TheRPGSite

This topic came up among some of my players yesterday; they liked 5e's simplicity compared to Pathfinder, but lamented how bare bones combat options were, reducing them to basically being a robot every turn. It was interesting seeing this perspective, as he also saw it as a way to distinguish his character and emphasize his roleplay aspects. Without those options, his ability to express his character was limited.

So what's your take on it? Do you prefer combat options per class/subclass to be rich and fleshed out, or simple and straightforward? Is it boring when all you can do is "attack" again every time?

Is it a lack of surface complexity, or a lack of deep complexity?
Because 5E doesn't really have either. There's very little depth to be found in "roll 1d20, add modifiers, and hope for a high number", so you have to pile on surface complexity to find any satisfaction.

What do you mean surface complexity VS deep complexity?

As for the specific player, it was not being challenged in combat and being unable to customize their character because all they can do is attack, essentially, over and over, unless you're a wizard or battle master. That makes it boring to them and doesn't let them be any different than any other random fighter, mechanically.

Most features you get on leveling tend to be subtle or passive so they don't make a big difference either. At least, according to him.

For me, who always played freeformish games like Amber at first, this never bothered me -- but I can understand the complaint if you look to mechanics to represent your character.

One of the reasons I love GURPS is that everyone has access to just about every combat option, exempting things with the "Trained By A Master" prerequisite.  They might suck at arm locks, deceptive attacks, sweeping a leg or what have you but they can always try it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011364What do you mean surface complexity VS deep complexity?

For myself, specific options are on the surface, while emergent properties are deep.

So, specifically, fighters in my game can attack, attack with parry, cleave, or stunt. That's the surface.

A (hopefully) deep part is that the fighters can use those abilities to come up with whatever maneuver they wish, in conjunction with the actions of the other party members, to have a variable and engaging experience at the table. Hopefully, these few options combine to create an emergent property that makes it seem that there are either more options than there are, or that there actually are given the circumstances at the time.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011364As for the specific player, it was not being challenged in combat and being unable to customize their character because all they can do is attack, essentially, over and over, unless you're a wizard or battle master. That makes it boring to them and doesn't let them be any different than any other random fighter, mechanically.

D&D, outside of 3e and 4e, have always had a relatively low what-I-will-call 'special maneuver' capacity. Most characters spend most of combat 'just fighting*,' with most of their decisions being whether or not to move out of the front ranks because their hp are low**. The dominant combat decision is, for the most part, whether to fight--which side has more troops, which is more beaten up, which can afford to suffer battle losses more, etc. This represents the mindset of the early game, where the most important parts of the entire rulebook are the reaction and morale rules.
*Certain classes (mostly the spellcasters, but also others if they happen to have, say, an intelligent longsword which gives them a 1/day web spell, or the like, or now feats/battlemaster abilities, etc.) also have limited use resources that they have to decide if and when to use, but this is an exception to the general norm.
**and corollary decisions like whether to use your polearm or bow or sword, which is mostly also a feature of what rank you are fighting in, but may also represent some more choice, if you use a WvsAC table and or suspect your opponent might be especially vulnerable to a silver dagger or warhammer when you would normally use your sword.

It's fairly realistic. Battles are won and lost by choosing when and where to fight, with what troops at what level of injury/morale, with what tactical/situational advantage, and so on and so forth. Sure, there are some formation arrangements, flanking etc. that might be better emulated (when moving from squad battles to the individual actor battles of D&D) by 'special moves' or the like instead of just into/out-of front line. But for the most part, the special move people make in combat is evading a shield/parry and scoring a hit (a successful to-hit roll), while at the same time not getting hit themselves.

Is it boring? Well, it depends on whether you find the 'when to fight' part and the 'will the goblin lines break and they all flee?' part and the 'did we make the right choice by fighting instead of negotiating more?' part exhilarating. By no means should 'this is how D&D started' be a reason for it to be the same all the way into 5e, but by the same token, 'this is how my players learned to do it in Pathfinder' isn't as well. 5e is nice in that you can dial up or down the choices. I'm sure some people consider 5e with all the vents open not to burn hot enough for their tastes, much like some OSR-types consider it with all the vents closed still too warm (warm in this analogy not being good or bad). But you cannot build a system which covers every range well (IMO), and this one seeks to hold a large swath of the middle, not anywhere near the extremes.

QuoteSo what's your take on it?

My take is that I understand why it happened that subsequent systems included more combat options, and I understand why 5e took a step back. People generally do like the added options... but there doesn't seem to be a great way to do it without incentivizing an arms race/optimization mini-game that most people eventually get sick of (and then go back to a 'simpler' game like OSR/5e, and then miss, and then go back to a 3e/4e/PF/etc., and then get sick of... and so on and so forth).

I love playing a Champion Fighter in 5e. I think it works great. OTOH, my go-to feats are Skilled, Healer, and Ritual Caster. So I do like to have options... I just don't feel that I need special maneuvers in-combat to garner that feeling.

Surface complexity to me is D&D combat, no matter the edition. Roll 1d20, add and subtract modifiers, try to beat a target number. It doesn't matter what your character fluff says you are doing mechanically it is the same. Add to that most D&D lacks any real rules for feint, disarm, parry, dodge, shield bash, etc, in a word close combat tactics... Playing a fighter is kind of boring.

Look to something like The One Ring and combat while mechanically simple has more engaging depth to it. A character has a choice of stances in battle which determine which opponents can attack him, and with what weapons and modifiers. You can declare a protective stance to shelter a companion. There is more to do.

Take it as far as Fate of the Norns: Ragnarok and combat becomes an all on experience. Every round each combatant draws runes with determine what actions and powers they have access to that round. Runes may be chained together to alter their effects. Damage removes runes and there for otions from play until healed.

I do find it boring when all you can di is "roll to hit" each round. But sometimes the solution to this is for the players and GM to learn to see beyond the mechanics.  Do you allow your players to hide behind cover in melee, throw sand in their opponents' eyes, pull ropes tight to try to trip them, and make combat a dynamic environment?  It is a bit more work in D&D. Especially when hit point totals get high, but damage inflicted is low. It becomes a grind.

Quote from: David Johansen;1011372One of the reasons I love GURPS is that everyone has access to just about every combat option, exempting things with the "Trained By A Master" prerequisite.  They might suck at arm locks, deceptive attacks, sweeping a leg or what have you but they can always try it.

Every game that has a combat system I consider consistently enjoyable and quasi-realistic is like this. D&D would be better if you just drew up a list of all the shit you can do with your combat action, and assign each a difficulty penalty. If you want to accept the penalty to your roll you can give it a try. The whole thing would take 1-2 pages in rule book and speed up play because you don't have to figure out which combatant has which idiosyncratic options. I'm pretty much sick to death of the endless lists of powrrrzzz that are how 3E, 4E and 5E discriminate characters.

As with any system that goes for the simple take, especially one that invests most of its complexity in abstraction, D&D demands that the GM put some thought into the environment in which the combats take place.  Don't get me wrong--interesting environments are great in any game.  It's just in D&D, they are practically required to have any tactical interest.  If for no other reason, they prompt even more of those operational decisions that Willie discussed, which will invest the minimal tactical decisions with more weight.  Some people will never enjoy that.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1011380Every game that has a combat system I consider consistently enjoyable and quasi-realistic is like this. D&D would be better if you just drew up a list of all the shit you can do with your combat action, and assign each a difficulty penalty. If you want to accept the penalty to your roll you can give it a try. The whole thing would take 1-2 pages in rule book and speed up play because you don't have to figure out which combatant has which idiosyncratic options. I'm pretty much sick to death of the endless lists of powrrrzzz that are how 3E, 4E and 5E discriminate characters.

:confused: 2e and 3e had almost exactly that. Not 1-2 pages and in 2e it was split between core and Complete Fighters, then later Player's options, and in 3e the without-feat penalties are prohibitive to reasonably attempting (given the combat benefit of the outcome compared to the decreased chance of success). But both of them have that.

When I first started playing D&D, I assumed "attack" meant "attack" and that's it. Now I understand that it's a little more abstract than a literal "stick sword in target" and encompasses whatever theatrical description you want to put on it.

Moreover, I also came to realize that less is more when it comes to combat options. In games like B/X D&D and WFRP 1e (where "attack" is pretty much it) my players get clever about their actions: flipping over tables, hurling chairs, cutting chandeliers loose, whatever. In games like D&D 4e that list out more specific combat options, the players turn into robots, counting squares and more rigidly adhering to the more defined (and thus more limiting) written actions.

Rolling a percentile die, which is basically what a D20 is, impairs the player from the get go. The rest is just hot glue accoutrements.

5e hits my sweet spot; it has a default option plus other stuff like bullrush & grapple. Lots of players can't cope with compulsory complexity.

Depends on the game and genre. I don't want a fiddly combat for courtly intrigue, but I do for military engagements.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1011386:confused: 2e and 3e had almost exactly that. Not 1-2 pages and in 2e it was split between core and Complete Fighters, then later Player's options, and in 3e the without-feat penalties are prohibitive to reasonably attempting (given the combat benefit of the outcome compared to the decreased chance of success). But both of them have that.

That is definitely not the structure of 3E, which regulated actions in combat using a huge number and diversity of feats. I don't recall off hand how without-feat penalties worked, but it's not relevant because the reality is the game was organized around knowing which complex chains of feats each combatant knew. I don't think I ever met anyone who treated these as a generic list of things everyone could try with various penalties.

In 5e, if you want to do more than just swing your sword...just say what it is you're doing. The whole point of 5e is the concepts of opposed ability checks and the status effects make it very easy to adjudicate what happens if, instead of swinging his sword twice, the fighter wants to throw sand in his eyes, body slam him against a wall, etc. The grapple/shove rules are given as templates, not an exhaustive list of things you can do. The rules already say a level 5 fighter can use an opposed ability check to knock an enemy prone and another to hold him to the ground with one Attack action (2 attacks can be exchanged for a Shove and a Grapple), so that should be kind of a guide.

So if you've never done anything interesting with your fighter, it's because you've never tried.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1011405That is definitely not the structure of 3E, which regulated actions in combat using a huge number and diversity of feats. I don't recall off hand how without-feat penalties worked, but it's not relevant because the reality is the game was organized around knowing which complex chains of feats each combatant knew. I don't think I ever met anyone who treated these as a generic list of things everyone could try with various penalties.

One of us is confused, because I am pretty sure that it is. If I recall correctly if you wanted to disarm, you could do so with something like a -4 penalty (and possibly drawing an attack-of-opportunity). If you wanted to trip, you could do so with ~-4 penalty and maybe AoO. If you wanted to push (bull rush), you could do so with ~-4 penalty and maybe AoO, and so on and so forth.

Yes, feats were definitely a huge part of the game, and theoretically a huge number of feats were supposed to be a fighter's offsetting compense for not being a barbarian or spellcaster. But the basic structure of combat was 'attack, or use one of a long list of attack-like combat maneuvers, which everyone know but you need feats to be at all good at.'

D&D was created with the idea of a team in mind.

You have heavy troops, light troops, missile troops, and artillery (wizards).

If you are playing a Napoleonic battle and you are commanding a regiment of foot, you do not complain that you are holding the line while the artillery does the heavy killing.  That is the ROLE of foot troops, and you are doing your job.

Team sized miniatures wargames are not about "look at me;" they are about "we win."  OD&D carried that mindset forward.  If I'm a front line D&D fighter in heavy armor, my job is to hold the enemy long enough for the other troops to get into position for the fatal stroke, whether it's a flank in melee, getting missile troops in position, or the "Fist of God" from the magic user.  The fact that in D&D one fighter is statistically almost identical to another is a feature, not a bug.

All that said, some people don't like that sort of game.  They'd be happier with something else.

I had a player with a monk in 5e who always wanted to jump on the backs of dragons.  I was sure wanting a special, DX save or take 1d8 damage from the ridge of spikes, rule.

Also, I'm playing Pathfinder right now, and I find that despite what appears to be a huge number of options, fighters quickly develop a "best attack."

SO instead of saying "I attack" every round, I say "I power attack" every round.  Oh, the thrills.  Oh, the drama.  Oh, the excitement.  Oh, the horseshit.

(Actually, what I really say every round is "HASSAN CHOP!")

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011411D&D was created with the idea of a team in mind.

You have heavy troops, light troops, missile troops, and artillery (wizards).

If you are playing a Napoleonic battle and you are commanding a regiment of foot, you do not complain that you are holding the line while the artillery does the heavy killing.  That is the ROLE of foot troops, and you are doing your job.

Team sized miniatures wargames are not about "look at me;" they are about "we win."  OD&D carried that mindset forward.  If I'm a front line D&D fighter in heavy armor, my job is to hold the enemy long enough for the other troops to get into position for the fatal stroke, whether it's a flank in melee, getting missile troops in position, or the "Fist of God" from the magic user.  The fact that in D&D one fighter is statistically almost identical to another is a feature, not a bug.

All that said, some people don't like that sort of game.  They'd be happier with something else.

That sounds really interesting, actually. But what about the kind of heroic fantasy D&D where each character is a hero of a story in their own right, of sorts? Like Warcraft or LOTR or action movies with multiple heroes swashbuckling around. I feel like that's a big part of D&D too.

I wonder if they can get away with showing that cartoon anymore.

Anyhow, I'd argue that a game like GURPS where every option is available to everyone is a lot closer to every fighter is the same than 3-5e D&D's laundry lists of special attacks and abilities.  I'm a bit disappointed that GURPS Dungeon Fantasy went the route of special abilities.  

GURPS Fighter can be as simple as Strength starts at 10 and costs10 points per point, Dexterity starts at 10 costs 20 points per point, Intelligence starts at 10 and costs 20 points per point, Health starts at 10 and  costs 10 points per point.  Brawling and Knife skill starts at Dexterity -1 for 1 point.  Most other weapon skills start at Dexterity -2 for one point.  The cost of each extra skill point doubles until it reaches 4.  Dodge = 3 + (Dexterity + Health /4) - Encumbrance.  Parry = 3 + Skill / 2.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011359This topic came up among some of my players yesterday; they liked 5e's simplicity compared to Pathfinder, but lamented how bare bones combat options were, reducing them to basically being a robot every turn. It was interesting seeing this perspective, as he also saw it as a way to distinguish his character and emphasize his roleplay aspects. Without those options, his ability to express his character was limited.

So what's your take on it? Do you prefer combat options per class/subclass to be rich and fleshed out, or simple and straightforward? Is it boring when all you can do is "attack" again every time?

If it something their character can do because he is a living person within the setting of the campaigns then they will be able to do it regardless if their a specific rules to cover it. Read the Old School Primer (http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_63/3019000/3019374/1/print/3019374.pdf) and look how combat is being handled. Despite the lack of explicit mechanics the characters are trying a lot of things because that what a person can do in a world with normal physics and with the attribute of that character.

Beyond that if they are looking for kewl powers then make a setting they want to adventure in and make sure the rules you make for D&D 5th edition covers what character can do in that setting.

For example the Barbarian isn't quite right to represent a Berserker for my Majestic Wilderlands. So I made my own take (http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%205e%20Berserker.pdf) that close but has several difference to reflect how Berserkers work.

But ultimately you are not going to factor every nth detail with 5e combat and action resolution. For that you need a different game like GURPS, Harnmaster, etc. For my OD&D based Majestic Wilderlands campaign, I try to make options based on existing mechanics namely the d20 roll high, armor class, hit points, and the idea of the saving throw.

For example in my campaign you can roll to hit somebody in the head without a helmet to knock them out. However they get a saving throw to avoid going unconscious. If somebody wearing a open face helm, you can still try but you are rolling at a -4 (the same as the to-hit penalty for an invisible opponent). The consequence of this that high hit dice and high level target are likely to make their save and not effected.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011416That sounds really interesting, actually. But what about the kind of heroic fantasy D&D where each character is a hero of a story in their own right, of sorts? Like Warcraft or LOTR or action movies with multiple heroes swashbuckling around. I feel like that's a big part of D&D too.

That's what solo adventures are for.  Yes, we used to go into Greyhawk castle alone.  No other players, no NPCs.  Just your player character.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011411Team sized miniatures wargames are not about "look at me;" they are about "we win."  OD&D carried that mindset forward.  If I'm a front line D&D fighter in heavy armor, my job is to hold the enemy long enough for the other troops to get into position for the fatal stroke, whether it's a flank in melee, getting missile troops in position, or the "Fist of God" from the magic user.  The fact that in D&D one fighter is statistically almost identical to another is a feature, not a bug.

To me the best magic item or power is another PC working with me. One advantage of using miniatures and having even a simple set of facing and flanking rules is that the players will start working together to take advantage of them.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011416That sounds really interesting, actually. But what about the kind of heroic fantasy D&D where each character is a hero of a story in their own right, of sorts? Like Warcraft or LOTR or action movies with multiple heroes swashbuckling around. I feel like that's a big part of D&D too.

Gronan is talking about what the game evolved from. You are correct that a lot of people (starting within moments of the game hitting publication) want a game like that. The game rules, however, moved only very slowly in that direction. BECMI slowly accumulated combat maneuvers--general attack of course, plus set spear, parry, disarm, Smash (power attack, effectively), fighting withdrawal, and retreat. 2e AD&D also had a lot of those options, plus called shots (attack specific limb/location). 3e went all over the map and 4e... well, I'll let a 4e expect go over that. Point being, while yes swashbuckling adventure is a big part of D&D for huge numbers of players, the actual combat rules have not always supported it with a bunch of in-combat decision trees.

Can the player not just describe what he is attempting and the ref decides whether there is any bonus or penalty arising from it and then you roll to succeed? Can't every character try anything he wants?

Quote from: Dumarest;1011429Can the player not just describe what he is attempting and the ref decides whether there is any bonus or penalty arising from it and then you roll to succeed? Can't every character try anything he wants?

The game changed permanently for the worse when the prevailing attitude of the players and refs went from "everything not explicitly forbidden is permitted" to "everything not specifically permitted is forbidden."  This happened during my "great hibernation" which lasted from 1987 to 2003.

Quote from: Dumarest;1011429Can the player not just describe what he is attempting and the ref decides whether there is any bonus or penalty arising from it and then you roll to succeed? Can't every character try anything he wants?

Tunnels & Trolls combat works exactly like this. You can cast your spell, shoot your arrow, or swing your sword in which case you contribute the appropriate dice + adds to the Hit Point Total for your side or you can try a stunt. A stunt can be anything. Any special maneuver you can think of, up to and including trying to one-shot kill the enemy with a single well placed blow. The GM sets a difficulty number, you roll your dice, and if you succeed that's it.

One of the prime features of T&T is that you can resolve any character's attempt to do anything by assigning it a Saving Roll (difficulty and relevant attribute) and having the player roll the bones.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011430The game changed permanently for the worse when the prevailing attitude of the players and refs went from "everything not explicitly forbidden is permitted" to "everything not specifically permitted is forbidden."  This happened during my "great hibernation" which lasted from 1987 to 2003.

I don't agree. The problems are the referees not the players. The referee is still in command of the table. The problem is that most rely on the rules as a crutch rather than thinking of the entire picture and all what a character do in their campaign.

The only place where that even a factor is in organized play. Despite being very visible is only a small portion of our hobby.

Quote from: Dumarest;1011429Can the player not just describe what he is attempting and the ref decides whether there is any bonus or penalty arising from it and then you roll to succeed? Can't every character try anything he wants?

Is there anyone stopping them?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011430The game changed permanently for the worse when the prevailing attitude of the players and refs went from "everything not explicitly forbidden is permitted" to "everything not specifically permitted is forbidden."  This happened during my "great hibernation" which lasted from 1987 to 2003.

At least on internet discussions, to be sure. My experience might not be representative, but I've still not run into many groups that do not allow ad-libbing IRL play. '87 was when I first got on Usenet/BBS D&D discussions. I seem to remember a lot of "can'ts" and "have tos" and "musts" being thrown around even then. Still, I can't imagine coming back in '03 and thinking 'what the hell happened while I was away?'

You got that right, Kimotherapy.  I'm still frankly reeling as to how much the game has changed, at least in discussion.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1011437Is there anyone stopping them?

You're asking the wrong person, but apparently so or this thread would not exist.

Quote from: Dumarest;1011441You're asking the wrong person, but apparently so or this thread would not exist.

I think enough players said "It doesn't say I can't fly by flapping my arms" that many refs shut down anything that isn't written in the rules.

Also, most people, both players and referees, are booger-eating morons who are working at the limits of their intellect if they can shit unassisted.

I don't like games where there are lots of different fiddly bits available on a class basis.

I do like games where there are lots of fiddly bits in the system.

This is why I like 1E AD&D.  There are lots of fiddly bits that affect whether or not you hit in general melee; applying them at tactically advantageous moments is up to the player.  But they're mostly available to all instead of a single class; the special class attack power(s) being mainly limited to the thief's backstab, monk's stun, and the fighter (+subclasses) ability to attack <1HD once per level.  

A magic-user can overbear; A cleric can utilize WvAC; anyone can give themselves the best chance to disrupt a spellcaster by choosing to pummel instead of attacking for mortal damage; etc.

I think this is the sweet spot between tactical thinking and group coordination vs. arcade game supermoves.

Quote from: David Johansen;1011418I wonder if they can get away with showing that cartoon anymore.

Thanks to Youtube, it doesn't matter. :D

Quote from: Dumarest;1011429Can the player not just describe what he is attempting and the ref decides whether there is any bonus or penalty arising from it and then you roll to succeed? Can't every character try anything he wants?

The players who talk about mechanics don't WANT to just "say whatever." It feels like just making stuff up that isn't "real." They want to have a mechanic representing some power in the game world, like if the mechanic wasn't there then it isn't "really" happening. That and the point is often made that having a rule gives the player in question a specific, repeatable, reliable move they can rely on, whereas when it is an open-ended thing then it could be as weak or as strong as the GM wants.

In other words, a big part of the fun here is the character building, taking this option or that, putting together your character the way a car enthusiast would go over each component of his car with a fine tooth and comb to custom order it. It is also the satisfaction of putting together the perfect structure, like building a model ship, putting everything just in its right place.

Just doing it freeform feels like a cop out to them. There is no engagement or rigor or challenge that they can then show off to their friends. You can't show off your character sheet to people to see what kind of character you made if all of it is just happening in the moment between GM and player.

At least, that's what I've been able to suss out from multiple conversations over the years. Otherwise I wouldn't see people balk at it every time I suggest they just do what they think makes sense in their imagination, etc.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1011437Is there anyone stopping them?
...
At least on internet discussions, to be sure. My experience might not be representative, but I've still not run into many groups that do not allow ad-libbing IRL play. '87 was when I first got on Usenet/BBS D&D discussions. I seem to remember a lot of "can'ts" and "have tos" and "musts" being thrown around even then. Still, I can't imagine coming back in '03 and thinking 'what the hell happened while I was away?'

A lot of the rules minutiae discussion strikes me as white room theorycrafting, often by those whose real hobby seems to be dissecting rules not actually playing. The question 'have you actually encountered this at the table?' usually reveals that.

Quote from: Dumarest;1011429Can the player not just describe what he is attempting and the ref decides whether there is any bonus or penalty arising from it and then you roll to succeed? Can't every character try anything he wants?

If the GM simply assigns a bonus or penalty, then the described manuver that gives the best bonus will become the default one. How is this any different than a bunch of preset combat manuvers in the rulebook?

[video=youtube;FToHabxSVYg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FToHabxSVYg[/youtube]

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1011454If the GM simply assigns a bonus or penalty, then the described manuver that gives the best bonus will become the default one. How is this any different than a bunch of preset combat manuvers in the rulebook?

It's different because I don't have to read hundreds of pages of fucking rules.

Translated to full size pages OD&D is less than 64 pages.  Fuck these multi-volume multi-hundred page rule sets.  Fuck them to death with an axe while holding their face into a fire and laughing as they scream.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011452The players who talk about mechanics don't WANT to just "say whatever." It feels like just making stuff up that isn't "real." They want to have a mechanic representing some power in the game world, like if the mechanic wasn't there then it isn't "really" happening. That and the point is often made that having a rule gives the player in question a specific, repeatable, reliable move they can rely on, whereas when it is an open-ended thing then it could be as weak or as strong as the GM wants.

In other words, a big part of the fun here is the character building, taking this option or that, putting together your character the way a car enthusiast would go over each component of his car with a fine tooth and comb to custom order it. It is also the satisfaction of putting together the perfect structure, like building a model ship, putting everything just in its right place.

Just doing it freeform feels like a cop out to them. There is no engagement or rigor or challenge that they can then show off to their friends. You can't show off your character sheet to people to see what kind of character you made if all of it is just happening in the moment between GM and player.

At least, that's what I've been able to suss out from multiple conversations over the years. Otherwise I wouldn't see people balk at it every time I suggest they just do what they think makes sense in their imagination, etc.

I have a player that is the poster child for this approach and it causes quite a bit of friction between the two of us. I simply can't appreciate it at all. It's all about playing a role to me, not manipulating rules but I get that others feel differently.

When I ran Metamorphosis Alpha a couple of years ago the players (experienced 3.5 hands) all commented about how great the game was because they could try to do anything they wanted. I thought this was an odd thing to say because that is how every game I have run or played has worked.  Apparantly there is a new generation of players out there to who the idea of simply trying to do something without a specific widget for it on your character sheet is a completely alien concept. Or tehy may just all be bugger eating morons. I don't allow snacking at my table, so I don't have conclusive evidence which it is.

If you get a couple of bad.   No, not bad but unimaginative DMs, it can be great to be able to point at the sheet and say, "see it says so right here."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011452The players who talk about mechanics don't WANT to just "say whatever." It feels like just making stuff up that isn't "real." They want to have a mechanic representing some power in the game world, like if the mechanic wasn't there then it isn't "really" happening.

At the minimum, then, Grapple and Shove are right there in the rules. The optional rule for disarming an opponent can be used as well. Despite the fact that using Shove to knock an enemy down right before he takes several melee attacks from you and your pals is one of the best things you can do in 5e, nobody ever seems to do it. If you Grapple after your shove, the enemy can't even get back up without consuming its entire action. You can also bring in some of the optional combat rules from the DMG, like Disarm and Overrun.

If people balk at the concept of referees making rulings rather than having hard-and-fast rules, write some house rules. E.g...

Make an Intimidation vs Insight check as an Action. Enemy is afraid of you until the start of your next turn.
In place of a weapon attack, you can bash with your shield. Make an improvised weapon attack. On a hit, push the enemy back 5 ft.

etc.

You can come up with more things like this, and if you make them cost a weapon attack or Action and not do any damage, they'll be useful, but not automatically better than attacking.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1011471I have a player that is the poster child for this approach and it causes quite a bit of friction between the two of us. I simply can't appreciate it at all. It's all about playing a role to me, not manipulating rules but I get that others feel differently.

What Macky was describing is an extreme edge case, possibly influenced by toilet training issues.

Since the popularity of MMORPGs, the notion of "character build" has infested TTRPGs like maggots.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1011482When I ran Metamorphosis Alpha a couple of years ago the players (experienced 3.5 hands) all commented about how great the game was because they could try to do anything they wanted. I thought this was an odd thing to say because that is how every game I have run or played has worked.  Apparantly there is a new generation of players out there to who the idea of simply trying to do something without a specific widget for it on your character sheet is a completely alien concept. Or tehy may just all be bugger eating morons. I don't allow snacking at my table, so I don't have conclusive evidence which it is.

Many more recent games depend heavily on character sheets.  About 12 years ago I was playing Star Wars d20 and running OD&D with the same group of people.  It was interesting; in d20 a situation would happen and everybody would look at their character sheets, but in OD&D a situation would happen and people would start talking to each other.

Same people, some relative newcomers and some people playing OD&D since I taught them in the 70s.  It was truly fascinating.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011488What Macky was describing is an extreme edge case, possibly influenced by toilet training issues.

Since the popularity of MMORPGs, the notion of "character build" has infested TTRPGs like maggots.

Aren't these just powergamers and rules lawyers, who have been with us since the beginning of time?

Quote from: Voros;1011490Aren't these just powergamers and rules lawyers, who have been with us since the beginning of time?

Not necessarily.  Some people seem to just like fiddling with builds, and some people seem to be "robot builders;" they want to construct something and turn it on, and see how it performs.

And many powergamers nowadays not only want THEIR character optimized to maximum gigawatts per femtosecond of damage output, they get pissy if everybody else's isn't as well.

Arseholes to the lot of 'em, says I.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1011484At the minimum, then, Grapple and Shove are right there in the rules. The optional rule for disarming an opponent can be used as well. Despite the fact that using Shove to knock an enemy down right before he takes several melee attacks from you and your pals is one of the best things you can do in 5e, nobody ever seems to do it. If you Grapple after your shove, the enemy can't even get back up without consuming its entire action. You can also bring in some of the optional combat rules from the DMG, like Disarm and Overrun.

If people balk at the concept of referees making rulings rather than having hard-and-fast rules, write some house rules. E.g...

Make an Intimidation vs Insight check as an Action. Enemy is afraid of you until the start of your next turn.
In place of a weapon attack, you can bash with your shield. Make an improvised weapon attack. On a hit, push the enemy back 5 ft.

etc.

You can come up with more things like this, and if you make them cost a weapon attack or Action and not do any damage, they'll be useful, but not automatically better than attacking.

Yes, but those are universal abilities. It doesn't let them distinguish their character by having it. Though I suppose I can remember to bring up things like that next time.

One example is Charisma. It's one thing to just style your character as charismatic -- but if you don't have any abilities related to it, or a high stat representing it, then you're just making stuff up. The stat is what makes the fact that you have high Charisma real, and the abilities coming out from that.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011492Yes, but those are universal abilities. It doesn't let them distinguish their character by having it. Though I suppose I can remember to bring up things like that next time.

One example is Charisma. It's one thing to just style your character as charismatic -- but if you don't have any abilities related to it, or a high stat representing it, then you're just making stuff up. The stat is what makes the fact that you have high Charisma real, and the abilities coming out from that.

I would tell that player, "It is all just making stuff up."  That's what the game is about.  So the real question is about who makes stuff up, when, about what.  Once we've agreed on the principle, what remains is negotiating the price.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011492Yes, but those are universal abilities. It doesn't let them distinguish their character by having it. Though I suppose I can remember to bring up things like that next time.

Not every character is proficient in every skill. As far as special things that only you can do...well, there are plenty of classes that do have special moves and powers, so IMO anyone who doesn't choose one of those in favor of Champion or something really shouldn't complain.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011452Just doing it freeform feels like a cop out to them. There is no engagement or rigor or challenge that they can then show off to their friends. You can't show off your character sheet to people to see what kind of character you made if all of it is just happening in the moment between GM and player.

I have been dealing with this for decades. The problem is not new nor unique to the present day. The disconnect is that you are thinking it is free form but it isn't. Instead of 256 pages of rules dictate your adjudication, you use the rules of the setting of the campaign instead.

For example Gronan comments on proper tactics and teamwork is spot on for OD&D because among other things OD&D assumes a setting where the lessons of medieval warfare are valid. The rules are found in reading medieval history.

My tactic for dealing with is this what I call coaching. When I see a player hidebound by the need for rules I will coach step by step until they understand the rules of the settings.

What Gronan and other don't get is that by and large most gamers need this coaching than not. And always had from the beginning.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011489Many more recent games depend heavily on character sheets.  About 12 years ago I was playing Star Wars d20 and running OD&D with the same group of people.  It was interesting; in d20 a situation would happen and everybody would look at their character sheets, but in OD&D a situation would happen and people would start talking to each other.

Same people, some relative newcomers and some people playing OD&D since I taught them in the 70s.  It was truly fascinating.

We are currently playing Over the Edge, where a character has only a few descriptors. The best thing it has is 4d6, others are 3d6, if a character is 'unskilled' in some department it's 2d6. Nobody stares at their character sheets.

D&D 5e with the same group of people. The mentality is entirely different. I think that of that bunch, I am the most fiddly-bit loving in 5e, but I like playing other types of games too.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011359This topic came up among some of my players yesterday; they liked 5e's simplicity compared to Pathfinder, but lamented how bare bones combat options were, reducing them to basically being a robot every turn. It was interesting seeing this perspective, as he also saw it as a way to distinguish his character and emphasize his roleplay aspects. Without those options, his ability to express his character was limited.

Isn't the Battlemaster designed for players like this? Perhaps even a monk or a bladelock? Those classes have plenty of combat options other than "I hit it with my axe." I like simple and straightforward, myself.

Edit: I missed this:

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011359As for the specific player, it was not being challenged in combat and being unable to customize their character because all they can do is attack, essentially, over and over, unless you're a wizard or battle master.

There are no classes with combat options!
Have you tried the battlemaster?
I don't want to be a battlemster!
:confused:

Quote from: estar;1011524I have been dealing with this for decades. The problem is not new nor unique to the present day. The disconnect is that you are thinking it is free form but it isn't. Instead of 256 pages of rules dictate your adjudication, you use the rules of the setting of the campaign instead.

For example Gronan comments on proper tactics and teamwork is spot on for OD&D because among other things OD&D assumes a setting where the lessons of medieval warfare are valid. The rules are found in reading medieval history.

My tactic for dealing with is this what I call coaching. When I see a player hidebound by the need for rules I will coach step by step until they understand the rules of the settings.

What Gronan and other don't get is that by and large most gamers need this coaching than not. And always had from the beginning.

How would you coach? Wouldn't the "setting rules" be just as limiting? Unless you make the rules super complex.

Quote from: Aglondir;1011541Isn't the Battlemaster designed for players like this? Perhaps even a monk or a bladelock? Those classes have plenty of combat options other than "I hit it with my axe." I like simple and straightforward, myself.

Edit: I missed this:



There are no classes with combat options!
Have you tried the battlemaster?
I don't want to be a battlemster!
:confused:

Perhaps that will be a good suggestion. But the problem would be that you are then pigeonholed into those archetypes; if you want to RP a certain kind of character that doesn't fit those, you are out of luck.

Come to think of it, bard has a lot of options too.

Quote from: estar;1011524For example Gronan comments on proper tactics and teamwork is spot on for OD&D

Getting there

 

Quote from: estar;1011524because among other things OD&D assumes a setting where the lessons of medieval warfare are valid.

Warmer...

Quote from: estar;1011524The rules are found in reading medieval history.

Satori

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1011407In 5e, if you want to do more than just swing your sword...just say what it is you're doing. The whole point of 5e is the concepts of opposed ability checks and the status effects make it very easy to adjudicate what happens if, instead of swinging his sword twice, the fighter wants to throw sand in his eyes, body slam him against a wall, etc. The grapple/shove rules are given as templates, not an exhaustive list of things you can do. The rules already say a level 5 fighter can use an opposed ability check to knock an enemy prone and another to hold him to the ground with one Attack action (2 attacks can be exchanged for a Shove and a Grapple), so that should be kind of a guide.

So if you've never done anything interesting with your fighter, it's because you've never tried.

Yes, I think 5e does a good job encouraging a variety of tactics if people will just give it a try. An action surging 11th level Fighter can do 6 different combat techniques on his turn! And a shove can be very effective in 5e - no opportunity attack, good chance of success, target gets no save. Kicking foes off heights is quite practical.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011491Not necessarily.  Some people seem to just like fiddling with builds, and some people seem to be "robot builders;" they want to construct something and turn it on, and see how it performs.

And many powergamers nowadays not only want THEIR character optimized to maximum gigawatts per femtosecond of damage output, they get pissy if everybody else's isn't as well.

I find most builder type powergamers want other PCs who are baseline competent, so that their own uber build can shine by comparison.

CR/EL encounter 'balanced' encounter building contributes to the problem, it means that mechanically more powerful characters have a disproportionate impact - they can beat any encounter - whereas weak builds threaten the survival of the whole group. I find in old school status quo play this is far less of an issue, I can have 1st & 5th level PCs adventuring in the same levels of Stonehell, 1st and 3rd in the same PC group, and it works fine. Because many encounters are beatable by anyone while some encounters are unbeatable by anyone.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011543Perhaps that will be a good suggestion. But the problem would be that you are then pigeonholed into those archetypes; if you want to RP a certain kind of character that doesn't fit those, you are out of luck.

Come to think of it, bard has a lot of options too.

Most classes do. I think it's good there are a couple exceptions - Barbarian & Fighter Champion - for those who like not having to make a choice every round. And they can still shove or grapple as well as attack. Take Greatweapon Master if they want another choice. Barbarian Reckless Attack is fun to play with too - I love my Polearm Master + GW Master + Reckless Attack barbs. :D

Quote from: S'mon;1011572CR/EL encounter 'balanced' encounter building contributes to the problem, it means that mechanically more powerful characters have a disproportionate impact - they can beat any encounter - whereas weak builds threaten the survival of the whole group. I find in old school status quo play this is far less of an issue, I can have 1st & 5th level PCs adventuring in the same levels of Stonehell, 1st and 3rd in the same PC group, and it works fine. Because many encounters are beatable by anyone while some encounters are unbeatable by anyone.

True, but old school status quo play had it's own CR/EL system-wandering monster tables based on dungeon level. Sure, there was more heteroskedasticity, but there was still level 1 monsters, level 2 monsters, etc. Nothing new under the sun and all that. But the general trend of feeling like there is supposed to be a set level of effectiveness at a given level, and if you're below that point you are either falling behind or not contributing your fair share is undoubtedly an impetus for powergaming.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011542How would you coach?

I use coaching as opposing to teaching because coaching involves training somebody to do an active activity. While not an athletic sport, tabletop roleplaying is an active activity that is best learned by doing. A good  coach not only teaches in a traditional fashion but guides the players during play. At first there likely going to be a lot of hand holding and then as the player gain proficiency less and less until the player is more than capable of handling things.

As for how to be a good coach there are dozens of good books on the topics. Since most are oriented toward athletics you want to look for ones that deal more with the psychology of coaching than anything with actual sport technique. My mother was a great swimming coach and her teams competed at the state level. Her and the people she brought onboard for my high school taught me a lot about how to teach people these kind of things.

Have the battle though is knowing that yes it possible to coach otherwise poor players into being better players. That people been doing it for other things for decades. Just look through Amazon or google coaching and start reading. And most important is to try something, if it doesn't work then try something else. Every good coach I know develops their own take that works for them and their teams. And every good coach I know slightly adapts to the actual people that are part of the team.

There are various situations in tabletop roleplaying where coaching may or may not be relevant. First among friends it not likely I will be a coach of anything. Due our shared history the situation is what it is. However it changes if there is a newcomer to the group. Then I may have to be a coach for the new player. Likewise if I am running a convention game or a game store campaign, then it highly likely I will have to be a coach for one or more of the players.

As a related sidenote remember good sportmanship is really the system of good manners between people who are in competition with one another. Again it is useful to read material on how to foster good sportmanship in a team to deal with the lawncrapping asshole that may show up at a table.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011542Wouldn't the "setting rules" be just as limiting?

Not really, IF you have the knowledge or experience with the subject matter. It hard to adjudicate anything involving wilderness survival if you don't know anything about the subject matter.  But if you do know the subject matter then you can coach the players on how to deal with that situation. And you can decide what are the relevant factors and how detailed you need to go.

For example due to my extensive camping and hiking experience along with mad orienteering skills. I have a pretty good idea of how an encounter would go with line of sight and all that. I look at the terrain. If it possible I roll to see if it is a close initial encounter (like in a forest)  otherwise it is a far encounter and go from there.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011542Unless you make the rules super complex.

The reason I criticize Gronan (and others) criticism of complex RPGs (like GURPS) is that among other things a good set of rules impart knowledge of the subject matter. And if written well, the buyer doesn't need to go to the library to read up on the topic the RPG covers. Sure it would help and always recommended, but who I am to say that a person should make the time for it?

For example Pendragon is an excellent treatment of the Arthurian mythos. There is no reason why an Arthurian Campaign can't be run with OD&D but that assumes the referee (and maybe the players) have read enough about King Arthur to run a decent campaign.

Greg Stafford took the time to a great summary (along with rules) to allow referee to run a campaign centered around the myths of King Arthur.

And tying back to the OP, if one or one's group has a decent knowledge of medieval combat or experienced it as a reenactor then you don't need a set of rules with a lot of fiddly bits. Microlite and OD&D will work just as well as GURPS with all the options. People are not doing "whatever" because the reality of medieval combat imposes the boundary of what possible.

But if you don't have this knowledge or it is too shallow then a good set of combat rules with fiddly bits is likely going to be a lot more fun to play. By good I mean you grasp the basic mechanics easily, and the special cases are easy to remember or extrapolate from the central design. Because of that and the differences in how you and I think, what a good set of rules for me to use easily may not work well for you.

Although going back to coaching, the differences in different designs is not as broad most make out to be. Because most of the time it ties back to pretending to be an imaginary person living out a imaginary life in imaginary setting. Unless the setting is that way out weird, then many things are constant. In Runequest I may roll a d100, in D&D I roll a d20, in GURPS I roll 3d6 but I am trying the same damn things as the same damn character in the same damn setting in all three just the specifics differs.

New gamers at my store always wind up thinking GURPS is simpler than D&D 5e.  It isn't really but it has a lower learning curve as you can describe your actions in real terms rather than rules terms.  I always tell people, "a round is one second, if you need to say 'and' it's more than you can do."  I'm thinking about putting together a one page summary of the GURPS rules.  Yes, I believe the rules can be summed up in one page.

But even I think there are places where GURPS should be simpler.  Interestingly I find that for people who've played D&D a fair bit, Rolemaster is easier to pick up than GURPS.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011492One example is Charisma. It's one thing to just style your character as charismatic -- but if you don't have any abilities related to it, or a high stat representing it, then you're just making stuff up. The stat is what makes the fact that you have high Charisma real, and the abilities coming out from that.

Only if you're pants-shittingly stupid and have no imagination whatsoever.

Quote from: estar;1011589The reason I criticize Gronan (and others) criticism of complex RPGs (like GURPS) is that among other things a good set of rules impart knowledge of the subject matter. And if written well, the buyer doesn't need to go to the library to read up on the topic the RPG covers. Sure it would help and always recommended, but who I am to say that a person should make the time for it?

People make time for what matters to them.

Buying a model of a Baltimore and Ohio Railroad boxcar will teach you jack shit about the Baltimore and Ohio railroad.

For that matter, buying a sailboat will teach you fuckall about sailing.

Every other hobby I've ever been involved in requires effort.  Why is gaming the magical exception?

On the other hand, gamers have some fucked up attitude.  One good example is the "getting people to commit".  Lots of hobbies and leisure activities are group endeavors.  I've just started studying martial arts; class meets at a fixed time and place, and I'm expected to be there.  Elks, Rotary, Lions, Masons, et al, all have meetings.  You're expected to be there.  Model railroaders not only have clubs, but also some host gatherings in their homes; you're expected to be there at a certain time and place.

I have never, in 62 years of walking this earth, seen a group as bad as keeping commitments as gamers.  Are we as referees so fucking pathetic for attention that we accept being treated in a way that literally no other group on earth finds ok?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011599I have never, in 62 years of walking this earth, seen a group as bad as keeping commitments as gamers.  Are we as referees so fucking pathetic for attention that we accept being treated in a way that literally no other group on earth finds ok?

You get stood up by gamers recently? That what brought back the 'faceless generic gamers are all stupid' and poop-talking Gronan?

I can't honestly tell you, because I do not have the same experience. My game groups have week to week unavailability because most people in it have at-home kids and so forth, but they generally know by Wednesday if they can make it on Saturday (and, barring illness or emergency, follow through). As for referees being pathetic for attention, no. We just want this piece of effort we've put into this project to actually pay off, dammit! I do hope your gaming situation (and general living situation, if it's still as you've described) turn around, or at that the martial arts and model railroading hobbies are treating you better than the gaming.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011461It's different because I don't have to read hundreds of pages of fucking rules.

Translated to full size pages OD&D is less than 64 pages.  Fuck these multi-volume multi-hundred page rule sets.  Fuck them to death with an axe while holding their face into a fire and laughing as they scream.

Oh Boo Hoo. No one is forcing you to play.

Quote from: estar;1011524The rules are found in reading medieval history.

But how is this substantially different than some codified manuvers? Instead of having the "rules" in the main book, they're now dispersed amongst history texts that some players may not have.
*Edit* I see you elaborated later on. Consider this a rhetorical question then.

QuoteWhat Gronan and other don't get is that by and large most gamers need this coaching than not. And always had from the beginning.

I like that players can negotiate their actions. But I also like some benchmarks and common rules to provide a springboard for ideas and tactics.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1011602You get stood up by gamers recently? That what brought back the 'faceless generic gamers are all stupid' and poop-talking Gronan?

I can't honestly tell you, because I do not have the same experience. My game groups have week to week unavailability because most people in it have at-home kids and so forth, but they generally know by Wednesday if they can make it on Saturday (and, barring illness or emergency, follow through). As for referees being pathetic for attention, no. We just want this piece of effort we've put into this project to actually pay off, dammit! I do hope your gaming situation (and general living situation, if it's still as you've described) turn around, or at that the martial arts and model railroading hobbies are treating you better than the gaming.

Read this, or any other of a number of online forums.  They are FULL of threads about players not keeping commitments, and have been for years.

I do not have that problem because I do not tolerate it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011599Every other hobby I've ever been involved in requires effort.  Why is gaming the magical exception?

It not. Except we are 40 years in and have dozens of books that people can choose to learn how to referee or play tabletop roleplaying games. So of course it rare to find those who start with first principles and work it out for themselves.  In one respect your generation is not all that different, Jason and the Argonaut, Sinbad, Hammer Horror, etc.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011599On the other hand, gamers have some fucked up attitude.  One good example is the "getting people to commit".  Lots of hobbies and leisure activities are group endeavors.  I've just started studying martial arts; class meets at a fixed time and place, and I'm expected to be there.  Elks, Rotary, Lions, Masons, et al, all have meetings.  You're expected to be there.  Model railroaders not only have clubs, but also some host gatherings in their homes; you're expected to be there at a certain time and place.

I have never, in 62 years of walking this earth, seen a group as bad as keeping commitments as gamers.  Are we as referees so fucking pathetic for attention that we accept being treated in a way that literally no other group on earth finds ok?[/QUOTE]

I think this

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011599People make time for what matters to them.

Answers the above.  My experience is that people view tabletop roleplaying as an optional leisure activity.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011606I do not have that problem because I do not tolerate it.

And that the key, which is way I harp the focus should be on building better referees not better rules. Coaching, good sportmanship, all the things I advocate are about the referee (and players) showing leadership and learning the things they need in order for a group to function in a way that is fun and entertaining.

It kind of like being involved in scouting. Yeah you have scoutmasters but their job is not to lead the boys in their activities. Their job is to teach the boys to lead the activities themselves.  Otherwise it would be a chaotic gaggle of kids heading in a dozen different direction with half annoying the other half.

What interesting to me is the rise in actual play videos on Youtube. Seeing (as opposed to reading) how people are supposed to act can be a an effective teaching tool.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1011605I like that players can negotiate their actions. But I also like some benchmarks and common rules to provide a springboard for ideas and tactics.

Absolutely but there is no answer that the same for everybody.

For example

I have two 51 year old best friends who I game with who have 40 years of gaming and read dozens of history books and genre books.

Then I have a 13 year old son and friends.

The two groups don't need the same benchmarks and common rules. The 13 year old kids need a lot more coaching, explanations, and text to get going than my two 51 year old buddies.

Another example

I played with a referee at a local game store who is imaginative and a great person but is a terrible  teacher. Can't explain anything technical (like rules) worth shit. So we, players, all made him spell out the rules he using in greater detail than usual to make sure we understood what going on.

I been personally told numerous times by my players that the only reason they play GURPS is when I am running. Because I am able to lay it out everything and make it make sense for them.

My opinion is that learning to be a good coach and teacher will pay off in that you will have to do less work in giving players benchmark and common rules. Will never eliminate it but will be way less than what you are used too.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1011605But how is this substantially different than some codified maneuvers?

To make this point I swapped the order of posts. Above I said that the answer to what common benchmarks and common rules is not the same for everybody.

How it substantially different? Well if my group is a bunch of folk who were medieval reenactors, like my current Thursday group. They don't need a lot of codified maneuvers. They just describe what they are doing. I know, because of my reenactment experience, what to rule on, and they know what to expect.

However for my 13 year old son and his friends. They need codified maneuvers.

Because tabletop roleplaying is about the experience of being a character in a setting doing interesting things. The setting part of that potentially covers an entire imaginary world as rich as our own. So what need codified rules can be a varied as life itself. Just as different groups need different common benchmarks and common rules, different groups need different things codified.

For example I been running the Majestic Wildelands using modified OD&D rules (my Majestic Wilderlands supplement). A few month ago the Thursday group wanted to own a sailing ship, have sea adventures, and do trading (think fantasy Traveller). I had very basic bartering rules. So I came up with a set of Merchant Trade (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx9oLF40m-b8ZFRlN1dZR2VLbUU/view?usp=sharing) (mostly based on ACKS) rules that I used since then.

I wrote the rules so I am consistent in the future. Of course people will say "wing it". But I know my limitations and I wouldn't be consistent doing that. It designed it by listing the minimum I needed to know when the players get into port and what were the most important factors. I edited it and made a short pamphlet (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx9oLF40m-b8ZFRlN1dZR2VLbUU/view?usp=sharing) and that was that.

The rules, I hope, show in a compact form what valuable and what is not. Also list in compact form the factors that effect trade. Having it avoids the players from playing twenty questions on stuff they would know.

Of course some would say "Let them discover it all!" and to them I say they are not fucking running my campaign, and don't know my group or what they need. And such criticism misses the point that the booklet is about general principles. The specifics of what each town or city wants they will have to discover for themselves. Along with making the contacts and connections to create a profitable trade route. Which of course will invariably involve adventures because nobody is going to do anything without something in return.

Even writing the booklet still doesn't absolve my coaching responsibilities as the referee. Reading about something is different than experiencing it. So I have to coach the players the first few rounds of trading.


All of this part of my general thesis is that what is needed to fix tabletop roleplaying is better referee not better rules.

Quote from: estar;1011609Answers the above.  My experience is that people view tabletop roleplaying as an optional leisure activity.

Well, yeah, but...

Model railroading is an optional leisure activity.  Nonetheless, the Cumberland Northern Railroad operates at 7:30 every Wednesday at a place in Minnesota.  If you said you'd be there and don't show up and don't call... and if you CONTINUE that pattern... you will be un-invited.  The same with hundreds of other model railroads throughout the country.

Martial arts class is an optional leisure activity.  Sailing classes are an optional leisure activity.  Lions' club, et. al.  Everything I named earlier is an optional leisure activity.

Yet its practitioners make and keep commitments, and if they can't, notify the appropriate people.

Or more to the point, that is the expectation.  The gaming community seems to have really low expectations in terms of showing up when promised or notifying if you can't.

Estar, interesting point about your 13 year old and his friends.

I got a 13 year old hooked on OD&D a couple years back at Gary Con.  He now runs it.

I run all my games as "Just tell me what you want to do.  Don't worry about the rules."  So I don't think codified rules are needed for new players.

Of course, to your excellent point about good referees, I use "just tell me what you want to do" to encourage players, not to look for ways to "gotcha" them.  Free Kriegsspiel only works if the umpire is trustworthy.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011423That's what solo adventures are for.  Yes, we used to go into Greyhawk castle alone.  No other players, no NPCs.  Just your player character.

To be honest, I think you're overstating the Role aspect.  With armies, sure, but the idea that a Fighter is a MMO Tank, meant to soak up damage, Taunt opponents, and let the DPS do the actual killing is a very modern view.

Except for backstab, which can be hard to get if Fighters are holding a hallway, the Fighters are going to be doing as much damage as any other melee, especially if you look to AD&D1, where they have Str bonuses the "DPS" classes don't have.

In a smaller conflict, tactics are vital, but the role of the fighter is hardly "keep the bad guys in place and wait for everyone else to kill them".  It's "kill as many of the fuckers as you can while controlling and shaping the battlefield through clever positioning and tactics."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011616Well, yeah, but...

Model railroading is an optional leisure activity.  Nonetheless, the Cumberland Northern Railroad operates at 7:30 every Wednesday at a place in Minnesota.  If you said you'd be there and don't show up and don't call... and if you CONTINUE that pattern... you will be un-invited.  The same with hundreds of other model railroads throughout the country.

Martial arts class is an optional leisure activity.  Sailing classes are an optional leisure activity.  Lions' club, et. al.  Everything I named earlier is an optional leisure activity.

Yet its practitioners make and keep commitments, and if they can't, notify the appropriate people.

Or more to the point, that is the expectation.  The gaming community seems to have really low expectations in terms of showing up when promised or notifying if you can't.

I think this varies by what the organizers are willing to tolerate.  I've seen more than one martial arts organization where it is run as a school.  Those that show up regularly get taught.  Those that do not, get taught a lot less.  The organizer will encourage people to show, if for no other reason to get their money's worth.  But ultimately it's no skin off his nose as long as he can get enough people to show to make it work.  (Back in my fencing days, I almost got run ragged for a few months.  One of the weekday sessions was poorly attended for a time due to a natural change in the school roster, which meant the few of us there got the instructor's undivided attention.  Learned a lot, but could barely keep up physically as the one middle-aged student in a group of teens and college kids.)

I used to tolerate people that would say they would be there, then not show and not notify.  Because that is what it took to get a game together at all, and I wanted to have a game badly enough to tolerate it.  Then I found I could no longer tolerate it, and didn't.  Made the game work without tolerating it.  I've seen the exact same dynamic in all kinds of social activities, even some with formal RSVPs attached to them.  It was so common when I was a kid, that my parents had a name for it:  Being someone's second choice.  "I'll show for the party if Sally doesn't invite me to the movie instead."  That kind of thing.

I specifically said 'front line fighter in heavy armor'.  I also probably should have specified OD&D, where you have to physically create and hold a line to keep the enemy off the magic users.

Yes, we used to do most of our killing with swords, and the front line fighters are swinging as much as anybody.  But the way to make fighters not boring is to use them in not boring ways.  SOmetimes the situation requires the front heavy line simply slug it out, but that's the exception.  I am specifically countering those who claim that fighters need specialized combat things in the rules to be interesting.

And it's not "DPS do the actual killing", it's "pin, flank, and destroy."

Pulling 'aggro' just means making yourself an attractive target (attractive as in putting up flashing neon-lights saying "I'm the highest-priority threat here; attack me first!"). In D&D 3.5 this meant dealing a lot of damage, which meant that the party tank also had to be a DPS in order to be effective as a tank. In D&D 4E this meant the threat of retaliating with free attacks against enemies that try to attack your allies.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011452The players who talk about mechanics don't WANT to just "say whatever." It feels like just making stuff up that isn't "real." They want to have a mechanic representing some power in the game world, like if the mechanic wasn't there then it isn't "really" happening. That and the point is often made that having a rule gives the player in question a specific, repeatable, reliable move they can rely on, whereas when it is an open-ended thing then it could be as weak or as strong as the GM wants.

In other words, a big part of the fun here is the character building, taking this option or that, putting together your character the way a car enthusiast would go over each component of his car with a fine tooth and comb to custom order it. It is also the satisfaction of putting together the perfect structure, like building a model ship, putting everything just in its right place.

Just doing it freeform feels like a cop out to them. There is no engagement or rigor or challenge that they can then show off to their friends. You can't show off your character sheet to people to see what kind of character you made if all of it is just happening in the moment between GM and player.

At least, that's what I've been able to suss out from multiple conversations over the years. Otherwise I wouldn't see people balk at it every time I suggest they just do what they think makes sense in their imagination, etc.

Give those players a sack of quarters and send them to the local Chuck E. Cheese where they can play all the video games they want. That'll free up your table for another group possibly interested in the game at hand.

Quote from: Dumarest;1011637Give those players a sack of quarters and send them to the local Chuck E. Cheese where they can play all the video games they want. That'll free up your table for another group possibly interested in the game at hand.

Or, alternatively, you play an engaging roleplaying session with them using one system... and another engaging roleplaying session with your other friends using a "say whatever" style system. Or are we pretending that there's a right way to TTRPG again?

Quote from: Dumarest;1011637Give those players a sack of quarters and send them to the local Chuck E. Cheese where they can play all the video games they want. That'll free up your table for another group possibly interested in the game at hand.

I actually went to Chuck E Cheese a month ago for my nephew's birthday party. They don't use quarters or tokens anymore. They use electronic cards. /trivia

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1011627I've seen the exact same dynamic in all kinds of social activities, even some with formal RSVPs attached to them.  It was so common when I was a kid, that my parents had a name for it:  Being someone's second choice.  "I'll show for the party if Sally doesn't invite me to the movie instead."  That kind of thing.

This is the thing I have noticed the most. I'm not sure when it started, it was a bit of a thing in the 70's when I started gaming, but it's really grown to be more of a thing. I'm curious how much more of a thing it is with folks younger than me who are connected 24x7 with their smart phones and social media, which makes it even easier to find out what is going on. I think a lot of the cause is the ease of making and changing plans in a more connected world. On the one hand, the ease makes it easier to offer some activity (party, going to the mall, going to a movie, whatever), which creates more options for folks to choose between. Without that ease, and the number of options, you either decided if you want to go to a party Saturday or not...

Frank

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1011642I actually went to Chuck E Cheese a month ago for my nephew's birthday party. They don't use quarters or tokens anymore. They use electronic cards. /trivia

I know that, my kids like going there for birthday parties. ;)

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011359This topic came up among some of my players yesterday; they liked 5e's simplicity compared to Pathfinder, but lamented how bare bones combat options were, reducing them to basically being a robot every turn. It was interesting seeing this perspective, as he also saw it as a way to distinguish his character and emphasize his roleplay aspects. Without those options, his ability to express his character was limited.

So what's your take on it? Do you prefer combat options per class/subclass to be rich and fleshed out, or simple and straightforward? Is it boring when all you can do is "attack" again every time?

I want detail, including a map with counters for where everything is: characters, terrain, objects, animals, dropped weapons, dead bodies, etc., and rules about the effects of position, movement, weapon length, etc. so there is a game about the situation. And I want options for different things to try to do, but not so much the options found in many games with abstract combat systems, where fighters have brand-named combat options that do abstract stuff based on class/level.