Illusions

[Beoric]

Perhaps the mistake was putting any of the mechanics of high strength/intelligence/class/etc. in the PLAYERS Handbook. In an alternate universe, the DM quietly navigates all that and leaves the players ignorant of the meta-game distractions so they can better resist obsessing on their skill-mechanics, suspend disbelief, and just play the game.

The players need some way to assess what they are good at, and how good they are at it, in order to make meaningful choices. Otherwise your choices only become meaningful once you know your DM well enough to get a sense of the DM's assessment of your basic skills as an adventurer, whether they use/give any weight to secondary skills, etc. I would expect significant table variation, even among the 1e DMs who frequent this forum.

EDIT: For example, say your character is facing some time pressure to do something and one of the options available is to try to open a door. You the player don't know the door mechanic, so you have no idea how risky it is to attempt that action as opposed to pursuing some other option. If you don't know the secret door mechanic, you can't assess whether it is worth the time to look for secret doors or not. If you don't know the to-hit mechanic, you can't assess your odds of hitting the guy in plate armor. The player's knowledge of the math behind the game reflects the character's knowledge of his environment in the game world.

 

[squeen]

Except that knowing things approximately is fine for play, but wanting/demanding precise knowledge and small incremental (5%) advantages so you can play out the mechanic is a dull way to play. Realistically, you go through life without precise knowledge and are able to juggle nebulous risk. In most of the game, the dangers and modifiers are also unknown. "I am strong." "That guy's wearing platemail", etc. are enough. Then you try.

Trial and error. Based on the sucess or failure of your actions, you change tactics. The realy is how you face the unknown. I am a big advocate of "The Unknown" in D&D. That's why thing's like new monsters, Illusions, and the Ethereal Plane are so much fun- --- it smashes preconceived notions. The meta-gamer is stymied and force to just react to the environment. The stats on your character sheet should be a very small modifier --- larger things dominate. That's the notion of "leaving DC's behind in Adventure Design". Stop looking down at your character scores and use your noggin! Experiment!

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Except that knowing things approximately is fine for play, but wanting/demanding precise knowledge and small incremental (5%) advantages so you can play out the mechanic is a dull way to play.

Nice, now I've got a good sound bite the next time there's a fiery debate about how much folk love the old-style aesthetic of tracking encumbrance and counting torches.

 

[squeen]

Quoted out of context:

"Except that [PLAYERS] knowing things approximately is fine for play...."

In the case of torches, doesn't apply because the PC can easily count them. Same with encumbrance. If you want to hand-waive either away as a DM, that's certainly your perogative---just understand it in the full context. How does that affect the over-all adventure design? Did you just break an important balancing mechanism? If so, then don't cry later that the game is "broken". That's all.

 

[Beoric]

Realistically, you go through life without precise knowledge and are able to juggle nebulous risk.

Right, that is why there is a random roll. It is enough for the roll to be unknown. If the target number and any penalties and bonuses are also unknown, basically you don't know anything.

In most of the game, the dangers and modifiers are also unknown. "I am strong." "That guy's wearing platemail", etc. are enough. Then you try.

Of course! In 1e, you know your bonus from your strength, and the usual target number because you know the AC for platemail. But you forget, you were positing that the system may be better if players did not know those numbers. That is what I was responding to.

Trial and error. Based on the sucess or failure of your actions, you change tactics. The realy is how you face the unknown.

That is great, if you are willing to try to, for example, attempt to climb a given wall (and fall) enough times to gain a statistically significant sample size. Of course, that only helps you with that cliff; you will have to do it again for the next cliff. Since somehow you finished your thief's training without getting any sense of how good you are at climbing walls, or without any ability to assess the difficulty of a given wall.

Or maybe players should know their bonuses, and the odds of success in ordinary circumstances.

 

[squeen]

Or maybe players should know their bonuses, and the odds of success in ordinary circumstances.

I am OK with that, and I do play that way --- but admit this is the most common arena the game goes off it's rails. PC become obsessed with their abilities and adventures get poorly written as a series of skill checks. It's is, as I originally suggested, the hobby's Primal Slippery Slope. (OD&D very little, 1e a bit more, etc.) A slide into pure mechanics-at-play, making the magical mundane, and character stat obsession.

If you don't agree, and this it is not a problem in your eyes, then I am mystified---but accept that we must have had very different experiences (or tastes) with regard to "good" vs. "bad" D&D.

 

[Beoric]

I am OK with that, and I do play that way --- but admit this is the most common arena the game goes off it's rails. PC become obsessed with their abilities and adventures get poorly written as a series of skill checks. It's is, as I originally suggested, the hobby's Primal Slippery Slope. (OD&D very little, 1e a bit more, etc.) A slide into pure mechanics-at-play, making the magical mundane, and character stat obsession.

If you don't agree, and this it is not a problem in your eyes, then I am mystified---but accept that we must have had very different experiences (or tastes) with regard to "good" vs. "bad" D&D.

Oh, I have seen what you have described happen. However, I have also played pre-nonweapon proficiency AD&D, and seen the problems when discretion is not tempered with guidelines, and DMs obsess over their players knowing "too much". The first problem I have discussed in other posts (the couch potatoes DMing for athletes thing), and I'm not going to go over that again. Instead I'm going to focus on the second.

The problem with withholding information from players is that players already have a significant disadvantage in terms of their perception of what is going on in the game. The DM probably wrote the setting, or at least read it, and probably has a pretty clear idea of everything that is going on in his head. However, the player's perception of the world around his character is strictly limited to what the DM communicates to him. It is subject to the vagaries of language and the DM's oral communication skills - and memory, and the degree to which he has internalized his understanding of the environment so much that he forgets that the players don't already know what he knows. It is also subject to differences in understanding about what is possible, and what it likely. And to attention spans, and distractions.

And it is a pretty safe bet that a given DM is not as good at oral communication as he thinks he is. We all would like to think we are good DMs, and that we communicate clearly at all times. But it is not true. What's worse, oral communication skills are difficult to teach, written resources on the subject are essentially worthless, and players don't give honest feedback (its hard to look an artist in the eye and criticize their work, especially if you are friends), so it it difficult to self-improve.

In the face of all of that, I am skeptical of a need to add to the player's uncertainty. His character did intense training that is intended to keep him alive, is aware of what he could do and what he could not do in that training, and anything he experienced when adventuring afterwards. He experiences the world with all of his senses, and picks up on all the subtle cues around him that the DM could not possibly have described. He does his best to assess his ability to accomplish any action, because failing to do so could kill him. It is only fair that his player should have the best information that the DM can give him. And in my opinion that includes the math that outlines the risk. Otherwise the character is moving through the world like he is wearing earmuffs, a welding mask and oven mitts.

That goes double for combat. People who are skilled at a thing are generally pretty good at knowing when someone else is skilled at that same thing. It takes way less than a statistically significant exchange of attack rolls to know how likely someone is to hit you, and how likely you are to hit him, even if dex and magic bonuses mean the target AC can be 10 points different from a normal guy wearing nonmagical armor.

In contrast, there are simple, and more importantly teachable techniques for making a skill system work. The most important technique is to never let your player tell you what skill they are using. They have to describe their approach narratively, and the DM extracts from their description the appropriate check (if any, there is an equally teachable process for determining whether they should be making a check at all). The player can influence the check that is likely to be selected by the approach he chooses, and that is to be encouraged, because characters should go with their strengths.

The technique is incredibly effective. To use an apocryphal example of an abused skill system, if the player has to describe what, exactly, his character is going to say or do that is so convincing that the dragon might sleep with him instead of eating him, he is a lot less likely to assume that his seduction skill is going to apply, and a lot more likely to choose a more reasonable approach, and to play a lot smarter because the best approach may not be one in which they have a great deal of skill. I have used this with the most entrenched optimizers with essentially no pushback, with the result that when they DM they now use the same technique with me.

The fact that the techniques for properly running a skill system are pretty each to find, and pretty easy to adopt, and very effective, makes the failure of designers to properly teach the methods or employ them in their dungeons all the more egregious.

So yeah, I like using a skill system. My players know how good their characters are at things, and have a good sense of what I mean when I say a task looks easy, moderate or hard. Sometimes I give them actual numbers if that is the best way to make the situation clear. If there is not sufficient information for their characters to accurately assess the risk, then I tell the players as much, and they can take steps to get better information. I do this because I assume I am not a perfect communicator, and because I get the same narrative discussion as I would without the skill system, but with a lot fewer misunderstandings.

The fact that the techniques for properly running a skill system are pretty each to find, and pretty easy to adopt, and very effective, makes the failure of designers to properly teach the methods or employ them in their dungeons all the more egregious. I know WotC knows better, what I can't figure out is why they don't seem to care.

 

[squeen]

And it is a pretty safe bet that a given DM is not as good at oral communication as he thinks he is. We all would like to think we are good DMs, and that we communicate clearly at all times. But it is not true.

I am aware of how bad I can be as a DM. It's a constant struggle to improve.

In the face of all of that, I am skeptical of a need to add to the player's uncertainty. [...] And in my opinion that includes the math that outlines the risk. Otherwise the character is moving through the world like he is wearing earmuffs, a welding mask and oven mitts. That goes double for combat.

Maybe. Just note one thing --- the combat tables were originally put in the DM's guide. They do not appear in the Player's Handbook. As a side note, we need to fit EOTB's dread of the "Willie Wonka" type of DM into this context somewhere.

In contrast, there are simple, and more importantly teachable techniques for making a skill system work. The most important technique is to never let your player tell you what skill they are using....

I whole-heartily agree with this, and would be interested in what the other "teachable techniques" are.

My players know how good their characters are at things, and have a good sense of what I mean when I say a task looks easy, moderate or hard. Sometimes I give them actual numbers if that is the best way to make the situation clear. If there is not sufficient information for their characters to accurately assess the risk, then I tell the players as much, and they can take steps to get better information.

This is how I like to play with skills embedded in OD&D/AD&D --- actually all information about the world. It's a back and forth process between DM and player. However, as the players inevitably continue to probe for the unknowable, I find "How would you know?" a useful mantra.

It does not sound like we are in fact very far apart. Player's know the basics of what they are capable of doing, but usually not the specifics for a particular in-game application. The exact math and book-keeping are kept on the DM's side. Also, the players are required to describe actions taken and not just abstract them with regard to a multiple-choice-of-skill approach to any situation. The only remaining question is how many different PC-related variables are listed for the DM to choose to apply in a given situation. How complex a system do you want/need?

This is in many ways at the heart of the Me and the DMG thread. That book is a jumble of DM-facing rules to help handle whatever situation occurs. It is reviled by some for its complexity and (poor) organization. So much so, that the data associated with those ruling was pushed to the Player's side in later editions---ideally so that they could help keep track of things. That, in turn, accidentally transformed player's into mini-DMs and fueled the arms-war for stock-piling of PC skills. This all seems a tiny bit clearer to me now. Thank you!

EDIT: When I play, my players do get acess to the PHB, but I try to keep them out of the DMG and MM.

 

[Beoric]

I whole-heartily agree with this, and would be interested in what the other "teachable techniques" are.

Scott Rehm, despite being thoroughly unpleasant to interact with, and before he started to believe his own press, came up with a nice summary. I'm not sure if he was the first to articulate it, but he did a good job of articulating it. My take on the approach is this:

1. GM presents a situation.

2. Player describe (narratively) an action he wants to take.

3. GM determines whether action is even possible. If not, there has probably been a miscommunication: clear it up and go back to 1.

4. GM determines whether outcome needs to be randomly determined. It only needs to be randomly determined if it does not automatically succeed or automatically fail, AND if there is a consequence of failure. If it would automatically fail you may have a communication problem (eg. you think you said the chasm was 50' wide and the player thought you said 5' and is trying to jump over it); clear it up and go back to 1.

With respect to there being no consequences of failure, I am talking about a situation where there is any chance of success and there is nothing keeping the players from trying over and over again until they succeed. In 1e you often are given only one change to do something, but in other systems you can keep trying. If PC is trying in a dungeon and incurring wandering monster checks and making noise, that is a consequence. If PC is trying something (opening a chest, for example) in the privacy of his castle and nothing keeps him from trying over and over again, don't make him keep rolling. In retrospect it is obvious, but for a lot of people it is only obvious in retrospect.

If it the outcome does not need to be determined randomly, and there is no miscommunication that needs clearing up, skip to 9.

5. GM determines how to randomly determine the outcome. If there is a skill system this means you pick a skill/ability check and assign a target number. If there is no skill system you apply an existing mechanic (secret door rolls, attack rolls, thief ability checks, etc.) or pick a die and the number that would constitute success.

6. GM rolls the die or instructs the player to do so.

7. According to Rehm, the GM determines the outcome of the die roll. Sometimes there are sound reasons for this, but I am in the camp of people who prefer transparency whenever possible. I would roll most die rolls in the open if the VTT framework I use allowed it. That being said, there are times, which I think should be rare, when players should not be aware of whether they succeeded or failed.

8. GM interprets the roll and determines an outcome.

9. GM narrates the results of the attempted action.

However, as the players inevitably continue to probe for the unknowable, I find "How would you know?" a useful mantra. ... When I play, my players do get acess to the PHB, but I try to keep them out of the DMG and MM.

I'm pretty generous with what they would know. Since I use a d20 for pretty much every random roll there is already a lot of variability built in. So I will usually tell my players the target number if they ask for it ("With your skill at climbing you think you can probably get up that cliff" "What do I need?" "You need a 25" "Ok. [rolls] I got a natural 2." "Yeah, that ledge wasn't as strong as you thought it was."). That being said, they rarely ask for more than narrative information.

I am also usually transparent about the power level of NPCs. I figure people who fight for a living are good at sizing up other people's combat ability. Also, if an NPC is wearing plate, a crown instead of a helmet, leather bracers instead of steel vambraces, and dainty slippers, that pretty much screams this dude has a bunch of magic items. In fact, if the players ask, and the NPC is trying to conceal his power level, I secretly roll a bluff check for him.

I also am generous with knowledge regarding common monsters. You can be damned sure that the first fighter to fought a troll and killed it told every damn person he ran into the story of the regenerating monster and how it could only be killed with fire (or acid, whichever he figured out). It then got picked up by bards and become part of the popular culture. Which is why, in the 21st century, we know how Heracles killed the hydra. And if the mentor who trained you to 1st level didn't teach you how to kill a troll, or other common monster (technically "uncommon", but common enough), then he did a crappy job.

Not giving my players access to the DMG or MM wouldn't do much good. Most of us have DM'd a lot. We never used THAC0, but it really wouldn't matter, everyone knows the 1e progression. 4e is a bit different, but like I said, I'm generous with information and will tell them the rumors - although they may be coloured by the cultural prejudices of where the PCs grew up. Looks like the goblins you encountered from the 5th cohort of the last legion of the fallen Dhakaani empire aren't all stupid and cowardly after all.[/QUOTE]

 

[squeen]

Scott Rehm, despite being thoroughly unpleasant to interact with, and before he started to believe his own press, came up with a nice summary. I'm not sure if he was the first to articulate it, but he did a good job of articulating it. My take on the approach is this:

Nice, and thank you.

I am also usually transparent about the power level of NPCs. I figure people who fight for a living are good at sizing up other people's combat ability.

Sure. But HP are such a nebulous combination of physicality and luck, that I never reveal that. I also tell them what they need to roll to-hit, but not opponents AC beyond the observable.

Honestly, that seems to be a fairly minor point as we play with little push-back. I give minor AC hints by "your sword connects solidly by bounces off his armor" etc. to indicate when something such as magic armor is not what it seems on the surface.

They usually are far more probing for how many HP the monster has left after they strike the first blow. I usually describe the damaged they inflicted in general terms ("it looks extremely wounded", etc.) but never give an exact number. Player will also never learn from me the "pluses" of a magic sword, or exact number of charges in a device.

I also am generous with knowledge regarding common monsters. You can be damned sure that the first fighter to fought a troll and killed it told every damn person he ran into the story of the regenerating monster and how it could only be killed with fire (or acid, whichever he figured out). It then got picked up by bards and become part of the popular culture. Which is why, in the 21st century, we know how Heracles killed the hydra. And if the mentor who trained you to 1st level didn't teach you how to kill a troll, or other common monster (technically "uncommon", but common enough), then he did a crappy job.

Two things with regards to this:

First, every monster is quasi-unique to my thinking. This is a bit of a Swords & Wizardry thing---or at least how I internalized what Finch was preaching. The MM listings are just "arch-types", so that just as every human fighter PC is a bit different---so can every troll, goblin, ogre, giant, etc. be as well. There are local "sub-types" in a particular region, but (even among tribe-mates) the stats and abilities vary. The point is (in S&W) made that the PC resitrictions (regarding race level-limits for example) in no way apply to NPCs.

Secondly, civilization is quite sparse but also mundane and orderly, the wilds are wild and dangerous. The Deeper/Farthest Places are pure madness. There are no half-orcs walking around town trying to buy a drink, leprechauns selling you potions in a village, or tribes noble-savage orcs. Ren Fair is not happening. Monsters are MONSTERS. Trolls are truly uncommon, and if you are lucky enough to have heard rumors about them, you'll only know that they are horribly dangerous. (I can get away with this because my players were all new to D&D when we started 5+ years ago.) Count on fire as the solution at your own risk. I won't allow myself to alter things I've pre-written (in game), but expect the unexpected in overall design. I am not a fan of codifying/classifying, and making the magical mundane. I think the nervous fear-factor of exploration is one of the great visceral "rushes" of D&D. Same with the wonder of found magic. The notion of 21st Century-like "common knowledge" breaks down when civilization exists in isolated pockets.

All that said, I do fear of falling into EOTB's "Willie Wonka" trap, where I (as DM) am constantly trying to mystify/dazzle my players. (Honestly, I am not 100% confidence I understand his concern, but I trust his experience, and am trying to avoid a pitfall.) The only hedge I have against Wonka-ism is pre-written material, established before we play. The underlying creation mechanics are OD&D+1e, and I try mightily not to break rules once they are established and generally let the players drive the bus.

Yes, there's a lots of unique and orthogonal magic items, Lovecraftian Horrors, strange (pocket) realms, impossible NPCs, etc...but I am a simulationist at heart so I try to hold to some sort of plausible internal logic---justification that maybe only I as DM will ever know. Ridiculously convoluted/unknowable back-stories with only sprinkled clues in the world that rationalizes the fantastic (to me). No funhouse dragons in 20'x20' rooms next to a group of orcs....and mostly importantly I do try to make sure every victory is hard-fought (or at least failure looms), and success comes at a mixed price. (Although I fail there more than anywhere...too soft most times.)

My main interest right now (as DM) is using 1e (and other found mechanics) to house-rule a bit more variety into combat and tactics. Adding more "Advanced" to my D&D in terms of game balance and "bite". Forcing my players to mature in their resource management and tactics. I do this because (especially as their collective level increases), I feel it's needed to keep things challenging and fun---and I think they are ready for it.

With regards to the Drains/Illusion dungeon I have been trying to polish up and post: I got some player feedback in the last two sessions.
Here's the set-up:

• They ignited the Tapestry Maze (as I knew it they would). This stopped the quicksilver skeletons from creeping up their rear, but the long burn-time (2 hours) cut off the only known point of entrance/escape.
• The pulled down the brazier in the Sea of Glass and dispelled that illusion by pure mechanical means (rope tied to an arrow).
• They never fought the Knight (figured out the passphrase using a book recovered elsewhere)---but they were very leery of it. When the thief looked at it through his Gem of Seeing, I said the Knight was invisible instead of "not there". As a result, they seemed to continued to believe the illusion. Here's a philosophical question: should Illusions of monsters "take damage and die?". Guess it depends.
• Never triggered the flood illusion, and managed to smash the Illusion-generating statue via telekinesis and claim it's treasure.
• The thief put on the Ring of Swimming that transformed him into a water-breather and started to suffocate. Having lit-up the Tapestry Maze, he had no way out to get to water (eventually costing them a Dimension Door spell). The ring can only be removed after 1d4 turns.

PLAYER FEEDBACK:
The thief (our party's man-of-action, in most circumstances) complained that he did not like the dungeon. Especially having to exit it prematurely and then try to find another entrance to reach the party. Also levied against me (as "bad" designer) is that all the magic items come with a flaw. I felt he was just feeling intolerance of set-backs.

Another player, our cleric, said she liked the dungeon because of the puzzles and traps. It felt deserted, which she felt made sense for "under the castle", and there was no pressure to continue---allowing them to "walk away" at any point. She preferred this to monster-combat and creatures seeking them out. I interpreted this a win for "exploratory", which was my primary design goal.

DM LESSONS:
Lastly, I got tripped up with respect to "surprise"---our meta-gaming thief again. Here's the 1e question: if one player is judged by circumstances not to be "surprisable" --- what happens in those surprise segments with regards to (a) the rest of the party (does he/she negates for all?), and (b) that player's ability to take action during this segments...i.e. does he have to just wait-out those surprise segments, but is not an eligible target?

This is a bit of "what if you have a ranger in your party" question. I need to do some homework there.

 

[Beoric]

Lastly, I got tripped up with respect to "surprise"---our meta-gaming thief again. Here's the 1e question: if one player is judged by circumstances not to be "surprisable" --- what happens in those surprise segments with regards to (a) the rest of the party (does he/she negates for all?), and (b) that player's ability to take action during this segments...i.e. does he have to just wait-out those surprise segments, but is not an eligible target?

Um ... never mind.

 

[EOTB]

All that said, I do fear of falling into EOTB's "Willie Wonka" trap, where I (as DM) am constantly trying to mystify/dazzle my players. (Honestly, I am not 100% confidence I understand his concern, but I trust his experience, and am trying to avoid a pitfall.) The only hedge I have against Wonka-ism is pre-written material, established before we play. The underlying creation mechanics are OD&D+1e, and I try mightily not to break rules once they are established and generally let the players drive the bus.

Keep in mind this was in a discussion where someone stated they disliked DMing high level play because the characters had so many options available to them that the DM could no longer prepare for every eventuality. The need to have a scenario that channels the player while keeping them in a state of amazement is the Willy Wonka trap. The kids are just being led around his factory in wonderment and amazement at everything he's constructed, and he has little challenges set up knowing what at least one of them is likely to do. So Willy's always, always, in near-complete control and a step ahead of the kids. The kids "win" by finding the path Willy has set out for them while walking around surreality with their minds blown.

I'm always hoping to put together something that makes my players say "whoa!" There's nothing wrong with that. But if the players don't say "whoa!" but instead immediately see a weak point, or a successful approach I didn't consider, or whatever, I just don't care. My primary goal isn't to make players say "whoa!"; my goal is to play the scenario straight according to how I've detailed the opposition (creature or feature). "Whoa!" is icing, not cake. That DM who disliked high level play because the players switched from experiencing his scenario as he envisioned their experiencing it ("We'll begin with a spin Traveling in the world of my creation What we'll see will defy explanation"), to cutting through it with all their options available...he's Wonka-ing the whoa. And when he can't manufacture that play outcome any longer his interest declines.

High level play is going to result in the DM handing over the campaign-initiative baton to the players if they try to grasp it. Not all players try, and even those that do try won't always hold it, but the ratio will flip as compared to low-level play. That's OK. Players deal with that all the time and they don't have anything they can conceive of (that fits) at hand. The DM now gets to play with omnipresent uncertainty also.

Here's a philosophical question: should Illusions of monsters "take damage and die?". Guess it depends.

Depends on how powerful the illusion magic is, and/or whether an illusionist actively controls it round to round. Low-level uncontrolled illusions pop on a successful strike against them. Nothing is making them react to stimuli and so it's clear what they really are(n't).

Also levied against me (as "bad" designer) is that all the magic items come with a flaw. I felt he was just feeling intolerance of set-backs.

Well, is it true that magic items are all two steps forward and one step back?

LESSONS:
Lastly, I got tripped up with respect to "surprise"---our meta-gaming thief again. Here's the 1e question: if one player is judged by circumstances not to be "surprisable" --- what happens in those surprise segments with regards to (a) the rest of the party (does he/she negates for all?), and (b) that player's ability to take action during this segments...i.e. does he have to just wait-out those surprise segments, but is not an eligible target?

This is a bit of "what if you have a ranger in your party" question. I need to do some homework there.

How high-dex reaction adjustment are applied in play is an acknowledged ambiguity in the 1E rules. How I handle it is that the high-dex player's reaction adjustment means he's doing that - reacting. The enemy swings or shoots thinking this PC is as flat footed as the others and then finds he can't get a bead on this target like the rest of his fellow enemies fighting the flat-footed people. So surprise segments drain away for the reacting PC and any enemies that targeted them at onset of surprise (possibly all of the surprise segments, depending on the bonus vs the # of segments). After the dex-normal PCs take their lumps from those who targeted them, we move to "round 1" and everyone gets to state new actions. This covers all the bases, as I read them.

Keep in mind - surprise is 10'-30' of distance unless that's not physically possible. So often the surprisers have to burn surprise time closing with surprisees, unless they're shooting them with something.

Ranger in the party: I rule everyone in proximity benefits from the ranger's surprise bonus and is only surprised on a 1 for a max of 1 segment. High dex PCs benefiting from a ranger bonus would often bring this down to 0 segments of free shots against the high-dex character. That's OK.

If exploration is what you're aiming for, more of that happens the longer the PCs keep their hit points. If they have a legitimate benefit that mitigates some great danger and results in their pushing deeper into your creation...that's a win-win.

 

[squeen]

Thanks EOTB. That does help a lot. I get now what that vile Wonka fella was trying to so to those poor kids!...err...I mean, that you coined the term as anther form of implied railroad. The Wonka DM also finds it harder to continue his subtle control as the players get to higher-levels.

Also, thanks for the tips on surprise. Unlike some others <ahem> who will remain nameless <ahem>, I am not on a mindset that wants to throw the baby out with the bath-water just because certain elements take a bit of time to master. Your logic is sound.

Lastly, with regard to magic items, there is some truth to the fact that many (most?) of the ones I put in dungeons are limited in some way. This particular Ring of Swimming, when you put it on, turns you in a Creature from the Black Lagoon (gills, green-skin, webbed digits, lose hair, etc.) that cannot breath air. The ring grafts itself to you (disappears beneath your skin) for 1d4 turns before reappearing so that it can be removed, and the transformation reversed (except for the hair loss). So yeah, complicated, but totally usable. Not really cursed (and a dispel magic negates), but interesting.

Incidentally, the hair loss bothered my female players to the extent that they said they'd never use it.

Then there's this powerful staff with the Id of an evil magic-user inside that wants to eat souls and/or drain ther magic items to recharge...

A powerful crown of Earth Control that makes you want to be in command (of everyone)...

Still, there's also plenty of "standard" lesser magic items like salves of healing, an (overused) gem of seeing, a very nice flaming mace, etc. so it's still a mixed bag. I try not to fall into a predictable rut, but generally smaller stuff no caveats, but strong magic is often those 2/1 steps.

 

[squeen]

The players fought the Phase Minotaur (and won) last weekend. He had two segments of surprise after charging through a mirror-portal and catching the party flat-footed in a dead-end of the maze. The first segment was the charge/gore attack, and the second his whip+morning star. BtB, he also gets initiative for the round (but I am unclear as to which segment that occurs---the players rolled a 4, so I assumed he went 1st-segment). He used his turn to drag a party-NPC (snared by his whip) back through the mirror-portal with him.

Despite all those advantages, the players UNLOADED on him: delivering a massive 64 pts of damage in the first round. That's despite with his magic resistance thwarting a lightning bolt, and flesh-to-stone spell directed at him.

These high-level PCs are just too dangerous! (...and/or I must be a push-over DM.)

Having made it back through the mirror with his prey and ONLY 1 HP LEFT, two player-characters followed him through into his AEther Prison, and (of all things) the magic-user killed him with a thrown dagger from 'outside', one-segment before the portal snapped closed. The MU delayed initiative too.

Trapped in the Ethereal Plane (items of note):

• The cleric's borrowed "hammer of the gods" loses it's divine power outside the Material Plane.
• The thief's "ethereal dagger" is just a normal dagger.
• The cleric used an exorcise spell to free the unconscious Phase Minotaur from his cursed-state. (First time I have EVER seen that particular spell used in a game. As written, the game-mechanic for success is a bit whacked.) They are still trapped/lost: but now they have a slightly deranged guide.

Anyway, the whole point of this post (in the realm of Game Design Theory), is that the cleric told me afterwards that she just wants to get the heck out of there because the former-Minotaur-turned-guide told the pair of them about some of the creatures that wander about the Ethereal Plane --- just names, and "look out", nothing more. Considering her go-to weapon is on the fritz, she's terrified and wants to leave before any roaming horrors show up.

This is something new for me. The actual keyed areas are fairly benign. Sure, there's a few harmful-if-you-are-stupid things to mess with, also a bit of exotic treasure (an exo-skeleton armor with a jet pack from a dead Ethereal Plane astronaut!), an imprisoned high-elf wizard (who ostensibly cannot be freed) to chat with, but the immediate landscape it mostly empty---because the Minotaur is already dead and prevented anything else from staking a claim within his domain.

So the Wandering Monster table is doing all the heavy lifting---imposing that sense of urgency...JUST LIKE GYGAX & CO. SAID IT WOULD!

I do love it when the pieces of the game just "work".

(One Edition to rule them all...and in the darkness, bind them...)

...
The other bit of fun I'm toying with is presenting Ethereal Plane "natural resources" as treasure. Exotics to be harvested --- possibly more than once. Incentive to return? We'll see where that leads.
...

TAKE AWAY:

• don't ignore wandering monsters -- make an appropriate table
• in exotic locales, screw balance, the danger-meter can go to 11
• names have power to invoke both wonder AND terror
• give your players a reason to return to a fun setting
• sometimes your "back-up" areas DO get used

 

[EOTB]

Sounds like everyone had a fun time!

(but I am unclear as to which segment that occurs---the players rolled a 4, so I assumed he went 1st-segment).

That high rolls goes first was a bit of tortured backwards compatibility. In Chainmail, and also in OD&D where time in rounds wasn't subdivided, high roll went first. With segments that's backwards and it would be more natural to have low roll go first, as the number rolled represents your segment (roll a "1", go on segment 1; a "4" go on segment 4, etc). But his priority, I think, was to make adoption smoother for those folks at that time and keep momentum than it was to introduce a cleaner-but-reversed mechanic.

So the explanation given later was that your opponent's roll was your action segment. So if you won initiative with a "6" that meant your opponents action came on segment 6. If they rolled a "2" to your "6", then you start your action on segment 2.

Like I said, its an unnecessary complication (although not especially onerous if you train your mind to use your opponent's roll result). You could make a smoother process by simply stating low roll wins and your roll result is your segment of action. This won't cause any hiccups unless using the weapon speed rule, and even there you just need to reverse the roll used - instead of using "your losing initiative roll result" in the mechanic, you use "your opponent's winning roll result" - it's the same math equation stated differently.

 

[squeen]

@EOTB : I know it sounds like I was in the dire straights of the AD&D/OD&D initiative thing, but I was not. We have been playing "you roll initiative of the other side", and "that's the segment they go on" since day-one. But I've often thought abut just switching it to you roll your own (pun!) and go then. Either way no hassle.

The question is actually this: BtB surprise means you automatically ALSO win initiative---so I don't even bother rolling for the surprise-winning side.

OK. Fine. Now which segment do they go on?

 

[EOTB]

Surprise is outside of the normal round and there is no initiative. So if someone is surprised for two segments, the other side gets two free segments of action; after two segments of action roll initiative for the start of "round 1" which has 10 full segments.

If anyone starts an action during surprise that can't be completed during surprise, then they don't have to state an action for round 1 and the initative result doesn't really apply to them as they're already doing something. So if I had 1 segment of surprise and I used that to cast a spell taking 4 segments of time, I wouldn't state an action for round 1, my spell would just go off in segment 3 (presuming the other side didn't get a chance to, and succeed at, interrupting it in segments 1 and/or 2 of round 1 due to a good initiative result for them).

Edit - but if someone having surprise did an action that didn't carryover - let's say they simply attacked someone surprised standing right in front of them - when round 1 started a normal initiative roll would apply to those characters.

 

[squeen]

I am talking about the first line of the section (bold heading) Initiative in the DMG (p.62).

Initiative

Surprise gives initiative to the non- or less-surprised party.

Again. What segment do they go on? ...in the "normal" round.

 

[EOTB]

That's not "Initiative, game mechanic with a technical definition"; that's "initiative, the normal word meaning the ability to act before another".

It's just saying that in the surprise segments the party with surprise gets to act against the other party who themselves can't dictate anything in return; i.e., they "have the initiative" in the same manner as Stalin did on the Eastern Front late in WW2.

 

[squeen]

Whoa. Really? The longer quote.

Initiative

Surprise gives initiative to the non- or less-surprised party. It is otherwise determined when an encounter occurs and at the start of each combat round....

It then goes on to talk about rolling the d6 for initiative. I took that first sentence to mean winning surprise short-circuits the normal initiative procedure. (Which makes sense)

Hmm...I need to look at ADDICT.