if spooked. Then stop and wonder what that was and sneak back to investigate. Or run just to make you run too to tire you out if they have friends that can keep you doing that. If the bear is allready irked at something when you confront it it may just take its ire out on you. Same with some herbivores. A deer is prone to running. But again with experience they may just decide to teach you a lesson. Even freaking sheep will become aggressive and gang up on you if they think they can.

Which is why I treat animal reactions just like NPCs since theres such a broad situational range that its pointless to try and catalogue every single monsters quirks. Roll on the NPC reaction table works fine if you havent figured out ahead of time why its there and what it might do.

Back on topic.

Having a better handle on animal reactions was something that at least D&D rangers and druids oddly tend to lack. Though 5e adds in two skills that can cover that now.

Quote from: Omega;908298Shadowrun. You end up with lots of complaints of the runners idle while the decker is in the system.

Later editions changed the way decking works specifically to deal with this problem.  In 4th edition, decking has to be done on site and uses an augmented reality interface.  Deckers aren't off in their own world while everyone else twiddles their thumbs any more.

Quote from: Krimson;908227Amusingly I had a problem somewhat related to this. I was going to run a Star Trek game. Two of the players had previous experience in the navy. I have no military background. It took me about five seconds flat to realize that I could not provide enough verisimilitude to make the experience what the players wanted and as such had to shut the game down. That was the first time I could not run a game due to lack of real life knowledge. Won't be trying Trek ever again.

You need to play with people who aren't such fucking killjoys.  It's not the Navy, it's Star Trek.

Quote from: daniel_ream;908267I suspect that this may have been more of a case where the players' habits overrode the assumed premise.  Trek isn't anything close to a real-world Navy (it's Wagon Train) but it uses some of the superficial tropes and I can see how the players would have latched on to that and fallen into familiar patterns.

Only if they'd lived under a rock all their lives and never actually SEEN Star Trek.

Quote from: Omega;908294Oddly I cant think of any RPG that actually forces and enforces niches on the players. Im sure there must be one or two out there. But none come to mind. And I do not mean RPGs where players potentially can try to do that. That covers every RPG. I mean an RPG where its stated flat out in the rules theres only one fighter, one wizard, one cleric, one thief, etc.

Old School Hack, I believe, unless it has changed since I last looked at it.

Outside of D&D-a-likes, there's octaNe. There's also a rule in InSpectres that restricts teams to exactly one special character at a time (one vampire with a team of humans, for example,) although the franchise can have several special characters on the payroll.

Quote from: Bren;908300And in that case, the MU should be crouching behind and beneath the shield bearer. Kind of like what archer and shield teams did in the real world.

Except then the MU is in the possible splash range of the flask if its just thrown at the fighters feet.