So, we didn't get through all of Part A of A2 today, but we did get some solid gaming in.
We had:
- a big Silenced fight.
- lots of arrows expended
- yet another lesson in not playing "grind your way to victory"
- people setting off a trap . . . twice
- ruthless determination to make problems grow, grow, grow!
- and a lot of fun.
Details tomorrow.
Sunday, September 13, 2020
Playing A2 Secret of the Slavers Stockade today
We're playing A2 Secret of the Slavers Stockade today.
Like our playthrough of A1, this is tournament style.
Unlike our playthrough of A1, we'll do part A and part B separately. If the players complete A, we'll restart in B fully healed, equipment replenished, etc. I wasn't satisfied with the hybrid approach I used last time.
Thanks to my group size, gone are the days of, "How will we run nine characters through this adventure?"
Instead, we have days like, "Oh good, only nine players can make it, we won't need additional pregens!"
Today it was only eight players, so we even have to ask someone to run two characters . . . not that common around here. I'm still not sure how we managed the 5-PC Ghost Tower of Inverness without bumping players.
We'll see how they do against thestacked deck stockade!
Like our playthrough of A1, this is tournament style.
Unlike our playthrough of A1, we'll do part A and part B separately. If the players complete A, we'll restart in B fully healed, equipment replenished, etc. I wasn't satisfied with the hybrid approach I used last time.
Thanks to my group size, gone are the days of, "How will we run nine characters through this adventure?"
Instead, we have days like, "Oh good, only nine players can make it, we won't need additional pregens!"
Today it was only eight players, so we even have to ask someone to run two characters . . . not that common around here. I'm still not sure how we managed the 5-PC Ghost Tower of Inverness without bumping players.
We'll see how they do against the
Saturday, September 12, 2020
Lyonlab's AD&D Grappling House Rules - A Review
Since we're running AD&D on Sunday, I decided to spend some time looking into more AD&D sources online to see how others have implemented ambiguously written rules. In the process, I stumbled upon a set of house rules that include something I co-wrote rules for - grappling!
So I tagged in my fellow grappling-happy author and tag-team partner Doug and separately we are taking a look at the rules I found.
Grappling rules in vanilla AD&D exist, but they're pretty hard to use and it seems clear that they weren't used often. They're a classic example of the weird subsystem approach to gaming of AD&D - when you come up with a new rule, don't base it on an existing one, make a whole set unrelated set.
The author of this blog made his own. Here is an excerpt from his page:
Seems pretty straightforward. Roll your HD + to hit rolls, winner immobilizes the foe. Re-roll whenever the victim wants to escape - which is certainly every turn in most circumstances.
I'm pretty sure Doug and I looked at a HD-based system before we realized that making it more like an attack was better.
What do I think?
I think this is a workable base mechanic, but one that brings up some questions:
- I'm not sure why you roll your "to hit" bonus for effect except that it's a way of merging "to hit" and effect into one thing. Is there any way for a monster to get that, I wonder? I'm betting no, just because they rarely have "to hit" that is superior to their HD anyway.
- Monks have poor HD, but theoretically should be good at martial arts. I wonder if they'd get an exception?
- Are there any other things you can do here besides grab and struggle to keep the foe from doing things? Any benefits? Any issues - like, I'm grappling the ogre, and my friends want to hit it.
To me, the real issue here is that grappling only immobolizes a foe. It takes 100% of your action and, at best, reduces a foe to 0% of its . . . and you could lose it at any time. So you can't really do much with it. You can't drag someone around, pin a foe completely, cause any damage. In other words, it's a start but it's not complete for the needs of my own games.
The system really needs some kind of cumulative approach to inflicting grappling. If you can subdue (the write has some subdual rules) over time, then you certainly should be able to grapple someone into submission over time. It's a little odd that you can't choke someone, break a limb, pin someone, etc. - the kind of things people grapple you and do, in general. It seems like it's solely a system for keeping someone from getting away until the dice turn in their favor.
I'm curious how it has played in the website author's campaigns . . . but at the moment I'm thinking it's an incomplete system for fulfilling the needs of my AD&D games.
So I tagged in my fellow grappling-happy author and tag-team partner Doug and separately we are taking a look at the rules I found.
Grappling rules in vanilla AD&D exist, but they're pretty hard to use and it seems clear that they weren't used often. They're a classic example of the weird subsystem approach to gaming of AD&D - when you come up with a new rule, don't base it on an existing one, make a whole set unrelated set.
The author of this blog made his own. Here is an excerpt from his page:
AD&D 1e House Rules Grappling:
Grappling: I use custom rules for this.
* Bear in mind that some monsters (e.g. oozes, jellies, gelatinous cubes) cannot be grappled.
* If the attacking character must sheathe or drop his weapon, there is a one-segment initiative penalty.
* Initiative applies normally. More than one character or monster can grapple a target at once.
* Both sides make a "grapple roll" to determine the outcome: each side rolls their hit dice, adding strength bonus on each die. For example, a 3rd-level fighter with a "to hit" bonus of two would roll 3d10+6; a 4HD monster would roll 4d8. Multi-classed characters use the hit dice for their most favorable class; multiple attackers total their hit dice. If the attacking roll is higher, the grapple is successful and the victim can take no action until the grapple is broken. The attacker can take no action other than continuing to hold the victim.
* On a tie, both sides are struggling, and another grapple roll must be made in the following round.
* Each round a grappled character struggles to escape, the grapple roll must be made again.
Seems pretty straightforward. Roll your HD + to hit rolls, winner immobilizes the foe. Re-roll whenever the victim wants to escape - which is certainly every turn in most circumstances.
I'm pretty sure Doug and I looked at a HD-based system before we realized that making it more like an attack was better.
What do I think?
I think this is a workable base mechanic, but one that brings up some questions:
- I'm not sure why you roll your "to hit" bonus for effect except that it's a way of merging "to hit" and effect into one thing. Is there any way for a monster to get that, I wonder? I'm betting no, just because they rarely have "to hit" that is superior to their HD anyway.
- Monks have poor HD, but theoretically should be good at martial arts. I wonder if they'd get an exception?
- Are there any other things you can do here besides grab and struggle to keep the foe from doing things? Any benefits? Any issues - like, I'm grappling the ogre, and my friends want to hit it.
To me, the real issue here is that grappling only immobolizes a foe. It takes 100% of your action and, at best, reduces a foe to 0% of its . . . and you could lose it at any time. So you can't really do much with it. You can't drag someone around, pin a foe completely, cause any damage. In other words, it's a start but it's not complete for the needs of my own games.
The system really needs some kind of cumulative approach to inflicting grappling. If you can subdue (the write has some subdual rules) over time, then you certainly should be able to grapple someone into submission over time. It's a little odd that you can't choke someone, break a limb, pin someone, etc. - the kind of things people grapple you and do, in general. It seems like it's solely a system for keeping someone from getting away until the dice turn in their favor.
I'm curious how it has played in the website author's campaigns . . . but at the moment I'm thinking it's an incomplete system for fulfilling the needs of my AD&D games.
Friday, September 11, 2020
Next AD&D - A2 Secret of the Slaver's Stockade
We've settled on our next AD&D.
This Sunday, we'll be playing A2 Secret of the Slaver's Stockade, by Harold Johnson with Tom Moldvay.
This will be my first time running it as a tournament adventure.
We're using the tournament pre-gens, and using our usual house rules.
Here is more stuff I think my players will want to look at before we play:
Initiative.
Avoiding HP Loss in AD&D
More AD&D Rules Changes for A1
AD&D Session 5: A1 Slave Pits of the Undercity I
AD&D Session 6: A1 Slave Pits of the Undercity II
I still think that A2 Part I can be a bit of a drag . . . but hopefully it will not be, with a very different group than I dealt with back in the day. Part II is lot of fun, but skipping right to it means missing out on the one chance I'll have to run the whole A-series as written. So what the heck, we'll roll with the whole series!
On a related note, I was looking at ADDICT. It's nice enough, but it has two issues for me: one, it uses a lot of specific options tied to rules in Unearthed Arcana, and two, it's overly long, often using examples that are too wordy. While it's amusing at first to see famous AD&D characters from the original campaigns mentioned, after a while I find it gets in the way - and it leads to footnotes that aren't exactly tied to rules. I need to find an editable version of it so I can cut it down to just DMG-era rules to simplify it.
This Sunday, we'll be playing A2 Secret of the Slaver's Stockade, by Harold Johnson with Tom Moldvay.
This will be my first time running it as a tournament adventure.
We're using the tournament pre-gens, and using our usual house rules.
Here is more stuff I think my players will want to look at before we play:
Initiative.
Avoiding HP Loss in AD&D
More AD&D Rules Changes for A1
AD&D Session 5: A1 Slave Pits of the Undercity I
AD&D Session 6: A1 Slave Pits of the Undercity II
I still think that A2 Part I can be a bit of a drag . . . but hopefully it will not be, with a very different group than I dealt with back in the day. Part II is lot of fun, but skipping right to it means missing out on the one chance I'll have to run the whole A-series as written. So what the heck, we'll roll with the whole series!
On a related note, I was looking at ADDICT. It's nice enough, but it has two issues for me: one, it uses a lot of specific options tied to rules in Unearthed Arcana, and two, it's overly long, often using examples that are too wordy. While it's amusing at first to see famous AD&D characters from the original campaigns mentioned, after a while I find it gets in the way - and it leads to footnotes that aren't exactly tied to rules. I need to find an editable version of it so I can cut it down to just DMG-era rules to simplify it.
Thursday, September 10, 2020
GURPS Fixed-Effect Feints
Back in 2014 I put up a post about fixed Deceptive Attack. That's "fixed" as in "unchanging" not "repaired or put right."
Two-Tiered Fixed Deceptive Attack
I can't seem to find anything like that for Feint, although I did muse about Feint as a Deceptive Attack amplifier:
Alternate Feint for GURPS
I think this idea has some potential - to reduce the "swinginess" of Feints if that's something you dislike. It also is a useful option if you'd like to speed up Feints into a more simple yes/no effect.
Fixed-Effect Feint
Resolve a Feint, Beat, or Ruse normally.
If the attacker wins by the contest, the target defends at -4.
Extreme Feints
For high-skill fighters in cinematic games, this optional rule allows them to leverage their skill further. Resolve the Feint, Beat, or Ruse normally. If the attacker wins the contest, the target defends at -4. If the attacker wins the contest by 10+, the target defends at -8.
Notes:
- one concern is that "win by 10+" giving a -8 is that you just end up with what you've got now - a tendency of players who like Feint to maximize their margin. That's why I put it as an optional extension. It's useful for high-skill and high-defense games.
- it limits the value of a very high margins of success, at least with the base rule.
- if you apply additional effects to Beats, as some house rules do, apply them normally.
- it could push skills higher anyway, as players want to ensure they can't be feinted or DA'ed. In other words, you're looking at a race to very high defenses, especially if this is combined with two-tier fixed deceptive attacks, too. If the most you can suffer is a -8, you're "safe" if you can push your defenses into the low-to-mid 20s. That sounds crazy-high except that Rapier-20 gives you Parry 13, +1 for Combat Reflexes, +3 for Retreat, potentially +8 DB (large shield and Deflect or Shield), +3 for Enhanced Parry 3 gives a 28 . . . just saying.
- I think this could be workable and fast - and because it's fixed-effect, even a marginal success is still quite useful - much like hitting by 1 can still result in a high damage roll and a good effect.
Two-Tiered Fixed Deceptive Attack
I can't seem to find anything like that for Feint, although I did muse about Feint as a Deceptive Attack amplifier:
Alternate Feint for GURPS
I think this idea has some potential - to reduce the "swinginess" of Feints if that's something you dislike. It also is a useful option if you'd like to speed up Feints into a more simple yes/no effect.
Fixed-Effect Feint
Resolve a Feint, Beat, or Ruse normally.
If the attacker wins by the contest, the target defends at -4.
Extreme Feints
For high-skill fighters in cinematic games, this optional rule allows them to leverage their skill further. Resolve the Feint, Beat, or Ruse normally. If the attacker wins the contest, the target defends at -4. If the attacker wins the contest by 10+, the target defends at -8.
Notes:
- one concern is that "win by 10+" giving a -8 is that you just end up with what you've got now - a tendency of players who like Feint to maximize their margin. That's why I put it as an optional extension. It's useful for high-skill and high-defense games.
- it limits the value of a very high margins of success, at least with the base rule.
- if you apply additional effects to Beats, as some house rules do, apply them normally.
- it could push skills higher anyway, as players want to ensure they can't be feinted or DA'ed. In other words, you're looking at a race to very high defenses, especially if this is combined with two-tier fixed deceptive attacks, too. If the most you can suffer is a -8, you're "safe" if you can push your defenses into the low-to-mid 20s. That sounds crazy-high except that Rapier-20 gives you Parry 13, +1 for Combat Reflexes, +3 for Retreat, potentially +8 DB (large shield and Deflect or Shield), +3 for Enhanced Parry 3 gives a 28 . . . just saying.
- I think this could be workable and fast - and because it's fixed-effect, even a marginal success is still quite useful - much like hitting by 1 can still result in a high damage roll and a good effect.
Wednesday, September 9, 2020
Felltower Evade House Rule
After a discussion in the comments of yesterday's post, I decided I should make a quick post for my own reference about how exactly we're using the rules.
Evade
As written, except:
- you must make a DX roll to evade an occupant of a hex, friendly or not, to exit on their side of the hex. No one is required to contest it but you must still make the roll.
- it costs +1 movement point to enter an occupied hex, and no additional movement points to move out if you successfully Evade. If you fail, your movement ends.
- Relative SM matters. Apply your relative SM as a bonus (if negative) or a penalty (if positive) to your roll. SM 0 vs. SM 0 is 0, but SM-2 evader vs. SM+1 is a +3 bonus to Evade, while SM+1 evader vs. SM+1 is a -2 to Evade. Relative SM is capped at +/-4. A size difference of 5 or more may mean you can just automatically evade by stepping over - or ducking around - your opponent.
Example:
You (u) going from here:
|00u|
|abc|
|def|
|000|
to in front of them here:
|000|
|abc|
|def|
|u00|
Costs 2 to enter b's hex, then 2 to enter e's hex, then 1 to step in front = 5 move, and take two DX rolls (DX, +5 from behind, -5 standing foe.)
If you're already in the hex with your opponent, it costs the normal movement points to enter the hex you're Evading into.
***
That should work - it's what we do now, with formalized rules for SM and the additional of the movement point cost that Basic Set & DFRPG Exploits apply unevenly as I read them.
Evade
As written, except:
- you must make a DX roll to evade an occupant of a hex, friendly or not, to exit on their side of the hex. No one is required to contest it but you must still make the roll.
- it costs +1 movement point to enter an occupied hex, and no additional movement points to move out if you successfully Evade. If you fail, your movement ends.
- Relative SM matters. Apply your relative SM as a bonus (if negative) or a penalty (if positive) to your roll. SM 0 vs. SM 0 is 0, but SM-2 evader vs. SM+1 is a +3 bonus to Evade, while SM+1 evader vs. SM+1 is a -2 to Evade. Relative SM is capped at +/-4. A size difference of 5 or more may mean you can just automatically evade by stepping over - or ducking around - your opponent.
Example:
You (u) going from here:
|00u|
|abc|
|def|
|000|
to in front of them here:
|000|
|abc|
|def|
|u00|
Costs 2 to enter b's hex, then 2 to enter e's hex, then 1 to step in front = 5 move, and take two DX rolls (DX, +5 from behind, -5 standing foe.)
If you're already in the hex with your opponent, it costs the normal movement points to enter the hex you're Evading into.
***
That should work - it's what we do now, with formalized rules for SM and the additional of the movement point cost that Basic Set & DFRPG Exploits apply unevenly as I read them.
Tuesday, September 8, 2020
GURPS House Rule: Evading Friendlies
So you're being your friends in a fight, and you want to move up. However, they're filling all of the open hexes between you and where you want to go.
As written, the GURPS movement rules allow you to move freely through a friendly-occupied hex.
Let's look at an ASCII-art example, since I'm way too lazy to set up minis and try to take good pictures.
That means you (u) can go from behind your friends a, b, c, d, e, and f here:
|00u|
|abc|
|def|
|000|
to in front of them here:
|000|
|abc|
|def|
|u00|
. . . as if the hallway was empty. You don't disrupt any of the actions or concentration of your friends. You don't disrupt the defense or offense of any of them, either. In fact, (c) can retreat from an attack immediately if that occurs - say, if you roll a critical failure and hit (c) by mistake.
I've always found that unlikely at best.
Evading Allies
I prefer to treat it as Evading (per Basic Set: Campaigns, p. 368).
Your ally doesn't have to oppose your attempt. However, if you come from behind your friend, you do have to evade normally - you can't automatically allow someone to pass you.
You roll DX; apply the modifiers normally.
For example - A is behind B. B wants to get in front. B must roll DX, -5 for foe standing up, +5 because you're standing. Failure means A is in the way, and you cannot pass. Critical failure means you bumped into your friend, putting one or both of you off-balance (1-3 you, 4-6 them). You're considered to be in the same hex as your friend, and behind him or her - your ally can't Retreat, or Step back.
Attempting "squeeze between" your friends is possible - that's what this represents. Your allies can move to let you aside - we treat that as a step, although you don't leave your hex. You just flatten against a wall, turn sideways, etc. This is not conducive to good defense - you defend at -2, and attack at -4.
Let me through! - Clever players will quickly say they're using voice coordination - "I say, 'Passing on the right'" "I'll let him by when I hear that." You can allow this - I generally do, but I require a Hearing roll and I require a turn of prep. With overlapping 1-second turns, you've got a fraction of a second to adjust to this request while executing everything else on your turn. Much like handing an item from one person to another, it takes time and coordination and isn't something you can execute in a fraction of a second.
This applies to NPCs, as well. Unintelligent ones will often fail to take advantage by attempting to rotating in fresh fighters to the front ranks, or pull out the wounded. Berserkers won't even try. Tactically sound folks will use it as best they can.
But often, the PCs have been able to keep a group of foes on their heels because wounded, stunned, or otherwise weakened front-rank foes aren't able to have friends rotate in for them. It's possible to trap someone against their own friends.
Without it, technically, you can fight in a one-hex wide corridor and have both sides constantly rotate in fresh fighters if they're not very closely pressed. I'm not saying anyone would allow a guy with Move 6 to run through 5 hexes of friends in a one-yard wide corridor, but it's at least possible (and automatic!) by the letter of the rules.
How is it in Actual Play?
This has worked well. I've had zero pushback on the rule. Occasionally questions about ability to move or not move in some fashion, yes. Actual disagreement with the play of the rule? None. Getting a 50/50 chance of passing your friend from behind without they even having to adjust to your movement seems reasonably and generous. So is the prohibition against getting through close combat. You could get through in a non-struggling situation given time, of course but when it's a struggle it's harder. You can push through a packed concert, but getting through an armed mosh pit without slowing down feels better with a lot of DX rolls, versus friend and foe alike.
Overall, I recommend this approach.
As written, the GURPS movement rules allow you to move freely through a friendly-occupied hex.
Let's look at an ASCII-art example, since I'm way too lazy to set up minis and try to take good pictures.
That means you (u) can go from behind your friends a, b, c, d, e, and f here:
|00u|
|abc|
|def|
|000|
to in front of them here:
|000|
|abc|
|def|
|u00|
. . . as if the hallway was empty. You don't disrupt any of the actions or concentration of your friends. You don't disrupt the defense or offense of any of them, either. In fact, (c) can retreat from an attack immediately if that occurs - say, if you roll a critical failure and hit (c) by mistake.
I've always found that unlikely at best.
Evading Allies
I prefer to treat it as Evading (per Basic Set: Campaigns, p. 368).
Your ally doesn't have to oppose your attempt. However, if you come from behind your friend, you do have to evade normally - you can't automatically allow someone to pass you.
You roll DX; apply the modifiers normally.
For example - A is behind B. B wants to get in front. B must roll DX, -5 for foe standing up, +5 because you're standing. Failure means A is in the way, and you cannot pass. Critical failure means you bumped into your friend, putting one or both of you off-balance (1-3 you, 4-6 them). You're considered to be in the same hex as your friend, and behind him or her - your ally can't Retreat, or Step back.
Attempting "squeeze between" your friends is possible - that's what this represents. Your allies can move to let you aside - we treat that as a step, although you don't leave your hex. You just flatten against a wall, turn sideways, etc. This is not conducive to good defense - you defend at -2, and attack at -4.
Let me through! - Clever players will quickly say they're using voice coordination - "I say, 'Passing on the right'" "I'll let him by when I hear that." You can allow this - I generally do, but I require a Hearing roll and I require a turn of prep. With overlapping 1-second turns, you've got a fraction of a second to adjust to this request while executing everything else on your turn. Much like handing an item from one person to another, it takes time and coordination and isn't something you can execute in a fraction of a second.
This applies to NPCs, as well. Unintelligent ones will often fail to take advantage by attempting to rotating in fresh fighters to the front ranks, or pull out the wounded. Berserkers won't even try. Tactically sound folks will use it as best they can.
But often, the PCs have been able to keep a group of foes on their heels because wounded, stunned, or otherwise weakened front-rank foes aren't able to have friends rotate in for them. It's possible to trap someone against their own friends.
Without it, technically, you can fight in a one-hex wide corridor and have both sides constantly rotate in fresh fighters if they're not very closely pressed. I'm not saying anyone would allow a guy with Move 6 to run through 5 hexes of friends in a one-yard wide corridor, but it's at least possible (and automatic!) by the letter of the rules.
How is it in Actual Play?
This has worked well. I've had zero pushback on the rule. Occasionally questions about ability to move or not move in some fashion, yes. Actual disagreement with the play of the rule? None. Getting a 50/50 chance of passing your friend from behind without they even having to adjust to your movement seems reasonably and generous. So is the prohibition against getting through close combat. You could get through in a non-struggling situation given time, of course but when it's a struggle it's harder. You can push through a packed concert, but getting through an armed mosh pit without slowing down feels better with a lot of DX rolls, versus friend and foe alike.
Overall, I recommend this approach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
