PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Options, Brute Force, and Mobflation



TooManySecrets
2011-02-13, 09:27 AM
There's something that been bothering me for a long time and I've found it hard to put into words. It basically comes down to my feeling that gaining levels should increase the options available to you but shouldn't really increase brute force nearly as much. My complaint is sort of similar to the concept of "mobflation", a term first used in MUDs and spread to MMORPGs. Mobflation is used to describe how certain games "add" content by changing models and upping the stats i.e. instead of facing a 10 HP Orc it's now a 1,000 HP Red Orc. Combat isn't any more interesting - the Red Orc is still just smacking you with a sword - it just takes longer.

The thing is, is that mobflation also seems to afflict PCs. A 20th level PC doesn't fear a 1st level commoner, not because the PC is a highly skilled martial artist who can easily spin the commoner around, trip them, and then jump away laughing, but because even if the PC lowers all their defenses, it will still still take the commoner 8 minutes of punching the PC in the face to knock the PC unconscious (assuming 1d4 damage and the PC has 200 HP and assuming the commoner hits an AC of 10 every round). That just strikes me as wrong - like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion where when facing an archer you end up looking like a pin cushion with 20 arrows in you and you're barely down to 3/4 of your health.

So, on the one hand, I want it so that even a larger-than-hero can get killed by somebody stabbing him while he's sleeping and a horde of zombies is still enough of a threat to give them pause (without having to make them zombie dragons). On the other hand, I want characters to be able to face down demon lords with clever tactics.

I think, in many respects, that what I want is to never have to say "Yeah, his saving throws are high enough that all your abilities won't work. You're going to have to just beat him until he dies or you die."

I'm aware of E6 and what I'll probably end up doing is some homebrew for E6, but I want to hear insights that anybody else might have. How do you handle mobflation? How do you let characters continue to gain new abilities without increasing brute force at the same time?

Eldan
2011-02-13, 09:37 AM
It helps if you think about how you view hit points, not as wounds, but as luck, determination, parrying, skill, and so on. That level 20 is not lowering all his defences, he still has his hit points. If he wanted to lower all his defences, he'd just get stabbed.

Perhaps, in addition to going E6, you might look at Vitality and Wound points, over the SRD. It's an alternative system that emphasizes the above a bit more.

faceroll
2011-02-13, 09:53 AM
HP inflation is about the only thing that really changes between level 1 and 20. Things like BAB, skills and saves are relatively trivial, imo, compared to what you can get from spells, class features, ability score pumping, and feats.

I mean, you can come up with level 5 builds that can compete with level 20 builds in anything from shooting lasers to underwater basketweaving. I think it's what makes 3.x so fun.

TooManySecrets
2011-02-13, 09:55 AM
It helps if you think about how you view hit points, not as wounds, but as luck, determination, parrying, skill, and so on. That level 20 is not lowering all his defences, he still has his hit points. If he wanted to lower all his defences, he'd just get stabbed.

That's the standard explanation. I also think it stinks, mostly since it raises far too many questions than it answers. Why do cleric spells regain HP? Why does bed rest and Heal checks regain HP? Why does fast healing regain HP?

I appreciate the suggestion - it is, after all, always easier to change one's concept than to delve into the creation of new rules - but I just don't agree with it. Plus, even if I did, the mechanics are still the same which means I still have the same problem of mobflation.


Perhaps, in addition to going E6, you might look at Vitality and Wound points, over the SRD. It's an alternative system that emphasizes the above a bit more.

I'm aware of it, but Vitality/Wound makes the game a bit too gritty for my liking. Part of the problem is that it makes it so that a large number of attacks are potentially deadly - just have to get a critical hit - and nobody likes being on the receiving end of that. Having a long drawn out fight, slowly taking and inflicting deeper wounds on each other, before finally going down - that is an acceptable death. Dying in the 1st round of combat because your opponent rolled a 20 on their first attack is not acceptable, at least by the way I want my game to run.

EDIT:

HP inflation is about the only thing that really changes between level 1 and 20. Things like BAB, skills and saves are relatively trivial, imo, compared to what you can get from spells, class features, ability score pumping, and feats.

I mean, you can come up with level 5 builds that can compete with level 20 builds in anything from shooting lasers to underwater basketweaving. I think it's what makes 3.x so fun.

You're right in that HP inflation is probably the biggest thing, but damage is also inflated. And, yes, I do think that they can both be inflated.

Eldan
2011-02-13, 09:59 AM
So, you want it so that large mobs are dangerous, but not deadly? How exactly do you think they can be dangerous if they don't have a chance to eventually kill a PC? That just seems contradictory to me.

Worira
2011-02-13, 10:03 AM
Personally, I view hitpoints as pints of blood.

TooManySecrets
2011-02-13, 10:14 AM
So, you want it so that large mobs are dangerous, but not deadly? How exactly do you think they can be dangerous if they don't have a chance to eventually kill a PC? That just seems contradictory to me.

Let's take two different cases of abstract games:
Game One
Player A and Player B have d20s. They take turns rolling. Whoever gets a 1 first loses.

Game Two
Player A and Player B are each given from a deck of cards an Ace, King, Queen, and Jack. Ace beats King, King beats Queen, Queen beats Jack, and Jack beats Ace. Each player picks a card, places it face down, and reveals it at the same time, records who wins, and discards the used cards. This continues until all cards are used. Whoever won more rounds, wins.


In Game One, the outcome is essentially random. This is, in many respects, the equivalent of the type of battle in D&D where both parties have high enough saves that they only fail on a 1. Both parties sling Save-or-Dies at each other until somebody rolls poorly - an entirely random outcome over which they have no control - and dies.

In Game Two, while there is an element of randomness, there is an element of tactics as well. It's all about outguessing your opponent while they're trying to do the same. The outcome is still not entirely deterministic, but the players are more often punished for bad decisions than bad luck.


So, no, I don't want "dangerous but not deadly". I want "deadly if using the wrong tactics, but merely dangerous otherwise".

EDIT:

Personally, I view hitpoints as pints of blood.

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/4061/emotawesome.gif

unless you're serious, in which case, care to explain?

Lord_Gareth
2011-02-13, 10:17 AM
Personally, I view hitpoints as pints of blood.

Are you kidding? I measure hit points by the gallon.

Draculmaulkee
2011-02-13, 10:28 AM
Are you kidding? I measure hit points by the gallon.
The SI unit for blood is liters guys.


In responds to the OP, 3.5 d&d isn't very good at approximating real-life heroes. It is a lot easier to choose a more realistic system than to correct the many ways in which 3.5 strays from reality

EDIT: I must have clicked send reply instead of preview.

Remember that hp is just a metagame concept, reflavor it however you think best.

TooManySecrets
2011-02-13, 10:30 AM
In responds to the OP, 3.5 d&d isn't very good at approximating real-life heroes. It is a lot easier to choose a more realistic system than to correct the many ways in which 3.5 strays from reality

Except that I'm not really looking for realistic heroes. I'm looking for ways to combat mobflation and related concepts.

Eldan
2011-02-13, 10:32 AM
Let's take two different cases of abstract games:
*snip*

True enough, and I know that much (and a little more) of game theory.
Now, yes, a critical hit can kill you with VP and WP. But that's already the case in low level D&D (whether or not that's a good thing is another discussion). However, there's still a lot of options in every combat. Disarm your enemies. No weapons, no crits. Entangle them, bull rush them off cliffs, pick them off with ranged weapons. Trap them.

Lord_Gareth
2011-02-13, 10:33 AM
The SI unit for blood is liters guys.

I'm American, dangit, and I like my math dirty!

[My chem class did a lab with Imperial units once. Just. Once. We took made the teacher sign a legally binding contract before a notary public promising to never do that to us again.]

WinWin
2011-02-13, 10:38 AM
For one thing, people should stop attempting to make mechanics that only really function in CRPG's trying to work in TTRPG's. This is a paradigm designers need to wrap their heads around.

One step forward in rpg design was 4e's attempt at differentiating monsters and their abilities from characters and their abilities. The success of that design element is open for debate, but the intent was there.

Finding a balance point for not only monsters, but the classes that face off against them is challenging. Especially when part of the appeal of RPG's is character customsation. You have to provide meaningful options for player characters while at the same time making those options balanced against challenges the players will face. Not just balanced for you and you playtest group either, but balanced for anyone that tries their hand at the system.

At one end of the spectrum, you have a sack of hitpoints, with a pitiful attack facing off against high defence heroes that can deal massive damage and heal huge chunks of health fairly often.

At the other end of the spectrum you have critters that can pick off the heroes one (or more) at a time if they are not extraordinarily careful. Combat is lethal and has lasting repurcussions. Even a clumsy mook can deal a crippling blow to an unlucky or unprepared character.

I have played a few systems and few ever had the balance you are talking about. oWoD, SR 2-4e, CoC, Runequest and all iterations of D&D. All have had their moments. After a time, all those games tend to one of the extremes listed above.

If anyone comes up with a balaced system with math that functions perfectly after a couple of months of character advancement and customisation, let me know. I'll buy it.

TooManySecrets
2011-02-13, 10:43 AM
Now, yes, a critical hit can kill you with VP and WP. But that's already the case in low level D&D (whether or not that's a good thing is another discussion).

Didn't say that I liked that.


However, there's still a lot of options in every combat. Disarm your enemies. No weapons, no crits. Entangle them, bull rush them off cliffs, pick them off with ranged weapons. Trap them.

Yes, I agree. However, these abilities become less and less useful the higher you go up in levels. Now, if you focus on one of those abilities you can still be somewhat effective, but you can't focus on them all. At some point, it comes down to beatstick + one option. That's assuming that that option can even be used. Natural weapons can't be disarmed, so if you're a dedicated disarmer too bad. Entangling, grappling, and similar works - as long as they don't have access to freedom of movement. Bull rushers won't have cliffs in every encounter and monsters tend to end up being far bigger than the bull rusher making it almost impossible to do so.

See, I like all those things you mentioned. That's why I'm trying to figure out how to stop them from being obsolete.

EDIT:

I have played a few systems and few ever had the balance you are talking about. oWoD, SR 2-4e, CoC, Runequest and all iterations of D&D. All have had their moments. After a time, all those games tend to one of the extremes listed above.

If anyone comes up with a balaced system with math that functions perfectly after a couple of months of character advancement and customisation, let me know. I'll buy it.

This is similar to the boat I'm in. I would really appreciate it if you could expound upon your experiences.

linebackeru
2011-02-13, 11:08 AM
You want your character:

-To be afraid of getting stabbed with a pointy thing, regardless of level
-To not be invincible against attacks from large numbers of peons
-To gain combat options, tactics and abilities as his level increases
-To not just hit harder as he gets to higher level.

Sounds like you want to play a Wizard.

TooManySecrets
2011-02-13, 11:19 AM
-To be afraid of getting stabbed with a pointy thing, regardless of level

Not quite. I want the character to be afraid of getting stabbed if they make the wrong decision.


-To not be invincible against attacks from large numbers of peons
-To gain combat options, tactics and abilities as his level increases
-To not just hit harder as he gets to higher level.

Yes, yes, and yes.


Sounds like you want to play a Wizard.

Oh jeesh, no. Wizards have no problem with hordes. They also hit harder as they level - 1d6, usually, in fact - far more than non-spellcasters do. Not to mention that they have just as much problem with having interesting combat options - most of the interesting spells have saving throws, which means the Wizard needs to make a decision between having an interesting effect that has a 75% of being resisted, an effect that has the same chance of being resisted but instantly kills the target, or an effect that doesn't allow a saving throw and just does damage. That's not really all that much of a choice.

linebackeru
2011-02-13, 11:33 AM
My post was mostly a joke. It seems like, overall, the problem is "it's no fun to play a melee character". Maybe ToB maneuvers go some of the way toward fixing the lack of options?

WinWin
2011-02-13, 12:18 PM
The first serious experience I had with rpg's in highschool was with my older brothers Runequest boxed set.

I thought it was fantastic at the time. Customisation of a character based upon their experience and also their background/early life. I think it was the possibilities that the game offered that made it appealing. Unfortunately, the game was clunky, required lots of rolling for basic tasks and exploits. One thing above else was that the combat was lethal.

Seriously. Even facing off against a mook you could lose an arm. I remember one character had both legs broken blocking an overhead blow from a giant with his shield. That was a successful defence. You spent all that time crafting a character only to get mangled in your first serious combat.

1st long campaign was 2e D&D. Using Skills and Powers critical hit systems. The two-handed sword wielding fighter had lost an arm by the second game but struggled on. My wizard got both hands bitten off by an Annis in some dungeon and was reduced to being the party door opener (knock had no somatic components). The other wizard bled out after a lucky sling shot from a kobold and the Paladin struggled to 9th level only to have his hip broken and get coup de grace'd by some 1hd hobgoblin in a random encounter. Once the party level hit 7, the casters began to dominate the game though. Very similar to my D&D3 experience, but with much more abuse of magic. Eggshells with hammers.

Fun. But in hindsight it was a pretty crappy game and not for everyone.

My WoD experience has been pretty varied, but encounters are either trivial, a grind or lethal. It's completely unbalanced. Mind you, my group was more interested in playing Superheroes and Monsters than the type of game the rulebooks suggest.

My 4e experience...How can I put this. The game becomes tedious at times, but it mainly because of the minor situational boni that everyone has to keep track of. I am convinced that an all-controller party would be unstoppable, but it would slow the game down to a crawl. It lacks the risk and some of the inherent exitement of other games I have played. It is still a good way to have fun though. Solo monsters suffer from Mobflation, but there is usually something else going on during the combat to make the game exiting. That has more to do with good DMing than any inherent property of the game though.

PinkysBrain
2011-02-13, 12:43 PM
I think the anime Bleach is one of the best examples of how D&D works. If you need muscles, tendons, joints and bones to move your arms you're clearly just not badass enough.

PinkysBrain
2011-02-13, 12:48 PM
So, on the one hand, I want it so that even a larger-than-hero can get killed by somebody stabbing him while he's sleeping and a horde of zombies is still enough of a threat to give them pause (without having to make them zombie dragons).
So what kind of options do you want to give them?

Clearly not AoE damage, or the zombies are toast. Clearly not area control effects, or they can deal with the zombies one by one. Clearly not invisibility. Clearly not flight.

What exactly? Just higher non flatfooted AC?

AshDesert
2011-02-13, 02:48 PM
To avoid the Oberoni Fallacy let me say that Mobflation is a big flaw in almost every RPG with levels and/or skills that you increase over time (read: most of them). However, it is possible for the DM to design encounters to make them interesting and threatening without just increasing numbers so you're doing the same thing, just taking longer.

Have factors outside of the combatants that affect combat. In other words, don't have all of your fights in flat, featureless plains or in 20x20 rooms with only the players, the monsters, and nothing else. Environmental hazards, cover, murder holes in the ceilings and walls, and flaming bottles of oil (http://www.tuckerskobolds.com/) can all be used to make combat more exciting and dangerous.

Tucker's Kobolds wouldn't work in 3.5, due to the fact that everyone has enough HP to laugh off crossbows and fire, on top of any spells your casters might be using (seriously, Sculpted Wind Wall would trivialize that whole encounter), but it's still a good lesson. Play smart to force your players to play smart.

WinWin
2011-02-13, 06:34 PM
Tuckers Kobolds were not the adventure.

They were a speed bump on the way to the adventure. They were salt in the wound on the way out of the adventure. They were not supposed to be the main focus of the campaign, rather a recurrent hazard. That works just fine in 3.5 unless the PC's are scrying and teleporting to all of their encounters. The campaign usually falls apart or requires a gentlemans agreement long before that ever happens.

Urpriest
2011-02-13, 09:04 PM
The problem is that real combat is gritty, pretty much by definition. Real heroes don't square off against someone for minutes, whittling away: they simply go down in an essentially random flurry.

Now you've already said that you don't care to make the game realistic. And that's fine. But that means you need another model for what combat should be. And that model has to be something your players will actually think about as looking like combat. You've ruled out reality and the most common games. The only other combat archetype is fiction.

And that's where the problem lies. Fiction doesn't have rules for combat. In fiction, combat goes at the speed of plot, and threats are as big as they are important to the story. So really what you need is a game in which battles last as long as they need to to get their point across, a game that runs on the power of plot. This is...tricky, mostly because different players will have different ideas of where they want the plot to go.

However, it is something that gets worked on occasionally, even if it's not the dominant RPG paradigm. I have the impression that Mouse Guard, for example, works roughly like this. Anyone more experienced with it care to comment?