Quote from: Christopher Brady;980094That's the same in all versions of D&D, though.  Except maybe 4e with it's 'marking' mechanism.  Most Mummies/Mummy Lords have the ability to soak whatever hits the Fighter/Thief(Rogue) can dish out and run up to the Wizard/Magic Users.

In the TSR editions, you can't move past enemies who can hit you. You can either engage them in melee or retreat.  Consequently, a single fighter could effectively block off a 15'-wide hallway. In the WotC editions, your zone of control got cut to a single 5'x'5 square, except in 4e. 5e's gone back to the 3.x way, when I think AD&D had it right.

QuoteThere's a reason why I say that players and DMs are trained to have a 'gentleman's agreement' to target the least effective members of the PC's first.

On a grid, this heavily tilts everything toward the players. One reason I have come to prefer TotM gaming is it's easier for me to just say, "You can't get past the hobgoblin soldiers to the goblin archers. They're in the way."

Quote from: Christopher Brady;980094There's a reason why I say that players and DMs are trained to have a 'gentleman's agreement' to target the least effective members of the PC's first.  It's to give the Magic Users a chance, otherwise you often end up with TPKs every major fight as the main damage dealers/fight enders are removed in the first few rounds.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980125In the TSR editions, you can't move past enemies who can hit you. You can either engage them in melee or retreat.  Consequently, a single fighter could effectively block off a 15'-wide hallway.

Isn't this an almost word-for-word retread of the start of the thread where the 'gentlemen's agreement' term first got used?

Can we just fast-forward the whole shebang?
CB: It requires a gentlemen's agreement for the magic user to survive.
those-against-CB (from now on taCB): It's not a 'gentlemen's agreement,' the rules say it.
CB: No it doesn't.
taCB: Yes it does.
CB: No it doesn't (specific reference).
taCB: Yes it does (specific reference).
CB: that's not what that means (argument).
taCB: it sure is (argument).
CB: GRR!!
taCB: RAR!!

Since in last Friday's D&D game the party let themselves get flanked and the kobolds got into melee with the magic user, I guess I'm no gentleman.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;980094There's a reason why I say that players and DMs are trained to have a 'gentleman's agreement' to target the least effective members of the PC's first.  It's to give the Magic Users a chance, otherwise you often end up with TPKs every major fight as the main damage dealers/fight enders are removed in the first few rounds.  That's all the tactics it needs.  Arrange map in favour of bad guys (because they can, as most never leave them), send minions to engage the front liners, throw everything at casters, stand back and watch everything die.

At least that's how it works with AD&D 2e and later.

Cue Gronan coming and yelling at us for 'doing it wrong'.  Again.

It's ironic that the guy who cries foul every time someone mentions the word "tactics" is also the guy that says there has to be a gentleman's agreement.  

First of all, how does the enemy magically know who is the most effective and least effective member?  That unarmored guy on the left flank might be a monk three levels higher than the rest of the party or have Bracers AC:0, Ring and Cloak +5 etc.

Secondly, you're assuming if the minions know who is the most powerful character, that they will want to volunteer to be the first to attack them.  "Hmm, I think I'll attack the guy with the dagger, Jeb can get the guy with the 2-handed Greataxe."

Thirdly, no plan survives contact with the enemy, and that goes triple when the enemy are Player Characters.  There is no such thing as a perfect trap, and PCs are some of the sneakiest, craziest bastards on earth.  That perfect plan might just be a total failure.

Int checks, morale checks, command or charisma checks, tactics skill checks, GM roleplaying monsters and NPCs accordingly, there are tons of reasons why the opposition may not function with 100% perfect tactical efficiency, and none of them require a gentleman's agreement.  Even if everything does go according to plan, the NPCs can simply be outthought and outfought by the players...that is if they don't wail and gnash their teeth crying "One True Wayism" if someone suggests they play tactically.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980130Since in last Friday's D&D game the party let themselves get flanked and the kobolds got into melee with the magic user, I guess I'm no gentleman.

If they let themselves get flanked, the agreement is not relevant.  It's not an agreement to let the players get away with mistakes, only an agreement to pretend that later editions don't let creatures walk through whatever good lines the players have established with minimal penalties.  If everyone goes charging in and leaves the wizard exposed, all bets are off.  Heck, a few months ago, I had a couple of invisible opponents sneaking to the rear of the party, and the two casters in the back almost got wiped out.  It was only luck and quick reactions from the ranger that bailed them out.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980125In the TSR editions, you can't move past enemies who can hit you. You can either engage them in melee or retreat.  Consequently, a single fighter could effectively block off a 15'-wide hallway. In the WotC editions, your zone of control got cut to a single 5'x'5 square, except in 4e. 5e's gone back to the 3.x way, when I think AD&D had it right.

As I don't have my AD&D 2e stuff, but have the reprinted AD&D 1e, can you point to me where it says this?  I will freely admit that I may have missed that section of the rules and if so, I'd like to have it pointed out, please.  And RC as well, if possible.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980125On a grid, this heavily tilts everything toward the players. One reason I have come to prefer TotM gaming is it's easier for me to just say, "You can't get past the hobgoblin soldiers to the goblin archers. They're in the way."

My experience says otherwise, but...  Anecdote.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980130Since in last Friday's D&D game the party let themselves get flanked and the kobolds got into melee with the magic user, I guess I'm no gentleman.

It was the party's fault.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;980135If they let themselves get flanked, the agreement is not relevant.  It's not an agreement to let the players get away with mistakes, only an agreement to pretend that later editions don't let creatures walk through whatever good lines the players have established with minimal penalties.  If everyone goes charging in and leaves the wizard exposed, all bets are off.  Heck, a few months ago, I had a couple of invisible opponents sneaking to the rear of the party, and the two casters in the back almost got wiped out.  It was only luck and quick reactions from the ranger that bailed them out.

There IS no agreement.

If their front rank is not sufficiently dense to block movement, characters behind the front rank WILL get meleed.  It's a major killer of 3rd edition and later players; they think in terms of 5 feet per figure, whereas OD&D allows 3 figures in a ten foot frontage.

The section in ODD vol. 3 states that three characters can hit a door simultaneously.  Volume 3 page 12 states that three hobgoblins can fit in a 10 foot wide corridor, and humans and hobgoblins are about the same size.  (Roman legions in close order had 3 1/2 foot between men, center to center.  This is no coincidence.)

In Vol 1 it refers to CHAINAMAIL as among the recommended equipment, and CHAINMAIL states "All types of troops are considered to control the space 1 " on either side of themselves to stop infiltration"  (p. 16)

So, if the PCs don't keep their ranks solid, they are in trouble.  No "gentleman's agreement" involved.  Learn tactics or die.

The "Gentleman's agreement" I use in 5e is that monsters typically attack either whomever's closest or just hit them hardest.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;980136As I don't have my AD&D 2e stuff, but have the reprinted AD&D 1e, can you point to me where it says this?  I will freely admit that I may have missed that section of the rules and if so, I'd like to have it pointed out, please.  And RC as well, if possible.

Page 70, 1e DMG:
"If characters or similar intelligent creatures are able to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break out of combat."

In the 2e manual, there are 3 kinds of listed movement for melee:
1. Into melee range
2. Withdrawing
3. Fleeing

The idea of moving through melee isn't even contemplated. Moving into melee range is described as the "basic" maneuver. Chainmail and Holmes reflect the same idea. Mentzer is a bit more clear in stating unequivocally that your only maneuvers in melee are "Fighting Withdrawal" and "Retreat." If you look at any of the TSR editions, when one moves into melee, one's only options are to either stay in melee or retreat; there is no option to continue forward, draw an opportunity attack or some other penalty, and engage the back line.

Since you mentioned CHAINMAIL, don't forget it specifically says that figures control 1" to either side so that formations can't be infiltrated.

Quote from: CRKrueger;980132It's ironic that the guy who cries foul every time someone mentions the word "tactics" is also the guy that says there has to be a gentleman's agreement.  

First of all, how does the enemy magically know who is the most effective and least effective member?  That unarmored guy on the left flank might be a monk three levels higher than the rest of the party or have Bracers AC:0, Ring and Cloak +5 etc.

Secondly, you're assuming if the minions know who is the most powerful character, that they will want to volunteer to be the first to attack them.  "Hmm, I think I'll attack the guy with the dagger, Jeb can get the guy with the 2-handed Greataxe."

Thirdly, no plan survives contact with the enemy, and that goes triple when the enemy are Player Characters.  There is no such thing as a perfect trap, and PCs are some of the sneakiest, craziest bastards on earth.  That perfect plan might just be a total failure.

Int checks, morale checks, command or charisma checks, tactics skill checks, GM roleplaying monsters and NPCs accordingly, there are tons of reasons why the opposition may not function with 100% perfect tactical efficiency, and none of them require a gentleman's agreement.  Even if everything does go according to plan, the NPCs can simply be outthought and outfought by the players...that is if they don't wail and gnash their teeth crying "One True Wayism" if someone suggests they play tactically.

Also, at some point the assumption "Your front rank is three characters in plate and shield" went bye-bye.  About the same time as the idea of hiring henchmen short or long term to make sure you had your armored front rank, at least one cleric, etc.

Fafhrd and the Mouser, Conan, Elric, and other S&S types frequently had NPCs along either short or long term.  I remember for sure Faf & Mouser hiring a couple of guides for, I think, a mountain climbing expedition.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980144There IS no agreement.

If their front rank is not sufficiently dense to block movement, characters behind the front rank WILL get meleed.  It's a major killer of 3rd edition and later players; they think in terms of 5 feet per figure, whereas OD&D allows 3 figures in a ten foot frontage.

The section in ODD vol. 3 states that three characters can hit a door simultaneously.  Volume 3 page 12 states that three hobgoblins can fit in a 10 foot wide corridor, and humans and hobgoblins are about the same size.  (Roman legions in close order had 3 1/2 foot between men, center to center.  This is no coincidence.)

In Vol 1 it refers to CHAINAMAIL as among the recommended equipment, and CHAINMAIL states "All types of troops are considered to control the space 1 " on either side of themselves to stop infiltration"  (p. 16)

So, if the PCs don't keep their ranks solid, they are in trouble.  No "gentleman's agreement" involved.  Learn tactics or die.

I know.  I'm translating that way of thinking into more recent editions, where the rules do not support that kind of play as well as they do in earlier ones.  I want that kind of play, but also appreciate some of the (different) features of the later editions.  Your example that I was replying to is not relevant to the gentleman's agreement in these later rules.

In my game, the enforcement translates more to, "Even though the strict letter of the rules states that you can waltz through this line with minimal penalty to get to the juicy target of the archers that are making you miserable, the spirit of the thing at our table is that the guys with armor and big axes in front would smash you to bits if you ignored them that way.  Thus, as long as you honor that spirit and play your characters to the tactics of the situation and not the rules lawyering, the opponents will do the same."

In effect, I've found it more efficient to do the GM adjudication on this issue by Kantian means.  The categorical imperative here is that the world treats you the way your actions say it should work.  Rather than specific rules that kill you right now if you do something stupid.  In practice, after a short learning experience, it amounts to the same thing:  The players try to form good lines and guard the squishy allies.

Quote from: CRKrueger;980132It's ironic that the guy who cries foul every time someone mentions the word "tactics" is also the guy that says there has to be a gentleman's agreement.

If it weren't for you and Black Vulema and Asen and one or two others, I'd start to think there was something wrong with my reading comprehension.  Thanks for cashing my reality check.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;980154I know.  I'm translating that way of thinking into more recent editions,

Didn't realize that.  Carry on.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;980154I know.  I'm translating that way of thinking into more recent editions, where the rules do not support that kind of play as well as they do in earlier ones.  I want that kind of play, but also appreciate some of the (different) features of the later editions.  Your example that I was replying to is not relevant to the gentleman's agreement in these later rules.

In my game, the enforcement translates more to, "Even though the strict letter of the rules states that you can waltz through this line with minimal penalty to get to the juicy target of the archers that are making you miserable, the spirit of the thing at our table is that the guys with armor and big axes in front would smash you to bits if you ignored them that way.  Thus, as long as you honor that spirit and play your characters to the tactics of the situation and not the rules lawyering, the opponents will do the same."

In effect, I've found it more efficient to do the GM adjudication on this issue by Kantian means.  The categorical imperative here is that the world treats you the way your actions say it should work.  Rather than specific rules that kill you right now if you do something stupid.  In practice, after a short learning experience, it amounts to the same thing:  The players try to form good lines and guard the squishy allies.

The man in my new OD&D group here is not only an experienced player, but a combat vet.  Screening, watching your flanks, protecting vulnerable troops, etc, is all second nature to him.  It's kind of nice.