Mechanics Cross-Pollination Thread

[squeen]

Sure, it's only an example, but I think it's been shown that the "unexpected consequences" are still disruptive to a campaign and don't really lessen the power curve.

My takeaway here is that "not as steep as you think" just means "not as steep as I thought you were thinking it was." I get the impression you thought "silver dragon" was chosen as an outlier of some sort, but the point I was making would have been just a well served by Charm Monster + Polymorph Other (Troll). There are lots of monsters that are good in a fight when Enlarged and Hasted.

I think @Beoric's point is a subtle but good one --- there are many hidden checks and balances in AD&D play that involves DM interaction. Not all elements of the game (e.g. charmed monsters) become compliant tactical weapons unless the DM also plays along. Having the grand plans of mice and men go astray is a hallmark of the original game.

Ultimately, that is what is mostly implied when taking about in "power curves" --- tactical power. But when D&D becomes mainly a combat engine, the game is already lost.

The thing is, those "consequences" are not as unexpected as you say (above). The progression mainly works, and the playing-field deftly morphs. The key is of course to use all of the rules and not hand-waive away everything that players find inconvenient to focus solely on video-game action or drama.

You mentioned Stoneskin, for exampled, which is a UA spell that is rather broken in my estimation. A clear PC-invented indulgence because of it's duration. I don't include most of UA...or any form of the (later edition) long-term, class distorting, mage-armor spells---except in very rare cases. One must be careful not to paper-over weaknesses. Everything and everyone must have one. 5e has, by and large, done away with that thinking--to it's detriment.

To answer a few earlier questions:

• there hasn't been any dual or multi-classing yet (and neither was there when I played OD&D)---but it is often talked about.
• there is no great hurry or focus to get to higher levels in order to "unlock" powerful magic (in truth acquiring magic ITEMS throughg exploration is the real short-cut...but they are an unknown-unknown and often come with drawbacks or limited usability)
• we never had much use for psionics --- it is not a class, just a mutation (with consequences, more bad than good)
• they are no builds. 3d6 in order...choose a class and race you qualify for. If you are not human, expect to hit the level limits.

Just as they are tyrant DMs, there are also rule-lawyer players who seek to subvert the game to their will. My advise is to avoid both at your table, and things will go beautifully. The game is magical when everyone buys in.

Player impatience to climb the power-curve falls into the second category in my mind. One DM tactic for world-weary "expert" players might be to alter all the higher-level spells ever so slightly so that they have no idea what precisely they'll do. Then the experience might revert from Machiavellian anticipation, to one of world-discovery...as it should be.

Live in the now. The journey is the destination...etc, etc.

 

[Hemlock]

Squeen, it actually looks like you're confirming the theory: a steep power-curve can have bad effects on play, and as predicted, someone who doesn't experience that issue (you) is running a game without things that cause a steep pre-plannable power curve (Stoneskin, spell combos, dual-classing, psionics).

We can agree to disagree about how useful Polymorph Other is, because the specific combo of Polymorph Other + Demi-Shadow Monsters + Enlarge + Haste isn't really the point. That's just one among many.

Ultimately, that is what is mostly implied when taking about in "power curves" --- tactical power. But when D&D becomes mainly a combat engine, the game is already lost.

In this case, I'm not talking solely about tactics, which is why I keep mentioning that creating silver dragons is disruptive even if they don't wind up joining any fights on the PCs' side. It's strategically disruptive. Creating cows out of mice is not tactically powerful but is very economically powerful: someone whose goal is to become an uber-farmer who supplies the whole region with milk will also experience their AD&D game changing around the time he hits 7th level (although we agree that yes, it depends on how easy it is to re-research Polymorph Other from scratch or find it, and in a game where spells can only be found in dungeons you probably won't have the predicted problems with player impatience because spells will act more like magic items). It's not just about tactical power.

P.S. I do think though that dungeons and dragons (including OSE, LL, Dungeon Fantasy, etc.) is at its best when players are in situations where violence is implicitly a potential solution to whatever problems they face. That is, it's terrific to have a game where the players are competing against each other to get elected sheriff of the space colony they founded, to see who's primarily responsible for protecting the colony from monsters. That kind of thing works great in D&D. But if they're competing against each other to become head of the school board, to see who's going to be in charge of hiring and firing teachers and revising curricula... if that's what your game is mostly about, you should be running it in the Mind of Margaret or something similar, if you want it to be any fun as a game.

 

[squeen]

OK. Glad I'm good for something!

One last thought about those "killer spell combos". I think it's useful to think of the campaign world like an ecosystem (or marketplace). An innovative mutation might get a lot of milage at the outset, but over time the environment adapts and you get less bang for the buck. It's up to the DM to make sure the world innovates/adjusts as well.

 

[Hemlock]

OK. Glad I'm good for something!

One last thought about those "killer spell combos". I think it's useful to think of the campaign world like an ecosystem (or marketplace). An innovative mutation might get a lot of milage at the outset, but over time the environment adapts and you get less bang for the buck. It's up to the DM to make sure the world innovates/adjusts as well.

Well, yes, but it depends on how commonplace these things are, which ties back into other concerns like realism.

1.) If you have rules for levels 1-20, but practically no one including PCs ever reaches level 5+, then countermeasures won't be used unless they're cheap. (E.g. spend a few moments trying to Disbelieve illusions at the start of an important meeting would not be crazy even if only 1 human in a million, plus monsters, is able to cast illusion spells. Moments are cheap. Sheathing everything in lead is not cheap though and probably ought not to be done if high-level magic is rare.)

2.) If NPCs of levels 5-20 are common, then you have a different kind of problem: finding a niche for the players. Possible by e.g. running a classic dungeon crawl where PCs are motivated by treasure, and powerful NPCs have enough wealth already to not be motivated to do more dungeon crawls. In this scenario antimagic countermeasures "in town" (or in ancient ruins) are fully realistic and appropriate.

3.) If NPCs practically never reach levels 5+ but PCs do, then just like option (1), expensive countermeasures should be rare and PCs will have a lot of impact. Innovative mutations/tactics/etc. may cause changes in the world, but that's still a form of impact.

 

[squeen]

I must disagree with Squeen here. Tactical combat is as much a pillar of D&D as is exploration and wonder. The game is a mix of all three. Something derived from war gamers was not attempting to downplay combat.

Saying the game is lost if combat is strongly emphasized makes as little sense as saying the game is lost if too much time is spent in exploration or wonder.

I had originally written "solely" and then softened that to "mainly a combat engine". I guess that implies 51+%, but I was thinking even more.

I am referring to time-spent trading blows. Tactical combat is fairly quick in AD&D, but strategically it stretches much longer in planning and execution. I wouldn't count that necessarily.

Do you think that that spending 24.5% or less of your time exploring, and 24.5% or less interacting (with what you've found) is typical? It doesn't match with my comfort zone. Perhaps a third of each is a better balance?

Combat may be the crescendo, but the rest of the symphony is needed to build to that point---to give it relevance.

My caution may be exaggerated, but only because the pitfall is real and perhaps a path too commonly taken. It's the video-game influence: chop-chop-chop fight-fight-fight. OK, cleared the level---on to the next screen! That's not great D&D, to me.

 

[squeen]

you have the cut-screen video game players as extremes on one side, the story gamers on another side, etc.

Too true. Danger abounds.

 

[Beoric]

But yes, armor comes with a helmet (small). (And the helmet, small listed is obviously a heavy armor-helmet, as it exceeds the cost of leather armor which also comes with its own leather headgear. But that is apparently very cheap to replace, so cheap that the cost is considered inconsequential).

I can't find that rule anywhere. What I can find is this, from DMG p. 28:

It is assumed that an appropriate type of head armoring will be added to the suit of armor in order to allow uniform protection of the wearer.

In my view, the fact that helms "will be added to the suit of armor" means the helm is not included.

I had originally written "solely" and then softened that to "mainly a combat engine". I guess that implies 51+%, but I was thinking even more.

I am referring to time-spent trading blows. Tactical combat is fairly quick in AD&D, but strategically it stretches much longer in planning and execution. I wouldn't count that necessarily.

Do you think that that spending 24.5% or less of your time exploring, and 24.5% or less interacting (with what you've found) is typical? It doesn't match with my comfort zone. Perhaps a third of each is a better balance?

Combat may be the crescendo, but the rest of the symphony is needed to build to that point---to give it relevance.

My caution may be exaggerated, but only because the pitfall is real and perhaps a path too commonly taken. It's the video-game influence: chop-chop-chop fight-fight-fight. OK, cleared the level---on to the next screen! That's not great D&D, to me.

Time spent fighting can vary wildly. I have one campaign where the players are all Leeroy Jenkins all the time, and another where I just wish they would stop scouting and do something already.

If there's one thing using the urban random encounter chart, and the various "men" groups in the wilderness, have taught me in AD&D, it's that there's a lot more high level characters floating around than most people's mental baseline.

This is true. I actually have to nerf a lot of those NPCs because Eberron's baseline is a lot lower.

 

[Beoric]

Sure, it is much more intuitive to assume that a 5 gp set of leather armor comes with a 10 gp helm thrown in for free.

At that point why would you ever buy a replacement helm? You would just buy a set of padded armor for 4 gp, keep the helm and throw away the armor.

 

[squeen]

I've also always gone with the "helm included" assumption...unless you wanted a "Great Helm" for some reason.

 

[Beoric]

You wouldn’t ever buy a 10 gp replacement helm, no. [edit - if you could match metal armor with leather helmets without penalty]

A 10 gp replacement helm is built into the AC of expensive metal armors, because it’s an expensive metal helmet that must be forged instead of hides or cloth that is sewn.

so if you’re wearing chain mail or plate and say “a-ha! Insteadof buying a metal helm to replace the one I lost, I’ll buy a leather one!”…the DM should simply reduce the AC of the armor until you do it right

Okay, this is clearly a houserule - a reasonable houserule, but still a houserule. That's fine, but don't go treating it like a rule that everyone should know.

 

[Hemlock]

I had originally written "solely" and then softened that to "mainly a combat engine". I guess that implies 51+%, but I was thinking even more.

I am referring to time-spent trading blows. Tactical combat is fairly quick in AD&D, but strategically it stretches much longer in planning and execution. I wouldn't count that necessarily.

Do you think that that spending 24.5% or less of your time exploring, and 24.5% or less interacting (with what you've found) is typical? It doesn't match with my comfort zone. Perhaps a third of each is a better balance?

Combat may be the crescendo, but the rest of the symphony is needed to build to that point---to give it relevance.

My caution may be exaggerated, but only because the pitfall is real and perhaps a path too commonly taken. It's the video-game influence: chop-chop-chop fight-fight-fight. OK, cleared the level---on to the next screen! That's not great D&D, to me.

I don't think there's a hard-and-fast distinction between combat, exploring, and interacting. E.g. innovating new spell combos, like a Reduce spell to shrink a statue covering a chimney enough that the 9000 lb. statue turns into a 1000 lb. statue falling down the chimney and onto an enemy's head, is simultaneously combat, exploration, and interaction.

 

[squeen]

Okay, this is clearly a houserule - a reasonable houserule, but still a houserule. That's fine, but don't go treating it like a rule that everyone should know.

You can say that, but I think you'll find you are in a minority in your interpretation of what was written. I think (but of course I don't know for sure) that very few AD&D players are buying helms to go with their armor, and their DMs are not applying the helmet rule to them. Most assume it's included from the wording.

 

[Beoric]

You can say that, but I think you'll find you are in a minority in your interpretation of what was written. I think (but of course I don't know for sure) that very few AD&D players are buying helms to go with their armor, and their DMs are not applying the helmet rule to them. Most assume it's included from the wording.

I think this is true, but I think that is in part because a lot of people don't know about/remember/like the helmet rule.

 

[The1True]

We played called-shot rules, (-8 for the head, -4 for anything else I think?). So noting the existence or absence of a helmet was key.

 

[Beoric]

We played called-shot rules, (-8 for the head, -4 for anything else I think?). So noting the existence or absence of a helmet was key.

I had some DMs who did that; I think with them we treated helmets as not included in the purchase of armor.

 

[Beoric]

No, and it depends on who is writing them.

 

[Beoric]

I wanted to expand on this post without derailing the original thread:

To expand on this, in my own game I want to know who is mapping, who is probing with the 10' pole, who is checking for secret doors as they go, who is looking ahead and who is looking behind. Mapping, probing and checking for secret doors all slow movement from late-D&D standard to 1e speeds, which enables wandering monster checks.

This suggests you need, ideally, a party of at least 5, and possibly 6, in order to cover all bases: one for each role mentioned (I rule that probing walls and floor with a pole divides your attention sufficiently that you can't really focus on the more distant path ahead); except for searching for secret doors, which requires one elf or two non-elves to cover each wall using early edition rules.

If you have less, you have choices to make in terms of what areas you leave uncovered, or if you want to slow your speed by having certain characters duplicate roles. So for a three person team, assuming you always want someone watching the van and rear at all times, only one person is available to map, check for secret doors, and probe for traps; covering all of those roles will triple or quadruple your wandering monster checks, so there are real decisions to make.

To be clear on the searching for secret doors role, for most people this requires that they inspect, prod, and tap on walls. Based on a passage in the 1e DMG, which I don't care to look up, I let elves search by just concentrating, as long as they walk within, say, 5 feet or so (although I have some setting specific limitations on this).

It becomes particularly interesting if you run an edition where the action economy (what you can do in a round/on your turn) is an important factor in combat. The mapper needs both hands to map, and cannot carry a weapon or a light source; the same goes for the person with the pole, unless he is using a polearm, which will probably be shorter and has other issues in confined spaces; stowing writing implements and drawing weapons is a real issue. Non-elf secret-door searchers can likely carry a weapon and tap on walls with it, but they likely can't wear a helm that muffles sound (great helms, armets, etc., basically the more protective helms), since they need to hear the sound of the tapping.

 

[Beoric]

Huh. I just ran across my campaign journal from when I played the Beoric character, in my late teens. I haven't read it yet, but it looks like it goes from first level to far enough beyond name level that some of the party has followers and strongholds. Looks like we started near Hommlet, and I see references to Castle Amber, and possibly White Plume Mountain and the Temple of Elemental Evil.

Hmm, I see one battle where we had a solar, a couple of planetars, some devas and bakus on our side, and it was still almost a TPK. And Orcus made an appearance, but bailed; I think this is a revised version of the fight in ToEE where Cuthbert drives/scares off Iuz.

Looks like we get resurrected a lot. I'm going to have to read the whole thing; despite my cringy teenage writing the whole thing seems pretty cool

 

[squeen]

Sounds wonderful. I wish I had kept better records of our old games.

 

[Johann]

Let us know some juicy tidbits! Wacky plans, powerful items, number of resurrections, homemade monsters!