Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Are tripping, grappling and other non-damage combat abilities worthless? DISCUSS!

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
people who want trip, sunder, grapple, bull rush, charge, disarm, overrun, feint, aid another, or anything I can't remember right off-hand

Someone actually uses this crap? :roll:

There are only two kinds of attacks: those that hit more often but deal less damage, and those that hit less often but deal more damage. Anything else is just a pointless bloat only useful to fill out the USP bullet lists. Grapple and feint, oh my god.
 

Lhynn

Arcane
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
9,825
people who want trip, sunder, grapple, bull rush, charge, disarm, overrun, feint, aid another, or anything I can't remember right off-hand

Someone actually uses this crap? :roll:

There are only two kinds of attacks: those that hit more often but deal less damage, and those that hit less often but deal more damage. Anything else is just a pointless bloat only useful to fill out the USP bullet lists. Grapple and feint, oh my god.
Depends on the system, but on most of them youd be right.
 

Prime Junta

Guest
There are only two kinds of attacks: those that hit more often but deal less damage, and those that hit less often but deal more damage. Anything else is just a pointless bloat only useful to fill out the USP bullet lists. Grapple and feint, oh my god.

That's pure nostalgiafaggotry. Also dumb. Phrased like that, more often/less damage, less often/more damage would be just as pointless as it ends up in the same place anyway.

Different types of attacks only make sense if there are mechanics to support them. Faster-weaker/slower-stronger makes sense if there is armour that soaks a part of the damage, and there is a sufficiently wide mix of lightly and heavily armoured enemies. An attack which splits a shield makes sense if you're facing enemies with shields a lot. Disabling attacks (grapple, bull rush, trip etc.) make a lot of sense if the system takes into account that it's easier to hit a disabled enemy. Battle Brothers pulls this off extremely well for example.

AD&D never managed to make melee mechanically interesting because it didn't have any of this. It was all up to the DM to make up a vivid description of an attack roll that hit, or missed, depending, and in the IE games, fighters just auto-attack. D&D3 was much better in this respect.
 

Lhynn

Arcane
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
9,825
AD&D never managed to make melee mechanically interesting because it didn't have any of this. It was all up to the DM to make up a vivid description of an attack roll that hit, or missed, depending, and in the IE games, fighters just auto-attack. D&D3 was much better in this respect.
Both false.
AD&D didnt have built in mechanics for them, but you could still perform these kinds of actions. The DM would decide how youd roll and how much of a bonus youd get depending on the circumstances, as well as the effects, this was a rule.
3E made it so unless you were a grappler youd never grapple, unless you were a tripper youd never trip, unless you were an ubercharger youd never charge and unless you were a peasant youd never use a help action. They were so mechanically ineffective unless you actually spent most of your resources towards improving them, that you were always better off just attacking or running away.
 

Prime Junta

Guest
"... or have the DM make something up on the spot" is not a rule. It's the catchall for anything not covered by the rules, in any PnP RPG system ever, past, present, and future, and AD&D is no way special for also having it.
 
Self-Ejected

aweigh

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
17,978
Location
Florida
in DND 3.0/3.5 the most "OP" melee build was a fighter-type wielding a Large-sized SPIKED CHAIN and doing IMPROVED TRIP on enemies 15 feet away.
 

thesheeep

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
9,939
Location
Tampere, Finland
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
AD&D never managed to make melee mechanically interesting because it didn't have any of this. It was all up to the DM
And it was up to the players to actually use their bodies in a creative way.

Almost like this is some sort of game of interpretation or something.
If you don't want to use a good and well-done rule system, don't use a rule system.
Many GMs (and players) prefer to play completely without rules and (almost without) dice for that reason.
Really, that is not a bad thing, if that is how you want to play. Full creativity, no restraints.

But if you want to use a rule system, to adhere to its rules, level up your char and work within its restraints, use one that offers rules to work with for whatever typical stuff you want to do.

Don't use a rule system that doesn't even offer half the stuff you would actually need and then try to shoehorn it into a working something.
If you need to houserule all of your stuff, your system sucks.

PS: Using their bodies in a creative way? Are you high?
 

Deuce Traveler

2012 Newfag
Patron
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
2,899
Location
Okinawa, Japan
Grab the Codex by the pussy Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture
in DND 3.0/3.5 the most "OP" melee build was a fighter-type wielding a Large-sized SPIKED CHAIN and doing IMPROVED TRIP on enemies 15 feet away.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0216.gif

oots0216.gif


He should have tripped him.
 

Prime Junta

Guest
Last I heard this is a cRPG, not a PnP RPG. "The DM makes something up on the spot" doesn't work in a cRPG. It's not implementable.

Improvisation in tabletop role-playing is a whole 'nuther discussion, and one I for one am not inclined to have right now.
 

Dorateen

Arcane
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
4,332
Location
The Crystal Mist Mountains
For all those fancy extra-attack type skills, you could just assign effects to certain weapons and achieve a similar result. So instead of building a character with "trip", the player can find a bullwhip or a chain that has the property to entangle creatures. To me, this is more worthwhile and elevates the treasure hunting aspect of an adventure. After all, role-playing games are in the end about killing things and taking their stuff.
 

Bocian

Arcane
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,912
If you don't want to use a good and well-done rule system, don't use a rule system.
Many GMs (and players) prefer to play completely without rules and (almost without) dice for that reason.
Really, that is not a bad thing, if that is how you want to play. Full creativity, no restraints.

This.
:bro:
 

Lhynn

Arcane
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
9,825
"... or have the DM make something up on the spot" is not a rule.
Yes it is you retarded cunt, its listed as one. Its just not a mechanic. Rules and mechanics arent the same thing.

It's the catchall for anything not covered by the rules, in any PnP RPG system ever, past, present, and future, and AD&D is no way special for also having it.
Are you fucking stupid? In 3E if its not codified in the rules, you cant do it. Same with 4e. And you were the one bringing up 3E as a counterpoint.
This gamey approach to pnp systems has been fairly common as of late too. Overreliance on rules, mechanics and tables is a very real problem.
 
Self-Ejected

aweigh

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
17,978
Location
Florida
i don't think relying on rules is a problem, after all the entire point of gaming is to abide by a set of rules and the entire point of this "pnp" niche is that the games in question are more detailed in their rules than other gaming alternatives.

there can be something to be argued, though, regarding the "amount" of rules, as a pnp can be exhaustive in its rules while having a ton of rules, or by having few/less of them (don't even come at me with the few/less bullshit).

tbh i'm not even sure what it is that's being argued here. there is an inherent "flaw" in all pnp gaming systems and that is the fact that the rule sets, regardless of their composition, are meant to be processed by a human being (the DM, and by extension the other players), and this is by design; the rules are meant to be "broken" at the whim of the players.

otherwise you're playing a computer game. i think this... dichotomy (?) needs to be addressed in this discussion and i haven't seen it addressed yet. pnps are games where their entire point is for the players to abide by detailed sets of rules or simultaenously to dismiss and change them (i.e. interpret them).

I think the pnps that "fail" are the ones where it is very difficult to go from abiding by the rules to "interpreting" them, and the ones that "succeed" are the ones where doing so is seamless.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,386
Location
Copenhagen
hey what about this crazy idea: systemless games can be fun for one reason, rules heavy games for another and sometimes a little bit of both just like sometimes you want strawberry cake and sometimes you want steak and man sometimes you get all kinds of crazy and want a cake after a steak

i know mates it's a mindblowing concept that there might not be an officially sanctioned one hundred percent correct way of playing the beautiful game of pnp but run with the thought for a while trust me
 
Self-Ejected

aweigh

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
17,978
Location
Florida
i dunno man there are people that will complain that 1 rule constituting a "system". i simply don't think one can define "rules heavy" when the entire point of gaming, in the most disambiguate sense, is to follow a rule.
 

Lhynn

Arcane
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
9,825
Oh, I remember. Rules for horse traits, good.
Thats not overreliance on rules, thats using rules to introduce unique roleplaying situations and characters.

Rules for combat actions, bad.
The idea is that you can resolve them in narrative ways. The more codified reality is within the rules, the more you will rely on the mechanics to interpret the results, which leads to a very gamey experience.

This is the reason in 5e they introduced the concept of advantage/disadvantage. To allow players to roleplay and to reward those that do if their actions are well thought out. Back in AD&D the DM had the option, supported by a rule, to grant a numerical bonus in combat for the same thing, outside of combat clever roleplaying could eliminate the need to even roll the dice.
 

thesheeep

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
9,939
Location
Tampere, Finland
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Rules for combat actions, bad.
The idea is that you can resolve them in narrative ways. The more codified reality is within the rules, the more you will rely on the mechanics to interpret the results, which leads to a very gamey experience.
And that in a game! Unacceptable!
I wonder what you think about Rolemaster :lol:

Of course a GM may at any time adjust rules, grant bonuses, introduce new checks, etc. if it fits (in his mind).
It's just that if that happens all the time, a wrong system was picked.
So if you want special actions during combat, pick a system that has special actions during combat.

This is the reason in 5e they introduced the concept of advantage/disadvantage. To allow players to roleplay and to reward those that do if their actions are well thought out. Back in AD&D the DM had the option, supported by a rule, to grant a numerical bonus in combat for the same thing, outside of combat clever roleplaying could eliminate the need to even roll the dice.
Again, if you want to eliminate the need to roll the dice, don't use a rule system.
You have to pick a system that everyone in the group is comfortable with. Doesn't matter if that means a shitload of rules or barely any rules. But picking some and then trying to "avoid" it sounds more than just a little absurd. Should've just used another system instead.

I've been playing with GMs that are complete rule nazis (which is absurd and just disrupts the flow of the game, especially in fringe cases) and GMs that try to avoid rolling dice and stats wherever they can (which just makes the players unhappy who want to play by the rules, as they either feel like they are cheating or feel like they have been cheated).

Personally, I don't like giving bonuses for "good roleplaying" other than maybe some more XP at the end of the day. It's just too arbitrary. That's what rules are for - to prevent such arbitrariness.
 
Last edited:

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,386
Location
Copenhagen
systemless games can be fun for one reason
That one reason being what, Calvinball?

two months ago I played a very good systemless game dubbed 'Men of Honor' (not the most original title...) about the final meeting of Tommy Luchese and the other New York mafia families after he murdered Albert Anastasia. didn't really warrant a system since it was just a 6-hour game about the negotiation and attempt to figure out which of the bosses was responsible and what would happen next. It's here but it's in Danish: http://download.alexandria.dk/files/scenario/1994/scenariet.pdf

anyway that's just one example though
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom