[DF] What's worked? What hasn't?

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Quite a few of those were tested in my campaign, too. I was happy with all of them. I think the dislike some have for Heroic Charge is tied to the overuse of easily impaled humanoid foes. Against greater demons that take dozens of telling hits to take down, and spirits that can just fade into the floor or teleport away, that option didn't really change the face of battle in my game. Its main effect was to let those who invested in extra Basic Speed and Basic Move instead of extra ST (everybody had lots of DX!) have fun in fights vs. mooks.

To me, it sounds as if the problem is with GURPS' implementation of facing rules.

It makes no logical sense that you can pay FP to use a non-supernatural ability to run around a combat-aware being (IQ 3+ and not suffering from Stun, Combat Paralysis or the like) and shiv it in the back.

I vaguely recall that D&D 3rd Edition may have had no facing rules. The tactical rule was about whether a combatant was flanked or not, and based on that I'm inferring that there was ny defined facing, rather everyone was always assumed to be facing in the most logical direction provided the being is aware that he, she or it is involved in combat. Thus if somoene were to pay FP to move real fast to run around the being, the being would naturally turn in response to that, and so it wouldn't be possible to backstab it.

RPG combat is always based around units taking turns to move, whereas in real life movement is simultaneous. But it's still important to make sure that the rules don't encourage actions or combinations of actions that would have absolutely no truck in real life, and I've been in favour of assumed facing, as opposed to explicit facing, for the last many, many years.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by A Ladder

Bards with Mind Control sucks. I have banned Mind Control in all my games from now till forever. It just takes all the fun out of roleplaying. It has been abused way too often and with no way out except for me to plant Will 20 NPCs everywhere, which also takes all the fun out of purchasing a trait if it's only allowable when the GM permits it.

Aren't there more targeted options? More specific abilities are usually cheaper, sometimes a lot cheaper, than something as general-purpose as +Will.

And in a world where Mind Control is a thing, either because it's in fairly widespread use or because people worry about it, Enchanted items to give a bonus to resist Mind Control would be common. If they can be mass-produced, then world economics would make even +3 or +4 resist items fairly affordable.

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by Edges

More questions:

• Have you used Edge Protection rules in DF? How did it go?

I tried, but they didn't really make much of a difference, and the book keeping was bad enough.

• It seems like most people use Extra Effort in combat. Have you allowed foes to use it as well? And to address the issue of Heroic Charge, what would you think of having that specific option cost 2 FP?

Foes use extra effort in combat too, but it depends on how tough I want to make them. For fodder (note, fodder in my game could be boss monsters in other games), I don't use extra effort other than heroic charges, and they never retreat. Worthy and boss opponents use the full range of extra effort options and do retreat.

• Have you allowed Luck? What about options from GURPS Power-Ups 5: Impulse Buys?

Luck is obviously allowed. Enemies don't often have luck

• Have you used any alternate pricing methods for attributes like the one for IQ found on PK's website?

I use the standard pricing on attributes. I understand why people look for alternate pricings, but I found that the proposed options don't fit my needs.

• Has anyone other than mlangsdorf tried a threshold magic system for DF? His home brew system is intriguing. But is it too much bookkeeping for my semi-casual players?

I find that Threshold Magic results in caster frustration. Casters are already problematic in that they put all their eggs in one basket (Energy costs and casting times mean they get one or at best two casts of their "good" spells per combat) with the rest of their spellcasting going to pre-combat cheap buffs and other quality of life spells. If wizards only recover 8 energy per day (standard threshold), they're going to skip on those buffs and quality of life spells, and only use one "big" spell per day. In the end, spellcasters will feel that they've invested a ton of points into magic to barely do anything. The way GURPS prerequisites are structured means that for every spell the caster actually wants, they get a handful of spells that don't have that much of a direct application, but offer quality of life effects (e.g. Ignite Fire. Sure, you could let the scout, barbarian or druid light the fire with survival, but you have the spell and might as well use it, and light it up faster)

[Appletoe]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

To me, it sounds as if the problem is with GURPS' implementation of facing rules.

It makes no logical sense that you can pay FP to use a non-supernatural ability to run around a combat-aware being (IQ 3+ and not suffering from Stun, Combat Paralysis or the like) and shiv it in the back.

I vaguely recall that D&D 3rd Edition may have had no facing rules. The tactical rule was about whether a combatant was flanked or not, and based on that I'm inferring that there was ny defined facing, rather everyone was always assumed to be facing in the most logical direction provided the being is aware that he, she or it is involved in combat. Thus if somoene were to pay FP to move real fast to run around the being, the being would naturally turn in response to that, and so it wouldn't be possible to backstab it.

RPG combat is always based around units taking turns to move, whereas in real life movement is simultaneous. But it's still important to make sure that the rules don't encourage actions or combinations of actions that would have absolutely no truck in real life, and I've been in favour of assumed facing, as opposed to explicit facing, for the last many, many years.

Perhaps another way around this would be to grant certain enemies the 360 degree vision advantage with the justification that they're 'just that good'?

[Anders]

Blind Fighting should allow you to ignore facing penalties for locating enemies.

[Kuroshima]

On the facing rules, I defend GURPS implementation as superior to any other game I've played.

I really don't like the radially symmetric D&D 3.X characters, where in order to get position advantages, you need to have a friend to give you "flank". In fact, unless you're playing one of the few classes with access to sneak attack, you could turn invisible, go completely unnoticed, and behind your target, and you would still do zilch. That's not acceptable to me. Real scenario, my the SO was playing a sorcerer who became invisible, and sneaked behind a NPC guard. Since the guard had no DX bonus, it's AC was unchanged by the fact that it was being attacked by invisible opponents.

GURPS, however, would have resulted in the guard not being able to defend, and so even if the attack wasn't very strong, it could have been aimed to a vulnerable location for extra effect.

Speaking of sneak attacks, in my games, I've changed the surprise ST on the thief, unholy warrior and assassin templates to give it's bonus if the target is denied it's active defense roll, meaning that if the character gets to place itself at the target's back at the beginning of it's turn, it gets the extra damage. It's a small boost, but it helps making "roguish characters" more viable in melee.

Remember, if you run around your foe to strike at it's back, it's still a flank attack, not a rear attack. It's only if you start the turn at the target's back that you get the benefit of a rear attack.

[mlangsdorf]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

I find that Threshold Magic results in caster frustration. Casters are already problematic in that they put all their eggs in one basket (Energy costs and casting times mean they get one or at best two casts of their "good" spells per combat) with the rest of their spellcasting going to pre-combat cheap buffs and other quality of life spells. If wizards only recover 8 energy per day (standard threshold), they're going to skip on those buffs and quality of life spells, and only use one "big" spell per day.

Right, I'm not really sure where the 30 Tally, 8 Recover number came from. I went through my logs of the Westmarch saga and spellcasters spend 30-50 per day while adventuring. Which is why I recommend a Threshold of 30+ and a once a day, block Recovery of 40+.

I've played a spellcaster with a Threshold of 30 and a Recovery of 45 (and a less punishing calamity table), and you cast at a reasonable rate: a couple of buffs, 1-2 big spells in combat. You no longer hold up the entire party for 30 minutes after every fight while you rest. Sometimes you risk Calamity to cast an extra big spell, and if you think you're going to have an extra day without adventuring, you may go way over your Threshold for a critical spell or two.

In some ways, it's less book keeping. Instead of keeping track of fatigue that is constantly going up and down (cast spells, rest, cast spells, rest, etc), you have a Tally that just goes up, and then goes down a lot once a day. I don't know how well it would work for semi-casual players, but I don't think it would be worse than the standard rules.

[mlangsdorf]

Originally Posted by Edges

• Have you used Edge Protection rules in DF? How did it go?
• It seems like most people use Extra Effort in combat. Have you allowed foes to use it as well? And to address the issue of Heroic Charge, what would you think of having that specific option cost 2 FP?
• Have you allowed Luck? What about options from GURPS Power-Ups 5: Impulse Buys?
• Have you used any alternate pricing methods for attributes like the one for IQ found on PK's website?

I've used Edge Protection. It mostly put even more of a gap between the second line melee types (ST 12-13, doing ~2d cu per attack) and the Weapon Masters (ST14-20, doing 3d+6+ per attack), where the second line guys couldn't bust through DR4 mail and the Weapon Masters would do it 2-3 times a turn. So I don't really recommend it.

I've allowed Luck and Destiny Points. They're both useful. I've had a couple of boss monsters use Destiny Points, mostly to prevent dying to a lucky critical hit on the first round of combat.

Bruno's most recent game used some alternate pricing methods. It was pretty complicated and made it hard to use the published templates. I personally like breaking Perception and Will out from IQ, but it's not for everyone and is more useful in a game without templates than a game with templates.

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

Right, I'm not really sure where the 30 Tally, 8 Recover number came from. I went through my logs of the Westmarch saga and spellcasters spend 30-50 per day while adventuring. Which is why I recommend a Threshold of 30+ and a once a day, block Recovery of 40+.

I've played a spellcaster with a Threshold of 30 and a Recovery of 45 (and a less punishing calamity table), and you cast at a reasonable rate: a couple of buffs, 1-2 big spells in combat. You no longer hold up the entire party for 30 minutes after every fight while you rest. Sometimes you risk Calamity to cast an extra big spell, and if you think you're going to have an extra day without adventuring, you may go way over your Threshold for a critical spell or two.

In some ways, it's less book keeping. Instead of keeping track of fatigue that is constantly going up and down (cast spells, rest, cast spells, rest, etc), you have a Tally that just goes up, and then goes down a lot once a day. I don't know how well it would work for semi-casual players, but I don't think it would be worse than the standard rules.

Ok, sorry mark, I didn't realize you had greatly increased the numbers, I was going by the book. With a threshold of 30 and a recovery of 45, I could see spellcasters risking a calamity or two a day. Now, with those base numbers, increased threshold and increased recovery rate seem awesome deals.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

Right, I'm not really sure where the 30 Tally, 8 Recover number came from.

My guess is that the 30/8 that were the originally proposed values of S.John Ross' "Unlimited Mana" optional rule, were based on a desire to emulate written fantasy fiction, rather than dungeoncrawling games.

To emulate a world metaphysics in which casters cast spells somewhat rarely but often bigger spells. If so, you'd need to change the values drastically to adapt Threshold Magic to something that'll work in a dungeoncrawling paradigm.