[CONAN] Free-Form vs. Tactical Gaming

[Supplement Four]

Free-Form vs. Tactical Gaming

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been having several problems with a player stemming from his dislike of how the game is being run. He finds a lot of things "unrealistic", and it wasn't until today, after several gaming sessions, that I figured out his point of view and the cause of these problems. My player is a long-time AD&D 1E and 2E player.

3E/3.5E (Conan) are very different games from AD&D 1E and 2E. Depsite their wargaming roots, AD&D 1E and 2E are very much free-form roleplaying games. D&D/Conan 3E/3.5E is a tactical combat system.

I can better explain the different in the two with an example.



- Free-Form Gaming (1E and 2E AD&D)-

You have a spear in your hand, and you're traveling down a corridor.

GM: You round a corner and you see a guard about 60 feet from you.

You: What's he doing?

GM: He sees you, draws his sword, and is running at you as fast as he can, yelling at the top of his lungs to raise the alarm.

You: Great. I'll throw my spear!

GM: Make your attack. You miss? OK, he closes the distance and swings at you. I'll roll his attack....he hits. Remove 7 hit points.





- Tactical Gaming (3E and 3.5E D&D) -


You have a spear in your hand, and you're traveling down a corridor.

GM: You round a corner and you see a guard 60 feet from you.
Roll initiative. OK, it looks like the guard has initiative.

As you rounded the corner, and you see this big, yelling guard charging you, he closes distance and swings. You're flat-footed. He hit. Take off 7 hit points.

You: Wait...You mean I see a guard 60 feet away, and he can run that entire distance and attack me, and an AC 10, no less, and I never get a chance to throw my spear before he gets there?

GM: You could have thrown your spear and/or done anything you wanted to had you won initiative. But, you lost, so your character is a bit sluggish with his reactions, giving the charging guard the time he needed to get to you.

You: Hmmm....





Those two scenarios are pretty much the root of the evils that have been sprouting up in my game with this player because my player can't seem to find the tactical combat method "realistic". He doesn't "get" how every character is allowed to move and act for a full six seconds before, in initiative order, the next character's turn.

He's more used to the give-n-take of freeform gaming where you work out, in narrative format, what you're doing, reacting to what your NPCs are doing.

With freeform gaming, it's almost a gentlemen's agreement as to what is happening in the game, and partial moves are made all the time.

With tactical game, there are regimented rules describing all possible moves, and a character's turn is rarely interrupted by another.

Two different styles of play.

I like both of them. I probably prefer the Free-Form, but that's not the game we're playing.





Do you know of any websites that would give advice on playing a 3E based game in a more Free-Form manner?

 

[Mach5RR]

Free-Form vs. Tactical Gaming

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been having several problems with a player stemming from his dislike of how the game is being run. He finds a lot of things "unrealistic", and it wasn't until today, after several gaming sessions, that I figured out his point of view and the cause of these problems. My player is a long-time AD&D 1E and 2E player.

3E/3.5E (Conan) are very different games from AD&D 1E and 2E. Depsite their wargaming roots, AD&D 1E and 2E are very much free-form roleplaying games. D&D/Conan 3E/3.5E is a tactical combat system.


- Tactical Gaming (3E and 3.5E D&D) -


You have a spear in your hand, and you're traveling down a corridor.

GM: You round a corner and you see a guard 60 feet from you.
Roll initiative. OK, it looks like the guard has initiative.

As you rounded the corner, and you see this big, yelling guard charging you, he closes distance and swings. You're flat-footed. He hit. Take off 7 hit points.

You: Wait...You mean I see a guard 60 feet away, and he can run that entire distance and attack me, and an AC 10, no less, and I never get a chance to throw my spear before he gets there?

GM: You could have thrown your spear and/or done anything you wanted to had you won initiative. But, you lost, so your character is a bit sluggish with his reactions, giving the charging guard the time he needed to get to you.

You: Hmmm....

S4, from what I've seen of your games, your on the right track. You just need to bring some of that description back to the table as it happens. One of the best rules/examples comes from the old WEG 'Ghostbusters' (Get this if you can). It had one simple rule when dealing with damage - Why aren't you dead? In this case damage was done through "brownie points". If you fell off a building while chasing a ghost, the GM would assess you a 10 BP penalty, look you in the eye, and go "Why aren't you dead?". You would then give some song and dance about bouncing off of flagpoles, awnings, food carts, etc to explain how you got from point A to point B without meeting the grim reaper.

What I'm saying here (and I'm just as guilty as you are), is describe effects not mechanics. As you stated, 3/3.5 rules are more tactically minded. You use the rules to determine the reality, and then gloss over it with a narrative.

In your example, you had the player turn a corner, see a guard, roll initiative, lose initiative, and be attacked by a guard while flat-footed. OK, that is (almost) the reality dictated by the tactics/rules of Conan. So ask yourself, how does the guard make it all the way down the corridor without a response from the player eyeing him.

Answer: He doesn't. Tactical-wise, we run through a checklist of how things should go. Narrative-wise, this doesn't always match-up. In this case your player is surprised (flat-footed), but he is not aware of anything until his initiative. Which means he's not aware of the guard until the guard is almost upon him, screaming and yelling, while swinging a sword. Only the winner of the initiative need be aware of the 60' difference between them.

"As you turn the corner, echoes of running seem to abound from everywhere. As you look to see which direction the noise is emanating from, a screaming guardsman emerges from the shadows cutting into you with his blade. Take 7 damage"

If your player had won init coming around the corner, you could have described it as "A dirty blonde guard stands there - a stones throw away, head tilted to the side - he's not immediately aware of you, but it's only a matter of moments before he is, what do you do?" At this point you could describe the guard as 60' away since that measurement is now important to the PC.

So for the more tactical minded you can describe the scene for simplicity's sake, the roll for init. For the more narrative minded roll, for init, then describe the scene and actions as they unfold (and don't forget to stress that most of this is unfolding simultaneously - just because it too 10 minutes to work through the actions of the three people ahead of you, doesn't mean your chara is caught up to speed with whats going on.)

 

[Da Boss]

Free-Form vs. Tactical Gaming
I like both of them. I probably prefer the Free-Form, but that's not the game we're playing.

Do you know of any websites that would give advice on playing a 3E based game in a more Free-Form manner?

If you prefer the free form gaming envirnoment why not just adjust things like this when they come up so allowing the player to chuck the odd spear in advance of the enemy charging - isn't their rules for a free surpise round to cover this? I know we used to have them in our D+D games.

I'd go with makig the game as enjoyable as possible for both of you rather than suffer rules constraints but then thats me getting old and lazy

 

[LucaCherstich]

You: Wait...You mean I see a guard 60 feet away, and he can run that entire distance and attack me, and an AC 10, no less, and I never get a chance to throw my spear before he gets there?

GM: You could have thrown your spear and/or done anything you wanted to had you won initiative. But, you lost, so your character is a bit sluggish with his reactions, giving the charging guard the time he needed to get to you.

You: Hmmm....





Those two scenarios are pretty much the root of the evils that have been sprouting up in my game with this player because my player can't seem to find the tactical combat method "realistic". He doesn't "get" how every character is allowed to move and act for a full six seconds before, in initiative order, the next character's turn.

He's more used to the give-n-take of freeform gaming where you work out, in narrative format, what you're doing, reacting to what your NPCs are doing.

With freeform gaming, it's almost a gentlemen's agreement as to what is happening in the game, and partial moves are made all the time.

With tactical game, there are regimented rules describing all possible moves, and a character's turn is rarely interrupted by another.

Two different styles of play.

I like both of them. I probably prefer the Free-Form, but that's not the game we're playing.





Do you know of any websites that would give advice on playing a 3E based game in a more Free-Form manner?

"Gentleman agreement" often means "arbitrary".
Which also means it's a good thing with good gamemasters, but a bad thing with bad gamemasters.

In some way I prefer tactical gaming and my reasons for it are:
- consider "6 seconds" in a dynamic way (maybe they are 2 seconds or 6...they are just the sum of all the actions of all the participants to a fight)
- "Initiative roll" means determining how much your wits are quick or not in a particular situation. You loose Initiative, your wits are not OK.

The whole problem is that everybody does ALL OF HIS ACTION in his own turn in a round.
It's unrealistic....but it's easy to deal with.
In reality we should divide the round in sub-turns, with everybody having his own half-actions in its own sub-turns....but what we would get is just a pure hell to play, especially with complicated fights with multiple participants.

A possible solution ("in theory...."):
The best combat system I've seen dealing with multiple action in a round is Shadowrun 3rd edition.
Your Initiative score gives you an action per 10 points of rolled initiative.
So there's a first turn of action where everybody gets his own actions to do, then subtract 10 and you have a second turn of action (for those who still have Initiative score) and keep on subtracting 10 points until the round ends...

Example:
3 fighters: A, B and C
Initiative rolls:
A: 15
B: 22
C: 8

First sub-turn:
B acts, then A and then C

Second sub-turn:
Subtract 10 from Initiative score and you get:
A: 5
B: 12
C: -2
So the sequence is: B acts, then A, but C does not act anymore

Third sub-turn:
Subtract 10 from Initiative score and you get:
A: -5
B: 2
In this last turn B does his last action, and nobody else does anything.

In theory I really like this solution, HOWEVER, I do not think we can do that with d20.
If you do it, you just destroy the whole structure of d20 with its own standard and full actions, etc..
I would leave things as they are, this can of worm we are opening with this problem is too stinky to me....at least for the moment...

 

[Supplement Four]

"Gentleman agreement" often means "arbitrary".
Which also means it's a good thing with good gamemasters, but a bad thing with bad gamemasters.

Agreed.

The best combat system I've seen dealing with multiple action in a round is Shadowrun 3rd edition.

Neat system. I wonder, though. How did it play? Seems a bit "fussy" (but interesting).

Reminds me a bit of one of the D6 Star Wars editions. I forget which one--I think 2E (not 2E R&E). In it, you roll initiative, which is a perception check, and then, in order, you give everybody their first action. Then, you go around the table again and give everybody their second action, and so on.

On paper, this worked out real well. During play, though, it was kinda slow and draining. It sucked all the life out of the fast-pased fun action game that Star Wars is meant to be.

With 2E R&E (Revised and Expanded), they through that part out and allowed everyone to do all of their actions at one time, like D&D.

So, having played a similar system, I wonder how the Shadowrun 3E system played.

 

[Malcadon]

I see RPG rules as an abstraction to resolve situations that have an uncertain outcome without bogging the game down with a lot of technical matters. The key thing to keep the game running smoothly, is the GM's judgment and his/her good sense to apply or ignore rules or die results for the sake of game-flow or believability. This is why I like rule-lit systems, because I can setup an adventure without much effort, and I can quickly resolve the attack rolls, while focusing more on the action and narrative then the rules.

I dont know of any websites that would "give advice on playing a 3E based game in a more Free-Form manner", but I know of a free guidebook - Quick Primer for Old School Gaming - that teaches 3e/4e players how to play OD&D. You see, the original D&D rules were a collection of experimental houserules that require a good amount of rework or arbitration by the referee (DM) to make it work (almost like the old Altair 8800 and Apple I computer kits). This guidebook is open-ended enough to be incorporated with all but the most rigged systems.

 

[LucaCherstich]

SR3 organization of actions is completely different from d20.
Each phase in which you act allows you to do 2 simple action or 1 Complex action.
Movement is not exactly an action to be done in one phase: your total movement can be divided among all the phases you act in the round.

To do that, you need to re-organize the way Move Action adn Standard actiosn work in d20....but if you do that you need to be careful about the consequences this thing has on every feat in every sourcebook...which is too much to me.

Initiative in SR2 was, in some way, even more interesting than SR3.
You still act every 10 points of Initiative but, every round, the GM makes a Countdown. When he say your number you acts.
This means that VERY QUICK fighters can act 3 or 4 times before very slow ones.

Anyway, as I've already said, I think that trying to change the whole architecture of Initiative & Action Types in d20 is maybe too much.

 

[Mach5RR]

"Gentleman agreement" often means "arbitrary".
Which also means it's a good thing with good gamemasters, but a bad thing with bad gamemasters.

Agreed.

The best combat system I've seen dealing with multiple action in a round is Shadowrun 3rd edition.

Neat system. I wonder, though. How did it play? Seems a bit "fussy" (but interesting).

Reminds me a bit of one of the D6 Star Wars editions. I forget which one--I think 2E (not 2E R&E). In it, you roll initiative, which is a perception check, and then, in order, you give everybody their first action. Then, you go around the table again and give everybody their second action, and so on.

On paper, this worked out real well. During play, though, it was kinda slow and draining. It sucked all the life out of the fast-pased fun action game that Star Wars is meant to be.

With 2E R&E (Revised and Expanded), they through that part out and allowed everyone to do all of their actions at one time, like D&D.

So, having played a similar system, I wonder how the Shadowrun 3E system played.

That's not quite how it worked. You do get an extra action for every 10 points of init, but it works off the countdown principle. ie

3 fighters: A, B and C
Initiative rolls:
A: 15
B: 22
C: 8

GM calls off init rounds
22 - B goes
15 - A goes
12 - B goes again
8 - C goes
5 - A goes again
2 - B goes again

I don't remember if they fixed it in later SR versions, but init used to be open ended. We had a player roll a 76 for init (it was an incredible fluke) while the rest of us were lucky to get into the low 20's. This allowed the character to leap out of a car, run around three heavily armed elves, and shoot them all in the head. Because she had about 5 more actions than everyone else.

The problem with the interleaved action sequence, is you're really just reducing a person to a MAXIMUM of one action per turn. In that first round, only B gets to do something interesting. In the second round, only A & B get to do something, finally, in the final round A.,B, & C get to do something interesting. Which really kinda sucks, when you're the one action is flowing around instead of participating.

But getting back to your problem at hand, the answer to how to make a free-formist happy in a tactical game is NOT to include more rules. It's to give options in how rules are interpreted.
Take damage for example. Are you a literalist in that all damage dealt by a broadsword only comes from a broadsword? Or do you allow the weapon to control the damage code, but the player to control the narrative. Imagine all those cool fights we've seen/read. Imagine your player rolling minimum damage with broadsword, and doing 1 point of damage after armor reduces. An option here is that the player could say "our swords locked, and as he attention strayed to our locked blades, my elbow crashed into his jaw, rocking him back". It's still 1 point of sword damage, but with a cooler narrative than "you cut him again".

Put the players in charge of the narrative! If he's not happy with the fact that he's watching a guar rush him for 60' while screaming, ask him to describe WHY he was distracted/surprised. If he's not happy with that outcome, by Crom, that's what fate points are for!

At the very least take a look through other free-form games to see what they do, and if you like it.
Along with the previously mentioned Ghostbusters (good luck finding THAT), read through Feng Shui! The Action Movie RPG (That can be found as a PDF at SJackson's Warehouse23). Another really good one is Spirit of The Century which uses the freeform Fate system. Not too fond of the system, but it gives great tips and ideas for freeform gaming (plus its pulp style, which somewhat fits the Conan mood).

 

[LucaCherstich]

Pure countdown and single actions per phase was SR2.

In SR3 it was: each phase is 1 complex action or 2 simple actions per phase.
Everybody acts in order of initiative (1st phase).
Then each one subtract 10 from his own intiative count.
All of those who still have an initiative score can act in Phase 2.
And you go on this way, making phases as long as subtracting 10 points you still get some Initiative score.

So, if it was SR3, the surplus of 6 actions of your character in the example above shoudl have happened after everybody gots his own chance of doing things.
We must also specify that such a high Initiative roll was not very common (unless you are very lucky with dices or got wired boosted reflexes or magic...)


I've no idea how SR4 deals Initiative.
I've spent too much money on SR3 books to even think about investing in SR4.

 

[Mach5RR]

I've no idea how SR4 deals Initiative.
I've spent too much money on SR3 books to even think about investing in SR4.

SR4 is different, where initiative is split into two factors. Your initiative score, and the number of passes. Score is determined by adding two stats together. Anyway, you roll the number of dice you have for an initiative score (all d6's as SR4 woks off the dice pool) with 5 or 6 being a success. Add all successes to the the pc's initiative to get the initiative score. That determines the pecking order. Passes determines how many times you go (a la, instead of every 10 count your extra actions are a fixed commodity).

Still, I'm not a big fan of the "interwoven" initiative style. I know it's supposed to be more realistic than everyone performing all their actions at once, but it really seems to slow the game down. Instead of determining where you go in the pecking order, you now calculate your number of actions, and calculate an even larger pecking order. My major gripe is, it actually worsens the problem its trying to solve, which is give everyone an action. Instead of being appreciative for him moving on his action, we now have to listen to the mage gripe about doing nothing for one or two more sub-actions. And when you're actually playing the game, a sub-action feels awfully like an action, with the added penalty of everyone not necessarily getting one.

 

[Spectator]

I like the approach mentioned in the link, read it, its worth your time:
http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/3159558

I see RPG rules as an abstraction to resolve situations that have an uncertain outcome without bogging the game down with a lot of technical matters. The key thing to keep the game running smoothly, is the GM's judgment and his/her good sense to apply or ignore rules or die results for the sake of game-flow or believability. This is why I like rule-lit systems, because I can setup an adventure without much effort, and I can quickly resolve the attack rolls, while focusing more on the action and narrative then the rules.

I dont know of any websites that would "give advice on playing a 3E based game in a more Free-Form manner", but I know of a free guidebook - Quick Primer for Old School Gaming - that teaches 3e/4e players how to play OD&D. You see, the original D&D rules were a collection of experimental houserules that require a good amount of rework or arbitration by the referee (DM) to make it work (almost like the old Altair 8800 and Apple I computer kits). This guidebook is open-ended enough to be incorporated with all but the most rigged systems.

 

[Supplement Four]

I love that article, too. I've read it several times and refer to it often.

I definitely like Old School play better than New School.

 

[Spectator]

The only, ONLY, problem (and its not a big one) but if you were a pretty smart guy playing a 1st Ed DnD fighter with an intel of 5, your modern 180 IQ would be the intel factor checking for traps, fastidiously searching the room, etc. Whereas the usual dumb as a box of rocks guy of Intel of 5, would walk right into the pit trap.

Then you as the DM/ GM would have to make amends to compensate for smart Player/ dumb PC's advantage.

 

[Supplement Four]

The only, ONLY, problem (and its not a big one) but if you were a pretty smart guy playing a 1st Ed DnD fighter with an intel of 5, your modern 180 IQ would be the intel factor checking for traps, fastidiously searching the room, etc. Whereas the usual dumb as a box of rocks guy of Intel of 5, would walk right into the pit trap.

Then you as the DM/ GM would have to make amends to compensate for smart Player/ dumb PC's advantage.

Depends on your player. How much of a role player is he?

I had a player playing a pretty dumb halfling one time. He crawled up into this big hole in the side of the wall the party had found. It was a big tube slanted 45 degrees.

I asked him, "It's dark in there. Dry. You hear the trickle of water echoing far, far below, but you can see nothing. What do you want to do?"

I was expecting rope, climbing, the usual. Instead, the player looked at me and said, "I've got a INT 4, right? I'm just going to let go and slide on down. Weeeee!"

And, that character swooshed right down into a big vat of acid.

I'd accuse the player of trying to kill off his INT 4 character, but this was after several nights of gaming, about 3/4 the way through the campaign. And, the player hadn't done anything super risky before.

To this day, I think the player was just trying to play "in character" given the character's stats.

 

[Malcadon]

Depends on your player. How much of a role player is he?

I had a player playing a pretty dumb halfling one time. He crawled up into this big hole in the side of the wall the party had found. It was a big tube slanted 45 degrees.

I asked him, "It's dark in there. Dry. You hear the trickle of water echoing far, far below, but you can see nothing. What do you want to do?"

I was expecting rope, climbing, the usual. Instead, the player looked at me and said, "I've got a INT 4, right? I'm just going to let go and slide on down. Weeeee!"

And, that character swooshed right down into a big vat of acid.

I'd accuse the player of trying to kill off his INT 4 character, but this was after several nights of gaming, about 3/4 the way through the campaign. And, the player hadn't done anything super risky before.

To this day, I think the player was just trying to play "in character" given the character's stats.

I never liked that: a player acting like a dumbass for the sake of a character with low INT or WIS. Yes, a simpleminded character would not likely know things from a book, but such characters are not fools, and the act of playing dumb is this is just overcompensating. They would still have the horse-sense to be clever and attentive in the face of danger or with something they don't understand. This sort of thing tends to crop-up in Gamma World, were you play as primitive tribesman in a post-apocalyptic earth. New players sometimes overcompensate by having their character act like cavemen, but characters in GW face challenges and unusual things all the time, so for it they become keen and clever. Eventually they can learn how to work a super-computer or spaceship - if they live long enough to do so (character turn-over tends to be high in this game).

 

[Supplement Four]

I never liked that: a player acting like a dumbass for the sake of a character with low INT or WIS.

I think the player was just having a good time with the character. The Dragonlance novels had just come out, and the player got a kick out of Tasslehoff Burrfoot. I think he was patterning his "dumb" character to make almost retarted decisions based on the humor of Tasslehoff in the book.

I know the player didn't want him dead because he argued a bit with me to save him. But, there was nothing I could do in that instance.

I can give you an example of a character with low stats where we went an entirely different direction than this player did...





I've got two players in my Conan game right now, and one PC has low WIS and CHR (generated with the default 2E Conan rules of 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to taste).

(After racial modifiers - 1st level Cimmerian Barbarian.)

Caelis

STR 19 (+4)
DEX 13 (+1)
CON 10 (+0)
INT 12 (+1)
WIS 7 (-2)
CHR 6 (-2)

So, we looked at this guy...what do his stats say about him?

First, he's unbelieveably strong. In a barbaric warrior culture, that's a good thing. He's better than average in DEX, and his CON is average. He'll make a good warrior for the clan.

But, he's got a problem. He's lacking in common sense. WIS 7. But, he's a cut above average in intelligence. INT 12. And, his personal charisma is quite low. CHA 6.

So, what does this say?

It says that he's shy, introverted, maybe a bit wierd, different, self conscious, and socially unacceptible on some counts. Maybe he's bitter--a real downer to be around.

This whole Charisma and Wisdom thing led to some brainstorming, and here's what we came up with...





Caelis is one of those warriors that you trust with your life to have your back, but you'd never invite him to your formal tea party or to meet your snooty friends (modern day example--think in Barbaric Cimmerian terms).

People meet him and don't like him. He's always putting his foot in his mouth.

To translate this to the Barbaric culture of the Cimmerians, we made up a pretty cool story:

Caelis' mother was pregnant. These barbarian had no idea that she was carrying triplets. When she gave birth, first Caels' brother was born (Branoc), and then Caelis. They found a third babe in the womb that was stillborne.

Well, these superstitious barbarians thought that Caelis and fought his brother (the dead one) and killed him in his mother's womb.

As Caelis grew up, villagers would give him the evil eye, stay away from him, treat him differently. This affected his social skills.

They attached a moniker to him: Redbirth. They call him Caelis Redbirth.

They fear him for his strength, but they also think that there is something unnatural about him.