The scene is there mostly to tell a story, and set a scene, so I have a certain amount of reasonable disbelief for it. :)
Hey guys, btw, sorry for taking over your characters for a moment. I actually meant to have an ooc explaining it, but I forgot to put it up last night as it took so long to write, and it was so late (early) in the night.
I knew if you fought the Rhagodessa down below, I'd tpk you, and I wanted a situation where it wasn't just the conflict of you vs. it. So I had to get you all to where you are now.
I threw out the raw rules to convey it, because, let's be honest, I don't think they'd work here.
Sorry if that was confusing or annoying. :) It wasn't intended to be.
I won't speak for any of the other players, but I'm really not comfortable with that. If you wanted to cut and say, "The Rhagodessa chases you up the stairs,", that would be one thing. But if you're going to put my character through, essentially, two rounds of an involved action chase scene, then let me play my character. That scene looks like it would have been a blast to play. Instead, because you didn't trust that I would make smart choices for my character, you took that option away.
If a decision I make for my character might get me killed, then I appreciate a nudge in a more believable or safer direction, but I need to have the final say in the actions of my character, especially in a scene that seems like it would have been really cool to play through.
I really love the story that's been happening, I love your narrative flow, I love how different it is from the other games I've been a part of and from RotRL as written. That said, please don't ever do something like that with my character again.
while it doesnt overtly bother me, especially in only one occurrence, it does remove ownership of my character and its actions, and were that to build up over an extended period of time, i could see it being troublesome
to put it another way, i am less engaged in playing a character in someone else's movie than i am in playing my character in a movie.
i see it like a cutscene in a video game. a few are alright. some games push too far past that and i lose interest.
also, in the crunch, why did Garrick Power Attack vs the rhagodessa's CMD? that isnt how things work. unless i missed something in the many changes that were made.
and why the dropping of the short sword? just wondering, i assume it was "cinematic" since i didnt see a disarm or any incapacitation.
Yeah, I meant to feel a bit like a cut-scene. I'll walk you through my thought process:
I wanted the crime to go down in the hold, but I wanted the battle to be on the streets. So the problem was: How do I get the characters out of the boat, fighting it on the streets?
If I ran combat normal, you would have (rightly) done the same...which means pull out weapons and hit the thing. Fail.
That's what we are ALL taught to do in d20 games. But I didn't want that for two reasons. 1. It's boring. 2. It's dangerous. In that small space, I would TPK you guys very, very fast. I ran test combat to see...it did not go well. But outside, it ran better, and had much better motivations and conflicts.
I could have had the monster flee, and you guys chase, but that is boring both in rules (I move 60 ft. to match his move. Nothing happens this round.) and in description (He runs past you, and you chase him on the deck.) No threat. No fear. No excitement. Fail.
Yeah, I've struggled with this scene for two to three weeks, trying to find something that would accomplish my goals, and not feel like it was hijacking, but still be potentially exciting. Lol. I think I cracked some eggs. :)
I did build it as a cut-scene; specifically a Quick-Time Event, like in the God of War games. I actually had events that you guys could succeed at, or fail at.
Now the issue at that point was this: Do I present them to you? Choose A or B? Because that is railroading.
Do I just say "You are all chased onto the deck?" No, boring, and still controlling.
Do I say "He's going to chase you, you need to run?" Again, railroady, and I would likely be presented with "Well, can't I do this? Yes, but he's chasing you, so you need to run. Well, what about this? No, he's chasing you." That seemed petulant and way controlling, plus drawn out and frustrating, delaying the action.
Do I let you guys take full control? It wouldn't have been a "run away" scene, because those don't work in this system, and zero players, I mean, zero players run their characters that way. I've been on these boards over a decade and never seen a seen where you were chased like that and fleeing.
I wanted to see if I could create something like that. This kind of worked, but obviously had some issues. :) This wasn't just about not killing you guys: it was about presenting your characters with conflicts. Who do you save? Do you put out fires? Do you corral the creature? Kill it? Chase it off? None of those things could happen below deck, but the unveiling wouldn't have been as moody or logical if it wasn't below decks.
So I chose to take about two rounds to describe you getting chased out. Not boring, not TPK, but yeah...not in your control, because I had to get us to a certain place. Sorry. :)
Which is why we are discussing. :) So I can learn and refine. Like I said when I started this: I'm trying to re-write the book, to do things dramatically different, and tell a story that is not what we have in our rule-books. To do a game that no one has ever seen.
I don't plan on doing this often, obviously. But it may come up in the future. So what do you guys think would work best from a players perspective? :)
The power attack vs. CMD is part of my reaction system. It's come up much more in the Wagon battle, obviously.
My goal is to have combat feel more like THIS (go to the 8:00 mark).
She kicks one person and lightsabers another (attacks), rolls under a lightsaber cut (dodge and acrobatics), deflects a lightsaber out of the way (Defense) and then counters, while tripping another guy (CMD), before getting into it with ugly.
In PF, we walk up to a monster and attack. And they do nothing. We describe if they hit or miss, but they get no benefit from missing. (You rolled a 4 against his AC of 12, he ducks under your cut!)
It can be described in cool ways, but there are no benefits...so I thought, what if there were?
So now, a hobgoblin attacks Garrick, rolling a 16. I use active Defense and armor as DR, so you roll Defense +4 and get a 17, he misses! But...still no benefit, still sort of bland.
So the first attacks against you in a round are Reactions (where is the TM symbol?), and rolled against CMD. Because when that hobgoblin swings at you, you are going to try to trip him, or knock his weapon out of his hand, or bull rush him, or...anything like that.
So he rolls a 16, you roll a 17 to bull rush...and now when he slashes in, you dodge under the cut, hitting his chest, pushing him back. He misses, just like normal, and you get some tactical benefit from succeeding in not being walloped by the hobgoblin. Combat becomes reactive.
And enemies can react as well. (not all of them, but some). A great example was the fight between Khravos and the Three-armed goblin; Khravos attacked twice with an 8 and a 19, and the goblin CMD'd with a Sunder (17), doing damage to the scizore, and a Trip (25), interrupting the attack and tripping him.
This is the biggest rule change I have, and I am currently working on it to publish it. It takes some getting used to...but we run it at my table and it runs incredibly well. :)
And holy mother of damage-mode, Garrick...I just read your last post. Dayum.
RE: damage: i just got lucky i suppose (above-average damage dice and a possible crit to boot), and it is a climactic blow against a climactic beast :D
RE: cutscene: yeah, i would have tried not to let it escape the hold, because that is my job, defending the populace. as far as balance between cinematics and player agency, i would say 4e actually got something right with the skill challenge system. it may take a few extra posts, but present the scene, players roll from a choice of options (and one DM of mine would let you try to roll "off the charts" to try to use skills or rolls that were not allowed per the adventure as printed or per the most common options) and then you can type up a cinematic post that goes off of what they rolled. and it allows time for hints to get through to players that hey maybe they should run to fight it on the streets (though in this situation that wouldn't have worked, i dont think).
Info like the premise of skill challenges. You guys had this a little here. There were successes and failures, I just didn't put out the options. Maybe next time I can say "this is too dangerous, flee! Skill challenge! Go!" Or something, lol.
Thanks for your feedback, guys. Anyone else can chime in as well!
Let's go adventure!
Just spoke with Watches-Shadow-Behind-You. He hasn't been able to get a post to go through since Friday. Hopefully the sight will clear up and we can pick up our pace again. :)
Alright, XP for discussion thread!
Watches-Shadow-Behind-You - 2 (594)
Garrick - 14 (1,103)
Daxur - 6 (576)
Khravos - 4 (728)
Satinder - 14 (1,070)
Engineer #3 - 8 (776)
Everyone's current XP are listed in parenthesis after what you just earned. Moving on up!
I understand why you made the decision you did, but here's the thing: anything else you possibly could have been done would have been less railroad-y than taking my character away from me to railroad him to where you wanted to go. You're frustrated with how single-minded players can be when it comes to combat, but that's only of how the game is designed. If you want us to act differently, show us the other options.
If you had dropped info that said, "Fighting a giant spider in an enclosed space is a terrible idea and you will die," it would probably have been relayed to the party and we probably would have run. I realize you kind of did drop that information to someone, and site interruptions kept that person from warning the rest of us, but normally that would probably work.
If probably isn't good enough, you could have said, "The giant spider will kill you if you don't get out of the hold, so instead of a combat this will be a series of skill challenges to get on deck safely," and there might have been grumbling, but at least there's precedent for it with skill challenges and Angry's Chase suggestions.
I would have loved to have seen this quick-time-event idea so I could offer suggestions or critiques about it.
You've got a bunch of smart players here, or we wouldn't have made it through your selection process, so let us help you work these ideas out. Tell us how you want the game to change and let us try it.
On a different note, this is pretty awesome news for Pathfinder :) I'm excited that the PF community is growing!
As a melee fighter, I just can't fathom why it would be better for me in any way to fight this thing on the street.
If, in real life, I have to face a tiger, it will NEVER be in a crowded basement that I'm going to want that to happen, but a more open area. Your chance of surviving is much higher.
:)
Alright, posting has been super spotty over the last week, what with the sale and site maintenance. Let's roll-call really quick for all six of you, to make sure we're all able to get through. If you can't, e-mail me. :)
If, in real life, I have to face a tiger, it will NEVER be in a crowded basement that I'm going to want that to happen, but a more open area. Your chance of surviving is much higher.
:)
I'd rather face it indoors, because I can't outrun a damned tiger.
my survival hinges on the tiger deciding to flee, which is the opposite of what i want with this spider.
Ehhh . . . Entitled to your opinion, but if the thing I'm fighting has better maneuverability than me, I'd want to fight it somewhere the terrain suited me a little better. Against something that can jump twice my height, run on walls, and smash through cover like it doesn't exist, fighting it in an open space makes way more sense, because I can at least confine the fight to two dimensions.
As to whether or not we'd run from this thing . . . I think that's kind of messy, honestly. I don't feel like Mittean gave us enough information about what the thing was doing/trying to do for us to make an informed decision about how we wanted to react. I mean, I can't think of a motivation for it that sticks. If it was starving, I would expect it to grab one or both of the corpses and backed up to eat them, maybe threatening us first. If it was just scared and wanted to escape, it probably wouldn't have given away its hiding place by attacking in the first place, and it wouldn't have kept making grabs at us.
Instead, it acted like a pretty standard monster, without real motivation, attacking somebody because it was there and then chasing people because they were running. Now, Garrick's reaction to seeing a monster might be to draw sword and face it down, because he thinks he's a bad*** like that, and I can't speak for WSBY, but Satinder 100% would have run. He's not a soldier, he's not a cop, he's not even a PI anymore. He's literally a clerk right now, and he knows exactly how dangerous that creature is. To him, fighting a monster like that without a plan is straight-up suicide, so he ran. Which, by the way, could be a great character moment if Garrick decides that Satinder is a coward because of that. Yay, in-party conflict!
By the way, this is an absolutely fantastic article about conflict and motivation in combat, starting at
"2: Conflicts – Because Nothing is Ever Easy"
Also, present!
I can usually get to it from a desktop, but my mobile devices are timing out on the campaign pages.
Also, I'd like to start a discussion about the Reaction system. I helped Mittean design it, and we've run it at the table a few times with really positive results and feedback. We're still trying to smooth out some lumps specific to the play-by-post format, but I wanted to hear this group's thoughts about it. Obviously the Docks party hasn't really had a chance to see it in action, but you can read back through the Wagon party's posts to get a sense of it.
For those who have actually gotten to try it, what did you think? Was the combat any more interesting for you? Did it feel more like a real fight? Was it just completely confusing?
Sorry, either there was a typo or i misunderstood your post, Witch's Knight.
You talked about how it can move in several dimensions, yet said it makes more sense to fight it in the open?
Huzzah! I can get posts through today!
Watches-Shadow-Behind-You! Welcome! Lmao.
Alright, I'll be moving the Wagon team to town next. Great segue!
Also, I'd like to start a discussion about the Reaction system. I helped Mittean design it, and we've run it at the table a few times with really positive results and feedback. We're still trying to smooth out some lumps specific to the play-by-post format, but I wanted to hear this group's thoughts about it. Obviously the Docks party hasn't really had a chance to see it in action, but you can read back through the Wagon party's posts to get a sense of it.
For those who have actually gotten to try it, what did you think? Was the combat any more interesting for you? Did it feel more like a real fight? Was it just completely confusing?
honestly, it feels vastly geared against PCs. that is just the feel i dont have stats to back it up, and we have only done one combat. that could just be because, when i applied to this game, very little to no mention was made of all these rules that were different from the standard rules, so i have no idea if the character i made is mechanically viable or not. I made it with careful reflection into what each stat means and how the character is.
it feels as if i applied to a game with one game (rules system) and then the rug was pulled out from under my feet. not a good feeling, but i got into the game and i'll see it through.
i just see the narration, think to myself "what? how could that even happen?" and then look at the crunch of it and get even more confused as i see things like rolling for CMD and whatnot.
Your character is actually built quite well for it.
Long and short, when someone attacks you, you will react. That's the simplicity of it, really.
Not all enemies you fight get to react (for instance, only the three-armed goblin did, but all the goblins did not).
The rolling for CMD is simply from active defense, not static defense.
right, but with enemies already typically accruing larger bonuses faster in the system by virtue of HD (since they need to be tougher), they are getting a bigger advantage in CMD-related things when the player has to roll. especially enemies that get size bonuses. the advantage is still in enemy hands, except in fringe cases where the enemies are small (except in that case they tend to outnumber the players).
Well, let's see how it plays. :)
I do appreciate you coming along Garrick. It means a lot to me that you guys are trusting in me to tell the story. And I definitely appreciate the feedback. :)
I will say I just realized that your character is almost single-handed taking on this Rhagodessa (at least damage-wise.) This is a creature that has repeatedly TPK'd parties of up to 6 in The Savage Tide Adventure Path. Like I said: you have a solidly built character. :)
XP for the Wagon party, for the segue:
Daxur - 50 XP
Khravos - 50 XP
Engineer #3 - 75 XP
I put up a short segment describing segue's on the campaign info tab, under House Rules. I'll refine the description as I go.
Well, let's see how it plays. :)
I do appreciate you coming along Garrick. It means a lot to me that you guys are trusting in me to tell the story. And I definitely appreciate the feedback. :)
I will say I just realized that your character is almost single-handed taking on this Rhagodessa (at least damage-wise.) This is a creature that has repeatedly TPK'd parties of up to 6 in The Savage Tide Adventure Path. Like I said: you have a solidly built character. :)
well to be fair, a confirmed crit is very lucky to land
and maybe he is just mad that there weren't many leads that he picked up on :D
Alright, let me see if I can address your concerns about the system.
First, your point about monsters advancing faster and having a faster scaling CMD is valid. Our playtests with this system have all been level 5 or below, and we're aware that we may have to tweak some things as we go to keep the PCs competitive. However, that's really the only way the Reaction rules are skewed against the PCs.
One of the major balancing factors is that fewer than 10% of enemies even get Reactions. If you go back and read through the fight with the wagon party, you'll see that only the lead goblins was taking Reactions. That's on purpose. It's not a completely hard and fast rule, but generally speaking only named enemies will have Reactions, while the PCs get to take them against anybody.
As far as confusion about how it works, this is the post Mittean put up a few weeks ago with a brief explanation:
Rather than the goblins attacking your static ACs (RAW), or even [your] rolled AC's (active defense), you attempt a counter of some sort when someone attacks you. A parry, bull rush, disarm, trip...etc. Some counter, that makes your defense active and involved, rather than stand there boring. Most of the time you will not be doing damage with a reaction...you'll be using them strategically. Disarming opponents, re-positioning them to where they are threatened by other party members, knocking them over, etc.
We roll CMD because we're using the active defense rules variant, and that applies to Maneuver Defense the same as it applies to regular defense rolls.
You honestly don't need to worry about whether you're optimized for this system. Your standard tactics should still work fine, and we specifically made adjustments so that people who didn't optimize for combat maneuvers would still be able to be effective. If you'd like a detailed breakdown of exactly how these rules work and why we made the design choices we did, I'm working on writing one and I can post it here when I'm done, and I can answer any other specific questions in the interim :)
I don't see any value or enjoyment in it. Having both the defender and attacker roll is statistically a waste of time to me.
Statistically, the 10.5 average of whoever is rolling in a normal game always beats the static 10 added to AC and Save DCs, so by your logic we shouldn't bother rolling when an attacker's and defender's bonuses are the same. I have my own reservations about rolling all the dice, but statistics don't represent round-by-round combat. We're also experimenting with attaching effects to the difference between the attack roll and the defense roll, which even between perfectly equal opponents can be a gap of 19 points. That's a lot of wiggle room to play with if we want to attach an additional effect to a 5-point gap versus a 15-point gap.
However, if it's OK with you I'd like to shelve the active-versus-static defense discussion for now, as it isn't really vital to the Reaction mechanic, which is about getting to do things when other people try to do things to you. If you're not clear on the distinction I'll be happy to explain :)
Yeah i mean as far as narrative description of combat goes, it is easy to figure out "how" a blow misses. for instance, misses by 1 and the person has Dodge, that is how. They have no Dodge but they have a buckler, that is how. Basically stack the boni from the most intrinsic to the least intrinsic and check the difference from the top.
I used to do that, actually. But I found it was still just descriptive, and not something the player could control, nor were there any tactical benefits from it, potentially.
I love the idea of someone attacking me, and I hit their sword out of the way (deflecting the attack and doing damage to the sword), and then stab them as my normal attack. I respond to their attack tactically, then stick them with the pointy end. :) Lol.
Yeah, Mittean and I have been doing descriptive combat for years, but we wanted more. It's not just a matter of description or abstraction, we wanted more off-turn player involvement, and we wanted combat to be more dynamic.
The inspiration for the direction we took was originally Shadow of Mordor, which in turn got us looking at Assassin's Creed and Arkham City. Defending in those games isn't about not getting hit, it's about temporarily putting the attacker out of the fight, and that's what we wanted to replicate. Shoving someone away, throwing them to the ground, breaking or taking away their weapon, making it so the other guy has to work to hurt you. We didn't want to just describe it, either--we wanted it to have tactical and mechanical impact.
EDIT
Obviously the off-turn player involvement thing isn't as apparent in play-by-post combat, since we all agreed early on to let Mittean handle the off-turn mechanics for us, but the difference at the table is pretty remarkable. People aren't just sitting and waiting for their turns, they're watching the combat and seeing how they can use the next attack against them to turn the combat in the party's favor. It's pretty awesome :)
Yeah, i probably would have been more enthusiastic about it if changing the entire system was clearly in the recruitment post
I'm curious, is it just the not knowing that bothers you? The changes don't affect the way you play in any way. There's no additional work you have to do, no changes to the way you would act during your turn. So is it just the lack of transparency that has you unsettled?
Unsettled is a strong word, as the shock of it has passed. That said, i've become lazy in my old age (in pathfinder) and have taken to using HL which is not super great for houserules.
Coupled with the recruitment post which mentioned houserules that "would be explained when they come up, if they come up" - that told me they'd be minor and i figured they'd be some minor adjustment to grappling or something that may never come up. But i mean everyone knoew damn well combat would come up, and it is a major overhaul.
But i'd say yeah the not knowing has me a bit worked up. But not enough to leave the game or anything.
That's understandable, I think. While the house rules are pretty much handled by Mittean, that initial announcement for them did underplay their significance. Well, hopefully after a few combats you'll be able to give us some more opinions :)
I'll be honest, I didn't mention it in recruitment for a very simple reason: it would not have been a recruitment. As soon as I say "I do combat in a way you've never seen" people would demand to know what that means. And as soon as I explained it, it would turn into a debate about its merits or faults from people who don't know what they are talking about because they have never played it. People who rules-lawyer, and argue about balance that they fundamentally don't understand. They can guess. They can assume all they want, but I have played it. I have tested it with multiple groups. I know it's fast, functional, fun and keeps the players at the table more engaged.
I couldn't announce it, because the thread would automatically be hijacked by ill-informed arguments. So instead, I chose to pick the smartest, most talented writers and gamers who applied, and put it in front of them. I knew your end wouldn't really change: you still roll for attacks, and totally choose what you want to do, exactly as any other game. I handle the backside of it. Literally, the only real difference is the crunch, which I don't actually need to put up. I do it mostly to keep track of the numbers, which is why I write them so meticulously. :) but if I DIDN'T type vs CMD trip...no one would know. I'd just describe them missing you, and that you trip them.
My style of DMing is an odd combination of very detailed rules and totally fast and loose in the Matrix. Jack reminded me the other night that he was thrown for a loop years ago when I first DM'd him.
Then he met the Jedi Master who trained me, lmao. ;)
My goals here are to tell a story that makes you guys smile, that has you invested, that you feel loss and happiness and connection with. That makes you want to check back to see if there is anything new. And to put my rules through the ringer, to have other classes, and feats, and players throwing wrenches at the system, to see if it can stand up to it.
Yeah, i agree that it would have been hijacked as you describe. I would suggest in the future, after you've chosen people but before you instruct them to make characters, describe in detail the houserules so people dont feel like the rug is pulled out from under them.
Also, you're right i probably wouldn't question the CMD thing until i get pissed the first time i am disarmed when an enemy shouldn't be able to disarm me. Especially when it follows up with a few attacks before i get a chance to do anything. At that point i would have been asking tons of questions very angrily.
Haha, yeah.
There will be times you'll be disarmed. And it will likely be against the foes that matter, not the mooks. It'll make you scramble.
The fact that you could be disarmed, or bull rushed, or whatever will make you address the combatant a little different. You'll start thinking more tactically, like "he's coming in with his quarterstaff, but I want to re-position him so that I'm flanking him with Three, and he can hit him with a touch attack" It changes your actions from "How can I hit him" to "how can we defeat him as a group." That was one of the bigger responses I've gotten from test groups: they acted in collusion more, because all of the sudden there was a benefit from it.
That's actually not bad advice about the beginning. I think a lot of things, and end up not posting them, just because I'm so busy. I remember thinking that...it must not have been turned into action, lol. :/ Sorry.
So one of the things you can do when fighting someone is tell me how you want to react. A hobgoblin rushes you, attacking with his sword. "I attempt to knock his sword out of his hand, and follow it up with a slash across his middle. If you are interested. :)
Do you have an SRD of changes? Because how can i know flanking will allow my ally to do a touch attack if i dont know any of your rules? Because of my ignorance or the rules, i have thus far not been encouraged to work as a group. I charged the beast as i would have any other time and figured an ally, were they in need of a +2, would work for a flank.
I just used the touch attack as an example. It could have been any attack from another player. And the rules are on the campaign info page, along with a ton of other information that I update almost daily.
You'll find links to everyone's pictures and character sheets, to all of the NPC's we've met, as well as locations.
There is a section on House Rules with Reactions, Segue's, criticals, Armor as DR, etc.
The parties XP is there, as well as lists of all of the questions we've asked, the language guides, and common knowledge in Sandpoint (things you shouldn't have to roll to know).
BTW, Sunday's question I am extending the time period for answering it at full XP from Thursday until Sunday, since the site has been so hard to get through.
I've been hitting the site all day and I finally got through. :)
I had a little trouble earlier as well. :/
I'm trying to get caught up today but I have a few places to be. Might be a bit later before I can post.
wrt rules, I don't mind the changes, but I'm still not sure how armor-as-DR works with my native DR/- for Biofeedback. That's why I never used it last fight. The RAW is mutually exclusive as far as benefiting from it.