Facing matters. I'm not talking about subjective alignments or the players themselves, but their characters' position relative to other creatures on the table. I find that it makes sense for Sneak Attack to work if a character sneaks up from behind, and not just from flanking or being first in the initiative order.
The first complaint that I usually get about this house-rule is that it makes 3.5 seem like a tactics game. This, by the way, is coming from people who prefer 4th ed. and shouldn't throw stones at other peoples' glass houses. Anyways, I'm not exactly talking about implementing a full on tactics game into 3.5, but I really do like to have a tiny bit more internal realism in my games than most of the players want or expect. (Yes, I did, in fact, test to be almost completely an Explorer on the Bartle Test.) I think that if someone stabs you in the back, it should count as a backstab. I'm personally rather uncomfortable with the mental image the 'rules as written' gives of a creature constantly spinning around in place. Now, it would surprise you to know at this point that I run many combats without the use of miniatures or a grid when I use this house rule. "How do the players manage to remember where they were?", you ask. It just comes down to the people at the table paying attention to the game. I just want the player to know and to tell me where they are in relation to everything else.
I used to always take the time to describe the environment in great detail to the players so that they weren't in a featureless 10x10 room. Then my players stopped being new to the game, and didn't care what was in the room anymore because they seemed to have forgotten that the environment affects them, even when it is not a trap or hazard. If I don't setup a room, it's probably for a reason such as the characters aren't supposed to know yet or I'm not feeling up to it. That means you can ask away for something to be in there, it will probably 'have always been there'. I appreciate the help, and have only occasionally gotten requests that I denied. For example, if I do setup a room complete with lavish description and the characters and creatures involved can see everything, I see no reason for a player to suddenly ask if there is an oak tree in the middle of the castle dungeon because they forgot to grab an acorn or something five minutes ago.
I like my players to say, "Hey, Erik, are there boxes or something tall enough to take cover behind?" or, "I think that this room could use/would likely have _". That's just good logic on part of the players and it makes me feel that they care enough about my game that they pay attention to which side of the room that dresser was on without having to have a picture of a dresser in a room with diagrams of every little thing in it, because if they forget it was there in the first place, they can't pick up the gems that the Count put in his underwear drawer for safekeeping. Not that I always stash valuables in every hiding place, but I do want to reward my players for actually role-playing by exploring and interacting within the world I set up. This is something I do because I want the reward to be the story itself, but sometimes it takes a bit of role-playing XP to keep them coming back to the table so we can get to the thick of the plot.
The second complaint is a much easier one to resolve. This being that the house-rule works for everyone, not just the PCs. Usually a good "Because I'm the DM." is appropriate and reasonable enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment