[D&D 3.5 Homebrew Setting] One shining moment

[Kintara]

I'll have to check out Monte Cook's stuff, I haven't picked up any of his books.  But yeah, I did accel climbing, eating the -5 to the roll to move at half speed.  I didn't take 10.  I should have asked to take 10 since I wasn't being targetted, that might have cut down on the rather bland climb rolls (my bonuses are high, I couldn't really fail unless I turned up a 1). 

Something to talk to the DM about, when I meet up with him.

Another neat thing that IH does is expand the skills. There's an option to move at normal speed while climbing if you take a -10. I think those are the sorts of changes that help make things more interesting. You should be able to do something with all of those skill bonuses you accumulate.

[Jasper the Mimbo]

Here's my two cents-

I DM heroic adventure type DnD a lot, and borrow little ideas that make the game more enjoyable from other RPGs (such as "let it ride"), so here's my take on the situation.

1. does your charecter have quick-draw. If it can be used as a weapon and is fairly readily available, you should be able to draw it as a free action. For a rope, having it coiled and hung from a belt or looped over one shoulder, under the other arm woulfd be reasonable to me. If the charecter does not have quick draw, a weapon (or other accessable item) can be drawn as part of a move action, as long as the charecter has a base attack bonus of +1 or better. ("I run in toward the orc, drawing my sword as I go" is one move action) You should have been able to run to your position, draw your rope, and deploy your rope, all in the same action.

2. Knot your rope. It'll shorten it, but the climb check will be a D.C. 5 climb speed is normally half your base move. In round two you should be able to move 30' up your rope with very little trouble, even if you take that previously mentioned -10 penalty to climb in order to move at full speed, it should still be fairly easy for a reasonably strong character with a few ranks in the climb skill. Remember that 5 ranks in use rope gives a synergy bonus to climbing ropes. In theory, during round two, you should be able to be 15 feet up your rope, throwing a tanglefoot bag or 30 feet up the rope, throwing on the next round. With the -10 rule, it would be 30 feet in the air throwing your bag or 60' up throwing the next round.

These are all things you can do that are supported by the system you are already using. there a plenty of ather systems out there that do a lot of cool things, and even if you never get around to playing them, reading them is worth it just to see what other options there are out there. Those cheeky indie-game designers come up with some damn good ideas. The point is The system should support the story you are trying to tell. you should never have to change the story to fit the rules. If you ever feel like you are doing that you need to find a new system, or tell a different story.

hope that helps.

[Callan S.]

Hi Jasper,

I think that's all good advice (I didn't know you could knot the rope...damn, I should have!), but this part concerns me.

The point is The system should support the story you are trying to tell. you should never have to change the story to fit the rules.

I think with gamism, you shouldn't be forced to change the story to fit the rules. Because you shouldn't think of story before initiating tactics. Instead, tactics produce story.

I think it's okay to imagine a story goal (the mad king dead). But when you imagine his death must be done while sword fighting on a staircase in a burning castle, you might be slipping into another agenda entirely.

Side note: I think that's one of the hardest things as a gamist...you try to talk about the game that you really enjoyed, but you can only talk about the events that happened. Even when I think of what I like, I think in terms of what happened. It's easy to switch over to thinking that the burning castle, which was such a wicked threat to deal with, is actually some sort of required element (or something similar), when killing kings.

[Jasper the Mimbo]

Maybe one of us is missing the other's point here. Or maybe were saying very similar things. I really can't say, as I am very tired at the moment. So here goes my attempt at clarifying what I was trying to say earlier.

Think about any action movie. Two guys duking it out is not impressive, even if it's a technically brilliant fight. It's interesting, but there is no emotional stake in what's going on. As soon as there is an emotional connection, all of a sudden it's not just a fight, it's Drama! Put the fight inside a collapsing building or on the edge of a cliff, or on a ship that is under fire, and all of a sudden it's really impressive, but only if the dangerous surroundings actually have some effect to our characters.

When I have a scenareo in my head that I want to have play out (we'll use the king's death in the burning castle for instance.) I try to come up with a way for the existing rules to support what I want to have happen, for instance:

The characters are going to have to get into, fight within, or get out of the burning castle. This is the description of the action. The in-game reality. The story. The mechanics behind that are the meta-game. The numbers. Variables in the resolution mechanic.
So, with that in mind, if I simply describe the castle as being burning it is an interesting visual image that may highten the drama and make for good story, but without a meta-game effect it's just a flowery description. I need to come up with some way for the fire to have a mechanical effect on play, because without it the players will not interact with it an anything more than a "this is the background that the action is taking place in" sort of way. In DnD, the mechanical tweaks are very simple. If things are collapsing around them or pieces of the floor are giving way, take a look at the basic trap rules. If vision is hampered by smoke, apply concealment. If parts of the floor are on fire, check out hazardous terrain. Putting these elements in will escalate the tension. Not only is it dramatic, but now it's not just background, it's dangerous, and therefore, more memorable. The mark of a good GM is one that is comfortable enough with the mechanics to be able to apply changes on the fly as he comes up with the description of the changing story. In other words, one who can mechanically support his evolving narrative in interesting ways. Thus, my statement earlier. System is there to support dramatic action.

The tactics mentioned earlier are both the in-game decisions and the chosen meta-game variables the players are using to overcome an obsticle. In game it might be: "I try to throw a grapple over the wall and climb it without being spotted." The mechanics might be: "I make a ranged touch attack against an AC 10 modified by range incrament and visibility, take 10 on a Climb check, and make a Move Silently check opposed by the guard's Listen skill." They describe the same action, and so system supports story. There are times when the players intended action cannot be easily modeled within the existing mechanics. The GM has to be able to mediate the discrepancy. (say yes or roll the dice.) When the group can't find a way to acomplish something interesting quickly, with little rules arguing, the game has broken down.

So I guess the bottom line is, know the system well enough to make it work for you instead of against you. If you are continually frusterated, it's time to look for a new system. The one you are working with may not be able to effectively portray the action you want it to. Systems are designed to behave in the manor which the designers like their games to feel. Their style may not be yours. Do not allow yourself to be pidgeon-holed. There are a whole lot of great games out there, and even more crappy ones with one or two good ideas that can be adapted.

Sorry about the length of this rant, it's one of my pet peeves.

[Callan S.]

Think about any action movie. Two guys duking it out is not impressive, even if it's a technically brilliant fight. It's interesting, but there is no emotional stake in what's going on. As soon as there is an emotional connection, all of a sudden it's not just a fight, it's Drama! Put the fight inside a collapsing building or on the edge of a cliff, or on a ship that is under fire, and all of a sudden it's really impressive, but only if the dangerous surroundings actually have some effect to our characters.

Or it is just a fight, but a player has declared that he is going to risk considerable resources on this fight. The emotional connection is that another player in real life has the guts to do that.

I think your focus is actually on the GM and his ability to render an intricate dream, rather than on the player who is declaring exactly what they will risk. It's what I was getting at in the impossible challenge before breakfast. The player wants the spotlight for his risk statement, the GM wants the spotlight for his dream rendering. Both at the same time...a real issue.