Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Title
Macchiato Monsters Turn Sequence
Sooo, it has become clear that some referees find it hard to run combat in MM (looks intently at Benoît FELTEN and his HK crew). Initiative-less fights come naturally to me, but maybe they don't to you. So I've made an effort to articulate what happens in my head when I run an action sequence.
1. Start of the turn. The referee describes: the location, the threats, the monsters and what they do (especially who they target, and with how many attacks if necessary). The general situation must be clear to everyone.
2. The first character gets to act - the referee asks their player what they would like to do
¤ Who acts first often depends on the situation. The referee should ask themselves what would happen first. What's more pressing to resolve before the rest can be reevaluated? Who's in front? Who has a crossbow ready to shoot? Who's fallen into the piranha pit?
¤ The character's precise circumstances are made clear by the referee, including risks taken and possible consequences.
3. The character's turn is resolved with a check. Damage is dealt, consequences described.
4. The next character acts.
¤ This should be in order of fictional importance. If there's no emergency or obvious priority, the referee can just go around the table or battle map.
¤ The referee describes the character's precise circumstances, especially if a previous character's turn has had consequences that changed the situation. They might not be shot at anymore, or a spell gone awry may represent a new threat.
5. Repeat 3 and 4 until everyone has had their turn.
6. Have all NPCs done something? If not, the referee describes what they do and gives whoever is affected a chance to react - this can involve an out-of-sequence check, for instance to avoid an attack or spell.
7. End of the turn. The referee updates the description and starts the next turn - go back to 1.
MM referees, does this look familiar to you? Or do you make it happen an entirely different way?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
By "character", you do mean any character, not just PCs?
ReplyDeletePlayer characters only.
ReplyDeleteI never refereed MM (yet), but I know I'd listen to the players to decide who goes next. I'd mix what you write with giving priority to players who knows what they want their character to do.
ReplyDeleteI have tried the freeform way, and the Dex-check way(pass: go before monster, fail: go after). I think they both have their uses.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I assume the referee knows what the players want to do - either by deducting it from pre-combat statements ('I walk in the darkness, ready to stab any frogling that jumps at me') or simply by asking.
ReplyDeleteI don't think my way is as precise as yours Eric Nieudan but when I'm referee, I do somethink like you.
ReplyDeleteI really like the way which means that the situation and the players choose how the combat is. And I hate iniative check ;)
The init check is a bit weird. You roll dice to see when you get to roll dice. :-)
ReplyDeleteguillaume jentey I'm never as precise as this, but this is the theoretical procedure.
ReplyDeleteIs it worth cribbing some of the notes from Dungeon World?
ReplyDeleteDes rounds dans un NOSR ? Quelle hérésie !
ReplyDeleteAaron Griffin I'm not sure - it's been a while since I read them...
ReplyDeleteI guess one of the challenges I'm dealing with is the perceived unfairness of opponents "hitting" multiple times if everyone fails. I also struggle with the "disadvantage if your opponents have more total HD than you". That requires splitting the parties (on either side) in ways that don't come naturally to me (is the archer part of the HD numbers even though he's far away ?) So yeah, clearly, trying to not give the players the sense that things are unfair is my issue.
ReplyDeleteArchers don't count in my book. (Also shooting in a melee is very risky :)
ReplyDeleteDo you add HD for monsters groups? It could make things awfully complicated. I do it fairly simply: when a PC fights a monster, I check their level against the monster's HD. If someone is there to help, I add their level (or 1 for a follower). If the situation changes later - someone uses their turn to engage the monster - I adjust.
Regarding the number of hits, I think I've said it to you before: only monsters with multiple attacks will damage more than one PC on a fail. You should make clear who's being attacked at the start of a round. If people are moving around, I usually rule that the first character attacking a one-attack monster is at risk. If someone moves into melee after that, and attempts to stab it like some kind of opportunistic, kill stealing thief, it's a risk free attack.
More questions from William & Polly Shires, moved from another thread: And I realize now that something is confused, besides myself. +Eric Nieudan, you say elsewhere a few things on Not-Initiative and Who Gets A Turn. Can I try to precis you and you tell me if I'm right?
ReplyDeleteYour concept is:
(A) Mr. Monster does not ever actually get a turn of his own, but
(B) His "turn" must be accounted for, ie his action in the round described, unless such "turn" is moot because Mr. Monster already "took a turn" in the form of being provoked into dealing damage to a PC by that PC failing in her action.
Is this correct?
If it is, does the accounting for the unprovoked Mr. Monster include giving him an attack? I'd say so, in part because otherwise Mrs Player Character can game the system by never attacking the obvious badass and thus never being exposed to his attack. And also because I just don't like it, and I doubt that it's what you intend.
If it is incorrect, could you clarify...again? Sorry.
I don't see it like this. Actually I don't really think of turns:
At the start of a fight, I tell the players what the monsters are doing, and who's affected by their actions. I just go around the table, telling player A there's two goblins charging her, and player B that she's being targeted by a couple more goblins with javelins. I also say that the shaman is casting a spell. Then the players tell me what they do about that and we resolve things.
If the shaman's spell wasn't resolved in one of the player's actions - maybe A and B wanted to deal with their respective, and more immediate, threats first ; maybe the spell wasn't targeting either of them - then I describe what the spell does. If it was actually a fireball cast at the characters, well I ask them to save for it.