Games Where Warriors (non-casters) are not limpdicks

[Edgewise]

You can always say "I hit him for even more damage", and it's even suggested in the book.

There's two reasons that I don't really like that solution. First of all, it's always better when people are a little more creative and colorful than that, so this option becomes a too-easy out IMO.

Second, and this is actually more important, this creates an opportunity cost to creative use of the Mighty Deed - after all, now you're giving up a default damage bonus in order to do something "interesting." To me, the whole value of the mechanic is the lack thereof.

 

[opaopajr]

AD&D 2e with optional material (WPs & CH:Fighter) does a solid Spartan Fighter, as tenbones said.

Take your fighter stats. Take your 4 WP: Spear Prof., Spear Spec. (+1 atk, +2 dmg, +0.5 #a), Shield Style (shield punch & parry), longsword prof. Buy a med. to lg. shield. Buy a med. to long spear. Done.

You get Shield Rush (good charging pull/trip), Shield Punch, active Parry, reach for Polearm Attacks & Polearm Parries, Polearm Pull/Trip (pull/trip without penalties, also usable on large animals), can set for a charge (and will do double damage if 2-handed), etc. If you count shield as an attack that's a potential 5/2 attack pattern (basically 2.5 attacks action economy, the second round adds both halves to create a full third attack). You could pretty much do the same thing as Leonidas, especially if he's higher level (extra attacks, more +atk) and any of the opponents are 'mooks'.

It's very nasty and versatile. But it's also very involved and can overwhelm players -- and my bookkeeping. I've done a bit of it, but it's best for cinematic small skirmish scenes and ALL the players are running on full cylinders.

Otherwise I could just let AD&D 2e core RAW with Weapon Specialization (+1 atk, +2 dmg, +0.5 #a) and generic polearm reach advantages cover the majority of things. The shield punching, bashing, pulling, pinning, tripping, and stuff goes away, but those really need invested players to matter. Suits my needs when I want to turn the bells and whistles off.

 

[xanther]

That's not how Atomic Highway works. Maybe ORE.

True not exactly as there are defense rolls I think, but the closest commercial system can think of and I play Atomic Highway without the separate defense (dodge/parry what have you) rolls. But nevertheless, the example is what I mean by roll for effect.

 

[AsenRG]

True not exactly as there are defense rolls I think, but the closest commercial system can think of and I play Atomic Highway without the separate defense (dodge/parry what have you) rolls. But nevertheless, the example is what I mean by roll for effect.

Well, ORE is a commercial system. And it's closer to what you described, IMO!
Or else, RPGNow have cheated me into paying for a few versions of it! Now, that would be scandalous!

 

[AsenRG]

There's two reasons that I don't really like that solution. First of all, it's always better when people are a little more creative and colorful than that, so this option becomes a too-easy out IMO.

I agree. But then, I've almost never used "I hit him really hard" because there's always something better.
If we were fighting a giant amoeba, I'd probably revert to "shred it to pieces for extra damage".
Except I thought of several options while writing the previous sentence, so I wouldn't do that even then.
Maybe if I rolled a Mighty Deed against a hoard of 0-levels skeletons. But even then one of my other examples would still be a better option.

Second, and this is actually more important, this creates an opportunity cost to creative use of the Mighty Deed - after all, now you're giving up a default damage bonus in order to do something "interesting." To me, the whole value of the mechanic is the lack thereof.

IMO, that's false equivalence to me for two reasons...
First, whatever you choose to do, you add the Deed Die to Damage as well as Attack. So you've already got at least a +3 bonus (or there's no Deed). Giving up a point or two on top of that isn't too much, usually.

Second, you're always giving one Mighty Deed for another.
You're taking the guy down in addition to the strike, OK. But this means you're not causing unbearable pain that prevents him from using his full abilities to retaliate. You're not locking his hand with your blade, combining a jointlock and a sawing off action, so you could get out of the corner where you were pressed. You're not killing him so coldly efficiently his friends get scared. You're not ordering your friends to keep the shields* locked, thus improving their AC until they keep in the formation.
There's always an opportunity cost. No level of Mighty Deed allows you to do all of the above at once, so choosing one means you forfeit everything else!
Compared to this, what are a few HP more or less?

*This required a bit of forethought, including buying shields for everyone. But I pulled it off...oh, and in case you're wondering, these are all in-character examples of Jacqueline's Mighty Deeds.
There was a reason one of the other players said that when she rolls a Mighty Deed, chaos follows.

 

[Edgewise]

I agree. But then, I've almost never used "I hit him really hard" because there's always something better.
If we were fighting a giant amoeba, I'd probably revert to "shred it to pieces for extra damage".

I think I'd be glad to give the player a damage bonus if he can be bothered to come up with a good description of how he's achieving that. As long as it's not that every time.

Unfortunately, I've had a few players who cut their teeth on D&D and choose the fighter-type when they aren't in the mood to think too hard. Nobody in the game I'm running right now, fortunately. I mean, even if you're playing D&D, you should be thinking about more than rolling d20's.

By contrast, I had a player in a different game (i.e. not DCC) lovingly describe exactly how his character was launching every attack. I wasn't always able to come up with a mechanical effect for each description, but since he didn't know the rules very well, I never pointed that out. Why spoil the fun?

Second, you're always giving one Mighty Deed for another.

I suppose that's true enough.

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

Thanks, I never will play that game. I hate that sort of shit. Mileage etc.

"And then the EARS, I get the IDEA, get ON with it!"

 

[Votan]

Of course, all this applies to pre-3rd Edition. With 3E, the game came into the hands of people who were shitty players 10 years earlier and they removed all the "un fun restrictions on magic users". And have spent the last 20 years bellyaching about magic users dominating everything.

Mass teleport? With no chance for error? Seriously? What shit-for-brains thought THAT was a good idea?

Ironically, it makes teleport much less fun, too. The risk creates dilemmas about use. Removing fundamentally all of the risk with the action makes it a way to avoid ever needing to travel between places again. Casters were slightly high in power in 2E -- and every element of them got stronger in 3E

 

[tenbones]

Ironically, it makes teleport much less fun, too. The risk creates dilemmas about use. Removing fundamentally all of the risk with the action makes it a way to avoid ever needing to travel between places again. Casters were slightly high in power in 2E -- and every element of them got stronger in 3E

Correct. Whereas for non-casters they broke out all the possible premutations of their mechanical gameplay into discrete, often gated, accumulation across 20-levels.

In 3e, Spells are *more* powerful than Feats in comparable power by far. And their accumulation happens as a ridiculously faster rate. Casters can end fights with far easier methods than non-casters most of the time.

 

[Stevethulhu]

Correct. Whereas for non-casters they broke out all the possible premutations of their mechanical gameplay into discrete, often gated, accumulation across 20-levels.

In 3e, Spells are *more* powerful than Feats in comparable power by far. And their accumulation happens as a ridiculously faster rate. Casters can end fights with far easier methods than non-casters most of the time.

I've somethi.es wondered if removing bonus spells would help close the 3.5 power gap. At least with Arcane casters. CoDZilla is a whole other issue

 

[Votan]

I've somethi.es wondered if removing bonus spells would help close the 3.5 power gap. At least with Arcane casters. CoDZilla is a whole other issue

Somewhat, although flattening the curve helps too (which is the 5E trick). The bonus spells help a lot at first level (as does adding cantrips), when the single spell seems weak in 1E for magic users. But creating an escalating system of bonus spells mode mid to high level insane. They also made saving throws scale with level, as opposed to the old days where save neg. ="this spell only works as a last resort" and made them much harder to interrupt. They also sped up the BAB progression and increased hit points for casters (both the die and the cap on bonus hit points due to high constitution), relative to earlier editions, making them less physically fragile.

Feats are nice but weapon specialization was nice too.

5E also removed the scaling of spell effect by caster level, which was another issue at very high levels. Still, in 1E an archmage could be taken out by some men at arms if they got unlucky with initiative (barring some of the more exotic spells like elminsters evasion).

The cleric piece was different, and even worse.

 

[JRoss]

Toot, toot (that's my own horn, sorry). I write games that way. It's not exactly magic, but has similar trappings, but the ascetics in Kaigaku have their own five-rank schools that are similar to those that ninjas, courtiers and bushi get. No massive list of infinite techniques. They're more grounded, too. They are actually pretty likely to die in combat with a bushi of similar level.

The Exodus System (toot, toot again) has a build-your-own-class feature. I don't have a dedicated fighter flavor (weaponmaster is coming soon, though), but I worked hard to make sure that there's no one "right" character build.

 

[Baulderstone]

Toot, toot (that's my own horn, sorry). I write games that way. It's not exactly magic, but has similar trappings, but the ascetics in Kaigaku have their own five-rank schools that are similar to those that ninjas, courtiers and bushi get. No massive list of infinite techniques. They're more grounded, too. They are actually pretty likely to die in combat with a bushi of similar level.

The Exodus System (toot, toot again) has a build-your-own-class feature. I don't have a dedicated fighter flavor (weaponmaster is coming soon, though), but I worked hard to make sure that there's no one "right" character build.

Hey, Jake. Welcome to the Pub.

We talked on the Bedrock Podcast last year I am using your promotion to slip in a promotion of the podcast I am on which is promoting you!

 

[JRoss]

Oh. Not Brendan. Um, sorry, I'm bad with names. Let me look it up. Sorry.

 

[JRoss]

Adam! Right?

But back on topic, yeah, I HATE this in games. Like in Numenera, you can go up to level 6 as a fighter. At that level you're making like two or three attacks per turn, and you can stabby some things well. Wizard-type at the same level, with the same amount of XP gets to choose from teleporting ANYWHERE in the universe, summoning monster storms or (IIRC) a devastating nanobot attack.

 

[Baulderstone]

Adam! Right?

Correct.

 

[Dumarest]

Correct.

You're not supposed to give out your sietch name so freely!

 

[Baulderstone]

You're not supposed to give out your sietch name so freely!
View attachment 2870

I wear no mask.

 

[Edgewise]

I wear no mask.

Given your thrice-damned visage, I wish you would. It's very distracting to run a game session and one of your players' physiology defies biology, aesthetics and possibly even physics.

 

[Dumarest]

I thought I recognized you from Beetlejuice.

 

[Baulderstone]

I thought I recognized you from Beetlejuice.
View attachment 2872

Ah, Tim Burton's The King in Yellow.

 

[AsenRG]

Thanks, I never will play that game. I hate that sort of shit. Mileage etc.

"And then the EARS, I get the IDEA, get ON with it!"

I had a hard time deciding whether to "like" that post. In the end, I decided that your single-mindedness is praiseworthy (and it helps that I know you've tried enough other systems).
My mileage does indeed vary. "And then the EARS, and the HAIR, and after I've grabbed him by both of these, I smash his face against the concrete wall!"

 

[Baulderstone]

I don't have a problem with the DCC Mighty Deeds as they actually do something. You can try and blind an opponent or knock them down. It isn't frivolous description. It's allowing to genuinely take some special action.

What I dislike are when games give a bonus to attacks for a cool description. It can sound like a clever idea on paper, but it become tedious in play. Rather than players giving a more detailed description when they are inspired, they feel obliged to drag out their action declarations in hopes of scoring a bonus whether they have a cool idea or not.

On the GM side, I hate having to play judge every description, deciding what it worthy of a +2 to hit and what isn't. Some players are innately talented at always having a good description at ready and some never do. It feels shitty giving one player a bonus every round and never giving the other guy one. Some people suggest just rewarding based on effort, but that is what gets you to the place where everyone takes at least 30 seconds to declare a simple attack.

When you read a good fight scene in a book, the level of detail is usually variable. Some moves are specific and detailed. Other times, the protagonist may dispatch two opponents in a simple sentence. It's a matter of good pacing. Describing everything in detail grows boring. Describing nothing becomes disengaging. That balance is best determined spontaneously by people at the table rather than a system forcing it.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Oh. Not Brendan. Um, sorry, I'm bad with names. Let me look it up. Sorry.

Brendan here (by the way, you spelled my name right, which is usually not the case because there are so many variations on it, so can't be that bad with names). Definitely come back on the podcast to talk about Exodus if you want.

 

[AsenRG]

I don't have a problem with the DCC Mighty Deeds as they actually do something. You can try and blind an opponent or knock them down. It isn't frivolous description. It's allowing to genuinely take some special action.

I'm with you. Gronan has different experience.

What I dislike are when games give a bonus to attacks for a cool description. It can sound like a clever idea on paper, but it become tedious in play. Rather than players giving a more detailed description when they are inspired, they feel obliged to drag out their action declarations in hopes of scoring a bonus whether they have a cool idea or not.

On the GM side, I hate having to play judge every description, deciding what it worthy of a +2 to hit and what isn't.

r
Also, here comes the "what do you give to an attack that's a bad idea in reality, but looks cool" problem.
Most games I've been playing lately just don't have this mechanic, though.

Some players are innately talented at always having a good description at ready and some never do. It feels shitty giving one player a bonus every round and never giving the other guy one. Some people suggest just rewarding based on effort, but that is what gets you to the place where everyone takes at least 30 seconds to declare a simple attack.

How is that different from having one player who excels at tactics, or any other element the game rewards - building relationships, for example - while another sucks at it? We can't all be the same, and in fact, we shouldn't even try to be!

When you read a good fight scene in a book, the level of detail is usually variable. Some moves are specific and detailed. Other times, the protagonist may dispatch two opponents in a simple sentence. It's a matter of good pacing. Describing everything in detail grows boring. Describing nothing becomes disengaging. That balance is best determined spontaneously by people at the table rather than a system forcing it.

Well, in any skill-based system, you can just have them roll an opposed or unopposed roll if you want "an one-sentence fight" (presumably for narrative reasons, which explains why I don't want them). The margin of success or level of success determines whether any resources were expended during the "fight" (which would be rightfully called slaughter, BTW).
That doesn't fit all genres, though. (In fact, I tend to avoid games where this would be even a thing, but that's this "different mileages" thing rearing its ugly head...again). An enemy who knows to be outmatched should play it dirty, and then the dice might go against the players!
Otherwise? I'd simply run it by the normal combat rules. Most games I play would make that exceedingly lethal against an inferior opponent, so I wouldn't have to spend much time on it, anyway!

 

[Edgewise]

Thanks, I never will play that game. I hate that sort of shit. Mileage etc.

No worries. Personally, I can't stand RPG combat that devolves to a pure die rolling narrative, unless it's very short. If it's all just mechanics, I find that it kills any positive momentum that the session has developed.

On the GM side, I hate having to play judge every description, deciding what it worthy of a +2 to hit and what isn't.

It can sometimes be a pain, but if players are engaged enough to go into that level of detail, it's worth it to me. Like I said earlier, sometimes I quietly won't give any modifier at all. Instead, I'll just match the player's colorful details with my own description of the results.

DCC actually makes this easier for Mighty Deeds. I just let the player roll and go by that. I see the Mighty Deed as permission to do something improbable. The actual mechanical result will be proportional to the roll, although the description will be as outlandish as is needed.

The Exodus System (toot, toot again) has a build-your-own-class feature.

I just stumbled across Exodus on DriveThru the other day. This feature in particular looked cool to me but I have to admit that I was put off by the fact that every class has a "combat role." It sounded a little 4e/MMO on the face of it, and I don't think that every class in every type of campaign needs a combat orientation. Otherwise I quite like the idea.

 

[Sommerjon]

The Warrior Adept in Earthdawn isn't limpdick compared to the Wizard Adept.

 

[Baulderstone]

Also, here comes the "what do you give to an attack that's a bad idea in reality, but looks cool" problem.
Most games I've been playing lately just don't have this mechanic, though.

Stunting mechanics with bonuses purely for description seem a lot less common than the did fifteen to twenty years ago.

The fad seemed to have started with Feng Shui, but FS didn't actually give a you a bonus. It just advised the GM not to give penalties for doing colorful acrobatics in the course of making an attack. I actually liked that.

I think Exalted was the first game I encountered where they decided to make description an actual bonus, and that was where it became a problem for me.

How is that different from having one player who excels at tactics, or any other element the game rewards - building relationships, for example - while another sucks at it? We can't all be the same, and in fact, we shouldn't even try to be!

In my experience, players with a way with words tend to have their own advantages in RPGs. In fact, players with a knack for cool combat descriptions usually have the same kind of creativity that allows for actual clever moves that are worthy of a bonus in their own right.

On top of that, I'm not fond of rule sets that try too hard to tell people how to play. The player that makes cool descriptions is going to do it anyway. They don't need a cookie to do it. I feel like the point behind this rule is to push people who either don't like elaborate description or are bad at them to have to do them. I've known a lot of great roleplayers who were on the taciturn side, and I don't feel I need to socially engineer them into playing differently. In fact, putting them on the spot with forceful mechanic is usually the worst way to draw them out.

Well, in any skill-based system, you can just have them roll an opposed or unopposed roll if you want "an one-sentence fight" (presumably for narrative reasons, which explains why I don't want them). The margin of success or level of success determines whether any resources were expended during the "fight" (which would be rightfully called slaughter, BTW).
That doesn't fit all genres, though. (In fact, I tend to avoid games where this would be even a thing, but that's this "different mileages" thing rearing its ugly head...again). An enemy who knows to be outmatched should play it dirty, and then the dice might go against the players!
Otherwise? I'd simply run it by the normal combat rules. Most games I play would make that exceedingly lethal against an inferior opponent, so I wouldn't have to spend much time on it, anyway!

I was just speaking in terms of amount of description, not the mechanical resolution. I think we are in agreement here.

No worries. Personally, I can't stand RPG combat that devolves to a pure die rolling narrative, unless it's very short. If it's all just mechanics, I find that it kills any positive momentum that the session has developed.

It can sometimes be a pain, but if players are engaged enough to go into that level of detail, it's worth it to me. Like I said earlier, sometimes I quietly won't give any modifier at all. Instead, I'll just match the player's colorful details with my own description of the results.

DCC actually makes this easier for Mighty Deeds. I just let the player roll and go by that. I see the Mighty Deed as permission to do something improbable. The actual mechanical result will be proportional to the roll, although the description will be as outlandish as is needed.

I think we are largely in agreement. I don't have an issue with a GM looking at what a player's action and assigning a bonus or penalty. In fact, I like that both as a player and a GM. I just don't like it when it is done on based on the quality of the description.

 

[AsenRG]

No worries. Personally, I can't stand RPG combat that devolves to a pure die rolling narrative, unless it's very short. If it's all just mechanics, I find that it kills any positive momentum that the session has developed.

Agreed.

DCC actually makes this easier for Mighty Deeds. I just let the player roll and go by that. I see the Mighty Deed as permission to do something improbable. The actual mechanical result will be proportional to the roll, although the description will be as outlandish as is needed.

Err, not how I see it.
Not "improbable", or the game wouldn't advise you to check Str for tripping a giant.
Something hard, a move requiring skill and experience at arms, yes. Improbable? Only if by "improbable" you mean "improbable to succeed if attempted by a couch potato with no experience". But then, a successful attack would rate as "improbable", too!

I just stumbled across Exodus on DriveThru the other day. This feature in particular looked cool to me but I have to admit that I was put off by the fact that every class has a "combat role." It sounded a little 4e/MMO on the face of it, and I don't think that every class in every type of campaign needs a combat orientation. Otherwise I quite like the idea.

I also stumbled across it, but I think they lost me at "class" first. Said class having a combat role was the icing on the cake.

Stunting mechanics with bonuses purely for description seem a lot less common than the did fifteen to twenty years ago.

The fad seemed to have started with Feng Shui, but FS didn't actually give a you a bonus. It just advised the GM not to give penalties for doing colorful acrobatics in the course of making an attack. I actually liked that.

Yep, I know. I actually own FS1 due to Bundle of Holding...

I think Exalted was the first game I encountered where they decided to make description an actual bonus, and that was where it became a problem for me.

Never saw it as a problem. It fits the genre for heroes to succeed when attempting improbable stuff.
Besides, it doesn't even begin to compare with an Excellency!

In my experience, players with a way with words tend to have their own advantages in RPGs. In fact, players with a knack for cool combat descriptions usually have the same kind of creativity that allows for actual clever moves that are worthy of a bonus in their own right.

YMMV.
I've found that many players with a knack for "cool" combat descriptions have the tactical acumen of the average turnip.

On top of that, I'm not fond of rule sets that try too hard to tell people how to play. The player that makes cool descriptions is going to do it anyway. They don't need a cookie to do it.

True, but why refuse a free cookie? Come to the Dark Side, Baulderstone!

I feel like the point behind this rule is to push people who either don't like elaborate description or are bad at them to have to do them. I've known a lot of great roleplayers who were on the taciturn side, and I don't feel I need to socially engineer them into playing differently. In fact, putting them on the spot with forceful mechanic is usually the worst way to draw them out.

No mechanic works for everyone.

I was just speaking in terms of amount of description, not the mechanical resolution. I think we are in agreement here.

It seems we are, with one caveat.
"If you notice you're putting in a fight you're running the amount of description REH reserves for unimportant fights, you're either talking too much about mechanics, or you're starting to get tired".

I think we are largely in agreement. I don't have an issue with a GM looking at what a player's action and assigning a bonus or penalty. In fact, I like that both as a player and a GM. I just don't like it when it is done on based on the quality of the description.

Why not, if it works for the group?

 

[Dumarest]

We can't all be the same, and in fact, we shouldn't even try to be!

...I don't feel I need to socially engineer them into playing differently.

"I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more
No, I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more
Well, I try my best
To be just like I am
But everybody wants you
To be just like them
They sing while you slave and I just get bored
I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more"

 

[Baulderstone]

Why not, if it works for the group?

Well, of course. I'm just prattling about my own preferences, not writing a manifesto on how everyone has to game henceforth.

Hell, I'm even fine playing games that aren't to my taste if the company is good. I have preferences, but I'm not a purist about any of them.

 

[Edgewise]

Err, not how I see it.
Not "improbable", or the game wouldn't advise you to check Str for tripping a giant.
Something hard, a move requiring skill and experience at arms, yes. Improbable? Only if by "improbable" you mean "improbable to succeed if attempted by a couch potato with no experience". But then, a successful attack would rate as "improbable", too!

We mean slightly different things here. Tripping a giant would require a require a high Deed roll due to the mechanical requirements. When I talk about allowing outlandish deeds, I'm only talking about the descriptive color. For instance, if someone tried to put an ankle lock on a giant and rolled a 3, I'd describe something that falls well short of an actual joint lock but may still sound ridiculous (e.g. maybe the PC breaks a toe). What I'm not saying is that a successful Mighty Deed allows carte blanche in terms of mechanical effects.

 

[CRKrueger]

One thing people are forgetting about Mighty Deeds is, it's not a "whatever you want if you get a 3". You have to declare what you're doing first, then depending on what you're doing, there's a table to determine how well you did it (so lower level might not be that spectacular). Also if you're doing some swashbuckling movements, then failing might leave you prone or worse.

Purple Duck Games has Steel & Fury which is a book of Mighty Deeds you can try laid out in tables like the DCC book.

In any case, I'd give a player an increasing penalty to do the same Mighty Deed in the same encounter.

 

[Baulderstone]

One thing people are forgetting about Mighty Deeds is, it's not a "whatever you want if you get a 3". You have to declare what you're doing first, then depending on what you're doing, there's a table to determine how well you did it (so lower level might not be that spectacular).

Just to clarify, those tables are simply examples to give the GM a rough framework to adjudicate results.

 

[CRKrueger]

Just to clarify, those tables are simply examples to give the GM a rough framework to adjudicate results.

Right, but the idea is, "a 3 doesn't do everything". It's not the invitation to verbose narrative that Gronan was grumbling about. You say what you are trying to do beforehand, and how well you roll gives the GM an idea of how well you did it, it's not like "you rolled the Deed, so entertain us with your description of how you did it".
There are games that do that kind of thing, so I understand where Gronan was coming from, but this mechanic in DCC isn't really meant to be that, although of course you could change the intent to make it full-blown narrative whatever if that's how you roll.

 

[Baulderstone]

Right, but the idea is, "a 3 doesn't do everything". It's not the invitation to verbose narrative that Gronan was grumbling about. You say what you are trying to do beforehand, and how well you roll gives the GM an idea of how well you did it, it's not like "you rolled the Deed, so entertain us with your description of how you did it".
There are games that do that kind of thing, so I understand where Gronan was coming from, but this mechanic in DCC isn't really meant to be that, although of course you could change the intent to make it full-blown narrative whatever if that's how you roll.

Yeah. I agree with your overall point. I just wanted to clarify for people that aren't familiar with DCC that Mighty Deeds aren't constrained to the tables.

It's certainly true that the GM should be applying restrictions on the result based on the roll. In fact, they state that part of the reason they are providing the tables as examples is to help the GM form a sense of what should be allowed.

 

[AsenRG]

We mean slightly different things here. Tripping a giant would require a require a high Deed roll due to the mechanical requirements. When I talk about allowing outlandish deeds, I'm only talking about the descriptive color.

OK, I'm not sure I understand you, then.
Care to give me an example of a Mighty Deed that's outlandish, but still within the realm of probability?

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

Simply pushing troops together and rolling dice is a stupid way to play a wargame. However, many people do it.
Simply pushing troops together and rolling dice is also a stupid way to do a small skirmish, which is what an RPG combat is. I just want tactics to be team focused and not "See how cool *I* am!"

 

[Edgewise]

Care to give me an example of a Mighty Deed that's outlandish, but still within the realm of probability?

I'm having a hard time being creative right now and that's not really what I'm talking about, either. I did give one example where I might allow the PC to achieve a lesser effect for a lower Deed roll - trying to put a giant in an ankle lock but only managing to break its toe.

But that may not be the best example. A better example would be if the warrior's player wants to achieve something fairly normal - like disarming an opponent of his greatsword - but he wants to do it in an absurd way - like whipping it out of their hands with a snake that's biting him. I'd just treat this as a normal Mighty Deed without requiring any special penalty for doing it in a wildly inefficient manner.

OTOH, if the player was legitimately doing this as a desperation move because he has no recourse, I might require a higher Deed Die roll. Or if the player actually thought that this was really clever and had much better ways to get the job done, I might penalize that, too. It could depend on my mood. I'd make a ruling on the spot and not look back.

While I do rely on the guidelines of the rulebook, I'm also not a stickler. This is probably one of those areas I'd be a bit more generous to the player in most cases. I view the Mighty Deed as an opportunity to have fun with the mechanics, but not something to abuse with either power-gaming or witless play.

 

[Nick J]

Simply pushing troops together and rolling dice is a stupid way to play a wargame. However, many people do it.
Simply pushing troops together and rolling dice is also a stupid way to do a small skirmish, which is what an RPG combat is. I just want tactics to be team focused and not "See how cool *I* am!"

Which post(s) are you addressing?