My least favorite bit. Attacks of Opportunity or Opportunity Attacks. It is so stupid. It is the least logical, most insipid and bogs the game down.

Quote from: Wiseblood on October 28, 2022, 09:49:53 PM
My least favorite bit. Attacks of Opportunity or Opportunity Attacks. It is so stupid. It is the least logical, most insipid and bogs the game down.

Yeah, that was a bad bit of New School design.

Quote from: S'mon on October 30, 2022, 04:32:55 AM

Quote from: Wiseblood on October 28, 2022, 09:49:53 PM
My least favorite bit. Attacks of Opportunity or Opportunity Attacks. It is so stupid. It is the least logical, most insipid and bogs the game down.

Yeah, that was a bad bit of New School design.

Players are devoted to them, too. I stripped them out of my game, with the single exception of when an enemy tries to run completely past you. My players still ask for one every time one of the NPCs moves away from them.

Quote from: ForgottenF on October 30, 2022, 08:07:52 AM

Quote from: S'mon on October 30, 2022, 04:32:55 AM

Quote from: Wiseblood on October 28, 2022, 09:49:53 PM
My least favorite bit. Attacks of Opportunity or Opportunity Attacks. It is so stupid. It is the least logical, most insipid and bogs the game down.

Yeah, that was a bad bit of New School design.

Players are devoted to them, too. I stripped them out of my game, with the single exception of when an enemy tries to run completely past you. My players still ask for one every time one of the NPCs moves away from them.

I put the "Fighting Withdrawal" and "Retreat" back in, much like in some of the early D&D.  Free Attack only happens if someone retreats directly out of melee.  I also put Morale back in.  Only enemies that panic make the Retreat their first option. 

Then I made sure the players understood how it works.  They still love the free attack, but now they understand they have to work for it by inducing panic in the opposition at the right time.  It's much more satisfying to them when they pull it off. 

Sometimes you have to give players what they need, instead of what they want--or what they think they want.

I hate even the old school "free attack vs enemies breaking off melee rule". If that was really the case no one would ever flee from melee (in game or in real life if that was truly the way it works IRL) cuz they'd just be insta-killed (at least potentially) the moment they tried to run. So people would always fight to the death—specially if surrounded by multiple enemies—cuz death would be almost guaranteed regardless, so they might as well take their enemies with them if they can.

There's no incentive to run—or even the possibility of escape—if running from melee truly gave every enemy within reach a free attack. Yet somehow I was able to escape a couple of times when ganged up by bullies as a kid—and I was a fat kid, with flat feet, who could barely run. Yet somehow I managed to break away without being suddenly pummeled incessantly by everyone around me as D&D would have us believe.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 30, 2022, 08:33:54 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on October 30, 2022, 08:07:52 AM

Quote from: S'mon on October 30, 2022, 04:32:55 AM

Quote from: Wiseblood on October 28, 2022, 09:49:53 PM
My least favorite bit. Attacks of Opportunity or Opportunity Attacks. It is so stupid. It is the least logical, most insipid and bogs the game down.

Yeah, that was a bad bit of New School design.

Players are devoted to them, too. I stripped them out of my game, with the single exception of when an enemy tries to run completely past you. My players still ask for one every time one of the NPCs moves away from them.

I put the "Fighting Withdrawal" and "Retreat" back in, much like in some of the early D&D.  Free Attack only happens if someone retreats directly out of melee.  I also put Morale back in.  Only enemies that panic make the Retreat their first option. 

Then I made sure the players understood how it works.  They still love the free attack, but now they understand they have to work for it by inducing panic in the opposition at the right time.  It's much more satisfying to them when they pull it off. 

Sometimes you have to give players what they need, instead of what they want--or what they think they want.

Mostly I agree with VisionStorm's comment above, but I'll add a couple of things. As far as "fighting retreat" type rules go, it depends on how they're written, but they're usually pointless. For example, one of the old school games I'm playing in allows you to take the dodge action while retreating. All you get is a 2 point AC bonus, enemies still get their attack of opportunity, and you only get a half move. So.... that's a complete waste of your turn. I don't think it's been used once in the whole campaign. Most of the rules I've seen that allow you to forgo the attack of opportunity still only allow you a partial move, which means that the opponent just moves up the next round and attacks you again. (It occurs to me writing this that 3.x D&D's 5ft-step rule may have been an exception here, where you could take a full move after it. It's been a while though, so I'm not sure)

The idea that enemies only flee in a panic is fine if your NPCs are usually monsters (or berserk orcs or whatever). If like me, you run a game where most enemies are humans or at least think like humans, it's a bit of a problem. People run away from fights that aren't going their way, and unless their enemies are considerably faster than they are (for example, if they're on horseback), they usually can. The Youtuber Lindybeige did an extensive argument on this, which I will link below, but the short version is that it is pretty easy to pick your moment in a melee fight to turn and run. If anything, I would maybe do the rule so that you only get your attack against an enemy who is fleeing in panic, but not against one that is retreating on purpose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z078XzvFmY

Realism aside, attacks of opportunity just make for more boring combats, as they discourage hit-and-run tactics, running battles, defenders retreating to prepared positions, etc. You can't attack an enemy and then try and draw them into a trap. D&D combat has a bad reputation for devolving into characters just standing still and taking turns to whack each other, and retreat not being viable is a big part of that.

In fairness, having played the other way for a while now, I'll admit it brings a couple of issues of its own. It slightly biases the game towards ranged combat, and potentially allows characters with higher movement speed to "kite" slower melee enemies by moving back and attacking every round. The latter issue occurs because most RPG rules assume the transition from running back to fighting happens instantly. Tabletop wargames sometimes solve that by having facing movements, but those don't really make sense for a single character. I would argue that a person can turn on their heel and flee from combat almost instantly, but they should have to take an action to turn back and fight again, at least if using a ranged weapon.

EDIT: I suspect that one of the reasons why opportunity attacks have been a fixture of D&D for so long is that the game lacks any coherent pursuit rules. In most versions of the game, a character that takes no other action can move double their normal rate (or 4x in 3rd edition), so in order to catch someone and actually attack them, you need to have a considerably higher movement rate than them. This quickly gets ridiculous and frustrating, so I can see why they wanted to discourage fleeing.  I ran into this problem for my game, and had to invent a "chase score" statistic to make opposed rolls on.

Well, the point is that the rules have to work together, and not just be this isolated thing in the system, that hasn't been thought through fully or isn't compatible with the rest of the game.  Yes, evasion and pursuit should generally be handled outside of combat. 

My take, is that you can't just go straight from melee to out of combat, though.  So my Fighting Withdrawal is really that, not just a minor boost to AC.  It's an attack with a penalty and a move backwards and an AC boost, which is how it discourages pursuit.  It's good enough that you might do it when you have  no intention of fleeing, just as a tactical repositioning.  It's a great tactic, for example, for when a lone PC wants to "retreat" down a corridor holding off a greater force while his friends fight other enemies at the improved odds.

This puts the onus back on the opponent to follow up in melee or not in the face of you still being ready to hit them.  This also encourages thought, in that characters that want to flee just need something to discourage the follow up melee.  It can and has been anything, such as someone already out of melee using a spell or even flaming oil or a trap or a bottleneck or whatever.  Even flipping a table over for momentary cover helps, when combined with the fighting withdrawal. 

As for the "flee in panic" part, I think you misunderstood my statement.  Flee in panic is relatively rare, and it is the only thing that gives free attacks in my system.  I'll give an example.  Had a simple intro adventure with some new players recently.  It was a few monster fights but mostly bandits in a variety of situations.  The players retreated a couple of times.  The bandits likewise did an orderly retreat once, and surrendered another time.  Then we had a big fight where the players had a great setup but blew their ambush chance horribly.  It turned into a seesaw affair where no one, including me, had any idea how it was going to go.  Both sides were making their morale checks and had reason to believe that they were winning.   Then after losing initiative and barely staying up to the onslaught, the players had a lucky round followed by gaining initiative and another lucky round.  Suddenly, the bandits went to everyone hurt, many incapacitated, and a couple killed outright with shocking critical hits.  They had a narrow escape route that was closing.  So when they blew their morale check, I gave them a 50/50 shot of fleeing or surrendering.  It easily could go either way.  Panic ensues, two more are cut down by free attacks, and then the remaindered surrendered with their escape cut--except one that tried to dive into the nearby river and swim underwater, but got shot in the back with an arrow.

That same group of players in the previous session had to flee from a group of skeletons and a possessed tree.  The tree couldn't follow, but the skeletons could for half a mile or so.  The players didn't know that.  Disengaging was difficult, but they got out of range of the tree that was handing them their butts, did a withdrawal from the skeletons that knocked a few down and bought some space, got initiative, and ran for it.  We went to pursuit rules.  Because the players were having to drag along a couple of wounded comrades, they were slowed down to about the same speed as the skeletons, who were lagging behind but still crashing through the brush 50-60 yards back.. When they were almost out of range, the players decided to stand and fight.  That's a fight they won pretty handily.  The relative speeds affected the modifiers to successfully escape or not, but it wasn't impossible to outrun a faster foe or guaranteed to outrun a slower one.

It also helps greatly if the GM has a clue how to do this.  The rules are there to help you adjudicate the players actions, not a strait-jacket.  Determine what they are trying to do, and adjudicate from there. 

'Free attacks' for running away just aren't a good idea IMO, and aren't part of the original game. If enemies are fleeing you should have to chase & catch them, to get an attack from the rear - with a nice bonus.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 30, 2022, 12:18:35 PM
Well, the point is that the rules have to work together, and not just be this isolated thing in the system, that hasn't been thought through fully or isn't compatible with the rest of the game.  Yes, evasion and pursuit should generally be handled outside of combat. 

My take, is that you can't just go straight from melee to out of combat, though.  So my Fighting Withdrawal is really that, not just a minor boost to AC.  It's an attack with a penalty and a move backwards and an AC boost, which is how it discourages pursuit.  It's good enough that you might do it when you have  no intention of fleeing, just as a tactical repositioning.  It's a great tactic, for example, for when a lone PC wants to "retreat" down a corridor holding off a greater force while his friends fight other enemies at the improved odds.

This puts the onus back on the opponent to follow up in melee or not in the face of you still being ready to hit them.  This also encourages thought, in that characters that want to flee just need something to discourage the follow up melee.  It can and has been anything, such as someone already out of melee using a spell or even flaming oil or a trap or a bottleneck or whatever.  Even flipping a table over for momentary cover helps, when combined with the fighting withdrawal. 

As for the "flee in panic" part, I think you misunderstood my statement.  Flee in panic is relatively rare, and it is the only thing that gives free attacks in my system.  I'll give an example.  Had a simple intro adventure with some new players recently.  It was a few monster fights but mostly bandits in a variety of situations.  The players retreated a couple of times.  The bandits likewise did an orderly retreat once, and surrendered another time.  Then we had a big fight where the players had a great setup but blew their ambush chance horribly.  It turned into a seesaw affair where no one, including me, had any idea how it was going to go.  Both sides were making their morale checks and had reason to believe that they were winning.   Then after losing initiative and barely staying up to the onslaught, the players had a lucky round followed by gaining initiative and another lucky round.  Suddenly, the bandits went to everyone hurt, many incapacitated, and a couple killed outright with shocking critical hits.  They had a narrow escape route that was closing.  So when they blew their morale check, I gave them a 50/50 shot of fleeing or surrendering.  It easily could go either way.  Panic ensues, two more are cut down by free attacks, and then the remaindered surrendered with their escape cut--except one that tried to dive into the nearby river and swim underwater, but got shot in the back with an arrow.

That same group of players in the previous session had to flee from a group of skeletons and a possessed tree.  The tree couldn't follow, but the skeletons could for half a mile or so.  The players didn't know that.  Disengaging was difficult, but they got out of range of the tree that was handing them their butts, did a withdrawal from the skeletons that knocked a few down and bought some space, got initiative, and ran for it.  We went to pursuit rules.  Because the players were having to drag along a couple of wounded comrades, they were slowed down to about the same speed as the skeletons, who were lagging behind but still crashing through the brush 50-60 yards back.. When they were almost out of range, the players decided to stand and fight.  That's a fight they won pretty handily.  The relative speeds affected the modifiers to successfully escape or not, but it wasn't impossible to outrun a faster foe or guaranteed to outrun a slower one.

It also helps greatly if the GM has a clue how to do this.  The rules are there to help you adjudicate the players actions, not a strait-jacket.  Determine what they are trying to do, and adjudicate from there.

Yeah, I may have misunderstood your original comment a bit. Looks like we're actually thinking in much the same direction.

One rule I particularly hate is "confirming crits", from 3.x.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 12, 2022, 07:41:14 PM
I've been thinking a lot about this lately. Might (re)write my own clone.

This is what I want and don't get from B/X, but I find in modern D&D.

- Backgrounds
- Race separated from class.
- Critical hits.
- Streamlined saves.
- Unified XP.
- Streamlined skills (I like using 1d20, but you can use 1d6 etc.)
- Feats*.
- Weapon details (especially 3e/4e), without going overboard (AD&D).
- I like "metaclasses" from 2e (warrior includes fighters, paladins, etc.)
- The 4e warlord.
- Vancian Magic replaced by spell points or spell rolls.

I've been tackling each one of these aspects with my blog and books:

Feats:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/407233/Old-School-Feats-OSR?src=newest
Alternate Magic:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/397412/Alternate-Magic-OSR
Spell points:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/spell-points-for-bx-and-osr-systems.html
Critical hits:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-simplest-critical-hit-table-osr-etc.html#comment-form

Might have been easier to just tone down 5e, but for some reason I find adding stuff to B/X much more enjoyable.

- Backgrounds: for what? Please be more specific. If you're talking about backgrounds for PCs, then that's just amateur community theater BS
- Race separated from class: then play AD&D. 'nuff said.
- Critical hits: power gaming BS
- Streamlined saves: yes, because reading a table is SOO FUCKING HARD. BOO HOO!
- Unified XP: dumbest idea ever. my fighter has different experiences than from the cleric or magic-user, therefore different experience levels. Also it should be more difficult to advance in experience for more educated/technically minded classes. A Unified XP table makes no logical sense.
- Streamlined skills (I like using 1d20, but you can use 1d6 etc.): What do you mean by streamlined? please be specific.
- Feats*.more power gaming bullshit
- Weapon details (especially 3e/4e), without going overboard (AD&D). doesn't affect the game therefore that's just a personal preference thing.
- I like "metaclasses" from 2e (warrior includes fighters, paladins, etc.). play AD&D then
- The 4e warlord. the fact that 4e is a flaming turd, I'll just let this one go
- Vancian Magic replaced by spell points or spell rolls. "oh, I hate Vancian magic" yeah, how fucking edgy. Some people say they don't like it because, and they'll NEVER admit it, is being a low level magic-user in a Vancian magic system is TOO HARD. OH BOO HOO! What? You have to rely on WITS to stay alive? OH no! What shall we do?

Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 11:01:32 AM
Backgrounds: for what? Please be more specific. If you're talking about backgrounds for PCs, then that's just amateur community theater BS

Or, it's a place to silo all the non-combat abilities of a PC so you can have more variety by mixing combat/non-combat features without massively increasing complexity.

I mean, sure, if you run nothing but sociopathic murderhobos who make no attempts to interact with others other than killing them, backgrounds are pretty worthless/unimportant, but if you come upon a forge, then knowing if one of the PCs used to be a blacksmith is handy, as is when you come upon a noble... it's good to know who's an outlander, whose a peasant and whose an aristocrat as the response from the noble should vary depending on which of those is addressing said noble.

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 31, 2022, 11:21:18 AM

Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 11:01:32 AM
Backgrounds: for what? Please be more specific. If you're talking about backgrounds for PCs, then that's just amateur community theater BS

Or, it's a place to silo all the non-combat abilities of a PC so you can have more variety by mixing combat/non-combat features without massively increasing complexity.

I mean, sure, if you run nothing but sociopathic murderhobos who make no attempts to interact with others other than killing them, backgrounds are pretty worthless/unimportant, but if you come upon a forge, then knowing if one of the PCs used to be a blacksmith is handy, as is when you come upon a noble... it's good to know who's an outlander, whose a peasant and whose an aristocrat as the response from the noble should vary depending on which of those is addressing said noble.

Agreed.  I think character backstories can help "flesh out" the motivations and goals for the character, and help provide a richer role-playing setting.  Now, you don't necessarily need this for a good old fashioned dungeon crawl, but especially for a campaign that spans multiple adventures, it can create great story arcs--though this is heavily dependent on how competent a player is at role-playing.  (And by competent I don't mean "can they make a convincing Scottish accent?" but rather "do they exhibit actions that are reflective of what they say their backstory is?")

The alternative to a reasonably fleshed out backstory is to turn everything into a metric--in your example, giving them a Smithing Skill and a Social Standing score (which might be handy to do anyway, but creating a backstory can help avoid a really random collection of attributes, stats, skills, and details.)

At any rate, I think it's overly reductive to just consider character backgrounds as "amateur community theater BS".  It seems to me that yes, one can run an RPG as just a somewhat abstracted combat simulator, and if that's what everyone wants, fine...but it can also be something much more, if that's what the participants want.  A good fantasy novel, for example, isn't just a string of fantasy combats that we read about...it has compelling, fleshed-out characters and backgrounds that explain why they're doing what they're doing.  I think RPGs can use that model to create memorable adventures.

Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 31, 2022, 12:48:38 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 31, 2022, 11:21:18 AM

Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 11:01:32 AM
Backgrounds: for what? Please be more specific. If you're talking about backgrounds for PCs, then that's just amateur community theater BS

Or, it's a place to silo all the non-combat abilities of a PC so you can have more variety by mixing combat/non-combat features without massively increasing complexity.

I mean, sure, if you run nothing but sociopathic murderhobos who make no attempts to interact with others other than killing them, backgrounds are pretty worthless/unimportant, but if you come upon a forge, then knowing if one of the PCs used to be a blacksmith is handy, as is when you come upon a noble... it's good to know who's an outlander, whose a peasant and whose an aristocrat as the response from the noble should vary depending on which of those is addressing said noble.

Agreed.  I think character backstories can help "flesh out" the motivations and goals for the character, and help provide a richer role-playing setting.  Now, you don't necessarily need this for a good old fashioned dungeon crawl, but especially for a campaign that spans multiple adventures, it can create great story arcs--though this is heavily dependent on how competent a player is at role-playing.  (And by competent I don't mean "can they make a convincing Scottish accent?" but rather "do they exhibit actions that are reflective of what they say their backstory is?")

The alternative to a reasonably fleshed out backstory is to turn everything into a metric--in your example, giving them a Smithing Skill and a Social Standing score (which might be handy to do anyway, but creating a backstory can help avoid a really random collection of attributes, stats, skills, and details.)

At any rate, I think it's overly reductive to just consider character backgrounds as "amateur community theater BS".  It seems to me that yes, one can run an RPG as just a somewhat abstracted combat simulator, and if that's what everyone wants, fine...but it can also be something much more, if that's what the participants want.  A good fantasy novel, for example, isn't just a string of fantasy combats that we read about...it has compelling, fleshed-out characters and backgrounds that explain why they're doing what they're doing.  I think RPGs can use that model to create memorable adventures.

...and all of that "back story" comes to a halt when the character dies from a failed save vs poison, or is run through with a spear by a pack of orcs from a random encounter.

I personally think a rich back story for a PC is players having the false assumption that the character is going to LIVE for a prolonged period of time.

if you want to put in a whole lotta effort to write up a 5 page back story for Jared the half-elf ranger, sure, fine..

But If Jared the the half-elf ranger has this awesome, rich back story and ON HIS FIRST ADVENTURE gets his head bashed in by an ogre, well you're just shit outta luck.

"but, but mah character. mah backstory..."

"tuff luck. roll up a new one.."

I'm not against the idea, but If you're writing a back story for your PC, anything longer than a PARAGRAPH is a waste IMHO.

Because (Drum roll please).....you're character is FIRST LEVEL. YOU HAVE NO BACK STORY.

Jared the half-elf ranger should have a back story with just a few things: who he is, where he came from, who his family is, how he came to be where he is, why he's adventuring, and a few things quirky/unique about him. That's it. Everything I summed up here could be said in maybe 6-8 sentences. anything more than a pragraph, you're writing fan-fic...and shitty fan-fic at that.

Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 01:15:24 PM

Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 31, 2022, 12:48:38 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 31, 2022, 11:21:18 AM

Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 11:01:32 AM
Backgrounds: for what? Please be more specific. If you're talking about backgrounds for PCs, then that's just amateur community theater BS

Or, it's a place to silo all the non-combat abilities of a PC so you can have more variety by mixing combat/non-combat features without massively increasing complexity.

I mean, sure, if you run nothing but sociopathic murderhobos who make no attempts to interact with others other than killing them, backgrounds are pretty worthless/unimportant, but if you come upon a forge, then knowing if one of the PCs used to be a blacksmith is handy, as is when you come upon a noble... it's good to know who's an outlander, whose a peasant and whose an aristocrat as the response from the noble should vary depending on which of those is addressing said noble.

Agreed.  I think character backstories can help "flesh out" the motivations and goals for the character, and help provide a richer role-playing setting.  Now, you don't necessarily need this for a good old fashioned dungeon crawl, but especially for a campaign that spans multiple adventures, it can create great story arcs--though this is heavily dependent on how competent a player is at role-playing.  (And by competent I don't mean "can they make a convincing Scottish accent?" but rather "do they exhibit actions that are reflective of what they say their backstory is?")

The alternative to a reasonably fleshed out backstory is to turn everything into a metric--in your example, giving them a Smithing Skill and a Social Standing score (which might be handy to do anyway, but creating a backstory can help avoid a really random collection of attributes, stats, skills, and details.)

At any rate, I think it's overly reductive to just consider character backgrounds as "amateur community theater BS".  It seems to me that yes, one can run an RPG as just a somewhat abstracted combat simulator, and if that's what everyone wants, fine...but it can also be something much more, if that's what the participants want.  A good fantasy novel, for example, isn't just a string of fantasy combats that we read about...it has compelling, fleshed-out characters and backgrounds that explain why they're doing what they're doing.  I think RPGs can use that model to create memorable adventures.

...and all of that "back story" comes to a halt when the character dies from a failed save vs poison, or is run through with a spear by a pack of orcs from a random encounter.

I personally think a rich back story for a PC is players having the false assumption that the character is going to LIVE for a prolonged period of time.

if you want to put in a whole lotta effort to write up a 5 page back story for Jared the half-elf ranger, sure, fine..

But If Jared the the half-elf ranger has this awesome, rich back story and ON HIS FIRST ADVENTURE gets his head bashed in by an ogre, well you're just shit outta luck.

"but, but mah character. mah backstory..."

"tuff luck. roll up a new one.."

I'm not against the idea, but If you're writing a back story for your PC, anything longer than a PARAGRAPH is a waste IMHO.

Because (Drum roll please).....you're character is FIRST LEVEL. YOU HAVE NO BACK STORY.

Jared the half-elf ranger should have a back story with just a few things: who he is, where he came from, who his family is, how he came to be where he is, why he's adventuring, and a few things quirky/unique about him. That's it. Everything I summed up here could be said in maybe 6-8 sentences. anything more than a pragraph, you're writing fan-fic...and shitty fan-fic at that.

Well, I had fun with Classic Traveller, which created an interesting backstory--and you could die when creating it.  Some days I would spend just creating characters--it was a mini-game in itself.

So yeah, getting too elaborate may not make much sense, and perhaps that background should be "revealed" as the character progresses so as to not invest too much time and effort in a 1st level character that might die off in the first level of a dungeon.  But at least having some general idea of background--nothing too elaborate--can be fun.

I also don't think you're using "Fan Fiction" correctly here.  Unless you're doing something like roleplaying the Onceler in a Dr. Sussesian world or a new Mary Sue companion to Dr. Who, it's not fan fiction.  It's just fiction.  And it can be shitty or it can be good--it depends on your talents.