A character who wants to attempt to move three cards during his turn can do so by taking a full-round action. That character must overcome both obstacles on the card he is leaving.
I've looked around on the boards a bit, but the few threads on the topic that I found didn't seem to reach a consensus on how this bit worked.
If you have cards A, B, C, and D...
1) If you are on A, and want to use a full-round action to run 3 cards, do you end up on C or D?
2) Do you have to overcome just the 2 obstacles on card A, or the 2 on A and B (possibly also C if D is the card you end up on)?
3) If you have your characters only rolling against 2 obstacles, how do you describe the scene?
3a) Heck, even if you have them doing 2 per card, how do you describe it?
3b) Do they magically hand-over-hand their way down a rope then go back and tightrope walk it?
3c) Do they then somehow skip the intervening obstacles?
4) For those of you that have used the Chase Cards deck, how do you feel about the DCs being printed on the cards for each obstacle?
I've only done one chase in my games with the GMG rules, and just used the example cards in the book, as the chase caught me by surprise. I laid out tiles that represented the cards, and then described the obstacles posed on each "card" trying to convey that one seemed a little easier than the other. For example, "You can see your opponent on a rooftop a few buildings over. Looking around, it seems that you could squeeze between the two buildings in front of you without too much effort, or you could try tightrope walking down that clothesline swaying frantically in the wind." The players then can guess that they can either try to squeeze through a space (Escape Artist) with a low to moderate DC, or can try an Acrobatics check that seems to have a rather high DC, then find out whether they were correct (assuming they roll close to the value).
I'm not set against them knowing the DCs upfront, but I feel like it's a little too game-ist.
5) Do you award XP for your chases?
|
1. D, so that there is some benefit to offset the chance of getting mired. If you just use two move actions to advance, you'd get from A to B, and B to C. The outdoors chase rules vary slightly, I noticed, with their rules wording .
2. Just the two on A.
3. You can describe it as circumventing both, and finding an unnoticed way to get ahead.
A. You'd never do two per card and not be doing the full round action.
C. Yes they skip the intervening stuff. They've found a nonlinear way , a shortcut , or something that's let them get from A to D faster.
4. I feel that the DCs are fair to a point. At high levels casters can get a lot of bonuses to speed them along, which makes up for skill monkeys, which shine at lower levels. But it's nice to have a moment to shine.
5. Maybe a little for the encounter. But the chase is really just a prelude to actually catching the creature you're chasing.
Uh, my understanding was that, as a regular action, it would be a move to essentially traverse a single card, and then a standard action to reach the next one on succeeding on an obstacle.
Let's say at the beginning of your turn, you're on A.
Move action to get to the A/B intersection.
Standard action to beat an obstacle and progress to B.
You've moved 1 card.
Uh, regarding my question about the DCs being printed, I meant that as a question of whether you think the players should have that information, or whether it should be hidden, not whether you felt the DCs were appropriate or not.
1) If you are on A, and want to use a full-round action to run 3 cards, do you end up on C or D?
You end up on card D. This gives you an advantage over the alternative which is to use two move actions to move two cards.
2) Do you have to overcome just the 2 obstacles on card A, or the 2 on A and B (possibly also C if D is the card you end up on)?
You only have to overcome the 2 obstacles on card A and then you abstractly move through cards B and C to end up on D.
3) If you have your characters only rolling against 2 obstacles, how do you describe the scene?
3a) Heck, even if you have them doing 2 per card, how do you describe it?
3b) Do they magically hand-over-hand their way down a rope then go back and tightrope walk it?
3c) Do they then somehow skip the intervening obstacles?
I describe their characters heroically making their way abstractly past any of the intervening obstacles I choose to describe.
4) For those of you that have used the Chase Cards deck, how do you feel about the DCs being printed on the cards for each obstacle?
I've only done one chase in my games with the GMG rules, and just used the example cards in the book, as the chase caught me by surprise. I laid out tiles that represented the cards, and then described the obstacles posed on each "card" trying to convey that one seemed a little easier than the other. For example, "You can see your opponent on a rooftop a few buildings over. Looking around, it seems that you could squeeze between the two buildings in front of you without too much effort, or you could try tightrope walking down that clothesline swaying frantically in the wind." The players then can guess that they can either try to squeeze through a space (Escape Artist) with a low to moderate DC, or can try an Acrobatics check that seems to have a rather high DC, then find out whether they were correct (assuming they roll close to the value).
I'm not set against them knowing the DCs upfront, but I feel like it's a little too game-ist.
I agree, showing the DCs is a bit gamist. I don't show the players anything. I keep track of the chase "behind the screen" and describe it to them narratively.
5) Do you award XP for your chases?
Yes, if it was an average challenge I give them XP equal to a CR of their APL.
Uh, my understanding was that, as a regular action, it would be a move to essentially traverse a single card, and then a standard action to reach the next one on succeeding on an obstacle.
Let's say at the beginning of your turn, you're on A.
Move action to get to the A/B intersection.
Standard action to beat an obstacle and progress to B.
You've moved 1 card.
Looking over the rules, I see that you are right. It does take a move and a standard to navigate a card.
When I design a chase scene I apply one easy and one hard DC. It is always 10 + CR and 15 + CR. I also make sure that both DCs are based on a different ability.
This is important as it makes passing both checks difficult. That is the reason that a character gets to jump 3 cards. And yes, it would be from A to D.
As to showing the DCs, I almost always do. The idea is that a character needs to be able to judge which paty to choose. Does he jump the 30' pit or climb the wall with a knotted rope?
Telling the player the DC just tells him what his character would already know. It is a lot harder to jump that pit than to climb that wall. I know that it is Acrobatics 30 or Climb 0. Is there any reason not to just tell the player?
If you think it is "meta-gaming" to tell the player the DC is 30, why isn't telling them the distance "meta-gaming?" I don't know many people that can judge horizontal distance to the foot ESPECIALLY while running at full speed when thier life depends on it.
Opposed rolls like stealth, CMD, and AC are different. I never let the players know those things. I will give hints like, well armored, fluid movements or supreme confidence. Any combatant will learn to size up an opponent somehow or they will die by picking the wrong fight.
YMMV
If the DC of an obstacle is below 10 I describe it as easy. If it's between 10 and 20 I describe it as hard. Anything else is really hard, or even impossible for really high DCs.
It's just a style choice. I try not to tell players the DCs to anything.
3) If you have your characters only rolling against 2 obstacles, how do you describe the scene?
3a) Heck, even if you have them doing 2 per card, how do you describe it?
3b) Do they magically hand-over-hand their way down a rope then go back and tightrope walk it?
3c) Do they then somehow skip the intervening obstacles?
I think you arent thinking about the scene abstractly enough. The chase cards dont represent a map of paths available, they represent opportunities to gain ground on an opponent. There is lots of running and dodging between obstacles including the ones on the cards.
Think of it this way. The party is chasing someone. Cards A, B, C, D.
A. Acrobatics to jump a gap/Climb to get over a wall
B. Escape artist to fill a gap/stealth to sneak through the gaurdpost without being stopped.
C. Perception to find a shortcut/Acrobatics to walk a narrow ledge
D. Acrobatics to run over slippery ground/Intimidate or Diplomacy to disperse a crowd
If a PC has say moved to the end of B at the end of his last turn and the opponent is at C, and thus could take that full round action, he isnt standing at a fork in the path with the gap on one side and the guardpost on the other. He could theoretically 'get around' both obstacles, but that would lose ground against the opponent who successfully spots the shortcut at C. Hence why the distance (in cards) between them is increased.
If the player beats both obstacles at B, he hasnt magically traversed the obstacles in C and D, he has just gained that much ground on his opponent by getting through these obstacles and thus doesnt need to take the opportunities at C and D to gain ground.
4) For those of you that have used the Chase Cards deck, how do you feel about the DCs being printed on the cards for each obstacle?
I've only done one chase in my games with the GMG rules, and just used the example cards in the book, as the chase caught me by surprise. I laid out tiles that represented the cards, and then described the obstacles posed on each "card" trying to convey that one seemed a little easier than the other. For example, "You can see your opponent on a rooftop a few buildings over. Looking around, it seems that you could squeeze between the two buildings in front of you without too much effort, or you could try tightrope walking down that clothesline swaying frantically in the wind." The players then can guess that they can either try to squeeze through a space (Escape Artist) with a low to moderate DC, or can try an Acrobatics check that seems to have a rather high DC, then find out whether they were correct (assuming they roll close to the value).
I'm not set against them knowing the DCs upfront, but I feel like it's a little too game-ist.
While you usually dont know the exact numerical dc of something IE i dont know if I have a 15% chance of jumping a gap or a 25% chance of jumping a gap, but athletes (and thus adventurers) would probably have a good idea of thier capabilities and have an accurate gague of how hard something is for them. I dont think the dcs are overly gamist, and it saves the trouble of having to sort out a way to describe one as hard and one as difficult, particularly when it depends on the pcs abilities. If the dc is 15 and i have a +1 its hard. If the DC is 20 and I have a +18 its easy. The only problem would be there are a few abilities that modify skill checks after a role but before you know the result. That would be possible if the dcs are known.
5) Do you award XP for your chases?
Seems to me to be a challenge that is overcome (assuming you catch the person) i dont know why you wouldnt award xp for it. Unless you plan on only awarding xp for killing things. If talking your way past guards gets you xp, then chasing a guy down should get you xp also.
Well, you know that I give a little bit of XP out for roleplaying, Kolo. For a chase...a lot of the stuff poses no threat, and the success of the chase is fairly binary: you catch your quarry or you don't. Now, there can be more complicated chases where you're after a GROUP, and you may catch some but not others, but I tend to view XP awards as something gained for overcoming a dangerous challenge, or displaying some ingenuity in-character. Chases, by and large, don't appear to have either of those elements, although, looking over the cards, I can definitely see some ways for danger to enter the picture (such as by having a failed roll on that tight rope drop you to the street below, and set you on a different path along the chase).
Additionally, figuring out how much XP is an issue, especially if there's a fight once you catch up to your objective: that would feel like doubling down on XP a bit to me, since you're looking at earning XP from the fight AND from the largely non-combat skills of the combatants therein separately.
As for the 3 spaces run rule...I guess part of it for me is that I'm not abstracting the chase in my head enough, and part of it is that I don't like the idea of, say, a monk who may well have an easy time with most of the obstacles potentially ALWAYS winning a chase against a slower opponent. Then there's the fact that running in this case, offers a pretty big reward, especially if you can see that you can easily beat the DCs on the card you're on, since it lets you skip 4 other obstacles that you may not have the skills to overcome.
What would you folks think about altering the full-round action rule?
I'm thinking either cutting it from 3 spaces gained down to 2, or requiring a bypass of both obstacles on each card you're moving through with the same failure conditions as in the GMG. Or, requiring beating the toughest obstacle on each card you're moving through, possibly at a slightly higher DC to represent your rushing through them.
Also, I was thinking something like the following as a chase path:
A tightrope or leap the gap. If you fail, you fall to the street below, and end up on card A1. --> B
B clamber across the rooftop or talk your way through the lady's bedroom window. --> C
A1 order the crowd to move or push your way through. -->B1
B1 climb the crumbling drain pipe --> C (back up on the rooftops) or squeeze through a hole. --> C1
In this example, you could move across the rooftops, or fall to the street below, then you can continue on the ground for the chase, or get back up to the rooftops. If you fall, you'd take some falling damage. I'd probably include some other damaging hazards so that the acrobatic folks have some danger to face as well. How does that look as an example?
Well, you know that I give a little bit of XP out for roleplaying, Kolo. For a chase...a lot of the stuff poses no threat, and the success of the chase is fairly binary: you catch your quarry or you don't. Now, there can be more complicated chases where you're after a GROUP, and you may catch some but not others, but I tend to view XP awards as something gained for overcoming a dangerous challenge, or displaying some ingenuity in-character. Chases, by and large, don't appear to have either of those elements, although, looking over the cards, I can definitely see some ways for danger to enter the picture (such as by having a failed roll on that tight rope drop you to the street below, and set you on a different path along the chase).
Additionally, figuring out how much XP is an issue, especially if there's a fight once you catch up to your objective: that would feel like doubling down on XP a bit to me, since you're looking at earning XP from the fight AND from the largely non-combat skills of the combatants therein separately.
If you only believe in giving xp for dangerous challenges then no, most chases shouldnt grant xp. That isnt my view, the gamemastering section doesnt say dangerous challenges it says challenges. I think social encounters, as well as skill based encounters should grant xp as well as combat and traps, otherwise you are overly encouraging violence in your characters, because non-violent solutions tend to be less dangerous then violent encounters.
IE you have to get past a city guard checkpoint. If you try to talk your way past them, chances are there wont be alot of danger (so long as you dont threaten them or somethign), so by your definition, its not worth xp. But if the party just up and KILLED those guards, it would be combat, and concequently dangerous, and worth xp. That doesnt sit right with me.
As for the 3 spaces run rule...I guess part of it for me is that I'm not abstracting the chase in my head enough, and part of it is that I don't like the idea of, say, a monk who may well have an easy time with most of the obstacles potentially ALWAYS winning a chase against a slower opponent. Then there's the fact that running in this case, offers a pretty big reward, especially if you can see that you can easily beat the DCs on the card you're on, since it lets you skip 4 other obstacles that you may not have the skills to overcome.
Well first of all, why exactly is it a problem for monks to be really good at the thing they are supposed to be really good at (mobility and speed)? Ofcourse they should excel at chases, they are friggan monks. Half their class chart is movement based abilities.
And in terms of the 3 card rule, I think its there because under normal circumstanes, its very hard to catch up to an opponent without it. You are already putting yourself at risk (higher chance of failure, and potentially getting mired) as compared to just doing one obstacle at a time. I dont think its necessary to penalize it or make it harder. That said, we werent enforcing some of the downsides in the chase we did (failing by 5 or more and getting mired) I think if you did that you would find that its not this all powerful option.
What would you folks think about altering the full-round action rule?
I would say go for it, although I agree with Kolokotroni that the three card rule isn't something to worry about.
I have run several chases. Each time with a different set of rules as I have gradually tweaked them to the those that I use now. Some one once said that the first rule to run a good chase scene is to not follow the rules. However, I'm going to have to go back and try the Game Mastery Guide rules now that, having misread them, I see it takes a move and a standard action to navigate one card.
One thing I have learned though is that the rules should be as uncomplicated as possible in order to facilitate the faced paced, split decision action that makes chases fun.