So, the LotFP rulebook seems to discourage fighting monsters (going so far as to brand those that do so as 'lunatics') but the main method of getting XP seems to be recovering treasure from 'abandoned' or 'uncivilized' areas. Isn't this a bit bizarre?
Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;495281So, the LotFP rulebook seems to discourage fighting monsters (going so far as to brand those that do so as 'lunatics') but the main method of getting XP seems to be recovering treasure from 'abandoned' or 'uncivilized' areas. Isn't this a bit bizarre?
Not really. That's how a lot of older editions of D&D worked too. The XP for gaining treasure was much higher than the XP for killing monsters.
The kill 'em all for XP mentality is more or less a feature of modern editions.
If you want to cut the idea of giving xp for treasure then you just need to boost the xp for killing. and considering the high mortality rate amongst low level adventurers, killing monsters is for lunatics.
Quote from: misterguignol;495283Not really. That's how a lot of older editions of D&D worked too. The XP for gaining treasure was much higher than the XP for killing monsters.
Ratios are about 2/3 for treasures and 1/3 killing enemies in AD&D First Ed in practice, if memory serves.
Quote from: Benoist;495288Ratios are about 2/3 for treasures and 1/3 killing enemies in AD&D First Ed in practice, if memory serves.
This is a perfect example of how plot structure is actually built into the game.
As far as Aos' signature goes, it fits every time with Antony's threads. Tell me i'm wrong.
If I'm trying to get rich robbing a pyramid; you damn well know that I'm going to try and avoid fighting the mummy.
Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;495281So, the LotFP rulebook seems to discourage fighting monsters (going so far as to brand those that do so as 'lunatics') but the main method of getting XP seems to be recovering treasure from 'abandoned' or 'uncivilized' areas. Isn't this a bit bizarre?
This is one of those OSR-tinted versions of old school gaming that tend to remind me of this guy (http://xkcd.com/239/).
While it's true that (a) treasure was the bigger source of XP if you played RAW and (b) this does have an impact on the psychology and approach players have to the game, the idea that this was achieved by groups largely avoiding combat doesn't seem to be true in any contemporary accounts or adventures.
Quote from: Benoist;495288Ratios are about 2/3 for treasures and 1/3 killing enemies in AD&D First Ed in practice, if memory serves.
For example, this ratio -- often quoted by the same people holding up the "combat was always avoided at all costs" meme simultaneously -- is derived entirely by analyzing the amount of treasure you get from the monsters you've defeated.
We played pretty much according to the "Successful Adventures" section, pp 107-109 in the AD&D PHB. It sets expectations fairly well, and we have had fun with it for several decades.
One paragraph heading was: Avoid unnecessary encounters.
The intended style of play is explicitly laid out. If a group didn't play that way, it's not because the game encouraged the way they did play.
In my experience, small children tended to play that way when D&D came out - they latched on to fighting the monsters as the point of the game, rather than as the main obstacle to progress. Kind of like little kids will latch on to dessert as the point of the meal, rather than simply one part of it. Kids want every course to be dessert, and only later do they discover that ruins the meal.
Some kids don't discover that - and more power to them. If you want to play D&D as all combat, all the time - no problem - no badwrongfun. If you want to eat meals as all candy and icecream all the time - again, I have no problem. I think you'll eventually get sick of it.
Problems arise when the munchkins either grow out of it, and bash the system for supposedly encouraging their munchkinry, or they don't grow out of it, and push the system towards their 'combat is the most important thing in the whole game' playstyle.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;495316This is one of those OSR-tinted versions of old school gaming that tend to remind me of this guy (http://xkcd.com/239/).
While it's true that (a) treasure was the bigger source of XP if you played RAW and (b) this does have an impact on the psychology and approach players have to the game, the idea that this was achieved by groups largely avoiding combat doesn't seem to be true in any contemporary accounts or adventures.
For example, this ratio -- often quoted by the same people holding up the "combat was always avoided at all costs" meme simultaneously -- is derived entirely by analyzing the amount of treasure you get from the monsters you've defeated.
At first level, if you don't plan well and get as much treasure as possible without fighting for it, there will be little chance of any contemporary accounts of reaching 2nd level.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;495344At first level, if you don't plan well and get as much treasure as possible without fighting for it, there will be little chance of any contemporary accounts of reaching 2nd level.
Bingo.
Early-level D&D is all about risk-management.
Quote from: misterguignol;495347Bingo.
Early-level D&D is all about risk-management.
exactly...back when there were no Challenge Ratings/Levels where the DM was encouraged to delicately craft an encounter to avoid Mary Sue getting her head lopped off by a rabid Gnoll.
Quote from: kregmosier;495353exactly...back when there were no Challenge Ratings/Levels where the DM was encouraged to delicately craft an encounter to avoid Mary Sue getting her head lopped off by a rabid Gnoll.
We snipe the gnolls from cover > We charge the gnolls
Old-school D&D rewards playing smart and rewards immersion in your character's own invest in staying alive. Riddle of steel and all that.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;495316This is one of those OSR-tinted versions of old school gaming that tend to remind me of this guy (http://xkcd.com/239/).
While it's true that (a) treasure was the bigger source of XP if you played RAW and (b) this does have an impact on the psychology and approach players have to the game, the idea that this was achieved by groups largely avoiding combat doesn't seem to be true in any contemporary accounts or adventures.
I agree with Justin. The "never fight monsters" meme has rose-colored glasses that are so thick they are nearly opaque.
Yes, the game isn't 100% about slaughtering monsters. Yes, XP is primarily from treasure.
But that's
treasure you get from defeating monsters. Treasure just lying around with no traps or monsters guarding it was piddly amount. The real money was from things like defeating a dragon.
The problem that started to occur with D&D in the 80's was that everyone forgot treasure was supposed to be the focus of XP, leading to a case where you had to fight everything in sight to ever gain a level. The problem was not that everyone forgot you weren't supposed to fight at all.
D&D always had a pretty big expectation that you'd be killing stuff (big hint - it was originally a wargame).
Quote from: kregmosier;495353exactly...back when there were no Challenge Ratings/Levels where the DM was encouraged to delicately craft an encounter to avoid Mary Sue getting her head lopped off by a rabid Gnoll.
So playing D&D the "wrong way" means you're some kind of pansy who is too attached to his Mary Sue character, but if you play D&D the "right way", you're clever and resourceful and tough. Is that about right? Hold on, I got something for you...
Quote from: RPGPundit;82274The Swine are any people for whom RPGs have, as their primary purpose, the conveyance of some kind of sense of personal self-worth.
Just sayin'.
Quote from: two_fishes;495361So playing D&D the "wrong way" means you're some kind of pansy who is too attached to his Mary Sue character, but if you play D&D the "right way", you're clever and resourceful and tough. Is that about right? Hold on, I got something for you...
Personally, I prefered the post where Kaldric said that only immature players play in games where you fight monsters.
The mature way to pretend to be an elf is to run like a frightened child from everything in sight, apparently.
Quote from: jgants;495365Personally, I prefered the post where Kaldric said that only immature players play in games where you fight monsters.
The mature way to pretend to be an elf is to run like a frightened child from everything in sight, apparently.
Yeah that was a good one too. Sometimes I just want to stick a dagger in my eye.
Quote from: jgants;495358I agree with Justin. The "never fight monsters" meme has rose-colored glasses that are so thick they are nearly opaque.
Yes, the game isn't 100% about slaughtering monsters. Yes, XP is primarily from treasure.
Hold up, I don't think anyone is saying that you should *never* fight monsters. Obviously you do; hell, there is a reason why combat gets its own section in the rules.
That said, it isn't a game that rewards you for tackling every group of monsters head-on. Again, in the early levels its a game of risk-management.
We're all about excluding the middle here Mr. G- especially if we can do it with name calling and manufactured asspain.
The game is called Dungeons & Greedy Paranoid Tacticians for a reason jackholes.
The very math of D&D dictates that if you get into fights you will eventually die.
Smart play mitigates risk in favor of avoiding combat while getting the treasure.
Kind of how in the Conan stories and Indiana Jones movies the protagonists would go into ancient ruins looking for a fight...
Generally speaking, unless it was an obviously mindless/aggressive encounter (with skeletons, say, or slimes and the like) we would and still do often try to talk our way out of the fight by talking to the creature. We still get XP for "defeating" them (that is to say, outwitting or reasoninig with them), but not the treasure of course. Also, as long as we've played we have a pretty good sense of when a fight is just assisted suicide and will usually try to avoid those instead of charging in because we're "supposed" to.
Quote from: jgants;495358But that's treasure you get from defeating monsters. Treasure just lying around with no traps or monsters guarding it was piddly amount. The real money was from things like defeating a dragon.
I won't argue that the greatest rewards were generally associated with the higher risks.
"Defeating monsters" has many meanings, not all of which have anything to do with a slugfest. A monster could be lured out of a lair and tricked into pursuing an intruder while others go in and loot the lair. A monster could be tricked, or duped into giving up some treasure to a well executed scheme.
The best thing ever is getting monsters to fight other monsters.
Quote from: two_fishes;495361So playing D&D the "wrong way" means you're some kind of pansy who is too attached to his Mary Sue character, but if you play D&D the "right way", you're clever and resourceful and tough. Is that about right?
not sure about the "clever, resourceful, and tough" or "wrong/right" way to play, but OK.
Also keep in mind you have set encounters and wandering monsters. The big treasures are to be gotten from the set encounters.
Wandering creatures have little, if any, treasure on them, and are basically a waste of resources to face down every time they pop up. Good players know to avoid random encounters because the effort is not usually worth the reward.
Quote from: jgants;495365Personally, I prefered the post where Kaldric said that only immature players play in games where you fight monsters.
The mature way to pretend to be an elf is to run like a frightened child from everything in sight, apparently.
I don't remember saying that. If you managed to read that in to what I said, maybe you should ask yourself why you're so sensitive?
Here's what I said - I'll bold a few parts to assist reading comprehension:
QuoteIn my experience, small children tended to play that way when D&D came out - they latched on to fighting the monsters as the point of the game, rather than as the main obstacle to progress. Kind of like little kids will latch on to dessert as the point of the meal, rather than simply one part of it. Kids want every course to be dessert, and only later do they discover that ruins the meal.
How, exactly, did you manage to get "only immature players play in games where you fight monsters" out of that? Buddy, you're reading WAY more into my posts than is there. I say that in my experience, kids think combat is the point of the game, rather than an obstacle in it to be overcome. I never say the game doesn't have combat in it. The game does say it's something to avoid if you can - just like falling into a trap - the game never says you're always going to be able to avoid it. But, just like you wouldn't just jump into every pit trap you find, you don't just moronically fight it out at every opportunity, for no purpose.
Yeah, the best treasure is guarded by monsters - but most monsters don't have the best treasure. The point of the game (for me) is to have a goal, and achieve the goal. Generally, that doesn't mean mindlessly charging into every combat I see, like some rabid doof. Generally, it means avoiding any
unnecessary combat.
I'm bang alongside necessary combat.BTW: Pretending to be something means trying to convince someone you actually ARE that thing. I've roleplayed an elf, I've never pretended to BE one.
TL;DR: I believe monsters are the main obstacle to progress, and thus overcoming them by the most intelligent means at hand is a large portion of the game. If you believe
fighting monsters is the
point of the game, then you have the same beliefs as children who played the game when I started playing it. Do you believe fighting monsters is the whole point of the game, rather than that monsters are the main obstacle to overcome? 'Cuz there's a difference there.
I'm not calling you a child. I'm not even calling you a munchkin. I'm saying you might believe some of the same things as children, or munchkins, that I've known. If that's hurtful... gosh. Sorry.
Quote from: Kaldric;495432I'm not calling you a child. I'm not even calling you a munchkin. I'm saying you might believe some of the same things as children, or munchkins, that I've known. If that's hurtful... gosh. Sorry.
Well, it's a level of passive-aggressive douchebaggery worthy of TBP, at least.
Only if you think liking stuff that kids like or power gaming are somehow bad things.
Spoiler
They aren't.
What the fuck is this shit? What the fuck? I go to lurk mode and the next thing I know it's all story this and avoid combat that and indiana jones didn't the other!
you fucking lot of pansies! Quit reading some finnish death metal failure's od&d repackaging and go back to playing D&D! Draw your swords, wade in, get some blood on you, call down some eldritch energies, utter a few healing spells or so help me god I will sack the fucking lot of you. Yes, "this close to christmas".
god amighty.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;495438What the fuck is this shit? What the fuck? I go to lurk mode and the next thing I know it's all story this and avoid combat that and indiana jones didn't the other!
you fucking lot of pansies! Quit reading some finnish death metal failure's od&d repackaging and go back to playing D&D! Draw your swords, wade in, get some blood on you, call down some eldritch energies, utter a few healing spells or so help me god I will sack the fucking lot of you. Yes, "this close to christmas".
god amighty.
Notice how this post follows the typical three act structure. I especially enjoyed the references to the "God" character both direct and indirect.
edited to remove bile generated by the usual internet stuff
And to clear everything up:
I say that the books say to avoid unnecessary encounters and that you should run first and ask questions later.
I also say you can play however you want, there's no badwrongfun - just because they say that, doesn't mean you have to play that way.
I also say that I observed younger children focusing on combat to the exclusion of the rest of the game.
Which of these statements do you dispute? Which, in fact, is wrong?
Quote from: Kaldric;495444And to clear everything up:
I say that the books say to avoid unnecessary encounters and that you should run first and ask questions later.
I also say you can play however you want, there's no badwrongfun - just because they say that, doesn't mean you have to play that way.
I also say that I observed younger children focusing on combat to the exclusion of the rest of the game.
Which of these statements do you dispute? Which, in fact, is wrong?
My original comment was poking fun at your post for using the phrase "grow out of it", which has a pretty clear implication.
Me, I like my RPGs to be action-adventure type games. Not mindless action, just that action is a large component of the experience. I want something like Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark, but not a Michael Bay style movie.
Quote from: Aos;495439Notice how this post follows the typical three act structure. I especially enjoyed the references to the "God" character both direct and indirect.
he's trying to kill me - you all saw it.
Quote from: Aos;495289This is a perfect example of how plot structure is actually built into the game.
Spot on. I'm running an LoTFP sandbox and the thing the players immediately latched onto was that this was about the treasure, not the monster slaying. Its amazing the new doors this mechanic has opened. The game is currently 7 sessions in and the players have outfitted a full on archaeological expedition to excavate an ancient Motte & Bailey structure in the hopes of finding ancient treasures inside. Indiana Jones indeed!
That's not to say there isn't combat of course. But the players certainly weigh it up more than they normally would and tend to avoid the unnecessary ones. When they do indulge in it, I'd say the fun of it is reward enough.
My players usually make a point of trying to find everything in a dungeon and kill it. They prefer that to unexpected surprises later. That's how basically all my groups have operated; so I suspect that what people are talking about here like its common practice is really quite a minority view.
Of course, there's no point fighting something you can't beat, but that's a different question.
RPGPundit
Someone had a blog post about the shift in perspective from goal-oriented play, where you're after something, to kill-everything play, where you 'clear the dungeon'. Can't remember who. Maybe someone writing about megadungeons, and how it's not really possible to clear them out.
I think promoting a "never fight monsters, just get treasure" view of D&D is mistaken, but I'm not so sure that is what anyone is actually promoting.
I think the key is not fighting unnecessarily. That doesn't mean don't fight monsters. It means fight monsters on your terms, and when you think there's a reasonable reward for the risk. That can still be an awful lot of fighting!
FWIW, "clearing" a dungeon is a concept that is mostly foreign and unused, in my D&D games. There are exceptions, where the whole idea is to clear a certain ruin or site and make it safe, but usually there are other motivations and goals.
To paraphrase William Gibson, players find their own motivations for things.
I occasionally run a friend of mine who is not a hardcore gamer in the least through Castle Delve. In introducing him to the module I told him about the storied history of the place. So he, on his own, has decided that finding "The Delver" is his ultimate goal. The first few times he was attacked by bandits up on the 1st level he was utterly perplexed - who were these people, and why were they attacking him? Even as he was firing arrows and swinging his sword he'd shout at them asking what the hell their problem was.
He has over a few sessions got a bit more salty and is a kill-first-ask-questions-never type, but is still very addicted to the idea of finding this "Great Delver" and finding out why he built the Castle and dungeons, etc.
As I write the module as players play through, with Steve's mode of adventuring I find myself wondering if "The Delver" will put a cameo in!
Quote from: Kaldric;495331We played pretty much according to the "Successful Adventures" section, pp 107-109 in the AD&D PHB. It sets expectations fairly well, and we have had fun with it for several decades.
One paragraph heading was: Avoid unnecessary encounters.
Yup. That's the psychology shift I was talking about. When the game rewards you only for combat, that provides a strong motivation to seek out combat. This applies to rewarding any tactical method: That method will be preferred and sought out. There will still be some strategic thought (as one differentiates between "challenges that can be overcome" and "shit that's too tough for us"), but the tactical method will be strongly preselected.
If you shift the reward to a strategic goal, OTOH, then players are free to pursue any tactical method for achieving that strategic goal.
Now that I'm in the same place as my LotFP PDF, I can also look at the original quote: "Characters who prefer to fight
when it is unnecessary are lunatics, possibly psychotic, and not likely to survive long in a game run by a competent Referee." (emphasis added)
OP left out some important context there. LotFP doesn't seem to actually be an example of the rose-tinted "combat never happened" school of thought that I was talking about.
Quote from: RPGPundit;495946My players usually make a point of trying to find everything in a dungeon and kill it. They prefer that to unexpected surprises later. That's how basically all my groups have operated; so I suspect that what people are talking about here like its common practice is really quite a minority view.
Exactly.
Even if they have a goal to find the McGuffin or whatever, the first thing my groups wants to do is clear the place out first to make sure no unexpected threats come up from behind them, or can cut off their escape route, or can sneak up on them in their sleep, etc.
It's basically the same thing the real world SWAT teams do. Even if you are going in to save the hostages, you clear the place first to make sure you don't get shot while taking them out. Securing an area by clearing it of enemy combatants is a fairly fundamental strategy.
When I am running AD&D, I always make a point of the relative XP value of treasure and monsters. An ogre is worth like 60XP +1xp per hit point. A one legged kobold with an amethyst ring is worth as much as XP as the ring is worth.
So yes, absolutely, avoid fighting monsters. Just rob old tombs.
And then I proceed to make most of the treasure in areas that are guarded by monsters or other dangers. Simple enough.
One of the dungeons I had, contained a boring beetle (5hd kind of a tough monster) gnawing through the wooden furniture and chests in a treasure-filled room. There were some other branching rooms. My son was playing the final survivor of an expedition- he started out with hirelings but they were all pretty much wiped out. And all he had was his one spell, cast at the beginning of the game, Unseen Servant. He found the room on his way out, after running away from an encounter where his final hireling got killed.
At first he was going to just shut the door and look for another way out.. and then instead, he sent the unseen servant in to tempt the beetle with wood..into the next room..where it shut and barred the door. Then he scooped up the platinum and electrum and ran home.
When I'm running D&D4, it has a much more reliable and gameable combat system, and especially a quest system, so I create situations where players have to go on quests, and face danger. Gold isn't very useful in D&D4- it's not like in D&D3 where it was mandatory to have so many items, nor is it conveniently bled off like in training costs. So I strated creating quests, some of which had a "buy in" requirement, like if you wanted to be able to pilot the spelljammer ship, you had to take a multi-part quest, and part of that was you had to own a 1000gp spyglass.
Here's some examples: http://fallenstars.wikidot.com/individual-quests
Quote from: jgants;496098It's basically the same thing the real world SWAT teams do. Even if you are going in to save the hostages, you clear the place first to make sure you don't get shot while taking them out. Securing an area by clearing it of enemy combatants is a fairly fundamental strategy.
Wouldn't an alternate tactic be to swipe the loot and then wreck the dungeon entrance?
A couple of other points: If it's going to be smart and mean enough to go after you for stealing its treasure, it's going to be smart and mean enough to mount an active defense, and relatedly, there are going to be types of monsters you'll want to expunge ASAP and others you can just go around, so it's not an either/or situation usually ("Kill all the black puddings, they might ambush us in our beds!").
Quote from: jgants;496098Even if they have a goal to find the McGuffin or whatever, the first thing my groups wants to do is clear the place out first to make sure no unexpected threats come up from behind them, or can cut off their escape route, or can sneak up on them in their sleep, etc.
What would they do with a site that was too large to clear? Say, an abandoned huge ruined "city" (say something like Angkor in SE Asia) or a large megadungeon? The first level of the megadungeon beneath the PC's manor in my current M74 campaign reportedly has at least 400 rooms, for example.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;495316Quote from: Benoist;495288Ratios are about 2/3 for treasures and 1/3 killing enemies in AD&D First Ed in practice, if memory serves.
For example, this ratio -- often quoted by the same people holding up the "combat was always avoided at all costs" meme simultaneously -- is derived entirely by analyzing the amount of treasure you get from the monsters you've defeated.
Actually, no. This specific ratio here given by me is derived from actual play in my campaign, counting all XP from monsters defeated versus all XP derived from acquiring treasure, all the while trying to adhere to the spirit of the rules and advice given in the DMG.
Quote from: Benoist;496233Actually, no. This specific ratio here given by me is derived from actual play in my campaign, counting all XP from monsters defeated versus all XP derived from acquiring treasure, all the while trying to adhere to the spirit of the rules and advice given in the DMG.
I think this is about right, well, at least in the sense that there is no real ratio, it just works out that way.
Last week I ran Dwellers in the Forbidden City (the "A" map, encounters 1-10, in practice 1-9 because we hit closing time and there's a killer encounter at A9).
There's a room with crocodiles and a sacrificial pool, for example. The crocodiles are worth a couple of hundred XP. But if you can figure out how to collect the gems from the sacrificial pool, there's a pair of 1,000 gp gems down there and an assortment of other gems. Obviously the gems are the real XP. There's just no good way of getting them without dealing with the crocs. If you can kill the largest croc and injure all of the others, they swim away..or clever use of Unseen Servant or Mage Hand would easily net you the goods without dealing with the danger. The players in my case resorted to "Tie a rope around the halfling and lower him in" which ended up being a lot of fun for everyone, though.
Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;495281So, the LotFP rulebook seems to discourage fighting monsters (going so far as to brand those that do so as 'lunatics') but the main method of getting XP seems to be recovering treasure from 'abandoned' or 'uncivilized' areas. Isn't this a bit bizarre?
OD&D was a "get in, get objective, get out" mission dressed up with fantasy elements. If it doesn't make perfect sense, it's because it wasn't supposed to. But yeah, in OD&D the assumed playstyle is that you're going to get as much loot with as little risk as possible. Combat is fun, but deadly at low levels, and the threat is ever-present enough that you don't have to go looking for it.
Quote from: RandallS;496148What would they do with a site that was too large to clear? Say, an abandoned huge ruined "city" (say something like Angkor in SE Asia) or a large megadungeon? The first level of the megadungeon beneath the PC's manor in my current M74 campaign reportedly has at least 400 rooms, for example.
IME, they'll chunk it. They'll clear and secure a level. If the levels get too large for that, they'll find other way to conceptually define an area (usually around chokepoints or by virtue of empty space) and clear the immediate area.
Quote from: Benoist;496233Actually, no. This specific ratio here given by me is derived from actual play in my campaign, counting all XP from monsters defeated versus all XP derived from acquiring treasure, all the while trying to adhere to the spirit of the rules and advice given in the DMG.
Interesting. Because it (not?) coincidentally provides a close match for the XP:GP ratio derived from a strictly mathematical breakdown of monsters and treasure. (This varies, IIRC, from 3:1 to 3:2 in pre-2E.) Based on this, and your statement that you're honoring the treasure generation guidelines, I'm going to conclude that your players aren't actually avoiding combat that often.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;496319IME, they'll chunk it. They'll clear and secure a level. If the levels get too large for that, they'll find other way to conceptually define an area (usually around chokepoints or by virtue of empty space) and clear the immediate area.
This is how my players 'clear'. They reconnoiter, move forward, clear areas only as necessary, and secure their backtrail. They secure their backtrail by collapsing tunnels, by wizard-locking doors, by spiking doors, by... all sorts of things, really. Whatever they think of.
If they can get to the objective by clearing 10 rooms, they'd rather do that than clear 40 rooms 'just to be sure'. They'll extract the prime treasure from 4 dungeons for every 1 the more 'kill everything' group manages. And, since they have to fight much less often, their chances of survival are much higher.
And this is what it's all about for my group. Achieving the goal and surviving to do it. The goal is never, for them, 'kill all the monsters'. So they don't do that. It would be a waste of effort, not to mention lives.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;496319Interesting. Because it (not?) coincidentally provides a close match for the XP:GP ratio derived from a strictly mathematical breakdown of monsters and treasure. (This varies, IIRC, from 3:1 to 3:2 in pre-2E.) Based on this, and your statement that you're honoring the treasure generation guidelines, I'm going to conclude that your players aren't actually avoiding combat that often.
They're not avoiding combat all the time, if that is what you're after. I'm not sure I agree with this idea/meme that you "have to" run away constantly from combat in AD&D either, to tell you the truth.
Being careful, using problem-solving skills, avoiding some confrontations if possible, managing resources wisely, knowing when to back off and live another day to come back the next, knowing something about basic tactics, actual tactics, like using terrain for your advantage, dividing to conquer, those type of things, sure, you totally need them to survive, and even then, luck does help, and death because of some unforeseen development does happen as well. But running all the time period the end? That's another matter. That's an extreme that doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun to me.
I like the 'run first, ask questions later' dictum from the 'successful adventures' section.
It makes sense to me, given our playstyle. We play pretty close to RAW - combat is freaking lethal - it is a crapshoot, it's Russian Roulette. Combat is functionally equivalent to a trap (an AD&D trap, that can just outright kill you). Why on earth would a sane person walk into a trap without at least trying to understand how to address it?
Fall into combat. Run. Come back. Reconnoiter. Figure the best approach. Murder.
As opposed to:
Fall into combat. Stay and hope you win. Die. Complain.
That's why I was talking about actual tactics: actual tactics (where you use your brains to exploit situations and circumstances to give you the best possible advantage on the battle field and shape it to your and not your enemies' expectations) mitigate the lethality of combat. Use actual tactics (including but certainly not limited to knowing when to retreat for safer ground to come back the next day) and you'll see your results increase tremendously.
Think like a moron with no imagination, your brain trapped in a jar made of rules within rules wrapped between the covers of the game manuals, and you'll die.
Quote from: Kaldric;496337I like the 'run first, ask questions later' dictum from the 'successful adventures' section.
It makes sense to me, given our playstyle. We play pretty close to RAW - combat is freaking lethal - it is a crapshoot, it's Russian Roulette. Combat is functionally equivalent to a trap (an AD&D trap, that can just outright kill you). Why on earth would a sane person walk into a trap without at least trying to understand how to address it?
Fall into combat. Run. Come back. Reconnoiter. Figure the best approach. Murder.
As opposed to:
Fall into combat. Stay and hope you win. Die. Complain.
"Damnit Valentine, runnin aint no kind of plan. Runnin's what you do when a plan fails." :D
I much prefer to:
1) Reconnoiter
2) Asess the situation
3) Decide if any action is to be taken or not.
4) Come up with a primary plan and a backup for when everything goes to shit.
Just falling into combat and planning to run away is very rash and stupid. What if the enemy is much faster than you? Assuming that you do get away, the enemy is now aware of you and gaining suprise might be more difficult.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;496319IME, they'll chunk it. They'll clear and secure a level. If the levels get too large for that, they'll find other way to conceptually define an area (usually around chokepoints or by virtue of empty space) and clear the immediate area.
Yep, that's what I've experienced as well. My 4e campaign spent a good 6 months just clearing out a haunted graveyard.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;496401"Damnit Valentine, runnin aint no kind of plan. Runnin's what you do when a plan fails." :D
I much prefer to:
1) Reconnoiter
2) Asess the situation
3) Decide if any action is to be taken or not.
4) Come up with a primary plan and a backup for when everything goes to shit.
Just falling into combat and planning to run away is very rash and stupid. What if the enemy is much faster than you? Assuming that you do get away, the enemy is now aware of you and gaining suprise might be more difficult.
I've seen pretty much the same style of players over the last 25 years with all kind of different groups. It usually ends up looking like this:
The party sends one guy ahead to scout. He may or may not actually spot anything.
If they are just trying to get through an area on a temporary, quick mission, they try to hide/avoid the monster. If they are exploring the old ruins or whatever, they will almost always decide to attack.
They will come up with some kind of plan based on realistic tactics of what might work in the real world with humans.
The plan will fail spectacularly because D&D uses monsters with special powers and large numbers of hit points that won't die after a single hit like a real world human would. At best, they will manage to bottleneck the monsters somewhat to avoid taking on everything at once.
People will start getting badly injured/dying. A discussion about retreating will occur. They almost never actually end up retreating because there is usually no way to escape once you get into close combat with a monster.
The monster(s) will finally die after they've used up all of the magic/powers/etc. They will retreat back to town to heal up, raise people from the dead, then head back to the dungeon again.
Here's how it usually has gone with my groups...
Quote from: jgants;496408The party sends one guy ahead to scout. He may or may not actually spot anything.
Scouts are ahead of the party, with magical detections to help them cast on them to help them if the party has them available.
QuoteIf they are just trying to get through an area on a temporary, quick mission, they try to hide/avoid the monster. If they are exploring the old ruins or whatever, they will almost always decide to attack.
If the monsters are something they believe can easily take and taking them looks worth the effort, they will attack -- usually after a bit of planning so everyone knows what they should do at least until contact with the enemy messes up plans. If the monsters look too dangerous to be a sure kill with little damage to them, they withdraw and either go somewhere else or get what they think they might need to take out the monsters if going through them is truly needed. Note that monster reaction rolls mean that few monsters will autoattack so there are often other options besides combat even if they do need to move through the area the monsters are.
QuoteThey will come up with some kind of plan based on realistic tactics of what might work in the real world with humans.
The plan will fail spectacularly because D&D uses monsters with special powers and large numbers of hit points that won't die after a single hit like a real world human would. At best, they will manage to bottleneck the monsters somewhat to avoid taking on everything at once.
Assuming they are familiar with the monsters abilities their plans are based on realistic tactics (there really aren't any "rules manipulation tactics" in my games) based on their abilities and those of the opposition. They don't use tactics that would work on humans when fighting flame wargs any more than a person on Earth today would see the same tactics fighting a pack of wolves than they would use on a gang of humans.
The plan may still fail, although not usually as spectacularly as charging in and attacking without any plan would (let alone as bad as simply assuming that because they encountered the monsters they should be able to take them would).
QuotePeople will start getting badly injured/dying. A discussion about retreating will occur. They almost never actually end up retreating because there is usually no way to escape once you get into close combat with a monster.
My groups almost always retreat if the battle starts really going against them. They often have plans for this, including a reserve of fresh(er) people to help with a fighting withdraw. It doesn't always work, but since we are using 0e based rules,which do not have every monster pursuing forever (any more than they have every monster attacking the party on sight), it often does.
QuoteThe monster(s) will finally die after they've used up all of the magic/powers/etc. They will retreat back to town to heal up, raise people from the dead, then head back to the dungeon again.
Once the monsters are dead, they usually continue on with their mission unless they are just too banged up to risk it. After all, heading back to town is risky (wondering monsters and the like) and if they do head back to town they realize that something else may have moved into part of the area they went through meaning getting back to the point they left off may not be a cakewalk.
AD&D surprise rules mean that monsters that get surprised get dead. If they don't die, the morale rules mean they are more than likely going to run away. AD&D combats, played by the rules, rarely last more than three or four rounds until monsters panic and flee, if you get surprise, they die or flee before they get a chance to hit you. Monsters run away not just occasionally - they try to run away most of the time, by the book.
Surprise rules mean the monster could take 4 full rounds of attacks before it gets to do anything. Not really flabbergasting that it dies or runs away.
If you play monsters as all being immune to morale, and you don't use the 'pursuit and evasion' rules that let PCs run from monsters and get away, even from monsters faster than the PCs - then yeah, you end up just slugging away until all the hitpoints are gone.
And then you 'fix' this boring condition by coming up with a miniatures game that allows you to mindlessly slug away, but gives you lots of rules to complicate the slugging match.
Quote from: Kaldric;496442AD&D surprise rules mean that monsters that get surprised get dead. If they don't die, the morale rules mean they are more than likely going to run away. AD&D combats, played by the rules, rarely last more than three or four rounds until monsters panic and flee, if you get surprise, they die or flee before they get a chance to hit you. Monsters run away not just occasionally - they try to run away most of the time, by the book.
Surprise rules mean the monster could take 4 full rounds of attacks before it gets to do anything. Not really flabbergasting that it dies or runs away.
If you play monsters as all being immune to morale, and you don't use the 'pursuit and evasion' rules that let PCs run from monsters and get away, even from monsters faster than the PCs - then yeah, you end up just slugging away until all the hitpoints are gone.
And then you 'fix' this boring condition by coming up with a miniatures game that allows you to mindlessly slug away, but gives you lots of rules to complicate the slugging match.
Which AD&D set of rules are these? Because according to my AD&D book the average mathematical chance of a usable surprise is about 22%, you get one segment of action on a surprise, there's less than a 50% chance on average that a monster will flee a battle, and the pursuit and evasion rules pretty much doom you in a dungeon if you have anyone slow at all in the group (which a by the book fighter wearing heavy armor will certainly be).
25 years ago, the basic D&D battles I saw all played out by having the fighters move in and attack while the others stayed back and generally continued until someone died.
20 years ago, the AD&D battles I saw all played out by having the fighters move in and attack while the others stayed back and generally continued until someone died.
15 years ago, the AD&D 2e battles I saw all played out by having the fighters move in and attack while the others stayed back and generally continued until someone died.
5-10 years ago, the D&D 3e battles I saw all played out by having the fighters move in and attack while the others stayed back and generally continued until someone died.
In the last few years, the D&D 4e battles I saw all played out by having the fighters move in and attack while the others stayed back and generally continued until someone died.
Right now, I've switched back to playing basic D&D and it's still played out having the fighters move in and attack while the others stay back and generally continues until someone dies.
I have not experienced any change in the basic flow of the game regardless of edition except that some editions took longer to get through but tended to give the PCs more options along the way.
jgants, that's not how surprise works in AD&D 1e.
From the PHB:
'Each 1 of surprise equals 1 segment (six seconds) of time lost to the surprised party, and during the lost time the surprising party can
freely act to escape or attack or whatever.'
A chart follows explicating that the difference between the two surprise dice is the number or segments lost.
So, if the difference in the surprise dice is 3 and the side that was surprised subsequently loses initiative on the first normal round of combat, they could potentially have been hit by up to 4 attacks before getting to resolve any of their own actions.
Quote from: jgants;496471Which AD&D set of rules are these? Because according to my AD&D book the average mathematical chance of a usable surprise is about 22%
AD&D, 1st edition. If you know the monsters are there (you've reconnoitered), they don't get to roll against you (DMG page 62) You'll surprise them 33% of the time, (1-2 on a d6) for 1 or 2 segments. If your advance party is all elves and halflings or in boots of elvenkind/cloaks of elvenkind or otherwise moving in such a way as to be certain the monsters don't see or hear you (and why wouldn't they be, when setting up an ambush), you'll surprise 66% of the time, for 1 to 4 segments. These aren't normal segments - each one is treated as an entire round, for purposes of missile fire and melee combat - so, if a fighter gets 2 attacks a round, and gets 4 segments of surprise, that fighter will get 10 attacks before the monsters get any (gaining surprise means you automatically win initiative). A missile weapon fires at triple speed during surprise segments, again treating each surprise segment as an entire round. Surprise is murderously lethal. If you achieve surprise and are ready to take advantage of it, killing monsters outright is the rule, not the exception.
Quoteyou get one segment of action on a surprise,
If you set it up intelligently, you can get up to 4 - and be firing missile weapons at triple speed for all 4 segments.
Quotethere's less than a 50% chance on average that a monster will flee a battle,
No, that's actually the just the base morale score a monster has. All sorts of things can force the monster to check more than one time - for instance, fighting an obviously superior force makes them check morale every round. An obviously superior force is up to the DM, but an example is one that hits them 2x for every 1x they hit back. A force of 5 PCs firing bows is going to make a monster run like hell, most times. Having their leader slain forces a check on an entire force with an 80% chance of failure. You could make a hundred hobgoblins run by slaughtering their leader in the surprise round. Losing 25% of the group forces a morale check. They check again when they've lost 50% of their hitpoints, and 50% of the group. By the book, the vast majority of combats should be ending when the monsters do a fighting retreat, try to disengage, flee in panic, or surrender. Some monsters will fight to the death, and they're tagged that way.
Quoteand the pursuit and evasion rules pretty much doom you in a dungeon if you have anyone slow at all in the group (which a by the book fighter wearing heavy armor will certainly be).
Fighters wearing heavy armor don't get to be in the front group - it's like ringing a dinner bell for monsters. IMC, fighters don't wear heavy armor when exploring at all. You can't surprise anyone while dressed like that, and you drastically increase your chances of being surprised - the ranger's and elves' and halflings abilities don't work when they're with fighters dressed in a blacksmith's shop. Fighters IMC wear heavy armor only when they absolutely know they can't achieve surprise, or it's not a significant factor - in pitched battles in open terrain, in other words.
As for the pursuit and evasion rules dooming you, not really. Drop some caltrops. Drop flaming oil. Drop some coins if the pursuers are smart. Drop food, if they're hungry and dumb. All of these are ways to distract or halt pursuers, even when they're faster than you. Have reinforcements along your backtrail - when they join with you, the monsters check again to see if they follow. The pursuit rules are as much a system as the combat rules. Assuming you play smart, you get away - or lead the monsters into an ambush you've prepared.
Quote... battles I saw all played out by having the fighters move in and attack while the others stayed back and generally continued until someone died.
This sounds horribly boring to me. It's basically just giving up on tactics and strategy, pretending the surprise and morale and pursuit rules aren't in the game, or don't matter, when they really do matter quite a bit.
edit: And how did everyone else attack when the fighters charged in? In AD&D, you can't target individuals in a melee with ranged weapons. You just roll randomly to see who you hit.
Awesome post, man.
I don't have the phb; is that stuff all covered in the DMG (which I just got a copy of)?
Most of it, yes.
Quote from: Benoist;496520Most of it, yes.
I admit the organization of that book has me a bit stumped. I need to spend more time examining the TOC. BTW, the tiny print of the book drives me mad.
Quote from: bombshelter13;496503'Each 1 of surprise equals 1 segment (six seconds) of time lost to the surprised party, and during the lost time the surprising party can
freely act to escape or attack or whatever.'
A chart follows explicating that the difference between the two surprise dice is the number or segments lost.
So, if the difference in the surprise dice is 3 and the side that was surprised subsequently loses initiative on the first normal round of combat, they could potentially have been hit by up to 4 attacks before getting to resolve any of their own actions.
It's not really the difference in
dice that is important, it's the difference in surprise segments. AD&D surprise works like this:
1. Roll the die.
2. If your die roll comes up within your range to be surprised, you're surprised the number of segments shown on the die.
3a. If only one side is surprised, they are surprised the number of segments shown on their die. No subtraction/calculation needed.
3b. If both sides are surprised, subtract the number of surprise segments to find the net effect.
Say Side A is invisible and silent, and surprises 4 in 6, while Side B has the standard chance to surprise (i.e. 2 in 6):
Side A rolls 6.
Side B rolls 4.
Side A is not surprised. Side B is surprised 4 segments.
Side A rolls 2.
Side B rolls 4.
Side A is surprised 2 segments. Side B is surprised 4 segments. The net effect is that Side B is surprised 2 segments.
Side A rolls 6.
Side B rolls 1.
Side B is surprised 1 segment.
Side A rolls 2.
Side B rolls 6.
Side A is surprised 2 segments.
Quote from: Aos;496522I admit the organization of that book has me a bit stumped. I need to spend more time examining the TOC. BTW, the tiny print of the book drives me mad.
It's by far the biggest flaw of the book, for sure. OSRIC does help tremendously in that regard, because it cleaned up the text and reorganized the subject matter to make it more accessible. It loses a lot of the flavor, some of the detail, and pretty much all the tone of the original, so generally what I do is read the DMG between games, when I have time to think and ponder stuff, etc., and use the OSRIC book in the game for quick reference. Works wonders for me.
Yeah, one minute I'm reading about alignment or disease and then all of a sudden I'm reading about gem value. It's slightly jarring.
The information presentation in early TSR products is abysmal. It's not surprising that so many people end up playing it as "walk forward, hit the monster, let it hit you, repeat until dead/victorious".
In my opinion, the style of play detailed in the "Successful Adventures" section is how the game is meant to be played - if you approach the rules from this not unreasonable position, they make a lot more sense.
If you don't want to play that way, fine! Nobody says you have to. I find that the rules support playing the way I play very well - because I think that's how they were written.
It's a game of survival, exploration, adventure. Combat encounters are traps. And, just like traps, they're trivial if you are adequately prepared, and absolutely lethal if you just blunder into them.
Quote from: Kaldric;496544It's a game of survival, exploration, adventure.
This is IT. You got it, man. Too many people forget that.
If someone were to come to me and ask me if they should buy AD&D, I'd tell them to download an OSRIC pdf, read through it, then refer back to AD&D if they want a specific old rule.
AD&D's presentation is just truly horrible. Many of the explanations seem to have been created specifically to confuse people.
The weapon speed system is actually really easy to use. The explanation of it is god-awful.
Quote from: Kaldric;496554If someone were to come to me and ask me if they should buy AD&D, I'd tell them to download an OSRIC pdf, read through it, then refer back to AD&D if they want a specific old rule.
AD&D's presentation is just truly horrible. Many of the explanations seem to have been created specifically to confuse people.
The weapon speed system is actually really easy to use. The explanation of it is god-awful.
Does osric include the rules for wilderness travel (getting lost and whatnot) and such?
OSRIC has rules for wilderness travel, getting lost, etc. Very simple ones.
AD&D has more elaborate ones, with differing odds of becoming lost and severity of misdirection, per terrain type. Essentially, there's a procedure followed when you get lost, where you lose your direction and travel semi-randomly for a day. If you're lucky, you cut your own backtrail which - if you've been mapping, will let you know you're going the wrong direction right away. If not, you could wander for some time - and if you're someplace nasty, this gets pretty bad.
It's still not all that complicated, though - it does add a scary element to striking out into virgin territory. You'll want to hire a guide, or learn landmarks before you go.
Basically, there's rules for exploring the wilderness. It's part of the game.
Quote from: Kaldric;496588OSRIC has rules for wilderness travel, getting lost, etc. Very simple ones.
AD&D has more elaborate ones, with differing odds of becoming lost and severity of misdirection, per terrain type. Essentially, there's a procedure followed when you get lost, where you lose your direction and travel semi-randomly for a day. If you're lucky, you cut your own backtrail which - if you've been mapping, will let you know you're going the wrong direction right away. If not, you could wander for some time - and if you're someplace nasty, this gets pretty bad.
It's still not all that complicated, though - it does add a scary element to striking out into virgin territory. You'll want to hire a guide, or learn landmarks before you go.
Basically, there's rules for exploring the wilderness. It's part of the game.
Yeah I read the AD&D wilderness rules earlier today, and was just wondering if OSRIC covered any of that ground.
Where AD&D has a chart of the odds for getting lost in any particular terrain, OSRIC just gives a vague baseline of 10-25% in 'normal' circumstances. OSRIC doesn't give rules for realizing that you're lost, and finding your way again, it just gives a rather vague 'you move somewhere within 60 degrees of your intended route, unless you get really lost and turn farther'.
Mostly OSRIC just glosses over it, although it explains the ways you can avoid having to check in the first place. AD&D assumes you're going to get lost at some point, and gives a procedure.
I think it's likely OSRIC did this because, when you're playing a module or designing one, the 'getting lost' rules aren't really necessary. A lot of OSRIC is like that - it's a set of rules that started out as a 'compatibility document' for module designers.
Quote from: Kaldric;496508AD&D, 1st edition. If you know the monsters are there (you've reconnoitered), they don't get to roll against you (DMG page 62) You'll surprise them 33% of the time, (1-2 on a d6) for 1 or 2 segments. If your advance party is all elves and halflings or in boots of elvenkind/cloaks of elvenkind or otherwise moving in such a way as to be certain the monsters don't see or hear you (and why wouldn't they be, when setting up an ambush), you'll surprise 66% of the time, for 1 to 4 segments. These aren't normal segments - each one is treated as an entire round, for purposes of missile fire and melee combat - so, if a fighter gets 2 attacks a round, and gets 4 segments of surprise, that fighter will get 10 attacks before the monsters get any (gaining surprise means you automatically win initiative). A missile weapon fires at triple speed during surprise segments, again treating each surprise segment as an entire round. Surprise is murderously lethal. If you achieve surprise and are ready to take advantage of it, killing monsters outright is the rule, not the exception.
If you set it up intelligently, you can get up to 4 - and be firing missile weapons at triple speed for all 4 segments.
No, that's actually the just the base morale score a monster has. All sorts of things can force the monster to check more than one time - for instance, fighting an obviously superior force makes them check morale every round. An obviously superior force is up to the DM, but an example is one that hits them 2x for every 1x they hit back. A force of 5 PCs firing bows is going to make a monster run like hell, most times. Having their leader slain forces a check on an entire force with an 80% chance of failure. You could make a hundred hobgoblins run by slaughtering their leader in the surprise round. Losing 25% of the group forces a morale check. They check again when they've lost 50% of their hitpoints, and 50% of the group. By the book, the vast majority of combats should be ending when the monsters do a fighting retreat, try to disengage, flee in panic, or surrender. Some monsters will fight to the death, and they're tagged that way.
Fighters wearing heavy armor don't get to be in the front group - it's like ringing a dinner bell for monsters. IMC, fighters don't wear heavy armor when exploring at all. You can't surprise anyone while dressed like that, and you drastically increase your chances of being surprised - the ranger's and elves' and halflings abilities don't work when they're with fighters dressed in a blacksmith's shop. Fighters IMC wear heavy armor only when they absolutely know they can't achieve surprise, or it's not a significant factor - in pitched battles in open terrain, in other words.
As for the pursuit and evasion rules dooming you, not really. Drop some caltrops. Drop flaming oil. Drop some coins if the pursuers are smart. Drop food, if they're hungry and dumb. All of these are ways to distract or halt pursuers, even when they're faster than you. Have reinforcements along your backtrail - when they join with you, the monsters check again to see if they follow. The pursuit rules are as much a system as the combat rules. Assuming you play smart, you get away - or lead the monsters into an ambush you've prepared.
This sounds horribly boring to me. It's basically just giving up on tactics and strategy, pretending the surprise and morale and pursuit rules aren't in the game, or don't matter, when they really do matter quite a bit.
edit: And how did everyone else attack when the fighters charged in? In AD&D, you can't target individuals in a melee with ranged weapons. You just roll randomly to see who you hit.
Again, I was using averages. Sure, you
could end up with a big surprise, but IME most of the time you rarely ever get it. Similarly, you might be able to run away or you might cause the monster to lose morale. But the math is against you in the average situation.
I've never, in my 25+ years of gaming, with any group or at any conventions, ever seen a group where the fighters wore light armor and everyone just snuck around and set up ambushes all the time. While you may call this the "intended way" of playing the game, it's more certainly not the way most people play it (which can be seen in the way the segments/surprise/evade rules were heavily re-written over the years). Also, keep in mind that the AD&D 1e rules tended to be played wildly different by different groups because of differing interpretations.
The "fighters rush up and attack" method is boring and repetitive, no doubt about it. But your way sounds equally boring and repetitive to me (try to sneak in and kill with surprise; if not, run and throw food/coins/caltrops).
As for what the other people do in the usual combats I've seen - they either attack a non-engaged enemy using a ranged weapon, or just stayed back. Magic using types would cast spells or just sit there. Clerics usually had heavy armor and would assist the fighters if they ran out of healing abilities. Thieves tended to stay towards the back unless they could sneak around and backstab.
Or they just fired ranged weapons into melee anyway, because only about half of the groups out there bothered to use the rule (which, again, was changed over editions because people didn't like/use it).
Quote from: jgants;496650I've never, in my 25+ years of gaming, with any group or at any conventions, ever seen a group where the fighters wore light armor and everyone just snuck around and set up ambushes all the time. While you may call this the "intended way" of playing the game, it's more certainly not the way most people play it (which can be seen in the way the segments/surprise/evade rules were heavily re-written over the years). Also, keep in mind that the AD&D 1e rules tended to be played wildly different by different groups because of differing interpretations.
I played in a couple groups like that, but they were small and, in retrospect, had somewhat abusive access to elven chain mail. I've also played where we used the Basic D&D surprise rules, on account of having 3 or 4 surprise rounds is pretty stupid and hard to gloss over in a lot of cases.
It was more typical to have a couple of point men try to chop down some monsters by surprise and then lead the rest to where the party had prepared a position to fight the bulk of the enemies (or, have a magic-user come up to fireball the unwitting monsters, if circumstances permitted)
I don't think my style's quite that boring.
This 'ambush' style of play produces at least six distinct types of combat.
1. Forward group intentionally lures monsters back to main ambush.
2. Forward group has a heads-up fight - usually after a couple segments of surprise.
3. Forward group outright kills monsters from ambush.
4. Forward group needs rescue, and can't run - fights defensive holding action while main group reinforces.
5. Forward group bites off more than it can chew, runs back to main ambush trying to evade pursuit. Often sprinting full out, hollering at the top of their lungs, etc. This is usually pretty funny, as long as no one dies.
6. Forward group detects monsters that can't be surprised, or the advantage given by surprise won't be sufficient to carry the fight. Buff spells get put on, armor is donned, and there's a heads up fight.
Intentionally or unintentionally ignoring or misapplying the surprise rules and pursuit rules and the morale rules pretty much means you get only the last type, and it always plays out the same.
It's kind of like very few people play Monopoly by the actual rules, and thus everyone thinks Monopoly is a boring game that never ends, when in fact it's usually over in an hour or two, and can be a lot of fun.
If you ignore the rule that every time anyone lands on an unpurchased property, it must be sold either to that person or at auction? If you put money on Free Parking? Monopoly going to be boring as heck, and take forever.
If you change the morale rules? Misapply the surprise rules? Ignore the pursuit rules? Discard the targeting rules? Always wear heavy armor in the dungeon? D&D is going to be a game where you play just as jgants describes.
Some people like that game. Some don't.
Quote from: Kaldric;496701If you change the morale rules? Misapply the surprise rules? Ignore the pursuit rules? Discard the targeting rules? Always wear heavy armor in the dungeon? D&D is going to be a game where you play just as jgants describes.
Some people like that game. Some don't.
Quite right.
Game however you like with whatever rules you like but don't blame the game for producing poor results because you don't feel like using all of it.