I would guess, because I've seen it happen, it came up when a Mage cast Fireball directly at an enemy engaged in melee combat with an ally, and then argued that it should only hit people he wants it to hit. Or, if the person were a bit more experienced, cast it into the enemy's back and argued that the body should shield his ally.aegios187 said:I think my players would kill me if I came up with 27 pages of house rulings. Then again, I play Pathfinder which covers the mechanics pretty well. I am curious regarding this rule;
?"Spells which effect every creature in an area (e.g. Fireball) or a random number of creatures in an area (e.g. Confusion) cannot be cast on targets in melee without affecting opponents with whom the target(s) are fighting."
Was that brought about due to a party member engaging a creature at the edge of AoE spell and the inherit funkiness with character placement on a typically scaled battle-mat?
The whole 5ft occupancy and threatened areas has caused me more anguish than I care to recall, mainly from experienced gamers coming from other gaming systems.bojac6 said:I would guess, because I've seen it happen, it came up when a Mage cast Fireball directly at an enemy engaged in melee combat with an ally, and then argued that it should only hit people he wants it to hit. Or, if the person were a bit more experienced, cast it into the enemy's back and argued that the body should shield his ally.aegios187 said:I think my players would kill me if I came up with 27 pages of house rulings. Then again, I play Pathfinder which covers the mechanics pretty well. I am curious regarding this rule;
?"Spells which effect every creature in an area (e.g. Fireball) or a random number of creatures in an area (e.g. Confusion) cannot be cast on targets in melee without affecting opponents with whom the target(s) are fighting."
Was that brought about due to a party member engaging a creature at the edge of AoE spell and the inherit funkiness with character placement on a typically scaled battle-mat?
I've never run into your argument, but I see how it would work. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm surprised people don't try that all the time.
I agree with you completely. It's not quite as bad as martial arts people, but still pretty bad.aegios187 said:The whole 5ft occupancy and threatened areas has caused me more anguish than I care to recall, mainly from experienced gamers coming from other gaming systems.bojac6 said:I would guess, because I've seen it happen, it came up when a Mage cast Fireball directly at an enemy engaged in melee combat with an ally, and then argued that it should only hit people he wants it to hit. Or, if the person were a bit more experienced, cast it into the enemy's back and argued that the body should shield his ally.aegios187 said:I think my players would kill me if I came up with 27 pages of house rulings. Then again, I play Pathfinder which covers the mechanics pretty well. I am curious regarding this rule;
?"Spells which effect every creature in an area (e.g. Fireball) or a random number of creatures in an area (e.g. Confusion) cannot be cast on targets in melee without affecting opponents with whom the target(s) are fighting."
Was that brought about due to a party member engaging a creature at the edge of AoE spell and the inherit funkiness with character placement on a typically scaled battle-mat?
I've never run into your argument, but I see how it would work. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm surprised people don't try that all the time.
Rules-light is NOT rules-heavy-in-earlier-stages. Rules-light is 'Open-to-rules-heavy-houseruling'. Those 27 pages or many of our other large sets of common law precedent is indicative of a game basically designed so that the individual GM can adjudicate based on the campaign and group needs.Kilo24 said:An interesting correlation you've pointed out there.
About rules-light games merely being rules-heavy games in progress, I will say that the design of the original rules is a very large influence over how many and how complex the amount of rules that need to be added are.
We run Classic D&D and don't play with a battlemat. The combat is kept in our mind's eye so there's a necessary amount of abstraction. And that leads to circumstances such as Bojac6 describes:aegios187 said:I think my players would kill me if I came up with 27 pages of house rulings. Then again, I play Pathfinder which covers the mechanics pretty well. I am curious regarding this rule;
?"Spells which effect every creature in an area (e.g. Fireball) or a random number of creatures in an area (e.g. Confusion) cannot be cast on targets in melee without affecting opponents with whom the target(s) are fighting."
Was that brought about due to a party member engaging a creature at the edge of AoE spell and the inherit funkiness with character placement on a typically scaled battle-mat?
To avoid those sort of disputes, I laid down a black-and-white rule that you can't use an area of effect on opponents in melee without hitting both.bojac6 said:... a Mage cast Fireball directly at an enemy engaged in melee combat with an ally, and then argued that it should only hit people he wants it to hit. Or, if the person were a bit more experienced, cast it into the enemy's back and argued that the body should shield his ally.
I handle it much like you do! I definitely think you need to change the rule to improve playability, because otherwise you can get "stuck" by a bad ruling made during a late night and out of nachos. But I would be explicit that it's a rule *change* and acknowledge it as such. If I changed the roll at the moment that a player attempted a deed based on my past ruling, I'd offer to let them use the prior roll this last time, and then going forward the rule change would apply.Kaihlik said:What is your position on changing the way you arbritrated something before hand for identical situations if you were not happy with the way you ruled the first time. What for example if on the spur of the moment you decided that everyone tested dex to cross the chasm but on return you realised that you made the wrong choice the first time and you would prefer them to roll strength.
Usually we get together and discuss rules after game session, decide what is working and what isn't and agree on changes where we feel things aren't working. During this process the GM usually takes suggestions but is final arbiter of what rules are to be used. This can cause an inconsistancy with previous sessions but we prefer it to simply repeating old mistakes.
Would you rather keep an old rule for the sake of consistancy or change a rule to improve playability?
Kaihlik
It is inevitable if you don't want inconsistent outcomes over time. Therefore it won't be inevitable in two circumstances:Callate said:I can see how some "rules-light" systems certainly could develop into, for lack of a better term, common-law rules-heavy systems. I don't think its necessarily inherent and inevitable to every system, however. A free-wheeling game like Toon that minimizes consequence in the name of improvisation and entertainment discourages rule-accumulation in the name of being fast and funny; someone who complains bitterly about consistency of the rules is playing it wrong. Similarly, Amber (or "Amber Diceless") has a narrow selection of absolutes but encourages the players to work around them through role-playing, imagination, and planning; the players might complain that the other players, very likely their rivals, might be unfair, but are unlikely to make that case against the game-master or system.
And of course (and you say nothing to contradict this, but I think it should still be said) the length of a campaign will also have a lot to do with it. Something like Feng Shui: Shadowfist doesn't bear a lot of thinking about in the hard mechanics, but that's part of what makes it excellent for one-shot, "night-of-gaming" gatherings.
I'll email you the house rules, Tavis. I need to send you a ton of material, actually.Tavis Allison said:I'd like to see those 27 pages of house-rules; sounds like it'd say a lot about your campaign! (Talisman of Ultimate Good = awesome.) I've been annotating my 1E Gamma World rulebook with marginalia about the rulings we've made in play, which has the advantage of having both sets of law in the same place.
I didn't know that, but it makes total sense. Thanks for sharing that juicy piece of history!David Wesely (out of whose Braunstein game Blackmoor evolved) told me that in the earliest days of Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign (out of which D&D evolved) relied entirely on common law rulings. Initially there were no codified rules that players could consult: you'd say "I chop through the back of the troll's knee with my claymore" and Arneson would say "OK, the troll falls", or not, depending on his interpretation of the imagined reality.
Wesely said that the incorporation of the Chainmail medieval miniature wargame rules (co-authored by Gary Gyax, thus his first involvement in what was to become D&D) came about because Arneson had made so many rulings he couldn't possibly keep them all straight. Players wanted to know why someone else could jump a river but they couldn't, and argued that since their characters lived in this fantasy world they should be able to predict something about what would or wouldn't be possible. Adapting Chainmail gave the Blackmoor players a corpus of civil law that they could rely on to calibrate their expectations about the referee's common law judgement calls.
Well, that's the beauty of Table Top right there, you can correct design mistakes on the fly in a way that is (generally) viewed as fair by everyone. The entire game is a negotiation between the players and the GM. And I mean everything, not just the rules. The world, the creatures, everything takes place in a place between the GM's imagination and the players' imagination. Sure, a great GM who is very descriptive can make everyone see things the same way, but there are always little differences.Archon said:I handle it much like you do! I definitely think you need to change the rule to improve playability, because otherwise you can get "stuck" by a bad ruling made during a late night and out of nachos. But I would be explicit that it's a rule *change* and acknowledge it as such. If I changed the roll at the moment that a player attempted a deed based on my past ruling, I'd offer to let them use the prior roll this last time, and then going forward the rule change would apply.Kaihlik said:What is your position on changing the way you arbritrated something before hand for identical situations if you were not happy with the way you ruled the first time. What for example if on the spur of the moment you decided that everyone tested dex to cross the chasm but on return you realised that you made the wrong choice the first time and you would prefer them to roll strength.
Usually we get together and discuss rules after game session, decide what is working and what isn't and agree on changes where we feel things aren't working. During this process the GM usually takes suggestions but is final arbiter of what rules are to be used. This can cause an inconsistancy with previous sessions but we prefer it to simply repeating old mistakes.
Would you rather keep an old rule for the sake of consistancy or change a rule to improve playability?
Kaihlik
Thank you for the kind words!llagrok said:So far "Check for Traps" has grown to become my favourite article on The Escapist. As I hope to continue enjoying myself with my friends every week, I hope to continue enjoying the view of one who is much more well-versed in this field than me or any I know. Please keep up the good work and thank you for all so far.