RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Note that I never said that those DMs that do not "visualize" attacks didn't suck; I merely stated that in my opinion, these DMs were the norm and not the exception.
Visualizing attacks in D&D combat is one of my favorite parts! My players and I will often actually stand up and 'act out' certain parts of an exciting battle. Naturally, we don't use any weapons or other such silliness when doing so, but I will indicate what part of the body is hit and the player acts accordingly.
Also, like Sebastian, I look at the attack roll and compare it to the AC. Did it only miss the AC by a few points? It hits the armor. Did it miss by more than 10? It was a wild swing that didn't even come close. Did the hit deal minimum damage? A grazing flesh wound. Was it critical? A deep, serious injury.
None of these impose mechanical effects, but add to the heroic element of the game, IMO. Your barbarian has 12 arrows sticking out of him, has taken a spear through the bicep, and has his jaw broken. You've still got 10 hit points left though, and you're not slowing down!
Vivid, descriptive combat is half the fun of D&D for me. I can't imagine playing it any other way.
Some people I've played with vastly preferred something along the lines of "Miss... hit... not hurt much. He misses you; go ahead and finish him off" so that we can finish the fighting quicker and get to the other stuff. Then again, these are players who wanted detailed mechanics for wine connoisseur checks. Atypical players? Maybe. But by running a game that everyone enjoys the hell out of, I hardly think that automatically makes me a DM that "sucks."
As long as you and the players enjoy yourself, then you don't suck as a DM.
But,
"Miss... hit... not hurt much. He misses you; go ahead and finish him off."
After 5 or more rounds of this, I would be bored. A longer fight like this would, for me would be excrutiating. So it takes longer to be descriptive, it is a lot more exciting than,
"Miss... hit... not hurt much. He misses you; go ahead and finish him off."
Maybe if you were more dcescriptive in combat, then your players won't be so eager to get it over with.
Note that I never said that those DMs that do not "visualize" attacks didn't suck; I merely stated that in my opinion, these DMs were the norm and not the exception.
I think most D&D players suck as DMs. Despite that, most D&D players want to be DM. The DM is the person in control, who doesn't want that.
SO I will have to agree with you on that.
As for my evolution of the game theory, I think I'll end the post here: no need adding gasoline to the flames!
Ahh come on bring that gasoline. I'll show you how to start a fire!
The most frustrating thing about D&D 3.5 for me is how long it takes to prepare as a GM. I love the character creation system when I'm a player because all of its complexities and quirks let me fiddle with my PC endlessly away from the table. I usually reserve 2 weeks to create a new 1st level PC just because I like to look through all the available books and plan out my whole character advancement.
But, when I'm making an NPC I find it endlessly tedious to pick out 2 dozen spells for a wizard who will appear in the game for 3 rounds, looking up each spell individually so I know exactly what it does and how it ties into the wizard's strategy. Likewise picking 12 feats for a fighter or spending 80 skill points for a rogue are excruciating. Then we get to spending their starting cash on gear. Theoretically, using monsters from the MC would make this easier, but I don't want to run a game where the PCs do nothing but fight unintelligent monsters, most of the time my plots call for some NPCs (or monsters) with class levels.
Some game systems have rules for creating PCs, and completely separate much simpler rules for creating NPCs. I wouldn't mind seeing something like that in 4th ed.
But, when I'm making an NPC I find it endlessly tedious to pick out 2 dozen spells for a wizard who will appear in the game for 3 rounds, looking up each spell individually so I know exactly what it does and how it ties into the wizard's strategy. Likewise picking 12 feats for a fighter or spending 80 skill points for a rogue are excruciating. Then we get to spending their starting cash on gear. Theoretically, using monsters from the MC would make this easier, but I don't want to run a game where the PCs do nothing but fight unintelligent monsters, most of the time my plots call for some NPCs (or monsters) with class levels.
I am not sure 4th will fix that at all.
In fact, I am guessing it will get worse.
But we still have to wait and see.
Vivid, descriptive combat is half the fun of D&D for me. I can't imagine playing it any other way.
Good for you. But that still doesn't mean that everyone else sucks. I could point out that muy group would consider you a bunch of dorks, but we're also playing D&D, so I won't call myself out like that. But hopefully you see what I'm getting at.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Vivid, descriptive combat is half the fun of D&D for me. I can't imagine playing it any other way.Good for you. But that still doesn't mean that everyone else sucks. I could point out that muy group would consider you a bunch of dorks, but we're also playing D&D, so I won't call myself out like that. But hopefully you see what I'm getting at.
Sure, I understand. I'm not going to come out and say that if you don't play the way we do then your group must suck. That's just rude and unnecessarily inflammatory. I'm just saying that, for our group, a large portion of our enjoyment is derived from vivid combat scenes. Even today, in casual gaming conversation, we'll bring up things like 'Man, do you remember when I critted that remorhaz in the first round of combat and split it's skull wide open before it could even move? That was awesome.'
Maybe if you were more dcescriptive in combat, then your players won't be so eager to get it over with.
Obviously I explained this poorly. I shifted naturally to a less descriptive style when it became clear that the players in question weren't big combat-hounds. Descriptive combat made things worse, except in key climatic fights that lasted longer (those got plenty of description). But for mooks? It was more like a contest between players to see how creatively they could dispose of them. Nobody really cared AT ALL if armor or a shield was hit. I moved to a stye that minimized armies of mooks as a "must-fight" obstacle, and when a fight did break out, I allowed unorthodox techniques, and dispensed with standard attacks as efficiently as possible--all player-driven.
\If your players HAVE to know the exact detail of each blow and parry of every attack versus every opponent, then by all means give it to them. If, God forbid, they have to act it out, go with it. But players who differ in their tastes don't thereby automatically suck. And I'm rapidly becoming frustrated that people can't seem to accept the fact that some players just don't get off on a lot of meaningless combat.
Even today, in casual gaming conversation, we'll bring up things like 'Man, do you remember when I critted that remorhaz in the first round of combat and split it's skull wide open before it could even move? That was awesome.'
Heh. My group will say things like, "Remember when we poisoned that guy's rations the first time we met him, because we didn't want to get stuck fighting him later on? That was awesome!"
|
Even today, in casual gaming conversation, we'll bring up things like 'Man, do you remember when I critted that remorhaz in the first round of combat and split it's skull wide open before it could even move? That was awesome.'
Heh. My group will say things like, "Remember when we poisoned that guy's rations the first time we met him, because we didn't want to get stuck fighting him later on? That was awesome!"
Every group is different. My group (half women) will say things like "Remember that ring we found that made us smell like jasmine? That was awesome." It all depends on who you are playing with.
Every group is different. My group (half women) will say things like "Remember that ring we found that made us smell like jasmine? That was awesome." It all depends on who you are playing with.
Thanks, Moff! That was exactly my point. For you to deny them their perfume rings while insisting on extra-descriptive poisons, well, that would "suck"--for that group.
Ahh come on bring that gasoline. I'll show you how to start a fire!
Burnin' down the house! :)
Ok, what's wrong with grapple?
Seriously.
The first I heard about it was in the 4e announcement.
Would someone please share with me?Thanks.
I don't know, it always works in our games. NOw in first and second edition, grappling was frustrating.
Vivid, descriptive combat is half the fun of D&D for me. I can't imagine playing it any other way.Good for you. But that still doesn't mean that everyone else sucks.
I applogize. NO one sucks for the style of D&D game they play. I must admit I get frustrated with DMs who boil down combat to "You take 5 points of damage. Roll. 5. You miss" Yeeeesh! Thats my style. Fatespinner doesn't let his players role the dice (I am sure it is a great D&D experience, especially the way his group acts out combat, super cool), but I like my players roling thier own die rolls when playing D&D, for me it's part of the game, aan imp[ortant part pf the game.
I could point out that muy group would consider you a bunch of dorks, but we're also playing D&D, so I won't call myself out like that. But hopefully you see what I'm getting at.
Your group and I agree. I am a dork. I have accepted my dorkeness. All my friends are dorks.
Guess what? You play D&D?
DORK!
Even today, in casual gaming conversation, we'll bring up things like 'Man, do you remember when I critted that remorhaz in the first round of combat and split it's skull wide open before it could even move? That was awesome.'Heh. My group will say things like, "Remember when we poisoned that guy's rations the first time we met him, because we didn't want to get stuck fighting him later on? That was awesome!"
Both conversations would happen in our gaming group. My players are fond of diplomacy, bluff and intimidate, because I will reward full exp for talking your way pass a guard.
My main problem with D&D 3.5 is all the crap WoTC published for it. I think the publishers at WoTC got bored. Theire probably published out with 3.5. I mean creativily How many classes, prestige classes, monsters can you publish before you are rehashing old ideas into new products (Check the monster manual 4, with all the descriptions of different orcs). So now to keep things fresh, they need to make a new edition. Some people are complaining about all the money they spent on 3.5 stuff, that will be irrelevant to WotC, next year. I haven't even had the chance to purchase and check out these products and in a year they will be outdated.
The most frustrating thing about D&D 3.5 for me is how long it takes to prepare as a GM.
This is one of my major complaints too. I love coming up with NPC's back stories, and personalities, especially for those NPC's that are going to be around for a while. I hate spending an hour and a half stating up the NPC, and assigning feats and skills and gear. Usually when I do this, the PC's manage to kill off said NPC.
Of course, I blame my dice for this, I roll poorly as both a DM and and player. If 4th edition had something to help my rolls, I might be more excited about it.|
|
Something I'd like to see in 4.0 - Stepped Fear Effects
I agree, and not just fear, but an entire "condition" track...for simplicity it can all be the same track:
1. Shaken, a little queasy, under-the-weather, etc
2. Feared, Nauseated, etc
3. Horrified, Wretched (actively puking your guts out e.g.)
4. Incapacitated (Paralyzed with fear, or doubled-over from the bad diarrhea cramps)
5. Unconscious
This way if you are shaken from a spell then run into a stinky trog, the effects stack, kicking you down the track. Curative spells move you up the track as well as a timer (say at the end of an encounter you move up 1 tick, then 1 tick per minute, or hour, etc.)
I know there is a temptation to separate out tracks, but I am not sure adding more things to trtack is a good idea. Perhaps if there were only two tracks: mental affliction track and a physical affliction track it would be better.
I've always felt "ability damage" was a poor way to handle things...Its much better to add a global penalty like negative levels, than to recalculate your stats tied to a given ability score.
If 4th edition had something to help my rolls, I might be more excited about it.
Didn't anybody tell you? DMs are allowed to cheat! :)
Something I'd like to see in 4.0 - Stepped Fear EffectsI agree, and not just fear, but an entire "condition" track...for simplicity it can all be the same track:
1. Shaken, a little queasy, under-the-weather, etc
2. Feared, Nauseated, etc
3. Horrified, Wretched (actively puking your guts out e.g.)
4. Incapacitated (Paralyzed with fear, or doubled-over from the bad diarrhea cramps)
5. UnconsciousThis way if you are shaken from a spell then run into a stinky trog, the effects stack, kicking you down the track. Curative spells move you up the track as well as a timer (say at the end of an encounter you move up 1 tick, then 1 tick per minute, or hour, etc.)
I know there is a temptation to separate out tracks, but I am not sure adding more things to trtack is a good idea. Perhaps if there were only two tracks: mental affliction track and a physical affliction track it would be better.
I've always felt "ability damage" was a poor way to handle things...Its much better to add a global penalty like negative levels, than to recalculate your stats tied to a given ability score.
\
That is a good idea.
If 4th edition had something to help my rolls, I might be more excited about it.Didn't anybody tell you? DMs are allowed to cheat! :)
lol That I was aware of. But for the most part, I like to play fair with my players, in hopes they will do the same for me (and sometimes I get lucky and they do). ;)
We played last night, and the dice were behaving a bit better than normal, so perhaps they've been reading the boards here and saw my complaints.
Now to solve my dice rolls as a player...