Dave Noonan explains why they decided to make characters never die in 4th Edition

[Oslecamo]

Problem: 1st level characters can be killed by housecats.

Solution: Increase HP outside of the "be killed by a housecat" range.

Reaction: 4e has taken away all forms of death and ruined D&D for everyone, forever.

Of course, no one seem to be mentioning that while at 1st through 3rd levels, where you are getting the "hp cushion" you may live longer, at higher levels that cushion stops mattering as much when the DM can drop a single leader monster surrounded by 12 "mooks" that all crit on a 20. That's crit, not "threaten a critical" ala 3e, but an actual critical hit. At higher level, the "mooks" get progressively tougher and hit progressively harder. Since the DM makes more to hit rolls, statistically he is rolling more crits, more crits is more damage, more damage is more dead/unconcious PCs.

So really I am not seeing a convincing arguement that 4e is somehow "less dangerous" than 3e, it's just less likely to cause fluke TPKs.


You also clearly aren't seeing the 3e rules.

In 3e a crit multiplies the TOTAL damage of the attack, exccept specific stuff like sneack attack and skirmish and some

However, strenght bonus, power attack, weapon specialization, weapon enanchments, all that the damage is all multiplied in a crit.

So, for example, a simple orc with an orc greataxe can cause up to 45 damage with a critic. Average 27 damage. He is CR 1/2, but his crits can outright kill characters of much bigger level.

In 4e, only the dices are maximized, and this leads to a crit hurting a lot less than a 3e crit.

For example, a monster whose basic attack deals 1d12+10 damage.

4e-crit deals 22 damage.

3e-crit deals 32 damage. Could go up to 44. Minimum 22.

When we start to add stuff such as monsters with both bigger multipliers and bigger crit range at the same time like the Tarrasque then a single critic will hurt a lot.

So yes, crits are much more dangerous in 3e than in 4e, even if they are scarcer.

[nagora]

For example, a monster whose basic attack deals 1d12+10 damage.

4e-crit deals 22 damage.


Interesting. That's exactly how I've run crits (ie, a natural 20) in 1ed for about 25 years. But I still don't use the crit rule at all until 3rd level characters are involved.

[Rutee]

I feel that ruling death out as an option is limiting and ultimately undermines the value of everything else in a heroic fantasy game like D&D (which is the subject of this thread). I also don't ever use "mooks"; that's just lazy plotting in books or games.

Even in a non-heroic setting, removing something as fundimental to the human condidtion as death is so severly distorting that I can't understand the attraction nor the assertion that the characters in such a setting can be anything except cardboard cutouts dressed to look like people.
You would be wrong about it undermining the value of heroic fantasy; The simple fact is that we never really get a true feeling of danger for everyone, unless you're very young and naive. We have pretty good bets on the male and female leads making it out, and we sure as heck know that if there's a child in the cast, they will be A-Okay. I won't debate that it feels odd to you, but it isn't really that unusual in fantasy, for death to only happen when it would make a statement. The most normal statements are that A: The Big Bad is just that evil, and B: to show that a particular thing is worth dying for. Since PCs are too important for A, that leaves them with B. There are others, but I don't have the inclination to list them all. If to you that makes them cardboard cutouts, well, whatever. We're not obligated to play with each other. But you're dictating beliefs to me and Dan, and I'm equally unobligated to listen to that.


And the same goes for giving players total control on determing how those characters develop or react to crises. That removes another fundimental of live - external (social and environmental) pressures. In life, we all have to do things we don't want to do. We all suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune; we all fail our saving throws from time to time and have to deal with bad luck. If a character chooses what s/he is affected by then they're not really a role, they're just a linear description of a life, and a very unlikely life at that.
Later on, you give an explanation that the GM solving things without rules to the contrary (Specifically, that a housecat can kill commoners by RAW) is a great solution. A GM is a player, albeit the first among equals. Why is their solving fundamental problems without rules superior to another player doing so?

And for that matter, they are very much a role. Which is more likely to understand your character; dice, or you? The GM, or you? A playwright does not roll dice to determine reactions; They decide based on what's appropriate to the characters.


Of course, one can explore in an RPG the possibility of what it would be like in a world without death or luck but it seems to me that that's not the sort of thing we're talking about on this thread.
You're arguing against a statement that was never made. Nobody here has advocated that people never die. They have advocated that PCs do not die unless appropriate. As the cool kids have taken to saying on this forum lately, "This is a straw man argument". Further, what you claim to be 'luck', isn't. There isn't generally any doubt in stories. Heroes typically die in /dramatic/ situations, not because the BBEG used Finger of Death and the Hero failed their save. One example that comes to mind is Ghim, of Record of Lodoss War, who /does/ effectively get hit with Finger of Death, but fail his save. The character could have survived if they had simply allowed themselves to collapse and be tended to after the fact (Assuming the party didn't TPK, which was a real threat); He instead chooses to keep on fighting, and strikes the critical blow that defeats the BBEG. He then gets a dramatically appropriate death.
There are many outcomes from combat and other dangerous situations that are not death, and sometimes they are more interesting, and sometimes they are not, as you say. But sometimes the price of folly and the price of bravery alike is death and if the character is well-developed then that death is likely to be a much more powerful statement than a fudged and unrealistic survival.[/QUOTE]
Exacting death for folly is almost never narratively interesting. It removes the possibility of learning from one's mistakes, or for a character to suffer appropriately for those mistakes. People confuse the impulse to punish stupid people with the idea of good writing. As for bravery, if death appropriately undercuts one's actions, sure, it can be an appropriate risk. Don't expect me to have that risk on the table at every turn though. It's gotta be dramatically appropriate.

[Reel On, Love]

Character death is more all-or-nothing now. Easier stabilization and 'standing up' of PC's makes individual character death much rarer, and introducing the threat of which more difficult, meaning that for the most part, in order to threaten any character with death, you must threaten all characters with death. This leads us right back to "Combat is boring until it becomes likely to TPK you" territory.

Or you could have a monster stab someone who is in the negatives. Uh-oh.

Also, 4E combat seems a lot more mechnically and tactically exciting than 3E's. Which means that you have something other than "I might die!" (and let's face it, in most 3E encounters that's not happening either) to make sure you aren't bored... which is how it should be. The game should be fun to play.



Interesting. That's exactly how I've run crits (ie, a
natural 20) in 1ed for about 25 years. But I still don't use the crit rule at all until 3rd level characters are involved.
Heh. This is ironic, given all your "the game must be deadly, or you're a limp-wristed nancy-pants who's not MAN ENOUGH to roll dice around a table."

Why don't you use crits until third level, nagora? Is it because they're... too randomly deadly?

[Saph]

I get that a lot of people don't want their character's psychological state to be determined by a dice roll. The thing is that it's exactly the same logic which makes me dislike my character's death being determined by a dice roll.

This is a bad equivalence, because psychology and physics do not work in the same way.

Seeing something horrific happen in front of you can have a very large number of plausible psychological consequences. It can have an immediate effect, a delayed effect, no long-term effect at all - it can make a person more good, more evil, mentally tougher, mentally more unstable, and various other things in between.

Having a nuclear bomb go off in front of you, however, has only one plausible consequence, namely, that you are dead dead dead.


My preferred playstyle is one where the significant changes in your character's life come about as a result of a conscious decision on the part of the player, not as the result of a random dice roll - just like you don't like to be told "You got a 93, now you're a drug addict" I don't like to be told "you got a 1, now you're dead."

But as various people have been pointing out, it's part of the essential nature of combat that there is a non-negligible chance of the participants getting killed. That's what combat is. That's also why combat is exciting.

I have no problem with people who want to play games that don't involve the risk of death, but in that case I'd strongly recommend that they don't play games that involve combat. If someone wants to play games that involve battles and fighting and killing, but wants to be immune to being killed themselves, then . . . well, to be honest, it strikes me as a bit childish. "I should be able to do this to other people, but no-one should be allowed to do it to me." If you can't stand the idea of character death, why not just play something where death doesn't come into the game at all?

- Saph

[Artanis]

Using a spell in an encounter is not DM fiat, at least no more than any other encounter. Inventing a spell is. My example was in fact assuming use of the rules as written, as internet discussions are wont to do. This is because we know that any system can be theoretically fixed by the DM - so bringing it up is kind of pointless. What's important is how much work the DM needs to do what must be done with the system.
And my point is that it's possible for the encounter you describe to take less work in 4e. Let me explain why:

Say a 3e DM wants an encounter that boils down to "roll a 20 or be dominated". Well, he can go through the books and find a bunch of Air Bud clauses that says he can make Artifact X that can be used by Ridiculously Overpowered BBEG Y to cast Spell Z on a PC. It looks all legal and proper, but it still boils down to him creating an encounter that lets him say "Sauron gets a power that lets him force you to roll a natural 20 or be dominated. Now get rolling!"

Or, a 3e DM can just say, "Sauron gets a power that lets him force you to roll a natural 20 or be dominated. Now get rolling!"

A 4e DM can just say, "Sauron gets a power that lets him force you to roll a natural 20 or be dominated. Now get rolling!"

All three have the same amount of DM fiat and DM-screwing-the-players-for-the-hell-of-it involved. All three have the same amount of abuse of Air Bud clauses. And all three have the same end effect.

[Starsinger]

And my point is that it's possible for the encounter you describe to take less work in 4e. Let me explain why:

Say a 3e DM wants an encounter that boils down to "roll a 20 or be dominated". Well, he can go through the books and find a bunch of Air Bud clauses that says he can make Artifact X that can be used by Ridiculously Overpowered BBEG Y to cast Spell Z on a PC. It looks all legal and proper, but it still boils down to him creating an encounter that lets him say "Sauron gets a power that lets him force you to roll a natural 20 or be dominated. Now get rolling!"

Or, a 3e DM can just say, "Sauron gets a power that lets him force you to roll a natural 20 or be dominated. Now get rolling!"

A 4e DM can just say, "Sauron gets a power that lets him force you to roll a natural 20 or be dominated. Now get rolling!"

All three have the same amount of DM fiat and DM-screwing-the-players-for-the-hell-of-it involved. All three have the same amount of abuse of Air Bud clauses. And all three have the same end effect.

All very true, most of the time when I run 3e stuff I don't bother with the first scenario.. I just make stuff up, saves time and hassle.. Besides, the rules are merely guidelines on that side of the DM screen.

Also.. what's an Air Bud clause?

[Artanis]

Also.. what's an Air Bud clause?
Basically: "There's no rule specifically saying we can't, so it must be totally alright for us to do so!"

It refers to the movie Air Bud, where the characters use just such a loophole to let a dog play on their basketball team.

[nagora]

Heh. This is ironic, given all your "the game must be deadly, or you're a limp-wristed nancy-pants who's not MAN ENOUGH to roll dice around a table."

Why don't you use crits until third level, nagora? Is it because they're... too randomly deadly?

I introduced them at players' request but, since monsters get the same damage rules as PCs, I do indeed not use them at low level because they're too randomly deadly.

I don't like random or arbitrary death in a game. But, I'll say it yet again, if the characters choose to go into danger then that danger should not be nurfed. And saying that they can't die until they feel like it is much more arbitrary than allowing danger to harm or even kill them.


The simple fact is that we never really get a true feeling of danger for everyone, unless you're very young and naive. We have pretty good bets on the male and female leads making it out, and we sure as heck know that if there's a child in the cast, they will be A-Okay.

So what you're saying is that we should all be playing out tired, hackneyed stories where nobody's expectations are challenged? I see nothing in your statement which is either false or aspirational. It's just a list of things that are wrong with lazy and banal writing writing.


Later on, you give an explanation that the GM solving things without rules to the contrary (Specifically, that a housecat can kill commoners by RAW) is a great solution. A GM is a player, albeit the first among equals. Why is their solving fundamental problems without rules superior to another player doing so?

It's their job. That's what the GM is there for. They are playing the game but their part in that game is totally different from the players'.



Nobody here has advocated that people never die. They have advocated that PCs do not die unless appropriate.

Actually, the argument was that players should not be challenged - that challenging the players is not what an RPG is for. Removing death was simply the major point at which such a bizarre attitude becomes crystallised into something easy to discuss.


There isn't generally any doubt in stories.

So what? Stories aren't games, in fact a major reason for playing a game instead of reading/writing a story is that a story is so linear and restricted. The game allows other things to happen.

This seems to be the central issue - you want to stretch the term "role-playing game" to include collaborative story writing. They are different things and indeed different skills.

[nagora]

It looks all legal and proper, but it still boils down to him creating an encounter that lets him say "Sauron gets a power that lets him force you to roll a natural 20 or be dominated. Now get rolling!"

Or, a 3e DM can just say, "Sauron gets a power that lets him force you to roll a natural 20 or be dominated. Now get rolling!"

A 4e DM can just say, "Sauron gets a power that lets him force you to roll a natural 20 or be dominated. Now get rolling!"

All three have the same amount of DM fiat and DM-screwing-the-players-for-the-hell-of-it involved. All three have the same amount of abuse of Air Bud clauses. And all three have the same end effect.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Another is that Sauron would obviously dominate any character apart from, basically Aragorn because of who he is. But the DM's decideed to throw the players a chance. He's not screwing them, he's being soft on them.

A lot of people see saving throws as screwing the players when they are often exactly what it says on the tin: an extra chance to save the character from something that logically would not be avoidable. Saving throws are no more screwing the players than giving them hit points is.

[Artanis]

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Another is that Sauron would obviously dominate any character apart from, basically Aragorn because of who he is. But the DM's decideed to throw the players a chance. He's not screwing them, he's being soft on them.

A lot of people see saving throws as screwing the players when they are often exactly what it says on the tin: an extra chance to save the character from something that logically would not be avoidable. Saving throws are no more screwing the players than giving them hit points is.
I totally agree, but unfortunately that's not the point of contention.

The point of contention is that Indon argues that both dominating a character AND giving him further chances to break free is totally, categorically impossible in 4e (in turn making the entire encounter utterly impossible to create). I, on the other hand, am arguing that it is, in fact, possible simply because the sheer amount of DM fiat already involved makes mechanics pretty much a moot point.

[Rutee]

So what you're saying is that we should all be playing out tired, hackneyed stories where nobody's expectations are challenged? I see nothing in your statement which is either false or aspirational. It's just a list of things that are wrong with lazy and banal writing writing.
Heh. Cute. Arbitrary chances of death aren't something that adds to a narrative.



It's their job. That's what the GM is there for. They are playing the game but their part in that game is totally different from the players'.
No, a GM plays the setting. Players play the characters. Their parts aren't that different, and it's a falsehood that so many games have perpetuated that they are.



Actually, the argument was that players should not be challenged - that challenging the players is not what an RPG is for. Removing death was simply the major point at which such a bizarre attitude becomes crystallised into something easy to discuss.
Wow, no. The argument is that a challenge exists without an arbitrary chance of death. Don't misinterpret things too much here.




So what? Stories aren't games, in fact a major reason for playing a game instead of reading/writing a story is that a story is so linear and restricted. The game allows other things to happen.
Linear and restricted? When the players can decide so much? Are you sure those words mean what you think they mean?



This seems to be the central issue - you want to stretch the term "role-playing game" to include collaborative story writing. They are different things and indeed different skills.
It already does include it. You just seem to be laboring under the impression that you /can't/ do it this way.

[nagora]

Heh. Cute. Arbitrary chances of death aren't something that adds to a narrative.


Narrative has no place in an RPG, it's an artifact of authored fiction. Narrative is what makes fiction linear and pre-determined. It is the antithesis of role-playing. Narrative should only exist in the backstory or the NPCs.


No, a GM plays the setting. Players play the characters. Their parts aren't that different, and it's a falsehood that so many games have perpetuated that they are.

Say's who? The GM plays the NPCs and designs the setting and ultimately decides what is "realistic" for that setting, overriding or extending the rules as needed to do that. The players do not get to do that last part, which is a big difference. If the players do get to do that part then we're back to just telling stories around a fire and EVERYTHING is arbitrary.



Wow, no. The argument is that a challenge exists without an arbitrary chance of death. Don't misinterpret things too much here.


There are a great many people who don't play RPGs for the "challenge".
...
That's great. I prefer to actually play the character I want to play from the start, and not fight the DM and the system just to play the damned game I wanted.

So, someone is clearly not interesting in being challenged, even if it's not you.



Linear and restricted? When the players can decide so much?

When the players can decide so much the result is linear, just as with an author writing a book. If the person/people controling the characters know in advance what is going to happen (you know, like "we sure as heck know that if there's a child in the cast, they will be A-Okay") then the result is as straight as an arrow no matter how you dress it up semantically.


It already does include it. You just seem to be laboring under the impression that you /can't/ do it this way.

Calling two different things by the same name is pure Humpty-Dumpty, but nobody can stop you.

[Rutee]

Narrative has no place in an RPG, it's an artifact of authored fiction. Narrative is what makes fiction linear and pre-determined. It is the antithesis of role-playing. Narrative should only exist in the backstory or the NPCs.
Could you repeat that a little louder? I don't think the increasing market share of games with that as their intent heard you, but I'm sure if they did, they'd kowtow to the all-knowing Nagora, whom dictates things he's clearly never heard of.



Say's who? The GM plays the NPCs and designs the setting and ultimately decides what is "realistic" for that setting, overriding or extending the rules as needed to do that. The players do not get to do that last part, which is a big difference. If the players do get to do that part then we're back to just telling stories around a fire and EVERYTHING is arbitrary.
The only reason the GM can do this is because the other players allowed it. A social contract is at work, and it is not unreasonable for a GM running things outside his players' satisfaction to find their priveleges revoked. It's called "Finding a new game".






So, someone is clearly not interesting in being challenged, even if it's not you.
I would contest that he refers to the "Challenge" of living, and that he still wants to see interesting events occur that his character may or may not want to overcome.




When the players can decide so much the result is linear, just as with an author writing a book. If the person/people controling the characters know in advance what is going to happen (you know, like "we sure as heck know that if there's a child in the cast, they will be A-Okay") then the result is as straight as an arrow no matter how you dress it up semantically.
So when you play games, all of your characters' reactions are completely up to the dice?



Calling two different things by the same name is pure Humpty-Dumpty, but nobody can stop you.

Interesting euphemism. No, I'm sorry, your experiences are just too narrow, apparently.

[nagora]

Could you repeat that a little louder? I don't think the increasing market share of games with that as their intent heard you, but I'm sure if they did, they'd kowtow to the all-knowing Nagora, whom dictates things he's clearly never heard of.

Okay, I'll repeat it louder. Narrative is puppetmastery - that's its purpose in a story. Characters controlled by narrative are puppets, not fully-formed roles that can be played. To allow narrative to push the characters forward and decide the outcome of their actions is a mockery of role-playing. It is, however, what drives books and films forward. But they are passive linear entertainments.

Role-playing was and is intended to be much more than that. You are advocating a step back to predictable and banal plots where everyone knows from the off what the result is going to be - you even said so! Even the very first proto-D&D dungeon crawls were better than that! You keep referring to what "isn't really that unusual in fantasy" as if the fact that stories are often predictable is a reason to make game sessions predictable too.

Perhaps that's why the "ever larger market share" is still a shadow of what 1ed AD&D sold twenty years ago? By making new systems that are MORE like computer games and MORE like books, and less and less challenging to the players the question arises "why not just play a computer game or watch a film?; it's even easier and has the same end result". It's a question that new designs have not successfully answered.

What you are calling role-playing is simply not. But as I said, nobody can stop you or anyone else calling such a crippled, limited, narrative constrained system "role-playing", or calling it "chess" for that matter, for it is no less related to that game.

[Winterwind]

Narrative has no place in an RPG, it's an artifact of authored fiction. Narrative is what makes fiction linear and pre-determined. It is the antithesis of role-playing. Narrative should only exist in the backstory or the NPCs. Role-playing basically amounts to telling the part of the story that is concerned with one specific character. As such, when the players decide that X happening or Y happening would befit their chosen characters and the story as a whole best, this is role-playing. And it is narrative.


Say's who? The GM plays the NPCs and designs the setting and ultimately decides what is "realistic" for that setting, overriding or extending the rules as needed to do that. The players do not get to do that last part, which is a big difference. If the players do get to do that part then we're back to just telling stories around a fire and EVERYTHING is arbitrary.Actually, I have seen games like that - freeform RPGs where it were the players, not the GM, who decided whether their actions succeeded or not (and by the way, the decision was not always "they do"), and the GM explicitly encouraged the players to take over as many decisions regarding their character as possible.
I don't see how "arbitrary" could possibly apply to that style of playing though. A dice roll is arbitrary, it can go either way, no matter what the most entertaining result would be. A human decision as to what shall happen next? It's exactly what the human thinks the situation calls for.


When the players can decide so much the result is linear, just as with an author writing a book. If the person/people controling the characters know in advance what is going to happen (you know, like "we sure as heck know that if there's a child in the cast, they will be A-Okay") then the result is as straight as an arrow no matter how you dress it up semantically.It would be, if it was just one player involved - in which case this would indeed amount to writing a story. However, since there are several players (and usually a gamemaster) involved, the result is quite the opposite - dynamic and spontaneous, as noone can predict what additions to the story the other participants will make.


Calling two different things by the same name is pure Humpty-Dumpty, but nobody can stop you.She doesn't. Roleplaying games can be played in a lot of more ways than you claim.
By the way, by your definition freeform roleplaying games would not qualify as games at all...

EDIT:

Okay, I'll repeat it louder. Narrative is puppetmastery - that's its purpose in a story. Characters controlled by narrative are puppets, not fully-formed roles that can be played. To allow narrative to push the characters forward and decide the outcome of their actions is a mockery of role-playing. It is, however, what drives books and films forward. But they are passive linear entertainments. Making own additions to a story and changing it is passive?


Role-playing was and is intended to be much more than that. You are advocating a step back to predictable and banal plots where everyone knows from the off what the result is going to be - you even said so! Even the very first proto-D&D dungeon crawls were better than that! You keep referring to what "isn't really that unusual in fantasy" as if the fact that stories are often predictable is a reason to make game sessions predictable too.Why predictable? How can a story spun by several people be predictable? If the gamemaster suddenly reveals that some NPC was somebody entirely different that the players thought thus far, or introduces some other plot twist, how is this predictable?


Perhaps that's why the "ever larger market share" is still a shadow of what 1ed AD&D sold twenty years ago? By making new systems that are MORE like computer games and MORE like books, and less and less challenging to the players the question arises "why not just play a computer game or watch a film?; it's even easier and has the same end result". It's a question that new designs have not successfully answered.No; the games lack freedom and social interaction (in a roleplaying game, you can do what you want; a game offers very limited solutions usually), and the film lacks interactivity on top of that.

[Rutee]

Okay, I'll repeat it louder. Narrative is puppetmastery - that's its purpose in a story. Characters controlled by narrative are puppets, not fully-formed roles that can be played. To allow narrative to push the characters forward and decide the outcome of their actions is a mockery of role-playing. It is, however, what drives books and films forward. But they are passive linear entertainments.
You are misunderstanding the concept. Just because a narratively uninteresting option isn't generally taken doesn't mean that we actually know what's going to happen in any meaningful sense, compared to you.


Role-playing was and is intended to be much more than that. You are advocating a step back to predictable and banal plots where everyone knows from the off what the result is going to be - you even said so! Even the very first proto-D&D dungeon crawls were better than that! You keep referring to what "isn't really that unusual in fantasy" as if the fact that stories are often predictable is a reason to make game sessions predictable too.
You have drawn irrational conclusions. From "Main Characters don't usually die", you cannot then draw "Therefore, the plot will always be some awful railroad."



Perhaps that's why the "ever larger market share" is still a shadow of what 1ed AD&D sold twenty years ago? By making new systems that are MORE like computer games and MORE like books, and less and less challenging to the players the question arises "why not just play a computer game or watch a film?; it's even easier and has the same end result". It's a question that new designs have not successfully answered.
What a surprise that they have less then 100% Market Share. They outsell 1e DnD just fine, when they're not indie.



What you are calling role-playing is simply not. But as I said, nobody can stop you or anyone else calling such a crippled, limited, narrative constrained system "role-playing", or calling it "chess" for that matter, for it is no less related to that game.
In the words of John Cleese, Good Morning.

[nagora]

You have drawn irrational conclusions. From "Main Characters don't usually die", you cannot then draw "Therefore, the plot will always be some awful railroad."

So, do you know that you're going to succeed or not when the scenario starts? Do you get to decide whether you are going to succeed or not?

If either of thos is a "yes" then it's railroading by another name. Players railroading the GM is just a novel form of it.



What a surprise that they have less then 100% Market Share. They outsell 1e DnD just fine, when they're not indie.

I was talking of sales figures, not share. However, 1ed AD&D was hardly the only game on the markey 20 years ago.

[Reel On, Love]

Okay, I'll repeat it louder. Narrative is puppetmastery - that's its purpose in a story. Characters controlled by narrative are puppets, not fully-formed roles that can be played. To allow narrative to push the characters forward and decide the outcome of their actions is a mockery of role-playing. It is, however, what drives books and films forward. But they are passive linear entertainments.
I don't think you really understand what "narrative" means. You apparently don't understand what roleplaying means, either.

Consider Polaris (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12354.phtml), which has no GM and a predetermined outcome (it's "a tale of utmost tragedy"--the protagonist dies, or he becomes corrupted and joins the forces of the Mistaken, or the world ends)... and is nevertheless an RPG, and a much more intense one than most.

"Narrative" is not puppet-mastery any more than randomly rolling your outcomes or your behavior is. In RPGs, we play roles *in context*, and if I'm playing a pulp hero in a pulp-adventure game, that context is that of pulp adventures... which includes a certain kind of narrative, certain themes, etc. For example, a whole bunch of minions might be shooting at my character, but he can still pick them all off one by one, because he's a pulp hero and they're minions. This doesn't interfere with the role I'm playing--it enhances it.


Role-playing was and is intended to be much more than that. You are advocating a step back to predictable and banal plots where everyone knows from the off what the result is going to be - you even said so! Even the very first proto-D&D dungeon crawls were better than that! You keep referring to what "isn't really that unusual in fantasy" as if the fact that stories are often predictable is a reason to make game sessions predictable too.
First of all, how you get to your destination is as or more important to some players than what that destination is (and whether it's predetermined or random). They're interested in playing their characters on the way to that destination.
Besides that, a certain amount of predictability is a good thing. Your game sessions are predictable, too. For example, I predict a random level 40 archmage won't suddenly appear and ash the party to a crisp. That's unspoken mutual agreement at work, there. Narrative codifies those kinds of things--and several more specific things. I don't think you'd enjoy a game where a random level 40 archmage--or a dragon flying by--randomly kills you off. Similarily, other people don't enjoy games where a lucky critical by Goblin #15 kills them off.


Perhaps that's why the "ever larger market share" is still a shadow of what 1ed AD&D sold twenty years ago? By making new systems that are MORE like computer games and MORE like books, and less and less challenging to the players the question arises "why not just play a computer game or watch a film?; it's even easier and has the same end result". It's a question that new designs have not successfully answered.
Are you kidding? Yes, they have. This is just showing, yet again, that you're completely uninformed about game design (probably because you think 1st-edition AD&D is THE ONLY WAY, and anything else is NOT AN RPG).

AD&D sold more twenty years ago than various games do now *because there's a whole damn lot more stuff on the market*. There's games that cater to all kinds of tastes. The hobby has become bigger and more diverse.


What you are calling role-playing is simply not. But as I said, nobody can stop you or anyone else calling such a crippled, limited, narrative constrained system "role-playing", or calling it "chess" for that matter, for it is no less related to that game.
It's not? And here I thought it involved playing the role of a character.

You don't get to define RPG, nagora. You have a very grognard-y, primitive view of them, and that seems to totally cloud your perception in terms of game design... but you still don't get to decide what's an RPG and what isn't.

The way you play is not the only way to play. You need to get over that.

[Winterwind]

So, do you know that you're going to succeed or not when the scenario starts? Do you get to decide whether you are going to succeed or not?

If either of thos is a "yes" then it's railroading by another name. Players railroading the GM is just a novel form of it.Scenario? What would that mean? It's not like the players have any idea what is going to happen (again - it's not quite as predictable as you are believing it to be) - how could they decide they succeed at something without knowing what it is?

In freeform, they may possibly decide whether the action they are currently attempting succeeds or not, but that doesn't say anything about where the story as a whole is heading, and hence doesn't exactly seem like railroading to me, either.

[Rutee]

So, do you know that you're going to succeed or not when the scenario starts? Do you get to decide whether you are going to succeed or not?

If either of thos is a "yes" then it's railroading by another name. Players railroading the GM is just a novel form of it.
Actually, since Railroading is defined as the GM putting the players on the rails, neither of those is, by definition, a railroad, provided the players agree.
That said, to answer the questions, I can not remember a situation where the scenario had only one interesting option, so no. And I couldn't tell you, because Success is not inherently more (Or less) interesting then failure, in a void.




I was talking of sales figures, not share. However, 1ed AD&D was hardly the only game on the markey 20 years ago.

You would still be wrong, sales figures wise. And you would be confusing "Quality game system" with "Really good marketing and Social Pressure" in any case, in regards to current DnD. I'm surprised to learn there were other RPGs at DnD's inception, but if so, that just gives me less reason to hold inherent respect for it being 'first'.

[Reel On, Love]

So, do you know that you're going to succeed or not when the scenario starts? Do you get to decide whether you are going to succeed or not?

If either of those is a "yes" then it's railroading by another name. Players railroading the GM is just a novel form of it.
Contrary to popular (or rather, *your*) belief, "am I going to succeed?" is not the be-all end-all of roleplaying. Roleplaying is what your character does and how they do it. It's playing your character's role. You know something? If my level 20 fighter picks a fight with a level 5 goblin warrior, I know I'm going to succeed as long as I decide to succeed (i.e. I don't intentionally miss my attacks, stab myself, etc). The mechanics of the system guarantee that.
Does that mean I can't roleplay while I do it?

Look, a D&D campaign with a BBEG ends, pretty fundamentally, in one of two ways: the players kill the BBEG, or they don't. Look, that's two possibilities to Polaris' three (Death, Fall, and Apocalypse), I guess all D&D campaigns are inherently railroading.

Railroading isn't about whether you succeed or not, it's about what you do and how you do it. If it was just about success, we wouldn't roleplay, we'd just roll some dice and call it a day.


I was talking of sales figures, not share. However, 1ed AD&D was hardly the only game on the markey 20 years ago.
It was a whole damn lot closer to it than D&D is now. RPGs have gone through a *lot* of development and innovation since then. Most of us are content to use what's been learned about game design rather than clinging to the one way that most people played 20 years ago.

[Indon]

The point of contention is that Indon argues that both dominating a character AND giving him further chances to break free is totally, categorically impossible in 4e (in turn making the entire encounter utterly impossible to create).
No, I'm was saying Domination is unlikely to be a power in the 4'th edition rules as written, unlike how Dominate Person is a spell written in a rulebook of 3'rd edition, and requires no houseruling to use, and even that was an insignificant side-point which is absolutely absurd to contest.


I, on the other hand, am arguing that it is, in fact, possible simply because the sheer amount of DM fiat already involved makes mechanics pretty much a moot point.

It is not DM fiat to have a spellcasting NPC cast a spell, at least not by the definitions of most individuals.


Or you could have a monster stab someone who is in the negatives. Uh-oh.
Or maybe the Cleric might go in between a monster knocking someone out and killing them, at which point he uses his ability to revive them. Now nobody is in the negatives to stab.


Also, 4E combat seems a lot more mechnically and tactically exciting than 3E's. Which means that you have something other than "I might die!" (and let's face it, in most 3E encounters that's not happening either) to make sure you aren't bored... which is how it should be. The game should be fun to play.
Or it might just be 3E but with less options for characters to make and more predictability, which is neither more mechanically or tactically exciting. Yes, it may seem nice... but it's new. The test if a system is interesting is what happens once you start getting used to it.


Heh. Cute. Arbitrary chances of death aren't something that adds to a narrative.

Yes it does - it adds significance to the actions of the characters. Only if goblins are deadly does it become a significant action for one of the young, idealistic villagers to say, "I'm standing by them!" during the village council meeting which leads to a touching moment whereby you suddenly go from being outnumbered by goblins 10 to 1, to 2 to 1 with a much better chance of survival. If goblins are just fodder for anyone with a sword than the village council is just going to be all, "Yeah, yeah, and take the militia with you. Why did we hire you again?"

[Rutee]

Yes it does - it adds significance to the actions of the characters. Only if goblins are deadly does it become a significant action for one of the young, idealistic villagers to say, "I'm standing by them!" during the village council meeting which leads to a touching moment whereby you suddenly go from being outnumbered by goblins 10 to 1, to 2 to 1 with a much better chance of survival. If goblins are just fodder for anyone with a sword than the village council is just going to be all, "Yeah, yeah, and take the militia with you. Why did we hire you again?"
Why are you confusing NPC with PC? Just because they're not lethal to the players doesn't mean they're not a legitimate threat to others. And if the players went out of their way to turn this into an army meeting, I'd probably make them lethal; As I said before, mooks as a standalone are only made legitimate encounters if it would be an interesting encounter. I'd probably add in a Goblin General, and the focus of the encounter would probably not /just/ be on defeating the goblins, but on coordinating with the villagers and militia to help them. Hm, that might be interesting from a mechanics perspective as the GM, since you don't want to let the villagers die from a simple story perspective, and it'd be nice if that was something of a point, but they can't be helpless in any sense or I'd just be punishing the PCs for having allies (As the theoretical DM of OotS often does).

[nagora]

I don't think you really understand what "narrative" means. You apparently don't understand what roleplaying means, either.

Oh, touche!


"Narrative" is not puppet-mastery any more than randomly rolling your outcomes or your behavior is. In RPGs, we play roles *in context*, and if I'm playing a pulp hero in a pulp-adventure game, that context is that of pulp adventures... which includes a certain kind of narrative, certain themes, etc. For example, a whole bunch of minions might be shooting at my character, but he can still pick them all off one by one, because he's a pulp hero and they're minions. This doesn't interfere with the role I'm playing--it enhances it.

If the outcome of that is down to the players to decide then it isn't role-playing, it's just wish-fulfillment. The reason it's not role-playing is that you're not playing a role, you're just repeating a cliche, marking out inevitable steps towards a forgone conclusion. Cardboard cutout heroes.

Obviously, people play carboard cutouts in all types of RPG, but it seems to me from watching some sessions of story-weaving systems, and reading accounts of sessions, that the lack of real challenges - the lack of any possibility that the players will be thwarted in their goals - forces the players into 1-dimentional thinking. Polaris is a nice example of this thinking, where the system tries to allow a bit of room for defeat - it has a conflict system! with dice! - by instead restricting the player's choice of goals to a tiny set of very similar options - death or madness. Perhaps a nice one-off, but totally devoid of any opportunity for complex character development.



First of all, how you get to your destination is as or more important to some players than what that destination is (and whether it's predetermined or random). They're interested in playing their characters on the way to that destination.

I am too. Characterisation is the most important thing to me when I play any RPG (and I have played many). But real characters grow from interaction with an outside world. And "interaction" means dealing with it, not just shaping it in a cooperative socialist melange of arbitrary and self-serving decisions. Failure is hardly ever an option in these story-systems (rule 1: always build, never block). No rounded character ever grew out of that and no player can really play a role so shallow and static, only changing as the ponderous mechanical hand of the fiat-driven plot heaves itself over to point out that the alloted amount of time has been spent talking to the princess about her shoes for you to have fallen in love (possibly with the shoes).

That's why luck and dice enter most games, even ones (like the ones I normally play) where the dice might be rolled one night in four. Because luck, good and bad, is a vital part of life. Without it you have caricatures, not characters.


Besides that, a certain amount of predictability is a good thing. Your game sessions are predictable, too. For example, I predict a random level 40 archmage won't suddenly appear and ash the party to a crisp. That's unspoken mutual agreement at work, there. Narrative codifies those kinds of things--and several more specific things. I don't think you'd enjoy a game where a random level 40 archmage--or a dragon flying by--randomly kills you off.

A random and whimsical "You lose, no save" is materially different from:


Similarily, other people don't enjoy games where a lucky critical by Goblin #15 kills them off.

Put yourself in danger and deal with the possible consequences. That's just part of life; take it out of a game and once more the characters become travesties and the story meaningless. Characters without consequences are not real characters they're just more wishing. It doesn't have to apply to life-or-death situations, that's just a particularly easy type of situation to discuss.


The hobby has become bigger and more diverse.

It has become more diverse but it has shrunk in terms of total sales and number of players. Although, players find it easier to get together now due to the net.


Look, a D&D campaign with a BBEG ends, pretty fundamentally, in one of two ways: the players kill the BBEG, or they don't. Look, that's two possibilities to Polaris' three (Death, Fall, and Apocalypse), I guess all D&D campaigns are inherently railroading.

Who's out of touch now? Yes, that's a crap campaign. So what? Any DM who tried that in our group would be laughed at.

Some outcomes of campaigns I have been involved in included: achieving sentience, raising someone else's family, marrage, restoring my soul after it was sold by my father, finding my long-lost sister, establishing a circus of performing fungi, finding true friendship, and stealing the secret of gunpower from the elves.

Defeating BBEGs along the way is a side-show to the character development, although the questions of sacrifice and risk that they entailed were of course much more important than the defeat of the being.


It's not? And here I thought it involved playing the role of a character.

Neither of which you can do without a real character to play.



You don't get to define RPG, nagora. You have a very grognard-y, primitive view of them, and that seems to totally cloud your perception in terms of game design... but you still don't get to decide what's an RPG and what isn't.

I'm not - you are trying to stretch the meaning to cover something new which has only a surface similarity to an RPG but which is actually the sort of thing RPGs have been a welcome alternative to. I'm not attempting to validate my actions by sticking something else's name on them.

Call it what you like - freeforming, story-telling, story-weaving, story-quilting - but don't walk about trying to say that not only is it role-playing but some super-superior form of role-playing for those with particularly refined minds (I know, I'm referring to Dan here not you) and expect those of us who actually role play characters to take it quietly.


The way you play is not the only way to play. You need to get over that.

I play in many ways in different systems (I've focused on D&D here because it was the topic of the thread) and styles. But I do always try to play a character, not a script.

[Rutee]

You know, as arrogant as I am, I'm not /quite/ up to the task of claiming only my way can possibly be right and hold meaning.

[Kioran]

You know, as arrogant as I am, I'm not /quite/ up to the task of claiming only my way can possibly be right and hold meaning.

Nagora didn´t do that. He does, however, quite rightfully claim that "roleplaying" means playing a character under outside constraints - either those set by the other players, or, more effective, unbiased and less dominated by metaplay influence, by rules and dice.
The plight of Arlind Tarn, Courier in the crown prince´s bodyguard, on her way to locate a missing princess, becomes more interesting, and thus a roleplaying challenge, if the outcome of her endeavours is uncertain. If it´s certain, you´re not playing a role, you are building a character or persona. Big difference, because that role is an entity beyond your full control (it´s intent is under your control, but not it´s power or the consequences or results of it´s decisions).

The Dice might force your character in a different direction than originally planned (Arlind gets mauled by dogs in the second fight of the day.......), at which point you as a player have to partially conform to the demands of the role (lying bleeding in the street instead of pursuing the princess´ maidservant)....That´s roleplaying, not pure storytelling.

That´s what he meant, and I fully agree. Only by introducing a neutral thrid party not bound by metagame constraints (random, lady luck, the fickle finger of fate, death) can characters and their roles exceed the original concept.

[Reel On, Love]

So, this is what I'm getting here:

1) A character you don't like--because they're "too cliche", for example (something that happens as easily... I'm tempted to say more easily... in D&D as in narrativist games)--isn't really a real character, so playing their role isn't really roleplaying. While we're at it, a Spirit of the Century character can never be more than a cardboard cutout.

2) Reacting to situations created partially by the interaction of the dice and the game rules, rather than to situations created by you, by the plot, by another player, or by the GM, makes your characters inherently more complex and realistic than those of anyone who's ever played a narrativist game. While we're at it, it's only *really* roleplaying if it's in response to failure, and the falure doesn't count if it's failure the player wanted the character to deal with rather than failure he rolled.
2.5) Because of the above, a character who never succeeds at anything is the best roleplaying possible.

3) Because you need a strong random element to create a believable, complex character, you are a better roleplayer than people who don't (and in fact, they aren't roleplayers at all, unless they use them anyway).

[Dan_Hemmens]

This is a bad equivalence, because psychology and physics do not work in the same way.

Combat damage and physics is also a bad equivalence. Death in D&D has nothing to do with physics.


Seeing something horrific happen in front of you can have a very large number of plausible psychological consequences. It can have an immediate effect, a delayed effect, no long-term effect at all - it can make a person more good, more evil, mentally tougher, mentally more unstable, and various other things in between.

And having somebody swing a sword in your general direction can have a very large number of plausible physical consequences. It can miss you entirely, you can parry it, you can suffer a fatal wound, or a flesh wound, it can provide you with an opening in which you can defeat or disarm your opponent.

What's the difference?


Having a nuclear bomb go off in front of you, however, has only one plausible consequence, namely, that you are dead dead dead.

I absolutely agree. Which is why I would not want to be put in a situation where a nuclear bomb goes off in front of my character as a result of a random die roll.

You're misrepresenting the way the combat system works. It's understandable, because most RPG combat systems require people to mentally rearrange the sequence of events to produce a pleasing narrative, but the sequence of events you describe is this:

1) Your character suffers a fatal injury.
2) Your character takes a large amount of damage as a result of this fatal injury.
3) Your character is reduced below -10 HP.
4) Your character dies.

In fact the sequence of events is this.

1) Your character suffers a large amount of damage.
2) Your character is reduced below -10 HP.
3) The injury your character suffers is now described as fatal
4) Your character dies.

Your argument is that if the system does not dictate when PCs die, PCs can survive events which should be fatal to them. But, crucially, it is the system which determines when a fatal event occurs.

How are these two situations verifiably different in character:

1) A high level D&D PC is being executed. The executioner makes his Coup de Grace attack, but the PC passes his fortitude save. The DM narrates this as "as the executioner's axe whistles down, you dart aside at the last second, but his axe cuts a deep gash in your shoulder."

2) A PC in a game where death is not dictated by the system is being executed. The player says "as the executioner's axe whistles down, I dart aside at the last second, but his axe cuts a deep gash in my shoulder."

Notice that I don't ask "why do you think this system is better resolved by a saving throw", I ask "how is there a difference between the two which you can determine in character". The same events happen, they are narrated the same way. The only difference is that in the first case the events are dictated by the dice and narrated by the DM, while in the second they are dictated and narrated by the player.

Now I get that you prefer the first method of resolution. That's not the argument. The argument is that you cannot say that the dice will inevitably give more realistic or believable results than the player. Particularly not in a system which has little to no room for realism in the first place.


But as various people have been pointing out, it's part of the essential nature of combat that there is a non-negligible chance of the participants getting killed. That's what combat is. That's also why combat is exciting.

I quite agree. I just think that my character's chance of getting killed should depend on the chance of me deciding that my character should die now.

Just like you like your character's chance of developing a drug addiction to depend on your decision to make your character a drug addict.


I have no problem with people who want to play games that don't involve the risk of death, but in that case I'd strongly recommend that they don't play games that involve combat. If someone wants to play games that involve battles and fighting and killing, but wants to be immune to being killed themselves, then . . . well, to be honest, it strikes me as a bit childish. "I should be able to do this to other people, but no-one should be allowed to do it to me." If you can't stand the idea of character death, why not just play something where death doesn't come into the game at all?


Please don't call me childish, it's offensive and contrary to forum guidelines.

As for avoiding combat. Again you're missing the point.

Let me try to put it another way.

Suppose my character is a fighter. Suppose as part of my backstory, I wanted my character to have fought in a particular battle. Would you expect me to roll dice to see if my character survived an event that was supposed to have taken place long in his past? If he took part in a battle, there would be a chance of him dying in it, so shouldn't I roll for his survival (like in traveller).

Assuming that you wouldn't make me roll to survive my character's backstory, why is my character's current story any different? Why is it okay for me to write "during his apprenticeship, my character blundered a ritual spectacularly and was nearly sucked into the Abyss" on my character sheet, but if I blunder the same ritual in "uptime" I have to have a real chance of being sucked into the abyss.

And again, I get that some people like there to be a "real" risk. I'm genuinely confused that those people play D&D, where the encounters scale automatically to your level and a hundred foot drop isn't particularly dangerous. I'm just trying to suggest that maybe, just maybe removing the risk of death won't do any more harm than removing all of the other risks which nobody seems to have batted an eyelid over.

[Dan_Hemmens]

So, this is what I'm getting here:

1) A character you don't like--because they're "too cliche", for example (something that happens as easily... I'm tempted to say more easily... in D&D as in narrativist games)--isn't really a real character, so playing their role isn't really roleplaying. While we're at it, a Spirit of the Century character can never be more than a cardboard cutout.

2) Reacting to situations created partially by the interaction of the dice and the game rules, rather than to situations created by you, by the plot, by another player, or by the GM, makes your characters inherently more complex and realistic than those of anyone who's ever played a narrativist game. While we're at it, it's only *really* roleplaying if it's in response to failure, and the falure doesn't count if it's failure the player wanted the character to deal with rather than failure he rolled.
2.5) Because of the above, a character who never succeeds at anything is the best roleplaying possible.

3) Because you need a strong random element to create a believable, complex character, you are a better roleplayer than people who don't (and in fact, they aren't roleplayers at all, unless they use them anyway).

You forgot to add "and if you disagree you know nothing about roleplaying" and of course "if you disagree it's because you want all the games you play to be nothing but childish ego stroking."

[Reel On, Love]

That comes later. I'm still working on the part where if I'm playing a role that's cliche--like a gruff Dwarven axe-and-shield fighter who is tough as nails and drinks ale a lot--I'm not actually roleplaying, despite the fact that I'm playing the role. I never knew that there were standards to meet before playing a role becomes roleplaying.

[Indon]

So, this is what I'm getting here:

I guess you skimmed over my posts. So I'll recap what my points have been (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4048148&postcount=114).

-Tactical focus on a game means the best tactician is going to dominate the game, be it DM or player. Either way, it's going to screw up the CR system as the DM needs to either send successively more pathetic or successively better opponents against the players.

-Combats without risk - where the players aren't outmatched - will be boring. Combats with risk - where the players are either outmatched, or they've expended all of their resources - are potential TPK's. This gives DM's the undesirable choice of offering their players uninteresting snoozefests for combats, or trying to kill them over and over.

-No longer do the players have any appreciable chance of beating a long-odds encounter - combat is less risky for NPC's, as well, with the changes to the system, so just like it's less likely for a mook to kill a player, it's less likely for a player to kill an appreciably powerful BBEG. As a result, the creatures you can send into combat against the party is limited to a stricter range of difficulty.

-Because boring combats still drain resources that could be vital in a potentially dangerous combat, you can't even skip them. This puts you at the just outright bad position of needing, because of the system, to run through combats nobody wants to run through.

-Because dying is harder and being woken up when KO'ed much easier, it's even harder to threaten any given PC with death without threatening them all with death. (It's near the end of the post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4054441&postcount=249), you still haven't commented on my rebuttal to your scenario)

Edit: If you're talking specifically to Nagora, please disregard and kindly accept my apology - I'm just a bit frustrated from having made these statements so many pages ago and having almost nobody even _comment_ on them, instead choosing to focus on if Sauron can indeed cast Dominate Person without DM fiat.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Something that I am beginning to find deeply amusing.

People keep insisting that a style of play in which a player ultimately chooses whether or not to fail is childish.

Their basis for this seems to be the fact that if they were given the option, they would choose to have their character succeed gloriously all the time at everything.

They then proceed to claim that they are absolutely committed to characterization above all else and in no way interested in accumulating in-character power.

[Dan_Hemmens]

That comes later. I'm still working on the part where if I'm playing a role that's cliche--like a gruff Dwarven axe-and-shield fighter who is tough as nails and drinks ale a lot--I'm not actually roleplaying, despite the fact that I'm playing the role. I never knew that there were standards to meet before playing a role becomes roleplaying.

Not only are you not roleplaying if your character is too cliche, you're not roleplaying if your system isn't sufficiently random or if you don't die enough

In fact as far as I can tell, you aren't roleplaying if you aren't playing D&D, because nothing else has that perfect mix of strong characterization and real, genuine risk.

[Reel On, Love]

In fact as far as I can tell, you aren't roleplaying if you aren't playing D&D, because nothing else has that perfect mix of strong characterization and real, genuine risk.

Goddammit man I'm trying to keep a straight face here

[Rutee]

Nagora didn´t do that
I beg to differ. He stated that if you don't have a risk of death in a dangerous situation, things have no meaning, albeit in a more roundabout fashion. A dangerous situation can happen right now; For instance, my home might catch on fire. When the smoke detector catches this, I will then flee like a Sima with my roommates and call the fire department, if I can't put it out with the fire extinguisher. I will be at effectively no risk for death, given that my home is not very large and I will have seen the fire coming. It's still a dangerous situation, and I will be at very great risk for massive property damage.. but life and limb would (quite mercifully, I add) be fine. I /dare/ you to tell me that there was no meaning to this hypothetical event, compared to the meaning of death.


That´s what he meant, and I fully agree. Only by introducing a neutral thrid party not bound by metagame constraints (random, lady luck, the fickle finger of fate, death) can characters and their roles exceed the original concept.

Uh, no. Sorry. Completely wrong. You can exceed concept without some 'neutral' third party. Again, it happens all the time. You really need to make claims that I can't disprove by just a quick point at literature or movies.

[Reel On, Love]

I guess you skimmed over my posts. So I'll recap what my points have been (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4048148&postcount=114).

-Tactical focus on a game means the best tactician is going to dominate the game, be it DM or player. Either way, it's going to screw up the CR system as the DM needs to either send successively more pathetic or successively better opponents against the players.

The best tactician dominating the game is, IMO, a big step up from the best builder (or the guy who asked the CharOp boards) dominating the game, or the Druid dominating the game.
You're saying you don't want combat to have a tactical focus. What are the alternatives?

I don't see how it'll screw up CR. You're the DM, you can add slightly tougher monsters of play your monsters less tactically. You're also not getting CRs screwed up by whether or not the party wizard is optimized. Some players will always do better than others, and I think that if that WASN'T the case, you'd be complaining about a boring game. Furthermore, party tactics are easier to deal with than, say, the Druid being made of Win while the Samurai is made of Fail. Unlike builds, tactics have people cooperating and working together.


-Combats without risk - where the players aren't outmatched - will be boring. Combats with risk - where the players are either outmatched, or they've expended all of their resources - are potential TPK's. This gives DM's the undesirable choice of offering their players uninteresting snoozefests for combats, or trying to kill them over and over.
I don't see how this differs from anything else ever. Presumably, most combats will have some risk, just not overwhelming or nearly-nonexistent. Also, combats when you're not at a risk of death are not snoozefests for people who aren't you--you still have plenty to do... such as work tactically with your party to get the most out of the resources you use and to minimize your resource use while still keeping it safe.

I'm not sure why 3E had a variety of exciting combats, while 4E will suddenly be "snooze or TPK".

Your 4E complaints are seriously ridiculous. All of this applies to 3.5. All of this applies to a host of other systems. You're also somehow managing to assume that 4E will only have two versions of risk--"none" and "imminent TPK".


-No longer do the players have any appreciable chance of beating a long-odds encounter - combat is less risky for NPC's, as well, with the changes to the system, so just like it's less likely for a mook to kill a player, it's less likely for a player to kill an appreciably powerful BBEG. As a result, the creatures you can send into combat against the party is limited to a stricter range of difficulty.
How long-odds? The level 4 dragon vs. the level 1 party seems "long odds", and the level 1 party *did* have a chance--a few of the parties managed. Keep in mind that "3 levels above the party" doesn't translate to "CR level+3", especially at level 1. 3.5 CRs varied wildly (enemy Fighter and enemy Wizard are the same CR), but an overwhelming encounter *was still pretty unlikely*.
The 4E CRs are also easier to adjust--need more challenge? Add an Elite to that Solo monster, rather than a second Solo monster. Or maybe a group of weaker normal monsters. I fail to see how it won't be an improvement on 3.5. I also fail to see how "smaller variance of things you can send at your PCs" would, IF it were true, be inferior to "this encounter might be a piece of cake, or someone might fail a save and die. 60-40."


-Because boring combats still drain resources that could be vital in a potentially dangerous combat, you can't even skip them. This puts you at the just outright bad position of needing, because of the system, to run through combats nobody wants to run through.
Assuming there are any "boring" combats (bashing through minions with one's encounter powers could be *fun*--remember, it's only boring when there's little risk to YOU), you wouldn't be spending your dailies. What do you mean, "you can't skip them"? If you think the combat would be boring, as a DM, don't include it. How is saying "okay, you guys mop them up without using any dailies" in 4E any different from saying "okay, you guys mop them up without [expended resources types X and Y]" for any other system?


-Because dying is harder and being woken up when KO'ed much easier, it's even harder to threaten any given PC with death without threatening them all with death. (It's near the end of the post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4054441&postcount=249), you still haven't commented on my rebuttal to your scenario)
It depends on the player. In 3.5, killing the cleric and wizard means the fighter and rogue aren't going to survive the encounter. Kill everyone but the wizard and he can still teleport away.
Yes, the Leader can move to heal someone who's on the ground. And then they can still take enough damage to drop them dead... or the leader can't get there in time (because he has plenty to do, including not dying)...

It also seems like if it's harder to kill each individual character, it's *easier* to kill one character without a TPK, because the rest are more likely to be able to run away if things are going that badly.


Edit: If you're talking specifically to Nagora, please disregard and kindly accept my apology - I'm just a bit frustrated from having made these statements so many pages ago and having almost nobody even _comment_ on them, instead choosing to focus on if Sauron can indeed cast Dominate Person without DM fiat.
That's because you were saying something completely and totally ridiculous, and refusing to accept it.

Yes, I was in fact talking specifically to Nagora.

[Dan_Hemmens]

If the outcome of that is down to the players to decide then it isn't role-playing, it's just wish-fulfillment. The reason it's not role-playing is that you're not playing a role, you're just repeating a cliche, marking out inevitable steps towards a forgone conclusion. Cardboard cutout heroes.


So let's get this right.

I decide what happens: Wish fulfillment.

The dice decide what happens: Role playing.


Obviously, people play carboard cutouts in all types of RPG, but it seems to me from watching some sessions of story-weaving systems, and reading accounts of sessions, that the lack of real challenges - the lack of any possibility that the players will be thwarted in their goals - forces the players into 1-dimentional thinking. Polaris is a nice example of this thinking, where the system tries to allow a bit of room for defeat - it has a conflict system! with dice! - by instead restricting the player's choice of goals to a tiny set of very similar options - death or madness. Perhaps a nice one-off, but totally devoid of any opportunity for complex character development.

Whereas D&D is redolent with such opportunities for complex character development as "two handed weapon vs TWF" and of course "what prestige class do I pick next".


I am too. Characterisation is the most important thing to me when I play any RPG (and I have played many). But real characters grow from interaction with an outside world. And "interaction" means dealing with it, not just shaping it in a cooperative socialist melange of arbitrary and self-serving decisions. Failure is hardly ever an option in these story-systems (rule 1: always build, never block). No rounded character ever grew out of that and no player can really play a role so shallow and static, only changing as the ponderous mechanical hand of the fiat-driven plot heaves itself over to point out that the alloted amount of time has been spent talking to the princess about her shoes for you to have fallen in love (possibly with the shoes).

Your assertion that characterization is the most important thing to you would carry more weight if it wasn't the same assertion that everybody else makes.

The point you seem to be missing is that failure is absolutely an option in narrativist RPGs. It just requires that the players be mature enough to choose it for themselves.

This seems to be your block. You seem to be assuming that "the players choose how their characters fail" means "the characters never fail". This is true only if the players are interested only in the accumulation of power (which you repeatedly insist that you are not).


That's why luck and dice enter most games, even ones (like the ones I normally play) where the dice might be rolled one night in four. Because luck, good and bad, is a vital part of life. Without it you have caricatures, not characters.

I really hate playing the literature card, but your argument does actually imply that no novel can ever have good characterization.


Put yourself in danger and deal with the possible consequences. That's just part of life; take it out of a game and once more the characters become travesties and the story meaningless. Characters without consequences are not real characters they're just more wishing. It doesn't have to apply to life-or-death situations, that's just a particularly easy type of situation to discuss.

First, RPGs do not have real consequences, unless your children die in real life when you fail to save an important NPC

Second: can somebody please, please, please explain to me how "My character fails because I rolled a 1" and "my character fails because I chose to" is different to your character.

Again I get that you, personally, prefer the former. I get that you, personally, would never choose for your character to fail but please believe those of us who say that we can play, have played, and will continue to play games in which success and failure are not dictated by the roll of the dice which have not been shorn of all meaning just because nobody got killed by a lucky critical.


It has become more diverse but it has shrunk in terms of total sales and number of players. Although, players find it easier to get together now due to the net.

Where are you getting this data from?


Who's out of touch now? Yes, that's a crap campaign. So what? Any DM who tried that in our group would be laughed at.

Again, why is it out of touch to play a game which doesn't work the way you want it to.


Some outcomes of campaigns I have been involved in included: achieving sentience, raising someone else's family, marrage, restoring my soul after it was sold by my father, finding my long-lost sister, establishing a circus of performing fungi, finding true friendship, and stealing the secret of gunpower from the elves.

Were those the "outcomes of the campaigns" or were those "some crap that happened to your character in the campaign which you chose to invest in in lieu of anything else to hold on to"?


Defeating BBEGs along the way is a side-show to the character development, although the questions of sacrifice and risk that they entailed were of course much more important than the defeat of the being.

Then why did you put the damned BBEGs in there in the first place?


Neither of which you can do without a real character to play.

Yes yes, and a character can't be real unless they can get killed in a fight by a dice mechanic.


I'm not - you are trying to stretch the meaning to cover something new which has only a surface similarity to an RPG but which is actually the sort of thing RPGs have been a welcome alternative to. I'm not attempting to validate my actions by sticking something else's name on them.

You do realize how ludicrously arrogant you sound, don't you? Not only are you saying that your way of roleplaying is better than anybody else's, not only are you saying that different styles of roleplaying are "not roleplaying" you're actually saying that people who don't use the same dice mechanics as you are incapable of creating or developing interesting characters.

I mean seriously. If this wasn't the internet I'd assume this was a hoax.


Call it what you like - freeforming, story-telling, story-weaving, story-quilting - but don't walk about trying to say that not only is it role-playing but some super-superior form of role-playing for those with particularly refined minds (I know, I'm referring to Dan here not you) and expect those of us who actually role play characters to take it quietly.

And again I say: the only person here claiming that other people's styles of play are inferior is you.


I play in many ways in different systems (I've focused on D&D here because it was the topic of the thread) and styles. But I do always try to play a character, not a script.

Have you ever watched any improvisation, of any kind?

Notice how the results were unpredictable, even though nobody rolled any dice?

That's how narrativist RPGs work.

[Saph]

And having somebody swing a sword in your general direction can have a very large number of plausible physical consequences. It can miss you entirely, you can parry it, you can suffer a fatal wound, or a flesh wound, it can provide you with an opening in which you can defeat or disarm your opponent.

What's the difference?

That modelling one with dice and probabilities works, IMO, better, and modelling the other with dice and probabilities works, IMO, worse.

I'm sorry, Dan, but if you're expecting me to justify it from ground up, that's just impossible. I'm not going to write an essay for you. :P


I quite agree. I just think that my character's chance of getting killed should depend on the chance of me deciding that my character should die now.

It sounds like you prefer RPGs that don't involve dice; as soon as you bring probability into it you lose some of your control.


Please don't call me childish, it's offensive and contrary to forum guidelines.

I'm not calling you childish, since I don't know if you believe the statement I was referring to or not.


As for avoiding combat. Again you're missing the point.

Let me try to put it another way.

Suppose my character is a fighter. Suppose as part of my backstory, I wanted my character to have fought in a particular battle. Would you expect me to roll dice to see if my character survived an event that was supposed to have taken place long in his past? If he took part in a battle, there would be a chance of him dying in it, so shouldn't I roll for his survival (like in traveller).

Assuming that you wouldn't make me roll to survive my character's backstory, why is my character's current story any different?

The answer to this one is so obvious that I'm surprised you're asking me. Because the fact that you're playing this character now proves that you were not killed in that battle. Presumably, lots of other people who fought in that battle were killed; you're playing one of the ones that survived.

If you're asking why pre-time is different from uptime, the difference is that your character's background is a piece of narrative fiction that you have complete control over. (Well, up to a point. I do put some limits on backstories - no "The God-Emperor of the Universe is in love with me and is my willing slave".) Once you actually start playing the game, however, you don't have unlimited power anymore - you're subject to the rules of the game world, just like the other players are.

Not coincidentally, your deeds in the game world are thus much more impressive than your deeds in your backstory. If you tell me that your character, in his backstory, defeated three other soldiers at once, all of whom were just as strong and experienced as he was, I'm not going to be particularly impressed. If you tell me that your 200-point GURPS character defeated three other 200-point characters, all being played to their full potential, then I am going to be impressed, and I'm going to want to hear the story.

- Saph

[Reel On, Love]

The answer to this one is so obvious that I'm surprised you're asking me. Because the fact that you're playing this character now proves that you were not killed in that battle. Presumably, lots of other people who fought in that battle were killed; you're playing one of the ones that survived.
You could be rolling to see whether you survived that battle. Traveler does that. But you're not. Because you want to play a character who Survived the Battle of Bigjim.

And Dan wants to play the character who survives the battle the characters are fighting *now* and, perhaps, goes out in a blaze of glory saving all of his friends from a Boojum.

[Indon]

The best tactician dominating the game is, IMO, a big step up from the best builder (or the guy who asked the CharOp boards) dominating the game, or the Druid dominating the game.
The best builder needs only help the party one time to fix that problem. The best tactician gets to run combat for the party if he wants to do that. So now it's even more boring.


You're saying you don't want combat to have a tactical focus. What are the alternatives?
3.5 D&D. Or, heck, combat in a White Wolf game, with even less of a requirement for miniatures.


I don't see how it'll screw up CR. You're the DM, you can add slightly tougher monsters of play your monsters less tactically.
The first one is just compensating for CR being broken, which obviously occurs in 3.5, and is probably easier to do if your party is optimized at about the same level (versus 4.0, in which you need to either make allowance for differing players' tactical abilities to give them all time to shine, or let the one guy run the game again).


Unlike builds, tactics have people cooperating and working together.
They have PC's cooperating and working together. They have players dictating to the party what everyone will do.


I'm not sure why 3E had a variety of exciting combats, while 4E will suddenly be "snooze or TPK".
Because 3E threatened characters with every (theoretically - your build may vary) combat, while 4E appears to be designed not to do so. Some combats now exist solely to soften players up. How interesting is that?


How long-odds? The level 4 dragon vs. the level 1 party seems "long odds", and the level 1 party *did* have a chance--a few of the parties managed. Keep in mind that "3 levels above the party" doesn't translate to "CR level+3", especially at level 1.
A few out of what, hundreds? But you're right, that wasn't a long-odds combat, that was right on the TPK side of the small "Challenge vs. TPK" continuum. A long-odds combat would have been, say, if the dragon were level 6 or 7. One lucky crit can take out many high-CR challenges in 3.5.


Assuming there are any "boring" combats (bashing through minions with one's encounter powers could be *fun*--remember, it's only boring when there's little risk to YOU), you wouldn't be spending your dailies. What do you mean, "you can't skip them"?

If you're losing HP (and you're probably losing some), you're using Healing Surges, which are the primary daily resource attrition aims for.

So it'd be comparable to saying, "Yeah, these minions fail to deal any damage to you, go you," to skip a combat. Good when the enemies are long-shots to you (i.e. you're level 6 or 7 facing level 1 encounters), not good for when you're in the encounters designed specifically to wear you down.



It depends on the player. In 3.5, killing the cleric and wizard means the fighter and rogue aren't going to survive the encounter. Kill everyone but the wizard and he can still teleport away.

In 3.5, practically any player can be optimized to solo a wide range of equal-CR encounters - PCs of a similar level of power (the one act of helping all his friends our theoretical best PC builder did) are unlikely to encounter that problem.


Yes, the Leader can move to heal someone who's on the ground. And then they can still take enough damage to drop them dead... or the leader can't get there in time (because he has plenty to do, including not dying)...
Yes, but if everyone's doing their job, then it'll be pretty evident that the Defender is about to go down from taking damage, and the Leader should be there to handle it easily - tactics, right? That makes it more interesting.


It also seems like if it's harder to kill each individual character, it's *easier* to kill one character without a TPK, because the rest are more likely to be able to run away if things are going that badly.
Fleeing is pretty easy for most classes in most versions of D&D.


That's because you were saying something completely and totally ridiculous, and refusing to accept it.

The system does not exist in which doing stupid things should not have significant negative effects on your character.

[Saph]

And Dan wants to play the character who survives the battle the characters are fighting *now* and, perhaps, goes out in a blaze of glory saving all of his friends from a Boojum.

And that's fine. It's just that, personally, I prefer games where the players aren't guaranteed to get everything they want.

- Saph

[Dan_Hemmens]

That modelling one with dice and probabilities works, IMO, better, and modelling the other with dice and probabilities works, IMO, worse.

I'm sorry, Dan, but if you're expecting me to justify it from ground up, that's just impossible. I'm not going to write an essay for you. :P

That's fine, I'm not asking you to justify your opinion, I'm just clarifying that it is indeed an opinion and not (as some on this thread would have it) a Divine Pronouncement From On High that PC death must always be controlled by a random factor or you are not roleplaying.


It sounds like you prefer RPGs that don't involve dice; as soon as you bring probability into it you lose some of your control.

As soon as you bring other people into it, you lose control.

I don't mind the dice, but I want the dice to give me suggestions not mandates. It's why I don't like called shots, and why I actually do like Hit Points. I like the dice to give me the mechanical consequences of my character's actions, and let me and the GM work out what actually happens in character.


I'm not calling you childish, since I don't know if you believe the statement I was referring to or not.

Sorry, bit oversensitive due to some of the arguments on this thread getting overheated.


The answer to this one is so obvious that I'm surprised you're asking me. Because the fact that you're playing this character now proves that you were not killed in that battle. Presumably, lots of other people who fought in that battle were killed; you're playing one of the ones that survived.

Exactly.

I just apply the same logic to stuff that happens in uptime. The fact that I am going to continue playing this character in the future proves that I am not going to be killed in this battle. Presumably lots of other people who fight in these battles will be killed, I'm playing one of the ones who survive.

Again, not saying it's the One True Way, just that it's logical to me.


If you're asking why pre-time is different from uptime, the difference is that your character's background is a piece of narrative fiction that you have complete control over. (Well, up to a point. I do put some limits on backstories - no "The God-Emperor of the Universe is in love with me and is my willing slave".) Once you actually start playing the game, however, you don't have unlimited power anymore - you're subject to the rules of the game world, just like the other players are.

The question, though, is why the game feels the need to remove that "unlimited power" from me when the game starts.

Assuming I can be trusted not to write "the God-Emperor of the Universe is in love with me and is my willing slave" in my backstory, why can't I be trusted not to use my player-narration powers to declare "the God Emperor of the Universe falls in love with me and becomes my willing slave" halfway through the game?

Of course the fact that I couched the above question in terms of "trust" means that I've played a lousy rhetorical trick and I lose this argument. (Sorry, I just noticed what I'd done and I hate it when people play the "trust" card).


Not coincidentally, your deeds in the game world are thus much more impressive than your deeds in your backstory. If you tell me that your character, in his backstory, defeated three other soldiers at once, all of whom were just as strong and experienced as he was, I'm not going to be particularly impressed. If you tell me that your 200-point GURPS character defeated three other 200-point characters, all being played to their full potential, then I am going to be impressed, and I'm going to want to hear the story.


Ah, you see I'm not going to be impressed by either. Again, this comes down to "I don't care about the challenge." I'm not interested in having a powerful build or testing my CharOp/Strategic abilities against other players. I'm interested in playing my character.

Essentially the "game" element of an RPG seldom holds any interest for me (unless I'm consciously playing something light and competitive). I don't want to have to "earn" my character's successes, and have them fail because my build wasn't strong enough. I want my character to succeed and fail according to what seems right and plausible to me, the DM, and the group (tempered by the randomizing influence of the dice).

[Dan_Hemmens]

The system does not exist in which doing stupid things should not have significant negative effects on your character.

Systems do exist in which doing stupid things do not have significant effects on your character.

You may not like those systems, but they exist, and people play and enjoy them.

[Rutee]

Systems do exist in which doing stupid things do not have significant effects on your character.

Toon? In Nomine?

[Artanis]

The best builder needs only help the party one time to fix that problem. The best tactician gets to run combat for the party if he wants to do that. So now it's even more boring.
Did you not see where you said "if he wants to"?

If a 3e player wants to be a problem, he can be a problem. If a 3e player wants to fix a problem, he can fix a problem.

If a 4e player wants to be a problem, he can be a problem. Yet, somehow, you seem unable to comprehend that if a 4e player wants to fix a problem, he can fix a problem.


So tell me, why is a 3e player able to simply quit being a jackass, while a 4e player has a squad of ninjas holding a gun to his head forcing him to continue to ruin things?

Or will you simply continue to assert that this is a 4e-only problem despite the plain, simple fact that it applies to BOTH editions?

[Indon]

If a 4e player wants to be a problem, he can be a problem. Yet, somehow, you seem unable to comprehend that if a 4e player wants to fix a problem, he can fix a problem.

In this situation, it's a lose-lose situation. Either you get the-best-tactician-wins scenario, or one guy is essentially running combat for the players. Both are problems, so our poor player has a pretty raw choice before him.


Toon? In Nomine?

All right, I concede my earlier point. I should have told Dan_Hemmens to go play one of those systems.

[Saph]

The question, though, is why the game feels the need to remove that "unlimited power" from me when the game starts.

Well, speaking as a novelist, stories where the main character has unlimited power are pretty damn boring to read.


Essentially the "game" element of an RPG seldom holds any interest for me (unless I'm consciously playing something light and competitive). I don't want to have to "earn" my character's successes, and have them fail because my build wasn't strong enough. I want my character to succeed and fail according to what seems right and plausible to me, the DM, and the group (tempered by the randomizing influence of the dice).

The problem with this is that people will inevitably disagree on what is right and plausible. There has to be some sort of third party to resolve conflicts. And the most successful way of resolving those conflicts that RPGs have so far come up with is to use rules and dice.

Most people also find risk interesting. There's a reason that dice have been around for so long.

- Saph

[Reel On, Love]

The best builder needs only help the party one time to fix that problem. The best tactician gets to run combat for the party if he wants to do that. So now it's even more boring.
Except that people are much more likely to accept tactical suggestions than builds (since their character is *their character*, which combat action is more effective is something their character might know but they don't). I have never known a group that has one person build everybody's character. However, MOST groups already have everyone making OOC tactical suggestions. "Move over there and you'll be flanking" or "wait, delay so you can flank with me" or "ready an action for when he's spellcasting" or etc.

In the meantime, my current 3.5 group talks to each other about builds and tactics. I'm good at tactics, so I often make tactical suggestions (no, hit him with Baleful Polymorph instead). Sometimes they're listened to, sometimes they're not. I certainly can't "run the combat" for anyone who doesn't want me to. If someone thinks it's boring to do what I tell'em, they'll do what they want.

I'm really amazed at how you can take obviously good things--such as builds mattering less and *group* tactics mattering more--and turn them into OMG IT WILL SUCK.


3.5 D&D. Or, heck, combat in a White Wolf game, with even less of a requirement for miniatures.
So what you're saying is that combat being build-focused is better than combat being tactics-focused? That's... pretty out there. The guy with the powerful class smashes stuff. Even in my current game, where everyone's reasonably optimized (with varying amounts of my help), some people obviously contribute more than others. Now that the Swift Hunter has Travel Devotion, he's pumping out pretty solid damage, but the Druid and his animal companion do more and cast spells to boot (and are harder to kill). The Rogue/Swordsage is making an Unseen Seer instead--the player's good at both optimization and tactics, but his new character is going to be significantly more effective than his old one. I'm running a Warlock, and while I'm definitely contributing, I'm just as definitely contributing less than the real spellcasters.


The first one is just compensating for CR being broken, which obviously occurs in 3.5, and is probably easier to do if your party is optimized at about the same level (versus 4.0, in which you need to either make allowance for differing players' tactical abilities to give them all time to shine, or let the one guy run the game again).
It's really, really not. 4E has *team* tactics. Everyone can shine, presumably, on their own. Characters cooperating shine more together.


They have PC's cooperating and working together. They have players dictating to the party what everyone will do.
Okay. *HOW* exactly do you get your fellow players to let you dictate their actions? Because that sounds like a useful trick. I've never managed.

Anyone who takes your tactical advice is probably doing so because they want to, and don't think it makes things boring.


Because 3E threatened characters with every (theoretically - your build may vary) combat, while 4E appears to be designed not to do so. Some combats now exist solely to soften players up. How interesting is that?
Exactly. Your build will vary. Fighters are threatened all the time. Druids aren't. 4E does NOT appear designed to keep you safe regardless of what you do unless the encounter is a Solo boss. There is still risk of dying, and there's risk of using up half your healing surges and having to be more careful with the boss, or using up half your Dailies and not being as effective against the boss.

CR-appropirate 3E encounters have next to no chance of killing you as well, as long as you don't do anything really dumb. In 4E, doing really dumb things will still


A few out of what, hundreds? But you're right, that wasn't a long-odds combat, that was right on the TPK side of the small "Challenge vs. TPK" continuum. A long-odds combat would have been, say, if the dragon were level 6 or 7. One lucky crit can take out many high-CR challenges in 3.5.

CR +5 in 3.5 DOES NOT directly translate to +5 levels.
Also, a CR +5 monster is MORE likely to destroy the party than that dragon is, barring the wizard doing something stupid and and winning because 3.5 wizards can do that (which isn't a good thing). "One lucky crit" isn't gonna phase that monster, and if you need a lucky x3 crit to kill it, your odds are a few out of hundreds (hit it, miss chance, confirm, do more damage on top of that)...

If you throw a dragon with a CR of your party's level + 5 at your 3.5 party, Indon, they will die. Their "long shot" isn't any better than it would be in 4E--at least in 4E they can spam remaining dailies and don't need to confirm criticals.

A few out of a lot beat the dragon. Not all of the others TPKed--most lost a few people and retreated (gosh, I guess that happens in 4E too... so much for "snooze or TPK").


If you're losing HP (and you're probably losing some), you're using Healing Surges, which are the primary daily resource attrition aims for.

So it'd be comparable to saying, "Yeah, these minions fail to deal any damage to you, go you," to skip a combat. Good when the enemies are long-shots to you (i.e. you're level 6 or 7 facing level 1 encounters), not good for when you're in the encounters designed specifically to wear you down.
If you're losing HP, you are not necessarily losing healing surges. You might just be done a few HP, or have healing powers (per encounter, say) used up. You still haven't explained the difference between skipping 3.X combats (you don't use up some resources) and skipping 4E combats (you don't use up some resources)


In 3.5, practically any player can be optimized to solo a wide range of equal-CR encounters - PCs of a similar level of power (the one act of helping all his friends our theoretical best PC builder did) are unlikely to encounter that problem.
Great. That still doesn't make the PCs of a similar level of power. Also, where the hell are you finding people who let the optimizer of the group build their PCs for them? I'm more likely to hear "no, I want to play an Aasimar monk!" around here, and my current group might ask for advice but still builds their sheets themselves (well, but not necessarily as well as I'd do it).

That optimized Barbarian may be able to solo a CR-appropriate creature, but he's obviously not going to be as powerful as my optimized druid.



Yes, but if everyone's doing their job, then it'll be pretty evident that the Defender is about to go down from taking damage, and the Leader should be there to handle it easily - tactics, right? That makes it more interesting.
And often, the Leader will be. But sometimes, he won't be.
Tactics help make your party better. They do not let you Always Win, Just Go To Sleep. I have no idea why you think they do.


Fleeing is pretty easy for most classes in most versions of D&D.
Yeah, your non-flying, teleportless, Expeditious Retreat-less, was-just-in-melee 20-foot-move-speed fighter sure is likely to get away from that overwhelming critter.


The system does not exist in which doing stupid things should not have significant negative effects on your character.
And 4E isn't such a system. You created a DM-Fiat thingy for 3.5, then tried to argue that 4E rules can't handle the same thing. 4E DM Fiat can handle it just as easily as 3.5 DM Fiat.

[Reel On, Love]

In this situation, it's a lose-lose situation. Either you get the-best-tactician-wins scenario, or one guy is essentially running combat for the players. Both are problems, so our poor player has a pretty raw choice before him.
But good 4E tactics are *cooperative*, and having an action suggested to you is much less of an intrusion than having someone else build your character.

This idea that suddenly one player will just be dictating what everyone does is ridiculous. People don't play RPGs like that. People don't play tactical RPGs like that (it's not like 4E is the only one). People *do* talk to each other OOC about tactics and make suggestions already, and other people don't seem to mind.

The "raw choice" is one you just made up. You have absolutely no evidence for it. It doesn't seem to have come up in playtesting, or at D&D XP.


And that's fine. It's just that, personally, I prefer games where the players aren't guaranteed to get everything they want.

- Saph
Do you?
You *like* risk of death, &etc. You like leaving things up to the dice. I'm guessing that you wouldn't enjoy a game where, say, the DM fudges his rolls, because then you're not getting what you want. I'm guessing that being told "You want to play a female dwarven barbarian? Tough! You can't do that. Or that." isn't going to make you enjoy the game more.

You want different things than Dan does, and you play games that cater to the things you want out *of* a game. It'd disingenuous to suggest you like games where players aren't guaranteed to get what they want ("everything" they want is a blatant exaggeration)--you game in order to get your gaming wants met.

[Rutee]

Well, speaking as a novelist, stories where the main character has unlimited power are pretty damn boring to read.

Do you find your stories boring when you lose the ability to write them without consultation? That's what Dan meant.

[Saph]

You want different things than Dan does, and you play games that cater to the things you want out *of* a game. It'd disingenuous to suggest you like games where players aren't guaranteed to get what they want ("everything" they want is a blatant exaggeration)--you game in order to get your gaming wants met.

Oh, come on, Reel. You know exactly what I meant. Do I really need to spell it out?


Do you find your stories boring when you lose the ability to write them without consultation?

Novels and RPGs are rather different things. I enjoy reading a good novel, even though the writer is dictating what happens. However, if I'm playing in a gaming session where one person is dictating what happens, then unless that guy is an amazingly good storyteller, I'm going to get bored quickly.

- Saph

[Indon]

I have never known a group that has one person build everybody's character.
I've never known a group in which the caster was disproportionately powerful compared to the rest of the party. We're obviously talking about extreme cases, and system tendencies.


I'm good at tactics, so I often make tactical suggestions (no, hit him with Baleful Polymorph instead). Sometimes they're listened to, sometimes they're not.
In a system wherein risk is more significant, the best tactical option is more obscured, and there's more of a payoff element. If the best tactical option is pretty obvious when pointed out, why shouldn't people listen to you?

But heck, if they don't, you can be happy in the fact that you'll have the ability to show up the party all day in combat 'cause you're better at the system.


I'm really amazed at how you can take obviously good things--such as builds mattering less and *group* tactics mattering more--and turn them into OMG IT WILL SUCK.
How is decreasing the significance of character options and reducing the complexity of tactics good?

More cooperative abilities? Heck, that's nifty. But you could have those in a higher-risk system, too, and then get everything good without getting anything bad.


So what you're saying is that combat being build-focused is better than combat being tactics-focused?
As you note, there are obviously tactics being used in your games. It's only 'focusing' insofar as other interesting factors are being removed.


I have never known a group that has one person build everybody's character.


Even in my current game, where everyone's reasonably optimized (with varying amounts of my help), some people obviously contribute more than others.


Also, where the hell are you finding people who let the optimizer of the group build their PCs for them?

I think you're misunderstanding the degree of meddling that's required here - you don't need to make everyone's character from scratch to get all the characters into the same level of power - some moderate measures will do. Person_Man could talk your ear off on how to do it, though he favors houseruling when he feels it necessary, I'm sure he and others could tell you how to do it without it, particularly since you seem well on your way to doing so right now.


It's really, really not. 4E has *team* tactics. Everyone can shine, presumably, on their own. Characters cooperating shine more together.
So you're saying that it won't become evident that you're accomplishing more due to your understanding of the system than the rest of your party?


Okay. *HOW* exactly do you get your fellow players to let you dictate their actions? Because that sounds like a useful trick. I've never managed.
I explain obvious things to them, and then they take my advice. Since my group is all at roughly the same level of tactical skill (I'm only a bit ahead, and that mostly in estimating payoff chances so my advantage will shrink with 4'th edition), though, we generally always take each others' advice on such things. We won't suffer from any problems stemming from varying characters contributing more due to understanding of the system.


Anyone who takes your tactical advice is probably doing so because they want to, and don't think it makes things boring.
Dude. The person who isn't good at tactics and takes people's advice is going to be bored. He's going to be bored in 3.5 and he's going to be bored in 4.0. He's taking your advice because he knows its' good advice and he doesn't want the party to die because he's not listening to you.


There is still risk of dying, and there's risk of using up half your healing surges and having to be more careful with the boss, or using up half your Dailies and not being as effective against the boss.
There's risk for the second two things, definitely, but the risk for the first one has been hacked at from multiple directions.

And you know what? Going from, "Man, this boss is gonna be easy," to, "Well, we're gonna need a miracle which is almost definitely not going to happen," because of an otherwise boring combat isn't interesting or fun - it's being screwed over. Risk isn't fun when you see the results coming at you from a mile away, because then you're just spending all that time waiting for the hammer to fall.


CR-appropirate 3E encounters have next to no chance of killing you as well, as long as you don't do anything really dumb.

This goes against something pretty much everyone else on the thread all agrees to - 3'rd edition encounters can freakishly kill PC's.


"One lucky crit" isn't gonna phase that monster, and if you need a lucky x3 crit to kill it, your odds are a few out of hundreds (hit it, miss chance, confirm, do more damage on top of that)...

A power-attack charger Barbarian can easily turn a high-CR encounter from "OMG we're gonna die," to "Wow, I can't believe we squeaked through that!" with a crit. I think you underestimate how much damage 3.5 characters can do.


A few out of a lot beat the dragon. Not all of the others TPKed--most lost a few people and retreated (gosh, I guess that happens in 4E too... so much for "snooze or TPK").
Ah, you have a fair point. Any party can just flee to avoid a TPK. I guess that makes introducing prospective TPK's not as bad, since the players can just run away when it becomes evident they're outgunned.


If you're losing HP, you are not necessarily losing healing surges. You might just be done a few HP, or have healing powers (per encounter, say) used up. You still haven't explained the difference between skipping 3.X combats (you don't use up some resources) and skipping 4E combats (you don't use up some resources)

You don't need to skip a 3.x combat due to lack of risk because 3.x has more risk in combat. Any encounter which genuinely can not introduce risk against your party, the party can almost definitely one-round in a pretty let's-get-this-over-with manner.


And often, the Leader will be. But sometimes, he won't be.
Tactics help make your party better. They do not let you Always Win, Just Go To Sleep. I have no idea why you think they do.
Tactics are defined as what your party does in combat. Unless your DM is a better tactician than the group, and is outmaneuvering then and forcing their tactics to fail, that's exactly what it means.

The element of combat whereby a plan does not survive more than a few seconds into combat becomes less and less of a factor the less risk a system has.


Yeah, your non-flying, teleportless, Expeditious Retreat-less, was-just-in-melee 20-foot-move-speed fighter sure is likely to get away from that overwhelming critter.
Carrying the other party members in a Bag of Holding is what the Monk is for. Though, hey, you do have a good point - if a prospective TPK can outrun you in 4'th edition, how would anyone escape it?


You created a DM-Fiat thingy for 3.5,

Spellcasting. Is. Not. Fiat. It is literally the opposite, because it is in the rules as written.

[Rutee]

Novels and RPGs are rather different things. I enjoy reading a good novel, even though the writer is dictating what happens. However, if I'm playing in a gaming session where one person is dictating what happens, then unless that guy is an amazingly good storyteller, I'm going to get bored quickly.

- Saph

I should have been clearer. The "Ultimate Power" in what you quoted referred to the 'ultimate power' of retaining control over what happens to your character. Not in the character having ultimate power over the world. Your character having "Ultimate power" over their own character isn't going to dictate everything that happens.

[Reel On, Love]

Oh, come on, Reel. You know exactly what I meant. Do I really need to spell it out?
Come on yourself. You've already said that you'd hate it if a system told you, whoop! Your character's insane. How's that different from Dan not wanting it to tell him whoop! His character's dead?

[Winterwind]

And just because I feel this has not been emphasised enough yet:

The inability of dice to declare a character dead (or even the total lack of dice) does not mean that nothing bad ever happens to characters, not even that they can never die. I can neither speak for other groups, nor do I claim that this is the only or right way to play the game, but in my experience players will just as readily have their character fail at something, have them overpowered or thwarted, just because they feel that this is what should happen next - be it for reasons of logic, character development or a possibly dramatic story. Absolutely everything, without exception, that can happen to a character playing in a dice-controlled environment can just as well happen to a character playing in a fully player-controlled environment. The only difference is who makes the decisions.

Also, a player having total control about her/his character does not mean the story becomes somehow more predictable, linear or boring. Because there are several people involved, and nobody knows what the others are about to do. In any second the gamemaster could have something happen which leaves a player's character in a situation where the most sensible result in the player's eyes would be death - and players can be just as wary attempting to prevent those situations to come to pass. And if a player chooses for the character to survive in such a situation after all (which is not a certainty!), this too leads to character development - why and how did the character survive this? What did (s)he have to do to accomplish this feat? At what cost?

Really, the only difference is that it's the players now who make the decisions what the best fitting (not best for the character!) result would be, instead of the dice - and personally, I'd generally rather trust players more to make as interesting and fun decisions as possible than dice which, after all, are entirely random, and don't care about interest or fun.

[Saph]

Come on yourself. You've already said that you'd hate it if a system told you, whoop! Your character's insane. How's that different from Dan not wanting it to tell him whoop! His character's dead?

Dan asked me that exact same question not twenty posts ago, in a lot more detail, and I already answered it. Go back to arguing with Indon, Dan can look after himself.

- Saph

[ShadowSiege]

In a system wherein risk is more significant, the best tactical option is more obscured, and there's more of a payoff element. If the best tactical option is pretty obvious when pointed out, why shouldn't people listen to you?

What? How would the risk of death in a system obscure the best tactical option? That, as one robot once put, "does not compute".


How is decreasing the significance of character options and reducing the complexity of tactics good?

How is the complexity of tactics being reduced in 4e?


More cooperative abilities? Heck, that's nifty. But you could have those in a higher-risk system, too, and then get everything good without getting anything bad.

Except a high-risk system isn't necessarily bad or good. You just hold the opinion that it is good. Other people hold the opinion that the death by "LOL, failed only because a 1 is automatic fail" or the "insta-kill crit at level 1" mechanics are bad ones.


There's risk for the second two things, definitely, but the risk for the first one has been hacked at from multiple directions.

And you know what? Going from, "Man, this boss is gonna be easy," to, "Well, we're gonna need a miracle which is almost definitely not going to happen," because of an otherwise boring combat isn't interesting or fun - it's being screwed over. Risk isn't fun when you see the results coming at you from a mile away, because then you're just spending all that time waiting for the hammer to fall.

To go from "Wow this boss is going to be easy," to "Well, we're going to need a miracle," would require an interesting combat somewhere along the way. Unless the combat poses a non-trivial threat, dailies and healing surges would be conserved by an intelligent party. Just because an encounter is meant to drain resources does not mean that it is going to be boring. That would be determined by the DM when creating the encounter.


This goes against something pretty much everyone else on the thread all agrees to - 3'rd edition encounters can freakishly kill PC's.

Yeah CR = PL encounters can kill, when luck swings heavily against the party or they do something dumb. Which is exactly what Reel said.


A power-attack charger Barbarian can easily turn a high-CR encounter from "OMG we're gonna die," to "Wow, I can't believe we squeaked through that!" with a crit. I think you underestimate how much damage 3.5 characters can do.

Except the barbarian may not be able to even hit the thing except on a natural 20. Or the dent he puts in it may not be enough to turn the tide. It's all dependent on what monster the party is up against if a lucky crit can help them surpass an overwhelming challenge.


Tactics are defined as what your party does in combat. Unless your DM is a better tactician than the group, and is outmaneuvering then and forcing their tactics to fail, that's exactly what it means.

The element of combat whereby a plan does not survive more than a few seconds into combat becomes less and less of a factor the less risk a system has.

Except combat in D&D relies on luck, among other things. Tactics can only take you so far, if the dice are against you, it doesn't matter if you're the brilliant tactician and the DM hasn't won a game of tic-tac-toe in his life let alone run a tactically sound encounter.

I will admit though that a low-probability high-payoff approach will admittedly be much more quickly abandoned or resorted to (depends on the situation) in the face of death than a safer approach.


Spellcasting. Is. Not. Fiat. It is literally the opposite, because it is in the rules as written.

True, but the situation itself was fiat. Either way, the DM is going "LOL, U GET DOMNATED UNLESS YOU ROLL 20." While dominate may not be a spell accessible to wizards, I would imagine it isn't completely out the window, just as save-or-dies aren't completely gone.

[Artanis]

Spellcasting. Is. Not. Fiat. It is literally the opposite, because it is in the rules as written.
By your logic, "rocks fall, everybody dies" isn't DM fiat if you instead merely have the players trigger a falling-ceiling trap with automatic hit, 4000d100 damage, and no save. But last I checked, you would still be dropping rocks to kill the entire party just for the hell of it either way.

This is getting pointless.

/ignore

[Dan_Hemmens]

Well, speaking as a novelist, stories where the main character has unlimited power are pretty damn boring to read.

Which novels have you written, just out of interest? Anything I might have read?

The thing is (as Rutee points out below) giving me unlimited power is not the same as giving my character unlimited power.

Again you seem to make the assumption that if you let a player decide whether their character succeeds or fails, they will just say - in essence - "I roll twenties" all the time.


The problem with this is that people will inevitably disagree on what is right and plausible. There has to be some sort of third party to resolve conflicts. And the most successful way of resolving those conflicts that RPGs have so far come up with is to use rules and dice.

The problem is, the dice in most RPGs don't resolve those conflicts.

For example: My character fights an orc. Nobody believes that it is implausible that my character should win (or lose, for that matter), the dice here are not here to generate the most plausible or desirable outcome. They're just there to decide whether my character dies or not.

Another example: My character jumps headfirst from a tall tower onto hard cobblestones. Everybody agrees that my character should be dead. The dice, however, say they take a maximum of 20D6 damage, and may just walk away slightly shaken.


Most people also find risk interesting. There's a reason that dice have been around for so long.

- Saph

Again you're confusing risk and randomness. If I play chess, there's a risk I'll lose. If I play craps, there's a risk I'll lose. One is random the other isn't.

[Oslecamo]

Again you're confusing risk and randomness. If I play chess, there's a risk I'll lose. If I play craps, there's a risk I'll lose. One is random the other isn't.

Chess isn't a random game. If you lose, it is 100% your fault. There is no risk involved. Keep atention to the board, think carefully about your plays, and you win, or at least get a draw.

In D&D, the enemy geting a hail of 20s and you geting a hail of 1s will make you lose no matter what.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Novels and RPGs are rather different things. I enjoy reading a good novel, even though the writer is dictating what happens. However, if I'm playing in a gaming session where one person is dictating what happens, then unless that guy is an amazingly good storyteller, I'm going to get bored quickly.

That's the thing you seem to be missing. It's not "one guy" dictating what's happening, it's "five guys" (or girls) dictating what's happening, with the dice serving to provide a random element with which to choose between two equally interesting options.

Upthread, you said that the problem with sorting everything out by consensus is that eventually people are going to disagree over what's plausible. I absolutely agree. The thing is that traditional RPG dice systems already require that players decide what's plausible before rolling the dice.

If I fight an orc, there are several plausible outcomes. I might kill it, it might kill me, I might kill it but be horribly traumatised by the event, it might seriously injure me, we might resolve our differences peacefully.

The D&D combat system implicitly removes all the alternatives except "I kill it" and "it kills me" (with "we resolve our differences" being an option available by DM fiat or abuse of the Diplomacy rules). Essentially the rules make a judgement about which options I will find most interesting. By the rules, I am not allowed to say "actually I'm not interested in fighting this Orc, can we just assume I kill it, since I probably will anyway" or for that matter "actually, I think it would be more interesting for my character to lose this fight."

We wouldn't be rolling dice at all if we didn't already agree that "kill the Orc" and "Orc kills you" were both plausible options. The system, however, dictates that they are both desirable options. It also prevents you from considering any of the other options (like "I survive but am injured" or "I kill the Orc but feel guilty about it").

The only difference between an "indie" Conflict Resolution system and the D&D system is that instead of automatically setting the two extremes as "you kill the Orc" and "the Orc kills you" you can set them as "you kill the Orc" and "the Orc severely injures you but you live" or "the orc severely injures you" and "the orc kills you and then proceeds to kill all your friends" depending on what seems appropriate.

To put it another way, the way it works is "decide what the plausible outcomes will be, then use the rules to pick one" instead of "use the rules to decide what happens, then decide if the outcome is plausible."

Again, all of this involves moving away from the "achieve an abstract goal" definition of roleplaying. Obviously if you make the assumption that everything the players do is about completing their mission, and that the players will never choose to fail their mission, and that the only thing capable of preventing the players from succeeding in their mission is their death, then this style of roleplaying isn't going to make sense to you. For me, the mission isn't what's interesting in the first place.

RPGs, as you say, are not novels, but this brings us back to the computer game analogy. When you play a computer game, you don't roll dice to decide when you stop playing. You stop playing when you damned well want to. Sure, you might die in game, but you'll always have lives or reloads. You stop playing the game when you get bored of the game and not before. To me, getting my character killed is the equivalent of being prevented from playing a computer game. I can roll up another character, but I won't be playing the same game as before.

[Saph]

Which novels have you written, just out of interest? Anything I might have read?

Probably not. I haven't been published in America yet (of course, you could be from somewhere other than America).


Again you seem to make the assumption that if you let a player decide whether their character succeeds or fails, they will just say - in essence - "I roll twenties" all the time.

I haven't actually said this, because I don't believe it.

What I do believe is that most people, and most players, find outcomes more interesting when they can influence them, but can't determine them.


Again you're confusing risk and randomness. If I play chess, there's a risk I'll lose. If I play craps, there's a risk I'll lose. One is random the other isn't.

I don't think this is an issue in this case, since D&D combat involves both tactics and strategy (chess) and randomness (craps).


That's the thing you seem to be missing. It's not "one guy" dictating what's happening, it's "five guys" (or girls) dictating what's happening, with the dice serving to provide a random element with which to choose between two equally interesting options.

I understand that - it's just that I'm not all that keen on playing a game where the outcomes are determined as a narrative, even if the players are trying to make it interesting.


The D&D combat system implicitly removes all the alternatives except "I kill it" and "it kills me" (with "we resolve our differences" being an option available by DM fiat or abuse of the Diplomacy rules).

No it doesn't. Seriously, Dan, I wish that if you're going to talk about D&D so much, you'd play it a bit more. If you have a good DM, fights are a lot more varied than this. Is this based on your own experiences of D&D, or is it "Well, everybody knows D&D is like that, so I don't need to check it for myself"?


The only difference between an "indie" Conflict Resolution system and the D&D system is that instead of automatically setting the two extremes as "you kill the Orc" and "the Orc kills you" you can set them as "you kill the Orc" and "the Orc severely injures you but you live" or "the orc severely injures you" and "the orc kills you and then proceeds to kill all your friends" depending on what seems appropriate.

I understand how indie CR systems work. It's just that I'm not sure that the players judging on what to them seems the most appropriate outcome leads in the long run to the most interesting games.


Again, all of this involves moving away from the "achieve an abstract goal" definition of roleplaying. Obviously if you make the assumption that everything the players do is about completing their mission, and that the players will never choose to fail their mission, and that the only thing capable of preventing the players from succeeding in their mission is their death, then this style of roleplaying isn't going to make sense to you. For me, the mission isn't what's interesting in the first place.

The idea that "everything the players do in D&D is about completing their mission" is your idea, not mine. Again, I think your lack of experience with D&D limits you in these discussions. Anyone who's DMed enough D&D groups knows that there are a very large number of players out there who are, to say the least, not completely focused on accomplishing their mission. :P D&D players who are focused on completing the mission to the exclusion of all else are the exception rather than the rule.

- Saph

[Dan_Hemmens]

Probably not. I haven't been published in America yet (of course, you could be from somewhere other than America).

I'm from the UK actually, and there's always Amazon (I like supporting people I know, even if only vaguely).


I haven't actually said this, because I don't believe it.

What I do believe is that most people, and most players, find outcomes more interesting when they can influence them, but can't determine them.

Again, we're talking about different levels of "outcome" here. "Do I win this game" is an outcome "Do I get to carry on playing this game" is another outcome. I'm happy to leave the first one up to chance, I'm not happy to leave the second one up to chance.

Again this is functionally identical to your wanting to decide whether or not your character goes mad.


I don't think this is an issue in this case, since D&D combat involves both tactics and strategy (chess) and randomness (craps).

But the point is that the risk does not derive purely from the randomness


I understand that - it's just that I'm not all that keen on playing a game where the outcomes are determined as a narrative, even if the players are trying to make it interesting.

Again, I think you need to be careful about what you mean by "outcomes".

You admit that there are some "outcomes" which you don't think should be controlled by the dice - PC insanity for example. At which point we're just haggling over price.

I'm not advocating a game where the players always succeed. I'm advocating a game where the players get to choose how they fail.

If I'm trying to rescue the princess, I don't mind the dice saying "you don't rescue the princess" I do mind the dice saying "you don't rescue the princess, because you fall off the tower and die". Again this is functionally exactly the same as your not wanting the dice to say "you don't rescue the princess because you go mad and kill her instead".

We both have things we'd rather weren't controlled by the dice, I'm not asking you to justify your preferences, I'm just asking you to accept that "I don't want the dice to say I go mad" and "I don't want the dice to say I get killed" are the same order of preference.


No it doesn't. Seriously, Dan, I wish that if you're going to talk about D&D so much, you'd play it a bit more. If you have a good DM, fights are a lot more varied than this. Is this based on your own experiences of D&D, or is it "Well, everybody knows D&D is like that, so I don't need to check it for myself"?

Sorry, that's my fault for oversimplifying and generalising. What I mean to say is that the basic combat mechanics of D&D don't give you any other options. As you say yourself, any other options you put into the game come from the DM, not the system.

(Sorry, I'd go into this further but I have to invigilate a mock exam)

[Saph]

I'm from the UK actually, and there's always Amazon (I like supporting people I know, even if only vaguely).

Oh, you're from the UK? Well then, here's (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books-uk&field-author=Benedict%20Jacka) the link to my Amazon page. (To Be A Ninja and Ninja - Beginning are the same book, the publishers changed the title when they republished it.)


You admit that there are some "outcomes" which you don't think should be controlled by the dice - PC insanity for example. At which point we're just haggling over price.

I'm not advocating a game where the players always succeed. I'm advocating a game where the players get to choose how they fail.

If I'm trying to rescue the princess, I don't mind the dice saying "you don't rescue the princess" I do mind the dice saying "you don't rescue the princess, because you fall off the tower and die". Again this is functionally exactly the same as your not wanting the dice to say "you don't rescue the princess because you go mad and kill her instead".

I think you have to be careful here. They're functionally identical in that they're different facets of a system. However, they produce drastically different game styles. A game where you have don't have control over your character's mental state is very different to play from one where you do. Obviously, given the enduring popularity of CoC and WFRP, a fair amount of people like games where you're almost guaranteed to go nuts sooner or later, but it's not my personal thing.


We both have things we'd rather weren't controlled by the dice, I'm not asking you to justify your preferences, I'm just asking you to accept that "I don't want the dice to say I go mad" and "I don't want the dice to say I get killed" are the same order of preference.

Well, the thing is, I'm not sure I agree.

If we're playing (say) an investigation game, then I'm completely fine with you saying that you don't want to die due to a bad dice roll. But if we're playing a combat game, where people are getting killed all around the party left, right, and centre, then I do think the PCs should believe they have a non-negligible chance of getting randomly and unfairly killed. Because real combat is lethal and random and unfair, and that's why it's scary and exciting. If you completely remove that element, I don't think you can do a good job of representing combat any more.

Now, there's actually a very concrete reason I believe this. I've DMed quite a few games involving combat. On some of these occasions I've run combats in such a way as to be careful not to kill any of the PCs, usually because I'm just feeling soft-hearted for whatever reason and don't want to force any of the players to make new characters. The thing is, though, once the players twig to this (and experienced players are very perceptive about these things) their interest in the game lessens. Whereas when I run combats with a complete indifference to the characters' lives - if the dice say they die, then they die - everyone seems much more alert and excited.

- Saph

[Mr. Friendly]

Saph - not to step on Dan's toes here, but aren't you fundamentally arguing the same thing as Dan with this:


If we're playing (say) an investigation game, then I'm completely fine with you saying that you don't want to die due to a bad dice roll. But if we're playing a combat game, where people are getting killed all around the party left, right, and centre, then I do think the PCs should believe they have a non-negligible chance of getting randomly and unfairly killed. Because real combat is lethal and random and unfair, and that's why it's scary and exciting. If you completely remove that element, I don't think you can do a good job of representing combat any more.

Wouldn't it be equally fair to take that and replace it like this:


If we're playing (say) a comedy game, then I'm completely fine with you saying that you don't want to go insane due to a bad dice roll. But if we're playing a combat game, where people are going insane all around the party left, right, and centre, then I do think the PCs should believe they have a non-negligible chance of getting randomly and unfairly driven mad. Because real insanity is unpredictable and random and unfair, and that's why it's scary and exciting. If you completely remove that element, I don't think you can do a good job of representing combat any more.

Just sayin...

[Saph]

Saph - not to step on Dan's toes here, but aren't you fundamentally arguing the same thing as Dan

I'm pretty sure I'm not, but we'll see what he says.

I'd reply to your point, but I'm kind of leery about debating with you after the amount of flamings and scrubbings you've been involved with lately.

- Saph

[Mr. Friendly]

I'm pretty sure I'm not, but we'll see what he says.

I'd reply to your point, but I'm kind of leery about debating with you after the amount of flamings and scrubbings you've been involved with lately.

- Saph

Leery is fine - and understandable. However, you may note that I tend to be rational and even live up to my name when the discussion at hand is a reasonable one. When the "other side" starts using strawmen and outright lies or adopting the tactic of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling their point over and over like a mantra, that's when I get a little hot under the collar. :smallsmile:

[SpikeFightwicky]

How is 4th ed. dumbing down the tactics and options? In every game I play, almost EVERY fight plays out the same way:

Rogue: Maneuver to a good position, sneak attack it 'till it drops
Fighter: Charge and power attack, or slowly move up if more than one monster and power attack. ALWAYS power attack or you won't deal any meaningful damage.... for 20 levels of play...
Barbarian: See fighter, but with the new 'pounce' ability, more emphasis on charging.
Ranger: Hang back and launch arrows.

The only ones with any tactical options are the spellcasters. All 'physical' characters will likely end up doing the above attack patterns. The only time it changes is when it's the BBEG (doesn't happen too often). Even if they have a quircky build (like spring attack and a longspear), they invested so much crunch into it, they'll want to use it as often as possible.

Keeping that in mind, I have no idea how adding different abilities to the classes that previously had none will reduce the amount of available options. It's like saying Adding various combat abilities == Removing combat options (or: giving the wizard 10 new spells to choose from == giving the wizard fewer options of spell choices).

Condensed version: 3.5 fighter -> can charge, swing a weapon and power attack.
4.0 fighter -> can charge, swing a weapon, power attack, and use various abilities depending on which weapon he's using.
How does the 4th ed. fighter have fewer options?

[Charity]

Saph I think you and Dan should slug it out at the UK meet up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66784&page=7) ... What? If you're allowed to go advertising why not me? :smalltongue:

I can see Dans (and more recently Mr F's, you just need to learn to count to ten...slowly:smalltongue: ) point, the two things are essentially the same, though I personally prefer dice based resolution... it's nice to have something to blame apart from each other :smallamused:

Help I've gone smilie slap happy

@V now that I'd got here I was thinking it was just starting to look up.. kidding, it's already become quite reasonable not exactly strictly on topic, but a sensible discussion on the whole.

I'm not sure why you think its impossible to die in 4e, I suppose you might be able to see it comming from further away and change tactics, though that's not quite the same thing.
I also think it is pointless to attempt to restart afresh and I don't agree that it is desirable.

[hamlet]

Leery is fine - and understandable. However, you may note that I tend to be rational and even live up to my name when the discussion at hand is a reasonable one. When the "other side" starts using strawmen and outright lies or adopting the tactic of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling their point over and over like a mantra, that's when I get a little hot under the collar. :smallsmile:

<Bill Lumbergh> Yeah, see, I'm just going to have to disagree with you right there . . . ok?</Bill Lumbergh>

With all due respect, you've been one of the most hostile posters going as soon as somebody challenges your preconceptions. I believe it was you who actually said something to the effect that people who didn't like 4th edition weren't worth actually talking to and were obviously nothing more than trolls.


To all: This thread is getting absurd. It's basically a flamewar that's barely being contained and we've done nothing for the last 6 pages (actually, probably all 11 pages) except go back and forth over straw man arguments and level personal attacks and it seems that nobody even knows what their counterparts actual opinions on the subject are since this argument has become about the argument rather than its actual subject.

I'm not a mod, lord forbid I should ever become one I'd probably leave the board in a heartbeat. But I've got a proposition for you:

Let's start over. Pretend the last 11 pages don't exist and just start again. Everybody should start with a short and concisely stated "position paragraph" that describes their opinion of Character Death, Random/Arbitrary Character Impairment (terminal or otherwise), and then we can move from there and maybe, just maybe, refrain from this aweful acrimoney.

I'll start: While it certainly is rotten to lose a character you've created and been working to advance for a good while, it is part of how the game works. Though there is a lot more "narrative" in D&D, "narrative" is not the core of the game: the game is. That's the point, D&D (pre-4e, we don't know exactly how it is in the new version) was a platform from which you could tell stories using your characters: HOWEVER, though you can make most of the choices about your character, you don't always get a say in what happens, you don't always get to go according to plan, and sometimes, crap happens. The opening for a seemingly random, sudden, and absurd death or other negative effect against a character (a lucky crit from an orc archer, or falling into a stupid pit trap, or failing a saving throw) are part of how things work. It changes the narrative in a way that you can't control and THAT'S the core of the game: that you are now expected to react to a sudden occurence that you couldn't prevent. Removing that aspect (via this new system where it seemingly is all but impossible to die or take on random negative effects except by extraordinary bad rolling) cheapens some part of the game on some level (IMO) and moves it away from the kind of experience I want to have to, essentially, a story telling exercise. I can get that with other games. It's not why I play D&D.

[Mr. Friendly]

With all due respect, you've been one of the most hostile posters going as soon as somebody challenges your preconceptions. I believe it was you who actually said something to the effect that people who didn't like 4th edition weren't worth actually talking to and were obviously nothing more than trolls.

Errrm...

No, while I don't deny that I may get a little overzealous, the people I said were obviously nothing more than trolls was in reference to people that, as I indicated to Saph above, resort almost exclusively to lies, straw men and the mantra method of ignorance.

[Indon]

What? How would the risk of death in a system obscure the best tactical option? That, as one robot once put, "does not compute".
Risk introduces additional calculations into tactical situations - reducing it reduces the significance of those calculations and makes them easier, thus making tactics simpler. If you don't have as many factors to determine the chance of payoff for a strategy, the dominant strategy(or strategies) become clearer.


Except a high-risk system isn't necessarily bad or good. You just hold the opinion that it is good. Other people hold the opinion that the death by "LOL, failed only because a 1 is automatic fail" or the "insta-kill crit at level 1" mechanics are bad ones.

As I noted (admittedly, many pages ago which many thread newcomers would probably have skipped), many people inherently enjoy risk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling). A function which is inherently attractive enough for people to become addicted to it, is probably something built into us - humans like risk, at least in games.


To go from "Wow this boss is going to be easy," to "Well, we're going to need a miracle," would require an interesting combat somewhere along the way. Unless the combat poses a non-trivial threat, dailies and healing surges would be conserved by an intelligent party.

Yes. But the mooks ultimately are still not dangerous. So every time the mooks get lucky and do drain resources, it's still not going to be viewed as a threat, but instead as simply a bad occurance. It's not, "Oh, man! That goblin's dangerous, we better use some healing," instead it's, "Hell, he got lucky! That's that many less resources we have when we're going to actually need them later on a real fight!"


Yeah CR = PL encounters can kill, when luck swings heavily against the party or they do something dumb. Which is exactly what Reel said.
If the chance were really "next to none", I don't think so many people would be discussing this (though, this is the internet...).


Except the barbarian may not be able to even hit the thing except on a natural 20. Or the dent he puts in it may not be enough to turn the tide. It's all dependent on what monster the party is up against if a lucky crit can help them surpass an overwhelming challenge.
I'm not saying a bit of luck can get you through any encounter - just encounters in a larger range between low-risk and high-risk systems. I.E. in a low-risk system a level 1 kobold may turn into nothing but a resource-draining, uninteresting fight when the party is level 4, but in a high-risk system this doesn't happen until the party is, say, level 5 or 6.


Except combat in D&D relies on luck, among other things.

It relies pretty heavily on luck now. It'll be relying significantly less on luck - we know many of the measures that Wizards is taking to reduce the factor of risk in combat, and we know that their general philosophy is to reduce risk in combat in this edition.


True, but the situation itself was fiat.
If you think it's fiat because it's equivalent to killing the character, I might point out that he would have been dominated among his friends, a friendly army, and with a wizard present, well, eventually (if I recall). It's not the same as damaging a character to death.

As for 4'th edition having something like it, I dunno. If they're getting rid of Wish, presumably because it was problematic, well... there are a lot of spells which are problematic but have interesting effects.


Wouldn't it be equally fair to take that and replace it like this:

Insanity isn't necessarily appropriate for a combat game, unless it's designed to be gritty (say, in the Warhammer universe or something :P). Even then, it's kind of a sub-problem, something the game isn't necessarily about, and reducing it isn't going to have too much of an impact on that system.

However, reducing the risk of insanity in, say, Call of Cthulhu, is going to make the game less interesting. Insanity is what that game focuses on - it's the #1 player difficulty, much like combat is the #1 player difficulty in most D&D campaigns (Except Ravenloft, arguably).

Taking the Death out of D&D is like taking the Crazy out of Cthulhu, not like taking the crazy out of Warhammer.

As an aside, is it just me or are two _completely_ separate discussions that have evolved in this thread - one about the reduction of randomness in combat, and the other about the reduction of lethality in combat?

Because I'm not sure that 4'th edition is so much less lethal - just that the curve of lethality has changed.

[Mr. Friendly]

Risk introduces additional calculations into tactical situations - reducing it reduces the significance of those calculations and makes them easier, thus making tactics simpler. If you don't have as many factors to determine the chance of payoff for a strategy, the dominant strategy(or strategies) become clearer.

Yes, risk IS important, but 4e doesn't remove risk, it simply reduces it at low level and is overall reduced if the players don't become overconfident. At higher levels though (I *believe*; or want to believe anyway) the threat level will plateau out into a relatively predictable amount. This in and of itself isn't eliminating threat or reducing threat, it simply controls the threat level so the DM has active control over it.

Instead of the DM just tossing out a random encounter, perhaps with a monster he hasn't used before or is misremembering for another monster and accidentally TPKing the party. In 3.5 many monsters are under-CRd, over CR'd or an ok CR but wildly unpredictable in their threat level due to some unusual mechanic.



As I noted (admittedly, many pages ago which many thread newcomers would probably have skipped), many people inherently enjoy risk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling). A function which is inherently attractive enough for people to become addicted to it, is probably something built into us - humans like risk, at least in games.

I won't disagree with you, at least not with money on the line. :smallbiggrin: However.. taking the gambling/D&D analogy a step further, if you invest, say an hour in making a character, a day writing a backstory and another hour working with other players on a compelling and mutually satisfactory party background, then "gamble" that in the first round of combat a_random_monster012 may or may not score a critical hit and may or may not perma-kill your character that you just spent your time on.

Applying that logic to gambling would be like taking your paycheck, cashing it and going to the casino and putting it all on a single spin of the roulette wheel. The average person simply won't want to do that. Gambling addicts, yes, the average person though.. not so much.



Yes. But the mooks ultimately are still not dangerous. So every time the mooks get lucky and do drain resources, it's still not going to be viewed as a threat, but instead as simply a bad occurance. It's not, "Oh, man! That goblin's dangerous, we better use some healing," instead it's, "Hell, he got lucky! That's that many less resources we have when we're going to actually need them later on a real fight!"

How do you know that? More important can you prove it?


It relies pretty heavily on luck now. It'll be relying significantly less on luck - we know many of the measures that Wizards is taking to reduce the factor of risk in combat, and we know that their general philosophy is to reduce risk in combat in this edition.

I don't think that's true and I can't seem to recall anyone saying that they want to reduce the risk in combat. I believe what they have said they want to reduce the random threat in combat and reduce the reliance on luck.


As for 4'th edition having something like it, I dunno. If they're getting rid of Wish, presumably because it was problematic, well... there are a lot of spells which are problematic but have interesting effects.

I doubt they are removing it. They *may* remove Charm, at least as it is written now, replacing it with what is essentially an out of combat ritual to improve social encounters. Dominate though is a very simple spell and always has been - hell it is easier to adjudicate than Charm most of the time; the caster controls the charmed individual like a puppet - easy, done and over.


Insanity isn't necessarily appropriate for a combat game, unless it's designed to be gritty (say, in the Warhammer universe or something :P). Even then, it's kind of a sub-problem, something the game isn't necessarily about, and reducing it isn't going to have too much of an impact on that system.

Ok, fine, replace combat game with horror game, it is fundamentally the same premise though. Beside, from a technical standpoint, insanity should be used more often in D&D. If we are going to presume that variable, random death is such a needed and integral part of the game why isn't insanity. Since the whirling nightmare of random death is supposed to be more conductive to roleplaying and a more realistic world, why *shouldn't* you go insane after seeing the "*adverb**adjective**noun* of DOOOM!"?


Taking the Death out of D&D is like taking the Crazy out of Cthulhu, not like taking the crazy out of Warhammer.

Ah but you see it is. Both systems are "gritty" and "realistic"; strictly speaking, D&D is neither. D&D characters are (nominally) larger than life heroes. In CoC you are some_random_human and in Warhammer you start off as a little better than a dirt farmer. So taking away the insanity from Warhammer is like taking the death out of CoC. Both systems need both items to be "gritty and realistic".

D&D conversely has little rules governing insanity and to be frank, little rules governing death. At higher levels, in all editions, death is just a speedbump. Hardly a gritty and realistic system.

So, taking the death out of D&D is like taking the insanity out of D&D.


As an aside, is it just me or are two _completely_ separate discussions that have evolved in this thread - one about the reduction of randomness in combat, and the other about the reduction of lethality in combat?

Yes and no. :smallbiggrin:

Yes, there are basically two seperate discussions, but they overlap and weave.


Because I'm not sure that 4'th edition is so much less lethal - just that the curve of lethality has changed.

And I would agree with you. And I approve of that design philosophy. I have no problem with low-level characters having a survival cushion.

Plus from the looks of the monsters, they get their own cushion too. So it is still balanced - it just eliminates or at least significantly reduces, the chances of a first round TPK.

[horseboy]

You would still be wrong, sales figures wise. And you would be confusing "Quality game system" with "Really good marketing and Social Pressure" in any case, in regards to current DnD. I'm surprised to learn there were other RPGs at DnD's inception, but if so, that just gives me less reason to hold inherent respect for it being 'first'.D&D was 1974, En-Garde! 1975, Traveler was 1977, Rolemaster 1980. It was first, but others quickly took the ball and ran with it.

2.5) Because of the above, a character who never succeeds at anything is the best roleplaying possible.Weren't characters of that stripe what Stormwind was arguing against? Apparently there is a following that think that.

And again, I get that some people like there to be a "real" risk. I'm genuinely confused that those people play D&D, where the encounters scale automatically to your level and a hundred foot drop isn't particularly dangerous. I'm just trying to suggest that maybe, just maybe removing the risk of death won't do any more harm than removing all of the other risks which nobody seems to have batted an eyelid over.I agree, though probably for different reasons. For death, or more appropriately FEAR of death, to be a motivational factor would require a level of grit. D&D fails at grit in any manner, shape or form.

Have you ever watched any improvisation, of any kind?

Notice how the results were unpredictable, even though nobody rolled any dice?Not quite. If you watch enough Who's Line is it, Anyway? you will start seeing more and more repetition, even without the reruns. It's part of why they have to constantly switch out the players, to keep the material fresh.
Do you?
You *like* risk of death, &etc. You like leaving things up to the dice. I'm guessing that you wouldn't enjoy a game where, say, the DM fudges his rolls, because then you're not getting what you want. My old Rolemaster GM made us roll our own crits.

I think you have to be careful here. They're functionally identical in that they're different facets of a system. However, they produce drastically different game styles. A game where you have don't have control over your character's mental state is very different to play from one where you do. Obviously, given the enduring popularity of CoC and WFRP, a fair amount of people like games where you're almost guaranteed to go nuts sooner or later, but it's not my personal thing. I find that to be a genre expectation. I have different expectations for different genres, so have different things I find "acceptable" depending on what we're playing.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Arse, board ate post. Twice. And then shut me out for about an hour.


Oh, you're from the UK? Well then, here's (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books-uk&field-author=Benedict%20Jacka) the link to my Amazon page. (To Be A Ninja and Ninja - Beginning are the same book, the publishers changed the title when they republished it.)

Dude. That looks awesome. My hat totally goes off to any man who makes his living writing about ninjas.

(Also, no wonder we don't agree about anything, you went to the Other Place).


I think you have to be careful here. They're functionally identical in that they're different facets of a system. However, they produce drastically different game styles. A game where you have don't have control over your character's mental state is very different to play from one where you do. Obviously, given the enduring popularity of CoC and WFRP, a fair amount of people like games where you're almost guaranteed to go nuts sooner or later, but it's not my personal thing.

As Mr Friendly points out, exactly the same logic applies to death. A game where you don't control whether your character lives or dies is very different from one where you do. Just like you don't like games where you're "almost guaranteed to go nuts sooner or later" I don't like games where you're "almost guaranteed to die sooner or later."


Well, the thing is, I'm not sure I agree.

If we're playing (say) an investigation game, then I'm completely fine with you saying that you don't want to die due to a bad dice roll. But if we're playing a combat game, where people are getting killed all around the party left, right, and centre, then I do think the PCs should believe they have a non-negligible chance of getting randomly and unfairly killed. Because real combat is lethal and random and unfair, and that's why it's scary and exciting. If you completely remove that element, I don't think you can do a good job of representing combat any more.

What do you mean by "representing"?

Do you mean "representing in a realistic way"? If so, most people would admit that D&D really doesn't do that.

If I'm playing a high combat game, I need combat to be less dangerous, or else I can't justify my character doing it all the time. I can absolutely deal with lethal combat in a low-combat game, because then if I get in a fight it's totally my fault.

This is why I dislike LARPing, despite having designed the OURPGSoc LARP system (http://flrp.anang.com/whitecity). At the end of the day it asks you to invest in a character who can get killed because of a fight which you're having just for the sake of it.

Before you say anything, I get that you can run D&D games where you don't have fights "just for the sake of it", but you say yourself that you find combat "exciting" so presumably there is some level on which you enjoy combat for its own sake.


Now, there's actually a very concrete reason I believe this. I've DMed quite a few games involving combat. On some of these occasions I've run combats in such a way as to be careful not to kill any of the PCs, usually because I'm just feeling soft-hearted for whatever reason and don't want to force any of the players to make new characters. The thing is, though, once the players twig to this (and experienced players are very perceptive about these things) their interest in the game lessens. Whereas when I run combats with a complete indifference to the characters' lives - if the dice say they die, then they die - everyone seems much more alert and excited.


I understand this to be a common experience, but it isn't mine. In fact my experience is the exact opposite. If I know that any random encounter can kill me, I'm just going to stop paying attention. I know at some point I'll fluff my Save vs Fail, so I don't see the point in investing.

[Indon]

Yes, risk IS important, but 4e doesn't remove risk, it simply reduces it at low level and is overall reduced if the players don't become overconfident. At higher levels though (I *believe*; or want to believe anyway) the threat level will plateau out into a relatively predictable amount. This in and of itself isn't eliminating threat or reducing threat, it simply controls the threat level so the DM has active control over it.


Well, with the comments on changes about making death a bit more significant across the board, I can definitely see how in some ways risk is being increased at high levels - but who thinks that's a bad thing?

Presumably, Wizards wants the entire level range to have about the same level of risk as levels 5-10 of 3.x - their "sweet spot" for design. Some of the changes - removal of save-or-dies, for instance, and increase level 1 health - reflect that. But others, such as the change to critical hits, do not, and instead promise to drop levels of risk across the board.


Instead of the DM just tossing out a random encounter, perhaps with a monster he hasn't used before or is misremembering for another monster and accidentally TPKing the party. In 3.5 many monsters are under-CRd, over CR'd or an ok CR but wildly unpredictable in their threat level due to some unusual mechanic.

I think having lots of unusual mechanics are a good thing, personally, but that's off-topic other than to note that the removal of some such mechanics are additional, though minor, risk reductors.


I won't disagree with you, at least not with money on the line. :smallbiggrin: However.. taking the gambling/D&D analogy a step further, if you invest, say an hour in making a character, a day writing a backstory and another hour working with other players on a compelling and mutually satisfactory party background, then "gamble" that in the first round of combat a_random_monster012 may or may not score a critical hit and may or may not perma-kill your character that you just spent your time on.

Applying that logic to gambling would be like taking your paycheck, cashing it and going to the casino and putting it all on a single spin of the roulette wheel. The average person simply won't want to do that. Gambling addicts, yes, the average person though.. not so much.
Hey, roulette has a much worse chance of even a level 1 character dying from the first round of combat. It's more like at least three or four combats worth of things swinging at you.

But then we turn around to 4'th edition, which is less like playing roulette (though I'd use Poker as a stronger analogy for 3.x - strongly luck-based with an element of skill, and excessive use of math skills [card-counting] are generally disapproved in the game :P), and more like playing the slots (They don't really have a low-risk game that has a comparable level of skill to poker - maybe some combination of a slot machine and Gauntlet...). Plenty of people enjoy playing poker, and plenty enjoy playing a slot machine. But I daresay Poker is a very popular game.


How do you know that? More important can you prove it?
That's about how extra-oriented, low-risk fights run in my Exalted games - my group, though, doesn't generally see that kind of reaction because I encourage an atmosphere of lower immersion during combats like that - that's the Beer-and-Pretzels time during the games I run, when the system becomes insignificant.

I do it that way because Exalted, like any system, just can't maintain an interesting game at that risk level (the level where players' tactical choices are along the lines of, do I make 3 attacks or 4? How many defensive actions do I reserve? Should I actually use a charm to defend against this or just let it hit me?) - so I remove the emphasis on the system and semi-autopilot things while socializing (the players help).

But while I could no doubt deal with combat the same way in 4'th edition, not everyone DM's like me - some prefer higher levels of immersion and would want to rely on combat to maintain a high state of emotion and strong pacing, and low-risk combat can't provide that.

As for proving it, well, all we know is Wizards' design intent, and some of the changes based off of it. Pretty much everything we talk about with 4'th edition should implicitly include, "As far as we know."


I don't think that's true and I can't seem to recall anyone saying that they want to reduce the risk in combat. I believe what they have said they want to reduce the random threat in combat and reduce the reliance on luck.

Yes, that comment was in reply to a statement that tactics fall apart when introduced to a luck-heavy game. It's definitely true in 3'rd edition, but it will be far less true in 4'th edition - the game will be more predictable not just for the DM.


I doubt they are removing it. They *may* remove Charm, at least as it is written now, replacing it with what is essentially an out of combat ritual to improve social encounters. Dominate though is a very simple spell and always has been - hell it is easier to adjudicate than Charm most of the time; the caster controls the charmed individual like a puppet - easy, done and over.
I didn't mean troublesome as in adjucation-troublesome. I meant troublesome as in degree-of-power-troublesome - the same reason Sleep now targets one individual, is a per-day power, and they have a 50% chance of waking up each round.


Ok, fine, replace combat game with horror game, it is fundamentally the same premise though. Beside, from a technical standpoint, insanity should be used more often in D&D. If we are going to presume that variable, random death is such a needed and integral part of the game why isn't insanity. Since the whirling nightmare of random death is supposed to be more conductive to roleplaying and a more realistic world, why *shouldn't* you go insane after seeing the "*adverb**adjective**noun* of DOOOM!"?
Didn't I mention Ravenloft? As a horror-oriented (I believe its' official genre is 'gothic horror') version of D&D, it tries to do just that.

Insanity is appropriate for horror-leaning game systems, just as death is appropriate for combat-leaning game systems.


Ah but you see it is. Both systems are "gritty" and "realistic"; strictly speaking, D&D is neither. D&D characters are (nominally) larger than life heroes. In CoC you are some_random_human and in Warhammer you start off as a little better than a dirt farmer. So taking away the insanity from Warhammer is like taking the death out of CoC. Both systems need both items to be "gritty and realistic".
I disagree. I don't think Call of Cthulhu needs any significant risk of death to be interesting - your ultimate opponents consist of things that while yes, could snuff out your pathetic life with a thought, by and large would not bother.


D&D conversely has little rules governing insanity and to be frank, little rules governing death. At higher levels, in all editions, death is just a speedbump. Hardly a gritty and realistic system.
D&D has all the rules it needs to govern death, and the lower levels are quite gritty - this is after all random_encounter_mob_12's time to shine.


So, taking the death out of D&D is like taking the insanity out of D&D.
I obviously disagree with your premises.


And I would agree with you. And I approve of that design philosophy. I have no problem with low-level characters having a survival cushion.

Plus from the looks of the monsters, they get their own cushion too. So it is still balanced - it just eliminates or at least significantly reduces, the chances of a first round TPK.

I can't say I wholly mind all of what Wizards is trying to do in regards to risk - namely, rendering a constant level of risk across all character levels. I do mind that that level of risk appears to be low compared to most levels found in D&D at present.

Gosh, that was long.

[EvilElitest]

As other posters have pointed out, you're quite right about the point of "challenges". This is exactly why I don't play "challenge" based games. If I want a challenge, I'll play a strategy game.

I don't play RPGs to be "challenged". I don't want to have to earn the right to continue to roleplay my character by engaging in random strategic minigames.

Then why play D&D? the whole level thing is based upon challenge, you earn more powers and abilities
from
EE