A few weeks back, my group played the fifth and final session for a 1st ed. D&D module. I've used this opportunity to playtest various rules in a game system I'm developing. Some things went swimmingly (e.g. "You can't swing your sword at the flyer unless he attacks you"). Others provoked extreme resistance (e.g. 3rd parties affecting restrictions on non-same mode attacks in response).

One mechanic in particular pissed everybody off. They came upon a band of sleeping orcish merc's and their ogre mage leader. Not surprisingly, everyone wailed on the mage. (What they didn't realize was that these were elite specimens (i.e. 16+ HD) with special advantages (i.e. plate +3, l. sword +3). And that led to frustration with high wounds to slay, but I digress.) So I formed a ring of orcs about the mage as a pre-round declaration. This had the effect of limiting melee attack access to the mage.

Oh, the bitching and moaning! "I just hit this guy last round. How did an orc get in front of me?" I tried to explain that I was responding tactically, trying to role-play intelligent opponents. (In truth, I had this band marked as unlikely allies to join in the party's quest. That's why I started them out sleeping! But all they heard was "orcs" and started drawing swords.) Sullen as shit, they ignored the orcs and shot the mage to death with arrow fire.

Maybe they were a little sore because it was introduced to their disadvantage. Basically, I'm trying to provide a tactical option without the concession of tracking position through diagrams or miniatures. The benefits are (1) preventing melee cancellation of range attacks and (2) protecting specialized units with limited personal defenses.

More generally, what do you think about this idea? Right now, making a formation is declared as a cost-free, pre-round action, with no possibilty of contest. The only requirement is that the forming side's frontline must hold at least half the greater side.

I'm guessing that it was how you introduced things to an extent.

The players have a vision of how their declaration of actions can affect the action on the ground. In D&D that includes things like Attacks of Opportunity, etc. Your new rule alters that vision substantially, I think. Now, I think it works mechanically just fine, and that an alternate vision can be formed.

But to hand the ability to an opponent when the players hadn't known that existed previously is to force them to alter their vision of the events in a way to facilitate their own detriment. Yes that's going to be hard to swallow. If you'd given them the option to do so preciously, and further, they'd used it to their advantage, then I think that their vision would have adjusted quickly, and they'd have had no problems with the opponents using it.


And I'm going to say something that I shouldn't. Are you sure that Ogre started out that tough? You didn't, y'know, jack up his power level after they injudiciously decided to attack without provocation (messing up your plot)? You weren't trying to keep the ogre alive, were you? Or at least make him so tough that the characters suffered for their player's decisions? Maybe the decision to include the new rule right there also was motivated because you wanted to punish your players?

I mean, I'm sitting here, not even playing, and it looks like that to me. Even if I'm dead wrong, imagine how your players may have felt. Sounds to me like they figured that you were screwing them. And I don't think that I'd blame them. They trust you to run a fair game, and you're changing the playing field under them (literally in the case of the characters) in play.

I'd grumble too.

Mike

I'm going to question your mechanic because their objections make sense to me.

I was working with an OAD&D mod many years ago that would allow characters to move into tactical formations; but my rules were a bit more complex. Characters had to know the formation, and to have practiced it (in a sense like a football team does) outside combat before they could use it. The movement to the formation had to be plotted out to some degree and rated with the number of segments it would take for the characters to get to that position.

Now, I'm seeing your description as going something like this:

• Characters enter a room with orcs and ogre mage sleeping rather scattered on the floor.• Characters quietly move through the room until they are all right next to the ogre mage--say within three feet, and surrounding him.• Characters launch their first attack successfully, doing minor injuries to the opponent.• Orcs are all awakened, and before the characters can strike again, every orc is on its feet, and a perimeter has been established pushing the characters away from the ogre mage (who a moment ago was surrounded by characters on every side with nowhere to go) by a ten foot cordon.

So the problem I have is that I don't understand how it is that we were between the orcs and the ogre mage, but now, without engaging us, they are between us and him.

To put it another way, you used a "cost free pre-round making of a formation" to significantly alter the field; could they have responded with a "cost free pre-round making of a formation" to say "we ignore the orcs, and get between them and the ogre mage, and attack him with our swords"?

You put the orcs there to keep the characters away from the ogre mage; but if it was not too late for them to get there, then it was equally not too late for the characters to get inside the orc's position.

It would be entirely different if it had been a ranged attack from across the room.

Remember, the king can't castle when he's in check. Once the players have closed to melee range, you really need a better explanation for how they lost that distance than merely some inexplicable free move. To get where you wanted to be, the ogre mage had to get outside the circle of player characters (which certainly meant either a major successful attack against one or more or something really impressive to get around them--a roll either way) and the orcs had to get to wherever the ogre mage was going to be, at least some of them fighting past the characters to get there.

It's a clever idea, but it need serious work to avoid these impossible changes.

--M. J. Young

Mike Holmes wrote: And I'm going to say something that I shouldn't. Are you sure that Ogre started out that tough? You didn't, y'know, jack up his power level after they injudiciously decided to attack without provocation (messing up your plot)? You weren't trying to keep the ogre alive, were you? Or at least make him so tough that the characters suffered for their player's decisions? Maybe the decision to include the new rule right there also was motivated because you wanted to punish your players?

M. J. Young wrote: Now, I'm seeing your description as going something like this:



• Characters enter a room with orcs and ogre mage sleeping rather scattered on the floor.
• Characters quietly move through the room until they are all right next to the ogre mage--say within three feet, and surrounding him.
• Characters launch their first attack successfully, doing minor injuries to the opponent.
• Orcs are all awakened, and before the characters can strike again, every orc is on its feet, and a perimeter has been established pushing the characters away from the ogre mage (who a moment ago was surrounded by characters on every side with nowhere to go) by a ten foot cordon.

M. J. Young wrote: To put it another way, you used a "cost free pre-round making of a formation" to significantly alter the field; could they have responded with a "cost free pre-round making of a formation" to say "we ignore the orcs, and get between them and the ogre mage, and attack him with our swords"?

You put the orcs there to keep the characters away from the ogre mage; but if it was not too late for them to get there, then it was equally not too late for the characters to get inside the orc's position.